Shownotes: [0:18] Jordan Peterson introduces the episode's guest Stephen Fry whose list of titles and accomplishments is quite astonishing. [1:33] Stephen starts the show with concerns over the culture wars that seem to be dividing the western world and alienating people from one another [4:30] Jordan talks about his public reputation for pointing out the excesses of the radical political left in western culture leading back into the discussion of the importance of maintaining free speech. Stephen believes that the moderate left is almost and repulsive to the extreme left and their obvious opponents the far right are at this point. It's become very unfashionable to be a moderate of any type. [11:00] Jordan directs discussion toward the role Stephen Fry had to play in the atheist movement. Stephen outlines his alignment with Empiricism more than Rationalism when looking at the world and it's problems. [16:00] Examining the strange way that Empiricism doesn't always need a rational answer to function effectively. [21:00] The truths found in literature, fiction, drama, movies, and general narrative that we find so compelling even though we don't necessarily understand why? Stephen uses some examples from egyptian and greek mythology to show how narrative has been passing truth from one generation far before writing and science (science is still just catching up). [30:00] Jordan brings Stephen back to the question of why he feels his perspective differs from his atheist friend Richard Dawkins. Highlighting the incredible human capacity for wonder. [34:00] Jordan and Stephen examining the learning process of humankind using sacrifice to obtain some future good [44:00] Is the corruption of the christian church intrinsic in the philosophy or the people who follow the religion? When looking at all traditions, where do you draw the line on the good intention of what the tradition represents and the people who corrupted that vision? [53:00] Jordan brings up the novel the Brothers Karamazov that Stephen quotes concerning the injustice inherent with the possibility of a God who created a world with so much suffering and injustice in it. Jordan postures that resentment of such a being does not seem to have any functional utility? [1:01:00] The argument of a higher mode of being. looking at the development of morality in children through playing games, examining other behavioral science in humans, rats, mice, and other species.. [1:11:30] Back to the distinction between Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins from Jordans perspective. Jordan expresses the creative artistic domain is more unique when regarding atheists. Stephen points to the importance of things that convey truth that are not strictly rational. The two discuss the functionality and rational absurdity of a constitutional monarchy form of government. [1:19:00] Talking about the "gods within" and how different religions and thinkers have tried to solve the puzzle of what some call conscience? [1:32:00] Stephen tells one last tale emphasizing his point that story/drama/narative are some of the most powerful ways to bring people together and should not be trivialised when discussing serious topics in societies. [1:37:00] Wrapping up the show. Thanking the guest Stephen Fry for his participation.
“It’s a strange paradox, that the liberals are illiberal in their demand for liberality. They are exclusive in their demand for inclusivity. They are homogenous in their demand for heterogeneity. They are somehow un-diverse in their call for diversity - you can be diverse, but not diverse in your opinions and in your language and in your behaviour. And that’s a terrible pity." Stephen Fry. Thank you for being you.
I think the key word here is "exclusive in their demand for liberality". Not all are like that though and it's but a handful that really are that way. Most liberals don't promote exclusivity but there is the paradox of tolerance (being tolerant of the intolerant). That's a whole other thing in and off itself. I doubt Fry would be tolerant of religious leaders calling for the death of homosexuals.
*_Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal._* ~ Karl Popper, 1945
One man wakes you with the power of his words, the other enthralls you with beauty of his speech. Both leave you smarter, and perhaps even a little bit happier. This is a treat.
@@seanleith5312 although its very clear that you're a smart person, and one who knows their shit - i worry you've spent too much of your time focused on the wrong bits. there is so much good in the world, and especially since all the people and times that you mentioned. there is no better time to be alive (for anyone in history, infact) than now, because the future is uncertain and the past unchangeable. your outlook seems dismal, and you seem far too bright to be stuck within it. i hope you are able to see there are far more positive things that came from people like orwell than negative, like provoking critical think in people like fry and peterson. i wish you the best, friend
Well, Fry could certainly enlighten us for a bit longer than that. I'm afraid however that Jordan was scrambling to repeat himself over and over for the last hour or so of this conversation. His conservative side has stunted his ability to see solutions outside his circle of thought. I could listen to Fry for hours since he has knowledge to impart. Jordan not so much😏
3 года назад+5
@@pseudonayme7717 What you witness there I believe is the 140 iq to 170 difference and therein how each approaches altering humanity. That said, many won't understand the higher of the two, so conversations and guiding of the intermediaries is a huge benefit to the world.
@@vargas0897 He absolutely does, and I like him alot more than I did whence he first appeared in the public eye. He is a troubled individual for sure, we saw the cracks of the pressure of his new found fame these last few months and I respect his ability to hold it together thus far. And of course, his choice of guests is to be lauded, it's nice to know he has not abandoned the left wing of his personality entirely, it may be his salvation, since the right side is very obviously quite destructive for him (as it is for everyone else generally😄) Take care 👍
Man. This conversation makes me feel like I am witnessing human mental evolution in real-time. Two conflicting perspectives from mutually great intellects, discussing their opposing ideas in a healthy, respectful & civil manner, is the recipe for progress in exploring the unknown of what’s next to come in human civilization. Very exciting to listen to these.
Indeed. I have to admit I think I share a lot more ideas with Fry but absolutely acknowledge most of Peterston points (not just here I've actually seen tons of his videos although I haven't read anything from him) as valid and more than that essential. This whole discussion makes me think how likely it is that all the other times opposing views clash they are at such a distance of this level of discussion and precision that people end up being frustrated and start offending 'the other side'. We all much evolve so much...
I do agree! Would have loved to 'chip in', just a couple of times. Once to quote Galatians chapter 5 verses 22 and 23, where we get a clear picture - especially as we can see this in others - of the higher moral or ethical future we could aim at. Aspects of character and motivation; 'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control'.
Just an idea for the production crew for this podcast. It would be great to have a split screen so we could see the body language of the person being spoken to. I think it would really enhance the depth of understanding in the audience.
Disagree think it is too much going on we should be focusing on the speaker. Though during the debates it would switch from 1 to both at times which was good. Not sure how reactions would be different online split screen compared to in the moment reactions.
@@4_times_college_dropout_tr24 Having the ability to see two people's faces while one of them is speaking is too much going on for you? Perhaps you should sit these discussions out altogether.
I disagree, and would even say - shut down the damn video. Their words are more than enough. Both Stepehen Fry who is an immensely gifted narrator, and J. Peterson with his emotions - real and deep - bursting out of his voice. This is not a reality show, but rather - a learned discussion.
@@nonefvnfvnjnjnjevjenjvonej3384 You can think that if you like, you'd be disagreeing with Stephen Fry... who rather likes Peterson as a fellow Academic.
This isn't so much a debate as a respectful conversation -- and it's one of the best things I've ever seen on the Internet. Many thanks to Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry for making it available to us.
then you need to get around the net more...both of them manage to miss the true deeper meaning of the sacrificed Sun God myth and its complex conflation with the life of Jesus.. this is pretty fundamental... and Jordan bangs yet again on his drum concerning what sacrifice really means... all very predictable, all very questionable... And by the way, we gave up sacrificing humans aeons ago? Did we? Are you sure.. We're sacrificing children right now, day in day out
@@simonlee8889 True, sacrifices of young virgins has been going on since the beginning of worship. now anything we question not written in Wikipedia is considered a conspiracy theory. The past 5 years in America we have seen the power of the Digital Town square. We can't question mainstream science without being censored which completely goes against Scientific research. I hate politics but seeing our former POTUS tongue cut out theoretically is something I NEVER could have predicted so soon. Actually makes me want to listen more when the elite are that nervous
@@christianhadden6720 in fairness, the debate was one (Peterson) creating argument to encourage and enhance conversation and discussion to which a response was given. This is Peterson's channel after all and he is the interviewer.
Two men came to talk to each other. Both poor souls because of facing depression, but also both rich souls for their contributions to the world. A wonderful talk
Firstly, Professor Petersen, it is wonderful to see you back and in better health. Secondly, thank you for bringing us this conversation between two intellectual titans, you and Mr Fry. Humbling, encouraging and inspiring.
Absolutely... I’m a junky wanting to hear more of this conversation between these two. I could listen for hours...occasionally rewinding because WTF ! 🤯 . Put them both in the same place....Some old university library setting, sitting in comfy high backed leather chairs, drinking fine whiskey....and conversing, for HOURS on almost anything...Hell, I’d read the back of a bottle of Windex to them and say, “ Ok, Go ! “ and then an hour later I’m understanding Windex in ways I never imagined nor ever wanted to but here I am and hey...btw....pass that over here 👈, Bogart ! 😎
The world desperately needs more Stephen Fry's in it. Intellectual and well read enough to converse properly with experts in their fields, combined with the rare ability to not only pass the information on to the masses in way that doesn't make them feel small and stupid, but to also then think and wonder about it themselves after he is gone It's his genuine interest in things that makes them interesting to others. I think of him as a wonderful teacher in communication.
Peterson too. He's open minded, fair, vulnerable, careful with his words though they are complex, amd he never attacks people's character. They are both quality human beings.
@@notsobraindeadjester I do agree with Peterson more on most matters but Stephen Fry is a noticeably better communicator in my opinion, at least in a General mass vocabulary sense which makes him more 'understandable?' I guess, but who knows it might be just his fun accent.
The best thing about this was the places you disagreed but were willing to explore in civilized manner. It felt at the end that both of you got someting out of it and so did we all who listened.
Didn't seem like Fry was willing to budge on anything, he almost arrogantly dismissed all of Peterson's arguments. There seems to be a component of atheism that is so arrogant that makes one to reflexively dismissive to anything that even comes from a religious place, regardless of whether or not it has value.
@@brucelivingston2220 I think more than arrogance this is a lingering result of Henry VIII's split from the Vatican and how it seemingly permanently made Brits suspicious of anything valuable that comes from religion in general. Once bitten twice shy so to speak.
@@brucelivingston2220 oh yeah? What component? I am an atheist but am very much interested in religious thinking. And it’s the same case with all of my atheist friends. It’s the opposite if anything. People claiming that they’re special, that the whole universe was built with them in mind. What’s more arrogant than that? I think he dismissed it because the same narrative can be applied to almost any mythical or fictional idea. In fact, I think that’s exactly what he meant. The thing about Jordan’s interpretation is that: it reflects human nature, not divine nature. And even he knows that, that’s why he compares the Bible stories with other versions from different civilizations.
If only everyone could have productive, honest conversations like this, instead of arguing and trying to appear right for the sake of their egos. Thanks boys, I really enjoyed that one!
@@jerrygreene1493 I think so. I thought that almost every sentence spoken contained a productive and useful idea which will take some unpacking, researching and digesting as Prof Peterson points out at the end.
"the sake of their egos".. They're clearly talking about issues beyond themselves. Some people find this patronising though, usually egotistical people.
@@jerrygreene1493 yes they did Jerry. Jordan highlighted that conscious, interests and reciprocity are outside of individual will. Fry reminds Jordan that the awareness brought about by games, motivations and conscious can lead to destruction on a grand scale (by focusing attention on the wrong things).
JP is a rock. And Stephen Fry is the weather, the right kind. I saw JP being shaped up in this discourse. JP was so close to tears, and he has shown his vulnerabilities several times but this it the only time when he did that when the other person agrees with him. Hats of to JP and Stephen Fry. Everyone is a little wiser after watching this, JP, Fry, me, and you.
@@Tricolorrr533 That would be really interesting. Hugh Laurie doesn't seem to do many deep dive interviews, but Jordan would be the perfect person to do it
This is the most mind blowing conversation I’ve heard and I’ve listened to so many it’s embarrassing. I don’t even know what to think anymore. I love both these men and I can’t believe how little we know about this thing called life.
@@brando3342 What did he get wrong? Im instinctively with Peterson (he saved my life and taught me so much), so im keen to know what Stephen was wrong about.
To be able to live in an age where you can watch two men with such talents converse on a screen almost freely! What an inspirational conversation! Thank you Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry
Because they do not believe themselves to be better than the other just different and they are trying to find common ground as well as persuade. Most people are unable to achieve this level of discourse because they aren't willing to listen or learn from anyone who may have a differing point of view or who may challenge them.
Fact: He is blessed with a photographic memory. And yes, what makes him amazing, is that he uses his photographic memory to pull some stories and puzzles together, then explaining it in a way that simple people like me can understand.
Kobus G don’t ever sell your self short. A simple google search would suffice most times. Photogenic, is used for People; faces that look aesthetically pleasing. Specially when their photos are shot or they happened to be filmed. Your use of photographic memory was indeed correct, however, a more pronounced term is eidetic memory.
Yes, he looks good and healthy. But I can see in his eyes that he's still struggling. I hope he continues his positive progression. He's a real treasure for humanity and reason.
With everyone using there home office we are seeing men with no makeup and women looking more like Ronald McDonald, Mr Jordan looks well. No makeup but some sun.
Watching these two men having such an impressive conversation and being able to call to hand such a broad array of ideas and stories really makes me appreciate just how much more there is to learn!
@@jerrygreene1493 Two amazingly educated, knowledgeable and erudite men spend an hour and a half discussing the history of man's search for meaning and the ideas and theories that underpin or have formed our current world and that is all you can say.
They read a lot of books. I recommend getting into the habit of reading a litle in a book every day. Then you will become interesting to have chat with as well.
@@jerrygreene1493 you don't understand the connection between things because you didn't want to watch it. I respect that. Just don't ask others to do your work.. especially if your work is solely criticism rather than taking what you want to take and leave behind what you don't. And if you don't find anything to take, then don't come back if you like.
Both Fry and Peterson, different as they may be, have had a significant impact on me and my thinking. And I just love how they can talk, unpack each other’s ideas, challenge each other and enjoy it whilst doing so. I reckon it’s time for part 2 😋
@@FaithEncouragedTV I read the comment before I got to that part in the conversation too ... thought the quote was from Fry, given his way with words, but not so ... bravo Peterson!
“It makes me resentful and angry and wanting to shake my fist, but I found upon intense consideration that there was nothing in that, that didn’t make it worse and that therefore it must be wrong even though it’s justifiable”. I hope I can remember and share this often.
Resentment is often short-sighted. How often in our later lives do we come to understand the lesson taught to us by imperfect parents who allowed us to go through struggle and trial? We find that the struggles prepared us for the greater weight of adulthood. So then, if there is a God, one who can love perfectly, why would we assume that the evil in the world isn't meant for the loving purpose of preparing us for something greater? Resentment towards deity over our pitiful existence stems from not knowing the outcomes of the struggle.
@@brando3342 Exactly. I actually agree with you completely. Would there have been more time, perhaps they could have danced longer with each topic. I apologize for sounding rude.
@@brando3342 While I can see your point to a degree, as was noted in one area of the comments, this was primarily an interview conducted by Dr. Peterson more so than an actual debate. Second, it seems to be in regard to the human experience in terms of a sociological understanding rather than merely a discourse of matters of faith and their influence (for better or worse) from the religious institutions created by humans.
I just bought his Greek myth book the other day it’s a fantastic read. Stephen is one heck of a talented man,and yes he is a national treasure who deserves to be knighted.
@@RainwaterAquarium Certainly so in the case of the accolade (knighthood). Twice,in fact. He said it would be like being forced to wear a suit ALL the time. Incidentally, Bowie refused too. Sir Elton, however... (actually Sir Reg).
Having access to the highest quality conversations like this is the real blessing of technological progress of the 21st century. We are truly live in the best possible times. Thank you for keeping this knowledge publicly available. And thank you for the strong and straightforward message in the world of bias and confusion. You realy changed my life and my perception of it!
@@psychcowboy1 is fry and intellectual seems like a bizarre question. He's certainly done his homework through out life. Not everyone will be your cup of tea kid doesn't make them any less.
@@psychcowboy1 I think your question is wether something intellectual was said, since you ask for that multiple times. I think so, since intellect is defined by the objective understanding and abilty to reason about subjects and abstract subjects. Fry does this on multiple occasions, linking multiple facts together (showing an excelent understanding of many things such as how words came to be that we now use every day, or how tiny religious/ mythological facts still affect how we talk and think today) that many people would not have seen are connected, thereby showing, e.g., their origin, or what they mean to our society as it stands. So, in this way he is showing his intellect, not because we find it interesting or very smart, but because it is actually adhering to the description of what being an intellectual means. I don't see how you cannot see that. Moreover, it sounds like you didn't like something he said and are, therefore, trying to prove that he is not an intellectual, such that he doesn't get the audience he clearly deserves. Which is kinda petty.
It is so much fun being able to watch Peterson have discussions with people he wants to talk with as opposed to him being interviewed. The energy is so different, you can tell he is having a blast in this one.
I don’t mean this as an insult, but I like him more when speaking with someone who is intelligent! I don’t always agree with Jordan, but Fry & him are great together
Never really been a fan of Peterson, I think this turned up in my feed because of JRE and my lifelong fanship of Steven Fry. I have to say this conversation is a perfect example of how a basic level of respect for other people can lead to something great and illuminating. The fact these two did this is fantastic and it's an example to be followed.
I think too that he his an overated intellectual who hides behind long convoluted "word salads" that express feeble ideas that could be said in one sentence.
Aristotolian ecclisiasticism, only this man could talk on or above the level of Jordan. this man Fry seems to be the V, full of shocking historical facts.
When Jordan is moved to tears by a thought or a revelation, I feel less alone in the world. I've always been made to feel like this aspect of my personality is a flaw to be overcome, but Dr. Peterson embraces it as not only intrinsic to his identity, but seems imbued with a gratitude for this characteristic. One more reason to appreciate the man. This is a brilliant conversation, by the way.
Mad respect to ANY consumate individualist such as Stephen Fry who is willing to listen to anyone regardless of view point because we can be friends, break bread, share mead and have a laugh at ourselves despite our differences. THAT is the REAL meat of existence and those that have forsaken that(namely the Identitarians) are truly lost.
The sheer amount of vile and nasty comments about both fry and peterson on just the first page of comments shows how incredibly important it is to keep sharing our ideas. Have open discussions, talk about anything that tickles your fancy. Celebrate individual standpoints, instead of forcing groupthink on a person just so they "belong" to a group, that you can then generalize in your mind. This episode was a joy to listen to.
@AManHas NoName Ahh there he is again. Why are you shitting on fry? I'm a jbp fan, but fry and peterson have had an absolutely wonderful collaboration during the munk debate. This episode was coming, and both men wanted to chat. Why are you being so toxic? You profess to be this defender of peterson, but you're kind of missing his entire point, mate. Let people enjoy their things. Which rule was it again, the one that tells you to let kids skate on the street, to stop to pet a cat when you see one?
This is the most constructive talk I've heard in a long time, both men seeking to find truth without ego blocking the way. I hope these meetings become a regular occurrence.
I didn't feel they really got anywhere on any of the topics they discussed. Jordan seemed very concerned with Richard Dawkins and kept trying to steer the conversation there, which Fry was not that interested in. There were moments when the conversation could have really gone deep, but I felt it ended up being quite erratic. It seems that Jordan has lost his focus. Very enjoyable to listen to, but frustrating at the same time.
@@funbigly Thanks for saying it how it really is. Fundamentally Fry is the same as Dawkins, but will not accept it due to fear of labelling him as an extremophile.
I love being the third wheel in these conversations. It's like watching your dad and uncle having a friendly discussion at a birthday party and you're trying to follow it, but half the time you don't have any idea what they're saying. And at the end without knowing it you learned somethings from both parties that you love. Jordan and Stephen I respect you both and wish you well with the blessing of the God that may or may not exist
The romans had their public baths where this conversations were had. And to honour them, I listen to this while taking a bath. This sort of encounters have been the mark of great civilizations.
The greatest human problem, however, is that most people are not interested in understanding the nature of reality or facing the difficulties of rational questioning and enquiry (or are incapable). So long as they can fulfill their most basic needs (vide. Maslow) they do not want to struggle towards "self realisation". So we will always be stuck with tribalism and aggression - so long as we have government that defers to the masses.
When a conversation can hold my attention for an hour and thirty eight minutes it has to be special indeed. Thank you to both these gentlemen for allowing us the pleasure of intelligent conversation with little argument. A breath of fresh air in a stagnant world.
The time just sped by, didn't it? I couldn't believe I'd listened to this for over one and a half hours without my attention or energy flagging, because of course, THEIRS didn't; and they were generous to each other in allowing time for arguments to be made and considered. We really need more of this.
@@chestnut1279 Peterson stated that it's not so much believing in God, but having a benefit from living as if God exists. I have no definitive conclusion on it myself but can see benefit for some in that. To regard a religious person to be beyond a deep conversation is a shallow opinion.
@@chestnut1279 Not a shallow opinion - an extremely brainless opinion. If anyone would be unable to have a deep conversation it would be you. --> Many of the smartest and most important thinkers of all time were deeply religious and believed in a god.
@@aaronyoung3758 I find Petersons view on that interesting and much more honest than actually saying you believe in God and then ignoring most of what the bible says. I can also understand his logic on the matter. I am an Atheist, but I also recognize the value the Bible and wat is written in it. Especially on a philosophical level. I personally see the concept of God not as an external figure, but an internal one within ourselves. "God" is the representation of the things that we value most in our observable universe. I we believe that we suffer the conseqences of our poorly made choices and make them to be punishments of "God". We are infact punishing ourselves most of the time. Where "Hell" is the pit in which we fall through by failing in our struggles to climb to greater heights "Heaven". I'm not sure if i'm explaining myself clearly, but I think the bible was never meant to be taken literally. the bible is a collection of art/literature meant to provoke thought and concideration as most books are meant to pass on knowledge and thought.
@@Scarletcroft I understand what you're saying but i think the 'God' Jordan is referring to is the idea of an almighty creator. both are valid and both can be right at the same time :)
I'm loving this: two intelligent men with different point of views arguing their different points without ever looking down at the other, or the other's beliefs. We need more conversations like this.
This is what a real Debate looks like. And they are indeed arguing when you define Argument correctly: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
This is the normal,the commun sense. Agree to desagree..But now days is all about how special we are, how is OK to have 100kg and no think about your health, is about butterfly..
I think what I enjoyed the most about this episode was witnessing how undoubtedly knowledgable Stephen is on the subject of faith, religion and it's deeply embedded roots within human history allowing him to deliver facts and researched backed counter points instead of two toddlers not getting along. Stephen at a glance seems to have made an incredibly informed decision on his beliefs based on his own knowledge rather than what "others have told him" to believe. I guess I'm writing this right now because it was refreshing to see an athiest point of view with substance where both sides were respectful, intelligent and no one was screaming over one another to be "right" or "louder" for once!
I couldn't agree more. There's a reason why he's a national treasure. I'm a big fan of both of these gentlemen and it was such a healthy (and as a result fruitful) conversation. Too often the algorithms promote echo chamber videos. Even if I agree with them, it doesn't nourish me quite like conversations such as this.
The strange thing is Jordan Peterson is an atheist. Always has been, always will be. But in his eyes, he wants to help people, and telling them that their gOD doesn't exist serves him well....and gets him off the hook with bible bashers. He literally expands the publics love affair with him by including the religious and the non religious. I love him too, until he wanders into the truth of gOD.....then I tire of him. Fry addresses this to the point where Jordan is edging on admitting this. Since this interview he has admitted that there is no gOD.....and now he's admitted that I respect him more.
I had no idea Stephen Fry was to say the least a powerhouse. Almost beyond belief what he's done with his life. His ability to communicate is such a blessing--I'm an existential person and it helps that he understands that perspective. Anyhow, Mr. Fry is well worth showing off to the world. Toot! Toot! Toot that horn!
@Jo C What's funny about that? She used the correct word in the right context to elude to her philosophical leanings? Or are you laughing precisely because she is an existentialist?
@@jcrosby4804 cmon be brave? Radical right? Why are we all radical on the right to you people? Why call us racists constantly? You don't even try to have conversations because you have weak points and weak grasp of truths based on your msm crap. I would be happy to talk about anything you want but it seems pointless. I have been censored constantly fyi and I have a thousand instances of social media doing this. First example...ivermectin. I rest my case
I am a Catholic Christian and have been finding this conversation wonderful. Stephan is a generous soul. I appreciate his willingness, his gentleness in his discussion with JP. There is something poetic about Stephan's speech. It's just so nice to hear people be respectful and really listening to each other.
As a Catholic what is your opinion on the church the current pope and gays. Fry seemed disappointed that the church was returning to more traditional opinions on homosexuality whereas I think this is a good thing. Odd, I don't have a problem with homosexuals but I have a problem with the Catholic church not having a problem with homosexuals.
@@croweater6814 "I don't have a problem with homosexuals but I have a problem with the Catholic church not having a problem with homosexual" I somewhat agree that it would be hypocritical for the Catholic church to say homosexuality was ok, and that the church should really be deemed disposable with the knowledge we have developed. Could you expand on why you believe it ok for the most powerful of churches, who holds such influence, to hold beliefs that encourage hate and fear?
@@saul_guudman I think and I could be wrong but it has something to do with the moral foundations of such an institution suppose to be immune from the sway of the public, an unbiased constant. To elaborate as Fry pointed out Catholic morality is suppose to be unchanging, it is and should be as set out by Peter at the start of the church till today, incorruptible and if anything unapologetically so. To pervert such an organisation based on the whims of the now or political trends of the day speaks volumes about the weakness in the systems of the institution. I have no special love for Catholics, but I do believe in western democracies their voices which often er on the side of Christian morality and purity are a net benefit to society. If such an institution as old and longstanding as the Catholic church can be perverted and subverted by intersectionality it stands to reason that none of our secular institutions with relative moral standards can withstand the onslaught of the regressive left. It isn't just homosexuality that catholicism has bent the knee to, it has also bent the knee to both Judaism and Islam in accepting that they are valid religions. (What good is a religion if it accepts another religion may be valid.) The "decline" of church morality and supremacy is purely due to the deconstructivist social Marxism that is so pervasive in western democracies. In essence it is an attack on the foundations of western morality, which in our secular societies may not appear as immediately bad. I would rather see the church end with its moral foundations intact than to see it continue with the regressive left wearing it like a skin suit dictating their version of morality; Some of which is quite repugnant.
I marvelled at how they never became angry or annoyed by each other views. Indeed, they seemed to revel in the prospect of the meeting of minds. Respect to both who I admire greatly.
@@trickeyD yeah man, his range is nuts, CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, knowledgeable of early 20th century British scientific advances, drama, pantomimes, opera, botany, pharmacology, Theology you name it he's got it!
I was about to say almost the same exact thing. I decided instead, to comment on your statement. If I were to add anything. I’ll say, I am rather impressed with myself for understanding the entire thing! LOL!! I’m most excited to head down a couple rabbit holes in the coming days. LOL!! 🤣
@@imogenrex6286 i stopped reading for the most part when social pressure in school overwhelmed me. After that it was the lack of the habit. Once I started listening on audible my whole life turned around. So much to learn. Great courses plus on audible for example. Also there is no pleasure similar, I am not saying better(whatever that may mean) to reading a delightfull book before sleeping. Or growing with the insights people have worked their lifetime to achieve and write down. Start to read two pages of let's say alice in wonderland and I dare you to be so bored to stop. That is not easy also :)
Not that surprising of a crossover, with all due respect. They are intellectual powerhouses, of course they were bound to one day talk. On the other hand, Jordan and Theo Von is a much stranger interaction.
Fry has an exquisite, but effortless skill of being able to somehow blend history, myth, theology, linguistics, humanity, spiritualty, philosophy, comedy into a form that is instantly relatable and entertaining no matter your intellect level - its something he has that most intellects or scholars lack - a certain warmth but also...for lack of a better word, he almost delights in over-explaining whilst pulling details from many different fields.
@@angrytedtalks that's kinda the point though isn't it, fry can enter JP's world and be his equal as an intellectual, JP could never do the same in the reverse....and I'm not saying that as a put down, Fry is clearly a freak human. Understand JP is not at his sharpest right now, and I'm a huge fan, but he seemed slightly in awe of fry at times, or perhaps not as comfortable in the situation as he can be when firing on all cylinders
@@psychcowboy1 In your own view, what *is* worth thinking or talking about? You would have to dismiss the whole of the humanities, psychology, and social sciences if you don't think they touched on anything of value here. What are your particular objections to the personages, ideas, or motives involved in this conversation?
@@psychcowboy1 Your objections seem to be to Peterson specifically. He's a psychologist whose worldview is derived from some combination of the Jungian and Behaviorist schools, and he consistently makes reference to archetypes whose material reality he's certainly not advocating for--except insofar as these things may have their grounding in demonstrable neurological structures. He has these conversations of late with people from entirely different walks of life, who possess entirely different patterns of thinking, precisely *because* he's aware that his own worldview is limited by the particularities of his expertise and by his own psychological flaws.
@@psychcowboy1 I guess that either can "get it" or you can't. If you can't, as you've stated, then fair enough. I'm sure you're not alone and there's no shame in it and you don't need to feel defensive about it. We're all different. I had to watch some bits a few times over to fully understand, but now I do, or at least I think I do :) Also, their (admirable and correct) determination to keep things respectful towards each other inevitably over-complicates the core messages to a degree, I feel, particularly on Fry's part (he is so "nice" about everything that you have to wade through to get to the core message). Peterson is much more direct. That's just personalities and conversation styles. But much better that way than the usual speech-bite, point scoring attacks which achieve absolutely nothing and make both sides look more stupid than they realise. Nobody is "vs" anybody here. They are just two very well-educated and intelligent figures trying to learn from each other's viewpoints and improve themselves, along with anyone else watching who has the time and capability to do so.
@@TurtleChad1 Oh, come now. That's not true in the slightest. If anything, I would imagine the man is more sympathetic to pro-Jewish schools of thought than the opposite.
There is something incredibly uplifting, inspiring and beautiful about listening to two people who (superficially) have differing political and social perspectives discussing fundamental issues, articulately, thoughtfully and with open minds. It’s the best thing I’ve seen all week and gives me a fragment of home for humanity.
“Wisdom tells me I am nothing, beauty tells me I am everything”. How wonderfully it manifests through these two. As always, incredible treat for the mind and the soul.
I love these conversations which seem to test Jordan’s arguments that bit more. Huge admiration for both of these two for very different yet very similar reasons at the same time.
Isn't that exactly what we are all (thanks to thr gift of technology and the internet) having the opportunity to do? Minus the pub environment ~ and even better from their homes? ☆☆☆
Hands down THE BEST episode of any podcast that I’ve ever seen. My top two philosophical and moral heroes on one screen, talking for an hour and a half! I want more!
I like how Peterson recapitulates his guests’ arguments. Podcasts can often get carried away without ever tying together or taking stock of what’s been said. Stopping to sum up helps prevent that.
We often under-emphasize this quality of Jordan's interview-making; unity of narrative in a conversation (2 people talking about the same thing) is always more important than expediency of conveying new information. Unity of narrative needs to be constantly put attention to; nothing gets solved if 2 people are not even talking about the same thing.
This is what we need. People engaging in open, honest discussions and being willing to listen to each other to understand what is being said. Too often, people are unable to either listen, consider or disagree graciously - instead resortIng to ridicule or insult. Conversations such as these promote growth. Only talking within your comfort zones causes stagnation and polarisation.
@@tayzk5929 I understand, but no. Let him say all he wants to say (within reason, in good faith), otherwise we strawman him. Patience, respect & strong counter-arguments is where common good wins, not interrupting. Always treat a man as you want to be treated yourself
I don't think he should let claims or truisms go unchallenged in the moment as if they are fact when they require greater explanation and there's nothing wrong with interjecting to get great clarity before someone continues down the path they are going. He's not chatting with stoners after all
Especially in these last two (McGilchrist and Fry)... but part of me thinks that’s just because he respects them so deeply. What amazing interviews, back to back.
@@calgakispict3652why are you conflating challenging or asking clarification of someones point with interupting them? If anything interuptions only serve to create a less coherent and cohesive discussion . Fry was clarly a bit frustrated by being interupted and blindsided with multiple questions at once. And shitting on 'stoners' is a really weird way to drive your point home.
A nice idea would be for Stephen to be the “interviewer” in the next discussion or the one directing the discussion, as the role Jordan played in this one
Hmm, not sure how that would go. I think some ability to rein things in and impose parameters to the conversation, which Jordan supplies, is valuable to this kind of discussion, when you only have an hour-and-a-half. Which isn't to imply that Fry isn't extremely interesting to listen to, because he is, but if he were leading the conversation, things might ramble very far from wherever they began, and you'd hear a lot of interesting tidbits, but it might all be a bit, eh, free association....
In watching this I can no longer see a difference in sharpness and brilliance between who Jordan was and who he is today. It is so wonderful to see you back. And if there is any of your former self yet to reclaim know that even as you are now you shine indistinguishablably as bright
Are you serious ? Go look at his older videos. He still struggles to recite words and has to keep a script next to him. The conversations sound very robotic as it seems hard for him to think of what to say and how to say it.
@@ashcosmo3854 Watch Jordan's recent 'sofa chats' with his daughter, where have you seen him look at notes because of needing mental prompts, are they hidden below camera, is it just his home shows? Lets take you seriously then Ash; One would like to interview a man of international renown (through merit of decades contribution to the various arts), and welcomed as an intellectual by our intellectual societies.... and one should not prepare notes of some kind, or take seconds to consider each specific point in order to give meaning to a reply or improve chances of understanding in the listener. Jordan may himself admit to not being back to 100%, but if he nearly died for a year, and his wife nearly died for a year before that, isnt 90-95% just like 100% in the eyes of some of his fans (or his family!, or him)? This is exactly what ASlaveToReason is implying, and I agree. How many nearly dead people have you known to cause Stephen Fry pause, erm and um with their questions? I believe Jordan is looking out of his window, he also has a screen in front of him and can get info off the net or from files as any of us might to enrich a discussion.
@@blim76 I'm not talking about Sofa chats. You have cherry picked something to try and further better your narrative. I'm talking about his talks with intellectuals. Do you see any of his guests looking at notes and talking in a monotone dialogue ? He's not doing well. This isn't a personal attack but you can tell from how emotional he gets when talking about death and end of life philosophies. I've never seen Jordan have to read from a script even in his university work. He has notes at his uni talks sure but after glancing for a couple of seconds he can talk for the next 20 minutes unscripted. He's now constantly reading off another screen trying to fumble the words to say. He should really be making the world aware of benzo damage and withdrawel instead of pushing it under the rug when it's so evidentially apparent he has suffered quite severe damage.
The fool says in his heart there is no God.. No matter how many titles and achievements a person has , they are nothing . One day we will all die and we have to face our Creator.
If you, Jordan, or anyone presents evidence of anything not physical (energy-matter-information) or dependent upon it, a Nobel Prize awaits! (along with ~ a million dollars)
That light colored suit really helps him "pop" here. Lol. But yes, I noticed a palpable & an immediate difference in his energy or emotional state with in the first few moments. Thank you Mr. Fry & Peterson. I can't help but imagine how great a new episode of A Bit of Fry & Laurie would be, with Jordan Peterson as a "guest on the couch" in conversation with Fry, as Laurie is interrupting with a piano section or addressing the audience with an instruction on how to mix the latest nonsense cocktail.
@@fernandogalindo8997 I love Fr. Brown - so much humanity, gentle wit and wisdom. There was an American bishop who used to have a television show for years for which he won several Emmy awards. He’s now up for canonization, which would be hilarious to have an Emmy award winning Saint, but he quoted Chesterton often in his shows. He was watched by millions of Americans who weren’t Catholic or even Christian. His shows are on RUclips if you are ever interested, I highly, highly recommend the one of the threat of communism to western culture. Bear in mind his talk was 60 years ago and see how frighteningly close he got to where we are now. Bishop Fulton Sheen.
Good listen. At various times it did give the impression of a student (JP) talking to his Professor (SF) about some of his ideas, with the Prof gently trying to steer the student towards some wider reading and to consider more aspects of the issues that just Jung, Jung, Jung....
What an extraordinary exchange between two of the most outstanding minds of our times. Entertaining and stimulating to the core. Thank you so much, Stephen and Jordan!
wow, stephen fry, one of those people whom you could listen to for hours while he talked about almost any subject, and you would never be bored. A very interesting oratory quality to him.
I agree his conversion is mesmerizing but I can see that there are so many thoughts and ideas and knowledge in his head bubbling to come out that he tends to verbally Waffle and Weave in his responses, making his thoughts more difficult to consume... This tends to be most obvious when he is speaking off the cuff, where as when he has had the opportunity to filter his thoughts into a more easily digested monologue his for of thoughts are much easier to consume, absorb and understand. Love this man dearly but his mind is like an over full glass splashing it's contents over your mind and stopping you from consuming all of it.
I am a 51-year-old man.. Stephen Fry was and is an utter hero of mine. When I was studying for A- levels he was an utter idol. When I was 8 years old I became obsessed with Greek mythology .. I went to my local library and drenched myself in it. And just LOVED it to a real point of utter distraction. I know ALL about it .. but when this great man wrote Mythos .. well .. amazing! Better than any film & Stephen.. you are both Homeric & Hesodic! Best wishes from a a scientifically minded person who’s real love is Greek mythology!
I respect Stephen Fry in many things but there are certain opinions of his that I do not agree with. That being said, anytime that he is mentioned in popular culture... I pay attention.
Peterson’s adoption of the value of adhering to religion is interesting. His selection of Christianity specifically, is confounding. Rather than the argument from evil dispelling the idea of a benevolent god,, it seems the improbability of having selected the “correct” religion should be at least as compelling to dissuade him from his acceptance without empirical evidence. It definitely seems he is most likely an atheist but concurrently a Christian apologist because of his perspective of the better option to guide the direction of the world. The stance is somewhat ironical, because though his followers almost certainly miss this likelihood, it is his apologist characteristic combined with “anti-left” position that attracts them. To sum it up, it is a different approach to bullshitting, a highly educated, well spoken, otherwise “enlightened” Christian, adopting a somewhat anti-intellectual stance.
Listening to Fry and Peterson discuss religion is very interesting. But reminds me of when a group of fathers sit and discuss the pains of childbirth. Both are not people of faith, and claim no religion.
@@JDAfrica yes exactly. Same thing I feel when Sam Harris talks about spirituality they are decoupling religion and spirituality. I haven't watched fully yet. Had to go for work. But since both have a good appreciation of Jung Nietzsche I'm expecting something great
@@johnsondominic7098 I’m half way in, I think the tale of Kronos and ancient Titan legends are fascinating. That Kronos devours his children, to stop them rising up and challenging him, and that he carstrated his own father ... man, that’s one of the best pictures of a tyrannical father.
Listening to Stephen Fry is comparable to when I was at school and I always willed for my teachers to go off on a tangent and share some of the most interesting things.
I love the way Fry politely questions sacrifice - Peterson’s absolute premise of his two best sellers and questions (again politely) the way he overlays myth with myth. “I’m not refuting” but his counter view is convincing. I guess because Fry represents my way of thinking I found him to be intellectually towering over this discussion, notwithstanding, I admire Peterson and love his depth. I wish them both well, this discussion was wonderful. I hope there’s more.
My exact sentiment as well. Fry managed to effectively dismantle Jordan's arguments about "symbolic truth" in the politest way possible and I'm saying this as someone who admires Jordan a lot and believes he's an extremely important voice in the world.
@@cybermike66 I agree with you both that Stephen's arguments dismantled Jordan's ideas, myself being on the more "Petersonian" side of the argument. Of course his bits about the brothers Karamazov were exactly relevant to just that point. I have to read that book someday because it must have something to do with the furthering of this same kind of relationship. What do you both think about the bit where Jordan answers Stephen's (polite!) But slightly irritated statement about Stephen's own actions suggesting a "higher mode of being"? Perhaps even in spite of his neutrality towards transcendentalism? I think Stephen wishes he could be more empirical than he is (naturally, as Jordan seeks to be more transcendent than he is) and yet I personally can't see (yet?) how Stephen fails to be less transcendental than Jordan fails to be less empirical. Do you two have any thoughts on that? Have to say, I feel the same way though, the conduct of both of them was perhaps the highlight of the entire thing. Jordan's talks with Harris you might both be interested in, but I found most regrettable that Harris would spend too much of his time (of which even a few minutes qualifies as, because of the value of his more unique ideas) rehashing truly tired strawmans against Jordan's positions i.e. "But Jordan you can't look into the eyes of a small, helpless, tired, beaten [three hours later] dirty, ragged, pitiable [one eternity later] cancer- ridden, crying little girl and tell her that it's God's will that she's the way she is." Going for some cheaply dramatic crowd- pleasing "slam-dunk" against Jordan - my point being that it's not that the argument is invalid (it's clearly not) but just the fact that the motivation there seemed to be both less respectful of Jordan's ability to comprehend an extremely fundamental argument against religion, and said with a kind of condescension to that end. The fact that this is absent in Stephen just makes his position as an empiricist so much more convincing, as "ego" seems to be quite out of the picture for him.
@@linkdude64 I exactly thought about the same thing when watching Jordan and Sam's 8 hours long talk. I am an atheist and was raised religious. I was ready to jump on the boat with Harris and pass this "old religious man" as Peterson was to me back then. However, the more they talked, the more I found Peterson making sense wheras Harris just kep repeating his simplistic argument based on people in absolute misery, while missing the point on many of Jordan's arguments. I didn't find him as the "legendary smart man" that people (including Jordan himself) portray of him in that talk series. So, I was left the talk siding with Jordan's idea on greatness of religion while being an atheist and a scientist who can't simply fool myself of existence of a higher supreme entity. But, Fry in this talked help me a lot to digest the inner conflict in me after that talk. I will have to listen to this at least one more time to form my personal arguments, but Jordan surely needs to sleep on this one and consider the flaws in his "absolutism" when it comes to culture, higher moral ground, religion, and definition of God.
@@linkdude64 @muinaiset Let me try to address some of your points. 1: "... I personally can't see (yet?) how Stephen fails to be less transcendental than Jordan fails to be less empirical. Do you two have any thoughts on that?" Transcendentalism is inundated with metaphors and it's no wonder why somebody with Jordan's keen interest in symbolism would tend to gravitate towards that, but the fact that Fry is also interested in the subject does not make him more transcendental in my opinion, or vice versa. I think they both gave each other some concessions while talking in order to make the talk more productive, and that made them seem closer to each other's positions than they actually are. There's a world of difference between acknowledging the importance of (e.g. Greek) mythology and holy scriptures and believing and acting as if they're true. Jordan has stated on numerous occasions that his religiosity is based upon acting AS IF God exists, i.e. that he believes and acts as if (that part of) the scriptures is true. Fry, on the other hand seems to find inspiration in mythology and scriptures, but doesn't elevate its meaning to some sort of symbolically encoded truth that transcends everyday life, at least not without applying a healthy dose of skepticism first. To sum up: as I see it, Jordan believes because it gives him a sense of purpose in life (meaning), whereas Fry doesn't believe because it doesn't make sense for him to do so from his empiricist/skepticist perspective. However, I think they both agree that many mythologies and scriptures are important to know and that much can be learned from them. 2: The Harris/Peterson debates To cut a long story short: Harris has lost the plot. He is an important thinker but his debates with Jordan could have been so much more productive if it weren't for the fact that he has become so condescending towards anyone with a different opinion to his that even his own "Making Sense" podcast has become extremely one-sided both politically and philosophically and almost impossible to listen to (at least to me). In the pre-Trump era Harris seemed much more willing to explore ideas from different perspectives, but Trump seems to have messed up his head and locked it into a sort of binary "I'm right/you're all idiots if you disagree" mode, which makes him a much less important voice today than he used to be.
Can you imagine what a world these two could build if they were elected to be a prime minister? ..just imagine the parliamentary debates at question time!
@@rustinholliday2252 This world where science and common sense are being strangled to death by tribal identity politics and a corrosion of the family unit
If we all spent more time watching things like this and having conversations like this our culture would be in a much better place. Thank both of you. Well done.
It was both riveting and intimidating. Stephen can weave a narrative of literary references on almost anything; I would struggle to take a single reference, surround it with exposition and justification and make a point close to what he does.
@@psychcowboy1 Are you seriously going through every comment to shit on both Peterson and Fry? Man you must have a real jealousy problem 😂 unlucky feller, hope your ego isn’t too hurt.
3 года назад
@@psychcowboy1 How can a not smart person recognize something smart? Is that why you are asking now?
This is so intellectual stimulating so much knowledge shared between Jordan and Stephen so so inspiring and I found it really quite beautiful too - i was in awe at the awakenings and realisations I was having while listening to such depth of knowledge and understanding!
Listening to discussions like this reminds me I'm only kind of smart. Smart enough to appreciate, to understand some of what they are discussing, but not being able to comprehend the realm of these ideas anywhere near their level. I don't even have this facility in my chosen profession, and I'm not bad at that. I guess it's like a high school science teacher listening to accomplished theoretical physicists. You understand the language, and can appreciate the wonder of their minds, but can't experience the discussion at their level. It is both inspiring and deeply frustrating.
Haha! Ain’t THAT the truth! My own thoughts exactly. I think myself capable of profundity of thought, then I realise I’m as thick as shit by comparison! (That means ‘very dumb’ if you’re outside of the UK!)
At the risk of sounding cliche, but the classic Socratic line applies here. Also, the positive end of the dunning-Kruger effect applies. Being aware of how little you know, as opposed to deluding yourself into believing you are on ‘the same level’ as these two intellectuals; who have no doubt spent decades pondering, reading and researching these topics they’re discussing, is an indication that you’re probably more intelligent than you’re giving yourself credit for.
Parson JP was preaching, as usual.... Trying so hard to advocate for Religious Myth, and it's explanatory power and value/necessity to humanity... Fry isn't buying it.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 and that's great. Talking to someone who thinks differently, but who you respect, is the best way to reason with your ideas
What a lovely and meaningful conversation between two people with rich knowledge of history and literature. Both of them have the wonderful quality of simplify complex thinking into a conversation most people can grasp. This is art.
Shownotes:
[0:18] Jordan Peterson introduces the episode's guest Stephen Fry whose list of titles and accomplishments is quite astonishing.
[1:33] Stephen starts the show with concerns over the culture wars that seem to be dividing the western world and alienating people from one another
[4:30] Jordan talks about his public reputation for pointing out the excesses of the radical political left in western culture leading back into the discussion of the importance of maintaining free speech. Stephen believes that the moderate left is almost and repulsive to the extreme left and their obvious opponents the far right are at this point. It's become very unfashionable to be a moderate of any type.
[11:00] Jordan directs discussion toward the role Stephen Fry had to play in the atheist movement. Stephen outlines his alignment with Empiricism more than Rationalism when looking at the world and it's problems.
[16:00] Examining the strange way that Empiricism doesn't always need a rational answer to function effectively.
[21:00] The truths found in literature, fiction, drama, movies, and general narrative that we find so compelling even though we don't necessarily understand why? Stephen uses some examples from egyptian and greek mythology to show how narrative has been passing truth from one generation far before writing and science (science is still just catching up).
[30:00] Jordan brings Stephen back to the question of why he feels his perspective differs from his atheist friend Richard Dawkins. Highlighting the incredible human capacity for wonder.
[34:00] Jordan and Stephen examining the learning process of humankind using sacrifice to obtain some future good
[44:00] Is the corruption of the christian church intrinsic in the philosophy or the people who follow the religion? When looking at all traditions, where do you draw the line on the good intention of what the tradition represents and the people who corrupted that vision?
[53:00] Jordan brings up the novel the Brothers Karamazov that Stephen quotes concerning the injustice inherent with the possibility of a God who created a world with so much suffering and injustice in it. Jordan postures that resentment of such a being does not seem to have any functional utility?
[1:01:00] The argument of a higher mode of being. looking at the development of morality in children through playing games, examining other behavioral science in humans, rats, mice, and other species..
[1:11:30] Back to the distinction between Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins from Jordans perspective. Jordan expresses the creative artistic domain is more unique when regarding atheists. Stephen points to the importance of things that convey truth that are not strictly rational. The two discuss the functionality and rational absurdity of a constitutional monarchy form of government.
[1:19:00] Talking about the "gods within" and how different religions and thinkers have tried to solve the puzzle of what some call conscience?
[1:32:00] Stephen tells one last tale emphasizing his point that story/drama/narative are some of the most powerful ways to bring people together and should not be trivialised when discussing serious topics in societies.
[1:37:00] Wrapping up the show. Thanking the guest Stephen Fry for his participation.
Thanks for all you do for us Jordan
Thank you so much !!
This is amazingly helpful. Standing ovation to whoever puts these summaries together!
Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Jordan. We're still here and still listening -- as intently as ever.
“It’s a strange paradox, that the liberals are illiberal in their demand for liberality. They are exclusive in their demand for inclusivity. They are homogenous in their demand for heterogeneity. They are somehow un-diverse in their call for diversity - you can be diverse, but not diverse in your opinions and in your language and in your behaviour. And that’s a terrible pity." Stephen Fry. Thank you for being you.
Sounds a lot like Chesterton.
@@aarellanod2d That would be deliberate. It was a hell of a denouement in that Munk debate. That and the refrain to 'let doubt rule'.
The intolerance of tolerance is incoherent.
I think the key word here is "exclusive in their demand for liberality". Not all are like that though and it's but a handful that really are that way. Most liberals don't promote exclusivity but there is the paradox of tolerance (being tolerant of the intolerant). That's a whole other thing in and off itself. I doubt Fry would be tolerant of religious leaders calling for the death of homosexuals.
*_Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal._*
~ Karl Popper, 1945
One man wakes you with the power of his words, the other enthralls you with beauty of his speech. Both leave you smarter, and perhaps even a little bit happier. This is a treat.
@@seanleith5312 although its very clear that you're a smart person, and one who knows their shit - i worry you've spent too much of your time focused on the wrong bits. there is so much good in the world, and especially since all the people and times that you mentioned. there is no better time to be alive (for anyone in history, infact) than now, because the future is uncertain and the past unchangeable. your outlook seems dismal, and you seem far too bright to be stuck within it. i hope you are able to see there are far more positive things that came from people like orwell than negative, like provoking critical think in people like fry and peterson.
i wish you the best, friend
@@seanleith5312 liberals remove structure and functionality
@@curtisboyce3849 Well Done Sir.
@@satoshinakamoto7253 And the heads of monarchs and tyrants.
Wow. Beautifully put. I wholeheartedly agree!
The Peterson / Fry discussions should be a monthly series for at least twelve sessions.
I would suggest monthly discussions for the remainder of both of their lives! ;)
“Twelve sessions for life”
Well, Fry could certainly enlighten us for a bit longer than that. I'm afraid however that Jordan was scrambling to repeat himself over and over for the last hour or so of this conversation. His conservative side has stunted his ability to see solutions outside his circle of thought. I could listen to Fry for hours since he has knowledge to impart. Jordan not so much😏
@@pseudonayme7717 What you witness there I believe is the 140 iq to 170 difference and therein how each approaches altering humanity. That said, many won't understand the higher of the two, so conversations and guiding of the intermediaries is a huge benefit to the world.
@@vargas0897 He absolutely does, and I like him alot more than I did whence he first appeared in the public eye. He is a troubled individual for sure, we saw the cracks of the pressure of his new found fame these last few months and I respect his ability to hold it together thus far. And of course, his choice of guests is to be lauded, it's nice to know he has not abandoned the left wing of his personality entirely, it may be his salvation, since the right side is very obviously quite destructive for him (as it is for everyone else generally😄)
Take care 👍
Two extremely intelligent people. Respecting each others views and allowing each other to get points across.
Yea, mutual respect? Naw, that'll never work..😂
‘A stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like’ - Julie Burchill on Fry.
@@kvdp9543 "A stupid person's idea of an influential person to quote" - reasonable person on Julie Burchill
@@Declan398 well if influence is what matters more than truth then do follow Fry. You won't go wrong.
I only saw one.
Man. This conversation makes me feel like I am witnessing human mental evolution in real-time. Two conflicting perspectives from mutually great intellects, discussing their opposing ideas in a healthy, respectful & civil manner, is the recipe for progress in exploring the unknown of what’s next to come in human civilization. Very exciting to listen to these.
Indeed. I have to admit I think I share a lot more ideas with Fry but absolutely acknowledge most of Peterston points (not just here I've actually seen tons of his videos although I haven't read anything from him) as valid and more than that essential. This whole discussion makes me think how likely it is that all the other times opposing views clash they are at such a distance of this level of discussion and precision that people end up being frustrated and start offending 'the other side'. We all much evolve so much...
Yes it was such a gift to see these two brilliant people explore life.
I do agree!
Would have loved to 'chip in', just a couple of times.
Once to quote Galatians chapter 5 verses 22 and 23, where we get a clear picture - especially as we can see this in others - of the higher moral or ethical future we could aim at.
Aspects of character and motivation; 'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control'.
holy shit the mario kart lick guy
there is no god. watch revalation of the pyramids. then viper tv. enki..
Just an idea for the production crew for this podcast. It would be great to have a split screen so we could see the body language of the person being spoken to. I think it would really enhance the depth of understanding in the audience.
Disagree think it is too much going on we should be focusing on the speaker. Though during the debates it would switch from 1 to both at times which was good. Not sure how reactions would be different online split screen compared to in the moment reactions.
Agree, hearing the speaker and watching the listening is an entirely important part of the language of communication.
I thought so too johnnycorvo, well said
@@4_times_college_dropout_tr24 Having the ability to see two people's faces while one of them is speaking is too much going on for you? Perhaps you should sit these discussions out altogether.
I disagree, and would even say - shut down the damn video. Their words are more than enough. Both Stepehen Fry who is an immensely gifted narrator, and J. Peterson with his emotions - real and deep - bursting out of his voice. This is not a reality show, but rather - a learned discussion.
This conversation should continue as a monthly podcast.... I could listen to their mental jiu-jitsu without ceasing.
I just made the same comment it should be monthly 🤞
I wonder if they've tried DMT.
@@furrycannon Is that you Joe?
Absolutely!!!
Yes, 100%! Stephen Fry is incredibly brilliant, and paired with Jordan Peterson, it's intellectual gold.
Such an amazing discussion. No harsh words, no aspiration of "winning". Just great minds talking, exchanging ideas and knowledge. ♥️
A real, honest-to-goodness Debate. >.< The winner is the Truth and Understanding, not either of the individuals in the discussion/argument.
Well I did find Jordan Peterson's views to be quite basic and childish honestly. A bit of a "pretend" intellectual.
@@nonefvnfvnjnjnjevjenjvonej3384 You can think that if you like, you'd be disagreeing with Stephen Fry... who rather likes Peterson as a fellow Academic.
@@zephodb well he is kinder than me :D
@@zephodb You don't get it, he is an edgy boi trying to get attention online.
This isn't so much a debate as a respectful conversation -- and it's one of the best things I've ever seen on the Internet. Many thanks to Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry for making it available to us.
if it was a debate Stephen takes this one imo
then you need to get around the net more...both of them manage to miss the true deeper meaning of the sacrificed Sun God myth and its complex conflation with the life of Jesus.. this is pretty fundamental... and Jordan bangs yet again on his drum concerning what sacrifice really means... all very predictable, all very questionable... And by the way, we gave up sacrificing humans aeons ago? Did we? Are you sure.. We're sacrificing children right now, day in day out
@@simonlee8889 True, sacrifices of young virgins has been going on since the beginning of worship. now anything we question not written in Wikipedia is considered a conspiracy theory. The past 5 years in America we have seen the power of the Digital Town square. We can't question mainstream science without being censored which completely goes against Scientific research. I hate politics but seeing our former POTUS tongue cut out theoretically is something I NEVER could have predicted so soon. Actually makes me want to listen more when the elite are that nervous
The interplay of consciousness, thus conscious, as done by the power of our imagination to give us a view of ever changing truths
@@christianhadden6720 in fairness, the debate was one (Peterson) creating argument to encourage and enhance conversation and discussion to which a response was given. This is Peterson's channel after all and he is the interviewer.
Two men came to talk to each other. Both poor souls because of facing depression, but also both rich souls for their contributions to the world.
A wonderful talk
Nicely put.
Agreed. I asked the universe for this 🙏
@@luluadapa5222 and the Universe did not care in the slightest, and yet , it happened. Awesome, isn`t it ? :)
Have a great day.
@@luluadapa5222 If you're asking the universe for help, you're missing one of the major points these two men are making.
Firstly, Professor Petersen, it is wonderful to see you back and in better health. Secondly, thank you for bringing us this conversation between two intellectual titans, you and Mr Fry. Humbling, encouraging and inspiring.
Please, please have a follow-up discussion. This was everything I had hoped it would be, and more.
Do it. Do it.
Yes please!!
Absolutely... I’m a junky wanting to hear more of this conversation between these two. I could listen for hours...occasionally rewinding because WTF ! 🤯 . Put them both in the same place....Some old university library setting, sitting in comfy high backed leather chairs, drinking fine whiskey....and conversing, for HOURS on almost anything...Hell, I’d read the back of a bottle of Windex to them and say, “ Ok, Go ! “ and then an hour later I’m understanding Windex in ways I never imagined nor ever wanted to but here I am and hey...btw....pass that over here 👈, Bogart ! 😎
De acord 💪
The world desperately needs more Stephen Fry's in it. Intellectual and well read enough to converse properly with experts in their fields, combined with the rare ability to not only pass the information on to the masses in way that doesn't make them feel small and stupid, but to also then think and wonder about it themselves after he is gone
It's his genuine interest in things that makes them interesting to others.
I think of him as a wonderful teacher in communication.
Na look at him pig in and out
Peterson too. He's open minded, fair, vulnerable, careful with his words though they are complex, amd he never attacks people's character. They are both quality human beings.
@@notsobraindeadjester I do agree with Peterson more on most matters but Stephen Fry is a noticeably better communicator in my opinion, at least in a General mass vocabulary sense which makes him more 'understandable?' I guess, but who knows it might be just his fun accent.
@@ryanforsyth8228Stephen fry is a titan
This needs to be a full series. This is pure gold. Thank you, Jordan and Stephen.
I absolutely agree. This is the conversation we need.
This is pure Alchemy personified.
Absolutely support this comment, we need more of these!
Can u imagine 🤤🤤🤤
I'd watch the shit out of that.
The best thing about this was the places you disagreed but were willing to explore in civilized manner. It felt at the end that both of you got someting out of it and so did we all who listened.
Tā tas ir, jā.
Didn't seem like Fry was willing to budge on anything, he almost arrogantly dismissed all of Peterson's arguments. There seems to be a component of atheism that is so arrogant that makes one to reflexively dismissive to anything that even comes from a religious place, regardless of whether or not it has value.
@@brucelivingston2220 - why arrogance, when one is curious and listens ?
@@brucelivingston2220 I think more than arrogance this is a lingering result of Henry VIII's split from the Vatican and how it seemingly permanently made Brits suspicious of anything valuable that comes from religion in general.
Once bitten twice shy so to speak.
@@brucelivingston2220 oh yeah? What component? I am an atheist but am very much interested in religious thinking. And it’s the same case with all of my atheist friends.
It’s the opposite if anything. People claiming that they’re special, that the whole universe was built with them in mind. What’s more arrogant than that?
I think he dismissed it because the same narrative can be applied to almost any mythical or fictional idea. In fact, I think that’s exactly what he meant. The thing about Jordan’s interpretation is that: it reflects human nature, not divine nature. And even he knows that, that’s why he compares the Bible stories with other versions from different civilizations.
If only everyone could have productive, honest conversations like this, instead of arguing and trying to appear right for the sake of their egos. Thanks boys, I really enjoyed that one!
Agreed! Let us all be that change. Perhaps it will catch on :)
@@jerrygreene1493 I think so. I thought that almost every sentence spoken contained a productive and useful idea which will take some unpacking, researching and digesting as Prof Peterson points out at the end.
"the sake of their egos".. They're clearly talking about issues beyond themselves. Some people find this patronising though, usually egotistical people.
@@jerrygreene1493 Found the theist..
@@jerrygreene1493 yes they did Jerry. Jordan highlighted that conscious, interests and reciprocity are outside of individual will. Fry reminds Jordan that the awareness brought about by games, motivations and conscious can lead to destruction on a grand scale (by focusing attention on the wrong things).
JP is a rock. And Stephen Fry is the weather, the right kind. I saw JP being shaped up in this discourse. JP was so close to tears, and he has shown his vulnerabilities several times but this it the only time when he did that when the other person agrees with him. Hats of to JP and Stephen Fry. Everyone is a little wiser after watching this, JP, Fry, me, and you.
I absolutely love how excited and giddy they are when hearing the other's reasonings. It's the beauty of conversation.
A bit of Fry and Peterson is the new buddy bromance show that we need
God yes, please, make it happen! 😍
Been watching Jeeves and Wooster of late, great show
I'd like to see Hugh Laurie on this podcast as well. Though i have no idea whether he delves into either politics or psychology or not
@@Tricolorrr533 That would be really interesting. Hugh Laurie doesn't seem to do many deep dive interviews, but Jordan would be the perfect person to do it
Conversations in heaven? Would they be similar? A constructive exchange of thoughts is ultimately constructive.
This is the most mind blowing conversation I’ve heard and I’ve listened to so many it’s embarrassing. I don’t even know what to think anymore. I love both these men and I can’t believe how little we know about this thing called life.
To keep wondering is to be on the right track
When you realise how much you don't know, is when you know you've learnt something :)
So well put👍
So true.
@@brando3342 What did he get wrong? Im instinctively with Peterson (he saved my life and taught me so much), so im keen to know what Stephen was wrong about.
To be able to live in an age where you can watch two men with such talents converse on a screen almost freely! What an inspirational conversation! Thank you Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry
Because they do not believe themselves to be better than the other just different and they are trying to find common ground as well as persuade. Most people are unable to achieve this level of discourse because they aren't willing to listen or learn from anyone who may have a differing point of view or who may challenge them.
Stephen Fry remembers so many facts and quotes then explains them so eloquently… His mind is simply amazing.
Fact: He is blessed with a photographic memory.
And yes, what makes him amazing, is that he uses his photographic memory to pull some stories and puzzles together, then explaining it in a way that simple people like me can understand.
@@kobusg7460 photogenic...?
@@isabel0852 Thanks, fixed. Proof that (a) English is not my first language, and (b) I am not blessed with a photographic memory myself :-)
Isabel “eidetic” ...
Kobus G don’t ever sell your self short. A simple google search would suffice most times. Photogenic, is used for People; faces that look aesthetically pleasing. Specially when their photos are shot or they happened to be filmed.
Your use of photographic memory was indeed correct, however, a more pronounced term is eidetic memory.
I can’t believe how great Jordan is looking now. So good to have him back
Amen to that
Yes, he looks good and healthy. But I can see in his eyes that he's still struggling. I hope he continues his positive progression. He's a real treasure for humanity and reason.
@@Republic3D wonder if he's been experimenting with medicinal mushrooms... that would give him that look
The beard is always making him look 5 years younger :D
But yeah his skin tone looks better as well
With everyone using there home office we are seeing men with no makeup and women looking more like Ronald McDonald, Mr Jordan looks well. No makeup but some sun.
Watching these two men having such an impressive conversation and being able to call to hand such a broad array of ideas and stories really makes me appreciate just how much more there is to learn!
@@jerrygreene1493 Two amazingly educated, knowledgeable and erudite men spend an hour and a half discussing the history of man's search for meaning and the ideas and theories that underpin or have formed our current world and that is all you can say.
And not getting charged for it either James :)
They read a lot of books. I recommend getting into the habit of reading a litle in a book every day. Then you will become interesting to have chat with as well.
@@jerrygreene1493 you don't understand the connection between things because you didn't want to watch it. I respect that. Just don't ask others to do your work.. especially if your work is solely criticism rather than taking what you want to take and leave behind what you don't. And if you don't find anything to take, then don't come back if you like.
Ignorance is bliss lol
Both Fry and Peterson, different as they may be, have had a significant impact on me and my thinking. And I just love how they can talk, unpack each other’s ideas, challenge each other and enjoy it whilst doing so.
I reckon it’s time for part 2 😋
Civilized debate.
mee eens!!!
Why? Fry is an intellectual and Peterson is a charlatan who tries to pass himself off a an intellectual
@Blind Watchmaker Do you live in Holland?
Same here. Inspirational, an invitation to knowledge from different sides. Love it
“Awe is an invitation to imitate!” What a powerful observation.
I really like this.
Which one of them said that? I love it!!
@@aleece4 Peterson. Great observation.
@@FaithEncouragedTV I read the comment before I got to that part in the conversation too ... thought the quote was from Fry, given his way with words, but not so ... bravo Peterson!
Yes. That gave me chills!
Yes that was good. Until Fry took Jordan's point in a weird, depressing direction.
“It makes me resentful and angry and wanting to shake my fist, but I found upon intense consideration that there was nothing in that, that didn’t make it worse and that therefore it must be wrong even though it’s justifiable”. I hope I can remember and share this often.
Yeah that sentence hit me to. Marvelous conversation.
Resentment is often short-sighted. How often in our later lives do we come to understand the lesson taught to us by imperfect parents who allowed us to go through struggle and trial? We find that the struggles prepared us for the greater weight of adulthood.
So then, if there is a God, one who can love perfectly, why would we assume that the evil in the world isn't meant for the loving purpose of preparing us for something greater? Resentment towards deity over our pitiful existence stems from not knowing the outcomes of the struggle.
@@ralphengland8559 I sincerely love this reply!!
@@streglof thank you. I hope it's a useful perspective.
@@ralphengland8559 pretty smart view
I wish this a 15 hour episode, I can listen to these two talking forever.
zug zug
Peterson and Bret Weinstein too
@@brando3342 this is rather obnoxious.
@@brando3342 Exactly. I actually agree with you completely. Would there have been more time, perhaps they could have danced longer with each topic.
I apologize for sounding rude.
@@brando3342 While I can see your point to a degree, as was noted in one area of the comments, this was primarily an interview conducted by Dr. Peterson more so than an actual debate. Second, it seems to be in regard to the human experience in terms of a sociological understanding rather than merely a discourse of matters of faith and their influence (for better or worse) from the religious institutions created by humans.
I just bought his Greek myth book the other day it’s a fantastic read.
Stephen is one heck of a talented man,and yes he is a national treasure who deserves to be knighted.
I think Jordan forgot calling him a philospher
Such is the high regard Stephen is held in I suspect he has been offered royal recognition...OBE, MBE, knighthood, but he will have declined.
@@RainwaterAquarium Certainly so in the case of the accolade (knighthood). Twice,in fact. He said it would be like being forced to wear a suit ALL the time. Incidentally, Bowie refused too. Sir Elton, however... (actually Sir Reg).
Some how I think he would gratefully decline a knight hood
@@justinhakaraia9264 The word is "gracefully",and "knighthood"is one word. Always ready to help!
Having access to the highest quality conversations like this is the real blessing of technological progress of the 21st century. We are truly live in the best possible times. Thank you for keeping this knowledge publicly available. And thank you for the strong and straightforward message in the world of bias and confusion. You realy changed my life and my perception of it!
Imagine Leo Da Vinci with internet.
@@psychcowboy1 or. . . . You didn't think about it.
Stephen Fry is quite simply astonishing to me. He brings so much warmth and humanity to subjects that are very complicated to me.
He is an absolute gem of a human being
@@psychcowboy1 I understood clearly what Steven Fry said, I have no idea what you’re on about.
@@psychcowboy1 is fry and intellectual seems like a bizarre question. He's certainly done his homework through out life. Not everyone will be your cup of tea kid doesn't make them any less.
have you watched the movie "V for Vendetta"?
Highly recommend.
@@psychcowboy1 I think your question is wether something intellectual was said, since you ask for that multiple times. I think so, since intellect is defined by the objective understanding and abilty to reason about subjects and abstract subjects. Fry does this on multiple occasions, linking multiple facts together (showing an excelent understanding of many things such as how words came to be that we now use every day, or how tiny religious/ mythological facts still affect how we talk and think today) that many people would not have seen are connected, thereby showing, e.g., their origin, or what they mean to our society as it stands. So, in this way he is showing his intellect, not because we find it interesting or very smart, but because it is actually adhering to the description of what being an intellectual means. I don't see how you cannot see that.
Moreover, it sounds like you didn't like something he said and are, therefore, trying to prove that he is not an intellectual, such that he doesn't get the audience he clearly deserves. Which is kinda petty.
It is so much fun being able to watch Peterson have discussions with people he wants to talk with as opposed to him being interviewed. The energy is so different, you can tell he is having a blast in this one.
I don’t mean this as an insult, but I like him more when speaking with someone who is intelligent! I don’t always agree with Jordan, but Fry & him are great together
Never really been a fan of Peterson, I think this turned up in my feed because of JRE and my lifelong fanship of Steven Fry. I have to say this conversation is a perfect example of how a basic level of respect for other people can lead to something great and illuminating. The fact these two did this is fantastic and it's an example to be followed.
💯 😊❤
I think too that he his an overated intellectual who hides behind long convoluted "word salads" that express feeble ideas that could be said in one sentence.
Aristotolian ecclisiasticism, only this man could talk on or above the level of Jordan. this man Fry seems to be the V, full of shocking historical facts.
@@RammYou2 I could sit down for a drink with Fry...JLP not so much
Fry is fantastic. Was this conversation that made a fan of Fry.
Do you have other suggestions from him that shows his immense intellect?
When Jordan is moved to tears by a thought or a revelation, I feel less alone in the world. I've always been made to feel like this aspect of my personality is a flaw to be overcome, but Dr. Peterson embraces it as not only intrinsic to his identity, but seems imbued with a gratitude for this characteristic. One more reason to appreciate the man. This is a brilliant conversation, by the way.
Same--I love how he is unapologetically passionate about his convictions. It encourages me to take myself and my beliefs more seriously.
I'm glad someone acknowledged this. For me this is a beautiful thing to see in another person, because I can relate to that feeling.
Mad respect to ANY consumate individualist such as Stephen Fry who is willing to listen to anyone regardless of view point because we can be friends, break bread, share mead and have a laugh at ourselves despite our differences. THAT is the REAL meat of existence and those that have forsaken that(namely the Identitarians) are truly lost.
Well said
“Identitarians” 👍
I think it’s more that he respects JBP because of his popularity. Naive ISTJ imo.
The sheer amount of vile and nasty comments about both fry and peterson on just the first page of comments shows how incredibly important it is to keep sharing our ideas.
Have open discussions, talk about anything that tickles your fancy.
Celebrate individual standpoints, instead of forcing groupthink on a person just so they "belong" to a group, that you can then generalize in your mind.
This episode was a joy to listen to.
@AManHas NoName
Ahh there he is again.
Why are you shitting on fry?
I'm a jbp fan, but fry and peterson have had an absolutely wonderful collaboration during the munk debate.
This episode was coming, and both men wanted to chat.
Why are you being so toxic?
You profess to be this defender of peterson, but you're kind of missing his entire point, mate.
Let people enjoy their things.
Which rule was it again, the one that tells you to let kids skate on the street, to stop to pet a cat when you see one?
This is the most constructive talk I've heard in a long time, both men seeking to find truth without ego blocking the way.
I hope these meetings become a regular occurrence.
I didn't feel they really got anywhere on any of the topics they discussed. Jordan seemed very concerned with Richard Dawkins and kept trying to steer the conversation there, which Fry was not that interested in. There were moments when the conversation could have really gone deep, but I felt it ended up being quite erratic. It seems that Jordan has lost his focus. Very enjoyable to listen to, but frustrating at the same time.
Could not of said it better myself!!!
@@wodenravens cuz Frye was being a dodgy lil bastard
@@funbigly Thanks for saying it how it really is. Fundamentally Fry is the same as Dawkins, but will not accept it due to fear of labelling him as an extremophile.
Randomly watched this out of curiosity and couldn't switch it off, completely gripped. It left my brain hurting just a little but certainly worth it
I love being the third wheel in these conversations. It's like watching your dad and uncle having a friendly discussion at a birthday party and you're trying to follow it, but half the time you don't have any idea what they're saying. And at the end without knowing it you learned somethings from both parties that you love. Jordan and Stephen I respect you both and wish you well with the blessing of the God that may or may not exist
Haha excellent!
We're so lucky to be able to listen to such conversations. What a time to be alive.
We could before the net too. Hard talk used to be good when hitch did it. Now it's just left wing dribble
The romans had their public baths where this conversations were had.
And to honour them, I listen to this while taking a bath.
This sort of encounters have been the mark of great civilizations.
This is a perfect illustration of how intelligent discourse should be presented and undertaken. A captivating delight from beginning to end.
Shame that the BBC seems to have lost the art of, or interest in, such non confrontational intelligent discourse. If only we had more of it!
@@robertcook9201 Oliver Reed put paid to that! lol
@Anthony Townsend A lot of pretentiousness in this discussion for me. A lack of plain English and waffle.
@@Coneman3 Would you like some maple syrup for that waffle?
The greatest human problem, however, is that most people are not interested in understanding the nature of reality or facing the difficulties of rational questioning and enquiry (or are incapable). So long as they can fulfill their most basic needs (vide. Maslow) they do not want to struggle towards "self realisation". So we will always be stuck with tribalism and aggression - so long as we have government that defers to the masses.
When a conversation can hold my attention for an hour and thirty eight minutes it has to be special indeed. Thank you to both these gentlemen for allowing us the pleasure of intelligent conversation with little argument. A breath of fresh air in a stagnant world.
The time just sped by, didn't it? I couldn't believe I'd listened to this for over one and a half hours without my attention or energy flagging, because of course, THEIRS didn't; and they were generous to each other in allowing time for arguments to be made and considered. We really need more of this.
Man i can't believe im listening to this for free!!
God bless you dr
Wtf? Don't even think that! Its the thin end of the wedge. 🙏
Yes, indeed. For free! Blessed are the... Oh, no.... How fortunate we are.
wow! want the time of day from me and you've gotta pay that's for sure.
@@jaccrystal6993 really? how much for that snippet!? Edit for debt anxiety
@@djonfonsteen6331 except for charity cases such as a p for snipet(sic).
Anyone else wanting a Peterson / Fry podcast? I'd listen to that on repeat for the rest of my life.
Oh yes, that would be some intelectual candy i would absolutely devour.
@@chestnut1279 Peterson stated that it's not so much believing in God, but having a benefit from living as if God exists. I have no definitive conclusion on it myself but can see benefit for some in that. To regard a religious person to be beyond a deep conversation is a shallow opinion.
@@chestnut1279 Not a shallow opinion - an extremely brainless opinion. If anyone would be unable to have a deep conversation it would be you. --> Many of the smartest and most important thinkers of all time were deeply religious and believed in a god.
@@aaronyoung3758 I find Petersons view on that interesting and much more honest than actually saying you believe in God and then ignoring most of what the bible says. I can also understand his logic on the matter. I am an Atheist, but I also recognize the value the Bible and wat is written in it. Especially on a philosophical level.
I personally see the concept of God not as an external figure, but an internal one within ourselves. "God" is the representation of the things that we value most in our observable universe. I we believe that we suffer the conseqences of our poorly made choices and make them to be punishments of "God". We are infact punishing ourselves most of the time. Where "Hell" is the pit in which we fall through by failing in our struggles to climb to greater heights "Heaven".
I'm not sure if i'm explaining myself clearly, but I think the bible was never meant to be taken literally. the bible is a collection of art/literature meant to provoke thought and concideration as most books are meant to pass on knowledge and thought.
@@Scarletcroft I understand what you're saying but i think the 'God' Jordan is referring to is the idea of an almighty creator. both are valid and both can be right at the same time :)
I'm loving this: two intelligent men with different point of views arguing their different points without ever looking down at the other, or the other's beliefs. We need more conversations like this.
Funny how you state "arguing" I found them agreeing a lot
@@JWB86 I think the agreement was more of a “I understand what you are saying” instead of “I agree with your point”
This is what a real Debate looks like. And they are indeed arguing when you define Argument correctly: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
This is the normal,the commun sense. Agree to desagree..But now days is all about how special we are, how is OK to have 100kg and no think about your health, is about butterfly..
That’s because Stephen Fry is a man, and so Jordan Peterson is respectful. Have you seen JP talking about women?
I think what I enjoyed the most about this episode was witnessing how undoubtedly knowledgable Stephen is on the subject of faith, religion and it's deeply embedded roots within human history allowing him to deliver facts and researched backed counter points instead of two toddlers not getting along.
Stephen at a glance seems to have made an incredibly informed decision on his beliefs based on his own knowledge rather than what "others have told him" to believe. I guess I'm writing this right now because it was refreshing to see an athiest point of view with substance where both sides were respectful, intelligent and no one was screaming over one another to be "right" or "louder" for once!
I couldn't agree more. There's a reason why he's a national treasure. I'm a big fan of both of these gentlemen and it was such a healthy (and as a result fruitful) conversation. Too often the algorithms promote echo chamber videos. Even if I agree with them, it doesn't nourish me quite like conversations such as this.
@@haydentrudgill o
1
it is very refreshing to listen to. had no idea stephen was a lvl 1000 atheist😂
The strange thing is Jordan Peterson is an atheist. Always has been, always will be. But in his eyes, he wants to help people, and telling them that their gOD doesn't exist serves him well....and gets him off the hook with bible bashers. He literally expands the publics love affair with him by including the religious and the non religious. I love him too, until he wanders into the truth of gOD.....then I tire of him. Fry addresses this to the point where Jordan is edging on admitting this. Since this interview he has admitted that there is no gOD.....and now he's admitted that I respect him more.
two of the most eloquent public intellectuals of our times having a conversation. Today is a good day.
some guy describe video. this comment is good coomment.
@abhimannue You took the words right outta my mouth... Ditto that 👏
@@erikpaterson1404 yes thank you, I am incredibly intelligent
Christmas has come early. Love these two and always hoped they'd have a proper conversation together.
@solomon real, you are indeed sir.
It's touching to see someone of JPs stature in awe of Stephen and his achievements, brings up a level of pride in this English man.
I had no idea Stephen Fry was to say the least a powerhouse. Almost beyond belief what he's done with his life. His ability to communicate is such a blessing--I'm an existential person and it helps that he understands that perspective.
Anyhow, Mr. Fry is well worth showing off to the world. Toot! Toot! Toot that horn!
@Jo C What's funny about that? She used the correct word in the right context to elude to her philosophical leanings? Or are you laughing precisely because she is an existentialist?
Oh you wonderful Englishmen, always downplaying your obvious brilliance.
Enlightenment and reason. The English used to be a bastion of free speech. How sad the commonwealth has become
@@jcrosby4804 cmon be brave? Radical right? Why are we all radical on the right to you people? Why call us racists constantly? You don't even try to have conversations because you have weak points and weak grasp of truths based on your msm crap.
I would be happy to talk about anything you want but it seems pointless. I have been censored constantly fyi and I have a thousand instances of social media doing this. First example...ivermectin. I rest my case
I am a Catholic Christian and have been finding this conversation wonderful. Stephan is a generous soul. I appreciate his willingness, his gentleness in his discussion with JP. There is something poetic about Stephan's speech. It's just so nice to hear people be respectful and really listening to each other.
Christ - "the kingdom of heaven is within you " what do you need the catholic part for ? the matrix has you
And yet your church sees someone whose actions are "intrinsically disordered" and 'condemn his unnatural and unhealthy acts'.
Shame on them.
As a Catholic what is your opinion on the church the current pope and gays.
Fry seemed disappointed that the church was returning to more traditional opinions on homosexuality whereas I think this is a good thing.
Odd, I don't have a problem with homosexuals but I have a problem with the Catholic church not having a problem with homosexuals.
@@croweater6814 "I don't have a problem with homosexuals but I have a problem with the Catholic church not having a problem with homosexual"
I somewhat agree that it would be hypocritical for the Catholic church to say homosexuality was ok, and that the church should really be deemed disposable with the knowledge we have developed. Could you expand on why you believe it ok for the most powerful of churches, who holds such influence, to hold beliefs that encourage hate and fear?
@@saul_guudman I think and I could be wrong but it has something to do with the moral foundations of such an institution suppose to be immune from the sway of the public, an unbiased constant. To elaborate as Fry pointed out Catholic morality is suppose to be unchanging, it is and should be as set out by Peter at the start of the church till today, incorruptible and if anything unapologetically so. To pervert such an organisation based on the whims of the now or political trends of the day speaks volumes about the weakness in the systems of the institution. I have no special love for Catholics, but I do believe in western democracies their voices which often er on the side of Christian morality and purity are a net benefit to society.
If such an institution as old and longstanding as the Catholic church can be perverted and subverted by intersectionality it stands to reason that none of our secular institutions with relative moral standards can withstand the onslaught of the regressive left. It isn't just homosexuality that catholicism has bent the knee to, it has also bent the knee to both Judaism and Islam in accepting that they are valid religions. (What good is a religion if it accepts another religion may be valid.)
The "decline" of church morality and supremacy is purely due to the deconstructivist social Marxism that is so pervasive in western democracies. In essence it is an attack on the foundations of western morality, which in our secular societies may not appear as immediately bad. I would rather see the church end with its moral foundations intact than to see it continue with the regressive left wearing it like a skin suit dictating their version of morality; Some of which is quite repugnant.
I marvelled at how they never became angry or annoyed by each other views. Indeed, they seemed to revel in the prospect of the meeting of minds. Respect to both who I admire greatly.
Agreed. There is a level of respect between the two and precisely as it should be.
I knew this was gonna be great the minute Fry explained why he agreed to do this.Pretty much the same reason I follow both men,extremes are bad.
Stephen is so well read it's outrageous - please do a part 2. Thank you for posting this beautiful conversation.
And he seems to actually remember 90% of it, and is able to recall at any time - thats what i can't get my head around
But the kind of well read person who wants everyone to know about it lol
Or better still, perhaps make it a regular series?
and part 3, and 4, and... fuck it, let’s make this monthly.
@@trickeyD yeah man, his range is nuts, CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, knowledgeable of early 20th century British scientific advances, drama, pantomimes, opera, botany, pharmacology, Theology you name it he's got it!
Has been so good to see Jordan get better and better and healthier with each talk
Imagine having read the amount of books either Jordan or Stephen have? What an amazing conversation. Love both of them.
I was about to say almost the same exact thing. I decided instead, to comment on your statement. If I were to add anything. I’ll say,
I am rather impressed with myself for understanding the entire thing! LOL!! I’m most excited to head down a couple rabbit holes in the coming days. LOL!! 🤣
I don't read books so these conversations are life-giving!
@@imogenrex6286 why don't you try at least audiobooks? Reading is one of the greatest pleasures in life
@@imogenrex6286 i stopped reading for the most part when social pressure in school overwhelmed me. After that it was the lack of the habit. Once I started listening on audible my whole life turned around. So much to learn. Great courses plus on audible for example.
Also there is no pleasure similar, I am not saying better(whatever that may mean) to reading a delightfull book before sleeping. Or growing with the insights people have worked their lifetime to achieve and write down. Start to read two pages of let's say alice in wonderland and I dare you to be so bored to stop. That is not easy also :)
@Sanningen Bullshit everyone blames the elites for their own lack of character
Two intellectual Behemoths...MUST see more of these two together ..Can listen to them for hours.
well.. one is ... the other looks like might start crying at any moment..
@@nonefvnfvnjnjnjevjenjvonej3384 So what?
@@bokunoremon pseudo intellectual
@@nonefvnfvnjnjnjevjenjvonej3384 Because he might start crying at any moment?
@@bokunoremon no because he is a pseudo intellectual who is an addict and is mentally unstable?
Didn’t expect this crossover, but it was very refreshing to see. Great minds.
Crossover? What does that mean?
Not that surprising of a crossover, with all due respect. They are intellectual powerhouses, of course they were bound to one day talk.
On the other hand, Jordan and Theo Von is a much stranger interaction.
these surprises are the gift of the dark web - 'dark' as in not seen and heard enough!
They did a debate together against the woke. Fry is a titan.
Of course so is JBP
Fry has an exquisite, but effortless skill of being able to somehow blend history, myth, theology, linguistics, humanity, spiritualty, philosophy, comedy into a form that is instantly relatable and entertaining no matter your intellect level - its something he has that most intellects or scholars lack - a certain warmth but also...for lack of a better word, he almost delights in over-explaining whilst pulling details from many different fields.
@@angrytedtalks that's kinda the point though isn't it, fry can enter JP's world and be his equal as an intellectual, JP could never do the same in the reverse....and I'm not saying that as a put down, Fry is clearly a freak human. Understand JP is not at his sharpest right now, and I'm a huge fan, but he seemed slightly in awe of fry at times, or perhaps not as comfortable in the situation as he can be when firing on all cylinders
@@psychcowboy1 In your own view, what *is* worth thinking or talking about? You would have to dismiss the whole of the humanities, psychology, and social sciences if you don't think they touched on anything of value here. What are your particular objections to the personages, ideas, or motives involved in this conversation?
@@psychcowboy1 Your objections seem to be to Peterson specifically. He's a psychologist whose worldview is derived from some combination of the Jungian and Behaviorist schools, and he consistently makes reference to archetypes whose material reality he's certainly not advocating for--except insofar as these things may have their grounding in demonstrable neurological structures. He has these conversations of late with people from entirely different walks of life, who possess entirely different patterns of thinking, precisely *because* he's aware that his own worldview is limited by the particularities of his expertise and by his own psychological flaws.
@@psychcowboy1 I guess that either can "get it" or you can't. If you can't, as you've stated, then fair enough.
I'm sure you're not alone and there's no shame in it and you don't need to feel defensive about it. We're all different.
I had to watch some bits a few times over to fully understand, but now I do, or at least I think I do :)
Also, their (admirable and correct) determination to keep things respectful towards each other inevitably over-complicates the core messages to a degree, I feel, particularly on Fry's part (he is so "nice" about everything that you have to wade through to get to the core message). Peterson is much more direct. That's just personalities and conversation styles.
But much better that way than the usual speech-bite, point scoring attacks which achieve absolutely nothing and make both sides look more stupid than they realise.
Nobody is "vs" anybody here. They are just two very well-educated and intelligent figures trying to learn from each other's viewpoints and improve themselves, along with anyone else watching who has the time and capability to do so.
His explanations have at least one thing everyone can relate to
I'm so excited about this discussion!!! I have wanted you to interact with Stephen since the whole fiasco debate with Dyson.
Rule #1: Avoid listening to anything Jordan Peterson says because he always lies and spreads anti semitic conspiracy theories.
Dyson* don’t disgrace the name Tyson with that buffoon.
@@TurtleChad1 Oh, come now. That's not true in the slightest. If anything, I would imagine the man is more sympathetic to pro-Jewish schools of thought than the opposite.
@@yusuffusuy4971 thnx, I didnt remember the name of that funny little man.
@@TurtleChad1 then why does Ben Shapiro like him so much?
Stephen Fry you are just an incredibly smart human. The calibre of your superiority is beyond Peterson!
I love that these two are talking to each other!
True liberalism.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 amen
There is something incredibly uplifting, inspiring and beautiful about listening to two people who (superficially) have differing political and social perspectives discussing fundamental issues, articulately, thoughtfully and with open minds. It’s the best thing I’ve seen all week and gives me a fragment of home for humanity.
“Wisdom tells me I am nothing, beauty tells me I am everything”. How wonderfully it manifests through these two. As always, incredible treat for the mind and the soul.
Big jimmy Willy woombie
@@hmu05366 He sounds like a great man!
Beautifully said. I wholeheartedly agree.
Listen you’re 100% correct. I think this everyday. We are nothing yet everything. Just like the o universe coming out of nothing going into nothing
Jungian in principle to truly understand the philosophy of Jordan Peterson is to know the life work of carl jung
I'm thankful to be able to enjoy this conversation
I love these conversations which seem to test Jordan’s arguments that bit more. Huge admiration for both of these two for very different yet very similar reasons at the same time.
If I could sit in a pub and simply listen to two people have a conversation, it would be these two.
Maybe followed closely by CS Lewis and Tolkien
If you invite then, I'll get the pints in. I think we're gonna need more crisps
If I could listen to a podcast. It would be this one.
Very deep.
@@pushthetempo2 I’ll bring a multipack......and peanuts.
Isn't that exactly what we are all (thanks to thr gift of technology and the internet) having the opportunity to do?
Minus the pub environment ~ and even better from their homes?
☆☆☆
When "long-form" discussion feels painfully short
Thank God for people like this. May the debates and conversations continue please
Hands down THE BEST episode of any podcast that I’ve ever seen. My top two philosophical and moral heroes on one screen, talking for an hour and a half! I want more!
Check out Jordan's talks with Sam Harris. Just start watching - don't pay attention to the running time of the conversations.
yes I agree. My two idols
greetings from Germany
@@linkdude64 I started watching never believing I’d finish one, and then I watched all four in one night and have rewatched them at least twice since.
I'm awestruck by Mr.Frys compassion when Dr.Peterson starts down the dark path. You can sence that in the Dr's tone. That was a beautiful moment
The dark path?
@@holyastronauts4750 Sith Lord maybe?
Sir, have I per chance missed the "Legend:", where the implied "dark path" was explained? xD
Some comments just crack me up :D
Sorry, I meant the part of the conversation where Dr.Peterson is on the brink of weeping
@@johnpetten8717 I see
I like how Peterson recapitulates his guests’ arguments. Podcasts can often get carried away without ever tying together or taking stock of what’s been said. Stopping to sum up helps prevent that.
We often under-emphasize this quality of Jordan's interview-making; unity of narrative in a conversation (2 people talking about the same thing) is always more important than expediency of conveying new information.
Unity of narrative needs to be constantly put attention to; nothing gets solved if 2 people are not even talking about the same thing.
Yes, good point.
@@mvoulgaropoulos I don't think it can..perhaps he meant encapsulate?
@@mvoulgaropoulos haha after looking it up, I realize recapitulate is what I meant. My usage was wrong 😅
This is what we need. People engaging in open, honest discussions and being willing to listen to each other to understand what is being said. Too often, people are unable to either listen, consider or disagree graciously - instead resortIng to ridicule or insult. Conversations such as these promote growth. Only talking within your comfort zones causes stagnation and polarisation.
I must say, he's getting so much better at not interrupting. What an amazing interview!
@Emil This.
@@tayzk5929 I understand, but no. Let him say all he wants to say (within reason, in good faith), otherwise we strawman him.
Patience, respect & strong counter-arguments is where common good wins, not interrupting.
Always treat a man as you want to be treated yourself
I don't think he should let claims or truisms go unchallenged in the moment as if they are fact when they require greater explanation and there's nothing wrong with interjecting to get great clarity before someone continues down the path they are going. He's not chatting with stoners after all
Especially in these last two (McGilchrist and Fry)... but part of me thinks that’s just because he respects them so deeply. What amazing interviews, back to back.
@@calgakispict3652why are you conflating challenging or asking clarification of someones point with interupting them? If anything interuptions only serve to create a less coherent and cohesive discussion . Fry was clarly a bit frustrated by being interupted and blindsided with multiple questions at once. And shitting on 'stoners' is a really weird way to drive your point home.
A nice idea would be for Stephen to be the “interviewer” in the next discussion or the one directing the discussion, as the role Jordan played in this one
What would be the point? Jordan behaves exactly as though he's the one being interviewed by going on and on about his own views.
Or maybe Jordan should stop trying to direct the discussion so strictly.
@@katarinahinsey3931 It was not an interview it was a discussion, that's what people do in a discussion.
@@LiamPorterFilms I don't think he is directing it he is just trying to connect the different strands of the conversation together
Hmm, not sure how that would go. I think some ability to rein things in and impose parameters to the conversation, which Jordan supplies, is valuable to this kind of discussion, when you only have an hour-and-a-half. Which isn't to imply that Fry isn't extremely interesting to listen to, because he is, but if he were leading the conversation, things might ramble very far from wherever they began, and you'd hear a lot of interesting tidbits, but it might all be a bit, eh, free association....
In watching this I can no longer see a difference in sharpness and brilliance between who Jordan was and who he is today. It is so wonderful to see you back. And if there is any of your former self yet to reclaim know that even as you are now you shine indistinguishablably as bright
Are you serious ? Go look at his older videos. He still struggles to recite words and has to keep a script next to him. The conversations sound very robotic as it seems hard for him to think of what to say and how to say it.
@@ashcosmo3854 Watch Jordan's recent 'sofa chats' with his daughter, where have you seen him look at notes because of needing mental prompts, are they hidden below camera, is it just his home shows?
Lets take you seriously then Ash; One would like to interview a man of international renown (through merit of decades contribution to the various arts), and welcomed as an intellectual by our intellectual societies.... and one should not prepare notes of some kind, or take seconds to consider each specific point in order to give meaning to a reply or improve chances of understanding in the listener.
Jordan may himself admit to not being back to 100%, but if he nearly died for a year, and his wife nearly died for a year before that, isnt 90-95% just like 100% in the eyes of some of his fans (or his family!, or him)? This is exactly what ASlaveToReason is implying, and I agree. How many nearly dead people have you known to cause Stephen Fry pause, erm and um with their questions?
I believe Jordan is looking out of his window, he also has a screen in front of him and can get info off the net or from files as any of us might to enrich a discussion.
@@blim76 I'm not talking about Sofa chats. You have cherry picked something to try and further better your narrative. I'm talking about his talks with intellectuals. Do you see any of his guests looking at notes and talking in a monotone dialogue ?
He's not doing well. This isn't a personal attack but you can tell from how emotional he gets when talking about death and end of life philosophies. I've never seen Jordan have to read from a script even in his university work. He has notes at his uni talks sure but after glancing for a couple of seconds he can talk for the next 20 minutes unscripted.
He's now constantly reading off another screen trying to fumble the words to say. He should really be making the world aware of benzo damage and withdrawel instead of pushing it under the rug when it's so evidentially apparent he has suffered quite severe damage.
I would love a Fry and Jordan discussion on a regular basis, two great humans whom I have a lot of love and respect for.
Fry's knowledge of etymology and ability to quote both prose and poetry at length is astounding.
You should meet him. He's simply stunning. His books are incredible as well. None fiction which he receives too little credit for.
Knowledge is PUFFED up 1 corinthians 8 v1
Surely Fry hasn't quoted the best, timeless parable out there. He probably missed that book, certainly avoided that book..😄😄😄
The fool says in his heart there is no God.. No matter how many titles and achievements a person has , they are nothing . One day we will all die and we have to face our Creator.
@@jamaquinabella3378 hes a god hating reprobate fits romans 1 perfectly
Jordan is looking so healthy, thank God for that. Bless him.
If you, Jordan, or anyone presents evidence of anything not physical (energy-matter-information) or dependent upon it, a Nobel Prize awaits! (along with ~ a million dollars)
That light colored suit really helps him "pop" here. Lol. But yes, I noticed a palpable & an immediate difference in his energy or emotional state with in the first few moments. Thank you Mr. Fry & Peterson. I can't help but imagine how great a new episode of A Bit of Fry & Laurie would be, with Jordan Peterson as a "guest on the couch" in conversation with Fry, as Laurie is interrupting with a piano section or addressing the audience with an instruction on how to mix the latest nonsense cocktail.
@@stevenkurtz1660 huh??
D3☀️
He has a tan and it looks really good on him.
It made me so happy that Stephen quoted G.K. Chesterton. One of the most impactful authors of my life.
Does make me respect Stephen more. Realizing that you can learn from people you disagree with is an important lesson.
I am atheist and I love JPeterson and I love GK!!!!!! (Father Brown!!!). This is just great, Jp and Stephen
@@fernandogalindo8997 I love Fr. Brown - so much humanity, gentle wit and wisdom.
There was an American bishop who used to have a television show for years for which he won several Emmy awards. He’s now up for canonization, which would be hilarious to have an Emmy award winning Saint, but he quoted Chesterton often in his shows. He was watched by millions of Americans who weren’t Catholic or even Christian.
His shows are on RUclips if you are ever interested, I highly, highly recommend the one of the threat of communism to western culture. Bear in mind his talk was 60 years ago and see how frighteningly close he got to where we are now. Bishop Fulton Sheen.
@@ohmightywez thx, off course i'll search that show :)
Good listen. At various times it did give the impression of a student (JP) talking to his Professor (SF) about some of his ideas, with the Prof gently trying to steer the student towards some wider reading and to consider more aspects of the issues that just Jung, Jung, Jung....
Stephen Fry could narrate my murder, as it happened, and I'd still be enthralled.
Labour supporter since he could vote.
Labour “the party of the people”. Hahahaha.
People who own an oyster fork.
Same goes for Attenborough
I would be even more terrified tbh
Would that make accepting ur own murder difficult? Actually No...Super Easy...
LMAO
What an extraordinary exchange between two of the most outstanding minds of our times. Entertaining and stimulating to the core. Thank you so much, Stephen and Jordan!
wow, stephen fry, one of those people whom you could listen to for hours while he talked about almost any subject, and you would never be bored. A very interesting oratory quality to him.
I agree his conversion is mesmerizing but I can see that there are so many thoughts and ideas and knowledge in his head bubbling to come out that he tends to verbally Waffle and Weave in his responses, making his thoughts more difficult to consume... This tends to be most obvious when he is speaking off the cuff, where as when he has had the opportunity to filter his thoughts into a more easily digested monologue his for of thoughts are much easier to consume, absorb and understand.
Love this man dearly but his mind is like an over full glass splashing it's contents over your mind and stopping you from consuming all of it.
reminds me a lot of jeremy clarkson lol i think they have the same accent and voice
Bro there's years of this British panel show you would like called QI
Wonderful point. Peterson's style is not pleasant listening.for me. I can only do small bites....😊🙄
Really. Fry if you haven’t noticed that he’s does lots of talking to no point. He just says lots of words and drops names 😆
I am a 51-year-old man.. Stephen Fry was and is an utter hero of mine. When I was studying for A- levels he was an utter idol. When I was 8 years old I became obsessed with Greek mythology .. I went to my local library and drenched myself in it. And just LOVED it to a real point of utter distraction. I know ALL about it .. but when this great man wrote Mythos .. well .. amazing!
Better than any film & Stephen.. you are both Homeric & Hesodic!
Best wishes from a a scientifically minded person who’s real love is Greek mythology!
Two thoroughly decent and intelligent men. What an utter pleasure.
I respect Stephen Fry in many things but there are certain opinions of his that I do not agree with.
That being said, anytime that he is mentioned in popular culture... I pay attention.
@@AntonioSilvaToronto Couldn't agree more, so great to see these two sit down and have a conversation despite petty differences.
@@ghimbos he let JBP appear to take the lead.
Peterson’s adoption of the value of adhering to religion is interesting. His selection of Christianity specifically, is confounding. Rather than the argument from evil dispelling the idea of a benevolent god,, it seems the improbability of having selected the “correct” religion should be at least as compelling to dissuade him from his acceptance without empirical evidence. It definitely seems he is most likely an atheist but concurrently a Christian apologist because of his perspective of the better option to guide the direction of the world. The stance is somewhat ironical, because though his followers almost certainly miss this likelihood, it is his apologist characteristic combined with “anti-left” position that attracts them. To sum it up, it is a different approach to bullshitting, a highly educated, well spoken, otherwise “enlightened” Christian, adopting a somewhat anti-intellectual stance.
@@ghimbos lots. Did it leave you behind? Try and watch it again. Plenty on both sides to admire.
Holy crap if this isn't one of the greatest crossovers of all time
If I had a dollar every time when I searched jbp and fry.....well I’ll have around 10 dollars😅
Listening to Fry and Peterson discuss religion is very interesting. But reminds me of when a group of fathers sit and discuss the pains of childbirth.
Both are not people of faith, and claim no religion.
@@JDAfrica yes exactly. Same thing I feel when Sam Harris talks about spirituality they are decoupling religion and spirituality. I haven't watched fully yet. Had to go for work. But since both have a good appreciation of Jung Nietzsche I'm expecting something great
@@johnsondominic7098 I’m half way in, I think the tale of Kronos and ancient Titan legends are fascinating.
That Kronos devours his children, to stop them rising up and challenging him, and that he carstrated his own father ... man, that’s one of the best pictures of a tyrannical father.
My thoughts exactly.
Listening to Stephen Fry is comparable to when I was at school and I always willed for my teachers to go off on a tangent and share some of the most interesting things.
I love the way Fry politely questions sacrifice - Peterson’s absolute premise of his two best sellers and questions (again politely) the way he overlays myth with myth. “I’m not refuting” but his counter view is convincing. I guess because Fry represents my way of thinking I found him to be intellectually towering over this discussion, notwithstanding, I admire Peterson and love his depth. I wish them both well, this discussion was wonderful. I hope there’s more.
My exact sentiment as well. Fry managed to effectively dismantle Jordan's arguments about "symbolic truth" in the politest way possible and I'm saying this as someone who admires Jordan a lot and believes he's an extremely important voice in the world.
@@cybermike66 I agree with you both that Stephen's arguments dismantled Jordan's ideas, myself being on the more "Petersonian" side of the argument. Of course his bits about the brothers Karamazov were exactly relevant to just that point. I have to read that book someday because it must have something to do with the furthering of this same kind of relationship.
What do you both think about the bit where Jordan answers Stephen's (polite!) But slightly irritated statement about Stephen's own actions suggesting a "higher mode of being"? Perhaps even in spite of his neutrality towards transcendentalism? I think Stephen wishes he could be more empirical than he is (naturally, as Jordan seeks to be more transcendent than he is) and yet I personally can't see (yet?) how Stephen fails to be less transcendental than Jordan fails to be less empirical. Do you two have any thoughts on that?
Have to say, I feel the same way though, the conduct of both of them was perhaps the highlight of the entire thing. Jordan's talks with Harris you might both be interested in, but I found most regrettable that Harris would spend too much of his time (of which even a few minutes qualifies as, because of the value of his more unique ideas) rehashing truly tired strawmans against Jordan's positions i.e. "But Jordan you can't look into the eyes of a small, helpless, tired, beaten [three hours later] dirty, ragged, pitiable [one eternity later] cancer- ridden, crying little girl and tell her that it's God's will that she's the way she is." Going for some cheaply dramatic crowd- pleasing "slam-dunk" against Jordan - my point being that it's not that the argument is invalid (it's clearly not) but just the fact that the motivation there seemed to be both less respectful of Jordan's ability to comprehend an extremely fundamental argument against religion, and said with a kind of condescension to that end. The fact that this is absent in Stephen just makes his position as an empiricist so much more convincing, as "ego" seems to be quite out of the picture for him.
@@linkdude64 I exactly thought about the same thing when watching Jordan and Sam's 8 hours long talk. I am an atheist and was raised religious. I was ready to jump on the boat with Harris and pass this "old religious man" as Peterson was to me back then. However, the more they talked, the more I found Peterson making sense wheras Harris just kep repeating his simplistic argument based on people in absolute misery, while missing the point on many of Jordan's arguments. I didn't find him as the "legendary smart man" that people (including Jordan himself) portray of him in that talk series. So, I was left the talk siding with Jordan's idea on greatness of religion while being an atheist and a scientist who can't simply fool myself of existence of a higher supreme entity. But, Fry in this talked help me a lot to digest the inner conflict in me after that talk. I will have to listen to this at least one more time to form my personal arguments, but Jordan surely needs to sleep on this one and consider the flaws in his "absolutism" when it comes to culture, higher moral ground, religion, and definition of God.
@@linkdude64
@muinaiset Let me try to address some of your points.
1: "... I personally can't see (yet?) how Stephen fails to be less transcendental than Jordan fails to be less empirical. Do you two have any thoughts on that?"
Transcendentalism is inundated with metaphors and it's no wonder why somebody with Jordan's keen interest in symbolism would tend to gravitate towards that, but the fact that Fry is also interested in the subject does not make him more transcendental in my opinion, or vice versa. I think they both gave each other some concessions while talking in order to make the talk more productive, and that made them seem closer to each other's positions than they actually are.
There's a world of difference between acknowledging the importance of (e.g. Greek) mythology and holy scriptures and believing and acting as if they're true. Jordan has stated on numerous occasions that his religiosity is based upon acting AS IF God exists, i.e. that he believes and acts as if (that part of) the scriptures is true. Fry, on the other hand seems to find inspiration in mythology and scriptures, but doesn't elevate its meaning to some sort of symbolically encoded truth that transcends everyday life, at least not without applying a healthy dose of skepticism first.
To sum up: as I see it, Jordan believes because it gives him a sense of purpose in life (meaning), whereas Fry doesn't believe because it doesn't make sense for him to do so from his empiricist/skepticist perspective. However, I think they both agree that many mythologies and scriptures are important to know and that much can be learned from them.
2: The Harris/Peterson debates
To cut a long story short: Harris has lost the plot. He is an important thinker but his debates with Jordan could have been so much more productive if it weren't for the fact that he has become so condescending towards anyone with a different opinion to his that even his own "Making Sense" podcast has become extremely one-sided both politically and philosophically and almost impossible to listen to (at least to me). In the pre-Trump era Harris seemed much more willing to explore ideas from different perspectives, but Trump seems to have messed up his head and locked it into a sort of binary "I'm right/you're all idiots if you disagree" mode, which makes him a much less important voice today than he used to be.
These two men showcase this one idea that evades society today:
Finding common ground should be the common goal.
Can you imagine what a world these two could build if they were elected to be a prime minister? ..just imagine the parliamentary debates at question time!
The same could be same in reverse: To find a common goal, we must seek common ground.
@@warpedworks2177 very true, I'll take any progress over this horrible world we are sinking into
@@raqcem99 Which horrible world do you speak of?
@@rustinholliday2252 This world where science and common sense are being strangled to death by tribal identity politics and a corrosion of the family unit
If we all spent more time watching things like this and having conversations like this our culture would be in a much better place. Thank both of you. Well done.
No thanks. Wife Swap is where it's at!
@@holyhandgrenades5529 I miss the old Springer chant. Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
Aka depoliticising discourse
@Tw1st3dxTc not sure i understand the question. Culture itself, regardless of where it is currently at, is improved by rational discourse.
@@holyhandgrenades5529 im a fan of Donny OMalys version of that show on VetTv ;)
I could listen to Stephen Fry forever. One of the most interesting people of all time. 🦋
This podcast has an incredible variety of guests, amazing!
So happy to have found JP! Does anybody notice he seems to be looking and obviously feeling more healthy with every podcast.
Yeah, its getting better by the hour!
So grateful that there is still some gold amongst the detritus. Blessings ever from Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Gold mining with Stehen Fry is a borderline profit venture.
Well said
@@richardduplessis1090, Only if gold was worth more than gold...
@@exlibrisross Yeah, - if t had a value beyond itself.
@@richardduplessis1090 Precisely. Blessings ever from Belfast.
When you get two actual intellectuals come together,
They can actually postulate freely, its very refreshing
Spectacular conversation!
The channel admin should include a list of all the books mentioned in every podcast. That would be incredibly helpful!
I was thinking the same thing.
Indeed, had to keep pausing to make notes ^^
JBP doesn't charge for any of his content, just pause and write it down.
Love Stephen. He's a great example of a guy who is curious and thoughtful about everything. I'm always surprised at how much he knows.
It was both riveting and intimidating. Stephen can weave a narrative of literary references on almost anything; I would struggle to take a single reference, surround it with exposition and justification and make a point close to what he does.
He claims to have an eidactic memory. I believe him. He is a great human being.
@@psychcowboy1 Are you seriously going through every comment to shit on both Peterson and Fry? Man you must have a real jealousy problem 😂 unlucky feller, hope your ego isn’t too hurt.
@@psychcowboy1
How can a not smart person recognize something smart? Is that why you are asking now?
I love him
He's such a great person
The ability to entertain a thought without accepting it, is education.
Never let schooling get in the way of an education. Unfortunately faculty these days don't know the difference.
Aristotle right?
@@badlaamaurukehu Actually, some do. They are to be cherished.
It certainly leads to it.
@@daboys1941 that’s right, good catch!
This is so intellectual stimulating so much knowledge shared between Jordan and Stephen so so inspiring and I found it really quite beautiful too - i was in awe at the awakenings and realisations I was having while listening to such depth of knowledge and understanding!
Listening to discussions like this reminds me I'm only kind of smart. Smart enough to appreciate, to understand some of what they are discussing, but not being able to comprehend the realm of these ideas anywhere near their level. I don't even have this facility in my chosen profession, and I'm not bad at that. I guess it's like a high school science teacher listening to accomplished theoretical physicists. You understand the language, and can appreciate the wonder of their minds, but can't experience the discussion at their level. It is both inspiring and deeply frustrating.
Well if this level of self awareness is any indication of the direction your headed then Id say your on the right path to joining those ranks someday.
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm Thank you, I appreciate that.
Haha! Ain’t THAT the truth! My own thoughts exactly. I think myself capable of profundity of thought, then I realise I’m as thick as shit by comparison! (That means ‘very dumb’ if you’re outside of the UK!)
Exactly same feelings! Interesting isn't it
At the risk of sounding cliche, but the classic Socratic line applies here. Also, the positive end of the dunning-Kruger effect applies.
Being aware of how little you know, as opposed to deluding yourself into believing you are on ‘the same level’ as these two intellectuals; who have no doubt spent decades pondering, reading and researching these topics they’re discussing, is an indication that you’re probably more intelligent than you’re giving yourself credit for.
It's like having coffee with friends, thanks for being here for us gentlemen!
I *wish* I had friends that could have this type of convo over coffee.
@@MikeOzmun I wish I had friends
...or tequila?
I like how Jordan Peterson interviews people who have conflicting viewpoints to him, really makes the conversation more interesting
It's almost like he's trying to work out certain things in his head and so he invites on people who represent ideas that he's working out
Parson JP was preaching, as usual.... Trying so hard to advocate for Religious Myth,
and it's explanatory power and value/necessity to humanity...
Fry isn't buying it.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 and that's great. Talking to someone who thinks differently, but who you respect, is the best way to reason with your ideas
Don't worry that won't be allowed anymore real soon
@@spidaman0112 Can't stop me. I've got the strength of a successful tradition, thousands of years old.
What a lovely and meaningful conversation between two people with rich knowledge of history and literature. Both of them have the wonderful quality of simplify complex thinking into a conversation most people can grasp. This is art.