The bartender says "what can I get ya?" The metaphorical substrate of our ethos asks: Well it depends, what do you mean "what" and what do you mean "can" and what do you mean by "I" and what do you me-...
@@jackgunning He uses a lot of words to illustrate his ideas, nothing wrong with that. It’s definitely more productive than repeatedly asking if dragons or a virgin birth are real in a discussion about metaphors and analogies in relation to the Bible.
There is absolutely nothing complicated about what he's saying here. Human stories and myths reflect our development and peculiarities as a species, so they shouldn't be dismissed by an evolutionary biologist. He's not trying to say anything complicated, but Dawkins (who I have great respect and admiration for, and who I am looking forward to seeing live with Alex on Sunday) has such a bind spot that Peterson has to spell it out at great length before the penny drops. Dawkins finally gets the gist right at the end of the conversation and they actually make some headway. That it requires such great explanation to get to that point isn't really on Peterson, his point was clear very early on in the discussion. Their first discussion was a car crash and Peterson really does need to take the blame for that one, but this time Dawkins was being incredibly difficult and repeatedly (and quite rudely) blocked the conversation from making any progress.
And he said... Ummmm... *decodes smokescreen*... God revealing truth to humans is totally the same as humans evolving ideas on their own, because of... dragon stories
Feels like a scene of a movie. One of those movies when in the end you find out that the protagonist doctor was in a mental institution all the time: as a patient, not as a therapist. He wasn’t being interviewed by journalists - that was the fiction in his head - he was being evaluated by psychologists.
Here is a summary of this interaction. Alex: uses keen sense and high intelligence to distill Peterson's points into one sentence. And shows the implications of that. Dawkins: Agrees. Peterson is dragging the divine into the mundane. Peterson: Is on the defence. Well, there is no difference from the bottom going up, or the top coming down. Dawkins: checkmate. Precisely. You fail to see the difference. The floor: this has struck the core of Jordan's teachings. Peterson: unable to logic this way out. Starts rambling. I can attack you, please do not attack me. Maybe if you indulge me, we can arrive at a conclusion together. Dawkins: No. We need to stick to truth and facts. Implication: Otherwise we will arrive at the wrong conclusion. Peterson: visibly annoyed. Cannot logic out of this one. Doesn't have any facts to base his direction. Will not concede the point. Peterson: tries to obfuscate the issue by using a metaphor. Alex and Dawkins: following along. Alex and Dawkins: Jordan this doesn't make logical sense. Peterson: not happy. Is made to seem unintelligible. Video cuts out.
I find Peterson incredible difficult to watch, he obfuscates, drives you down a path to somewhere then suddenly hopes over onto another path going in a completely different direction. All the while he uses language which is complex, which takes time to digest, in short the point being made isn't clear, and just as you come to that realisation he has hoped over onto the other path and the process repeats itself. Very hard to argue against as the posts are perpetually moving... This guy is an educator?
@@glowwurm9365 And until now I deeply believed JP does this on purpose in a way that is intellectually dishonest. But this video is so completely wild that I'm beginning to think he genuinely has no idea that he's doing it.
@@Chris-im3ys jordan peterson appears to have an incredibly neurotic personality that prolly leads him to a very rigid and uncompromising view of the world, one that only he truly understands. I remember reading that a friend of freud's had an obsession with the numbers 23 and 28 and believed everything concerning men was related to 23 and everything concerning women linked in to the number 28 and this led to further research on natural rhythms; similarly, the guy who basically discovered or first isolated testosterone used to inject himself with testicular vein blood, semen and juice extracted from dog or guinea-pig testes because he believed it enhanced his mental capacity and strength, which led us to more discoveries on how testosterone played a role in the endocrine system. Even though I think Jordan Peterson is utterly insane, obsessive and most definitely on the spectrum, I think these minds are conducive to scientific advancement but not necessarily as individuals as much of the advancement comes from others making sense of the madness. I personally find him wildly entertaining but not for all the right reasons lmfao.
Well said. I really just think he's getting old and grumpy. I used to like his old videos... but IDK how this will play out. The longer he does this the more he seems like a mad man :(
don’t you get his point? dragons are real in the simple fact that their stories represent something real. and even more, it affect people. and they represent
I genuinely think this Peterson fellow is mentally ill and/or he could be the living embodiment of Collin. The engery Vampire from What we do in the Shadows.
@@daan260 Do you have a worldview where dragons are real? Because that is Peterson's worldview. Not all wordviews are equal. Some are just not true and irrational. And with not true, I mean that it does not correspond with reality.
Its kinda disappointing you didn't understand any of this and are acting smug in light of your ignorance. I expected more from Alex's audience I guess.
Isn't Richard Dawkins also not exactly fully pro trans? I wonder if Dawkins called Jordan Peterson on employing the same vague language or not, I really hope so 😅
@@danielsurvivor1372 Weirdly enough Dawkins seems to be quite anti trans. Jordan Peterson's whining about not being allowed to misgender people was the one thing Dawkins previously complimented in regards to Peterson. At least last time (I think) he spoke with Alex on this channel.
I would disagree with "Peterson stayed on topic". What he's actually doing is to dodge the question - I'll grant cleverly, and even quite interestingly at times - but he's really just rhetorically dodging the question. What he's saying implies that he does not believe in divinity - but (Speculation:) saying so openly would alienate some of his regular audience, which would be bad for books sales. Additionally, I can very much understand he does not want to be put into the "Atheist-"box. Once you're labeled as such, some doors are closed.
@TheSlazzer Well, he may not have stayed on topic but Alex in the full interview spent a lot of time cutting Jordan off and telling him to go back and answer the concrete question. And he did so seemingly without pissing JBP off, which is pretty impressive. I think Alex has really figured out how (relatively) to "separate the wheat from the chaff" when handling conversations with JPB. Not perfectly, but more than most can do.
The framing was excellent. It gated the discussion intelligently. Peterson will be Peterson, but this was one of the best moderations I've seen of him.
Really? I learned that my vegetable drawer is full of predators, since a carrot can kill you if it gets stuck in your windpipe. edit: sorry I hadn't listened to the end; a carrot is an instantiation of a dragon; must store in fireproof box
I don't get why people don't understand what he's saying. It was quite clear. He sees the neurological pathways as root for those adventure myths. What's not to understand about this?
@@grantm6933 Why don't you get what he was saying. It was pretty easy. He sees the neurological pathways as a representation of these myths. It's what makes us explore. What didn't you get?
@@EbonyPope 1. Where did I say I didn't understand what he was saying?; 2. It's irrelevant to the question asked; 3. As with practically everything he says, there was a much simpler, much more concise way of saying it.
Is he really saying little? Maybe you've heard it before but jeez he says a lot of different thoughts. He's definitely more vocal and elaborate and open about what he thinks, some people like Dawkins simply don't think like him therefore don't talk like him.
@Lyonessi Yes he is, Case in point he made a big show out of dragon being a synonym for predator, but then wanted to talk literally with a dragons specific anatomy. I work in tech, but there is a useful maxim that crosses disciplines, people who can speak simply and in common terms generally know more than people who add unnecessary words and a lot of jargon.
Fire is a predator, that is some stupid level stupidity. With this analogy. 1.Heavy Wall is a predator. 2. Knife is a predator 3. No food is a predator 4. Steel is a predator Etc.
Exactly, there is an inifinite (in practical terms) list of predators. But that is all besides the point anyways. Sure, it is a cool abstraction - that does not make it divine, unless you want to define divine as something which is a good abstraction.
Heavy Wall is object. Knife is object. No food is state of object in specific space. Steel is object. Fire is behaviour, other word that is behaviour and not object is wind. Rain is behaviour, rain is not thing, its not object. Objects do not "do". Objects "are". Heavy Wall is object in some place, space. How can it be predator? How non behaviour can make behaviour? You are not correct. Knife, the same case. Knife cant kill. You need behaviour that will use knife. For example person can take knife and kill someone, because person have behaviour. No food is claim about that "there is no food" or "I dont have food" or "Im hungry". In case of food as a object, "no food" means that there is no object named "food". But lets take it as hunger in sense of behaviour. Experience of hunger is not something that will kill you. Behaviour of "ignoring hunger" can lead to death. Steel is object, its not behaviour. It cant nothing. Word predator is behaviour. Fire OFC can eat you. Make big campfire and jump into fire... OFC do not do that. Fire can eat human body in almost literal sense. So how it cant be related/connected/simillar to predator? Peterson is correct. People who do not get it, have problems with language ( do not understadn words, meanings, symbolism... basic things about language ). Not any word is object. Fire = burning, thats it.
Y'know I'm really disappointed that JP's whole political thing is "but post-modernism bad!" while his entire theology is "but you're not thinking abstractly enough!" Is he even aware of this apparent contradiction?
I profoundly disagree with peterson. But as I see it, precisely what Peterson says is that abstract categories and human narratives are somehow real. And that their existence obeys an evolutionary and natural logic. Postmodernism, on the other hand, criticizes narratives, arguing that they are social constructs and contingent, not natural and necessary. I believe that their disagreement is not in the reality of narratives or abstract objects, but in their origin and naturalness.
@@jhodappNo, he could not. There’s nothing unclear about it. It’s clearly nonsense. He’s making an illegitimate leap from mythos and analogy to hard facts, even biological facts about the world. It is foolish. And Dawkins is sitting there with that flabbergast saying ‘I told you so.’
Dawkins believes in memes. A dragon is a meme. Dawkins believes in Dragons. Dawkins believes in memes until Peterson asks him if he believes in memes lol...
There’s a lot more to life than physical “Reality”. We’ve barely scratched the surface of the unconscious. Delving into the unconscious is not quack science, there’s something to it, it exists for a reason, it’s completely undiscovered. I don’t see why Peterson gets so much hate for delving into it. Jung, Freud, Neumann, etc all delved into it. We’re going to get to a point where we MUST delve into it if we want to go past the physical. If you had a drug induced ‘trip’ and delve into the deep and dark areas of your psyche, what makes you believe that’s any less real? That’s what I believe JBP is arguing, and it makes sense to me. You can certainly argue that he might take the interpretation of a symbol or metaphor too far, but I think one will surprised at the accuracy given his knowledge of psychology, neuroscience, evolution, religion, and symbolism.
@@justmbhman Dawkins doesn't claim that memes exist in the same way a lion does. It comes down to the definition of "existence". Does Frodo exist? As a character in stories - yes. Does he exist as a physical being within our own material world? No, the person depicted in those stories is not a real person. Frodo is a concept of a person, and that concept exists. He does not exist otherwise. Just like a dragon. A meme is a phenomenon of fast spreading and far reaching information. Does this phenomenon exist? Yes. Does this mean that is transforms concepts of beings into our own physical reality? Absolutely not. They exist - but in fantasy, not in reality. That's the distinction Peterson can't somehow grasp.
@@AJ-gk7bn There are no laws controlling speech regarding pronouns. The bill Peterson protested against never even indicated someone could receive legal sanctions for not using someone’s preferred pronouns.
@@VeronicaMxoxo Literally completely irrelevant. I don’t think what you said is accurate but even if it was it’s completely beside the point. Peterson was reasonably under the impression that it compeled speech and has said many times that would be the only reason he wouldn’t refer to someone by their preference pronouns. So again, that didn’t address my previous comment at all.
Waiter: Can I get any desserts for the table? Peterson: I would like an ice cream sundae. Waiter: Sorry, sir, we don’t serve that one. Peterson: But you just asked if I wanted dessert. Waiter: sorry, yes, I just mean that we don’t have that particular dessert. We have others, but not that one. Peterson: What is an ice cream sundae if not the imagistic representation of dessert? If you have dessert in what way do not have an ice cream sundae? Waiter: In the way that we don’t have it…? But we do have cheesecake and cherry pie… Peterson: (interrupting) but why not abstract it? You have pie and cake and probably custard. What’s the relevant image? *Dessert as such*. What’s the image of that? The ice cream sundae that never runs out. And then there’s a cool twist on that, it’s so interesting - hot fudge! Alex: Wait: the sundae is a pictorial representation of the abstract concept of dessert? Peterson: Yes. Alex: But they have pie. Abstraction might be useful in art, but - you can’t eat an abstraction. Peterson: (holds up menu) We had the image long before we had the dessert. Alex: …sure, but - Peterson: look, if you want identify a particular class of dessert, well then pie is a good term. Waiter: does that mean you’ll be having the pie? Alex: Would you say that pie is an instantiation of the term dessert? Peterson: (gnawing menu) Yes! Waiter: Are you answering me, or…? Alex: Would you also say that pie is an instantiation of the term “ice cream sundae?” Peterson: Yes! YES! It actually matters to us if we eat delicious confections! Dawkins: Fuckin ell mate. I’ll ave me a roit cut o’ pie.
I think you have cracked the code. That made about as much sense as what Peterson actually said. It was like a Mad-Lib. Same formula with different key words. Kinda scary when you think about it.
Yep. He's gotten himself tangled in knots and is terrified of alienating sections of his fanbase. He's lost any objectivity in debate which is a bit of a stinker when that's what you are showing up for.
Confirmed: all inanimate falling objects of suficient size and mass are now catigorised as predators. Coconuts and pianos included. Together with deathcap mushrooms and any other chemical molecule or element which is poisenous or venemous to us. ... when words lose all their meaning 🤦♂️
It sounds absurd but his line of reasoning was perhaps he was collecting all characteristics of a dragon, one by one, and comparing them against predators to eventually conclude that the dragon is an ultimate predator that in all ways is predator-like.
I mean, fire doesn't just kill you, it spreads and, if hot enough, consumes you. We measure our energy consumption in calories, and we do the same for fire. He probably would have been better placed if he described fire as the ultimate weapon instead, but I think its not a massively unreasonable statement to make in the context of what he was saying
Peterson does my head in these days. How anybody can use that many words and be so verbose without actually saying anything is quite impressive though I guess 😂 dude is a waffler
@@Common_Mansplaining Nah, Peterson just likes droning on and on with esoteric vocabulary, obscure metaphors, and equivocating different definitions of the same word when a simple, straightforward sentence would've done better.
@@Common_Mansplaining What he is saying is quite simple, he just yaps and imagines he is saying something very complex. Hell, alex manages to sum up his long rant as a couple of sentences at the end. JP drags the topic around to 500 different places with no coherency, with no point or direction, with no concluding point. Then when others ask what his point is, he engages in another long ramble... I used to work with people that have brain damage and degenerative illnesses and he talks exactly like them. Its sad really, he wasn't always like this.
Sun Tzu once stated, "The most effective strategy to bewilder your opponent is to create uncertainty within yourself." This idea highlights the complexity of strategic thinking in conflict. When you’re unsure about your own plans and intentions, it not only disorients you but can also lead your adversary to second-guess their moves. In my view, this emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and clarity in one's goals. By cultivating a deep understanding of our own motivations and strategies, we can better anticipate and counter the actions of others. Ultimately, clarity within oneself is a powerful tool in the game of strategy.
This was utterly pointless. We gotta stop platforming JP now. It was cute in the beginning. Now it’s just annoying. RD is asking a point blank yes or no question and JP is obviously dodging. ✌️
He’s so different now to what he was a few years ago. His original lecture series was very interesting and he was a good listen for a while. He’s absolutely repetitive and obtuse now. I have had to turn him off every time I hear him now for the last 5 years. His podcast usually involves him talking more than any of his guests.
it's a 2 hour long philosophical podcast. You want a 1 sec video of a question and a yes or no answer? you're at the wrong spot buddy. Besides, JP is leading the platform you're talking about.
@@Matzesexactly , I think it’s a very very emotionally charged subject for him and thus can’t think rationally. You can see that his subjective experience of confronting the dragon ie jungian shadow is very important to him
@@glennthompson1971 I think Predator would spot the hot air long before and realise JP wasn’t worthy prey. Alien though might be a problem, there could be Alien/JP hybrids that bored us to death before boring into our bodies.
@staceyvanier15 He actually says a lot. If you listen to his lectures and some of his older Q&As, you will find a lot of useful ideas there. Like any other human however, he does say weird/incoherent things from time to time, and some of his political ideas might not appeal to you, but that doesn't resume all of his speech to "nothing at all".
JP is so obnoxious. Every time he gets backed into a corner (which is often when he's not talking to someone not as skilled in debating), he gets very melodramatic and evasive. Yet people somehow read that as him being open minded and willing to engage. I'm telling you, that's not what he's doing. Since becoming a celebrity, he's honed the craft of being a showman. If you don't see it, then you're just another audience member in his show.
its incredible that you cannot comprehend JP and instead of trying to, just assert your lack of comprehension ability as a flaw in him lol. But then again this whole comment section is full of people asserting the same thing without understanding the actual subject matter.
@@Bizarre-Clips you know you can understand somebody and still find them ridiculous right? Understanding somebody does not necessarily mean that you won't laugh at them.
*Well, think about it! They're real, biologically, or they were, so what is a dragon? IT'S AN IMAGISTIC REPRESENTATION OF A DINOSAUR plus some other predatory symbols sprinkled in, so how can you say dragons aren't real, it's like, I think LOOK! A DINOSAUR LEAVES A FOOTPRINT! WHAT IS THE FOOTPRINT? IT'S A MEMORY. AND DRAGONS ARE IN YOUR MEMORY, so it's complicated!*
I watched some Jordan Peterson's videos some time ago and there was something they all had in common: my knowledge before and after watching them was the same. It's like I have been listening to a white noise. It really made me question my own intelligence.
I just can’t get away with Petersen’s delivery. His voice is grating, combining a high pitch with over excitement. More than that, however, if you listen carefully to what he says he doesn’t really present arguments, he tends just to repeat what’s just been said to him, and then ask what do you mean by it?
Like any good magician, he dazzles you with wavy hands and fancy words however unlike a magician looking to entertain you, JP's use of the metaphorical substrate is meant to rob you of your ability to care about living. He needs you as depressed as he feels. If you don't come along, the waterworks start.
@@Kris.G I've kept thinking and have come to the conclusion that I'm surrounded by predators, since I can be killed by virtually anything. Even a chair. The chair I'm sitting in is a predator. EVERYTHING IS A PREDATOR.
@@Kris.G There is this video of him arguing that lying is inherently bad, and every lie is evil. He is then asked if it is good or bad to lie in the face of a nazi officer who's at your doorstep when you have Anne Frank hidden in your attic. I'm sure I don't have to spell out the ethical answer here, but Peterson, presumably realizing he has idiotically talked himself into a corner yet still remaining unwilling to concede in his opinion, then just completely evades the question and starts rambling about the fall of a society. I've reached the point where you are now after seeing that video, it's honestly awkward to watch.
In the context of the conversation they’re talking about metaphorical meaning and he was trying to say that a dragon is the ultimate symbol of danger. A lizard like creature that can fly and breathes fire. I’m more akin to Dawkins in my thinking. I think Peterson has backed himself in a corner with religion in an attempt to gain a conservative following but I think he does make some good points about the nature of religious texts.
“very well put” haha that is exactly why he uploaded this clip. Alex wanted to immortalize, on his channel, praise from such a great man. You are doing awesome things Alex, keep it up!
This particular segment could have been titled "Peterson vs Dawkins patience". One would think that the exchange of differing ideas is what ultimately takes time and effort, not trying to follow Dr. Petersons troubled euphoric cavalcade of arguments and explanations.
@@estellesstories7467 You could say the opposite: 1) It took 1.5 hours for Peterson to see the connection between memes and archetypes. He kept trying, Dawkins wouldn't budge. That's a lot of patience from Peterson. Incoherencies 2) Memes exist. "Dragon" is a meme. It's incoherent for Dawkins to believe in memes but not Dragons. 3) Dawkins believes religions are meme-systems. He also believes memes that survive, survive because they're adaptive. Given how long religion has lasted, he should believe religions are HIGHLY ADAPTIVE memes, but he thinks Religion is useless. Incoherent! 4) Dawkins attacks Peterson on his symbol usage. He acts like symbols/metaphor say nothing TRUE about reality. He does this, ALL while wearing a tie he CHOSE because it symbolized something true about reality (his valuing of science). 5) Dawkins is a biologist, so he does math right? Math is done with symbols. Math works because: SYMBOLS reflect REALITY. When Peterson uses symbols for religion, he's "drunk" but when Dawkins uses symbols for math he's "advancing science?" Imagine if Peterson said "Well it's like, these mathematicians talking imaginary numbers, they are drunk!" What would happen is Peterson would look like a clown, but when Dawkins (knowing no relevant literature) says "You're drunk on symbols", everybody cheers? You prolly won't respond to this, but anyway, I'd love to hear how Peterson is incoherent :)
*Well, hang on now. Tea, that's from the East. They use it traditionally for the caffeine. Now, that's a drug. It's woven into Eastern mythology and religious practice. You think that's coincidence? You think those metaphysical beings aren't REAL? THEY'RE REAL IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE CAFFEINE IS REAL!* -Um... so you want tea? *Well, just a minute! What about the other one? You're talking about coffee, so let's talk about coffee! It's AFRICAN. It's AFRICAN. Where did humans evolve? AFRICA. You think that those beans, and they're not beans, biologically, but metaphorically they are... they... it's complicated, okay?! IT'S BLOODY COMPLICATED!*
JP: "I'll have the tea....the dragon will have the coffee...unless by tea U mean that which can only be drank at teatime in which case "time" must be the metaphoric substrate in which a mythical fire-breathing creature can be considered to operate since high doses of caffeine is the required catalyst for a hyperactive dragon to NOT burn itself ...o shit.....is it green, black or oolong tea and is the coffee instant or brewed...?....Wait.... What was your question again R.Dawkins: (quietly sips his tea while pondering how he got pulled into a one way monologue by an insane person) 😂
These days when Jordan Peterson speaks I'm reminded of the scene from Big Bang Theory where Penny exclaims to Sheldon "Oh my god, you're about to jibber jabber about jibber jabber".
OOF. Your point is that Peterson "word salads" right? You realize that "jibber jabber" means "advanced physics that Penny can't grasp" right? Those who don't believe in Dragons end up burning themselves in the end huh?
I don't see how religious people don't see these type of discussion as insulting... I mean he is basically arguing that God is a psychological artifact just like any other symbol that humans had come up with. And his dragon comparisson is actually quite useful... Like, what does it say about religion and the existence of God. If he defends the existence of God and the divine just as much as he defends the existence of dragons and other mythological creatures. As useful symbols for humans. Do you really want this person defending your religion? Do you want the existence of God to be defended in the same level as the existence of dragons and faires is defended? On the same terms?
Because religious ppl. NOW that our idea of god is a psychological artifact. Really, Athanasius of Alexandria and Irenaeus had great a many takes just about that. And their work FORM the basis of the Catholic Church.
@@Domn879 I understand that anything can be abstracted to anything else, but I guess I'm not clear on what his point was, apart from the usual Jungian nonsense.
@@Domn879it's really frustrating because people genuinely seem to think Peterson is saying that because these stories seem to reflect reality pretty well and they would have been beneficial to human flourishing then that means he's saying literal dragons existed. It really is a level of analysis problem
But JP does seem to beat around the bush but like he said not many people know both literatures so it's hard to word it especially to someone who's main field is evolutionary biology half the time he just refuses to engage which is a pretty tough spot to be in when your trying to explain something
@@Domn879 Fire can be harmful, this is not sufficient to be classified as a predator. When we use the term predator we mean animal/agent that consciously preys. This is the exact problem with the endless abstractions of terms that anything can mean anything therefore nothing has meaning. You highlighted the pitfall perfectly.
you don't think he's dishonest? Have you never seen him talk? The clown spews utterly ridiculous lies like you can't quit smoking without doing drugs and having a religious experience.... he always dodges the point being made with loads of nonsense....
I think you can "win" public debates by monopolizing the limited time. And I do think it's dishonest if you are trying to find truth instead of just win.
I get Peterson now. He’s really intelligent but can’t tell reality from fiction. He seems to think that a thought is the same as reality. Basically he’s insane.
@@redmed10 You can be simultaneously intelligent and irrational. Alternatively you could argue that he is making a lot of money from using his tactics of confusion to make bad arguments for stupid things sound like good arguments for stupid things. So maybe he doesn't actually believe the crap that he's saying at all.
i don't think he is reciting what he has read so much as assimilating what he has read in a way that suits him...but it boils down to, " i have read something you haven't read, so i know something that you don't know....therefore, i am right....
After watching this, I’m 1000% convinced Jordan speaks to hear himself talk. Analogies or even deep messaging behind fairytales can say a lot about reality but that obviously doesn’t make them real
Every time I watch Peterson I find myself wondering why he gets so defensive. Like at 2:52 Richard calmly asks whether an analogy is the same as the reality and then Peterson seems to go full psycho with "THAT's WHY I'D LIKE YOUR OPINION ON IT!" Takes him a while to calm down too.
@@incertosage It feels more like yearning than defensiveness to me. It can _look_ pretty aggressive which can be easily misinterpreted as hostile aggression -thus defensiveness- but there is too much respect, vulnerability in the arguments and open-mindedness to be just plain insecurity in my eyes
@@MasacoteSenpai If he was "yearning" say for knowledge or insight, he would respond to the question being asked and not deflect. It is in fact a defense mechanism. When he's being asked about the if he thinks analogy is equivalent to reality, it's clear he's being asked if he thinks dragons are literally real. There's a very simple, succinct answer to give, but he just won't do it.
I regretfully think he has brain damage from the benzo treatment and coma. He’s not the same Peterson who was preaching to lost boys and went viral putting Cathy Newman in her place. It’s like he regressed back to his early “maps of meaning” work but with a kind of deranged headspace.
I beg of you Alex, stop wasting your intelligence on JP. Seriously, there are so many other people you could talk to that would give you and us valuable information and knowledge. You, Sam Harria and Matt Dillahunty have done a great job of exposing JP's ridiculous arguments for the divine, but I feel like it's enough and now it's just a waste of everyone's time.
Have to agree here, if JP wasn't a name that brought in views I doubt anyone would waste their time on him. There must be others we can engage with instead of this guy
What did Jordan Peterson just say? sounds like word salad to me, not trying to insult Jordan here, but it would be nice if he could simplify it so that everyone can understand what he's saying.
@@JudeMalachi But it was untenable, by being completely off- topic. The question was basically (my brief interpretation) Inspired knowledge (Bible, Koran, etc, inspired by the word of God, and therefore absolute) vs gathered knowledge (knowledge gained over time from discussion and agreement from various parties). He basically went on a tangent about how sharing ideas is good. He talks a lot I think to avoid being pinned down on what he actually believes, risking alienation of his current fan base. I've been listening to Jordan for years, think he has some great insight into how one should live their life. He changed IMO when he joined the Daily Wire team, with an "agenda". How can you take his discussions on deep cosmological nature of god stuff (where you can't even get a yes/no answer from him on Jesus's resurrection), with his outright lunacy over Ellen/Elliot Page? He basically says there are no clear answers to anything, but for THAT, very clear.
You clearly didn't understand or you purposely don't wan't to understand that Peterson was trying to politely warn Dawkins that he can come down on his level and apply his childish "gotcha" moments because the conversation was purely intended from Petersons side to explain his view as clearly as possible on a level that Dawkins can understand and to actually engage Dawkins in the conversation. But no, the old buck clearly lacks the intelect to obtain such a conversation and instead was brutally direct with his childish "I'm right you're wrong" answers without even trying to understand what Jordan was trying to say.
Anyone who has spent time around those with schizoaffective disorders might be familiar with these kinds of episodes. They can be caused by chemical dopamine dysfunction or dysregulation. People suffering from it make connections in their minds, ones that might be completely irrational, which are then reinforced by a dopamine imbalance. Like a machine learning model with the reinforcement controls set to something far too lenient. I would not be surprised if Jordan has "fried" his brain. It certainly seems like it. And I also wouldn't be surprised if he truly believes he is making profound and accurate statements.
Sums up the nature of this discussion. JP - 'well maybe. It's complicated. It that not also a thing? It depends on how you look at it.' Dawkins - 'no' One man is digging for grey areas to help his point make sense. One is succinct and interested in answers. JP has jumped the shark. I'm pretty sure we'll get the news that he's had a mental break in the next few years. His mind is all over the place.
@@kevtb874I think Dawkins is right when he says that JP is "drunk on symbols." Eventually he got somewhere but with a lot of necessary help, lol. So yeah, since he stopped teaching psychology at the University of Toronto he's kind of let himself go it seems, from what I know. I was thinking that the clip I time-stamped could be a good meme format. My caption might be something like: "What it's like to have a conversation with me while I'm utterly wasted."
Because he confuse people. Like his serpent story in Israel and how erecting the serpent head stopped snake from attacking. And he gave seriously powerful interpretation of how it's relates to eating poison to be saved from poison. But he will never interpret people who worship thunder god or volcano like that.we can basically change snake with volcano and come to same interpretation. I understand how his viewers got awed by that statement in vaccum. But more likely interpretation is of submission to the thing that is god . Peterson says entire narrative of bible is that of sacrifice but it's more about submission. Like how who doesn't believe him goes to hell. And this interpretation fit as well and more likely in my view
It's always the same thing with Peterson: arguing that, because metaphors have cultural, behavioral, and personal relevance, they are indistinguishable from reality. Why is it so hard for him to see the distinction between reality and metaphor? The world may never know
Having heard his lectures on the importance of learning to play with others many years ago, I’m disappointed to see Peterson so reluctant to “play” with Dawkins and O’Conner in this interview. He just seems so desperate to have someone listen to his analyses and interpretations of meaning that he never really responds to someone else’s conversational points.
![Yeat & Summrs - GO2WORK [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NEFEwfPcXRA/mqdefault.jpg)
Peterson: "There's a lot of ways this conversation could become derailed."
Peterson: "Here's one you never saw coming."
You made me literally laugh out loud.
What a schmuck.
Best comment I have seen in months 😂 literally tears in my eyes from laughing! Thank you!
@@keithschlegel5123 Peace.
@@Artisten There's a lot more nonsense where that came from! The full conversation is on Peterson's channel, if you're up to the challenge.
hahahahahaha awesome comment
The metaphorical substrate of our ethos walked into a bar...
Lmao 😂
The bartender says "what can I get ya?"
The metaphorical substrate of our ethos asks: Well it depends, what do you mean "what" and what do you mean "can" and what do you mean by "I" and what do you me-...
This made me spit my ethos out
@@truthserum3050I'm pretty sure he'd order spirits.
i just flushed a metaphorical substrate of my ethos down the toilet, it didnt float, neither does anything peterson says these days,
"The best way to confuse your enemy is to confuse yourself" - Sun Tzu
😂💯
Why do I know you're talking about Peterson without even starting the video?
Brilliant, sums his rambling up.
JP is following LOL
Hehehehe
"Sometimes I'll start a sentence and I don't even know where is it going..." - Michael Scott
"never do any thing, to anyone, ever...for any reason"...-Michael Scott
Experts make complicated ideas seem simple. Charlatans make simple ideas seem complicated.
I wonder which part of this you found so complicated.
@@postmodernerkindergartner960 oh cmon peterson is the king of word salads
perfectly put. thank you.
@@jackgunning He uses a lot of words to illustrate his ideas, nothing wrong with that. It’s definitely more productive than repeatedly asking if dragons or a virgin birth are real in a discussion about metaphors and analogies in relation to the Bible.
There is absolutely nothing complicated about what he's saying here. Human stories and myths reflect our development and peculiarities as a species, so they shouldn't be dismissed by an evolutionary biologist. He's not trying to say anything complicated, but Dawkins (who I have great respect and admiration for, and who I am looking forward to seeing live with Alex on Sunday) has such a bind spot that Peterson has to spell it out at great length before the penny drops. Dawkins finally gets the gist right at the end of the conversation and they actually make some headway. That it requires such great explanation to get to that point isn't really on Peterson, his point was clear very early on in the discussion.
Their first discussion was a car crash and Peterson really does need to take the blame for that one, but this time Dawkins was being incredibly difficult and repeatedly (and quite rudely) blocked the conversation from making any progress.
TIMESTAMPS
0:44 - JP begins to speak
10:20 - JP ceases to speak
lmaoooooooo
It's absolutely exhausting.
😅😂
And he said... Ummmm... *decodes smokescreen*... God revealing truth to humans is totally the same as humans evolving ideas on their own, because of... dragon stories
Alex chose to upload a clip where JP was explaining something about his world view. I don't see the problem
Didn't expect JP to start playing D&D in the middle of this discussion.
When JP speaks, one must expect anything and everything.. apart from conciseness, that is.
What algnment does his character have?
@@arthurmee Chaotic Chaotic
Then you have never heard him speak
What's JP's religion modifier?
I think Peterson has lost it…… is he taking his medication.
lost what
@@postmodernerkindergartner960 a) His car keys b) His wallet c) His mind d) His passwords. You can ask the audience or phone a friend.
His marbles@@postmodernerkindergartner960
@@postmodernerkindergartner960 the metaphorical substrate of his ethos
@@postmodernerkindergartner960it
Things I learned today:
- Fire is a predator.
- It's complicated.
There’s treasure
He's kinda right tho
@@fodolocraigo8426 Air has killed people too
@@fodolocraigo8426 water kills people too. Is water a predator?
@@colemantrebor1610 missing the point. Saying the dragon was a combination of many themes to be a predator
To this day, I have never seen someone convey as little information using as many words as Jordan Peterson do.
deepak chopra?
It’s actually an incredible talent that offers absolutely no value to humanity as a whole as far as I can tell.
Kamala harris
Russell Brand has to be up there.
it's probably because you can't decipher words like other normal human being?
Feels like a scene of a movie. One of those movies when in the end you find out that the protagonist doctor was in a mental institution all the time: as a patient, not as a therapist. He wasn’t being interviewed by journalists - that was the fiction in his head - he was being evaluated by psychologists.
LOL!!!!
😂😂😂
He is somewhat Pythonesque.
Nice, this narrative made the crazy ranting bearable....even funny in spots.
What movie has a scene like that? I want to watch it now
Here is a summary of this interaction.
Alex: uses keen sense and high intelligence to distill Peterson's points into one sentence. And shows the implications of that.
Dawkins: Agrees. Peterson is dragging the divine into the mundane.
Peterson: Is on the defence. Well, there is no difference from the bottom going up, or the top coming down.
Dawkins: checkmate. Precisely. You fail to see the difference.
The floor: this has struck the core of Jordan's teachings.
Peterson: unable to logic this way out. Starts rambling. I can attack you, please do not attack me. Maybe if you indulge me, we can arrive at a conclusion together.
Dawkins: No. We need to stick to truth and facts.
Implication: Otherwise we will arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Peterson: visibly annoyed. Cannot logic out of this one. Doesn't have any facts to base his direction. Will not concede the point.
Peterson: tries to obfuscate the issue by using a metaphor.
Alex and Dawkins: following along.
Alex and Dawkins: Jordan this doesn't make logical sense.
Peterson: not happy. Is made to seem unintelligible. Video cuts out.
I find Peterson incredible difficult to watch, he obfuscates, drives you down a path to somewhere then suddenly hopes over onto another path going in a completely different direction.
All the while he uses language which is complex, which takes time to digest, in short the point being made isn't clear, and just as you come to that realisation he has hoped over onto the other path and the process repeats itself. Very hard to argue against as the posts are perpetually moving...
This guy is an educator?
@@glowwurm9365 And until now I deeply believed JP does this on purpose in a way that is intellectually dishonest. But this video is so completely wild that I'm beginning to think he genuinely has no idea that he's doing it.
@@Chris-im3ys jordan peterson appears to have an incredibly neurotic personality that prolly leads him to a very rigid and uncompromising view of the world, one that only he truly understands. I remember reading that a friend of freud's had an obsession with the numbers 23 and 28 and believed everything concerning men was related to 23 and everything concerning women linked in to the number 28 and this led to further research on natural rhythms; similarly, the guy who basically discovered or first isolated testosterone used to inject himself with testicular vein blood, semen and juice extracted from dog or guinea-pig testes because he believed it enhanced his mental capacity and strength, which led us to more discoveries on how testosterone played a role in the endocrine system. Even though I think Jordan Peterson is utterly insane, obsessive and most definitely on the spectrum, I think these minds are conducive to scientific advancement but not necessarily as individuals as much of the advancement comes from others making sense of the madness. I personally find him wildly entertaining but not for all the right reasons lmfao.
Well said. I really just think he's getting old and grumpy. I used to like his old videos... but IDK how this will play out. The longer he does this the more he seems like a mad man :(
@userJohnSmith
Dawkings "I am interested in what is real."
Peterson "But dragons though."
@@claudiusii2863 dragons are pretty cool tho
Peterson could be very fun to play DnD with
Jordo doesn't know what to do when someone doesn't want to engage in a metaphorical circle jerk.
@@krzesio11 “well what do we mean by “you rolled a 1” what is a 1 metaphysically speaking”
don’t you get his point? dragons are real in the simple fact that their stories represent something real. and even more, it affect people.
and they represent
"IF PREDATOR IS REAL, IN WHAT WAY ISN'T DRAGON REAL?" Dumbledore asked calmly
I genuinely think this Peterson fellow is mentally ill and/or he could be the living embodiment of Collin. The engery Vampire from What we do in the Shadows.
@@AlucardArik because you don't understand that Peterson has a different worldview. Not everyone is a materialist. I know, shocking.
@@daan260 I think we understand he's full of bs.✔👈
@@daan260Aaah. Peterson isn't aware that he exists within the same physical reality as the rest of us, you say?
Got you. Cool.
@@daan260 Do you have a worldview where dragons are real? Because that is Peterson's worldview.
Not all wordviews are equal. Some are just not true and irrational. And with not true, I mean that it does not correspond with reality.
Real footage of my 3 brain cells when I’m thinking in the shower:
I love you
The best comment here
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
Wow.. Dawkins makes Peterson make himself look stupid whilst barely having to speak.
Are you for real, Jordan answered exactly how I’d might answer, whereas all Dawkins can do is say “no bc logic”
@@jacksonelmore6227 Absolutely. “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” G. K Chesterton.
@@jacksonelmore6227 You can barely string a sentence together, so I'm not surprised whose side you're on lol
@@Zoomo2697 cute quote
Fashionable quote
@@MissBlennerhassett876 you’re salty 🧂🥨 Peterson breaks the egos of intellectuals
I get it now, Alex's moustache is *our* dragon
So you're saying Alex's mustache is fire?
Nope, it’s actually complicated than that
There's an eternal treasure there
Loll
@@Dagh1 Alex's mustache is the metaphorical substrate of fire.
This is Jordan Peterson, sober, so can you imagine what he would sound like following a huge bong rip?
I laughed
1 cider deep
@@j8000 A Yard of Cider?
My preference would be acid.
😂
Props to Alex and Dawkins for keeping a straight face through this
Especially richard. He was just looking wide eyed at peterson waiting for him him blow himself out.
I could detect they were struggling.
Its kinda disappointing you didn't understand any of this and are acting smug in light of your ignorance. I expected more from Alex's audience I guess.
@@ivantsachev2520 Nobody understood any of this, not even JP himself.
@@Andre_XX You sure you're not projecting a little bit? Don't worry I'll hold your hand.
King of the Word Salad
At least you recognize that you don't understand.
@@jimangela4589 ok triggered 😂😂😂
JP sounds like a nervous wreck. Hysterical.
@@jimangela4589if you understood what he was saying you would realize that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about
@@hp9351 by all means, explain what he gets wrong. I don't mean a difference of opinion. What is JP wrong on.
Jordan: Trans women are not female, they are biologically male.
Also Jordan: Fire kills you, therefore it is a predator and dragons are real.
Lol. FR.
That someone didn’t say “fire doesn’t consciously seek you out” is unfortunate.
Isn't Richard Dawkins also not exactly fully pro trans?
I wonder if Dawkins called Jordan Peterson on employing the same vague language or not, I really hope so 😅
…he believes in magic 😂
@@danielsurvivor1372 Weirdly enough Dawkins seems to be quite anti trans. Jordan Peterson's whining about not being allowed to misgender people was the one thing Dawkins previously complimented in regards to Peterson. At least last time (I think) he spoke with Alex on this channel.
JP activated that "yap" card and did not let up.
He has a very irritating voice and he isn't afraid of using it to his advantage.
@@janegardener1662 Literally old Eric Cartman
omg 100% what I was thinking lmfao
He just wont stop yapping it's so exhausting to watch ugh
Is he on speed or just mental ?
@@julianshepherd2038 Yes
You did a great job at moderating the debate. You were very impartial and made sure Jordan stayed on topic (which is quite hard😂).
I would disagree with "Peterson stayed on topic". What he's actually doing is to dodge the question - I'll grant cleverly, and even quite interestingly at times - but he's really just rhetorically dodging the question. What he's saying implies that he does not believe in divinity - but (Speculation:) saying so openly would alienate some of his regular audience, which would be bad for books sales. Additionally, I can very much understand he does not want to be put into the "Atheist-"box. Once you're labeled as such, some doors are closed.
@TheSlazzer Well, he may not have stayed on topic but Alex in the full interview spent a lot of time cutting Jordan off and telling him to go back and answer the concrete question. And he did so seemingly without pissing JBP off, which is pretty impressive. I think Alex has really figured out how (relatively) to "separate the wheat from the chaff" when handling conversations with JPB. Not perfectly, but more than most can do.
@@TheSlazzer Oh, that was on topic for Peterson. Usually he tends to go off tangent and just ramble😂
The framing was excellent. It gated the discussion intelligently. Peterson will be Peterson, but this was one of the best moderations I've seen of him.
So nice to see two intellectuals in a thoughtful discussion. I guess it's nice that Peterson is there too.
I have no more information after watching this than I did when I started.
Really? I learned that my vegetable drawer is full of predators, since a carrot can kill you if it gets stuck in your windpipe.
edit: sorry I hadn't listened to the end; a carrot is an instantiation of a dragon; must store in fireproof box
I learned that Peterson is a raving lunatic.
I found out that I will never want to listen to Peterson again.
well yeah if you are too dumb to understand any of it of course you wont learn anything lol
Cool. I have less.
I can't get past Peterson's bombastic approach. Meanwhile Prof Dawkins is "wtf he saying?"
All he does is vomit a thesaurus
I don't get why people don't understand what he's saying. It was quite clear. He sees the neurological pathways as root for those adventure myths. What's not to understand about this?
@@grantm6933 Why don't you get what he was saying. It was pretty easy. He sees the neurological pathways as a representation of these myths. It's what makes us explore. What didn't you get?
@@EbonyPope whats that to do with it being devine
@@EbonyPope 1. Where did I say I didn't understand what he was saying?; 2. It's irrelevant to the question asked; 3. As with practically everything he says, there was a much simpler, much more concise way of saying it.
Amazing to see how little Peterson says with all those words.
10 minutes to say something that could take a couple sentences
youre just too breindead to understand , dont blame him
It's his greatest skill.
Is he really saying little?
Maybe you've heard it before but jeez he says a lot of different thoughts.
He's definitely more vocal and elaborate and open about what he thinks, some people like Dawkins simply don't think like him therefore don't talk like him.
@Lyonessi Yes he is,
Case in point he made a big show out of dragon being a synonym for predator, but then wanted to talk literally with a dragons specific anatomy.
I work in tech, but there is a useful maxim that crosses disciplines, people who can speak simply and in common terms generally know more than people who add unnecessary words and a lot of jargon.
Fire is a predator, that is some stupid level stupidity. With this analogy.
1.Heavy Wall is a predator.
2. Knife is a predator
3. No food is a predator
4. Steel is a predator
Etc.
2 inch deep puddle is a predator.
Love this. Well said.
Exactly, there is an inifinite (in practical terms) list of predators. But that is all besides the point anyways. Sure, it is a cool abstraction - that does not make it divine, unless you want to define divine as something which is a good abstraction.
Heavy Wall is object.
Knife is object.
No food is state of object in specific space.
Steel is object.
Fire is behaviour, other word that is behaviour and not object is wind.
Rain is behaviour, rain is not thing, its not object.
Objects do not "do". Objects "are".
Heavy Wall is object in some place, space. How can it be predator? How non behaviour can make behaviour? You are not correct.
Knife, the same case. Knife cant kill. You need behaviour that will use knife. For example person can take knife and kill someone, because person have behaviour.
No food is claim about that "there is no food" or "I dont have food" or "Im hungry".
In case of food as a object, "no food" means that there is no object named "food".
But lets take it as hunger in sense of behaviour. Experience of hunger is not something that will kill you. Behaviour of "ignoring hunger" can lead to death.
Steel is object, its not behaviour. It cant nothing.
Word predator is behaviour. Fire OFC can eat you. Make big campfire and jump into fire... OFC do not do that. Fire can eat human body in almost literal sense.
So how it cant be related/connected/simillar to predator?
Peterson is correct. People who do not get it, have problems with language ( do not understadn words, meanings, symbolism... basic things about language ).
Not any word is object. Fire = burning, thats it.
Bullet is the ultimate predator
Y'know I'm really disappointed that JP's whole political thing is "but post-modernism bad!" while his entire theology is "but you're not thinking abstractly enough!"
Is he even aware of this apparent contradiction?
A fantastic point, I appreciate JP’s imaginative thinking sometimes, but the man could stand to sharpen up his explanations a lot more.
He is the posterboy for postmodernism.
I profoundly disagree with peterson. But as I see it, precisely what Peterson says is that abstract categories and human narratives are somehow real. And that their existence obeys an evolutionary and natural logic. Postmodernism, on the other hand, criticizes narratives, arguing that they are social constructs and contingent, not natural and necessary. I believe that their disagreement is not in the reality of narratives or abstract objects, but in their origin and naturalness.
@@jhodappNo, he could not. There’s nothing unclear about it. It’s clearly nonsense. He’s making an illegitimate leap from mythos and analogy to hard facts, even biological facts about the world. It is foolish. And Dawkins is sitting there with that flabbergast saying ‘I told you so.’
What about postmodernism supports higher forms if abstraction!?
"I'm not interested in dragons. I'm interested in reality."
Me too, Dawkins, me too....
Dawkins believes in memes. A dragon is a meme. Dawkins believes in Dragons.
Dawkins believes in memes until Peterson asks him if he believes in memes lol...
@@justmbhman Dawkins doesnt believe in dragons, he believes in dragon memes.
There’s a lot more to life than physical “Reality”. We’ve barely scratched the surface of the unconscious. Delving into the unconscious is not quack science, there’s something to it, it exists for a reason, it’s completely undiscovered. I don’t see why Peterson gets so much hate for delving into it. Jung, Freud, Neumann, etc all delved into it. We’re going to get to a point where we MUST delve into it if we want to go past the physical. If you had a drug induced ‘trip’ and delve into the deep and dark areas of your psyche, what makes you believe that’s any less real?
That’s what I believe JBP is arguing, and it makes sense to me. You can certainly argue that he might take the interpretation of a symbol or metaphor too far, but I think one will surprised at the accuracy given his knowledge of psychology, neuroscience, evolution, religion, and symbolism.
Have you ever killed two birds with one stone? How big were the birds?
@@justmbhman Dawkins doesn't claim that memes exist in the same way a lion does. It comes down to the definition of "existence". Does Frodo exist? As a character in stories - yes. Does he exist as a physical being within our own material world? No, the person depicted in those stories is not a real person. Frodo is a concept of a person, and that concept exists. He does not exist otherwise. Just like a dragon. A meme is a phenomenon of fast spreading and far reaching information. Does this phenomenon exist? Yes. Does this mean that is transforms concepts of beings into our own physical reality? Absolutely not.
They exist - but in fantasy, not in reality. That's the distinction Peterson can't somehow grasp.
"I won't use your pronouns, but dammit, you will acknowledge my dragon!!!". There it is.
Dominating.
Spot on hahaha
But he will use someone pronouns.
Just not when his speech is controlled by law.
At least make a better straw man then that.
@@AJ-gk7bn There are no laws controlling speech regarding pronouns. The bill Peterson protested against never even indicated someone could receive legal sanctions for not using someone’s preferred pronouns.
@@VeronicaMxoxo
Literally completely irrelevant.
I don’t think what you said is accurate but even if it was it’s completely beside the point.
Peterson was reasonably under the impression that it compeled speech and has said many times that would be the only reason he wouldn’t refer to someone by their preference pronouns.
So again, that didn’t address my previous comment at all.
"Is fire a predator?"
"No"
Waiter: Can I get any desserts for the table?
Peterson: I would like an ice cream sundae.
Waiter: Sorry, sir, we don’t serve that one.
Peterson: But you just asked if I wanted dessert.
Waiter: sorry, yes, I just mean that we don’t have that particular dessert. We have others, but not that one.
Peterson: What is an ice cream sundae if not the imagistic representation of dessert? If you have dessert in what way do not have an ice cream sundae?
Waiter: In the way that we don’t have it…? But we do have cheesecake and cherry pie…
Peterson: (interrupting) but why not abstract it? You have pie and cake and probably custard. What’s the relevant image? *Dessert as such*. What’s the image of that? The ice cream sundae that never runs out. And then there’s a cool twist on that, it’s so interesting - hot fudge!
Alex: Wait: the sundae is a pictorial representation of the abstract concept of dessert?
Peterson: Yes.
Alex: But they have pie. Abstraction might be useful in art, but - you can’t eat an abstraction.
Peterson: (holds up menu) We had the image long before we had the dessert.
Alex: …sure, but -
Peterson: look, if you want identify a particular class of dessert, well then pie is a good term.
Waiter: does that mean you’ll be having the pie?
Alex: Would you say that pie is an instantiation of the term dessert?
Peterson: (gnawing menu) Yes!
Waiter: Are you answering me, or…?
Alex: Would you also say that pie is an instantiation of the term “ice cream sundae?”
Peterson: Yes! YES! It actually matters to us if we eat delicious confections!
Dawkins: Fuckin ell mate. I’ll ave me a roit cut o’ pie.
😂😂😂 Bravo 100% 😂😂😂
Beautifully argued!
I think you have cracked the code. That made about as much sense as what Peterson actually said. It was like a Mad-Lib. Same formula with different key words. Kinda scary when you think about it.
😂😂😂 very good!!! 😂😂😂
Amazing 😂
Peterson: What if the moon was your car and Jupiter was your hairbrush?
Dawkins: No.
Peterson Fans: Dawkins is just a shallow thinker.
xD
It's complicated!
LMFAO
I know the bloody literature man!
He is a shallow thinker.
I am convinced Peterson is purposefully obtuse.
Yep, nobody actually talks like this. Even when asked for a direct answer, he still obfuscates things
Yep. He's gotten himself tangled in knots and is terrified of alienating sections of his fanbase. He's lost any objectivity in debate which is a bit of a stinker when that's what you are showing up for.
He is to desperate, narcissistic and neurotic for that.
Sunken costs.
He's a drama queen
0:44 "Very well put". Agreed, deserved praise.
Absolutely, Alex did such a great job as a host. Actually first time seeing a host actually help both parties to understand each other
"Is fire a predator? (...) Well, it's complicated because fires kills you" 😂
Also this proves dragons.
Is gravity a predator? Well, it kills stars and planets, so... who knows?
Confirmed: all inanimate falling objects of suficient size and mass are now catigorised as predators.
Coconuts and pianos included.
Together with deathcap mushrooms and any other chemical molecule or element which is poisenous or venemous to us.
... when words lose all their meaning 🤦♂️
It sounds absurd but his line of reasoning was perhaps he was collecting all characteristics of a dragon, one by one, and comparing them against predators to eventually conclude that the dragon is an ultimate predator that in all ways is predator-like.
I mean, fire doesn't just kill you, it spreads and, if hot enough, consumes you. We measure our energy consumption in calories, and we do the same for fire. He probably would have been better placed if he described fire as the ultimate weapon instead, but I think its not a massively unreasonable statement to make in the context of what he was saying
I just want to directly apologize to Dawkins for how much patience he had to show for this completely untethered monologue of symbol salad.
No worries, he was visibly having some very good fun.
Jordan “filibuster” Peterson
Wtf is Peterson talking about. How anyone takes him seriously anymore is beyond me
That's why I've felt dawkins hasn't taken this seriously
Do people? Probably no one watching this.
Peterson does my head in these days. How anybody can use that many words and be so verbose without actually saying anything is quite impressive though I guess 😂 dude is a waffler
you asking this question shows your IQ xD
@@jacksonnn1661 two explanations: while listening I realized I am stupid AF or the guy is talking in full delusional mode
Damn, Peterson sure talks a lot without saying much
Cause you just don't understand him I guess?
@@Common_MansplainingI think I know what he is sayyand it is nonsense
@@Common_Mansplaining Nah, Peterson just likes droning on and on with esoteric vocabulary, obscure metaphors, and equivocating different definitions of the same word when a simple, straightforward sentence would've done better.
@@Common_Mansplaining What he is saying is quite simple, he just yaps and imagines he is saying something very complex.
Hell, alex manages to sum up his long rant as a couple of sentences at the end.
JP drags the topic around to 500 different places with no coherency, with no point or direction, with no concluding point.
Then when others ask what his point is, he engages in another long ramble... I used to work with people that have brain damage and degenerative illnesses and he talks exactly like them.
Its sad really, he wasn't always like this.
@@julianshepherd2038 oh? What is he saying then?
Sun Tzu once stated, "The most effective strategy to bewilder your opponent is to create uncertainty within yourself." This idea highlights the complexity of strategic thinking in conflict. When you’re unsure about your own plans and intentions, it not only disorients you but can also lead your adversary to second-guess their moves. In my view, this emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and clarity in one's goals. By cultivating a deep understanding of our own motivations and strategies, we can better anticipate and counter the actions of others. Ultimately, clarity within oneself is a powerful tool in the game of strategy.
This was utterly pointless. We gotta stop platforming JP now. It was cute in the beginning. Now it’s just annoying. RD is asking a point blank yes or no question and JP is obviously dodging. ✌️
He’s so different now to what he was a few years ago. His original lecture series was very interesting and he was a good listen for a while.
He’s absolutely repetitive and obtuse now. I have had to turn him off every time I hear him now for the last 5 years. His podcast usually involves him talking more than any of his guests.
When isn't that simply because you guys are all atheist 😂
Especially since this is THE SAME TOPIC that Sam Harris discussed with him 10 years ago: What is truth?"
it's a 2 hour long philosophical podcast. You want a 1 sec video of a question and a yes or no answer? you're at the wrong spot buddy. Besides, JP is leading the platform you're talking about.
@@daan260 the philosophical platform? not a chance. in serious academic circles, he is an absolute laughing stock; a jester, if you will.
Jordan Peterson is what you get when the internet convinces someone they are a genius.
Top comment.
He is clearly extremely intelligent but somewhere got lost in myths and stories
Yet, Alex is this one that facilitated the conversation.
@@Matzesexactly , I think it’s a very very emotionally charged subject for him and thus can’t think rationally. You can see that his subjective experience of confronting the dragon ie jungian shadow is very important to him
@@Matzes
> extremely intelligent
> knows a lot of words
JP is insufferable.
People who can’t think abstractly are insufferable.
OMG how can people think Jordan Peterson is some kind of genius intellectual
If predator is real in what way isn’t alien real? And if they’re both real, shouldn’t they do a sequel docuseries?
Alien and Predator vs JP. he would bore them to death with irrational BS
@@glennthompson1971 I think Predator would spot the hot air long before and realise JP wasn’t worthy prey. Alien though might be a problem, there could be Alien/JP hybrids that bored us to death before boring into our bodies.
Alien vs predator vs dragon = predator. It's very complicated but you get the point
Peterson’s whole schtick is that he says extremely simply things in an extremely convoluted way.
Jordan needs to attend OA (Obfuscation Anonymous).😅
Actually, he rarely says anything.
@staceyvanier15 He actually says a lot. If you listen to his lectures and some of his older Q&As, you will find a lot of useful ideas there. Like any other human however, he does say weird/incoherent things from time to time, and some of his political ideas might not appeal to you, but that doesn't resume all of his speech to "nothing at all".
4:51 The moment Alex realises he forgot the tranquiliser dart for Jordan.
Peterson has lost the fucking plot.
JP is so obnoxious. Every time he gets backed into a corner (which is often when he's not talking to someone not as skilled in debating), he gets very melodramatic and evasive. Yet people somehow read that as him being open minded and willing to engage. I'm telling you, that's not what he's doing. Since becoming a celebrity, he's honed the craft of being a showman. If you don't see it, then you're just another audience member in his show.
a showman would look convincing rather than pathetic, though...
its incredible that you cannot comprehend JP and instead of trying to, just assert your lack of comprehension ability as a flaw in him lol.
But then again this whole comment section is full of people asserting the same thing without understanding the actual subject matter.
Yet, Dawkins is old man who rather believe in aliens and that's he's crazy before admitting he is wrong.
the first 90 seconds of the video and JP's usual word salad answer cracked me up!
@@rathraven1313 The existence of aliens is a very plausible idea. The second part of your sentence makes no sense at all.
This is the epitome of incomprehensible communication. How you didn't start laughing Alex is beyond me.
Because Alex doesn't understand irony and subtext.
I know writers who use subtext, and they’re all cowards.
@@whirlwhind666#unexpecteddarkplace
because Alex can understand him unlike you
@@Bizarre-Clips you know you can understand somebody and still find them ridiculous right?
Understanding somebody does not necessarily mean that you won't laugh at them.
The least surreal part of this whole tableau are the dinosaurs outside the window.
*Well, think about it! They're real, biologically, or they were, so what is a dragon? IT'S AN IMAGISTIC REPRESENTATION OF A DINOSAUR plus some other predatory symbols sprinkled in, so how can you say dragons aren't real, it's like, I think LOOK! A DINOSAUR LEAVES A FOOTPRINT! WHAT IS THE FOOTPRINT? IT'S A MEMORY. AND DRAGONS ARE IN YOUR MEMORY, so it's complicated!*
Wtf. In what year is this recorded😂?
I watched some Jordan Peterson's videos some time ago and there was something they all had in common: my knowledge before and after watching them was the same. It's like I have been listening to a white noise. It really made me question my own intelligence.
I just can’t get away with Petersen’s delivery. His voice is grating, combining a high pitch with over excitement. More than that, however, if you listen carefully to what he says he doesn’t really present arguments, he tends just to repeat what’s just been said to him, and then ask what do you mean by it?
Like any good magician, he dazzles you with wavy hands and fancy words however unlike a magician looking to entertain you, JP's use of the metaphorical substrate is meant to rob you of your ability to care about living. He needs you as depressed as he feels. If you don't come along, the waterworks start.
"You see the things about things is that even a thing is a thing and thats the thing!" - Jordan Peterson
'Is fire a predator?'
'no.'
'WELL it's complicated. Fire kills you!'
So, is water a predator as well then?
How can ANYONE take this man seriously after hearing this exchange ONLY is beyond me.
@@Kris.G I've kept thinking and have come to the conclusion that I'm surrounded by predators, since I can be killed by virtually anything. Even a chair. The chair I'm sitting in is a predator. EVERYTHING IS A PREDATOR.
@@Kris.G There is this video of him arguing that lying is inherently bad, and every lie is evil. He is then asked if it is good or bad to lie in the face of a nazi officer who's at your doorstep when you have Anne Frank hidden in your attic. I'm sure I don't have to spell out the ethical answer here, but Peterson, presumably realizing he has idiotically talked himself into a corner yet still remaining unwilling to concede in his opinion, then just completely evades the question and starts rambling about the fall of a society. I've reached the point where you are now after seeing that video, it's honestly awkward to watch.
Fire was a real danger for people back before history, also it symbolize venom and magic so that's why dragons are that way
In the context of the conversation they’re talking about metaphorical meaning and he was trying to say that a dragon is the ultimate symbol of danger. A lizard like creature that can fly and breathes fire.
I’m more akin to Dawkins in my thinking. I think Peterson has backed himself in a corner with religion in an attempt to gain a conservative following but I think he does make some good points about the nature of religious texts.
“very well put” haha that is exactly why he uploaded this clip. Alex wanted to immortalize, on his channel, praise from such a great man. You are doing awesome things Alex, keep it up!
This particular segment could have been titled "Peterson vs Dawkins patience". One would think that the exchange of differing ideas is what ultimately takes time and effort, not trying to follow Dr. Petersons troubled euphoric cavalcade of arguments and explanations.
Yeah it's amazing how much ranting and raving Dawkins just sat through.
😂
Dawkins is a study in patience here. My goodness, Peterson is incoherent.
Define "particular" then "segment" also "exchange".....we'll leave euphoric and cavalcade for last" LOL
@@estellesstories7467
You could say the opposite:
1) It took 1.5 hours for Peterson to see the connection between memes and archetypes. He kept trying, Dawkins wouldn't budge. That's a lot of patience from Peterson.
Incoherencies
2) Memes exist. "Dragon" is a meme. It's incoherent for Dawkins to believe in memes but not Dragons.
3) Dawkins believes religions are meme-systems. He also believes memes that survive, survive because they're adaptive. Given how long religion has lasted, he should believe religions are HIGHLY ADAPTIVE memes, but he thinks Religion is useless. Incoherent!
4) Dawkins attacks Peterson on his symbol usage. He acts like symbols/metaphor say nothing TRUE about reality. He does this, ALL while wearing a tie he CHOSE because it symbolized something true about reality (his valuing of science).
5) Dawkins is a biologist, so he does math right? Math is done with symbols. Math works because: SYMBOLS reflect REALITY. When Peterson uses symbols for religion, he's "drunk" but when Dawkins uses symbols for math he's "advancing science?" Imagine if Peterson said "Well it's like, these mathematicians talking imaginary numbers, they are drunk!" What would happen is Peterson would look like a clown, but when Dawkins (knowing no relevant literature) says "You're drunk on symbols", everybody cheers?
You prolly won't respond to this, but anyway, I'd love to hear how Peterson is incoherent :)
10 minutes of word salad.
Alex's comment section is filled with the Richard Dawkins perspective and Peterson's is filled with the Peterson perspective. Interesting to see...
how do you even identify the Peterson perspective out of all that nonsense?
@@toshidaboshi you prove his point
@tierraviva1085 it's a valid question though.
@@komplex6081 not really, if you can understand English
@toshidabushi Just because you don't understand someone perspective doesn't mean it's nonsense...
That was like watching a teacher and a young teenager debating each other!!!
Peterson refuses to converse with anyone who doesn’t have a doctorate. I find solace that I will never be tortured by his presence.
That felt like him using it as an excuse to not get publicly pants’d by Dillahunty again.
Thank the Noodle Beastie I'm far too thick to understand his sesquipedalianate verbiage.
Waiter: "Would you like tea or coffee?"
Peterson: "99% of your processing is unconscious."
It depends on what you mean by Tea or Coffee.
too few words
*Well, hang on now. Tea, that's from the East. They use it traditionally for the caffeine. Now, that's a drug. It's woven into Eastern mythology and religious practice. You think that's coincidence? You think those metaphysical beings aren't REAL? THEY'RE REAL IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE CAFFEINE IS REAL!*
-Um... so you want tea?
*Well, just a minute! What about the other one? You're talking about coffee, so let's talk about coffee! It's AFRICAN. It's AFRICAN. Where did humans evolve? AFRICA. You think that those beans, and they're not beans, biologically, but metaphorically they are... they... it's complicated, okay?! IT'S BLOODY COMPLICATED!*
JP: "I'll have the tea....the dragon will have the coffee...unless by tea U mean that which can only be drank at teatime in which case "time" must be the metaphoric substrate in which a mythical fire-breathing creature can be considered to operate since high doses of caffeine is the required catalyst for a hyperactive dragon to NOT burn itself ...o shit.....is it green, black or oolong tea and is the coffee instant or brewed...?....Wait.... What was your question again
R.Dawkins: (quietly sips his tea while pondering how he got pulled into a one way monologue by an insane person) 😂
@@petejackson6681 What do you mean ''want''?
These days when Jordan Peterson speaks I'm reminded of the scene from Big Bang Theory where Penny exclaims to Sheldon "Oh my god, you're about to jibber jabber about jibber jabber".
OOF. Your point is that Peterson "word salads" right? You realize that "jibber jabber" means "advanced physics that Penny can't grasp" right? Those who don't believe in Dragons end up burning themselves in the end huh?
I don't see how religious people don't see these type of discussion as insulting...
I mean he is basically arguing that God is a psychological artifact just like any other symbol that humans had come up with.
And his dragon comparisson is actually quite useful... Like, what does it say about religion and the existence of God. If he defends the existence of God and the divine just as much as he defends the existence of dragons and other mythological creatures. As useful symbols for humans.
Do you really want this person defending your religion? Do you want the existence of God to be defended in the same level as the existence of dragons and faires is defended? On the same terms?
Because religious ppl. NOW that our idea of god is a psychological artifact.
Really, Athanasius of Alexandria and Irenaeus had great a many takes just about that.
And their work FORM the basis of the Catholic Church.
Word salad Peterson back at it, great to see.
Where would you say he was speaking 'word salad'?
@@matsumuratrpwhen his lips moved.
@@matsumuratrp From 00:00 to 10:21
@@sloppyjoe4083 would you perhaps elaborate more parts you found incoherent or deceptive?
@@andydonnelly8677 do you actually have any specific instances?
It's beyond me how Dawkins and Alex resisted simultaneously face-palming when Peterson argued that fire is predatory.
He just made the point poorly. Fire moves, consumes and kills. In terms of teaching and myth, it is smart to paint it as a predator.
@@Domn879 I understand that anything can be abstracted to anything else, but I guess I'm not clear on what his point was, apart from the usual Jungian nonsense.
@@Domn879it's really frustrating because people genuinely seem to think Peterson is saying that because these stories seem to reflect reality pretty well and they would have been beneficial to human flourishing then that means he's saying literal dragons existed. It really is a level of analysis problem
But JP does seem to beat around the bush but like he said not many people know both literatures so it's hard to word it especially to someone who's main field is evolutionary biology half the time he just refuses to engage which is a pretty tough spot to be in when your trying to explain something
@@Domn879 Fire can be harmful, this is not sufficient to be classified as a predator. When we use the term predator we mean animal/agent that consciously preys.
This is the exact problem with the endless abstractions of terms that anything can mean anything therefore nothing has meaning.
You highlighted the pitfall perfectly.
Bruh what was that long ass sentence from JP? I don’t dislike him or think he’s particularly dishonest but that crap kills me lol
you don't think he's dishonest? Have you never seen him talk? The clown spews utterly ridiculous lies like you can't quit smoking without doing drugs and having a religious experience.... he always dodges the point being made with loads of nonsense....
I think you can "win" public debates by monopolizing the limited time. And I do think it's dishonest if you are trying to find truth instead of just win.
He’s dishonest, he supports the substrate of Don the con😮
What do U mean by "crap" and while you're at it define "sentence" and "dislike" LOL
@@nagranoth_ you fail to understand him, so you hate him. Seems like you are the clown
Peterson: That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things.
Doctor: Nurse cancel my 1 o'clock.
I get Peterson now. He’s really intelligent but can’t tell reality from fiction. He seems to think that a thought is the same as reality. Basically he’s insane.
He's traPped by his patreons. He can't be clear or he'll alienate a part of them.
He's something but he's not intelligent. Otherwise he would not spout the nonsense he does.
@@redmed10 You can be simultaneously intelligent and irrational. Alternatively you could argue that he is making a lot of money from using his tactics of confusion to make bad arguments for stupid things sound like good arguments for stupid things. So maybe he doesn't actually believe the crap that he's saying at all.
@@redmed10 same with you
@@redmed10 stop spouting useless crap
Richard is a gem
Jordan Repeaterson doesn't think for himself, he just recites what he's read.
Jordan Repeaterson :D :D :D
Victim of his own ideology.
i don't think he is reciting what he has read so much as assimilating what he has read in a way that suits him...but it boils down to, " i have read something you haven't read, so i know something that you don't know....therefore, i am right....
After watching this, I’m 1000% convinced Jordan speaks to hear himself talk. Analogies or even deep messaging behind fairytales can say a lot about reality but that obviously doesn’t make them real
Peterson hamming it up like a Bond villain, meanwhile the ever calm and collected Dawkins thinking "why oh why did I agree to this..."?
I think Dawkins and O'Connor are quite pleased seeing their earlier skepticism about Peterson being justified.
I was following until 00:50 and then Peterson stopped speaking English... but I gather he thinks dragons are real
What do you mean by Dragons?
@@Nissenov Wait wait wait... what is it that you are trying to say by "mean"?
I'm not sure Dr. Peterson knows the difference between what's real and what's imaginary
@@LCDRformathis religious so it’s not shocking :D
@@Melvin-nt9xu I think his version of religion will confused religious people too.
Thank you Alex for bringing yourselves together for this dialogue.
Am i the only one who just doesn't understand what jp tries to say?
Ahh, the corpus callosum has posted.
This cosmic corpus callosum is quite skeptic
With JP’s brain it’s corpus cavernosum which gives some explanation of why he’s such a word gooner.
this album is gonna go hard
Every time I watch Peterson I find myself wondering why he gets so defensive. Like at 2:52 Richard calmly asks whether an analogy is the same as the reality and then Peterson seems to go full psycho with "THAT's WHY I'D LIKE YOUR OPINION ON IT!" Takes him a while to calm down too.
It’s insecurity
Yesssss, he is the most easily and wildly triggered person I have ever even heard of. He is the exact opposite of how he pictures himself.
@@incertosage It feels more like yearning than defensiveness to me. It can _look_ pretty aggressive which can be easily misinterpreted as hostile aggression -thus defensiveness- but there is too much respect, vulnerability in the arguments and open-mindedness to be just plain insecurity in my eyes
@@MasacoteSenpai If he was "yearning" say for knowledge or insight, he would respond to the question being asked and not deflect. It is in fact a defense mechanism. When he's being asked about the if he thinks analogy is equivalent to reality, it's clear he's being asked if he thinks dragons are literally real. There's a very simple, succinct answer to give, but he just won't do it.
I regretfully think he has brain damage from the benzo treatment and coma. He’s not the same Peterson who was preaching to lost boys and went viral putting Cathy Newman in her place. It’s like he regressed back to his early “maps of meaning” work but with a kind of deranged headspace.
ChatGPT, please summarise this conversation.
CGPT: ……I’m busy
😂
I beg of you Alex, stop wasting your intelligence on JP.
Seriously, there are so many other people you could talk to that would give you and us valuable information and knowledge.
You, Sam Harria and Matt Dillahunty have done a great job of exposing JP's ridiculous arguments for the divine, but I feel like it's enough and now it's just a waste of everyone's time.
ewww
conversation, make it go away
Stephen Fry managed to calm him down without JP even noticing
There was so much bullshit unchecked in this 1,5 hours "talk".
It was a disgrace. Really emberassing.
Have to agree here, if JP wasn't a name that brought in views I doubt anyone would waste their time on him. There must be others we can engage with instead of this guy
Jordan Peterson has finally reached Graham Hancock levels of imaginative psuedoscience
What did Jordan Peterson just say? sounds like word salad to me, not trying to insult Jordan here, but it would be nice if he could simplify it so that everyone can understand what he's saying.
I was thinking he is more like Ron Wyatt. Trips over something real and then uses post hoc reasoning to claim the divine.
Nice one
It is amazing how often Jordan Peterson tends to obfuscate simple questions to avoid yielding an untenable position.
He also does it to seem smart and deep/intellectual.
@@MWhaleK But also constantly lost in the weeds of sidequests.
Except this is absolutely false as his position wasn't untenable at all.
@@JudeMalachi But it was untenable, by being completely off- topic. The question was basically (my brief interpretation) Inspired knowledge (Bible, Koran, etc, inspired by the word of God, and therefore absolute) vs gathered knowledge (knowledge gained over time from discussion and agreement from various parties). He basically went on a tangent about how sharing ideas is good. He talks a lot I think to avoid being pinned down on what he actually believes, risking alienation of his current fan base. I've been listening to Jordan for years, think he has some great insight into how one should live their life. He changed IMO when he joined the Daily Wire team, with an "agenda". How can you take his discussions on deep cosmological nature of god stuff (where you can't even get a yes/no answer from him on Jesus's resurrection), with his outright lunacy over Ellen/Elliot Page? He basically says there are no clear answers to anything, but for THAT, very clear.
1:22 is a classic peterson response. Way to go on a side tangent that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
He was telling him exactly what Dawkins was doing in the conversation
You clearly didn't understand or you purposely don't wan't to understand that Peterson was trying to politely warn Dawkins that he can come down on his level and apply his childish "gotcha" moments because the conversation was purely intended from Petersons side to explain his view as clearly as possible on a level that Dawkins can understand and to actually engage Dawkins in the conversation.
But no, the old buck clearly lacks the intelect to obtain such a conversation and instead was brutally direct with his childish "I'm right you're wrong" answers without even trying to understand what Jordan was trying to say.
Peterson vs Peterson. Dawkins was there to witness it.
Peterson is what you get when you feed your children lunchly instead of homemade food
That got a laugh out of me good one
Lmao
From the screen to the bling to the pen to the king
"is fire a predator?"
"no"
'It's abstract'
Peterson: But have you considered dragons?
Dawkins: what about dragons?
Peterson: draggin' deez...
LMAO
😂
😂 I didn't see that coming
The benzos fried his brain. He's nothing but a wellspoken junkie in a suit and tie
Anyone who has spent time around those with schizoaffective disorders might be familiar with these kinds of episodes.
They can be caused by chemical dopamine dysfunction or dysregulation. People suffering from it make connections in their minds, ones that might be completely irrational, which are then reinforced by a dopamine imbalance. Like a machine learning model with the reinforcement controls set to something far too lenient.
I would not be surprised if Jordan has "fried" his brain. It certainly seems like it. And I also wouldn't be surprised if he truly believes he is making profound and accurate statements.
I Love Alex. He’s one of God’s hardest working “atheists”. Keep promoting the gospel big dog!!!!
5:51 I loved this discussion, but this was by far the funniest part for me. "No" Dawkins says.
Sums up the nature of this discussion.
JP - 'well maybe. It's complicated. It that not also a thing? It depends on how you look at it.'
Dawkins - 'no'
One man is digging for grey areas to help his point make sense.
One is succinct and interested in answers.
JP has jumped the shark. I'm pretty sure we'll get the news that he's had a mental break in the next few years. His mind is all over the place.
@@kevtb874I think Dawkins is right when he says that JP is "drunk on symbols." Eventually he got somewhere but with a lot of necessary help, lol. So yeah, since he stopped teaching psychology at the University of Toronto he's kind of let himself go it seems, from what I know.
I was thinking that the clip I time-stamped could be a good meme format. My caption might be something like: "What it's like to have a conversation with me while I'm utterly wasted."
I wanted to right a comment in the same moment. ❤
Yeah, fire can kill me, but can the eagle, mention before, kill me? 😂
I might be too strict...
The fact that most people who commented on Peterson's channel thought he's some wise sage spreading truths is worrisome for humanity
Well it can get worse than Jordan I do believe.
Because he confuse people. Like his serpent story in Israel and how erecting the serpent head stopped snake from attacking. And he gave seriously powerful interpretation of how it's relates to eating poison to be saved from poison. But he will never interpret people who worship thunder god or volcano like that.we can basically change snake with volcano and come to same interpretation. I understand how his viewers got awed by that statement in vaccum. But more likely interpretation is of submission to the thing that is god . Peterson says entire narrative of bible is that of sacrifice but it's more about submission. Like how who doesn't believe him goes to hell. And this interpretation fit as well and more likely in my view
I was coming down to make this comment
Who IS that angry, defensive, shouty man?
It used to be Jordan Peterson, he used to speak about things that knew about.
That's Ol' JP. Poor fella used to be quick.
I don't know which of the three you mean. /s
@@kevinmcinerney1959 you need emotional IQ help then lol
It's always the same thing with Peterson: arguing that, because metaphors have cultural, behavioral, and personal relevance, they are indistinguishable from reality. Why is it so hard for him to see the distinction between reality and metaphor? The world may never know
Alex looks like a young Oswald Mosley
Whoa 😂
4 minutes in, and Peterson managed to inject 'culture war and college students' into the discussion. 😕
And also, lions are dragons
Having heard his lectures on the importance of learning to play with others many years ago, I’m disappointed to see Peterson so reluctant to “play” with Dawkins and O’Conner in this interview. He just seems so desperate to have someone listen to his analyses and interpretations of meaning that he never really responds to someone else’s conversational points.
Why is it that Peterson is always the hardest one to follow?