Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson in Vancouver 2018 (with Bret Weinstein moderating) - Night One
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - Night One
Moderated by Bret Weinstein 06/23/2018
This is the first time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver BC Canada on June 23rd 2018 in front of a sold out audience of 3000 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
Applause should not be allowed in a debate, it's distracting, frustrating and is delimiting to further discussion in that it shows and/or develops bias
The applause was distracting, yes, yet is a very crucial part of the open forum. If it were just me and my most philosophical friend having a conversation that turned into a debate, I would love to have an audience to spit on. And that is why I am not in the same arena as these guys. Neither are you. The amount of composure and self-restraint shown by everyone involved was one of the most laudable facets.
yeah... but these ppl are soooo polarized. They just cannot stop themselves...
We're not looking at sports, were you just chose a side and cheer it on. It has always been weird to me when people treat these discussions like it's their soccer team and cry out in support.
It may just be a cultural difference, but I find that kind of support dangerous.
So I'm agreeing with you.
If people don't want whooping and hollering and all that applause they should hold the debate outside of North America.
Surprisingly, this bothered me more than i thought
When either of them makes a good point, the last thing i want is someone to recoil in defensive mode because of the applause
As much as i disagree with JP on certain things, him and Sam help to clarify other things with such precision that is more valuable than just my opinion about who "won" the debate (and because of that, i don't want either one of them to feel intimidated because that could reduce the probability (minute possibility) of talks like this happening in the future)
Sam Harris: *engage raised right eyebrow attack*
Jordan Peterson: *evades with lobster side step*
That's EXACTLY what happened 🤣
I saw Peterson turn a shade pale every time Harris' right eyebrow raised and left hand started air-rolling.
Hahaha i read this comment and then immediately noticed it when I looked back up as sam was talking… and there it was!!!
now it can’t be unseen OMG lol noooooo
Sam: "One more minute, please."
Weinstein: "Okay, one more minute."
*50 seconds later*
Peterson: "Well, what _is_ bad?"
Weinstein: _"Oh God no."_
I've gone through the comment sections on both the Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris versions of the video, and found some interesting trends...
First, at the time I'm writing this it's been two days since Harris published and four since Peterson did.
Sam's release has 44.5k views while Jordan's has 170.5k
While the Peterson release has almost four times the views, it only has about twice the amount of comments.
Sam's like's are at about 3.44%, Peterson's are at about 3.96% (very rough didn't feel like doing real maths)
both had less than 0.2% dislikes, with Sam's slightly higher
The difference in number of views is likely mostly caused by the different subscriber count. Though we can't see Harris's sub count we can assume it is quite smaller judging by the difference in total views. 16.4 million to Peterson's 68.7 million.
Now what's really interesting is how both audiences are reacting to the debate.
The JP comments seem a bit more lighthearted, with a few more jokes and the main criticism of Sam being that he didn't take Jordan's points seriously enough.
SH's comment's seem to skew more towards criticizing Jordan Peterson, accusing him of dodging him questions and tossing word salad, saying he shouldn't be taken seriously.
Both comment sections had very highly rated comments complimentary towards the discussion and both speakers.
There seems to be quite a bit of crossover of fans commenting in sections of the other side.
Overall It seems to me both comment sections are much more than the video actually was. I'm much more of a Harris fan than a Peterson, I think the JP commenters are a bit more receptive to the nuance of the discussion, but not nearly as receptive of either of the speakers themselves. The JP section seems to think that Sam wasn't taking Jordan seriously, and the SH section thinks he is but thinks he shouldn't. I think he was taking him seriously and it makes perfect sense for him to do so.
I think Sam has a better grasp on reality in general than Jordan does, but Jordan has a much better grasps in many of the specific areas he deals with. I think if these discussions are going to be as productive as possible, Jordan should probably move more than Sam (which I think he already has) but Sam's arguments do need to be refined in face of nuance.
All in all I loved all three talks so far and can't wait for more, and as always:
SCREW PANGBURN.
best comment, I really appreciate the objective analysis of the uploads. I just came over from JP's upload and I am appalled at all the hate directed at Peterson here.
Brett I agree with you. I'm a fan of both men for different reasons.
I agree I'm a fan of both. The worst thing about Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are their fan bases. Both in their debates talk about how much danger there is in dogmatism, but then all you hear from their fans is "the other guy is totally a liar and everything our guy said is the truth"
After observing both comment sections, I find Sam's to be much more toxic, pretty much every high rated comment is a verbal attack on Peterson, as a fan of both Peterson and Harris I'm not sure what to make of it.
@@fantasypgatour No doubt the intellectual discussion ends where the comment section begins.. lol
A video this time? Now this is what ive been asking for years.
Dahvood yes I really wish Sam did video podcasts like Joe Rogan
i would disagree with that completely. being in person is far better than over the phone or just audio in general. human interaction is a major part of discussing anything. body language, eye contact, etc.
@Boyles Back while some points make sense. There still wouldn't be a live audience clapping like drones or laughing every 5 seconds in a 1 on 1 conversation. Plus they are educated adults and hopefully they will refrain from going for cheap points like ben shapiro did that one time with sam harris.
But the impact on my cell phone while i listen at work.....
MY BATTERY IS DEAD!!
Server: "Would you like fries with that?"
Peterson: "Well, like, c'mon man, that's not an easy question. You can't just spring that on me when I get to the front of the line because it's very, very complicated and it will take me hours to explain... let's first define what we mean by 'want' and 'fries' because that in itself is a very difficult concept... I'm not trying to evade the question but people have been arguing about the concept of 'want' for thousands of years and the archetype of fries is (blah, blah, blah)......"
Server: "Security!!"
haha nice. I can't stand his overblown,elaborate, word-salad bullshit.
Nor can I.. I don't think that even he understands exactly what he's saying.
Lol exactly
Nailed it!
Server: is that for here or to go?
Peterson: well Im not trying to trap you here. I'm really not. But let's first try to define the words 'here' and 'to go'. In terms of position in the universe on this temporal plane, I am 'here' and in an impermanent state so I will be going in essence. I'm going to delineate this for you... What do you want? A one second answer? Forget it."
*leaves with food 40 hours later.
I'm amazed by this comment section.
You admire intellectuals and yet you act like a spectator at a WWE match. It's like you do not get the point of a debate. 90% of what I read is "look how one mopped the floor with the other" or "he talks so much yet says so little".
Just imagine Sam Harris or any Intellectual that you follow writing comments like these under debate videos.
They would never stoop down to such a low level.
What I've noticed over the years is that those People and their Followers have often nothing in common and thats sad.
I thought the "why and what" should be clear by just reading my comment but if there is any doubt let me clear it up:
The point of a debate is to challenge your views against an opposition to see how good your ideals are holding up. The only way to figure out whats best for the individual or society (or in other words if you are right or not) is by debate. What those people in these comments are doing is ridicule the opposition instead of being thankful for the opportunity to learn and testing their beliefs.
You would never see an actual Intellectual straight up ridicule his opposition after the debate because you want to have many more discussions with either the same person or many more to come in order to further strengthen your position or learn something new about it. No honest Intellectual would ever want to talk to you if they knew your end goal was to "Pwn" someone.
I'm happy that a person like Sam Harris has gained the attention of so many fans in a time where mass consumerism and instant gratification are the norm, almost like a rock star.
But by spreading this "us vs them mentality" you're giving off the wrong impression to all of his followers (especially the young ones) and help shift the focus to drama instead of learning and honest debate.
well, I hope your argument of why my point isn't valid has more to offer than just "that's your opinion" because obviously everything is "just someone's opinion".
For example, why do you say nothing hinges on it even though I made a point on that?
Also, I'm not ordering you not to ridicule someone but I made a very solid point on why its toxic for the debate.
but I already explained that I was talking about his followers or in other word everyone that aspires to become a future intellectual spokesperson
But that doesn't discredit my argument in the least. What people can and want to do has nothing to do with what i said. Also, Sam Harris is not another word for "Intellectual".
Sam has not the monopoly of simple decency. And I'm pretty sure you are very much aware of the fact that I was talking about Intellectuals in general.
Lets just drop it here.
Audio goes from crap to great after 4:50
JakeTheGiant
PRAISE THE SUN
I couldn't hear much of anything until after 4:50
great
Okay, it's not just my crappy speakers.
Oh good! ;)
Sam's analogies and comebacks are just out of this world. Soooo brilliant
sort of. he is great with language and the points about religion are obvious. the problem is that he does not really understand the broader picture
@@tiborkoos188 What about the broader picture doesn't he understand? Do enlighten us.
Fast forward to today, and Sam condones fascism and media manipulation 😅
@@jamesmatson5205us? You mean you 😅
@@devynselnes4282 Nice avoidance, but not an answer.
The conversation always gets much more interesting when Bret Weinstein interjects.
LOL Cool J Agree, I really wish he played a larger role in this. Too bad it wasn't an open discussion with all three.
That's why he's a good moderator
He's probably an agnostic.
Two people I highly respect having a civil debate. Great stuff I still highly respect both of them but maybe a little bit more.
Alice Bonnet more comments like this, in nearly any setting!
SAM is supposed to practice INSIGHT MEDITATION?
They both need to meditate, Sam could probably benifit from not clinging so tightly to intellect, rationality and concepts. You certainly don't have to be intelligent to be wise, practical and industrious.
That's absurd. Nothing could be clearer that the opposite is true..Jordan just clings to Christianity for Dear life when all evidence of its man made and totally silly mostly
maybe a little bit more what?
How I would love to see Hitchens call out Peterson.
Vesna Vuynovich Kovach I wish. There will never be anyone quite like hitch though. The right man living in the right time. 😭
I think Hitchens criticisms of religion focus on things that are very different from what Peterson is interested in.
Vesna Vuynovich Kovach: So Sam Harris is not capable of doing it? Seems a bit desperate to me ... if only Hitchens were alive - he’d show this stupid Peterson chap up (sob)
@@xcvsdxvsx Hitch was the best at pointing out nonsense of any kind.
Vesna Vuynovich Kovach...Except his own...as sharp and intelligent and brilliant as a debator, Peterson would welcome speaking and, hopefully, seeking truth together. Unfortunately, as Jordan would argue for the profound significance of narrative and the evolution of it in Christianity, Christopher would pull out one of his yes-but comments, i.e. yes, but what about the "burning bush" or "slavery". It it not quite so open-minded in seeking truth, rather to win an argument through mockery.
Those who are picking winners, have whiffed on the point of the discussion.
Why? No they haven't.
@@sgtsnakeeyes11 becourse If you are really open to a civilized, intelligent debate both parties should advance your thinking. A darwinistic view of Thought is problematic.
"A darwinistic view of Thought is problematic." Wow that's embarrassing. You're definitely 15 years old.
@@sgtsnakeeyes11 That is definitely a good Argument.
Maybe read Karl Popper.
@@sgtsnakeeyes11 says the guy with a southpark avatar.
Makes me sad to see that there are a lot of people that only want sam to win the argument instead of wanting both of them to get a better aswer
just like there are people who only want jordan to win the argument.. have you watched the video.. at least sam make sence..
If you compare comment sections between Sam’s video and Jordan’s video you get the same effect.
Most people just want interesting ideas and arguments, Sam Harris needs to stop doing these stage shows with Peterson, Peterson talks a lot but says nothing, Sam Harris needs interesting people on these events, Peterson is a clown
It’s a lot easier to call your intellectual opponents stupid, then you don’t have to deal with their ideas.
It’s sad. I loved this talk. I agree with Sams atheism. And I agree with JPs views on the religious instinct as well as the psychological/archetypal mode of thinking of it. I was constantly rooting for Sam as he moved JP closer and yet I love JP.
Sam Harris: "Religion is bad. Here's why"
Jordan Peterson: "Religion is interesting. Here's 1 million ways you can interpret it"
Sam: religion served a function in society but has grown tired, and dangerous.
Jordan: I make it work for me as I want.
Sam: OK, so why isn't that version representative.
Jordan: I hate abstract reading of text, but all reading of the Bible could be useful because it's so old and entrenched.
Sam: That power is dangerous when it shapes morality vs discussing simple literature.
@Guy Andrews I agree. It would be like saying we should no longer develop ANY new technology, because it has the potential to be misused by humans.
Trenton with a side dish of word salad
4lugan you obviously not spoken to a member of the Church of England
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 tell me more. What do you mean?
Peterson has this annoying habit of not answering simple questions concisely but asking his own question is response. Harris often answers with a simple yes, or a no followed by a brief explanation.
Maybe those aren't simple questions. Weinstein gets the points that Peterson is trying to make in those "overcomplicated" answers.
Was going to comment the same thing..... I can't stand it
It's because there is more to the question than you think, geez.
I agree completely! Peterson also reflects back Sam’s comments to “be clear”. I find the combo very irritating. But everyone has their “style”.
"Well i would need some hours to answer if Jesus was resurrected"
people need to stop clapping
I can't tell if people were clapping because they heard something they liked, or because they thought their man on the stage beat the other. Either way, extremely annoying and Pangburn shouldn't be encouraging such behavior for a serious discussion.
They are clapping for the agreement it seems early in.
Yes. Right! Keep their hands on their laps and listen.
Agreed. It's not a comedy show ffs. Just be silent and be educated
@@nada_null People like to cheerlead their tribal leader.
I am Indian and I did not know much about Sam Harris. I have been listening to Jordan Peterson for one year and I must say I believed it would be hard to beat his arguments. Today I am fan of Sam harris too
I've listened both of these and they are fantastic!! We need more of this stuff. The intellectual stimulation is liberating. You can get so much from this even if you disagree with them.
Yeah no. One of these men is getting fucking shellacked, and it ain't Sam Harris.
I've always been more on Harris's side of this debate. Peterson seems over philosophize religious text. Which is ok except that the proponents of that religion themselves don't do that... which I kind of think is Sam's point.
These fellas just miss each other on this topic...
Keeping right-wing white males buying books requires a certain amount of pandering to his base.
I think sam is following jordan just fine
@@markuschelios6891 They are plenty of left wing,non-white people that have bought his book.
@@valsan1323 ...you're guessing.
@@markuschelios6891 Actually,I am one of those people too.
And I know a few mates who done the same.
It's about time these were officially made available. Thanks!
Love these talks. I've only recently noticed Sam Harris' work and am just getting into reading his books; his character and demeanour is profound. Honesty gets you far. Sam Harris is a true philosopher of our time. I bet when he ages into his later years and decides to grow a beard he will resemble the bust of the ancient philosophers.
The cameraman held his breath for the entire show. Finally breathes at 2:06:35
He actually breathes at 47:18
why do you assume the camera was recording local audio
😂😂😂
No, whoever was handling audio for sure. 😂😂😂
😂🤣😂🤣
Only a few minutes in and it's clear that here are two people, willing to say *exactly* what they think, and keen to pinpoint where they disagree. Excellent!
I don't agree with Peterson's reasoning or definitions but I applaud his attempt at having an honest conversation. It's something the world sorely needs more of.
The winner of this conversation is Eric Weinstein for asking great questions to parse out their beliefs.
Bret you mean? the Brother of Eric, vvho should have a physics of biology nobel-prize 4 his research? Not economy (he says vvith fully avvare prejudice against money, not vvanting a fight here.)
Yeah he's MVP for sure, what an excellent choice for a mediator.
BRET Weinstein!!! ERIC is this guys brother!!
Eric was not in this video
I was very impressed with Eric, his moderatorship was splendid.
Well, look, I mean, it's like, hey man, it's complicated!
Hume would agree.
And you got to ask yourself: what does complicated mean? It probably means what you think it means, but it also doesn't!
My top 3 pick where JBP has a good points:
1) Hypocrisy of Left by ignoring white working class and mens struggles
2) Don't be teaching Marxism in social sciences to the artistic types, but completely ignore Marx in Economic Departments at universities. That will create strange results.
3) It's complicated... So learn. Or explain, in plain English.
Maphesta Disdoinne oh my this was hilarious. most of the time JBP is a word salad.
@akadeepsea but like, look man, isn't everything a word salad if you choose it to be? Just with varying degrees of entropy.
Thank you for having these conversations so that we can benefit. Thank you !
While Peterson seems like a fairly intelligent fellow, his constant attempts to redefine terms is really testing my patience. When he reads out his definition of "god", it is clearly not what is understood by the religious to be God, and that is NOT what Atheists disbelieve. Sam calls him out on it with the "ghost" analogy, but Peterson has not stopped.
He did this before too, with his "everyone is religious" claim, by redefining religious beliefs to be whatever guides one's actions (not in this discussion, though).
You're missing the point. Normal words have a clear and simple meaning and shouldn't be redefined. "God" is not a normal word. There are many different conceptions of God among both atheists and theists. Also like Jordan says, some people have the intuition, but no articulation. I think it's a quite interesting question, because if God can be something else than an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient being, maybe it can be reasonable to believe in God again. And if you want to reserve the word God for the definition I just gave, then that raises the question of what we should call these other articulations of Jordan that clearly speaks to many peoples religious intuitions
the question was "what does god mean to JP", not "what does god mean". The fact that he did not give a generic response does not constitute anything other than a non generic argument. Which Jordan has never claimed to be making generic or tradition faith based arguments.
I think this is very interesting. While i really enjoy both Sam and Jordan, to me i found Sams criticism of Jordans answer to be frustrating. However you find it frustrating that Jordan would have given that answer. I dont know what this says but it is something interesting.
Again, to me Jordan is putting forward a nuanced argument, unique to him, and Sam is criticising him for not giving the response he wanted him to give. At least, thats how I see it.
And to Sams point of, "it does not not close the door to traditional religious beliefs", I dont think that is true either. It doesn't touch of traditional religious beliefs. It neither closes a door or opens it. But the question was had nothing to do with traditional religious beliefs. It had to do with Jordans beliefs.
he's an utter BS artist ...the dynamic is simple ...he uses his coy definition of god to resonate with religious peoples understanding of god by not being honest about a word he is using to an audience who hears god and thinks something else
he uses this definition of his to pretend there is some biological disposition to this arch type notion of god ...plain and simple he's trying to play both sides
god is absolutely a normal word ...it means supernatural ...what form that takes is irrelevant
@@oterdverg you see gender has many definitions for men, women and otherkin alike. Gender isn't a normal word.
Some people may understand they should have been born a transqueer mongoose but they didn't have the blue haired gender studies professor to help them articulate it.
Tremendous!!! I see three men with great love in them, allowing such stimulating conversation and debate that never degrades but builds and educates. Quite a beautiful conversation, and the audience was tremendous too. Thank you all for doing it!!
I self identify as first
I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the frickin' frogs gay. Do you understand that?
#transvestigation #alexbones
I self-identify as first
I self-identify as first.
@@sgtsnakeeyes11 i also abhor chemical industry accidentally neutering aquatic species.
Sincerely Sam, thank you for sharing your podcasts. Challenging subjects but appreciated.
-Jordan: ...Because we don't know where the answer comes from
-Sam: Well, we don't know where anything comes from__
-Jordan: That's true!
Im amazed by Jordans ability to talk so much yet say nothing.
Jordan Deepak Peterson.
Bible is a developmental narrative. LOL
Or you don’t understand what he’s saying...
Radoi Mereut isn’t that a sign of a narcissist? Or maybe a sociopath.
Vegan Buddhist lol that’s a reach. It’s a sign that the information presented is intricate and not everyone speaks the same way. He takes you through his thought process and presents the evidence as he goes
Sam’s a logical maestro.
He really is ahead of his time
Peterson: But god + 5 obscure words without logical meaning, rounded of with pseudointellectual word salad. :) Some of what he is saying makes perfect sense, but whenever he is in "deep waters" - he tries to escape by babbling.
They both make the same mistake tho. They try to have a ultimate foundation for morality. Sams worse case scenario makes the extremes clear, but it helps less and less the further you get away from the extremes.
Yes, they both do it to a certain extend. True :-) But I am also just a "fan" of Harris, when it comes to his interviews, and only some of them. I like his interest in morality, AI and some others. I do not have a need to be polarized, and be a fanboy of either one of them. I will take the good from either of them, and try and figure out the bad arguments myself. But in these facebook times, people really crave their echo-chambers when it comes to attitudes, beliefs, faith etc.
imagine sam harris being your role model
"With your audience i sometimes have to think about what point you actually made, when they applause" Sam Harris
"Is there a god, yes or no?" "That's so complicated...."
but it was clear which point they were applauding, i know it sounds cool tho
@@whiterabit09 yes, it's actually complicated
Converts, lol
I wonder how many Non arguments and word sallads Petrson will say...
EDDIT: This was a FANTASTIC conversation! We can finally understand better Peterson's positions more clearly. And it proves something I have always thought about him , he is an increadible person and his biases get in the way of his intelect. In this conversation he has used Nihilistic , Nietzchian ( wich is against Nihilism ) and Post Modern ways of thinking to make his arguments ( and its clear that he has used the first and the last to uderstand the world more than he claims he has wich is FANTASTIC! These are useful tools and we must use them to their best use.).
The only problem that i had was his claim that Nazism and Stalinism + Leninism were secular-totalitarian nations. But this point was refuted by Harris and Peterson agreed wich was , finally , relieving.
I think that this conversation ( and the one that follows although I haven't watched it yet since its 2 o'clock at night here in Greece at the time ) will help him grow more as a thinker and make him face his biases in order to become more honnest with him self and more open and clear about his Ideas.
Absolutelly fantastic! Although Sam , in my opinion , has yet to open his wings fully.
What makes religious faith in the supernatural even worse than nazism is that the supernatural can not be understood. Which means Nazism at least can be refuted while religious bigotry can not.
People like you will go into the history books as the Cultists of The Useless Woo-Woo. Sorry. Not meant as an ad hom.
Jordan's comment section looks a lot more green from this side of the road
Weird how many assholes Sam has in comparison to Peterson. Gotta make him seem dishonest, unintelligent, and so on....
Also interesting to see how certain sentiments are mirrored though in the comments. "Peterson/Harris is just the dumb man's smart man" - Peterson/Harris supporter.
Neither side has a monopoly on rationality, although it seems to be the Harris side that more frequently makes the claim.
Lol right the sam fans seem more biased than the Jordan ones. Probably because sam edged this one by playing offense more
Paragon of Growth Really? I was at this one and thought Sam could have come at him much harder. It felt like he was being sort of subdued almost polite compared to his direct and sustained countering on the podcasts.
@@theippster8891 He for sure wasn't being a dick about it. But he brought up alot of the same points from the podcasts and asked all the questions I would have wanted him to. Couldn't think of anything else on my end
"Now let's start out the discussion by finding some things we both agree on..."
This is going to get rough.
already watched this twice on Pangburns channel and will probably watch it again on Jordans after watching it here. So much to unpack. Thanks for sharing
I love to listen to this while cooking some rice, I add some coconut cream, cut some tomatoes and throw them in
Add some curry at the end
Un délice
Best comment EVER
Also listened to it while cooking up some soup.
that sounds interesting... do you have a recipe?
coconout cream is like crème fraiche but vegetarian and tastes good
I've seen 100 soundbites from this. Thank god the day is finally here!
Peterson wants to remain credible with both the religious and the atheists. Sam is doing good work cutting through Peterson's speculative and unscientific woolly thinking.
Watched on both channels, worth it 100%
Love both you guys! Religion vs. Non-Religion as a topic is getting a little stale but very enjoyable none the less
Yeah I was hoping they wouldn't get stuck there...
If anyone is wondering why there is a fade to black cut at 6:15, it is because on the night the sound quality was initially atrocious for Jordan, and at one point while speaking he complained a little about it. It seems that Pangburn, not happy with the criticism of their bad sound set up, have edited out Jordan's complaint out of the final product.
Got to give credit to Bret. Amazing moderator!
Peterson seems less smart around actual intellectuals. Its easy to sound smart on Joe Rogans podcast.
Someone can be smart and wrong....
@@Wingedmagician true he's definitely a smart guy, his vocabulary and ability to quote people off the top of his head proves that. I don't think he's the best thinker though, he seems to be able to dodge any problems with his logic by using word salad
everyone says JBP uses "word salad", which I almost understand, but for me every time I think that's what he's doing, I listen and it starts to come together and make sense. he's not rambling nonsense, he's just articulating complex ideas. if it really was "word salad", then you could post meaningless sentences that he has said.
@@Ashalmawia I disagree it's word salad, but I do think you have learn his weird made-up ideas about how to use words like "postmodernism" ... which is unfortunate.
+Billy Overton it's completely normal to have to learn jargon and a unique context of ideas in philosophy. read almost any philosophy paper and that's what you'll be doing. that's even what philosophy _is_ in some sense, is coming up with new ideas which usually get applied to existing words, not made up words.
I enjoyed watching this and hope to see more like this.
Stories are not only instruments to communicate ideas, but at the core of meaning itself.
consciousness is a series of stories we tell ourselves. it's the model that we create out of sensory input. it's how we remember things. how we summarize lessons and facts into theories fo the world.
As much as I love this I can’t help thinking we are playing on Hume’s old cracked playground
Very enjoyable and informative, thanks Sam
Sound gets better 5mins in
4:50! 4:40! 4:50! gosh... idiot!
Incredibly good performance! Sam Harris has had a truly significant impact on my worldview and Jordan brings a very unique set of ideas to the table. philosophers will be grappling with these ideas for generations to come.
I'm about half way through the conversation. Absolutely brilliant stuff on both sides.
Sometimes it feels like Peterson is getting nowhere but then suddenly he says something that is absolutely insightful and makes crystal clear what he's trying to get at. Sam has the advantage in that his is the simpler argument, bolstered by scientific and empirical evidence and knowledge, yet Peterson manages to make some very strong points even though he has the harder claim to make.
Can't wait to finish watching this!
JP expended 20 minutes of time and energy to make the point that religion isn't responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world. Really profound stuff.
Two hours of Dr. Filibuster. This is why I keep the Advil handy.
You know what I did to be able to stand it?... I changed the pitch on the sound to the highest setting. Peterson sounds like a nice excited little old lady, instead of an irritating annoying man banging his own drum.
Sam sounds like a teenager before his voice broke, but it is worth it, so much more bearable, specially the last 2 episodes... hahaha
I feel your frustration Sam. Still, I'm glad you had these discussions!
I'm so glad they skipped the Q&A. The ensued discussion was so much better.
I think they both have their own conceptualization of what is best for humanity but at the deepest level they both are believing in the same core truths. They really came a long way during this discussion and I feel like they're close to realizing how similar their world views really are.
I agree they both make the same mistake by trying to give morality an ultimate foundation. You dont need one... Karl Popper showed that almost a hundred years ago.
A HUGE Sam Harris fan here.. Absolute braingasm. ;)
This was fucking awesome, I love all three of these guys and I actually loved the engagement of the crowd in this one
After watching this: I could sit and talk with Sam Harris forever. Talking with Jordan Peterson would be, yes, hell.
Sam is definitely more clearly able to deal with religion in its actual manifestation much more than peterson seems to be willing to do. I'm not sure why peterson hesitates condemning aspects of religion, but it is clear as day that he's uncomfortable in doing so.
Because he knows how important it is to people. I’d like him to be a little more like Sam in denouncing the superstition and dogma... but I love what he says about archetypes and with what “religious” means psychologically, even though the science/practice is not exactly definitive or accessible yet to say the least.
+Rob Rather he knows how important it is to his Patreon. He knows very well that most of his fans are somewhat religious conservatives. If he just called them out on their bullshit, they would unsubscribe. That´s why he has used every dirty trick in the book to defend the notion that religious faith is somehow good. Do you really think these are his arguments? They are the same ones that other apologists have been using since the start of this whole Atheists vs. Religion thing. They have been used and debunked many times, on stage and elsewhere, many times by Harris himself, but somehow, they always rise from the ashes again.
Jirka Zalabák it’s always dishonesty. It’s always that he’s a bad actor.... nice argument
+Rob He is definitely not entirely honest, especially on his religious/morality stuff. He ignores statistics and instead appeals to instinct.
"Atheists are immoral murderers."
"But atheists actually have the lowest crime rate of any group on Earth, Jordan. Generally, the more atheistic a country gets, the lower the crime rate. It has been proven time and time again."
"Well, that´s because they are not really atheists! They lied to the pollsters, or they don´t understand their own beliefs!"
He is willing to bet on a statistic that says that mushrooms cause mystical experiences, but this statistic is somehow false? Get the fuck out of here!
And it works for him, too. Because most religious people are not actually looking for good arguments. They are just happy to have someone to hold the line, so they can act like the jury is still out on this topic, and not feel stupid for not thinking critically about their beliefs.
jirka nice IQ 65 you got there
This is the most coherent I've seen Peterson be, and I expect the reason is that Harris won't let Peterson get away with his usual glib gish gallop without calling him out on it.
Haha yeah.
I have a meandering manner of speaking myself, so I sympathize with JP even as a I wince in recognition of my own speaking style.
I think he and I both have the problem of not vocalizing what we think until someone prompts us to do so.
So it's a stuttering and messy process to say what is going on in the old noggin.
I learned something new today, 'gish gallop'. Thank you!
31 minutes in and I have already had to pause 3 times to google word or phrase definitions. I love it.
1:22:29
"That's and I would say that's that's two things about that. That's exactly why we're having this discussion and you see what happens in the most profound of such texts is the idea that the process by which your knowledge is updated has to occupy a position in the hierarchy of values that supersedes your reliance on dogma is the fundamental claim."
Jordan Peterson
Thank you Dr. Harris.
Morphing Reality: and I suppose the Moral Landscape is a brilliant idea?
i do
Fascination conversation with three super interesting minds. Great job. Very interested to watch the second video. Bret did a great job moderating and all interlocutors were 99.9% civil in every way. No one's perfect, heh.
The problem here is so huge yet it seems so silly. I get Peterson's tactic to just adhere to a useful fiction because, per his own words, people aren't very swayed by rational thought. I get that. I also get why Harris would say that appealing to such a fiction can create other issues pertaining to said appeal. They're both right in this regard.
Why resort to a useful fiction just because more people are "dumb enough" to adhere to the tenets, however more socially resourceful they may be? Are we really to submit ourselves to such a strategy for the betterment of our collective? Are there not ANY other means by which we might transcend our "religious" limitations and fears? Must we rely on fear of a real human or some otherworldly entity to create a better society? Fuck that. I'm that much closer to jumping in front of a train if this is the case.
However, I agree more with Harris (especially his views on free will; we almost mirror each other...it's so refreshing to see someone who sees the world in a similar way) in that we as humans with our finite mental faculties can derive such moral landscapes without such an appeal to the aforementioned fictions. But...BUT, I don't agree with him when he says that there are OBJECTIVE moral ideals. This is my only issue with his line of argumentation (as far as I can remember).
Why can't we just admit that there are no such moral objectives? Why can't we appreciate that the idea of morality is a purely subjective one? Sure, it must surely be ALWAYS a bad idea to stab a random passersby to death, but this doesn't need to be explained as a morally objective fact for it to be a bad idea. What's so wrong with it just being a morally subjective fact? Then you get around the potential flaw of needing to imply that there is some god that makes this a reality? Of course, there are some people who might do just that and even think it's right and fair (whether they're mentally ill or whatnot is a separate issue and would require much parsing), but this extreme minority of humans don't make their behaving in this way any less reprehensible to the majority.
Would a world exist in which everyone could be OK with stabbing to death random strangers in public? I think not. Perhaps there will never be a complete agreement with every human about any given thing, but whether there would or would not, does not the idea that MOST humans agree to such a thing mean anything? Even if it was considered only subjectively? Christianity (or any other religion) has no monopoly on morality.
All my issue with Harris is about is that once you state that there are moral "truths"--objective truths about a moral landscape--you seem to be swayed to lean more to the religious side when it's simply not necessary.
If someone, Harris included, can explain to me why belief in moral objectivity is even necessary, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Peace and farewell.
Hey, I appreciate a thoughtful reply whether you dabble or not. It's hard to come by quality on the RUclipss, heh. I always go over my comments twice in order to minimize redundancy, but I always end up questioning the quality no matter, heh. My college writing days forever haunt me.
* "...[I]f someone did hypothetically stab someone in a world in which morality is subjective, society would have no legitimate way of criticizing the stabber." *
But how? Are we not in this situation already (I argue)? Is it not our (not mine, personally) collective subjective opinion in morality's objectivity that makes this so? So its objectification is in itself a testament to the subjectivity of morality. This is at least how I see it.
Surely, in a hypothetical world where all is subjective and we all appreciate it as such, let's say someone randomly stabs someone and the perpetrator says to all onlookers, "I just felt like stabbing the person and you can't do shit because morality is subjective." You don't think, for their own safely, that they would formulate a similar police force and form of prison (although ours in the U.S. needs to be fixed) to, at the very least, sequester such a harmful individual for their own safety? Just because morality may be subjective wouldn't mean we much accept and never punish any and all behaviors. Now THAT would suck, heh, not the subjectivity of morality.
Also, just because most people find something difficult to do, doesn't make it correct. Just means most people find it difficult, heh. And I definitely see how the popular view/capacity can hinder certain paradigm shifts. Politics, too. As you say, * "...[I]n a world where some people accept subjective morality and some accept objective morality, the ones that believe in objective morality will probably guide society because they believe there is a 'higher' reason to convince others that they are right." But again, this is not proof of their beliefs being correct, just that they happen to have more utility given the limitations of the population and the trammels of tradition.
* "Opinions cannot be argued. Since a subjective moral belief is an opinion, there is no way to argue that it is correct." *
Other than stating that "my moral beliefs are objective", heh. Interesting loophole. For me, the onus is on the person believing in objective morality to state their case (and not appeal to a god/s or religious dogma). I got why Peterson kept pressing Harris on this point, but never really feel that Harris had solid ground on this (or at the very least I wasn't persuaded by his argument, and quite often I agree with what he has to say, heh), but perhaps I'm missing something.
Let's try this:
We have a colored-shirt-making business. Just plain t-shirts with single, primary colors (to keep things simple: red, blue, and yellow). We poll the opinions of 10,000 people (maybe over-kill, statistically, assuming the sample is representative of our target population, but I digress) as to find out where their tastes in primary colors lies. The distribution looks something like 15% yellow, 30% red, and 55% blue. Now we say to ourselves as managers of the business, how should we focus our production? Well, I'd argue that we should output roughly the same quantity of shirts, outputting 15% of our shirts yellow, 30% red, and 55% blue until sales reveal otherwise.
This is an example of how just because something is subjective doesn't mean it can have actual impact in the world if enough people back it and agree. If those who took the poll polled each other and knew what was popular, they would be able to get an idea of what kind of shirts would be available, and would argue that, for those who like tie-dye shirts, one would need to look for another business. If the business polled someone and they responded with neither yellow, red, nor blue (because they only like secondary colors or whatnot), sadly, their opinion would be wasted because that particular business couldn't handle making such shirts (for now). But if in time the business does well and makes ample profit, they might start making a wider spectrum of colors, taking in more and more opinions for the population, et cetera, maybe even dropping some older colors that...don't sell well, heh.
I just have no issue seeing a world in which such things are subjective, but again, as you said, I get why some people don't vibe with it because it's easier to point to something and say, "It's objectively real," than to make sense of it otherwise. I do get it.
* "Try doing 'good' things while also thinking that what you are doing might easily be considered 'bad' in the future. It leads towards somewhat nihilistic thought." *
This is reality. Are we to do enough mental gymnastics to make ourselves feel better, or do we see reality for what it is (within our capacity) even if that means jettisoning some happiness and comfort? I choose the latter. Doesn't have to be nihilistic, just requires more appreciation of the complexity. People like to think that they know things that they cannot, I get why this provides comfort, but they're often wrong. I'd rather be less wrong even at the expense of feeling a bit...less comfortable.
* "Once again, we believe what we believe because we think we are right. We want other people to think like us. The best way to make that happen is to believe that what we think is objectively correct." *
I'll just agree to disagree. I don't want the end to simply justify the means here. I don't want to start with, "I assume I'm right, so how do I persuade the most people to think I'm right, therefore I will say my beliefs are objectively true," heh. Perhaps my views will never catch on, that's fine, I just think there's more reason behind mine that those of objective morality. I'm used to this feeling though. I often find myself running obliquely against humans-at-large, heh. It is a horribly lonely feeling, I'll give you that. Not nihilistic though.
Again, I appreciate you and the time it takes to reply, if you do so.
Peace.
This is, in many respects, an argument about pedagogy: how to bring less knowledgeable people up from "The Bad" or to keep them "Out of Hell". It's an argument about which terminology is most useful and relevant today in terms of keeping people from destructive behavior.
Sam is very concise, to the point and on top of every word that he utters.
JP seems to go down a veritable garden path of the vernacular, spewing forth verbal entrails and unable to hammer home his point.
sorry I am a bit late but I wow the crowd reaction to continue the discussion was amazing!!!
Good job Sam, Jordan, & Weinstein!!! 😉
For two hours, I could feel my neurons on overdrive. Thank you, Gentlemen.
720p, filmed on an iPhone 3G????? Sound? A mic on a laptop from 1998 at the back of the room.
Where the 4K at? It's 2018, was this cut together as part of an elementary school project?
“Own it!” This should be a meme.
I really respect Dr. Peterson when he says that he is getting tired. I have seen him do it many times he does so generally after making some mistake. I don't really agree with most of what he says but I like that he just honestly says what he is feeling instead of trying to hide it or get mad or anything.
A lot of people are assuming that Peterson is saying nothing because they don't immediately understand what he is getting at. If you honestly believe that Peterson is just saying things to appear as an intellectual then you need more background info to understand what is going on.
The statement- "Hero born at the time of darkness" made me remind one sloka from Gita written in Sanskrit 5000 years ago "Yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati bharata
Abhythanamadharmasya tadatmanam srijamyaham" which mean "whenever sin will dominate the world, every time I will manifest myself and establish the truth again".
42:30. Sam is right on the money. Jordy is dancing for minutes on end avoiding answering a simple question for either fear of offending his God or fear of offending his paying followers and Sam rightly asks “why won’t you answer”
How difficult can it possibly be to acknowledge that there is an objective truth, all people may not know it....and some people are just wrong about it!! It’s not like we can’t tell when something is wrong without yet knowing what is true.....we do that all the time
Absolutely love Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson but have to say Sam comes out completely on the right side of the logical mind as opposed to the fictional mind as Jordan seems to sway to in their discussions. Truth is all that matters and fear of facing those eventual outcomes is no excuse for burying our head in the sand. Thanks so much for taking the time to get together to expose exactly what the problems actually are. It's been 2 years and it would seem the World continues down the path of destruction, unfortunately. All I know is that I wish there were more Sam's in my World because the JP's of the World are driving me crazy. And this is not a META Truth.What Jordan should do is try living in a reality where this imaginary God actually doesn't exist and then ask himself if he would live differently.
As a listener, Sam Harris invokes an effortless sense of resonance within me. Peterson grates and I find his reasoning convoluted, although he does deliver his thoughts with enthusiasm. I think it's unlikely that people with a religious persuasion would be able to take anything useful away from Peterson's oratory. I think Peterson's position is one that has been tailor made to explain 'Peterson's Position' and is only useful when wielded by 'Peterson' on behalf of 'Peterson.' Unfortunately, his ability to resonate with others suffers as a consequence but I suppose his admirers get to marvel at how well Peterson defends 'Peterson' even if they remain confused as to what he really believes, or whether there's really any practical utility tucked away within his outlook.
Yeah, by the time you've fought your way through the jungle of word salad, it often turns out that Peterson's basically said nothing at all.
That amazing burn on Peterson's audience was so great around 1:00:34 - 1:01:30 I think he channelled Hitchens for a moment.
Share this with anyone who says Ben Stiller can't act. Christopher Lloyd is also great in this.
Yawn.......
Am I the only one who admires them both.
Excellent discussion. Edit. Sam Rocks!
I love how the introduction sounded like they were about to have a cage fight :D
It was very WWE.
I’d love to hear Sam Harris and Sadguru chat.
I think Jordan gives way too much credit to the authors of the bible.
To be fair, I don't think he attributes the "wisdom" that he projects onto Christianity, to it's authors, but rather, to the selection process of generational storytelling.
I like a lot of what he has to say, but any wisdom gained from the bible can be gained without assuming anything supernatural whatsoever.
Hi, so I ended up here from the first Pangburn video I've seen. I've no idea what's going on there, I liked the content, everything on the internet is transient to me anyway :) But I wanted to say hi :)
Tell the audience not to record so they can speak freely, and then release their own recording? I think we know why and it has nothing to do with free speech.
Is intellectual property not a good concept in your eyes?
These shows weren't supposed to be uploaded but somebody illegally uploaded them and then they took those down and decided to officially upload them for anybody who didn't finish watching them. If anybody was wondering why they didn't get uploaded right after, that's why! lol
Feel like the final battle in 8 mile
Mom's spaghetti
Jeremy Wei LMFAOOOOOOOO HARRIS IS B RABBIT LMAAOOO
i dont think peterson knows what a debates supposed to entitle, he said "we both agree" way too many times. im a fan of both peterson and harris, harris on issues of religious (although his cowardly stance on circumcision is quite pitiful, and peterson on his stance of free speech and his brilliant psychiatrich knowledge. he however doesnt seem very content or comfortable in this debate with harris, its clealry not an area hes overly familiar with, harris has written so many books on theology and atheism and the pursuit of morality grounded in science, peterson however has done mostly public debates regarding free speech and destroying SJWs. two very different ideas and it doesnt seem like peterson has taken quite an interest in figuring out if his belief in a god is his belief or the belief he was forced to believe in growing up.
I can't help feeling that they both agree strongly on the preference that we live our lives in a good way-and that the exhaustive debate about whether that's in correspondence to a belief in a divine presence or otherwise is superfluous to this notion. Sure, rigid dogmatic beliefs are unhelpful (as is publicly debating it in front of their loyal fans's cheers and jeers) but these two great minds might better debate practical ways to live our lives in reverence of this shared important preference.
fans'* my apologies!
Why do the fans of Sam always treat debates like WWE matches. Sam and JP are there to learn and listen, not to put each other down. They agree on a lot of important things. If they both creates a society the societies would be extremely similar.
Diplomatically speaking
Love the video. It amazes me, however, that no matter what happens in a debate like this, both Peterson and Harris' fans will claim their guy stomped the other.
It's 2018... Feedback shouldn't be an issue ffs
B COz
For Fucks Sake ???
Also: Handheld mics, rly?
I watch so much porn that I thought ffs was referring to female, female, shemale (threesome). I just can't stop masturbating smh...
sko ducks dude wtf
+Vesna Vuynovich Kovach Yeah Pangburn seems like a tool.
Take this same video and go look at the comments in the Pangburn and Jordan Peterson versions. The scarcity of overlap is a little depressing. To reference a previous hypnotizer, it's like two movies. At least, there was a good conversation in all of these movies.
I'm wanting Jon Haidt to moderate SH and JP, he would do a good job sharpening up their arguments, as BW has here.
All the better because Haidt's work on the social utility of religion has really left Sam in the dust. Sam still thinks religion causes suffering when it is suffering that gives rise to religion. Likewise, Sam also thinks that religion's primary purpose is as an epistemological system when in fact it is primarily acts as a social glue and guard against existential despair and social alienation by providing heuristics for behavioral and mental hygiene.
Yes, yes, yes. Totally agree, I think that Haidt's theory (and the web of knowledge and ideas, that support it) are really missing from this discussion.
+jon henry That is the most amazing run on sentence I've ever read. Thank you!
Bret is a beast! Has there ever been a better moderator?