Jordan is such a divisive character. The reasons for why he has followers are probably same reasons why I find him intolerable. Kudos for the conversation
@@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351No. He gave a halfway answer, then immediately backtracked after saying essentially … maybe, yes. If someone could get him to say yes, I believe Jesus is the risen son of God, or no, I’m not convinced, that would be a straight answer. Instead he hedges his bets and words for the morons he’s pandering to for pocket change, that adds up to millions.
I really don’t see that JP is trying to obscure anything. After listening to the entire conversation, it seems he’s trying not to answer a question inaccurately when the intent of the questioner is uncertain. He spoke to his thoughts on this at length with Alex. He is a Jungian thinker. He thinks of these stories as archetypal patterns that emerged throughout all of human existence. He thinks there is profound sociocultural value in the patterns put forth in the Christian stories. He believes that to utter the words, I’m a Christian, I believe in God, the Bible is historically accurate truth is not what makes you a Christian, and he is approaching these stories as a Jungian psychologist, so there’s no real value in answering a silly question that calls for those types of utterances. To the extent he is a Christian he believes it’s about the sacrifice of your life to the betterment of yourself and others. To the extend he’s an agnostic he is searching for answers by studying the text from a psychological lens. Fair enough. I really don’t understand what people don’t understand? I feel like all of this has always been obvious. I read these comment threads and it’s always the same JP, word salad, grifter accusations. I was super excited for Alex and Jordan to speak. I thought it was a very interesting discussion conducted in good faith by two very smart people who think differently. We need more of that and less just repeating empty words by brainless critics who just want to know what “side” he’s on so they can mock him or mock the people who thought he was on their “side.” It’s just sad.
Interviewer: What is a sandwich? Jordan Peterson: It depends on what you mean by 'what'. It might constitute an edible assemblage of heterogeneous alimentary substrates, typically involving an intermediate stratum of comestible materials, ensconced betwixt bipartite sections of a farinaceous medium, often derived from leavened wheat dough subjected to thermally induced gelatinization and Maillard reactions.
@@WillyJunior In dialogue-based video games, you have to choose between dialogue options to make progress in a story, and only one or a few specific paths have the desired ending.
He just said the same thing he always says on this topic. You're desperate to get an answer that fits into totally materialist assumptions so you filter out any answer that doesn't and when you get one that does here you forget all the context.
I've seen lots of people say materialism towards the antithesis of what religious people believe. Maybe materialism is the base and you have the burden of proof to prove it's not. @@someguy4405
@@johnnybaxter1953 Well, post modernists think that truth is relative… and Peterson also seems to think that even the fictional stories of the Bible can be true somehow.
It became orthodoxy to believe that Jesus, in his appearances, was a resurrected corpse that left the tomb rather than his spirit leaving his body and then materialized at will behind closed doors. The questions is what did he do with his body? He dematerialized it.
I've never seen a person say so much, mean so little, know exactly what he's talking about, yet have no clue what he's saying. It's like Peterson is trying to convince himself not to be convinced by himself.
Jordan Peterson never relates his "Christianity" to Carl Jung's understanding of the collective unconscious. Peterson believes through the centuries, Christian mythology (which he credits for western culture and values) has integrated within our collective psyche and therefore we cannot help but act accordingly. That's why he often says "I act as if God exists" but if he explains why, he will admit he's not a Christian and therefore lose 90% of his conservative followers.
No he's opposing the materialist worldview, he wants to talk on his level and doesn't want to adhere to people who don't do the same. Childish? perhaps, but he's making perfect sense actually. I see why some people don't get it however, because like I said, he's not willing to talk on your preferred level. I have no issue understanding him 99% of the time.
He is most likely an atheist or at least very non religious. However, he knows his followers are generally religious conservatives. For this reason he intentionally gives deflective non answers to any religious questions. He gives much more straight answers on topics he believes he’s actually correct about.
I know he's intentionally and overly trying to be nice so Peterson doesn't cry but there has to be a limit where you just say DID IT BLOOODDY HAPPEN YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN
@@Bickle121 yeah, It's so hilarious whenever Jordan was trying to indulge in the overly sophisticated theological and psychological side of the question, he was so quickly interrupted by Alex to clarify the question even more, I was literally laughing throughout the whole conversation 🤣
@@SolvedEnglish yeah Peterson is known to avoid these questions now so Alex was trying so hard to be specific and make sure he was asking a question that couldn't be misinterpreted but that's impossible with a clown like Peterson
Mom: Did you take the cookie? Jp: There are so many interpretations of that, Mommie. Mom: Well, your sister and brother said they saw you take it. Jp: I don't know what that means. Mom: Now Jordan Peterson, there are cookie crumbs on you lips. Jp: The mythical and historical meanings are so intertwined as to be inextricably intertwined. Mom: Jordan, you're grounded. Jp: Life is so unfair to us who seek the deepest truths.
Well it depends what you mean by depends! What does what do you mean mean if means meaning depends on dependence? What what means depends on what means means!
@@Steelmage99that sadly is literally what he thinks... In debates with Jordan he says (paraphrase) "you don't even know what you want/who you are ! Who are you to say! ", in context of what people know about themselves, while next sentence he proceeds to say what people want or who they are... He thinks of himself as the arbiter of truth, above others, others OBVIOUSLY don't know who they are or want they want but HE KNOWS
He gets to decide what being precise means. This is why fascists love rules, the implicit assumption is that they get to set and change them unilaterally at any time. It's also why you would think "conservatives" (fascists) would create stability as they try to strictly adhere to principles, but instead they create rapid change and chaos as they change the rules to suit them on a whim. Ironically, it's the democratic governments that are truly conservative, as getting large groups of people to agree on anything takes forever.
Remember, JP's definition of "truth" is "whatever makes us survive", so when he says that something is "true", what he means is that it's useful for our survival, not that it actually physically is the case. Did Jesus walk out of his tomb? Well, if believing it helps us avoid cultural nihilism, then yes, Jesus really did. That's the silly game JP plays.
No it is not a silly game because if you went back in time with your iPhone and you recorded Jesus dead in His Tomb, it would matter mostly to YOU. It wouldn't change the historical record at all, just your personal view of it, which you might share with your contemporaries and impact on the future, but that won't be much different from what is happening now. We have a silly notion of 'truth' as the final arbiter of all debates and arguments. It's driven by our desire to come to conclusions, make decisions, confirm biases, minimize anxiety and restore emotional stability. This has an evolutionary value which is JBP's point.....'>.....
Ah, but hypothetically when you assert check mate, what is it you mean, precisely? A check is that which we make out to a seller of wares in exchange for their service and a means of payment, an action which surely communicates an inherent heirarchy of patron and benefactor; the dominant and subservaint roles of our society. Not to mention the "mate," which is what? While the post-modernists like Derida might have pushed the term to colloquially refer to a friend or fellow, a mate is a sexual partner. One that no matter the orientation of natural sex or product of the radical left is of subservience and dominance. And it's the, (begins to quietly weep) the forebears knowledge of our ancestors who began playing games -that surely began from forms of bits of sticks clay and ivory that they pulled from the mud-and boy can you imagine the masculinity it took to project your warrior traits onto the inanimate debris of the forest- that when they eventually formed rules and settled into agreement for the type of combat they would imitate that they chose the words "Check mate" to represent a victory. So, I think its unwise of you to assert your claim to check mate when you haven't considered that the oldest knights and pawns share the same underlying hierarchy of dominance with rats, who themselves share with lobsters, which we obviously descendended from in some cosmic calvalcade of suffering and entropy that disguises the real truth. Truth that we could only hope to posit in this age of anti-capitalistic and self-destructive fascism that leads men to call the *obscenely obese* champions of physical fitness and beauty so much so that they've ruined my favorite sex magazine-I mean a testament to the glory of sports and fitness. (Okay, I'm me again). That started off as me just being a bit silly and imitating Peterson style word salad, but weirdly, it was so quick and easy, and faux-passionate that I kind of couldn't stop. For a brief moment it gave me an insight into how drifters like Peterson end up drinking their own Koolaid. Anyway, next time you meet a Paterson fan, you should read them my comment and see if they can differentiate it from his actual lectures. @aadd2935
“If I put a Panasonic video camera in front of the tomb would I see Jesus walk out…” lmfaoooo I’m dead. Can’t believe it has to be asked this way to corner this guy and get a straight answer.
It's a bit hyperbolic to say he has "no idea", but I think he's just expressing the same thing they discussed with the water to wine example. I can believe water turned into wine, but still have no idea how that happened.
“I suspect yes. But I don’t know what that means”. It would mean that he rose from the dead. That’s all people want him to concede. No one cares what deep and meaningful waffle he thinks its implications are. He’s frustratingly ambiguous for the sake of it.
Not just for the sake of it. He panders to the Christian right. If he unambiguously says that he doesn't believe Jesus literally resurrected, that the Bible isn't literally true, he'd lose a large part of his fanbase that is Biblical literalists. And if he says he believes the Bible to be literally true, his more liberal fanbase would laugh at him. He wants to keep both groups appeased.
@@MurshidIslamExactly this, clearly the strategy he chose. As with most speakers/influencers like him, they start off with genuine motivations but once their demographics settle, they follow the money.
I was holding my breath my Jordan seemed to just speak plainly saying the screen would show someone exiting the tomb, but then he had to go and add in the "but I have no idea what that means, and neither did they."
@@JD-wu5pf Alex didn't say that Jesus exited the tomb, only that someone did. So there's plenty of wiggle room there. Plus, I don't see why he would have no idea what it means. Christians believe that it confirms the existence of God and proves Jesus' divinity and victory over death blah blah blah. The meaning isn't confusing at all. So, why pretend he has "no idea" what it means? Maybe it just means you someone exit the tomb who was never dead in the first place and you confused that person with Jesus.
You know Alex has gone a long way when you have Christians, like myself, liking his videos and commenting positively. I absolutely loved his precision in asking question and not letting JP (who I also like a lot) wonder around. As a Christian, I want critical thinking and thought provoking discussions, not lame and superficial agreements. Great job man!!
@@Greenfield1762 That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Some of the world’s greatest philosophers and thinkers held Christian beliefs, and some were like Dawkins and Hitchens who were not believers. Belief in a religion doesn’t mean you can’t have very rational, critical thoughts. In fact, I’d wager the comment you made reveals your distinct lack of critical thinking skills and judging by the comment, you aren’t a believer. Maybe sit and think on that for a bit before you make another ill informed comment.
@@princeofgreece9054 You misunderstood my comment. Give me one critically thought out thought process that can be used to show any religion is true? THATS my point, you can’t.
@@Greenfield1762 Very simple, historical evidence. I'm a Christian bc Christianity is true. Please look into Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel!
@@Greenfield1762 Give me one critically thought out thought process that can be used to show that all religions are false. That's the point, you can't. Everyone has a worldview, and that worldview can't be justified with proof, it is summed up to a belief.
Watched the whole talk on Peterson's channel and you were brilliant as always. You're doing a great job, always, and I'm glad you're here, sharing that with all us.
My problem with JP is that his convoluted word salads serve to obfuscate, rather than elucidate, his points. I feel that the goal should be to explain complex issues with as much simplicity and clarity as possible, rather than leaving the listener more confused than before. Alex did a great job posing the right questions to hopefully get some answers from Jordan on this topic.
Interesting. See my problem with JP is more than he's a reactionary religious Nazi apologist who encourages violent bigotry and eugenics. I don't particularly care about how annoying and insufferable he is, I care that he hates women and science.
@@sheeraz_ I would say making it as simple as possible as something you cannot make simple like how do you make simple advance physics? There is always going to be a level of complexity just cannot go under.
Alex is an absolute powerhouse in the public intellectual space. He's so young and already so incredibly knowledgeable and talented. One of the few people to be able to have a conversation with Peterson and actually earn his respect and *almost* get him to provide a straight answer. I really hope we get many more decades of his work. I know I'm being greedy, but we need lots more like him.
Alex , even as a Christian, I wanna thank you for being the only interviewer to be clear and concise enough to draw out Peterson’s true thoughts on the matter. The way you framed the question at 4:22 was so concise and specific. Good stuff man .
Sam Harris was clear and concise enough to draw out Peterson’s true thoughts the bible "the biblical story is a product of human minds over millennia". Sam did this in 2018.
@@BarrySometimes didn’t see that one I guess . The 3hr discussion with Sam Haris where they went back and forth on “what is truth” is mainly what I recall
Look, if he actually gave you the answer you wanted, a simple yes or a simple no, I have high doubts you would be satisfied with that, unless you are that simple about the topic of God.
As a Bible-believing Christian, I respect Alex for putting Peterson on his heels. Alex didn’t allow him to escape the questions like everyone else does.
@jackricky5453 Why? You understand that when ancient Judeans talk about Demons in that context, they are referring to what we understand to be mental illness, which you can't simply transfer into Pig.
@krustyknight2943 Believe what literally happened? You know there are millions of Christians who selectively believe some sections of the Bible and not others, right?
Well if yes, what exactly would have had to have happened exactly? I think that's a fair comment. Is why I suspect no. No idea what happened to the body could have gone anywhere. Thrown into a ditch and eaten by dogs for all I know. What was the norm those days? Don't think was burial. So why the story of burial? Because they experience seeing him. Where does that fit known experience? The rare yet reported phenomenon of group vision, possibly exceptional with some sense of the visceral that they tack on stories of the physicality (feel like tack ons to me). Not uncommon for folk to appear to close people after death actually eg JB Phillips and Cs Lewis a famous eg in my culture, so that matches what we know. I suspect a powerful eg of that, that got written up to emphasise the significance and magnitude of resurrection.
I agree with him. I am a follower of Christ and I believe he rose after death and walked out of that tomb. But I have no idea what that means. I understand the implications, as does Peterson, that's not what he nor I mean I'm certain I can say. All I'm saying is, that if I saw that then or today, I would have no idea what I was looking at.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic you have no idea what you are looking at...but you said you would be looking at Jesus Christ risen from the dead walking out of the tomb. So clearly you DO have an idea what that means, otherwise you wouldn't have described such.
In case you don’t want to watch the full interview, JP basically argued that the Bible is true not because the events literally happened but because they’re, like, representative of some aspects of humanity that are sort of always “true,” like human suffering. And when it comes to the definition of being a Christian, he defines it in the vaguest way possible, which is essentially rejecting postmodernism (of course) and believing that humanity is a “fallen” species and that trying to be like Jesus is a good thing. He’d probably argue against everything I said here but not because it’s incorrect, as its an alright basic summation, but because he’d argue against any and all descriptions of what he believes, as well as probably what “belief” means.
This isn't the worst summary, but there are issues. His definition of a Christian wasn't vague, it just wasn't one that allows you to easily test. I'd add that just because he wouldn't say the Bible is true "because" things literally (historically) happened, doesn't mean they didn't also historically happen. The historical is just rarely the most important aspect.
"he would probably disagree with how i characterise his beliefs, but that just PROVES how accurate and good-faith my characterisation is!" flawless logic
That. That was impressive. Alex clearly prepped for this because he knew of how JP responded to questions of this nature. He knew exactly what to say, and in which way to say it in order to ensure as clear an answer as possible from Peterson. And he executed it incredibly well. There’s a lot to respect about Alex, but here’s yet another stellar display
Well, it depends on what you mean by extra. And then what you mean by Jordan. And then who you're referring to when you say "Peterson". And then you have to very precisely define "dressing." And of course there's the implication of using the word "please" creating the suggestion of a contract between you and whoever you're talking to. Whomever you may be entering into a contract of verbal interchange with.
The inextricable link between mythology, psychology and historicity that can’t be adequately parsed in thought can be cleanly separated by (of all things) a ‘Panasonic’. Well done.
JP just contradicted himself. 'Would the LCD screen show Jesus walk out of his tomb?' 'Yes.' 'So when somebody ask you if Jesus did rise from the dead, why don't you just say 'yes'?' 'Because I have no idea what that means.' It means that the LCD screen would show Jesus walk out of that tomb, which you just confirmed to believe... Dude, you just want to avoid admitting that you are a believer and that you are wrong in doing so.
To be fair, Alex said a man, not Jesus. I bet that's where JP was going to go. It could've been any man. It could've been a different guy that was still alive and a couple of days later got himself out. To me it's all philosophical nonsense. "What did and what does Christ mean?" Sorry to disagree with the guy who wrote John but I do think the world is full of enough books on the matter and there's no consensus. And I think that a main motivation factor for JP. he doesn't like the consensus on anything because he gets paid a lot of money to be the sahe-like rabble rouser. Not too different from JC himself.
JP is intentionally masking his language in such a disgusting way. Guess what will happen? Atheists would take the first two sentences and claim JP agrees Jesus did not rise from the tomb and theists would take the last two sentences and claim the exact opposite. It's a cheap trick to appease to the crowd. No integrity.
@@cygnustsp people in philosophy and theologians don't argue in such a way even when they like to make themselves seems obcure (derrida). Also i don't think jp subscribe to fringe theories, it's just not the thing that matters to him
Everytime I listen to JP I imagine how would I've responded to him, and the more I listen to him my response gets closer and closer to "Smile & Nod & talk about the weather"
I gotta say, Alex, as someone who teaches rhetoric and argumentation, I often use clips of yours and JPs to show my students. Your clips almost always get a far more positive response in terms of clarity, conciseness, and control of language. What's neat is after our lesson on fallacies, validity, and soundness, several of my senior level students immediately started seeing the errors or at least areas of trouble in JP's points.
As a Christian , this is a good observation 😅 You do know , That Jordan cannot commit to a side. Because he reaches out to a large number of people and his message is effective. Including Muslims. If he commits to a side , I think he loses a large number of his audience of this matter of theology. This is a reason that gets overlooked.
@@barrywhite36I think people do understand that. Not sure about Muslims, but it’s obvious that a large portion of his audience is Christian, and he doesn’t want to alienate those people.
It's because Jordan Peterson is a powerful co-belligerant for the conservative cultural movement, so Christians don't want to push him away but win him. He's not labeled a false teacher (yet), but still a friend. A valuable asset who has been a gateway for not only fighting the Western Culture war, but bringing people back into traditional Christianity (once they excrete the Jungian residue that Peterson cakes everything in). In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I want to keep him as my friend.
@@dimadimonchyk4696The other problem, is I don’t think he is the sort of man who wants to openly lie about his beliefs, but if he said that “Jesus of Nazareth rose from The dead,” and believed it, then he would have to consider what that means for his life and political beliefs.
I saw the full conservation and I still have no idea if Peterson believes in the actual historical resurrection of Jesus. He's ridiculously evasive and vague when religion is brought up.
He has no choice but to be evasive. You can't be a man that supposedly thrives of reason and logic, but also believe in ridiculous things with a straight face.
Talvez por não ser um crente mas mas um conservador chocado com o ateísmo das esquerdas, procure, como Jung mas sem o seu talento, embarcar no saco sem fundo da mitologia. Infelizmente para ele, após um período inicial de sucesso como combatente do politicamente correto, acabou sendo desmascarado por suas inconsistências intelectuais... Seu interesse não está ligado ao conhecimento mas a luta ideológica das direitas.
I don't know what it means. It's the perfect answer for what resurrection in itself means. Someone returning to life after 3 days has no logical or scientific explanation of the event. He is basically saying: I believe that Jesus was raised from death, but I have no idea how to explain or why it happened or anything in this manner. Basically, it's a subtle response of yes, but I have no idea what this means spiritually, metaphysically... etc . Complaining about evasive means that u are not going for what he means. He did not say no to the answer. He just pushed out of mythological and religious understanding of the finality of it.
It is astonishing that you got an answer out of him. Even though it took minutes of setup and probably the most ridiculous phrasing with the time-traveling camera setup, but you got an actual answer.
“I suspect yes” is one of the greatest answers ever. You know he knows the truth, and our savior is the core of it!!!! Well done, Dr Peterson. Well done. Amen 🙏🙏🙏🙏
“Debates about the existence of God are interminable, and I cannot hope to settle them here. In my view, though, the persistence of this debate is not surprising for one reason only: the depth of the widespread human need to cope with the harsh realities of the human predicament, including but not limited to the fact that our lives are meaningless in important ways. Upton Sinclair famously remarked that it “is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” It is similarly difficult to get somebody to understand something when the meaning of his life depends on his not understanding it.” - David Benatar, _The Human Predicament_
@@gsp3428, I have determined that too. So did Benatar actually. God defined as an omnibenevolent creator doesn’t exist. Other type of Gods/deities/demiurges/creators might exist.
Are we to believe that the best possible method for communicating a message, upon which the fate of every human soul hangs, is a book which allows for near endless interpretations which can't be invalidated?? Given this admission, Peterson would have to concede that not only can he not know if his interpretation is "correct", but since incorrect interpretations will necessarily outnumber correct ones, he should assume on the basis of simple probability, that his is in fact incorrect.
You can invalidate most interpretations. There's some bad logic at the end of your post as well. There are infinitely incorrect interpretations of "stop", but I somehow have allowed the stop signs to save me from car accidents. Actually, there are similar reasons I know much of the Bible to be true.
@@paulaaron4821 Peterson's own assessment was "it's inexhaustible in its interpretive space"..to which he added no caveat suggesting this space is mostly populated with erroneous or irrational interpretations which can be easily dismissed, as you claim. Peterson is admitting that even our best efforts at a coherent interpretation are open to bottomless iteration, which implies that you can't ever know if you've arrived at anything like a "correct" interpretation, in fact such a feat is impossible given this admission. What criteria are you going to bring to bear to assess "correctness" in any case that don't constitute just another interpretive scheme at play? Stop signs aren't "open" to interpretation in any way that analogises the Bible or Peterson's point here, that should be blindingly obvious.
@@sierrabianca The problem is that the Bible is being treated as a theoretical construct, with falsifiable truth claims which can be set against sense data to arrive at some set/chain of truth values. It fundamentally is not, and Peterson states as much. Actions do not have truth values. If I wave my hand, it would be meaningless to ask and answer a question along the lines of, "Is that true?" regarding said action. At best, a question probing for a truth value would be, "Did that happen?" which lies outside the scope of the Bible, as I said above. RE: the inexhaustibility of the Bible, inexhaustible does not mean that anything goes. As Peterson states, the inexhaustibility of the Bible is bounded by the stuff God promised Abraham, which is roughly something good for you, your reputation, the people around you, and your descendants. All this means that you are right, partially: there is no correct interpretation, but there is a better interpretation. The inexhaustibility modifies that into, "There is always a better interpretation." Stop signs are open to interpretation, it's just that people mostly outsource the interpretation to the culture at large and trust that.
That is the nature of words. They are nothing but pointers. You have to walk the path yourself. All anyone else can do is point. Embrace this struggle. It is beautiful.
April 1st of 2023, I became a believer. I had a day of events that changed my beliefs and my life. 365 days after that was Easter of 2024. A friend had invited me to a service. This would be my first one. It was also the churches anniversary of opening. That night, I opened my bible with a quick skim to whatever it opened to. The first thing my eyes saw were "He is risen".
He didn't give a straight answer. He said that he thought that a video camera LCD would show Jesus walking out of a tomb. That leaves lots of Peterson style wiggle room over Jesus rising from the dead.
It was never really that hard, he just was never interviewed by people with enough brain power to lead the conversation. It was always him having the upper hand.
@@Medjayon that's not true, he was clearly not performing well in discussions with Sam Harris nor Matt Dillahunty, but they simply focused on other points. They exposed Peterson's dishonesty and that was enough for them to move on.
JP revealed in this interview his outrageously fluid ontology. Everything basically exists otherwise you're "materialist atheist". His theory of semantics also permits empty expressions blatantly.
"Did you see the robber leave the bank?" "I don't know what I saw." "If we put a camera outside the bank at the time of the robbery, would it show the robber leaving the bank?" "I suspect yes. But I don't know what it means."
JP is the white anglo version of the comical trope of the bombastic black preaching character mangling the language with as many misused syllabically rich words as possible that you see in old Eddie Murphy movies. The exposition when he and Russell Brand get together is off the charts.
@@paulaaron4821 I, like most people, understood everything he said. It's simple sophistry. JP truly is who the ignorant call their intellectual. I say that without malice. When I was a believer, I would have been drawn to his babbling. Thank non-existmo I discarded fables and myths many years ago and he wasn't popular during my deconstruction.
Oh man! That was a frustrating watch. A whole lot of beating around the bush and muddled nonsense. Alex was extremely patient and almost got a straight answer out of Peterson! Great job as always
As a child growing up under the greatest decade ever, the ‘80’s, Panasonic VCRs were among the best as were many of their electronics. Their VCRs allowed my friend to copy video films from the local store to the highest quality.
Peterson is right (for once)! At 4:00 he says his answer "...will just annoy people...", and gives an answer that is perhaps his most obscure and obtuse, ever! Waytago JP!
I like how Alex chose to end this clip - with JP saying he believes something which he has no clue about, and Alex saying "hm..." That's about all one can really respond to such a thing.
You probably know that there isn't anyone who doesn't choose to take a guess at something they don't know, don't you? Some may call it... I don't know... A theory! But we do it all the time, it's part of our life to take our best guess in many situations. It's simple, it's human.
@@Joaodiogocarvalho I don't deny people take guesses, that's not the issue. In what sense can you affirm the truth of a statement, the meaning of which you don't even understand? It's like if I read a sentence in Russian and said "yep, I believe that's true". And then you asked me "but what does the sentence mean?" And I retort - "I have no idea, but I believe it true!" In such a case I would withhold judgement until I could understand what that sentence meant. Either words have meaning or they don't. If you believe something is true - you should be able to define what it is in fact that you believe. Is it the historical fact of Jesus physically rising from the dead that you believe is true? Then own it and say it. Instead it just seems like a way for someone to have their cake and eat it too. They get to say yeah I believe that, but don't expect me to explain it or defend it - I'll just shrug my shoulders and say I don't know what I mean - but hey I believe and so should you! Can you see any issue that people have with that?
@@Jockito I understand your issue with that. I think you exagerated with the part of being a Russian sentence but I believe it's possible to believe in something wich you cannot have the suficient means to explain. I think it even gives a boost to the process of discovering if it is true or not.
@@JoaodiogocarvalhoI see a difference though between being unable to fully explain something (such as why you love someone) which sounds fair, and not knowing what a belief proposition even means. JP said he doesn't know what it means for Jesus to have risen from the dead, yet he believes that Jesus walked out of the tomb alive after having been dead. If he doesn't know what resurrection from the dead even means, why say that one believes someone was alive after being dead? It just seems like a dodge or playing with semantics. Let me give you another example. Suppose I said to you that I believe a man flew unaided across the grand canyon - he was on one side, then he levitated in the air - without any magic tricks, or aids, and landed on the other side. Then you ask me, so you believe that that man could fly? Then I say - no because I don't know what that means. It's like playing tennis without the net - make an assertion (e.g. I suspect Jesus physically rose from the dead), then when asked to own that position and bear a burden of proof, just say, no no I don't know what it means, so don't ask me to defend that claim.
@@paulaaron4821it most certainly does. we can now sort out the wheat from the chaff; most people here are as ignorant as christian fundamentalists. sad to see.
C.S. Lewis: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
False dichotomy. Historically speaking it is possible to separate the myth from events that are entirely reasonable; Some bloke being called the messiah. It happens. We have historical examples from the era and region - Simon Bar Kokhba, plus there is at least 3 messiahs currently walking around today. Bearded boys with their believers. So far so commonplace. Caused a ruckus. Got arrested. Got executed by the Romans. Yep, plenty of historic examples of that. The Romans kept records of their rule. There was a man. He died. Some people took it badly and refused to let it go. Christianity ensues..
Exactly, the entire issue with Peterson is that at the core of it he is an atheist who wants to be a believer so badly. But he just can't live with that fact so he has to engage in this absolutely atrocious "but what do you mean by meaning", ironically extremely postmodernist, discourse. No other Christian or Atheist on earth has that much trouble understanding what Christians mean when they talk about their beliefs.
Or the stories are mostly (or entirely) made up, and to such extent as Jesus was anything at all, it's impossible to distinguish that from myth. C.S. Lewis was not a theologian or a philosopher. He's not very good at either. Credible theologians do not think "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" is a viable apologetic, because they are aware it's a false trichotomy. But also Jesus was a terrible moral teacher, UNLESS the world was about to end within the span of a few years, as he appeared to believe. It did not end within the span of a few years. So his teachings were often quite bad, because they had little practical value in a world where God was in fact not coming to right all wrongs and establish a kingdom. Or he could have been a liar. There's no good reason to rule out that his goal was some sort of political revolution to establish himself a Messianic king. Just because he overestimated his own prospects wouldn't mean he was crazy, just that he was overconfident or perhaps stupid.
It isn't a game. It's more of a question, and O'connor clarified enough that Peterson could provide more of an answer here. I'd rather he do that than give an answer that people will easily interpret however they want. People here get on him for not giving a yes or no answer, and say that's because he wants to be vague. Yes or no is the vague version. This conversation is the better version. "I don't know what that means" is the start of the conversation.
@@paulaaron4821 There is such a thing as being too careful with your words. Peterson likes to be careful with what he says, but it gets to the point where he ends up saying nothing at all. An example: Somebody can ask me "Do you like potatoes?" and I can reply with "What do you mean by potatoes? Fries? Mashed? Chopped?" and the conversation has gone nowhere. The person asking the question probably didn't even think that deeply about it and I've now derailed the conversation and not answered anything. It's perfectly okay to give a yes or no answer sometimes. Or even a "Sometimes yes, but not all the time." Never giving a simple answer gives the appearance of dodging. Most questions are asked on a simple level and the person asking is looking for a simple answer.
@@paulaaron4821 Honest people have no problem caveating their answers because they want people to understand their answer. Peterson could do that, but he doesn't. Draw your conclusion.
@paulaaron4821 If I ask you 'Do you think X is true?' and you ask me to clarify what X is, that's totally cool. But if I ask 'Do you think this specific X exists or happened?' and your answer isn't a yes or no, or even a question to clarify X, but instead you go off on a tangent trying to redefine what 'think,' 'believe,' or 'exists' means, then you're not really having a conversation. You're just playing a game. A game called: 'Unless I can change your questions, I won't answer them.' - 'Did you go dancing on Friday, December 12, 2020?' - 'What do you mean by dancing? What does December mean in this context?' - 'Moving your body to music, and I mean December as the month.' - 'I think I did, but I still don't know what you mean.' That's not an answer because if he's called to testify about what he said, he can redefine what he thought the question was. It's always the game of 'Even if I answer a question, I can change what the question means later.'" Dont fall for that please it is dangerous. And btw that does not eclipse the good , true and deep discussion that Jp had , but please start recognize when he is just avoiding questions.
Arguing with Jordan Peterson is like playing chess with a Pidgeon ... he doesn't understand chess, shits on the board, knocks over all the pieces then flies off
How do you see this as an emperor has no clothes thing? You’re way off bro you’re not even on the same page as Alex Perhaps meditate on what Jordan says in some good faith 👍🏻🧡
@@jacksonelmore6227 first, I am not your “bro”. Second, anyone who still takes this clown seriously has serously low intellectual ambitions. He was ok when he first came out and was talking about things he knew about. He has since developed a messianic complex and his rumblings are unintelligible. Alex perfectly brought this to life in this interview.
@@rodintoulouse3054 your “intellectual ambition” is your ego that denies truth for the sake of its identity We are certainly bros, in that we are brothers, sons of the All That Is
Well, that depends on what you mean by smart sounding bits. And it also depends on what you mean by curtains. This is a very complex statement. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested with a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism....😂
@@moatasemkassab4517 I think he feels like it adds flair to what he is saying, or maybe he is struggling to remember the words and has to use physical reminders.
If anything, O'connor proves that it is much easier to get the answer when you clarify what you mean. It's like someone asking "are you a Christian". You wouldn't know what they believe a Christian is, so you can't really answer without some discussion at least.
This is the same guy who constantly cries about liberal, post-modern reinterpretations of sex and gender and social hierarchies but he himself can't commit to the most basic, mainstream definitions of words. Such a tool.
Funny.. as the video ended it switched to a political candidate saying we need to "cut through the malarkey." What perfect timing. You gave a very good shot at it!
"Incomprehensible, therefore must be profound? Or just pretentious, meaningless bilge? If you have something worthwhile to say, why would you deliberately cultivate obscurity?" - Richard Dawkins -
With respect some folk just not nuanced to appreciate what he's saying, as need it in literal black white terms so just sounds like white noise. Unfortunately the world often is black white.
It's not "very mysterious" They are called mythobiographies and were a pretty common thing in ancient times. The writers knew they had to give their characters "superpowers" to make them appealing to the masses.
@@victor_2216This is something that skeptics gloss over so quickly to their own detriment, people die for beliefs all the time, not so often do people die for a lie, something they say they saw but know they didn’t.
@@Mattwatch5 Let alone the fact that Christianity was born in the middle of existing religions, which were much more popular, regarding a-to them-modern and very recent person and set of events. And in the end, it became the most popular religion of the world.
Voddie Baucham and Alex would be the most fascinating conversation I can imagine right now. Voddie would lay down the sledgehammer of truth without ambiguity. He is the antidote to Peterson.
I am blown away by the vast maturity Alex has at not just keeping a calm demeanor, but also the ability sort through all of these dangling threads on the spot, pull out what is most important, and not lose focus on what his guest is or isn't saying. Far too many other interviewers resort to interrupting and repeating the exact wording of a question firmly (which to be fair, is how you talk to someone acting like a 7 year old or a 7 year old) but this tactic puts the evasive person and their fans on the defense, losing any chance to build a bridge.
So at the end he says he believes in the resurrection but doesn’t know what it means. Well we’ve all wrestled that one. I too get slightly miffed that Peterson isn’t more plain spoken on the issue. Paul makes it quite clear that believing in the resurrection is a fundamental. But I have some sympathy for Peterson (despite being miffed). It is a mystery and a deep one at that.
"It's very mysterious, nobody knows". "I believe in the accounts, but I don't know what they mean" "I have no idea what that means, and neither do the people who saw it" *hmmm.* JUST SAY YOU FIND IT'S HIGHLY IMPROBABLE JORDAN. I don't really understand why the prophet Muhammad flew through the moon, he might've been a real guy but damn. I definitely don't believe any of the divinity in the Qur'an, and same thing for the bible.
i think this might be the clearest and least confusing i’ve ever heard jordan peterson speak. well done Alex for creating some great objections that were both thoughtful but also non-threatening to peterson, allowing him to answer without feeling like you were going to twist his words
It's the same old gibberish from Jordan Peterson. He always just opens a million rabbit holes and never once comes clean and just answers the freaking question. On this topic, he never says either "I don't know" or "I don't think something literally happens but metaphorically it might represent some universal values that still hold true today".
@@StanTorrent But he's smarter than YOU, so why are you trying to dissect what he's saying as though you have some credibility. You have no credibility. You're a guy who started boxing a month ago and is trying to tell someone who fights for a living what he's doing wrong
@@johnnybaxter1953 Mate, wtf are you on about? Most academics think he’s a joke, he has shown VERY clear signs of mental decline and many people who originally liked him currently think he’s a joke. Look at the people who like him, they’re the dumbest people you’ll find generally, but good like finding any
@tidakada7357 you haven't said anything to disagree with. Infact, all you have said isn't actually making sense in English, which is quite the achievement seeing as you only typed about 10 words.
Watch the full conversation on Jordan Peterson's channel: ruclips.net/video/T0KgLWQn5Ts/видео.htmlsi=c9G-MuENG-clZLl4
It was a great conversation, I can see how this went over a lot of heads
Jordan is such a divisive character. The reasons for why he has followers are probably same reasons why I find him intolerable.
Kudos for the conversation
You need to look at the Turin Shroud. I would love to hear your take on the imagry and evidence on it.
@@shamanahaboolist JP would see an image of Jesus but he has no idea what it means.
@@robertallen4378 Yeah everyone knows what the image is of. What no atheist to date has done so far is explained the properties of the image.
Alex got closer than anyone has ever gotten to pulling a straight answer out of Dr. Peterson. Extremely talented interviewer.
He actually got a straight answer, and it was a nonsensical one.
A straight answer from JP - brought to you by Panasonic.
@@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351 I, for one, am not surprised.
Did he thought?
@@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351No. He gave a halfway answer, then immediately backtracked after saying essentially … maybe, yes. If someone could get him to say yes, I believe Jesus is the risen son of God, or no, I’m not convinced, that would be a straight answer. Instead he hedges his bets and words for the morons he’s pandering to for pocket change, that adds up to millions.
Ordinary people: I cannot
Jordan Peterson: I am unable to can
Nice!😂
" Be precise in your ambiguities ".
CONTEXT 😤
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I am unable to can, because I don't understand what it even means to 'I' and as such the concept of can and cannot are meaningless.
“Those who know they are profound strive for clarity. Those who want to seem profound strive for obscurity.”-Friedrich Nietzsche
This applies 1000% to JP. The great irony is that JP worships the ground Nietzche walks on.
@@termsofusepolice John Steinbeck said truth is often concealed through language
@@termsofusepoliceJP has not understood Nietzsche because he preaches a message Nietzsche would despise
"I got syphilis and went insane" - Fedrick Neatchee
I really don’t see that JP is trying to obscure anything. After listening to the entire conversation, it seems he’s trying not to answer a question inaccurately when the intent of the questioner is uncertain. He spoke to his thoughts on this at length with Alex. He is a Jungian thinker. He thinks of these stories as archetypal patterns that emerged throughout all of human existence. He thinks there is profound sociocultural value in the patterns put forth in the Christian stories. He believes that to utter the words, I’m a Christian, I believe in God, the Bible is historically accurate truth is not what makes you a Christian, and he is approaching these stories as a Jungian psychologist, so there’s no real value in answering a silly question that calls for those types of utterances. To the extent he is a Christian he believes it’s about the sacrifice of your life to the betterment of yourself and others. To the extend he’s an agnostic he is searching for answers by studying the text from a psychological lens. Fair enough.
I really don’t understand what people don’t understand? I feel like all of this has always been obvious. I read these comment threads and it’s always the same JP, word salad, grifter accusations. I was super excited for Alex and Jordan to speak. I thought it was a very interesting discussion conducted in good faith by two very smart people who think differently. We need more of that and less just repeating empty words by brainless critics who just want to know what “side” he’s on so they can mock him or mock the people who thought he was on their “side.” It’s just sad.
Interviewer: What is a sandwich?
Jordan Peterson: It depends on what you mean by 'what'. It might constitute an edible assemblage of heterogeneous alimentary substrates, typically involving an intermediate stratum of comestible materials, ensconced betwixt bipartite sections of a farinaceous medium, often derived from leavened wheat dough subjected to thermally induced gelatinization and Maillard reactions.
“farinaceous medium” 😂
You give JBP’s lexicon too much credit!!
@@sulk7080 😂😂
It’s a pity this clown does that all the time and some confuse it with him being an “intellectual”.
😂😂
We should feed ChatGPT with JP style and make a bot. It'd indistinguishable from the real guy
Alex is when you pick the correct dialogue option everytime
And Jordan Peterson is the dialogue tree with a single reply.
*Jordan Peterson hated that*
Can you explain this one to me?
@@WillyJunior In dialogue-based video games, you have to choose between dialogue options to make progress in a story, and only one or a few specific paths have the desired ending.
@@baka1949your iq just low
It's UNREAL that you actually got a response out of him on this topic, thanks Alex for this!
He just said the same thing he always says on this topic. You're desperate to get an answer that fits into totally materialist assumptions so you filter out any answer that doesn't and when you get one that does here you forget all the context.
God loving cowards....
but hE dOeSn't kNoW wHaT tHaT mEaNs
I've seen lots of people say materialism towards the antithesis of what religious people believe. Maybe materialism is the base and you have the burden of proof to prove it's not. @@someguy4405
He was precise in his speech. You being unable to understand it is on you. Alex clearly understood it as well.
Jordan Peterson complains about post modernism for the redefinition of truth yet he does the same with belief
You're correct, but Christianity as in the context of Bible, has never changed. It always has been about the Old testament and the New testament
2 very different things
Explain?
@@EconGlimpse Except it has changed. There have been roughly 30,000 changes made.
@@johnnybaxter1953
Well, post modernists think that truth is relative… and Peterson also seems to think that even the fictional stories of the Bible can be true somehow.
Jordan Peterson discussing Christ reminds me of Bill Clinton defending himself in the Monica Lewinsky perjury trial.
'That all depends on what your definition of "is" is.'
I don't know what a blow and job mean.
It became orthodoxy to believe that Jesus, in his appearances, was a resurrected corpse that left the tomb rather than his spirit leaving his body and then materialized at will behind closed doors. The questions is what did he do with his body? He dematerialized it.
@@geoattoronto and how do you know that exactly?
@@Kris.G how full of an explanation do you want, or is that a rhetorical question?
I've never seen a person say so much, mean so little, know exactly what he's talking about, yet have no clue what he's saying. It's like Peterson is trying to convince himself not to be convinced by himself.
Jordan Peterson never relates his "Christianity" to Carl Jung's understanding of the collective unconscious.
Peterson believes through the centuries, Christian mythology (which he credits for western culture and values) has integrated within our collective psyche and therefore we cannot help but act accordingly.
That's why he often says "I act as if God exists" but if he explains why, he will admit he's not a Christian and therefore lose 90% of his conservative followers.
I think that’s exactly what it is. He is smart enough to not be religious but he doesn’t want to be not religious.
No he's opposing the materialist worldview, he wants to talk on his level and doesn't want to adhere to people who don't do the same. Childish? perhaps, but he's making perfect sense actually. I see why some people don't get it however, because like I said, he's not willing to talk on your preferred level. I have no issue understanding him 99% of the time.
@@daan260What? 😂
He is most likely an atheist or at least very non religious. However, he knows his followers are generally religious conservatives. For this reason he intentionally gives deflective non answers to any religious questions. He gives much more straight answers on topics he believes he’s actually correct about.
The hardest Ive ever seen Jordan Peterson being pushed to be PRECISE on the most important questions, lol you re a legend.
Sam Harris called him out for this crap
I know he's intentionally and overly trying to be nice so Peterson doesn't cry but there has to be a limit where you just say DID IT BLOOODDY HAPPEN YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN
@@Bickle121 yeah, It's so hilarious whenever Jordan was trying to indulge in the overly sophisticated theological and psychological side of the question, he was so quickly interrupted by Alex to clarify the question even more, I was literally laughing throughout the whole conversation 🤣
@@SolvedEnglish yeah Peterson is known to avoid these questions now so Alex was trying so hard to be specific and make sure he was asking a question that couldn't be misinterpreted but that's impossible with a clown like Peterson
Precision and Jordan Peterson doesn't goes well together.
Alex is fucking incredible. He's progressed so much over the past few years.
He is the best gen Z RUclipsr.
The only really annoying thing about him is that he is so young… that i feel so old…
@@Colafarr Ha ha. I am old as well mate, but this lad gives me a bit of hope for the future.
Alex has progressed so much that he's going to logic himself into becoming a Christian at this rate.
@@samuellovell1789how
Mom: Did you take the cookie?
Jp: There are so many interpretations of that, Mommie.
Mom: Well, your sister and brother said they saw you take it.
Jp: I don't know what that means.
Mom: Now Jordan Peterson, there are cookie crumbs on you lips.
Jp: The mythical and historical meanings are so intertwined as to be inextricably intertwined.
Mom: Jordan, you're grounded.
Jp: Life is so unfair to us who seek the deepest truths.
😂
😂
😂
😂
well, it depends on what you mean by grounded...
I'm waiting for JP to say "it depends what you mean by mean. What does mean mean, EXACTLY?"
It depends what you mean by "it depends what you mean by mean" 😅
@@Ludwig.-.Wittgenstein What do you mean by "it depends what you mean by "it depends what you mean by mean"" ? 😉
Well it depends what you mean by depends! What does what do you mean mean if means meaning depends on dependence? What what means depends on what means means!
*scoffs* “Well, that’s a bloody difficult question now isn’t it?”
😂
Rule 10: Be precise in your speech. What happened to that?
Rules for thee, but not for me....
I've heard him respond to this before. He thinks he's being extra super duper precise.
@@Steelmage99that sadly is literally what he thinks... In debates with Jordan he says (paraphrase) "you don't even know what you want/who you are ! Who are you to say! ", in context of what people know about themselves, while next sentence he proceeds to say what people want or who they are... He thinks of himself as the arbiter of truth, above others, others OBVIOUSLY don't know who they are or want they want but HE KNOWS
He gets to decide what being precise means. This is why fascists love rules, the implicit assumption is that they get to set and change them unilaterally at any time. It's also why you would think "conservatives" (fascists) would create stability as they try to strictly adhere to principles, but instead they create rapid change and chaos as they change the rules to suit them on a whim. Ironically, it's the democratic governments that are truly conservative, as getting large groups of people to agree on anything takes forever.
@@loayzc10 like the Sphinx from Mystery Men, Jordan Peterson goes right up to the point of being like, confusing.
Remember, JP's definition of "truth" is "whatever makes us survive", so when he says that something is "true", what he means is that it's useful for our survival, not that it actually physically is the case. Did Jesus walk out of his tomb? Well, if believing it helps us avoid cultural nihilism, then yes, Jesus really did. That's the silly game JP plays.
No it is not a silly game because if you went back in time with your iPhone and you recorded Jesus dead in His Tomb, it would matter mostly to YOU. It wouldn't change the historical record at all, just your personal view of it, which you might share with your contemporaries and impact on the future, but that won't be much different from what is happening now. We have a silly notion of 'truth' as the final arbiter of all debates and arguments. It's driven by our desire to come to conclusions, make decisions, confirm biases, minimize anxiety and restore emotional stability. This has an evolutionary value which is JBP's point.....'>.....
Surely JP can’t truly believe in this pragmatic reconfiguration of truth. It would render every contract he has ever signed utterly meaningless
love your videos 🤘
He defines truth as what is useful which is a weird definition of truth.
Ah, but hypothetically when you assert check mate, what is it you mean, precisely? A check is that which we make out to a seller of wares in exchange for their service and a means of payment, an action which surely communicates an inherent heirarchy of patron and benefactor; the dominant and subservaint roles of our society. Not to mention the "mate," which is what? While the post-modernists like Derida might have pushed the term to colloquially refer to a friend or fellow, a mate is a sexual partner. One that no matter the orientation of natural sex or product of the radical left is of subservience and dominance. And it's the, (begins to quietly weep) the forebears knowledge of our ancestors who began playing games -that surely began from forms of bits of sticks clay and ivory that they pulled from the mud-and boy can you imagine the masculinity it took to project your warrior traits onto the inanimate debris of the forest- that when they eventually formed rules and settled into agreement for the type of combat they would imitate that they chose the words "Check mate" to represent a victory. So, I think its unwise of you to assert your claim to check mate when you haven't considered that the oldest knights and pawns share the same underlying hierarchy of dominance with rats, who themselves share with lobsters, which we obviously descendended from in some cosmic calvalcade of suffering and entropy that disguises the real truth. Truth that we could only hope to posit in this age of anti-capitalistic and self-destructive fascism that leads men to call the *obscenely obese* champions of physical fitness and beauty so much so that they've ruined my favorite sex magazine-I mean a testament to the glory of sports and fitness.
(Okay, I'm me again). That started off as me just being a bit silly and imitating Peterson style word salad, but weirdly, it was so quick and easy, and faux-passionate that I kind of couldn't stop. For a brief moment it gave me an insight into how drifters like Peterson end up drinking their own Koolaid. Anyway, next time you meet a Paterson fan, you should read them my comment and see if they can differentiate it from his actual lectures. @aadd2935
“If I put a Panasonic video camera in front of the tomb would I see Jesus walk out…” lmfaoooo I’m dead. Can’t believe it has to be asked this way to corner this guy and get a straight answer.
Because straight answers immediately reveal what a person believes, which anyone can use against that person for any purposes.
As frustrating as it may seem Jordan Peterson knows all too well about peoples intentions and agendas.
Then he shouldn't be Infront of a camera for his living opining for hours a day@@Woreyel
@@Woreyel lol no
@@Woreyel so we should never reveal what we believe ever? What kinda logic is this?
"I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean." How is it possible for this to not be nonsensical?
I have no fucking idea. Is this man a troll?
Answer: it isn't possible. It is nonsensical. Pordan Jeterson makes a living out of talking BS all the time. 🤷♀
@@thomaskositzki9424 Thats the thing.. hes incoherent on religion. Frustratingly so. But on some other subjects hes really good.
It's a bit hyperbolic to say he has "no idea", but I think he's just expressing the same thing they discussed with the water to wine example. I can believe water turned into wine, but still have no idea how that happened.
A man rising from the dead is supernatural thats what he means
“I suspect yes. But I don’t know what that means”.
It would mean that he rose from the dead. That’s all people want him to concede. No one cares what deep and meaningful waffle he thinks its implications are.
He’s frustratingly ambiguous for the sake of it.
Not just for the sake of it. He panders to the Christian right. If he unambiguously says that he doesn't believe Jesus literally resurrected, that the Bible isn't literally true, he'd lose a large part of his fanbase that is Biblical literalists. And if he says he believes the Bible to be literally true, his more liberal fanbase would laugh at him. He wants to keep both groups appeased.
@@MurshidIslamExactly this, clearly the strategy he chose. As with most speakers/influencers like him, they start off with genuine motivations but once their demographics settle, they follow the money.
I will answer for him. No, no one is resurrected from the dead. Because science.
That was easy.
@@oldpossum57 I think you meant to comment on a Cosmic Skeptic video from 6 years ago.
@@oldpossum57 Possum for President! He super-duper smarter than Pordan Jeterson!🙃
Man, this feels like "Idiocracy", doesn't it? 😧
The Panasonic camera thing was amazing. You're the best Alex 😂😂😂
I was holding my breath my Jordan seemed to just speak plainly saying the screen would show someone exiting the tomb, but then he had to go and add in the "but I have no idea what that means, and neither did they."
Yeah, I don't know how you can ask the question about the historical truth of the claims of the resurrection better than that.
@@JD-wu5pf Alex didn't say that Jesus exited the tomb, only that someone did. So there's plenty of wiggle room there. Plus, I don't see why he would have no idea what it means. Christians believe that it confirms the existence of God and proves Jesus' divinity and victory over death blah blah blah. The meaning isn't confusing at all. So, why pretend he has "no idea" what it means? Maybe it just means you someone exit the tomb who was never dead in the first place and you confused that person with Jesus.
The fact that this analogy is even necessary to get him to answer is so weird
The screen would show a bright light only obscuring everything from view. You would see nothing but light.
You know Alex has gone a long way when you have Christians, like myself, liking his videos and commenting positively. I absolutely loved his precision in asking question and not letting JP (who I also like a lot) wonder around. As a Christian, I want critical thinking and thought provoking discussions, not lame and superficial agreements. Great job man!!
If you genuinely wanted critical thinking, you wouldn’t believe any of the religions.
@@Greenfield1762 That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Some of the world’s greatest philosophers and thinkers held Christian beliefs, and some were like Dawkins and Hitchens who were not believers. Belief in a religion doesn’t mean you can’t have very rational, critical thoughts. In fact, I’d wager the comment you made reveals your distinct lack of critical thinking skills and judging by the comment, you aren’t a believer. Maybe sit and think on that for a bit before you make another ill informed comment.
@@princeofgreece9054 You misunderstood my comment. Give me one critically thought out thought process that can be used to show any religion is true? THATS my point, you can’t.
@@Greenfield1762 Very simple, historical evidence. I'm a Christian bc Christianity is true. Please look into Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel!
@@Greenfield1762 Give me one critically thought out thought process that can be used to show that all religions are false. That's the point, you can't. Everyone has a worldview, and that worldview can't be justified with proof, it is summed up to a belief.
Watched the whole talk on Peterson's channel and you were brilliant as always. You're doing a great job, always, and I'm glad you're here, sharing that with all us.
My problem with JP is that his convoluted word salads serve to obfuscate, rather than elucidate, his points. I feel that the goal should be to explain complex issues with as much simplicity and clarity as possible, rather than leaving the listener more confused than before. Alex did a great job posing the right questions to hopefully get some answers from Jordan on this topic.
JP's goal has always been to appease to his crowd with word salad. It is intentionally ambiguous to push personal agenda.
Interesting. See my problem with JP is more than he's a reactionary religious Nazi apologist who encourages violent bigotry and eugenics. I don't particularly care about how annoying and insufferable he is, I care that he hates women and science.
A truly intelligent person makes the complex simple, not the other way around.
@@sheeraz_ I would say making it as simple as possible as something you cannot make simple like how do you make simple advance physics? There is always going to be a level of complexity just cannot go under.
@@Vooooder Dude, your grammar is so bad that it actually gave me a headache trying to read and understand your post.
Kudos for Alex not allowing Jordan to just speak over him before he made his point clear.
Alex is an absolute powerhouse in the public intellectual space. He's so young and already so incredibly knowledgeable and talented. One of the few people to be able to have a conversation with Peterson and actually earn his respect and *almost* get him to provide a straight answer. I really hope we get many more decades of his work. I know I'm being greedy, but we need lots more like him.
Knowledge is lower to WISDOM!
Alex , even as a Christian, I wanna thank you for being the only interviewer to be clear and concise enough to draw out Peterson’s true thoughts on the matter.
The way you framed the question at 4:22 was so concise and specific. Good stuff man .
Sam Harris was clear and concise enough to draw out Peterson’s true thoughts the bible "the biblical story is a product of human minds over millennia". Sam did this in 2018.
That’s what I thought before I read the Bible but if you read and obey and gospel you will see that you will be born again with a new heart
@@danielpeled6098 Amen
@@BarrySometimes didn’t see that one I guess .
The 3hr discussion with Sam Haris where they went back and forth on “what is truth” is mainly what I recall
Boo christnian leave here
Jordan Peterson's word salad is so annoying to the point where it's become entertaining to watch it
JP’s word salad is mostly nuts, to which I have an allergic reaction.
I think it depends on what he's talking about, sometimes I find him enlightening and sometimes I'm just jaded.
Look, if he actually gave you the answer you wanted, a simple yes or a simple no, I have high doubts you would be satisfied with that, unless you are that simple about the topic of God.
I grew tired of it about half way through the podcast. Terribly burdensome to attempt to parse
@@tylere.8436 Yes, because those are the only two options- an evasion, or a one word answer
As a Bible-believing Christian, I respect Alex for putting Peterson on his heels. Alex didn’t allow him to escape the questions like everyone else does.
So when Jesus drove literal demons into Pigs (Matthew 8:28, Luke 8:26-27), you believe that actually happened?
@@wjd23104 Yes.
@jackricky5453 Why? You understand that when ancient Judeans talk about Demons in that context, they are referring to what we understand to be mental illness, which you can't simply transfer into Pig.
@wjd23104 you can't call yourself a Christian and not believe that it literally happened
@krustyknight2943 Believe what literally happened?
You know there are millions of Christians who selectively believe some sections of the Bible and not others, right?
The camera bit was incredible smart by Alex , so precise
Jordan Peterson is the Deepak Chopra of Christianity
Lol yea
Yeah, that's it basically.
Yup
Isn't Deepak Chopra the Deepak Chopra of Christianity?
Actually Lol'd at this 👍
I've always wanted to see the two of you talk to each other.
I will say, Sam and Jordan have more robust dialogue. None the less I enjoyed it and can't wait for the next...
I suspect yes, but I have no idea what suspecting yes even means
Well if yes, what exactly would have had to have happened exactly? I think that's a fair comment. Is why I suspect no. No idea what happened to the body could have gone anywhere. Thrown into a ditch and eaten by dogs for all I know. What was the norm those days? Don't think was burial. So why the story of burial? Because they experience seeing him. Where does that fit known experience? The rare yet reported phenomenon of group vision, possibly exceptional with some sense of the visceral that they tack on stories of the physicality (feel like tack ons to me). Not uncommon for folk to appear to close people after death actually eg JB Phillips and Cs Lewis a famous eg in my culture, so that matches what we know. I suspect a powerful eg of that, that got written up to emphasise the significance and magnitude of resurrection.
I agree with him. I am a follower of Christ and I believe he rose after death and walked out of that tomb. But I have no idea what that means. I understand the implications, as does Peterson, that's not what he nor I mean I'm certain I can say. All I'm saying is, that if I saw that then or today, I would have no idea what I was looking at.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic you have no idea what you are looking at...but you said you would be looking at Jesus Christ risen from the dead walking out of the tomb. So clearly you DO have an idea what that means, otherwise you wouldn't have described such.
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic "When you believe in things you don't understand, you suffer" - Stevie Wonder
@@Jockito but knowing what we know about reality and the finality of death, is that what I would be looking at?
I have to hand it to you: you have a lot more patience and tact than I think I'd ever be able to muster with him. Kudos to you, Sir!
Congratulations Alex. You are the first person to get Jordan Peterson to clarify, in mostly laymen's terms, what his word salads mean lol.
I'm still gonna have to listen to this multiple times to parse out what he truly believes...
He’s his translator
@@marvincool3744 yup
In case you don’t want to watch the full interview, JP basically argued that the Bible is true not because the events literally happened but because they’re, like, representative of some aspects of humanity that are sort of always “true,” like human suffering. And when it comes to the definition of being a Christian, he defines it in the vaguest way possible, which is essentially rejecting postmodernism (of course) and believing that humanity is a “fallen” species and that trying to be like Jesus is a good thing.
He’d probably argue against everything I said here but not because it’s incorrect, as its an alright basic summation, but because he’d argue against any and all descriptions of what he believes, as well as probably what “belief” means.
This isn't the worst summary, but there are issues. His definition of a Christian wasn't vague, it just wasn't one that allows you to easily test. I'd add that just because he wouldn't say the Bible is true "because" things literally (historically) happened, doesn't mean they didn't also historically happen. The historical is just rarely the most important aspect.
"he would probably disagree with how i characterise his beliefs, but that just PROVES how accurate and good-faith my characterisation is!"
flawless logic
😂
@@someguy4405he didn’t say that JP doing that would bolster his argument. Strawman
@@ConfusedGeriatric No, he did. In fact. If he's aware of it, that's another thing. Re-read the last part.
5:00 A bemused "hmm" seems like the most appropriate response
That. That was impressive.
Alex clearly prepped for this because he knew of how JP responded to questions of this nature. He knew exactly what to say, and in which way to say it in order to ensure as clear an answer as possible from Peterson. And he executed it incredibly well.
There’s a lot to respect about Alex, but here’s yet another stellar display
To show that religious people are really disgusting
Alex’s patience vs Don Quixote.
I see windmills...
The way he keeps a straight face all along is commendable.
One must imagine Alex happy
@@Bruteforce765 😄
@@Bruteforce765 😂 😂
Me: I want my word salad with extra Jordan Peterson dressing please.
They: What do you mean "Jordan Peterson dressing"?
Me: exactly.
🤣
This might be genuinely the least funny meme I've ever seen someone attempt and that's counting the communist ones that are just textwalls
Well, it depends on what you mean by extra. And then what you mean by Jordan. And then who you're referring to when you say "Peterson". And then you have to very precisely define "dressing." And of course there's the implication of using the word "please" creating the suggestion of a contract between you and whoever you're talking to. Whomever you may be entering into a contract of verbal interchange with.
That's a good one, lol
Thank you for keeping this video so short i cant take much of this man.
The inextricable link between mythology, psychology and historicity that can’t be adequately parsed in thought can be cleanly separated by (of all things) a ‘Panasonic’. Well done.
JP just contradicted himself.
'Would the LCD screen show Jesus walk out of his tomb?'
'Yes.'
'So when somebody ask you if Jesus did rise from the dead, why don't you just say 'yes'?'
'Because I have no idea what that means.'
It means that the LCD screen would show Jesus walk out of that tomb, which you just confirmed to believe... Dude, you just want to avoid admitting that you are a believer and that you are wrong in doing so.
To be fair, Alex said a man, not Jesus. I bet that's where JP was going to go. It could've been any man. It could've been a different guy that was still alive and a couple of days later got himself out. To me it's all philosophical nonsense. "What did and what does Christ mean?" Sorry to disagree with the guy who wrote John but I do think the world is full of enough books on the matter and there's no consensus. And I think that a main motivation factor for JP. he doesn't like the consensus on anything because he gets paid a lot of money to be the sahe-like rabble rouser. Not too different from JC himself.
For one, those are different questions. What would it look like on camera to see Jesus rise from the dead?
JP is intentionally masking his language in such a disgusting way. Guess what will happen? Atheists would take the first two sentences and claim JP agrees Jesus did not rise from the tomb and theists would take the last two sentences and claim the exact opposite. It's a cheap trick to appease to the crowd. No integrity.
@@cygnustsp people in philosophy and theologians don't argue in such a way even when they like to make themselves seems obcure (derrida). Also i don't think jp subscribe to fringe theories, it's just not the thing that matters to him
maybe you should watch the whole debate including the bit just after this clip ends where he clarifies
That dude is a caricature of himself
I love his Lego reviews though.
They both play that way, as do most who are on camera.
Was thinking just this. There’s no point even trying to parody Peterson at this point…
We all are
Nope. He's being authentic. He's not trying to confuse us or word salad us, he's just having a hard time explaining his points.
This interview earned my subscription. Well done Alex.
He's so slippery it’s unbelievable. Incredible patience on your part Alex.
Everytime I listen to JP I imagine how would I've responded to him, and the more I listen to him my response gets closer and closer to "Smile & Nod & talk about the weather"
LITERALLY. Ahhh couldn't have put it any better!
I gotta say, Alex, as someone who teaches rhetoric and argumentation, I often use clips of yours and JPs to show my students. Your clips almost always get a far more positive response in terms of clarity, conciseness, and control of language. What's neat is after our lesson on fallacies, validity, and soundness, several of my senior level students immediately started seeing the errors or at least areas of trouble in JP's points.
Not the least of which is the constant interruptions obscuring or sidetracking Alex’s points. And I’m a fan of JP.
Crazy out of all the Christian’s that interviewed him it would take the atheist to get it out of him 😂👏
As a Christian , this is a good observation 😅
You do know , That Jordan cannot commit to a side. Because he reaches out to a large number of people and his message is effective. Including Muslims. If he commits to a side , I think he loses a large number of his audience of this matter of theology.
This is a reason that gets overlooked.
@@barrywhite36I think people do understand that.
Not sure about Muslims, but it’s obvious that a large portion of his audience is Christian, and he doesn’t want to alienate those people.
Bc Xtians live in this world salad, in the vague. He's simply figured that out and extorted it.
It's because Jordan Peterson is a powerful co-belligerant for the conservative cultural movement, so Christians don't want to push him away but win him. He's not labeled a false teacher (yet), but still a friend. A valuable asset who has been a gateway for not only fighting the Western Culture war, but bringing people back into traditional Christianity (once they excrete the Jungian residue that Peterson cakes everything in).
In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I want to keep him as my friend.
@@dimadimonchyk4696The other problem, is I don’t think he is the sort of man who wants to openly lie about his beliefs, but if he said that “Jesus of Nazareth rose from
The dead,” and believed it, then he would have to consider what that means for his life and political beliefs.
He’s almost there. So much closer than just a couple years ago. I will continue to cheer him on!
I saw the full conservation and I still have no idea if Peterson believes in the actual historical resurrection of Jesus. He's ridiculously evasive and vague when religion is brought up.
It's like trying to nail a pudding to the wall...
He has no choice but to be evasive. You can't be a man that supposedly thrives of reason and logic, but also believe in ridiculous things with a straight face.
Talvez por não ser um crente mas mas um conservador chocado com o ateísmo das esquerdas, procure, como Jung mas sem o seu talento, embarcar no saco sem fundo da mitologia.
Infelizmente para ele, após um período inicial de sucesso como combatente do politicamente correto, acabou sendo desmascarado por suas inconsistências intelectuais...
Seu interesse não está ligado ao conhecimento mas a luta ideológica das direitas.
@@juvenalhahne7750i was about to say speak english but after reading the translation of what you said i can say i agree
I don't know what it means. It's the perfect answer for what resurrection in itself means. Someone returning to life after 3 days has no logical or scientific explanation of the event. He is basically saying: I believe that Jesus was raised from death, but I have no idea how to explain or why it happened or anything in this manner. Basically, it's a subtle response of yes, but I have no idea what this means spiritually, metaphysically... etc . Complaining about evasive means that u are not going for what he means. He did not say no to the answer. He just pushed out of mythological and religious understanding of the finality of it.
The conversation we all have been waiting for
It is astonishing that you got an answer out of him. Even though it took minutes of setup and probably the most ridiculous phrasing with the time-traveling camera setup, but you got an actual answer.
“I suspect yes” is one of the greatest answers ever. You know he knows the truth, and our savior is the core of it!!!! Well done, Dr Peterson. Well done. Amen 🙏🙏🙏🙏
“Debates about the existence of God are interminable, and I cannot hope to settle them here. In my view, though, the persistence of this debate is not surprising for one reason only: the depth of the widespread human need to cope with the harsh realities of the human predicament, including but not limited to the fact that our lives are meaningless in important ways. Upton Sinclair famously remarked that it “is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” It is similarly difficult to get somebody to understand something when the meaning of his life depends on his not understanding it.” - David Benatar, _The Human Predicament_
For you, not me, I have determined whether God exists.
@@gsp3428oh really? Pray tell what you've found
yes pessimism so great
Thanks for this comment. I’ve never read that before.
@@gsp3428,
I have determined that too. So did Benatar actually. God defined as an omnibenevolent creator doesn’t exist. Other type of Gods/deities/demiurges/creators might exist.
The way Jordan is talking here reminds me of Norm MacDonald's Deeply Closeted bit.
😂😂😂 that’s an awesome comment
LOL so true. "So you're a believer then?" "Hey hey hey, easy buddy!"
"thats a strange thing! "
@@WillHerndon
“Jesus has risen from the dead!”
“I didn’t even know he was sick”
Underrated comment 😂
Are we to believe that the best possible method for communicating a message, upon which the fate of every human soul hangs, is a book which allows for near endless interpretations which can't be invalidated??
Given this admission, Peterson would have to concede that not only can he not know if his interpretation is "correct", but since incorrect interpretations will necessarily outnumber correct ones, he should assume on the basis of simple probability, that his is in fact incorrect.
You can invalidate most interpretations. There's some bad logic at the end of your post as well. There are infinitely incorrect interpretations of "stop", but I somehow have allowed the stop signs to save me from car accidents. Actually, there are similar reasons I know much of the Bible to be true.
@@paulaaron4821 Peterson's own assessment was "it's inexhaustible in its interpretive space"..to which he added no caveat suggesting this space is mostly populated with erroneous or irrational interpretations which can be easily dismissed, as you claim. Peterson is admitting that even our best efforts at a coherent interpretation are open to bottomless iteration, which implies that you can't ever know if you've arrived at anything like a "correct" interpretation, in fact such a feat is impossible given this admission.
What criteria are you going to bring to bear to assess "correctness" in any case that don't constitute just another interpretive scheme at play?
Stop signs aren't "open" to interpretation in any way that analogises the Bible or Peterson's point here, that should be blindingly obvious.
@@paulaaron4821so you have your own method, independent of the Bible, for verifying which claims of the Bible are true? What might that be exactly?
@@sierrabianca The problem is that the Bible is being treated as a theoretical construct, with falsifiable truth claims which can be set against sense data to arrive at some set/chain of truth values. It fundamentally is not, and Peterson states as much.
Actions do not have truth values. If I wave my hand, it would be meaningless to ask and answer a question along the lines of, "Is that true?" regarding said action. At best, a question probing for a truth value would be, "Did that happen?" which lies outside the scope of the Bible, as I said above.
RE: the inexhaustibility of the Bible, inexhaustible does not mean that anything goes. As Peterson states, the inexhaustibility of the Bible is bounded by the stuff God promised Abraham, which is roughly something good for you, your reputation, the people around you, and your descendants. All this means that you are right, partially: there is no correct interpretation, but there is a better interpretation. The inexhaustibility modifies that into, "There is always a better interpretation."
Stop signs are open to interpretation, it's just that people mostly outsource the interpretation to the culture at large and trust that.
That is the nature of words. They are nothing but pointers. You have to walk the path yourself. All anyone else can do is point. Embrace this struggle. It is beautiful.
April 1st of 2023, I became a believer. I had a day of events that changed my beliefs and my life. 365 days after that was Easter of 2024. A friend had invited me to a service. This would be my first one. It was also the churches anniversary of opening. That night, I opened my bible with a quick skim to whatever it opened to. The first thing my eyes saw were "He is risen".
So when bad things happen, you become an atheist? What about babies born with eye cancer?
You managed to find a way that pressed Jordan to have to give a straight answer on the resurrection. Fantastic job!
He didn't give a straight answer. He said that he thought that a video camera LCD would show Jesus walking out of a tomb. That leaves lots of Peterson style wiggle room over Jesus rising from the dead.
It was never really that hard, he just was never interviewed by people with enough brain power to lead the conversation. It was always him having the upper hand.
Saying "yes but I don't know what that means" is just as far from honest as any answer anyone has ever gotten from JP.
@@Medjayon that's not true, he was clearly not performing well in discussions with Sam Harris nor Matt Dillahunty, but they simply focused on other points. They exposed Peterson's dishonesty and that was enough for them to move on.
JP revealed in this interview his outrageously fluid ontology. Everything basically exists otherwise you're "materialist atheist". His theory of semantics also permits empty expressions blatantly.
Wonder why he is so persistently probed when it is obvious that he will not give a cogent answer.
To expose his lies and deceit.
He does not know what most things mean when he's asked questions, yet if it comes to his favorite books, he knows what they mean.
Can you watch your favorite movie and don’t know the meaning behind it?
@@j.a.greene3523 yet that is not what he does is it, he give the deep and meaningful behind what they do, and then says they are realier than life.
"Did you see the robber leave the bank?"
"I don't know what I saw."
"If we put a camera outside the bank at the time of the robbery, would it show the robber leaving the bank?"
"I suspect yes. But I don't know what it means."
Have you ever watched a movie and not known what the movie’s message is?
Phenomenonal exchange, Alex!
I thought so too 👌
Agreed!
It's difficult to win an argument with a smart person. It's impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
@@atlaskinzel6560 we’ll collectively mark you down on your inability to write something you yourself haven’t thought of.
Alex is a top notch at digging for answers !
JP is the white anglo version of the comical trope of the bombastic black preaching character mangling the language with as many misused syllabically rich words as possible that you see in old Eddie Murphy movies. The exposition when he and Russell Brand get together is off the charts.
Michael Eric Dyson? He really does seem to say nothing sometimes. I disagree that Peterson is in that category though.
lol pure sophistry. Just stringing together academic words to appear smart. You’re spot on
Its not complicated, he is RISEN!
Is there anyone so well versed at saying ABSOLUTELY nothing of substance with so many words than Mr. Peterson?
John Lennox perhaps ?
You mistake what you understand for what he said. Also, I'd put Michael Eric Dyson up for that award.
@@paulaaron4821 I, like most people, understood everything he said. It's simple sophistry.
JP truly is who the ignorant call their intellectual. I say that without malice. When I was a believer, I would have been drawn to his babbling. Thank non-existmo I discarded fables and myths many years ago and he wasn't popular during my deconstruction.
@@paulaaron4821 The old David Bentley Hart argument from sophistication. Peterson is not sophisticated.
My boss is a close second
Oh man! That was a frustrating watch. A whole lot of beating around the bush and muddled nonsense. Alex was extremely patient and almost got a straight answer out of Peterson! Great job as always
You are a more patient man than I am, Alex.
As a child growing up under the greatest decade ever, the ‘80’s, Panasonic VCRs were among the best as were many of their electronics. Their VCRs allowed my friend to copy video films from the local store to the highest quality.
Peterson is right (for once)! At 4:00 he says his answer "...will just annoy people...", and gives an answer that is perhaps his most obscure and obtuse, ever! Waytago JP!
He's gaining the awareness to see that his waffling and weaseling are annoying... Incredible
I like how Alex chose to end this clip - with JP saying he believes something which he has no clue about, and Alex saying "hm..." That's about all one can really respond to such a thing.
You probably know that there isn't anyone who doesn't choose to take a guess at something they don't know, don't you?
Some may call it... I don't know... A theory!
But we do it all the time, it's part of our life to take our best guess in many situations.
It's simple, it's human.
@@Joaodiogocarvalho I don't deny people take guesses, that's not the issue. In what sense can you affirm the truth of a statement, the meaning of which you don't even understand? It's like if I read a sentence in Russian and said "yep, I believe that's true". And then you asked me "but what does the sentence mean?" And I retort - "I have no idea, but I believe it true!"
In such a case I would withhold judgement until I could understand what that sentence meant.
Either words have meaning or they don't. If you believe something is true - you should be able to define what it is in fact that you believe. Is it the historical fact of Jesus physically rising from the dead that you believe is true? Then own it and say it. Instead it just seems like a way for someone to have their cake and eat it too. They get to say yeah I believe that, but don't expect me to explain it or defend it - I'll just shrug my shoulders and say I don't know what I mean - but hey I believe and so should you!
Can you see any issue that people have with that?
@@Jockito I understand your issue with that. I think you exagerated with the part of being a Russian sentence but I believe it's possible to believe in something wich you cannot have the suficient means to explain. I think it even gives a boost to the process of discovering if it is true or not.
@@JoaodiogocarvalhoI see a difference though between being unable to fully explain something (such as why you love someone) which sounds fair, and not knowing what a belief proposition even means. JP said he doesn't know what it means for Jesus to have risen from the dead, yet he believes that Jesus walked out of the tomb alive after having been dead. If he doesn't know what resurrection from the dead even means, why say that one believes someone was alive after being dead? It just seems like a dodge or playing with semantics.
Let me give you another example. Suppose I said to you that I believe a man flew unaided across the grand canyon - he was on one side, then he levitated in the air - without any magic tricks, or aids, and landed on the other side. Then you ask me, so you believe that that man could fly? Then I say - no because I don't know what that means. It's like playing tennis without the net - make an assertion (e.g. I suspect Jesus physically rose from the dead), then when asked to own that position and bear a burden of proof, just say, no no I don't know what it means, so don't ask me to defend that claim.
He perfected the art of talking without saying anything.
He said plenty to me. Maybe it depends on the listener?
@@paulaaron4821it most certainly does. we can now sort out the wheat from the chaff; most people here are as ignorant as christian fundamentalists. sad to see.
@@paulaaron4821 You're right. People can also claim to see the future by looking at tea leaves.
Slavoj Žižek
"One great use of words is to hide our thoughts."
-Voltaire
“I have no dog in this fight”
“How interesting this gets earns me money, proportionally.”
I think Alex's biggest skill is asking questions that cut through the bullshit.
C.S. Lewis: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
False dichotomy.
Historically speaking it is possible to separate the myth from events that are entirely reasonable;
Some bloke being called the messiah. It happens. We have historical examples from the era and region - Simon Bar Kokhba, plus there is at least 3 messiahs currently walking around today. Bearded boys with their believers. So far so commonplace.
Caused a ruckus. Got arrested. Got executed by the Romans. Yep, plenty of historic examples of that. The Romans kept records of their rule. There was a man. He died. Some people took it badly and refused to let it go.
Christianity ensues..
Exactly, the entire issue with Peterson is that at the core of it he is an atheist who wants to be a believer so badly. But he just can't live with that fact so he has to engage in this absolutely atrocious "but what do you mean by meaning", ironically extremely postmodernist, discourse. No other Christian or Atheist on earth has that much trouble understanding what Christians mean when they talk about their beliefs.
@@JD-wu5pf Unironically, CS Lewis is speaking to you.
Non sequitur.
Engage with transcendental arguments and leave low IQ Atheism once and for all.
Or the stories are mostly (or entirely) made up, and to such extent as Jesus was anything at all, it's impossible to distinguish that from myth. C.S. Lewis was not a theologian or a philosopher. He's not very good at either. Credible theologians do not think "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" is a viable apologetic, because they are aware it's a false trichotomy.
But also Jesus was a terrible moral teacher, UNLESS the world was about to end within the span of a few years, as he appeared to believe. It did not end within the span of a few years. So his teachings were often quite bad, because they had little practical value in a world where God was in fact not coming to right all wrongs and establish a kingdom.
Or he could have been a liar. There's no good reason to rule out that his goal was some sort of political revolution to establish himself a Messianic king. Just because he overestimated his own prospects wouldn't mean he was crazy, just that he was overconfident or perhaps stupid.
The "I don't know what that means" game can be played with anything. Peterson has been called out on this and it doesn't seem to have stuck with him.
It isn't a game. It's more of a question, and O'connor clarified enough that Peterson could provide more of an answer here. I'd rather he do that than give an answer that people will easily interpret however they want. People here get on him for not giving a yes or no answer, and say that's because he wants to be vague. Yes or no is the vague version. This conversation is the better version. "I don't know what that means" is the start of the conversation.
@@paulaaron4821 There is such a thing as being too careful with your words. Peterson likes to be careful with what he says, but it gets to the point where he ends up saying nothing at all.
An example: Somebody can ask me "Do you like potatoes?" and I can reply with "What do you mean by potatoes? Fries? Mashed? Chopped?" and the conversation has gone nowhere. The person asking the question probably didn't even think that deeply about it and I've now derailed the conversation and not answered anything. It's perfectly okay to give a yes or no answer sometimes. Or even a "Sometimes yes, but not all the time."
Never giving a simple answer gives the appearance of dodging. Most questions are asked on a simple level and the person asking is looking for a simple answer.
@@paulaaron4821 Honest people have no problem caveating their answers because they want people to understand their answer. Peterson could do that, but he doesn't. Draw your conclusion.
@@paulaaron4821 Finally someone making sense in this thread, thank you!
@paulaaron4821
If I ask you 'Do you think X is true?' and you ask me to clarify what X is, that's totally cool. But if I ask 'Do you think this specific X exists or happened?' and your answer isn't a yes or no, or even a question to clarify X, but instead you go off on a tangent trying to redefine what 'think,' 'believe,' or 'exists' means, then you're not really having a conversation. You're just playing a game. A game called:
'Unless I can change your questions, I won't answer them.'
- 'Did you go dancing on Friday, December 12, 2020?'
- 'What do you mean by dancing? What does December mean in this context?'
- 'Moving your body to music, and I mean December as the month.'
- 'I think I did, but I still don't know what you mean.'
That's not an answer because if he's called to testify about what he said, he can redefine what he thought the question was. It's always the game of 'Even if I answer a question, I can change what the question means later.'"
Dont fall for that please it is dangerous. And btw that does not eclipse the good , true and deep discussion that Jp had , but please start recognize when he is just avoiding questions.
Alex thank you so much for this. You do what all great debaters do, which is let the person they're debating condemn themselves with their own words
Arguing with Jordan Peterson is like playing chess with a Pidgeon ... he doesn't understand chess, shits on the board, knocks over all the pieces then flies off
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
lol so accurate in regards to his view of the Lord
And thinks he won the whole time.
🤣very underrated comment!
😆That's fantastic!
Great show of how naked the emperor is… even with his ridiculous jacket
How do you see this as an emperor has no clothes thing? You’re way off bro you’re not even on the same page as Alex
Perhaps meditate on what Jordan says in some good faith 👍🏻🧡
@@jacksonelmore6227 first, I am not your “bro”. Second, anyone who still takes this clown seriously has serously low intellectual ambitions. He was ok when he first came out and was talking about things he knew about. He has since developed a messianic complex and his rumblings are unintelligible. Alex perfectly brought this to life in this interview.
@@jacksonelmore6227 you are entitled to think JP is great. It’s ok to be intellectually unambitiuos. However , I am not your “bro”.
@@rodintoulouse3054 your “intellectual ambition” is your ego that denies truth for the sake of its identity
We are certainly bros, in that we are brothers, sons of the All That Is
@@jacksonelmore6227 wow! You need some professional medical help.
He keeps using his default smart sounding bits… but we have looked behind Jordan’s curtains
And he also moves his hands a lot, no idea why.
Well, that depends on what you mean by smart sounding bits. And it also depends on what you mean by curtains. This is a very complex statement. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested with a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism....😂
@@moatasemkassab4517 I think he feels like it adds flair to what he is saying, or maybe he is struggling to remember the words and has to use physical reminders.
@@Danny451 damn, you must be very smart! I will now accept anything you say without thinking about it critically!
Because he’s the wizard of Oz
I love the honesty I don't know what that means yet it happened for hope and future
"What do you mean by WORD X??"
- Jordan Peterson
"It's very mysterious, nobody knows"
-JP
*Starts crying for no reason * - JP
"What do you mean by Jordan Peterson?"
-Peter Jordanson
@@tomclark15 Ehhhh, I'm an emotional guy. I'll give him a pass on that.
What do you mean by "mean"?
Lmaooooo the ending "Mmmm" says alex. Yes. That sums up my thoughts as well.
Jordan going in for the "I donts know wat wordz means" defence again
except when it comes to gender, then its postmodern ideology
If anything, O'connor proves that it is much easier to get the answer when you clarify what you mean. It's like someone asking "are you a Christian". You wouldn't know what they believe a Christian is, so you can't really answer without some discussion at least.
This is the same guy who constantly cries about liberal, post-modern reinterpretations of sex and gender and social hierarchies but he himself can't commit to the most basic, mainstream definitions of words. Such a tool.
Semantics and language barriers are behind a lot of mysteries. Consider the significance of the Tower of Babel…
@@Messianic-Gentile Consider deez nuts.
Funny.. as the video ended it switched to a political candidate saying we need to "cut through the malarkey." What perfect timing. You gave a very good shot at it!
"Incomprehensible, therefore must be profound? Or just pretentious, meaningless bilge? If you have something worthwhile to say, why would you deliberately cultivate obscurity?"
- Richard Dawkins -
@@exequielp.7468 how so? Have an example?
@@exequielp.7468 of course not.
@@exequielp.7468oof
This clip saves me from wondering if there is any chance of gleaning a valuable insight from the full interview.
To be clear, the answer is "yes". I guess it could be a "no" if you didn't get anything out of this clip, but others still can.
@@paulaaron4821 I didn't ask a question.
@@BDnevernindit depends what you mean by question
@@Ludwig.-.Wittgenstein 🤣😂
With respect some folk just not nuanced to appreciate what he's saying, as need it in literal black white terms so just sounds like white noise. Unfortunately the world often is black white.
It's not "very mysterious" They are called mythobiographies and were a pretty common thing in ancient times. The writers knew they had to give their characters "superpowers" to make them appealing to the masses.
Yup... Indian mythology is the same.
I guess they enjoyed dying in the name of it too.
@@cricketylife8742 not the same pal
@@victor_2216This is something that skeptics gloss over so quickly to their own detriment, people die for beliefs all the time, not so often do people die for a lie, something they say they saw but know they didn’t.
@@Mattwatch5 Let alone the fact that Christianity was born in the middle of existing religions, which were much more popular, regarding a-to them-modern and very recent person and set of events. And in the end, it became the most popular religion of the world.
JP liked this interview A LOT. What a great job, Alex
Voddie Baucham and Alex would be the most fascinating conversation I can imagine right now. Voddie would lay down the sledgehammer of truth without ambiguity. He is the antidote to Peterson.
@@NMemone Yes!!
Thank you for sharing!
I am blown away by the vast maturity Alex has at not just keeping a calm demeanor, but also the ability sort through all of these dangling threads on the spot, pull out what is most important, and not lose focus on what his guest is or isn't saying. Far too many other interviewers resort to interrupting and repeating the exact wording of a question firmly (which to be fair, is how you talk to someone acting like a 7 year old or a 7 year old) but this tactic puts the evasive person and their fans on the defense, losing any chance to build a bridge.
So at the end he says he believes in the resurrection but doesn’t know what it means. Well we’ve all wrestled that one. I too get slightly miffed that Peterson isn’t more plain spoken on the issue. Paul makes it quite clear that believing in the resurrection is a fundamental. But I have some sympathy for Peterson (despite being miffed). It is a mystery and a deep one at that.
Delusion: A fixed incorrect belief. Delusions are fixated on feelings.
"It's very mysterious, nobody knows".
"I believe in the accounts, but I don't know what they mean"
"I have no idea what that means, and neither do the people who saw it"
*hmmm.*
JUST SAY YOU FIND IT'S HIGHLY IMPROBABLE JORDAN. I don't really understand why the prophet Muhammad flew through the moon, he might've been a real guy but damn. I definitely don't believe any of the divinity in the Qur'an, and same thing for the bible.
how did you come to that conclusion?
@@markspectre1234 depends on what you mean by "conclusion"
You're framing this in an overly materialistic way relative to Jordan's perception of such matters.
Alex held his hand so very carefully, guiding his steps as thoroughly as possible and…. Mr Peterson does it again.
i think this might be the clearest and least confusing i’ve ever heard jordan peterson speak. well done Alex for creating some great objections that were both thoughtful but also non-threatening to peterson, allowing him to answer without feeling like you were going to twist his words
It's the same old gibberish from Jordan Peterson. He always just opens a million rabbit holes and never once comes clean and just answers the freaking question. On this topic, he never says either "I don't know" or "I don't think something literally happens but metaphorically it might represent some universal values that still hold true today".
He's a lot smarter than you are so why do you care
@@johnnybaxter1953He really isn’t that smart. He just uses his psychology degree to speak word salads that put narcissists and manipulators to shame
@@StanTorrent But he's smarter than YOU, so why are you trying to dissect what he's saying as though you have some credibility. You have no credibility. You're a guy who started boxing a month ago and is trying to tell someone who fights for a living what he's doing wrong
@@johnnybaxter1953 Mate, wtf are you on about? Most academics think he’s a joke, he has shown VERY clear signs of mental decline and many people who originally liked him currently think he’s a joke. Look at the people who like him, they’re the dumbest people you’ll find generally, but good like finding any
@@johnnybaxter1953 with that thought, who are you to critic stanTorrent?
get back in the nursing home and take your pills
No. The same as Ron Weasely doesn't actually joy ride in a flying car.
B-but we have on it on video!
What do you mean by “actually” “Joy ride” in a “flying” “car”? It’s actually a really complicated question! If anything it’s hyper-Rea!
/sarcasm
So you claim. That’s his parent’s car, let’s agree to degree.
@tidakada7357 you haven't said anything to disagree with. Infact, all you have said isn't actually making sense in English, which is quite the achievement seeing as you only typed about 10 words.
@@MrJungle123 check ali g talks to Shaquille Oneil
Fan of both. I've been waiting for this!