Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Q&A with Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau - SFL Regional Conference, Vancouver
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 11. 2017
- This is the panel discussion for the SFL Regional conference in Vancouver, Canada. Many questions are answered and the topic moves towards the video I made critiquing Weinstein's notion of factual truth as being the 'top-level' truth.
For the video I made regarding this: • The Question of Truth ...
The original Joe Rogan clip: • Jordan Peterson on The...
For my presentation at this event: New Media Pundits | The Ragtag Heroes of an Upside Down World: • New Media Pundits | Th...
For Jordan Peterson's presentation at this event: • The New Media: My Expe...
Support this channel:
patreon: / pageauvideos
paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
website: www.pageaucarvings.com
facebook: / jonathanpageau
twitter: / pageaucarvings
Jonathan Pageau's laugh is at the top of the hierarchy.
InstaBlaster
Fookin perf mate 😂
Jordan drinks so much water while speaking that they brought him his own water machine.
Ossi you can tell he always has a dry mouth.
Ossi This got me pretty good 😂
Ossi. I've noticed that. I'm putting " Drink lots of water" on a list of 10 ways to become a better student without doing any extra study. I'm a couple short if anyone has (reasonable) suggestions.
The amount of water you can take in , with breaks big enough for it to absorb completely - is astoundingly high.
I suspect that some of common habbits like cigarettes - are there because you drink water (coffee) alongside of it , and that water is crucial.
I down so much water that it always seems to be lacking after 4-5 hours at work.
Water is so good man I love drinking water hell yeah
I think Jonathan is the smartest and most interesting here yet he said the least. That man really gets it I think.
I love love the passion of Jonathan, and the eloquence and brilliance of Peterson!!! What a great team you two make!! I just love you guys!!!
Great to see Pageau get (rightly) riled up a little near the end there - fascinating mind and great guy.
Big respect to Jonathan Pageau.
I'm really glad they brought Bret Weinstein along too. His more explicitly atheistic/progressive beliefs add some balance and diversity of thought (that's not to say there isn't plenty to begin with).
Atheism is worshipping of a certain propaganda without knowing it and nothing else
@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Rarely have I seen such an exemplar of irony by the demonstration of an astonishing poor intelligence in a comment of such a great intellectual conversation.
Do you realize how nonsensical your sentence is ? "Atheism is worshipping of x" is comparable to saying"Not collecting stamps is the hobby of collecting x"
Even assuming that you speak of a brand of atheism that you failed to mention, I fail to see how one can be so mischaritable as to pretend that the lack of a belief in deities is a form of worship of any kind.
Do you also believe that not being a supporter of a sports team is a form of supporting a "certain team without knowing it" ?
Now, if your argument is that atheistic cultures have a tentency to substitute the blind faith toward gods that humans are prone to with a blind faith in doctrines that can be as or more harmful, I'm sure there could be an interesting discussion. But considering the comment you posted, I am not betting on a wise and thoughtful reaction from your part. Not betting, yet hoping.
@@orb8540 what's ironic is that you didnt even understand what firstname lastname said let alone why it is so painfully true
@@Yo-pn9qp Hmmm ? Am I missing something ? "Atheism is the worship of X without knowing it ?" Isnt it a rendition of "Not collecting stamp is the hobby of collecting X without knowing it ?"
@@orb8540 No, not really a good analogy. What he's saying is that atheists think that they're outlook on the world, unlike christians (in their opinion), is solely based on facts rather than faith. When in reality, evolution (the foundation of atheism) is not only not proven but a true disgrace to science. It's more science fiction than reality and belief in this THEORY is from FAITH in scientists, alone. To believe that nothing exploded to 'evolve' into everything and call that science, requires a cult like religion to believe. I don't fault anyone for it because it is difficult to not at one point be sucked in to it in society today, like I was, but it's important to acknowledge it is not fact and actually listen to the arguments that rational scientists make in critique of evolution and why it is the most nonsensical bullshit. Dr. David Berlinski is a good start.
Jordan looks exhausted. Take a vacation, dad.
Borbali my point of view... He looks comfortable in his situation.
He's probably just worried that while he's gone from his home, his wife won't clean up their room appropriatly.
the lighting is horrible
Fr ;/
@@cueballB I thought he was all about men keeping their own "room clean"
That final conversation is, I think, the most important thing Jordan or anyone else could be talking about. The Sam Harris discussion, and this discussion seem to me the most fundamental problem to solve.
Is it, though? It seems more like a linguistic problem to me. There are different kinds of truths. Perhaps the claim that anything is true is the big problem. I'm not sure a discussion on which truth is the correct one is the proper discussion.
I tend to agree. Linguistic problems are crucial because that's how we communicate. If we can't define our words in a logical framework, it's hopeless to discuss meaning. I loved the Sam Harris discussion with Peterson, and I loved Brett's formulation as well. And then the discussion ended, just when it was getting good!
Well, the claim that 'anything is true' is very easy to dismiss with as far as I can tell. Plop everything into a pragmatic framework (and there's an argument out there for why you kind of have to do that) and then it only needs to be "true enough". The problem is which truths matter more. Jordan said he thinks the Bible Series might be the most important thing he's doing, but I'm thinking it might not matter if he does the series if people still don't believe that metaphorical truth matters most. It also seems, that if you put scientific truth at the top as opposed to moral truth, you get radically different behaviors on the fringes (smallpox Ebola). I don't know, this topic seems inherently too large to discuss at least for people of my intelligence. Hopefully in the future we can break it up into subparts because if Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson couldn't solve it at this scale, it seems to be too complexly broad a scale.
Gnomification yeah we are letherbound like our words in the dictionary
It's a great example of free speech too. There's something so energetic about all their inputs.
Thank you for the video, I was waiting for this one, I enjoy the content made by all three of you, god bless
Really enjoyed it... especially the discussion at the end. Thanks for posting this.
The Qualitative > Quantitative reasoning argument had me fist-pumping! God bless you Jonathan.
ABSOLUTELY EUPHORIC!! Even Dr. Peterson could't sit still. That's why I'm glad Bret came along. It allows for this kind of insight.
Too bad the point of contention was truth and not reasoning.
I know exactly where Bret is coming from on this since I've had pretty much exactly the same exchange dozens of times. The funny part is that Bret opened himself up to it by being magnanimous... The "metaphorical truth" thing was him being nice. A stronger argument is to say that science is just superior since it is the only system we have which allows more objectively accurate models of reality to reliably replace less accurate ones. Pretty much anytime you hear a scientist saying "ancient wisdom", "metaphorical truth", or something like that... They are being nice and throwing the wooly-thinkers a bone ;) (please note the smiley)
Love the different perspective from someone who is clearly thoughtful though. Just not going to pretend that it is a perspective with exactly the same utility. To quote xkcd: "Science, it works bitches"
PS: To some of us, it really is just biochemistry all the way down. Qualitative reasoning is just evolved or learned heuristics, often with a fairly clear adaptive value. They are qualitative because brains are awesome at association tasks, but not so great actually doing calculations (and most of those calculations to determine optimal actions are computationally intractable anyway).
@@travcollier objectively accurate models of reality tell you nothing about what's moral.
And why are objective materialist models of reality more important?
As far as "science, it works". So does religion, that's why it exists. If it didn't work, the people who used it would die more than the people who didn't. Science works. So does conceptualizing a true, coherent, and symbolically meaningful (because otherwise we won't regard it) understanding of the world in terms of values. In fact, you can't even have science in the absence of values. And you can't determine what's worth investigating without values. And you can't determine how to be a good, mature person without them.
You can't determine whether you or someone else is being honest without them. You can't determine what matters without them. Analyzing the world as a collection of material things and their relationships can help you build technology. But you can't say that technology is good, or which technology is good, without values.
@@immanuelcunt7296 "is vs ought" raises it's ugly head once again ;)
Try replacing the word "values" in what you've said with "goals". Still works, right?
Well, just saying something is good, bad, moral, immoral... any simple "ought" type statement... is *incomplete*. It needs a "because" clause added to it. "ought" statements are technically nonsense without reference to some goal or objective.
When you add that "because"/goal to your values they become "is" statements which can be evaluated using materialist models. We can make objective arguments whether one "ought" or another "ought" is more likely to achieve the goal.
Of course, we use simple "ought" statements and "values" all the time because almost everyone shares a context were certain goals are too obvious to bother saying. We're all Homo sapiens, at least for now ;)
I can't prove it or anything, but it seems quite possible that the goals which ground our values/morals are ultimately just biological (some memetic) in origin. Many are "rules of thumb" which have worked out to our evolutionary success most of time. We have to remember that thinking/reasoning has a cost too... so the optimal evolutionary choice is often a cheap approximation of the theoretical 'best'.
PS: As for religion "working". Successful religions certainly work... for those religions. They spread and persist. That doesn't mean they are a benefit to their hosts... that's obviously not the only way such things can succeed.
Thank you for the material you provide on your CZcams channel. This Sunday is the day I will begin to support you. Easy decision to be honest.
Thank you all involved for this, UBC is after all "a Place of Mind"!
Concerning "standing up for each other":
*_... when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle._* - Edmund Burke, 1770
What a great discussion. Thanks, Mr Pageau. (Also like your icon work)
Discovered you thanks to Peterson and I'm excited to start watching your stuff! New subscriber.
Hahahaha your laughter is the most vigorous I have heard in a long time. It makes me smile.
that was very interesting and thought-provoking, thanks for everyone involved
And actually, Peterson also has a lot of passion, and Jonathan a lot of eloquence and brilliance as well! Please continue giving public talks and having conversations and discussions whenever you can!
...and this is how reasonable people disagree. So nice to see this as opposed to screeching heads on cable news.
Things got especially interesting at the end - too bad it had to stop! I'd love to see all 3 of you together again
Really would enjoy if you Jordan and Bret could continue that final discussion at some point...would be fascinating
I was so excited to see Libertarians at this event! There are registered and rapidly growing libertarian parties in almost every province and the federal side now! Canada, the hell are you doing, +VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE. Vote Libertarian!!
That ending though!! wow.... Need more of these.
"looks like bravery" was the part of this that connected with me the most
I love how you so readily say I don’t know when you don’t know. And how you don’t use over flowery language but are still articulate
19:54 As a trekkie, I recognized it instantly. But the fact that no one seems to remember it just made me feel old :-(
Star Trek TNG is very powerful though. I feel like I get most of my morals from Patrick Stewart playing Picard.
"Well that's a good place to end" he said, at a good place to start.
Thanks for this. I hope the question of unique characteristics of Belief System 1001 will be pursued further.
this was amazing
1:11:35 - "There is no mechanism for sorting between metaphorical truths."
1:19:20 - "I am applying an a-priori moral framework... from the point of view of values that probably everyone in this room would share. It is not desirable to have sexually frustrated young men being violent because they cant find a mate".
Weinstein first makes the claim that it is impossible to arrange moral truths on a hierarchy of value. He thinks there does not exist the systems available for valuing these statements, unlike in the realm of science.
Later he applies a hierarchy of modes of behaviour to a moral question ie. polygamy and monogamy. He thinks he is making a value judgement a-priori, he is not. It is an a-posteriori judgement relying on 2000 years of Western Christian tradition from which his presuppositions emerge. He is forced to use religion and culture to justify his value hierarchy "a-priori" because science is unable to answer those questions for him. These are questions about people, and that is precisely the category that science attempts to distance itself from. So on the one hand he says that there is no way to value one type of religious cultural wisdom over another, but then thinks it is obvious that the Western Christian tradition is superior to other polygamous traditions.
I might concede that is more difficult to arrange religious truths (wisdom) in hierarchical systems, but that does not mean it is impossible, and it is certainly not how you act. I don't see why he feels so compelled to bundle all belief systems together and then to arrange them in a universal manner. Not all Truths serve the same master.
Your failure is in believing that polygamy and monogamy are exclusively religious. Science has actually studies societies following different views on relationships and has a hypothesis about it, but those things are outside of religion.
Yes. religion justifies different types of relationships, but isnt the sole domain for them.
Scientists havent used a religious framework to come to their conclusions either, they used empirical evidence.
Hmm.. I'm not sure I agree. I don't think the latter statement was intended to be about morals at all. "It is not desirable..." isn't a moral statement. I think he meant it's not scientifically "desirable" in the sense that it is a "bad strategy" for raising a population.
The difficulty is that our language is not set up to discuss the pure abstract. Even saying "bad strategy" implies some pre-supposed arbitrary "goal," but that's not the intention. It's just that in order to measure something you have to apply some arbitrary scale. But it doesn't matter what scale, as long as you use the same one for comparisons.
I agree with you NabsterHax, evolutionists often use the words good and bad from a Darwinian perspective, as for good and bad to survive and spread genes, which is a quite objective thing to say.
But in this particular example I don't see why it would be bad from a Darwinian perspective. If polygamy was allowed, males with characteristics that make them more attractive to women and have a large court will spread their genes better than those who don't, and next generations will be likely to share this good characteristic, and so on. I don't see how it's a bad thing.
Nathan M : ) one master too many without system...😂
Thank you
this was a great discussion . Jordan, Johnathan and Bret you have my thanks
cool. thanks for sharing
You just got yourself a new subscriber jonathan, I really enjoyed your speech brother.
I think you all 3 complement each other in great and profound ways. I did not see much difference in Bret's idea of "Ideology 2.0" and the idea of the Hero rescuing his father from the chaos, and bringing what is useful forward to further the individual and society. I think whatever the hero brings forth that works could easily be "Ideology 2.0". In my opinion Ideology 2.0 is just the end of the story Peterson so elegantly teaches about. It seems to be just a disagreement about what to call it. There's always "New Wisdom", of course. You make it by taking the old wisdom and figuring out how to apply it today in a way that works.
It's like they say the same thing but disagree on what to call it.
I don't know about Bret's idea of factual truth being top-level truth, however. I honestly don't think I'm intellectual enough to get into that one.
I'm a die-hard "fan" of Peterson and I've enjoyed what I have seen of Bret. Now I will be sure to keep my eye on anything Jonathan does as well. He seems extremely wise and well spoken.
1:21:05 the point Bret argues still has a value charge, he is basically argueing that quantity is enough to sort, but he is forgetting that quantity is in itself a type of quality as well. He can't sort without ascribing quality to quantity, and that's an a priori value judgement.
Oh my goodness! This is GREAT!
I had so much typed out, but I whittled my comment down (however unsuccessfully) to just this crazy moment when Bret starts talking about the boom and bust cycle... There is a great alternative to that "addiction" (his choice of words were perfect for this) we have the world stuck in. I'll see if I can do this relatively quickly...15 or 20 years ago, well before hearing any of these folks speak, I became politically interested, and then my fascination morphed into listening to all the videos I could find of Ron Paul speaking about economics...sounds weird, I know, but bear with me...it relates to this panel -- Long story short, I stumbled across this fun "rap battle"?? video between "Keynes" and "Hayek" (which is what I'm linking to below.) The story the video tells is EXACTLY what Bret is talking about @59:00 !! (almost word for word at some points. ) The rap battle is specifically about economics, but hearing Bret articulate his thoughts about tribalism in this way just floored me!!!!!! Said differently, Bret just helped me connect 2 very crucial parts of my life, and it feels like something just balanced out in my clustercluck of a brain lol. Something clicked into place. It's something like that... for those who know what synchronicity feels like, you get what I'm saying...right place, right time, right mood, right click, right words, right memory - everything just lines up. I mean, ALL the things I hear in this Q&A are phenomenal pieces of true wisdom, like much of what I see from them. The solutions they speak of --- namely freedom and the importance of facing the responsibility that goes along with that freedom -- have proven over and over to be useful from the personal level all the way up. Now I'm listening to this "rap" thing with a different lens, so to speak. I had never even considered I would link this video in the comments of a video like this q and a...if that makes any sense lol (forgive me...it's late here) just because I had never considered how directly related they could be!! I'm sure people out there have heard Peterson talk about bargaining with the future? Sacrifice/save now for something better down the road? "The market coordinates time with interest." Just about every line in the song has a counter part delivered to or by one of these gentlemen! At one point in the song, the partiers yell out "REVOLUTION!" much like the overgrown infants often protesting these men. GAH!! Now I'm rambling...but check these out, people!!! :) :)
IT'S THE POST-MODERN NEO-MARXIST SJWs VS FREEDOM
(lol)
Round 1 "Fear the Boom and Bust" - czcams.com/video/d0nERTFo-Sk/video.html (at 3 minutes 57 seconds...I can hear Peterson saying to his haters: "In the long run, my friend, it's your theory that's dead. So sorry there buddy if that sounds like invective - prepare to get schooled in my Peterson perspective" Bwahahaha!!
Round 2 "Fight of the Century" - czcams.com/video/GTQnarzmTOc/video.html
(I've been waiting for "round 3" of this battle, but I'm doubtful it will ever come out. Maybe one day with these gents staring?? just sayin...)
Best introduction EVER!
Hi Jonathan I just Subscribed...respect your opinions.
Such a beautiful exchange of ideas. It's so nice to see folks talk honestly about great ideas, as always. I do understand the sociopolitical concerns absent conversations like these very well, though. Peterson actually speaks at times about how damaging inequality is to the ability of folks to realize their useful place in hierarchical structures (whether they are necessary or not - my words, not his). I think the higher ideal of leftism, at least for me, to allow all of us much more egalitarian access to the resources and *environments* which shape them (as Weinstein brilliantly and rather liberally said imo) They are so mind expanding. I just can't help but think of the folks who don't get this chance, for whatever reason, to expand.
Thanks
Why did he cut it off???? The last question is the best part!!!! And I hate to reduce Brett's query to something as simple as "well, how well it works out", but that seems to be the answer.
Sun bro he was trying to put science and religion in the same box when they don't fit together categorically. Religion is a system of values that is in part informed by generations of pragmatic truths. Science is not a value system but an empirical methodological system that is in part informed or guided by value systems
"Why did he cut it off????" This is theater, and the cardinal rule of performance art is always leave the audience wanting more.
thszntatst Yep. Leave on a cliff hanger and you'll be back for the next episode. Same bat time, same bat channel!
He cut it off because speaking engagements have set times. I never quite understand though why people don't just be like, "ay, fuck it, let's keep going" but when it's a production it involves lots more than just the 'performers.' Not an expert, just my best guess :D
Would love to hear more from Professor Rachel Brown!
We discussed maybe doing another discussion together, maybe we need to set that up.
Yes, please do. You two had a great chemistry in your last video together. So joyful.
Greatest. Introduction. Ever.
The science vs. religion as competing truths debate seems odd to me - sort of like arguing whether sight or touch is more true. Is it not possible that these are just different senses or tools that we use to navigate the universe? Do we say that touch is superior to sight because people see things differently? Generally we value both and acknowledge the shortcomings of both, using each to supplement the other.
Hmmmmmmmm.... Very good point. Also very good analogy. I feel like I'm sitting here stretching a balloon over a basketball trying to think about this topic anymore. I sniff a reason why one is higher truth, but I can't find it.
To me 'religion' is an organisation imposing its version onto the populus so I would use another word, spirit, soul or something that represents a cogniscient force outside of self.
METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING
Religion is our olfactory, science is our vision.
If their is a fire, often the first thing we sense is smell. In this case it is very important. But human sensory has vision amplified, especially short distance vision, because it has been hugely important to the survival of our ancestors to understand the emotional states of other humans. We don't smell each others emotional states. Ultimately we prioritize what we see over what we smell, but that is partially due to situational evolutionary drift.
(Leaving the metaphor for another)
Religion is an outgrowth of our tribalistic natures, just as political ideologies are. What Jordan is rehighlighting is that removing archetypes from moral social logic is perilous. Christ is an Archetype. As is God. As is Allah. As is Buddha.
As was said by Shakespeare of our Archetypal longing, "The very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream."
Van man,
I was speaking literally about the etymology of that word. reli gare, to tie in one place!
A Guy In a Van, I agree with Peterson whole heartedly that abandoning anything unscientific despite it being the foundation for our society is a major mistake, and one I made myself at some point which made it very difficult to find "worth" in anything, but that doesn't make it "true" in the same sense that what science says is true.
Faith is important. We take risks every day, and in order for us to live our lives happily we sometimes have to accept just jumping in and hoping for the best, without being able to know the outcome, but trusting the wisdom of others that went before us.
But I think it's easy to see that when faith and proper science come into direct conflict, there's only one real winner. And I think it's dangerous to suggest any traditional faith could potentially supersede what is scientifically "true." The historical record does not paint a pretty picture of that in action.
That story of the woman just made me tear up.
14:12 You just described my journey. Raised Christian and went to Christian schools, then read Dawkins, Hitchens etc and spent my 20s atheist. Now I'm 29, discovered Peterson and yourself last year and I'm not sure how to refer to myself.
I'm not surprised it's a common experience. A couple of my school friends are familiar with Peterson and have had the same experience to varying degrees.
atheist is not a thing to be, do a stoic or sec bud practice or join a humanist group. peterson gets owned by dillahunty in debate
Superb
46:43 this question could have been. "I no longer believe in Mormonism. How do I convince my family to leave. Is it even my responsibility to do so?" And they answered beautifully. Great advice!
Peterson & Pageau vs. Weinstein & Harris would be amazing!
Andrew Fender Harris is too expensive but we're looking to bring on Gad Saad for the debate instead, keep your eyes out in 2018!
Well that was a heck of an intro
14:15 hit me like a truck because this is exactly how my path went about
Yeah. I want to find those going the other way. I was a super active mormon and JBPs calls to honesty gave me the courage to step away. I haven't found any though.
46:46 Sound advice for leaving Mormonism too. I did my best to explain why I stepped away to my family and friends. I didn't try to argue. I totally get the pearls before swine comment.
Most if my family are extremely sad for my salvation and don't understand. They are perceiving my move from their religious perspective. Me living a good generically Christian life is not all I need to do. I have to believe the church is true in their eyes. However, I can be blue in the face and I may even say something that with dig them in deeper, so I choose to keep it simple and show them with my actions.
"do not cast your pearls before swine" lol indeed
Jesus christ why did they end it there. My god that last discussion was so interesting. btw i love the suggestion of a discussion about that last topic between team petergeau vs weinris
That was dope
best introduction ever.
I need to watch this. I can't find the main, pre-Q&A part though. Anyone?
I see this as a corpus callosum argument. Bret represents the left hemisphere, Jonathan and to an extent Peterson represent the right hemisphere.
The main body of the hierarchy is like a corpus callosum extending out and connecting both sides. Whereas the body of the hierarchy is seated in the right hemisphere, the tip of the hierarchy is touching the left hemisphere.
So when Bret makes his argument he is in some sense correct, the tip/ focal point of the hierarchy touches the left side, it is concerned with differentiation, with specific details.
But what Bret isn’t getting is that the whole picture from where he’s sitting when he makes that argument is in the right hemisphere, the wholeness, the unarticulated, the gut instinct level.
The hierarchy is both the structure of the ordering principal, and the behavior of the ordering principal.
That is to say the ordering principal is the hierarchy.
I was pretty stunned to hear the blank slate argument from Brett, Pinkerton pretty much killed that.
Asserting no significant differences between races in intelligence ≠ no differences between individuals. And it's Steven *Pinker*
I think that both Peterson's and Weinstein's positions and arguments are much, much better when they're discussing them with/against/through each other. Usually one only gets to listen to one man or the other (in interviews, lectures, etc.), so both men's views aren't often critiqued via or in tension with the other's. Both men make very good points; both men are very deep thinkers; and both are very likely very right - but in very different ways for very different reasons. Siding with one over the other most likely has more to do with temperament than with proximity to the truth - I'm not saying don't pick a side; I'm just saying that picking a side very likely says far more about the person picking the side than it does about how close (or how far) that side is to the truth.
Benjamin Perez : I think, because you are right, these two are compatible as much as interwined dna
I really want to see the Harris - Peterson debate/discussion Bret moderated.
Personally, I find Peterson a bit superficial at times. He is more of a practiced speaker and author, and sometimes seems to fall back on impressive sounding rhetoric at the expense of substance. I also notice him saying things (such as quoting stats) which are misleading or just plain wrong without any hint of uncertainty or doubt. Not very often and I don't think it is intentional, but I find it grating. Everyone slips up, but Peterson has cultivated a sort of authoritative style which seems to make it more likely people will take his words as some sort of 'truth'.
In fairness, he does a much better job conveying uncertainty/doubt when challenged. Got to give due credit to pubic figures who will actually admit they might be wrong and even change their mind. We need a lot more of that!
Great ending debate. It's a shame it had to be cut short.
While Peterson and Sam Harris were competing for the exclusive truth, Weinstein and Peterson get along and complement each other. And marvelous synthesis by Pageau in the end !
Wow, what an ending!
Jordan's comments at around 40:00 were absolutely spectacular.
Funny the question about Tinagra there, as Peterson's ideas quite frequently remind me of that episode.
Juliet on the balcony.
Raskolnikov and the axe, Vergilius and Dante, with a sword in stone. Until the Ring reaches the Fire.
The blinding of Ron Burgundy. Black, the word black.
The short silence between the question being asked and the response really shows the respect these fellows have for each other.
Can't believe they ended at that moment....they very point at which the wheat could hopefully be separated from the chaff. Bret asked the question, and the answer would determine close to everything....and they ended it....such a shame.
Great talk though, thank you all.
Ps: What to address, the choice, depends on your values and is a moral decision in the way you talk about it. But this does not mean that this says anything about a hierarchy of truths, only about a hierarchy of values.
Best intro
I can see why some, like Peterson, are drawn to 'debate' those who disagree with their positions. While *this* (harmonious) kind of intellectual exposition is truly breath-taking, the personal growth gained when speaking with those who refuse logic and reason has got to be exponentially superior. Watching Peterson go through the turmoil when opponents refuse to deal honestly with questions on the table seems to give him greater depth, strength and fierceness.
Why is the audio on this so low, I can't jam my Molyneaux earpiece much deeper into my head without inflicting serious injury. SPEAK UP BOYZ
lmao this comment is great
IT WAS THE PIVOTAL MOMENT WHY DID THEY END??
To let Bret keep his sweet mic drop moment, obviously.
To be fair, the guy was 1v2.
Cause the moderator was about to pass out from low blood sugar
Source: I was the moderator
Cooper Asp Were you unable to pay attention to what they were saying near the end?
Ted Magyar only barely
Cooper Asp why didn't you introduce the event or name the panel before you started? You just assumed everyone watching already knew?
Love that JP references Jocko Willink
The two truths thing was interesting having opposite view points. I feel like the obvious answer is that both are equally important, they inform each. Its quite like a feedback loop.
It was interesting to hear Bret, on the one hand, deride evolved morality (our "evolutionary nature") as outmoded and "not an honorable program" that should be rejected forthwith (5:48). Then, some time later, to invoke monogamy (a form of evolved morality) as a demonstrable moral good the benefit of which "everyone in the room" might agree with (1:19:36). Well, which is it? Are our evolutionary impulses reckless and outmoded, or pragmatic and desirable? If potentially both, what is the purely scientific, purely factual mechanism through which we might glean wheat from chaff?
Brett seems to insist that we can "generate new wisdom" independent of the framework by which we judge things to be wise (or otherwise). It's almost as though he wants humanity to step outside of itself, while somehow retaining its essential humanity. This is a strange and inherently self-defeating position, and it's amazing to me that he drew applause while uttering it.
Thanks for sharing this. Shame that they pumped the brakes just as it was getting good.
Something else I noticed to the same effect - shortly after saying that about ditching who we evolved to be, he talked about how he "wouldn't be able to sleep at night" if he didn't do the moral thing. That seems biologically related to me! ;) To say his "conscience" wouldn't let him sleep - that something in him was so affecting that it interfered with a biological imperative - but to not afford "his conscience" an evolution-developed reality... seems confused. Where does he think his "human senses" come from?
Would have loved to hear more of that at the end - literally the whole thing just started getting good
Sorry for the late reply, but Bret's assertion is valid. The landscape is difference from the landscape in which our ancestors lived in. Thus is necessary that we adapt according to the times. We wouldn't need to that much if our environment was the same as our ancestors', although they also had their struggles. In terms of genetic code, we are not very different from our ancestors 10k years ago. But because of the world we inhabit and things that affect us, many factors make us different. Fact of the matter is: the environment always changes, if not physically, mentally, for all sorts of reasons. Reasons we cannot even think of off the top of our heads. Bret is right.
Jordan Peterson has expressed something once similarly. He said: "If you stand still, you fall backwards. You cannot stand still, because the world moves away from you if you stand still. And there is no stasis. There is only backwards." - JBP
@@GrubKiller436 The moral landscape isn't that different. The same values: honesty, integrity, carefulness, courage, etc, still work.
And there's no evidence that empiricism is the way to adapt to the things that have changed
@@immanuelcunt7296 You are talking about virtues. I am not talking about virtues. I am talking about the basic conditions of human life. Of what would most apply to the common person in terms of what drives them in day to day life. And that happens to be their jobs, how much money they're making, the fact that people spend much of their time watching movies and videos, playing video games, etc.
What do you know about how to adapt to things that have changed? You don't have evidence of anything. Just saying words out into the ether: honesty, integrity, carefulness, courage... doesn't help anybody in the modern world. It's a bunch of buzzwords with no substance.
@@immanuelcunt7296 People are going to do what they're going to do with or without your buzzwords. Why? Because they're driven by stimuli. And unfortunately we have many in our world in which we can call supernormal stimulus which I implore you to look it up. The question we have to ask is whether or not the system we set up is efficient for its people. And many times that's a no. Because people are unhappy.
I believe religious and scientific truth are so intertwined, neither lesser, neither greater, that it is impossible to separate and place one over the other. As is Taoism; the yin, the yang, the light, the dark, the good, the evil - that neither is nested in each other while simultaneously being nested above, below each other, and within each other.
This video for me is a braingasm. Specially the end
I just finished watching this video and I am soooooo frustrated! Why did it end like that? Why!?
From 1:03:45 till the end Dr. Peterson gets next level comfy.
TNG!!!
Is the Truth simply that we require a "Truth" in the first place? Once you understand that, its a matter of setting up the best Truth.
Uuuuh, thank you for switching the term from dominance to competence, because that was what we were always talking about in the first place. Yes? No?
The worst possible point to end this conversation... omg... I'm dying to hear your reply to Weinstein!
Weinstein is smart. His words fill your head. Peterson is wise. You get a sense his words fill your soul.
This is quite a smart observation.
Wonderful observation, like water. I was wondering myself what it was about both Weinstein and JBP which draws me in, because they are both fine communicators, each coming from different places. You nailed it.
Funny, because I think they are full of shit. Oh well, it takes two kinds to make a world
world peace for instance?
Considering I don't have a soul...
come on! it was just getting interesting! only an hour and a half?!
CRUSHED that they didn’t know about darmok and jalad ;)
It is amazing how everyone picked up Peterson´s ", so..." and now uses it as both "So, " and ", so...".
I wonder how fresh that cup of water was.....
I don't even agree with Weinstein's premise that religion is based on "metaphorical truth" and that science is based on "objective truth". In general, the naiveté about the foundational categories of materialism and how they completely determine our language and perception left me indifferent to the whole debate.
The traditional model of the universe is basically analogous to a meta-scientific model. The whole debate between science and religion pretty much ends as soon as this is understood.
Always great to hear you input on this, Matthieu. You're absolutely right. Just coming to an agreement on the premises is a challenge in itself.
Matthieu Pageau I've heard JP split Truth into two subcategories of "facts" and "wisdom" (roughly speaking of course). Is this delineation helpful?
Matthieu Pageau Interesting, thanks for the reply. I heard the conversation you had with your brother and JP and I think I remember you saying you are working on a book?? How's it going?
Matthieu Pageau Congratulations! I'll be looking out for it :)
Matthieu Pageau - I'm intensely fascinated by this symbol after finding out that's what it represents. Duality is a core tenet of my personal spiritual views; the idea of "as above, so below", the way that matter seems to adopt the same forms/structures on both the micro and the macro level, and the way that the universe appears to include a self-correcting mechanism to maintain balance in all things. There are always two halves to the whole, which are incomplete by themselves but together combine to represent all. Shiva and Shakti, Yin and Yang, Masculine and Feminine. It's telling to me that this concept appears again and again across space and time, featuring in almost every culture and mythology. Does the symbol you use come from a specific culture/civilization/people/time period, or is it a modern artistic take on the concept?
Imagine in an analogy, a superordinate structure in comparison to a subordinate structure, picture metal filings falling in line to a magnetic field.
We are like the metal filings, we get to choose how we align,
Align one way, and prosperity emerges
Align nearly any other way, and hell emerges
Over a long enough amount of time, we begin to make predictions.
We write books based on our predictions
And they illustrate a hierarchy.
Many books are written by many different people, all making slightly different predictions, illustrating a slightly different hierarchy, an abstract, metaphorical pyramid with a different capstone
Science begins to make predictions about how the subordinate structure can be manipulated, better or worse to make these hierarchies work, or not
But still does not see the superordinate structure, the metaphorical magnetic field
The concept of archetypes being the aggregate of all characteristics pertaining to one immutable aspect of qualitative life.
Now imagine that from time to time, someone is born into the physical world that embody nearly all of those aggregated aspects, others, who have recognized the archetypal aspects declare themselves to be
But then, perhaps, one man, created as a direct result of the superordinate structure, embodies all of the aggregate characteristics necessary to save us all
This is the closest I can put into words what I experienced in my dream
I saw this as a qualitative experience, formless
It's also why your work is so important
The physical world is the symbolic world
Dr. Peterson is absolutely wiped out in this panel.
Jonathan you took it to a WHOLE NUTHA LEVEL @ 37:30
dat honesty!
Yeah I was shocked in the best way from that response. Extremely deep symbolism there. The idea of "face" is quite one to think on.
What is your profile picture and why do so many people use it?
Solilska Are you asking me that question? My profile picture is a picture of my face so I certainly hope no one else is using it. If you see my profile picture on anyone else's profile, you can be sure they're an imposter. I am Joshualbatross, the one and only!
The thing is ... this answer ("society is based on TRUST" ... because trust requires the uncovered face) does invalidate any "online bureaucracy" and any "online trades/advertisements (where you want to be informed before purchase)". Personally I am totally against online bureaucracy ... and have to thank for that way of looking at it.
The thing is that this answer can be interpreted in two ways:
1. "I trust the other people enough to show my face" OR
2. "I trust that this woman does it because she likes it".
That was a horrible place to end.
I really enjoy the conversation between Bret and Jordan. That is a discussion that I want to hear more of, because I intuitively disagree with Peterson and agree with Weinstein. However, I think there is much that is obfuscated in there to be sussed out with rigorous dialectic and debate.
Bret argued his point brilliantly at the end so huge respect to him. Although I think they were speaking past one another in some way. Scientific truth is the most reliable measured truth but religious truth is more important because of the a priory selection of facts to pay attention to. In some way they're two different hierarchies but in the final conclusion Peterson & Pageau come out on top ...( of the hierarchy...) *cough
Yeah exactly, science is dealing with the lower things of quantity only, religion with the higher, that's what Pageau was talking about qualitative vs quantitative. It's just most materialists are under the assumption that the quantitative is all that exists so it gets a bit sticky there. Also I think Bret is wrong saying that science is the only one that encompasses every other view, I think it's the exact opposite actually, science is nested inside of religion, so religious ideas are really what encompasses everything rather than science. Science is more of a method anyway really, turning methodological naturalism into a priori metaphysics was a mistake.
watching this years later is so relevant. 3:30 time
Jordan Peterson is my intellectual super hero.
I loved seeing these three convene but I feel like these conversations and debates are ultimately going to boil down to a religious matter. I feel that odd numbers just don't work in this sense. I would love to see Weinstein have some backup other than when the crowd applauds a congenial point. This all coming from someone who is more a fan of Peterson than any.
Previous to watching this, I felt Weinstein was an intelligent but less-than-charismatic guest on JRE and someone to be suffered from to hear Peterson on their later joint JRE podcast. I feel after watching this that he truly rose to the occasion. It felt that way to me, but as I scrolled the comments I saw otherwise.
That brings me to the comment section problem. This video being posted by the most religious-seeming of the three means the comment section is less an accurate representation of the public's reception and more an echo chamber of a specific following's convictions. I don't know who Pageau is except that his channel has lead me to this conversation. I'm not sure how his channel got to post this conversation, or fully what he's about, but seriously man, these are some heavyweights you're jumping in with and you need to work on a conveying a salient point because this video has left you looking wanting and your youtube following hasn't helped. That is to say I admire you putting yourself out there into this arena I find myself following, and of course to be in the arena is better than to be someone like myself in the crowds. I will be looking into your conversations in the future. Best of luck and I hope that my directness didn't borderline rudeness too closely.
"This video being posted by the most religious-seeming of the three means the comment section is less an accurate representation of the public's reception and more an echo chamber of a specific following's convictions." It would be nice if all of them posted the video. However, I hope you realize that your view of an accurate representation of the public's reception will be influenced by your viewpoint (I do realize that same applies to me as well). CZcams in general doesn't seem to be an accurate reflection of the general public.
In fairness, you should note when the audience in the room applauds. Seems like us infidels were well represented there ;)
Lol most of the questions were directed at Peterson or Weinstein. They all respect each other, we're just some random guys on CZcams. This was a while back so I hope you've watched Pageau's vids. He's competent.
Pageau is more than capable of keeping up with both of the others on this panel.
Does anybody have a reference for the memoirs of the KGB agent that Peterson talks about at around 1:15:00?