Slogans Have Killed Rational Thinking - Alex O'Connor (4K) | heretics. 20
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2024
- Alex O'Connor is incredible in this episode as he explains the unholy alliance of Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson (New Atheists & Religious Conservatives). He also looks into conspiracy theories, sloganeering of facile political views, transgender ideology, Palestine and the afterlife. #heretics #genderidentity #antiwoke
Alex O'Connor is one of my favourite CZcamsrs. Subscribe to his brilliant channel: @CosmicSkeptic
And his audio podcast Within Reason: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Get our bonus segment on: andrewgold.locals.com
Who is Alex?:
Alex J. O’Connor is founder of the “Cosmic Skeptic” (now just his name) CZcams channel, podcast and blog, platforms dedicated to the publication of philosophical ideas and debates in an accessible format.
A graduate of philosophy and theology from St. John’s College, Oxford University, Alex is an international public speaker and debater, having delivered addresses across multiple continents at conferences, universities, and local drinking groups, as well as debated ethics, religion, and politics with a number of high-profile opponents before college audiences, on radio talk shows and on national television.
Chapters:
0:00 Highlights
1:00 Richard Dawkins vs Jordan Peterson
6:00 Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion
9:00 Atheism less culturally relevant
10:00 Jordan Peterson’s Language with Richard Dawkins
11:30 What does atheist activism even mean?
13:30 Why it’s so hard to criticise Trump
14:30 What’s Next After Woke
16:30 ‘Trans Women’ Litmus Test
19:30 My Body My Choice Slogan
22:00 What does Free Palestine mean? (Andrew sings Michael Jackson)
25:00 Advice for activists with slogans
27:00 How to argue wth flat earthers (religion)
30:00 When conspiracy theories are right
31:18 The Preface Paradox
33:30 Is murder wrong?
36:00 Evil people think they’re doing good
38:00 Why there is no such thing as a ‘good’ act?
44:00 Would you rather kill an innocent person or…?
46:00 Suspicious of moral people
50:00 Sam Harris & Death
52:00 What We Don’t Know About the Afterlife
55:00 Where does the color red exist?
58:00 Curing Death & Living Forever
1:01:00 The Passing of Time
1:05:00 Sacrificing Self for Kids
1:08:00 A Heretic Alex Admires
Stock Media provided by PenroseAudio / Pond5. License Acquired. Music by Davis Withane.
Alex really has a good sense of time when he said it felt like an hour after one hour and a minute of speaking
It was one hour exactly - remember, we added the intro highlights, which are 1 min long. Spooky.
absolutely, this sense of time is the single most important part of this video, no doubt. i walked away in awe. nothing else matters, my friends, nothing. @@andrewgoldheretics
@@CatrinaDaimonLee lol
That comes from formal debate training I think.
He could get a job at William Palley and Sons precision watchmakers.
10:12 "Sometimes he just revs. To what end?"
Perhaps he's elated by reving. So he may be having a rev-elation.
And if you reveal your reveling in revulsion, by his reviewing your reviling the revving, it may result in revolution, leading to a revision of the revulsion to the revving.
🤭
@@GoogleIsTooInvasive I love the name, and agree. 😉👍
LOL
@@skepticusmaximus184
reveallo ice cream bars
yummm
That must have been Peter Hitchens outside revving his car, taking an inordinate amount of time to leave!
lol, he took his sweet fucking time to leave didn't he? What a clown that dude is XD.
😂
Lol. Saw that vid of him storming out
You can't revv up a Tesla. Electric cars are like religious people, delusional
I appreciated Alex's gentle but firm push back on this host's responses to his positions.
Andrew tried to take Alex's response and turn it into support for his own position several times, and Alex's immediate follow up was to bring the discussion back to neutral apolitical ground.
Or perhaps he was using the techniques of an interviewer.
@@dereksmalls7004 Mischaracterizing your interlocutor's response as support for your position is not the technique of a good internviewer.
@@hawkname1234 Perhaps you should not take it so seriously and cut people a little slack as your New Year Resolution?
@@dereksmalls7004?
@@dereksmalls7004 nope. probably shouldn't.
I can’t believe this guy. It already feels like he’s explored so much of the world of politics and philosophy already and he’s only in his mid twenties. A pleasure to listen to. Well done Andrew 👏🏻
처음에는 얼굴만 보고 아저씨인 줄 알았는데요. 알고보니, 20대 중반이네요😅
@@gifmesomespending time differently than you do doesn't make it "wasted"
is it a waste if thats his hobby? its fun for him lol @@gifmesome
@@gifmesome I'll make sure to tell him that he should be commenting on youtube dictating how others should live their lives instead, that's a much better use of his time
@@gifmesome I'm not the one telling people how to live, you are.
Sam Harris would disagree with being characterized as being an "american conservative", he is a liberal, which he has said himself many times over.
He’s an advocate for institutional aristocracy, where the aristocrats are determined by the superficial significance of their credentials.
Whether this is a right wing or left wing proposition depends on who has the authority to award the credentials. So in this generation, Sam is a raving Leftist, but in the 40’s and 50’s he would have been right wing.
American Liberals often look like Conservatives to us in the UK.
I thought the same. And while the response above says “American liberals often look like conservatives…” in Alex’s part of the world, Alex didn’t say “conservative.” He specifically said “American conservative” and he does in fact know the difference. This is the first time I’ve ever heard Alex say something that made me double take. He’s usually pretty spot on. But Harris is emphatically not an American conservative. Not by a sight.
Meh, many American liberals are conservative by European standards
liberals are as crazy as conservatives.
"Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" is a very misleading title for that section.
The title is right. They are scarier because they are turning atheist into religious-like extreme activists
"woke" is a meaningless term that just equates to "anything American conservatives don't like" at this point
I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy as well. I don't know which one but it's either begging the question or presupposing the conclusion
Thought the exact same thing. Also, the #antiwoke in the description.
"Woke" ideology has never resulted in inquisitions. There are plenty of examples you can use for religion being more dangerous than "wokeness", at least at this point in history.
I've been enjoying Alex's content for a long time but especially lately as he explores areas other than religion.
His work on the Monarchy, Drugs, hell even Ethics on GTA are absolutely brilliant
@Dewstend Pretty sure all Alex talks about is drugs 💁
@@TheChaotiCake Unfortunately, it's true. Never seen one topic from him besides drugs for about a whole year now. He must be obsessed with drugs!
"To what end are you revving, sir?" lol good stuff
Omg, fr lmfao 🤣 😂
I'm sure there's a correlation between male UK MP's and the cubic capacity of their motor vehicles.
The bigger the engine, the smaller the member...(...of Parliament of course).
@@user-ph8zs6xt8y yesss, this 😅😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤭🤭🤭🤭
@@user-ph8zs6xt8yyou don't say, fast bikes, dikes down in the T valley, or riding horseback ?
A big problem is that brilliant people are also sometimes wrong… particularly when speaking about something outside their expertise. For example… Jordan Petersen Has a doctor of psychology… it does not make him an expert on virology or economics
@@Besthinktwice
Yes, well, most of what he says would be rejected if he tried to publish it in a scientific journal. He mostly gives opinions, conjecture, and rationalized personal biases
He's also very ignorant of theology and philosophy of religion yet yaps his gob
Of course and this is why I laugh when people try to bash academics or intellectuals and try to completely discredit them
Because they are wrong on a particular issue . There’s not a single intellectual in history that is right about everything
@@brianmeen2158
Of course the bashing is deserved to a greater or lesser extent based upon the pretension of any given intellectual., i observe that Petersen has an over abundance of pretension on a wide range of subjects in which he has no obvious basis of expertise,
@@Besthinktwice Such as?
this was so fun to watch. Alex has mental clarity and intellectual honesty unlike anything I've ever seen, the interviewer is so good at leading conversation too. V fun, what lovely men
Try Matt Dillahunty. You'll be surprised.
Unlike anything you’ve ever seen? Get out more.
How often do you explore these topics there’s not much that was said here that wasn’t already glaringly obvious to me atleast.
@@audioporcupine3725, bro, getting out more would mean knowing close mind people 😭
I honestly don't see a logical difference between saying trans-women are women and adopted parents are parents. Both have a biological aspect attached but the difference is we socially accept adopted parents as parents even though they're technically not biological parents.
Interesting point. People are more than happy to accept the social/cultural dimensions associated with the words we use up until the moment it suddenly infringes on their political/religious beliefs (and often the unfortunate and messy fusion of both)
The difference would be that the bar to be an adoptive parent is higher. You aren't considered an adoptive parent just because you say you are. I can't just claim to adopt a child. You also accept that you aren't a biological parent. You can't say that biological parents don't exist nor does the whole concept of sex.
Saying trans women are women in terms of gender but not sex is possible but then they have to fulfill some kind of requisites about being a woman (let's be honest trans ideology doesn't care about men's roles) in a gendered sense. Which is to many ppl the bullshit stereotype part. It rather inconveniently also rules out the vast majority of trans ppl. And non-trans ppl.
The adoptive parent has to fulfill the far more important role.
Ppl who say trans women are women regularly try to rewrite the word woman for themselves. Adoptive parents simply try to be the best version of parents they can be for the child.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Trans ideology is.
@@robertmarshall2502 you're strawmaning what being trans is. Trans people aren't saying they are biological men or women. They're saying they belong in the same category socially. Yes, in a way you can call it "redefining" but you'd be more accurate saying "updating" instead. We got new data which has updated our understanding of social dynamics. People aren't just their chromosomes. How we interact with each other is important and far more complicated then that. I have a lot more to add but im curious to read your response.
@@robertmarshall2502 oh and I ignored the "bar" point because thats irrelevant to the central point being made. One could consider someone else a parental figure for many different reasons. Imprinting is one possible example.
@@chuletajones6833 I'm not strawmanning what being trans is. You're ignoring what it means for a bunch of trans ppl that don't fit conveniently into your definition. Go tell trans ppl they're strawmanning themselves should you so wish.
There are literal trans athletes claiming to be female. There are numerous trans ppl claiming to have female brains. "Born in the wrong body" is effectively a central tenet of the gender cult.
There is a pulitzer prize winning trans woman who thinks being a woman is an "open mouth, an expectant arse hole". The famous actress that got Jordan Peterson in trouble believes she is a man because she is attracted to women. What non-binary ppl believe is often a mystery to themselves and agender is effectively 99.9% of ppl.
I think you're also forgetting that the absolutely key definition of woman in trans ideology is "someone who identifies as a woman". Please note that those who hold this view will tell you that woman can't mean anything else. It can't be understood in terms of sex. It can't be understood in terms of gender as a social not individual phenomenon.
I think you and I could probably agree that, for example, a male who fulfills the gender role of a woman could be considered a woman in terms of gender should that society identify him as such. But trans ideology wouldn't. It rides this odd wave of requiring no outside affirmation and all.
There are trans ppl who don't think males should use female spaces or compete in female sport or require cross-sex hormones simply for a social identity but clearly the loudest elements don't hold these views. And none of these arguments make sense if it is purely social.
That's before we even get onto the more reasonable but oddly positioned trans ppl who think trans has to include gender dysphoria.
BTW I don't think they're redefining gender. They're reverting to stereotypes from before when I was born for me. I also think you've missed the point that the parent idea comes from outside whereas trans is internal as well as that being "a parental figure" and being an adoptive parent are not the same. An adoptive parent would be more like getting a gender recognition certificate. Very few trans ppl try to get them.
Alex is one of my favourite speakers, this is mind-blowing. Hit like, notify, and tell me below what you think is more culturally relevant: woke vs religion?
Woke. I once believed in flat earth. I would like to come and chat about how the lies of government has meant the belief in conspiracy is on the rise within the general public.
Woke IS a religion, especially with how outright dogmatic it is in practice and nature.
The difference is that it's a non-divine one.
Alex is cool
needs a buzzcut tho
why are you guys pretending like these are complicated ideas, you understand them you just, would prefer to act like they don't make sense Because you just don't like it. you're acting like other people are trying to control you by not wanting to be discriminated against, it's ridiculous
Andrew doing a Michael Jackson impression is such a great Easter egg in this brilliant interview.
It came out better than I expected!
Alex is arguably the best thing on the internet. I’m a theist who is very grateful for internet personalities like WLC, Hugh Ross, etc.. But Alex is just someone who enriches every conversation. I wish I knew which pub he hangs out at after work.
Is there a younger
Up and coming WLC? I’m not religious but I think Craig is brilliant
@@brianmeen2158 if you find one, let me know. Even though I disagree with some of his conclusions, you gotta say, he’s done his time! He’s studied for decades! There’s just no short-cut for becoming WLC.
@@geomicprioh definitely Craig is great. I hope he’s training the young generation ..It may sound strange but I’m
Rooting for the theists
@@brianmeen2158 Bigot! 😜
@@brianmeen2158
Do you root for the theists who are waiting for their opportunity to take away same-sex marriage or are you only okay with certain types of theists ?
The most mind-boggling think in this whole conversation is the fact that Alex is only 24.
Imagine having a discussion about how people simplify and reduce political conversation to slogans and then presenting Alex's points about rhetoric as "woke culture is replacing religion" or "why woke beliefs are scarier than religion". No self-awareness.
"presenting"? as in summarizing in a youtube title? The whole discussion about it was about how you can have a slogan and it can be useful in some ways, but you need to have nuance and substance and understanding behind it.
@@lakingpaul I think the point is the summery is not mildly accurate to what was said by anyone. they were only talking about how religion used to be a hot topic, now its gender issues. Nothing about if it was better or worse. So yes, it is capitalizing on sensationalism, similar to slogans.
@@BOREtism it says "are replacing religion"... As in replacing them as a hot topic of the moment, which is what they discussed...
based take
The word woke has lost its meaning entirely, extremely ill defined, while religion is still a very clear defined concept. The title of this video is not making sense.
Asking where the experience of redness is inside the brain is like asking where the software is inside of your computer; it's not sitting in there in a physical location per se, but it is more or less "in there" as the result of an information exchange process that occurs between tangible physical structures.
Mostly agree, just with a little caveat. You would be able to point where the software is physically located. It’s more the actions that the software performs that aren’t anywhere. I think better example would be AI. We know how to build it we know how it works in principle, but we would not be able to point out to specific physical location and say this is the part that generates redness in an image.
Another caveat to this, if we can be certain consciousness is a physical process self contained in the brain then we know that there must be a physical state that redness information is being represented in the form of information. While it seems emergent we know that for it to be experienced the state of redness exists. Being hard to find I would liken it to the exact location of an electron. We just don't have the tech/knowledge to observe this event. @@InShadowsLinger
I agree hopefully one day we will be able to access our mods just like we access a computer 💻
Alex has probably missed what Peterson has been up to since joining the Daily Wire. He’s mask off on his religious conservatism now. I suspect he was more cautious before in order to keep his audience options open as he was becoming famous. Now he’s established.
I couldn’t bear to listen to him but I would guess that his religiosity is more related to him being on the daily wire than a personal change. He is just incited to grift more because of the audience. It’s like joining the Fox News.
Masks off or just loving the following and money? Sometimes thosr things change a lit about people
I love seeing you people SO BOTHERED by Jordan Peterson!! You HATE that he absolutely wrecks your woke nonsense and is personally responsible for MILLIONS of people flocking to conservatism and anti-wokeness. He is easily the most brilliant mind of modern times.
So if someone asks him if he believes in God, does he just say yes now? Or is it still a rambling thesis about "well it depends on what you mean by believe..."? And I don't mean that in a snarky way. Does he legit just answer the question now?
@@mike9512 I honestly think it's the toughest issue for Jordan. And because he hasn't fully figured it out for himself, he has a hard time giving a simple answer. He has been very open about the fact that the question of God has kept him up more nights than he would like to admit and that it terrifies the hell out of him. I mean, he breaks down crying about it sometimes when he talks about it. So, I just think he is wrestling with the idea of God and his spirit and until he sorts it out, we will continue to get vague answers.
To what end!?! It's good to see Alex in a conversion where he can crack a few funnies. I wish the BBC would offer Alex a TV slot.
No way that'd happen. The BBC are too entrenched in woke ideology to give a platform to someone who will happily play with ideas, questioning, criticizing and defending them.
The funny part, to me, is that I don’t think he said that to be funny. I think he was genuinely asking, “Is he going anywhere, or is he just revving his engine?” I think he’s genuinely questioning this guy’s motives and it just came across like a joke lol
@@PtylerBeats True. But I'm pretty sure his crack about the massive penis was humor. 😂
Can't wait to watch this Andrew. Thanks so much for Heretics. A non-shouty breath of fresh air and sanity!
@@docwhammo What is evil to you dicknose?
@@docwhammois that meant to counter his argument or just point out that evil comes from humanity?
@@docwhammo evil does not come only from humanity, its a human concept/construct, just like good, and so if there exist extraterrestial life, it will probably behave similar to us, even though they may not have created such concepts
Help me out.
Can Alex denounce the Holocaust and on what grounds if he is an emotivist and ethics are just subjective emotions that can't be true or false?
Because he has that yikes feeling about killing but Nazis didn't have that yikes feeling about murdering people. So it's just a matter of different feelings, right?
Maybe I didn't understand him, can someone explain it in simple words, thanks
@@Sebbiryeah is he saying religion is just made up just to get a dig in at humanity?
This got progressively more interesting the further the discussion went. I don't think had the opportunity to hear Alex talk much about the motivation behind altruism before.
I’ve been watching Alex since he first began on CZcams and have eagerly watched his progress. I’m pushing sixty and I’ve found people like Alex to be the rarest sort - brilliance tempered with sincere humility and eagerness to engage openly and honestly places him in the highest echelons of influential thinkers in my opinion. To me he is as great a philosopher as any who have come before him.
I'm pushing 60 too. The funny thing about philosophy is that it's only really open to the privileged who have the luxury of sitting about thinking about life and essentially giving some sort of meaning to themselves. And then there's those who work and don't have the time for such pursuits.
Two guys trying to have an intelligent conversation, guy next door: "LOUD CAR GO VROOM VROOM"
Started following and watching Alex...have real interest in philosophy and find him young and fresh in terms of explanations and questions.
Thx Andrew for always being so generous in asking guests where we can visit as well as which heretic they admire-what a great question!
Keep up great work, what a lovely chap you are, so natural, open and honest 👌
I'm not sure if I agree with the "redness" argument, maybe I just don't understand it correctly. I have a lot of pictures and videos on my HDD, but if you cut it open you won't find any. They can only be processed by a machine, a PC (or whatever other device), just like "redness" in our brain can only be processed by a living organism. The difference is that we know how machines work, we built them after all, but how brain works is still a mystery for the most part.
my way of dealing with the thought of death as an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of afterlife is to think that i will no longer have to worry about dying once i am dead
"If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not"
But if you knew you couldn't die, you wouldn't waste your life worrying about death.
@@kimbirch1202 Eternity promotes time wasting. Its like when you have lets say two weeks to finish something and it takes only about 1 day to do it, most people would have waited the last moment to do it... Same with life. So to me, knowing that life ends and that you never know when it will end is what makes me to actually do things.
@lazar2949 What things do you have to do , and why do you have to do them.
You do have all the time in the world, as time is an illusion.
It can.never not be the present moment.
There is no death ,because you cannot be a body.
@lazar2949 The problem is misidentification with the body.
You cannot be a body.
You already ARE eternal Mind and Spirit.
Folk who believe they are a body think they have to achieve their bucket list, before they die, yet there is no death.
If you don't believe this, you may want to watch the numerous near death experiences, here on CZcams.
Ah you guys, your minds are gifts to us. Thank you so much. minds like yours remind me that there is hope for this world. Keep talking, thinking, searching...love you guys - men are so cool!!!!
I would love to see you moderate a debate with both sides on this topic, one that doesn’t devolve into a screaming match. I know that’s not necessarily your format, but we desperately need to see people disagree while still trying to understand and respect each other
I really like this. 💯💯💯💯💯💯
But who would you go to to represent the progressive left?
I can't believe Alex O'Connor is only 24 year old, looking forward to listen to him more... great discussion as usual!
Philosophy should be taught at school. Training kids how to think. We might see more 24 yr olds like Alex
What's so impressive about him? I don't get it.
Yes, the sloganization of arguments and/or politics! I've been thinking about that for a while now and I've noticed a lot of people will tend to argue against the slogan itself vs any actual arguments and it drives me nuts. I have a family member who thinks he's pretty smart cuz he'll argue against the slogan.
All of the political slogans regarding policy I've seen have done more harm than good. "Defund the police" was a nightmare. It became the argument and policy. A social conversation that should've been about police accountability, law enforcement militarization, police capabilities with mental health, etc. became "this group wants to completely abolish police".
Then stop using slogans. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
@RaveyDavey I believe slogans have their place (as I believe Alex mentions) but that place is not in arguing or debating the merits of a position.
@@RaveyDavey the irony 😂
You guys give Jordan Peterson a lot of respect. When I hear Dr Peterson talk, I can only just giggle at the fusillade of bullshit that he spews with so much self-importance.
Good thing we saw through his bullshit, right? I hope more people are as smart as we are.
Absolutely. I can't for the life of me understand why people hold Jordan Peterson and his constant word salads in such high regard.
@@iksaglamsome of his word salads are good, some of them make no sense, and some of them are soups
I don't always agree with Jordan (especially on religion) but I have respect for him. I agree he sometimes speaks nonsense (especially some debates I've seen), but on many things he is right. He's been an important figure in the fight against wokeness. And I do think his intentions are good.
@@lencekk I disagree with many of his opinions and rhetoric, but the amount of hate he's recieved from the woke is pretty wild, considering they are the ones who turned him into a celebrity by trying so hard to cancel him
Great interview. It was really good to hear him interviewed rather than debated too, much more worthwhile and interesting.
Alex had the best interview skills, how to handle unstable inteviewees after how he handled Hitchens and his insane outburst and kept it going politely without folding and whilst also letting Hitchens know he was being unfair. Massive respect to this guy
Will Hitchens was probably drunk.
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Nah, he's just an a*sehole.
@@CoffeeisnecessarynowpepperPretty sure Peter Hitchens rarely drinks
@@rorybessell8280 he got cancer from alcohol
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Wrong Hitchens there
Terror management theory is such an interesting view to me because while I can see it rearing its head whenever I do some artistic stuff thinking it'll be my legacy, but I also know that I would 100% not bother doing anything important at all if I knew I had a year or so to live. On the contrary, if someone were to tell me I won't die and I have to live here eternally, I'd devote significant portions of my life to bettering my conditions, thinking if I simply cannot not live, I sure as hell will live well.
Thank you, Andrew! This is the second CZcamsr you've introduced me to who I know I'm going to love (the first was Coleman Hughes)!! This is my favourite episode of Heretics so far!
Ah thanks so much. You’re always very generous and lovely in your feedback!
Thank you, @doyle6000! I hadn’t heard of Coleman Hughes, he seems very switched on🙏
He's a slimy SOB, he's the everyman, catch my drift?
Wow I've followed him for years, you most not be into debate or atheism ....
Honestly until religious belief is minority, it's bizarre to dismiss the topic. It's very much a gateway-idea to irrationality (to being willing to believe ideas without sufficient evidence).
Ok, I don’t think he quite dismissed the topic so much as made it a less priority. But why does it need to be the minority first before he does this?
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Because if 51% of your population believes in leprechauns, *clearly discussions about leprechauns matter.* That's still true at ~25%, and probably only stops being relevant around 5%. (And generally that's why we currently don't discuss leprechauns most places. Though apparently a survey in Ireland put leprechaun belief at 33%, so clearly they _should_ be discussing the topic!)
@@majmage we still do discuss the topic when it becomes relevant though. Like he said it’s a topic that is relevant in the political sphere. But making it the forefront of every discussion doesn’t seem fruitful. Unless specific religious values or points come up. Then it’s not that important.
Even if it was leprechauns or whatever I’m not sure why that would change anything
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Who's making it the forefront of every discussion? That just seems like a straw man. Irrational beliefs should be abolished, even if they seem harmless, because they aren't harmless: *they're irrationality.* If a person believes it's acceptable to hold one irrational belief, they're more likely to hold others, and we should be pushing back against that as much as possible (because the alternative is more irrationality, which is worse for us all).
@@majmage irrational beliefs can be harmful sure.
But I see a flaw in your logic. You are saying beliefs are harmful because they are irrational. Which is a position or a claim
And you then further state that if they hold irrational beliefs that can then inform further irrational beliefs.
But this is true of us all. We all to some degree come to conclusions that are incorrect that inform further inaccurate positions.
This also doesn’t directly imply harmful beliefs.
This also doesn’t imply just because these beliefs have the capacity to be harmful that they should be the irrational beliefs we politically talk about.
I would also say there is a further problem here about how religious beliefs function when it comes to truth values. And you are looking at truth in a very analytical way.
And I’m not making an argument for belief in belief. I’m making an argument for the evolution of ideas. It’s not true or false when a bird does a dance to pro create. Those are just behaviors they adapted that work for them.
Just like how the human animal burns smoke to keep the darkness out. (Dark spirits or whatever) Smoke is good for killing mold. They don’t know that. But it’s a good practice that over time they developed to take care of themselves. The complete truth didn’t matter and their explanation works
About the 'ugh' feeling that is morality around 35:40 :
Philosopher Mary Midgley said that the 'yuk' feeling we're supposed to have about murder is actually very essential to morality. When someone doesn't have it, we call them a psychopath or something similar. Because this person may know that murder, rape etc. are wrong (like you can theoretically have a list of right and wrong things and memorize it), but they don't FEEL it. And that's the difference between just knowing something is not preferred in society, and having a moral judgement about something.
Just some added info for those who now think moral judgements are not relevant or essential in society because 'they're just feelings' - yes they are, but vital ones.
"We're living in handmaids tale"
"Its just like 1984"
The favorite refrains of people who dont actually read speculative fiction
The section at 6:00 is titled "Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" but neither of you discuss this in the next couple of minutes.
Wondering what compelled you to title it as such.
Edit:
Never mind. All the sections have clickbaity titles. Seems rather ingenuine.
The scariest thing is using the term "woke" unironically 😅
@@jerrodshack7610 The term is inherently ironic, so using it unironically is just fine, lol. It's a pointedly critical label of a specific set of Left-leaning political sensibilities. Sensibilities such as unsubstantive representation, diversity equity and inclusion ideals which amount to really nothing more than tokenism, holding to the class struggle narrative, etc. It's essentially a synonym of Radical Left. I am aware of the term's original definition, just as I am of the original definition of gay. It doesn't matter what it was meant 40 years ago. Mainstream media, even the legacy Left leaning ones, like CNN, are using the term the way it is used in this video, today. And all media will continue discourse with this new colloquial definition of a specific type of Leftist political beliefs.
Looking forward to this.
Whenever the world just seems a little too insane, i seek out Andrew's channels to regain a sense of nuance and balance. Fantastic content, and then suddenly - flawless falsetto! Bravo sir, on both the episode and the MJ rendition.
I absolutely adore Alex and I’m so happy to be able to hear him speak freely as an interviewee this time!
"You can't cut open a brain and find redness." Sounds a bit like"You can't cut open a laptop and find Windows."
There was a recent research paper published that concluded a not insignificant number of people can’t form images in their mind by thinking of them, such as redness, even though they can see them. Likewise, in the same paper, they concluded a not insignificant number of people don’t have an inner voice. Fascinating stuff.
Interesting, although I'm always skeptical about studies like that. I mean how do you test and compare (!) the images that people see in their minds? Is it one of those studies where they just ask the participants questions or is it more sophisticated like an MRI? Because it could also be, that people interpret questions like "What image do you see in your mind when you think of X?" differently, just because they have a slightly different understanding of language and words, and what they see in their minds is actually the same.
23:05 Slogans are supposed to make you think, but the way political slogans are used in this context is to replace thought.
I have always been anti-authoritarian but pro institutions where they support liberty. When the right is authoritarian, I am anti-right, when the left is authoritarian, I am anti-left.
Great discussion - always enjoy hearing Alex. One point I’m keen to hear more on in future videos is Alex’s moral emotivism. In particular I’d like to hear his views on the basis on which he considers that our emotive responses are formed, and how/why there appears to be widespread consensus across multiple human civilisations regarding certain ‘moral’ claims. Additionally, why is it that my intuition that murder is repulsive feel so much more vivid/robust than my emotive responses regarding other aspects of life (ie in relation to food/drink preferences)? My sense is that the emotivist argument terminates too early insofar as refuses to consider the origins of our emotive responses, which in turn would lead us back towards something like a realist/objectivist basis for doing normative moral philosophy.
I think that the idea that gender wars and woke culture are replacing religion is a proposition way too absurd if you know anything about history or human nature.
Revolutions, ideologies and movements have always been part of human history and nature. They have always existed alongside religion and without religion it is no different. To say it somehow is happening because people have no religion is simply absurd.
Have ideologies existed that have been this robust? The only comparable example that I can think of is Soviet communism. An ideology that has its own defined heresies and heretics, apostates, messiah-like figures, sacred texts, etc. seems uniquely crafted to fill a void typically filled by religion.
@@Psyshimmer "Have ideologies existed that have been this robust?"
What do you mean? they have always existed. There are plenty within religion for example, read everything about early Christianity and all the ideologies. How they fought over theology and called heretics anyone that disagreed. You have ideologies such as the Gnostics for example.
But you have plenty of ideologies, that were intertwined with religion, things like Patriotism and Nationalism for example. An ideology so strong you might not even think about it as an ideology, because it is so integral to culture.
Ideologies have been an integral part of humanity and they have always existed.
You have plenty of ideologies that shaped entire countries and cultures, such as Confucianism. Stoicism is a big one as well, and Ancient Greece was a place that gave birth to many ideologies that affect us even today.
@@farrex0 I agree that ideologies have always existed, and that many of them have far-reaching effects, but my central point, the one that I'd appreciate your thoughts on, is specifically regarding the secularism-as-religion that we see rising today. Unlike Confucianism, stoicism, or Gnosticism, wokism is specifically religious in nature. As I mentioned, it is specifically moralistic in nature, mirrors Christianity's original sin in its ethos, specifically defines its heresies and heretics, and possesses its own sacred texts, leading messiah-like figures, priest class, etc. Nationalism possesses some of these, but lacks the internationalist aspect that makes Wokism especially pernicious. It isn't constrained by geography, like nationalism is, and is to me, more alike a religion than any of the examples you've listed.
@@Psyshimmer "is specifically regarding the secularism-as-religion that we see rising today. "
Hmm, let's be clear let's not commit the equivocation fallacy and let's not dilute the definition of religion so much that an ideology becomes a religion. There is NOTHING religious in wokism. I am sure all the things you can point out that makes it religious in your mind are things that are ALSO what defines an ideology. Nationalism for example, is almost religious... you worship your nation and even die for it. But being like religion, doesn't make it religious.
Wokism is not religious is nature. I do not subscribe to wokism, but let's be clear and truthful.
When you say wokism is religious in nature, please define what do you mean by religious. Because by traditional definition of religion, wokism is not religious.
"As I mentioned, it is specifically moralistic in nature"
That is not religious exclusive. And all ideologies ever have a position on morality and ethics. So that doesn't make it religious.
"mirrors Christianity's original sin in its ethos, specifically defines its heresies and heretics, and possesses its own sacred texts, leading messiah-like figures, priest class, etc."
That also happens in Marxism , but that doesn't make it religious. In fact, I would say Marxism is more akin to religion than wokism. Yet Maxism is not religious.
I have to wonder what is it you are trying to achieve. If by saying something is religious, you want to demerit the ideology? Want to say it is irrational? or that they simple zealots? Well there are plenty of ideologies that have been like that. Some that has been even more extremists than wokism. You have communism for example, which moved complete countries to violent revolution and autoritarian regimes. You have nazism, whcih caused the world War 2. You have the anti-communist movement in the US, in which everything communist was labeled as satanic. You have anarchism, and the ideologies that inspired the French revolution.
In short, ideologies and religion has always existed and while they have similarities, those similarities do not make an ideology religious.
@@farrex0 First, I'll be transparent that my belief is that Wokism is just a rebranded faux-Marxism - the same ethics and processes, yet expanded to include attributes beyond class (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.), so I agree with your argument that Marxism is faux-religious because it strengthens my argument that Wokism is faux-religious (I should have been clearer in stating that I don't view Wokism specifically as a religion, but that it encompasses a sufficient number of religious tendencies that I'm unsatisfied by writing it off as mere ideology.)
I'm curious, what separates a religion and an ideology for you? One could use the basic definition of a religion as, "a set of beliefs and tenets that guide faith and worship", but I suspect that is too broad and can, unintentionally mark Wokism as inherently religious.
My goals are the following: I'm attempting to honestly evaluate the origin, effects, and ethos of Wokism, which I view as a particularly interesting (though damaging) amalgamation of Christianity and Marxism, yet one that remains essentially secular. I believe that an uncomfortable number of skeptics and secularists have been seduced by Wokism because they believe that it's not "religious," yet it damages social fabric in (my opinion) a way very similar to religion.
Jordan Peterson intentionslly over- complicates things just to make his ideas sound more intellectual than they actuslly are. You can tell he's teeing up some warmed-up meatloaf when he starts with "I've thought about this a lot" - it's clsssic plaid-blazer "trust me" selling. Ive said it on other threads - the man could make toast difficult to grasp as a concept.
He's only impressive to those with limited education and limited intellectual acuity.
I like Jordan a lot but he is shockingly long winded
@@brianmeen2158 "I've thought a lot about the toast, and how it represents man's Jungian collectively unconscious need to manipulate his surroundings, and then my thoughts shift to the bread itself, and how it was originally wheat, modified and combined with other constituents in order to manifest in a more cohesive relativistic form and that's god." 😆
@@Philusteen Nested in the metaphorical substrate that is the toast rack.
@@AM_o2000 bravo, lol - truly a psychosocial matryoshka of tangential conundrums, making it clear to any reasonably intelligent inquiry that patriarchal norms bring all these stacking concepts into alignment. And then there's the butter..."
Fascinating discussion. Was interesting when Alex experienced himself how the perception of time compresses as one ages. Being 72 I know it all too well. When asked who would you go for wisdom Alex mentioned Lord Altrincham. Did watch the episode in The Crown and took notice of Lord Altrincham but didn't know much about him. Will certainly check his work and life out. The person I have obtained a fair amount of wisdom is William James. Studied most of his works while pursuing a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies back in the late 80's and early 90's. Helped in a profound way focus how I think about religion, truth, and knowledge. Well done, Andrew and Alex. You both inspire this old bloke.
If you asked a person chanting "free free palestine" what they mean, most willbe able to tell you exactly what that means. The few in edited youtube interviews who can't are exactly that, a few, deliberately edited to appear like a majority.
I would argue that the "my body my choice" thing actually falls into the bodily autonomy argument, and I'd argue that is the actual reason it has been so oversimplified. The argument is essentially that no other nuance is necessary, it is a total belief in bodily autonomy, where no one has any right to another persons body, regardless if it is necessary to their survival. For instance, most people would not try to argue that we should mandate blood and organ donations, because even though it is necessary for someone else's survival (particularly for people with rare blood types), at the end of the day the person who's body is being utilized has bodily autonomy, and that must be protected before anything else. Many people who are pro-choice actually do not believe in abortion on a personal level, and they themselves would never get an abortion if it (except for maybe severe medical complications), but they do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to carry a pregnancy. And even when making the argument "they made a choice that led to the pregnancy", part of bodily autonomy is that people have the right to change their mind, or maybe they never "chose" to be pregnant, instead it was a mistake, mistakes happen, and they still have a right over their body.
Outstanding interview Andrew. Alex is well to do in keeping his mind open to the possibility of a Creator
This was a great interview. I'm always multitasking, Alex had me so engaged I stopped doing everything else, I even let my tea go cold. Absolutely fascinating.
That secret room in your own house analogy is spot-on. I often even have dreams about my own house, only in my dream-version of my house there are extra rooms that I never noticed before or simply didn't have time to get to that I've finally found a use for in my dream, and then I wake up a bit disappointed that the extra rooms in my house weren't real (because they're often very cozy rooms too).
02:34 Love you, Alex, but calling Sam Harris conservative is not accurate in the slightest.
Sam and Rogan are hardcore “right wingers” now 🤣🤣
@@brianmeen2158Rogan openly supports right wing candidates and has right wing pundits on constantly, which he almost never pushes back against even when they are blatantly incorrect about something. He has talked about his disdain for the homeless, complains about socialism, has pushed inaccuracies regarding vaccination, etc etc etc. He is most certainly a conservative.
Ultra conservative? Perhaps not, but the bar for being "ultra conservative" is pretty high when American conservatives are already ultra conservative by the standards of the rest of the developed world.
Nowhere in did Alex say "Woke beliefs are scarier than religion". So why name the 06:06 conversation that? I didn't even think the conversation was about that, since the word "woke" wasn't even mentioned once. I felt like the conversation was more about how some topics, that he regards as less important or that has gone on for too long, can get more attention in media and debates.
The host is a typical attention grabber. We used to call them con men.
“Nothing corrupts revolutionary movements more - and more radically - than success. For the first generation, the pioneering one, is followed by that of opportunists. The third continues to fight out of habit; the fourth, out of inertia. Eventually the movement turns its battle inward, splitting into factions, groups, sects, one against the other, one against all.
Substance gives way to superficiality. Personalities replace ideas; slogans replace ideals. The lofty goals are lost; the message is forgotten. Now the struggle revolves around titles and positions…”
-Elie Wiesel, souls on fire 1972
I'm very confused with how you're titling the sections. It's incredibly misleading, actually. The titles have nothing to do with the actual content in the video.
As you age the amount of time represented by a year becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of your life whereas when you're a child it's a much larger fraction of your life so you feel like a year has lasted for ages.
Love these mind bending discussions.
Didn't think I would enjoy this conversation so much... there's a beautiful world beyond debates and so on
The Jordan River answer by singing it, had me dying 😂 just picturing the absurdity of it. I'm going to make it a point to answer questions in adding from now on
If the first 35 to 45 minutes of this was interesting to you, check out this book by Walter Lippmann, "Public Opinion" written in 1922, will explain in great detail the questions surrounding what Alex and Andrew referred to as "slogans" specifically, political slogans. There is a very good reason why most people adopt political slogans one worth considering for sure. Check out the book, specifically chapters 1, 6, 7, and 8. The entire book is worth a read especially for The United States voting public.
I’ve added it to my list of books to read.
wasnt inresting, this same conversation has been had 100 times
It's odd to me that both of these thoughtful men seem so committed to either/or thinking. Their attitudes seem to be, either I'm doing something wholly for someone else, or I'm doing it wholly to satisfy my own needs. In fact, however, and presumably as they both know, motivation is considerably more complex than that. It's not "either/or;" it's "both/and."
I think they're arguing about what the basis of your action is though. Yes you can be doing something for someone else, but ultimately you do it because you WANT to. For any number of reasons, even reasons that put other people's well-being ahead of your own. You did the thing ultimately because it was something you wanted.
On the whole I'm in agreement with that descriptive part of the argument, but not so much with the takeaway. With the fireman example where people say he's a hero and a good person because he couldn't live with himself if he didn't save the child... I think people are totally right to think that. We want more people like that in our society. We want more people who have feelings that push them to do prosocial things. I don't know why we couldn't just define real altruism as having and being influenced by feelings that encourage selfless behavior rather than selfish behavior. It's a way for us to predict what their future behavior will be like, and a normative judgment about it. Easy as.
I really like the revving interruptions :D
I think the reason the years get faster as we get older is that a year when you're 1 a year is all of your experience. When you're 10 a year is 10% of your experience. When you're 50 it's 2%. When you're 100 it's 1%
I agree about the sloganism point, but as far as I understand about the trans movement (being part of it myself and observing those around me), "trans women are women" is not just a slogan summary of a broader point, but the point itself. And no one arguing _for_ that point has, as far as I'm aware, talked about "woman/women" in terms of biological sex. The language _can_ get confusing when you dive into what words you use to refer to biological sex, since words like "female" are _sometimes_ used to refer to biological sex and _sometimes_ used to refer to socialogical/psychological gender ("male/female" are used in an official capacity in some states of the US to refer to one's gender, not sex, on one's birth certificate and driver's license, further adding to the confusion), but "woman/women" is unanymously used by the trans community to refer to gender, not sex. When we hear people arguing about words, it's often opponents of the trans community who reject any and all terminology intended to refer to gender, or who get terms consistently confused or wrong. Otherwise, any currently debated terminology within the LGBTQ+ community is mostly just people figuring things out, whether that be scientists/doctors/researchers choosing more concise terms to study or treat trans patients, philosophers/psychologists/anthropologists exploring the field from their own lens, or individuals/groups within the community trying to find the right words to explain their experience on a personal or universal level. These things take time to reach concensus and I try to be lenient with anyone who wants to use "the right words", but isn't privy to inclusive language. At one point, even the word "gay" was questionable, though I think just about everyone knows what it specifically refers to today. Unconventional neopronouns like "ze/zer" don't seem to be catching on as much because they don't roll off the tongue as well, so I suspect they will stay niche as more non-binary people utilize the more conventional "they/them".
I try not to talk past people, personally. I try to pay attention to what words people use and either reflect that terminology myself when talking with them or I try to make what _I_ mean clear so they can't read as many assumptions into my position when I make it, and communication in general goes much more smoothly, leading to far less animosity, even when I talk with someone outside my circle. I feel like that's the better approach to communication with the wider public. I do prefer to use more inclusive language, though, as it avoids being disrespectful to myself and other trans people reading what I say online.
As for my justification for using inclusive language, it's less about the legitimacy of the philosophy and more about the ethical implications. It's hard to explain what it's like being trans (with dysphoria) and not realizing it because more conducive language is not around to help you process your feelingsーusing pronouns or referring to yourself by your biological sex, which causes you what seems like a tiny bit of discomfort in the short term, but which piles up in the long run, turning into disassociation, depression, self-esteem issues, shame, etc. I subconsciously tried being a non-gender-conforming version of my birth sex, but it never solved the problem. It wasn't my interests or behavior that caused the dysphoria, but rather my internal sense of identity. I eventually learned I was intersex (chromosomes) in high school and it shocked me because it felt like it could be a missing piece of the puzzle that explained why I felt the way I did, but it wasn't until I learned about trans people's experiences and did my research to calm my fears and metaphysical concerns over it that I finally realized that was the answer. Ultimately, it was the very act of identifying as, and being identified as, my gender in public that alleviated some of that internal strife. My quality of life has improved a lot since. Likewise, uninclusive language intended to deny me that dignity to live according to my identity causes my dysphoria to flare up, and when people do it deliberately, it just feels mean-spirited, in away that projects disrespect toward someone you hate. It gets worse when people accuse you of being a sexual predator because of incomprehensible stereotypes that feel alien to me and everyone I know within the community. Inclusive language doesn't "deny reality". It's a tool used to communicate betterーlanguage that explains the previously unexplainable, especially for those afflicted by dysphoria. It's something that allows me and others like me to live healthier, more productive lives.
You know, on second thought, I suppose "trans woman are woman" can be sloganized within this context precisely because there are people who don't believe it to be true, even if the contention is just over definitions of words rather than "objective reality". I just spent all this time justifing my use of inclusive language to make sure that people know why I use it, and why I think others ought to do the same (if they agree with my approach as a matter of dignity and respect toward an internal sense of identity that is out of trans peoples' control). Whereas I've seen plenty of people shout "trans women are women" to the sky who would rather fall back on "it's just a fact" to justify their position rather than explain their approach.
@Junosensei there is more to it than just calling someone a woman though, I'm fine with calling someone a transman or transwoman and would refer to them socially as she. However woman have their own needs that they might not want trampled on, say for instance the case in Scotland of a rapist who was born a man getting sent to a prison with woman because they now identify/are a transwoman should they be placed in prison with womrn that they're actually in jail for raping in the first place? If the answer to that is no it's a clear admittance that the person isn't a woman.
@@williamcartedge5583 - 1) Why not treat trans women who assault other women like cis women who assault other women? From my understanding, women who are at high risk of hurting other women are isolated from the group in women's prisons, whenever possible.
2) Trans women are at very high risk of assault in men's prisons, but there are very, very few instances of trans women who assault anyone in a women's prison.
If you wish to claim that trans women (or specific trans women in some cases) are a risk to cis women in public spaces, you're going to want to back that up with verifiable numbers. Additionally, any solution you wish to seek should be fair to all, not just one side. I cannot imagine how it would feel being a woman stuck in a men's prison where the vast majority of people who assault women are held.
"I like a lot of what Jordon Peterson says", "I like a lot of what Ben Shapiro says". Two people known/shown to be grifters/propagandists in a lot of what they say.
Alex brought up an interesting point about love and connection being umtimately self motivated, but I have come to a better way of understanding it from a slightly different perspective.
My own personal reflections on love over the past year made me see myself as a part of someone else. My flaws, my weaknesses, etc. were not only mine, but something that we had. Relationships, to me, are defined by seeing yourself and someone else as a unit and whatever/whoever you are is a part of them and vice versa. You might do things for others because they in some way preserve or benefit yourself, but you also might do things for yourself because they preserve or benefit them. For me, the cliche phrase, "I love you," must incluse in its definition, "I see myself as a part of who you are and I love myself." To love someone else, for me, is an acklowledgement that I too am loved, for I love the relationship that I am a part of.
People might be understandably confrontatious to the idea that even a good act of love and compassion is self motivated, but there's something deeper. An act of love towards someone else should be beneficial to you as you start to see them as a fundamental part of who you are.
To me that is love. A fireman rushing into a building to save a child might say he's doing it because he can't live with himself. I say that he's doing it because a fundemental part of himself, the child, will die if he doesn't. He isn't just saving himself in an emotive sense, he's seeing the child's life as part of who he is as a person. Love should become a selfish act not to feel good or perserve some duty to someone else, but the more you love someone else, the more of them you become. To love them is to love that part of yourself.
What is a women socially vs biologically isn't confusing at all.
This is podcast gold. The bit about the kids and the turtle necks with tweed jackets at the end resulted in me almost spitting my tea out. I could listen to you both talk for hours.
loved this!
What an enjoyable and stimulating conversation between two thoughtful and enquiring minds. Nice one fellas, thanks for that!
I HAVE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY FOR THIS CROSS-OVER... THANK YOU ANDREW 😚
2:10 Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are "American conservatives"? Jordan Peterson isn't even American and Sam Harris sure as hell isn't a conservative.
Yes, I was so surprised they didn't realize Peterson is Canadian. Sandy (from hubby's account)
Doesn't Peterson live in America and is his content not primarily consumed by Americans, and are his culture war positions not entirely based on the American culture war?
@@jerrodshack7610No.
@4:30 Sam Harris is a conservative??? 😂😂😂
I almost turned off the podcast at that idiotic statement.
Out of respect to Andrew I'll gut it out.
You bet your ass he is
Two things can be right at the same time. It truly is possible, whether you agree or not, that's a different story...js
He regards himself as broadly on the left of center, but he sometimes he doesn't sound like it. However, those labels seem to be changing over time and geography, so not that helpful I'd say.
@@PianoDentist The disintegration of the labels makes labeling Harris a "conservative" even more absurd in that case.
so so interesting. please make more of these, or even have a weekly podcast with alex where you discuss philosophy. I would listen to it every time all the way through
I think that this is your best video yet. Alex has such interesting and thoughtful ideas. I like that he talks about how he thinks social movements and things like morality are shaped by humans rather than focussing on his own stance in these things.
The framing of your topics is a bit strange to me - you call the section at 6:00 "Why woke beliefs are scarier than religion" which isn't what Alex was saying at all. He was merely commenting on how cultural obsessions change over time.
I sort of broke at the description of JBP and Sam Harris as "American conservatives". Not sure on what spectrum Sam H is conservative :D
@@Besthinktwice that's a label I think applies a lot better. I would also offer up 'center leftist of the Bill Maher persuasion', who only got labeled as "conservative" in the last five minutes because they finally hit a progressive shibboleth they couldn't justify (whichever one it was).
@@Besthinktwice If you have time, I wonder if you would be able to briefly summarise what you mean by a "liberal imperialist" in a modern context. I have only encountered the term used in the context of the British Empire, a hundred years or so ago.
@@juliuscomnenus4415Bill Maher has been getting progressively more conservative over the past few years. Very classic "young people bad, pull yourself up by your bootstraps" boomer stuff
Your channel is on fire Andrew!
Very entertaining. Thanks, guys!
Both of these guys are great
i think alex will go down as one of the great philosophers of our time, so glad i got to see him grow
I wouldn't say philosopher, more like public intellectual.
To me, "free Palestine " means to transform the current state of Israel with its ethno religious laws that favour one demographic group. Into a one multi ethnic and secular state that treats individuals and groups equally. Religion, race, and ethnicity need not be a deciding factor of individuals' rights in modern states.
Much respect 🙏
Great conversation!
At the expense of sounding too new age, I seriously think that what's next is mindfulness. That is, closer attention to peace that emanates from within then translates to interactive life. It's a long time coming, but mindfulness (or un-mindfulness, as Eckhart Tolle would infer) has been in the mix for decades.
Alex O'Connor, one of the best geust.
I saw an influencer trying to take a picture on a rock and she fell in the water. She couldn’t climb back onto the rock because the crashing waves were so chaotic. Her friend was there and he jumped in to save her. Sadly they both drowned.
These are the kind of examples that come to mind when they say there’s no such thing as a selfless act. This friend gave his life trying to save another person. He genuinely put someone else’s life above his.
I think this argument is a matter of semantics. They’re operating from the definition of, “selfless” being in its most absolute and literal form, that there’s no act that’s *entirely* selfless. It’s a weak argument to me because it’s easy for things to breakdown when taken to this kind of extreme. But ppl *can* act in a way where they place other people’s needs and well being above theirs. And that’s what, “selfless” actually means. And so there are varying degrees of how selfless one can be. If no act can be entirely selfless, then it goes without saying. So when someone has given their life to save others, to turn around and say, yeah but that wasn’t entirely selfless, is pretty cheap. Like are selfless acts really the thing we need to be taking down a peg? Pointing this out is like the definition of 🤓☝️
TLDR; They’re disproving the word “altruistic,” and by extension the word “selfless,” in their most extreme and literal form and then using that to say it doesn’t exist at all but, just because no act can be entirely selfless doesn’t mean selfless acts don’t exist
That car must go from 0 to a 100 like: "BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG...DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK!!"
Can;t remember where I heard it but when Alex talks about how fast time flies as you get older (around 1:07:00) but someone described time as logarithmic. And by that, it's meant that earlier in life, we have so many more significant events with which to mark the calendar. e.g. when you're a child and adolescent, going through school - and let's go through someone in middle school and starting in January. They have just gotten off winter break, they might be in a sport or two and those are significant events (an incredible match or championship), there's Valentine's day which is a big emotional event for most kids growing up, they might go skiing or snowboarding trips with the school, there might be a school dance. And that could just be the first few months and those months are pockmarked with such significant events to that person at that time. But as you get older, naturally, there are fewer and fewer significant events to mark on the calendar. So it's logarithmic because life starts off with so many significant events but then drop off the older and older you get - which is why we tend to view time passing faster the older we get.
Interesting comment
My own theory is that it is a matter of paying attention.
Kids, especially young ones, experience things every inexorable second at a time. So, there is more awareness of experience, each hour seems richer.
Older people stop paying as much attention, the hours blur together, and eventually the years.
I wonder if we can fix the problem: just try to pay attention to everything again, just like a kid.
This is my favourite interview you’ve ever done Andrew; loved it ❤️
If Absolute Nothingness is not possible, then death is impossible .
Consciousness = Existence, as nothing exist for us without consciousness.
Instead of saying : "trans women are women" when we mean that gender identity is subjective, we should say : "identity is subjective!"? (with the understanding that we should respect a persons subjective experience of reality - no one really having much choice in the matter)
Just how you won't find 'redness' in your brain when you cut it open, you won't find Excel when you cut open your PC's CPU.
'If red is in your brain …where the hell is it?' He's channelling Philomena Cunk 🤣
This is not quite right. Excel does have a real physical presence in your PC. Not in the CPU, but the hard drive. If you cut open your hard drive you can find Excel encoded into the magnetized grains on the platter.
@@TheRaytar So have memories in your brain. They are encoded as neurons. Self-awareness stops during general anesthesia, just like the activity in the CPU of a computer when it's off. But when it wears off, your memory isn't gone, just like the harddrive of a computer.
@@FlipjevanTiel I think that analogy works much better, but now it's no longer related to the problem of finding redness in the brain.
@@TheRaytar Sure it does; when you are experiencing redness, that's brain activity, just like the computer running Excel in its CPU.
There is surely a memory of redness encoded in the brain's neurons, just how Excel is stored on the harddrive.
Excel on a harddisk isn't a spreadsheet with calculations, without a computer to run it, just like a memory of redness isn't experiencing redness, without brain activity.
Isn’t finding “redness” in the brain the same as taking apart my computer to find my term paper? You’ll find boards, and components, and wires, but no matter how hard you look you won’t find my term paper.
Thats not true actually. It is just extremely difficult to locate the exact chip and the exact memory cells on it, that hold the bits, that make up your paper. There are (extremely expensive) ways to read a damaged hard drive or SSD and rebuild the data by looking at the individual bits. I'm not sure if you can do the same to a brain, i.e. accurately record all connections between all the neurons.
But the bigger difference is, that for a computer we know exactly how to interpret those bits, because we know how the operating system works and where it stores which data.
@@Marcel-yu2fw if we had a sufficient understanding of the brain do you think it could be the same in principle?
@@dillanklapp Well, I don't know if all brains work the same. Like with computers you might have different systems like apple/Windows/Linux, and maybe it is worse with brains in that *every* brain works differently and is unique.
But in principle, yes, all the information should be in there and if you make a sufficiently accurate simulation of a brain (i.e. positions & connections of every neuron plus maybe hormones and whatever else influences the function of the brain) it should become an (almost) exact copy of yourself including consciousness and all your thoughts.
So I guess the only interesting question is, if it is feasible to selectively and efficiently read out individual thoughts/memories without having to simulate the whole thing (which would probably take too much computing power anyway). Also, there's the question if the brain has to be alive to read memories, i.e. are they stored in the physical configuration of neurons or in the constant electrical signals exchanged between them. That would also determine the fate of those people that freeze themselves after death with the hope of being revived when medicine has advanced far enough.
8:45 glad you kept that in. Vroom vroom, beep, beep, boom boom, honk, honk. All perfectly timed.
Fantastic talk. I always enjoy Alex’s perspectives. Andrew, you sing really well Sir. Impressive. 👏