Jordan Peterson/Sam Harris with Jonathan Pageau
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2018
- What were the fundamental disagreements between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris in their recent series of debates, and was anything achieved in their discussions? Jonathan Pageau is an expert on religious symbolism and runs a CZcams channel called 'The Symbolic World': / @jonathanpageau
The second part of this discussion, 'Jordan Peterson the heretic', is here: • 'Jordan Peterson the h...
To help us make more of these films, please consider sponsoring us on Patreon: / rebelwisdom
I don't think a conversation about consciousness would change Sam Harris' mind because for Sam consciousness is only the vehicle for sensory input and his main argument surrounds his assumptions regarding ontology. Consciousness for him is still a merely a function of the brain so even his experiences that inform Hindu/Buddhist observations are undercut by "this is only a chemical experience, only reason can yield true knowledge of ontology as verified by prediction or control of outcomes". As CS Lewis points out in the beginning of "Miracles" we bring our philosophical assumptions to the system and interpret the experience.
Paul that seems to assume that Sam's view is founded on rational philosophical presuppositions. I don't think a conversation about consciousness would change his mind either, but perhaps it's because his view operates as an accumulation of rationalisations for prior thoughts, actions and perceptions that felt uncomfortable to him in their chaotic form. A change in his mind would then require a newfound capacity to tolerate the discomfort of unjustified thoughts, actions and perceptions, such that he could consider thoughts that prior rationalisations do not filter out.
Yes, Sam’s pre-commitment to strict material rationality as an epistemological reference precludes his openness to a discussion about the potential trans-corporal ontological origin of human consciousness. Despite profound and substantive understanding that has accumulated regarding the mystery of the mind in 2018 there are still building blocks that are functionally missing/perplexing.
Though neuroscientists can expound better now (via data from fMRI data, etc...) upon how sensory information is processed within the various areas of the brain they still can’t adequately explain the precise origins of human thought... or how the capacity for dreams/dreaming relates exactly to consciousness.
A non-material existential aspect to consciousness and human personhood better explains and embodies the alleged antinomies to consciousness and the still-quite-elusive aspects of the mind-brain paradigm or model.
You're missing the biggest bomb-shell in this video Paul. In his opening statement Jonathan name checks you with your first name only and the Rebel Wisdom guy doesn't see the need to explain who 'Paul' is. So both these guys take it as read that their viewers will know who you are. Congratulations! You've reached official 'star' status! (I'm just joshing with you).
soraya bradley Yes, it looks that way, it would be good if he joined the discussion. Douglas Murray has something good going on in a similar way
When fullness is empty
We live in a time with an overdose of things, we believed, in the end, they would fulfill us, but it has lead us to an underdose of meaning. Thats what JBP is talking about all the time, being, beats having, having is empty without meaning.
When one has everything, and is still not fulfilled, there is no escape for the more, only for the less, for humbleness, for depth. But this might mean, your whole life was a fata morgana, fake. Not easy to cope with, cause leaving your chosen side, means, you lose orientation, not being anywhere, lost, on grounds between. When one has nothing, and is a nobody, there is still hope for more, a driving force in life.
And then we often see this pseudo religious functions, maybe in design, in food and cooking, by overstating these aspects almost to the level of religious worshiping, but in the end they are empty, are only feeding our eyes or stomach but not our souls, however we might be able to sense all the flavors of a bouquet of wine or a sauce of vinagre. This is all nothing, when there is no uplifting flavor inside, inside of your mind, inside of your soul.
Though a pretty entrenched atheist, I am really enjoying Jordan Peterson's lectures on the Biblical stories. He is opening windows into history, art, psychology science and philosophy. The combination is sublime. I follow his input on today's political scenes too. I am so glad I have discovered him. I now miss my university days.
Yeah, I imagine most would. Right up until someone whispers "bullshit student debt".
Good for you. If you enjoy those, I encourage Jung. Answer to Job is a good place to start!
iamanomas same here. Just because someone has different beliefs to mine doesn’t mean they don’t have something valuable to add to my understanding in general.
The word sublime really describes what Jordan Peterson is opening up about mythology to a culture which has been vaccinated against everything that hasn’t quick, binary answers.
Bad ideas are worse than bad people,
thats a phrase Sam used once. How right he is. Good ideas are also stronger, more powerful than people, they submit people under their positive spell. Thats why Jordan Peterson is so right and C.G Jung as well. Both of them had the wisdom to see trough the mists of distracting arguments capturing that way the core of importance within meanings and not in facts,not in reason alone. People follow narratives and not abstract reasoning, which is hard to swallow for Sam, the promoter of reason, who does not touch like JBP, cause his horse has no flesh on its bones.
This needed to be longer!
Chantelle Giardina seconded
Once again blown away by Pageau's genius
carlotapuig Pageau in a way is the best of the lot. JPB even called him up about six or nine months back just to stablize himself (they have a morning CZcams chat).
That's because Pageau is the only one speaking from a truly Christian perspective. His is the purest, most distilled form of the truth that Peterson and to a lesser extent Douglas Murray is stumbling towards.
P N this is the greatest thing I've read today. These guys' friendship is an Archetypal Thing™ indeed.
You mean like where he says "obtuse" when he means "obscure"? Or where he says Jordan is really "adament" about Harris? No clue what word he actually meant.
Genius
@@lilmsgs English isn't even his first language.
Thank you for drawing attention to the contributions of JP and PVK to the JBP phenomenon. Having completed a doctorate in Religious Studies relatively recently (2010), I was quite astounded by JBP's positive engagement with Jung, phenomenology and myth as vehicle for the communication of transpersonal meaning. These of course have been actively suppressed by means of the one size fits all indictment (rational heresy) of "essentialism" and the programmatic application of the "critical discourse analysis" module that has instructors lecture to a desired attitude of inclusivity. Given that these have defined the academic humanities for a quarter century now, it's little wonder that contemporary academicians simply regard JBP's discourse as a pseudo intellectual smokescreen set up as cover for his "white supremacist, patriarchal backlash" agenda.
I very much enjoy the analysis of this cultural moment provided by RW, JP and PVK and extend to each my gratitude and encouragement for their efforts.
gloifti do u mean theology?
Religious Studies, or the History of Religion, is the academic approach to religion in nondenominational institutions and departments go to great lengths to distinguish their approach from Theology. JBP never lists it among the "corrupt disciplines" but in my experience it's among the worst.
gloifti Why it is the worst?
Nice crossover, but too darn short!!
Bad ideas are worse than bad people,
thats a phrase Sam used once. How right he is. Good ideas are also stronger, more powerful than people, they submit people under their positive spell. Thats why Jordan Peterson is so right and C.G Jung as well. Both of them had the wisdom to see trough the mists of distracting arguments capturing that way the core of importance within meanings and not in facts,not in reason alone. People follow narratives and not abstract reasoning, which is hard to swallow for Sam, the promoter of reason, who does not touch like JBP, cause his horse has no flesh on its bones.
Nicely put J.H 'cause his horse has no flesh on its bones.
A huge change in my perspective was extending the time frame of looking at the world. When you stretch the time that you look at the world, things seem very interesting...
Armand Babakhanian What does God lack? JBP found this in a rabbinic text. God lacks limitation. And hence we exist. We are The Limited. He discusses this I believe with Iian Gilchrist in their talk about "The Master and his Emissary."
Yes. Aristotle discussed this concept in reference to imitations and truth.
A human lacks omniscience (the ability to know all things) and omnipresence (the ability to perceive reality from all life at once.)
Imagine the word chair. Now if you had omniscience and omnipresence a chair would mean - the truth of all chairs - You could view every single chair all at once which has every existing.
We have Apperception (I think) in reference to a singular. A limitation which results in the ability to think of our experiences of the chairs we have seen. Conceptualize one at a time and create a singular conception.
The result?
A word is godlike, only if you have such powers. We use all words in a singular form, because of our imbued limitations.
I think Jordan's connection to Jung needs to be taken more seriously in connection with the debate. Jung is perhaps best characterized as a non-theist. The position of non-theism rejects the shared presuppositions, grammar if you will, of both theism and atheism. It points out that there is no essence (universal definition) to either “God” or “religion.” Each term can refer to an indefinitely large set of entities that overlap but are only held together by a family resemblance. The is no homogenous core that they all share. Wittgenstein pointed this out is the case for many of terms such as “game.” There is no definition that covers all and only games. Given that the terms “God” and “religion” are like “game” and have no essence, denials or assertions about either are indefinitely equivocal and therefore irredeemable vague. Is Tillich’s God beyond the god of theism a form of atheism or theism? The question is malformed. The same for whether Jung’s notion of the Self archetype is atheistic or theistic. The same is the case for the Tao, of Shunyata. Or Spinoza’s God-or-nature. Spinoza was famously accused of being an atheist by one group and a “god-intoxicated man’” by another.
People do have experiences of the numinous and of sacredness (transformative meaning and relevance), but the theism-atheism debate is whether those experiences are like the experience of a person. Let’s note that famous Christian theologians, for example, have argued that God is only like a person and it is a very strained kind of analogy. So, in the debate the theist seems to say “the experience is importantly similar (although strictly not identical ) to experiencing a person”, while the atheist says “the experience is importantly not like experiencing a person.” The problem is, as Goodman famously pointed out, there is no objective way of deciding if two things are similar or not. “Similar” means partially identical, which means truly sharing some but not all properties, and any two things truly share an indefinitely large number of properties. A plum and a lawnmower both weigh less than a ton, both contain carbon, both have round shinny surfaces, neither existed 350 million years ago, neither makes a good weapon, etc. So logically, any two things are similar because they contain a vast number of shared properties. Psychologically we only sense some things as similar or not because we choose which properties we consider relevant for the comparison. Are the following things similar? Your spouse, your pet, flammable liquids, important documents, and water. They are when you are in a fire. Anyways, the point is deciding whether the experience is like a person or not, is not objectively decidable, especially since we are not clear what “person” means.
Dourley and others have made excellent comparisons between Tillich and Jung in terms of non-theism, and it is pretty clear that Jung is a non-theist. I think this should be taken seriously when discussing Jordan Peterson’s work, and the non-theist has something important to say. The Buddhist, Taoist, Neoplatonist, and Jungian non-theist are all saying that perhaps we should try letting go of the theism-atheism grammar in order to disclose aspects of sacredness that have been foreclosed by this grammar.
Perhaps some of the ambivalence surrounding Jordan's work by astute observers such as Jonathan reflects an implicit awareness of the non-theism within Jung.
Is there more of this? It ended so abruptly! I wish this were like 5x longer.
What a pleasure watching this in this terribly sultry night.
Just what I always wanted, Since the last video. ;) Love you.
That was way too short !!!
Benoit Lapierre indeed!
What a great conversation. Definitely a Pageau fan now 👏🏻👏🏻
Your background/drop is very lovely - it looks very much like an Ndebele design - is it?
What I hear Pageau saying at 13:00 is, surprisingly, that the part Peterson seems to avoid directly mentioning most, Jung, is actually the key to pulling Harris over. Expansion of consciousness through Modern Religion is totally legitimated by Jung
Hey, it was great for you to have Pageau; the man has amazingly interesting observations, and it's always a pleasure to see more of them.
@Jonathan, does the symbol of Yin and Yang mirror the structure of our left and right hemispheres which bring the opposite perspective of a reality to our consciousness? I learned from Lain McGilchrist a lot, but I have not heard anybody who links Yin-Yang to the brain structure. BTW, I just downloaded your brother’s book - Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis :-).
Sam is not dangerous to JBP. The opposite is not true. Realized or not Sam is “spiritually” obligated to his “followers”. Uncertainty flares emotions. Change must be carefully orchestrated. Fallout is unavoidable.
Wow great talk. Sam and Jordan should listen to this.
I've not heard the debates in question (waiting for proper audio), but it seems Peterson would do well to take Harris' point with respect to Soviet Russia. After all: if even a deliberately secular and expressly atheistic state winds up being religious in its structure and expression, then what does this say about the inherence and import of religion when not even the communists could shake it? A similar example exists in the present day form of the secular humanists, who-despite constant appeals to reason and rejection of formal religion-have taken to progressivism with puritanical zeal.
I maintain that cases such as Soviet Russia and the modern left are instances of what happens when the necessity of religion-which inheres in all humans-comes unmoored from the structures and strictures of formal religious tradition.
“Is there an analog of [consciousness] in a community? What does that look like?”
😐
This was a great analysis of these debates/conversations. I agree with Jonathan regarding Sam Harris and his mystical experiences. While I am normally on the JBP side of discussions, (with a Pageau lense since I'm also an Orthodox Christian), knowing that Sam has had these kind of experiences makes his arguments interesting and tolerable. Curious to see where they all end up in their philosophies. Sincerely, wife-of-ryan, using his account. :-)
It's interesting for me that this debate is essentially articulates the fundamental disagreement of world view that me and my father have. I'm much more of a unpractical agnostic romantic and my father a materialist. I wish he could open up that side of him. That's why JP has been very influential for me, since I grew up learning mostly from Dawkins, Hitchens etc. Thanks for talking on the topic.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said something like 'everybody worships something so be careful what you worship'.
Great talk thank you gentlemen
Two of my favourite CZcamsrs, this is going to be good, I also remember the gnosticism line, and the learned theologians tearing you a new one in the comments 😂
14:05 Jonathan talks about an analogue of consciousness in a community through rituals. I don't know how much Jordan is capable of exploring this given his insistence on the individual being the bearer of suffering, and how he uses this argument to discredit identity politics and shield himself from any association with it.
Jonathan Fay on the other hand Jordan has brought about, brought together, a community of millions by refusing to be thrown into a particular ritual community
I would like them to have a more thorough discussion of psychedelics and consciousness, seems like that is where they converge. Also, in the larger culture of consciosness studies, there is still debate about whether psychedelics tells us something fundamental about the world. Are we perceiving an alternate world/reality on psychs (especially Ayahuasca/DMT) or is it just a brain on drugs?
I would suggest to Jonathan that the supposition that collective consciousness emulates religious ritual is a slippery slope. This becomes something of a chicken and the egg argument, as someone like Sam Harris (or even myself, as I am atheist) would suggest religious ritual actually emulates consciousness as a product of our minds. (Which is correct is for you to decide for yourself, I'm not debating which is correct, merely which one Sam Harris would be more likely to argue in favor of)
Isn't Consciousness the place where the material world/external reality and the psychological world/internal reality come together? Where the material world/facts and the psychological world/meaning interface and where we become aware or understand the internal or external experience simultaneously?
I agree that Peterson and Harris are coming at consciousness from two separate areas and I believe it is generally these two thus far.
I've heard Peterson quote Piaget on things like human beings tend to have to act out things before they understand things. And when I look at religion or religious tradition I tend to see psychological development through meaning. And on the more psychological side of the argument I am reminded of a Christian Scientist Emmet Fox and his quote on what the early 20th century altar was and what he thought Christianity was trying to achieve.
"It was the custom, as we all know, to take gifts of various
kinds to the Temple, from bulls and cows down to doves and offerings
of incense, or, where it might be more convenient, and offering of
money equivalent in value to these things. Now, under the New Law, or
Christian dispensation, our altar is our own consciousness, and our
offerings are our prayers and treatments. Our "burnt sacrifices" are the
error thoughts which we destroy or burn away in spiritual treatment."
( Emmet Fox Sermon on the Mount pg 51)
This concept puts all of the responsibility on the individual which is where I have observed that Harris and Peterson seem to agree most often.
When fullness is empty
We live in a time with an overdose of things, we believed, in the end, they would fulfill us, but it has lead us to an underdose of meaning. Thats what JBP is talking about all the time, being, beats having, having is empty without meaning.
When one has everything, and is still not fulfilled, there is no escape for the more, only for the less, for humbleness, for depth. But this might mean, your whole life was a fata morgana, fake. Not easy to cope with, cause leaving your chosen side, means, you lose orientation, not being anywhere, lost, on grounds between. When one has nothing, and is a nobody, there is still hope for more, a driving force in life.
And then we often see this pseudo religious functions, maybe in design, in food and cooking, by overstating these aspects almost to the level of religious worshiping, but in the end they are empty, are only feeding our eyes or stomach but not our souls, however we might be able to sense all the flavors of a bouquet of wine or a sauce of vinagre. This is all nothing, when there is no uplifting flavor inside, inside of your mind, inside of your soul.
J. H You're a good writer. Well put. Like your insights a lot.
P N
Thanks! Well, honest thinking leads to less stinking, to a clear mind, to more powerful thoughts and a bit talent to creative writing ;)
“But WHEN do the biggest sophists turn out young and old, men & women, JUST the way they want them to be?” Glaucon asks.
Socrates answers, “When many gathered together sit down in assemblies, courts, theaters, army camps, or any other common meeting of a multitude, and with a great deal of uproar, blame some of the things said or done, and praise others, both in excess, shouting and clapping; and, besides, the rocks and the very place surrounding them echo and redouble the uproar of blame and praise.
"Now in such circumstances, as the saying goes, what do you suppose is the state of the young man’s heart? Or what kind of private education will hold out for him and not be swept away by such blame and praise and go, borne by the flood, wherever it tends, so that he’ll say the same things are noble and base as they do, practice what they practice, and be such as they are?”
Plato’s Republic, tr. Bloom, 492A
This is such a better message than the new religions our political landscape provides.. Fake meaning.
In the 18.20 of the discussion there is a very important observation that needs a lot of thought: how easy can be for people as Harris to disillusion millions of followers in the case that they 'awaken' and see that they are mistaken? How easy it is for such people to admit publicly that all they had said was rooted in a mistake, a misunderstanding? How much courage it needs to come out and declare repentance after so many '"sermons"' of a so militant atheism?
Wish that they may find the courage! It will be a liberation for them. It is better to die with a serene conscience than to die immersed in a lie preserved by fear of being ostracized and ridiculed!
think appropriately.....it might help
When Sam comprehend, that he was born to die and eats daily, so he does not, maybe that amazing discovery will give JP more time to value his own.
If I go to an Eastern Orthodox Church will I hear messages, and teaching like Johnathan teaches?
Steven Anderson Yes. I would Google Greek Orthodox mysticism. There is definitely a very strong mystical tradition. You learn about the church fathers (many of whom were mystics) and iconography plays a definite part. They haven't screwed up their liturgy the way the Catholic church has. You can see CZcams's of Jonathan himself speaking in church.
I actually enjoyed the 2 hour exploration of the meaning of "truth" between Jordan and Sam. I feel that Jordan likes speaking to Sam because I have heard Jordan say on multiple ocassions that he likes his ideas to be challenged in discussion so that he can cultivate his ability to articulate his ideas in a clearer way. And since Sam is very logical and as you said (Jonathan) he has spiritual insights and meditates, he is a good person for Jordan to dialogue with. I've been disappointed in Sam's limitations. I find it strange that he dismisses higher intelligence and doesn't leave his mind open to the infnite possibilities of this higher intelligence. (And he doesn't have to admit of any supernatural deity to remain open to this infinite intelligence that we can refer to as God.)
Two clever men. One accepts mystery and the other doesn't.
Have you all heard the story of the elephant and the blind men? Google it if you haven't but these different perspectives from different individuals are all part of the bigger reality. Until we can see how they all fit together to create the bigger whole, we are all only seeing our small and incomplete portion of it. To see that greater reality is the great work and we are all working on it from truth and care and the purpose is to gain a new level of thinking, awareness and insight. If we fight over who is right rather than integrate each others insight we will never gain that greater sight and will probably regress.
Momma Llama I wrote this poem about it years ago.
.
We're like blind men, you and I,
Feeling the elephant in different places.
You have a leg,
I have the trunk,
When describing elephants,
We can both make very strong cases
But when you dismiss my description of the beast,
It's the result of a simple failure
Because, when reaching out to touch on what I have been feeling,
You've grabbed the elephant by the genitalia
Most people miss the unspoken (unintended?) moral of that story: who is telling the story? Who is watching the blind men? Someone who claims to see the full picture. To say no one should make exclusive truth claims is itself a truth claim. This was pointed out by Bishop Leslie Newbigin and has been frequently alluded to by Tim Keller in his sermons (of which many are available on CZcams).
Andrew MacNaughton I think you missed my point completely and I'm not sure what you are trying to share in the limited space we have shared our thoughts within. But thank you for sharing which is the point and does tie into my point. Please expand on what you are thinking here about the value of the story of the blind man and the elephant if you care to. 😊
wilmingtonlongman 😂 that's good...really good. 👍
SidewalkThinker I said and think no such thing. A Cathy Newman moment? 😂
Pageau nailed it. We are experiencing a collective chaos of meaning.
Action movies often have liturgical-like choirs singing in the background for effect......
New religion, perhaps
I was at the O2 that night and i was really disappointed with the topic they decided on. It was pointless, if they wanted to speak about religion i would much rather have them framed it differently. I really like Sam but he is stubborn and a bit narrow minded. Yes he does think he has the purest most ethical view of everything, what worries me about him is his disdain he has viewed and speaks about people who has a different view of say politics. Hes got that intolerant, aloof attitude we see of some Leftists, a manner ironically he criticizes people for.
i thought sam was gonna stay strong and dominate from the beginning...which i think he did initially. but near the end of the first half, i think peterson totally turned it around. much more compelling argument, deductively (i think) and empirically (depending on your view; personally i think it met my criteria). it's kind of stunning, because peterson doesn't really make a complicated argument, but it's strong. after peterson established it in the first half, i don't think sam came close again for the rest of the debate.
Saying that people are looking for something more is simply not true. A very, very small portion of humanity is looking for more. The rest is actually still stuck on The Kardashians.
While not judging, I just wonder, why does someone who is an atheist enough to write books and get on multiple stages to postulate and argue for atheism, married and wear a wedding ring? 🤔
Some lousy editing at the end there.
Great articulation from Pageau.
I'm a fan of Mr. Pageau but I think his argument is a bit weak on the French Revolution's violence owing to Reason per se, as opposed to something that merely claimed to be Reason.
The Hume debate about an "is from an ought" finds some interesting exploration from Harris.
Is naked Reason itself always beneficent (tautologically perhaps)? What valuations must be added to naked Reason to arrive at the fuller humanism Harris espouses? Not sure...
It's interesting to posit Ideology, in all its problematic permutations, as a descendant of Reason. Not sure I don't accede Harris's point that ideology is closer to religion.
It gets very deep quickly. Hitler and Stalin co-opted religion in clever ways. German Ubermensch ideas connect with certain maleficent mythologies around race and purity.
Is then Reason merely neutral? What then of the Renaissance, of the Enlightenment? It would seem our most profound humanism proceeds from Reason...
Yet is has been argued that the history of art was humanized at the individual (less idealized) level by Christianity, which corrected Greek idealizations with sculptures of the poor and the crucified, thereby democratizing aesthetics...
Of course Art lol is really not so derivative of Reason, partaking as much from Dionysus as from Apollo (see Paglia, or in turn, Nietzsche).
thalia garcia
It is interesting however that Christian intellectuals of a more doctrinal sort have expressed misgivings regarding Mr. Peterson as he is putting a Jungian gloss on Christianity, and is not really an evangelist for religion in that sense but rather seems to be engaged in persuading people about the mythographic resonance of Christianity's great stories.
It's not really clear Peterson believes in God, nor is that relevant to his argument. (As in Man and His Symbols, the same for Jung).
But I would argue Peterson could not have reached so very many as he did had he not jettisoned the whole "evangelism shtick" and instead made his (far more timely for our age) psychological defense of religion.
This and what Kenneth Wilber is doing is more likely the "future of religion", i.e., a kind of aesthetic/mythic/cerebral abstraction of its greatest moments, perhaps some rituals, communities, etc., but without the insistence on personal conversion narratives, the economy of salvation, or Hell in any sense beyond its worldly one, which quite abounds enough that we needn't think much on Dante...
About all things and no things
Buddha said, it's all illusions, nothing is real, there is really no thing, finding the all in the nothing, proving nothing is no thing, nothing is everything and Christ, the Logos said, God is everything, embracing all things in love, cause all things are one thing, only separated by the illusion of ego, the divider, the lucifer who is also part of all things, joining all things when all things are done.
In my view there is an iconoclast personality type - Harris falls into this category.
Consciousness is a mute point. Characterized by worry, dread, regret, fears, anxiety, depression...whatever...consciousness is nothing more than a psychological anomaly. None of its supposed attributes can be demonstrably proven or substantiated. Even words like happy, sad, peaceful, etc. are all fallacious antidotes to a reality that doesn’t exist. Oh no! Not more gods!
Blaming reason for the French revolution is just ludicrous. Good old human greed and ego are the main motivators for most atrocities. Pageau is interesting, but he sometimes loses himself in his campaign against atheism. He is just as ideological as Harris is.
Following the rise of secularism and science, the task is to recover religiousity and meaning, without the mysticism and god bullshit. I think the key may be a Heideggerian integration of Jung
What is religion. Religion is what you act out. Religion is your axioms.
Your buddy has a killer line.
I am amazed by how Jonathan appeared to me as at most marginally interesting and only to the extent that he was friends with Jordan to me…beyond that I was deeply turned of thinking he was some kind of rigor-less christian fanatic. And now I am obsessed with him and converting back to Christianity.
an overture. Please followup with more videos.
"You can be an evolutionary thinker or an atheist".... haha
I don't know why people react so much to Sam Harris debating with JBP. They've 'debated' a few times now and it's never really seemed to go anywhere. You have JBP who's very entrenched in his own world view (as we all tend to do as we age), does seem to have a bit of a tempestuous short fuse lately and is starting to seem a little stretched thin and fatigued. And Sam Harris who is possibly one of the most boring speakers who takes forever to say nothing. It's like listening to pretentious people when you're drunk - you loose focus even faster than you would sober. At least Michael Dyson speaks at a pace and with some passion, but where Dyson sensationalises his speech for effect Harris seems to really be at home in the vast linguistic lake of nothingness. One thing I will say for Sam Harris though is that he is the Supreme Lord of the Question Dodge and that takes skill.
James Carmichael - justly said my man. Well put. :-) I liked how you phrased everything, feel the same way and it's good to see it laid out there in unequivocal form. At least JBP admits (on one of his more recently interviews) that he is going to need a break - because he says, "I have a million books (people have given him, in large part) to read, and I need to learn more - for the sake of learning and to not have to repeat." He said something like that (quoting from memory).
I don't dislike Sam Harris at all, but I just wish he'd get out of his own way when he talks. He's clearly got something to say (everyone does), but it seems to me like he's trying to figure out how to say something while he's speaking rather than just saying it. It's like making a nice meal for someone, but worrying too much about the plate it's served on.
Convoluted reinterpretations of mythological narratives aren't necessary for objective moral understanding or spiritual development. The problem Sam has with religion _(i.e. faith based ideological dogmas)_ is that they have no grounding in empirical knowledge, and are therefore a dangerously weak foundation for morality.
Empirical knowledge cannot bring you to moral truths, only philosophy and religion can do that.
@@kyledonahue9315
Ethical philosophy is the means by which universal moral principles may be directly discerned through reason, without appeal to authority. Empirical knowledge does factor into that.
OTOH, morality via religious dogma is the ultimate appeal to authority, as it ultimately boils down to:
_"... because X authority figure says so."_
That may work as a stopgap for getting children _(or ignorant, superstitious savages)_ to *_act_* good on the surface. However, without first-hand understanding of the underlying whys & wherefores, and the personal choice to voluntarily act according to that understanding, there's no real moral agency being exercised.
knowledge > belief
understanding > faith
For me, the greatest difference between Sam and Jordan is that Jordan is struggling... Struggling with God. Sam is not struggling at all. Jordan is building things up from de bottom.
Till now, religion was teached from the top.
I declared myself an atheist when I was 12. I even managed to receive a first price trying to prove God doesn't exist in a Catholic school. Faith has to be build from the bottom. And atheism is a good start. That's why Jordan is so reluctant to declare he believes in God. And I hope he never will. Everything starts with the sovereignty of the individual.
The sovereignty of the individual is a Christian concept.
Donna Edmunds Of course ! It's build in in our body of laws. Even rationality is born in Christendom. That doesn't mean you have to believe in the Bible or anything. Believing is to stop thinking. Build your relation to God or whatever from the bottom up : do the work. The only rational starting point is your (divine) self. Like Peterson puts it : what you believe is what you act out. Most of the time, what people say has nothing to do with what they believe.
I actually agree with much of your comment despite being a Christian, however, Jordan in his GQ Britain interview mentioned that his definition for belief is what you “act out” along with that he says he acts as though God exist so I mean you can take that for what it’s worth.
Nevertheless, i hope this is taken as a kind criticism, but if while your listening to someone, your also hoping they don’t say something or do...then it’s a tell tale sign that your looking for a confirmation bias, I say this because I’ve even noticed this in myself. It’s a natural thing to wish for someone you like or admire, to agree with your private wishes, but I’ve noticed all it does is taint your view on the speaker.
Since I’ve identified this in myself, I’ve actually been able to appreciate the people I feel most opposed to, regardless of there beliefs or not, it helps me to be more objective about things. Cheers 🍻
How many have been killed in the name of some obscure god
'Sam thinks he is innocent, that everything he says is innocent.' Best comment by Jonathan. As Jordan says, the line between good and evil runs through each individual. Until we realise that the horrors of the 20th century will be repeated.
quite a one-sided conversation here, no real signifgicant blows to Sam Harris' positions. sorry. But I do really like J Pageau!
"Sam Harris isn't going to go burn down churches because of atheism- that would be the Varg type of atheism" Lmao
-Best quote 2018
Scientism is worse than Jihadism? This is surrender of the mind. We won't be defeated by the religious extremism of one faith over another because the religious within our own camp will have left the gates to our city wide open and welcomed the Jihadists in. However I agree with a lot of what Peterson says with regard to the gender issue, but he is to be found severely wanting in his views on religion. Dillahunty and Harris have both shown that.
Sam Harris doesn’t believe in free will...ergo, in Sam’s view, no one has a choice in the matter. Sounds like a hyper-super-lapsarian of sorts.
I am big fan of JP's book 12 rules for life but I am not religious and I disagree with his views about morality and Christianity. .
Blind Hipshaker what's yours favorite rule?
I agree totally, I have no uses for religion. I do think that the stories do play a part in the society and way people think. If a person is a believer, good for them. It isn't for me. I just feel shit happens. I listen to this guy, but I don't get some of his views. He doesn't get Sam Harris at all.
Blind Hipshaker fair ‘nuff!
I don't think very highly of sam's stance on religion. I've heard him repeatedly crticizing the many faiths in ways that make it very clear that his view of religion is the same view of religion that 150 iq, 13 year old him had when he didn't want to wake up for church in the morning. It's just simply not mature criticism. I get that he is a product of his biology and culture, and probably hadn't been exposed to many intelligent theologians during the years in which he was forming his ideology.. his comments about trump and biden just drove home his lack of credibility as a paragon of reason. Again, the smartest 13 year old in the room shows his true colors. A person with 150 iq making claims that orange man is bad has exactly the same intellectual merit as a blue haired maniac with an anxiety disorder watching CNN making claims that orange man is bad. None.
This being said, I think his poorly articulated and polemic gripe with religion is warranted.. I see him as a person who is afraid of hateful interpretations of sacred text and human tribal warfare. This is noble.
Unfortunately, I don't think he understands deeply that all the things he doesn't like about religion (with the exception of islam, which I haven't seen any reason to believe has any redemptive qualities as a text whatsoever) are human faults. He wants to correct that with science, but I think he has too much faith in human rationality and the ability for the average person to learn free and critical thinking. We are the great great grandchildren of witch hunters, crusaders, illiterate peasants, and tribesmen. Critical thinking is a skill reserved for the 1% of the cognitive elite. We see that with the follow the science NPC script during covid. We see that every time some do-gooder positivist tells us to "trust experts." Is trusting experts an exercise in free thinking? No. Because just as the average religious person is not a theologian or a preist, the average atheist is not a scientist. They are getting their information from an intellectual lineage, a spoken and written code of ethics and procedures. Faith is inevitable, critical thinking is rare and difficult, and usually people who have the free energy to think sharply still get their answers wrong. Because science is essentially a long game of telephone, due to human imperfections, the flaws magnify exponentially at a generational rate. We see this with grievance studies. Science is experiencing a snowballing takeover, and it can be laid directly at the feet of positivists who left things out of the equation.
If your morality is rational, you aren't moral. This clinging to rationalization and empiricism to flesh out the "moral landscape" ultimately just results in a simplistic narrative script amounting to monkeys in harm-avoidant heaven and avoiding harmful hell which is a pit of snakes and fire and bad orange men. And even then, people are gonna have to take the story on faith, and it will be interpreted in a million different ways after the people who wrote it are dead.
Religion is inevitable. Rationality is finite. Act accordingly.
In most respects I'd be more inline with Harris in that we realize you can find much spirituality and wonder in atheism. I am pretty interested in trans-humanism mostly because I am against gender roles. Trans-humanism allows us to surpass much of our primitive mental abstractions, much of our physical limitations. It shouldn't be needed. I'd be for an embrace of our being and exploring our reality, and what it means to be. These things if in the Bible are far obscure since people can't grasp a concept like natural selection or evolution, let alone false idealized concepts we hold as normal. Trans-humanism can force this realization of what is a false mental construct and we can hopefully get on to our creative being and spirit. AI can be so much more spiritually inspiring than most realize, and at least Sam Harris realizes this. I don't know what transition you think he will make but it won't be towards traditional religious thinking.
At the risk of sounding like little kids pitting our sports heroes, or comic book super heroes against each other, I think Sam Harris is much more in touch with his being, and Peterson is caught in his intellect which in Eastern thought is the long way to a transcendence. Without Eastern philosophical perspectives (they do not get at the same things) I don't think people can even properly understand Harris, people who know mostly Western thought misinterpret me as well. The people that do not misinterpret me tend to be of Eastern thought traditions. Technology doesn't change over all essence. It really just complicates things. But when things are already so complicated, beyond comprehension in Western dominant thought, capitalism etc ... technology can be a great tool. It can also make things more complicated though in the hands of maniacal economical tyrants.
This entire conversation is a sad mix of straw manning Sam Harris, word salads/scatterbrain ramblings from Jonathan, and a complete misunderstanding of the conversation between Sam and JP. Very poorly done.
Obtuse? Did Pageau mean, obscure?
This Pageau's assertions are so profoundly riddled with misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, misrepresentations, naivete, and fallacies, you can't take him seriously. Pageau could "move forward" away from his "woo" if he actually understood what Sam Harris is saying and what he believes.
But I would love to see Pageau's debate w/Harris and try to "move him forward" and watch Harris dismantle his evidence-free claims, misunderstandings, and irrational beliefs.
"My friend is an expert of Gnosticism " Wow that sure is a unbelievable statement.
Sorry i find Jonathan a babbling fool who knows nothing about anything, why are you talking to this guy?