Tom Holland via History, Jordan Peterson via Psychology debate how Human Rights grip Civilization
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 01. 2024
- Glen Scrivener Twitter Thread / 1750280127848550620
@VanderKlips Tom Holland Destroys the self-evident nature of belief in human rights • Tom Holland Destroys t...
@JordanBPeterson Douglas Murray and Jonathan Pageau | EP 290 • Douglas Murray and Jon...
@DamienWalter Iain McGilchrist on the Mythos and the Machine • Iain McGilchrist on th...
The Rest is History Romans in Space pca.st/7l8lzzf9
The Sexual Revolution: Why Louise Perry changed her mind
The Surprising Rebirth Of Belief In God pca.st/258wj55h
Vanderklips channel / @vanderklips
Bridges of Meaning Discord / discord
www.meetup.com/sacramento-est...
My Substack paulvanderklay.substack.com/
Estuary Hub Link www.estuaryhub.com/
If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/...
For the audio podcast mirror on Podbean paulvanderklay.podbean.com/
To listen to this on ITunes itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/p...
If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/
All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here.
paypal.me/paulvanderklay
Also on Odysee: odysee.com/@paulvanderklay
/ paulvanderklay
Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel / @livingstoneschristian...
To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. tithe.ly/give?c=2160640
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulvanderklay
-Randos Level for Members Only Videos
-No Wait No Ads Level for Early access to upcoming videos
-Supporter Level for special Supporter Access to PVK - Zábava
“You believe in human rights, you might as well believe that Jesus is Lord.” Is a winsome haymaker.
... Until you realize that Jesus has something more in mind for you than just the ability to make demands of others.
@@jimluebke3869 yes the doubt of Decarte and the categorical imperative of Kant eventually bow down to the faith of Abraham and the passion of Christ… but all babies need milk.
I believe in human rights as practical concepts; I believe in Jesus as a wise teacher of practical concepts… all evolving from human relationships that successfully worked for survival.
@@kathrynlittle2523 Jesus claimed to be God Himself, and to have created the world.
Is that practical?
Did Jesus make those claims OR did the gospel writers and/or the Church hierarchy interpret his teachings as meaning those things? You’ve apparently decided yes; I’ve concluded no. You could be right… I could be wrong. Things are as they are, regardless.
We can all be very relieved to remember that YNH is a useless talker.
“Such is of the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien
Long live the Randos!
Peterson and Harari should have one or more conversations, like Peterson has had with Sam Harris. Harari seems to be the leading thinker of our times for a worldview that competes with Peterson’s. And their backgrounds are so different. Harari has been heavily influenced by eastern religions, Buddhism in particular. He’s a gay Jewish man who is childless and a professor of history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a sought-after speaker by the cosmopolitan elites-he’s spoken at Davos more than once. I pay attention to what Harari has to say, just like I do Peterson. On a separate note, a big thank you to Paul VanderKlay for being such a good curate (double meaning there) and providing insightful commentary on the leading intellectual discussions of our times.
Harari grew up in a religious jewish community and said that he had been bullied for being gay. Could this explain why he has such contempt and disrespect for human life? Harari talked about this in his Lex long format interview.
@@vickingvicbubble8042 My (admittedly very anecdotal and nonprofessional) observation from my own time in middle/high school is that if you don't fit in for any reason you will get picked on and bullied over whatever bothers you. Nobody actually gives a shit about your identity. What they want to know is if you are in their Tribe or not.
I don't blame Harari for wanting a tribe, finding a place to belong is the cry of the human heart, but if he thinks he can form one by knocking down the pillars of Western civilization he's got another think coming.
@@dotwarner17 "form one" ? a secular, atheist, jewish elite already exists...
@@buglepong Apparently he still doesn't feel welcome enough there, given that he's going around trying to convince people that morality is arbitrary and they might as well adopt whatever makes them happy.
(Being a Christian is what I prefer but apparently that makes me a bad person who has a moral duty to take up a different morality for...reasons?)
19:10 Peter Rollins will often bring up the question of why an atheist will pull the covers over their head, late at night, when they hear the floor creek in an old house.
Yep.
4:13 “the church is nothing with out a metaphysical vision” re-enchant the church ❤
5:42 if you want to believe in human rights you have to believe
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:01 💬 *Harari's Claims and Peterson's response*
- Discussion of a trending clip from Yuval Harari’s TEDx talk where he claims human rights are a made-up concept, equivalent to faith in God or Heaven.
- Jordan Peterson's response to the claim is that Harari overlooks the necessity for common narrative structures (like the concept of human rights) in forming coherent societies.
- This section delves into the debate on whether human rights are a biological reality or just a fictional story.
03:21 🗣️ *Discussion on Cultural Humility and Human Rights*
- Tom Holland points out the cultural specificity of the concept of human rights, born out of a Christian cultural matrix.
- He emphasizes the leap of faith needed to believe in human rights, and the importance of this belief in society, politics, and legislation.
- Holland suggests that acknowledging the faith-based nature of such core beliefs could reopen the dialogue between secularists and religions.
08:19 🔍 *Fictions, Mythologies, and Ethics*
- Jordan Peterson explains how fiction and mythology help define patterns of behavior, focus attention, and guide ethics in society.
- Further discussion on the role of fiction, mythology, and hierarchical structures in shaping society and guiding human interactions.
- Elaboration on the relevance and impact of these 'fictions' and belief structures on societal, personal, and psychological levels.
16:17 🧠 *Brain Hemispheres’ Roles in Perception and Attention*
- A discussion on how the brain's two hemispheres evolved to pay two different types of attention.
- The 'grabbing attention' of the left hemisphere focuses on known targets and particular details, while the 'vigilant attention' of the right hemisphere is more open and attentive to the whole picture, especially potential threats.
- This dual attention system has deep implications for how we perceive and interact with the world.
21:02 🌍 *Human Rights: Real or Fiction?*
- The question of where human rights originate from is discussed, both from atheistic and Christian perspectives.
- Harvard academic, Steven Pinker, argues that a commitment to humanism is enough to guarantee human rights, while Christian thinker, Nick Spencer, suggests there is more of a theological basis to these concepts.
- Yal Harari and Tom Holland question the concept of human rights as a biological reality.
24:35 🧬 *Science, Humanism, and Morality*
- The debate on whether human rights, humanism, and morality can be grounded in scientific fact alone.
- One argument posed is that people can be monstrous to each other despite having a biological capacity for reason, empathy, and suffering.
27:50 🏛 *The "Foundation" Metaphor and Christian Influence*
- The foundation metaphor and its relevance to beliefs in society.
- Nick Spencer suggests that the Christian roots of humanism and human rights aren't necessarily a secure and stable foundation.
30:19 💭 *Harari's Predictions and Christian's Smuggling*
- Discussion on Harari's predictions for a transhumanist future where human rights will be replaced by a new moral order.
- Glenn Scrivener argues that human rights are not a biological reality but stories told about humanity.
33:57 📖 *Peterson's Semantic Network of Meaning*
- Jordan Peterson posits that the concept of human rights is encoded in human biology, language, and storing, serving the reciprocal altruistic human interactions.
- He believes that rights are a deep-seated part of human nature, and not just a belief or story.
37:44 🔄 *The Cycle of Recurring Archetypes*
- Point made on how structured narratives and archetypes keep recurring across different frameworks and belief systems, from religion to AI predictions.
- Notion that certain responses and archetypes are repeatedly presented to us, depending on the cultural context we are in.
41:20 🔄 *The Recurrence of Archetypes*
- The discussion explores the recurring narratives in different frameworks and belief systems.
*- The conversation delves into the assessment of Herbert's book "Dune", analyzing its portrayal of a significant settlement, Mecca, and its importance in Islam.*
*- The host presents arguments demonstrating that "Dune" is more a response to the collapse of the Roman Empire than to the Islamic faith.*
43:51 👑 *"Dune" Paralleling Muhammad and King Arthur*
- The central plot of "Dune" has echoes of Islamic history and traces of the Arthurian legend.
*- The host and guest discuss the parallels between Paul Atreides, a main character in "Dune", with the prophet Muhammad and King Arthur.*
*- They suggest that these stories emerged from the collapse of the Roman Empire.*
45:45 🔍 *Interplay of Historical and Science Fiction Narrative*
- The discussion turns to how historical narratives find their way into science fiction.
*- The host suggests that science fiction allows the exploration of ancient history's grand narratives without confinements imposed by Earth's realities.*
*- Examples of this include stories like "Battlestar Galactica", which incorporate various belief systems into their narratives.*
Made with HARPA AI
The unquantifiable and indivisible realities, like human rights, are not the story (ie as fiction), nor are the from the stories (ie as 'the moral of the story'), but the stories testify to it (ie as typology). "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me". Or, The Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Rather than get all worked up about the use of the word fiction, it's remarkable to me that someone didn't simply suggest replacing the word fiction with the word convention.
Thanks for Lifting this points 🙏🧡
the most important things that drive our motivation have nothing to do with reality, the moment the need for food, water, and shelter is relatively assuaged. reality can be thrown out the window, but instead they want us docile, so that is what they mean by "grounding" metaphors, the essentials are what is important, masses, all your ideas mean nothing, they are empty. once there, all the leaders have to do is regulate the grounding through bribing, to manipulate the open field of ideas. excellent video Paul
I cut open my math textbook and still can't find the number 3. Help!
"We're looking for patterns in fiction, how do we know it's this and not that"
Well, if both networks of meaning are present in the mind of the author, it's probably _both_ this and that.
I just think about how many people are even capable of believing the metaphysical and who aren't. This is one reason I argue shrooms and DMT should be allowed.
I could never "Just believe" no matter how I tried. I like that PVK is encountering people like me and not saying stupid canned advice like "Just pray harder, bro" or outright lies like "It just happens."
I wonder how many people just never got that stuff in the first place, and all those negative emotions happened. I wonder how many people tried to turn to a religion because it was sold as a one size fits all cure, and people learn they are the ones who aren't one size fits all. I often argue that the happy Christians are similar people to the happy atheists able to believe motivational poster slogans. Unfortunately, I was practically born blackpilled before the blackpill had a name. I saw right through every single motivational gimmick there ever was.
I think Pageau winces because he's a visual artist and not a novelist. If he were a novelist, he would understand that "fiction" does not mean "lies". It doesn't mean "made up" or "not true." At it's best, it means "symbolic."
I can't help but notice some parallels between the foundational metaphor and the story about reality being turtles all the way down.
Someone might ask Tom Holland "and what are human rights standing upon?". And he would probably say something like "Christianity"
"What's Christianity standing upon?"
"Its stories all the way down"
Stories all the way down to the foundation of Being Itself -- the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover.
"Certain responses come up on the menu again and again and again"
Yup. They're common among human experiences. They may even be instinctive, like a moth knowing which tree to say eggs on. But the moth's lineage dies out if it doesn't lay eggs on the right tree. Humans, with our ability to swap out software (culture) can tell stories examining which trees are best, because getting that tree right is so important.
If a psychopath hates you and intends to kill you in your house in the middle of the night; is that not also just a story we tell ourselves? Should we ignore this "story" because it is nowhere to be seen inside a human body if we slice it down the middle? (which in itself is a rather nasty way to promote materialism...).
Intent is spiritual, not material. Even the "good guys" are killers.
I spent a generation ago with an agnostic humanist on the Internet. My argument centered on agency ... he couldn't see agency.
I've listened to a fair bit of Yuval Noah Harari and he has respect for the power of stories but thinks the key mechanism by which they are adopted and sustained is a combination of narrative power, incentives, and enforcement (force). He doesn't have a sense for what aligns best with reality, because to him there is no reality/truth/good there is only the post/meta-modern swamp of relativism.
To sharpen your framing, Harari is a WEF regular. It’s instructive to imagine when reading/listening to him to imagine a CEO nearby listening intently. The way a CEO may interpret this is that they need only worry about human rights in countries which subscribe to that story; or perhaps salivate at the prospect of enforcing a story to your point.
It’s akin to the inherent problem with the blind elephant allegory. A tail, a wall, a tree, a snake, but only the story teller knows it’s an elephant.
And this is why he will ultimately fail, like Disney is failing currently -- the only question is, how much damage can he do before we stop him?
I don't think it was messy, I found it highly relevant. For one: The discussion about human rights is also a discussion about attachement. What many people don't seem to know, and what I always like to emphasize is that the term "human dignity" originates with Immanuel Kant and was introduced as an "incomparable value", which was then criticized by Arthur Schopenhauer who then said: A value cannot be incomparable, because it is - by its nature and very definition - valuable for someone and valuable in comparison to something else. Outside of this one-, or twofold relationship, the term value does not make any sense.
And I very much agree with this ciriticism and would therefore like to add: Our discussion about human rights is two-fold in the sense that we value it - compared to what? And who values it? That is the very question, by which Oswald Spengler - another follower of Schopenhauer AND Nietzsche - was inspired by. And his answer was very much related to the assumption that there is a morphological sub-structure, which is very much attached to it. And without this symbolic sub-structure that both organizes and emphasizes the values that are values for us, the decline of the west would be inevitable.
- So, as you can see: This discussion is very much connected to the question of belonging, and Peterson is - in a sense - a universalist student of Nietzsche, because he doesn't emphasize the question whose Being it is that we should be, or are actually concerned about. - I think this is also tied up with his attempt to introduce a universal ethic. But have you noticed?
The term ethics becomes more and more slippery, and it loses the distinct character that people are usually attached to. And it becomes more and more etheral in the sense of becoming more and more abstract, without it being identical with, or being recognizable from our every-day human conduct. Whatever he is talking about, it is no longer the same kind of pragmatism that originally made him famous, but it is of the kind that tries to be so general and universal that it is no longer subordinate to the question: to whom is it that it is valuable?
Imho Peterson belongs to a category of thinkers, which I would call: vitalist ethics because he wants to establish the kinds of conduct, both with the world and other people, which is vitatalistic in the sense that it serves the prosperity and flourishing of all kinds of life-forms that adhere to it, regardless of whether they belong to a certain culture. In this sense, his tweet is actually an attempt at stating the hypothesis that it is no longer about christianity in general, but it is about something that I would call a vitalist ethic, because it serves human flourishing, or the flourishing of life, independent of it's christian origins. And this is an empirical statement, which is very much distinct from the idea that you have to believe in it. It is empirical because it can be falsified. And you can see the results with your own eyes.
I think Peterson would (or at least: he should emphasize this, if he was already clear about this), because this is what makes his position distinct from the position of Tom Holland and others, who say: Oh! This is just a story, we are telling each other. No, it is not a story, if our well-being or suffering hinges on our attachment to those qualities that make it either possible to achieve, or to evade those states of affairs, which either bring us a lot of suffering, or it's opposite. That is what I would like to emphasize after watching this video.
Could you edit this post to include a few carriage returns?
[Edit: Thanks!]
@@jimluebke3869 done
That which informs the world and all its recurrent patterns of self evident truths like human rights and the transcendentals of goodness truth and beauty across time comes from Christ. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid in whom all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
I almost get the sense that "Human Rights" is not a very accurate name for what we're talking about. It's the conventional term and I get the value of using it so other people understand what we're talking about. But part of me thinks it's not quite accurate. Like Peterson might say, it's low resolution.
The Woke have devalued that term and many others
"I don't like the word 'grounded', it seems like there's a better word."
The kids who are paying attention, are saying "based" today. =)
Baseball ... American ... have you got to first base yet?
"based" is ironic though, since the phrase itself has no meaningful basis. it just reinforces the general unserious approach to religion, metaphysics and morality in current day
@@buglepong As a particular person, I defy -isms. If son/brother/husband/father isn't "based" enough ... on top of serious/hard working/patriotic .... then I will leave that scintilla of doubt to the philosophers ;-)
@@williambranch4283 I only know this because my three sons use the term.
Not sure which bases they're at these days, thanks to the ex, and thanks to a thoroughly toxic dating environment thanks to Tinder and MeToo.
@@buglepong Has there ever been an example of youthful slang that hasn't been immature to some degree?
This was a brilliant video.
Yes, that's why we're here. Happens a lot. =)
"'The air we breathe' is better than the foundational metaphors"
I dunno, I like your metaphor of "the stones cry out" [the churches bear witness] in Europe.
Love it
"We all have intellect, we all feel pain"
_And none of us can really feel what another feels._ This simple fact makes de Sade's morality just as "humanist" as Pinker's.
Of course, not feeling what another feels has its place -- how much of our self-destructive behavior comes because we are attempting to protect our own feelings? We need encouragement and support from outside of ourselves, from people who are incapable of being incapacitated by our pain, to heal ourselves.
The Enlightenment, ironically, was Darkness.
@@williambranch4283 Where it shines, it shines with reflected light.
Where it rejects that inheritance, the Enlightenment is very dark indeed. Robespierre, de Sade, Frederick the Great, Karl Marx...
We have mirror neurons though, we are capable of some basic subconscious empathy/sympathy of "that must have hurt" (though obviously being humans, schadenfreude is also a possibility) and even societies where Christianity probably didn't have very deep inroads it's possible to at least come to the conclusion of "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" even if otherwise positive virtue ethics is trickier to grasp.
@@dotwarner17 Wisdom of animals
@@williambranch4283 "We are no better or worse for what we share with the beasts" :)
As a Christian I obviously think that the wisdom of the beasts is part of how Creation is constantly declaring God's glory and I think it's fun that JBP is explaining the light of General Revelation in terms he (and modernity) can understand
I am very certain the Palestinians are feeling this fictional story called Israel right now.
The fictional story of Zionism is doing the "kicking to the curb". Iran may be getting hurt by the POTUS fiction soon ;-(
And CZcams seems to have a real feeling of deleting or suppressing comments that point out that rendering Gaza uninhabitable is basically enhitc celnasnig.
@@jimluebke3869 ethnic (sp)
@@jimluebke3869 Been drawing attention from Langley, have we?
Star Trek Strange New World, Episode 4. “Memento Moro” I think is a nice crossover with this discussion.
Gorn nebula gaslighting? ;-)
@williambranch4283 “some things in this universe are just plain evil” there’s a lot to unpack in that quote :-)
"The most learned psychohistorians could not have predicted islam"
Really? Isn't Islam just, "Hey, they have monotheism and a holy book to keep them united, we should have monotheism too." Seems like any decent study of history should include the idea that one culture might imitate an adjacent culture.
i guess its referring to entire islam as a historical phenomenon, being quite unique in character and unconventionally successful
@@buglepong It's a "submit to the conquering hierarchy" ideology. Conquerors throughout history -- from Napoleon to [that ruddy little ignoramus] -- have expressed admiration for it. The Mughals and Tamarlane were Muslim themselves.
It's the most durable of them, probably because it cribbed a bit of social teaching from Judaism / Christianity.
Yup.
"grounding" = good axioms for a deductive system. When all you have is Euclid, everything is a triangle. Spinoza as an inventor of modernism is true.
Children can see justice and injustice naturally. These are not arbitrary concepts.
Theft and revenge come naturally to children.
Justice can fairly easily be taught, but it does need to be taught. Feral children do not "naturally" discover it.
@@jimluebke3869 Mogli would have been a serial killer
"Human rights will arise from the semantic networks of meaning"
Only if those networks of meaning are based on [i.e., heavily weighted by] the Bible. The Bible is, as Peterson points out himself, foundational.
Watch Richard Carrier on mythvison taking on Tom Holland.
37:05 Some of them aren't even going to challenge him when he calls God a fiction. And they're not going to challenge him when he redefines God to mean a pattern of man's own behavior that man observed over a long time rather than the Creator of man that existed before man.
I don't think Peterson uses "fiction" to mean "made up whole cloth out of man's head" but rather "a story that conforms to the pattern(s) of reality" and I don't know if he's met God as a Person (possibly the only Person who has ever mattered in the history of the entire universe) yet but he's at least willing to live "as if" he believes in the highest possible good he can aim at.
I'm sure plenty of people have, outside of his public appearances, invited him to take that leap of faith into the Kingdom of God, but a twitter thread about: "if you are a modern secular person allergic to the idea of 'God' here's a way to think about it without triggering your anti-theist reflex" is not the appropriate place to challenge Peterson about his propositional bona fides. (PVK calls him "the unauthorized exorcist" for a reason, and outside of Peterson's own modernist hangups I don't think he's likely to go public about his religious practices not only because he himself is still groping his way towards Mere Christianity but he thinks it counterproductive to wear the hat of a believer, especially one that belongs to a particular denomination.)
@@dotwarner17 Peterson has been consistent in his definition of god and it's this: Mankind observed mankind's action over a long period of time and through trial and error figured out the things that worked best (patterns of behavior/being) for the benefit of mankind. They put this information into stories and passed the stories down. You can call that a "story that conforms to the pattern of reality" if you want. However, the bible describes a different God. The God of the bible existed before mankind and created mankind for God's purposes which are not the same as mankind's purposes.
Peterson describes a god that proceeded from man. The first words of the bible are "In the beginning God created..." The two things are incompatible at the most fundamental level and they do not lead to the same place. Peterson's route leads to the worship of mankind which is humanism. The purpose of the bible is to lead one to worship God.
@@rachaelgibson Because that's the God he can reach, searching from the bottom up. Maybe God has also found him, but he's keeping silent for the time being because that's the kind of person he is.
If he hasn't come into the Kingdom yet, I pray that he will someday and not go away sad because God asks too much of him.
On the other had ... a creating or saving god should be seen as temporal indefinite participle.
I’m not sure how Harari can be sure based on his premises about reality and the human senses that human rights are any less measurable than protons. Oh ye of little faith in science. I have faith that science will one day through a genius like Harari create technology that allows me to smell with certainty the reality of my human rights.
22:05 WHAT?! Personalism? Who could have guessed that this was central?!
Edit: btw, I don’t think that I had ever heard the word or knew of its historic philosophical usage prior to using it myself. 😜🤪😘
Impersonalism has been dominant for centuries ;-(
35:41 so basically, he's saying that human rights are just true. but the question is, are human rights only compatible with the teachings of Christ?
Tom Holland: “I Began To Realise That Actually, In Almost Every Way, I Am Christian.” So is Tom Holland a Christian, has he embraced or denied Jesus as a source of salvation?
I think he's using Christian as an adjective, not a noun.
@@jimluebke3869 G-d is a verb, not a noun
Attention determines what we see 16:41
Ask @GrimGriz about the sarducar.
Oh I never miss GG. Watching them later means I skip the branding. With one hand he gives us savings throws, with the other he practicies mind control with the branding, the most mind controlling thing in the TLC. :)
I always bet on the Fremen.
Everything in the mind is the imagination. If you can overcome that you can live in the now and live in the kingdom of heaven within 🙏
The past and the future are not real, they are imagined
The present is BS too ...
Game theory provides a rationale for secular morality.
notice that the harary guy says "human rights are just a story" but then publishes a book, homo deus, which is, just a story XD
so he's essentially making a nietzchian move, since there is no god nor objectivity, then I can invent my own ideology and impose it onto the world.
35:25 Tom Holland: Human rights are socially constructed.
Jordan Peterson: No, no, no. That's postmodernism. That's why we're in this mess in the first place. First off, human rights is a doctrine. And they're the inexorable consequence of...something...something...pattern of behavior...something...Being itself. Like patterns of being, and that's God! Human rights are from God.
czcams.com/users/clipUgkxWsujp4Gy_YtOpciOiY-yRmfQGZlLVIpJ?si=L2k1TnWVjJf4BCm0
You don't need to wait for Peterson's next book.
"You have to have something that helps everybody see the same thing"
Ah, but you can have an excess of that order. You also have to have people that go off on tangents that connect one network of ideas to another network of ideas, because that's what creativity is.
You have normal people who fixate on faces and feelings; but you also need autists who focus on facts over feelings.
Yuval Noah Harari is getting used in clips to teach kids in schools. :/ So that’s happening
Which schools, where?
Sounds like a good place for Christians and conservatives to start looking for recruits. =)
@@jimluebke3869 The steam program in Meade 46-1 in South Dakota
Got snuck in there talking about AI. Which how people thing AI is, is an entire lie. It’s only artificial calculations there is no intelligence it’s just advanced calculations
Well, what is real ? What does existing mean ?
Existing is the necessary precondition to what you're doing when you're entering these comments.
"Real" is the everything that exists, that affects you (or anything that could affect anything like you) that is outside of you, and you. Even illusions (though what they ostensibly represent is not real) are real, in that they are real illusions.
Who is asking?
@@clintd3476 Someone who exists, obviously.
Wrong questions. See HHGTHG.
Fictionalism is a JP gambit. It isn't an ontology. "Is vs ought" is a useful gap if you are Robespierre ;-( "As If" school of philosophy of Hans Vaihinger from 1911. Not new.
Of course, God is a fiction. He's the central character in a book. He's also the creator of something like a house fly, unimaginably more complex than the most cutting-edge drone. William James observed that when it comes to the big existential questions, we're all like dogs in a library, staring at stacks of books. Certainly, whatever concepts of God we dogs come up with would be fictional. Good religion starts here; bad religion omits this first step.
Love this comment
I've read Yuval. The man is possessed by demons/
Tell us what you really think Hank! :)
I find this line of argument particularly bad, a fact I have outline many times here. Universal humanity refers to the aggregate of all human behavior. You "find" it in the things we call values, but that is just a place holder for how we describe the stories that we use to explain our own behavior. I fail to see the metaphysical necessity you insist must be present in the historical chain of human value systems. Yuval might be right, but it is trivial. What we find valuable is valuable to US. The why of why we find things valuable is a matter either for science, or it it is a matter for superstition. Or if you have read your Kant: pure reason. Guess which one can be tested and which one cannot?
The rest of this is just one big post hoc fallacy. Just because one thing preceded, or even inspired the other, does not mean it is caused by the other thing nor does it offer any mythical "ought" that gives supremacy to the older idea. Otherwise you are just saying everything is determined by something else in its past which is basically saying almost nothing about the ontological ought of all ought's. I feel this should all be pretty obvious, but maybe people find this sort of thing compelling...
:Shrug:
Wow human values are part of the structure of human beings?? J.B Peterson you are a genius!! #sacrasmisreal
Science can't make value judgements or distinguish between a qualitative and non-qualitative life. It doesn't matter if you can use science to test or analyze theories when questions about teleology and 'the Good" can't be answered by the tools science provides. Value judgements belong to branches of philosophy like metaphysics and ethics. Science is simply impotent in this area.
Ah ... you entered rhetoric class but never escaped? Logical Positivism is so ... Vienna Circle. Using language is a fallacy itself;-))
The Genealogy of Morality!
Er, Kant's work was _A _*_Critique_*_ of Pure Reason,_ which was directed at Leibnitz' attempt at using "pure reason" to come to metaphysical conclusions.
If you don't want to look like a poser, you probably want to make sure your references line up with your thesis.
15:30
Combinatorial Explosivity...hmmmm
NEVER did JP ever mention that. JV and his COG SCI however...explicitly walks you thru that notion.
Hm "UNDERNEATH This Whole Thing" imo is pretty relevant....
Going on about politics on YT ain't it..
The history of Christianity is the best school for atheism. Franz Overbeck
Pinker puts forward "presentism" like Harris. Pseudo-Buddhism ... that is, black gold, Texas T ... Progress = brains in a jar.
"Combinatorial explosions" are not "destroying modernity" give me one peer reviewed philosophy paper that makes this kind of argument! Pure assertion without evidence as usual.
People are so lost, meaningless meaningless meaningless said the teacher at least with people admitting people hold no value under the sun they will realize value can only come from something higher! The God of the bible is the only thing that puts all of life and its complexities in right order and relationship.
One for the late nighters
5:10 humans rights are not universal
Yuval Noah Harari is the enemy of Mankind.
A craftsman doesn't blame his tool. Harari is a tool.
@@williambranch4283 I'm not the craftsman here.
And tool or not, he's a human being who could decide to be something other than an enemy.
Seems that way
"The Mule is someone Hari Seldon could not have predicted"
Only, in today' interconnected society, everyone is The Mule for fifteen minutes. Chaos, you know. Those d*mned three-penny nails.
Seriously Paul, read _To Say Nothing of the Dog._ If you find yourself wanting to comment on Asimov's _Foundation,_ read it "To Say Nothing" FIRST before publishing that comment.
Paul, this is coming from a guy whose culture-war stance typically causes him to roll his eyes when someone claims that a classic male SciFi author is wrong and a more modern female author is right. Asimov is wrong and highly misleading, and Willis corrects him.
Asimov was materialist