Jordan Peterson expounds on the conversation he had with Sam Harris about the nature of truth. Featuring Bret Weinstein. Taken from Joe Rogan Experience #1006.
It's the conversation you think you have when you smoked a lot of weed but really it was just "....like there's there's like metaphorical truth and it's genetically passed on and uh... what was I saying?"
This is how conversations should happen. People may disagree on things, but respect and civil discussion leads to a better understanding of differing points of view.
Joseph Massaro Well that depends on the 'arena'; it is easy to remain calm during a debate that is this ambiguous and meta... The issues that plague our nation, and the discussions that are needed aren't as easily detached from one's own image/ place in society. The only one (emotionally) invested in this conversation is Mr. Peterson, but he thinks society is at the brink of collapse...
SlugDropsonheads+ Emotion is a good motivator, but a poor way to debate. It's what devolves disagreements into vitriolic mudslinging and ideological chasms. Also, does one's character need to be called into question? The argument is the thing, not the one making it.
Emotionally invested? whats wrong with being invested? That makes us human, would you prefer someone who made claims but dont really care about what theyre saying? If you are wondering his disposition, he developed that tone from dealing with ignorant SJW's. If you can get past that and actually listen to what hes saying, then you will easily realize he is speaking for sincere concern using sound reasoning.
I love how grounded Joe Rogans oppinions are, he really adds a tether for us of a simpler mind to hold on to next to the likes of Peterson and Weinstein
I love hearing JP say his intellect is at a limit in these issues, when I struggle to understand even 10%. And I'm a highly educated man myself. Just the scale and perspective of things. When people with an iq of 160+ and a life time devoted to thinking, reach a limit to solve the more complex issues in society.... It's somewhat humbling.
Everybody has a limit, especially around dangerous topics where a decieving headline about him saying something could easily come out. But he recognizes there has to be helpful lessons in mythology if it has persisted for so long, helped and shaped a very successful modern society and many even in the modern age of science and tech still believe in it. Of course America as a nation has Protestant Puritan roots so maybe it shouldn't be surprising it's still around, but Peterson realizes it still may have some use and lessons for society, even if it isn't a scientific peer reviewed work by any means
160 is radically high but not so unbelievably uncommon as people probably think. Mine is 140's typically but IQ doesn't scale linearly. It functions more like the decibels scale. That podcast was intellectual Shakespearean poetry to someone who can (relative to Jordan and Bret) can barely form a proper couplet.
@@MrYutbe57 where can you even find out your IQ, people tell me to avoid those 10 minute online quizzes so is the only option to pay for a test at a proper facility?
This is when you believe, pursue, and execute a passion. College and higher education is just a index or guide to that information, but you must receive, parse, interpret and transmit. A million more psychology grads that achieve a professorship over the next 100 years won't reach Peterson level. Be happy to live during his time, I am.
“The idea of truth is much older than the idea of objective truth. And the original notion of truth wasn’t objective truth. It was like, “The arrow flies straight and true” and it meant something like, “Reliably on it’s way to the appropriate destination”- something like that. And when Christ said, “I am the way, the truth and the light” the truth that he was talking about wasn’t an objective truth.”- Genius
That begs the question. How do you know it’s reliably on its way to the proper destination. Well, it would have to be true first in order for that to be the case but the very definition you’ve presented pre supposes that truth instead of constituting it.
This is an incredibly beautiful explanation of why religion is so important, and why society & individuals are so massively blessed by it!! People get far too caught up on the capital “T” Truth instead of understanding the depth of wisdom contained within scripture and prophetic wisdom, that Jordan P breaks down with an unbiased depth that is unrivaled!!
The problem with religion is that people hide behind it instead of actually taking personal responsibility of trying to be a better person everyday and consider their actions in a way that helps/benefits others.
People assume because Peterson is defending religion he should automatically be discredited. Realize that these traditions have resurrected an entire civilization to literal global dominance. I would slow down and listen to his ideas critically before passing judgement.
networks how does it make you have a better life? It makes your life infinitely more complex because you have to maintain the lies and remember everything that you have said and lied about.. The truth buttresses that and makes reality simpler (most of the time) and thus better..
@@santiagoabliterature?? if you continuously lie you wont be able to remember.. not everyone is a james Moriarty type genius. Then your just delaying those bad consequences for a later date and probably with dire consequences.. stupidity still
Jordan Peterson is a perfect example of religious truth or metaphorical truth. He may not present the "scientific truth" that Sam Harris does but he's helped way many more people that Sam has. So what's more "true'"? I'll go with Jordan Peterson because his advice is practical and can improve your life so much more effectively and efficiently. Sam Harris can definitely state facts but are they helpful? Not to me so much anyways.
This is the most mind blowing discussion!! These guys are putting words, names and ideas of dozens of things that have bothered me throughout my 47yrs. I was fuzzy and not understanding the consequences of my decisions. My decisions were based on my confused and underdeveloped ideas I held to be true.
11:04 "You shall love God more than anything," includes the implication of "Don't enrich uranium because that is a dangerous act of loving 'power' more than God." come on, guys, flex that grey matter. disclaimer: i don't know what "God" means.
The nice thing about our emotions is that they don't evolve with time. Jealousy was the same in a person 2000 years ago as it is in us today. Same with joy, anger etc. So to say that ancient wisdom becomes irrelevant over time isn't taking this into account.
Yeah I sort of think Bret missed the point (I said this in another comment). The archetypes shown by Jung are general enough that they can be applied across time even as circumstances change. The archetype or the christ like figure that Jordan mentions that stands up to the tyranny of the state is general enough that it can be applied across time even as the nature of the states tyranny changes over time. Because it is so general it can apply to standing up to a state that allows the enriching of uranium in the present just as easily as it applies to standing up to the Roman persecution of Christians 2000 years ago. I think that’s the main point, the fact that the archetypes in ancient religion are so general is exactly why they stay relevant. Their application may be updated, but values they present need not be. There’s no reason to codify enriching uranium in the Ten Commandments, application of the main point will cause the problem to take care of itself
What Peterson is saying is the same thing as the difference between The Old Testament and The New Testament ... The Old Testament is Truth, the New Testament is also Truth - they are the same Truth. Truth actually fits into all time period and all circumstance .. this is why a book containing Truth, even thought the world is foreign can be transferred into a current world. Truth is an absolute.
Bret's porcupine example have an pre-assumed utility/goal function, which is "to survive, to be safe". but not everyone share the same goal/value/utility. it is always better for people to know "the truth that porcupine cannot throw quills", based on this truth, people can make decisions for themselves. for those who share the same utility that "to survive, to be safe", they will probably stay far away anyway. for those who want to take some risk or want some excitement, they will move closer. anyway, to know the truth is always better for decision making.
Man, I'd say as far as the whole point of this talk was - metaphors are indispensable. Their simplest forms are euphemisms and exaggerations, the most complex the archetypal stories. Some people foolishly split reality into truth and falsehood - like those idiots who fact-check jokes XD - this is a very arrogant approach, because it assumes that we have the capability to know everything about everything around us with 100% certainty, which is simply not true due to a number of factors, sensory limitations of our mortal bodies being just one of many. We benefit greatly from having the mental skill of approximation, and it is where metaphors come to action - they are the working-tool-truths. They allow us to talk about things we'd otherwise not discuss just because we don't know everything about them or because of a taboo. The ability to understand and talk in metaphors is crucial for advancement of human knowledge, and so is the ability to approximate - both of these skills the fanatical post-modernist anti-theists want to throw away, just because of the fact that it's mostly religious packages that those abilities came it.
Now this Mister has thaught me that the abstraction of the Scripture isn't just foolish mistake but a way of making those stories applicable to the future. And that's absolutely genius.
@@kirathekillernote2173 Every book after The Bible has been influenced by the Bible. The Bible is the origin of the language you are using and the roots of all western books and language.
Beneath all the shade of questions and interviews, behind all the good intentions and motivations posed by these questions... these ppl constantly put peterson to the test, watching, looking, poking, waiting for him to slide. Setting traps left right and centre and swinging at him tacitly with mighty blows of opposition and sometimes contrariety. Like Samson against a 1000 soldiers he remains. It is beyond me the depth of wisdom this man has by quite frankly speaking what is truth. Clear, concise... unwavering and founded. Anchored upon every piece of detail you can gander across human knowledge. "for I will provide you eloquence and wisdom which none of your adversaries will be able to oppose or refute."
What Joe Rogan isn't getting about the Porcupine Metaphor is that all scientific knowledge was at one point, unknown, then known, and will probably be then dismissed by new information. So knowing false or incomplete information that is modifies our behaviour in a way that helps us survive is still useful and also not "wrong" or "lied to" at the time.
He said Pinnochio was a liar. He wasn't a liar. He was a child who lied, being taught not to lie. That's not the same as being a liar. Everyone has lied, especially when they're young.
I dont understand Weinstein's comment about "thou shall not enrich Uranium" when the Bible already says "thou shall not kill", which already covers creating weapons, and enriched Uranium is the cheapest and cleanest method of power generation we have.
Truth can simply be defined as love. This can help understanding all living things. The animal kingdom follows their truth, human beings follow their truth often by using the tool of language. Language as a tool is a double edged sword, therefore human truth can be divorced of our instincts to seek love in a healthy minded way. This explains the mental health crisis. Just my opinion.
Truth is concrete and works on various levels. It is also seems plural. Many of these examples are examples of people compensating with limited truth. Everyone operates in these fallible ways because our brains are limited processors. Obviously a person who possesses more truth is better off, but sometimes we have to operate short of that because we have to deal with a complex life with limited biological resources. The porcupine and malaria examples are great for showing how a brain can compensate by using simplified thought patterns.
But the controversial distinction that they make is between "fact" (which seems to be the truth you speak of) and "wisdom" (which may not be "true" in the sense that you're using it). In those two examples, someone without more truth (but more "wisdom"). May in fact be better off...
It's not only about something being true, it's also about the propagation of truth in human context. A metaphorical truth is necessarily memeable, as such it is more effective and more widespread than just telling straight facts
You say that like, you solved the problem by simply aligning ourselves to fact than truth. When the real question is distinguishing the two, if there is in fact 2 of them to distinguish each other from.
reiwell del going by what peterson and weinstein are saying, truth is subjective to metaphor and perception, while fact is objectively observed and scientifically tested with the same results no matter how many times it's tested. An example would be if someone said a man murdered someone to protect his family. Maybe the murderer was insane and thought the victim was trying to hurt his family, so he murdered the man. To the insane man it was a "truth" that his victim was trying to hurt his family, but it is a fact that the insane man murdered his victim, regardless of whether he thinks it's a fact, the truth or not.
I have always liked Joe's openness of mind. But today, I loved his Joe's summary at 13.05, it was was good defeat of Jordan's and other guy's 'truth' ideas.
The main point from Joe was that facts and wisdom are different things. And Jordan and other guy love to conflate them together into their weird definition of "truth". This whole debate is just semantic. These days when we use the word truth for an idea, we mean the factual/ empirical value of the contents of that idea. Not the utilitarian value or the wisdom of the idea. Maybe in older days it was different. But now the connotation of truth = factual. Joe says: Truth is the factual content of an idea. Utilitarian value of the idea is wisdom, not truth. "Porcupines do not throw quills" is a fact and hence truth. And if someone is told that "Porcupines throw quills", it is wrong and untrue, even though there is usefulness and wisdom in that non-factual idea. Peterson says: "Porcupines do NOT throw quills" is truth. And "Porcupines throw quills" is also a type of truth, because it has value to it and it has usefulness to it just like the former statement. Other guy says: The same thing as peterson, he just differentiate the two statements as 'factual truth' (former) vs, 'metaphorical truth' (latter). I am with Joe, i.e. just let the truth be truth guys. The factual truth. Give other words to other things you want to imply. Ultimately Peterson wants to say that bibilical myths have "truth" to them, that is a dangerous and liberal use of the word truth in its modern connotation and context. He can just say, bibilical myths have ideas which tell very interesting insights about how humans think..etc etc. But Dont hijack the word 'truth'.
This is not about facts and wisdom. This is not about semantics. I understand the confusion though, as they do not explain themselves very well. This is a discussion about what we are allowed to call 'true', and not on a semantic level. The issue is that even the things we held to be very very simple 'just let the truth be the truth' things have now been rebutted; quantum physics completely threw 'objective truths' in physics upside down. We have to understand that, in the time that we are in now, we hold some things to be 'true' when this will likely be altered or completely changed as our technological capabilities to investigate improve. There is an objective truth out there, but we are just human beings, all we can do is approach this truth. These approximations are the metaphorical truth; they are 'true' for now because this works the best for us now to understand, explain, and interact with our environment. These pre-quantum physics physical laws were regarded 50 years ago as 'true' as people regarded the bible 400 years ago. This is the thing about metaphorical truths. This is why we have to study them and allow space for them in our universities, why religion is so important. These are our 'old' truths that now do not work anymore, that are debunked. We should study them because it teaches us how to move forward, what not to do, and also why in certain truths are more important than others since they seem to survive more in history. We should also be careful about completely disregarding them, since they were indeed the best approximate of an objective truth we had at a a set time. However, as Peterson explains, even though in the past this multi-dimensional (or multi-layered, whatever you prefer) definition of the word truth was understood, we now only adhere to the idea that 'truth is truth', it is an objective thing. This is simply not the case, logically speaking. Also historically speaking even. This is the point they are debating. I am personally not sure whether I agree with this, but yeah this is what I got out of it. Quite brain-cracking.
TSAOH!: Hey, so to break this down VERY simple, would be to say that back in the days where Jesus was around preaching, the "truth" was considered to be that he was the son of God, the earth was flat, and so on. As time went by, we got to debunk those "truths", while some would probably call it theories since no evidence was actually made/shown back then, but generally, they were believed to be the truth. ??? -Thank you in advance.
Highly Disagree. Just because Filth ment shit, and people had a reason to not shit in camps because of Gods will. It does not mean that the underlying cause wasn't there. This is exactly what Sam was explaining about pragmatism. A truth exists whether or not you know it yet. Labeling it as something different does not make it "true" whether or not the consequences are good or bad.
This is a CONSERVATIVE conversation about religion and societal wisdom on truth that almost, ALMOST gets to why people on the left believe in internalized and systematic racism. Maybe the wisdom and ethics that we operate with now, partially built during a time when we openly had slaves while declaring ourselves free of tyrannical oppression, worked well for the US at a certain point, but people are realizing only in recent decades that it is bonkers to have a system that dissuades a third of the American population from trying to self-actualize because they're lazy or thugs or whatever Fox News would tell you. You may not believe racism is still a problem in America, but I can tell you people on the Left think it is and the thought-pattern is strikingly similar to this discussion. Like we all know the factual truth that white and black people are equal (or are supposed to), but that is not equivalent to people accepting the idea as prevailing wisdom. In other words, a metaphorical truth but a literal falsehood. "Yeah, racism is over... so lazy n-words need to shut up about it." This is seriously thought-provoking shit.
What Bret fails to see is that the Google algorithms and the unfolding of Truth are one and the same. We seek Truth, in every way that we search. Most human beings are blind to what's happening all around them.
Keep this in mind when listening to Weinstein: Luke 5:33-39 33 And they said unto him, `Wherefore do the disciples of John fast often, and make supplications -- in like manner also those of the Pharisees -- but thine do eat and drink?' 34 And he said unto them, `Are ye able to make the sons of the bride-chamber -- in the bridegroom being with them -- to fast? 35 but days will come, and, when the bridegroom may be taken away from them, then they shall fast in those days.' 36 And he spake also a simile unto them -- `No one a patch of new clothing doth put on old clothing, and if otherwise, the new also doth make a rent, and with the old the patch doth not agree, that [is] from the new. 37 `And no one doth put new wine into old skins, and if otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins, and itself will be poured out, and the skins will be destroyed; 38 but new wine into new skins is to be put, and both are preserved together; 39 and no one having drunk old [wine], doth immediately wish new, for he saith, The old is better.'
The nature of truth comes from within everything and is manifest by the inner heart condition that is receptive to the universal never ending heart beat of unconditional truth. To feel in awe and reverence for a higher power and intelligence, far superior to little humanity.
Summary: traditions may have some value, and it is wise to examine each tradition and find out whether it objectively wise or not, when you have the capability to do so. Humanity's existence may depend on continuing to follow traditions we do not yet understand. It is in our best interest to find out the reasons behind tradition and not follow tradition assuming they remain useful today. Precision of language would clear things up. Listening would also help. If Jordan and Sam asked more little questions, like: what did you mean by truth? That would save 15 minutes of trying to get the same point across in 10 different metaphors. Each person (these three plus Sam) are intelligent enough to know how to logically argue a point. It takes an extra bit to empathize, and imagine you are the other person, to see where the misunderstandings might be. Misunderstanding isn't a lack of intelligence on the listeners part with these folks, it is a lack of adequate communication to their intended audience.
you can't really clarify every word your interlocutor says. there are (generally) set definitions for specific terms, and I think a side that tries to replace those definitions with different ones should be clear about it and communicate it honestly. in a situation where both sides genuinely think that their respective definition is the common and honest one, the way to resolve it is actually to try to get your point across in different metaphors, so as to describe your view in other, less contested terms.
'Thou Shalt Not Enrich Uranium'. I think he's talking about weapons. It's important to know that enrichment up to 5% is necessary for the majority of nuclear fuel. Weapons require 90%+. Enriching Uranium is not inherently bad.
If you prepare for the porcupine with the throwing quills, you are prepared for the porcupine without them too. If you prepare for the snake as if it is a dragon you can handle both, but the inverse fails, assuming that the dragon has all the abilities of a snake, including its speed, and a great, fiery breath and tail and all.
It’s stupid to call this metaphorical truth. One should just call them “useful fictions”. It’s so much clearer about what they are. Believing that a porcupine throws spikes is a useful fiction. Believing that a gun is always loaded is a useful fiction. The phrase conveys both levels: that the idea is helpful, and that it is literally false.
very nice debate. Weinstein though is illustrating folk wisdom, which is different from knowledge. Wisdom and knowledge should work for and with one another in my view.
All the Peterson detractors in this comment section accusing him of being an apologist for religion are laughable. Appeal to motivation is a good way of building a strawman.
I very much disagree with Weinstein's view on religion. But I love how he carefully words and explains his points. I respect him and I hope one day that he shall see that there is such thing a literal religious truth.
Yes I agree. I believe atheist have a belief that man should worship himself, which I have huge problem with. A self importance which leads to selfish and hedonistic desires. I believe they deny the truth of religion which is nature imo. I’m not even smart so forgive me if I come across ignorant.
"True enough..." "Metaphorical truth" While "truth" is a mapping function between a set of linguistic propositions and some value assignment, and a 'metaphorical truth" can obtain given the stated _a priori_ - there can be only one truth that is literally real - and there's a major problem with dabbling in metaphorical truth _as if_ it actually obtained. Fitness adaptation vs. accuracy adaptation, and the latter being our best bet at *pehaps* asymptotically understanding the nature of the objects of our perception. Example: "All guns are loaded." Metaphorically true. Sure. Literally not true, potentially. Probably. The actual meaning is "handle all guns as if they were loaded" - i.e. Jordan's "Live as if God exists." False positives like this are all fine and dandy... Until you need a loaded gun, and assume all guns are loaded... and happen to have one that isn't. TL;DR somehow, despite evolution being a heuristic mess of a process, we have an accuracy adaptation. It isn't perfect, it never will be. But not using it is the dumbest (and maybe the last) thing you might ever do.
Well I understand that saying that act like a gun is loaded but that is in the context so people wont accidentally shoot themselves or others. If u want to check if the gun is loaded, take out the clip and check, that is why empiricism is important
