Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson | God, Atheism, The Bible, Jesus - Part 3 - Presented by Pangburn 

🫥

🎉

Second time✋

Oh yeah, this is my 4th time relistening to every session 😅

🫡

true 😍🤩:(

Me too... i need new friends..

People have to be ready for these types of convos. That's gonna be a birthday that's light on people.

@@bibaolaitan5189 I need "a" friend at all 😂

@@hanskraut2018 don't feel bad. I have like just 2 friends.

Why "behind and in front of debates???

It is being called a discussion not a debate, but it is pretty much a debate.

Me too. I need Sam to calm me down.

Addictive

Why did they say the same sentences they said in the past debate almost verbatim? Like they were reading a script?

For someone whose career is platformed by being a postmodern critic, his language is just as, if not more, ambiguous, verbose, and frankly exhausting with that of a postmodernist.

@@schvyleryep.

the essence of the substrate of the being of good and evil

SH: Love is a fact and is rational. JP: But Sam, love is an emotion therefor irrationa--- SH: Love is a fact.

Are you hypocrite?

Not that hard for me to decide which side wins. Harris dominates in every aspect.

This is really fascinating because they both make solid points. The irony is that they don't necessarily conflict as much as the fanboys think they do

Wes Guill I mean I don’t hate either side but only one can be right.

Zachary Dickey that’s not really the case. Both sides have been right and wrong about different things throughout all three phases of this discussion, dating back to Vancouver.

Me a guy who jerks off with his feet: hey I like your comment.

Ah yes, a fellow viewer of the acclaimed Adult Swim television program "Richard and Mortimer"

This is funnier than will ever be appreciated. @@2FadeMusic

Who's Harrison?

Joe Coyle I’m curious, what does he mean

Sam is a puke. Jordan is a great guy.

@@quickplaya fanboy

harris is hilarious

I agree.

Nothing he said was funny, he’s just trying to win the crowd and make himself seem smart. He’s hardly explained any of his ideas in my opinion he just sounds like another butt hurt atheist. I don’t think he’s as well versed in religion as he acts.

Please just stop.

This was copied and pasted from the first Harris-peterson video

the thread on the original comment was quite brilliant. they captured both sams and jordans dialectic idiosyncricies quite perfectly. this is just wishful thinking. lightning rarely strikes the same place twice.

Haha brilliant

😂

Andy Robertson meaning is everything.

Lol. And thats why Jordan wins

@@Noname-lk2ol It depends what on what you mean by "wins"

Ludus Music try to live your life without meaning. And if you haven’t found meaning or if you don’t know what it is...I wouldn’t question what it is. It’s too much of a question for you. I also wouldn’t make fun of modern day philosophers. It doesn’t help you in any way. At all. And it shows too much of your level cap for intelligence.

@@nicholasnajibi3082 "Making fun of Jordan Peterson makes you stupid" - Completely unbiased youtube commenter who is clearly eons ahead of the rest of us in terms of intelligence

But without actually answering the question

too bad he can't actually back them up

Haha by changing the subject?

I can understand everything sam says but it's not the case with JP. JP unnecessarily make things complicated.

​@@andrewjordan2511 Well that's JP for me. Goes round and round and never gives any concrete idea.

ComplexPlane This comment deserves more love

its called a "postural echo"......

This comment tugs at the innards of my soul...

Hahahahaha that’s insane

Thanks for clarifying the Atheistic position further The left brain 🧠 vs the right 🧠 brain The debate will never be resolved since The fundamental premise of Atheism is (1=0) So it seems that Peterson Was left brain(1) and Harris(0) Since they couldn’t agree completely so Not (=) That’s true mathematically (1=/=0) Now at one point in the debate even Harris said “that I can even accept that” on God Thefore only once for a few seconds they both become fully rational (1=1) I feel sorry for Jordan he had to try so hard to make it happen(Respect him for that) He sure is an open minded guy who can pull you out of your Extreme point of views (In this case Harris’s denial of God) Why Jordan is 1 in(1=0) Jordan 1:27:00(Reading ) “God is how we imaginitivly And collectively represent the existence and actions of conscienceness across time” “As the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of time frames but are not necessarily apprehensable like as objects as in here and now.” (His explanation) “What that means in some sense is that you have conceptions of reality built into your biological and metaphysical structures that are a consequence of evolution that occurred over unbelievably vast expanses of time. And they structure your perception of reality in ways that, it wouldn’t be structured if you’d only lived the amount of time you are going to live. And that is also part of the problem for deriving values from facts because your evencient and you can’t derive the right value from the facts that portray themselves to you in your life span. Which is why you have a biological structure which is like 3.5 billion years old. -god is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the persuit of higher being and truth. That’s a fundamental element of hero mythology. -god is the higher value in the hierarchy of value (That’s another way of looking at it) -god is what calls and responds to the eternal call to adventure -god is the voice of conscience -God is the source of judgement and mercy and guilt -God is the future to which we make sacrifices. into the trancedental repository of reputation. Here is a cool one if you’re an evolutionary biologist -god is that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men (So you know men arrange themselves into hierarchy and men rise in the hierarchy, there are principles that are important that determine the probability of their rise and those principles aren’t Tyrannical/ Power they are something like the ability to articulate truth and the ability to be competent and ability to make appropriate moral judgements and if you can do that in a given situation then all the other men will vote you up the hierarchy so to speak and that will radically increase your reproductive fitness And the operation of that process in the long expanses of time looks to me like it’s codefied in something like the notion of The God the Father. It’s also the same thing that makes men attractive to women because women peel of the top of the male hierarchy and the question is what should be at the top of the hierarchy??? The answer right now is tyranny as part of the patriarchy but the answer is something more like the ability to use truthful speech in the service of let’s say “well being” So that operates across tremendous expansions of time and it plays a role in selection for survival itself and it makes it a fundamental reality.” 1:48:08 Sam Harris (where he also admitted (1) therfore they agreed (1=1) even though only for a second then back to (1=0) “To call that thing god, fine that’s the god I have no problem with but that’s not how most people most of the time are using the word “G-O-D”

Everyone has probably said that same thing throughout human history post language.

@@dallasonfire604 Or not.

dallasonfire604 well I doubt there were RU-vid audience sized masses gathered at the library to read Plato or Aristotle’s texts all at once, the internet and its ability to convey information is unmatched

That tech will likely bring down humanity through the sheer amount of BS it can spread

I was just thinking the same thing. This is more valuable than gold and it is free!

John Dunlap dude, right? And it’s not even like a wannabe case here that people steelman these people to have been doing, it’s an actual productive and meaningful use of the words that we can see with these people. Both of them.

It‘s beautiful though that you can learn new words through these discussions in a very accessible way, because it‘s very contextual.

Revelatory? Got me to dude

Yeah man using multi window on mobile with a dictionary in the other

You are probably in the top 1% of the population

thanks I need that quote

True beauty.

Absolutely beautiful wisdom.

rhetoric and certainly not poetry

@@stegemme Your opinion.

It's a damn shame they dismissed the position of moderator. Perhaps this is enacting the archetype of schizophrenia, and Weinstein or another needs to be reappointed as Sherif, or corpus callosum, or "mere moderator"

...while your corpus callosum keeps a foot in both camps.

Mattie147 good one 😂😂😂

Eusebius Thunked 😂

Mattie147 Well said!

We could also ask what motivates people to be politicians or thinkers.

Traversy Media That is, of course, a good question. The answer probably isn't as easy as we'd like it to be, for people in groups encourage each other to act instead of think, short-circuiting the process the Enlightenment held up as the Rational Way, so to speak, and the Founders built into our republic. We had better candidates in the last campaign, but somehow the voters of New Hampshire decided on a pair of lesser stars who then had the stage, and the media did the rest. In a representative democracy, we get the leaders we vote for. Even if we wake up the next day, hold our head and ask, 'What did I do?' we still do it because we felt like it. A democracy requires a rational, educated citizenry. We don't always act like it, however, so we get the leaders we have. Before the draft in World War 2, Marines --- a volunteer force -- could always quiet a complainer with, 'Shut up. You asked for it!' We are not drafted into voting for a candidate, so 'We asked for it,' I'm afraid.

That's answerable by Peterson's thesis: stupid people (majority) prefer/need stupid things (religion/Trump/Clinton) to lead them.

@@waranghira Perhaps you could make your statement a bit more nuanced? I don't think that 'the majority' are 'stupid,' it's just that we think we have goals, but generally our goals are just wrong. we are too short-sighted, too impatient. The left has told us for decades that all is political and all politics is power. The result of this relentless teaching is what we see, and more politics won't cure it any more than the hair of the dog cures a hangover or rabies. Politics is a means to an end, not the end itself. The preambles to the Declaration of Independence and to the Constitution tell what our goals were and still ought to be, and Washington's Farewell Address warned us of the dangers of political parties. We no longer think about any of those. We're not stupid. We simply are not thinking. That's why we such things as 'stupid people need...' That's not an answer, it's just a gripe, and gripes get us nowhere.

Because people like this don't run for politics - and even if they did, their views are so polarising, that the question could be asked - would the be electable? I think it takes a certain kind of person to run for politics. It's a terrible job - who would want it? You're monitored 24 hours a day (like the Truman Show) and everything that you say and do, is recorded and spliced together in a way to serve someone else's agenda. Really, really good leaders, are few and far between. It's the same in the corporate world as it is in politics. There's a small set of candidates to choose from to begin with. Given the polarisation of the media and given the disregard with which most people show towards the running of our countries, it's unsurprising to me that we end up with the leaders that we do. Ultimately, it's our fault that we have the leaders that we do. We don't demand more from them, we don't hold them to the same standards on both sides of politics, we lap up the crap that the MSM feeds us (by "we" and "us" I mean the public in general) and in the end, we vote for the person that our ideology tells us to. Some of us have thought about that decision and given it the gravity that it deserves - many have not. Many donkey-vote, vote to make a point, protest vote, or simply don't vote at all. Things will only change when our culture says - no, we aren't doing this anymore.

@@AdA-kx5ig Ooooh, fuck you! :)

​@@AdA-kx5ig What is this? Autism? Dementia? A perfect combination of pitifulness and lack of intelligence?

Alejandro Daniel Acuña breath in and breath out bro

@@nathanielace7534 i knok u ou boya sit down foo. Try me. Where u at.

@Francisco NievesI was actually just expressing my gratitude. I think maybe the real difference is that you don't have anything better to do than go online and troll others people's comments. Why spread the hate? You're better than that. You really are. Go read a book or do something productive. Try to think positive thoughts towards others. It might change your perspective. You can do it. I believe in you.

Hope you are doing well now, and enjoying your life, Farbod :)

Lucky

I wish I would meet someone that would love to attend these kinda events

Oh. Ao it was your wife who stripped later on stage P

How much did the event cost

*Ba-bow*

you win.

The Tube it depends precisely what theoretical boundaries you are accepting as the definitive parameters of the term “chair”. It’s like., do you mean the apparent physical structure of the chair? Or are you adding in the supposition that gravity and its effect as relates to your own weight and body composition as it engages with the structure ?” You see., we need to understand the terms we are using before we can arrive at any logical conclusion or agreement...,

AHAHHAHA

Chris Clark Its like ..what is aquard ? If you typed anywhere close to the correct spelling your auto correct should have worked?

when I saw there was a part three i never clicked faster on a video. Okay maybe I lied... chalk up me telling the truth to Peterson's stories

@@thebrightideashow7587 aqqqqqq

You literally deleted all my comments.. those comments took a long time to articulate... now I know the devils work.

You literally deleted all my comments.. those comments took a long time to articulate... now I know the devils work.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only topics discussed in any of the Peterson/Harris theater were ones that are always talked about? Get Noam Chomsky on stage with them, then you’ll get some taboo.

Paul Steer you’re such a discoverer, you’re making us all proud. Sincerely yours, troll.

@Chris Clark himself obviously hes a richer person but nobody wise but person wise

I'm the same poor, however much wiser.

@@josem.sanchez6452 lol

Thanks for clarifying the Atheistic position further The left brain 🧠 vs the right 🧠 brain The debate will never be resolved since The fundamental premise of Atheism is (1=0) So it seems that Peterson Was left brain(1) and Harris(0) Since they couldn’t agree completely so Not (=) That’s true mathematically (1=/=0) Now at one point in the debate even Harris said “that I can even accept that” on God Thefore only once for a few seconds they both become fully rational (1=1) I feel sorry for Jordan he had to try so hard to make it happen(Respect him for that) He sure is an open minded guy who can pull you out of your Extreme point of views (In this case Harris’s denial of God) Why Jordan is 1 in(1=0) Jordan 1:27:00(Reading ) “God is how we imaginitivly And collectively represent the existence and actions of conscienceness across time” “As the most real aspects of existence manifest themselves across the longest of time frames but are not necessarily apprehensable like as objects as in here and now.” (His explanation) “What that means in some sense is that you have conceptions of reality built into your biological and metaphysical structures that are a consequence of evolution that occurred over unbelievably vast expanses of time. And they structure your perception of reality in ways that, it wouldn’t be structured if you’d only lived the amount of time you are going to live. And that is also part of the problem for deriving values from facts because your evencient and you can’t derive the right value from the facts that portray themselves to you in your life span. Which is why you have a biological structure which is like 3.5 billion years old. -god is that which eternally dies and is reborn in the persuit of higher being and truth. That’s a fundamental element of hero mythology. -god is the higher value in the hierarchy of value (That’s another way of looking at it) -god is what calls and responds to the eternal call to adventure -god is the voice of conscience -God is the source of judgement and mercy and guilt -God is the future to which we make sacrifices. into the trancedental repository of reputation. Here is a cool one if you’re an evolutionary biologist -god is that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men (So you know men arrange themselves into hierarchy and men rise in the hierarchy, there are principles that are important that determine the probability of their rise and those principles aren’t Tyrannical/ Power they are something like the ability to articulate truth and the ability to be competent and ability to make appropriate moral judgements and if you can do that in a given situation then all the other men will vote you up the hierarchy so to speak and that will radically increase your reproductive fitness And the operation of that process in the long expanses of time looks to me like it’s codefied in something like the notion of The God the Father. It’s also the same thing that makes men attractive to women because women peel of the top of the male hierarchy and the question is what should be at the top of the hierarchy??? The answer right now is tyranny as part of the patriarchy but the answer is something more like the ability to use truthful speech in the service of let’s say “well being” So that operates across tremendous expansions of time and it plays a role in selection for survival itself and it makes it a fundamental reality.” 1:48:08 Sam Harris (where he also admitted (1) therfore they agreed (1=1) even though only for a second then back to (1=0) “To call that thing god, fine that’s the god I have no problem with but that’s not how most people most of the time are using the word “G-O-D”

@piip: LOL! Because being a genius and reading books are mutually exclusive...smh Well, we know with certainty that *you* are no genius.

@NRM no, he isn't a genius He just seems like one to weak children and some undergrads who need a good grade.

ObscurityIsBest They do not need to be mutually exclusive, they only need be not equivalent.

Well it depends on what you mean by nice, and what you mean by good

@NRM lol Peterson a genius??? ROFLMAO!

Sam is one of the few public debaters to have over 20 years of mindfulness meditation experience, and he's also very actively involved in that community. There are a few other, lesser known public speakers with similar experience, and they all exhibit similar levels of composure during extended discussions.

This comment is beautiful. Thank you.

Yes, although I think part of the reason Sam is so zen is because he has decades if experience of meditation and is in a kind if perpetually mindful state

Wow! Love this comment!

@Vampiresoap I disagree. Peterson has always been very animated with his body language even in his college lectures.

it is also the nature of scientist to be accurate especially on topic when the definitions are so vague. good point !

Jovan Monteiro That doesn't justify what Jordan Peterson does. The point of a public discussion with an audience is for the audience to understand what both sides are saying and then make their own decisions. If you make yourself intentionally difficult to understand, then you are at wrong regardless of your reason for doing so. That is just how it is.

In fairness, Sam Harris has been misinterpreted way many more times, and even on national television by pretty famous folks. CJ Werleman, Ben Affleck, and Glenn Greenwald come to mind

JP is such an amazing thinker on most topics, but when it comes to religion, or more precisely, a God, he really comes off as a quack and it's unfortunate.

@@angelmendez-rivera351 This is a discussion between JP and Harris. The only reason this is a public thing is because people happen to want to know what they think on this topic. This is not a lecture. Dont blame JP because he is not dumbing down his ideas for you.

Jonathan Martin what does that metaphor mean? "Social-leaders grinding their axes". I've never heard that before.

Your assessment is dead on! 👍👍👍 I think Peterson is truly trying so hard to explore a layer deeper than what most of people can understand, which is why he gets mocked all the time and Harrison is so popular.

JevvoBruv No that’s not fair... well maybe you’re just a troll

JevvoBruv just listen from 1:09:33 to 1:14:08 and tell me what’s woo about it

Peterson reads deeply into everything, and examining the roots of religion in such way is extraordinary.. on the other hand, Harris thinks that religions are mostly a sum of bad dellusional ideas that we need to grow out of.. they both give strong arguments though, i respect them both very much

I'm surprised. I'd have thought such a venerable philosophy would want to prove what's best, rather than what's wrong (worst)

@therainman777 well, yes, that's the scientific method, in part :-) I would prefer that in a dialogue between two authentic thinkers, the aim would be to combine with a positive outcome, a synergy of thought and spirit. I don't want to make a sceptic wrong for believeing that homoeopathy is bogus, for example. I want to be able to share my view, that homoeopathy can be scientifically beneficial - by considering the virtues of the placebo effect. There are bogus elements to H, and there are real elements. That sort of thing. Apply the same technique to whether religion is good or bad, or democracy, and so on.

@therainman777 agreed 100% :-) I would add that if I were right that H was effective in a significant number of cases due to the Placebo effect, then the question becomes: " how can a member of the public avail him/herself of this benefit?" Some GPs can deliver the placebo effect for sure, but it's highly idiosyncratic. Whereas if you want to be reasonably certain, then go to a homoeopath and ignore his rationale, unless it helps :-) ( I can imagine some patients might be awed by the bible-thumping).

@therainman777 of course :-) but where would I find a practitioner that listens to my woes and dispenses this pill? My GP cannot do that. Nor can my Pharmacy AFAIK. The Placebo Effect requires that the patient has some level of belief. THBS, even when patients are told that the pill is made of sugar and nothing else, there is still a measurable effect, provided they are also told that this (unmasked) pill has had a positive effet on other patients.. Wierd stuff, huh?

@therainman777 ''That Having Been Said'

I do and did.

I’ll subscribe when you hire a competent sound crew

Arrange one with dawkins and Peterson please? Perhaps with an emphasis on meaning ...he has already called Richard 'shallow' and well.. the author of the selfish gene isn't shallow perhaps they can get to know each other better

@@Anicius_ I can't believe Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss ever legitimized Peterson by debating/featuring him. I'll bet you $1000 that Peterson will never debate Dawkins. If he has, I've never found it. If he does, the only way he could ever prevail is the only way he ever can/does: Dominate the speaking time and keep returning to the same unanswerable/already-answered points.

no we don't dickhead because they're not actually saying anything.

SpaceOrbison Dickhead? Grow up you loser! You hide behind a keyboard, you probably don’t have the balls to say that to people’s face.

@@spaceorbison. Another dipshit that doesn't understand words and will not find out!

We need more comments like this.

Sam is pretty brilliant, I'd probably let Jordan carry that crown too. But Douglas isn't brilliant lol stop being so easily impressed.

Yep, it's the equivalent to something false garnering tons of upvotes on Reddit.

I don't know if they instructed the audience to hold their applause until the end, but if they didn't then they should've.

Yeah in the vancouver events Harris called the audience out for applauding when Peterson didn't even make much of a point. They clap based on inflection and who they're a fan of. I'm a bigger Harris fan, but even the live events that don't have as much of a competitive feel as the Harris/Peterson ones have so much inane applause about inconsequential points.

Mutantcy1992 seems a lot is going right over your head. You'll catch up.

Yes yes yes ..jeez with the preteen fanboying ..on another note these would have been unbearable and unfocused without Harris ..I believe in Jesus btw

May you are not so atheist in the end? )

@@Artistofun Agnostic

Youre not atheist

@@jom9320 yep

Same here, if you agree with me religion can be one of the tools that can connect facts with rationally even tho many outcomes can be irrational. Just like instincts can be both rational and irrational. I can say the same with the new religion of manifestation(placebo effect) and also zodiac signs. Etc There are many tolls and we shouldn’t just fall on one because many people need different tools to aim towards a future instead of being stuck like the movie version of being omish

these audiences that irk us so are the gatherings bringing these great minds together. You take them out and their irritating clapping and you have no meeting and no debate to watch on RU-vid when you should be working.

@@chrisv.noire.6388 Perfect answer, thank you.

👏👏👏👏 Oh wait....

@@charlesgill1177 Isn’t it Douglas who asks them both and they both fail?

Ha not according to my earlier comment I guess! Need to rewatch these, they’re so brilliant.

Steel Manning in a meaningful and effective manner takes a great deal of honesty with both people in the discussion. Jordan is a stark example of its failure. He steel man’s the exact same way that he engages in debate with. He meticulously picks and chooses words that muddle and distort the other persons meat and potato argument, and even redefining terminology of words that are universally understood to mean something different that what he proposes. A person with a good argument doesn’t and shouldn’t have to do this. I love how this issue was passively brought up directly after Peterson’s opening steel man with Murray introducing the concept of “Jesus smuggling”, which Peterson just finished doing. It would have been wonderful of Murray to have then brought up the concept of linguistic gerrymandering. I swear to GOD, everything that comes out of Peterson’s mouth in areas of religion, economics, and politics would be completely obliterated if somebody were to take a solid 10 minutes explaining why it’s wrong, dishonest, arrogant, and unproductive to define important words in a way that you like, because it helps your argument…. Like WOW, YEAH, OF COURSE your argument will be made more feasible if you’re given license to lie and make words mean whatever the hell you want to. It speaks volumes to the intellectual illiteracy of our generation that so many young people look to this man as some sort of thought leader, or as somebody who has cracked some ancient code that makes their archaic religious beliefs hold sway in the face of modern science and rationality. God help us fam😬😬

It's weird that you make that complaint because Peterson steelmans Harris on night 2 of the Vancouver discussion, part of the exercise for both interlocutors was doing so to the satisfaction of the other party, and he does so successfully.

This is actually the most compelling statement I've heard in a long time that I would completely accept in favor of Christianity.

As a Christian too, one of the most important things I've learned from Jordan Peterson(from the sum of his videos) is to integrate my personal relationship and experience with Christ to the foundations of human existence, and that's when it became clear to me; my personal encounters with Christ : filled with love, passion, compassion and peace, has been based upon truth, the Logos, revealing in history and embodied as Jesus. The Judeao-Christian story is TRUE, and we all know it, but some deny it. These debates are very high level, intellectually, but the rub Sam Harris has, and question everyone holds their breath about, is What is the truth, and does the Bible have it?

@@Deacondan240 in my opinion, the Bible has truth in it but is not God itself. God is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Script, and I think it's dangerous to replace the Holy Spirit with something material. I see the Bible as God inspiration but rely more on the Spirit. In my understanding that's how the first disciples lived, they didn't have a Bible but relied on the HS. The Bible is a great source of inspiration and truth but also great to build dogma from. Having a relationship with God should be more important than having a relationship with a book and that is first and foremost a spiritual one and not a literal one imo.

Nicole Mover If your experience isn't literal, then it's not real. Even Jordan's completely different god than yours, he would, and has argued is literally true. I don't think you understand what literal means. Nor possibly dogma, as they were both against it, not for people to make up their own dogmas based on their non-literal experiences, which would be something else made up. So you're making up dogmas based on made up experiences. Or at least that's what you're implying if it's not literally an experience.

@@dementare yes maybe I understand literal wrong, I just mean that my faith is based on revelations and not on the Bible first and foremost, but God has surely used it as a tool to confirm my faith.

God knows they don’t spend it on sound quality

@Iblis Shaitan I wonder how that became a positive expression, overtime

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZDLvDj-iTjI.html

@Iblis König what kind of chairs? Where can I get similar?

@@yerhing6406 sounds very good to me

It would include 700.000 words :D

“It would take me 50 hours to write that review” -Jordan Peterson prob

"Sam does not contend seriously or deeply enough with the human condition." - Jordan Peterson in a much more gracious way

Yes! :)

Set your own moral standards so they can propagate that's how change begins . God is not dead!

What he means is that for Jordan P and his supporters, they carry the spirit of Nazism and its evils within themselves. They want the jack boots and swastikas, but they haven't figured out the modern equivalents of burning Reichstags and Beer Hall Putsches sufficient to take the power they feel in their narcissism they deserve.

marsjacobvolta Hahahhah🤣😂 You are right. It’s interesting how people can be so full of themselves. The Me Me movement.

@@pallchin what on earth are you on about? Fascism is clearly only demonstrable through Nazism, yes. Because nothing else akin to totalitarianism can be seen in history. Left wing or liberal politicians are inherently good of course. The Clintons for example, such symbols of goodness.

Phillip neither can Liberalism. I think the Alt left has proved they are just as capable of facism as the alt right. This is why we have a system of checks and balances. You were supposed to have grasped this concept in High School..

@@immortalmusic88 Bring back Monarchies, Democracy divides by definition.

I rarely find the questions posed in the Q&A sections worth while. It's usually something already covered in the discussion already, or someone giving their dissertation before asking a question that was already covered in the discussion already. For me, I'd most likely always vote for more discussion.

I am officially jealous. Would love to see these great minds in real life, as such.

@@kimburgess2897 it was as amazing as you would imagine it to be Kim. I was buzzing for days afterwards. I have pics with Sam and Jordan.

Yes ,Peterson just argues, what is bad define bad,who is defining bad. Etc....

@@frankmaitland2569 It's a discussion not an agreement

He looks nervous af

@@TheOlzee and you wouldn't be?

Sam Harris is the only one with any sense on that stage.

Is that all you could come up with? Wow...Congratulations?

I love it when these two get together . They both are amazing.

Zachary James Short Canadians built the Canadarm that’s in the shuttles building the space station. Don’t mess with Canadian arms...you will lose!

Actually, has Peterson ever said what his view of homosexual relationships are?

“Well that depends on what you mean by assault, this is a very complex issue”

Maps of meaning is 26 hours of lecture alone. I would take a month.

@@merlin4real more like 30

What happens after you die is not a joke.

@@fordhamdonnington2738 Yeah, the underworld is not a joke. Hades will judge you there.

@@fordhamdonnington2738 Many things still happen after you die. Some of them are jokes. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is.

@@seanbirch9663 I’m sorry too

@@fordhamdonnington2738 well, thanks for not clearing it up. I guess it's not important

Lol perfect

I knoow riiight 😂😂😂 good one

BC*

@@zzzzz77771 BCE is fine it means before common era

@@zzzzz77771 no

The nature of reality isn't all that relative, unless you go to the smallest scales, where quantum effects can't be ignored. In a more practical setting, and through the lens of human beings, it's our own interpretations of reality that "need to be taken into proper context". Catch my drift? Human beings are subjective and biased. Five people can witness a phenomenon and describe it accurately, yet with enough differences, that the nature of the event can sound very different from one person to the next. It's not so much reality itself that is flimsy by nature, but the human beings who occupy it.

@Uboa Thescreamer The problem with a lot of people is that they are very surface level in their thought structure. He says, "the devil is in the details" because thats the truth. You can't just look at your actions from the surface - you need to dig deep and understand the actual reason, emotional, physically, environmentally, and 100's of other variables as to why you are actually doing it. It's incredibly difficult to not only understand, but to express. You are a simpleton, which a lot of people are...so dont feel bad. But try to actual listen to this guy and understand why he is saying what he is saying.

Ricky Mason how unbelievably arrogant. “You’re a simpleton”. Only in a RU-vid comment would someone talk to someone like that. If you were standing in front of him you’d never talk like that. That “simpleton” would most likely put you on your arrogant little ass.

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZDLvDj-iTjI.html

Couldn’t agree more. I have a degree in philosophy, and honestly, “context is king”. It’s so crucial. The problem with discussions today is precisely the lack of properly appreciating context.

4

That's something like this book I've been reading about , not saying you're wrong , just I don't agree

I'll say it, you're reading the wrong book.

2020 has joined the chat

@@frankjeager9043 lol

Do you still have faith?

Chance of the gaps worshiping religion of atheism has all the magical unicorn powers necessary to create a universe, galaxies, planets, stars, self-replication, ribosomes, eyes, ears, brains, intelligence and consciousness. You better believe it, else you’re just a “dumb religious person”.,,,,,,.,.,.,.

Best comment amid all of this name-calling in the comments.

Holy shit this comment is good. Should be top comment

well done

And that common narrative based on a metaphysic is.... Truth=Perception Perception = Logic + Knowledge + Honor Work on your perception; hone it, sharpen it with vigor and sagacity, through these three principles. You have your senses and your emotions to guide you. You have the power to choose. The Truth shall set you free Non-truth will not Choose Truth That's it. Good Luck. Our power is choice. To choose a path to Truth or a path to non-truth, it is constant. You live in a constant state of 'choice'. You choose every moment of every day. That doesn't mean you choose what that moment will be, it means you choose to continue. To continue your existence. Your existence on the path it is on, or to start a down a different, new path. Every decision we make is for progress on our path. And, again, every moment is decided and is also the birth of new decisions to make. This is your power, the power of choose. Choose to seek Knowledge, your senses are for this purpose. First, define and understand the principle of Knowledge, what it is and what it is not. So you will recognize it. Emotionally this requires a focus on the guide of 'love' and eliminating it's opponent, the guide 'indifference'. This is your choice. This is the physical and the first awareness of self. It is awareness of the 'I'. Choose to use Logic. First define and understand the principle of Logic, what it is and what it is not. So you will recognize it. Use Logic to organize, employ and preserve your Knowledge.Your reason is for this purpose. Logic is a prophet, and powerful creator. Emotionally this requires a focus on the guide of "?". And the elimination of it's opposite, '?'. This is your choice. This is the balance and the second awareness of the self. Awareness of the 'you'. Choose to Honor the insight brought to you by the principles of Knowledge and Logic. First, define and understand the principle of Honor, what it is and what it is not. So you will recognize it. Emotionally this requires a focus on the guide of 'courage' and the elimination of 'fear'. This is your choice.This is the metaphysical and the third awareness of 'self'. Awareness of the 'us'. Choose a path that follows the three principles. A path away from the dark, away from a place where you wander and are not aware of your 'self', a place where fear and indifference influence your choices and lead you away from Perceiving Truth, and leave you with Perception of non-truth. The three principles of Perception: Knowledge, Logic & Honor are choices you make. You choose what you Perceive. The choices you make WILL form your Perception. Indifference, Illogic & Dishonor will lead you to the dark. Knowledge, Logic & Honor will lead you to Truth..... and the Truth shall set you free. Peace to All

Bravo!

Yes! I totally agree! Each has something the other lacks, although, temperamentally I gravitate towards Harris. I was ready to reject Peterson after his first podcast with Harris, but I persevered, and I’m glad I did.

Same

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - The story of JP life.

Nascentes Morimur That philosophy is fundamentally flawed, not every idea can be summarized concisely in 20 words or less, it is arrogant to think that you can summarize human morality and the entirety of human history in a short sentence. This is why we have higher learning, once we master the basic concepts, we move on to the advanced ones, most people never even master the basics sadly.

@@RolfeSenpai _" not every idea can be summarized concisely in 20 words or less, it is arrogant to think that you can summarize human morality and the entirety of human history in a short sentence."_ Human morality is the aggregate of individual and group heuristics that govern both intra- and inter-species co-habitation. *18 words.* Human history is the entirety of recorded human activity. *9 words* *I guess I'm arrogant, then!* If you were expecting a detailed break-down and analysis, then that's moving the goalposts even further. I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I honestly can't think of *any* concept that cannot be explained simply if sufficiently well understood, so without any examples of _any_ such concepts, I don't see the philosophy is flawed, though there may be exceptions to it that don't apply equally well. Though I will acknowledge a caveat of sorts; some people are truly terrible at explaining things, especially if they're unable to think from the point of view of somebody with less expertise than they have. So, practically, some people can't explain simply because they're crap at explaining things. But I think we're discussing the philosophy or general principle here, rather than the practical, individual case. _"This is why we have higher learning, once we master the basic concepts, we move on to the advanced ones, most people never even master the basics sadly."_ Precisely! That's why we build concepts, jargon, and encapsulate complex ideas into simple descriptors. And once we understand something well enough, we move on, and with sufficient mastery can explain it simply. Of course, what does _"simply"_ mean? I could say, _"'written' is the past participle of 'write'," and it's a simple, elegant explanation. By understanding grammar sufficiently, I can provide a concise explanation using jargon. But it's not simple in the sense of being able to be understood by a non-expert. To explain _anything_ requires a common understanding, and therefore would require explaining how tenses work in English (and therefore much of western culture), and how a past participle *actually is* in relation to that understanding of tense. A layman, who most likely has forgotten the rules of grammar they learned in school, and has never really considered the complexity of the tenses they use on a daily basis, almost certainly lacks the ability to effectively explain such a concept easily to somebody whose native language is not English, especially so if their language has different tenses. So, despite using tenses regularly, such a layman doesn't _understand_ tenses particularly deeply, just as a driver doesn't necessarily understand the mechanical operation of the car they drive. How does a person become better able to explain tenses? They go and study up, learn what tenses _truly_ represent at a conceptual and grammatical level, and unless they're highly deficient communicators, they should be able to explain it in a fairly simple manner (even if the concept is so foreign and difficult that the learner takes time to digest). That's my perspective, at least. I'm always open to discussion, to new information, and to being shown I'm wrong.