Israel vs Palestine - Jordan Peterson vs Sam Harris

#samharris #jordanpeterson #jordanpetersondaily #jordanpetersonquotes #jordanpetersondebate #jordanpetersonshorts #bretweinstein #israel #palestine #war #israelites #palestine_tv #hamasattack
Full discussion here: • Jordan Peterson vs Sam...

[@Pangburn]

We gave away 8000 meals this Christmas 😊 Here is the video kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZWUgqltdt-oeNksi=VBwdhN2tbt-DSQvw

[@ShonMardani]

Palestine is a Farsi word/name "پا و دستان - paa-va-dastan" which means legs and hands for work building homes. Disciple is "دست [و] پا دار - dast-o-paadar" which means "having [skilled] hands and legs".Cross/Christ is "کار است - kaar-ast" which means "It is the work [which determines the ownership of a home, the one who built it]. At that time everyone except a few who claimed the ownership of all lands and water passed to them by their ancestors, everybody else were homeless, trespassers and slaves to the landlord. Palestinians were the workers who helped Eesa Messiah (Jesus) build homes using wood in the form of Cross as the joints of the structure making permanent residence. Disciples were the skilled worker/foreman.

[@dylanmcdonald7128]

Legend has it they still haven’t reached a conclusion with a single point and are still breaking down each other’s sentences word for word.

[@CodyAdams-pf9un]

Seriously though. "No No No Where does your value that people should be rational come from? That's a subjective statement and I want to dive really deep into why making intelligent decisions is better than making stupid ones because that's not an objective truth we can physically see." That is considered irrational behavior in economics. Peterson is just clueless about basic econ terms (science of how we value things and make decisions)

[@bleiglanz]

'That depends on your definition of the term, 'to define'.' I guess that's what happens if there is too much IQ on one stage, let alone ego 😉

[@isaacnaim7206]

ahahahhaahhahaa

[@misanthrophex]

this. Jesus, they have became the masturbators of logos...

[@harlowwilcoks2958]

😂😂😂😂omg!!

[@davidkennedy6184]

My wife and I had a debate exactly like this last night about whether or not to put the heating on.

[@Pezerinno]

😂😂 Stay strong my man

[@davidkennedy6184]

I appreciate the support my friend. 😁

[@micmoniker6449]

Next time if she’s wearing a burka you win but sans burka you must concede

[@user-pq7jj3vs3e]

Just remember that you are a bumbling male brained idioto and just ascent to her point of view because she is a strong, smart insightful woman. Rinse and repeat. Then you die

[@nolanbooker5461]

Turning the heat on or off is not the problem; it's who has control of the thermostat.....lol. You can do as I did and install a second dummy thermostat but I must state, I'm not responsible for any repercussions if you're caught.

[@timbotfield7178]

Don’t over think it lads

[@Pangburn]

Full discussion here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmewmWB_Zsqmq9ksi=EB_NiOjtSRIbafdh

[@kevbro2]

Iff?

[@bigniftydude]

​@@kevbro2if and only if

[@kevbro2]

@bigniftydude if or only if?

[@Rick-bi9fw]

Why does Sam constantly interrupt Jordan Peterson?

[@Rick-bi9fw]

Sam is Satan. Human embodiment of Satan.

[@clintonarneson226]

I deeply wish Christopher were still with us.

[@Greetingsearthling22]

I deeply wish too.

[@waynedurning8717]

He wouldn’t fair well against Peterson.

[@gravelpit5680]

​@waynedurning8717 Hitch would bury Peterson. Hitch was so smart, sometimes I'm amazed he was human... the way he spoke bro, it's like carefully thought out essays just spew from his mouth off the cuff WITH citations. lol.

[@waynedurning8717]

@@gravelpit5680 I’ve watched plenty of Hitch and I’m afraid you’re wrong. He was smart he was not Jordan Peterson smart.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

@@waynedurning8717Peterson’s handler told him never to appear on a stage with Dillahunty again as Peterson was embarrassingly disemboweled.

[@enterone801]

Listening to these guys is a lesson in how to make a 100 page book report be 1000 words.

[@spewter]

Nice try 😂

[@elonmusk4627]

exactly. So unnecessary

[@JohnJohnson-df5yd]

It's because they're all sophists.

[@Goobypls6969_]

@@elonmusk4627they were saying that they are good at packaging a lot of information with every sentence. Not that they’re rambling.

[@GumbyTheGreen1]

It’s not clear what you’re trying to say (partly because you’re mixing two different units of verbosity - pages and words). Are you saying that they’re good at condensing 100 pages down to 2 pages?

[@GrimKage]

It's in the dominance hierarchy of values that's been socially constructed around the guitar is the most Jordan Peterson thing that Jordan Peterson has ever said

[@fk020741]

Which is true. Elvis is at the top or close to the top of a hierarchy, and that's what makes it valuable.

[@Weeee439]

Idk… I didn’t hear anything about metaphorical substrates and presuppositions, it could get more Jordan Peterson.

[@nmnm6057]

Malcolm X said "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent.” Media has the power to influence minds, ideas, behaviors, and attitudes of the masses.

[@waynedurning8717]

Amen

[@teshkuti1722]

" You have to be careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing" Malcolm X@@waynedurning8717

[@JMRM1410]

So sick of seeing people using this quote. Yawn.

[@teshkuti1722]

@@JMRM1410 why ? Would you care to enlighten us?

[@KarinHauenstein]

So---are you saying "media" is an "authority" and they are always correct in their promotion and attention, their commentary and their scorn? Media has been wielding a lot of scorn lately...

[@dogmoo]

Ben Stiller dropping knowledge!

[@illuvinomics]

He called ppl that subjectively value stuff dumb and they should value the universe. And Jordan asked what it’s grounded in? Well…. It’s valued in subjectivity which is a contradiction.

[@ultravioletzombie]

Lol

[@julesmpc1314]

Interrupting non stop... Affgg

[@dowhatsright4429]

Ben stiller dropping bullshit. As usual.

[@adamc436]

⁠​⁠@@illuvinomics Sam’s epistemic political positions flip all of his own arguments against him. I’ve seen him speak in person and he’s had a struggle with dissonance and paradox on so many of his positions for many years. Instead of reconciling, integrating, or deliberating on contradictions that his friends level at him, he becomes dismissive and indignant. It’s crazy, my debate team went to one of his events over a decade ago and we asked him to build an argument against the risks of relativism and he responded in a hamfisted way. Regardless, I still like him.

[@magnets1000]

Right at the end Sam says: "that passion for land doesn't characterise most of humanity". Except it does, it's why people have fought wars for their country. It's why countries spend money on their courts and military to defend principles and land. It's partly why the west is funding the war in ukraine to their own financial detriment

[@pirtdirksen7318]

This is a fact. There’s quite a lot of archaeological evidence that supports this. It’s as probable as Sam Harris liking the smell of his own farts.

[@TheHighlanderprime]

He said humanity, not leaderships of humanity. In that case, he’s correct. leaderships, specially the less civilized ones of the past, are more obsessed with conquest and power, not humanity.

[@dominater5]

​@@TheHighlanderprimehome ownership and land ownership are hugely valued by most people

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@TheHighlanderprime Give me your stuff then.

[@pancakedrama]

@@dominater5in modern times yes, but historically and biologically it doesn’t seem so.

[@Randybutternubz]

Both of them are like a 15 minute unskippable cutscene in a video game when asking a yes or no question.

[@johannesdippenaar5087]

Harris didn't give JP time to finish his argument.

[@johns7530]

He doesn't usually allow people to finish their arguments. Unless they are in complete agreement with him. He has that unlikeable quality that he believes he is right about everything.

[@johns7530]

@@kafkachekhov Nonsense. People who are public figures who engage in a lot of discussions can be observed. Some people who are very bright are quite arrogant, others are much more humble. People who are objective and leave room for being wrong, and allow their beliefs to change and evolve tend to learn more about what is actually true than people who think they are always right, and never leave room to change what they believe. I've seen enough of Sam to form the opinion that he is quite arrogant. My opinion, you are entitled to yours. Cheers.

[@johnlowe3050]

Seems winning was the most important thing here....

[@judegraham463]

I think what they're trying to say is that 'people have an emotional connection to things'.

[@edwardburroughs1489]

And that value is subjective. Which, if I may add, is why Marxists happen to be wrong about everything since they try to objectively value stuff.

[@Pangburn]

ISLAM is the problem in ISRAEL kzbin.info/www/bejne/gau9oIubbpqAracsi=F4mE23ZLDhz_JbJL

[@codyluna7065]

I really thought this channel was dedicated to honesty intellectual debate despite having so man alt-right figures on stage but now i realize this page is actually pretty shitty to frame this debate as Islam having any real reason to be mentioned. Zionism is responsible for the colonizer state of Israel. Islam has nothing to do with the struggle this is a land dispute. The only reason religion even enters into the debate is because the Zionists argue their divine right to the land. If any religion is responsible for the situation in Israel it is the Jews and Christians who are zionists. Our own government pointed this out in 1948. Jews were engaged in terror on the Arabs. At one point the Zionist terror groups were only stopped in their massacre of peaceful Arabs by the ultra orthodox Jews who had been living in peace with the Arabs up until the Zionists engaged in terror upon the Arab community.

[@salahali9793]

Isreal is the problem in the world

[@Friend-eb8st]

Zionism is the problem in the Middle East

[@AndreiSilvester]

Religious far-right Jewish extremists Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir are by far a bigger problem for Israel.

[@mohammedhussein8476]

Solution: Take your Zionist brethren back to Europe. Problem solved.

[@randomaccess4446]

Imagine if the rest of us could have conversations like this about subjects such as this.

[@chadalpha7983]

You're right, thank God I could never be as stupid or valid as either of these goofs

[@stephtimms1776]

@@chadalpha7983 It is ignorant... God was here, is here, and he gave that land to Israel over 3,000 years ago It was all recorded and accepted, that's why it's a country called Israel.

[@SupernovaLY]

@@stephtimms1776 1 who was there before this alleged contract

[@SupernovaLY]

@@stephtimms1776 2 Do Jews believe in Jesus now, since they only have the right to have their alleged country after the messiah shows up ONLY

[@574130]

I start off just like this with my cat, but it never keeps up.

[@SteveEwe]

"We're about to fight over Elton John's glass, and Elton John was never here."

[@memoryboy]

Great line

[@SecretComedian]

😂😂😂 hilariously put! 👍

[@redgrim7708]

Not much substance here 😂 The glass is the universe and there are fingerprints all over it. To disprove the existence of God one must also empirically rule it out. How can an ant rule out that it’s on a planet if it doesn’t have the mental faculties to discern a more complex reality. We are the ant using the limits of our capacity to prove the limits of reality.

[@Timeculture]

Doesn’t change the fact Elton John’s glasses is Elton John’s glasses

[@BertWald-wp9pz]

I sometimes imagine how it would be if there was a sort of universal amnesia. Then I reflect on some work of lost art found in a person’s attack or even painted over because it was considered only valuable as a canvas. Then look at disagreements where records are thin, past temperatures deducted from tree rings, denigration of past civilisations that left more records over ones that had no records. Into the void interpretation leaps to find meaning, to attribute importance and relevance to the present. I suspect the outcome would still be conflict. We tend to de-humanise opposition by self righteous indignation. I cannot think of any National partition that was not problematic, Cyprus, Ireland, India/Parkistan, Vietnam, Germany and the solutions vary according to circumstance. Sometimes it may be the best compromise from a bad deal. When the music stops someone always ends up with the empty chair.

[@x0rn312]

The one problem with Sam's argument, and I very much agree with him in a lot of ways, but the one problem is I don't think that israeli-palestinian conflict would go away even if you made religion disappear tomorrow. I think the land dispute is just as serious as the religious dispute. I agree that if people stopped making it a religious and ethnic issue a peace might be more realistic, but I'm not convinced that people just become peaceful and rational when you get rid of religion.

[@123habsi]

Huh? Ww 1 2 and cold war has nothing to do with religion yet those wars surpasses every religious wars

[@infinitecrayons]

I agree. It might have helped with the problem not existing in the first place if religion never had, but there's so much history there not just from a religious standpoint but as individuals and their direct families and friends that has nothing to do with religion. Their personal experiences are important just like our own would be if someone was threatening our homes

[@frenchresearcherfrantz4290]

"I think the land dispute is just as serious as the religious dispute." Actually, this simply a territorial dispute. The religious element is a late addition in the game, and essentially the responsability of Israel, who promoted Hamas (an Islamic group) and curtailed the PLO (a secular organization), who had signed the Oslo agreement while Hamas did not. So Israel created Hamas and put them in power, because Hamas did not want to negotiate with Israel, which was absolutely fine with Israeli hard-liners who did not want to negotiate in the first place. Remember Rabin, who signed the Oslo accord for Israel, was soon after assassinated by an extremist Jew The rationale was as follows; "Let's paint this conflict in religious overtones and take advantage of the West hostility towards Islam, so that they can support us without any questions." Now look where we are now....

[@6ixStringStudio]

Of all the documented wars in history, only 6% were over religious reasons.

[@tommoore3292]

​@@123habsi well its the constant land grabbing that is the issue and you know it

[@TheMasonator777]

Sam really threw his argument under a bus by saying that most of humanity doesn’t have a passion for ownership and propagation.

[@mattblack118]

Sam threw his entire integrity under the bus by stating law breaking and suspension of basic civil rights is justified as long as it's done for reasons Sam believes in.

[@Cyril29a]

Ya... he is a fascist. He knows best because he says so @@mattblack118

[@lkae4]

@@mattblack118The activist moral landscape is truly horrific.

[@tiromandal6399]

​@@mattblack118 Sam cares more about the bacteria in his toilet than whatever the ten millionth random liar on the internet is saying about him.

[@mattblack118]

​@@tiromandal6399 Nobody lied. Harris laid it all out in his Triggernometry interview. The fact that leftist morons cheer on his Machiavellianism is further reason not to trust him. PS: I doubt Sam cares that much about bacteria or humans.

[@frenzy1111]

The problem with this debate is that both Harris and Peterson will pick over each other's words so much, they get distracted from the point they are trying to make. They interrupt to argue something that is merely incidental making the actual positions appear as mere noise amongst an explosion of ontologies, epistemologies and other stances that can be either assumed by the listener or are irrelevant. It can certainly be argued that this is done on purpose so they can sound smarter than they are.

[@The_ScapeGoat]

What a reflexive comment. Bravo!

[@andrewparke1764]

They have to because a fruitful debate must first establish definitions. Human language is crude and imprecise, so definitions have to be established at pretty much every turn so as to mitigate misunderstandings and mistaken assumptions.

[@TheHighlanderprime]

I caught Peterson doing that more so than Sam; it’s a sign that winning his argument is more important to him; so he’ll nitpick and cherry pic to win points that may not be relevant to the bigger point.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

I don't agree. Peterson picks apart Sam's words. Sam just asserts something to be true. That his way is just obviously rational, his way is objectively moral, anybody who disagrees is silly and should just do what he says.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@TheHighlanderprime You win an argument by reaching the truth mate. You are suggesting one shouldn't be truthful and accurate in one's words? Sam absolutely is required to define what he means, or how he comes to the conclusion that he is more moral or rational than the rest of us.

[@robbiehoen]

A discussion between Jordan and Sam sounds the same as the ongoing discussion between my right and left hemispheres.

[@BobSTK]

In that case... it's safe to say 1/2 of your brain is dysfunctional.

[@dannigilbert3018]

😂😂😂 this is the the most relatable thing that’s ever been said

[@dannigilbert3018]

THEN, you tell them both to shattapp only to realise you are shouting at your own brain.

[@TheDeconstructivist]

Honestly, A+ analysis.

[@user-vt5ru5bo3h]

Two zionists and 1 zionist puppet.

[@azizella782]

I like how he interrupts Mr Peterson. Like can u let him speak ?

[@angeloeliopoulos2317]

Peterson obfuscating while Harris tries to be clear. Sophisticated mental gymnast.

[@elijahstevenson1726]

This is a spar between two men’s linguistic ability not a debate on Israel and Palestine

[@joemurphy4517]

Sam, Bret & JP should have another debate currently 10-13-23. It would be great considering that a religious war is unfolding on holy lands.

[@laertesindeed]

It's not a holy war from the perspective of Israel.... it's only a holy war from the perspective of the religious muslim terrorists.

[@emwsaid]

religious war & holy lands, these two expressions are so sad :( So we all admit that if the land wasn't holy the war if happened would be called something else. What if the holiness of it is in fact is just an excuse because it's so rooted despite its destructive history, that it makes it the perfect tool?

[@cpfarms8994]

Sam has lost his mind so that probably won't happen

[@geneharrogate6911]

@@cpfarms8994 A covid obsessed conspiracy theorist and a psychologist who seems to cry all the time? And _Harris_ has lost his mind?

[@laertesindeed]

@@emwsaid The grammar of your comment makes it difficult to discern what you were trying to say.

[@suketudanke9897]

What Bret Weinstein has said in the end is really very important for the humanists to understand

[@fiat2496]

This should be titled "three zionists pretend to hold a debate"

[@Honeyflowerrr]

Exactly

[@philwinthrop215]

Talking about compromise is nice and all, but let's keep in mind that one side is not willing to accept ANY compromise (just look at the history of negotiations, as well as their current and past marketing campaigns) and simply wants the total annihilation of the other. I think everyone understands which side is which.

[@Amal.9410]

For people who don’t get it. israel is the terrorist state that isn’t willing to admit to its atrocities and unify the original land owners with the new colonizers

[@veralium29]

Who, Israel?

[@abdelazizzohri3207]

You certainly mean Israel.

[@codyluna7065]

Tell me when Israel has ever ceded any territory? Arabs have given away quite a lot of theirs...who can't accept any compromise again?

[@Sara-vq7mi]

someone occupies your house and you want to negotiate over what parts you can own? why? you had full authority over it didnt you, even if that man lived there prior.

[@danstewart3354]

Wow what a line "we are about to fight over Elton John's glass but Elton John was never here".

[@andradas9688]

9:23 i was about to extract and pinpoint the exact time Harris delivers this incredible phrase! It sums up pretty much everything as far as the history of religion goes.

[@laertesindeed]

The only problem with that fictional joke by Sam Harris is that....... Israel was a real place with real jews living there centuries before Caesar and none of it relies upon any supernatural legends. So you'd have to say it was Elton John's glass and here is the receipt for when Elton John bought the glass, and an inventory Elton John submitted to his insurance company to specifiy what in his home would be covered in the event of a fire, and here are some pictures of Elton John having used the glass multiple times over multiple years. At that point, it is irrelevant if Elton John is here or not, the glass belonged to him.

[@goatneck]

​@@laertesindeedthe analogy refers to the fact that no God ever gave any land to anyone

[@laertesindeed]

@@goatneck Read my previous comment again.... and then read it again, and continue reading it until you realize and admit your error.

[@zadenwachter9918]

Sam gave a zinger there which was a cheap rhetorical trick that served red meat to his crowd. But it didn't meaningfully contribute to the dialogue for many reasons, not the least being because if the two highest bidders believe it's Elton John's glass and a lower bidder (or worse, a disinterested member of the peanut gallery) is shouting from the rooftops that Elton John was never even here, that input will probably do nothing but earn him the status of ignorant heckler and his further utterances will be tainted by that blunder (meaning everyone who believes it was Elton John's glass will downgrade the value of the ignorant heckler's input on this and likely all future topics on which he comments). There is a much, much, much more straightforward path to victory for rationalists than the endless rhetorical games. All they need is to do is devote serious effort to defining God in rational terms which have enough practical overlap with believers/theists that this new definition gains traction among the religious community. Instead of ridiculing people for believing in a bearded guy in the sky, try to build a bridge to connect theists and atheists on this central facet of their ongoing disagreement. Define God in terms like these three were attempting in this clip, using lenses like behavioral impact of belief vs. non-belief. If Sam had devoted 1/4 of the energy to that which he has devoted these last few decades to poking holes in religion, he might have already finished the bridge.

[@fieldagent59isintheforest32]

Sam feels the need to dominate the conversation by talking most of the time and not letting Jordan get a complete thought out.....

[@MrElectricSkittles]

Think about this.. if 2 of the better articulated thinkers of our generation take this long to not come to an agreement.. what hope is there for Jerusalem

[@Adeus1]

I think we'd have to agree that these two are "the two better articulated thinkers of our time" first. Sam's objective truths springing to life by fallacy of negative evidence or as he calls it, subjective truths, is a bunch of mumbojumbo. We are all familiar with the paradox of proving a negative.

[@MillieMe05]

I always thought Sam Harris was rational, until I listened to him on Covid. Listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris demonstrates how intelligent people can be led astray by their supreme confidence that they are intelligent and therefore right. Both of these intellectuals made absolute fools of themselves on Covid. It was fascinating to watch.

[@longmustache550]

The irony of this comment. Its almost art

[@hypno5690]

I'm proud to be part of a comment section that is so peaceful and harmonious. Refreshing to see discourse that doesn't take sides or disparage people and ideas that they disagree with! :)

[@markythelarky6948]

The video was uploaded a few hours ago. Give it a minute, the trolls will come.

[@jamesclerk815]

@@markythelarky6948 Hahaha literally about to say the same thing ... give it time.

[@stonepaintertim]

I agree, it is optimistic

[@user-ze1nm8pw4f]

Did you just call me the N word?

[@FromRootsToRadicals]

Agree

[@divernathan]

I’m convinced these dudes get paid per word.

[@johns7530]

I mean I respect Jordan and Bret, but of the many discussions they've had with many people, they said a lot less that was meaningful here than anything else I have seen or recall.

[@jahazielhernandez8746]

​@@johns7530 really? You respect Jordan who claims to know better than the entire climate science consensus?

[@johns7530]

@@jahazielhernandez8746 You can take any person that you respect, and if you listen to them long enough, you will find things they say that you don't agree with. Literally, no two human beings share the same views about everything. I just said I respect him, not that I agree with him on everything. He sounds constructive, thoughtful, and well meaning most of the time. It is obvious that he tries to help people and undoubtedly has. He tells people to be thoughtful, kind, assertive, take responsibility for themselves, and to not just think selfishly. I don't see where anybody should have a major problem with him, he is anti establishment, talks intelligently about a variety of topics, and is and basically a good dude. You are entitled to believe whatever you like, and I could care less what that is.

[@jahazielhernandez8746]

@@johns7530 you clearly care if you're willing to respond with a paragraph. Peterson is a failed clinical psychologist who carelessly talks on subjects he never studied. Just thought you should be aware

[@SpaceCattttt]

The issue I have with Sam Harris regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, is that not only does he simplify things by saying "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if they could just be friends?" but he actively refuses to accept the inhumane mistreatment of the Palestine people by the Israeli government for the past 60 years. He takes the easy route by blaming it all on jihad and fundamentalist Muslims, while never once recognizing the true impact of history. He's playing cowboys and Indians, and the real world is a bit more complex than that.

[@planewire2153]

This was like my encyclopedia having a debate with the thesaurus

[@-RandomBiz-]

My English teacher in college gave a simple yet powerful lesson on language. " I arose from my current position of rest and ambulated to the locus of foodstuffs." OR "I got out of my chair and went to the grocery store." As a teacher myself, I know that my main job isn't just to relay information. It's to create understanding. If I find that I am responsible for creating a misunderstanding then I'm not doing my job and I need to work to get us to a point of understanding. Bad teachers want to make you scratch your head and think that you can't grasp this. Those are the worst teachers on the history of the planet. They're not helping you. They're just perpetuating a class system of snobbery.

[@the_northface]

wish i had a teacher like yourself. regardless of subject.

[@-RandomBiz-]

@@the_northface That's really kind of you to say. I teach music.

[@-RandomBiz-]

@@krakal You're either on a path to creating and maintaining understanding to establish truth, or you're looking to create your own truth to evade reality. Religion creates its own "truth" to evade reality.

[@waynedurning8717]

Bravo. (If you're talking about Sam lol) If you're talking about Jordan you got it wrong.

[@-RandomBiz-]

@@waynedurning8717 I got it exactly right by talking about Jordan Peterson.

[@ScottIsBetterThanYou]

This debate has a good point on how to address a fact. Fact = True. Personal experiences do not change a fact. How a person emotionally feels about a fact should not expect others to agree based on obligation or social acceptance.

[@manuellopes3690]

Thank you! Well said.

[@davidfettig8885]

Sam seems to agree with this statement when it applies to atheism. However when this applies to 1st century Christianity he doesn’t agree

[@williambarnes3021]

How would you address a sentence like "What you said to me was rude." Is that ever a fact? Seems if it is, it can ONLY depend on how someone feels about it.

[@lottielane2486]

​@@williambarnes3021Don't we recognise some words are ,rude,. EG. F..k off. ? Or is ALL language subjective. And if it IS, that makes communication nigh on impossible.

[@williambarnes3021]

@@lottielane2486 Yes my point is, in response to OP, is that, in a theoretical sense, truth CAN be in the eye of the beholder. I could say "F off" with a smile and meaning it almost ironically. You could think it is rude and be emotionally affected by it. Even though it wasn't my intent, you still reacted as if it were rude. Was it truely rude? To you, yes. But would be the "fact" that OP cited?

[@Coachteach]

Is there a video of this whole session somewhere?

[@masea2]

It’s not about the land. It’s about the spread of Islam.

[@adrianbelcourt9640]

I have struggled with Sam Harris, because he seems to have the answer for everything. And he just isn’t that smart. Which then tells me he’s incredibly arrogant which to me makes him very dangerous. What I respect about Jordan Peterson is that he continues to inquire and ask more questions and ask more questions which to me is the sign of his intelligence. He doesn’t believe he knows everything which makes him safe. Sorry Sam you’re a tough pill to swallow

[@freeeedommmm]

Jordan has an inflated ego. He so desperately tries to appear greater than he actually is. He should have stuck to being a professor and a psychologist. He has no place here. He doesn't even belong here. I was a huge fan of his work for years and then I saw what he has become. He is comical at best now, not to be taken seriously and those that do, are blind AF and/or didn't have a great father figure in their life. I bet you call Jordan your daddy.

[@user-dc3zr5mi5l]

well said. a little humility wouldn't kill Harris

[@AndreasFroehliPoker]

Nailed it

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

Well that was the whole issue with the discussion, Sam's arrogance. You have side 1 (the Jews) saying I'm objectively right, you have side 2 (the Palestinians) saying I'm objectively right. You have both sides saying to the other that facts don't care about your feelings. Then you have Sam saying you're both irrational, I'm right, my facts don't care about your feelings. If everybody just did what I say the world would be peaceful. So then we're stuck with listening to Peterson on repeat trying to get Sam to explain what his assertions are 'grounded in'. Sam does not know how to interface with the real world. Even if you were objectively correct, the other side will never see it that way. The only way to get away with negotiating with someone by saying all of my concerns are valid and none of your concerns are valid is by destroying them through warfare. He believes he has the answer to peace, but realistically, narcissists like him are why war is inevitable.

[@Par2Go]

The sentimental attachement for land isn’t present only for people who sit comfort and talk about war. I would like to know how this brilliant philosopher would react if his city was invaded, his house brunt, his family killed in front of his eyes. Would it be irrational to have a sentiment?

[@Daubentonia88]

When did this convo happened?

[@adimetrius]

So shortsighted on Sam's side to think that this conflict is about land...

[@magichobbiest3425]

Everyone thinks it's about land. I think it might have an antisemitic basis or religious one

[@neoepicurean3772]

The problem with Sam is that he brushes aside all the problems that philosophers have been wrestling with for 3000 years, and just states that we are now at a point where our rationality can lead us to the good. But at the same time Sam denies any sort of moral realism, as that would be a little too close to a religious position for his liking. What Jordan is trying to point out is that our current view has been informed by climbing a ladder formed by all sorts of beliefs and practices, shaped by social interactions and evolutionary forces, many of which can be seen as irrational or not arrival-able at through rationality. So Sam gets into a circular argument: what is the good? What rationality tells us it is. Why should we trust rationality? Because it shows us the good. It's far from clear that we can kick away our 'irrational' ladder and maintain the view which Sam seems to suggest we would.

[@johannlop1076]

Yeah, that’s not at all what Sam is saying. lol watch the video again. Sam understands the beliefs and forces that have shaped society, he also understands the importance of stories and tradition and even irracional thinking which were useful in the past. His entire point is that, now that we have an updated version of that (reason) there’s no need to believe in magic coming from above.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

exactly

[@MrDavital1]

He’s literally written a book to make the point that there are moral truths 😂 If he’s not a moral realist who is?

[@roggy207]

Don’t think Sam would have an issue with crediting religions contribution to human progress, though suspect he may disagree with you on the weighting of it. but that’s like saying we wouldn’t have been able to do brain surgery if we hadn’t first experimented with blood letting in Ancient Greece. Perhaps not but it doesn’t make blood letting a valuable practise nor should we waste any time on it at the neurosurgery conference

[@daniel1RM]

Hes a moral realist xd

[@mohamedhashish6616]

The scary thing about intellectuals is most of them analyze a situation based on theories and what ifs and not a reality of a person living their life with legitimate circumstance that actually deserves compassion and empathy. Most intellectuals also don’t know how to feel real emotions.

[@BrennFilm]

"But Elton John was never here" cracked me up.

[@johnnyxmusic]

That was brilliant… That’s why sometimes I think the Israeli Palestinian conflict is to fictions fighting each other. Which is terribly cynical and dismissive. I mean you could go back and blame the God of the Old Testament, who told the followers of Abraham they can go in and have the land of the Canaanites. But how can you argue with God?

[@juanchitaro5380]

I think there's a disagreement regarding what is the greater motivation for action for people. Sam seems to think hunger and thirst (needs that must be satisfied for the continuation of life, therefore a reasonable priority) will be a more powerful motivation than the idea that a sacred thing will be desecrated and no one is doing something to stop it. I think people will withstand hunger and pain if the thing at stake is close enough to their heart.

[@katja6332]

That's exactly what he didn't say, listen again.

[@juanchitaro5380]

@@katja6332 I will. But he often speaks of an objective standards (a supposedly most reasonable standard) that people are prevented from adopting because of their damn primitive attachments to history, religion and the sacred. I just think he doesn't give enough credit to those things, narratives, that people create and place above their immediate material needs. I'll watch it again though. Just to make sure 👍🏻

[@juanchitaro5380]

​@@katja6332I'm still re-watching, but I wanted to point something around the 4:50 min mark. He said "you have a domain of sacred values where otherwise rational people cease to be rational". The thing that stands out in a conversation like this is the use of the word "rational", because that term needs to have it's boundaries defined. Jordan challenged it and I think he was right to say so. What I meant is that he thinks that it is irrational to reject an agreement that would bring about peace and cease suffering in favor of war in the defense of sacred religious beliefs. And I agree that it is hard to relate when the thing in question is irrelevant to you, but what about an example more close to home? The example I would point to is the infamous Sam Harris Trigernometry interview: Sam believes American democracy is facing an existential threat in the form of a new Donald Trump presidency. Sam wouldn't say he worships American democracy, but it is clearly VERY important to him, personally. Why do I say thay? Because an otherwise rational, intellectually honest and ethical man like Sam said he doesn't care if the other candidate has a son who hides dead bodies in his basement, he would support a conspiracy to hide that information from the public, ensuring it doesn't influence the result of the election, so long as Trump is not elected for another 4 years. When Sam feels something truly sacred is under threat, his morals loosen (very human reaction, I don't meant to suggest it isn't). So maybe he should understand why people who think the most sacred of things are at stake are willing to forgo peace in favor of what they hold sacred. Suddenly the term "reasonable" isn't specific enough to describe the matter in question. (please don't take this as justification for anything that is done in the middle east conflict. I'm just saying that we shouldn't act as if we are aliens who can't understand the motivations involved. I don't support fanatisms, ever). I'll keep watching, but I thought this was a good example to illustrate the point. Haha I'm traveling right now, so I have plenty of time.

[@juanchitaro5380]

@@katja6332 I just finished re-watching. Peterson later points out how loaded the adjective "reasonable" is. And I do understand what that Sam means to do is to challenge the religious hierarchy of values. And, to be honest, I do the same myself often enough (I might give an example later), but I think that he is way too dismissive of religious people's perspective, and that is the most unpersuasive approach to the issue. I think it's how Peterson says often enough: it's a hierarchy of values, and there lies the conflict. Often enough it is as Sam says: people care more about their next meal and their health than the status of sacred symbols. But even those people can take torches and pitchforks once their bellies are full, and they do, constantly. So the issue can't be solved by just offering a sweet, comfortable deal to everyone involved. Ideally, what must change is the hierarchy of values itself. I don't think you are going to convince people to abandon their religion and centuries worth of traditions, but perhaps they might change their mind about what is acceptable so long as unspeakable suffering can come to an end. Fanatics are not going to be persuaded though, that's a big obstacle. Going back to my previous example of Sam and the elections, that is for me a good example of why values not rooted in tradition and sacred practice have weaker roots. If you don't hold truth and integrity as religiously sacred, you can dispense with them at your convenience. And I don't mean to say that religious people aren't dishonest or lack integrity constantly. But they can be held to a standard that they can't refuse. That is why a priest, or the Pope himself, can intercede in a conflict and lecture catholics on their behavior. So religious people aren't inherently morally superior or anything like it, they just have a more established standard and they can't refuse it (lest they be judged in the afterlife). So religious traditions and narratives aren't so worthless as Sam suggests. Maybe no specific one is universally valuable, but they help people channel that human dimention that handles the highest of values (the sacred). It gives the relationship to the sacred order and norms (since there are many things one can get wrong in that realm of human thought). I just think that Sam acts as if these human principles don't apply to him or to "reasonable people", but I think they do. My example of challenging a religious hierarchy of values is that, in the case of christians (the only one's in my vicinity l), I suggest that is more important that people live by the Christian values they preach rather than have them believe in their sacred stories and icons. I think Jesus would find that acceptable, he was a humble man. However, those values may not withstand the passage of time without the traditions, texts, icons and rituals; so they shouldn't lose those either.

[@commodoor6549]

So you're speaking for all people? Would you mind quantifying that? Hunger, pain, thirst, etc., are hardwired into our collective instinct for survival, and it is well conserved in animal brains. Most christians wouldn't murder their children even if Jesus appeared on their doorstep and asked them to do so, and these same people claim to hold Jesus close to their hearts before all else. The instinct to protect their children is a powerful basic instinct, much like hunger and thirst. Anyway, I'm certain some religious extremists would agree with you, but most people, first and foremost, want to survive and want their loved ones to survive, and would not put politics and religion above that survival. Even a drowing Hamas member would grab the hand of an Israeli soldier to survive. Ultimately, if the Israelis and Palestinians can't come to a secular resolution, and put aside their differences, they will never find peaceful coexistence.

[@MrE517]

Sam just completely skirts the issue when Jordan asks him to ground his own ethical claims. Jordan is getting at the heart of the issue and Sam just reveals himself as a third religion condemning the other two.

[@RaymondOConnor911]

Its exactly the other way around. Listen carefully. 😂😂😂

[@VitorHugoP]

Sam tries to be as general as possible, because the moment he’s specific, he’s pointed to his contradiction. I loved on the comment above someone thinking it was ingenious when he said “Fighting for Elton Jons glass but Elton Jons wasn’t even here”, when in his own analogy he already states who’s glass it is from.

[@seletarroots3258]

Reducing the conflict between Israel and Palestine to one of religion is to display a significant lack of understanding the situation.

[@arikkatzenberg582]

Actually, it’s not. Islam is at war all over the world. Israel is only one front. The lack of awareness is on your side and it’s stupefying.

[@NickEinstein]

It’s more of a conflict of ethno-supremacy.

[@melchoriuz8116]

How complicated can you do a conversation … yes 😂

[@AntPictures]

That's rubbish and Sam Harris is thick when it comes to political problem solving. The question of land is an existential issue for all humans secular or religious. I'd like to see him settle for a house in Lithuania instead of a cosy Canadian village. I wonder if US citizens would had no problem sharing their country with 300 mln Indians because China decided so. This question is like nothing to do with religion. Religion is an icing on the cake. The elephant in the room is that there is an occupation going on which through the years evolved into extreme secularism.

[@setorious]

As an atheist, I can acknowledge the idea that the belief in a higher power could have provided relief and hope to the Jews in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Probably have prevented some individuals from succumbing to despair and taking their own lives. It demonstrates that sometimes, having a faith - even if it's not grounded in reality - can have tangible effects that make it appear rational to be irrational, especially if it reduces suffering and helps people endure such dire circumstances that some are forced to live in.

[@laertesindeed]

@setorious What Sam seems to never acknowledge..... is that the majority of ethnically Jewish people living in Israel are not valuing it because of religion. They are valuing it because that was the real, non-supernatural, historical home of their biological ancestors..... irrefutably, undeniably, absolutely. And it was "NOT" the home of the biological ancestors of muslim arabs that wandered into the region after the islamic conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries after Caesar that gave them financial incentives for colonizing it. There is not an equal claim on the land. As an atheist, I don't give a rat's behind about rabbis or temple priests or prophets. But I do care about the butchers and the bakers and the candlestick-makers that really did live there and have the nation on that territory as Jews. They have the same moral claim to that land as chinese people do for Beijing.

[@tekchamvikram3819]

EXACTLY , I USED TO BE AN ATHEIST, BUT I BELIEVE WHEN HUMAN MEETS THE WORST ATROCITY IN THEIR LIFE INFLICTED BY OTHER HUMAN, TO BELEIVE IN HUMAN RATIONALITY IS NOT WAY TO RECOVER FROM THE PAIN, INFLICTED ON US.RAPE,MURDER,TORTURE,STARVATION ETC BREAKS US. PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH THOSE HARD SITUTATION RELY ON GOD TO HEAL, IF NOT ALL BUT HAVING FAITH IN GOD MAKES IT EASIER TO HEAL

[@icedanilzation]

It's partly why Atheism/Agnosticism generally only appears in post-Darwinian era, modern developed/educated areas

[@cap997]

Bet as an athiest you're not even certain you exist.

[@jacklynch3333]

Read: man’s search for meaning”. Or at least google it

[@nirvanachile24]

Peterson hit the nail on the head when he asked Harris what the basis for that universal value structure is. In a purely materialist worldview, there is no such basis.

[@TruthDissident]

Certainly doesn't come from Christianity.

[@adameenhuizen934]

I doubt he's making a claim that only Christians are right i think religion in general is what he's getting at

[@maxsiehier]

Absolutely, and Sam's response to that was weak as fuck. This is the largest blind spot of most materialists and most modern people.

[@srinivasvedang4001]

Sam Harris replied to that very wisely. He said you don't have to say I am not going to get out of the bed unless I know what was there before Bigbang(paraphrase). We workout our problems with secular ethics while we figure out the universal value structure.

[@TheHighlanderprime]

That’s called civility. The common ground that we all share in the civilized world. Harris made a real life reference; whereas Peterson made a more philosophical one. I’m camp Harris on that one.

[@blackeyedturtle]

When contemplating Palestinian claims to the land there is a major disconnect most people do not consider, or are not aware of. The title Palestine is an English transliteration of Philistia, which was the homeland of the Philistines. There are no people alive today who claim a pedigree in relation to the ancient Philistines. The Palestinians not only do not claim to have a connection to the ancient Philistines, they take offense to the notion. Arab peoples' claims of historic connection to the land we currently call Israel, only go back as far as 635 CE, when it was annexed by the Rashidun Caliphate. Conflict over real estate in Palestine between Arabs & Jews, for the most part only began near the end of the 19th century, when Jews began to return to their historical homeland. Anti-Semitism increased in intensity and violence in the majority of European countries to which they had been dispersed, and Israel which lay fallow and sparsely populated, was collectively the logical place to return to.

[@user-lq8yn3lr3r]

I think this obsession about Who was there before Is nonsense. It can be a factor but no way you forget history Is a vorticous succession of the same fact ever and ever again, humans are belligerant and want to conquer others. This lead to the fact that every inbetween inhabitant can claim having been there. You don't see every country of the world being claimed by ancient inhabitants. That can be a factor but not the root factor alone. There Is Also the face not so irrelevant that Sionism has changed the meaning of Judaism and good portion of Jews doesn't even recognize Israel as his homeland, because They still see It as promise Land, till the coming of the Messiah. It Is ok to put a state for the new jews where They can live, you can put in on the spot like no other country in the world, but It seems to me that this should come with consideración of other inhabitants without the Need to dig to see if They are a mix of ethnic provenience, or when They start to live there. This as a premise, letting alone the very intelligent strategy used by Israel along the years.

[@RTWPimpmachine]

What a stupid comment. "The Palestinians not only do not claim to have a connection to the ancient Philistines, they take offense to the notion. Arab peoples' claims of historic connection to the land we currently call Israel, only go back as far as 635 CE, when it was annexed by the Rashidun Caliphate." Palestinians didn't spring from the ground. Nor are they merely "Arabs." Do you know what the elite dominance model is? That is when a conquering group takes over a piece of land and the natives begin using the conquering group's language/some customs. One example is, for example, Mexico. Most Mexicans aren't "Spanish." Most Mexicans are descended from the indigenous populations of Mexico (e.g., Aztecs). A similar process took place in the territory of Palestine/Israel/Judea (whatever you want to call it). Most Palestinians are descended from Jews who first converted to Christianity and subsequently converted to Judaism. Palestinians have a better claim to be "descendants from Ancient Israel" than Ashkenazi Jews - who have significant European admixture. That conclusion, mind you, is the same that David Ben-Gurion reached. None of that particularly matters. There is is no basis in international law for "my ancestors have a claim to this land from 2,000 years ago." If one were to agree to this, one would have to agree to the reasoning behind Germany's invasion of Eastern Europe because at one point in time the Vandals and Goths lived in those areas until the Huns arrived. The rest of your comment is equally idiotic, "and Israel which lay fallow and sparsely populated, was collectively the logical place to return to." Even if Israel was "sparsely populated" (by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians) there is no right to immigrate to a new place and attempt to create an ethno-state that excludes the native population.

[@warren52nz]

I've been saying this for 50 years... That war will never end because both sides think that God promised that land to them. I know it's more complicated than that now but that's still the root cause.

[@noeldown1952]

That's a common misconception. On the Muslim side there's nowhere in the Qur'an that says specifically that Palestine belongs to Muslims, let alone to Palestinians who didn't exist as a people until the mid 20th century. And on the Jewish side the absolute majority of the Israeli population are not Bible literalists, and most of them aren't even religious. So the Palestinians have no scripturally promised land, and the Israeli Jews don't believe in Biblical God's promises. This conflict isn't a result of conflicting scriptural teachings, like, for example, the numerous Shi'a - Sunni wars between Muslims. What it is, is a manufactured conflict perpetrated on both nations by puppeteers, especially those in Iran and Syria.

[@warren52nz]

@@noeldown1952 OK, so why are they fighting? 🤔

[@jeffreyp1855]

@@warren52nz , because neither side will share.

[@lhetzel101]

Albert pike letter to Mazzini has the map to this mess--however it starts with the banks !

[@conspiracy1914]

palestine didnt say that there was a promise. they just live there and want to protect due to them having their lively hood. thats not the root cause on palestine side. it was peace full before where all religions mixed before the zionist showed up with the help of British and the west

[@ChumX100]

Bret really pinned down Sam's conflict with that last remark: If religion could easily be replaced by reductionist/materialistic logic in a satisfying way that leads to a better society, secularism would naturally impose itself over religions in the souls of people over time. One could argue that is the process we find ourselves in right now, but personally, I'm not so optimistic about it.

[@phpianocover]

This is exactly what has been happening since the Enlightenment reform. Search for the countries with the highest quality of life in the world, and you will find a list of predominantly atheist countries, such as Netherlands, Denmark, among others.

[@mra4955]

Not true. Denmark is two thirds Christian.

[@vaibhavsati538]

@@mra4955 and are you also implying that because of it being two thirds Christian therefore it's peaceful?

[@MilanLD]

​@@mra4955they are Christians on paper. Almost all of my friends are Christians but haven't been to a church for decades.

[@clorofilaazul]

"If religion could easily be replaced by reductionist/materialistic logic in a satisfying way that leads to a better society, secularism would naturally impose itself over religions" But that's precisely what has been happening for the last centuries. Religion is loosing it's grip. It's a natural process, due to the accumulation of knowledge. No one said it's an easy process. But it's clearly the right process, despite how long it takes.

[@massiverock1]

there was a kid in school, his name was Chris, he didn’t have friends, one day he ripped out some really complicated stuff that got praise from his teacher and even the bullies said he was the smartest guy in school. From then on he would give commentary on everything and present it as fact, he would dribble out absolute garbage with confidence, he had no confidence talking to a girl but he had confidence in knowledge even if he just made it up because the bullies believed he was smart. Yes he was a virgin. Right here we have a debate between a couple of dudes speaking garbage and they know us lesser advanced youtube commenters will think they must be knowledgeable because they say it with confidence

[@klosnj11]

That's a lot of words just to say "I don't understand what they are talking about."

[@massiverock1]

They don't know what they are talking about, they are just saying things for financial reward. They are a brand and it doesn't matter what the topic, they will provide commentary for a fee @@klosnj11

[@AtamMardes]

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire

[@xMXWLx]

12:44 this is exactly my life and theres no way im the only one who could barely go to work without having constant existential dilemmas

[@kevincastellanos6328]

Same. But eventually I realized that that burning urge to solve the universe before I go to work was only holding me back and I had to shut it down for a while just so I could function in society and not completely lose my mind.

[@farhanahmad6316]

Totally agree. Same for me. I closed that shop before it drove me mad.

[@Saaa604]

Yes it's essentially meaningless. You should look into antinatalism.

[@Phalvesaurus]

@@kevincastellanos6328 This is so relatable i needed this comment

[@fractalart8352]

Bret summed it up excellently!

[@naboombu]

Where is the whole conversation?

[@atomoyoga]

This is great. Seeing three of my favorite thinkers today saves me a lot of time in KZbin ...

[@dimapshen]

Let Dr Peterson talk, like he does to you patiently and respectfully

[@kappla]

No - Clown Peterson is best when he’s 🤐 and not spouting nonsense -

[@zadenwachter9918]

Sam is a great debater with fantastic rhetorical skills, making him a fierce competitor in dialogues and not such a great cooperator. Peterson engages in long-form conversations, which are more cooperative than competitive. Sam can legitimately think that Peterson is trying to muddy the waters at times because he approaches every conversation as a competition more than a cooperation. So he interrupts with a parry to stop what he sees as the opening setup to a later attack. But Peterson is actually trying to reach out and give him a hand to help them come together, and is frequently flummoxed by the repeated parries which prevent him from properly extending his offer to cooperate.

[@ltpa1000]

@@zadenwachter9918 I think one is seeking truth, the other is feeding his ego.

[@dianabailey9757]

Cheers Bret. Well summarized.

[@stephencummins7589]

Paul Davis has an irrational preconceived idea that everything religious is irrational. God is real.

[@robnemily]

I always think it's humorous how guys like Sam Harris are so intelligent, yet so oblivious to all their assumptions on human nature and what's "obvious"

[@michaelherron4306]

Then Jordan Peterson sends out a tweet “give em hell”

[@black_squall]

Give the Hamas hell, yes.

[@DoctorMooCow]

​@@black_squallsaid as innocent palestinian civillians were being bombed. There's no excusing that kind of rhetoric. Someone as smart as Peterson would know full well the damage someone with his his influence could have when putting out such flippant messages to his followers. Complicated situations require complicated responses. He showed his true face and its baying for blood.

[@iamscoutstfu]

Yeah you gotta wonder why HAMAS prevents civilians from evacuating HAMAS held buildings after Israel warns them to leave. Why would HAMAS do such a thing?

[@Deanwalsh1]

Occupation didn't begin at October the 6th

[@obviouscommentguy1234]

@@DoctorMooCow What would you have Israel do? It is tragic, but if Hamas hides behind Palestinian people as they launch attacks at Israel, all blood is on their hands. Israel must defend itself. They declared war on Israel. What is the "nuanced" and "complex" response when Hamas has hundreds of hostages (women and children) and everything we saw on Oct. 7 that Hamas themselves has posted on social media? Yeah it's complicated, but Hamas is CLEARLY the bad guys here and collateral damage is just a sad reality. "His true face" is too eradicate this evil. It is the correct and only response.

[@dustinarand]

Here's the difference between Harris and Peterson: Harris uses a few words to clearly explain complex topics. Peterson uses lots of words to confusingly explain topics that are actually pretty straightforward.

[@Mikael-jt1hk]

bingo.. Jordan Peterson is the undisputed champion of word salad

[@kevgamble]

To me it seems like Harris's simplicity comes from an increased complacency with his own views. A good example is what he says at the very end of this clip about attachment to land, which is so detached from reality it's striking. The difference with the Middle East is not that it's "fringe", but that it's an open and unresolved conflict. Open a land conflict anywhere else in the world and it gets bloody quickly. With Peterson, I hear someone trying to be so precise with his explanations that there is no room for ambiguity, which is really important in these times - if you've ever looked at a comment section, you realize that 90% of people consuming information seem to both misunderstand it and to be aggressively confident in their incorrect interpretation. This has had a pronounced impact on Peterson personally, so it's understandable. Given the choice, I prefer his approach, because we've gotten so collectively lazy and muddled in our communication and willingness to take the time to understand that this is what steers us out of it. Many words might not ensure understanding, but few words often lead to different interpretations.

[@dustinarand]

@@kevgamble Except Peterson isn't precise. He actually resembles the postmodern continental philosophers he claims to despise. On this score, for a great analysis of Peterson’s magnum opus, “Maps of Meaning,” I recommend Nathan Robinson’s critique in Current Affairs. “What’s important about this kind of writing is that it can easily appear to contain useful insight, because it says many things that either are true or ‘feel kind of true,’ and does so in a way that makes the reader feel stupid for not really understanding. (Many of the book’s reviews on Amazon contain sentiments like: I am not sure I understood it, but it’s absolutely brilliant.) It’s not that it’s empty of content; in fact, it’s precisely because some of it does ring true that it is able to convince readers of its importance.” In fact, there’s actually a name for this: the “Guru Effect,” after a 2010 paper by the philosopher Dan Sperber. The Guru Effect refers to the way that obscurantist language can actually appear to contain deep, important meaning so long as the source is someone we trust. “Impenetrability indicates profundity.” It isn’t difficult to see how a clever writer or orator could use technical or esoteric language ambiguously, and thereby create the sense that something very meaningful has been said, when in fact whatever meaning is being conveyed is either trite, or supplied primarily by the readers or listeners themselves.

[@JoeArog14]

And fails in the process.

[@youngsalmon5188]

@@kevgambleKev thanks for your word salad but like Peterson I lost interest. I could listen to Harris all day his clarity shows his intelligence 😂

[@divineinyang5384]

Bret Weinstein hit the nail on the skull.

[@idaraokon7387]

Highly humane and intellectual filled confab. Nice one Harris

[@trocksuk4415]

Cliff notes: One guy uses a analogy to make a point then the other guy uses a more in depth analogy to counter it. The original guy the uses another analogy to counteract then the other guy gives another analogy

[@dava00007]

Conclusion : analogies are not a good way to tackle complex problems.

[@dava00007]

Conclusion : analogies are not a good way to tackle complex problems.

[@vincezito3547]

To date this was the craziest talk I've seen

[@michaelknight2897]

It's not that crazy. Especially if you follow Harris. He basically dismissed 80% of the human experience in every talk he gives.

[@vincezito3547]

@@michaelknight2897 dismiss in a good way or bad. I'm stupid so my brain had a hard time following that conversation . Is what I meant

[@michaelknight2897]

@@vincezito3547 He dismisses it as having no value and inconvenient and an impediment to his vision of a utopia.

[@zadenwachter9918]

​@@michaelknight2897that's not a very charitable take, but I can't say it's strictly inaccurate as a brief summation of his position. Sam is more like a computer than most people. His thoughts are very orderly and refined. But if being that way was of general utility to the human experiences, we'd have all drifted a lot closer to his stance than we collectively have. He doesn't know what he doesn't know, in part because he doesn't see what he can't see. Too many parts of the evolutionarily advantageous constellation of human experiences/traits/fundamentals are just a bit outside of his reach even though they're still called strikes. So he ends up lamenting that the game is rigged since he can't hit every strike in the zone, but a key problem is he's standing too far back in the box and is either unable or unwilling to move forward.

[@michaelknight2897]

@@zadenwachter9918 Sam is a computer? Hardly. He thinks "rationality" leads to a single outcome...his outcome. He thinks if everyone was just rational then everyone would think like him and the world would be better. The fact is, rationality can lead to many outcomes, all logical. Sam ultimately isn't interested in the "why" when it comes to beliefs and thoughts. Therefore, he is just a man left wondering why everyone doesn't think like him as he dismisses the majority of the human experience as unknowable and therefore irrelevant. Peterson wants to know why people think a certain way whereas Sam simply tells people what to think. Ultimately, this is why Sam is not very interesting to me. He has never said anything new as he covers no new territory. Where as Peterson introduces new perspectives on old topics.

[@Johnny.H.Rickensien]

It's not that Elton John wasn't here, it's even worse. It's that it isn't really Elton John's glass we only think it is because somebody else told us, and that somebody doesn't even know who Elton John is.

[@Anonymised1]

It’s like these two wipes their butts with dictionaries

[@kennethalbert4653]

Sam figures he can win every argument if he speaks %90 of the time

[@LARESCIV]

His schtick is talking in this slow monotonous voice

[@horzathirteen]

Lol! You make that assumption from a 15 minute snippet? Have you watched the entire series of discussions? I very much doubt you'd be coming to that conclusion.

[@densonhamilton355]

Exactly, that's his greatest strategy

[@tb6031]

Totally agree, Sam likes to hear his own voice. I’ve watched many debates where Sam uses the same strategy. Unfortunately TDS has gotten the best of him, he’s definitely lost some brain cells over it.

[@yew2oob954]

Are you serious...Peterson's entire persona is to talk nonsense endlessly!!

[@TheAegis1000]

Sam's last recorded statement ... "Re ... the Israeli settlers and the Palestinian terrorists, ... we should all breathe a sigh of relief that ... that kind of passionate attachment to land doesn't characterize most of humanity." What world does Sam live in ? Who gives up land without a fight ? The only example I could think of was, perhaps, the Native American Indians, ... and we all know how that turned out for them ...

[@DairyNZ]

I agree. If not land we humans have many other passion attachments. Try taking a mobile phone off a fourteen year old!

[@sharcusaurelius3423]

Would be interesting to hear Sam say that if someone broke into his house in the middle of the night at 2AM.

[@insertnamehere8121]

You seem to be unaware of the warring, murder, enslaving and group eradication between tribes that earned many of them their “land”. Tribal people will be limited in their morality by their development, and American Indian tribes were largely Stone Age people who had developed less moral philosophy than had ANCIENT Romans from thousands of years before. Do you people learn about American Indians through the b.s. environment of Hollywood? Because Hollywood has delivered you decades of “essentially they were all spirit worshipping tree huggers” bunk, while reality is things like the Comanche almost entirely erasing the Apache.

[@sensibleenergy]

​@@DairyNZwow, alternative perception, amazing one 😊

[@danf1862]

Most people don’t take hostages, shoot, or bomb each other over land disputes. That’s the world he lives in. Only on the fringe does a group attack another over land e.g., Russia, Hamas, etc. That type of conflict is counter to civilization.

[@NermineNa]

There is a saying in Egyptian Arabic that goes like this: "a person whose hands in in the fire, is not the same as a person whose hands is in the water". It is almost obscene to talk about this topic, as if it was mere philosophy & the people dying had all the time in the world to wait for gentlemen with ties to get their ideas aligned. What about the "attachment" some countries have to oil, or power? Not everything is religious, or spiritual & out of reach.

[@drivetheday]

Answer: “I am he as you are he as you are me And we are all together.”

[@tinawynn8973]

People protect what they identify themselves with-be it the body, gender, race, or religion. What’s important is for people to have a broader identity with the universe or at lease with the human race.

[@rayedd74]

The debate would’ve ended in 3 mins if they spoke concise English.

[@Esra56tytyty]

There have been these conflicts in the lands of Jerusalem for many years, for more than fifty years. Israel surrounded Palestine here with wire fences and there is an embargo, people live as if they are in prison. This is wrong, it must end. If the parties are convinced of peace, peace and stability can come to the Middle East. We pray to God and it is very painful that wars are increasing Russia Ukraine There is no and there are no winners. If everyone fights because there are weapons in the country, the world will collapse and go away. May God help us for peace.

[@ToiletPlugger]

When there's real bloodshed over a god that doesn't exist, then it becomes really irrational.

[@TheKrighter]

Three smart guys trying to place value on a guitar. "We could look at the interpersonal space" "We could place value based on a picture" Sam: "WE COULD SCAN THEIR BRAINS" I can't stop laughing.

[@phantasticmrphasma9874]

It’s so painful watching peterson when he debates actually intelligent thinkers. Whilst peterson is very knowledgeable and experienced in data driven outcomes, his ACTUAL capacity for thought and comprehension seems to be pretty limited. And then he dances around the foundational point that is aimed at him, then his opponent has to come up with all these theoreticals to try and pin him to acknowledge the point. He’s pretty dim tbh

[@allanlomas5133]

Yeah you're probably way smarter my guy

[@OneLine122]

Fighting over land especially if you need it to survive is quite rational. It's trust that is irrational, but that is also what Sam fights against. It would be irrational for both sides to trust each others, so they fight. Sam fights the only solution that was ever devised. But he can do a brain scan and realize they don't trust each others.

[@azzeygjiyfdryukmjhuii]

Redicoulos they created a country inside other and they come kick you from your home no compensation move you to a refuge camps in gaza creat ilegal settlements and bring your people from around the world to live there

[@s.s.6141]

brain scan part was most ridiculous indeed

[@uhnborhn5032]

But they're not fighting over the land to just survive, they're fighting over it because their holy text provide them the belief that the land is more important than it is

[@azzeygjiyfdryukmjhuii]

@@uhnborhn5032 it's a colony since 1947 people kicked off from their houses away since NAKBA we have to accept and Israel are the good ones and in GAZA there's 2.2 millions of animals half of them are children animals Ffs what's wrong with people why they don't see what is going on exactly

[@santerilaakeristo7305]

I think it’s been a colony for a couple of millennia. Otherwise your post was quite incomprehensible.

[@TruSeek4life]

The is the greatest conversation of high - sounding confusion I've ever witnessed. Lose the debate, well, just befuddle the other guy.

[@JohnSmith-to5ow]

High sounding confusion. Well said!

[@anthonybrogan390]

I agree with you to some extent, I get befuddled a lot with conversations like this,

[@alexlekas3407]

It seems that Covid broke Sam and he has been unable to recover from that.

[@jimsauter3514]

It is fascinating to me that two intelligent minds like this interrupt and are so eager to talk and not listen, I enjoy listening to both of them, but watching them fight over air time is telling.

[@user-vt1ct7rv4m]

I just can't understand how this intelligent man wrote “give them hell”… broke my heart

[@robrigler2903]

The guy lost the plot when he had his illness/health scare/ended up in a coma.

[@junojan8414]

What lol. Jordan has been a pro colonialist genocidal pig from the first day he ever taught in university

[@celinr6397]

Was the ‘give them hell’ meant for Hamas or directed towards innocent Palestinians?

[@hazeremric]

anyone who knows or follows dr. Peterson will know that he would never condone killing the innocent @@celinr6397

[@AACBrit]

Clearly Hamas. The Palestinians didn't attack Israel, Hamas did. And that is what he was responding to. I too thought it was uncharacteristically aggressive/undiplomatic! He's just released a video article about it, and he references his tweet getting him into trouble.

[@muhammadsaleh290]

Now Imagine what type of peace in the world will turned into If all Ethnicities or religions been allowed to claim lands based on their own deep history interpretation..!?

[@louisfifteen]

The fact is, that it was Elvis' guitar. The insane value of the guitar was everybody elses idea. It's a construct, nothing more. Nothing to start a war over.

[@antonmaoc3898]

I am amazed to see two persons that sound so smart and are able to circle up a situation without saying the obvious. They seem to like a good allegory, so here is one ; One kid is playing with its toy, another comes by and ask to play with the toy, the first one nicely says yes and share the toy. But when the other kid wants his toy back, the second one says no you can’t have and punch and tries to scare the first kid. But obviously the first kid defend itself and tries to get the toy back. But at that time, the “growns up” appears and most of them defend the second kid, the one who stole the toy and tell the first kid to not be violent. And the smartest adults sitting in their chairs away from the conflict are debating if the kids should stop fighting because the object of their fight is pointless. And like that everybody forgets about the toy.

[@RipitSlipit]

It really turns out Joedan Peterson is a totall aloof space cadet with nothing of value to add to the discussion (speaking of value), mean while Sam offers nothing of value as always

[@jasondashney]

Israel Palestine is about one kid smashing another kid's toy because he wants all that kid's toys, and both want the toys because the toys had been in the family in one for or another going back thousands of years.

[@tonylipsmire5918]

This is just a pretty basic economic concept of WTP being a measure of the utility it brings to the buyer

[@stellazonoozi2829]

Religion is also a business based on fraud

[@edwardburroughs1489]

In part, but there is an intangible sentimental value also.

[@tonylipsmire5918]

@@edwardburroughs1489 sure but intangible sentimental value still falls under utility. Utility doesn’t just measure practical value to an individual based on situation it encompasses any positive feeling it brings to the buyer and what that positive feeling whether it be nostalgia or anything is worth to the individual consumer

[@guyliloof5721]

As an atheist and an Israeli and also a big fan of both of these gentlemen - It's amazing how little even these two geniuses know about what's goin' on in here. The subject debated was very interesting but have so little to do with the reality in Israel.

[@AmberBegin]

I think they didn’t get to the concept that regulates all modern societies which is if people don’t believe that property rights matter then there is no law and order - regardless of religion. It is a foundation to even Americas survival. If people don’t believe that the society will honor property laws then it breaks down families and the essentially all of society.

[@Djmorton-go5mt]

or the reality in Gaza and the deaths of thousands.

[@Moongod2500]

You were born in Israel?

[@guyliloof5721]

Yes, I was referring to entire land/region. @@Djmorton-go5mt

[@guyliloof5721]

Yes, I was born in Israel, as did my parents and grandparents.@@Moongod2500

[@drivetheday]

Answer: “I am he as you are he as you are me And we are all together”

[@groversaurabh]

Sam Harris - the Elton John glass example was great.. However, imagine your great great grandfather hander over that glass to your father and your father handed it over to you as their last memory, would you still say that it is an Elton John glass and Elton John is no longer here. Probably not. Because once the glass is in possession of a human who paid for it or got it as a souvenir. That possesion has some value. Similarly possesion of Judea & Sumaira has an intrinsic value for Jewish people because it's not just "a" land. It's "their" land. And the same goes for Palestinians

[@geopoliticsweekly]

That last comment by Brett is so fundamental to the staying power of realism in international relations it’s scary.

[@User_1138]

How is this about Israeli Palestinian conflict

[@HiggsBosonification]

I'll genuinely never understand framing this issue as being *primarily* one of religion. The leading Zionists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were overwhelmingly secular, as were the main Palestinian groups prior to Hamas (due in large part, of course, to the fact that many Palestinians are Eastern Rite Catholic or Greek Orthodox Christians rather than any kind of Muslim). Moreover, during the Ottoman period, Arabs of whichever religion and local Mizrahi Jews tended to get along just fine in the organic communities where they'd been coexisting for centuries. It's true that both sides have since become more religiously radical. The far-right Reformed Zionism of Likud and most Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories, for example, is dripping in deeply religious elements which would've seemed almost alien to the likes of Herzl, Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, etc., and I'm sure that nothing more needs to be said regarding the extreme religiosity of Hamas. This shift, however, is a *function* of the underlying tension, not a causal basis for it; it's a reflection of the fact that inter-group strife, imposed or rapid disjunction, protracted conflict, etc. all tend to incline people toward analytical reductiveness and sociopolitical conservatism (if not outright reactionary thought). But the origin of that strife, the source of that disjunction, and the necessitation of violence all ties back to the objective historical beginning of the conflict, which has two key attributes: (a) the Zionist settler colonial project and (b) the nature of the British imperial teleology's mediating role in its facilitation. And that isn't a religious issue, but rather a nationalistic one. It's a question of two distinct culture groups--Westernized Jews from around the world and local Arabs of whatever ethnic/religious background--seeking to actualize political self-determination in the same area -- and two legally sovereign entities can't occupy the same geographical territory any more than two solid objects can occupy the same spatial-geometric territory. Religious sites like Al-Aqsa/the Temple Mount, the Cave of the Patriarchs, etc. often serve as trigger points for flare-ups in this conflict not primarily because of their *spiritual* value to Israelis and Palestinians, but because of the *cultural* value with which religion (itself ultimately just a sociocultural phenomenon) imbues them and the extremely close phenomenological relationship between culture and group--especially national--identity. The Western Wall and Dome of the Rock would be no less important to Israelis and Palestinians tomorrow if, overnight, they all somehow became atheists, because those places would still be central pillars of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples' understanding of themselves. And they're hardly unique in that respect, as weaving physical objects and space, along with all the related emotions and memories associated therewith, into notions of self-identity is a pretty standard element of human psychology. The land in question is important to Israelis not because of the Old Testament, but because the nation-state they've built on it since the Mandatory era has been secured by blood and the sovereignty they exercise through that state apparatus offers security from the sort of oppression historically experienced by European Jews (from whose ranks emerged virtually all of the early Zionist leaders). And it's important to Palestinians not because of the Dome of the Rock or Golgotha, but simply because it's been their home for as long as anyone can remember and, beyond the aforementioned psychological significance of that, they're also very aware of the fact that modern international norms generally privilege discrete populations endemic to a given area when considering who should exercise sovereignty over that area. Neither side is incorrect to feel as they do, but the job of a moral philosopher (i.e., an ethicist) with regard to real-life conflicts isn't to "judge the sanctity of the differences of their opinions" and build a case for some nominally enlightened alternative, but rather to investigate each faction's ontologies of conflict and assess their conduct according to both that objective context whichever subjective ethical school of thought said philosopher happens to favor for that particular application. All of which is to say, Sam Harris remains such a myopic fucking idiot that he actually forced me to side with Jordan Peterson.

[@alexverdigris9939]

This is no cooperative dialogue, just two intellectuals talking past each other. They might as well become politicians.