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

[@Pangburn]

Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6HFeaaIr510bdk

[@1halnass]

Anyone watching this and loving both sides is a friend of mine!

[@anaesthesia1549]

Are you hypocrite?

[@laviozulian611]

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

[@jovaransguplar3019]

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

[@Zachd500]

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

[@ScarFace1496-]

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.

[@andyrobertson4096]

Scores are in... Sam Harris ten.. Jordan Peterson... Well it depends what you mean by 10.

[@nicholasnajibi3082]

Andy Robertson meaning is everything.

[@Noname-lk2ol]

Lol. And thats why Jordan wins

[@2FadeMusic]

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

[@nicholasnajibi3082]

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.

[@2FadeMusic]

@@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

[@corbinwantland7669]

These series of talks have literally changed my life. These kinds of talks are exactly what the world needs. Thank You.

[@captainron4924]

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

[@RedHairdo]

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

[@nathanielace7534]

Alejandro Daniel Acuña breath in and breath out bro

[@AdA-kx5ig]

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

[@corbinwantland7669]

@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.

[@burieddreamer]

These "debates" are addicting. I can't stop watching.

[@theuglybeing4673]

Why "behind and in front of debates???

[@cannastartover1720]

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

[@roseharrison5223]

Me too. I need Sam to calm me down.

[@joshuajames1720]

Addictive

[@jackrabbitmr]

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

[@estebanrosas5103]

Harrison: Rationality is key. Peterson: Underlying purpose is key. Me an intellectual: Nice chairs.

[@Noname-lk2ol]

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

[@2FadeMusic]

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

[@joecoylemusic6852]

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

[@marredcheese]

Who's Harrison?

[@chrisgossapplesauce316]

Joe Coyle I’m curious, what does he mean

[@JaskoBesic66]

Let's just appreciate these brilliant minds and the freaking technology that allows us all to listen, learn and interpret. We're truly living in an amazing time in history.

[@dallasonfire604]

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

[@RedHairdo]

@@dallasonfire604 Or not.

[@roddydykes7053]

dallasonfire604 well I doubt there were KZbin 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

[@jacobjorgenson9285]

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

[@lucaslopez2091]

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

[@complexplane6756]

Hopefully one day Sam and Jordan will reconcile their differences with the synchronicity of that leg cross 0:34

[@clambake8496]

ComplexPlane This comment deserves more love

[@jonfromtheuk467]

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

[@mr.e3894]

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

[@blackscreennoiseforrelaxat1517]

Hahahahaha that’s insane

[@mohsinakhtar7876]

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”

[@-Lisanne]

This is the kind of conversation I’m craving for during birthday parties

[@hanskraut2018]

true 😍🤩:(

[@bibaolaitan5189]

Me too... i need new friends..

[@شهریار_شهپری]

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

[@hanskraut2018]

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

[@bibaolaitan5189]

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

[@paulsteer]

I feel a much richer person having discovered these three gentlemen, and listening to this discussion was an absolute pleasure. Thank you.

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

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

[@maisiecarruthers695]

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

[@josem.sanchez6452]

I'm the same poor, however much wiser.

[@maisiecarruthers695]

@@josem.sanchez6452 lol

[@mohsinakhtar7876]

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”

[@ObscurityIsBest]

1:35:46 "Just because you're nice doesn't mean you're good." - Jordan Peterson Dead on.

[@ObscurityIsBest]

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

[@TheRobdarling]

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

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

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

[@callmeej8399]

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

[@skyeangelofdeath7363]

@NRM lol Peterson a genius??? ROFLMAO!

[@dredmond18]

Jordan P "Even though I know there are as many snakes in my heart as there are in yours. I am still going to hold my hand out in trust because that is the way I can elevate both of us."

[@Heybuddy101]

thanks I need that quote

[@Unsubscribedd]

True beauty.

[@JoseRodriguez-tb1js]

Absolutely beautiful wisdom.

[@stegemme]

rhetoric and certainly not poetry

[@JoseRodriguez-tb1js]

@@stegemme Your opinion.

[@irrelevant2235]

SH: Two times three equals six. JP: Two times three equals the intangible evanescent process of unknowable numeracy linked to the transcendence of the highest hierarchical integral foundation of the ultimate structure of our being.

[@schvyler]

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.

[@eldenfindley186]

@@schvyleryep.

[@el0j]

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

[@internetwanderer9053]

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

[@overseastom]

Seriously. He's insufferable. Surely someone has made an online Jordan Peterson word-salad bullshit-generator by now, akin to the Wisdom of Chopra one.

[@hasdrubal121]

I had the privilege of attending with my wife. It was brilliant. Such a positive endeavour.

[@amberhaug3841]

Lucky

[@Va1eri3405]

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

[@ReallyInterestingName]

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

[@yedum321]

How much did the event cost

[@e7venjedi]

22:25 I just noticed their body language. It's interesting that JP is literally on the edge of his seat, having a hard time not rising to his feet, he finds the ideas so moving and motivating. Whereas Harris is calm and cool and more 'collected' you could say -- precisely what they started talking about: that stories have more 'oompf', more weight, more power to motivate than 'cold, sterile facts'. I'm not saying one is inherently better. It's just fascinating that as JP talks about *embodied truth/rationality/meaning/ideal* he can't help but literally embody it in impassioned speech. Which is precisely the thing Harris fears [understandably, given the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion] -- that you can't have story be the foundation because it always and inexorably lends itself to extremism and intolerance [in his opinion]. And crazily, Harris' body language matches that -- skeptical, calm, inquisitive, listening and open to understanding a different idea. :-D I personally think both are important and overlapping messages: that we need to tell stories well [JP], to unite us under a common cause of maximum human and 'other species' flourishing [overlap]. And that we need to be hyper vigilant against dogmatism and pride in thinking one has cornered the market for truth -- ie. I am right, everyone who disagrees has nothing to say that I can learn from -- which leads to intolerance and harm [Harris].

[@JuicyLeek]

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.

[@jacobandersen6075]

This comment is beautiful. Thank you.

[@zoe.h.nelson04]

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

[@qine6559]

Wow! Love this comment!

[@KhromTX]

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

[@JohnDavidDunlap]

Made it almost 7 minutes before having to look up a word I've never heard before.

[@harshpherwani6590]

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.

[@souljacem]

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

[@marcmcdowell9649]

Revelatory? Got me to dude

[@muhammadaadilali5638]

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

[@jooplin]

You are probably in the top 1% of the population

[@bringmeknitting844]

What a pleasure (and a refreshing change) to listen to three grown ups debate complex issues with courtesy to each other and without shouting or going into a strop. Gives me hope!

[@sridharmahadevan]

Steelmaning has been a fundamental principle of philosophical debate for more than 3000 years in India. It is called Purva Paksha. All debates and treatises start with that. It is because you want to argue the undiluted, accurate and the most profound, intelligent and persuasive version of the opposite point of view and prove it wrong.

[@peterlemer]

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

[@peterlemer]

@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.

[@peterlemer]

@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).

[@peterlemer]

@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?

[@peterlemer]

@therainman777 ''That Having Been Said'

[@jovanmonteiro5744]

This comment section needs to stop being hypercritical of Jordan Peterson. Obviously he speaks overly verbose at times and it can OCCASIONALLY conflate his arguments, but you guys don’t seem understand why he does that (or at least don’t acknowledge it). He’s been taken out of context so many times that he’s now naturally taken a position where he attempts to cover any ground for misinterpretation and WITH PURE INTENTION. Sam Harris is incredibly articulate yet able to concisely make his points. JP takes a different approach; Instead of making claims and expanding from them, he makes sure to breakdown his arguments from the very beginning and it can be hard to buy into. It’s easy to criticize his arguments and say he’s just an overly analytical thinker with little substance, but if you buy into the idea that these topics hold more nuance than at face value, which it really does, JP’s arguments are very compelling. I tend to align with more of Harris’s arguments more than JP, but for anyone in this comment section to degrade JP’s arguments to conflationary nonsense is a detriment to those who are open minded to learning.

[@motopeter2409]

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

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

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.

[@clivepevilc]

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

[@efabiano82]

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.

[@BrianM1777]

@@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.

[@itrihard00]

These men are amazing. Harris is finely tuned to reason toward functionality, and he can simplify complex concepts so that anyone can understand. That’s the mark of mastery of his craft. Peterson is on a whole other level of depth of analysis. Genius level capacity. I get the sense that he truly wants to understand the Truth in a society where we’re so used to listening to thought- and social-leaders grinding their axes. Amazing to think that thousands would pay to sit in the same room to listen to these men think out loud. :)

[@austinjrb]

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

[@thosedays512]

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.

[@thosedays512]

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

[@thosedays512]

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

[@intheclouds4453]

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

[@farbodpirouz2457]

I was in a bad place last year after a ending a bad relationship and honestly, watching these videos chnaged my life for the better. Especially Jordan's lectures.

[@maabownallh7386]

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

[@udipadhikari5541]

Peterson talking about sponges is the whole new side of his passion I hadn't seen.

[@thetube4607]

Just cause they're nice chairs does not make them good chairs!

[@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive]

*Ba-bow*

[@wardogsmokes]

you win.

[@DaVinci368]

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...,

[@benigifford]

AHAHHAHA

[@jaxketpocket7147]

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

[@TraversyMedia]

With people as Brilliant as this how were we stuck with Trump and Clinton to pick from? I know JP is Canadian, not sure about Sam but my point is, why can’t we have people like this run the world instead of scumbag politicians?

[@arto00-g2n]

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

[@mensetens6391]

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.

[@waranghira]

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

[@mensetens6391]

@@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.

[@TonyJohnsonIntoxinator]

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.

[@jossylopes]

You can literally put Sam Harris against anyone, he expresses his points in a clear and concise form.

[@stryderxx1]

But without actually answering the question

[@Afflictamine]

too bad he can't actually back them up

[@andrewjordan2511]

Haha by changing the subject?

[@dpk228]

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

[@dpk228]

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

[@mattie1478]

This conversation is a metaphysical substrate representing my left hemisphere talking to my right hemisphere while my corpus callosum watches in confusion.

[@eusebiusthunked5259]

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"

[@naturalistegroup3978]

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

[@Jide-bq9yf]

Mattie147 good one 😂😂😂

[@Jide-bq9yf]

Eusebius Thunked 😂

[@natura808]

Mattie147 Well said!

[@giveamanafish2324]

I always known Harris to be very intelligent, but i would have never known Peterson to be so deeply thoughtful. Dr Peterson exposed very concerning and valid questions about the human conditions, and multiple times, i had to hold my breath until Sam cunningly tackled it. Truly one of the most valuable conversations I’ve heard, and one that I personally needed very much.

[@mrnarason]

I want to see Peterson's Amazon review for the moral landscape

[@ironicbeats]

It would include 700.000 words :D

[@ghost_of_jah5210]

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

[@Specialsausse]

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

[@nathanboettcher6431]

Yes! :)

[@fordhamdonnington2738]

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

[@MaryamBaig-x4f]

anyone in 2024?

[@ROSSI_27]

🫥

[@maikiomi]

🎉

[@ssp2344]

Second time✋

[@danielzavalahuerta]

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

[@eeriestmoss5544]

🫡

[@PandemoniumVice]

Damn rockstar philosophers. What do they think this is, the 4th century BCE?

[@ericlyons6251]

Lol perfect

[@EdgarGarciaBlackRhythmbeatbox]

I knoow riiight 😂😂😂 good one

[@zzzzz77771]

BC*

[@dpk6756]

@@zzzzz77771 BCE is fine it means before common era

[@AM-ry8is]

@@zzzzz77771 no

[@Nanerbeet]

1:23:25 Douglas Murray: "Your enemies don't come with jack boots and swastikas, it's not that easy." Jordan Peterson: "No, they live inside you." Damn.

[@pallchin]

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.

[@mohsinakhtar7876]

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

[@MrDOB1000]

@@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.

[@immortalmusic88]

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..

[@theobservationsreal3291]

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

[@PlaytimeMotionPictures]

Is Sam meditating permanently? He's so relaxed

[@arcticwolf6402]

He is actually.

[@CARLOSRD0239]

That’s how intelectual act out

[@mohsinakhtar7876]

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”

[@shpongle7322]

get his meditation app! its helped with my anxiety so much. if you cant afford it you can email them and get a year free btw

[@zoe.h.nelson04]

Yes that's essentially how it's supposed to work once you've been meditating long enough

[@tbonea1dam1]

This was absolutely wonderful. As an atheist, I found myself agreeing with both sides. I’ll probably watch it again just in case I missed something.

[@Artistofun]

May you are not so atheist in the end? )

[@tbonea1dam1]

@@Artistofun Agnostic

[@jom9320]

Youre not atheist

[@tbonea1dam1]

@@jom9320 yep

[@boouyayme]

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

[@oasis71]

I wish a world exist where the audience stop clappings and save that for only the beginning and the end. It rarely does anything but fed a false sense of positive reinforcement where what the person said actually hold any weight or the majority of the audience who do not agree might not be clapping.

[@Mutantcy1992]

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

[@martinw4261]

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.

[@Mutantcy1992]

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.

[@vinevienevo]

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

[@arulross70]

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

[@motorheadbanger90]

This is a beautiful demonstration of civil discourse...with the emphasis on civil

[@drenny88]

Critique aside, after watching four hours of Vancouver and this series back to back (which were two weeks apart), you can see that they both really do have a soft spot for each other and truly respect the others point of view even in disagreement. They are themselves the very metaphor of two opposing ideologies that seek common ground. Super inspirational. I’ve gotten no work done today but it’s exactly what I needed. The amount of sh!t were pushing uphill as a society is staggering and I’ll be surprised if we ever “transcend cynicism”, but I’d love to be coloured surprise one day.

[@luke31ish]

I love the humor built in Sam's genius.

[@quickplaya]

Sam is a puke. Jordan is a great guy.

[@vaibhavsati538]

@@quickplaya fanboy

[@stevesoldchannel]

harris is hilarious

[@bluesraincancun9217]

I agree.

[@ryanchristian6526]

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.

[@kevinyang6254]

Three absolutely brilliant individuals having a conversation. We need more of this!

[@spaceorbison]

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

[@kevinyang6254]

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.

[@BulletsAndBloomers]

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

[@mellow578]

We need more comments like this.

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

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

[@kyebean]

Who is the tool that angrily screams their names at the beginning and end lol it's not WrestleMania bro

[@judahtait4068]

kyebean I thought the same thing😆

[@OpeningBatsman]

SAM CENA! Do doo do doooo

[@DerricktheWhite]

Yeah it made me laugh

[@MatticusPrime1]

That’s Travis Pangburn, the organizer.

[@MakeDemocracyMagnificientAgain]

mmmh, to some degree it is WrestleMania... that's what the tool implies ^^

[@lamekskater1319]

I have to say that it is truly amazing that this is the 3rd conversation these two juggernauts are having and it's the 3rd time the audience has given up their question time so the former could keep going. I did not think it would be possible (at this day and age) that people are that interested in gaining knowledge from people who know what they are talking about. I do not say the next sentence in anyway to exaggerate my feelings or thoughts....I now have hope for the future of humanity.

[@ramudon2428]

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.

[@Pangburn]

¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqjMcqZ-npWBoJY

[@Nohahio]

Damn, I could spend 24 hours absorbing the abundance of knowledge that this kind of conversation offers!

[@merlin4real]

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

[@acraze2287]

@@merlin4real more like 30

[@Argail8137]

I swear this video made me recover faith in humanity

[@frankjeager9043]

2020 has joined the chat

[@ghost_of_jah5210]

@@frankjeager9043 lol

[@reeko9781]

Do you still have faith?

[@cjdamage8918]

I was there. Met Sam, Douglas and Jordan. Got a book signed by Jordan 👌

[@kimburgess2897]

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

[@cjdamage8918]

@@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.

[@peterrosqvist2480]

1:56:53 "Even though I know that there are just as many snakes in your heart as there are in my heart, I'm going to hold out my hand in trust because that's the best way to elevate both of us."

[@mrdraynay]

Let me see if I understand this. Sam Harris argues against the necessity of religion. Peterson argues for it. Sam Harris has a strong point: that consciousness and its associated subjectivity are the basis for morality. Jordan conformed to this biological way of thinking. Jordan acknowledges the bible as an authority of social consciousness, but he does not acknowledge it as an evidence for God. However, Jordan continues to push the point that the most powerful motivation (to keep your hand on the stove) requires some sort of absolute good and evil, and the potential threat of hell or the hope of heaven. This must be one by placing oneself in a narrative. The place for rationality, then, is the ability to reform archetypes so that Christ (the intermediary hero), God (the conservative father) and the Mother (empathy and cruel reality) remain the ultimate motivators for morality without compromising potential solutions for political/secular complex issues. Peterson is no fundamentalist. He acknowledges that religion has and needs to continue to change, but he criticizes Harris for dismissing Christianity as a mythical undermining of rational conversation. There also seems to be a subliminal debate of nihilism vs. essentialism, wherein both Jordan and Sam argue for the latter, though I see Harris' argument as incomplete. Harris claims he believes that life is meaningful, but only as far as consciousness exists. Since consciousness is a biological factor, Heaven and Hell are irrelevant, and thus one creates his or her own meaning by making a personal narrative. Peterson is pushing for a universal narrative that can fit in everyone, and claims that a universal moral narrative that can unite all of society and truly motivate the individuals towards an ideal situation (the kingdom of God) requires some metaphysical assumptions (e.g. that God exists, as do heaven and hell) that are based on a collective recognition of desired ideals and values that are so powerful that even hunger, loss, and potential death cannot hinder the motivation for progression. Thus, for society to progress, the individuals must cling to a hope in a better world that is defined by a rational, developed metaphysic. Peterson suggests that the Bible and other scriptures provide the best foundation for us to move forward, not only as understood archetypally, but also as potentially revelatory (prophets truly communicating with God). It is this last point that Harris absolutely refutes, because he deny any potential for visions, revelations, miracles, etc. Thus, we arrive at the impass. However, all three men seem drew similar political applications, which is the trophy of this discussion, I think. These men are political heroes. They are spotlighting human deficiencies and potential, and are feeling their way through the complicated issues of immigration and borders. Each man's honest, unresistant pursuit for the well-being of society and the individual is inspiring.

[@Daniel-cn5pe]

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

[@jeremyjakob9721]

Holy shit this comment is good. Should be top comment

[@daysgoby7310]

well done

[@blackopal3138]

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

[@MrJohncraciun]

Bravo!

[@arono9304]

I've enjoyed this video much more than the other two. Clearly, these two are beginning to understand one another and both see the risk in putting forward arguments that are either redundant or an appeal to the audience. Murray translates this progress very well to both men, as well as to the audience. Great talk!

[@isaacmathews4693]

I love this on so many levels. Amazing to watch how great discussions really can happen between intelligent people who disagree without becoming disagreeable.

[@easterlynewt5053]

Isaac Mathews (HTES) that is the key , so much talk and not enough listening,

[@شهریار_شهپری]

"Just because you're nice, does not mean you are good." Now, that is a damn good point.

[@theotheoth]

Hardly a revelation.

[@Mpr91]

I was there, such an honour to see these three great minds under one roof

[@brookei7707]

This is truly my favourite series ever.

[@sammc2541]

It's a well known fact that Pangburn Philosophy spends 80% of their revenue on chairs.

[@yerhing6406]

God knows they don’t spend it on sound quality

[@entiretwix1480]

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

[@jlindsay]

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHWvp3egYs6HoKs

[@BlackBart_87]

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

[@mariuscrisan9161]

@@yerhing6406 sounds very good to me

[@mrf4138]

Thanks

[@oa3015]

This audience knows when to clap, unlike the audience in Vancouver who would've probably clapped had either Peterson or Harris sneezed.

[@chrisv.noire.6388]

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 KZbin when you should be working.

[@melanie851]

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

[@BaldmanB]

👏👏👏👏 Oh wait....

[@jordogo]

did the sound engineer not ring out these mics and monitors? cut the high mids just a little bit. please. it’s killing me.

[@AP-bo1if]

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”.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,

[@J0c3rk]

you are reasoning with inductive logic instead of deductive logic, without realizing it(i assume), that's why people might call you "dumb". And they MIGHT be right.

[@e99fuy0ng]

Jordan Flower - It sounds as though there wasn't an actual sound engineer involved.

[@AP-bo1if]

because it's very important.

[@rationalmartian]

"Chance of the gaps" A P. LOL. What a silly crock of old bollocks. Who did you hear that from, Hovind or some other idiotic apologist? Not to mention you are attempting to straw man atheists, as if to bring them down to your level, as you appear to imagine it. It is a complete misinterpretation, a rather dishonest one. You do realise you are essentially attempting, rather clumsily, to argue a classic argument from incredulity. All the things you mention are natural occurrences, that we have either a reasonable understanding of, or a quite incredible understanding of. Sadly you may not yourself be aware of it. They are all however demonstrable and many are actual observations. We only have ever had examples of or evidence of, or been demonstrable of natural phenomena. We have zero evidence of or examples of anything NON natural. It is YOU if asserting the supernatural who are attempting to use an argument of the gaps argument. Which an argument from incredulity is a subset of. However, I kind of suspect you have little interest in reality or being intellectually honest. You appear intent on spreading your emotionally based ideology. The posting of such nonsense, on a thread about something else entirely would suggest you didn't even bother to read the original post to begin with. It is kind of laughable; in a rather sad kind of way, that you imagine what you merely asserted, totally baselessly, as being important.

[@Primitive1]

These videos (or the public ones to be released later) will be watched for years and years to come. Great conversation around an important topic.

[@AP-bo1if]

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”.,,,,,,.,.,.,.

[@reubenyoung70]

What an amazing concept steelmanning is. Every debate should start with stating the part of your opponent’s argument that you disagree with in the strongest and most honest terms it can be phrased. They do an awesome job at the beginning with each other’s argument but none do a good job when Sam challenges them to repeat the exercise for their general critics.

[@reubenyoung70]

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

[@reubenyoung70]

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

[@new2dc2883]

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😬😬

[@Bardineer]

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.

[@RookieN08]

It's a miracle how Douglas never got assaulted by Peterson's moving arms throughout the discussion.

[@junkscience6397]

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

[@miranarouze5605]

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

[@14goldmedals]

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!

[@Johanna040713]

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

[@nathanielace7534]

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

[@jasonm9825]

I was on holiday from Australia to the UK. I was in Liverpool when this talk was on and was so very tempted to take the boat over for this event. I regret not doing so.

[@jakekrent7365]

They must have hired a post-modernist to do the sound work on these events.

[@khiangthana]

When i read this laughed as i immediately pictured a self entitled brat

[@viperstriker4728]

There are infinite degrees to volume and all are valid, at least that's what I assume the sound guy believes.

[@joshboston2323]

Sounds more like they hired a pre-modernist..

[@lucaslopez2091]

good one 😂😂

[@jlindsay]

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHWvp3egYs6HoKs

[@gee3680]

I'm not joking. This is my 11th debate I have watched, in a row. These are like rare gems.

[@Liberté-bell]

Wonderful stuff! I will have to watch again a few times to fully absorb it all. I am glad they didn't do a Q&A as they are SO incredibly tedious. I would rather hear more of the conversation anytime. A very inspiring and thought provoking discussion which made me switch alliances then back again after a single sentence. Thank you.

[@streglof]

I have to say that I'm grateful to Pangburn for organizing these events and putting them on youtube although I do still believe that they could have been more clear about the way the were going to be released because a lot of people weren't sure the videos were going to be available for free ever at all. I don't actually think making them exclusively available to patreon members first is a mistake at all but I do think that the rather large delay between the event and the youtube release and the lack of clarity about how the videos were going to be released created a lot of frustration and anger that could have been avoided if handled more properly.

[@Keefe_Outdoors]

a very nice way to say Pangburn was stupid and will probably fail as a brand due to this paywall

[@AmazedAtheist]

They fail A LOT with all things related to KZbin strategy IMO

[@Flyingtart]

You people bitching and whining should just stfu and be thankful these events ever happened and that they are available online.

[@MikkoHaavisto1]

Isn't it strange that those people paid a lot to see it live, while you saw it for free?

[@BattousaiHBr]

i think clarity specifically is the bigger issue. one might consider differently whether they know beforehand if they miss the live event they'll never be able to watch it later.

[@3spen]

Wow. After only 5 beers, I understand EVERYTHING

[@Pangburn]

You can now become a PANGBURN PRODUCER on our KZbin channel. Check out the PERKS! 🤓 Exclusive access to live streams, live chat, custom emojis & more! This is a great way to directly contribute to our future live discussions ☺ ✌ kzbin.info/door/m5J1Fu_dHgBcMTpXu-NXUwjoin

[@thechurchofgravity]

Douglas advanced the conversation incredibly.

[@frankmaitland2569]

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

[@GiorgiNemsitsveridze]

@@frankmaitland2569 It's a discussion not an agreement

[@TheOlzee]

He looks nervous af

[@Ace-pb8iu]

@@TheOlzee and you wouldn't be?

[@theotheoth]

A shame he turned into a nazi.

[@InsertNameHere73894]

They have engaged in some of the most important philosophical discussions of the last half century.

[@gravytopic]

No.

[@richardaylward70]

I most heartily agree.

[@jlindsay]

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHWvp3egYs6HoKs

[@TimLondonGuitarist]

This debate, & the previous one in Vancouver, are rubbish. Peterson is full of typical religious waffle, only difference is he masquerades behind his thing about 'the value of narrative. He should be debated incisively, this debate was pathetic, a commercial gig circuit, not a real debate.

[@brigwood7658]

@@TimLondonGuitarist you are so right. typical popstar academics - they have their area of expertise, can be great popularises of certain subjects or topics, but boy do they overstep the mark into territories best left to those 'who really do know' the topic or position in question. Peterson is terrible at this, constantly wading into philosophical territory esp moral philosophy/ethics and epistemology, unknowingly running roughshod over important distinctions, and dragging in all sorts of spurious, far from settled presuppositions to support his claims.

[@smujismuj]

"We have to be more sophisticated about these sorts of things." -Jordan 100% agreed.

[@Pangburn]

Would you like to see more discussions like this one? Please comment here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXrMZ3RuocuJic0

[@NickBannan37]

I felt this discussion was more amicable and represented a deeper dialectic between Sam and Jordan than the previous discussion in Vancouver. Perhaps this was partly due to the excellent job of Douglas Murray, who seamlessly mediated betwixt the two whilst adding his own profound insights. I had expected him as an atheist to be more on sam's side, but he was very egalitarian in his approach. Well played good sirs, well played indeed.

[@seamus9305]

Jordan and Sam seem to represent the two separate hemispheres of the brain.

[@ethanm.2411]

​@Ruben O. I disagree that Biblical narratives cannot be shown to be objectively true. But regardless, Harris is dangerously dismissive of those narratives in any case. He - and the rest of the new atheists - has this fanciful idea that the elimination of religious values would produce some kind of pure rationality and a solid moral structure. Humans don't work that way and Harris would be wise to recognize this. It might be _nice_ if that were the case, but it just doesn't happen.

[@ethanm.2411]

​@Ruben O. **Sam's position is this. We don't need bull---t to be good.** I would agree with that. But that is not the point. The point is that we need to be able to ground moral duties in something meaningful. Without doing that, anything is permitted, and you devolve into moral nihilism. JP was trying to show Harris that atheism cannot provide a grounding for moral duties whatsoever, and so Harris's moral landscape is moot. **We can be good for good's sake.** Of course we can. But the question is this - _ought_ we be good for good's sake on atheism? **We shouldn't kill people.** Why not? **Religion says because "god" says so.** **If you kill you are punished with hell.** **If you don't kill you are rewarded with heaven.** No. Christianity, at least, says this: _All_ made in the image of God. Murder violates the value of another person who is made in the image of God, and so you violate God himself through harming another. Jesus said this - ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did (good or evil) to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ If you violate God, and you never try to seek Him, He will not force you to be in His presence. You will be separated from Him forever. That's hell. Even if you _do_ violate God, but you still seek Him, He will welcome you into His presence with open arms. That's heaven. So the only rational thing to do is to seek the greatest good. You have a moral ideal to follow. It all depends on you. This is why I loathe Harris's caricature of religion so much. He barely understands it. **Those are bad reasons because:** **1) They aren't even proven to be true** I disagree. I believe that there is a wealth of evidence both that God exists and that Christianity is true. But even if it _wasn't_ proven to be true, it still provides a meaningful grounding for moral duties. **2) It is fear based** No. It is love-based. God gives societal standards for our own sake. **Sam would say we shouldn't kill because killing is immoral.** And that is quite possibly the weakest reason he could give. It is analogous to saying "don't kill just because." It has no practical use or application in an objective sense. **Immoral is defined as a counter to well-being.** That is not the definition - that is a major feature. **Immoral for religion is defined as "god said bad".** And because God is the very essence of good, what He calls bad is truly bad. This provides a meaningful grounding for moral duties. **Anyways. Saying religion is useful or does good in a community does not prove those religious beliefs are true be that an "afterlife", a "god", "reincarnation"...ect.** Of course not. In saying that religion is beneficial, no one is trying to prove that a religion is true. **Nor does it prove religion is the best way to produce the desired effect.** It very well might. **Now Jordan Peterson claims something very ridiculous.** Does he now? **J.P. claims usefulness = truth** Not at all. Peterson is saying that religion has developed naturally as a way to preserve, codify, and communicate abstract ideas and concepts that can provide a meaningful grounding of morality for those who act them out. Peterson was defining these ideas and concepts as values (e.g. fair play, honesty, respect for authority, etc), which we use in our daily lives as a moral compass for our actions. Peterson's claim is that it is likely impossible for humans to be able to eradicate religion and synthesize our own values because you cannot have values as such - they need to be grounded in something meaningful. Consider this: Let's say I have two guitars. Assume that they are identical, but that one of them once belonged to Elvis Presley. Peterson's point is that you must derive value from something else, something meaningful. There is nothing inherently more valuable about Presley's guitar, but once you realize the fact that it belonged to Presley, you can derive value from it. Essentially, Peterson is claiming that values don't just float in space, and if you do away with the only meaningful foundation for them, your entire system will crumble. As much as Harris wants to claim "We can be good without God," the point remains - yes, you can be good, but without a grounding for duties, your moral framework is moot. **That is very wrong on some many levels.** It would be if that is what he meant. **Do you agree with him?** I agree with his position. But I don't agree with what you thought his position is.

[@ethanm.2411]

​@Ruben O. **Please don't respond too quickly. You need to take time to read and process this information. The video below is very important.** Sure. Is this a good amount of time? **1) If you believe your "god" to exist the burden of proof is on you.** I know it is. **If you place your morals on a "god" but you can't prove your "god".... you have no foundation for your morals. ** What if objective morals _are_ evidence for God? **2) Morality is subjective as in the definition, the goal. However, once the subjective morality has been selected there are objective rules.** So it is objective. Those rules are the objective morals we speak of. Certainly, the goal varies, but that does not make it subjective. You must make a distinction between _absolute_ moral claims and _objective_ moral claims. And actually, there are times when the goal doesn't matter (e.g. torturing children for pleasure). **Let me explain.** Please do. **Chess is a game.** I fully agree with that. **The rules aren't objective, the rules were subjectively decided by humans.** But there _was_ an originator of the game who did, in fact, objectively determined what the rules would be. The rules are objective for _anyone_ playing the game called 'chess.' But you _require_ an originator who delivers objective injunctions in order to have rules in the first place. If everyone who played the game of chess chose their own rules, it would reduce to absurdity. **However, once the rules were chosen there are objectively "good" and "bad" plays.** Yes, and those rules cannot be altered by _anyone_ who plays the game of chess. They hold regardless of human opinion. **A "good" play follows the rules of the game to win while a "bad" play follows the rules of the game to lose.** Right. But that implies a goal. And if the rules are objective, there must be a common goal, which must be based on facts, not contingent human beings. **If you change the rules of the game... you aren't playing chess anymore.** Bingo. Now let me explain this analogy: Chess = Life Objective Rules of chess = Objective Morality Maker of the game = Rule-giver But on atheism, you are missing one key component - someone to set the rules. In the absence of that, the game becomes moot. **Sam defines morality as well-being.** Slight correction: he defines "good" as _"that which promotes the wellbeing of thinking creatures,"_ and "bad" as _"that which causes unjustified suffering to thinking creatures."_ But in any case, wellbeing is only a _component_ of morality, not the exhaustive definition. **Sure you can subjectively define morality differently such as following the rules of a "god" which can be ridiculous at times such as "don't eat that", "don't f--k the same sex", or "don't f--k until marriage" or else you burn in hell... 1. You are assuming God does not exist. That is an unjustified assumption. 2. Those "don't eat that" laws are not moral laws. They are covenantal laws. 3. The last two laws are incredibly wise, in regard to a healthy sexual life. They just don't make sense to you because of your postmodern mindset. 4. Do you understand the function of the Old Testament laws and the New Testament covenant? **For Sam morality is well-being.** You said that already. **Well-being has objective rules.** But with no one to set them, they have no prescriptive power. **If you define morality differently all we can do is ask you to play our game instead.** Wellbeing is certainly a major component of morality, but I disagree that it is the exhaustive definition. **You play checkers but we play chess. ** If the game is analogous to life, then you cannot play two different kinds of life. **You define morality as "what god says"** Because God is the essence of all that is good. That includes human wellbeing. **We define morality as "well-being" ** And I say that that also has a major part to play in Christian morality. **There are objective rules to subjective morality ** That makes no sense. Explain further. **3) You are actually wrong about Jordan Peterson's claim on truth. Jordan on many interviews has defined truth as that which is useful and or helps us survive. Don't believe me? The following link is my evidence** 1. Your evidence is a video from _Rationality Rules,_ who is somewhat of an atheist apologist and has quite a low level of sophistication when it comes to religious issues. And he's against Peterson's views, so he has an obvious bias. He also has this kind of worship of Harris, and often conveniently ignores the flaws in his arguments. Nevertheless, none of this discounts what he says in the video. 2. I was addressing the particular view Peterson was expressing _in this discussion._ I don't care about any of his past interviews right now. Especially not ones from 2015. 3.This wasn't evidence for anything. Unless I am much mistaken, never _once_ did Peterson claim that there was no such thing as realist truth. Not. Once. He was merely saying that it was not the only thing that can be called true. True, I don't agree with much of what Peterson said in those interviews, but I think that Peterson and Stephen Woodford were talking past each other in some sense. Peterson might have been describing something like this, for instance - color doesn't actually "exist" in the realist sense. It is entirely a creation of our brain, which has a complex system to interpret the different frequencies of visible light bouncing off objects and entering our eyes, then converted to electrochemical signals sent through the optic nerve into our brain where it is interpreted as an image of what we are looking at. It is, as Peterson would call it, a Darwinian truth. It helps us survive, and so we see color as truly existing, even though it does not truly exist. People live by metaphorical truths all the time, but they are not conflating two different types of truth - they are making a distinction between different ways of viewing reality or living life. Peterson seems to think that non-realist truth is more significant, but I would disagree with that.

[@ethanm.2411]

​@Ruben O. **1) If you "know it" and the foundation for your morality is "god".... why haven't you proven your "god"? ** I have already told you - the existence of objective moral facts is evidence for God. Here's the syllogism: P1: Morality is a rational enterprise, in that it cannot be discovered empirically, just like laws of logic cannot be discovered empirically. P2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist. P3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality. In other words, necessary prescriptive duties and facts cannot depend upon contingent beings such as human beings. P4: Moral facts and duties must be grounded in a personal, moral, rational source. C: That personal, moral, rational source is what we call God. **The burden of proof is on you. ** Again, I know that. **2) I said, from subjective morality we can get objective rules. Let me explain.** Please do. **Objective - "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."** Right. **Subjective - "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."** Agreed. **Do you now understand why the rules of chess aren't objective?** Not quite. It is a fact that the king can move exactly one square horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. This is true, regardless of my opinion. **"A rule giver" makes the rules... so it is subjective.** **If you are still confused, ask yourself:** **Does the "rule giver" decide the rules of chess? (Subjective) ** *or* **Are there rules of chess the "rule giver" discovered? (Objective) ** I think you're misunderstanding what we mean when we say objective morality - a proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the contingent person uttering it. A necessary prescriptive fact must be based on a necessary prescriber. So the statement "murder is wrong" is true for every human being because the "maker of the game" (God) is the foundation of all facts about reality. By the definition you gave, the fact that the earth is round is also subjective because the maker decided it. **Your perspective is the "rule giver" is a "god"... which once again you haven't met your burden of proof.** See the syllogism above. **Our perspective is we (humans) are the "rule givers". ** So they're not objective? **Morality is subjective as the goal can be defined in many ways however once we have a goal there are objective rules. ** I agree. Christian morality works in that way as well. But what if there _is_ an objective goal? **Chess is a game. ** Agreed. **The rules of chess weren't discovered. The rules of chess were invented aka subjective. However, there are good plays (good = closer to the goal) and bad plays (bad = further from the goal). ** Fair enough. But that is still an objective moral framework. A fact does not need to exist outside of that fact's originator in order to be objective. **The rules of chess were subjectively chosen.** But the rules themselves are objective. **There are objectively good and bad plays based on those rules.** Right, because those rules are themselves objective. **Morality is the same. ** But on atheism, _why_ should anyone follow the rules. What is the grounding for moral duties? **Once you define it (Subjective), there are ways to get closer or further from the goal (Objective).** Right, but in order for it to be objective, we cannot base our definitions on contingent human beings. **3) A lot of the debates between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are about truth. Every time Jordan will state in one way or another "usefulness = truth"... That's wrong.** What do you think Peterson means by that? **Truth may or may not be useful. ** True. **Now can you tell me how color isn't objectively real? ** **We can detect it.** **We can measure it.** **We can test the effects of different colored light on many different plants. ** According to The Physics Hypertextbook, _"Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality. "_ For instance, the color green does not exist outside our perception of it. It is a perception of our own cognition. **If the plant is colored green... that means green colored light is reflected from the plant thus green light isn't effective on green colored plants. ** Not quite. According to the source I spoke of above: _"Color is determined first by frequency and then by how those frequencies are combined or mixed when they reach they eye. This is the physics part of the topic. Light falls on specialized receptor cells (called cones) at the back of the eye (called the retina) and a signal is sent to the brain along a neural pathway (called the optic nerve). This signal is processed by the part of the brain near the back of the skull (called the occipital lobe)...The eye is very much like a camera, but the brain is not at all like a video recorder. The brain is not like a computer with fixed hardware of transistors and capacitors executing some sort of software code. The neurons of the brain are probably best thought of as wetware - a fusion of hardware and software or maybe something completely different...Once the visual information leaves the eye, basic physics ends and neurocognition takes over. "_ **Is that not objectively true? We can measure the effects of colored light. We can detect it. Color is an objective fact.** Our _experience_ of color is objective - save perhaps those who are colorblind - but the phenomenon of color is strictly within our minds. Our brains were developed in order for us to be able to detect frequencies of visible light bouncing off objects and entering our eyes. It is useful for survival.

[@ethanm.2411]

​@Ruben O. **I appreciate your response. ** Likewise. **I will stick with 1 problem at a time to make it easier for us.** Good idea. **You said "That personal, moral, rational source is what we call God"** Right. But remember, I didn't give God those attributes ad hoc - they followed necessarily from the previous premises. Also, I would add "transcendent" and "necessary" because necessary and objective facts must transcend human beings. **So you defined "god" as a personal, moral, and rational source but didn't demonstrate it.... and you thought that was evidence? ** What do you mean I didn't demonstrate it? That is what the argument was for. God is the title for any personal, moral, rational, necessary, and transcendent source of objective moral facts. Can you find another entity with these attributes? **What if I defined my "magical pet turtle" as a personal, moral, and rational source?** You would need to provide an argument for that. The definition alone means nothing. **The fact you state a claim and define your "god" to fit isn't evidence. ** You're right. It wouldn't be if that were the case. But in my case, the argument was the evidence from which the conclusion followed. If your trouble is with the name "God," that's fine, but it does not affect the argument. Remember, this is a deductive argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion _must_ be true. I did not merely make claims. You are welcome to challenge any of the premises, but you cannot yet challenge the conclusion. **Your argument proves anything which is defined as a personal, moral, and rational source not demonstrated.** Anything personal, moral, rational, necessary, and transcendent. Those are the other essential attributes the source would need to possess. **You defined "god" to be a personal, moral, and rational source... you didn't demonstrate it. ** Again, the argument was the demonstration. You can't just skip over the premises and criticize the conclusion. What do you think I mean by God? **I can just as easily define my "magical pet turtle" to be a personal, moral, and rational source and without a demonstration ... the definition isn't proof.** You're right. The argument would be the proof.

[@-Gorbi-]

This debate is 400 years old - basically “How do we define the edges between subjective and objective validity criteria?” Hegel and Kant spent most of their lives on this.

[@siriusfun]

It's a lot older than that. Tuck in to Plato's Republic.

[@-Gorbi-]

siriusisastar Oh I know. I did one of my college theses on the Good, the True and the Beautiful, and their respective incommensurable validity criteria.

[@rightwrongorindifferent1493]

book recommendations on this?

[@Magneticitist]

Right but that's just Peterson's debate. Harris wasn't interested because its already been covered in his opinion. Harris seemed to be stuck trying to respond to arguments he's heard a hundred times before that Peterson may have felt were ground breaking. A few times he had to just interrupt Peterson to let him know he already knew where he was going with his drawn out point to shut him down. You can't lose an argument with the view of "anything is possible" and you can't lose an argument with the view of "bad things happening to people is bad".

[@-Gorbi-]

Right Wrong or Indifferent: I recommend listening to the Partially Examined Life Podcast, their episode on Hegel’s Science Of Logic - they compare how Kant and Hegel saw the world constructed differently, which gets to the heart of this. Kant saw us as disinterested agents encountering the world and constructing representations of it, Hegel saw our minds and bodies as already constructed and informed by the world, its dynamics already ingrained in us - a world impossible to stand back from.

[@Pangburn]

Do you enjoy having discussions on topics that "you shouldn't talk about" ?... Try joining our discord server! We have daily voice chats about life, philosophy, science and art. It's free! discord.gg/XSSGDcdB5f

[@thebrightideashow7587]

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

[@kurt-ge6mz]

@@thebrightideashow7587 aqqqqqq

[@EnlightenedTurtle]

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

[@EnlightenedTurtle]

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

[@danrl9710]

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.

[@kingdellxValdez]

this discussion was definitely the best of the 3

[@Jide-bq9yf]

Royal Skeptic it was ; I’ve always been ambivalent to say the least about Murray but his status as an astute intellectual is pretty difficult for me to fault now .

[@JohnJP1016]

4?

[@jlindsay]

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHWvp3egYs6HoKs

[@SemiMono]

38:35 We cannot evolve to have a perfect understanding of reality, given we are contained by it. We must make generalizations and simplifications. We hope that those simplifications and generalizations do not lead to problematic errors.

[@ZacksMetalRiffs]

Jordan sees metaphorical truth as a species of truth that is on par with literal truth -- although to be more specific he would say that it's not just metaphor that he sees as true (in his phraseology "meta-true' or 'hyper-true') but useful metaphor and the more useful it is the truer and more meaningful to us it is. Peterson in a sense sees not literal language as the fundamental reality but human perception and movement and if we can capture the right sorts of movements or behaviors in language then that language is describing something "true" or even "meta-true". The main use for these language games we play are that they allow us to behave effectively. They allow us to extract habitable order out of the chaotic potential. So for Peterson, metaphor goes beyond just being mere metaphor, metaphor is code for a fundamental pattern in human subjective reality that is truer than literal truth because it's generalizable across the longest of time-spans with regards to our evolutionary history and therefore applies to us in a behaviourally meaningful way.

[@benwoodward5273]

Zack Lyle So he’s a Jungian postmodernist?

[@Mutantcy1992]

@@benwoodward5273 brilliant. So glad to see someone else calling him out as just a different breed of post modernist than the ones he so rigorously criticizes (and rightly criticizes).

[@dsuleyma]

+Zack Lyle +Ben Woodward No, this is wrong. Petersons notion of truth is fundamentally grounded in the grand narratives described by Darwinian natural selection and by the narratives encoded in mythologies. A postmodernist view would see these narratives as arbitrary and irrelevant. Peterson's truth is fundamentally anti-postmodernist. It is more a Meta-Modernist conception. He is taking the axioms foundational to the modern era and using contemporary science to explain their utility.

[@gingerburney]

That's right, he bounds his interpretations by what is best for self, future self family and society over time, he gives the devil his due.

[@MarviRafaelMontecillo]

that was beautiful.

[@austinmurphy9074]

so many good moments in this. Just because you're nice doesn't mean you're good!

[@htown1463]

I like how Sam sprinkles in subtle jokes during the discussion.

[@fordhamdonnington2738]

What happens after you die is not a joke.

[@iliaadamanthark8336]

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

[@seanbirch9663]

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

[@fordhamdonnington2738]

@@seanbirch9663 I’m sorry too

[@seanbirch9663]

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

[@jomay78]

Even though I probably lean more towards Sam's side of things, I love Jordan and they both have such different but interesting ways of discussing complex ideas that I enjoyed the heck out of this! Douglas was excellent as always. I would listen to any of these three speak individually so to get all three together is magic...

[@theyeticlutch3486]

I dont know why but personally Harris just rubs me the wrong way maybe arrogance idk. I agree with you, i prolly lean more towards petersen but i agree with them both on alot. Maybe its because to me Petersen and Douglas move the conversation in a productive direction and Sam tends to halt and push the conversation back. Im not sure it seems like alot of the time that Sam just wants to be right One thing Sam asked them give me one example where rationality isnt enough. There are so many people that i know personally and hear on the atheist experience show that understand their view is irrational but yet still cant give up a belief in God or higher power, doesnt even have to be a strictly christian view of god. Pure rationality just doesnt give them the meaning they need

[@edwincollins5847]

The Yeti Paul in the second part of the debate I agree with you, Jordan challenged him on a few things separately throughout the entire debate that Sam somewhat struggled to answer and he went with a few analogies/examples that saved him and also he slightly raises his voice and continues talking enough where Jordan steps back and gives him the floor where Sam would ramble on for a minute or two. If you see him enough you would understand his schtick. But he is a very brilliant man

[@shiskeyoffles]

Ya! Can listen to these gentlemen all day!

[@jlindsay]

MTV | Politics | Pied Piper | Battle for hearts & minds ..Ω. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHWvp3egYs6HoKs

[@brannonmcconkey4424]

Pangburn, was wondering if you could possibly turn the volume any lower. Thanks.

[@kazbadat]

Use your own volume

[@eusebiusthunked5259]

@@kazbadat sheer idiocy. Bite your tongue before wasting everyone's space next time. advertising blares in at maximum volume, so volume equalization is necessary to avoid damaging your hearing or equipment. If not for the adverting, then your comment would be relevant but also unneeded. Break your fingers before responding so stupidly next time.

[@kazbadat]

@@eusebiusthunked5259 does not understand irony. Bless. Maybe all that adverting😂

[@eusebiusthunked5259]

@@kazbadat sorry, what did you say? I couldn't hear you over the sound of the level 99 boss being twerked after gunning down the level 45 Hitman who broke the fingers and bit the tongue of my naked level 1 theif on The Last Day on Earth. I would adjust my volume, but I actually prefer the avatar girls twerking to inferring subtle linguistic styles not clearly expressed in flippant responses to flippant remarks in a KZbin comment thread.

[@myles5158]

@@eusebiusthunked5259 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@uverpro3598]

Goddamn, Jordan Peterson is one sharp dresser. The guy was such a rockstar at this point. The apex of his career and a very real intellectual revivalism. Harris, as always, evolves in a rational way and finds himself in the bullseye of the Dogmatic Secular Humanists he perhaps once championed. And Douglas Murray, the most vital voice of them all. What a great moment in time from when things seemed to "be getting better".

[@eldenfindley186]

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

[@LamprosBekios]

I hope in the rest of my life manage to come to a point to be, both, as passionate as Jordan and as rational as Sam.

[@hanskraut2018]

aww

[@warframeees8013]

Both of these men are incredible to listen to. Could listen to them debate/discuss for days on end without getting bored it.

[@Erbunninja]

I’m currently rereading Plato’s republic and damned if we’re not watching the same discussion at a much more technical level.

[@fergalcussen]

The Western philosophical tradition is a series of footnotes to Plato.

[@AP-bo1if]

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”.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,.,.

[@steven5054]

You are damned. And no, we are not.

[@equontosupport4763]

That's the Perato distribution ;)

[@Jimbo_Conn]

A P stfu plz

[@DeepDish211]

Im grateful this conversation is happening. I consider it like polishing a jagged rock into a perfectly smooth shape. The jagged edges are belief in fictions and the smooth contours is the path ahead where more humans can enjoy our very short time on earth. With Love

[@GiorgiNemsitsveridze]

57:39 When Jordan gets real

[@kennethmayor3596]

This is crazy

[@TB-qs5ss]

i came back bc you deserved that like, im sorry many didn't

[@jajlertil]

I’m turned on

[@merianyouhanayev5423]

😄😄😄 I love it 😍

[@lonelyboysmovie]

Who needs college with discourse like this on KZbin?

[@billjohnson1094]

Maybe this IS the new college (Peterson's comment from a Rogan episode, and maybe elsewhere too).

[@Brandon-w3o]

I'm incredibly grateful for the opportunity to watch these great men debate! I'll have to do some serious reading before coming back and re-watching this.

[@gettingseriousgettingolder3011]

Sam Harris is so organized and concise with his thoughts and speech. Jordan Peterson is like the Flight of the Bumblebees. He's all over the place and constantly changes the subject.

[@mikekennedy5785]

What time does Jordan have to be back at the poker game at The Last Chance Saloon ?

[@AP-bo1if]

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”.,,.,.,.,.,.,.

[@jeremysmith9694]

Haha. Srsly. What is he wearing

[@WilliamMorfin]

A P Fine, we’ll just believe the wizard behind the curtain...🙄

[@diegoconnor1366]

Mike Kennedy Guess we can't all be fancy dressers. No need to be insulting.

[@mikekennedy5785]

Oh, I think his outfit is pretty damn fancy alright. No need to be a dim-witted twat.

[@stephenarmiger8343]

I like that Sam talks about his daughters imagining themselves as super heroes. Childhood is the time for imagination. Leaving religion out of childhood seems a very good idea. When children have matured and if they have attained critical thinking skills they may want to learn more about how humans created deities. Religions are fascinating. Animalistic religions, polytheistic religions. Ancient religions. Perhaps in the future we will have museums of religion.

[@nronan3]

I tend to lean towards Dr. Peterson's side of things when it comes to the dangers of constructing an ethic from rationality, but I think there's a very big flaw with one of his arguments. It's a minor point but I believe it bleeds into the whole and might illuminate some commonalities between them. One of Jordan's broader arguments is that the Biblical stories are metaphoric encapsulations of the values that Western civilization deemed most useful, important, and vital (he would clarify and say that it goes deeper than the West to Mesopotamia and before that to Afro-European nomads). The Biblical stories evolved and the strongest ones survived--that's related to his idea of polytheism becoming monotheism. It would be foolhardy to dispense with the entirety of Judeo-Christian canon because contained within are the very values that keep society functioning--values which were brought about by bloody, violent, lawless, primal, difficult conflict over 3.5 billion years of (what would eventually become human) evolution. This is where I think Sam's fight against religious dogmatism is necessary, and also where my position towards Jordan's message begins to break down. As stated above, there is wisdom in that which is preserved through time. However, at around 54:00, Jordan and Douglas both talk about how religion is also useful as a structure for those who don't have the capability to personally come to the conclusions that Christianity has found and noted. I'm uncomfortable with the idea because it struck me as incredibly similar to The Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (which Jordan has touted as a masterpiece). Ivan, the cold, rational atheist of the story, creates a story that takes place in the Spanish Inquisition, where Jesus truly comes back and begins performing miracles in the streets. The Spanish detain him and the Grand Inquisitor has a conversation with him in his cell. The Grand Inquisitor lays out how free will is a defect on the part of the Catholic Church--that if God truly wanted People to be saved, all He would have to do is make it such that the world is good and people have no reason to suffer. Essentially, the Grand Inquisitor asked Jesus to reveal himself such that no person could rationally consider not believing. Free will is too great of a burden on the human psyche; instead, simply lead the flock into bliss. The Grand Inquisitor considered himself to be a martyr in that he was one of the few that was Enlightened and appointed with the terrible knowledge that he must deceive the sheeple in order to lead them to eternal happiness. It seems to me that Dostoevsky was criticizing Jordan and Douglas's point at around 55:00--that people simply need to be told what is good, that religion is a substitute for those who don't have the time, resources, or intelligence to figure out what a good life is. I would disagree, and I think that The Hero's Journey itself counters that point. Jordan has asserted that The Hero's Journey is a mode of being that is meant to be acted out by every individual, but his point about religion acting as a substitute for individual enlightenment, let's say, stands in opposition of that. The distinction to be made there is this: Jesus isn't the best example of the ARCHETYPAL hero, he's the best example of the TRAGIC hero. The best examples of the archetypal hero (best not meaning in its sense of accuracy but in its sense of "functional truth") are ones where the hero well and truly falls into evil and is reborn, starting down the wrong path and correcting their course. This is in direct opposition to Jordan and Douglas's point that religion can 'stand in' as a substitute for those who don't have a degree in philosophy. On a SOCIETAL level I think there's an argument to be made there, but on an INDIVIDUAL level (which is the space Jordan appeals to), I believe, and I think that it's the root of the religious dogmatism that Sam criticizes. A society whose morality is based in the false claim that a literal hell and literal heaven exists is NOT a satisfactory solution. It FUNCTIONS well to have a society full of people who willfully follow a moral code for fear of punishment or reward in the afterlife, but it's unethical and, as stated above, shares too many characteristics with the brilliant argument against religious structure embodied by the Grand Inquisitor. I believe that one's own goodness MUST be self-actualized in the same way that truly absorbing knowledge is superior in every way to simply memorizing facts. You might pass the test either way, but there's something more worthwhile in truly digesting knowledge rather than spouting facts. A Petersonian point might be that an individual's identity is tested against the suffering in life and that someone must die to be reborn--it's necessary to make wrong decisions and do the wrong thing in order to have a real reason to follow the right path. THAT'S the Hero's Journey that Jordan likes to use as a model for individual actualization. In daily life, that might look like knowing what is "right" and aiming for that--to see the Truth that Jesus embodied and aim towards that, not to accept it and follow it blindly. I think the issue that Jordan fails to see and that Sam rightfully points out is something that Jordan asserts all the time: systems of order tend to devolve into tyranny. This is an individualistic tyranny, one of dogmatism and ignorance. Individuals MUST do wrong to learn that they can do good. I completely understand the impulse to preserve the traditions and teaching of the Church--its teachings are thousands of years of pieces of wisdom that came about from trial and error: people suffered, civilizations fell, and through it all, we gained vital truths for functioning in life. Why wouldn't you write that shit down and pass it down to your kids? Why wouldn't you write down everything you and your ancestors learned to pass it along? But that doesn't mean their descendants should follow Christian virtue without question, never actually considering why some things are right and some things are wrong beyond eternal punishment or reward. But Jordan doesn't simply believe stories are necessary to embody truths that people otherwise might not be receptive to (that's the Grand Inquisitor argument that I don't like.) Another reason is that the "rational" truth behind some of the rules and ideas in Christianity is either unclear or nonexistent, but that doesn't make them irrelevant because it's still possible that disobeying that rule can lead to hell on earth. Jordan believes, generally, that we should proceed with caution. I'm gonna mess around a make a little story to help illustrate this headspace and see if it helps. Imagine that Sam and Jordan are the fathers to a child--let's call them Individual. Sam and Jordan let Individual run around in the house until they fall down and hurt their knee. "Oh," Individual thinks "THAT'S why my Daddies told me not to run around in the house. Henceforth, I shall not." So far, so good--this is good parenting, and it's what I believe spiritual enlightenment should also be based off of--to some degree, the individual must undergo trial and error to find the true path. It's not enough for them to be told the true path and to follow it (that idea is integral to Herman Hesse's Siddhartha and James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man). So far, good parenting. But Sam and Jordan, because they have a good marriage, talk and agree that they will not let Individual run around in the street. When Individual asks them why, Sam calmly and clearly explains that doing so would be irrational because they could be hit by a car. Jordan tells them an epic story about the tragic hero that was hit by a car. This particular example works in Sam's favor because there's an easy rational reason behind the rule, but there are many instances where stories don't have a clear rational root. That doesn't mean the story is useless--it's very possible that we haven't worked it out or that the story transcends the rational itself, telling a different/deeper truth. In a sense, Jordan embodies conservatism (PROCEED WITH CAUTION.) and Sam embodies liberalism (PROCEED.) Order and chaos; tyranny and bedlam. IN SUMMARY: What started out as a critique of one of Jordan's positions ultimately came to what I believe is the Truth between them. I agree with Jordan in that the Biblical stories are incredibly wise and should not be dispensed with lightly. I agree with Sam in that the codification and structural adoption of individual moral truths leads to ignorance and religious dogmatism. I disagree with Jordan in that these stories are partially justified by their ability to encourage submission of its readers without further reflections as to their actual Truthfulness (opiate of the masses, anyone?). I disagree with Sam in the that we have no utility for the stories that encode these ideas because I don't believe all of the truths they embody are purely rational on an individual basis (it's difficult to track back thousands of years and state clearly why some of these stories and rules exist--but that doesn't make them false or irrelevant). In the context of this conversation, there is the spectrum of religious indoctrination and moral relativism--Jordan leans towards the former, Sam leans towards the latter. As is often the case, it appears the the truth lies between two extremes. I'm glad they had this chat, it was nice to listen to while I was playing Minecraft.

[@chipampechansa1960]

Weird flex at the end but ok lol. That aside, that was an interesting comment you made. Thank you

[@ervinchua8288]

It would be easy to make your case or argument by using that analogy of individual when it’s running by or on the street. What if it were to be something deeper and more complicated? Like,would you go and hunt down to kill a person if that person harmed someone that you loved? To a fickle minded person, it would be tough to rationalize it to him, but when you tell him he would burn in hell eternally, he would listen.

[@forscherr2]

Thanks for that lenghty, well articulted comment, I really enjoyed reading it and found it helpful. The thing that I take away from this discussion (and Jordan's work, in general), which is what I believe to be the truth, is the validity of the idea of the hero archetype. I can't see how this is wrong: the ideal to which you should strive towards on an individual level is to imitate/embody/incorporate the process/personality that a) confronts the unknown/chaotic potential and gathers adaptive/useful knowledge as a consequence (the metaphor of the aqua vitae comes to mind) b) confronts tyranny and tries to resolve it as piecefully as possible (to bring in a little bit of chaos when the old, dogmatic order has become to rigid) c) fights the destructive element of nature (disease etc.) This seems to me to be pragmatically true, and the way to transform "the unbearable present" into the "desirable future". Peterson argues that in emboding this creative LOGOS capacity - the personality mediating between chaos and order - the phenomenon of meaning can be experienced, which serves as an antidote to the existential suffering and pain. Pain seems to be true, at least everyone acts like it is true (sort of the fundamental phenomenological reality), so if pursuing this heroic pathway of meaning works to alleviate the suffering, than it must be at least equally true. And if we act out the idea that each individual has sovereignty and is sort of an embodied fragment of this divine Logos identity, if we assume free will and intrinsic human rights, than we can play society in a way that works across time. I think that the definition of truth is actually one of the major issues in these sorts of discussions. Personally, I have come to endorse Peterson's definition of pragmatic truth, which also seems to be a Darwinian claim: things/ideas are only true enough so that the organism which embodies these ideas lives long enough to survive and produce/raise offspring. The reason I do accept this definition of truth over a definition of let's say "objective truth" is that I find it really hard to imagine what that latter thing might be. In science - correct me if I am wrong - we regard something as objectively true when multiple people measure it and get the same result. That's fair enough I don't want to dispute the utility of the scientific method. But, and here comes the crucial issue, is this really an objective claim? Because it's still human beings interpretating a certain phenomenon, so it's true for human beings. But it might not be true for another organism. This might sound weird, but just consider how perception (which, in my opinion, is roughly equivalent to measurement) works. Human beings on "object" in a certain colour, while for another organism who doesn't have colour vision the "objects" looks completely different. We can't ever step outside of our human perceptive structure, our biologically instantiated interpretative framework of reference. The subjective relevance of things is built right into our perception of "objects". This is also what Donal Hoffman, which Sam pointed towards briefly, argues: our perceptions have been shaped by evolution, not to show us the truth, but to guide adaptive behavior. "Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were of life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with truth." (Steven Pinker) This implies that what we think of as objects doesn't exist as objects when there are no human beings to perceive them. Objects, in that sense, are just low-resolution icons on our human user-interface and don't exist independent of an perceiver. So can we, with our limited range of perceptions, ever be modellers of an objective reality? I would argue no, because then we would not be human beings with all our inherent limitations anymore. The notion from physics that the world is made out of objects and particles has obviously great utility (true enough to fly to the moon and kill millions of people with a single hydrogen bomb), but is it really the basic structure of reality? There is also this whole realm of quantum-spookiness which - as far as my limited understanding of physics goes - seems to be at odds with general relativity (especially the entanglement stuff). So in SUMMARY: All metaphysical and ontological speculations aside, I can't see how the hero archetype (as described above) is not the solution for successfull human adaptation. I can't undermine the idea that the ideal mode of living in the world is to try to embody this archetype in your own life and trust your experience for meaning to guide you along the path.

[@wellmadegifts]

Sounds like they should have filmed the meal they had before the show as well

[@gregoriosamsa2722]

Some meal must have been

[@FakingANerve]

Sam: Is your steak good? Jordan: It would take me 40 hours to answer that question. Sam: ... check, please.

[@robertjay9415]

😂😂😂

[@loweffortproductions1985]

There's never going to be a Q&A, is there?

[@hodor]

hay! Spoiler alert! You must be one of those Nazis. Hodor

[@44clambert]

I fully understand the open exchange of ideas. I really enjoy these discussions. But, ffs can we get just ONE of these conversations when the sound engineer does their job? Basic EQ and no feedback would be wonderful. Just for a change.

[@funbigly]

It's improving from one talk to the next, if that's any consolation

[@trannongoble7722]

Sam Harris is so straight-forward. He takes complex ideas and forms them into layman's terms (so to speak). He is brilliant at that.

[@TimLondonGuitarist]

This debate, & the previous one in Vancouver, are rubbish. Peterson is full of typical religious waffle, only difference is he masquerades behind his thing about 'the value of narrative. He should be debated incisively, this debate was pathetic, a commercial gig circuit, not a real debate.

[@MNSTRJudethedude]

I feel Jordan uses semantics to cover up and confuse everyone with BS

[@TheOlzee]

Not to be rude but because JP talks on a deeper level rather than Sam who talks more surface level doesn’t mean JP is talking rubbish because you can’t comprehend it. A very large number get a headache from listening to Sam not seem to understand more complex matters.

[@kmitchell9891]

​​@@TheOlzeeordan wants to have his amorphous god that is the ideal of what humanity can be, but simultaneously wants a personified judeo Christian God. So which one is it? Is God just a collection of ideas moving humanity to a better future or is God a manifest being who has interacted with mankind in the past and sent his son to die for the sins of Adam and eve? Peterson has said previously "I don't believe God exists, but I pretend and act like he does." How does that square if God is just a set of amorphous beliefs about prgroess? The ideas and beliefs of progress through time clearly exists, why is Peterson only pretending they do? It quickly reaches levels of belief that are nonsensical. More than that Peterson argues from a position that these religious stories *inherently* have utility solely by the fact that the stories have existed for millenia. Its self referential, "why is this ancient story important" 'because it is ancient so it must be important'. It's silly. The reality is Jordan wants to pretend God exists to appeal to his audience and clients who need psychological help, but he certainly acts like God does not exist. He does not live his life by the word of the Bible. He does not attend church or mass. He clearly knows that the Bible and Torah are man made and not the word of the all knowing creator of the universe.

[@freelancers_corner]

Stop hating the things you simply don't understand. To equate the genius of Peterson to some fanatic of linguistic masturbation just because you cannot decode the depth of his argument, nor recognize the philosophical aspect of the consequential questions posed is a reflection of your limitation and not necessarily his. It's mind boggling how people desire for one simple answer ornamented with some witty punch line when talking about things like value structure, deep philosophical concepts of good and evil, and unraveling religious disposition. Ask yourself, is it really Peterson's pathology or your limited comprehension?

[@JD..........]

1:17:00 - charges of being gateway to alt-right 1:33:33 - what characterizes being on the left 1:44:04 - how to justify your good fortune? 1:47:10 - the pathology of reflexive empathy

[@alessandromorelli5866]

In the end, it's all about Jordan Peterson using abstract thinking, i could follow his points (yes, plural, he talks about many things at the same time, that's just the way it is), while Sam Harris goes more straight to the point, which comes also as no surprise, given his personality. Haven't you noticed the way of speaking/personality of the individual seems to be directly tied in with the argument they are making? no, it's not because "the argument makes no sense" or something like that, Peterson talks like that about EVERYTHING, he's abstract, works, closes and opens things all of the time, like a curved line, Harris is like a straight line, goes to the point and only the point, and his argument has been cleaned for years now, to the point it seems like a spear. And you know what? That's ok! As long as they keep on wanting to speak with each other. What i don't like is these comments picking teams.

[@GamesSatisfy]

Alessandro Morelli I agree completely truly. But I think Sam has some type of trauma or something around religion and cannot drop the traditional fundamentalism around the world but mostly in the past. Rationality is not enough.

[@doncarloquita4759]

He embodies the narrative he espouses. When asked a question, he never simply answers. In order to understand a point he's making, you have to go through other points. A journey with him. Which makes him a great storyteller. But for a lot of people who wants a simple sensible answer, it comes out as evasive word soup.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Alessandro Morelli There is nothing wrong with picking teams. We are allowed to agree with one and disagree with the other. You are no one to tell us otherwise.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Brunososilly That's because most religion is in fact fundamentalist. There is no point in trying to argue against non-fundamentalist religion separately because it comprises maybe 1% of the world's religious population.

[@skyeangelofdeath7363]

@@doncarloquita4759 " it comes out as evasive word soup." There is a reason for that. The reason is that it *is* evasive word soup.

[@ATestamentToNothing]

If anyone needs to know what is going on here, watch Alan Watts' video on spikes and goo. Peterson's romantic, Harris is rational. I appreciate both of their views, and their ways of expressing them - Harris speaks concisely, Peterson speaks with flair. Beautiful show to watch.

[@ATestamentToNothing]

@Camaren Stebila Ah ye, prickly goo, you're right!!

[@kudos83]

Agreed!

[@mattabraham3549]

It’s funny you mention Alan Watts as I always use him as a counterbalance to Jordan’s posit that life must be so damn structured and figured out. In some sense that’s what’s going on between JP and Sam, structure vs free flowing conscious reaction and living. Of course us 20th and 21st century folks are inclined to grasp the latter, but JP makes his argument so deeply and profoundly I can’t let go of the utility of his position.

[@nunocosta8932]

You're comment is so refreshing! Thank you.

[@carsonhunt4642]

Tyler Marks lol, gotta give credit as that sounds better than saying “JP says word salads that I can’t understand”. Quite ironically, I’d disagree strongly with that statement. Flair is not an inverse to rational, so all that statement does is provide a bias towards sam. Perhaps if you said sam speaks at a shallow blunt level, while jp wants to dig deeper than the surface, that would be a better analogy. They were both rational in respect to their beliefs.

[@MasterChakra7]

One problem I have with Jordan is that he gives very few examples of the concepts and behaviors he talks about. I understand the value in elaborating ideas to get to the bottom of things more quickly, but you can only develop uneasy things so far, before you start to lose yourself in a reflexion that, while true in theory, doesn't actually represent anything happening in the current world. And so, I sometime have trouble trying to connect the dots between the issues that Sam/Douglas raise and the answers Jordan gives, for I think they would bring much more if they described a situation people find themselves into in both space and time that he can refer to.

[@robocles]

They assume you will do your own research... these aren't lectures, they are discussions among very talented individuals. If you want to know more about the drill down, look for it... both of them have provided it in spades.

[@local-teen]

I agree. I think what makes these talks seem so acrimonious is the lack of playfulness. They don't seem to allow themselves to reach outside the bag of arguments and points they carried on stage. There is a distinct lack of range being allowed by both sides. Nonetheless enjoyable to watch.

[@JeanAlesiagain3]

I feel the opposite way. Jordan Peterson points out that the ideas expressed by Sam Harris result in some well know philosophical problems to which there are no solutions. Sam, on the other hand, completely ignores the obvious dead end of his statements and the impossibility of his main axiomatic truth simply by filling the voids with other inconclusive postulates about corner cases that support his position... This process is repeated by him, over and over.. so he can never be caught in his error. A clear example of what I am saying is that in all three debates, it was pointed out by Jordan and the moderators that the dead end of his philosophy is that it is not grounded in a universal value (a well known problem studied in Ethical philosophy), and therefore, it inevitably leads to moral relativism... Sam never tried to answer this... instead he attacked Jordans position in a "you are wrong, therefore I'm right" fashion.

[@hamdan7210]

@@JeanAlesiagain3 - EXACTLY!

[@Jide-bq9yf]

Star Fox i had that problem when I first encountered him ; he’s quite an interesting guy ; he literally plays with ideas incessantly , banging then all over the place ; when he’s sure they don’t break , he’ll lay them ( it ) down and move unto something else. .