Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris Debate No. 4

[ODB]

LOL, Jordan Peterson gets testy at 1:08.

"I'm not moderate enough to be a moderator." ?? Just the intro... haven't heard from Peterson yet.

Looks like I'm going to find 2 hours tomorrow to listen to this.

[Helena]

"I'm not moderate enough to be a moderator." ?? Just the intro... haven't heard from Peterson yet. ...

It's part of his humor set. As it goes along, he doesn't say much, but he adds his twist of humor to what he is saying when he sees an opportunity. I took it to mean he doesn't hold moderate views, which he doesn't, for the most part.

[Helena]

Gotta love how pleased Jordan was with himself when he used a not-so-subtle tactic in leading the audience to a desired outcome when it came time for the usual Q and A section.

[Chris]

This really started when Harris invited Peterson to his podcast. It went viral mainly because they couldn't reach a resolution. So it went on the road.

Harris's problem is he assumes Peterson's belief in God is Christian. Listen to the video from the 1:08 point and you hear that. Harris is simply anti-Christian--he wrote The End of Faith which is as meaningful as Fukuyama's end of history. At a basic level, Peterson's point is Harris puts faith in science and reason.


BTW, here's the podcast: https://samharris.org/podcasts/what-is-true/

[Helena]

This really started when Harris invited Peterson to his podcast. It went viral mainly because they couldn't reach a resolution. So it went on the road.

Harris's problem is he assumes Peterson's belief in God is Christian. Listen to the video from the 1:08 point and you hear that. Harris is simply anti-Christian--he wrote The End of Faith which is as meaningful as Fukuyama's end of history. At a basic level, Peterson's point is Harris puts faith in science.

The discussion started out with Harris's? problem with Peterson giving credence and assurance to those who want to hold onto their belief as inviolable because GOD. After the 1:08 mark, the problem is further compounded when Harris asks the question of whether Jordan believes the texts he so rigorously studied and analyzed came from a purely human construct, or a metaphysical higher being. Jordan says both. I think he struggles with that (Peterson).

[Chris]

The discussion started out with Harris's? problem with Peterson giving credence and assurance to those who want to hold onto their belief as inviolable because GOD. After the 1:08 mark, the problem is further compounded when Harris asks the question of whether Jordan believes the texts he so rigorously studied and analyzed came from a purely human construct, or a metaphysical higher being. Jordan says both. I think he struggles with that (Peterson).

Yet Harris puts faith in science and reason.

Peterson's metaphysical isn't Christian so far as I can tell. Yet that is what Harris attacks.

To struggle is normal, to not stuggle the way Harris pretends is strange.

[Chris]

Here's how Peterson summarizes the argument:

A summary of my ideas

1. I see no simple way of directly deriving values from facts, because there are a practically infinite number of facts, and the method of sorting and arranging them cannot be derived self-evidently from that sea of information;
2. In consequence of (2), we need intermediary structures to arrange facts into values;
3. Those intermediary structures take the form of stories (or personalities, or game—viewed from a slightly different perspective) and these are not simply “facts”;
4. I therefore believe that Harris’s description of the good and bad life is by necessity a moral claim, not a factual claim (this does not mean that I think that it is invalid) – a story, in fact, about how to live, masquerading as a fundamental fact.

Harris’s criticisms of my ideas:

We do not need to be connected to stories (ancient stories, in particularly) to thrive. Furthermore, the ancient stories that we cling to are:

1. Too-frequently pathological in their conceptualization and harmful in their details;
2. Dangerously outdated, now, even if useful in the past;
3. Dangerous insofar as they pose a threat to science and enlightenment values, which are the true saviors of humanity;
4. Subject to too many potential interpretations for any modern usage to be reliably derived (through interpretation as metaphor, for example);
5. Susceptible to interpretations which confer upon the interpreter a sense of and then a claim to revealed truth.

In conclusion: It is facts, not stories, that constitute the ground for the proper science of well being.

@ https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosop...ssions-part-i/

[barb012]

Jordan Petersen is an excellent speaker and is well informed on his topics.

[Helena]

Yet Harris puts faith in science and reason.

Peterson's metaphysical isn't Christian so far as I can tell. Yet that is what Harris attacks.

To struggle is normal, to not stuggle the way Harris pretends is strange.

Do you have an example of Harris pretending?

My husband and I both are very caught up in these discussions. I think that what someone takes away from these great formats and discussions is very much a product of their prior experiences, and their personality make-up.

For instance, while we both enjoy and can agree with what both speakers are saying, one of us identifies more closely with Peterson, and one of us closely identifies with the train of thought that Harris espouses.

I've asked my husband to watch it again, because when we discussed it, he had no idea what I was talking about when I brought up certain things. Along with the personality aspects of how our minds work, there is also the gender difference. Males are hearing the information and ideas, while females are interested in the person, their mannerisms, facial expressions, tone and how it matches the expressed ideas.

[Chris]

Do you have an example of Harris pretending?

My husband and I both are very caught up in these discussions. I think that what someone takes away from these great formats and discussions is very much a product of their prior experiences, and their personality make-up.

For instance, while we both enjoy and can agree with what both speakers are saying, one of us identifies more closely with Peterson, and one of us closely identifies with the train of thought that Harris espouses.

I've asked my husband to watch it again, because when we discussed it, he had no idea what I was talking about when I brought up certain things. Along with the personality aspects of how our minds work, there is also the gender difference. Males are hearing the information and ideas, while females are interested in the person, their mannerisms, facial expressions, tone and how it matches the expressed ideas.

He's very self-righteous. And condescending. Peterson answers his challenge, the audience loved it. And Harris dismisses it as deflection.