St Fax. That's Spott fat fat happens at finer finer person at the cost
to fund the doctor f to con the facts. All right, what's up?
Welcome? So we do have a new cringe course song that just dropped
yesterday. If you missed it, shout out to Rosta rosta man going mine,
rosta man going be mixing up the turntail brothers putting down the beads left
and right. Yeah, what's up? Did you? I hear the new
song? So I did a live stream. I don't even remember what it
was, and I made a joke about reacis Dracula and my boy over here.
Shout out to Skippy Johnson. Skippy Jackson, he said that right there,
y'ah, I ain't real song right there. I making it into this
song right now. And they're going to do something like there's a prison as
to make a pill conger in your eyesight sound slee the taal will be great
averything resent, don't you call me? I think not Spain and stream culture
in the room game trees are story and the plant storming jets its indeed for
you to it's name all said, there's a prison a pasta to make a
pill. All right, that's enough of racist Dracula. Anyway, that's the
new CRNCH course song that just dropped. Thank you to Rosta Mangoon. He
put together a nice mix, so shout out to him. What's up,
y'all. So we had a lot of fun yesterday getting into the old classics,
diving into the old debate reviews, doing it up like we used to
do it back in the old days of two years ago. Thank you.
I am a handsome vampire. That's what all my bride, that's what all
my thought thought bride bitch has been saying for many years. As rape reality
is Dracula, Me go a tree bright at least running over there on to
come girls writing a fine Yeah, what's up y'all? Love it right when
we do these debate reviews, the bait reviews, y'all, let the debate
review Well, we'll pick back up where we were because we were having so
much fun yesterday before I had to go do Lord Voldemort's show. We were
having so much fun talking about uh crazy stuff. We saw that this discussion,
which Brett Weinstein says, this is the most important discussion ever on the
internet. So we definitely want to be over here involved in the most important
discussion, but we got to learn from it. We got to hear the
intellectual dark web blowing our minds with unfathomable intellectual sophistication and depth, such as
questions of what if a bullet was in a gun but then out of the
gun, and then you could trade the gun after multiple checks at the local
casino for a million dollars, or porcupines that were automatically loaded like a assault
rifle porcupine. Basically, a porcupine has an assault rebel that can shoot his
quills. Right, we heard stories about infant sacrifice. I mean, we're
just all over the place, right, And we came up with some algorithms
yesterday. So let's see where the intellectual dark web is taking us next in
this classic this is we'll do a little bit more a part two. I
was starting to get a little impatient with part two because it's kind of dumb,
and then we got a part three. Did you even know this goes
on into a part four? Thank you, Kate. Yes, the Internet
has now confirmed that I am funny. The last few streams that we've done
reacting to the TikTok, which is the TikTok cringe, the TikTok ghosts and
Ufo Crypti people to TikTok star seeds. We have finally confirmed, right,
Internet confirmed officially that I'm funny. So all the haters over the years who
said you are not funny, you cannot make people laugh, You shall fail
at life, you will become a gutter bum. You are a loser man.
What's up now? Where you at now? I got a Mavado watch,
I got a Pooka necklace. I have a lover in the other room.
I have an Internet channel channel and a podcast on the Internet featured on
Apple Podcasts. Not everybody can have that. I have succeeded. I've achieved
the pinnacles of what might we might call power and fame or e celebtum if
you would hit, like and share, let's get into it. Not everybody
can go to the Movado outlet, right, Not everybody could do that.
You've got to be at a certain level of Internet power. What's up?
Shout out to all the peeps in the audience. Where is everybody to night?
It's Saturday. There's nothing else to do. I can tell you that,
right, Sam Sam Harris said, you got a up level right,
will be already up leveled. We're at the top right now. The only
place to go from here is sideways, I guess, because if you at
the top, you can't. I'm not going down. I assure you that.
So we can go to the left or to the right, I guess
frontwards, are backwards or even diagonals. Right, that's the only directions to
go. I could forever go diagonal. I'll still be at the top.
You like it in the booger west to thank you, thank you. Yeah,
let's get into it. Now. Where were we at? I don't
remember, but let's say let's get and again. It's the volume is all
the way up. The original file is low. So stop fussing at me.
It's not my fault. But let me see maybe I can turn try
to turn them up a little more in internals. Let's see place where it
needs to be developed. Because I see that the attempt that you make to
derive the world of value from the world of facts as as justifiable given what
it is that you're attempting to do. This is the odd question, the
better place. But there's a massive gap in there. It's like, how
do you do it? Because the objection that you place on my my reasoning,
let's say, which is well, the problem with these text is that
there's an infinite number of interpretations, and which of them can you, how
can you determine which of those is canonically correct? Is exactly and precisely the
same criticism that can be levied against your attempt to extract a world of value
from the domain of facts. It's the same problem. It's not an I
allow it to infinite, so that well, it might be. I mean,
that's why the moral landscape for me is a landscape of peaks and valleys,
and so I'm totally open to the possibility, in fact certainty, that
there are different So the moral landscape is a landscape full of peaks and valleys.
On his secular scheme, then we don't actually have any benchmark by which
to judge the peak versus the valley. You see that, So it just
becomes an exercise in constant ad hoc just assertion, because the question is where
do we derive values? And he says, well, the moral landscape will
include peaks and valleys. Peaks and valleys in reference to what like if one
is a peak and one is a valley that requires some kind of standard to
say which is which. And one point for Jordan Peterson here for making that
point, which is what we've been saying for long time. Different ways for
similar minds and certainly different ways for different minds to be constellated so that they
have equivalent but irreconcilable peaks on the landscape. So there's a lot of well
being over here, and there's a lot of well being over here, and
there's a valley in between, and so it's it's a kind of moral relativism.
It's kind of like, you know, this is this is great,
and this is great, but these are irreconcilable. Right, Well, I'd
like to see that made more concrete and I need to know how that fits
in with your consci Yeah, exactly, like just saying that, oh,
it's a kind of moral relativism, and uh, there's peaks and valleys for
well being. So again, what do we say that we would have appeals
to what's true and what's good value judgments versus bad and false. And he
just admitted that it's a kind of moral relativism, which is never going to
give him the thing that he's trying to it's just just it's an exercise and
dishonesty and contradiction. Because one of the claims that you make in the moral
landscape is that the distinction between the bad life and the good life is normal.
It's like it's a factual distinction. Yes, it's universally it's universally apprehensible
and true. It's your I think it's your fundamental axiomatic claim. And I
don't see how that's commensurate with the position that you just put correct. So
he basically, yeah, exactly, And you can forget about morality as a
concept for this. I mean, I think the starting point is deeper than
morality, the starting points and this is all this is our starting point.
I mean, so we're talking about ethics and value judgments and then he just
says, forget about morality. So does he just does he actually sense that
this is just gibberish nonsense. He knows this deep down and it basically is
now just talking around it. Well, let's just forget about morality and let's
just talk about well being. What is well being? I mean, again,
this is what passes as intellectual public discourse, all of us right now
in the universe. The starting point is we are conscious, right, we
have a circumstance. We're conscious. So his self evident starting point and if
you watch his other podcast where they discussed this, he believes in self evident
maxims and principles. So his self evident starting point is consciousness. Is he
not aware that pretty much most of modern atheistic materialist philosophy, of which he
is a member, rejects or doesn't have any answer to the question of consciousness.
In other words, that's the central issue is how can we explain or
give an account for this mysterious thing known as consciousness. It's really been kind
of one of the central philosophical questions for I don't know the least hundred years.
And he says, well, let's just start with consciousness. I can
start. What is that on an atheist materialist worldview? And by the way,
are you a determinist? It's a qualitative experience and he's sort of staring
at his hands and making it up. It's consciousness is the starting point,
which is qualitative experience. So consciousness is experience just nonsense phrases, just nonsense
words, right, Conscience consciousness can be can be identical to experience because experience
is something that a conscious mind has. The knower has the knowledge. That's
like saying, uh, knowing is knowledge. Knowing is an action of knowledge
that a knower has a self. So consciousness has to be had by some
underlying what is called transcendental unity of apperception. That's just cont fancy term for
the self, something that is the hare of the experiences, right, the
self. But the question is where or what is consciousness If you make the
mind the brain, which of course all the materialists do. That is the
reductionist materialists move. Is precisely why they're determinists, because the mind is simply
the brain. There's no distinction between the two. But you see all of
the stupid quandaries and contradictions that he's already caught in here Again, this is
true. Whatever, however we understand consciousness, whatever is actually happening. We
could be living in a simulation. This could be a dream. You could
be a brain in a vat. Consciousness could just be the product of neurochemistry,
or we could have eternal souls running on how integrated with the brain.
Whatever is true, something seems to be happening, and these seemings can be
really really bad or really really good. We know each one of us in
our lives have experienced this range of possibility. And yes, there are caveats
here. There are hard and painful experiences that have a silver lining, right,
that give you some other where you could say, well, you know
that really sucked, but I'm a better person for it, right, and
we can understand what it means to be a better person for it in terms
again of this range of experience, which I you know, I'm calling subsuming
all of this the positive end of this as well being, which is to
say that you know, I'm a better person for it because now you know,
having endured that ordeal, I am capable of much greater compassion. Or
I appreciate my life more. You know, the cancer made me a better
person. Now that I've I'm cured, I value each moment of life more
than I ever did. All of these claims are intelligible within a context of
an open ended context of exploring this space. Right, So it's not technically
my discord anymore. I've gave it away, but there's over ten thousand people
in there, so I'm still in there. But anyway, so I mean,
hopefully we can get somewhere a bit like we're just getting assertion after assertion.
And again I don't think it's like he doesn't really know what an argument
is. It's just kind of like maybe he thinks that you can't argue these
types of things and you just kind of have to make it up as you
go. Right, Maybe that's his view possible experience. So what I'm saying
is forget about morality, forget about right and wrong and good and evil.
What is undeniable is that what we have here is a navigation problem. We
have a space of possible experience. And again this is not just a human
problem. This is a problem for any possible conscious mind. We have a
space, a possible experience in which we can navigate, and we and things
can get excruciating and pointlessly horrible where there are no silver linings, and we
get this. Can this can happen individually in some episode of madness that never
ends. If there really is a Christian hell to go to, well then
it can. It's going to happen to me after I die, right,
given what I've said on this day. Right, So this is just Descartes
argument that consciousness is. You know, I think therefore I am, so
most there's some seeming of happening occurring, So that is my self evident starting
point, this raw seeming of occurring. But of course that doesn't actually work
as an argument in the way that descartt frames it, and subsequent people from
Kant to bertrand Russell have severely critiqued this notion of a self evident foundationalist starting
point. And it's pretty easy to critique it because remember, Descartes's idea is
that I think therefore I am is a great starting point because no one could
doubt this. It's the most fundamental thing that you couldn't theoretically doubt. However,
Descartes was prior to the rise of linguistic philosophy, and so Descartes didn't
think to question linguistic structure because to say that thinking is occurring, or thinking
is it seems to be occurring, or I think therefore I am assumes that
the propositional value of sentences and that words have meaning. That's a prior assumption
to the idea that thinking is occurring. So because it's the phrase it self
is an argument, right, So it's assuming things that have not yet been
proven. And if it's assuming things that are not yet proven, then it
is not self evident or foundational. Because self evident beliefs have to be self
evident, they have to be foundational. They can't rely on other beliefs or
other things that are not yet proven. So Descartes project fails. Later other
people critique it. The Russell says, it's a non sequitur, right because
thinking is occurring. It doesn't follow from that that the self exists, so
it's a leap. Kant has a very devastating critique when you say thinking is
occurring or there's a happening. Happening and occurring are time determinations. Time hasn't
been demonstrated yet. So to say that I think, therefore I am,
and that thinking is happening or occurring to occur is for something to happen within
time. But has Descartes proven time yet, or what do we have any
idea what that is? No? So what he's chosen as his enlightenment rationalist
starting point, which by the way, contradicts his materialist determinism, because if
the self is just a materially determined thing, the self is not really any
different than any other chemical reaction, and so Essentially it's illusory. And the
choices that the self makes between the true and the false, the good and
the bad, are also therefore illusory because they're not really choices. They're merely
determined. And so there's no way in this determinist scheme to choose between the
good and the bad or the true of the false. There's just what is.
But again, it's like he's never conceived of these or no, it's
like he's not even heard of these very well known critiques that like, if
you had an undergrad in philosophy, you would be familiar with some of these
critiques, right, they're pretty well known. But I think that because there's
such an ignorance in terms of philosophy and the history of thought in the West,
that a lot of these kind of people can get away with this.
They can do a kind of intellectual charlatanism and get away with this kind of
stuff, either because they know people are ignorant of the critiques, or they
themselves are ignorant the critique. Either way, it's just still kind of a
very simplistic, low level discourse. If I mean, let me put it
this way, if you want to understand from from a person who you know,
study philosophy the grad school level, and then here's stuff like this.
This is basically the equivalent of conversations that occur in your first or second philosophy
court. Right, so if you took philosophy one oh one and then philosophy
one o two, you would be having these kinds of conversations. And so
this is what kind of the public thinks of as deep, but it's not.
It's really introductory level stuff matters who's right. Obviously, if I knew
that an eternity of fiery torment awaited somebody who didn't make the right noises about
one or one faith or another, well then it would only be rational didn't
make the right noises about what. So in other words, our words are
just random noises generated by a chemical reaction machine. Well that's the case,
then your arguments against Christianity or Theism are also meaningless chemical reactions generated by the
determined meat machine. So again it's like no self awareness. I mean,
none of these people. These people would last like two minutes in a pre
positional critique. And that's why, you know, we showed that Mount Dillhoney
debate. He lasted about ten minutes before he just got mad and started just
asserting arbitrary ad hoc statements over and and over, and he thought that constituted
an argument, And the whole discourse was about fifteen feet above his head,
and he never caught wind of it until the after stream, when he had
to bring in a couple of professors to help him out and all to make
those right noises right. So it's it's my bet. I'm placing a bet
on certain pictures of reality being wrong. But the reality is is we're navigating
in this space, and morality and ethics are the terms we use for how
we think about our behavior affecting one another's experience. Yes, Determined Meat Machine
is my metal band exactly to God. Oh so, if you're in a
moral solitude, if you're on a desert island, or if you're on alone
in the universe, morality is not the issue you need to worry about.
But well being still is an ever present issue. It's possible to suffer,
and it's possible to experience bliss, and so why should we prefer bliss to
suffering? And by the way, I could I could take the same position
and say that, well, I prefer my own bliss to other people suffering,
or perhaps I enjoy and achieve bliss from causing other people to suffer.
And quite a few people in the world actually do believe that they are masochistic.
They do enjoy hurting other people and deceiving other people Douper's delight. This
is a real thing. They enjoy conning people. There's a thrill they get,
and I mean it's well known. Flannery O'Connor wrote a whole about it.
Right Wise, Blood deals with deals with that. Melville's novel Confidence Man
deals with that. The novel is about the thrill. It's in part it's
about the thrill of this. Dostevski knows from the underground. If the whole
point is that if man's problem is knowledge, a lack of knowledge, then
why are their evil geniuses and why are their evil psychopaths who get pleasure in
hurting and destroying other people? And so this idea that you can divorce well
being from ethics is false, first of all, And then that you could
assume that there's a self evident ethic that tells you that it's preferable for some
reason to prefer pleasure to pain is also arbitrary, But you see that basic
level floundering and contradictions that these kinds of positions are forced into. And a
lot of it has to do with rejecting philosophy, But at the end of
the day, it's not about philosophy. It's about the fact that without theism
trying to construct these metaphysical, these these anti metaphysical metaphysical systems, they're doomed
to failure. They don't work. And perhaps something beyond that, and the
horizon in both directions is something we will will never fully expose explore. Very
likely, we don't know how good things can get, and we don't know
how bad they can get, but that there's a spectrum here is undeniable.
And I would say that that my moral realism simply entails that we acknowledge that
it's possible not to know what you're missing. It's possible to be living in
a way where you are less happy than you could be, and not to
know why right, and to not have the wisdom to make the changes.
And that matters, If anything matters, That matters, and it matters to
us individually, and it matters to us collectively, And that mattering is our
is that subsumes everything we can intelligibly want in this domain of value. And
that's and so again it's it's kind the cache value of any value claim is
in the the actual or potential change in consciousness for some conscious system somewhere sometimes.
And that's that's my claim. And that's can I can I try to
get I would like you each to clarify something. So it sounds to me,
Sam like you are hypothesizing that a rationalist approach will always beat a traditional
metaphorical approach with respect to the generation of well being. Well, well,
not always, but another there's so many the obvious downsides to the traditional sectarian
dogmatic approach that we should want to get out of the religion business as fast
as possible. Okay, so okay, but as fast as possible. But
do you mean that it has always been true that we should always have gotten
away from it as fast as possible, or do you mean now we should
get away from it as fast as possible. But there's a point somewhere in
the past where it might have been true that actually the best, the most,
the richest path to well being might have been encoded metaphorically. Oh yeah,
that's that's certainly possible, and in fact, you might even say it
was likely based on the fact that we have all of these systems still around.
Right, So we still have the systems around in part because are like
still we still think in metaphor, and we actually can't help it because half
of our brain is oriented towards metaphor. But can I get you to clarify
something now? Yes? Okay, so you have argued, and you've actually
quite surprised me by doing so. You've argued that the dogmatism is a bug
and not a feature. You've argued, No, it's a bug and feature.
Okay, it's a bug and a feature. Good. So, yes,
But what what I thought I heard you say was that the resistance to
update was a problem, that effectively it was an obstacle. Yeah, so
is lack of resistance to update. Okay, there's problems everywhere. Man,
Well it's there's a tension. There is a tension. There's a terrible tension.
Right. Well, most new ideas are stupid and dangerous, but most
a little bit of Boomer Garcia coming out there, right, I need to
make Boomer Garcia into a character because he Jordan channeled a little bit of Boomer
Garcia problems there, some of them are vital, right, and so we
have we're screwed both ways. It's like, well, if we stay locked
in our current mode of apprehension, all hell is going to break loose.
If we generate a whole bunch of new solutions, most of them are going
to be wrong and going to die. And so what we need to do
is, well, it's a Darwinian claim in some sense, is that despite
the fact that most new ideas are stupid and dangerous, a subset of them
are so vital that if we don't incorporate them, we're all going to perish.
That's the bloody existential condition. And so now and part of the issue
here and see, and I think somebody made an interesting point that this whole
discussion is really a controlled magic circle dialectic because Jordan Peterson is an agnostic and
what's his face, scam Harris is an atheist. So you're forced to then
choose the sides between to ridiculous positions, right. I thought that was a
good insight here, that so we're supposed to now look to agnostics to make
arguments for theism. Again, I'm just unbaffled. As to what's going on.
This is it's it's like people, I don't know. I guess people
just don't have any clue what's going It's just people are ignorant. I guess
there's just mass insane levels of ignorance. The dysgenics has worked. The population
has become a bunch of slow boys, and so the people with the medium
level IQ, like Luke Wilson in Idiocracy are like, you know, this
is what they think is like the height of sophistication is a moral relativist having
an atheist moral relativists arguing with a psycho theology agnostic and this is like the
this is the hype of intellectual sophistication. That the problem is is that let's
take the dogma idea. Okay, so there's the dogma incorporated in the books,
but I'm going to throw away the books because the dogma was there before
the books. And then the question is where was the So I think Jordan's
talking about there was theological teachings orally, I guess before they were written down.
I guess is what he means. Okay, I can agree with that,
but of course I don't think he ever really explains what that is,
and in his mind, you know, rabbinical Judaism today is the same as
you know, Genesis or whatever, which is not the case because even today's
liberal Jewish scholars admit that the part departure of Christianity and Judaism in the first
and second third century really marks off where Judaism goes in the direction of being
most strictly rabbinical, and then you get the strict unitarianism. I mean,
it had unitarian elements prior to that, but confessionally theologically, by the time
of Mima Idies it gets explicitly unitarian in a philosophical sense. And so it's
not until second or third century, I think, right that you have the
rejection of the two powers three powers in heaven and explicitly in anti Christian polemic
and so, but I think that if you don't know that, then you
kind of default to the natural theology perspective, which is kind of where Jordan
Peterson is at. And so he's kind of making these generic theist arguments like,
you know, well, the ancient route right prior to Christianity, prior
to Islam, must be this judaic unitarian generic theism. But if you go
and watch the debate with Trent Horne. We showed how ridiculous this is from
the Christian perspective to think that the Old Testament is this strict Unitarian deity and
then in the New Testament we tack on to trinity as this new idea.
I mean, that is so far from what's actually in the Old Testament that
it's really revolutionary. And people are so ignorant and this is so mind blowing
to them that when you try to show the Old Testament teaching the Trinity,
this really like they can't handle this. Like people are just their minds blown
at this. I'm just think of the Daniel Kikachu debate, right, like
when I started going through all these texts, He's like, oh, well
all of those are corrupted, right, So he wasn't even aware because he
doesn't know anything about the Old Testament. He wasn't even aware of how extensive
right the Trinity is in the Old Testament. But you can see that Jordan's
whole approach here, And I'm not faulting him for having this approach because it's
everywhere. This is what everybody just assumes and thinks. I mean, even
I thought this for a long time, right, I thought for a long
time, Well, I mean, the Trinity is that's not really an Old
Testament thing. And I was a person that read the Old Testament a lot
because I was in you know, Calvinist circle, and Calvinis circles tend to
like the Old Testament a lot. But this is why this is so wrong
headed, is that if you come to the Old Testament thinking of it as
a rabbinical Judaic text about Unitarianism, then you're gonna end up with natural theology
allah, what the Vatican's Abu Dhabi Faith Center promotes and what Nostretate promotes,
and you're gonna think, well, all the monotheistic faiths are a brandmic.
They all teach the same thing. Right, But do you see how wrong
headed all this is. No, No, you've got the wrong reading of
the texts. The Old Testament is replete. I'm gonna have to just do
a whole new lecture because the lecture that I did five four or five years
ago is is pretty good, and it was a three hours of going through
Old Testament texts with the Trinity. But since that time, and especially since
they're reading a bunch of the Jewish scholars for the Hikikachu debate, there's all
these other ones I missed. I mean, the Old Testament's gigantic, right,
I mean it's a lot of texts, and I've been reading it for
I mean, not just the Old test the Bible as a whole since nineteen
ninety eight, so I've put a lot of time in reading it, and
even I miss stuff. Right. The Bible is the amazing, mysterious book
like that where you can read it and always see new things anyway, So
it's just I have to comment on this whole idea that another element of this
debate that's missed is the assumption that when we say the word God, well
we're all talking about the same thing. We all believe in God. And
then there's these other kind of controversial figures like Jesus and Jesus over here,
like Muhammed, right, But prior to Jesus and Mohammed, there was this,
there was just this God. Right. But if you read the Book
of John, how does Jesus consistently argue throughout the Book of John, especially
from John Flive to John nine, the Old Old Testament is about him?
So do you see what's missing here in the natural theology elements. Here it
was in the cultural practices and in the agreement that people made with regards to
those cultural practices, but it was also part and parcel of the intra psychic
structure that enables us to perceive the world as such. Nope. Yeah,
So every time I bring this up, Catholics tell me that the Old Testament
has signs and traces of the training. I'm well aware of that. That's
not my point. My point is that the Roman Catholic approach, especially with
Thomas Aquinas, is that the Old Testament teaches Unitarianism, and then the New
Testament is what opens us up to the deedy of Christ and the Trinity.
And that is contrary to what you find in especially the Church Father's polemics and
apologetics. When Justin debates with Tripho, he's constantly trying to show the Trinity
in the Old Testament. Does he do the Thomas Aquinas approach of saying that
the Old Testament teaches a Unitarian God. No. So every time I say
this, Roman Catholics tell me the Catechism says the Old Testament teaches Trinity.
I know that. My point is that your doctrines contradict, not that you
don't sometimes say good stuff or true things. So it can't both. It
can't be the case that the Old Testament teaches generic unitarianism and that it teaches
the Trinity. You understand those both can't be true at the same time.
The problem is, and I think this is the central place where we need
to flesh out these ideas, is that you cannot view the world without an
a priori structure, and that a priori structure has a dogmassage elements categories.
So now Jordan has gone from the dogmatic ideas. What I thought we were
talking about Genesis and recorded dogmas, and now Jordan Pearson's saying that philosophical categories,
aerosols categories, transfil categories is essentially what he means. And he just
psychologizes, and he's saying they're dogmas, and he's in a sense he's right
because they're presuppositions. They're not they're not empirically demonstrable. You can't empirically demonstrate
aerosols categories, which is true, hence why we call them transcendental categories transcendental
arguments. So he's right here, and he's this is the dog This is
the dogmas that he's referring to. I wouldn't call them dogmas, but I
think I mean, for us, dogmas refer to specific theological doctrines like the
Trinity or the incarnation. But what he means here is correct. Just say,
well, let's get rid of the dog one. Because you can't perceive
the world with a structure. It has an uninspected element. So notice that's
Kantian, right, And now I don't It's not that I disagree with the
phrase that you can't perceive the world without this presubsitional structure categories. But we
are not Kantians in that we make that whole structure mental. It is not
the mind that structures the external world. The mind learns the structure of the
external world and has a structure in its own internal world. So structure is
not a feature that's purely mental or psychological. It is an external structure and
an internal structure, you see. And so I just don't find I do
find the apologetic value in pointing out that there has to be structure, and
you can argue from the internal struct sure if you wanted to. But if
you if you make this content such that the structure is only mental. You're
not a Christian anymore, and you might as well be a syllipsist. That's
the because that's where that goes. That's where Kant's position leads to. See,
if you're talking about just perceiving the world, yes, we have a
we have perceptual structure that allows for us to perceive the world, and we
know that there are failures. Oh way, sam is perceptual structure physical?
Okay, So because perception is the mind's apprehension, I think even Descartes right
uses that terminology of objects in the world. The mind's apprehension of an object
is not physical matter. Plus an an apprehension or a perception involves a degree
of active interpretation of the objects, and you can't reduce active interpretations of objects
to brain to gray matter. So he's actually again shooting his position. He's
shooting himself in the foot. We we know, for instance, that we
are we are. We've evolved to perceive in visual space based on a literally
neurological expectation that light sources will be from above, right, and so we
know that we can produce visual illusions based on gaming that expectation. Right,
But that's not the same thing as a dogma subscribe to some subset of humanity
that is antithetical to another dogma subscribed to by another set of humanity that has
nothing to do with underlying biol So this is kind of interesting because Sam Harris
is saying that our perceptual framework isn't the same thing as religious dogma, which
is true. But Peterson is making the point that just as much as you
can't prove in an empirical way you know something that you're calling God or theology,
you also can't prove these categories, which is true, but I don't
think Sam Harris gets that. Oology, that's something that's that's changeable, but
it's changeable in real time based on just conversations like this, you know,
we could have, and this is why it's it's interesting. So if you
want to see an easy example of where this is like a really simple level
conversation and it's not very advanced, this is where transcendental argumentation would come into
play. Because transcendental argumentation is concerned with proving things that are not physical in
a different way, and clearly different things are proven in different ways. The
way that I would go about proving whether my wife loves me, or whether
there's uh, you know, abstract objects like you know, Mandelbrot sets or
something. It's not the same way that I go about proving whether there's crackers
in the pantry. So not everything is proven in the same way. And
so the way that we're going to go about proving things like immaterial invariant objects,
it's not gonna be the same as the way that we go about proving
physical objects. And so this whole conversation right here could get up leveled,
to use Sam Harris's bizarre phrase, up leveled by understanding that pretty maybe that's
not a basic philosophy, that's more of like a mid level philosophical point.
I get emails from people who can point to the paragraph where they lost their
faith right where you're reading somebody in reading Richard Dawkins, or hearing a debate
between between me and some theologian, where it's just a collision against rationality,
which is so useful in every other kind. I know, I have to
keep pausing this, and it's kind of annoying. It's even annoying me to
pause it this much. It's just like this drives me nuts all the thing,
the assertions just flying out drive me crazy because it's like he doesn't understand
how much of what he's saying is absolutely inconsistent with his own presubsitions and his
own worldview, right, and so what did he just say? It was
just drive me crazy. I get emails from this, Oh reason, He's
like, oh, you know, I finally saw reading Richard Dawkins as somebody
emailing him that my religious beliefs are contrary to reason. Interesting, So now
we're going to go to the court of appeal of reason, which, okay,
let's do that. And if you saw, we had that TikTok goober,
the Mormon TikTok guy did this exact same thing, right, which was
an agnostic Mormon whatever that is. And he was like, I just go
to the court of a peal of reasoning. And I'm like, okay,
I'll grant you that. Let's go to the court a peal of reasoning.
First of all, give me an account of what reason is. And his
response was, let's go to the New Testament and I'll show you the problems.
I was like, no, wait a minute, I'm gonna grant you
for the sake of argument that let's say the New Testament's false. Okay,
fine, it's full of errors. Blah blah blah. What is your account
for reason? Because that's the for you now, according to you, the
final court of appeal? Right, can you give me an account or an
explanation for what reasoning is? Uh? What does that even mean? Right?
This total douchebag guy? Right, what does that even mean? You
tell me, because you're the one that's appealing to this as what you call
the you know they're calling it the final court of appeal here? Okay,
So what is reason? If I if I'm going to not believe in a
deity and theism and all that, and you want me to accept that there
is this principle of rationality and reasoning, then I want an account for that
because you're telling me not to believe in things that I can't see, touch
and feel because it's flying spaghetti monster superstition. Well, then guess what reasoning
and universal reason is also in that exact same category of superstition. Unless you
can give me some consistent, coherent account and grounding for reasoning. People who
can point to the paragraph where they lost their faith? Right where in reading
somebody in reading Richard Dawkins or hearing a debate between between me and some theologian
where it's just a collision against rationality, which is so useful in every other
context, suddenly proves its utility in this context where they think, well,
okay, clearly, I know the Muslims are wrong about the status of the
Qur'an. Let me let me take that that spirit of criticism in the internal
space of my own culture, and what moves, well, a dogmatic attachment
to Christianity has to move by that same standard. Well, and that's and
it's possible to do that, and that's not a matter of getting into the
brain and changing your perceptual apparatus. That has been well, the distinction between
different levels of what would you call it structure related processing in the brain and
the relationship to the underlying biology isn't clear, like and it isn't clear when
that's biological and when is it when it isn't. So you know your comments
about our a priori perceptual structures. Notwithstanding, there's no clear line between what
constitutes an instantiated, accurate biological perception and something that shades more into a cultural
presupposition. So it's a gray area now here let me ask you questions.
So notice that he was afraid to go down the route of actually saying that
these categories are actually in some way existing realities and real structures. So he
didn't want to address the biological approach of Harris there by just saying, oh,
well, it's all biological, right. He didn't want to admit that.
But he also didn't want to say that the structures that we have for
perceiving the world in our mind or whatever. You also didn't want to give
them onto logical existence, right, because then he's in the domain of metaphysics
again, and that's not where he wants to go. But you see how
weak this is when at every point, and this is another critique I have
of Peterson is that it's the same with the Matt Dolhundy debate, where there's
a point where he almost gets to making the transcendental argument and then he just
backs off and just doesn't do it. And it's like, you could seize
the moment and make these ridiculous positions look ridiculous, and instead he just sort
of backs off and again in agnostic fashion, and doesn't make the argument like
you could. So by the way. I want to remind you guys too.
If you want to support the show, you can please do so via
superchats. The superchat function is in the chat right there. Use stream labs
to send a superchat and I will answer your question or your super chat as
we move on. There is the link right there at through stream labs,
and I will be giving priority to those. So if you just put something
in the chat, I'm not going to answer it, but if you give
me a stream stream stream Lab super chat, I will. This is one
of the things I've been thinking about. So this is this is designed to
point out the difference. I'm not making the claim that the idea that we
should ground values in facts is wrong. I'm not going to make that claim,
although I think it's way more complicated than we've opened up so far.
But I would say is I can I think relatively easily demonstrate a situation in
which you cannot find the value from the facts. So let's say you own
an antique it's valuable, and you think I'm going to take this antique apart
and I'm going to find out where the value is. Good luck man,
Well it's not valuable in that sense. Well wait, a second, Wait
a second, So we need to know. So that's right, It's not
valuable in that sense because the value of the antique is a social agreement about
its position, and in a hierarchy, it has nothing to do with the
material substrate of the antique. For sure. Yeah, but but not you
count. It's not just sure. It's like you are You've made the claim
already that you can derive values from facts. It's like, then, what
are you willing to do these facts? These are facts about again, so
there are facts about the facts exist in intersubjective space. Right, So if
I if I tell you, well, this glass, this isn't just an
ordinary glass. I know it looks just like that one, but this is
the glass that Elton John drank from his last constant here. Yeah, right,
right, so you know what do you want to pay me for it?
Right? Right? Hold me closer, tiny sami, count the headlights
on atheist Highway. I don't even I don't even know the rest of that.
What's the rest of the lyrics of that? Hold me closer, tiny
hair is count the headlights on the high We're Jordan Peterson's got a bad I
don't know where anyway, how's the lyrics go. I'm trying to I'm trying
to fit it in with atheist lyrics, but I don't know. It could
be that, you know, you're just the biggest Elton john fan ever and
you it's a lot to you. That was actually a pretty good underhanded burn.
I had to give Sam a point for that, for that was kind
of a cool reverse Elton John Negg there against Jordan Peterson. I actually like
that. That is it's a kind of efinet. It's not value intrinsic to
the glass, but it is. It is. It is a where he
could be. It could be he could have got some of his gay vibes
on the glass, which would then make it, you know, gay valuable.
So I mean, remember everything is reducible to matter, and so the
gay is just different matter, different molecules, gay gay molecules, gay map.
Right, you thought you had a bunch of gray matter in your head.
No, you've got gay matter up there. That's actually a pretty good
Sam Harris argument. I like it, right, hold me closer, gay
molecules. And now that doesn't work homecaus a tiny dance can the dead lights
on the highway? Gay matter the measure in the change this provokes in your
experience. Right, just the idea. I mean, we value ideas as
much as anything else. And that's you know, that's hence the mad work
done by religion, right, I mean, because it's not These aren't facts
on the ground. These are ideas that rule people's lives. I mean people
spend their whole life afraid of health. Okay, it seems to me that
it's easier in some sense rather than to relate the value of that. And
I love the Elton Jones class example. I was going to use Elvis Presley
here. I will tell you it's like wearing the guitar. Is the fact
that it's Elvis Presidents like wearing the guitars the game. You know, It's
like wearing the glasses the gay molecules. You know, It's like it's like,
where's this buckle? Right? Clean the condensation up the gay cup buckle?
Well, what is it in? Where is it that? And the
answer is it's in the dominance hierarchy of values that's been socially constructed around the
guitar. It's located in interpersonal space. And that hold me closer. Tony
Dan's uh, count the headlights count the molecules on my time of stash.
How many molecules make up tiny mustache man's tiny stash? Am I know thirty
five molecules? Are they? Are they gay molecules? Who even knows?
Do we know that location? So value is located in interpersonal space? And
if you want to say, well, that's also a fact, it's like,
okay. But the fact about the beliefs and desires and conscious states of
all the people. Somebody said, does Elton place where it exists? Somebody
said that Elton John have h I V no Elton John got the vi P
posse? Y'all know what the va y'all are too young. This audience don't
even know about the vi P posse. Kick it yr vi I P kick
it the idea of Elvis's depark. And you see, because what seems to
me to be happening, at least in part, is that we can stretch
the the domain of what constitutes a fact so that the domain of facts starts
to incorporate the domain of values. But we do that with some doing some
damage to the domain of facts. Hang on, y'all, y'all in the
chat, y'all make up my VI P posse, y'all, the h I
V I P posse, Hi I P posse kick it. That's that's that's
you, me, Jordan Peterson and Elton John making up the hi V I
P posse Ninja Ninja rat ninja ninja rat. Y'all even know. Y'all don't
even know. Y'all don't even know what I'm referring to, because y'all have
a bunch of kids up and now y'all a bunch of kids. Y'all have
a bunch of kids about. It's about to be your bedtime. Oh you
about to hit curfew because y'all have a bunch of kids. Don't even know
what the VIP posse was. That was one of my first tapes. Dog,
I got that VI P posse right away when it came out, when
it hit the freaking tape decks, when it hit the stores, all was
over there. I was up in Target the day it came out, Yes,
exactly, Halo Kills knows what's up. I was up in Target the
day it came out, eating a bunch of slushies, getting diarrhea, corn
dogs waiting for it. Boom it pops up. I go over there,
get it it's got that big old, stupid white thing and I can't even
get it out of there. I was all about some Vanilla's boy. He
was my favorite. Do y'all remember that one song that he had where he
sang the love song because I love you, Dodo girl. Every time I
see you, you look so fine. Remember that I want to whine and
die. Of course I love you. Do you had a first CD.
Now this is the first tape, boy. Actually my first tape was biz
Marky picking boogers for real. I'm so in love girl, girl. You
know too? Ooh ooh ooh, I love you. Yes, you know
it too, ooh ooh ooh, I love you. People are like he
can whoa, he can actually sing due anyway, we just lost twenty people.
Twenty people lost. Kay, don't say don't just say no, it's
no. This is really more. This is really complicated because you see,
part of what the postmodernists have done is that they've pushed away the domain of
facts entirely. And they say, well, the only thing is is that
the only thing that actually exists is that this domain of intersubjective agreement, and
and they know, yeah, you and I are on the same page with
respect to postmodernisms. Right, but but but you have to give, but
you have to give it, you have to give. Well, were they
cheering postmodernism? This audience, man, this audience is ridiculous. This audience
is as funny as all this sudden. I did have to give Sam Harris
a point though. That Elton John underhanded joke was pretty good. That was.
I like that. That was I'm impressed with that underhanded nag over there
to JBP you and that JBP posse kick it Doom doom doom to do doom
doom, y'all. Remember my Jordan Peterson rap song I did that live,
by the way, Jordan Peterson my freestyle, I did that live in LA.
I think that's the one I messed up on. I did a I
did five songs live perform visual performance in La audio visual music performance live exactly.
They pointed out something, and what they pointed out is that it's not
so easy to localize the structure that attributes to facts their value. It's not
a simple thing that Wait, yes, you would surely agree that if we
had a Presley's guitar, that that guitar would have a material impact on people.
We could tell them this is Elvis Presley's guitar. Some fraction of them
would disbelieve it. Somebody might be able to establish it based on a picture
or something like that. And the point is it would have a value that
would alter the behavior of people with respect to that object in a material way.
Yes, it would alter the behavior of the piece. Value can also
manifest in physical space, which part of it the behavior detective We could figure
out what the value of this guitar is. So like earlier, remember how
their minds were blown over the question of delayed gratification and saving up to have
something later, and the whole crowd was whoa bond? Blown bro? Now
their minds are blown over the idea of some objects having value as a social
currency, right only because this is what we just call it an artifact,
Right because so it's an artifact has value because people see it as having value,
and minds are blown. Well, but I don't see what this has
to do with the question of categories of perception, right who brought up Was
it Peterson or Harris that brought up this Elton John Gay juiced glass or whatever
they're trying to talk about on some intersections, Sure, we could take a
behaviorist approach and we could see how much work people were willing to do to
we can we can scan their brains and see what it is. Well,
I'm not so sure we can do that. Well, well, clearly hypothetically
we can do it, but practically we're not so good at because the EMRID
data generally speaking is junk. Well we we we can table that. Well,
look, it's it's it's controversial statement in MRI circles. It's yeah,
fair, I don't think we need it. We don't need it, but
we let's go with the brain. The brain as yet incompletely understood of this
object. Right, And so if I if I tell you that this is
and again we can take it out of intersubjective space, because it could you
could be in a value solitude with respect to any given objects. So it
could just be to your watch that's worth exactly twenty five dollars because that's what
you paid for it. But this is the watch that you know, this
is your first watch or whatever it is, and you wouldn't sell it for
any amount of money. Right, that's a measure of your behavioral measure of
how much you value it. And if I told you, Oh, well,
you know, sorry, I brought your watch and lost it. What
the cascade of negative affect that I see on your face is correlated with something
that's happening in your head, and the brain is involved, right, so
that the totality of that picture, basically stated is the value I can tell
is that there'd be a sociocultural agreement as to the value of whatever this entity
is, and that would find its mirror in the brain. But that's that's
a non controversial state. But because going hand crazy, I mean, he's
like he's over there freaking pantomime and and coming up with his own I don't
know, underwater dance routine. Over here, he's just going nuts. He's
got you know, snake fingers over there like Medusa on his hands, going
crazy. This whole time, I just realized that he's he's over there forging,
he's doing doing turntables DJ Peterson mixing it up over there. Phenomena that
their experienced find the reflection in the breed. The fact that you can say
that that's reflected in the brain. It's like, yeah, he said,
holda, holda, hold up, hold up, you said, who would
pay to go see this? Br You know how much money people pay to
go see JBP. They pay thousands of dollars to sit closer to jbph.
I'm not joking. It's crazy. It's like what I mean, I don't
know, man, Somebody get him some turntables. That'd be more interesting with
his hands. His hands is going crazy, sperging out over there. Give
him some turntables. Let's get DJJBP up on the stage. Jbe right.
It's continually run into with skip bar. You have a domain of so called
sacred values, where people who are otherwise rational cease to be rational actors.
The reason why Israel and the Israelies and the palest Indians can't negotiate as though
their problems could be solved by a real estate transaction is because they have irrational
and irreconcilable claims upon land and building. Do you think there are any more
irrational than the claim that that class is worth something? Well, no,
it's just it's no, it's like that. It's like that. But I'm
saying that's not irrational by your own definition. You just said that that was
actually constituted a fact. Well, no, it's a fact about people right
there, There are this is Okay, should be a little careful here because
it it gets confusing. There are we can make objective claims about subjective experience,
right, It's not, it's it's there are we use this word objective
and subjective in different ways. We use it. Okay, But actually that
was a good point that Peterson made about the value of the land in Palestine
and the value of the Elton John sweat glass with the gauge use in there,
right, that the the comparison was actually good, given that Peterson pointed
out the arbitrary nature of Harris's attributions of what values are right, and since
values are social constructs, then it's not actually incoherent to value a piece of
land. And that was actually a good point. And now he's trying to
say that, well, there's a difference between purely subjective and objectivetellological ways and
ontological ways, and give me just one sect to make sure I'm on the
same pace as I can straight by way of example, if I say that,
you know, that's just your subjective opinion, right, I'm saying I'm
denigrating. I'm saying that you know this is an expression of your bias.
This is this this is this true for you, but it's not true out
in the world. Right. That's one way I can use the subjective objective
distinction. Uh, And that's in epistemological way, like you're you're you're ruled
by bias, you're not thinking straight. You know, I don't have to
take your opinions seriously. That's subjective. I'm worried about objective facts. But
people get confused. They think that objective facts only means the material world and
what's what's really in this glass as a material object. No, we can
be much more objective than that. We can. We can make objective claims
about the subjective experience of people like ourselves. I can, I can,
I can make an infinite number of objective claims. So he he doesn't understand
doing this and saying this is not the same thing as how you can give
an account for doing and sane it. Right. So Peterson is kind of
lightly dancing around the question of justifying how you make these moves, and he
doesn't understand this. He never grasps what it means to give a justified true
belief getty er problem account for stuff, right. He just dances around it,
acting as if he can just say, well, we can make universal
claims about subjective experience. Yeah, but that's not answering the question of how
you justify doing that. And I think a lot of people just don't even
know what it means to justify a claim. They think that they mean it
in a colloquial, common terminology sense of like you're not justified in doing that,
like you have a right right. When we talk about this in a
common parlance sense, it just means you don't have the right to do that,
right. And when we say in a philosophical sense we're talking about justification,
epistemic justification, we don't mean in the common sense, common term sense
of like you don't have a right to do that. I do, got
it right, I'm justified want to do That's how people think of it,
and that's probably how Sam Harris thinks of it. I don't know, right,
I mean, I've seen him really fumble and make big gaffes on pretty
basic philosophical topics in questions, So it's I guess it's up for grabs whether
he actually understands what what that would mean or not about the experiences. But
you'll notice that this is common in all the atheists, right, I mean
pretty much all of them, except for maybe a few of the PhD professors.
They never know what you mean by justification, and you know, giving
an epistemic grounded account, they almost always think that means telling a story,
right, or telling the origins of it. Well, we had an evolutionary
process by which we adapted to figure out how to survive. In that's not
a justification. That's a story you're telling me, a story of how something
arose. And even if that's how it arose, it would have nothing to
do with whether it's justified, because there might all kinds of things that arise
that are irrational or that don't make any sense. So the fact that it
arose is an evolutionary adaptation to whatever has nothing to do with whether it actually
is true or false, because much of these people's own account of evolution is
that there's a bunch of junk DNA, there's a bunch of mutations, there's
a bunch of things that happen that are worthless and don't benefit the species.
So the mere fact that you call it a evolutionary adaptation has nothing to do
whatsoever with epistemic justification. Just shows that They don't know the difference between telling
a story of an origin making up a story to make it sound like it
makes sense. And they love this, right, this is all they're dumb
examples of space worlds with computers and no human minds and all this bullshit.
Would they just make up out of their head? These they don't understand.
They actually think fan fiction is a thought experiment. Thought experiments are not your
athi is Isaac Asimov like sci fi fantasies. That's not what a thought.
A thought experiment is not how creative can I be in making up crap to
make my made up worldview work? That's not what a thought experiment is.
A thought experiment is a way to demonstrate something that's logical or illogical, right,
like any possible world, Right, Like you can't deny the law of
non contradiction in any possible world. Okay, it's not saying that there's a
world where there's a bunch of Oh, let's imagine a world where there's only
a bunch of gay Olton John's that live on a planet and they work for
a big gay supercomputer that lives in the center of the Earth, and it's
a giant gay or Earth, and like, we wouldn't need God on that
planet because look, it's functioning and everybody's got their own gay sweat juice that
they can drink, so it's a it's a workable planet. Nodded. That's
what they think. That is. That's what they think a thought experiment is.
It's like getting creative with you know, Elton John fan fiction or some
shit. Right, that's not what a thought experiment is. That's do with
logic, dummy, the example I always use, but I just happen to
love it. What was JFK thinking the moment he got shot? Right?
Now, that's it. We don't know, so we'll never get the data
right, so that the truth or falseness of what I'm about to say can't
be predicated on actually getting access to the data because because he's not around and
his brain's not around to scan. So but we you and I both know
an infinite number of things he wasn't thinking about. We can make an objective
claim about his subjectivity. I know he wasn't thinking well, I hope Jordan
Peterson and Sam Harris work it out on stage that night, right, And
an infinite number of things like that he was thinking something. He was experiencing,
some thing, but we don't know what it is that I went on
talking. Once again, we see that this debate discussion never fails to entertain
with the wild out there examples. What was JFK thinking when the bullet hit
him? We know that it wasn't. What's Jordan Peterson up to? I
mean, actually, I mean I don't think that's likely, but I don't
know how in Sam Harrison's worldview he actually thinks he could demonstrate that. And
by the way, you can't scan a brain to know what somebody was thinking.
I mean, unless there's some amazing DARPA tech that Sam Harris knows about
that I don't know about. Scanning a brain doesn't tell you what people thought
fifty sixty years ago or whatever. This is a really bizarre example. So
he so it's sort of like, you know, Caesar wasn't drinking, Caesar
wasn't thinking about lickamde was he no see objective objective truth right there? But
actually, even though it sounds ridiculous in Sam Harris's worldview, I don't he
couldn't actually demonstrate that because, in other words, in a materialist empiricist paradigm,
he's going to have to give empirical proof for these kinds of claims.
Do you see that now? I don't. I'm not an empiricist, so
that's that wouldn't really be a problem for my worldview to say that. You
know, it's pretty much impossible that Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon was thinking
about lick a made candy right, or was thinking about drinking Elton John's sweat
juice. But I'm in a much better position to explain why that's the case,
being that I'm not an empiricist materialist, whereas Sam Harris is in no
position to actually argue that that's the case. So even though it sounds on
the surface like he can make a good argument here that there's all kinds of
truth claims that he could make, it's not really whether you can make those
claims. It's whether on your worldview and you're in your paradigm, you could
justify those claims. And by the way, actually Allibnans has a great argument
to actually refute Sam Harris there, and it's called Leibnanz's argument from eternality of
truth. And so Leibniz says this makes this argument says, well, I
can prove to you that you can't reduce the truthfulness of an event or the
truthfulness of a proposition to matter or to an instance of history. He says,
because let's say, so Caesar crossed the rubicon, right, isn't it
always true now that it's even after it's happened, right, it will always
be the case that Caesar cross the rubicon? Right now? Is the truthfulness
of the proposition that Caesar crossed the rubicon contained in the event of Caesar crossing
the rubicon? No, Caesar crossed the Rubicon was an event at one place,
at one time, and yet outside of that event, throughout all space
and all time afterwards, it is the case that Caesar crossed the rubicon.
So the eternality of truth cannot be reduced to the material phenomena of the event.
And so Leivenez's argument for the eternality of truth also refutes this bizarre claim,
bizarre unjustified claim, I should say, because the claim itself actually isn't
that bizarre what Sam Harris is saying that Okay, yes, JFK. When
the bullet hit him, he was not thinking of Elton John sweat juice.
But there's not actually a way in the world view that Sam Harris says to
ever demonstrate any kind of proposition or any kind of truthfulness like that, given
that he's a reduction ast materialists. You say about this domain of value,
I'm saying that it exists in this landscape of actual and possible conscious experience for
human beings and any other system like us that can experience this range of suffering
and happiness. Well, okay, so, and partly what I'm trying to
do is to actually determine what that structure is. So well, in our
case, it's certainly connected to the evolved structure of our brain. Yeah,
but I want everything else we do. We want to go way deeper into
the idea than it's connected with brain states, because it's yes, it's definitely
connected with brain states. The question is, at least in part how and
what does that mean? And I think that the neuroscience has progressed far enough
so that we can do quite a good job of this. And so what
I want to return to one thing, and maybe I'll outline a little bit
of this. And when you talked about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, you said
that that was irrational and so look, you know, fair enough, people
have been locked with their hands around each other's next there for three thousand years.
But there's a problem there, and the problem is that people are looking
at the landscape from a contextualized perspective. Right, it's not just a piece
of land, it's their piece of land. It's like your house, or
make your favorite shirt. It's like, well, you say, well,
I have a favorite shirt. It's like, well, I'm convinced now Jordan
Pierce is over there doing Jedi mind tricks. That's what he's doing with his
hands. If we're trying to figure out is he DJing over there? Is
he got some turntables tiny turntables. No, he's doing Jedi mind tricks.
You don't need to see my justification. You don't need to see my arguments.
Move along, right, he's doing some obi wan over there, that's
what he's up there. There's nothing inherent in the shirt that makes it your
favorite. No, it's a subjective judgment. It's like, well, then
is that a fact. Well, yes, it's a fact. It's a
fact about subjective judgment. It's okay. Well, the Israeli claim on the
land and the Palestinian claim on the land is a subjective judgment. That's a
fact. It's like, so, how is it rash to say it?
Because it is the true analogy here, the complete analogy is rather like,
we're about to fight over Elton John's glass, and Elton John was never here,
right, well, oh, mine blown? Right? Mind blown?
This whole time we thought we thought that hot, sweaty glass of water over
there, that was looking so good, right, that hot, sweaty gay
water over there, sweating looking all luscious. Elton John wasn't even here.
It is likewise guy wasn't even over in Palestine. Bro, you mind?
You just got fool, dude, you got duped, Sam Harrison blew my
mind, bro. So so I'm not saying so it clearly still matters to
us in our misapprehension of our situation. We still really care. And these
are these are objectively true claims about the level at which we value things,
and hence the impasse. But it matters by the way this would be.
I'm surprised that maybe Jordan Pearson just wasn't thinking about it. But I mean,
that's really a false analogy, right, because humans value certain artifacts that
therefore all value is equated to the value of an artifact. Right, So
I would first of all point out that that's a false analogy. Although the
crowd was really really wowed by that one, right. I mean, this
low IQ crowd which we've seen has been has been a struggle to listen to
whether they're hooting and their hollering and their applause lights going off after every comment.
I think that again, I'll give Sam Harris a point two. Another
point here is Elton John Joe was pretty good earlier on, but i'll give
him a point here for at least good rhetoric. But this argument isn't as
good as you as it might appear on the surface, because it hinges on
the equivalence between a religious conflict or a historical conflict being the same as the
conflict between over subjective value. So, because some objects have subjective value,
we wouldn't therefore conclude that all objects therefore are purely subjective in value. This
would be part's whole fallacy. Right now, FDA is in the audience shout
out to patristic faith, that wouldn't that be a part's whole fallacy. I
mean to claim that because some objects derive their value as artifacts in a human
society to then therefore move to all objects are identical then in the same way
as deriving their value as purely human social contracts or human human relative objects.
The problem would be, though, that it still rests on the assumption that
God doesn't exist, and that's the actually the thing that's in question, right,
So for the analogy to work, God has to not exist in the
same way that he's saying that Elton John didn't actually drink from this class.
But that's the thing that's in question, is whether God exists. So let's
see how Jordan Peterson replies to this, at least rhetorically good repost from gam
Harrison if that's counterproductively dismissive, like you could say, well, when you
look at the specific claims, it's really not. It's well, look,
you took you took the contextual interpretation to its absolute extreme. You said,
well, there's multiple reasons why different people who occupy the same piece of land
are going to feel about it in different ways. Sure, okay, and
most of those reasons are amenable to some kind of rational compromise. I mean
there's actually there are studies on this. I mean there's studies done by people
when you say the word rational in that context, you're using it as a
black box that contains right. So some people in the audience are now beginning
to question the existence of Elton John, right, which is eltheism. Right.
So if you don't believe in Elton John, you're an eltheist. And
I'm actually and I'm starting to doubt whether I mean, he wasn't there,
you know, slobbering and sweating on that sweaty glass. So I'm actually starting
to become an healthiest I don't think there is an Elm John. And by
the way, if there was an equivalence between the non existence of God and
Palestine and the non existence, I'm I'm an eltheist. Now are you exactly
exactly elthyist? Not an atheist? An ealthyist? The concept proper way of
thinking about it, It's like it's not so obbyist in most situations. What
the rational approach is an obvious one. I have an obvious one here,
and and that's that whatever the Christians and the Muslims and the Jews think they're
getting from their attachment to their dogmatic and irreconcilable religious worldviews can be gotten just
as well by a deeper understanding of the of our universal and non culturally bound
capacity for ethical experience. Yes, thank you, FDA. That could be
three, the unholy turner of three fallacies, fallacy of composition parts whole,
fallacy of hasty generalization. While some objects our own derive their value only from
cultural construction, and so therefore all objects are derived as cultural constructs, and
begging the question, because if God's existence is a thing that's in question,
then the analogy already rests on the non existence of God exactly. Spiritual experience,
community building, and we can what's that ground to you? We can
touch that space without beind It's almost like the status quo is. It's almost
like you're content to live in a world, or you're at least you're content
not to judge. Step into Wick studio, where creative freedom means absolute efficiency.
Oh, I got it, Hold me closer, spaghetti months to count
the droplets on the gay juice. She's a lady, she's a man.
Answer, that's a manser, get it, a man dancer, a mancer.
I don't know. I feel like I'm missing the obvious lyrics. Here,
hold me closer, tyny, same me, hold me closer to Jordan
Pete Son. Count the count the what what should we be counting? I
don't know, hold me closer necromance. Uh anyway, be a world where
fans of rival soccer teams or baseball teams regularly kill one another over their fandom,
right, like? Like what if that were the status quo? It's
like he's been this way for thousands of years exactly if Elton John exists,
why bad thing happened? Boom, We're all eltheust tonight, we just want
we just got the the trans John dental argument, transcend transcend Dealton argument,
Transcendeltal transcend Delton argument, transcend Elton argument, the trans and Elton argument.
That's it, trans and Elton argument. To make you an eltheist rocket rocket
man. I'm trying to think of other Elton I don't like Elton John,
so tiny dancers like the only one I know. Count the fallacy. It's
got to be count the count, the count, the errors on the I
don't know, it must be a reason for it. Sports. I'm not
trying to justify the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but I'm saying that we took quick
to judge the sanctity of their of their differences of opinion. Wait a minute,
Sam, there you made a claim, like you Your claim was that
if the Christian and the Jews and the Muslims would just stop their stupidity and
adopt this universal ethic, then everything would be okay. It's like, okay,
what's the basis for the universal ethic? Like that's such, that's a
problem. No one's going in search of that. The truth is, I
mean, that's an interesting problem for philosophers and for scientists. That's not.
Actually your claim was that if the Christians here we go, the Muslims would
just stop their stupidity and this universal ethic, then everything would be okay.
It's like, okay, what's the basis for the universal ethic? Yes,
there we go. That's finally, after one hour and ten minute we got
a clear targeted torpedo argument Torpedo and Peter Torpetersen, Jordan Torpetersen. Finally,
it only took an hour and ten minutes. And this was the he could
ask this question like a break an hour ago. This is the question.
Finally, bro come on, dang dude, we finally got it. And
what will Sam's answer be? What will Sam's answer. Finally, now we
got to hear let's pay attention. I'm all distracted. I'm not even listening
to them. Gibber jabber. I almost missed the final argument after an hour
of this because I'm trying to think up Elton John lyrics, because because I'm
I'm more entranced and interested in the Elton John jokes than I am the rest
of this conversation. Finally, though, in the midst of the jokes,
we get the torpedoes and the truth is. I mean, that's an interesting
problem for philosophers and ah, the great deflection where the rubber meets the road.
Ah. Yeah, that's an interesting problem which my worldview can't deal with.
And I guess philosophers can talk and think about it. But you know
what, it's just not where the rubber meets the road. Oh, so
the greatest challenge argument against my position, I just handwave it. It's not
you know what, whatever, people living their lives. Well, I mean
this is analogous to me, right, So I don't have to give an
account for my universal ethic. I just made a universal claim about ethics.
I don't have to give an account for it. And if you ask me
to give an account for it. You know what, This is just what
philosophers do, and they're annoying. But by the way, don't you have
a philosophy degree or something, Sam, I thought you had a claim to
be into philosophy undergrad or something. Right with the difference between the bad,
I really care about all of it. Great point, Jordan. If this
is what's in the book, then great for calling him out. Finally,
right, this is what's in your book. This is how you distinguish between
well being in a good life versus bad being in a bad life. Oh
and there's no justification for it. Leave that to the philosophers. So you
see how hopefully people with some degree of common sense and rationality, the very
thing that Sam Harris is always appealing to when the robber meets the road or
his own phrase, I don't have any argument for that. I don't consider
the question of how I give an account for my universal claims a valid question
for me. How can people not see through that? That's the intellectual chicanery.
The man is a mountebank tomfoolery, fraudy of the highest degree. And
my job as a as a philosopher, as a moral philosopher in this is
to make the best I thought he just said that's a question for philosophers.
And now he's like, but my job as a moral philosopher, what this
dude was a fraud? Back then? People are like, it's only taken
now after a bunch of koof nonsense, right with him saying a bunch of
crazy stuff, where they're like starting to realize, Hey, wait a minute,
sounds like maybe Sam Harris is not actually that rational bro. He never
was. Where was y'all at, dummies? Remember five six years ago when
we were saying he was not rational? And what were all? What was
a lot of the the YouTube atheist crowd back then? You're dumbist. Hold
me close to spaghetti monster. Count the meatballs on my face. She's a
lady. She's a spaghetti monster without a gender. I don't even what's what's
even another Elton John song? I don't even know. I can't keep swinging
singing that one rocket man? How's that go? Bron ain't ever el I
don't listen to Elton John. I remember that one song he sang with that
other straight dude, George Michael, Remember han, y'all remember George Michael,
Steve Ault, not that, George Michael, how does the song go?
Zero? Rocking man? And I think it's gonna be a long long time.
He was singing about this debate, Wasn't he right? And I think
it's gonna be a long long time, George, Elton John prophesying. He
was prophesying about this debate, right, because the question is when is this
debate gonna get anywhere? And Elton john was up there singing that song.
And I think it's gonna be a long long time. Now I'm starting to
be I'm know guys, Elton john was a of it. He predicted this
debate. So I'm no longer an ealthist. I have reconverted back to Elton
to being a non elthyist. And I think it's gonna be a long long
time anyway. What's another Elton Johnson Rocketman, Tiny Dancer? That's the only
ones I know? What's that one? Don't let the Sun go down on
Me? That's the one with the other heterosexual man, George Mike, remember
that don't let the Sun go down on Me? That sounds like about I'm
not gonna make that joke. There's a there's a really dirty gay joke,
and I'm not gonna make it right case I can for these ideas, but
the truth is, I mean it is analogous to when when you get a
to a debate with a Christian fundamentalist in the story, Oh he's gonna by
the way, I just thought, George Michael, he was singing about Jordan
Peterson. Y'all know that? Did y'all know that George Michael sang about Jordan
Peterson. I will be your father figure. Put your tiny hands in mine.
I will be your preacher, teacher here that thing you have in mind,
Get it, because Jordan Peterson's a father figure to all the young men
out there. Get it. Get it. Very often this this person will
pretend to care about cosmology or evolution, as though it's the most important thing
in the world, as though you Okay, so when you debate a fundamentalists,
they will pretend to care about evolution. Okay, let's say worse,
let's hear this. This is a genius argument. Where's it going. Can't
get out of bed in the morning and figure out how to treat your your
friends and family, well, unless you figure out what happened before the Big
bang? Right, No, one really lives their lives. That okay.
So so the argument is that I don't need to know abstract, unknowable questions.
Actually, what he's saying is when they ask hard questions of my position,
like can I give an account for the universal ethic, he's equating that
to ridiculous, unanswerable questions that have nothing to do with how to live a
good life. Oh but it does have everything to do with how to live
a good life, because if the world was not created, then there's not
a basis for right and wrong. And he knows, I think enough to
know that right. And so this is one hundred percent classic deflection that way.
And yet we have convinced ourselves that this is a sensible way of talking
about the conflict between religion and science. Hold on, I think you have
arrived at the core of your conflict right here, and I actually you both
loud and clear. Your point is that if the people faced with the question
were to, you know, start with a fresh sheet of paper look at
the Middle East, they could arrive at a compromise that they as individuals might
find put them way ahead. And it's more profitable than the situation that they
are continually finding themselves in and that might be the case. On the other
hand, the reason that they don't is that historically those who have have been
out competed by those who haven't. So the point is the universe and the
fact that it refuses to solve that conflict is telling us that there is some
reason that people who take that prospect. Yeah, I agree. What would
you do? What would y'all do if all three of them, in the
midst of this old five year old live video, if they all broke the
fourth wall and turned to the screen and said, Jay Dyer, would you
like to come on stage? That would blow your own mind? When I
would think it's some kind of like a deep fake hack or something, right,
if they broke the fourth wall, curiously are not? And by the
way, if that happened, I would get up there and start singing Elton
John songs because I would just go insing, right. That would break my
mind and it would break my heart. Right, it would be a dream
come true to be on stage with the greatest minds of our time. Actually
correct in some at least metaphorical way. So, in other words, what
is it to have a sentimental attachment to some piece of territory somewhere that sounds
completely irrational. On the other hand, that sentimental attachment may result in you
continuing for five hundred or one thousand or two thousand, Wait a minute,
having a sentimental attachment to a place, it's completely irrational. Does anybody on
the stage like their house and their land? I mean, I mean for
pretty much all of humanity's existence, they've handed down their land to their children
and their offspring when they were able to keep their land. So no,
I don't think that's irrational at all. It's facility years. Whereas if you
surrendered it, because if it was irrational, you might go extinct. Now,
should you care that your lineage is going to go extinct? Maybe arguably
not. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that what you're saying
is so thoroughly grounded that it can justify causing people to alter their perspective on
value in such a way that it might actually drive them extinct. Well,
interesting because, as we saw in yesterday's discussion, a lot of the atheists
felt justified in getting rid of tens of millions of people in the last century.
So this idea that the atheist worldview is immune to the idea of warfare
and genocide and getting rid of people is complete blowy. Clearly, maybe secularism
we're talking about the fringe here. We're talking about that when you're talking about
in this case, the Israeli settlers and the Palestinian terrorists, right like that
is that is there? We should all breathe a sigh of relief that that
doesn't that that that kind of passionate attachment to land doesn't characterize most of humanity.
It does if you're trying to defend your house. So but but that's
it's because I think this is this is where, this is where the crux
of it is. So if we follow the idea that this is actually some
that the seemingly sentimental and irrational attachment to the piece of land is some sort
of meta rationality which sounds like your perspective, then we are now confronted with
the question of all right, if it is an evolved kind of meta rationality
that is being manifest in stories that cause people to behave in ways that Sam
sees is clearly irrational, then we are with the naturalistic fallacy, which is
to say, so for those who don't know, the naturalistic fallacy says that
just because something is doesn't mean it ought right. The fact that selection fails
something doesn't make it good. Here we are finally an hour and thirteen and
Brett Weinstein has spoke up with the argument, and we've seen Sam Harris continually
flounder at the basics of the ISOT. We've already done multiple videos on this,
and the video that we did analyzing his floundering on the IZOT was years
after this video. So if he didn't get it years after this, I
as sure as hell can tell you that he didn't get it before that.
As tech's sacrificed their enemies. It is good for continuing as technists, but
it may not be good in some absolute moral sense. So here's the question
for you. You're arguing for, I think an evolutionarily very viable explanation for
religious belief and dogma, But aren't you stuck with the downside of it,
where much of what is encoded in that way may act. Yeah, by
the way, this might actually also point out the flaw in Jordan Peterson's evolutionary
account of religion be abhorrent and conscious absolutely, Okay, So what do we
do about? Well, this is exactly at algorithm. Yes, what I'm
trying to get to it. Okay, okay, so this is actually why
I asked Sam this question. It wasn't. It wasn't an attack. It's
like, okay, so look, people have these belief systems. Christian Muslim,
jew will say for that, and you're saying abandon those, let's say
to to and move towards this transcendent rationality. It's like, okay, two
problems. It's not so easy to abandon the belief system because you end up
in the morally relativist nihilist pitt. Well, that's a problem. One doesn't
have to. Well, people tend to, and so it's a they don't
have to. That's that's that's an empirical claim that we They would have to
find out whether that's true. There's a lot of evidence against that. Yeah,
well there's plenty of evidence for it too. But it's beside the point
to some degree, because that isn't that isn't something that I want to quibble
about. There. Perhaps there are trends, there are transitional paths, and
sometimes people find a collapse of their faith actually freeing. It's certainly the case
that many of the people who are are happy about what you're doing have found
exactly that in what you've been saying, And more power to you, and
so I'm not willing to dispute that. But what you said was, Okay,
here's these belief systems that are ancient and complex, and we can step
outside of them and there's this transcendent rationality that we could all aspire to that
would solve the problems. It's like okay, Like okay, So Jorman Peterson's
like Tom Coom in Minority Report. Right, he's got like a maybe he's
got like like super awesome Google contacts on and he's like playing with some kind
of like high IQ like supercomputer that he can see in front of him,
right, Like it's like Minority Report. Maybe that's what going on because he's
going a finger crazy boy. Well, what it is at a minimum to
value all of the variables that conspire to make the one life we know we
have. You can't value all those variables? Well no, we we we're
doing it right, We do it every day. And how we organize we
do because we apply an a priori framework to the variables to reduce them to
a tiny subset that we can manage and it's the nature of that A Priori
framework that we haven't this. I guarantee you ninety five percent of this audience
does not know what Jordan Peterson is talking about. With an a Priori framework,
which he's talking about the presubsitional categories that make experience intelligible. I don't
even think Sam Harrison knows what that is, right because I just don't think
he's that sophisticated. But I mean, and if the audience doesn't know,
what are they actually cheering on here? Right? Like I don't this audience
has been funny the whole time, right with their hooting and hollering and whoa
yeah when when it's bizarre comments that don't even legitimize a hooting and a hollering,
Right, So I'm just wondering do they even know what he's talking about
with a Priori categories. I don't think they do. So they're just all
mesmerized by word salad. And now I'm not saying it actually is word salid
because I know what he's talking about. But the funny thing is that to
the atheist when you bring up these terms, they always say you're engaging in
word salid, Right, you talk about a Priori cadgy words of the words
of transit, you, ategories of words salad. So because they don't know
what a word means, they equate it to word salid. Right. So
I'm just still wondering, what is his audience cheering on if they understand what
probably you think they understand thirty percent of this conversation being able to have a
discussion about them. We have an a Priori framework that narrows our perception to
almost nothing. It's built into us, it's partly socially constructed. It has
a deep neurological substrate, and we actually understand how it emerges to a large
degree. And the thing is is that but I don't think I don't think
that's actually our difference. So the a Priori framework operates in many different spaces,
which again we can't necessarily analyze, but it makes it no less true.
So if you if you put your hand on a hot okay, So
again he thinks that a Priori categories perception are raw sense data, right,
And when they have the same discussion last year on Peterson's podcast, he says
the exact same thing. When I put my hand on the stove, I
pull it away because it's hot stove, you will immediately feel a good,
very good reason in fact, and that's nothing to do with what the transcendental
categories that make perception intelligible are. He does the even understand what the issue
is, arguably good reason to remove it, right, And that's it doesn't
require our moral philosophy to get you there. You don't need to you don't
need to inspect your a priori framework. You just have to feel, holy
shit, this is the worst thing I've ever felt. Right, And there's
so many more. Way So, somebody's in the audience both and and you're
saying that you were at this event, and you're saying that I was a
part of this audience way online online some out the people in the audience not
online, dude. People in the audience are like hooting and hollering, then
like going nuts, like they're out of a freaking Beatles concert, like a
sixteen year old girl with tingles going up their leg at a Beatles concert over
here, like hooting and holler yeah. And I'm like, do they even
know what's being discussed? As we saw in last night's dream, moments like
that in life that we dimly under that we understand what I'm trying to rescue
your chug from a fire exactly, then you have you have some other goal,
right, it can cause you to brave that that suffering, right,
Yes, and but again, trying to rescue your child from a fire is
pretty close to as the hot stove in not needing to be analyzed, right,
the imperative to rescue your It becomes harder when you have to rescue someone
else's child from a fire. And you're so this has nothing to do with
the status of transcendal categories, categories of of possible intelligibility of perception. This
has nothing to do with that. He's just resorting to, well, we
have sense data, we have raw sense data, and you don't need to
analyze a priori categories of perception to know that hot hurts you. Nothing to
do with Okay, that's not that's not even in question. What does that
have to do with the issue of transnital category is a perception? Nothing,
And you're worried about orphaning your child who's standing next to you on the sidewalk,
right, Then we get into the domain of moral philosophy, and then
you can say, well, you know what, do what how much do
each of us owe the children of other people? Right? How much should
I risk my life and risk orphaning my child to rescue your child. That's
when things get interesting in a philosophy seminar, and that's where people begin to
hesitate. People begin to we we are biased toward protecting ourselves, protecting our
kin, protecting our friends. And only then do we begin to extend the
circle and again moral, but this is not a mystery where we want to
go here. We want to extend the circle more and more and build institutions
and societies that that that implement our best selves at our best moments more and
more. It makes it more effortless to be good. In't take your example,
I had anything to do with the questions that Jordan Peterson raised. So
finally it took us I don't know, hour and a half to get an
actual argument, and uh, Sam Harris said absolutely nothing. All right,
So I think that that's a good bit of part three or part two.
This one is really getting bottom of the barrel. Should we move on to
part three? Let's see if this goes on. It's not a matter of
meaning, it's not a matter of purpose, and it's not a matter of
ground this meaning purpose and grounding. This actually sounds interesting. So let's see
where Harris Harris goes here. Objective observation of the ground. If it's a
statement of faith and it's in the value domain, how is it derivable from
facts? Okay? So yeah, exactly, So this is the isa question.
And remember we covered Jordan Peterson asking Sam Harris the same questions six eight
months ago. So let's see how Sam Harris answers the ISAK question six six
years ago. We've arrived at the point where we have to decide whether to
go to Q and A or to continue the discussion. While you all are
thinking about that, I would like to level a challenge to each of you,
and then I will pull the audience and see what they think about Q
and A. Okay, So Jordan is arguing to you that you cannot ground
the values that would undergird the modality of increasing well being in anything factual,
and you are arguing in response that, let me just argue in respects hold
on, not without an intermediary strug. What I've heard you argue is something
that I agree with, which is that you can ground many things in a
nearly objective observation of the universe, but it doesn't say anything about the value
part of the equation. And in fact, I think, having thought about
the question from an evolutionary point of view, that in order to do what
you're talking about to increase well being, you are going to have to accept
that that is going to leave you with an arbitrary grounding. There is no
absolute ground for it, and you're going to really hour and a half,
we're still hitting at the main point. Just simply accept that it's going to
make you arbitrary, that you are in fact going to have to do inconsistent
things like decide to honor the love of a mother for her child and dishonor
the love of country that causes one population to gas another population. That's inconsistent,
and then you need to embrace that kind of inconsistency. I mean,
it's just a different I don't think that we even have the grounding problem.
I think it's a pseudo problem. I think we have which dot. Yeah,
so at least Jordan Peterson is calling out some of this bullshit sophistry from
Sam Harris, right, and uh, this is a classic just to say
it's just it's not a problem it's a pseudo problem, even though he just
earlier said it's a problem that philosophers have, it's not a real problem,
And then he says a minute later, by the way, I'm a moral
philosopher. Yeah, so you should deal with this problem, bro in some
ware we have a navigated. The way it's grounded is the acknowledgment that what
we have is it's analogous to what people do with the notion of meaning in
life, like what's the meaning of life? How do you find meaning in
life? But what's the purpose of that? So I'm going to say that
he doesn't know what grounding means because and maybe I don't. Maybe you could
say the same thing to Jordan Peterson that he doesn't even know what grounding means.
He's on the right track, Peterson, is this is exactly where I
would go with Sam Harrison in debate. So he is correctly going down the
route, the route of what does it mean to ground? But I'm still
I'm afraid, you know what I mean, Like I'm scared. I don't
think. I don't think Jordan Peterson would know what it means to ground in
the epistemic sense, right, because then we're getting a little too philosophically dense,
even though he's using a priori categories, which is pretty heavy philosophy,
but he is asking the right question. I just hope that he knows what
it means to justify a claim, because that's what we mean by grounding.
But I don't think Sam Harris knows what it means. I think Sam Harris
thinks, like most people do, that when you ask for grounding for a
claim, that just means you have no right to make that claim. You
have no grounds, you have no right. I do have a right.
I am justified and making a claim. I have a right where like everybody
else has right. That's not what it means, dummy, is not having
anything to do with your rights. It means justification in an epistemic sense,
giving reason for why that belief is the case. And as most atheists don't
know when it comes to philosophy, they just think it's telling a story.
Telling a convincing story is what it means to ground or us by something.
These are bad questions. These are questions that, when you pose them,
seem to demand the bad questions. Think it's a pseudo problem. I think
it's a pseudo problem for his atheist idiotic position. Did you hear what he
just said? This is amazing, but you just said, we have put
yourself somewhere. We have a navigated. The way it's grounded is the acknowledgment
that what we have is it's analogous to what people do with the notion of
meaning in life, like what's the meaning of life? How do you find
meaning in life? But what's the purpose of life? These are bad questions?
Ah, there we go, We're back to the chart. Any of
the any of the questions that I don't like are bad questions. But wait
a minute, good and bad are value judgments. And this whole discussion was
how do we ground our value judgments for well being? And the answer is
I don't answer the questions that are bad questions, such as how do I
ground it? That's a bad question. Who would fall for this? I
mean, if you fell for this, you're an idiot. There's just no
other ways around it. If you ask for the purpose and meaning of life,
if for the grounding of universal claims, which is a basic philosophical question,
I mean, anybody who takes an epistemology one on one course. We'll
deal with this question. Oh, that's a bad question. This is so
ridiculous. It's it's it's the equivalent of Neil de Grassy mctyson saying, oh,
philosophy stupid. Well, it's only worthless because you can't answer the questions
that philosophy ask you. If philosophy asks you not random obscure questions, but
very basic questions like why ought we believe your universal moral claims? Sam,
that's a bad question. This is so dumb questions that But when you pose
them, they seem to demand, they suggest a space in which an answer
must be put. But it's it's just but you put an answer, Yeah,
exactly, you put the answer there, and we're asking for why we
should believe that? Duh. And he's like, why are you trying to
demand something there? It's because it's your assertion, why ought we believe it?
The very thing you would say, have a theist, why aren't we
believe in your theism? Theist? Well, here's a our answers, blah
blah blah. By the way, why why ought we believe in your universal
secular humanist ethic? That's a bad question. Don't ask me to People should
look towards the good Yes, there's a different there's a different way of framing
it. Good. What we have here is an opportunity, it's not it's
not a matter of meaning. It's not a matter of purpose, and it's
not a matter of grounding. Oh yeah, yeah, Don't ask me any
of the questions that my position wrests on. Don't ask me about t los
purpose, meaning and epistemic justification for my epistemic claims. Don't ask me that.
Don't ask me those questions, those are those are bad questions. This
is so stupid. Anybody with roomed medium level IQ in the should figure should
be able to see this. This is not grad level questions. This is
like again, these are the questions you would have in philosophy. One O
one one O two stands where where where we have consciousness and its contents in
every moment? And all of this is that the light the lights are on.
Oh so, just a bunch of metaphysical gibberous assertions we have consciousness and
content and every what do you say, event of consciousness? Just gibberish.
Just I mean again, just reasserting just this is just like Matt dil Hunty.
This is dill Hunting level gibberish, and they're on for reasons that we
dimly understand. Right, these are there reasons that are biological in our case,
like perhaps at bottom they're just based on information processing and their platform independent
and then we would build machines for whom the life the light is actually on
or not. Right, this is it remains to be seen whether we can
actually build in our So now he's going off into rabbit trails about transhumanism,
missises consciousness nothing to do with the question of grounding and justification, which he
just admitted that I'm not going to answer at it's a bad question, it's
a pseudo question, even though he's already said he's a moral philosopher. Yeah,
that's what moral philosophy does, is deal with those questions. Pewter's conscious
minds that can thrive or suffer, right, and the difference matters. But
we're in the circumstance where we are trying to understand how conscio consciousness in its
states arises. But one thing that is undeniable is that the lights are on,
and being on they reveal a spectrum of experience. That so just gibbers
just nothing so pointed question, absolutely no answer, reasserting the things in question.
Let's move on to part three. I can't imagine, imagine that it's
gonna get much better, but I don't know what we get in part three,
So let's see where we go. Thank you for the super chats on
ourminded body two. Use the stream labs function which is in the show description.
Superchats on my channel are via stream labs. Here is the link right
here. You can send a tip a super chat with stream labs right here
to support the show. Any amount is appreciated, and I will answer your
questions or comments here in a little bit. Let's get on here to the
next one. Continuing the most important series, we're told the intellectual dark Webs
discussion in this series, this is part three is, according to Brett Weinstein,
the most important discussion in the history of the Internet. Is that important.
Wow, we are fortunate to be here in the presence of such great
minds who ask level a second level philosophy one O two questions and then handway
them aside as not worthy of answer. That's how lucky we are, because
I mean, for most of you out there, you might have had if
you didn't have exposure to college, you would have never had the profound,
deep questions raised in Philosophy one on one and one o two in your life.
But now, thanks to the wonders of Internet, you can have that
experience with the greatest minds of our time, most rigorous light what they understand
to be the other's argument. All of the major issues were about to discuss.
Whoo yeah, now we got some pretentious brit up there telling us what's
up right, We're gonna we got a new mod up there, and uh,
we already got people cheering for who knows what, right, just cheering
to cheer. The applause light's going off, right, I'm gonna ask Sam
Harris to go first, and we're gonna get it from that. Say thank
you ny I first, Thank you all for coming. It's really it's a
it's privilege for us to do this. Oh yeah, amazing. Wow,
we are all blessed. I should say. Many of you have sacrificed a
lot to come here. People have come from other countries. I'm totally imagine
flying from another country to see this, like Philosophy one oh two level discussion
here, It's like you flew to see this. Wow, what why?
Why are they wearing McDonald's headphone, order drive through order stuff. Right,
Well, it's like, you know, I want the Big Mac. You
know, well, it's like you know the dollar menu. You know what's
like the dollar menu bucko? And then it's like, what are you gonna
do? Am I gonna get the McRib? Can Sam actually make a McRib?
Who knows? Buckle? Do you all dealt with a ticketing system that
seems like it was run from a cave in Afghanistan? Because calendar and say,
we're going to speak here. I told you there's a there's a laughter
light going off like it's a freaking sitcom. As we saw this in the
previous previous installments. You to show up, and this is a privilege we
certainly don't take for granted. You're privileged, right, you got that pretty
privilege all y'all people in my audience, y'all are privileged right now to be
in the in the presence of this pretty you get you pretty privilege. Pretty
privilege means to be in my audience. You are privileged to see my pretty
because you are privileged to be in the presence of an and we are we
are privileged, double privileged to be in the presence of not just one,
but the greatest minds of our time. What a privilege. So Jordan and
I should say that though much of our conversation together will often sound like we're
debating, will definitely none of us are in the habit of pulling our punches.
There's an immense amount of goodwill here. In other words, because of
my ridiculous performance in last night's discussion, where I completely faltered at basic philosophical
questions, you must understand we're not having a debate. So I didn't lose
because retroactively, it's not a debate, you see, and it's it's true
on stage, it's true off stage, and we're all trying to refine our
belief. And also because Jordan Peterson isn't actually a theist, so it's like,
yeah, there's not actually any opposition. It's all performative because this is
a debate between a pseudo debate between a agnostic and an atheist. So this
exactly that's why there's camaraderie, because no one on this stage actually believes in
Jesus and the Bible and God together in conversation, so this would none of
us view this as a debate though we might stridently disagree about one thing or
another. So what Jordan I think disagrees with me about? I think he's
worried that I. We clearly have a common project. We're both concerned to
understand how to live lives worth living? How can we do this individually?
And how can we build this? How do we live life worth living?
This sounds like a freaking mom core song from the nineties, right, This
sounds like is this Richard Marx right, Sam Harris got Richard Marx or Wilson
Phillips level philosophy going? How do we live life withth living? How can
I treat without a dreamer? How can I think without thinking? How can
I logic without you? How can I live without living? That was some
mom core lyrics. Bro, they have a common project? Wait, a
common project? So these are the greatest minds of our time. They're gonna
they're gonna construct the world. They're gonna give us purpose. Bro, we've
all lost meaning and purpose. We just need to look to these freaking boomer
mom core song lyric writers up here to tell us how to live? Who
knew the secret to living? That's his answers to freaking Wilson Phillips, Dude,
you thought that life was difficult? Oh, you gotta go get some
theology from these obscure old bible dusty books. No, the Secret to Live
was mom Core songs from nineteen ninety three. Wilson Phillips. What was his
lyrics? I think disagree is with me about it. I think he's worried
that we clearly have a common project. We're both concerned to understand how to
live lives worth living? How to live lives worth living? How do I
dream without dreaming? I can't live without thinking? And how to do philosophy
without logic? How can I live without living? That's some that's some Wilson
Phillips shire bro. We used to walk down by the rever. We use
to walk out safe that night. We second make it to the river to
drink that gauges from that class. That's some Richard mark stuff. That's the
Richard Marx hazard lyrics right there. We do this individually, and how can
we build societies that safeguard this project? For millions of people attempting to do
this in their diverse ways, And so many questions immediately come online when you
try to do that. What is the relationship between facts and values, for
instance, or science and spiritual experience, or or ethical lives. And we
have you know, as for the moment, differing answers to those questions.
Jordan is concerned that I, in my allergy to religion, insufficiently value the
power of stories in general, and religious stories in particular. That there's there's
something more than we just need good stories. Bro. The project, their
common project, is gonna give you some good stories, dude, Like programs
like my grandma she watched Days of Our Lives in General Hospital. Right,
I'll let that Grandma boomer stuff of programs, soap operas, stories, Right,
My grandmother said, I have to watch my stories and then watch my
stories. Well, don't worry, Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are going to
write some new stories for you, going to give you a new soap opera
to believe in. How do I live without living nakedly engaging with facts as
they are? Ah, we don't simply now we're talking my kind of stories,
nakedly engaging the facacts. I won't to negative engage, right, it's
something it's calling me bad up in here now, Sam Harris getting dirty,
it's getting sam in here. So let's negatively engage the facts, come into
contact with reality. We have to interpret reality. We interpret it through our
senses and with our brains, obviously, butwork. Let's tea jont level reality.
We gotta interpret reality in a realistic way. Bro, How do I
live without living? How do I dream without dreaming? How do I seem
without seeming? Let's getting real now. Now I feel like I'm at a
He's got that microphone, like Tony Robbins over there, like it's turning into
a self help lecture. I think. Actually they've realized nobody gives a shit
about philosophy. Let's just give these dummies meaning by pretending to be self help
gurus. That's why he's got the self help. The only people that wear
that microphone is a drive through man and a freaking self help guru. That's
it, Tony Robbins and the dude at the drive through. Right. He
said, it's time to nakedly engage the facts. Let's get raw and dirty
up in here. And as Jordan told, say, stories with which to
do that, My stories, my programs, my stories, and my programs.
It's time to give y'all some story. All y'all dummies out there.
They can't figure out how to live your life. Don't worry, the intellectual
dork web will give you stories. We're gonna give you some stories and some
programs you want to live. We watch a little gentle hospital. You want
to watch a little bit of I don't even know soap, but what are
the soap upers? I don't even know. Do soap opera still exist?
Is that? Did that go away? Like ten years ago? I don't
even know what soap operas? Do boomers still watch soap operas? Does that
still exist? Remember that woman getting possessed in the nineties? Remember that that's
the last time I thought about soap operas was when What's her face? Got
possessed? So the soap operas was getting ridiculous. Remember that Now I'm off
on a tangent of soap operas. That's why we don't get anywhere in these
lives, because they're there is so boring that I'm over here listening to them
yep and yipper about nonsense and nothing, And it took them an hour and
a half to make one argument last time that I'm over here just sitting about
thinking about soap operas. Remember that woman that got possessed. I remember being
in the in the checkout line in my hometown and that one that and it
was all over the It was the last time anybody thought or talked about a
soap opera the nineteen nineties. And that woman got possessed. Remember that she
had a demon? What was her name? She's like the most famous soap
opera woman days of our lives. Look at that, bring it back,
the possession storyline. I told you, Marlena, that's it, y'all.
Remember when Marlene I got possessed. Now that's the soap opera. I canna
watch right there, yup. Look at that they had They had to bring
it back. Look at that. Nineteen ninety four so soap operas were getting
so boring, they were getting so boring. Look at that that they had
to say, all right, let's just bring in some freaking exorcist stuff.
Let's just go full exorcist, and let's just get Marlena get possessed. Right.
Look at Marlena. She oh get on that girl. Get up in
that air, girl, get some air underneath you. Girl, get a
pair of girl do it, do it, girl, I got that floating
flow that bitch light as a fell though. That's what I'm talking about.
Lose some weight, girl, lose that way, girl, Marlane Possessed.
There you go, see what I'm talking about. What I say, what
I say. My memory is good, dude, My memory is good.
Marlano Possessed, nineteen ninety four. But don't worry. Sam Harris is gonna
give you some stout writsk gonna give you some programs in the raw. And
oh well, he's getting dirty now, nakedly engaging in the raw. George
believes that I because my purpose so often is to wait a minute. Purpose.
Remember that's a bad word, that's a bad question. We're back to
invoking the things that don't exist once again. Purpose. Remember he said,
don't ask me about purpose. Counter what I view as the dangerous dogmas within
religion. I ignore the power and even the necessity of certain kinds of stories
and certain ways of thinking about the world and our situation in the world,
that that not only bring many, many millions and even billions of people immense
value, are in fact necessary for anyone, however rational, to build a
society where all of our our well being uh can can be conserved. So
I think if if, in brief, that's that's Jordan's concern about me.
H, Jordan Peters's got some wild style, do y'all? Y'all notice that
he's always wearing some wild outfit. Right, he looks like he looks like
a pall bearer in a Hammer film. Right here, right, he looks
like a dude. He looks like this is some show that Christopher Lee where
right playing Dracula, And he kind of got a little Christopher Lee Dracula going
on, doesn't he, don't you think? But he's always wearing some wow
outfits. So Sam is concerned. I would say, above all with them,
I like how they're summarizing each each other's positions. I actually appreciate that
that's actually something that more dates should do, more dates, more debates.
We could call this a date too, right, because they're talking about nakedly
engaging the facts and getting raw. I know what y'all want. This audience
wants to see them do this debate in the raw, in the nude,
don't you That's what y'all want to see. Minimization of unnecessary suffering, which
seems to me to be a pretty good place to start. And he's concerned
that he's concerned that in is he gonna cry? Y'all? Jordan piers and
loves to cry, right, So I'm always waiting, is he getting for
Calamity's about to start crying balling? It's a difficult question. In order to
do that, we need to develop an ethic, and that ethics should be
grounded in that realization that unnecessary suffering is worth contending with and dealing with,
and that and that values. Then we end up in a situation where our
value structure has no super How do I live without living? How do I
dream without stories? There we go subordinate foundational grounding. And this is a
big problem. So generally in the philosophical community. It's accepted universally, it's
difficult if not the philosophical community. Now wait a minute, I thought you
had a degree in clinical clinical psychology. How are you speaking for the philosophers?
Possible to derive values from facts with that proposition is that you end up
in a situation where either you lose all your values because they're just arbitrary or
you or you have to ground them in something that isn't that that's that's revelatory.
And Sam is concerned that, Ah, there we go, finally,
revelational epistemology, grounding it in revelation. There we go. So this is
like sixth the sixth hour of this debate before we mention in the most daintiest
way, dancing around the transcendental argument. One of the negative consequences of grounding
your fundamental ethic in something that's revealed is the emergent consequence of irrational fundamentalism.
And so obviously that's worth contend with. And so he's taking issue with the
philosophical idea that fact. Yeah, so we can't ground this in God,
which is the only possible being which could ground this stuff. So we'll ground
it in the human mind. We'll take this psychologized content approach, which doesn't
work. Acts and values have to be separate, and formulating the proposition that
we can in fact ground a universal system of values in the facts, and
that we can mediate between the facts and the system of values using using our
facility for truth. But even so, he's just stating what Sam Harris's arguing.
You know, a huge testimony for the Jewish people, and it's fairly
well known that they specifically our facility for rationality, and that rationality can be
the mediator between the world of facts and the and the world of values.
And so he knew though he do be looking like a deacon at an African
American assembly, that's true. That's true. He looked like a He looks
like a pall bearer at Christopher Lee's funeral too. Problem I have with that,
I guess, if we can skip briefly to problems, is that it
isn't obvious to me how to produce an ethos with sufficient motivating power to ground
that conception of the minimization of suffering, say, and the promotion of well
being in a way that's that grips people and unites the society. And so
I think that's that's part of what we're discussing and trying to sort out with
regards to the potential Okay, we got it, narrative and religious belief as
an underpinning to this ethos. We seem to agree on the necessity for the
universal ethos. We even seem to agree I would say, on what that
is, because certainly the minimization of suffering seems to me to be a very
good place to start. We share a concern with and a belief that because
because because in some manner related whip, I realized I was muted. But
yeah, I was trying to say, like, why ought we do this?
Just giving another reason that we ought to minimize suffering? But why aren't
we minimize suffering? You see how that's just begging the questions, just moving
the can down the road, right, kicking it down the road, moving
the problem back and step, And why ought we follow what the majority people?
They always just assume, Oh, well, we want to minimize the
suffering for the most number of people. Why why ought we follow something just
because the majority wants it? It's just arbitrary because that's what the majority wants.
Dude to our ability to speak the truth, but we disagree on what
that has to be grounded in and how it has to be grounded. Yes,
my sense, especially after thinking about our discussion, is that Sam makes
what rationality is do too much work. And I'm hoping that not that rationality
is irrelevant or unimportant, because it clearly is neither of those. But uh,
this is kind of going in the right direction. But he could make
this a much stronger argument by rather than saying that rationality can't do this work,
He's going to just be like, he has no account for rationality in
his worldview and his deterministic paradigm, and not only that that rationality isn't even
possible if determinism is true, that's the route he should go and he would
completely bury this dude. But remember, the goal is not actually to end
the dispute and defend theism or to disprove theism. They are working on a
common project. Dia praxis is probably what's going on here, right, because
their common project is rediscovering meaning the archaeology of ideas, which we've already critiqued
in the multiple Peterson critiques that we've done. So the idea is not it's
to construct a new paradigm. It's the system building exercise, which is not
exclusive to any theism. In fact, they position themselves as the new high
priests of meaning, the new high priests of a new pseudo religion, namely,
I'm talking about all the intellectual dork web people. They will be the
system builder who will give us a new religion of the future. To use
the terminology of John Vervac. So, if you didn't watch, we already
went pretty deep into this, and you're like, why are you still covering
this? Who cares this stuff? Nobody cares about this stuff. No,
Actually, a lot of people still do, and they believe that this is
a legitimate, viable option. And it's just really appealing to the egoism and
the guru desire, the self help guru desire of not just Peterson, but
also all these other intellectual dork webs. I mean, they actually are looking
like Tony Robbins level like self help people. And that's why it's important to
go over here and do the analysis that we did with Vervek. Right,
we also did a deep dive into Verveke because he's also part of this crew
and their interest is again being the intellectual lights and gurus that will forge a
new path through diapraxis of creating and giving a new meaning and a new community
and a new value system for people in the future. But the whole project
is built on idiotic assumptions that I need Sam Harris to help me construct the
worldview and give me meaning. I mean, this guy couldn't answer basic philosophical
questions, but he's on a stage and he's said to be this great mind.
One of the greatest intellectual discussions of the modern world, and it's all
flim flam. It's nonsense. It's SuDS, it's their literal SuDS. I
already shared the Sam Hyde clip, so yeah, I heard that, Thank
you guys, And that's why I reposted the Sam Hide interviews. So yeah,
we got a good shout out from Sam. I appreciate that, which
Sam has given us quest a few shout outs here and there over the years,
So I appreciate that. But yeah, Sam said, Uh, why
is this not playing? Where's the where's the freaking volume at? What a
volume is at? Why does this have no volume anyway? Does this not
have volume? What the heck? Maybe the shorts not play on here?
I don't even know does this play? Maybe the devil's in the Detailsally,
we can get down to the details tonight, and we've we've formed, We've
brought Douglas into the conversation. He's here to serve as much more than a
mere moderator. And partly we we've determined that as Sam alluded to, that,
what we're actually trying to figure out is what are the minimal necessary preconditions
for the construction of engaged, productive individuals with meaningful, responsible lives in a
society that's so you see, this is really frustrating me because you know,
me an FDA, we do a lot of actual work in presubpositional argumentation transcendental
arguments, and the work is then taken by individuals who don't really understand the
way these arguments work to kind of bastardize and sort of create their own psycho
theology, and it's just really annoying and it's not gonna work. I mean,
I guess it works to like make yourself into like a guru or whatever,
but but I mean, look, people that make themselves into gurus don't
usually have a good end. So the making yourself into a guru usually ends
up being a disastrous enterprise, as pretty much most gurus unravel and be end
up being their own worst enemies, because the guru exercise is really a self
aggrandizing, self worship enterprise, and that doesn't usually go very well, stable
enough to sustain itself and dynamic enough to change. What are the minimal preconditions
for that? What are the and how do we ground those presuppositions those preconditions
and what price do we pay for having wonder where those arguments came from?
Wonder where that's who's been saying that interesting. Interesting. Now, I'm not
the first person to say that, I'm just saying that in the debate sphere,
who's been saying that quite a bit? I think without a cost.
And we thought that Douglas would be very interesting addition to this conversation because of
course he's concentrated on such things as borders, and when you set up preconditions
for social order, you also automatically produce such things as hierarchies and borders,
and they don't come without a cost. We hope to expand the conversation to
include a discussion of those issues as well. Yeah, but before Douglas chimes
in, I just want to reiterate the fact that he has not been cast
here as our moderator. Though if Jordan and I run off the rails,
I expect Douglas to put us back on. And the King's So, who
is who is this person? People are like, y'all are all talking about
Douglas Murray. Dougs Murray cracks me up, pretentious brit Is he is this
a well known person. I've never heard of this guy who is Henglish.
I'm not moderate enough to be a moderator. No, but you're you're more
moderate than either. Julie bridges with them, I'm not moderate enough to be
a moderate of us are, But so I want I want you to reset
the part of your brain that is poised to begrudge the moderator taking up too
much time, because the every moderator has found your enterprise, Jordan. And
the way in which you're you're seem to be linking our rational project and our
scientific project with religion is is right here. There's a there's a difference between
and magic is a decent analogy. There's a difference between like way you realize
other people from the British Intelligence superstructure have already done this exercise of wedding religious
mythology to science. So this is not a new exercise from doctor Jordan Peterson.
This is what theosophy did. This is old school Blovatsky stuff. And
I'm not saying that Jordan Peterson is a theosophist. I'm just saying that this
basic enterprise has already happened and people have been doing this for a long time
and it's just a way to create Actually, this kind of reminds me of
Chroleian type stuff, right, because as we've seen through the years many of
the lectures and investigations into cults and stuff, what we saw about Chroleian Croleianity
was that his whole Thelma stuff was basically a way for you to go up
the ranks of his religious system. It's basically a religious grad school and a
cult grad school to learn how to create your own cult. So it actually
makes perfect sense that they would be engaged in the exercise of creating and forging
a religion of the future, given the fact that that's really what the enterprise
of all of these suits is to do. Back to Blovatski and too Krowley,
it's exactly what they did. And I'm not saying that Jordan Peterson is
maliciously doing that. Maybe he's just going along with the project and things.
So this is, you know, this is our best hope. But you
know, it still amazes me that people are like, oh, he's an
Orthodox apology. No, he's not an Orthodox apologist. Right, They're like,
oh, he's a bridge. Fair enough, that's good that he's a
bridge. But a lot of things can be a bridge, right, So
I'm glad that he's a Bridge, But I'm also concerned that he's not going
in the right direction. So I'm glad that he went to Mount Athos recently.
That's good, but I'm also concerned that he might not go in the
right direction. Then he might continue in the direction of the temptation to think
that he is basically the temptation of Preless. That's what I'm getting at here.
I think the root concern, just like with any Protestant or any other
type of person, and it's the same with Jordan Peterson, is the concern
is Preless. That's it. It's that simple. So the danger of being
in a position when so many people see you as a guru is that you
start to believe you're a guru. That's the danger here, and it's not
coming from a place of disliking any personal level. Jordan petersoner, I do
impressions. I do impressions of everybody, the impression of Alex Jones. I
mean, I hate Alx Jones. I do impressions of everybody. So you
know, impressions are not a sign of hatred or whatever. No, we
pray for Jordan Peterson to convert. But I think the danger here is the
temptation to become a kind of guru. And then when when a lot of
people people in that situation, when they get big audiences, they start to
believe, Oh I actually am a guru. I actually am going to save
the world. Oh I actually I am going to afford the ford the religion
in the future. I am called to this. God has sent me in
providential history to do this. This is my mission. And they start believing
that they get they get all hyped up on their own toots, so to
speak. But real magic is fake magic, and fake magic is real Magicly,
the only real magic in the world produced by magicians is the fake magic
where the magician, like someone like Darren Brown will tell you, actually,
no, I can't read minds, and I did put the rabbit in the
hat, and this is fake. But the surprise is that even knowing it's
fake, you can't understand how this effect is being achieved. Whereas the fake
magicians are the ones who are pretending to be real, who are hiding,
who are not acknowledging the mechanics, the real mechanics behind what is in fact
effective. You know, the illusion that the rabbit pops out of the hat,
and what I worry with some of your the way in which you discuss
the power of story, the power of metaphor, and the religious anchoring there
is that the leverage and the utility can be had even while we I know
for people that are saying this, I've heard it a million times. I
understand that people see Jordan Peterson's Pearson's discussions of mythology as a bridge to how
you could begin to understand the Bible. And I know that he's speaking to
the modern world. I know all of that. I've heard that a million
years. I've been hearing it since I first heard of Jordan Peterson, and
I don't know twenty fourteen. I'm well aware of all of that. But
the concern is that it's not actually the case, right, Christianity and God
doesn't exist, and isn't the case without Jesus actually being Jesus and the Bible
actually being real. You see what I'm saying. So while it might work
for a bridge, people have to learn that, Okay, that bridge was
wrong, and a lot of people don't get that, and a lot of
people will say, oh, I can bring all of that baggage that I
had, and I can fix orthodoxy this is a common problem that people engage
in, and we've seen it for years, and even people that are our
friends have to go through this. I had to go through this because I
thought when I first, let's say so two thousand and seven, when I
started looking at Orthodoxy, I was super tomistic, had a lot of Latin
theology in my head. And I had people telling me, oh, you
got to get out, you got to learn and sort of detox from all
this Latin theology Tomism, and it's going to take you a long time.
Do you think I listened to them. No, I did not. I
was an arrogant idiot in my twenties and I was like, no, I
will charge forward and I will master all this through my IQ and blah blah
blah blah blah. So I had the exact same experience that many people have.
FDA he was a theistic evolutionist and thought he would bring Tomism to Orthodoxy.
He had to undergo a change of you. I had to undergo a
change of you realize. No, it was Father Turbo say, when you
come to Orthodoxy, you realize all the problems, and then you realize you
were the problem. And everybody has to go through this right. And my
concern is that it's great to have a lot of people converting, and it's
great to have Jordan Peterson being a bridge, But then the concern is that
people have a mistaken idea of what Christianity is, what the religion is.
Yeah, exactly, well, I want to bring Sacred Heart worship into Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy needs Thomas the Quince. Orthodoxy needs all this stuff from Episcopalianism.
Orthodoxy needs all this stuff from Evangelicalism. And then it ends up being worse
off because then they're mad and a lot of people leave because it's not what
they thought that it's not the religion that they thought that they could make it.
You see what I'm saying. That's the concern, and so a lot
of times it can be more damaging to try to give people the impression that
you can make this religion what you want it to be, and we need
you to come help us to save it. It reminds me of a professor
I had a debate with in private three or four four years ago, and
he said, it took me a long time to convert to Orthodoxy, but
I realized that it was now time for me to come to Orthodoxy to save
it intellectually. That literally, that's what this guy said. He said,
it's I realized my mission in life was to make Orthodoxy tomistic. And I'm
like, dude, you've got it all backwards, man, this is way
backwards, exactly what I thought in two thousand and seven. Right. So
that's the concern here. That's it technology and the real mechanics of it,
you know, the fake the fakeness of the magic, right, and you
seem to suspect that it can't that that takes all of the the same I'm
not so sure. I'm not so sure. What if it's fake and what
if it isn't. Well, let so I would say that I do consciously
participate in the process that you described, but you see, I would also
make the case and this is certainly one of the things that we've we've been
discussing that you do it unconsciously, and let me make the case for that
from it, because I really I've been thinking about it a lot, and
I'd like to see your response. So here's here. I really read the
moral landscape a lot, and I thought about it a lot, you know,
and so this is what it looks like to me. So you make
the proposition that we have to breach the gap between facts and values because otherwise
our values are left hanging unmoored, and that certainly brings about the danger of
nihilism, but also a potential danger of swing to totalitaranism. Something we agree
about. I truly do believe that. And then you perform an operation,
a conceptual operation, and you say, surely we can all agree that,
And then you outline a story about this woman who lives in this horrible country,
who's basically just being starved in disease ridden and tortured her whole life and
having just a hell of a time of it, to put it in a
phrase, and then you say, well, surely we can all agree that
that's not good. And then you contrast that with at least in princes.
Now, aren't you happy that the men that are going to give you the
religion of the future are the ones that are dismissing and hand waving questions that
arise in philosophy one O two. So this is this is who's going to
give you the religion of the future. The intellectual dark web elites here who
are struggling with philosophy one O two class questions like Sam Harris, well,
the sort of life that we would all like to have if we could choose
the life that we have, And then you say, well, we could
start with the proposition that we should move away from this terrible, hellish circumstance
and we should move towards this more ideal perspective. And you say, if
we could only agree on that then and so like, so far, so
good. But this is this is there's a couple of things that go along
with that that are quite interesting. And so the first is that actually what
you're claiming is that the highest moral good isn't existing in that better space.
The highest moral good is acting in the manner that moves us from the health
Yes, so people are Yeah, Sam Harris's position is human flourishing and well
being. Of course, we don't exactly know what that is. Is that
monetary success? Is it just having a coon pod and a ubi? I
mean, we don't know what it is to flourish. And that's why a
lot of these sophistical positions that always rely on very vague things, right,
which appeals to a lot of people. So you can boil things down to
look, I just want to get down to the basics. I want to
have a few I want to have a basic principle we can all agree on,
and then we'll work from there that we should all experience well being what
I mean, just so vague in general. This is the old trick of
This is the old Dalai Lama trick. Right, So you say a bunch
of deep sounding things, but what you've actually said is nothing, right,
And it's so vague and so general that your thing that you've actually said that's
nothing is mystery Men level stuff. Right, do y'all know the Sphinx and
Mystery Men? This was a pretty genius level trying to find the good clip.
And I'm not gonna play the clip because it'll ding the copyright. But
they're making fun of the Dalai Lama in the Sphinx, which is pretty funny
because everything he says is just he just flips the phrases. Right, So
you know, in order to not be controlled by your emotions, your emotions
cannot control you. You know, just a bunch of gibbers like this,
Right. So there's that clip, and that's really all you're getting from these
people too, Right, it's the same type of boil it down to these
really abstract, meaningless phrases like let's all focus on well being. In fact,
it's not very far from what the New Agers do, the New Agers
that you know, consciousness, Gibberish movement, this kind of stuff, right,
I mean, it's almost like Sam Harris says, yeah, Tony Robbins
gives more useful information, then we need to figure out how we all agree
on how to create well being. It's like, I mean, literally every
New Age guru can say that let's focus on consciousness and improving and raising our
vibrational frequencies to higher well being. I mean, it's just like what me
to the desirable domain. It seems to me to be implicit in your argument.
So there's a pattern of behavior that constitutes the ethic. Well, but
that's what I'm saying. It's weaponized vagary. It's intentionally vague. It's intentionally
vague because that's the old guru trick. Dude, that's the that's mystery Man's
point, that the gurus trick is to be intentionally vague the conscious gibberish movement
exactly. And you say, well, wait a minute, it couldn't be
that easy. Oh, really, have you seen till Swan. Did you
see did you see the the I mean, she's got over a million followers,
now, okay, I remember when she had like eighty thousand followers,
and I mean this check is like nuts, right, and she's already had
we watched the documentary, We did a whole stream on her. But I
can understand now why people believe the intellectual Dark Web stuff because millions millions of
people follow her. And I mean she says some wild stuff. Bro.
She says like you can unlive and it doesn't matter because death is an illusion.
I mean what. But I guess till Swan is a good gauge that
people will believe like absolutely crazy, you know what I mean, Like they'll
believe in this wild nonsense. So they're probably trying to probably trying to tap
into the guru market, you know what I mean, Like the guru market.
That's a big market. I mean, till Swan's got almost two million
followers. And have you ever listened to what til Swan says. I mean,
it's crazy, dude. So now I'm starting to I'm actually starting to
rethink this. I'm starting to think this isn't even this isn't a philosophy,
psychology, that this is just the guru market. That's what I started.
That's I think the new intellectual dark web thing dark web is actually just the
guru market reborn, That's what it is. But they're trying to appeal to
a broader set maybe than the new age idiots, don't you think? Is
that what's going on? Because how popular do you think Sam Harris? Who
he thinks more popular, Sam Harris or til Swan. That's actually might be
a tough question. How many followers does he have? Okay, so he
didn't even have a million? That's crazy. So Sam Harris has six hundred
and thirty eight thousand followers. Now it's true maybe Teal Swan bought followers,
so that that could also be the case. She might not be as famous.
So let's see, she's not very big on Twitter, so let's see.
But she also has like a million or two on Facebook, so keep
that in mind. So let's see what Sam Harris is at on Twitter.
That's not the right Sam Harris. Is Sam Harris not on Twitter? No?
Is that him? Well he's not big on Twitter either, So Teal
Swan and Sam Harris are both not big on Twitter. Which is interesting.
But and I think you're saying, does this matter? No, it actually
does matter, because let's see what's over going on over here on on Facebook
just out of curiosities, just out of curiosities, two point three million.
If that's real of teal Swan on Facebook, that's crazy. And then let's
see what Sam Harris is on Facebook, so five hundred thousand, So that's
crazy. If these numbers are accurate, teal Swan is two or three times
more popular than Sam Harris. So that means that the new age guru market
is two or three times bigger than the atheist materialists market. From a numbers
standpoint, it actually would make sense for Sam Harris to start moving into the
self help guru domain. Right, that's crazy. Can you believe that?
I mean, if you don't know about teal Swan, I would say,
just watch this podcast that we did, and it's worth it because I'm more
and more now starting to think that this is actually just guru stuff. So
here's the show that we did with Rachel Ann, who is a psychologist.
Y'all don't know who til Swan is. Now, keep in mind, TiAl
Swan got her audience built first because she claimed to have been involved in s
R A, and then it turned out her stories were so wild and ridiculous
that it basically was completely discredited. Right, and then she turns out she
claimed that she was an Olympic skier and she was in Playboy, and she
was and all of us made up. So she's a pathological lying con woman
is who tells one is? But she's like the new, like the biggest,
the new big guru, Right, you've never heard, Well, she
did a freaking they did a whole show on her, and I actually recommend
watching the show because it's only like five parts called The Deep End, if
you want to. I mean, we've done tons and tons of cults,
cult streams, We've done so many of these, right, I recommend watching
The Deep Dive because it's just another cult. You'll notice all the familiar patterns.
Here is the trailer if you want to watch this on Hulu. I
mean, but it's not just it's not just cloud chasing, like That's what
I'm saying is that gurus get to a certain point where they go nuts,
and so they actually start teaching like really weird, dangerous stuff, right,
Like the woman that we covered with Rachel Anne who uh what was her name?
I think we covered her in this stream. I can't remember that other
crazy cold woman, the one who thought she was Gaya and she was just
drunk all the time. And they when she died, they wrapped her body
up in a Christmas tree lights remember that? Uh? And she was on
with Doctor Phil. Remember that. Now you think you're the voice of guy
here. It is the Mother God cult. This is her. So what
I'm saying is that it gets crazier and crazier and you get more and more
demonic because of the delusion is so strong. And that's what happened with Mother
God. Right, and she I was reincarnated five hundred and thirty four times.
Right. Anyway, I actually do recommend the uh. There are actually
a few Doctor Phil episodes that are worth watching. This was actually one of
them. You should watch this for another one of these same cult women.
Right. So point being is that these are examples of cults and the gurus
that go nuts because they start to believe that they are called to, you
know, be the new saviors, and any of these positions can lead to
this. You can, by the way, it's the same attitude of the
Bolsheviks, right, So they might not have been believers in theism, but
they went insane, right, Lennon went insane, and they end up resulting
in a lot of chaos, death and destruction because of the delusion this scene
and that's in that better space is good enough as well. I mean there's
the there's the question of what it takes to move from where you are to
someplace better, and then there's just the someplace that's better. There's both of
these well, but we perhaps we could say, look, what's the old
No ant hell kids is different. We covered that with Chiller Queen. This
is a different podcast where we covered Anne Hamilton Burne cult. She's also the
same guru crazy mk Ultra given all the kids lsd TiO Swan is just the
latest version of all this craziness. The Mother of God woman died, She's
dead. Hell. It might be existing in the hell that you describe,
but it also might be this is something worse. I think. I think
that participating in the process that brings about that hell is actually a hell that's
even deeper than the hell. So it's an analogous argument. There's the state
of being in a good state, but there's also the state of being that
brings you to that good state, and then there's a state of being that's
in a that's a terrible state, and the process that brings you to that
terrible state. And one of the things that I've learned from the archetypal and
religious texts that I've studied as well as the philosophical text is that the process
that transforms society into something approximating Hell is a lower Hell. Now the reason
let me just close the loop on that, because I'm pretty sure I disagree.
One, you can imagine two counterexample. What's he talking about a lower
Hell? I mean, is he making analogies to like Dante's Inferno? I
guess one is. You can imagine a sadistic being, might even call him
God, who would create a circumstance of hell and populate it with innocent souls.
Right now, that's presumably that action need not be attended by a lot
of suffering. Or you could imagine something. No, but it's it's still
wrong, still wrong. Yes, No, you could even imagine someone who
enjoys generation to Hell. Yes, yes, that would even be more wrong
than not enjoying it, right, Okay, so we want to separate out
two things. We want to separate out these states of being and the process
that brings them into being. And I do believe you do that in your
work because basically, what you suggest is that the appropriate way to act ethically
is to act in a manner that moves us away from Hell and moves us
towards a desirable state. Now, the thing is is that, as far
as I'm concerned, there's a couple of things about that. The first thing
is that I wouldn't say that that mode of acting is a fact. I
would say it's a personality. And that what you're suggesting is that people embody
the personality that moves society away from you. I don't know what they're talking
about, but yeah, I think it has an interesting question to ask why
some of these people get famous, right, Because in the case of Sam
Harris, you know, his mother, if I recall, was right Hollywood,
So he's coming out of like a Hollywood family. You know, she
was like, what a writer, producer for Golden Girls or something like that.
So he actually comes out of the theater world, the Hollywood world.
His undergrad was philosophy or something. I forget exactly what his I mean,
he's listed as a philosopher, and so you've already seen how okay, he's
listed as a philosopher, but then when actual philosophical questions are raised, he
says those are pseudo questions. So he became known as a critic of religion,
the four horsemen of atheism back in the two thousands with Dawkins, Hitchens,
Dennett, I remember all that era. He wrote End of Faith in
two thousand and four. So this is kind of what put him on the
scene. And let's see what who published that? Norton Publishing, and it
won the Penn Martha Award. What is that Literary Human Rights Award? So
basically this was propped up is what we're trying to say here, Oh,
free expression, freedom of the press. Yeah, like because atheists are so
persecuted in America. Yeah right, I mean it's just so hard that it's
like it's they're champions when they speak up because it's they're so persecuted. I
mean, has what atheists? Has there ever been an atheist that anybody knows
of? It's actually persecuted in America with this fake victimhood status that they have.
I mean, maybe there is a case. I just don't know of
it, right, I mean, the whole country basically a acts like a
bunch of atheists anyway, So I don't know why they would be a persecuting
atheists. Want to figure out, like what this award entity is that gave
him awards? Well, here's interesting. So then here he is with Norman
Mayler Updyke, and I guess these are atheist socialist types, all right.
So that put him on the map, and it was a New York Times
bestseller for thirty three weeks, and then he wrote six more books critiquing Islam.
Who's he debated, Let's see William Lane Craig who is a heretic,
Rick Warren who's a Council on Foreign Relations fraud, and a bunch of nobody
weirdos. And then Ben Shapiro, he was one of the core members of
the Intellectual Dark Web, although he does not identify as part of the group.
Oh cool, his mom was the producer of Golden Girls, exactly like
I said, Quaker background and non Jewish, non religious Jewish Quaker. Okay,
so but what is his degree? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
PhD And cognitive neuroscience. Aha, but you see his undergrad is philosophy,
told you, and so his PhD is in fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging.
Okay, so now we can see we can understand why the philosophy is
so weak because he basically did a BAH and probably doesn't remember or grasp half
of the topics that were raised. So that's that's a good By the way,
I know many many philosophy grads, and many many philosophy grads shocker,
are not very good at philosophy. Okay, So let me be honest with
this. So let me think. So am my undergrad class the group that
I was with, because if you you know, if you're out of school
for many years, you kind of you get used to all the people in
your philosophy department because it's not very big. So like at my school,
we probably had I don't know, the same ten fifteen people over the many
years of undergrad grad school in the philosophy program, right, so I know
most of the people that were there. I would say maybe one or two
people were exceptionally intelligent. Everyone else was pretty mid and not being mean,
just being honest because I spent years with these people, same classes, day
in, day out, months years, maybe two or three people were really
proficient at philosophy. And I think maybe me and one or two other people
at my university, which had fifteen thousand people, actually went to the grad
program. So not many people do grad philosophy. Right, Yeah, So
I don't think I think this helps me understand why I just I don't think
he really has a lot of even with a ba he doesn't he or maybe
he's forgotten a lot of these issues hell towards having for lack of a better
term. And the reason terms and the reason I make that argument is because
I think that you recapitulate the essential Christian message precisely by doing that, because
symbolically speaking, at least as far as I can understand, stripped of its
religious of its metaphysical context, let's say, the purpose of positing the vision
of the ideal human being, which independent of the metaphysical context, it's certainly
what the symbol of Christ represents is the mode of being that moves us most
effectively from Uh, this is what drives me crazy? Did you hear that?
What have I been saying? The archetypal ideal of humanity Christ, But
forget the onto lot metaphysical question exactly. Let me have Christianity in a psychobabble
way without the metaphysics and the theology. That's not Christianity. That's your own
made up pseudo religion. That's my very critique, and that's been the critique
of Jordan Peterson since I made my first critique of Jordan Peterson seven or eight
years ago. So I'm sorry. Our religion is not a religion of your
archetypes. And I believe in archetypes. Maximist Confessor talks about archetypes, but
that's not the same thing as Carl Jung's archetypes. And you cannot make this
move of saying that, let's just talk about the religion as an archetype in
psychology and not do metaphysics and theology. It's just totally dishonest and it's intellectual
suicide. It's fraud. And he just himself said Christ in an archetypal sense,
and then he starts talking about being. Being is metaphysics the essential Christian
message? Precisely by doing that, because symbolically speaking, at least as far
as I can understand, stripped of its religious of its metaphysical context. Let's
say there is no such thing as Christianity. Stripped of its metaphysical context,
it's meaningless. The religion is not true if it doesn't have the metaphysical context.
How does it people? I guess people just idiots. They don't even
know what he's talking about. With metaphysics, what is it? Is it
the bookstore where the witchcraft section is in the bookstore? The purpose of positing
the vision of the ideal human being, which independent of the metaphysical contexts,
it's certainly what the symbol of Christ represents is the mode of being that moves
us most effectively. The mode of being is like the most metaphysical topic possible.
Modality and mode of being is literally what metaphysics is about. And you're
sitting her saying independent of the metaphysical context. Now, if Sam Harris knew
anything from his philosophy, BA, the first thing he should say in response
is, Jordan, you just used a bunch of metaphysical terms when you said
let's exclude metaphysics from this. This is mind boggling to me. This is
inane. Actively from something approximating hell to something approximating heaven, and then part
of that part of that message is and this is also something that's dead along
the lines of what you're arguing, is that the best way to embody that
is actually to live in truth. I mean so because I would say that
the fundamental Uh, I'm sorry, we're back to metaphysics now. We're talking
about the true and the good and being and modes mode of being. Mode
of being is metaphysics. Like, that's a huge part of metaphysics. We're
back to. This doesn't exist outside of metaphysics. It's it's like when that
lunatic Hause came on, right the communist and he says, all talk about
metaphysics is gibberish and nonsense because what exists is pure matter. And it's like,
that's a metaphysical claim. No it's not, And then he just goes
nuts, basically frothing like a demon like what it is. I mean,
if you want to redefine words to make them mean other things, that's the
only way that you can make these moves. But look, guys, we
gotta restore our masculinity, and the way that we do that in a diet
and healthway is by heading over to chalk dot com and getting a hold of
this new product coming out, I can't wait to get it. It's gonna
ship in a few days. It's called the chad Mode Clean Pre Workout.
Get on over to chalk dot com right now, and yes it is that
Chad Look at that Chad meme right there, dude, chad Mode one Clean
Pre Workout. Can't wait to start doing that because I have been in the
gym consistently for the last month and a half month now that we have a
gym nearby, and I'm enjoying regular workouts, and I'm excited to see what
the Chad Mode will do in this workout regimen. So i want you to
also check out the chad Mode. Don't forget that. There's also all these
other great products over there, like the Male Vitality Stack, which is my
favorite. Using promo co J fifty that's Jaifi zero to get fifty percent off
all those excellent products over at chalk dot com. And there's also products for
the ladies. It's not just for men. It's not just that Tongkat the
boost testosterone. There's also the ashwaghanashilage and the Irish moss perfect for ladies in
balancing out the hormones. Head on over to Chalk dot com and get that
female vitality stack by using promo co J fifty that's Jawifi zero or recurring subscriptions
J fifty three Life that's Jay five three life to get that Chalk coming every
month. Use those promo codes. We'll do a little bit more of this.
Let me do a super chat because I'm starting to just my mind is
turning to mush with this this debate. It's just kidding. It's not it's
not a debate, by the way, the debate. That's not a debate.
DC would working three dollars, Thank you so much, Storm the Cat
five dollars. I saw Mike Patton video. Who's Mike Patten. He said
that one time he found Elton John in the bathroom and his face was in
a urinal like a horse drinking out of a trough. Oh. That actually
literally grows me up. Storm the Cat three dollars. Jordan's fingers are like
what a chunky person does when they see a donut. Okay, okay,
you can nine O two one oh seven dollars, Thank you so much.
Dog threw human up through human eyes fifty five fifty five. That sounds like
an eighties britpop band. Through Human Eyes, I play keyboards and through Human
Eyes to Human Ice, I play the keyboard and I play in a band
call through Human Eyes. Through Human Eyes fifty five fifty five wins the super
Chat Contest tonight. Thank you for doing more Peterson versus Harris. The first
one is my favorite of your streams. Keep killing it boye ye boy through
Hume and it's nineteen ninety nine. Another one. Look at that seventy five
bucks on the fat super Chet Contest winner tonight is Through Human Eyes. Great
name for an eighties britpop band. Free Reign twenty dollars and says nothing but
I appreciate that, Thank you so much, Free ring tenfold hat Girl,
longtime super Chet, a longtime follower, shout out to Tenfoil Hager, Jordan
Peters and sees himself as a new shaman pulling the youth out of nihilism.
That's an accurate description, I think, and we when we looked into Vervaiki
Fa Bankie and his project, what do you know it Shu does line up
with what we're talking about here. On a side note, did you see
that Tucker Carlston did a piece on the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. I saw
him mention it, and I saw Elon Musk talk about it today, and
so I immediately jumped into that discussion. Of course, I'm sure no one's
going to really pay attention to my tweeting in that stuff. But hey,
you know, I mean, Tucker, where you at? Have me on,
have me talk about that stuff? You got? You got Tate coming
on? Hello, there's better argumentation than Tate right here. Anyway, Thank
you guys so much. I'm kind of I'm kind of wearing down. We
had a lot of fun, a lot of singing tonight, but it actually
fits because a lot of this conversation in this debate was pretty low tire.
But I do give Peterson credit for bringing in some of the torpedoes. There
an hour and a half into part three or whatever, part two and we
saw Sam Harris completely falter, just just folded and then folded so bad apparently
that the next night he'd had to say, we're not having a debate.
Yeah, exactly right. I'm too skitzo, bro, what I just lecture
through the books. So if the books are skitzo, then reality is schizo.
Dog. Guys, head on over to the channel and get my books
in the shop Part one and two signed copies, Get the Red Book,
get the Medinaritis Book, all signed copies from the shop at Jason Analysis.
A reminder too that because we're going to Italy, the book orders will be
a little bit behind, so keep that in mind. Yeah. I was
just on o In by the way, So I mean, if I'm not
too skitzo for o An, then I shouldn't be. Did I was already
on a Tucker Special. What do you mean, schizo? I was on
the last Tucker Special before he got fired, so I'm not too skitzo.
You know how many followers i'd get from if I was on a Tucker X
show overnight, I could have like two hundred thousand followers. So maybe one
day we'll see. But look, we all know I would bring legit content
to you know what I mean to I guarantee you I'll bring you better stuff
than what Tate's gonna talk about.