Secular ethics = Wokeism (it's indistinguible in Dennet's own terms: all grounded in "science and politics" - relativism -).
@AlexVarga-fm8lx Says:
Rest in peace him!
@Alfie1970Waterhouse Says:
A paper on anxiety and entropy computation? Do tell Mr Peterson?
@Alfie1970Waterhouse Says:
Thank goodness Mr Dennett.
@TerribleShmeltingAccident Says:
What we owe each other as humans is consideration. This does not mean we have to agree (although this sometimes will be the case.)
@beezee7691 Says:
'no end to arguing' - ACBhaktivedant
@JoeLackey Says:
This is your friendly reminder that Jesus took the bullet for you and then overcame death itself by being resurrected so that you’d believe in Him as the proven way out of this mess and “not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
@user-qs9un2zt1h Says:
One of the main contentions i see in this is the argument of pre-faith(good to do before you know), and after-faith(we see what works and what doesn’t)
@user-cr7hh4mu9r Says:
Jeeves would have burned this suit :)
@dylanshearsbyart Says:
I wish Peterson would return to more grounded, direct topics of discussion. That was where he shined. His current attempts to bend every random esoteric element of man made mythology into something relevant and interesting is painful to watch, and unfortunately led to wasting this opportunity to make the most of a brilliant guest. Instead it's 95% Peterson rambling on about nothing, and 5% Dennett replying with "suuuure." They're both smart, interesting men. This could have been so much better.
@DamienPaulLabonte Says:
Every AD on these conversations is about GOLD.
@jennym4127 Says:
The discussion seems to center on ethics from either a Christian Biblical perspective or secular ethics. But the idea of a supernatural being or Creator being is not limited to Christianity. Why did humanity when it became conscious of itself also become conscious of the Other, the something beyond humanity that humans felt existed. Biblical writings were thousands of years after this consciousness. Why did early humans bury their dead with trinkets for the afterlife rather than simply walking away from the dead leaving the bodies to nature? Why did the prehistoric hunters paint animals on the wall of caves that no other human would ever see? Something compelled them to search for something beyond themselves and still compels us. It must have been programmed into the DNA.
@brettwheeler7753 Says:
If were merely defining "good" as excellent to carry out a purpose, the by that rationale there are good serial killers. Man cannot define what is good. Only God is good.
@bboynewsboy991 Says:
Daniel Dennet has helped me believe in God. And i don't say that as a jab or a mocking of athiests. I finally believe in God, after all my searching. And i can finally know him.
@gordonfreeman2070 Says:
this convo is nuts
i kinda wish to listen more of the guest always, JP talks a lot
RIP, Dr. Daniel Dennett. I've been intrigued by your way of thinking and how you've been expressing your thoughts for decades. Thank you!
That said, Jordan Peterson sure like the sound of his own voice. Every question to Dennett turns into a long speech with his own conclutions. Unbearable to witness. No doubt Peterson is an intellectual, but he has his head so far up a certain cavity.
This is not a conversation, it is a meeting of a calm and thoughtful Dennet versus Peterson making his effort to show his intellect. Shameful.
@StoneShards Says:
The guest posits "the myth of God" with an arrogant certainty that I find scientifically offensive. It shouldn't be necessary for science to deny the existence of "God"! And, indeed, true science does not! Secular science, science with a political axe to grind, does! A free science will ultimately find God.
@StoneShards Says:
So...science proceeds from religion, and precipitates the formation of "secular" society that recognizes science in the place of religion? I see political interference with the conduct of science precipitating a "willing blindness" to the religious implications of scientific frontiers, like the "quantum" realm underlying the phenomenal reality that science hides behind as it avoids the sight of God (i.e. religion). A science unencumbered by politics would turn itself to explicating and exploring religion quite naturally. Basic religious indoctrination facilitates the development of critical sensibilities, like self-control and imagination, love and righteousness--civilizational values.
@StoneShards Says:
"Intelligible order"...intelligibility is an order imposed by intelligence upon the "unknown", the disordered. The perception bears the mark of the perceiver on the unknown. We can only meet the unknown in terms of the known; that's how order propagates, transforming the unknown into the known as it goes. It's the RESPONSE to a stimulus that determines what the stimulus is.
@StoneShards Says:
We learn to trust what we know to be true. This is usually ourselves; we know nothing better than we know ourselves...what "doubt" and "certainty" feel like, what the preponderance of our experience signifies. Ultimately, we are left with the responsibility for being our own final authority; with the trust that our experience is true.
@Ullrvarg Says:
You know... the problem is that the idea of "revelation of the path" is true, not only on the Roman religious corpus, but for various of them. I would dare to say, it has greater depth and complexity in the Greek mythology, from which many of the principles of later monotheistic religion also gets nourished from. No wonder why their archetypal structure is used to delve into behavioral issues, and so and so forth. So, chasing god is, maybe, the same reason to chase literature or art. Meaning, it's a way to structure through story telling the abstraction of a principle, "a value", and with this, the attempt to "educate the group" into the tool of "self-control"/agency/"free-will" as a particular mode of behaviour to take part in the development of the current complex social structure of the animal we are.
Meaning, yes, art/religion is necessary and important in the way it is perhaps more adequate to tell a message than abstract information to a share of the population. And, like science and arguments, can also be parasitized by mischievous individuals. The idea of not needing religion is to think perhaps too much of the kind, which would not need a certain models to distribute information as all of us are capable of processing information in the same fashion, dry and abstract. That perhaps is not true, and I find that there is evidence of the contrary. The important part of distributing information is that the message is carried across, not the form in which the message is encoded. Sometimes might be formulae, sometimes it might be better in rhetorical terms. For sure, if you need to apply and use in its hardcore proper form, you need to devote to that path. But, sometimes, it's useful enough in its simplified form. Maybe that's the thing with "religion", literature, myth as its role in society.
Great discussion. RIP Dr. Dennett... thanks for everything. Thanks Peterson for your work and devotion.
@jammasterlee Says:
JP is a genius for characterizing God as the patterns which occur in the world. And, if we're being honest, these forces acting upon us and the world do kind of feel like a personality. Even if you're not so convinced by the scientific truth of it, probably the most effective way of engaging in and understanding these grand causal forces is as if you're dealing with a kind of consciousness.
@jammasterlee Says:
Damn, I just learned that he died. Dang, I was really starting to like that guy. JP just really knows how to have these chats. It's just amazing.
@PariSA991 Says:
It was a wonderful discussion, and it was so sad to hear about Dr. Dannett’s passing away, he was working on very important stuff…rest in peace🥹🥹🥹🖤🖤🖤
@StoneShards Says:
What is the "Love of God", but the very tendency of association?! Everything feels this tendency, sympathetically or antipathetically. The "psyche" is a resonant system; it "intones" the state of awareness, and, in vibratory response, associations form--quite organically. Complexes that have formulated stimulus/response cycles resonate to these intonations. These resonances translate into "images" of the identity of the stimulated complexes that appear, mentally, as "associations" to experiential memory--"food for thought", as it were. Contextualizing the various images of associations is an abstraction process involving the "higher mind", as opposed to a "lower mind" occupied primarily with the "translation" process. This is where all the trouble starts. 🧐
@parker4706 Says:
Love an interview where the host talks 70% of the time. Man loves to hear himself speak
@jakechilton1066 Says:
“You may talk about the ethical foundations of science but you cannot talk about the scientific foundations of ethics”
Christ is King
@nicolasbascunan4013 Says:
BTW, Dennett doesn't even believe consciousness is real, for him it's an illusion. To that absurd does materialism lead you.
@nicolasbascunan4013 Says:
Secular ethics = Wokeism (it's indistinguible in Dennet's own terms: all grounded in "science and politics" - relativism -).
@user-wd3gt9dw5z Says:
Цицерон сказал и добавить нечего, если просто тебя хотят уничиожить то это аморальная война. Должны быть выдвинуты требования
@user-wd3gt9dw5z Says:
Цицерон сказал и добавить нечего, если просто тебя хотят уничиожить то это аморальная война. Должны быть выдвинуты требования
@Dismal-future Says:
Such a shame that this conversation will not be picked back up. Rest in Power Dr Dennett
@yedidyafischer8637 Says:
You can invent things in bad will to....even if you trust your acomples
@TwoKnowingRavens Says:
I learned a great deal Daniel Dennet. He very ironically led me to faith through a process almost too complicated to describe here. If he were still alive to hear my explanation I would say that he didn't fail in any way, but he did expose me to even deeper questions. Skepticism is an extremely useful tool, but one shouldn't stop using it when they find an answer they like. I was searching for true justification for my atheism and what I ended up finding was God. Not by avoiding information, but by turning over absolutely every stone possible. I hope that it honors Dr. Dennet's memory and those who survive him that he challenged me to challenge myself and he gave me a great deal of tools that helped me to help myself and others. I honor his memory. But I would not mock him by praying for him. I suspect he has had all of the conversations he has needed to with God and himself even if he remained honestly unaware. Thank you Dr. Dennet and rest in peace.
@caiusquiroz7453 Says:
The definition is sin is also and primarily “lawlessness”
@letsfaceit9187 Says:
I really respect Jordan, but I’ve accepted that he is a poet and not a philosopher. ❤
@jeffersonpower3356 Says:
Why use such a strange word as corpus?
@pigetstuck Says:
45:50 science has all the answers... no need for religion; this is why new atheism burned brightly but not for very long; it is an overly a narrow perspective
@pigetstuck Says:
"people want to make a thing out of a pattern that's there" ... true
and sometimes that pattern is a beautiful painting or a mechanical unfolding of nature... maybe those are the same thing?
@pigetstuck Says:
"human beings are the measure of what is good"
@libertasinfinitum6657 Says:
Whoa!! I came to the comments to find out if there was a forum for open discussion on these topics.
I'm saddened to find Dr. Dennett is no longer with us.
Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you've found all the answers needed to rest in peace.
@heatherk569 Says:
Was listening until I heard the ad.....I pay for premium so I don't have ads!!!! Rude to put it in the video.
@Ingurita Says:
I'm sad to realize that future conversations about AI and counterfeit people won't happen with Daniel Dennett now. I hope he rests in peace. Thank you for this conversation; I enjoyed it very much, especially because of the amount of stories and even jokes shared, which put clear images in my head for a better understanding of each other's points.
@PinturaYdibujoENVIVO Says:
Like religion has never gone astray ? 😂 come on Peterson … your defending something that’s past … religion is obsolete in trying to explain the world.
@jg6972 Says:
I was astonished by the intellect of the "Four Horseman" when I was a teenager from catholic school beginning to play with atheism. Now I'm twice as old and my ongoing search for source of morality have brought me all the way around to understanding God in a more sophisticated way. After all those years of laughing catholics out I accepted that I too, believe. Now I'm astonished by the inability of the "Four" to go in depth on the source of their morality and ideology. It seems they wouldn't make that step further only because they're afraid of the words "God", "religion", "revelation" etc. Dr Dennett admits, that the science can't be a source of morality, but when asked what is the source of morality that enables us doing science, his answer is "science". It seems, that Harris and Dawkins do just the same, getting lost on circular definitions, even if they have already made that step further (Dawkins on mnemetics, Harris in his meditation work). Why is that? Have they invested too much time and energy to be able to do that? Are they afraid their worlds would explode? I'm glad I didn't waste any more time, now I live in a harmony.
@neoepicurean3772 Says:
As a close follower of Dennett's work, I don't know how I only just found out about his passing. His work on memetics, compatibilism and consciousness (obviously) have really enriched my thinking. RIP and thank you.
@StoneShards Says:
'Round about 42:00, Jordan says he approaches a problem "with humility". This may well be the proper posture for thinking about God, or praying, the solution coming, then, by divine inspiration. But all "problems" arise from our rooting in the physical world, the denizens of which have no special regard for human beings, and, in themselves, do not warrant your prostration before them. Exactly the opposite attitude is proper: insistent expectation in the style of a "demand". These beings of involutionary activity bear the one spirit of God into manifestation by differentiation in progressively greater densities--they are the cosmos construction workers. They are capable only of obedience to the spirit of God; their natures are pure and raw, but limited to their specific purposes. By virtue of our physical bodies, we have intimate intercourse with these beings as "natural influences" within us. We know ourselves by knowing them, as they govern sensation, emotion, and, partially, thought--the kind of thought that follows upon observation and identification, let's call it "articulation"; not the higher-level function that solves problems.
LATEST COMMENTS