Peterson and de Sousa debate Living Without the Sacred?

[fredbergotte]

While Nazism and Stalinism based themselves on "modern rationalist" premises, both were in effect secular religions with hierarchies, prophets, holy texts and a paradisiacal vision of the future - even if neither Hitler nor Stalin actually believed in God.

[fcblaugrana0]

... the role of an intelligent scientist (in what I believe to be Peterson's view having been a student of his) is the ability synthesize pieces of information into a broader and more useful model. that is what Peterson attempts to do and that is what any scientist worth reading does. you can disagree with his framework or arguments but you should at least do it intelligently as de sousa does.

[idworkhard]

I dont like the fact that deSouza denies without contemplating on what he's read. It's like he arrives with the already set conclusion that the journey was meaningless.

[FaganRoberts]

Human life is precious but not priceless.

[CoonAndFriends2]

I facepalmed at 19:18.

[Harizl]

the 2nd guy is horrible.

In his first 60 seconds he displays his utter ignorance in what science is, his total obliviousness to the holes in his stance....then blames Hitler.

terrible...

[NorseMariner7]

@Harizl

This isn't a debate about science, it is about human nature and philosophy.

[Harizl]

@NorseMariner7

Human Nature is a Scientific field.

And besides that, Science is not a subject it is a method of finding accurate truth.

[fcblaugrana0]

@Harizl utter ignorance in 60 sec? did you stop watching after 60 seconds? i think your thoughtless knee jerk response is the only ignorance i see. but anyway what is science exactly? yes science is a method for deriving empirical knowledge or 'truth'. but any idiot can design an experiment to demonstrate some useless phenomena under very constricted circumstances that will have no bearing on 'human knowledge' whatsoever. contd

[Harizl]

@fcblaugrana0

I disagree with your assessment of de Sousa, and also that my reaction was knee-jerk (as it was written after viewing the entire video and then reviewed to compare stances at the end versus beginning.)

I am disagreeing with DeSouza, not Peterson, to clarify.

Creating a experiment to demonstrate something is only one aspect of the scientific method, and not even the most important one especially in this debate about the importance of a opinion-based attribute of "sacredness".

[holyhaberdashery]

Rule #42

[McTheaven]

I have a feeling that "RATIONALITY" is what is sacred for them. It is another dogma, another religion. They think they are wise; in fact, they have no ground for their own claim. They are irrationally rational.

[BellevueParkTV]

@McTheaven Well yes and Da Sousa says "you will kill for the sacred" Not really. Not everyone. I don't think even most people would kill for what is sacred. or for anything other than perhaps self defense And really? Did the First Nations people "kill for the sacred?" No. and everything they had was sacred to them.

[Harizl]

@McTheaven

being one of "them", Rationality is merely preferred.

It is easily shown to be more efficient and less of a hassle to operate with people and items which are rational.

It is not sacred just preferred, and I have never heard anyone espouse anything close to a dogmatic claim to the contrary.

I agree that there is no ground for the claim that Rationality is sacred, because sacred is a pointless absolute and also because no one with honest understanding of science would make such a claim

[BellevueParkTV]

Wow this is such a good conversation. Very personal to almost everyone. And oddly for an intellectual exchange it seems to be completely understandable to a general audience and we all have an answer or an opinion about it.

[BellevueParkTV]

I am not sure that everyone is willing to kill for the sacred. Perhaps a social construct allows some of us to cross the line and kill humans but general it would seem to be a law of nature for a species not to have a population of 100% murderers. I will not kill for the sacred. I believe most people would not kill for sacred. Da Sousa says "you" will kill for the sacred. That is a "they" statement. Who will kill for the sacred? Who will kill whom for whose definition of sacred?

[BellevueParkTV]

If everything in the universe is sacred there is no reason to kill for the sacred.

If non violence is sacred there is no way to kill for it.

[Euraethes]

(cont) and why this is fundamentally important. Sousa is talking about a lot of the fruit, or effects of our belief in the sacred, taking the form of religion and rituals. The two are not the same thing, but are two ends of a related issue. Fundamentally, we are programmed to value things beyond reason--such as love of self and family. This is Peterson's Sacred. On the other hand, gone too far, the sacred becomes completely static/irrational and this is what Sousa is attacking. Different things.

[NorseMariner7]

@Euraethes

Yeah that is exactly the conclusion I came to watching this debate. They just didn't seem to agree on even the definition on what they are debating about. A lot of people here will insult Jordan Peterson without even realizing that he is not defending religion, he is defending the intangible values such as love and hope which we view as sacred. I agree with both of these men, but they are debating over something they define differently.

[Euraethes]

Both are right, but are arguing using two different definitions of "sacred." They are having a see-saw argument. They are standing an two ends of a level see-saw, but they don't realize they are working with two different seats. One wants to pull the seat up, and the other wants to push it down. Superficially these two sides contradict, but actually they don't because they're not talking about the same thing. Peterson is talking about the biological root of our conception of the sacred (cont)

[GRNoam]

I have never heard a credible scientist claim human are "natureless" blank slates... not in the past century, at least. — He claims rationalists are ignorant of religion, yet time and again shows himself to be the one who is ignorant of the oposing point of view.

Maybe the reason these scientists keep "crushing mysticism with their high IQ's" is simply because they do, in fact, have a better understanding of the issue.