3 ms·

I found this to be a remarkable interview, not for anything it elucidates itself. It's old ground and they're rehashing debates from the 18th century really.

by retrac 5y ago

I found this to be a remarkable interview, not for anything it elucidates itself. It's old ground and they're rehashing debates from the 18th century really. But it was revealing of Peterson in many ways. Also Harris, but it didn't reveal anything about him I didn't already suspect. (A mercilessly methodical thinker there, to the point of it being a fault.) Peterson's concept of self is very tied up in his beliefs on this. (So is Harris's but since he believes the self doesn't truly exist I guess that buys some wiggle room.) I got the impression of a man who is an atheist but is unwilling simply to admit it, perhaps because it's too embarrassing and painful after writing something like Maps of Meaning trying to base the foundation for contemporary Western thought, even his own, on Christian metaphysics. It's not that he's arguing in bad faith; he really isn't. But it's fascinating to see a man that intelligent stumble around the edges of his blind spots, as Harris zoned right in on them.

belter 5y ago
Like you, I watched this debate not so much for the actual subjects being discussed. Christopher Hitchens, on his time, very much already settled most of them. I was interested in how Jordan Peterson would engage in other propositions, other than his usual subjects of hierarchical structures as expressions of social constructions, the usual misunderstandings of freedom of choice versus equality of outcome, etc... I have been a fan of his previous work. I was hugely disappointed by his discourse on his debate. Almost to the point of seriously reconsidering on a more negative tone most of his previous work. It was painful to see him recognize at a certain point, he was almost behaving as one of the postmodernists he so much hates. At a certain point, I felt Sam Harris decided out of professional courtesy and intellectual respect not to engage him further on some of the critical issues he so much failed to clarify. In the past, Jordan Peterson has repeatedly expressed his principles of speaking the truth even if it makes you and others uncomfortable. He spent the last few years, using his clinical psychology expertise and intellectual eloquence, clinically and mercilessly, demolishing ill-prepared feminist interviewers. He had no quarrels, and correctly so, in helping deconstruct equal of outcome advocates in public interviews, slapping them with the incompleteness of their societal views. Delighting his meme-loving audiences with his razor focus on the actual data, the precise proposition under discussion, and reverting constantly to correct and accurate nature of the problem under discussion. For respect for the audience, and himself he should not have been allowed the intellectual indulgence of not being called out clearly. Sam Harris went as far as to say, "...it's difficult to understand what point your audience his applauding you on..." and left it at that softball. The majority of YouTube commentators engaged in a kind of intellectual groupie admiration for the analytical prowess of the debaters. I saw something else. Jordan Peterson was provided with multiple opportunities to make his point across. Even being told by the moderator, he was not addressing the propositions under discussion, at least not in the form that logical discourse would want to engage with. It got to a point when he reverted to prepared written remarks that made more apparent the inability to communicate with his usual crystal clear simplicity or even to simply address the discussion. We heard the typical comment on how the essential complexity of the subjects could not make him decide on a direction. It was, however, the purpose of the debate was supposed to make progress. Most important, he was allowed to be vague, unclear, and mysterious in the scope of many of the important subjects discussed. This, in a way he, and correctly, never allowed to others he engaged in intellectual debate. Sam Harris also comes a little diminished out of the debate in my eyes. For the lack of the intellectual courage to press Jordan Peterson. At some point, you could feel his impatience, but I think he felt he wanted to maintain the intellectual engagement for the benefit of the debate. It was a clarifying and fascinating debate, but certainly not on the subjects or the form of engagement that most understood.

by retrac 5y ago

belter 5y ago

Like you, I watched this debate not so much for the actual subjects being discussed. Christopher Hitchens, on his time, very much already settled most of them. I was interested in how Jordan Peterson would engage in other propositions, other than his usual subjects of hierarchical structures as expressions of social constructions, the usual misunderstandings of freedom of choice versus equality of outcome, etc... I have been a fan of his previous work. I was hugely disappointed by his discourse on his debate. Almost to the point of seriously reconsidering on a more negative tone most of his previous work. It was painful to see him recognize at a certain point, he was almost behaving as one of the postmodernists he so much hates. At a certain point, I felt Sam Harris decided out of professional courtesy and intellectual respect not to engage him further on some of the critical issues he so much failed to clarify. In the past, Jordan Peterson has repeatedly expressed his principles of speaking the truth even if it makes you and others uncomfortable. He spent the last few years, using his clinical psychology expertise and intellectual eloquence, clinically and mercilessly, demolishing ill-prepared feminist interviewers. He had no quarrels, and correctly so, in helping deconstruct equal of outcome advocates in public interviews, slapping them with the incompleteness of their societal views. Delighting his meme-loving audiences with his razor focus on the actual data, the precise proposition under discussion, and reverting constantly to correct and accurate nature of the problem under discussion. For respect for the audience, and himself he should not have been allowed the intellectual indulgence of not being called out clearly. Sam Harris went as far as to say, "...it's difficult to understand what point your audience his applauding you on..." and left it at that softball. The majority of YouTube commentators engaged in a kind of intellectual groupie admiration for the analytical prowess of the debaters. I saw something else. Jordan Peterson was provided with multiple opportunities to make his point across. Even being told by the moderator, he was not addressing the propositions under discussion, at least not in the form that logical discourse would want to engage with. It got to a point when he reverted to prepared written remarks that made more apparent the inability to communicate with his usual crystal clear simplicity or even to simply address the discussion. We heard the typical comment on how the essential complexity of the subjects could not make him decide on a direction. It was, however, the purpose of the debate was supposed to make progress. Most important, he was allowed to be vague, unclear, and mysterious in the scope of many of the important subjects discussed. This, in a way he, and correctly, never allowed to others he engaged in intellectual debate. Sam Harris also comes a little diminished out of the debate in my eyes. For the lack of the intellectual courage to press Jordan Peterson. At some point, you could feel his impatience, but I think he felt he wanted to maintain the intellectual engagement for the benefit of the debate. It was a clarifying and fascinating debate, but certainly not on the subjects or the form of engagement that most understood.