Sam Harris Isn't Really Engaging Jordan Peterson in these Conversations
He either isn't listening or not understanding the points Peterson is making
Today's video is a commentary on yesterday's release of the @jordanbpeterson @SamHarrisOrg conversation.
While I went to it with great enthusiasm having heard JBP's comment that his approach was less philo-nikia (Love of winning) than philo-sophia (love of wisdom) it appears to me that Sam Harris came up short on the Wisdom front.
.@jordanbpeterson made this observation at his appearance at the Cambridge Union which was in my opinion one of his best most recent appearances.
After the normal pleasantries at the front of the conversation they pretty quickly get into the is/ought problem following Hume's observation that you can't get an ought from an is. The teaser at the front of the convo focused on value.
That is/ought/value dilemma that @jordanbpeterson raises is a critical piece in the abandonment of modernist epistemology by cognitive science because the enlightenment frame assumes that we are passive, objective observers who see objects.
I'm not convinced that Sam is onto anything here. What is really amazing is that he seems to violate Wittgenstein's point to surmount the is/ought object/value conundrum.
He derives his moral landscape (value plus objects) by objectifying hell (which he doesn't believe is an object) with his imagination. That then lands value in the world of objects and he can begin to construct value hierarchies and rationales for action.
Now that he has crossed the divide the intrepid individual can act in the world to reduce suffering (avoid hell-realization) with reason (and power) to make the world a better place. This is the project of modernity. How this squares with his determinism and "free-will" is illusory that he laid out to @BretWeinstein in a previous conversation I have no idea. Neither did Bret.
As noted in the teaser above @jordanbpeterson raises issues with the agent/object landscape that Sam assumes here in the teaser although JBP's modernism which he hasn't fully abandoned bears some similar hopes.
.@jordanbpeterson and Sam have spoken now a number of times and a pattern is emerging. For a guy who lauds himself on keeping up with philosophy and science it sure looks like his system has fallen behind.
This landscape of agents and "objects" no longer holds water. We don't SEE objects and project values onto them, we see value/meaning and patterns and "objects" come far after. @jordanbpeterson makes this point clearly.
It is here that @jordanbpeterson and @PageauJonathan share a realization. Here Pageau shares it with @MikhailaAleksis . Cog Sci meets church fathers.
This is why the modernist project is ending. It can no longer adequately describe the world. We are not these autonomous agents manipulating objects, the story is far more complex. Sam Harris simply doesn't get it.
Sam's system assumes this picture that is increasingly untenable from a scientific basis. He holds out hope that these autonomous agents seeing objects using rationality can reduce suffering as if suffering itself were simply evil.
In one moment Harris mocks religiously motivated delayed gratification as foolish but never addresses his own delayed gratification he relies upon to be a good citizen, father or spouse.
While I think @jordanbpeterson 's meaning-secularworld-gyroscope system has limitations its far more coherent than Harris' rational-suffering-avoidant navigational system. "Good people" embrace suffering and endure it for meaning including Harris.
To make matters worse it appears that Harris simply doesn't listen during the conversation. There are a number of places where Sam just simply doesn't seem to be participating in this conversation or engaging.
This one really surprised me because you'd think Harris would be a bit more curious about this vision (and he means a literal vision) of heaven, but nope, there are talking points to be repeated...
Now @jordanbpeterson is a famous rabbit-trail talker and has some conversations that are quite non-sequitur. This is a common issue with high status conversation partners especially where there is a status differential.
But this issue has marked most of Sam Harris' conversations with @jordanbpeterson . Peterson keeps trying to construct something with Harris but Harris is uninterested in trying to build a meaningful conversation.
Jordan wants to build and play but Sam has points to make so listening and engagement become a liability. This seriously undermines the value of these conversations.
It's too bad because it seems these men have developed at least some level of respect for each other and a desire to explore. I'd like them to achieve this better than what we've seen so far.
I think it's to Jordan's credit that he's hanging in there. I'd like to see Sam actually engage the arguments if he is able to.
I hadn’t realized it before you mentioned it but you are right. Sam is not listening. This is true of him generally speaking. IMHO He does not enter into a conversation in good faith or just fails to engage in a dialogue the same way many others do. He is not playing a game. He is out to win. One thing I did notice that was slightly different about his demeanor this time was that he seemed to enter this conversation knowing he had won. It’s like they are talking past one another. It’s like Jordan throws the ball to Sam and Sam just lets it go past him only to keep saying whatever point he was trying to make. There is no ebb and flow. Because of that it ends up being a rather two dimensional conversation that lacks any depth.
Paul. Sam doesn't get it because he *can't* get it. His whole philosophy, his whole belief, is biased towards not seeing inherent value in the individual. He can't concede any points Jordan makes because it takes away his power. Sam values *power*. Let me explain:
He tipped his hand when he said in one of your clip videos, that he wants the small groups (individuals) to get out of the way of collectivist progress. He's a psycopath. (seriously). If you don't believe that people (individuals) have inherent value, the value people provide is what they offer to the collective (yourself). It's tyrannical, it values the opposite of the individual.
People like Sam believe that human value is subjective and is based on what they offer them (what they offer the collectivist structure). Sam is literally biased towards the spirit of communism that Peterson warns about but Peterson doesn't see this.
The question to ask people is this: Do you believe all people have inherent value?
If the answer is yes: then all of those people have the same sense of right and wrong, the same sense of meaning (bringing value to all people) and have the same ideal (even though people have different ideas of what the ideal is, ultimately, because there is an objective right way to be, all people who answer yes, strive to find that ideal through experience.) the ideal being essentially something like Christ or a Christ-force (a life giving force).
If the answer is no: then all of those people have the same sense of right and wrong, the same sense of meaning (bringing value to themselves) and have the same ideal which is essentially the maximal tyrant (a life taking force).
Because true athiests, like Sam, don't believe people have inherent value, because they don't believe there can be a super-characteristic like inherent value in a world that has no supercharacteristics, what becomes moral is, "what is best for the most amount of people." Which is collectivist and might makes right (tyrannical) thinking.
The people who value the individual value essentially Christ-force / liberty (the maximal expression of their values)
The people who value themselves value essentially Satanic-force / tyranny (the maximal expression of their values)
Sam isn't engaging with Peterson's arguments because he's not interested in intellectual honesty; he's interested in power. That's his inherent bias (pyschopathy).