Jordan Peterson expounds on the conversation he had with Sam Harris about the nature of truth. Featuring Bret Weinstein.
Taken from Joe Rogan Experience #1006.
Video Source
22 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jordan Peterson expounds on the conversation he had with Sam Harris about the nature of truth. Featuring Bret Weinstein.
Taken from Joe Rogan Experience #1006.
Video Source
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I dont understand Weinstein's comment about "thou shall not enrich Uranium" when the Bible already says "thou shall not kill", which already covers creating weapons, and enriched Uranium is the cheapest and cleanest method of power generation we have.
If you love God, you aren't going to blow up your neighbor. So the ten commandments is a break down of love really, because God is Love because God is simple, he doesn't have parts. Jesus summed the moral law as" love God and love others" So Bible is actually a living document and fundamental and does apply to Google today. The Brett guy doesn't know theology. The nature of truth is Jesus. Guys like Brett are too smart for their own good, and humility would help him out.
Beneath all the shade of questions and interviews, behind all the good intentions and motivations posed by these questions… these ppl constantly put peterson to the test, watching, looking, poking, waiting for him to slide. Setting traps left right and centre and swinging at him tacitly with mighty blows of opposition and sometimes contrariety.
Like Samson against a 1000 soldiers he remains.
It is beyond me the depth of wisdom this man has by quite frankly speaking what is truth. Clear, concise… unwavering and founded. Anchored upon every piece of detail you can gander across human knowledge.
"for I will provide you eloquence and wisdom which none of your adversaries will be able to oppose or refute."
11:09
1. Though Shalt Not Kill
14:41
0:50 what a long winded way of saying “pragmatic truths”
There are three definitions of truth in my opinion. The three main branches of truth are the “truth of coherence”, the “truth of correspondence”, and “pragmatic truths”. We all agree that these are all valid and have merit in many aspects of life.
For coherent truths, we have physical and tangible experiments and experiences that prove certain things in reality. But in order to accept these as a universal truth, we must then rely on the truth of correspondence. This is the truth of agreement in its basic form. We both agree on an experiment so tell the world about it, and it becomes a coherent truth to few, and a corresponding truth to many.
Then we have pragmatic truths, such as morality. There is no coherent truth that says it’s wrong to steal etc. we rely on pragmatic truths in order to judge what is right and wrong; what is useful to us. Then we pass on these pragmatic truths using the truth of correspondence one again, with the few knowing the pragmatic truths, and the many knowing the truth of correspondence.
We can agree that these both have merit in life, and are valid.
But can we have a truth of correspondence alone without the other two attached? Sure. These are called stories. We can all agree it is true to say a Unicorn has one horn. This is because we have agreed on a corresponding theory of truth (or story) which we all now agree on. However, what if I was to say “to me, unicorns have two horns.” You might think I’m insane! Well no, because although you are using semantic knowledge (correspondence truth of words) to describe what a one horned creature SHOULD be called; another culture could have a phonetic phrase to describe a real, living two horned creature as a “unicorn”. Now, an animal called a unicorn does exist, and it has two horns. But many would still argue that a unicorn only has one horn. Both are still correct. This is the trouble with language, semantics, and truth. Which has more value? The mythological unicorn with one horn has a corresponding truth value to it. Where as, the real foreign unicorn with two horns has a coherent and corresponding truth attached.
So, can we have a coherent truth alone? Sure. There is for 100% certainty a planet, with a moon millions of light years somewhere out there. And it exists. Yet that no conscious being is aware of. This is a coherent truth of the universe. But it has no pragmatic truth or corresponding truth attached to it.
As for a lone pragmatic truth, you could say your own personal values are only pragmatic. Others do not know of them, and they have no coherent truth behind them.
I hope we can all see that in order to talk about knowledge, one must define what truth means also. And any one of these combinations are valid when talking about truthful knowledge. So, unless you define which parameters to have before debating, you will never have any luck.
For those that say the truth of correspondence is not valid on its own; we have to rely on the correspondence theory of truth in every aspect of our life, which all of us do day to day.
There is a law that says, it is wrong to kill. Now, there are people who have actually done it, and suffered the internal and external punishment from this. So they have a coherent truth behind that; a first hand experience as it were. I hope you never have. But why do you agree that killing is wrong? You are using logic behind it to want to minimise suffering and teach people sympathy, so have a sense of pragmatic truth behind that. However, you are only still relying on people with first hand experiences from this (experiencers of coherent truths) to pass on the information (corresponding truth) onto you. We see this everywhere, from the morality of wearing clothes, to “don’t go near that snake”. Granted, there are many examples where these corresponding truths have been proven correct through your own experiences later in life. Such as if I got arrested for wearing the emperors new clothes, or playing in the viper pit. Until then however, you are still putting immense trust in certain people to give you a corresponding truth (belief or story) to warn you or teach you of something.
You then can’t argue that some truths of correspondence are true, and some are false. Not until you have coherently personally experienced it in every context (and this is only in the physical world) proving or disproving the corresponding theory of truth that they have taught you.
If you are using this as your basis to disprove a god, or anything, then you might as well distrust every corresponding truth you have ever heard, and prove them with a coherent truth. Not just focus on one, while blindly accepting the others.
Walk around naked, kill a man, play with snakes, do drugs. Whatever it is that you are trusting from a corresponding point of view, don’t. Otherwise it’s hypocritical
You’re all awesome. नमस्ते । 🌺