“You believe in human rights, you might as well believe that Jesus is Lord.” Is a winsome haymaker.

19:10 Peter Rollins will often bring up the question of why an atheist will pull the covers over their head, late at night, when they hear the floor creek in an old house. Yep.

Peterson and Harari should have one or more conversations, like Peterson has had with Sam Harris. Harari seems to be the leading thinker of our times for a worldview that competes with Peterson’s. And their backgrounds are so different. Harari has been heavily influenced by eastern religions, Buddhism in particular. He’s a gay Jewish man who is childless and a professor of history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a sought-after speaker by the cosmopolitan elites-he’s spoken at Davos more than once. I pay attention to what Harari has to say, just like I do Peterson. On a separate note, a big thank you to Paul VanderKlay for being such a good curate (double meaning there) and providing insightful commentary on the leading intellectual discussions of our times.

We can all be very relieved to remember that YNH is a useless talker. “Such is of the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien Long live the Randos!

4:13 “the church is nothing with out a metaphysical vision” re-enchant the church ❤

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:01 💬 *Harari's Claims and Peterson's response* - Discussion of a trending clip from Yuval Harari’s TEDx talk where he claims human rights are a made-up concept, equivalent to faith in God or Heaven. - Jordan Peterson's response to the claim is that Harari overlooks the necessity for common narrative structures (like the concept of human rights) in forming coherent societies. - This section delves into the debate on whether human rights are a biological reality or just a fictional story. 03:21 🗣️ *Discussion on Cultural Humility and Human Rights* - Tom Holland points out the cultural specificity of the concept of human rights, born out of a Christian cultural matrix. - He emphasizes the leap of faith needed to believe in human rights, and the importance of this belief in society, politics, and legislation. - Holland suggests that acknowledging the faith-based nature of such core beliefs could reopen the dialogue between secularists and religions. 08:19 🔍 *Fictions, Mythologies, and Ethics* - Jordan Peterson explains how fiction and mythology help define patterns of behavior, focus attention, and guide ethics in society. - Further discussion on the role of fiction, mythology, and hierarchical structures in shaping society and guiding human interactions. - Elaboration on the relevance and impact of these 'fictions' and belief structures on societal, personal, and psychological levels. 16:17 🧠 *Brain Hemispheres’ Roles in Perception and Attention* - A discussion on how the brain's two hemispheres evolved to pay two different types of attention. - The 'grabbing attention' of the left hemisphere focuses on known targets and particular details, while the 'vigilant attention' of the right hemisphere is more open and attentive to the whole picture, especially potential threats. - This dual attention system has deep implications for how we perceive and interact with the world. 21:02 🌍 *Human Rights: Real or Fiction?* - The question of where human rights originate from is discussed, both from atheistic and Christian perspectives. - Harvard academic, Steven Pinker, argues that a commitment to humanism is enough to guarantee human rights, while Christian thinker, Nick Spencer, suggests there is more of a theological basis to these concepts. - Yal Harari and Tom Holland question the concept of human rights as a biological reality. 24:35 🧬 *Science, Humanism, and Morality* - The debate on whether human rights, humanism, and morality can be grounded in scientific fact alone. - One argument posed is that people can be monstrous to each other despite having a biological capacity for reason, empathy, and suffering. 27:50 🏛 *The "Foundation" Metaphor and Christian Influence* - The foundation metaphor and its relevance to beliefs in society. - Nick Spencer suggests that the Christian roots of humanism and human rights aren't necessarily a secure and stable foundation. 30:19 💭 *Harari's Predictions and Christian's Smuggling* - Discussion on Harari's predictions for a transhumanist future where human rights will be replaced by a new moral order. - Glenn Scrivener argues that human rights are not a biological reality but stories told about humanity. 33:57 📖 *Peterson's Semantic Network of Meaning* - Jordan Peterson posits that the concept of human rights is encoded in human biology, language, and storing, serving the reciprocal altruistic human interactions. - He believes that rights are a deep-seated part of human nature, and not just a belief or story. 37:44 🔄 *The Cycle of Recurring Archetypes* - Point made on how structured narratives and archetypes keep recurring across different frameworks and belief systems, from religion to AI predictions. - Notion that certain responses and archetypes are repeatedly presented to us, depending on the cultural context we are in. 41:20 🔄 *The Recurrence of Archetypes* - The discussion explores the recurring narratives in different frameworks and belief systems. *- The conversation delves into the assessment of Herbert's book "Dune", analyzing its portrayal of a significant settlement, Mecca, and its importance in Islam.* *- The host presents arguments demonstrating that "Dune" is more a response to the collapse of the Roman Empire than to the Islamic faith.* 43:51 👑 *"Dune" Paralleling Muhammad and King Arthur* - The central plot of "Dune" has echoes of Islamic history and traces of the Arthurian legend. *- The host and guest discuss the parallels between Paul Atreides, a main character in "Dune", with the prophet Muhammad and King Arthur.* *- They suggest that these stories emerged from the collapse of the Roman Empire.* 45:45 🔍 *Interplay of Historical and Science Fiction Narrative* - The discussion turns to how historical narratives find their way into science fiction. *- The host suggests that science fiction allows the exploration of ancient history's grand narratives without confinements imposed by Earth's realities.* *- Examples of this include stories like "Battlestar Galactica", which incorporate various belief systems into their narratives.* Made with HARPA AI

Thanks for Lifting this points 🙏🧡

the most important things that drive our motivation have nothing to do with reality, the moment the need for food, water, and shelter is relatively assuaged. reality can be thrown out the window, but instead they want us docile, so that is what they mean by "grounding" metaphors, the essentials are what is important, masses, all your ideas mean nothing, they are empty. once there, all the leaders have to do is regulate the grounding through bribing, to manipulate the open field of ideas. excellent video Paul

The unquantifiable and indivisible realities, like human rights, are not the story (ie as fiction), nor are the from the stories (ie as 'the moral of the story'), but the stories testify to it (ie as typology). "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me". Or, The Spirit proceeds from the Father.

I cut open my math textbook and still can't find the number 3. Help!

Rather than get all worked up about the use of the word fiction, it's remarkable to me that someone didn't simply suggest replacing the word fiction with the word convention.

I just think about how many people are even capable of believing the metaphysical and who aren't. This is one reason I argue shrooms and DMT should be allowed. I could never "Just believe" no matter how I tried. I like that PVK is encountering people like me and not saying stupid canned advice like "Just pray harder, bro" or outright lies like "It just happens." I wonder how many people just never got that stuff in the first place, and all those negative emotions happened. I wonder how many people tried to turn to a religion because it was sold as a one size fits all cure, and people learn they are the ones who aren't one size fits all. I often argue that the happy Christians are similar people to the happy atheists able to believe motivational poster slogans. Unfortunately, I was practically born blackpilled before the blackpill had a name. I saw right through every single motivational gimmick there ever was.

"We're looking for patterns in fiction, how do we know it's this and not that" Well, if both networks of meaning are present in the mind of the author, it's probably _both_ this and that.

I can't help but notice some parallels between the foundational metaphor and the story about reality being turtles all the way down. Someone might ask Tom Holland "and what are human rights standing upon?". And he would probably say something like "Christianity" "What's Christianity standing upon?" "Its stories all the way down"

I spent a generation ago with an agnostic humanist on the Internet. My argument centered on agency ... he couldn't see agency.

"Certain responses come up on the menu again and again and again" Yup. They're common among human experiences. They may even be instinctive, like a moth knowing which tree to say eggs on. But the moth's lineage dies out if it doesn't lay eggs on the right tree. Humans, with our ability to swap out software (culture) can tell stories examining which trees are best, because getting that tree right is so important.

This was a brilliant video.

If a psychopath hates you and intends to kill you in your house in the middle of the night; is that not also just a story we tell ourselves? Should we ignore this "story" because it is nowhere to be seen inside a human body if we slice it down the middle? (which in itself is a rather nasty way to promote materialism...).

I don't think it was messy, I found it highly relevant. For one: The discussion about human rights is also a discussion about attachement. What many people don't seem to know, and what I always like to emphasize is that the term "human dignity" originates with Immanuel Kant and was introduced as an "incomparable value", which was then criticized by Arthur Schopenhauer who then said: A value cannot be incomparable, because it is - by its nature and very definition - valuable for someone and valuable in comparison to something else. Outside of this one-, or twofold relationship, the term value does not make any sense. And I very much agree with this ciriticism and would therefore like to add: Our discussion about human rights is two-fold in the sense that we value it - compared to what? And who values it? That is the very question, by which Oswald Spengler - another follower of Schopenhauer AND Nietzsche - was inspired by. And his answer was very much related to the assumption that there is a morphological sub-structure, which is very much attached to it. And without this symbolic sub-structure that both organizes and emphasizes the values that are values for us, the decline of the west would be inevitable. - So, as you can see: This discussion is very much connected to the question of belonging, and Peterson is - in a sense - a universalist student of Nietzsche, because he doesn't emphasize the question whose Being it is that we should be, or are actually concerned about. - I think this is also tied up with his attempt to introduce a universal ethic. But have you noticed? The term ethics becomes more and more slippery, and it loses the distinct character that people are usually attached to. And it becomes more and more etheral in the sense of becoming more and more abstract, without it being identical with, or being recognizable from our every-day human conduct. Whatever he is talking about, it is no longer the same kind of pragmatism that originally made him famous, but it is of the kind that tries to be so general and universal that it is no longer subordinate to the question: to whom is it that it is valuable? Imho Peterson belongs to a category of thinkers, which I would call: vitalist ethics because he wants to establish the kinds of conduct, both with the world and other people, which is vitatalistic in the sense that it serves the prosperity and flourishing of all kinds of life-forms that adhere to it, regardless of whether they belong to a certain culture. In this sense, his tweet is actually an attempt at stating the hypothesis that it is no longer about christianity in general, but it is about something that I would call a vitalist ethic, because it serves human flourishing, or the flourishing of life, independent of it's christian origins. And this is an empirical statement, which is very much distinct from the idea that you have to believe in it. It is empirical because it can be falsified. And you can see the results with your own eyes. I think Peterson would (or at least: he should emphasize this, if he was already clear about this), because this is what makes his position distinct from the position of Tom Holland and others, who say: Oh! This is just a story, we are telling each other. No, it is not a story, if our well-being or suffering hinges on our attachment to those qualities that make it either possible to achieve, or to evade those states of affairs, which either bring us a lot of suffering, or it's opposite. That is what I would like to emphasize after watching this video.

I've listened to a fair bit of Yuval Noah Harari and he has respect for the power of stories but thinks the key mechanism by which they are adopted and sustained is a combination of narrative power, incentives, and enforcement (force). He doesn't have a sense for what aligns best with reality, because to him there is no reality/truth/good there is only the post/meta-modern swamp of relativism.

I think Pageau winces because he's a visual artist and not a novelist. If he were a novelist, he would understand that "fiction" does not mean "lies". It doesn't mean "made up" or "not true." At it's best, it means "symbolic."

"'The air we breathe' is better than the foundational metaphors" I dunno, I like your metaphor of "the stones cry out" [the churches bear witness] in Europe.

I almost get the sense that "Human Rights" is not a very accurate name for what we're talking about. It's the conventional term and I get the value of using it so other people understand what we're talking about. But part of me thinks it's not quite accurate. Like Peterson might say, it's low resolution.

Love it

That which informs the world and all its recurrent patterns of self evident truths like human rights and the transcendentals of goodness truth and beauty across time comes from Christ. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid in whom all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

"I don't like the word 'grounded', it seems like there's a better word." The kids who are paying attention, are saying "based" today. =)

Star Trek Strange New World, Episode 4. “Memento Moro” I think is a nice crossover with this discussion.

Yup.

22:05 WHAT?! Personalism? Who could have guessed that this was central?! Edit: btw, I don’t think that I had ever heard the word or knew of its historic philosophical usage prior to using it myself. 😜🤪😘

"We all have intellect, we all feel pain" _And none of us can really feel what another feels._ This simple fact makes de Sade's morality just as "humanist" as Pinker's. Of course, not feeling what another feels has its place -- how much of our self-destructive behavior comes because we are attempting to protect our own feelings? We need encouragement and support from outside of ourselves, from people who are incapable of being incapacitated by our pain, to heal ourselves.

Watch Richard Carrier on mythvison taking on Tom Holland.

I am very certain the Palestinians are feeling this fictional story called Israel right now.

35:41 so basically, he's saying that human rights are just true. but the question is, are human rights only compatible with the teachings of Christ?

On the other had ... a creating or saving god should be seen as temporal indefinite participle.

Ask @GrimGriz about the sarducar.

"grounding" = good axioms for a deductive system. When all you have is Euclid, everything is a triangle. Spinoza as an inventor of modernism is true.

"Human rights will arise from the semantic networks of meaning" Only if those networks of meaning are based on [i.e., heavily weighted by] the Bible. The Bible is, as Peterson points out himself, foundational.

"The most learned psychohistorians could not have predicted islam" Really? Isn't Islam just, "Hey, they have monotheism and a holy book to keep them united, we should have monotheism too." Seems like any decent study of history should include the idea that one culture might imitate an adjacent culture.

Children can see justice and injustice naturally. These are not arbitrary concepts.

Tom Holland: “I Began To Realise That Actually, In Almost Every Way, I Am Christian.” So is Tom Holland a Christian, has he embraced or denied Jesus as a source of salvation?

Attention determines what we see 16:41

37:05 Some of them aren't even going to challenge him when he calls God a fiction. And they're not going to challenge him when he redefines God to mean a pattern of man's own behavior that man observed over a long time rather than the Creator of man that existed before man.

I’m not sure how Harari can be sure based on his premises about reality and the human senses that human rights are any less measurable than protons. Oh ye of little faith in science. I have faith that science will one day through a genius like Harari create technology that allows me to smell with certainty the reality of my human rights.

Everything in the mind is the imagination. If you can overcome that you can live in the now and live in the kingdom of heaven within 🙏 The past and the future are not real, they are imagined

notice that the harary guy says "human rights are just a story" but then publishes a book, homo deus, which is, just a story XD so he's essentially making a nietzchian move, since there is no god nor objectivity, then I can invent my own ideology and impose it onto the world.

Game theory provides a rationale for secular morality.

Yuval Noah Harari is getting used in clips to teach kids in schools. :/ So that’s happening

"You have to have something that helps everybody see the same thing" Ah, but you can have an excess of that order. You also have to have people that go off on tangents that connect one network of ideas to another network of ideas, because that's what creativity is. You have normal people who fixate on faces and feelings; but you also need autists who focus on facts over feelings.

Well, what is real ? What does existing mean ?

35:25 Tom Holland: Human rights are socially constructed. Jordan Peterson: No, no, no. That's postmodernism. That's why we're in this mess in the first place. First off, human rights is a doctrine. And they're the inexorable consequence of...something...something...pattern of behavior...something...Being itself. Like patterns of being, and that's God! Human rights are from God. kzfaq.infoUgkxWsujp4Gy_YtOpciOiY-yRmfQGZlLVIpJ?si=L2k1TnWVjJf4BCm0 You don't need to wait for Peterson's next book.

Fictionalism is a JP gambit. It isn't an ontology. "Is vs ought" is a useful gap if you are Robespierre ;-( "As If" school of philosophy of Hans Vaihinger from 1911. Not new.

I've read Yuval. The man is possessed by demons/

15:30 Combinatorial Explosivity...hmmmm NEVER did JP ever mention that. JV and his COG SCI however...explicitly walks you thru that notion. Hm "UNDERNEATH This Whole Thing" imo is pretty relevant.... Going on about politics on YT ain't it..

I find this line of argument particularly bad, a fact I have outline many times here. Universal humanity refers to the aggregate of all human behavior. You "find" it in the things we call values, but that is just a place holder for how we describe the stories that we use to explain our own behavior. I fail to see the metaphysical necessity you insist must be present in the historical chain of human value systems. Yuval might be right, but it is trivial. What we find valuable is valuable to US. The why of why we find things valuable is a matter either for science, or it it is a matter for superstition. Or if you have read your Kant: pure reason. Guess which one can be tested and which one cannot? The rest of this is just one big post hoc fallacy. Just because one thing preceded, or even inspired the other, does not mean it is caused by the other thing nor does it offer any mythical "ought" that gives supremacy to the older idea. Otherwise you are just saying everything is determined by something else in its past which is basically saying almost nothing about the ontological ought of all ought's. I feel this should all be pretty obvious, but maybe people find this sort of thing compelling... :Shrug:

Of course, God is a fiction. He's the central character in a book. He's also the creator of something like a house fly, unimaginably more complex than the most cutting-edge drone. William James observed that when it comes to the big existential questions, we're all like dogs in a library, staring at stacks of books. Certainly, whatever concepts of God we dogs come up with would be fictional. Good religion starts here; bad religion omits this first step.

The history of Christianity is the best school for atheism. Franz Overbeck

Pinker puts forward "presentism" like Harris. Pseudo-Buddhism ... that is, black gold, Texas T ... Progress = brains in a jar.

One for the late nighters

"Combinatorial explosions" are not "destroying modernity" give me one peer reviewed philosophy paper that makes this kind of argument! Pure assertion without evidence as usual.

People are so lost, meaningless meaningless meaningless said the teacher at least with people admitting people hold no value under the sun they will realize value can only come from something higher! The God of the bible is the only thing that puts all of life and its complexities in right order and relationship.

5:10 humans rights are not universal

Yuval Noah Harari is the enemy of Mankind.

Grrr. OK Paul, you get irritated with the word 'grounded' and fair enough, it gets misused. My pet irritation is misuse of the word 'person', which we should all know comes from persona, meaning, 'the mask we wear', or to put into Biblical terms, garments of skin. You've said often enough that we are different 'persons' to our parents, children, boss, friends, lovers, etc. etc. and this is right but to use the term 'person' regarding human rights is stupid. Our garments of skin have rights?

"The Mule is someone Hari Seldon could not have predicted" Only, in today' interconnected society, everyone is The Mule for fifteen minutes. Chaos, you know. Those d*mned three-penny nails. Seriously Paul, read _To Say Nothing of the Dog._ If you find yourself wanting to comment on Asimov's _Foundation,_ read it "To Say Nothing" FIRST before publishing that comment. Paul, this is coming from a guy whose culture-war stance typically causes him to roll his eyes when someone claims that a classic male SciFi author is wrong and a more modern female author is right. Asimov is wrong and highly misleading, and Willis corrects him.