Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Bite-sized Philosophy" channel.

@eyesky6809 : Mr. Grammar Nazi: "You're" is the contraction of "you are," not "your."
1
Law of diminishing returns. I have a built-in "That's good enough. Time to move on" gene or something. I can build a skill to where I'm better than about 90% of the people at that one thing, but to get up into the top 5% or 1% takes about as much work as got you into the top 10%. I always wanted to be "world class" at something, but always ran out of drive to keep getting better, once I got pretty good, and saw how much work it was to improve on that. It's impossible to be totally well-rounded and at the same time, be the best in the world at anything. Very good lesson, Dr. Peterson.
1
I'll make your utopia for you. Now do as I say.
1
Peterson's always good. Bit misleading headline.
1
Being satisfied with what you have is one of the most difficult states of being.
1
@Ethan Masters : That's kind of the point of what Peterson's making. We're NOT born with a moral compass. Out of the womb, we're pretty much selfish. But we are immersed in societal values, and we don't even question where we got that understanding of right and wrong. At some point, on some level, an atheist must make a leap of faith that Life is Good. From that one axiom, you could probably derive the 10 Commandments, but what the atheist never seems to question is that one axiom. And where did they get it from? If life simply IS, then what moral imperative exists independently that you or I should RESPECT life. Nature weighs in when it turns out that RESPECT for life (and, by implication, property) results in societies that prosper and advance themselves more rapidly than those based on "Who's bigger?" And there is no rational reason for being one or the other (theistic or atheistic), other than recognizing, after the fact, that societies that take that "God Is Good" leap far surpass those that do not. Without something greater than our mundane eat, breathe, sleep and shit existence, why not just take what you can, by force? If you say "punishment under law," then you're begging the question "Whence came that law?"
1
And when you ask "Whence came that law?" you end up tracing the roots of civilization back to superstitions about a Creator. Not just a Creator, but one that takes an interest in us and wants us to live one way as opposed to another way. And history is very clear about the POWER of a shared belief as an organizing and unifying principle, by which one small tribe can join other small tribes into one BIG tribe that coheres to itself strongly enough to dominate small tribes that have NOT found such a unifying/organizing force. The reason we see this or that religion at all is because those who believed that way survived to pass on that belief to their children, and over time, were more successful in breeding than those who did not. The only thing logical about it is that it WORKS! Just like the ridiculous tail feathers of a peacock. It serves NO evolutionary purpose other than that peahens dig the display.
1
@martok2008 : What makes you think Japan is atheist? And what makes you think Denmark isn't cutting its own throat as we speak? The fact is, the religionists will always out-breed the "logical" atheists, so even if the atheists are 100% correct, they're congratulating themselves as they go extinct. I don't think atheists are 100% correct. I think they have a multitude of assumptions built into their arguments of which they're not even fully aware. And where do those assumptions come from? Immersion in a society that itself was immersed in belief in God, when it was formed. The "self-evident truths" in the Declaration of Independence or the axiomatics underlying the atheists' arguments flowed initially from a notion of a God with some very specific ideas as to what is Good and what is not. As a separate question, it's no more rational to disbelieve in God than to believe in God. God was invented for all those big questions for which the evidence of our senses (i.e. science) has no answers. Belief or disbelief are equally irrational choices, because science is SILENT on such questions. A rational person must needs be agnostic. As for myself, I've been immersed in superstition since Day 1, so there's no shaking it. And it turns out that my irrational superstitious child-brain makes for better living in the NOW than a crushing certainty that we're all just animals in an uncaring universe, even though there's no REAL evidence to believe the universe is anything more than a Big Is that is oblivious to us.
1
@bobdonda : But your moral compass which was developed as YOU developed, was informed by a set of axioms derived directly from someone positing the existence of a God who said "Life is Good and must be Respected." Without that, there are many who believe OUR life is just a cancer on the planet we inhabit. You feel that you're just being rational, but the fact is, you're a bundle of assumptions whose origins you do not fully appreciate.
1
@bobdonda : That's the problem with your argument. You're ignoring the fact that you exist in a society steeped in values derived from religionists. So much of what you're saying is the residue of a system of thought arrived at by people who STARTED with God Is and God Is Good. Sure, morality rings your inner bell, but you're kidding yourself in your belief that your inner bell is not informed by some notion of the sacred in men who lived thousands of years ago. Those notions persisted, because the societies (tribes) that clung to those notions survived to pass ON those notions. I think a smart guy like you should recognize these things. I also think a smart guy like you can see that atheists sow the seeds of their own disappearance from the face of the Earth. This is kind of the same problem that collectivists have. Sure, we SHOULD all share equally all our possessions and sing Kum-Bye-Ah, together. But humans aren't built that way.
1
@totallyanonymousbish9599 : Much to our surprise, the fittest turn out to be people who believe (or act as if they believe) in something greater than themselves. How did the Jews become a nation? A shared superstition! Was it rational? Nah. Did it work? Unbelievably well!
1
@gimble5555 : My main evidence is that belief in the sacred has been very successful in Darwin's Game. Even as we speak, people are freaking out over demographic shifts by Muslims and Christians who have big families while "enlightened" atheists do not. We'll sing your praises and shed a tear when we add atheists to the extinction pile.
1
Early Gnostic Christians were closer to Christ's teachings than the Church that Peter built. But Peter's Church won, because Peter married his beliefs in the sacred to its perpetuation in the mundane world. "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we could recruit Gentiles? I know! Let's bend the rules on eating pork, and invite poor Gentiles to dinner!"
1
@electricspark5271 : Yes, and the Pope sent a bunch of under-employed killers to the Holy Land. And the Caliphate has always sought to expand ITS dominion. But yeah. 20th-Century atheists are the biggest killers in human history.
1
@richardmarsh4993 : The natural purpose of mortality is NOT to make room for the next generation. It just turns out that immortal creatures do not evolve, and eventually get eaten by creatures who DO. A biological clock called "aging" that's built into all of us wasn't put there to serve some conscious purpose. It just turned out that it was superior to immortal creatures who never evolved.
1
And I can leave Hitler out of it, entirely. Just run the body count from Stalin and Mao.
1
@richardmarsh4993 : Peterson understand evolution far better than you do.
1
It's not rational. It's just how our brains are hard-wired.
1
Strasznik : University students are among the most privileged people in all of human history. I gather you don't care much for Jordan Peterson. Maybe after you've done some much-neglected readings and self reflections, you'll start liking him.
1
I don't think Nixon was even involved in the break-in. But his people were. And he tried to cover it up in the heat of the moment. And it was the cover-up that created a nationwide groundswell against him. If he'd been up front about the break-in, as soon as he learned about it, the American people would've forgiven him. Thankfully, his respect for the office of POTUS prevented him from destroying the tapes. He probably could have strung things out for the rest of his 2nd term by destroying the tapes and crushing anybody who was a threat to testify against him. StilI'm waiting for James Comey to have his John Dean moment, with great anticipation. In the end, I think history will look on him as total swamp creature. Leave the FBI. Go work for Lockheed-Martin for a cool $6 mill/yr. Then go back to be FBI Director. And through all this, Lockheed-Martin's knockin' down multi-billion-dollar defense contracts.
1
It's never been easier or cheaper to home-school your kids. Learning products that enable your child to progress at their own rate, with instant help and explanations and instant feedback on work, are available at a tiny fraction of what taxpayers pay to send their kids to school. Public schools are so early 20th-Century, and their methods are 19th Century. And those are the schools that are getting it more right! The REST of the schools think 21st Century schooling is all about dumbing-down the curriculum and inserting social-justice lessons in place of concrete skills.
1
@sourcescience : A truly vapid critique.
1
@Avenus112 : Tell that to the fat girl who never gets asked to dance.
1
@exterminator4808 : Yes. It sucks, since agreeing to share your bed and your home and your life with someone connotes trust. That person stands over you when you're asleep! So the idea of a pre-nup seems like you're not trusting the other person, even though by sharing your life, you're saying "I trust you." Very paradoxical.
1
I think Peterson's a little too pessimistic, maybe because he's drawn so much of the pathology to himself, like a lightning rod. I think the "crazy women" could be fatal to society, except for the fact that they're doing their level best to marginalize themselves.
1
@kimo2327 : Some of us escape. Some of us just learn how to bully people.
1
@PhatInAHat : Remember how the Boomers rejected the dogmatic traditionalists in the '60s? We're seeing the same thing, now, only the establishment has flipped way left, since then. But the same stereotypical dogmatists RULE the schools, now, and the kids KNOW that the teachers are incompetent, pretty stupid, and totally dogmatic, just like they knew their teachers in the '60s were full of shit when they told the kids that one puff on a joint would turn them into crazed homicidal maniacs or that listening to Judas Priest would turn them into Satan worshippers (some years later, when Tipper Gore was teaching her husband how to sell lies).
1
It's what they're raised to be. It's what they're EDUCATED to be. They're probably fairly well-adjusted, and sticking to the principles they were taught. I think the adrenalin rush from violence and intimidation is just a bonus to them. Our public education system is BROKEN.
1
I concluded years ago that my dreams were my subconscious trying to tell me something my consciousness missed. Turns out that's what Peterson says! LOL! That person that's a little sketchy? I'll have a dream and pick up on some of the signals that I didn't consciously notice.
1
@maheshtima1 : You're as giant an idiot as I am.
1
It's ridiculous how they treat incoming college students like children. I don't think you belong in college if you can't read the damn catalog and decide what courses you need. College isn't about the learning, any more. It's about getting maximum federal aid for baby-sitting young adults.
1