I’d love to see Jordan Peterson debate Bergman

Most people are amazing. I’ve lived in 13 countries and travelled in more than 70. People are decent. The more we travel and meet other humans the more we see how friendly we are to one another.

Really interesting to listen to them both

Great talk... Listening from Texas.....

Het enige objectieve waardeoordeel wat verbonden kan worden aan een organisme op zichzelf, zijn meetbare waardes die betrekking hebben tot de gezondheid van een organisme. En zelfs dan is er nog context nodig om de waardes tegenover te plaatsen. Een stelling als "de meeste mensen deugen" is behoorlijk onzinnig. De realiteit is dat bijna alle mensen kunnen deugen in de juiste omgeving en dan bedoel ik met deugen, een positieve invloed hebben op anderen en dit komt voort uit een normale of goede gezondheid van een organisme dat afhankelijk is van de groep, zoals de mens dat is. Een omgeving die past bij de mens, helpt bij de gezondheid van de mens. Maar de werkelijkheid is dat wij tegenwoordig bijna allemaal in een omgeving leven die niet goed bij ons past. En dat we daarom dus niet halen uit onszelf wat we zouden kunnen. En in mijn ogen is dat de bron van de ellende waar we in deze moderne wereld mee opgezadeld worden. Mensen die ongezond zijn, zijn niet goed voor elkaar, of in ieder geval niet zo goed als ze zouden zijn als ze gezond waren. Een slechte omgeving laat slechte eigenschappen gedijen. En de omgeving waarin de mens zich miljoenen jaren in heeft ontwikkeld en zich aan aangepast heeft, is in enkele generaties zo extreem veranderd, dat problemen voor het organimse te verwachten zijn. Als de leefomgeving vele malen sneller verandert dan dat het organimse kan mee evolueren groeit de kans op uitsterven. Dus naast de stress voor het individu, bestaat er ook het gevaar voor het collectief. De meeste mensen zouden deugen, als we ze de omgeving zouden gunnen die ze nodig hebben. En wat zouden we allemaal gezond en gelukkig zijn. Maarja, in plaats daarvan moderren we liever door en verdoven we onze stress met allerlei vormen van consumptie. Helaas wordt het op de lange termijn alleen maar erger hierdoor. We hebben een AI nodig om het tij te keren. Met menselijke individuen achter het roer is ons uitsterven gegarandeerd en dan zijn positieve boekjes over onszelf een schrale troost.

@adelheidwiese4990

2 жыл бұрын

Great interview !

@adelheidwiese4990

2 жыл бұрын

Don't forget about all the good Russians !

@adelheidwiese4990

2 жыл бұрын

Selensky is giving out weapons to everybody. So no Ukrainians are killing Ukrainians. And gangs are fighting to gain ground.

@adelheidwiese4990

2 жыл бұрын

The Russians have replaced th unvaccinated. New enemy.

War is a crime the dept based currency systems need to be addressed in order to stabilise value regulate power and help put human decency in place as human decency is easier in a fairer system where power is not centralised. There cant be justice within an unjust system.

This would drive Ayn Rand nuts.

thanks for the great interview! Very well moderated.

the outro clip is way too loud! :/

@larifarycharis5312

2 жыл бұрын

opposite: The audio of the interview is too quiet!

@Fann111

2 жыл бұрын

@@larifarycharis5312 Haha true

Plato addressed the issue of human decency and other ethical categories in the 4 century BC - these can't be absolute, no one can contend that they're "decent", it depends relative to what the claim is being made. I may be decent for one person and not so much to horrible for someone else. In fact all of us are such. Kant also established a few c. ago that there is no perfectly moral human being. We can just try to be as decent as we can in a specific context, under specific circumstances. It's a never ending process like learning or breathing. So it makes much more sense to speak of what we should do individually and together as society in very specific situations instead of thinking of decency in general - those are pointless questions. Language allows you to ask things like "Who's the best person in the world? What's the best country on earth?", in real life these make no sense. Still, you can certainly ask "what am I doing wrong in this case? or "what can our society do about X".. And basically politics is the human study of decency and morality.

The interview is a bit quiet. But on topic: What I understood, is that in absolute numbers, there are more slaves now than during the high point of the slave trade. (So abolition is still a worthwhile thing in many places.)

groups of friends, unit cohesion

Indigo children rates are up... that's hopeful 🙏

I suggest there are two types of human species - one with blood lust and desire to control, and the other with big hearts. It is known that a little love in our lives, brings satisfaction and meaning. Yet, those unable to love, choose power, and power is insatiable. Andrew M. Lobaczewski from Poland wrote POLITICAL PONEROLOGY in an effort to develop a SCIENCE on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes. He discusses what he calls "macro-social evil: large scale evil that overtakes whole societies and nations."

As an Iranian I deeply appreciate Rutger, being excited about hearing his book had been translated and reached many Iranian readers, instead of being upset about his loss as the author for not being paid the copyright.

Жыл бұрын

I with all the good too you and people in Iran. I hope that you are still able to read these lines and this lines reach you in good health.

@qud3913

Жыл бұрын

I'm sure his book could be summed up in one sentence: Mao & Stalin were Geniuses!

This is similar to Abraham Maslow .

20:20 "if you look at the response of people in Poland..." - again, here's an example of how one country/society acts decently toward one group of people in one case by accepting Ukrainian refugees and migrant, and at the same time shuts borders down and pushes out by force another group of refugees and migrants, non-Ukrainian this time.

When political dialogue ceases then war is a greater probability. The Russia invasion of Ukraine is irrational, as its goal is to satisfy one persons idea of historical justice; i.e. that Putin believes Russia is incomplete within historical context if Ukraine is excluded from Russian influence - meaning control. The question then begs answering, then why did Russia then agree to Ukraine separating in the first place when then there was possibly greater probability of Ukraine remaining part of the Russian Federation. Well the historical facts explain why not only Ukraine but the Baltic states as well as a number of Balkan states that all were part of the Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation choose to separate from Russia as each of these suffered greatly under the governance of the Soviets. Each of these states were not willing to continue being subjected to social experiments that had no foundation in reality. A reality which determines that at individual citizen level people want a certain freedom and autonomy within their and their families lives. The very fact that Putin and his henchman has chocked out any form of political opposition, including outlawing open and free speech speaks volumes. Russia has been drifting back towards a Soviet style government for decades. What does not help is the total political apathy expressed by many senior citizens - they seem to swallow what Putin and his supportive propaganda media states. There's no level of accountability towards miss-management. To be fair, Putin obviously did execute many of his political goals well, but his own insecurities have driven him away from forming meaningful beneficial interactions with the west. which is paradoxical as much of what he has achieved was reliant on continued close ties with western trade partners. In Putins view he would like to maintain the sham of the west being anti-Russian as this played in his favour in securing his excessively overbearing control over all levers of power - thus his bloody expunging of all an any decent. What he totally fails to see is that the success of the west (the Capitalist and social democratic system) is based on wide powers of varying degrees of checks and balances the western system has inculcated across all fields of managing economy and societal goals. Putin believes that such freedoms are dangerous. Well they are only dangerous if you wish to remain in control of the wealth of the country. Obviously such acute control has served his personal goals very well, thanks to the naïveté of western sponsors - that through close trade ties democracy evolves naturally - nothing can be further than the truth. As a result we pay the price in high inflation and a bloody war. I put the blame squarely on the west. We should have insisted on rules being followed; i.e. democratic values being applied.

Zelenskyy Being a comedian is not his only talent he also has a law degree which is never mentioned.

If people wouldn't lie to us, "The media" you would find out that most of us agree with you. Just tell people the truth about what you want to do. Raise taxes on the rich. We shouldn't have to create wars to do it, should we?

The altruist gene.

Book maybe suits positivity for teenagers (in Iran, sic) but academics tore it completely down. Lot of facts incorrect stated, he oversimplifies theories, left out essential material. Besides, he cant stand criticism. Very arrogant selfimposed snob imo.

Overrated guy.

@player1111ful

2 жыл бұрын

in what way?

@jonathanhijlkema8247

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know about the guy himself, he seems okay, but his book imo is nonsensical feel good pseudoscience. But like he says himself, he isn't a scientist. He writes to entertain and probably wants to do some good with the subjects he chooses. If you want to read about human nature in a bit more of an objective perspective imo, read Civilised to death by Chistopher Ryan. Also paints a positive picture of humanity but in a more subtle and believable way.

@Fann111

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanhijlkema8247 Did you read his book?

@jonathanhijlkema8247

2 жыл бұрын

@@Fann111 I got one of his books as a gift and read part of it. Its "De meeste mensen deugen", but since I didn't get past the first 50 pages, I can't say I have a very good Idea of it all. But grom what I read It felt very much like a pseudoscientific feel good about everything work, cherry picking certain things out of history, neglecting other things to make his point and give the reader some positive feels. Might finish it still, but it's not very high on my list right now.

@Fann111

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanhijlkema8247 Its more like he is disprooving what we earlier have believed in; for example that most human are cruel and selfish. Which is not the case for most of os. Yet we create society on pillars of the very few instead of the majority. It's called history and critical thinking, not pseudo science. Without history you have no way of taking care of the future.

One year later, would be interesting to know if RB still believes that taking the shots was the good thing to do.