DocWatts

I'm gonna guess it's probably in the ballpark of something like a Ted talk, which has a ticket price of around $5,000. Difference being that Jordy's audience doesn't consist of highly affluent socialites and entrepreneurs, so much as young men with access to YouTube...

I've been interested in the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, but I've been having some trouble wrapping my head around his ideas (they haven't been clicking for me the same way that say, Hegel's philosophy did). Would anyone here be able to suggest some resources for making his work more approachable? What's the gist of what he's trying to convey in something like Being and Time?

@Bernardo Carleial Thanks! That's pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I've been putting off Heidegger for a while since I knew his work had a reputation for being somewhat impenetrable, so having some contemporary sources to help make his ideas more accessible is really helpful.

While it would have been interesting to see a novel argument against Idealism, his argument falls prey to a common assumption that a shared, objective reality has to have a material ontological basis. I'd be genuinely curious as to whether he's aware that objective idealism is something that exists, as the main thrust of his argument seems to be directed towards solipsistic subjective Idealism. I won't go so far as to call this a strawman as a lot of people aren't aware that there's even a distinction to be made between different types of idealism. If I were to try and make the strongest case possible against Idealism, I might have focused on the entropic heat death of the universe. I would have asked why an ontologically mental universe should present itself to us as a metaphorical clock winding down towards eventual thermodynamic equilibrium. And if time's arrow is an extrinsic appearance of an excitation of a transpersonal mental field, what is it an extrinsic appearance of exactly?

Fair enough, and I can empathize with someone being in an irritable mood from being in physical pain. From what I've watched of him, even in discussions where he's not being triggered, there seems to be a somewhat surprising lack of self awareness for someone whose chosen field is psychology, and who talks as much as he does about cross paradigmatic study and analysis. Not that I'm placing these two figures in remotely the same league, but compare JP to someone like Ken Wilber who has enough self awareness to recognize that he's developed a shadow around Green from his time in academia, and admits as much. I don't think most reasonable people would have a problem with JP if he were upfront about his biases, and if he wasn't treated as an authority by millions of people on issues where he's very clearly uninformed and/or highly biased.

I'll give her major credit for being open and upfront about her perspective (as a conservative), and for at least trying to engage with other perspectives in Good Faith. By those metrics she's leagues ahead of her father.

Thanks for posting this by the way, after watching it I feel like I understand Mr. Girl's perspective better, even if I'm not any more endeared to him now than I was during that Vaush stream. I think the problem with using an intentionally inflammatory rhetorical style is that it entails giving a huge benefit of the doubt that the person is actually operating in Good Faith and has a salient point to make (rather than being a toxic asshole). Maybe I just find it an extremely off-putting way of trying to communicate, even if that doesn't necessarily invalidate the larger points he brings up. And more of a meta-point, but I'm not sure that a message can or even should be separated from the style and tone of its delivery.

Thought it might be interesting and helpful to have a thread to discuss the challenges of development. For me, it's been being in a place of having developed fairly keen meta-awareness of my habitual propensities to judge and criticize conflicting value systems, without being able to fully transcend those habits. Which is a bit of a weird place to be in if I'm being honest, though I suppose it's better than the alternative (going the rest of my life being unaware of this tendency). While I recognize that I'm pretty good at being open minded about integrating new perspectives into my conceptual system and not inflexibly hitching myself to any one paradigm, I also recognize that I'm still working on integrating aspects of the lower stages so that I can empathize with them more fully (Red in particular in my case).

Thank you! Perhaps someone more developed than myself can have a productive conversation with anyone in absence of that shared context But for me I find that without some way to ground the conversation my other option is to cede Reality to that other person, which my ego isn't prepared to do. Or at least not for discussions around topics which have consequences in the real world. Around the SD-Stages that I haven't fully integrated, this expresses itself as a defensiveness and me being less willing to give that person the benefit of the doubt that they're arguing in Good Faith. While I don't niavely assume that every opposing view is operating in Good Faith all or even most of the time on every issue, I do have enough meta-awareness to recognize that I'm much more willing the benefit of the doubt towards Stages that I've integrated. Of course meta-awareness is one thing, and translating that meta-awareness in to action is a lengthy process. Or at least it is for me, at any rate.

@Carl-Richard I'm actually in the same boat in that I also saw people lile Dawkins and Harris as somewhat infallible when I was much younger, and had little understanding of things like metaphysics and epistemology. I'd say for Richard Dawkins, the limitations of logical positivism are fairly obvious to someone with philosophical literacy. I think his body of work on biology and evolutionary theory (such as The Selfish Gene) still stands up to scrutiny. So long as you don't take his meta-paradigm too seriously, his scientific works have a ton to offer an inquisitive mind. When I say that Richard Dawkins has similarities to JP, I'm mostly referring to his being locked in to a paradigm and being not curious about other perspectives. Unlike Jordy P and Sam Harris, I've always found him very honest and forthcoming about his views, and never got the sense that he was obfuscating aspects of his world view.

Probably has everything to do with what stages you've integrated, and what stages you've developed a shadow around. I don't find it too difficult to have productive cross-paradigmatic discussions when there's a shared context that can ground the discussion. On the contrary, I actually quite enjoy discussing metaphysics with people hitched to an Orange materialist paradigm because I understand where they're coming from, and it's something that I myself embodied earlier in my life and can empathize with. Trying to do the same thing with say, Red, for example has typically been a frustrating experience because there's not a whole lot I can empathize with from the stage, even if on an intellectual level I realize that it's a necessary developmental stage. Or more generally I suppose with someone living in a completely different version of Reality where there's not an easily identifiable place where the Venn diagrams overlap that can ground a productive cross-paradigmatic discussion. Obviously this is a limitation of my own perspective, with Red for instance, it's only through the luck of the Birth lottery that I wasn't born in to challenging Survival circumstances where Red was necessary to meet my physical and emotional needs.

I'm comfortable saying I'm very familiar with Richard Dawkins, and have read and enjoyed many of his books. I can't say I have nearly the same familiarity with Hitchens, so I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other. In my mind I associate Hitchens with aspects of Dawkin's paradigm that I find less interesting than his work on evolutionary theory (namely his anti-religiousity and his advocacy for atheism), but I realize that might not be doing justice to Hitch's body of work.

Richard Dawkins has a particular paradigm that he's locked in to every bit as much as JP is, and there's limitations to his worldview for sure, but he manages to embody that worldview with integrity. That and unlike Jordy P, Richard Dawkins can actually answer a question in a straitforward manner without the sense that he's being evasive and trying to obfuscate. If and when Jordy P writes something half as well written, thought provoking, and important as The Selfish Gene I'll consider taking him seriously as an academic.

In your view are there any contexts at all where it's okay for a white person to say the n-word? By that I mean are the any scenarios where it would be non-offensive in your view? (I'm genuinely asking by the way, not trying to lead towards an answer one way or the other).

Ancient Greece was home to some of the most actualized and forward thinking (for thier time) people in all of world history. Athens was not only the brithplace if democracy, but one of the birthplaces of philosophy (and by extension, science). I'm not sure if technological achievement should be the bar that we use to evaluate earlier cultures (or at least it shouldn't be the primary way of doing so). None of this is to take away from the ingenuity behind some of the technology the Greeks were able to employ. Between the video above and Archedemes Claw, it's very cool very impressive stuff. Actually as someone interested in the history behind computers and computer science, this kind of thing is right up my alley.

Oh okay, I was missing some of that context, as I haven't seen the Destiny discussion that you're referring to. I tend never to know in advance whether Vaush's discussions will actually be productive or turn in to a trainwreck, where I end up questioning why I just listened to two people talking past each other for an hour... Something like Theories of Everything or HealthyGamerGG is a million times better in that regard, which considering that both of thier hosts embody Tier2 values is hardly surprising...

You should pasted a link to that on the forum after it gets posted on his channel, I'll definitely want to listen to that.

Sure, but he should be wise enough to realize that the things he's talking about require internal transformation. You can't just drop this into someone's lap who doesn't have the development to grok it, the same way that you can't teach a six year old about postmodern theory. That would be like trying to introduce someone to something like Buddhism by just dropping it's most advanced teachings in to thier lap without any context or groundwork, rather than by teaching that person the basics of things like meditation as a starting point...

@Roy I'm not so sure that adversarial tactics of trolling are an effective way to have cross-paradigmatic discussions. The irony being that I'm finding the discussion between Vaush and Mikhaila a much better embodiment of cross-paradigmatic discussion than Vaush and Mr. Girl, who almost certainly understands Green better than Mikhaila. From the way you describe it, it sounds like a poor man's version of the 'sincere irony' of Metamodernism. If the goal isn't to have a productive cross-paradigmatic discussion, I have to wonder what was even the point of trying to have a discussion with Vaush and his Green audience ..

If you think about what the core value of Libertarianism is, it's the maximization of individual liberty, and the inalienable rights of the individual. Both the Left and the Right have different ideas about how this can be accomplished, and have different economic theories that each claims to pursue this goal. The reason why this may be confusing is that in America at least, the whole of Libertarianism has come to be conflated with economically Right Wing libertarianism. Which is why libertarian socialist sounds like a contradiction in terms, when it reality it only appears that way to someone who has a quite narrow definition of Libertarianism. A loose analogy would be how something like Liberalism has its roots in the European Enlightenment, and that most most liberals and conservatives subscribe to its values insofar as they believe in democracy.

Yup that's a thing. Not like Libertarian values necessarily have to right wing economic theory.

Rather enjoying the discussion between Vaush and Mikhaila so far, as it's proving to be a productive cross-paradigmatic discussion. Would much rather see more of this content from Vaush than the often inflammatory debates that he's become probably more well known for...

Fair enough. For what it's worth my introduction to Mr. Girl was through that Vaush conversation and I haven't explored his other work very much, so I'll admit that my (somewhat unfavorable) impression of him may be unfair. (Is there any Mr. Girl content in particular where he talks about going through Green? I'd be interested in listening to that if it's accessible, because I suspect it's something I will relate to, and it would be help me understand him better) As an aside, I also remember having a somewhat unfavorable view of Leo's content 6 or 7 years ago when my metaphysical horse was hitched to the materialist paradigm, so I'm fairly open to having my views on a person or idea evolve as I explore more aspects of thier work.

I really wish there was a thumbnail or something in the corner of Vaush's videos indicating whether it's going to be a debate-lord video or whether it's going to be an actual conversation. I found the Mr. Girl discussion to of be something of a trainwreck. Mr Girl may embody Tier 2 thinking but his way of expressing that was counter-productive and kind of cringy ('welcome to Yellow where we empathize with pedophiles'... Really, that's the way you want to introduce Yellow to a Green audience? *facepalm*) If JP's daughter (who I'll admit to being unfamiliar with) is a Metamodernist, I hope they can have something approaching a productive conversation...