Name: 與約翰-安德森的對話。喬丹-彼得森和戴夫-魯賓 (Conversations with John Anderson: Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:25:10.000Z
Duration: 1 h 39 min 11 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome John Anderson.

Well, Jordan and Dave, thank you so much for giving us your time.

情態副詞

John Anderson dot net is basically dedicated to something that is very, very dear to me as someone who is very wide about our country and where we're going.

And it's that you cannot cannot get good public policy without a good public to bite.

And it seems now we don't have debates anymore.

We just have abusive emotional mudslinging.

So that's the sort of the background thing.

But then we come to this incredible opportunity today to engage with these two gentlemen and I wanted to get the ball rolling by talking about a number of issues, firstly, personal responsibility.

It's not what so many people think it is today.

I didn't want to talk about courage because we're gonna need a lot of it going forward and you're going to hear a lot ord see, demonstrated some real courage, I think here and what we're going to talk about and what you're going to hear, what you're going to witness then a bit about social media and how we make it all work and then it's over to you.

We live in a nice when it seems that there's a crisis of trust in our culture.

It seems that we are very uncertain of our institutions and the people who make them up on what their motivations might be.

The Australian National University has been tracking Australia's confidence in their politicians and the political process.

Record numbers of Australians no longer have confidence in the system.

Record numbers of Australians now distrust the political process and the players in it.

Just more recently, we've had the latest of a series of royal commissions of inquiry into various institutions.

This time's banking on the financial service is, and we learned that we couldn't trust bankers.

Now there are many trustworthy bankers in case there are any here.

But plainly people were deeply concerned by what emerged and you stop and think about this when people are in relationships of trust, harmony and progress could be might when it breaks down harmony and progress are impaired and people flee for safety.

If you don't feel safe with someone else, you'll look for the rule book and you look for policing and you'll look for protection.

So it's a good thing we've had the Royal Commission of Inquiry, so we know what's been going on.

It's a good thing we've got the red 78 recommendations, new laws everywhere, new surveillance, new policing.

But it's a tragedy that it was necessary in the first place that people have not been doing what should have been doing without coercion.

So now we've got a great big battle ist how to resolve these things, you say the law based approach.

But Jordan, you've said something quite different in the midst of all of us.

What you have said is that the redemption of the world is not political.

It happens at the level of the individual.

You're not saying that you're saying it comes back to the individual.

Do you want a more A state with more regulatory power?

Do you want a state with more surveillance?

I mean, first of all, why would you think that That would be trustworthy.

When all the evidence suggests in the past that as the state expands its surveillance power, it actually becomes less trustworthy rather than Maur.

Well, I certainly want someone looking into your affairs, but I don't want anybody looking into mine.

Well, good luck with that because, you know, to the degree that I have someone elect someone to look into your affairs there bloody well, going to be looking into mine as well.

And that just doesn't strike me as a particularly positive development practically because I don't believe it'll work.

I don't think surveillance states do make people more honest.

I think all the evidence is the opposite.

And then I would say from the individual perspective, it's like I believe that the fundamental what we got fundamentally right in the West, because there is a number of things we got fundamentally right, even though we don't like to admit that anymore is that the ultimate moral responsibility for the state relies on you.

It relies on your moral integrity and you know you can.

It's not that hard to think that through.

It's like, Well, first of all, you have the right and the responsibility to vote, and we could say, Well, that's not exactly given to you by the state.

It's something that exists in some, in some sense outside and before the state.

It's part and parcel of your intrinsic value.

Okay, so that's a decision that we've made in the West, that each person, regardless of their flaws, is characterized by a value and intrinsic value that's so deep and so profound that the very regulation of the state itself rests on their shoulders.

That's that's why you have the right to vote.

The first question is, Well, do you think that's a good idea or not?

I do believe that we are, in fact sovereign individuals, and then, well, let's assume that you believe that we are because the alternative is some sort of autocracy, right?

It's it's the it's the parsing off of that sovereignty to a bureaucracy or to some arbitrary form of leadership.

But you want to think that through because if it's not that, then it's you.

Well, then it's if it's you and you have to make sure that the ship of state is sailing properly, then the first thing you might want to ask yourself is, What makes you think you're any more trustworthy than the people that you're that your despising or criticizing?

I mean, if if you are, well, more power to you.

But it is self evident that you are, and my suspicions are that it's not even self evident to you that you are because it's a very rare person that you come across.

If you talk to them with any degree of seriousness, you know they're able to lay out a whole litany of ways they fall short of their own value, their own values, not values that other people are putting on them.

Certainly, that is well, and they can name innumerable ways that not only are they not doing what they shouldn't be doing, so they're falling short of the mark in that way.

But they're doing all sorts of things that they definitely shouldn't be doing, and they know it.

It's like, Well, we're gonna put that right or not.

And my sense is, you know, I wrote a rule in my book.

Put your house in perfect order Before you complain about the world before you criticize the world, What's the idea?

It's like, Well, you're the sovereign man.

If the states, if the ship of state is listing and sinking, that's you, that's your problem.

You're not taking on enough responsibility.

You're looking for other people to blame because it's convenient and and and that's kind of understandable because it's the dispersal of responsibility who wants all that responsibility?

But there's a huge price to be paid for it.

The the first price that you pay for it is well, there goes the adventure of your life.

It's like you could get yourself together and be the bedrock of the state right That'd be hard hat.

You've got nothing left in your life, a triviality and you can't live.

I don't believe that people can live ethically trivially.

That's why I think the pursuit of the idea that life is for happiness is wrong because life is too difficult for that to be the case.

字幕列表影片播放

與約翰-安德森的對話。喬丹-彼得森和戴夫-魯賓 (Conversations with John Anderson: Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin)

sort

perceive

individual

depression