Shapiro and JBP on the Rubin Report

It was mediocre by their own lofty standards. There was a point when the Rubin Report was characterized by, and heavily criticized for incessant bashing of the postmodern left. And the criticism was not misplaced. It isn’t as if I don’t giddly enjoy watching the left burn itself through use of identity politics, because I do. But Dave Rubin capitalized on that far too much and the show began to regress. He responded by deliberately shifting away from that robotic algorithm for his show, but the underlying theme remains. That’s fine though. Recently however, the repetition lays in the constant circlejerk of himself and other prominent intellectuals; namely, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy listening to all of them, but many times I tune in to a podcast or show, it is partitioned into two parts. The first half is general fawning over how they came together to have a civil intellectual conversation, and the latter half is true content. They probably know what they’re doing, if not solely masturbating their egoes. The adoration of their meeting probably makes the average person tuning in feel that much more rational and intelligent. I’m skeptical, and I feel one benefits far more in terms of aggregate volume of knowledge retained by merely reading. Like, if you transcribed their video, you’d realize not only how short their conversation really is, but how few novel ideas were actually discussed.

They are the best public intellectuals out there for the average person, though. I think really smart people read more of Chomsky, Dershowitz, and the like. And though I love to bash the left I sorrowly concede that there are far, FAR more intellectuals on the left and almost no right leaning intellectuals match their depth. Realistically the proportion of intellectuals across the political dichotomy is probably 95-5. You can name a few outliers, sure, but they don’t quite compare. If the left gives you Paul Krugman, the right responds in kind with Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul, but really? The former won a Nobel Prize in economics while the latter has a layman’s understanding of libertarian principles. That doesn’t mean Krugman is always correct, nor does it mean the philosophy he promulgates is the best one. But Ron Paul shouldn’t be the best the right has to offer. Or even Thomas Sowell, for that matter.

Converging Paradigms

The notion touched upon in Jordan Peterson’s recent conversation with Ben Shapiro is correct. In the absence of religion, it is supremely difficult not only to develop your own personal philosophy, but also to subscribe to it wholeheartedly and practice it. This means there is something fundamentally missing from atheism/agnosticism. They also imply that the moral and ethical values preached by prominent atheists are derived only from Judeo-Christian theology, and are not apparent by themselves. Here, I posit a more nuanced approach. I tend to believe that the morals taught by Christianity are self-apparent to maintain and cultivate a functioning society. But I agree there is no true incentive for society in the absence of religion, with exceptions in the form of hardcore thinkers that truly do exemplify the qualities of Nietzche’s Ubermen. You might be able to create a moral architecture that is coherent (just do a little analytic philosophy,) but given that humans are inherently social, the lack of communal practice and support of said architecture would tear apart your “convictions” and their very roots. I feel that atheists masquerading lack of belief as existentially fulfilling is intellectual dishonest. Because it isn’t. I am one, and it’s difficult to grapple with. The thing is, though their points are valid, they don’t offer a true solution beyond wordplay. It is true that the notion of us being machines floating around in space isn’t one that is conducive to maintain a healthy society, but what is the alternative? They really don’t offer one. Hard determinism is incorrect only because it feels incorrect.

The best compromise is compatabilism, but that isn’t palatable to Ben Shapiro. For him, the more sound argument is that free will exists because God made it that way. He genuinely believes that is a more fortified epistemology. It really isn’t. Assuming it is, however, one would still need to address the “soft” form of determinism: biological. Because evolutionary psychological largely elucidates the variance in personality among individuals, and even personality is determined more by genetics than environmenal factors, what’s the incentive for you to get up and exercise if both of your parents considered it and couldn’t bring themselves to it? There is none.

Though I disagree with many people in that I don’t believe you need to offer a solution to make a criticism, to offer a half assed one is undoubtedly worse. I don’t respect you more for offering a solution moored to religion.