LIVE from OCON: Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Yaron Brook, Greg Salmieri

Views:278278|Rating:4.81|View Time:1:39:45Minutes|Likes:7087|Dislikes:285
Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, and ARI’s Yaron Brook and Greg Salmieri discuss the impact of philosophy on a person’s life. Subscribe:

Dave Rubin
Host of The Rubin report
Dave on Twitter:
See Dave LIVE:

Jordan Peterson
Author & Psychology Professor
Jordan on Twitter:
Jordan on YouTube:
Discount code 20% off Self Authoring: “Rubin”
12 Rules For Life Amazon:
Rules For Life Amazon Canada:
Rules For Life Amazon UK:

Yaron Brook
Chairman – Ayn Rand Institute
Yaron on Twitter:

Greg Salmieri
Philosophy Professor, Rutgers University

LISTEN to The Rubin Report podcast:

Sign up for our newsletter with the best of The Rubin Report each month:

Official Rubin Report Merchandise:

See Dave LIVE:

The Rubin Report is fan funded:



Follow Dave on Twitter:
Follow The Rubin Report on Facebook:
Follow Dave on Facebook:
About Dave Rubin:

The Rubin Report is the only talk show about free speech and big ideas on YouTube. Each week Dave Rubin uses logic and reason to have honest conversations about politics, polarizing issues, current events, and more. Dave goes one on one with thought leaders, authors, and comedians in ‘The Sit Down,’ moderates opposing voices in ‘The Panel,’ and gives his unfiltered thoughts in ‘Direct Message.’ The Rubin Report is fan-funded, find us on Patreon.

41 thoughts on “LIVE from OCON: Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Yaron Brook, Greg Salmieri”

  1. To simplify this debate.

    Do objects have inherent purpose or meaning?

    Or does a person assign meaning to an object?


  2. Best discussion I have seen. Wish it lasted longer and they could go more in depth. Are there any actual disagreements here? Or is it just differences in use of language? Is the objectivist taking consciousness as an axiom and asserting it deserves protection? That is not so different from a Christian assumption of us being in the “image of god” and thus deserving protection. These objectivists are for sure a lot more sophisticated than most of the celebrity atheists Jordan Peterson discuss with who just assert that morality is obvious. Perhaps that is because other celebrity atheists are mostly concerned with being popular. Or perhaps it is just my impression because the discussion didn’t revolve around their differences so much.

  3. Man it's fun to look how when Peterson and Salmieri begin their discussion about souls, the other two people are like "man, I better not interrupt these guys" xD
    I mean, It's absolutely obvious that those two are the intellectual heavy-weights of this group. Also, just look at how beautifully their thoughts resonate with one another! Their thoughts are different, yet the same, and you can see how Salmieri is absolutely inspired by Petersons way of thinking. Just look at that enthusiasm! He's like an intellectual Shark that smells stream of knowledge seeping out of Peterson and he's barely able to contain his ravenous appetite for it. That's a true philosopher.

  4. I'd be onboard with making everyone more equal in terms of IQ if it meant killing all the low IQ idiots. It never means that however, so I'll have to be against the idea.

  5. Peterson was wrong historically,the US Army never had shortages men while there was a draft .If men with less than an 83 IQ would be able to work or not was of no great concern like asthma,or history of concussion.

  6. People's rights are more important than responsibility, because if the people don't have rights they are not going to care about responsibilities, though I believe we should have both

  7. Haven't seen such a wonderful discussion in long time. Both parties came up with brilliant points and boy, what an etiquette. Thanks Rubin for doing this. Jordan is charming as always. Greg came up with wonderful points and honestly, the way he formulated complex logics and explained it to the table is amazing. Looking forward for more stuff from Greg. I think he gives his best when the other party asks great questions or brings in good points. So, I'd love to see him in such discussions.

  8. Typical Peterson always talks about the absolute poorness of people in afrika. So the poor in the western countries have to suffer more so that the poor in other countries get better.

    Nice logic, democraties are at the moment nationaly so 99% it matters what happens in a country so that some people in Afrika have it better is a argument but no strong argument.

    A democratic entity has to look first that it's own citicens have to get better and then if that goal is at least to a high degree solved can care about others, not the other way around.

    On one hand he just concludes that this is the result of capitalism, but even in communistic countries the live of people got better, like in east germany or Sovjet union, the live of the people got better they the health care got better, less people had to work as farmers, many people got good educations, it was a slower paste and to some corruption it was not stable, yet we have to see if capitalism is stable it seems to be at least a bit longer stable that is true, but that's all we know for sure.

    But also there were systems before we had capitalism that was very theocratic that were stable and people were pretty happy. And then he compares it to 100 years ago why not 50 years ago, my parents when they got a job they got it for live only 1 person had to work the other could stay by the kids, they had a better live in a sense.

    But my main point is you can't just contribute technical advantages over time to a economic system, we have it better in some fields because we had technological advancements and because of hard labor of this people in india that maybe are not absolute poor but they work so hard that they suicide and jump out of their fabric windows.

    He just makes a complete 1 sided argument, people that are not currently dieing form hunger should shut up they are not absolute poor so that's everything you can expect from live.

    Yes the live is not THAT bad for many people in the west but they have no security so they can't build a live, they get often just enough money to not die but also not to be able to live.

    And it's less a argument about money but about security and power, I can take my live in my hand as much as I want if my boss dictates me to work long hours for very few money I have NULL power to say no, because then I get fired immidiatly.

    And even if you believe its all their fault if people get unemployed and homeless, you should have a interest to help them because else they will come and maybe kill you for 10 dollars in your pocket.

    So even if you are right you might be dead by pound on being right.

  9. What force can be brought to stop a virtuous person from acting so? Isn't the just society just the natural result of a society made up of virtuous people? Can people really be improved by a just society or can their virtue only be improved through effort and practice by the individual?

    Peterson seems obsessed with attributing everything to Christianity even Logos which, like much of Christianity, was lifted from pagan philosophers.

  10. 1:22 … the statement made by Yaron Brook is wrong. He claims, regarding Jordan Peterson's hypothetical, that either the wife in the story is faithful or she's not, but it's far from that simple. Perhaps she was unfaithful, but it's no longer happening. Perhaps this happened once, or perhaps many times. Peterson's statement was closer to the truth: when reality shows you that your theory on whatever was wrong it does not present you – at least not in most cases – with an alternate set of facts that are true.

  11. Yarn Brook is a tedious, contrarian Jew, like so many of them. God fucking help us from the blunt, simplistic Brook. A influential, but deeply dangerous man. Not a thinker, just a blunt instrument.

  12. Im lost, did a rubin report with Blaire White and Jordan Peterson ever actually happen?
    Or was the video I found today some sort of joke with clips from both peoples interviews just in different videos put together?

  13. Because I have some basic criticisms of Objectivism (and I am very familiar with all of Rand's works) and have also become familiar with Peterson's writings, lectures and debates, I must fault Peterson for not familiarizing himself with the tenets and particular arguments of Objectivism before taking part in this kind of discussion. Had Peterson carefully studied the philosophy as enunciated by Rand and her followers he would have made better points and I think deeper understandings and more dramatic differences would have resulted.



  16. I really enjoy Rubin when he is acting as mediator and asking questions. The times when he attempts to argue points, his comedian "gotcha" side comes out and undercuts his message.

    I really enjoyed listening to this discussion.

  17. This conversation was AMAZING. Thank you to everyone involved, including for recording it so that I can listen back to it like I'm going to need to do. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *