Bridget and Peter Boghossian have a conversation under the Colorado stars about the search for ultimate meaning in life, the denigration of reason, the loss of being able to wonder publicly, figuring out the best type of life to lead, and teaching people how to value the right things. Peter explains how bales of hay, lifting weights, and prison inmates got him started on his career path and led him to question whether you can fundamentally change the way people think about problems and the way they view morality. They cover street epistemology, the truth about “pecking orders,” the difference between rationalizing and reasoning, and the glorification of violence in our society. His book, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, co-written with James Lindsay, is a distillation of decades of study and offers the best ways to approach and have conversations with people who have different opinions and foster a climate of civility.

Full transcript available here: WiW-PeterBoghossian-Transcript

Subscribe to Walk-Ins Welcome w/ Bridget Phetasy in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Published in: General
Please Support Our Sponsors!



There are 3 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Patrick McClure Coolidge
    Patrick McClure

    Reason and prayers are complementary, not exclusive of each other. And reason is a gift from G-d. So I think setting them up as a versus begins the conversation on the wrong foot. Still worth a listen. 

    • #1
  2. Patrick McClure Coolidge
    Patrick McClure

    Oh dear Lord, “we live in a violent culture”. Says he’s disturbed by trends on the right, then can’t name one. This after talking about how bad Antifa on the left is.  Please. 

    • #2
  3. milkchaser Member

    Here are two things you can’t even discuss:

    • Try suggesting that Jeffrey Epstein, despite what he did, is not a monster
      • His alleged victims had to know what was going to happen. They can’t claim to be surprised. And how did their parents not know where they were and what was going on? Some part of that does not make sense.
      • I don’t know any heterosexual men who are not attracted to nubile young girls. Now, most of us would not attempt to seduce them for a variety of reasons, including that it’s against the law in the US. But there’s a bit too much hypocritical indignation, in my opinion.
    • It is accepted doctrine now that a woman can withdraw consent at any time, including in the middle of intercourse. If she does so, we are all supposed to believe, the man instantly becomes a rapist. Some would say he becomes a rapist even if the “victim” has not clearly articulated the withdrawal of consent. One extra disallowed thrust and he is to be considered a rapist.
      • Well, I think that’s nuts. A gentleman would certainly quit when asked, as soon as he is asked. But if he delays just a bit (and I should not have to explain why he would), it’s not rape. It may be impolite, but it’s light-years away from a sexual assault that the victim never, ever consented to.
      • OK, I will explain why he might continue: Because the sex act is centered on seeking pleasure resulting in a climactic orgasm. It is not natural, although it is polite, to reverse course immediately. There is no need to apologize for seeking a pleasurable climax and, for a short period of time, selfishly pursuing that even after one’s partner has given up on the pursuit.
    • #3
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.