The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[WrestlingJudo]

Fair enough. If you're not joking, then you're just wrong.



A lot could be said about Peterson, I'm sure, but saying that he's "not rigorous"?



And, FWIW, I'd counter your claim that he doesn't operate in good faith with two claims of my own. First, that operating on faith is antithetical to logic, so "good faith" is a contradiction in terms. Second, I think your problem here is similar to what I posited as the problem with @Kafir-kun: You have faith in postmodernism as a rational intellectual movement. You're conceding to them the position of Reason.

Rand termed this "the sanction of the victim." You're sanctioning their nonsense by not calling it out for what it is: Nonsense.



No, he identified a very real philosophical boogeyman.



The right isn't anti-intellectual. Neither is the left, for that matter. The far right and the far left, however, now that's another story.



Derrida from an interview originally published in Le Monde de l'Education:

“I speak mostly, and have for a long time, about sexual differences, rather than about one difference only - twofold and oppositional - which is indeed, with phallocentrism, with what I also nickname ‘phallogocentrism,’ a structural feature of philosophical discourse that will have prevailed in the tradition. Deconstruction goes down that road in the first place. Everything comes back that way. Before any feminist politicalization (and, although I’ve often associated myself with it, on certain conditions), it is important to recognize this strong phallogocentric underpinning that conditions just about all of our cultural heritage.”

I know my Derrida well enough to assure you that Peterson knows what he's talking about. I also know my Derrida well enough to know that you don't know what you're talking about. You're taking this shit on faith and assuming there's no way that what Peterson is saying could possibly be true because it's beyond your comprehension how anybody could have said anything as stupid as what Peterson is attributing to people like Derrida. Believe me, it took me a long time to wrap my head around the stupidity myself, but, sooner or later, you're going to have to wake up to the fact that this isn't cherrypicking, this isn't fearmongering, and this isn't Patreon whoring. It's just the sad, terrifying truth of what passes - and has passed for more than half a century now - for philosophy and some Canadian dude deciding to call bullshit.



You see? Because postmodernism as Peterson explicates it would contradict any Marxist project - thereby making "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" as described by Peterson contradictory and self-negating - you assume he has to be wrong about it because you have faith that nobody would be so stupid as to hold two mutually exclusive positions at the same time and try to pass off such idiocy as intellectually and politically sophisticated and progressive...EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE!!!!!!!!

Enjoying the back and forth you two are having. I have a very sophomoric knowledge of philosophy (just from what odds and ends I covered over the course of a polisci degree) but I hope what I ask you isn't too idiotic or simplistic.

Is Peterson's fight against postmodernism synonymous with the rejection of relativism and nihilism etc? I reached an epiphany in my early 20s that those things are bullshit and follow a circular reasoning but I couldn't offer an alternative to them. It seems like inevitably the alternative falls into deriving values from some kind of conceptualization of a deity. I can't help but listen to Peterson and have my stomach churn because I feel he is subtly reasoning for the existence of such a deity and to me that is just a simplified variation of the same outcome. Being someone who doesn't believe it just feels like holding a false belief purely for the sake of not having to confront existence with the angst and struggle of not knowing a great truth or outcome. From what little I have read of Nietzsche he seems to have some tidbits that shape what I feel at times.

 

[Rozko]

Some brevity

 

[Bullitt68]

Is Peterson's fight against postmodernism synonymous with the rejection of relativism and nihilism etc?

For all intents and purposes, yes. People sympathetic to postmodernism and poststructuralism would deny that it's synonymous with relativism and nihilism, but that's what you get if you follow it through to its logical conclusion. Hence the smuggling in of Marxism through the backdoor: Since nihilism is the logical conclusion, and since nihilism isn't actually a sustainable form of life (unless your goal is suicide), postmodernists need something to do, and since capitalism obviously isn't an option, back to Marxism they go...

I reached an epiphany in my early 20s that those things are bullshit and follow a circular reasoning

Yep. It's self-refuting nonsense sustained by obfuscations, equivocations, evasions, or appeals to contradiction not as an indication of error but as proof of true profundity.

It seems like inevitably the alternative falls into deriving values from some kind of conceptualization of a deity.

You mentioned "circular reasoning." Well, this is the "Cartesian circle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_circle). In his Meditations on First Philosophy - still for all its faults (well, it was really just the one fault of religion that caused a lot of problems) one of the most powerfully brilliant texts ever written IMO - Descartes found himself caught trying to explain his first philosophy in purely secular terms while at the same time trying to pass off God as necessary to the explanation. I've seen it quoted before as an attack on Peterson - in here, by HOLA, in fact - but this is the dilemma that was captured in his tweet (http://archive.is/khKVm) about how "proof itself, of any sort, is impossible without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof."

Since I never miss an opportunity to talk about Ayn Rand, I personally have yet to encounter anything in philosophy that more convincingly demonstrates the efficacy of reason in the absence of God and any notion of religion than Objectivism. Rand's writings - particularly her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - are the obvious recommendations, but for the best explication of and elaboration on her ideas, I'd HIGHLY recommend checking this out:

https://www.amazon.com/How-We-Know-Harry-Binswanger/dp/0985640618

I can't help but listen to Peterson and have my stomach churn because I feel he is subtly reasoning for the existence of such a deity

A little while back, I posted his most recent video with him speaking at UW Madison. He was actually very explicit there regarding his position on the existence of God. I've got it time-stamped here for you:



To my ears, he sounds like a textbook agnostic. He even builds to the agnostic "we don't know." And, FYI, the bit about Jung being careful not to say that because we can have an image of God there must actually be a God, that's also rooted in Descartes, as that was his argument: Because us imperfect human beings can conceive of a perfect being, and because Descartes believed that it was impossible for a perfect being to be brought into existence by an imperfect being, our ability to conceive of God was proof of His existence.

I've always felt that Peterson was an agnostic whose grounding in science makes it impossible for him at present to believe in God but whose grounding in mysticism makes it impossible for him to ever rule out, or deny his desire for, the possibility of His existence.

Some brevity

 

[WrestlingJudo]

For all intents and purposes, yes. People sympathetic to postmodernism and poststructuralism would deny that it's synonymous with relativism and nihilism, but that's what you get if you follow it through to its logical conclusion. Hence the smuggling in of Marxism through the backdoor: Since nihilism is the logical conclusion, and since nihilism isn't actually a sustainable form of life (unless your goal is suicide), postmodernists need something to do, and since capitalism obviously isn't an option, back to Marxism they go...



Yep. It's self-refuting nonsense sustained by obfuscations, equivocations, evasions, or appeals to contradiction not as an indication of error but as proof of true profundity.



You mentioned "circular reasoning." Well, this is the "Cartesian circle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_circle). In his Meditations on First Philosophy - still for all its faults (well, it was really just the one fault of religion that caused a lot of problems) one of the most powerfully brilliant texts ever written IMO - Descartes found himself caught trying to explain his first philosophy in purely secular terms while at the same time trying to pass off God as necessary to the explanation. I've seen it quoted before as an attack on Peterson - in here, by HOLA, in fact - but this is the dilemma that was captured in his tweet (http://archive.is/khKVm) about how "proof itself, of any sort, is impossible without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof."

Since I never miss an opportunity to talk about Ayn Rand, I personally have yet to encounter anything in philosophy that more convincingly demonstrates the efficacy of reason in the absence of God and any notion of religion than Objectivism. Rand's writings - particularly her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - are the obvious recommendations, but for the best explication of and elaboration on her ideas, I'd HIGHLY recommend checking this out:

https://www.amazon.com/How-We-Know-Harry-Binswanger/dp/0985640618

A little while back, I posted his most recent video with him speaking at UW Madison. He was actually very explicit there regarding his position on the existence of God. I've got it time-stamped here for you:



To my ears, he sounds like a textbook agnostic. He even builds to the agnostic "we don't know." And, FYI, the bit about Jung being careful not to say that because we can have an image of God there must actually be a God, that's also rooted in Descartes, as that was his argument: Because us imperfect human beings can conceive of a perfect being, and because Descartes believed that it was impossible for a perfect being to be brought into existence by an imperfect being, our ability to conceive of God was proof of His existence.

I've always felt that Peterson was an agnostic whose grounding in science makes it impossible for him at present to believe in God but whose grounding in mysticism makes it impossible for him to ever rule out, or deny his desire for, the possibility of His existence.

Thanks for the thought out response.

If I am being honest I detest Rand like crazy. Off the bat that makes me skeptical of anything related to her and reluctant to commit to making sense of anything involving her. She reminds me of what you were saying about Foucault. Putting forward a "trickster" approach to justify her own wants. I think of her as a "hedonistic nihilist"; not giving a fuck about anything but her values derived from an almost malicious selfishness. As much as I dislike religious philosophies they are almost always rooted or associated with some form of altruism which I can entirely stand behind.

 

[WrestlingJudo]

Thanks for the thought out response.

If I am being honest I detest Rand like crazy. Off the bat that makes me skeptical of anything related to her and reluctant to commit to making sense of anything involving her. She reminds me of what you were saying about Foucault. Putting forward a "trickster" approach to justify her own wants. I think of her as a "hedonistic nihilist"; not giving a fuck about anything but her values derived from an almost malicious selfishness. As much as I dislike religious philosophies they are almost always rooted or associated with some form of altruism which I can entirely stand behind.

You have convinced me Peterson is agnostic but it doesn't change that feeling. Almost as if he unintentionally infers things due to his want of existence being true.

 

[KidBaize]

Hell, it's called poststructuralism for a reason: They're opposed to structures as such. Shout out to @Devout Pessimist for this one, but Roger Scruton hit the nail on the head:

"The liberation advocated by left-wing movements today does not mean simply freedom from political oppression or the right to go about one’s business undisturbed. It means emancipation from the ‘structures’: From the institutions, customs and conventions that shaped the ‘bourgeois’ order and which established a shared system of norms and values at the heart of Western society. Even those left-wingers who eschew the libertarianism of the 1960s regard liberty as a form of release from social constraints. Much of their literature is devoted to deconstructing such institutions as the family, the school, the law and the nation state through which the inheritance of Western civilization has been passed down to us. This literature, seen at its most fertile in the writings of Foucault, represents as ‘structures of domination’ what others see merely as the instruments of civil order."

This quote from Scruton on poststructuralism is the most succinct I've read anywhere so thanks for sharing that. Your opinions on this subject are very interesting as well.

 

[Bullitt68]

Thanks for the thought out response.

If I am being honest I detest Rand like crazy. Off the bat that makes me skeptical of anything related to her and reluctant to commit to making sense of anything involving her. She reminds me of what you were saying about Foucault. Putting forward a "trickster" approach to justify her own wants. I think of her as a "hedonistic nihilist"; not giving a fuck about anything but her values derived from an almost malicious selfishness. As much as I dislike religious philosophies they are almost always rooted or associated with some form of altruism which I can entirely stand behind.

As this is the Jordan Peterson thread and not the Ayn Rand thread, I don't want to take this conversation too far. All I'll say is that, against this picture of Rand as the hedonistic and nihilistic trickster - which, philosophically speaking, is antithetical to Objectivism, the point of departure for which in the realm of ethics is the paradigmatic hedonism of Nietzsche - I'd offer a picture of Rand as a "do as I say, not as I do" cautionary tale. In her youth, she was intoxicated by the aggressive hedonism of Nietzsche. Later, she came to disavow it. However, there came a time in her life when I think she had to see for herself - to put it to the test, so to speak - if Nietzschean hedonism maybe was a sustainable form of life. It'd be a hell of a thing if it was, right? I think she just reached a point where she thought the experiment was worth it.

Of course, from the outside, anybody could've told her how it was going to end, but when you're on the inside, sometimes nothing will suffice but a swift kick from reality. If anything, I think Rand's "life story," if you will, proves rather than disproves the validity of her philosophy. I mean, if even the person who came up with the philosophy can't escape it, then that's quite the validation.

There's obviously a lot more that could and should be said about that, but I'll leave it at that for the time being.

You have convinced me Peterson is agnostic but it doesn't change that feeling. Almost as if he unintentionally infers things due to his want of existence being true.

I get where you're coming from. Hell, I get that feeling, too. Did you see the panel that he did with Jonathan Pageau and Bret Weinstein? They pick up the Peterson/Harris "truth" controversy and Weinstein basically says what I'd want to say - and what, I gather, you'd want to say - as it pertains to religion.



The whole Q&A from the event is like an hour and a half but this is the relevant bit from the end if you're interested.

This quote from Scruton on poststructuralism is the most succinct I've read anywhere so thanks for sharing that.

Thank @Devout Pessimist for alerting me to Scruton's relevance to all this craziness.

Your opinions on this subject are very interesting as well.

 

[Harmonica]

...paradigmatic hedonism of Nietzsche - I'd offer a picture of Rand as a "do as I say, not as I do" cautionary tale. In her youth, she was intoxicated by the aggressive hedonism of Nietzsche.

In what way was Nietzsche a hedonist of any sort?

 

[Ruprecht]

In what way was Nietzsche a hedonist of any sort?

He rejected it later in life (On The Genealogy Of Morality), but in his earlier works he embraced it (Human, All Too Human).

edit: Conversation continued in War Room OT Thread.

 

[21 Savage]

Ok be honest which ones of you have purchased/is planning on purchasing this personality test created by Mr Doctor Peterson

https://understandmyself.com/

 

[Der Eisbär]

Some brevity

 

[Bullitt68]

The Lindsay Shepherd saga continues (the Crowder one is timestamped where she and Peterson show up).





This shit makes my fucking skin crawl.

 

[Concrete]

 

[Concrete]

 

[Bullitt68]

Thanks for that video, @Concrete. Just this past Monday, I endured a lecture on masculinity and action movies where the students were told that the idea that gender has a biological basis is "pseudo-science." It's always fun to listen to "cultural critics" talk about science...until you realize there are people listening who might actually buy into the nonsense.

In 1957, in the second edition of his book Fads & Fallacies In the Name of Science, Martin Gardner said the following:

"[A] regrettable effect produced by the publication of scientific rubbish is the confusion [their authors] sow in the minds of gullible readers about what is and isn't scientific knowledge. And the more the public is confused, the easier it falls prey to doctrines of pseudo-science which may at some future date receive the backing of politically powerful groups ... [For example,] a renaissance of German quasi-scence paralleled the rise of Hitler. If the German people had been better trained to distinguish good from bad science, would they have swallowed so easily the insane racial theories of the Nazi anthropologists?"

I've also now taken to calling academics like that guy from the video "zebras" after Peterson's analogy:

 

[Concrete]

Thanks for that video, @Concrete. Just this past Monday, I endured a lecture on masculinity and action movies where the students were told that the idea that gender has a biological basis is "pseudo-science." It's always fun to listen to "cultural critics" talk about science...until you realize there are people listening who might actually buy into the nonsense.

In 1957, in the second edition of his book Fads & Fallacies In the Name of Science, Martin Gardner said the following:

"[A] regrettable effect produced by the publication of scientific rubbish is the confusion [their authors] sow in the minds of gullible readers about what is and isn't scientific knowledge. And the more the public is confused, the easier it falls prey to doctrines of pseudo-science which may at some future date receive the backing of politically powerful groups ... [For example,] a renaissance of German quasi-scence paralleled the rise of Hitler. If the German people had been better trained to distinguish good from bad science, would they have swallowed so easily the insane racial theories of the Nazi anthropologists?"

I've also now taken to calling academics like that guy from the video "zebras" after Peterson's analogy:

Yes the use of the word 'positionality' by one of Shepherd's superiors, often without any real meaning, was weird. Definitely in-grouping himself. Hiding behind jargon rather than just admitting what he was really doing, accusing her of heresy.

The social constructionist stuff is a stupid hill for the left to die on anyway, especially in America, where they could easily show the Democrats to be the 'party of science'. Instead they peddle anti science and smear anyone who questions it (Damore and Peterson recently).

 

[sangreporsangre]

The "Rainbow Centre" at Laurier has listed some demands they're making of the university. Most are the usual stuff:

1. Issue a public statement naming that transphobia is a problem at our institution that is impacting trans, non-binary, and gender diverse students, staff, and faculty. We want Laurier to publicly acknowledge the ways trans, non-binary, and gender diverse individuals are being harmed and commit themselves to challenging the systems of transphobia and cisnormativity in all of the university’s endeavours. #nametransphobia

2. President Deb MacLatchy must issue a public apology to trans, non-binary, and gender diverse students, staff, and faculty, for failing to acknowledge the transphobia that exists on our campus or provide adequate supports. We want you to say that you are sorry for failing to uphold the experiences and safety of trans, non-binary, and gender diverse people in the Laurier community and for your complicity in maintaining transphobia. #sayitDeb

4. Postpone the task force on freedom of expression until proper consultation can be completed with students, staff, and faculty who have been impacted by recent events and specialize in human rights. Change the composition of the task force to include representatives from the Diversity & Equity Office as well as specific requirements for trans people and people of colour.

Ah, the Diversity & Equity Office - your tuition $ goes towards this. If you were ever wondering why this leftist activism is so aggressive, just look at how many companies and organizations have departments like this now.

5. Hire a second full-time Sexual Violence Response Coordinator within the Diversity & Equity Office in order to help respond to the experiences of gender-based violence that are occurring on campus. This demand will increase the availability of supports to survivors of transphobia and all other forms of gender-based violence within an office that is grossly overworked and understaffed.

"Survivors of transphobia"? I'd really like to get a clear definition of transphobia then - for example, is any trans person who was exposed to the Peterson video considered a "survivor"?

But here's the best one:

3. Immediately implement safety measures that have already been requested by the Rainbow Centre, including the installation of a panic button and reinforced windows in all DEO centres and offices. Create proactive safety processes in consultation with all members of the Diversity & Equity Office so that future safety concerns can be addressed immediately when threats to marginalized students occur.

Man this university sounds like a pretty fuckin wild place! I'm imagining bands of alt-right death squads roaming the campus looking for "marginalized" students to attack. I guess nobody will be able to "survive transphobia" unless they get a panic room with bulletproof glass....I mean I've heard of safe spaces on campus before, but this is pushing it just a tad.

 

[Bullitt68]

The "Rainbow Centre" at Laurier has listed some demands they're making of the university. Most are the usual stuff:





Ah, the Diversity & Equity Office - your tuition $ goes towards this. If you were ever wondering why this leftist activism is so aggressive, just look at how many companies and organizations have departments like this now.



"Survivors of transphobia"? I'd really like to get a clear definition of transphobia then - for example, is any trans person who was exposed to the Peterson video considered a "survivor"?

But here's the best one:





Man this university sounds like a pretty fuckin wild place! I'm imagining bands of alt-right death squads roaming the campus looking for "marginalized" students to attack. I guess nobody will be able to "survive transphobia" unless they get a panic room with bulletproof glass....I mean I've heard of safe spaces on campus before, but this is pushing it just a tad.

I honestly thought that I was past the point of being shocked by nonsense, but that can't be real...can it?

 

[sangreporsangre]

I honestly thought that I was past the point of being shocked by nonsense, but that can't be real...can it?

Oh it's real alright. Canadian colleges and universities are infested with this madness.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

FYI Laurier's main campus is dominated by business students and athletes, so just a reminder that supporters for the shit above are fringe (at least among the student body).

Drinks are on me if I run into Shepherd at a bar. Here's hoping.