The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[trac209]

The thought policing seems to be the most dangerous for employers and people working in education at all levels from Kindergarten to University. It is the most problematic in education because teachers reach the most people and, unfortunately, a teacher's job these days is to indoctrinate his or her students with the ideology of the times.

Exactly and that’s the first thing that should be addressed. These sjw university students are insane in logic and reason.
And it’s crept up into the House of Commons in Canada big time. Trudeau is gonna get his ass thrown out 2019 and his m103 islamophobia pushing terrorist paying MPs are gonna be with him. We are sick of this shit,we see Europe waking up and they have given Canada the heads up it needs.

 

[21 Savage]

This is an interesting clip, JP basically gets BTFO'd for being a religious nut and his pseudo-intellectual facade consisting of word salads and deflections while actually just promoting christianity gets exposed hard.

 

[IDL]

It would ultimately be much easier for him to defend his ideas from a secular platform, rather than relying on Christian metaphors.

That is what he does. Everything he says is done through a secular platform (reasoning).

This is one of the reasons why many atheists find it interesting when he talks about Christianity because he does so in those terms. He takes a rather scientific approach to studying religion, and he has done a lot of work in studying belief systems in general.

He uses metaphors from many places, some of which are from the bible and some of which aren't. But they are ways of illustrating points and conveying concepts like how anyone else uses metaphors.

A full blown militant atheist could still be a full blown militant atheist and get what he's saying and not run into dissonance.

So to say he 'relies on Christian metaphores' is very far from being correct.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

This is an interesting clip, JP basically gets BTFO'd for being a religious nut and his pseudo-intellectual facade consisting of word salads and deflections while actually just promoting christianity gets exposed hard.

Calling peterson Psuedo Intellectual is the most petulant criticism I've heard of him. Not in a million years will you make that stick lol.

And the content in this discussion is so nuanced and philisophical you can't possibly declare a land slide victor.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[TheGreatA]

That is what he does. Everything he says is done through a secular platform (reasoning).

This is one of the reasons why many atheists find it interesting when he talks about Christianity because he does so in those terms. He takes a rather scientific approach to studying religion, and he has done a lot of work in studying belief systems in general.

He uses metaphors from many places, some of which are from the bible and some of which aren't. But they are ways of illustrating points and conveying concepts like how anyone else uses metaphors.

A full blown militant atheist could still be a full blown militant atheist and get what he's saying and not run into dissonance.

So to say he 'relies on Christian metaphores' is very far from being correct.

The problem is that when you identify as a Christian and rely heavily on Christian metaphors to illustrate your points, you're eventually going to be challenged on whether those metaphors are merely that, metaphors, or whether they actually represent a historical truth, in the sense that Jesus actually resurrected, among other things.

That's where Peterson is at a bit of a dilemma, because he acknowledges that true Christian faith goes beyond merely believing in the practical utility of Christian metaphors and moral platform.

 

[IDL]

The problem is that when you identify as a Christian and rely heavily on Christian metaphors to illustrate your points, you're eventually going to be challenged on whether those metaphors are merely that, metaphors, or whether they actually represent a historical truth, in the sense that Jesus actually resurrected, among other things.

That's where Peterson is at a bit of a dilemma, because he acknowledges that true Christian faith goes beyond merely believing in the practical utility of Christian metaphors and moral platform.

And none of that has anything to do with what he is saying because he isn't relying on it. It's more of a sidetrack dilemma that people might have.

Don't get me wrong, I do find such questions interesting for my own musings, and he has said himself it took him a very long time to reconcile Christianity and science. From what I can see, he has done that in terms of where he himself stands on things and his reasoning.

 

[TheGreatA]

Calling peterson Psuedo Intellectual is the most petulant criticism I've heard of him. Not in a million years will you make that stick lol.

And the content in this discussion is so nuanced and philisophical you can't possibly declare a land slide victor.

You're grasping at straws.

To me it seemed like Peterson and Pageau were screwing around with Weinstein based on him giving higher value to the scientific truth, even though that is not necessarily consistent with the scientific platform, which doesn't weigh concepts based on them being "good" or "bad".

Seemed like a bit of a "missed" attempt at joke, at the end of a conversation.

 

[21 Savage]

As a JP fan I recommend other fans of JP to watch this discussion. He does a fantastic job articulating his thoughts (as always hehe, 145+ IQ) as to why advertising atheism is cancer. At first I didn't understand, but now I'm aware that atheist bus ads are clever media ploys. As the case so often is, the careful listener will notice just how far ahead, intellectually, JP is compared to all the other guests.

Like always when I watch Dr. JP clips and lectures I feel almost overwhelmed by the amount of wisdom he endows upon me and all of his other listeners, so I've tried to pick out some of my favorite quotes of his from this discussion.

"There is no evidence that he [Richard Dawkins] is being opressed, even though maybe he should be."

"If you don’t have any faith in an ultimate authority that says essentially that life is sacred, what’s to stop you from mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can?"





Really makes you think

 

[TheGreatA]

As a JP fan I recommend other fans of JP to watch this discussion. He does a fantastic job articulating his thoughts (as always hehe, 145+ IQ) as to why advertising atheism is cancer. At first I didn't understand, but now I'm aware that atheist bus ads are clever media ploys. As the case so often is, the careful listener will notice just how far ahead, intellectually, JP is compared to all the other guests.

Like always when I watch Dr. JP clips and lectures I feel almost overwhelmed by the amount of wisdom he endows upon me and all of his other listeners, so I've tried to pick out some of my favorite quotes of his from this discussion.

"There is no evidence that he [Dawkins] is being opressed, even though maybe he should be."

"If you don’t have any faith in an ultimate authority that says essentially that life is sacred, what’s to stop you from mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can?"





Really makes you think

He was being antagonistic in that interview but I don't think he threw out that question as a statement, but more so to challenge the guy into explaining his moral platform as an atheist.

He was more combative then than he is now.

 

[21 Savage]

He was being antagonistic in that interview but I don't think he threw out that question as a statement, but more so to challenge the guy into explaining his moral platform as an atheist.

He was more combative then than he is now.

Really makes you think

 

[TheGreatA]

Really makes you think

His definition of "God" is a very personal one though. It's more of a concept to him, from what it seems, the concept that there is something "higher" in inherent value than merely the carnal, material requirements of men. He believes that if you kill the concept of "God", then you bring about a moral collapse and the advent of totalitarianism. Which is not much different from what Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, or such men, would've said.

Those statements are defensible from his point of view, based on his particular definition of "God", but not so much from the overall definition, as some sort of a super-natural, magical entity that has created the world.

He seems, at times, to not understand that in arguing against modern-day, common man's "skeptical" atheism (where most atheists still recognize the necessity of a "godly" moral platform), he's not necessarily arguing against the sort of ideological, godless, amoral nihilism that Dostoevsky or Nietzsche had argued against, which unfortunately did enable the conditions which led to the massacres of the early 20th century.

 

[IDL]

His definition of "God" is a very personal one though. It's more of a concept to him, from what it seems, the concept that there is something "higher" in inherent value than merely the carnal, material requirements of men. He believes that if you kill the concept of "God", then you bring about a moral collapse and the advent of totalitarianism. Which is not much different from what Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, or such men, would've said.

Those statements are defensible from his point of view, based on his particular definition of "God", but not so much from the overall definition, as some sort of a super-natural, magical entity that has created the world.

He seems, at times, to not understand that in arguing against modern-day, common man's "skeptical" atheism (where most atheists still recognize the necessity of a "godly" moral platform), he's not necessarily arguing against the sort of ideological, godless, amoral nihilism that Dostoevsky or Nietzsche had argued against, which unfortunately did enable the conditions which led to the massacres of the early 20th century.

Something tells me 21 Savage isn't interested in having his ammunition quote snippet game qualified with underlying reasoning, concepts, or contextual basis. That defeats the point of the game he's playing.

 

[LuchaBear]

According to Peterson, the TA got in trouble for not taking a side and allowing the students to discuss and debate the ideas presented in the video. The university expected her to side against Peterson and make it clear to the students that Peterson is literally Hitler and should not be taken seriously. In other words, the TA is being punished for expecting the students to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

It was according to the teacher's assistant herself, not Peterson.

 

[TheGreatA]

Something tells me 21 Savage isn't interested in having his ammunition quote snippet game qualified with underlying reasoning or concepts. That defeats the point of the game he's playing.

Well, I think there's just a general misunderstanding between atheists, and men like Peterson, even in the intellectual debates. They're debating past each other, largely because they grew up in different environments, and with different personal traits.

If more people attempted to understand Peterson as a man, rather than as an argument, then I believe they could see where he's going from. He's really just a guy that's trying to build a coherent argument against that which we all would probably deem evil (despite not necessarily being able to explain away why it is actually evil or inhuman). I don't think he is wholly concerned with other factors. He'll debate the other philosophical aspects but he is not overly concerned with them.

He just doesn't think the common atheist/scientific platform is built strongly enough to resist malevolence, so he challenges it and challenges himself to cultivate something more "bullet-proof".

 

[IDL]

Well, I think there's just a general misunderstanding between atheists, and men like Peterson, even in the intellectual debates. They're debating past each other, largely because they grew up in different environments, and with different personal traits.

If more people attempted to understand Peterson as a man, rather than as an argument, then I believe they could see where he's going from. He's really just a guy that's trying to build a coherent argument against that which we all would probably deem evil (despite not necessarily being able to explain away why it is actually evil or inhuman). I don't think he is wholly concerned with other factors. He'll debate the other philosophical aspects but he is not overly concerned with them.

He just doesn't think the common atheist/scientific platform is built strongly enough to resist malevolence, so he challenges it and challenges himself to cultivate something more "bullet-proof".

Yeah I agree there in regards to misunderstanding and debating passed each other oftentimes. People who are overly grounded in materialism have a difficult time navigating abstractions I think. Or at least have a hard time speaking to abstractions on materialist terms, or something like that. There are certainly different perspectives and when you know where they are it becomes easy to see where a disconnect is coming from. The ultimate goal being to incorporate all perspectives into a larger cohesive one.

And yes I do believe that he views the purely materialistic atheist/scientific platform to be incomplete. I came to the same conclusion myself quite awhile ago in terms of throwing everything else away to a determent, and the creation of a void as a result. The throwing away the baby with the bathwater thing. These types of things are not so simple to discuss in purely scientific terms.

 

[TheGreatA]

Yeah I agree there in regards to misunderstanding and debating passed each other oftentimes. People who are overly grounded in materialism have a difficult time navigating abstractions I think. Or at least have a hard time speaking to abstractions on materialist terms, or something like that. There are certainly different perspectives and when you know where they are it becomes easy to see where a disconnect is coming from. The ultimate goal being to incorporate all perspectives into a larger cohesive one.

And yes I do believe that he views the purely materialistic atheist/scientific platform to be incomplete. I came to the same conclusion myself quite awhile ago in terms of throwing everything else away to a determent, and the creation of a void as a result. The throwing away the baby with the bathwater thing.

I'm not entirely sure why even those who deem themselves to be strongly on the "scientific" and "atheist" side of the debate, would think any differently. It ought to be fairly obvious that our scientific understanding of the world is far from complete. It ought to be fairly obvious as well, that those gaps will need to be filled with what we believe to be our best understanding of the situation at hand, moral codes which have positively contributed to the development of prospering societies.

If we simply leave those gaps unaddressed, then the void may be filled with ideologies which might argue, for example, that the destruction of other competing bio-organisms is to our ultimate benefit. Which may ultimately prove out to be completely, utterly wrong, as we gain a more complete understanding of nature, yet it is not necessarily something that one could fully argue against from a scientific/amoral perspective, based on our current understanding of the situation, unless the moral implications of doing something like that are taken into account.

 

[helltoupee]

And yes I do believe that he views the purely materialistic atheist/scientific platform to be incomplete.

Is this why he insists on a purely scientific binary for determining whether or not someone should be referred to as a he or a she?

 

[IDL]

Is this why he insists on a purely scientific binary for determining whether or not someone should be referred to as a he or a she?

He was resisting the gender pronoun issue because of its ideological underpinnings and politics behind it, and that it was an escalation to essentially legislate what someone must say.

I don't think he has a problem with referring to a transgender as the opposite, if that is what you are getting at. His perspective is that you shouldn't force someone to say something, especially when done on ideological grounds which he is familiar with in terms of NeoMarxism/Postmodernism, and that it is a social negotiation essentially.

 

[IDL]

I'm not entirely sure why even those who deem themselves to be strongly on the "scientific" and "atheist" side of the debate, would think any differently. It ought to be fairly obvious that our scientific understanding of the world is far from complete. It ought to be fairly obvious as well, that those gaps will need to be filled with what we believe to be our best understanding of the situation at hand, moral codes which have positively contributed to the development of prospering societies.

If we simply leave those gaps unaddressed, then the void may be filled with ideologies which might argue, for example, that the destruction of other competing bio-organisms is to our ultimate benefit. Which may ultimately prove out to be completely, utterly wrong, as we gain a more complete understanding of nature, yet it is not necessarily something that one could fully argue against from a scientific/amoral perspective, based on our current understanding of the situation, unless the moral implications of doing something like that are taken into account.

I don't see how pure materialism and scientific thinking could ever fill that gap, even if our scientific understanding of the world increased infinitely. Maybe it could somehow, but I don't see it.

In the mean time though yeah that void is fairly obvious. I think a lot of people just avoid it. Either they avoid thinking about it or they avoid trying to fill it in because they are ill equipped to do so with their current perspective and understanding of things, or they just don't bring it up for personal or career reasons. Or maybe some people can be content in their nihilism as long as they are distracted by other things.

 

[Renard]

This is an interesting clip, JP basically gets BTFO'd for being a religious nut and his pseudo-intellectual facade consisting of word salads and deflections while actually just promoting christianity gets exposed hard.

You need to watch Peterson's lectures on phenomenology (and possibly existentialism) to understand what is meant by the idea that material reality might not be the truest form of reality. In the west we're used to think of material reality as the ultimate reality. To understand the phenomenological point of view you need to, as a thought experiment, flip your entire framework of reference to imagine that meaning is real, and dead matter is subordinate. And that might be true.

It's funny, you think you're edgy by posting your gotcha video... in reality you don't even understand the psychological and philosophical concepts involved in the conservation. "Derp derp Christinity is stupid," jesus dude.