The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

meauneau said:
Is this a fair representation of his view?
Click to expand...

Seems so to me. If anyone else disagrees, I'd be interested to know why.

The only thing that I'd want to add is that, on occasion, he deploys the concept of God to mean "the unknown." Equivocation is a huge pet peeve of mine, and Peterson can sometimes stretch his concepts to cover too many things at once, with the concept of God being the most flagrant example of this tendency of his.

On the whole, though, the picture that you painted seems to me to be an accurate portrait of Peterson's position on God and meaning.
 
Bullitt68 said:
Seems so to me. If anyone else disagrees, I'd be interested to know why.

The only thing that I'd want to add is that, on occasion, he deploys the concept of God to mean "the unknown." Equivocation is a huge pet peeve of mine, and Peterson can sometimes stretch his concepts to cover too many things at once, with the concept of God being the most flagrant example of this tendency of his.

On the whole, though, the picture that you painted seems to me to be an accurate portrait of Peterson's position on God and meaning.
Click to expand...

To me it comes across as though he believes in god as a meta-physical / philosophical concept, which is not 'belief in god' as people tend to think of typically when someone says "I believe in god"
 
IDL said:
To me it comes across as though he believes in god as a meta-physical / philosophical concept, which is not 'belief in god' as people tend to think of typically when someone says "I believe in god"
Click to expand...

You mean that he believes that the concept or concepts of God or Gods is/are coherent but that it/they do/does not represent anything that exists? Or that the concept of God itself is not merely a mental object but rather an abstract object existing independently of minds and is causally impotent just like every other concept? Or maybe something else? I think the "he believes in God as..." part is confusing. The way I see it either you believe in God, the being that is causally potent and the ground of all being, or you do not believe in it. Either this being exists or not. To say that you believe in the concept but not the actual particular is strange. Or maybe you mean that he believe God to be a fiction, he believes in the fictional being named God?
 
meauneau said:
You mean that he believes that the concept or concepts of God or Gods is/are coherent but that it/they do/does not represent anything that exists? Or that the concept of God itself is not merely a mental object but rather an abstract object existing independently of minds and is causally impotent just like every other concept? Or maybe something else? I think the "he believes in God as..." part is confusing. The way I see it either you believe in God, the being that is causally potent and the ground of all being, or you do not believe in it. Either this being exists or not. To say that you believe in the concept but not the actual particular is strange. Or maybe you mean that he believe God to be a fiction, he believes in the fictional being named God?
Click to expand...

I can't really speak in terms of his perspective here, but I can speak in terms of mine in terms of what I think 'god as a philosophical concept' means.

I think it is like 'the highest vantage point' when looking at things in relative terms. Otherwise everything is relative and there is no 'true position' or 'true vantage point'. Even though you can't place yourself in that position, you could believe that such a position exists.

That position is where god would be, however you define what god is. So if it is some sentient being, then fine. If it is something else that occupies that place, then fine. The model has a place for whatever might occupy that position.

That's how I look at it so I might be projecting it a bit on Peterson, but he does talk about god sometimes and he also talks about reconciling religion and science, and he seems to look at things from a more rationalist and symbolic perspective rather than a faith based one. So on those terms he can't possible know if a 'a god' exists but he can hold a place for where that god (or something else) would reside.

You could also 'act as though god exists' without violating a purely rationalist perspective.
 
IDL said:
I can't really speak in terms of his perspective here, but I can speak in terms of mine in terms of what I think 'god as a philosophical concept' means.

I think it is like 'the highest vantage point' when looking at things in relative terms. Otherwise everything is relative and there is no 'true position' or 'true vantage point'. Even though you can't place yourself in that position, you could believe that such a position exists.

That position is where god would be, however you define what god is. So if it is some sentient being, then fine. If it is something else that occupies that place, then fine. The model has a place for whatever might occupy that position.

That's how I look at it so I might be projecting it a bit on Peterson, but he does talk about god sometimes and he also talks about reconciling religion and science, and he seems to look at things from a more rationalist and symbolic perspective rather than a faith based one. So on those terms he can't possible know if a 'a god' exists but he can hold a place for where that god (or something else) would reside.

You could also 'act as though god exists' without violating a purely rationalist perspective.
Click to expand...

What if the nothing occupies the place which the model has a place for? I.e., there is no God and the set containing the propositional content (the concept) has no referent, it pick out nothing that exists in reality (maybe it refers to a fictional character). Then it would be wrong to believe in this concept or pretend it is something other than a mere concept.

With 'the highest vantage point' you mean that you look at the world as if God exists? It is sort of a useful fiction? And if I understood you correctly it is 'the highest vantage point' only relative to you but not objectively? If not, then what makes this vantage point 'the highest vantage point'? It seems to me that you need to hold on to something solid, whatever it is, as long as it saves you from relativism and all the shit from postmodernism with there claim that there is no privileged perspective from which to objectively view the world. Do you believe that atheism entails postmodernism?

Do you think it is right to believe in things that you do not hold to be true? It is one thing to accept something but not believe it, mainly because even if false it could be useful. But to believe it even though you do not hold it to be true is very strange, I would say wrong. It is like believing in Santa Clause as a philosophical concept because this makes Christmas more meaningful or more enjoyable.
 
meauneau said:
What if the nothing occupies the place which the model has a place for? I.e., there is no God and the set containing the propositional content (the concept) has no referent, it pick out nothing that exists in reality (maybe it refers to a fictional character). Then it would be wrong to believe in this concept or pretend it is something other than a mere concept.

With 'the highest vantage point' you mean that you look at the world as if God exists? It is sort of a useful fiction? And if I understood you correctly it is 'the highest vantage point' only relative to you but not objectively? If not, then what makes this vantage point 'the highest vantage point'? It seems to me that you need to hold on to something solid, whatever it is, as long as it saves you from relativism and all the shit from postmodernism with there claim that there is no privileged perspective from which to objectively view the world. Do you believe that atheism entails postmodernism?

Do you think it is right to believe in things that you do not hold to be true? It is one thing to accept something but not believe it, mainly because even if false it could be useful. But to believe it even though you do not hold it to be true is very strange, I would say wrong. It is like believing in Santa Clause as a philosophical concept because this makes Christmas more meaningful or more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

If the place doesn't exist then it's a different model and there is no real structure (everything is relative to something else). And by structure, it is a hierarchical structure. like perspective A encompasses perspective B and C, so A is more 'complete' than those two. But perspective A + X is encapsulated by a larger perspective, which is encapsulated by a larger one, etc to logical conclusion. So it forms a pyramid. A pyramid has a top spot.

I wouldn't call it a fiction. More like something theoretical. But useful, yes.

It is not the highest vantage point relative to me, it is the highest vantage point period. Relative to everything. So, it would encapsulate all of reality, essentially.

Do I believe atheism entails post-modernism? No although I haven't put much thought into it. Post-modernism doesn't take into account an objective reality it seems to me, and I believe that that has to be taken into account. So not to do with atheism which I think has no inherent qualms with objective reality.

Do I think it is right to believe in things you don't hold to be true? I'm not sure what you mean. You can run under the assumption something is true without knowing it is true. I don't see anything wrong with that, if that is what you mean. If you have reason to believe that something is false and you still believe it then I see a problem with that, if that is even possible.

disclaimer: This isn't a topic I have thought about much so we're shootin the shit here
 
IDL said:
If the place doesn't exist then it's a different model and there is no real structure (everything is relative to something else). And by structure, it is a hierarchical structure. like perspective A encompasses perspective B and C, so A is more 'complete' than those two. But perspective A + X is encapsulated by a larger perspective, which is encapsulated by a larger one, etc to logical conclusion. So it forms a pyramid. A pyramid has a top spot.

I wouldn't call it a fiction. More like something theoretical. But useful, yes.

It is not the highest vantage point relative to me, it is the highest vantage point period. Relative to everything. So, it would encapsulate all of reality, essentially.

Do I believe atheism entails post-modernism? No although I haven't put much thought into it. Post-modernism doesn't take into account an objective reality it seems to me, and I believe that that has to be taken into account. So not to do with atheism which I think has no inherent qualms with objective reality.

Do I think it is right to believe in things you don't hold to be true? I'm not sure what you mean. You can run under the assumption something is true without knowing it is true. I don't see anything wrong with that, if that is what you mean. If you have reason to believe that something is false and you still believe it then I see a problem with that, if that is even possible.

disclaimer: This isn't a topic I have thought about much so we're shootin the shit here
Click to expand...

How do we decide what perspective is at the top of the pyramid? If truth does not play a necessary part (since JP does not believe that it is true that there exists a God and yet places God at the top of the pyramid and associates God with good, if I understood correctly), then by what principle do we guide our arrangement of perspectives in this pyramid? And by perspectives I take it that you mean something like worldviews, right?

Just to be sure, can you explain what this highest vantage point is and what makes it so?

Something being theoretical means that it is based on a theory (an accepted body of facts), which is based on evidence and the claims contained in it are held to be true and accepted. If your theory posits a being which you do not believe is true, then you are implying that it is a useful fiction or some useful construction used merely as a means to explain or express some phenomena within the theory. If someone comes with a theory which explains everything your theory explains but posits less entities, is more parsimonious, then it is a better one, it is more probable.

With believing things one does not hold true I mean something like JP believing in God, as you interpret him to do, yet not believing that God exists, i.e., he does not believe that the proposition that God exists is true and also does not believe that there is a God that exists, thought he acts or talks as if God exists. Maybe this is similar to his use of fictional characters like Pinocchio as a means to explain something about us?
 
Has the androgynous postmodern commie boogeyman been killed yet?

Maybe if Peterson gets a few more tens of thousands in donations a month, so his Kermit the frog voice can convert gamergaters to Christianity and tell them to clean their room on YouTube?
 
meauneau said:
You mean that he believes that the concept or concepts of God or Gods is/are coherent but that it/they do/does not represent anything that exists? Or that the concept of God itself is not merely a mental object but rather an abstract object existing independently of minds and is causally impotent just like every other concept? Or maybe something else? I think the "he believes in God as..." part is confusing. The way I see it either you believe in God, the being that is causally potent and the ground of all being, or you do not believe in it. Either this being exists or not. To say that you believe in the concept but not the actual particular is strange. Or maybe you mean that he believe God to be a fiction, he believes in the fictional being named God?
Click to expand...

"The way I see it either you believe in God, the being that is causally potent and the ground of all being, or you do not believe in it."

Not sure he wouldn agree with with a all or nothing approach.
There are a lot of people that hold this idea in tension. There's to many unanswered questions to rule out a belief in god but their not ready to pull the trigger either.
 
unimackpass said:
Actually I think he's in the undecided camp. He knows there's to many unanswered questions to say absolutely there is no god, seems more agnostic.
Click to expand...
An agnostic doesn't believe in God.
 
Interesting article on Jordan Peterson:

What Pastors Could Learn From Jordan Peterson

Peterson is a self-help teacher who speaks like a preacher! There is a great deal more actual engagement with Scripture in many Peterson lectures than there is in the average Joel Osteen sermon. Even though he is far from an orthodox Christian, Peterson’s lectures are full of references to Christ, to God, to hell, to evil, to redemption, and to other themes that display the power of the Christian message to illuminate the meaningfulness of the world. Peterson speaks with a genuine urgency and passionate intensity, displaying his conviction that the lives of his audiences depend upon his presentation of the truth.

In this Peterson provides a salutary reminder to the Church that preaching need not be considered a dying medium. Done well, preaching can speak into people’s lives with a force that few other forms of speech can achieve. Yet in seeking to recover the importance of preaching, preachers could also learn much from Peterson’s attention to humanity, his compassion, his gravitas, his concern for truth, his care over his words, his courage, and his authority. If Peterson can so powerfully resonate with certain fragments of Christian truth, how powerfully could a full-bodied presentation of Christian truth speak into the disorientation of contemporary society?
 
meauneau said:
If JP doesn't really believe in a God, as defined by orthodox monotheistic religion, what does he say is the source of meaning and purpose in human life? The way I see it is like this: those who believe in God maintain that meaning is necessarily dependent on God, so that if there is no God then there is no meaning. Some atheists bite the bullet and say yes, since there is no God and meaning necessitates God, then nihilism is the case. And the other atheists deny that God and meaning are necessarily connected, they maintain that we can have meaning in life even though there is no God. It seems to me that JP would agree with the last group, those who do not see meaning necessarily connected to God and so hold that there is meaning in a Godless world. Is this a fair representation of his view?

I am sure you guys have watched the lectures where he explains this. Could someone explain it here?
Click to expand...

Religion keeps the poor from killing the rich
 
GOATs recognize GOATs

mqdefault.jpg
 
HOLA said:
Has the androgynous postmodern commie boogeyman been killed yet?

Maybe if Peterson gets a few more tens of thousands in donations a month, so his Kermit the frog voice can convert gamergaters to Christianity and tell them to clean their room on YouTube?
Click to expand...
What is the issue if he's motivating people? Especially young people.

The world doesn't need more people emulating the Kardashians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,891
Messages
58,325,965
Members
176,001
Latest member
Markooz86

Share this page

Back
Top