The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

What is the issue if he's motivating people? Especially young people.

The world doesn't need more people emulating the Kardashians.

(Pssst don't take the bait.)

 

[blackhat]

I'd like to hear specifically what Peterson's thinks about race being weaponized by the left. What's the solution to that? Or anyone can chime in. It's giving the fringes on the right ammunition.. and just polarizes people in general.

 

[21 Savage]

Is there a problem with that?

nah its hilarious cant wait

 

[USA!USA!]

I'd like to hear specifically what Peterson's thinks about race being weaponized by the left. What's the solution to that? Or anyone can chime in. It's giving the fringes on the right ammunition.. and just polarizes people in general.

For sure. Not to mention gender being weaponized as well.

 

[panamaican]

Lol, because both religion and clinical psychology help people they're basically the same and tehre's nothing unique distinguishing the former from the latter? Okay...

Regarding my claim that your position strikes me as too close to Derridean undecidability for my liking, your response here is actually corroborating that claim, not countering it. My reason for saying that is because you immediately targeted the concept of objectivity, which is always (and necessarily) the first target of anything even remotely poststructuralist/postmodernist.

So the undecidability argument goes (as taken from that link that I posted):

"A decision cannot be wise, or, posed even more provocatively, [it] must actually be mad (DPJ 26, GD 65). Drawing on Kierkegaard, Derrida tells us that a decision requires an undecidable leap beyond all prior preparations for that decision (GD 77), and, according to him, this applies to all decisions and not just those regarding the conversion to religious faith that preoccupies Kierkegaard. To pose the problem in inverse fashion, it might be suggested that for Derrida all decisions are a faith and a tenuous faith at that since were faith and the decision not tenuous they would cease to be a faith or a decision at all (cf. GD 80)."

Regarding your post here, how is your position that there is no way to determine whether or not people are objectively right/wrong in what they think/do not promulgating undecidability? To avoid this charge, you'd have to nominate something in the absence of the concept of objectivity - even if it's only a selective/strategic absence and not a radical absence as promulgated by Derrida and his ilk - that could motivate decision-making. But what kind of moron acts without thinking that what he's doing is objectively correct? And who would argue that people should act without thinking that what they're doing is objectively correct? Furthermore, how can you reconcile the position that a person should decide on what they think is right and act accordingly with the position that a person who decides that today's activism is objectively wrong is (objectively?) wrong? On what (non-objective) ground(s) have you decided that?

It seems to me like you're struggling to come up with a way to have your cake and eat it. You say that you're not "arguing for 'undecidability' or moral neutrality or that people sit on the sidelines," but that's the logical endpoint of your argument. Either you're promulgating undecidability or the alternative that you're trying to formulate is not coherent enough to be viable (or, frankly, sensible). Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding you, but it seems like you're trying to work your way out of an internal contradiction and I've yet to get a handle on anything in your attempts to do so that makes sense to me.

Incidentally, this may not be as relevant as I think it is, but maybe this little detour into Cartesian philosophy will bring some of what we're discussing into clearer focus. In the Meditations, Descartes observes that "the pressure of things to be done does not always allow us to stop and make such a meticulous check" - this despite the fact that such meticulous checking is, according to Descartes himself, the only way to “unquestionably reach the truth.” This apparent aporia, which was noted upon the initial publication of the Meditations by Marin Mersenne, seems to echo what you think is an aporia in Peterson's position.

In response to Mersenne, Descartes not only pragmatically acknowledged that "from time to time we will have to choose one of many alternatives about which we have no knowledge, [and that], once we have made our choice, so long as no reasons against it can be produced, we must stick to it as firmly as if it had been chosen for transparently clear reasons," he also referred his readers to his earlier Discourse on Method, where he had posited the following:

"Since often enough in the actions of life no delay is permissible, it is very certain that, when it is beyond our power to discern the opinions which carry [the] most truth ... we at least should make up our minds to follow a particular one and afterwards consider it as no longer doubtful in its relationship to practice but as very true and very certain inasmuch as the reason which caused us to determine upon it is known to be so. And henceforward this principle [should be] sufficient to deliver [people] from all the penitence and remorse which usually affect the mind and agitate the conscience of those weak and vacillating creatures who allow themselves to keep changing their procedure."

Am I totally off-base for thinking that Descartes was working his way through something similar or am I right to think that maybe there's something here that can help you to clarify whatever you think I'm not clear on?



This neither contradicts nor refutes anything that I said. Your point is that the Civil Rights era had both its Rosa Parks, MLKs, and Malcolm Xs and student protests and sit-ins. My point is that our current era has only student protests. And much stupider protests that contradict countless fundamental democratic principles (to say nothing of logical and moral principles) at that.



There was nothing vague or directionless about the Civil Rights era. Seriously, analogizing the Civil Rights era to today's student protests is an insult to Civil Rights activists. For one reason among many, to analogize Civil Rights era activism to today's activism is to imply that black people weren't capable of understanding or justifying their actions and that their attempts to do so produced irrational and immoral nonsense.





Peterson's argument is that we have. And this is an extensive argument that he has gone over in great detail on more than one occasion. This is what I meant when I said that he has history on his side: We have seen where this road leads and where it leads is objectively terrible.



Peterson has been doing that for quite some time now

I'm not ignoring your posts but this isn't a subject I care enough about to do the whole multi-page, multi-day debate on. So it's better that I simply quit the thread.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not ignoring your posts but this isn't a subject I care enough about to do the whole multi-page, multi-day debate on. So it's better that I simply quit the thread.

Fair enough.

 

[IDL]

For sure. Not to mention gender being weaponized as well.

Race, gender, and sexual identity (LGBTGJHEGFK34)

They have all been weaponized under the same ideological umbrella.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Race, gender, and sexual identity (LGBTGJHEGFK34)

They have all been weaponized under the same ideological umbrella.

You can pick any group of people you'd like, the weapon is group identity, and the weapon seeks to undermine the individual and their relative competency.

 

[unimackpass]

An agnostic doesn't believe in God.

Neither faith nore disbelief in God.

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[Bamboozled]

PewdiePie might wanna slow down or he'll get his lifer together and stop being a shitty memer/streamer. But at least he'll die a man.

 

[meauneau]

Neither faith nore disbelief in God.

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

An agnostic is someone who does not hold a positive belief regarding the existence of God. He neither believes in God nor believes that there is no God. If he suspends judgement as to whether or not there is a God then he lacks the belief in God (and also lacks the belief that there is no God),therefore he does not believe in God.

The difference is in the scope of the negation, a has a narrow scope, b has a broader scope:
a) x believes that there is no God.
b) x does not believe that there is a God.

It is very simple. For the proposition 'God exists', you can either 1) believe it, 2) believe the contrary (believe that it is not the case that God exists) or 3) withhold judgement, which entails that the proposition is not something you believe in (1) and is not something you positively disbelieve in (2). Therefore one who is agnostic (whatever kind, there are at least 2) necessarily does not believe in God.

 

[21 Savage]

"Women who wear make-up and get sexually harassed are hypocrites"
taking this guy seriously in 2k18

 

[Devout Pessimist]

"Women who wear make-up and get sexually harassed are hypocrites"
taking this guy seriously in 2k18

It looks like Vice is jumping on the "smear Jordan Peterson bandwagon" that has become so trendy with the left these days.

 

[hiphopnazi]

"Women who wear make-up and get sexually harassed are hypocrites"
taking this guy seriously in 2k18

No shoes JP is brutal.

 

[The ScorpioN]

No shoes JP is brutal.

Very telling that the answer to "why do women wear make up" wasn't given.

 

[unimackpass]

An agnostic is someone who does not hold a positive belief regarding the existence of God. He neither believes in God nor believes that there is no God. If he suspends judgement as to whether or not there is a God then he lacks the belief in God (and also lacks the belief that there is no God),therefore he does not believe in God.

The difference is in the scope of the negation, a has a narrow scope, b has a broader scope:
a) x believes that there is no God.
b) x does not believe that there is a God.

It is very simple. For the proposition 'God exists', you can either 1) believe it, 2) believe the contrary (believe that it is not the case that God exists) or 3) withhold judgement, which entails that the proposition is not something you believe in (1) and is not something you positively disbelieve in (2). Therefore one who is agnostic (whatever kind, there are at least 2) necessarily does not believe in God.

Instead of polishing up the ride

below is the context that the word was used.


↑
Me-"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."

Answer -"An agnostic doesn't believe in God."

 

[unimackpass]

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?

You make some good points here. I think one of the reasons Peterson is having such a impact is he's speaking to a unreached people group so to speak. What he's saying is mostly not new to people that go to church so it's interesting but not epic concepts.
I go to church with Antiochian
Orthodox Christians that have no problem with evolution and continuously engage in discussion concerning the latest in science/psychology. Lawyers, and professors of different stripes make for a good potluck along with some Guinness.

My neighbors father, Tristram Engelhardt, is sharper than anyone that's ever posted in the war-room, (not to mention his grandkids) by miles, and one reason why I lol every time I read some no nothing saying religion is stupid.

He flies over 20,000 miles a year debating bio ethics so he's always up on the latest science. I showed these guys some of Peterson's work but his field is old news to them let alone the arguments against him. I told them his method can be useful to reaching skeptics but these guys already are destroying Dawkins fanboys on a regular basis.

Interesting reading some philosophy college students comments here that fancies himself some kind of intellectual when you go to church with someone who is the Professor of History and Philosophy. He tells stories regularly of destroying these people's paradigm and getting paid for it.

The reason I'm adding my friends credentials is to say that Petersons ideas aren't new and the arguments against him don't add up to much from a bunch self important hipsters.


https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-18965-9_24

Most can agree that H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. has a brilliant mind and a big personality: he can rehearse a large portion of history in the form of a question; he is often the source of much controversy; and as a professor and scholar he has had a profound impact on the fields of bioethics, philosophy of medicine, and Christian ethics. While Tris’ genius is evident in the written and oral presentation of his work, and his zeal for sustained academic debate and controversy is obvious at any conference he attends, Tris’ deep devotion, loyalty, and love for his friends and students is often underappreciated by those who have not had the distinct honor of occupying one of these roles. It is this elemental facet of Tris’ personality that I would like to honor in this essay.

https://philosophy.rice.edu/people/faculty/tristram-engelhardt

H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.
Professor of History and Philosophy of Medicine
229 Humanities Building, MS 14
[email protected]
713-348-2491




Education: Professor, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 1969. M.D., Tulane University, 1972; Professor Emeritus, Baylor College of Medicine

Fields: History and Philosophy of Medicine, Continental Philosophy.

Representative Publications:

• Mind-Body: A Categorial Relation (Nijhoff, 1973).
• Bioethics and Secular Humanism (Trinity, 1991).
• The Foundations of Bioethics (Oxford, 1986; rev. ed. 1996).
• The Foundations of Christian Bioethics (Taylor & Francis, 2000)
• Global Bioethics: The Collapse of Consensus (edited volume) (Scrivener, 2006)

Current Research: Explanatory models in medicine, the development of modern concepts of health and disease, rights and responsibilities in health care.

Courses Taught

• Phil 314: Philosophy of Medicine
• Phil 315: Ethics, Medicine and Public Policy
• Phil 521: Seminar in Kant and Hegel
• Phil 523: Seminar in Kant
• Phil 524: Seminar in Hegel

http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2002/02/prol1-0202.html
H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr, MD, PhD
Faith Lagay, PhD


In an endeavor to explore the many shapes a career in medicine can take, Virtual Mentor will, in the coming months, profile medical doctors whose major contribution to medicine lies outside clinical practice and research. This month, VM looks at the career of H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr, PhD, MD

Professor Engelhardt is among the pioneers of the movement known as bioethics, though that term characterizes the scope of his work far too narrowly. He has written more than 300 books, chapters, and articles that examine personhood and identity, bioethics, genetics, secular humanism, the deprofessionalization of medicine, Christian theology and ethics, animal rights, health policy, and much more. Professor Engelhardt has written and presented in 3 languages and been translated into 7 more. His Foundations of Bioethics, first published in 1986, was translated into Chinese in 1996 co-incident with the appearance of its 2nd edition in English. He is currently professor of philosophy at Rice University and professor emeritus at Baylor College of Medicine.

 

[hiphopnazi]

Very telling that the answer to "why do women wear make up" wasn't given.

I more saw it as, asking the question as to why. He most likely has theories.

On another note, a lot of women at my work dress up more than I think is required IMO. It's subjective I guess. Currently work in a corporate area.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Jordan Peterson is helping disillusioned boys become men. Here’s why liberals hate that.

Jordan Peterson is a man who is brought to tears when discussing the plight of young men, and he desperately wants to change their lives for the better. They are flocking to him in their hundreds of thousands, seeking advice and the tools to change their lives. Thousands of them are now crediting Peterson with transforming them from angry and dysfunctional to ambitious and “getting it together.” He is swiftly becoming a father figure to a generation of men who often grew up without one.

Where is the harm in that? Don’t the snarky liberal columnists deriding Peterson and the audience he is seeking to help think that it’s a good thing that young men are finding inspiration in someone who is telling them to get off the couch, get a job, become useful, and treat people well? Isn’t the fact that Jordan Peterson is reducing the risk of suicide in many young men a good thing for us all? What these angry progressive hatchet-men flailing at Peterson’s accomplishments don’t realize is that to his audience, it rather looks like they don’t care about the fate of hundreds of thousands of young men as much as they care about winning an argument on transgender pronouns.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Jordan Peterson being interviewed by Glenn Beck: