Jordan Peterson - Neo-classic views in 5 mins or less

Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
(3 votes)
Results 76 to 100 of 579

  1. Post
    #76
    Pretty sure Peterson is agnostic. He uses religious language heavily, but there isn't really anything to suggest he believes in God.

    If you're interested here's a good interview/discussion between Peterson and Shapiro (with a bit of Ruben). Both intellectual heavyweights that I admire.

  2. Post
    #77
    azarat wrote:
    I don't know if he has a literal belief in God, or if he is perhaps looking to more of an intellectual conservatism which stresses the importance of continuity in culture. Its clear he rejects the idea that religion is solely a patriarchal structure meant to oppress women and justify racism and imperialism, and instead sees it as an important component of Western democratic traditions. You're right that he certainly doesn't proselytize for a religion, but I think its more likely than not that he is himself a religious person.
    He is a Jung-ian clinical psychologist. Recall that the psychoanalytic movement came in the wake of Post-Nietzchean "Death of God". While Freud went towards sex as our underlying value, Jung went towards values as embedded in our consciousness/sub-consciousness as archetypes, but also then manifest itself in multiple ways (subconsciously as animus/anima, shadow, etc.) Ancient religions is a one way for human value manifestation in turns of the practical.

    Hence, why Peterson does not actually go to church and is completely apathetical on whether Christ was a real figure; he was more interested in Christ as the embodiment of archetype and of prefection of the highest virtue.
    Last edited by Amoki; 4th February 2018 at 10:21 am.
    Drives like an Asian till he gets behind the wheel of a holden

  3. Post
    #78
    It's amusing how certain he is that atheists are mistaken, and the line he goes to about rationality being a state we arrived at through a history of believing in a god. A bit like claiming LSD can cure your hallucinations.

  4. Post
    #79
    Not really equitable at all, although there's a plausible, grown up discussion about either of those assumptions being potentially valid.

    For instance, the construct of God can be perfectly rational, just not necessarily factual. Conversely, being an atheist doesn't really mean anything about someones ability to think rationally. They just believe in one less God that the average Deist.

  5. Post
    #80
    His first assumption is that belief in god is the source point of our morals, and then builds that our morals are what lead us to being rational.
    I'm not convinced his assumption is correct, but do think morals and rationality are linked, at least in some contexts.

    Theres no way we can develop a religion without first having a basic civilization, and a civilization only can exists if people are acting rationally together.

    All I see religion doing in this context is providing some kind of fear of retribution to temper our opportunist impulses to take advantage of someone weaker who we can exploit. or induce other "be good" behaviour.... And you'd have to ask at what point did that work effectively?

    We learn, without religion, whats in our own best interests, rationality & morality stem from acting in ways that are in line with that. Laws and religion grow from that.
    His follow up that atheists therefore act like christians, therefore "are so" by their actions, is weak as hell too. Maybe he should consider which group is the correct subset of the other.

  6. Post
    #81
    What we do know of pre-religious, Hunter-gatherer societies is that while they had culture and shared identity, they didn't exist in a rationale framework that a modern person occupies - I.e. There was little apprehension or contemplating on the future, or the past. The development into agrarian society lent itself to a more contemplative mindset that allowed for the rational framework to evolve and display itself as a religion.

    As for your belief of people being able to work things out for themselves, that is a very naive view indeed. No man is an island, etc.

  7. Post
    #82
    I wasn't trying to infer we work things out for ourselves, we're taught by the social group, mostly.

  8. Post
    #83
    He seems to know something about his field of clinical psychology and seems a decent self-help "guru" (although these seem to be a dime a dozen at the moment). As to philosophy, religion, sociology etc the man's either an ignorant who really doesn't know what he appears to talk about or a dishonest charlatan. I'd steer clear. There's nothing good or useful to learn from Jordan Peterson in these areas. You're better off reading the source texts or checking out YT clips from real scholars in these areas.
    Last edited by Saint of Killers; 6th February 2018 at 5:36 pm.

  9. Post
    #84
    He seems like a dishonest charlatan who refuses to debate anyone in the fields he lambasts (e.g. the Verso Books invitation) and instead sticks to media which help him build up his following as a public figure.

    The picture he paints of the theorists he critiques are always half-assed strawmen which belie a close reading and seem to willfully misinterpret them, if he was to accept any of the invitations it would be clear that the emperor has no clothes (though his followers might not pick up because you'd need someone with the rare skill of being able to distill philosophy in layman's terms - in a debate where that would tend towards verbosity in order to maintain complexity).

  10. Post
    #85
    Pretty sure Peterson is agnostic. He uses religious language heavily, but there isn't really anything to suggest he believes in God.
    He's religious AF and vehemently anti-atheist and believes without religion society falls into the abyss.

    Lethargic wrote:
    Both intellectual heavyweights that I admire.
    Ugh. Peterson is only slightly less noxious than Shapiro, but only because I can't penetrate his pseudo-intellectual psychobabble. Shapiro is more transparent with his verbal shittings

  11. Post
    #86
    I bought Peterson's book. He's definitely socially conservative, repeatedly harks back to religion to illustrate archetypes, and his brand of self-help advice is also conservative in the "You have to do it for yourself" way. But you know what? I think there's a bunch of angry young men who might better themselves based on his advice.

  12. Post
    #87
    I'd tend to agree. There seem to be a lot of hopeless young males out there. Over mothering is a big part of the problem I reckon.

  13. Post
    #88
    over mothering, lack of strong father figure, current social direction where everything is available and you deserve it etc.

  14. Post
    #89
    Look, hes doing all this for money. Not out of the goodness of his own heart. He has found a platform that is working and an audience willing to listen. He is raking in far more than he would being a full time professor.

    I like some of what he is saying but the man is a salesman for his books, youtube channel, and patreon.

  15. Post
    #90
    i doubt he is in for the money. The man has double doctorates and never cared about the money for most of his professional life. It is a massive stretch to think that suddenly he is in for the money.

  16. Post
    #91
    nzbleach wrote:
    Look, hes doing all this for money. Not out of the goodness of his own heart. He has found a platform that is working and an audience willing to listen. He is raking in far more than he would being a full time professor.

    I like some of what he is saying but the man is a salesman for his books, youtube channel, and patreon.
    Sure. Doctors help people for money too though.

  17. Post
    #92
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Sure. Doctors help people for money too though.
    not really apples to apples though is it.

  18. Post
    #93
    Bloody wrote:
    i doubt he is in for the money. The man has double doctorates and never cared about the money for most of his professional life. It is a massive stretch to think that suddenly he is in for the money.
    I dunno man. He employs people to help him of which half are family members. His sister/daughter? One of them had a massive health scare and wasnt expected to live to 30. He himself had severe depression (he is taking an SSRI and Wellbutrin to combat this). Not to mention he has prescribed himself a ketogenic diet to combat his fatigue and other ailments. I wouldnt say he has experienced a normal life, in fact I feel he has had a wake up call to look after himself and his family via the most effective means. Don't get me wrong he believes his message but his underlying motivations are at least in part motivated by money.

  19. Post
    #94
    nzbleach wrote:
    not really apples to apples though is it.
    He's a clinical psychologist. He gets paid to help people. People found his online material helpful, so he started taking donations then wrote books.

    I don't get the objection on the money basis. There are plenty of other objections to Peterson on world-view, philosophy etc.

  20. Post
    #95
    nzbleach wrote:
    Look, hes doing all this for money. Not out of the goodness of his own heart. He has found a platform that is working and an audience willing to listen. He is raking in far more than he would being a full time professor.

    I like some of what he is saying but the man is a salesman for his books, youtube channel, and patreon.
    Yes, because all the best guidance, information and knowledge carries no cost.

  21. Post
    #96
    Edward Diego wrote:
    I bought Peterson's book. He's definitely socially conservative, repeatedly harks back to religion to illustrate archetypes, and his brand of self-help advice is also conservative in the "You have to do it for yourself" way. But you know what? I think there's a bunch of angry young men who might better themselves based on his advice.
    Well it's preferable if the angry young men are taking onboard the cleaning up your room advice and ignoring Peterson's lament that he can't punch women as much as he'd like

  22. Post
    #97
    Tormenta wrote:
    Well it's preferable if the angry young men are taking onboard the cleaning up your room advice and ignoring Peterson's lament that he can't punch women as much as he'd like
    Haven't encountered that in the book so far. Will let you know when i do,

  23. Post
    #98
    Gesellschaft wrote:
    He seems like a dishonest charlatan who refuses to debate anyone in the fields he lambasts (e.g. the Verso Books invitation) and instead sticks to media which help him build up his following as a public figure.
    Could you show where he refused to debate someone?
    Tormenta wrote:
    Ugh. Peterson is only slightly less noxious than Shapiro, but only because I can't penetrate his pseudo-intellectual psychobabble. Shapiro is more transparent with his verbal shittings
    That just sounds like insults coming from someone who doesn't exactly know how to rebut what they say.

  24. Post
    #99
    Tormenta wrote:
    Well it's preferable if the angry young men are taking onboard the cleaning up your room advice and ignoring Peterson's lament that he can't punch women as much as he'd like
    that is not what he said . He says basically men cannot deal with women the way they would normally deal with other men because all their instincts and developed society prevents them from engaging them physically or intimidating them with both physical pressure or logical arguments . Essentially women who have developed a much stronger or complete non physical responses and communication are completely out of the league to men . Logic is less useful as well as they have developed intuition and emotional responses to communicate likely because they being the primary care giver to children ( who cannot or have not developed a adult method of communication ) .

    At no point does Peterson advocates physical violence towards anyone.

  25. Post
    Bloody wrote:
    that is not what he said . He says basically men cannot deal with women the way they would normally deal with other men because all their instincts and developed society prevents them from engaging them physically or intimidating them with both physical pressure or logical arguments . Essentially women who have developed a much stronger or complete non physical responses and communication are completely out of the league to men.
    Yeah it sucks that we can't just slap a crazy bitch into submission

    Logic is less useful as well as they have developed intuition and emotional responses to communicate likely because they being the primary care giver to children ( who cannot or have not developed a adult method of communication )


    I mean the chutzpah with which you stated his position as if there's nothing wrong with it, I applaud. But I am also laughing at it

    At no point does Peterson advocates physical violence towards anyone.
    What's this then, the non-violent approach to "slapping happily"?


    Dude's a conservative religious fundie who spouts obvious bullshit (Clean up your room, wow so profound) mixed with a bunch of psychobabble that makes people go "So you're saying..." since he was so completely opaque in the first place.
    Last edited by Tormenta; 4th April 2018 at 3:20 am.