Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 06. 2024
- Sign up to Morning Brew for free today: morningbrewdaily.com/comicske...
(Sponsored by Morning Brew)
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
------------------------- VIDEO NOTES -------------------------
Jordan Peterson is famously vague when asked about his views on the existence of God. He's more enthusiastic about discussing religion and scripture broadly, but still then leaves some mystery about his actual views.
In this video, I try my best to identify and unpack Peterson's religious philosophy, before offering some objections.
------------------------------- LINKS --------------------------------
Peterson's podcast with Jonathan Pageau and Douglas Murray: • Douglas Murray and Jon...
Peterson on the Lex Fridman Podcast: • Jordan Peterson: Life,...
Peterson's podcast with Jonathan Pageau and Mohammed Hijab: • Talking to Muslims Abo...
Peterson on the divinity of Christ, from "Transliminal", via "Bite-sized Philosophy": • Jordan Peterson - I Ac...
------------------------ TIMESTAMPS --------------------------
0:00 Introduction
4:02 What is God?
14:15 Did the events of the Bible really happen?
23:04 "Science presupposes deism"
32:50 Peterson misuses religious language
42:49 Summary and conclusion
--------------------- SPECIAL THANKS -----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
John Early
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Adam Gray
Joe Dowling
Dmitry C.
Nolan Kent
Seth Balodi
Citizens of Civilization
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Fuu Harahap
---------------------------- CONNECT -----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
--------------------------- CONTACT ------------------------------
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Morning Brew for my daily news briefing - sign up for free here morningbrewdaily.com/comicskeptic
(Sponsored by Morning Brew!)
*You should totally invite and interview Dr Peterson in person; his interview and conversations with Richard Dawkins was intriguing*
@@valmid5069 You mean decimating.
Simply Brilliant. So,... why does JP do this? Suggest in part - Experiential Avoidance (a major psychological process within ACT theory) in not embracing and accepting the thoughts and feelings that result from materialism & naturalism. Because he cannot emotionally cope with the internal consequences, this would emotionally mean and have to him. I seriously doubt this is intentional, but maybe, just maybe, if he ever watches Alex's cool & and skilled video, might prod him to "wake up". Too late now, though; he has now dug himself too deep into the very hole he has dug for himself.
What saddens me is that he started associating with radical-right wing outlets like The Daily Wire that has close ties with Breitbart
What a twat you are!! He emphasised their metaphorical reality. Perception forms your reality. Peoole like you get so hung up on the superficial aspects that you end up missing the jewels.
Jordan Peterson's wife, "honey can you take out the trash?" Jordan Peterson, "first off, what do you mean exactly by..honey, and what do you mean by you, or can?"
Imagine if this is how humans communicated, I bet we would still be in the bronze age
@@airplanes_aren.t_real That depends. What exactly do you mean by "we", or "be", or "bronze"?
What do you mean by *what* ?
What do you mean by do ?
What do you mean by you?
What do you mean by mean ?
What do you mean by by ?
What do you mean by ? ?
What do you mean by wife?
"It already happened. It is so fundamentally true that it never stopped happening. So when you ask, can I take out the trash, it is true in a meta manner, that the trash is already taken out. What does it mean? Well, of course the trash is what we identify as the evil that we want to rid our minds of. So if you ask me:"Can I take out the trash?", in a much deeper, much more profound way, I am always, was always and will always be taking the trash out."
@@airplanes_aren.t_real
We would have gone extinct.
Wife: Run! There is a saber tooth tiger behind you!
Husband: First off, what do you mean exactly by "run", what do you mean by "There is", or by "saber tooth tiger" or by "behind" or by "you"?
The concept of "over complication" personified. I laughed when he said "what do you mean by 'you'..."
See, "what do you mean by 'you'?" is a very valid question, when digging into the wuestions of free will and existance of soul. However, Peterson here is simply trying to evade the simole question by just trying to make it complicated.
@a_sari
Not even his brain over analyzes which comes out in abstract thoughts because he is someone who is obviously intelligent and well-articulated. I think he is someone who suffers from high functioning anxiety disorder and his behavior is a product of such condition. You can't expect the average person to be able to reason or identify with someone like that and that is the cost of being an intellect in society. Very few of the current age philosophers/evolutionist/psychologist are on a similiar level, Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris are two.
It’s always great when he gets into that sort of stuff. He’s almost saying “whatever term you use, we have to define that term further, then we end up in an infinite deferral into other definitions and so on”.
Precisely the sort of Derridean stuff he made his name trying to overthrow.
@@BobHowler ironic isn't it?
Postmodernist mode activated.
This is terrific, Alex. So clear and precise: You are using the precise language that Peterson recommends but avoids. This is so helpful. Thank you. I appreciate you.
That's really well put. I've completely gone off Peterson personally. I am getting fed up with his never being able to answer a simple question. Since his benzodiazepine addiction and coma, he has deliberately gone more towards to the religious stuff and he brings it into anything and everything that he talks about.
Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... If Alex can explain it... Ohw nooh we are the one not smart enough to understand 🥲.
Omg ☹️
@@ArThur_hara Your attemp at sarcasm is so bad I puked a few times
wtf is up with all the. spaces ?
Alex is remarkable at manipulating the English language using subjective pseudo-philosophical claims in a clear and precise execution that definitely doesn't misconceptualize every topic of everyone he analyze.
An expert is someone who can take a complex concept and make it so simple that anyone can understand it. Peterson takes simple concepts and makes them so complicated that no one can understand them.
truth
Speak for yourself, I seem able to understand the things and I'm certainly no genius.
@@valhalla_1129 Your ability to understand sophistry is not the flex you think it is.
@Guyintheworld-bw3wg honestly these philosophical discussions can get way too abstract so I totally get this lol
Richard Feynman is the opposite of Jordan Petersen
The reason JP won't give a straight answer is because the majority of his audience are religous. Using rhetoric to obscure the truth of his beliefs is how he is able to be an athiest preaching about christianity without outright lying.
I wouldn't say religious, some of my friends aren't materialists like me and watch his stuff without believing in a god, but have instead some sort of esoteric vagueness philosophy, which I think JP appeals to even more than to a religious person
A valid assumption, but I disagree.
I watched his old lectures before he got all famous and all, I think his position (or rather his description) didn’t change much.
And in a Australian TV show, he was asked point blank if he is religious. His answer was “I act as if God exists”, I think that clearly means that he does not believe that God literally exists.
I thinks it’s more likely that he himself couldn’t quite resolve this issue, so his language is vague and seems manipulative.
Of course, that’s is just my guess, I’m not a psychologist.
For me it is clear that he is religious. But he cant just say he believe because he want to be this 'intellectual knows evertyhing guy'
For what it’s worth, I think there’s a lot of truth in this. I wonder if you think it’s malicious.
He said all this stuff before he got famous tho
For a guy who opposes the manipulation of language, he certainly does plenty of it himself
🎯
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👌
it’s projection
Which part, exactly?
Well, it's ideology
Someone finally built a Peterson interpreter 🙂 Great video, Alex, exceptionally clear and well presented.
I think the thing you might be missing that distinguishes a religious text like the bible and a novel like Crime and Punishment is that I think JBP views the bible as a culmination of stories that have evolved over a much longer period of time. I've heard him talk a few times about how we have no idea how old these stories may be. And the fact that they've travelled this far through time makes them more special (i.e. "more real") than regular stories. In other words he believes there is a reason these specific set of stories have survived instead of these stories just being arbitrary. Like, in other words, he's the kind of person that asks himself why did these particular stories survive and not other stories
Accurate.
One could argue that that idea in itself would be further proof of an atheistic view of the bible. Relegating them to parables meant to carry on lessons of morality instead of literal events that occured from a higher power.
In the same way the story of the three little pigs shows you how to be prepared, or Hanzel and Gretel in the same vein.
That does still leave it a bit ambiguous, and that may be on purpose, but it seems to me personally to be leaning farther towards atheistic.
The ability to break down and communicate complex ideas in a way that is easy to understand, is a reliable sign of intelligence.
+M. Linoge You give Peterson way too much credit for generating complex ideas.
What do you mean?
He does the absolute opposite
@@LiberatedNotes Cosmic Skeptic, or Peterson?
@@highroller-jq3ix JP
Alex, as a scientist, I can only say that you are truly doing -God’s- the Ontological Transcendent’s work.
+1
He pulled his god from his behind as you managed to get yourself out of the swamp. The only difference he's just in deep shit.
Amusing.
😂
Anyone that starts a sentence with the words: 'As a scientist', suggests that they are likely not one. Best case; they've rummaged through a few episodes of PBS Space Time.
Absolutely great job Alex, bringing this to the forefront. I wish and support that you do thousands of videos
I like JPs psychology stuff. But his religious stuff is BS.
"I base my thoughts on the literature, and studies I've read and base my thoughts on that" - JP.
Also JP: "God exists how ever we decide to define it"
Great job Alex love your content didn't take long for me to subscribe
The "complicated" part for Peterson, is that he cannot believe what he desperately wants to believe
Also, most of his followers are Christian and Catolic believers, he also has an enormous influence in politics. He's walking on thin ice
Nailed it
Nailed it. Like Jesus.
@@brettmixer7867 1. Your previous answer was so pathetic and petty, it was shadowbanned by CZcams, it does not appear in the comments. The only way I was able to see it is to check your comment history on your profile.
2. Your response had nothing in it, nothing worthy of any discussion, mixed with baseless ad hominem about his brain and his sexuality. Give an actual argument, and you’ll get an answer. Calling someone stupid and gay to pat yourself on the back thinking you did something and proved your intellectual superiority is laughable.
3. After all that, coming back to the comment to demand a response is the cherry on the cake. You said nothing of value, thought you « owned » the original commenter, and then came back to ask for a response because you didn’t get the validation you crave. You are really reaching heights in intellectual performance here. Wow.
@@santiar117Christian’s don’t hate wise people suddenly all because those wise people don’t believe in God.
Jordan Peterson speaks the way students write when they don't know the answer but try to answer everything in the hopes that the teacher will find the answer somewhere in there.
This was quite contradictory.
he gives me a headache
LOL bingo!
This is brilliant. You are so right.
With Dillahunty, he tried to gaslight and overcomplicate to avoid addressing points of conversation.
Your vids are crazily thought provoking & interesting, shoutout my g
Well, you've convinced me of your position on Hitchens and now with Peterson. Jolly good, keep it up!
CZcams served-up the same combo in the same order to me this week. Had to hit the subscribe button just now.
Hitchens wouldn't have spared Alex from the hitchen slap, too bad we'll never know 😅😢
@@charismauniversity9626yep. Oh if only he were still alive today. Just imagine all the new Hitch-Slaps…
Holy Cow Alex has done the impossible and actually made sense of what Jordan Peterson’s word salad is trying to convey. I didn’t think it were possible.
So you believe in holy cows? Have you converted to Hinduism? 😊
@@cosmicprison9819 Well, what do you mean by "holy?" Whay do you mean by "cow?" What do mean by "believe?"
For the record, The Bible says that God will spue the lukewarm out of His mouth. This is what the Bible says about those who know not what they believe, when addressing a Church:
Revelation 3:16 KJV --
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Any individual who purports to be a born again Christian does not, and will not hesitate to profess their faith in Christ Jesus as the son of God.
@@FakingANerve I think the relevant and most precise answer would be:
_"We mean exactly what years and years of experience and human knowledge has been documented and proven to be, those words which we seem to display a usage of, have inherent meaning - I can explain further to you if you will to know."_
@@Seeker7257 That is You? Read in context
I love how respectful you are. Refutals like this restore my faith in actual, useful, meaningful debate. I hate that in most realms it's just become a matter of humiliating the opposing team and having a “gotcha” moment that hopefully goes viral bc for some reason it's entertainment. It makes me both sad and nervous, so thank you for this
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.
Same here. It's so comforting to listen to CSK after watching similar debates that take place in my Spanish speaking country. .
Because when I’m not smart enough to debate someone I post stuff they said and comment when their not there to defend their views……
Yessssss!
Well. This is sadly what the algorithm rewards... it shaped nowadays discourse
Recently came across your channel. Really enjoying your content and appreciate your deconstruction videos. More of these please.
Great video. I'm glad to see your commentary coming from the other side. Not that I agree with it all, but the continued dialogue is what moves us forward.
Best part of the video: Alex saying "Moses still moseying around"
It has to be the etymology of the word.
Right lol JP is something else
“Moses is still moseying around?” made me laugh more than it should have
🤣 same
😂😂😂
Does this mean we're all Moses ? But who are the rest of the characters in the story then, if everyone's Moses?
You don't leave your bedroom much do you?
I just put this video on in the backround while working... but now i really whatch it because it's really good content
Very informative video. Analyzing a discourse in details. Thanks.
By far the most charitable and genuine criticism of Peterson I've ever seen. Thank you.
And the only reasonable way to respond to people with extreme standpoints. It has the best chance to make followers of Peterson put more thought on what he's saying.
How much criticism of Peterson have you read? There are loads of charitable and genuine criticism of Peterson. Don't play into his fan boys hands, who like to claim that everyone just misunderstands what Peterson says.
@@LouigiVerona Maybe there's 'loads', but it pales in comparison to the uninformed and uncharitable criticism, so it's not often I come across any.
@@Valosken You know, I am not sure I want to let this one slide just yet.
Sure, you get all sort of criticism in various comments, perhaps, but everything coming out of known CZcamsrs has been, again and again, very informed and very charitable.
Dr Todd Grande, Hakim, Big Joel, Tom Nicholas, Matt Dillahunty, PZ Meyers, Three Arrows, CosmicSkeptic, Philosophy Tube, ContraPoints, Then and Now - and I can go on. These are all big channels that made their critique on Peterson, sometimes multiple times. So which one of them is uncharitable and uninformed exactly?
The exact same points that are made in this - excellent, of course - video were made by Matt Dillahunty, for example, years ago.
I am pushing back because there is a ton of valid and very informed criticism of Peterson out there. And the narrative that he is constantly being strawmanned is just that - a narrative.
@@LouigiVerona absolutely agree with you. Ofcourse there's a few people just repeating and shouting things. And there's a few performances where Peterson 'catches' the interviewer with his extremely vague and non-commitant word salads. Like the famous channel 4 interview. But these are exceptions. And when knowing more about Peterson and the way he handles his topics, it's not per sé that the interviewer was wrong, but that the interviewer was not prepared on how he would slither around the topic and then turn around to attack the interviewer, making it look like she doesn't know what he's talking about.
Thank you for this. I always struggled with Peterson's word salad on religion. You explained it really well.
Word salad is exactly right. He makes Deepak Chopra look like Child’s play.
Are you saying you don’t properly understand Kermit the fraud ?
@@georgekostarasoh god😭
The answer to what he thinks about religion is he doesn't know either, hence the word salad. He's just trying to point out that its possible to believe in some kind of "god" but you would need two days to even vaguely say what thay god is.
He could have just kept it simple and just say he doesn't believe in the Bible god, but he just refuses to and I constantly wonder WHY??
@@ciupenhauer I thinks the answer is pretty obvious between these two options (or both):
1. He can't square that thought with his own personal beliefs and philosophy
2. He can't say that because his whole career depends on him not saying that
The map analogy is great. I like the bluntness, pls keep it up
I understand both Alex and Jordan and its great to have both these people on a platform like this educating us all
I watch you for the exact opposite of what JP does. You explain complicated subjects with such eloquence that it makes them easy to understand, and explain to others. You are extremely precise with your language, and a fantastic orator. Thanks for another banger.
JP does the thing that most students hate about their teachers: being incapable of trying to be concise and clear
@@kris1123259 i always felt like he is very concise and clear
@@aice336 He's really not and I can tell because I do the exact same thing. Not in any overt manner, but in the way that I want to sound and seem smart, so I add large words here and there to do so. The difference is that I actually want to be understood, most of the time, whereas Mr. Peterson seems to be very uncaring when it comes to being understood.
@@drvurruct2274 i dunno ... for me the things mr. cosmic skeptic explains here about petersons views .. for me that wasnt hidden at all but quite clear. he was always picking things apart from a psychological point of view. but the assumption that he thinks those things didnt really happen as an historical event is false. he stated on numerous occasions that he doesnt know that and that he only talks about the psychological side of things.
tl;dr i never had problems understanding these things of peterson
@@aice336 he’s always concise until he talk about religion
I am an ex Mormon, and the way JP explains religious concepts is the identical method Mormon scholars use in their apologetics, using as many words as possible without saying much at all.
I'm ex-Lutheran (which is striking similar to being ex-Mormon). The magic is not defining any terms...and if you're trapped...CHANGE the definition of terms.
So true. It’s like Bednar continually redefining all the words all the time.
Sophistry
Reality: it went over your head.
I feel JP is a christian in the same way my parents are. The Bible isn't a historical document, but a story that sets out to send a message that they find to be good. But then why call yourself christian and not Steven-Kingian for the example. His stories are also full of good ideas
Great video! Explained in such a clear way!🎉🎉🎉
This was great. Thank you for your distinctions. Your video is compelling and straight to the point.
Alex has this uncanny ability to get right to the heart of things. He is so well spoken and articulate and thorough. You are truly an inspiration to me Alex
And at the age of what…21? Very impressive.
Yes a person that has time to redo it and take after take after take until it's finally as precise and accurate as possible comes across as a deep intellectual methodical thinker to you how amazing is that, and at 21 years old it's almost a guarantee that he doesn't have any wisdom in any field the Jordan Peterson is dealing with which seems to fit most people with a voice on the internet these days (no wisdom yet has an opinion)
You mean Alex gets to the fundamental brass tacks of the ontology of things.
But also, what do you mean by "Alex", "has", "this", "uncanny", "ability", "to", "get", "right" etc.
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome I think he's quite impressive in public forums as well (no editing or redos). I also can think of people who do multiple takes and are far less impressive than Alex
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome Ouch. Triggered much?
Personally I appreciate and favour Alex’s concise acuteness vs Peterson’s wild ambiguous verbosity that he employs when attempting to justify inanity. Regardless of age.
If anything, Peterson suffers from age and fame related piety.
He needs someone to explain the meaning of the words "you" and "do" and "believe", but has no problem using "ontological transcendence" without the need to define the terms more clearly? 😂
He's only good with the big words. The little ones confuse him. (Whenever it's convenient for him to be confused)
one of the first things I learned at my classical Christian school of logic and rhetoric is "define your terms", yet somehow in economics we still ended up listening to jp lectures 💀
I just had a big laugh watching that moment of his. Honestly, how can some people take him serious? He is like a used car salesman but for pseudo-intellectual ideas
@@manulito2 thank you perfectly and concisely stated.
Oh booo hooo... LOL!!!! I love watching the "intellectuals" get their asses handed to them by a man that's WELL thought out and NOT afraid to call you on your BULLSHIT. Cry some more, you granola crunching cunts.
This was an amazing breakdown, thank you
This is your best vid i've seen Alex. I hope it does some good out there
I think Jordan benefits personally and professionally by maintaining himself within some religious circles, and so he usually avoids cutting those ties by never explicitly stating what he really thinks.
This is the truth. He needs the support from the Right to fight the evils perpetrated by the Left...Those of us who know the truth and see what's going on in our world should all cut him some slacks.
This is what I think as well!
yeah he would lose all his followers immediately if he said god was fiction. they would hate him overnight
@@JohnSmith-bs9ym Do you think being dishonest is a sign of good moral character?
And what makes you the expert on what he really thinks? I’m taking his word over yours when it comes to him
Waiter: "Are you ready to order?"
Jordan Peterson: "Well it depends on what you mean by order. I mean what is order? That's a easy question, although very tricky to answer, and often times order goes hand in hand with chaos. It reminds me of a story.. there's this guy named Peter Parker, he's pretty similar to your average person comparatively speaking let's say, and man!, he loves adopting responsibility, although he has to be careful because he also has a habit of pushing people away… and in Spider-Man (2002), a very classic story, Peter goes to meet his best friends father for the first time, and you may think meeting your best friends father is a walk in the park, but it's not man... especially if you're a human spider. There's even a scene where his friends father goes into Peters dirty room calls him a slob, and it's like... well yeah sometimes you need to clean your room, and before you try to save the world you have to have your house in order bucko. Then Peter finds out his best friends father is a Green Ogre... no actually he's more of a Green Goblin let's say, and this Green Goblin specifically wants to make Peters life miserable. And why is that?.. Because when you're a human spider who spends all his life pushing people away your only friend is going to be a Goblin to say the least. So eventually he learns that if you allow positive social bonds into your life, even if just for a moment, you can go from a human spider to a Spider-Man.”
Waiter: 👁👄👁
Hahahahaha well written !
I liked this response so much, I upvoted, unupvoted amdcupvoted again so I could upvote it twice
Hahaha this is perfect man. Great job
PURE GENIUS 👍
I believe this is where you're supposed to say 'Sir, this is a Wendy's'
Great watch!
Also, I know how the definition of God for Peterson was derived in the video but I am pretty sure he has clearly stated somewhere that God is whatever is at the top of your hierarchy when talking about the existence of God or atheism or something along those lines.
Alex this video is straight fire! Hell yeah brother! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
He doesnt want to loose his religious audience, he found a way to have both atheist and religios people following him
jordan is closet Christian but he also knows he cant defend faith in this secular world so he plays both part from a safe distance and as you can see he got massive audience because of his trick.
I think he’s Christian but he’s very careful what way he steps in his ideas because he isn’t knowledgeable enough to argue everything. He holds back so that way he doesn’t get trapped and look bad. He’s know for being intelligent so the worst thing for his career would to have someone ask him a question he can’t answer. If he doesn’t step forward then he can never be pushed back. If he were to say “I believe in God” he would have so many questions flying at him he would be overwhelmed. He’s interested in the fantasy of theology and the allegories. He doesn’t want to have to defend scientific physical based questions.
He is trying to bring them together because there is something fundamentally important that both atheists and theists don't yet see (generally speaking across large populations). He's saying something more like "you're both right and wrong".
@@natanielb1445 Christians are told to spread the faith, though
@@Checkmate777 if you were asked if you believe in God, would you refuse to answer?
You are prescribing preposterous standards if JP cannot even claim to be Christian, something they are meant to be open about. And he clearly calls God a fictional character multiple times in this video. This seems more about preserving your preconceived notions about JP more than anything.
This was the perfect breakdown of the long-run problems I've had with Jordan. Thank you so much!
Tempted to back you off of this video alone. It's about time - you're one of the best modern philosophers.
well I would say he's on the right path to becoming one, but not there yet. I'm sure he will be though!
I agree, Alex humorously clarified months of my arguing at the laptop and posting inept requests for succinctness that drifted, unnoticed down the list JPs' viewers.
@@isaac1572 >>I agree, Alex humorously clarified months of my arguing at the laptop and posting inept requests for succinctness that drifted, unnoticed down the list JPs' viewers.""
Having trouble getting them to answer questions?
Highly recommend his videos on veganism! They made me rethink my entire world view.
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.
As a person who enjoys listening to Jordan I have to admit that everything you brought up in this video made perfect sense to me. Thank you for changing my mind and clear my thoughts on this issue.
First time watching, what a great video.
I read this book (12 Rules for Life) in rehab in 2018 and became a huge Jordan Peterson fanboy, which became a gateway into far right wing conservatism and then fundamentalist Christiantiy. so embarrassed that I went down that path.
Why your embarrassed by that?
Don't be. I could vaguely see much of all this long ago, but Alex brilliantly articulates it better. Two friends went part down the rabbit hole you did. Thousands have, and are still there. You are not.
Well, did you get better though?
Many people don't understand just how dangerous people like Jordan are. They ensnare those that feel plagued by a lack of meaning in a semantic trap that seems like, once you understand it, will be beautiful and complete. But its really a kind of pseudo a intellectual smokescreen that hides the more dangerous ideas he's really trying to impose, all the alto right stuff.
People in this condition are extremely vulnerable to cults of personality, which is why there's a community of JP worshippers out there, ready to go to war against the neo-marxist, communist democrats who, of course, aren't "neo-marxist" or "communist" in any reasonable sense.
A clear result: public mass-shooters.
He's a bad man.
Peterson is a difficult figure to track as he's sometimes right, usually on psychology, and sometimes wrong, usually on everything else, so it's easy to get drawn in by the psychology and then be let down by the politics.
I saw a lot of these issues with JP's beliefs about religion shortly after starting to watch some of his content. I am fairly certain the only reason he doesn't come out as an atheist is because he cannot afford to lose his base. And a lot of his base would not follow an atheist. The sad part is that the vast majority of those folks don't see through it.
I'm not a JP fan, but I don't think he bases his opinions on his base. He has pretty esoteric explanations for his views and I think he's sincere. I just think he's too definitive in his statements. I always feel I want to stop the tape and challenge several details in his argument.
Exactly
@@ecyranot I disagree. His base is conservative and I agree with the presenter that he himself does not believe in ANY deity but his followers mostly do. So he is left with the problem, "I don't believe in an actual God however, I can't say that directly'. Instead he gets around the problem by "peppering' his presentation with enough religiously flavoured words for the audience and then seems authoritative by the pretence of artificially deconstructing the language to NO CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE. Trump does exactly the same tactic but in a far more crude sense. He is not racist but he "dog whistles" his base with neutral comments concerning fascist activities "there are good people on both sides" Charlottesville riots. or blaming mexicans for America's economic woe and Andrew Tate does EXACTLY the same twisting of concepts, the good with the decidedly awful. If all three came and said "I don't believe in God" "Racists are good people" and "bashing women is your right and duty" The three would have ended on the rubbish pile of history.
"I am fairly certain the only reason he doesn't come out as an atheist is because he cannot afford to lose his base. And a lot of his base would not follow an atheist. The sad part is that the vast majority of those folks don't see through it."
I wouldn't say it's a matter of "can't afford" to lose is base, as that implies he's in it for the money, which I don't think he is. Granted, if he lost his base, he would definitely lose his income, so maybe he is motivated to some degree to pander, but I don't think that's where his heart is. I think he genuinely wants to help people, as both a psychologist and an educator, and so he probably chooses not to come out as an atheist for fear of alienating folks who could otherwise benefit from his message, albeit for the reason you mentioned which is because they would likely not follow an atheist. I think to Peterson, the question of whether or not he's an atheist is irrelevant to the messages he's trying to get across. Neil Degrasse Tyson is similar when it comes to science promotion, which is why he calls himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, which he clearly is.
I think he's sincere actually - I think he's sincere in his belief that left-wing secularism(and I think he considers the two things synonymous) is so terrifyingly pernicious that religion needs to exist as a bulwark against it. I think that is how he characterises his 'religious' belief - as a bulwark against godless commies(I also think he just likes the fact that religion tends to support social conservatism, and since he's a social conservative religion makes for a nice, warm, reassuring backdrop when he's railing against some progressive cause. I don't think _he's_ aware that this is one of the reasons why he likes religion though.).
So I think he's sincere. I just think he tangles himself up in knots because, well...he's not that bright. Also, he's a wanker.
To quote Schopenhauer speaking of Hegel: "He uses more words to express the smallest ideas than anyone I know of."
Reminds me of when Bill Cliton said "it depends on what the word "is" is."
The great thing about Jordan Peterson is that he not only tells us what we think, he also tells us what we said, saving us a great deal of effort.
Pity he couldn’t tell us what he thinks and what he says which would save a further great deal of effort…
@@colinross3755 peterson would make less money that way. To their very core they have no beliefs; they are just a grifter.
He's the same as a Christian apologist who says that atheists really believe in God, but they are only rebelling against God. Hilarious.
@@rodneywarren1905 yeah you are bang on 👍
@@brentwalker3300 yeah like when they say atheists are angry at god - nope can’t be angry with something I don’t think exists……
JP's ability to beat around the bush while sounding smart is just remarkable. I know loads of people who adore him yet can't produce any substantial idea of his when asked to, because his very purpose is to dwell in 'scholarly' ambiguity
He almost makes it seem like an artform, to be so vague and precise at the same time
There is no god in the sky 👍
or you just don't like him lmao
@@asian1599 i dont like his "waffling gibbirish" 👍
It's a rule in academia. If you can't astound them with knowledge, baffle them with BS. Of course the actual academics astound more than baffle. The opposite is true for JP.
29:14 and your explanation after, Alex, offer insight into how Peterson perceives *himself* as a scientist. It's his narcissism showing. His framework requires that any knowledge that could be had in his domain outside his own knowledge must be "transcendent" (i.e. divine). That's pretty grandiose.
This is a great analysis. Thank you.
"Peterson tends to needlessly overcomplicate any question he is ever asked about God or religion to an extent that borders on the comic"
No need for qualifiers Alex: Peterson does this with EVERY topic he addresses.
Not true, much as I dislike him, he is generally speaking razor-shatrp. laser-focused and verbally precise on almost any given topic, except religion. Ask him to deny Patriarchal society and you, agree or less, will get a very precise answer. You ask him to talk about god and religion and he starts wiggling and rambling. His debate with Sam Harris was quite telling, he had to read from his notes which remained vapid and obscure, to give his definition of god. At least, Deepak can pull stuff out of ass without even blinking.
Yup he is the human manifestation of the fallacy of equivocation 🙄
@@fabriziocamisani5477 Hmmm, I'd still have to disagree, although I see what you mean. From the unfortunately large amount of Peterson I have read or watched, I think he is very good at giving a precise answer about whether something is good or bad, true or untrue (usually). He will quickly and in no uncertain terms condemn or condone things. But if you ask him the "Why?" or to explain his reasoning, that is when he basically always goes into word salad-mode.
That may be because to Peterson, almost everything goes back to a semi or wholly religious view of the world. Of archetypes and truer than true ways that we conceptualize things. His basis is very complicated and confusing, so his explanations almost always become so.
A great example of this is "12 Rules for Life". Read by themselves, the rules are mostly unobjectionable and seem to be good ideas. But when Peterson gets into the why behind the rules, it's all highly confusing and very complicated. Again, probably because he refers back to his very religious worldview to explain it.
So while Peterson can be cogent about a surface level of his views, he is pretty much always very convoluted when he has to explain why he holds them.
To be fair to the man. He only seems to do this about topics where he has dogmatic, strongly held beliefs. Like Jung, or religion, or the Ukraine situation.
He doesn’t though. There is literally a clip in this (around the forty-two minute mark) where the interviewer compares the difference between petersons current obfuscations and some other quote where he say’s explicitly “there is no evidence for that”.
He might do it with many topics, but to say all is just inaccurate.
I am surprised you overlooked what Peterson says about Exodus at 15:53.
"𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘳"
That sounds like he admits that the actual event didn't happen as described.
It didn’t happen (definition 1) but it did happen (definition 2). Always nice to have multiple definitions so you can say anything and claim that it’s true.
That’s fair. But still, why is he saying it in such a convoluted way rather than just say “no”
@@markdouglas1601 he cant say no because he thinks it happened but not the way it describes it
Capo on the 2nd fret minimum is generally going to get you good results. Well done Alex.
Absolutely superb analysis! Well donbe, Alex! - I am waiting for Dr Jordan Peterson's response.
Alex, thank you for this. I have been arguing for years that Peterson is deliberately vague and deflective when answering questions he doesn't want to answer. The fact that he is still taken seriously by many is concerning.
He is not totally wack. He makes sense when he's talking about things he actually knows about.
@@gidmanone sure, but he also peddles transphobic propaganda and other far-right ideas. So any sense he may make is worth essentially zero.
He can be taken seriously in any case where he isn't being verbally manipulative
@@jacobl4699 ad hominem
@@elbretto6062 no lol
I think clearly what he meant by 'use precise language' is that you should choose language carefully to make sure you don't expose the weakness of your underlying argument.
Thanks for a great entertaining video!
Yeah and that’s the irony. Jordan Peterson is an equivocating mess that is so ambiguous in how he says things that it tricks smooth brains into thinking that he is saying anything of substance.
His religious stuff just bores me. As well as videos like this dissecting it. I'm an agnostic and religious people and atheists talk too much about God for my taste. JPs lectures on psychology are really interesting though.
Thank you for this video
Amen. Great video
I cannot listen to the “what do we mean by ‘do’…” piece without imagining a sitcom laughter track with it.
It is right out of the mouth of Bill Clinton...
Seinfeld
My question to Dr Peterson would be: Do you think that being more explicit about your beliefs, particularly if you were to identify as an atheist, could potentially alienate a portion of your audience, affecting your subscribers, book sales, and ticket buyers? I'm genuinely curious about how this might factor into your approach.
Exactly. The one who pays the piper calls the tune. Some people start out on CZcams with a "belief" that gets modified to chime with the likes of the greater number of subscribers. They 'fence sit' to test which way the wind is blowing and then confirmation bias sets their course.
Follow the money.
A kind of Emperor's clothes in reverse. (He knows he's naked but who is he to argue with paying crowd. Ch-ching)
It's like Boris Johnson who had two opposing speeches that he planned to use only the one which was more expedient to get him into No 10. It has nothing to do with actual belief.
I doubt that you would get a straight answer. Richard Dawkins tried to have a transparent convo with Peterson on religion and it failed really bad.
Yup! Cut the long story short...Its the grift! 👏👏👏😅👍
You wouldn't be allowed to ask it.
"Well, what do you mean by explicit, what do you mean by beliefs, what do you mean by audience...."
What an excellent video well done 👍
This video is a masterpiece. The precision, the clearity of language...
Dude, Alex, this video is just on a whole different level. I completely wrote off Peterson in my recreational media consumption because of this exact issue. I remember a debate between him and Sam Harris brought it to light and it turned me off to a lot of his stuff. So for you to be able to pinpoint the exact issue with such grace is truly impressive. Thank you for such a phenomenal video I’m sure it took a ton of effort, time and energy.
You should still write him off lol. He is still a total charlatan. Alex probably has more clarity about what Jordan is saying than Jordan himself
Sam:" Why are you doing this and why does it have to be so hard?"
I remember that debate. Jordan Peterson described himself as a "philosophical pragmatist", and then proceeded to describe something that is not even close to actual pragmatism, but rather, what realists make fun of pragmatism for what they think it means.
This might be one of your most ambitious videos yet. The way you deconstructed his rhetoric and word salad was quite precise. Oh and also you looked quite good with peterson in that picture
Would you like croutons with that salad?😅
Yes, the word salad IS strong in this one (JP)
@42:21 I love your voice over, and I love you!
Great work Alex.
That's hilarious, I said about this clip of Peterson a couple of days ago, we don't need to redefine basic word like "do" and "mean" in every conversation, we'd never get anywhere, but of course Peterson doesn't want to answer the question, that's why he does all the BS instead.
Do = do you partake on the action of belief and those that shape your worldview and subsequent actions?
You = the person I'm referring to in the question
Believe = does it makes sense to you
God = an all powerful being that has created everything
There done, if anyone wants to make it more specific then go to a philosophy class
It's kind of funny how he immediately tried to deconstruct the question so he wouldn't have to answer when he comes from the crowd that answers "what is a woman?" With "a woman is an adult human female"
@@airplanes_aren.t_real I'd say this is not enough at all if you want a serious discussion.
What do you mean when you say God is a being? Is he an incarnated being? is he a force that can become flesh? is the being only inside the narrative world or also in the material world?? than what do you mean by created everything?? Do you mean he created the earth and the heavens ? Or do you mean he created the concepts of earth and heavens as descriptions of the abstracted/narrative world opposed to material world??
@@Nicolas-mz3cb sorry, but you'll have to define what "enough", "serious" and "discussion" mean before we can continue...
@@Nicolas-mz3cb @Nicolas ok this is probably a troll but what I mean when I say "God" in this question is not a specific version/interpretation but the collective conscious understanding of a god or god in a colloquial sense, I say being because most people see god as an existing entity (an entity that partakes on the action of existing and being), that has created everything and can do anything
I've been saying this for years, that he isn't literally a theist. It's sensible to me because I grew up reformed Jewish, and this sort of way of thinking was how I grew up, and I assumed everyone felt the same more or less. It was a big shock to find out as a young adult that Christians most often believed it literally. It's so clear to me that his religious audience is hearing something very different from what he's actually thinking.
No he is literally a theist. He just doesn't believe in an anthropomorphic god. And theism, and thus atheism, is NOT restricted to anthropomorphic and conscious entity.
People are completely misusing the terms atheism, theism and God. They are specifically talking about ONE, or one branch of understanding of the God construct, which is what God ACTUALLY is, a construct. One that we attribute to, both tangible and intangible attributes and traits.
I also grew up Jewish, conservative. And it was a shock to me that Orthodox Jews and many Conservative Jews believe literally, in an anthropomorphic deity. I went to Hebrew school for however many years up to Bar Mitzvah, and by the age of 9 or 10, at least half my peers and I had already realized its all just mythology. So it was astonishing to me that ANY Jews believed that Torah was actually given to Moses at Mt Sinai and that prophecy and prophets actually speak for 'God". Which is where Christianity gets a lot of its nonsense, Rabbinic Judaism, or Pharisaic and Essene Judaism, which were both REFORM movements of the 2nd century BCE. Traditiona Judaism, as practiced by the Sadducees, the Zadokites, ONLY used Torah, did not believe in resurrection, did not believe in a conscious afterlife, did not believe in messiah, did not believe in the prophets and writings. That WAS traditional Judaism, which was Patrilineal, from around 700 BCE to around 1st century CE, when the tempe was destroyed by the Romans, the Sadducee aristocracy taken off to Rome and Egypt, leaving the superstitious and extremely hellenized in thought Pharisees and Essenes holding the bag of responsibility over the common masses of Judean diaspora community. And that's where most of these superstitious and ridiculous supernatural ideas come from, the Greeks. ALL only becoming part of "Judaism" AFTER Alexander. The idea of an afterlife from Elysian fields and Hades, the idea of a universal savior figure from all the Greco-Roman myths and the idea of resurrection, common throughout Indo-European, and especially Mediterranean lore, with many a figure taking a trip to the underworld and finding a way to return. So Judaism itself is what Jews do and the common beliefs of Jews. Rabbinic Judaism is ONE branch of Judaism, today the most common, but it is only one, now formalized branch of Judaism. Judaism itself is not and can not be formalized. Foundation of Torah is part of it. Foundation OF, not necessarily belief IN the literal and supernatural, non allegorical interpretation.
. But I never in my life believed in an anthropomorphic god, yet I am not an atheist. People attempt to insist I am an atheist all the time, but I am overtly not. I have absolutely ZERO faith in an anthropomorphic deity and am a theist. And my belief is quite simple, and based on deduction and not faith. The source of existence must exist for everything else to exist. And the source of existence is one of those attributes we attribute to the god construct.
Great breakdown. One comment about the last section (Peterson misuses religious language): if you follow his line of thinking of "What is God" (your first section), his use of religious language (as you broke down in the last section) totally make sense. Definitely would love to see you and JP discusss/debate this (among other topics) Pangburn style. But Anyway, great content as always.
I love seeing how the wheels try to turn but not able to get those gears going.
Please never stop what you are doing! Your logic and reason is like an antidote for my tired mind
Jordan's rhetoric is super fucking exhausting to me. Idk why ppl let him use them for his attention supply.
@@harithshah45 That's his M.O., make everyone's brain misfire so we just take what he says and make it fit to what we want it to mean. He's a calculated attention whore. What I don't understand is why no one ever asks him what he meant by something he said, as if EVERY person in the audience completely grasps his gobbledygook.
This is why you’re my favorite CZcamsr. You explain exactly what I don’t have the words to express.
But now you do have the words to express 'that' wich you couldn't put into words before 🤔 🙂
@@JohnStopman yep, because earlier he was thinking in "definition" and now he got the word for it. For ex- I don't know the word hierarchy, but I do try to explain it as something the goes up and is more than the latter one.
It’s like I had a gut feeling on Peterson’s style but couldn’t pinpoint what was off to me, and Alex perfectly dissects it here
Wonderful work - thank you! Truly! I also could feel that something was off with Jordan Petersons arguments about these topics, but it is hard to put a finger on - especially when ons has to listen in full speed without time to pause!
Great breakdown.
My value is Truth, and I see Alex as an honest seeker of this too.
You are, sincerely, one of the best, most coherent voices on the internet.
Thanks for doing what you do, and for breaking down meta-men like Jordan Peterson. Please keep doing this as long as you can.
Lmao you’re a bot
Lol, peterson is right. You just dont want to believe in God
@@Cyprus_Is_GreekI def do not wish to believe in the god as described in the bible for sure.
@@Cyprus_Is_GreekI believed most of my life and was an ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist.
Then I decided to go with reality, and not because I didn't want to believe or start "sinning."
Listen to that cognitive dissonance you experience when confronted with evidence contrary to your belief system. Don't just avoid it.
@@Cyprus_Is_GreekYou are right. But I will also fight for your right to practice your faith. Just don't lump it on us?
Damn..... the man actually did it, he actually explain what peterson actually saying
Actually 👍👍
Peterson doesn't even know himself what he's saying, he's a grifter.
Awesome presentation uncovering Peterson's unspoken assumptions and elusive answers.
I have always wondered what Jordan Peterson was on about! Thanks.
99% of the time he is talking Bout nothing. He is a grifter of the biggest order and as boring as hell. He simply (like a magic act) uses slight of hand to befuddle and confuse and make it all appear ethereal. He has learn a lot of words and atudied a lot of disciplines then pops then in the blender that is his mind to make it all sound clever and somewhat spooky
I’m a Christian and I think this video was incredibly accurate. Thank you Alex.
@@LazyNightCrawler what do you mean by “do?”
@@randopedia1 what do you mean by “mean”?
@@Imbetterthanpaulallen why do you ask that question ?/J
LoL Keep it Going
that man jordan peterson dodging us 😂
@@Imbetterthanpaulallen when you say “what” - I assume you’re inserting the prerequisite of the highest value of divine meta-transience (or something?)
Peterson is the human personification of 'overthinking things' and I believe it has gone to the point where; the more he thinks, the more confused he becomes.
ehhh I would say it is literally impossible to over think any existential question as encompassing as these. we barely understand the nature of our existence and behavior - any degree of thought only probes into the surface of the mystery.
@@ihateyoutubesomuch371 And I'd say that's hippie-nonsense that doesn't lead to anything.
@@oyuyuy your approach to thinking, or promotion of anti-thinking, is what lead to religious fundamentalism and intellectual stagnation in the first place.
@@ihateyoutubesomuch371 Hahahaha, let me guess, you've been studying Philosophy for 3 weeks and now you think that you're Socrates? You should do less thinking and more learning, cause I can promise you that the answers can't be found in the vacuum of your head.
And learn how to capitalize letters too you lazy cow.
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! Because it’s self evident that you are the personification of “overthinking” and “confused”!!
Sorry to break it to you buddy but the fact is that under relativism, that is under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your very ironic absolute Truth claims about “overthinking” and “confused” is nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident that went neither “wrong” nor “right”, that is neither “good” nor “bad”!! Neither “TRUE” nor “FALSE”!!
Furthermore, under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction it’s all relative buddy, it’s all just subjective ultimately meaningless word games. Have you even read Nietzsche or Wittgenstein? Just live it out!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your “CONFUSED”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Equally, this world view is a denial of metaphysics. So under atheism, that is under fatalism and epistemological nihilism there is no unified conscious agent/freewill/Self/Soul/, that is no RATIONALITY ITSELF.
It’s all ILLUSORY buddy, it’s all just determined as you are nothing more substantive than an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. NOTHING more substantive than the delusions of an evolved “ape” who shares half their DNA with bananas. That is nothing more substantive than the accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your “confused”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Sorry but under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical nationalism you and your very ironic “CONFUSED” argument are nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident, a “secular” cosmic FAIRYTALE that went neither “HAM” nor “SPAM”. Neither “properly” nor “improperly”!! Neither “delusional” nor “sane”,!! Neither “SANE” nor “WORD SALAD”!! Neither “rational” nor “Nutty as a fruitcake”!!
When our pride usurps metaphysics, that is when our pride usurps Truth and value and OBJECTIVE MORALITY, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, materialism, moral subjectivism and solipsism and narcissistic and ego driven reality!!
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting….
I have always thought him to be a textbook sophist, but never bothered to listen enough to his lectures to pinpoint exactly what his opinion on religion was, thankyou.
Great analysis!
As a Christian I've always had similar reservations about how Peterson obscures his thoughts on this matter, and I've never heard it unpacked as well as you just did. Well done!
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state is a reality that exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are. do you want to say that Jonatan is an atheist?
@@hitnapomoczanemirne7345 I've never heard Peterson say that he's just speaking about language semantics like this. Jonathan talks about things in a very different way
It's funny because I'm an atheist (at least I thought I was both secular and an atheist but being as I've been to a museum I clearly don't know my own mind 🤔) but was thinking exactly the same thing.... Peterson is all things to all men and that thing obscure and intentionally confusing
Exactly. I'm an atheist for all intends and practical purposes, but I've noticed the same thing every time Peterson talks about the topic. That way, he satisfies both audiences. Believers interpret the belief in God literally (Peterson "acts as if he believes" oh, ok so he's saying he believes but also acts) and atheists interpret it metaphorically, exactly what Peterson means ("I don't believe it literally, but those teaching are useful, have been useful for thousands of years and I value the value hierarchy religion presents").
@@aminromero8599 Nah, his talks are def geared towards appeasing his religious audience. JP is quite critical of atheists, he has said outright that they are "nihilistic" and has implied that they have no morality. He's a hypocrite.
I'd like to see a judge hold him to a yes or no answer in court
A court instantiated by mortal men with egos?
What if the judge in his court is the Jungian Self
THIS 😂😂😂
Quick, someone sue him! 😂
What do you mean by ‘like’? What do you mean by ‘hold’? What do you mean by ‘in’?
@@brotherben4357 because Cain and Abel is still happening, I think the question of "who killed that woman with my car" is a complex one....
This video really changed my mind on Jordan Peterson. It's up to you to figure out what I mean (subconsciously, of course) by "changed" and "my mind" and "Jordan Peterson".
Well, change sure implies a certain process of transmutation from one state to another. And what does that exactly mean? It means the Being transforms in a superficial manner, as well as sometimes in a deeper manner, while still holding true to the essence that it already contained as intrinsic to its nature, in a way trascendent to the mere presuppositions of matterialism, since its pure conceptual essence keeps unaltered. Now, as to follow, defining what "my mind" is is more of a tricky question: It states a sense of individuality of the Being, while at the same time stating that there is a decission making nucleus of the person which also serves to make evaluation over the position of different ideas in the value hierarchy. Jordan Peterson, though, is in some ways an easier concept to define: That specific person who, at these specific time, holds the genetical material, biological form, lived experiences as an internal and societal narrative, and soul in a much deeper sense, of the Being which was born in Alberta, Canada, the 12 of June of 1962, and graduated in clinical psicology in Alberta's university.
I hope that helped!!!
Holy smoke those drawings at 14:30 of the Moses sorry were great!
Absolutely great job. Every Peterson fan should watch this video, because it's the best deconstruction of his beliefs and rhetorical techniques I've seen without also taking shots at his politics (and this is coming from someone who strongly disagrees with his politics and thinks they deserve plenty of criticism too).
It is not a deconstruction of his beliefs. This is quite literally about religion. His arguments and logic in many other areas is rock solid and based on factual information or unquestionable morality.
@@sinxsideways5900 lol no it isn’t. everytime he talks about philosophy it’s incredibly obvious he’s never had to pass a class in it- he knows nothing. he’s an idiot, honestly. I mean if you’re stupider than him maybe he’ll seem smart.
@@elliotts5574 maybe if you read the title of the video u would realize its only about religion. Great way to try and insult me just bc you disagree with me. Like fucking hell people like you are what's wrong with the world. Learn how to have a civil conversation or debate without insulting people you incel. If im dumb then may God help you. His philosophy is also obviously gonna be based in his religious belief just like every other fucking person's so try and find a different angle to attack from.
@@elliotts5574 he is far from an idiot you just may be too stupid to understand that
@@sinxsideways5900 His arguments in other areas are worse than here.
Very good.The most informative 45 minutes I've spent listening to in quite a while.Well done.
Well done! I like many things that Peterson said in the past but am becoming more critical of him as I hear him more.
The most astonishing thing is how Peterson manages to say stuff that is more or less obvious and self-evident in a way that sounds incredibly mysterious and "deep". He's like that person who would say he suffers from nervus frenicus instead of "I have a hiccup".
Nervus frenicus? We can treat that easy! Right here and now! Just inflect deep into the metaphysical substrate of your ethos.
It’s poetry baby!
LoL. It's a diaphragmatic spasm.
@maestr Rogu
😂😂😂
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.
Thank you for breaking in down.
I’ve been trying to simplify my explanation of Jordan, that pretty much says the same thing but takes me forever…
This video is very helpful on that front.
Love your stuff, keep doing what you’re doing.
You can describe Jordan in one word - bloviation.
So you don’t understand what Peterson is saying?
@@chrisbarbero2608what they mean is that Peterson is being dishonest, and using vague and slippery language to obscure it. From listening to this video, that view seems pretty inescapable.
@@MrakS as a JP listener, I did not understand anything else.
@chrisbarbero2608
Depends what you mean by "peterson"..
Excellent and concise.
Thank God for Alex O'Connor. Now I can read historical documents without being distracted by the mess in my room.
Bang on the money. I read Maps Of Meaning before Jordan Peterson rose to such fame. I thought it was a really interesting book and a really good naturalistic explanation for the psychological phenomena of religion. Prior to reading Maps Of Meaning I was an atheist and after reading maps of meaning I was still very much an atheist but one with perhaps a more nuanced and deep view of what psychological purpose religion played, how deep it was embedded, and what role it played in society and civilization. I assumed that Peterson was an atheist even after having read it because, as far as I was concerned, I had just read a really good book that explained the culturally universal phenomena of God and religion from a psychological perspective that made sense and had no need for the supernatural. I was somewhat confused when I later heard Peterson crapping on about how whether he didn't really know if Jesus rose from the dead or not.
I think Peterson is a case study on audience capture. He started off as a good thinker with some really interesting insights. Then, as he rose to fame, he got caught in positive feedback look from the reactions of his audience and also the overreactions of his critics. His audience, who heaped praise on him, like the religious stuff and so that was reinforced in his brain. His critics fundamentally misunderstood what he was saying and started very unfairly (at the time) characterizing him is some kind of right-wing bigot. Over time, as his fame increased, these two factor influenced his view probably subconsciously and he morphed into what we see today. A somewhat confused, obscurant, who panders to the religious right and wails against the "wokerrati".
The sad irony is that he has been shaped into the very caricature that those early critics accused him of being 5 years or 6 years ago. Back then he was not the angry, biter, resentful, right-wing twat we see today. He was genuinely interesting and was genuinely misrepresented to an appalling degree by left-wing types in the media. I used to cringe at the way my side (the left) blatantly misrepresented and deliberately misunderstood what he was actually saying back then. They did and do the same with Sam Harris. This pissed me off and it offended me that the left could be so dogmatic, closed minded, and thick. But, unlike Harris, Peterson started to get rapidly shaped by these forces. Whereas Harris just calmly dealt with his critics and dismantled their lies and bullshit, Peterson started to succumb to their influence and the influence of his audience. Harris continually and successfully resisted the lure of giving his audience what they wanted and stuck to what he thought was right. Peterson started to just give the audience what it wanted and quite rapidly he became just another right wing hack, all be it with a gift for rhetoric that most of them lack.
It a sad tale. Peterson did have a valuable contribution to make. I thank him for his good stuff and in particular Maps Of Meaning which helped me to a more nuanced (but still very much atheistic) view on religion.
I took the time to read your comment. This is the same for me, I'm in a pull between whether I fully respect JP or not. On one end I can sort of see how he wants to pander to most religions; he believes it to be part of his life's mission to help people make peace with their differences. On the other hand, he neglects opportunities to speak out against beliefs that are so clearly wrong to the rational/impartial minded.
One example is where is fails to speak out against Mohammed Hijab in their recent discussion. Hijab LITERALLY believes in the miracles seen in the Qur'an, and the fact that JP entertains these ideas to such a wide audience by not refuting them in 'clear' language is frustrating. Although at the end of the discussion JP made it clear that he would never convert to Islam, even when given 'irrefutable evidence.' After seeing Alex's videos, I would guess he said this because he could never have faith in the religion in the way that Islam demands.
@@hamishfraser2004 Perhaps he did not want to say he would convert to Islam because in Islam one declares that one believes in Allah. JBP is not willing to make a clear stand. He says he believes in the Biblical stories but insults Ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Jews. He is essentially a kind of pseudo-Evangelical wannabe, with some pragmatic approaches to making a lot of money out of telling boys to make their beds and stand up straight (on his "Exodus" site).
I wonder if during his down time a few years ago he may have had some sort of personal transcendental experience. Or his financial realities are more motivating than he could humbly admit. In good faith he may believe he is feeding the masses milk in an effort to guide them to a more compassionate view of science and deep deconstructive and reconstructive processes.
Brilliant. An honest and well rounded evidence driven breakdown of his language! Amazing job
Just type in "A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson" and be amazed.
!!!
Ah yes, let's talk about deconstructing JP while our country is being invaded by foreign economic migrants with lower IQ's replacing our native population.
Thank you. I love this.
15:07 I jus love how he took a long pause before saying: "okaay?"