Jordan Peterson never attempted to make a complete metaphysics. So, it doesn't seem fair to critique him in this respect. When he says that "science isn't true enough" with respect to its effectiveness at making the atom-bomb, I don't think he even tried to develop a complete system of "truth" in that context. The only thing I took from that quote is that a purely scientific world-view is not sufficient for making wise decisions. I don't think he even tried to say what a complete system for making wise decisions was. You are putting a lot of words in his mouth when you're talking about the effects of his beliefs. It does seem to me that he was a bit out of his depth in some of his conversations with atheists. His "opponents" knew exactly what they believed and how to articulate it, but I'm under the impression that JP hadn't fully worked out his own metaphysics yet, or was unwilling to say what he really thought. He's primarily a psychologist, so, I don't respect him less as a psychologist because he is not equally as skilled at philosophy. I might be wrong on this, but I'm under the impression that he won't just flat out say what he thinks because it would offend the Christians who support him. I've listened to his Bible lectures (which I really enjoyed), and it seems to me that viewing religion as a purely psychological phenomenon as he does in those lectures means that you can't believe in the literal truth of the Biblical stories. So, the Christians like him because he's able to articulate Biblical wisdom in a way that the secular world can understand, but they probably really wouldn't like it if he came out and said that the Bible contains phenomenological truth mixed in with a lot of material falsehood (which is what I believe). He is a very sensitive person and I think in general it is hard for him to come flat out and say stuff (or even think stuff) which he knows would offend everyone, even if he finds it necessary to do so from time to time. If you are going to treat him as a philosopher like Hume, Nietzsche, or Kant, then it seems to me that he falls a bit short. But compared to the rest of society, which can't tell the difference between a man or a woman, nor between theft and charity, and in which a lot of people apparently need to be told to pick up their rooms, he is a vast improvement over almost every other influencer. People who say that he says nothing other than word salad are just too stupid to understand what he's saying.
Well said. People who criticize him often either deliberately misinterpret sometbing(s) he said or in this case try to make him out to be more than he is trying to make himself out to be.
Attacking someone's character instead of their ideas is generally a louzy strategy. In the case of Peterson, however, it is difficult not to. His ideas are so fluid and difficult to pin down, that one can be left with the disappointing conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with the guy. To the acute observer of character, the values he champions seem not at all to correspond with his actual personality. This mental confusion and instability is evidenced by, for example, his addictions, his hair implants, the tone of most of his tweets and his drastic change in dress, diet and political affiliation when he rose to fame. One is left with the impression of a very angry and anxious individual who seems not to know himself very well. And yet this figure has convinced many that those who do not tidy their rooms first, are in no position to lecture the world. Yet HE is, even on topics he barely has a right to an opinion on, like international politics or climate change. If the Peterson phenomenon tells us anything, it is that many of us are confused, too. And it must be said that Peterson has adressed some of the causes of this mass confusion quite well, such as wokeness, the meaning crisis and the total lack of a spirital dimension in public discourse. These are exactly the kind topics you would expect a psychologist to have sound opinions on.
Its certainly not an accident that Peterson rose to prominence. As you said, "people are confused". What I find interesting with Peterson is his full commitment to a collapsing worldview and his complete lack of "intellectual conscience" in regards to what he believes. It's worse than most Christians; and he's supposed to be a scientist! His general demeanor is that of a person that does not believe in truth. Despite his self-proclaimed commitment to truth no single individual has done more harm to the concept "truth" than Peterson in the last three decades at least. Its sad that incomprehensible passes for profound so easily. Conservatism is transforming into something fundamentally different from what we commonly have understood it. Just like how the left is reinterpreting history and imposing their own worldview on historical facts, the conservatives are starting to do the same thing: Peterson represents this trend. What we are seeing is Post-modern Conservatism. To add to a point you made above: the madness that our public intellectuals are displaying is symptomatic of our general cultural decay.
This video doesn't make any sense. Video is misrepresentig Petersons argument and I can see why. You don't like the guy, I don't like him too but that's not the reason to lie. People are not reasonable creatures, we don't care what is true, we only care what we want to be true and this video is an example. Brother you should present others arguments as an observer without emotional involvement, present them as they are, just like that person said it, not as you would like them to be. After this accurate description, you can provide you comment and personal opinion. You can't distort arguments to fit your opinion, that's not right. Ooh Peterson said... no he didn't you said it... with a few carefully picked claims from Peterson that fits your narrative.
@@TheMachiavellianswhat other public intellectual has displayed this kind of instability? We see madness in political leaders and perhaps the 1%, but what other intellectual? Peterson claims he was in a coma in a Russian hospital. Doesn’t it seem odd that he would go to Russia for medical treatment (benzo withdrawal) and come back crazier than a bedbug?
@@Morbid_God For Peterson, it's the rule, not the exception. He always manages to humiliate himself in discussion with true intellectuals like Dawkins and Penrose.
@@the_antiquark he’s a psychologist who thinks by understanding some theories (remember they are theories) about how some humans behaviour can be represents, means he can tackle any topic given he has interests between many topics (like we all do). Essentially what happens is he conflates his personal discovery with being the answers to many topics. No wonder he humiliated himself on topics with people who actually study them for what they are. I haven’t put it very clearly, but essentially he thinks he has a professional position on everything just by reading in those areas. Even his biggest ‘enemy’ of neo-post-modernists is misrepresented and miss-understood. There’s a really good video about it by The Living Philosophy.
Science can not always support our best interests simply because it is funded by those who have some sort of agenda and that may or may not be in our best interest. Scientists did question the development of the Atomic bomb, they did consider the implications etc but its development was driven by the government not science in our best interest. Therefore I suggest Petersons theory is untrue.
the misunderstanding comes from the inadequacy of he english language. the problem is that truth and reality are not the same. truth is part of reality, science describes what is true but it does not tell what reality is. for understanding reality we must add religion, art, philosophy.
If arguments from mathematical truth can not be established on moral and ethical foundations of certainty... then "applied mathematics" at the heart of..."mechanistic theories of nature"... would be... absolutely....and necessarily... incomplete.
Excellent discussion. Nietzsche pointed that there are no facts, just interpretations. I’m trying to understand Peterson here, his clinical psychologist background may have some deep explanation for this. His idea of fiction in dreams and unconscious may also have a layer to his statement. He’s dangerous, though in making it open for all. This should be for a small crowd.
Telling a Twitter opponent that if he didn't like the world as it is he "could leave anytime"--malicious, and overt encouragement of suicide was perhaps less than shrewd, on Peterson's part. I think that his most recent difficulties have more to do with alleged unprofessional behavior than it does criticism of the government per se, doesn't it? I mean, "Poor people eat too much food" or "climate doesn't exist" aren't direct critiques of any government, are they? I lost interest in what he is saying when I checked out his assertion that "lack of serotonin is the cause of depression"¹; it turns out there is no scientific basis for that whatsoever. ² Then I looked into him further only to discover his claims, "I am an evolutionary biologist," and "I am a neuroscientist" to both be false: he's always only had a doctorate in cognitive psychology.³ ¹czcams.com/video/j5cT-2BLWk0/video.html ²www.google.com/search?q=dies+lack+of+seretonen+cause+depression%3F&oq=dies+lack+of+seretonen+cause+deoression%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390i650l4.22922j0j1&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 ³czcams.com/video/hSNWkRw53Jo/video.html See: 5:46--7:52 I've always intensely disliked and mistrusted paucity of intellectual integrity... (..."There is a false saying: 'How can someone who cannot save himself save others?' Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche)
The truth, i would love for Peterson to tell us directly what this truth is. He won't since truth is overwhelmingly subjective. Though he is trying to reinvent the wheel on philosophy, but he can't, he recycles quotes, and interoperates to his own bias. Centuries upon centuries of many renown philosophers persevered through hardship, discrimination, poverty so on. Just for PHD professor to profiteer a life of luxury of their works. Unbelievable.
Do you know the difference between truth and facts ?? That was the base of Petersons argument, to understand what he was trying to say you need to understand that. He doesn't equate values with truth like it's presented in this video, he's explaining what truth is in it's wholeness values can be true or not true, facts can be true or not true. He's not saying values are the truth, he's just describing truth.
Short quotes followed by long replies from you. Mr Peterson uses a lot of words to describe everything. So short quotes will be unrepresentative of what was actually said. By cutting in the audio of him speaking you are trying to show it must be true. But he talks in a very long form way. I think this is unfair.
The problem with all human search for knowledge is lack of clear specification of the ultimate purpose: PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (exhaustively defined as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH). This should serve as the single purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge. Since EVIL as defined here is exhaustive, search for knowleyge is a finite process. And life thereafter would only be its application for collecting information to implement it to PREVENT any possible evil before terraforming and then populating all celestial bodies (moons, planets, stars) in succession eternally: first with animals and then ourselves. This demands deriving the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface to then deliver amd sustain living beings (ANIMALS and HUMANS) here through them. This model would pave the way to trace the sources of all evil inside the earth and rearrange them while they are still there, so that they never reach the surface to harm any being, thus overcoming DEATH too. This certainly is NOT a task any nonhuman power (GOD of conventional religions or NATURE of science) would do without our own targeted intervention, with clear knowledge of the possible harms and their successful PREVENTION (Note: NOT their PREDICTION, which current science targets as its ultimate goal). In that sense SCIENCE is as fatalistic as all conventional religions, as it has only changed the name of the Supreme Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE OURSELVES DO IN IT, from the GOD of conventional religions to NATURE, while retaining its power to dictate how we should live intact. Otherwise it can't think of DISCOVERING immutable, inevitable and irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE to meekly follow as unavoidable brute facts. Even though Peterson's ideal is admirable, leaving it to subjective intervention by rejecting materialism renders it impossible to implement. On the contrary, this knowledge can only be acquired, if it is inbuilt in GEOPHYSICS, which current science with its wave particle duality based probabilistic method can never access. This knowledge demands particle physical interpretation of the DIGITS, with which we calculate in our minds (NOT the electrons in the chips we ourselves manufacture), to then derive the mathematical mechanism how PLANTS function. Remember PLANTS are the only entities in the entire known universe that deliver and sustain 100% of all life in it, while science (with its Periodic Table and The Standard Models ~ both types) only attempts to EXPLAIN "why apples fall?", instead of "how they grow?" and "what uncontrollable by us forces move celestial bodies?" instead of "what controllable by us particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface to deliver and sustain beings here?".
I don't know if this is relevant. Who cares. he has an entire chapter in 12 rules (for life, antidote to chaos) dedicated to telling the truth btw One thing you'll notice in all of his talks--especially when he's having a conversation--is that he's arranging his thoughts in real time, as he'd said a lot that thinking is really hard because you'll need a voice to oppose you, which is relatively harder to do by oneself. Part of thinking (verbally) is that you use special terms that is most fundamentally understood by the speaker/thinker. From what I can gather, the term "usefulness" does have a pragmatic flavor, but more. He has laid out (in terms of evolutionary biology, as he would say) that our eyes evolved to have a smaller focal clarity than we would like, because to expand that resolution is to expand the brain by a lot more, which can give complications at childbirth, among other things. Because our eyes are like that, it can only focus on one thing and dispose of a whole lot. That is technically already a hierarchy of values, and I believe that that is what he believes. Here, the words "pragmatic," "useful," and "Darwinian" all relate to one another, since it is evolutionarily useful to have eyes, and therefore to arrange the world in a set of values. That's how we live. He does not deny at all that the world (facts) can be interpreted in infinitely many ways, and he does give that point to the "postmodernists," plus he has stated also in 12 rules that everyone has their own truth to tell (see the chapter "tell the truth--or at least don't lie"), which is why it is important to not just think but to act out one's truth and see how it turns out (his criticism to those critical of overpopulation for example is that there is a very easy way to decrease the number of people in the planet that they can do right now; question is will they do it [ofc he's not advocationg to gameend ffs hes just making a point]). What he's arguing is that you have to arrange those facts into a coherent structure or you lose coherence as if you are cross-eyed and you don't know where to look. Why then is he promoting the Bible? Because it in many ways synthesized and unified the beliefs of the old world (Mesopotamia, etc.) and has guided the West in its trajectory. The eyes of the West are looking at God. The Christian God. And by Jove, Western culture is the permeating culture over the globe at the moment. Point is, it's a synthesis of thousands of years of ideas and is the foundation of a global culture---it is all-encompassing. It is not hard to imagine him saying to himself, "We (of the West) need to look at something before we can do it---we need a unifying set of values or we're doomed to confusion. Oh look! There's the Bible, the book that influenced the West the most. We've already used that to arrange our cognitive hierarchies, why aren't we using it now? (see the use of the word "use" here?) Because of all the criticisms? Well what's the alternative? Materialism? "Materialism only tells you how the world is, it doesn't tell you what to look at. It doesn't give you an explicit heirarchy of values. It doesn't tell me if it's important to live at all! But look---the Bible does! The Bible gives meaning! God arranges me. Why?" I don't think he's "gerrymandering the truth" as we are misconstruing him. He says that because he's thinking with Sam, and he's trying to sneak up on (attack on a different angle) something else. He has said before that he "acts as if God exists" but he also said something like 'just because [the Bible can be interpreted metaphorically] does not exhaust its literal meaning, if it has one" (I forgot the exact quote but that is the gist, he said tat when asked about the nature of God and his belief) My clonclusion is he thinks that - the claim of postmodernists that truth is relative is acceptable, - that a pragmatist would say that we need to arrange our heirarchies in a coherent way or else we die is acceptable, - that the Bible has binded our perceptions for the longest time, and created this civilization as a result, and thus should be looked upon again, and - the Bible, being more than just a book, can point to that which is more than metaphor, and so he proposes that it does. That's my take. thanks.
He's incoherent for sure, and self-serving. One thing I believe you are wrong is about the Bible, it's not really what he wants, but he follows Jung who said people needed Christianity because it was the basis for almost all of our archetypes. It's probably what he means by "categories" which are clearly not actual philosophical categories. But he means stuff like "male" and "female", so archetypes. I don't really feel like making sense of his word salad though. If he can't be coherent, I just won't do it for him. If you reduce him to being a Christian in the real sense of the word, you got it wrong. He's a cultural Christian at best. His criticism of science and how people like Harris use it is valid though and anybody honest and knowledgeable can see this. Science isn't about facts, it's not about knowledge and it's not true. It's useful. That's all you can really say about it, or it's true enough for whatever purpose the experiment is about. Claiming otherwise is a serious mistake. Not just a small one but a very serious one because it's so wrong. So you already are living in a world where "truth" in the traditional sense is lost, because it's based on the delusional thinking of science which people take as Gospel truth. See, at least if you base truth on a book, at least it can be easily checked. If I say x is y, the Bible says so, you have an anchor to truth that can be verified by everybody. If you base it on scientific papers that measure different things and come to different conclusions, it's much harder and certainly not useful for us, but it is for the scientist. So it's why almost nobody take their decisions on science. Some might here and there, but it's far from a polished true enough product to be useful. When he says facts aren't always true, it's also correct, scientifically, because "facts" are just measurements and those measurements are already pre-defined by the experiment itself. For example, Harris would want to put an electrode in your brain and know for a fact that you feel something, let's say "sadness". But there are plenty of variables not taken into account, like the environment, the electrodes and just about everything, and that is without counting the subjective element of "sadness", all it's interactions with other things which affect it's effect, whether it is well-defined as to measurement, which right now is not and probably never will. So his "facts" are garbage. You could also say they aren't true for the goal you want to use them, like determining if someone suffers more than the other person or something that leads to a moral decision, and that's without counting the social elements which transcend the individual. An inhuman fact based morality is much more dangerous than one that is based on the Bible which proved itself and is human. I mean, choosing between the two I would choose the latter because it's truer, it's more in touch with reality of the human experience. So I think he has some good points, but got destroyed in that interview, and his solution is not good at all, it's just social darwinism. But the criticism is correct I believe.
You've brought up some interesting points, but I this is not the best place to discuss all of them. I understand Peterson is attempting to utilize a Jungian framework, and I am familiar with Jung's body of work. I use the word "attempting" because his interpretation of Jungian principles deviates somewhat from Jung's original ideas. It seems that he is leveraging Jung's concepts to serve his own purposes. There is a quote from one of Jung's writings where he states that "everything human is relative". This statement often goes unnoticed by most people. Peterson strongly criticizes relativism, yet the Jungian notion that reality is experiential introduces an element of relativism. Peterson simply isn't Jungian enough. He adopts a contextual view of truth and makes foundationalist claims that are incompatible. As I mentioned in the video, Peterson's definition of what is valuable for life is not compatible with the type of truth he advocates. To make such a claim, you must adopt a realist understanding of truth. I find the arguments defending archetypes to be compelling but again you need a different conception of truth to establish such a thing. You mentioned that basing truth on a book is a better way to establish truth than with a process that is ultimately interpretative. However, Peterson's post-modern psychological reading of the Bible is interpretative and strays far from the original context of the Bible. I agree with Nietzsche's assertion that what we discover in something often reflects what we have projected onto it. It appears that Peterson identifies everything he deems essential for life with the Bible and then concludes that it represents fundamental truth. Nietzsche also argued that an individual's philosophy bears decisive witness to their identity. I find that Peterson's contextual perspective on truth does not effectively defend his stance regarding the truth value of the Bible. A purely Darwinian conception of truth would be relative, because the context would be constantly evolving. Peterson is unprepared to carry his own framework to its logical conclusion. If truth were to be established based on these parameters, terms like "fact" and "fiction" would lose their meaning, rendering our ordinary mode of communication incoherent. I would find his argument much more convincing if he actually followed Nietzsche (instead of just claiming to) and used the term "utility". The problem with this is that the Bible wouldn't be so compelling if it were only useful, so it must be "true". If he would take this route then it would be possible to actually have a conversation about the Bibles supposed utility instead of using a conception of truth that violates the conditions of such an argument. Its like the radical left that redefined the term "racism" making a rational discussion impossible. In order to have a conversation with Peterson you already have to accept his premises. That's the issue with the Darwinian/Pragmatic conception of truth. Additionally he always has the defense of being misunderstood. I do find Harris' appeal to fact for establishing values to be very problematic simply because you have to select the facts prior which implies a value judgment. In fact the appeal to facts is already a value judgment.
Science may not be truth but it is the closest thing to truth that we have. For something to be true or in accordance with reality it has to be accepted by people. This acceptance could be by blind faith or through reason. The degree to which something is true is tested by the free marketplace of ideas. Its pretty clear that believing in a guy in the sky does not describe reality as most people experience it and so they change to believing in reason instead of believing in god. The power from the belief in science is far beyond the power from believing in any religion. Nuclear bombs can destroy all of humanity, meanwhile a prayer may or may not be answered and who knows if the prayer even did anything. Calling science "useful" and not "truth" is playing with semantics. If you are saying science is not true, you are basically saying that science is not real. Its very real and people don't choose science because its "useful" they choose it because through experience it is proven to be real. I do agree with the criticism of science though. Science cannot really answer moral truths, however religion is probably almost as bad in this regard (depending on what religion you choose). Its very likely that science cannot determine moral truth very well and some other system would rise to the top in the free marketplace of ideas.
@@TheMachiavelliansI think a mistake you're making here is one many Peterson critics make and it's assuming that Peterson's ideas are not rigorous enough to be taken seriously. As a result you caricature him a lot. Peterson's position on truth is very much similar to that of James and Jung. He didn't make them up. The philosophical types like Russell have come to dismiss it without seriously engaging with it. But these psychologists have developed a particular perspective on truth that until you are willing to look beyond the surface, you won't really engage with the issues they're addressing. Their main issue is that truth doesn't do what we think it does. It doesn't really correspond to reality, it's there to help us 'thrive'. James will say succeed, Peterson will say survive. But their main contention is that truth does not and cannot really correspond to reality. What they really correspond to is some success-ability for human thriving. It's more like the latter position of wittgenstein on meaning being use. What in my opinion is really happening here is that they're really avoiding to talk about the nature of truth. They're really talking about the purpose of truth. What your mistake is I think it's taking what they take as the purpose of truth rather as it's nature.
By jordans own measure a religion like buddhism seems more true than christianity, since there has been a surge in interest in the religion and practises in the west even amongst the nonspiritual, corporates, self help gurus even military are finding useful(maybe not ethical) applications for buddhist practises and beliefs. And also without all the bullshit and baggage that christianity brings with it. In his old lectures he talked alot about daoism and buddhism etc however(sorry for attacking his character but i geniunely believe it to be "true") now his main audience are comin from antiwoke more conservative westerners who are the people who buy his books, buy his patreon and pay to see him speak, he basically tells the version that they want to hear: wow the religion i was born to by random chance is more true than all the others how lucky am i.
@@wokefree Just like NASA has brought so much good to humanity. Frauds are like fish- quite easy to smell once one gets the obvious ques. Simple really, wanna learn?
@@wokefree “apparently” is a belief Where are facts of this claim? I’m not aware of one person being truly helped by “psych ology!” It’s a study of “mind.” The very fact that our brain hemispheres are obviously divided is a clue to endless division inherent to all beings with this type brain. It does become painfully obvious we only have one heart. It’s the mind and the mechanism of that organ itself that seems to be an issue. One brain, yet clearly divided. Left / right / right / wrong. The snake will undoubtedly eat its own tale is the tell. A heart points this out through its barb-wired prison. From the heart core of being.
He's a self help guru lol... He wouldn't be so popular if folk didn't feel he was helping them. He does offer a lot of small tidbits that can be very helpful to desperate souls. The whole "clean your room" bit was originally aimed at the highly anxious or depressed. Exerting control over ones immediate environment in ways that feel productive lowers stress and increase motivation.
This is just too funny. Philophers defending postmodernists under attack by treating them as proud logocentrics and champions of analytic philosopher while their first year philosophy major cheerleaders sing in the background. No way to tell how much more real and truthful this makes Peterson.
I honestly, have no idea what he is talking about - there is not any discernable argument. Jordan Peterson, seems to be trying to force himself to believe the dissonance he has created in his own mind in the attempt to remove truth as defined by observable natural law to nonsensical religious belief. It is truly astonishing to watch him literally attempt to re-program his own mind to fit a false concept, and I found his hand movements rather disturbing watching him in this context - it reminded me of the theater of spell casting. There are many variations of faith in the United States, however, it is the Right of an Individual to have the belief - it is not the collective duty for the Religious State, and I do not think American's understand the vast difference between the Religious State and the individual right to our own beliefs. Jordan Peterson's recent Biblical Zealotry, due to his popular reach and influence, has become a danger to the United States of America, because of the current emotional social instability in the nation, that always results in compromised reasoning, and I think Americans would be particularly vulnerable to embracing Religious State/collectivism in response to the undeniable horror taking place in the country, not realizing they are exchanging one horror for another, because I do not think they have any understanding of the bloody tyrannical history of Catholic and Protestant Religious Statism.
Your description of Petersons truth is very superficial. Do you really think Peterson is so stupid that he thinks values are the same as the truth ?? He never said if something is wrong it's not the truth, that's not the point of his argument, and it seems like you're trying to present something this in a video. He doesn't equate values with truth, he's explaining what truth is in it's wholeness. Values can be true or not true, facts can be true or not true. He's not saying values are the truth, he's just trying to describe truth. Those examples in the video are just small parts of a bigger argument where he's trying to create a picture of what truth is in his view, and it's NOT VALUES, but values can be true or not true. You completely misunderstood the essence of his argument... and I would recomment people to go and watch the entire debate. I believe most people will draw the same conclusion. I don't even know why I'm explaining this, I already know you'll stick to your argument you don't even need to reply.
This 👆 People here should probably get into the practice of “reading the source”. Because like the game Telephone, individuals relaying information with bad interpretations (be it due to their mal-intent or simply misunderstanding), such as the creator of this video, portray others and their ideas falsely. Speaking of truth… Not to say he didn’t have some intriguing points. There was just a lot of BS in the way of getting to them. P.S. Peterson doesn’t THINK science is a tool and not a worldview - science just IS a tool and not a worldview. Literally by definition.
Thousands of patients , plus his education has formed his positions. Not no nothing CZcams commenters like you and I are. He is far more qualified on these subjects that you and I will ever be.
@@jhoee2487 I don't know. I studied philosophy so I picked up a little something about Nietzsche or Dewey or James. The whole Biblical attachment is, frankly, unnatural for pragmatism and certainly grossly misplaced for Nietzsche or Darwin. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.
@@mattkiraly9869 LOL.. we're supposed to take some anonymous name on the internet as proof. What have you written or published? Seriously if you are going to throw out a "he doesn't know what he's talking about", anyone with an agenda can claim that and why should we believe you do?
@mattkiraly9869 I'm not too familiar with Pragmatism but I know that Peterson's understanding of Nietzsche is flawed. To be fair Nietzsche is difficult to pin down.
To a extent he is an intellect, has a PHD & taught a different universities, though he has become a massive fraud & liar. Therefore this bloke, is simply debunking his bullsht, in the most intellectually professional way as possible.
Jordan has a black belt in Debating. Don't like his views? then debate him. He willingly throws himself in front of those that he disagrees with , unlike most other pundits, and welcomes any and all challenges. I completely disagree with him about religion, but everything else i usually agree with him.
At debates he is like Sam Harris. Whatever you say, if it doesn't work in his favor, you didn't understand him and then that repeats ad infinitum. So it's hard to debate him because he refuses to take a coherent stand on anything.
Every time he is faced against someone that doesnt agree with him he ends up looking like a clown. Go watch the Peterson/dillahunty debate and You Will ser what i'm talking about.
Peterson: "Because in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive." ...But that isn't even true, is it? I'm very much able to think without risking offending anyone. How are possibly offensive thoughts a necessary precondition for thought itself?
pseudo-intellectuals who pretend every tired generality they make are some inherent infallible truth are truly the worst of us. Go sniff the farts of your own ideas somewhere else.
Richard Dawkins: "I had a conversation with somebody called Jordan Peterson the other day. And I took took him to task because he thinks that two snakes curled around each other, he thinks this means they had some kind of Jungian subconscious awareness of the DNA double helix because of that. So I told him that was bullshit. And I read later that he recounted this incident to that blogger who's well-known: Joe Rogan. And he said that Dawkins had 'torn my skin off' I think 'he stripped my skin' saying this about DNA and Joe Rogan said 'the trouble with Richard Dawkins is he's never taken LSD'." czcams.com/users/shortsNvzMJqkZV74? @HowToAcademyMindset Richard Dawkins on Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan
The absolute best that can be said of JP is that he is a monster of tautology. Saying that he's 'made a contribution to society' is like saying that the Trumpster has also done so, because he's (the Trumpster) shown those in the US (who remain sane) how bad a president can be. I can name at least half a dozen friends who've fallen under JP'a falsely charismatic, myopic, overly simplified psuedo-philosophy; it's alienating effect, caused primarily from Petersen's failure to understand the dynamic complexity of the real world (rather than the make-believe one in his head) is criminal, especially so since Petersen is directly profiting from those who are least able to defend themselves against his brand of fraud. As proof of this charlatan's demagogically-inclined psuedo-philosophy, I suggest you (try) and read his first 'book', Maps of Meaning. Or have a look at how his 'philosophy' has fared in the raising of his daughter...
Jordan Peterson never attempted to make a complete metaphysics. So, it doesn't seem fair to critique him in this respect. When he says that "science isn't true enough" with respect to its effectiveness at making the atom-bomb, I don't think he even tried to develop a complete system of "truth" in that context. The only thing I took from that quote is that a purely scientific world-view is not sufficient for making wise decisions. I don't think he even tried to say what a complete system for making wise decisions was. You are putting a lot of words in his mouth when you're talking about the effects of his beliefs.
It does seem to me that he was a bit out of his depth in some of his conversations with atheists. His "opponents" knew exactly what they believed and how to articulate it, but I'm under the impression that JP hadn't fully worked out his own metaphysics yet, or was unwilling to say what he really thought. He's primarily a psychologist, so, I don't respect him less as a psychologist because he is not equally as skilled at philosophy.
I might be wrong on this, but I'm under the impression that he won't just flat out say what he thinks because it would offend the Christians who support him. I've listened to his Bible lectures (which I really enjoyed), and it seems to me that viewing religion as a purely psychological phenomenon as he does in those lectures means that you can't believe in the literal truth of the Biblical stories. So, the Christians like him because he's able to articulate Biblical wisdom in a way that the secular world can understand, but they probably really wouldn't like it if he came out and said that the Bible contains phenomenological truth mixed in with a lot of material falsehood (which is what I believe). He is a very sensitive person and I think in general it is hard for him to come flat out and say stuff (or even think stuff) which he knows would offend everyone, even if he finds it necessary to do so from time to time.
If you are going to treat him as a philosopher like Hume, Nietzsche, or Kant, then it seems to me that he falls a bit short. But compared to the rest of society, which can't tell the difference between a man or a woman, nor between theft and charity, and in which a lot of people apparently need to be told to pick up their rooms, he is a vast improvement over almost every other influencer.
People who say that he says nothing other than word salad are just too stupid to understand what he's saying.
Well said. People who criticize him often either deliberately misinterpret sometbing(s) he said or in this case try to make him out to be more than he is trying to make himself out to be.
Attacking someone's character instead of their ideas is generally a louzy strategy. In the case of Peterson, however, it is difficult not to. His ideas are so fluid and difficult to pin down, that one can be left with the disappointing conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with the guy. To the acute observer of character, the values he champions seem not at all to correspond with his actual personality. This mental confusion and instability is evidenced by, for example, his addictions, his hair implants, the tone of most of his tweets and his drastic change in dress, diet and political affiliation when he rose to fame. One is left with the impression of a very angry and anxious individual who seems not to know himself very well. And yet this figure has convinced many that those who do not tidy their rooms first, are in no position to lecture the world. Yet HE is, even on topics he barely has a right to an opinion on, like international politics or climate change. If the Peterson phenomenon tells us anything, it is that many of us are confused, too. And it must be said that Peterson has adressed some of the causes of this mass confusion quite well, such as wokeness, the meaning crisis and the total lack of a spirital dimension in public discourse. These are exactly the kind topics you would expect a psychologist to have sound opinions on.
Its certainly not an accident that Peterson rose to prominence. As you said, "people are confused". What I find interesting with Peterson is his full commitment to a collapsing worldview and his complete lack of "intellectual conscience" in regards to what he believes. It's worse than most Christians; and he's supposed to be a scientist! His general demeanor is that of a person that does not believe in truth. Despite his self-proclaimed commitment to truth no single individual has done more harm to the concept "truth" than Peterson in the last three decades at least. Its sad that incomprehensible passes for profound so easily.
Conservatism is transforming into something fundamentally different from what we commonly have understood it. Just like how the left is reinterpreting history and imposing their own worldview on historical facts, the conservatives are starting to do the same thing: Peterson represents this trend. What we are seeing is Post-modern Conservatism.
To add to a point you made above: the madness that our public intellectuals are displaying is symptomatic of our general cultural decay.
This video doesn't make any sense. Video is misrepresentig Petersons argument and I can see why. You don't like the guy, I don't like him too but that's not the reason to lie. People are not reasonable creatures, we don't care what is true, we only care what we want to be true and this video is an example. Brother you should present others arguments as an observer without emotional involvement, present them as they are, just like that person said it, not as you would like them to be. After this accurate description, you can provide you comment and personal opinion. You can't distort arguments to fit your opinion, that's not right. Ooh Peterson said... no he didn't you said it... with a few carefully picked claims from Peterson that fits your narrative.
@@TheMachiavellianswhat other public intellectual has displayed this kind of instability? We see madness in political leaders and perhaps the 1%, but what other intellectual? Peterson claims he was in a coma in a Russian hospital. Doesn’t it seem odd that he would go to Russia for medical treatment (benzo withdrawal) and come back crazier than a bedbug?
Early on, I was about to stop this video. By the end I found it was of great value, like your other work. Keep going, you are contributing a lot!
I was also about to stop the video at 7:09 when I saw a galaxy going the wrong way
Peterson's greatest weakness is his inability to think critically.
I wouldn't go that far. He has his faults but he can critically think. Religion and morality get in his way though sometimes.
@@Morbid_God For Peterson, it's the rule, not the exception. He always manages to humiliate himself in discussion with true intellectuals like Dawkins and Penrose.
@@Morbid_God He couldn't even debate thinkers like Dillahunty and Zizek. Those debates were embarrassing too.
@@the_antiquark he’s a psychologist who thinks by understanding some theories (remember they are theories) about how some humans behaviour can be represents, means he can tackle any topic given he has interests between many topics (like we all do).
Essentially what happens is he conflates his personal discovery with being the answers to many topics. No wonder he humiliated himself on topics with people who actually study them for what they are.
I haven’t put it very clearly, but essentially he thinks he has a professional position on everything just by reading in those areas.
Even his biggest ‘enemy’ of neo-post-modernists is misrepresented and miss-understood. There’s a really good video about it by The Living Philosophy.
@@MV-vv7sg Peterson is always counting the beats of pulse on the wrist of a corpse. Lucrative for him.
Science can not always support our best interests simply because it is funded by those who have some sort of agenda and that may or may not be in our best interest. Scientists did question the development of the Atomic bomb, they did consider the implications etc but its development was driven by the government not science in our best interest. Therefore I suggest Petersons theory is untrue.
the misunderstanding comes from the inadequacy of he english language. the problem is that truth and reality are not the same. truth is part of reality, science describes what is true but it does not tell what reality is. for understanding reality we must add religion, art, philosophy.
Thank you for sharing that. It got me thinking for example that in Classical Arabic Truth is Sidq and Reality is Haqq.
It seems as though you and Peterson should have a discussion. Can we make that happen?
If arguments from mathematical truth can not be established on moral and ethical foundations of certainty... then
"applied mathematics" at the heart of..."mechanistic theories of nature"... would be... absolutely....and necessarily... incomplete.
Debate him.
I would really like to debate him. He's been on my radar as one of the worst philosophical thinkers of the 21st century for a while now.
Excellent discussion. Nietzsche pointed that there are no facts, just interpretations. I’m trying to understand Peterson here, his clinical psychologist background may have some deep explanation for this. His idea of fiction in dreams and unconscious may also have a layer to his statement. He’s dangerous, though in making it open for all. This should be for a small crowd.
Telling a Twitter opponent that if he didn't like the world as it is he "could leave anytime"--malicious, and overt encouragement of suicide was perhaps less than shrewd, on Peterson's part.
I think that his most recent difficulties have more to do with alleged unprofessional behavior than it does criticism of the government per se, doesn't it? I mean, "Poor people eat too much food" or "climate doesn't exist" aren't direct critiques of any government, are they?
I lost interest in what he is saying when I checked out his assertion that "lack of serotonin is the cause of depression"¹; it turns out there is no scientific basis for that whatsoever. ²
Then I looked into him further only to discover his claims, "I am an evolutionary biologist," and "I am a neuroscientist" to both be false: he's always only had a doctorate in cognitive psychology.³
¹czcams.com/video/j5cT-2BLWk0/video.html
²www.google.com/search?q=dies+lack+of+seretonen+cause+depression%3F&oq=dies+lack+of+seretonen+cause+deoression%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390i650l4.22922j0j1&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
³czcams.com/video/hSNWkRw53Jo/video.html
See: 5:46--7:52
I've always intensely disliked and mistrusted paucity of intellectual integrity...
(..."There is a false saying: 'How can someone who cannot save himself save others?' Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?"
~ Friedrich Nietzsche)
The truth, i would love for Peterson to tell us directly what this truth is. He won't since truth is overwhelmingly subjective.
Though he is trying to reinvent the wheel on philosophy, but he can't, he recycles quotes, and interoperates to his own bias.
Centuries upon centuries of many renown philosophers persevered through hardship, discrimination, poverty so on. Just for PHD professor to profiteer a life of luxury of their works. Unbelievable.
Do you know the difference between truth and facts ?? That was the base of Petersons argument, to understand what he was trying to say you need to understand that. He doesn't equate values with truth like it's presented in this video, he's explaining what truth is in it's wholeness values can be true or not true, facts can be true or not true. He's not saying values are the truth, he's just describing truth.
Short quotes followed by long replies from you. Mr Peterson uses a lot of words to describe everything.
So short quotes will be unrepresentative of what was actually said.
By cutting in the audio of him speaking you are trying to show it must be true.
But he talks in a very long form way.
I think this is unfair.
Shoot... Lots of gobledeegook and conflation in this video... Should I continue on, or live as if your video on doublethink is true?!
Scary how easily and willing people are to being brainwashed. This sight is propaganda at its finest and all these people just eat it up!!
Keep up the good work bro!
love your videos!
The problem with all human search for knowledge is lack of clear specification of the ultimate purpose:
PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (exhaustively defined as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH).
This should serve as the single purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge.
Since EVIL as defined here is exhaustive, search for knowleyge is a finite process. And life thereafter would only be its application for collecting information to implement it to PREVENT any possible evil before terraforming and then populating all celestial bodies (moons, planets, stars) in succession eternally: first with animals and then ourselves.
This demands deriving the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface to then deliver amd sustain living beings (ANIMALS and HUMANS) here through them.
This model would pave the way to trace the sources of all evil inside the earth and rearrange them while they are still there, so that they never reach the surface to harm any being, thus overcoming DEATH too.
This certainly is NOT a task any nonhuman power (GOD of conventional religions or NATURE of science) would do without our own targeted intervention, with clear knowledge of the possible harms and their successful PREVENTION (Note: NOT their PREDICTION, which current science targets as its ultimate goal).
In that sense SCIENCE is as fatalistic as all conventional religions, as it has only changed the name of the Supreme Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE OURSELVES DO IN IT, from the GOD of conventional religions to NATURE, while retaining its power to dictate how we should live intact.
Otherwise it can't think of DISCOVERING immutable, inevitable and irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE to meekly follow as unavoidable brute facts.
Even though Peterson's ideal is admirable, leaving it to subjective intervention by rejecting materialism renders it impossible to implement.
On the contrary, this knowledge can only be acquired, if it is inbuilt in GEOPHYSICS, which current science with its wave particle duality based probabilistic method can never access. This knowledge demands particle physical interpretation of the DIGITS, with which we calculate in our minds (NOT the electrons in the chips we ourselves manufacture), to then derive the mathematical mechanism how PLANTS function.
Remember PLANTS are the only entities in the entire known universe that deliver and sustain 100% of all life in it, while science (with its Periodic Table and The Standard Models ~ both types) only attempts to EXPLAIN "why apples fall?", instead of "how they grow?" and "what uncontrollable by us forces move celestial bodies?" instead of "what controllable by us particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface to deliver and sustain beings here?".
Any attempt to decipher what Jordan Peterson actually believes is doomed to fail.
I don't know if this is relevant. Who cares.
he has an entire chapter in 12 rules (for life, antidote to chaos) dedicated to telling the truth btw
One thing you'll notice in all of his talks--especially when he's having a conversation--is that he's arranging his thoughts in real time, as he'd said a lot that thinking is really hard because you'll need a voice to oppose you, which is relatively harder to do by oneself. Part of thinking (verbally) is that you use special terms that is most fundamentally understood by the speaker/thinker. From what I can gather, the term "usefulness" does have a pragmatic flavor, but more.
He has laid out (in terms of evolutionary biology, as he would say) that our eyes evolved to have a smaller focal clarity than we would like, because to expand that resolution is to expand the brain by a lot more, which can give complications at childbirth, among other things. Because our eyes are like that, it can only focus on one thing and dispose of a whole lot. That is technically already a hierarchy of values, and I believe that that is what he believes. Here, the words "pragmatic," "useful," and "Darwinian" all relate to one another, since it is evolutionarily useful to have eyes, and therefore to arrange the world in a set of values. That's how we live.
He does not deny at all that the world (facts) can be interpreted in infinitely many ways, and he does give that point to the "postmodernists," plus he has stated also in 12 rules that everyone has their own truth to tell (see the chapter "tell the truth--or at least don't lie"), which is why it is important to not just think but to act out one's truth and see how it turns out (his criticism to those critical of overpopulation for example is that there is a very easy way to decrease the number of people in the planet that they can do right now; question is will they do it [ofc he's not advocationg to gameend ffs hes just making a point]). What he's arguing is that you have to arrange those facts into a coherent structure or you lose coherence as if you are cross-eyed and you don't know where to look.
Why then is he promoting the Bible? Because it in many ways synthesized and unified the beliefs of the old world (Mesopotamia, etc.) and has guided the West in its trajectory. The eyes of the West are looking at God. The Christian God. And by Jove, Western culture is the permeating culture over the globe at the moment. Point is, it's a synthesis of thousands of years of ideas and is the foundation of a global culture---it is all-encompassing.
It is not hard to imagine him saying to himself, "We (of the West) need to look at something before we can do it---we need a unifying set of values or we're doomed to confusion. Oh look! There's the Bible, the book that influenced the West the most. We've already used that to arrange our cognitive hierarchies, why aren't we using it now? (see the use of the word "use" here?) Because of all the criticisms? Well what's the alternative? Materialism?
"Materialism only tells you how the world is, it doesn't tell you what to look at. It doesn't give you an explicit heirarchy of values. It doesn't tell me if it's important to live at all! But look---the Bible does! The Bible gives meaning! God arranges me. Why?"
I don't think he's "gerrymandering the truth" as we are misconstruing him. He says that because he's thinking with Sam, and he's trying to sneak up on (attack on a different angle) something else.
He has said before that he "acts as if God exists" but he also said something like 'just because [the Bible can be interpreted metaphorically] does not exhaust its literal meaning, if it has one" (I forgot the exact quote but that is the gist, he said tat when asked about the nature of God and his belief)
My clonclusion is he thinks that
- the claim of postmodernists that truth is relative is acceptable,
- that a pragmatist would say that we need to arrange our heirarchies in a coherent way or else we die is acceptable,
- that the Bible has binded our perceptions for the longest time, and created this civilization as a result, and thus should be looked upon again, and
- the Bible, being more than just a book, can point to that which is more than metaphor, and so he proposes that it does.
That's my take. thanks.
He's incoherent for sure, and self-serving. One thing I believe you are wrong is about the Bible, it's not really what he wants, but he follows Jung who said people needed Christianity because it was the basis for almost all of our archetypes. It's probably what he means by "categories" which are clearly not actual philosophical categories. But he means stuff like "male" and "female", so archetypes. I don't really feel like making sense of his word salad though. If he can't be coherent, I just won't do it for him. If you reduce him to being a Christian in the real sense of the word, you got it wrong. He's a cultural Christian at best.
His criticism of science and how people like Harris use it is valid though and anybody honest and knowledgeable can see this. Science isn't about facts, it's not about knowledge and it's not true. It's useful. That's all you can really say about it, or it's true enough for whatever purpose the experiment is about. Claiming otherwise is a serious mistake. Not just a small one but a very serious one because it's so wrong. So you already are living in a world where "truth" in the traditional sense is lost, because it's based on the delusional thinking of science which people take as Gospel truth.
See, at least if you base truth on a book, at least it can be easily checked. If I say x is y, the Bible says so, you have an anchor to truth that can be verified by everybody. If you base it on scientific papers that measure different things and come to different conclusions, it's much harder and certainly not useful for us, but it is for the scientist. So it's why almost nobody take their decisions on science. Some might here and there, but it's far from a polished true enough product to be useful. When he says facts aren't always true, it's also correct, scientifically, because "facts" are just measurements and those measurements are already pre-defined by the experiment itself.
For example, Harris would want to put an electrode in your brain and know for a fact that you feel something, let's say "sadness". But there are plenty of variables not taken into account, like the environment, the electrodes and just about everything, and that is without counting the subjective element of "sadness", all it's interactions with other things which affect it's effect, whether it is well-defined as to measurement, which right now is not and probably never will. So his "facts" are garbage. You could also say they aren't true for the goal you want to use them, like determining if someone suffers more than the other person or something that leads to a moral decision, and that's without counting the social elements which transcend the individual. An inhuman fact based morality is much more dangerous than one that is based on the Bible which proved itself and is human. I mean, choosing between the two I would choose the latter because it's truer, it's more in touch with reality of the human experience.
So I think he has some good points, but got destroyed in that interview, and his solution is not good at all, it's just social darwinism. But the criticism is correct I believe.
You've brought up some interesting points, but I this is not the best place to discuss all of them. I understand Peterson is attempting to utilize a Jungian framework, and I am familiar with Jung's body of work. I use the word "attempting" because his interpretation of Jungian principles deviates somewhat from Jung's original ideas. It seems that he is leveraging Jung's concepts to serve his own purposes. There is a quote from one of Jung's writings where he states that "everything human is relative". This statement often goes unnoticed by most people. Peterson strongly criticizes relativism, yet the Jungian notion that reality is experiential introduces an element of relativism. Peterson simply isn't Jungian enough. He adopts a contextual view of truth and makes foundationalist claims that are incompatible. As I mentioned in the video, Peterson's definition of what is valuable for life is not compatible with the type of truth he advocates. To make such a claim, you must adopt a realist understanding of truth. I find the arguments defending archetypes to be compelling but again you need a different conception of truth to establish such a thing.
You mentioned that basing truth on a book is a better way to establish truth than with a process that is ultimately interpretative. However, Peterson's post-modern psychological reading of the Bible is interpretative and strays far from the original context of the Bible. I agree with Nietzsche's assertion that what we discover in something often reflects what we have projected onto it. It appears that Peterson identifies everything he deems essential for life with the Bible and then concludes that it represents fundamental truth. Nietzsche also argued that an individual's philosophy bears decisive witness to their identity.
I find that Peterson's contextual perspective on truth does not effectively defend his stance regarding the truth value of the Bible. A purely Darwinian conception of truth would be relative, because the context would be constantly evolving. Peterson is unprepared to carry his own framework to its logical conclusion. If truth were to be established based on these parameters, terms like "fact" and "fiction" would lose their meaning, rendering our ordinary mode of communication incoherent. I would find his argument much more convincing if he actually followed Nietzsche (instead of just claiming to) and used the term "utility". The problem with this is that the Bible wouldn't be so compelling if it were only useful, so it must be "true". If he would take this route then it would be possible to actually have a conversation about the Bibles supposed utility instead of using a conception of truth that violates the conditions of such an argument. Its like the radical left that redefined the term "racism" making a rational discussion impossible. In order to have a conversation with Peterson you already have to accept his premises. That's the issue with the Darwinian/Pragmatic conception of truth. Additionally he always has the defense of being misunderstood.
I do find Harris' appeal to fact for establishing values to be very problematic simply because you have to select the facts prior which implies a value judgment. In fact the appeal to facts is already a value judgment.
Science may not be truth but it is the closest thing to truth that we have. For something to be true or in accordance with reality it has to be accepted by people. This acceptance could be by blind faith or through reason. The degree to which something is true is tested by the free marketplace of ideas. Its pretty clear that believing in a guy in the sky does not describe reality as most people experience it and so they change to believing in reason instead of believing in god. The power from the belief in science is far beyond the power from believing in any religion. Nuclear bombs can destroy all of humanity, meanwhile a prayer may or may not be answered and who knows if the prayer even did anything.
Calling science "useful" and not "truth" is playing with semantics. If you are saying science is not true, you are basically saying that science is not real. Its very real and people don't choose science because its "useful" they choose it because through experience it is proven to be real.
I do agree with the criticism of science though. Science cannot really answer moral truths, however religion is probably almost as bad in this regard (depending on what religion you choose). Its very likely that science cannot determine moral truth very well and some other system would rise to the top in the free marketplace of ideas.
@@TheMachiavelliansI think a mistake you're making here is one many Peterson critics make and it's assuming that Peterson's ideas are not rigorous enough to be taken seriously. As a result you caricature him a lot. Peterson's position on truth is very much similar to that of James and Jung. He didn't make them up. The philosophical types like Russell have come to dismiss it without seriously engaging with it. But these psychologists have developed a particular perspective on truth that until you are willing to look beyond the surface, you won't really engage with the issues they're addressing. Their main issue is that truth doesn't do what we think it does. It doesn't really correspond to reality, it's there to help us 'thrive'. James will say succeed, Peterson will say survive. But their main contention is that truth does not and cannot really correspond to reality. What they really correspond to is some success-ability for human thriving. It's more like the latter position of wittgenstein on meaning being use. What in my opinion is really happening here is that they're really avoiding to talk about the nature of truth. They're really talking about the purpose of truth. What your mistake is I think it's taking what they take as the purpose of truth rather as it's nature.
And we are just where they wanted us.
Agreed !
By jordans own measure a religion like buddhism seems more true than christianity, since there has been a surge in interest in the religion and practises in the west even amongst the nonspiritual, corporates, self help gurus even military are finding useful(maybe not ethical) applications for buddhist practises and beliefs. And also without all the bullshit and baggage that christianity brings with it. In his old lectures he talked alot about daoism and buddhism etc however(sorry for attacking his character but i geniunely believe it to be "true") now his main audience are comin from antiwoke more conservative westerners who are the people who buy his books, buy his patreon and pay to see him speak, he basically tells the version that they want to hear: wow the religion i was born to by random chance is more true than all the others how lucky am i.
Please. Name ONE positive contribution JP has accomplished for society. Seriously, please! Just one, more if you like- you claim it.
Apparently, his lectures on psychology helped 1000s of people straighten up their lives
@@wokefree Just like NASA has brought so much good to humanity. Frauds are like fish- quite easy to smell once one gets the obvious ques. Simple really, wanna learn?
@@wokefree “apparently” is a belief
Where are facts of this claim?
I’m not aware of one person being truly helped by “psych ology!”
It’s a study of “mind.” The very fact that our brain hemispheres are obviously divided is a clue to endless division inherent to all beings with this type brain. It does become painfully obvious we only have one heart.
It’s the mind and the mechanism of that organ itself that seems to be an issue. One brain, yet clearly divided. Left / right / right / wrong. The snake will undoubtedly eat its own tale is the tell. A heart points this out through its barb-wired prison. From the heart core of being.
@@RtaniDean ya sure, teach me something
He's a self help guru lol... He wouldn't be so popular if folk didn't feel he was helping them.
He does offer a lot of small tidbits that can be very helpful to desperate souls. The whole "clean your room" bit was originally aimed at the highly anxious or depressed. Exerting control over ones immediate environment in ways that feel productive lowers stress and increase motivation.
This is just too funny. Philophers defending postmodernists under attack by treating them as proud logocentrics and champions of analytic philosopher while their first year philosophy major cheerleaders sing in the background. No way to tell how much more real and truthful this makes Peterson.
So many words for not a single argument👏🏼
Peterson and Russel Brand are master BSers.
Jordan is not a philosopher....rather a trained professor of psychology ... Even a wise man grows....
I honestly, have no idea what he is talking about - there is not any discernable argument.
Jordan Peterson, seems to be trying to force himself to believe the dissonance he has created in his own mind in the attempt to remove truth as defined by observable natural law to nonsensical religious belief. It is truly astonishing to watch him literally attempt to re-program his own mind to fit a false concept, and I found his hand movements rather disturbing watching him in this context - it reminded me of the theater of spell casting.
There are many variations of faith in the United States, however, it is the Right of an Individual to have the belief - it is not the collective duty for the Religious State, and I do not think American's understand the vast difference between the Religious State and the individual right to our own beliefs.
Jordan Peterson's recent Biblical Zealotry, due to his popular reach and influence, has become a danger to the United States of America, because of the current emotional social instability in the nation, that always results in compromised reasoning, and I think Americans would be particularly vulnerable to embracing Religious State/collectivism in response to the undeniable horror taking place in the country, not realizing they are exchanging one horror for another, because I do not think they have any understanding of the bloody tyrannical history of Catholic and Protestant Religious Statism.
Peterson is confused. And then he confuses himself further. He is not seeking the truth.
Your description of Petersons truth is very superficial. Do you really think Peterson is so stupid that he thinks values are the same as the truth ?? He never said if something is wrong it's not the truth, that's not the point of his argument, and it seems like you're trying to present something this in a video. He doesn't equate values with truth, he's explaining what truth is in it's wholeness. Values can be true or not true, facts can be true or not true. He's not saying values are the truth, he's just trying to describe truth. Those examples in the video are just small parts of a bigger argument where he's trying to create a picture of what truth is in his view, and it's NOT VALUES, but values can be true or not true. You completely misunderstood the essence of his argument... and I would recomment people to go and watch the entire debate. I believe most people will draw the same conclusion. I don't even know why I'm explaining this, I already know you'll stick to your argument you don't even need to reply.
This 👆
People here should probably get into the practice of “reading the source”. Because like the game Telephone, individuals relaying information with bad interpretations (be it due to their mal-intent or simply misunderstanding), such as the creator of this video, portray others and their ideas falsely. Speaking of truth…
Not to say he didn’t have some intriguing points. There was just a lot of BS in the way of getting to them.
P.S. Peterson doesn’t THINK science is a tool and not a worldview - science just IS a tool and not a worldview. Literally by definition.
The truth is that there is no external God....There is just a God gene in all of us.
Peterson apparently misunderstands pragmatism AND Nietzsche. It's fascinating that this man ever became a university professor.
Thousands of patients , plus his education has formed his positions. Not no nothing CZcams commenters like you and I are. He is far more qualified on these subjects that you and I will ever be.
@@jhoee2487 I don't know. I studied philosophy so I picked up a little something about Nietzsche or Dewey or James. The whole Biblical attachment is, frankly, unnatural for pragmatism and certainly grossly misplaced for Nietzsche or Darwin. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.
@@mattkiraly9869 waiting to see your original ideas and readings of all those philosophers then.
@@mattkiraly9869 LOL.. we're supposed to take some anonymous name on the internet as proof. What have you written or published? Seriously if you are going to throw out a "he doesn't know what he's talking about", anyone with an agenda can claim that and why should we believe you do?
@mattkiraly9869 I'm not too familiar with Pragmatism but I know that Peterson's understanding of Nietzsche is flawed. To be fair Nietzsche is difficult to pin down.
He is missing something. Gets lost in himself. He is compromised.
He is a charlatan, You are talking as if he was this profound intellectual, he isnt.
Definitely, but too many people listen to Cranky Kermit and don’t understand he’s a fraud. The more people exposing Jordan Peterson, the better.
To a extent he is an intellect, has a PHD & taught a different universities, though he has become a massive fraud & liar.
Therefore this bloke, is simply debunking his bullsht, in the most intellectually professional way as possible.
If you think he's a charlatan, then you're too stupid to understand what he said.
He has helped me with some things. OK he raves on a bit & you have to concentrate, but you can't be spoon-fed all your life. He's a good man
There is no truth .
jewdan Peterstein is a limited hang-out at best
Jordan has a black belt in Debating. Don't like his views? then debate him. He willingly throws himself in front of those that he disagrees with , unlike most other pundits, and welcomes any and all challenges. I completely disagree with him about religion, but everything else i usually agree with him.
At debates he is like Sam Harris. Whatever you say, if it doesn't work in his favor, you didn't understand him and then that repeats ad infinitum. So it's hard to debate him because he refuses to take a coherent stand on anything.
@jhoee2487 I would love to have a discussion with Peterson.
Peterson repeatedly makes use of logical fallacy and straw man's his opponents arguments. He's far too incoherent for a rational debate.
@@No.1EstateAgent 100% agree
Every time he is faced against someone that doesnt agree with him he ends up looking like a clown. Go watch the Peterson/dillahunty debate and You Will ser what i'm talking about.
Peterson: "Because in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive."
...But that isn't even true, is it? I'm very much able to think without risking offending anyone. How are possibly offensive thoughts a necessary precondition for thought itself?
Truth. Is what ever the ones in power wants it to be.
I don't like it, but that's how it is.
pseudo-intellectuals who pretend every tired generality they make are some inherent infallible truth are truly the worst of us. Go sniff the farts of your own ideas somewhere else.
No, truth is the result of the will to truth. Social dogmas are something different.
So say someone beaten down by the "powers above."
@@Morbid_God Yes and? We live in a dystopian nightmare.
@@beerus6779 Did you take the vax?
Richard Dawkins: "I had a conversation with somebody called Jordan Peterson the other day. And I took took him to task because he thinks that two snakes curled around each other, he thinks this means they had some kind of Jungian subconscious awareness of the DNA double helix because of that. So I told him that was bullshit. And I read later that he recounted this incident to that blogger who's well-known: Joe Rogan. And he said that Dawkins had 'torn my skin off' I think 'he stripped my skin' saying this about DNA and Joe Rogan said 'the trouble with Richard Dawkins is he's never taken LSD'."
czcams.com/users/shortsNvzMJqkZV74?
@HowToAcademyMindset
Richard Dawkins on Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan
I saw that Podcast with Dawkins and Peterson. Peterson rambled incoherently for over an hour. It was really bizarre.
@@TheMachiavellians . I haven't seen it yet but I know I'll have to now.
The absolute best that can be said of JP is that he is a monster of tautology. Saying that he's 'made a contribution to society' is like saying that the Trumpster has also done so, because he's (the Trumpster) shown those in the US (who remain sane) how bad a president can be.
I can name at least half a dozen friends who've fallen under JP'a falsely charismatic, myopic, overly simplified psuedo-philosophy; it's alienating effect, caused primarily from Petersen's failure to understand the dynamic complexity of the real world (rather than the make-believe one in his head) is criminal, especially so since Petersen is directly profiting from those who are least able to defend themselves against his brand of fraud.
As proof of this charlatan's demagogically-inclined psuedo-philosophy, I suggest you (try) and read his first 'book', Maps of Meaning. Or have a look at how his 'philosophy' has fared in the raising of his daughter...
Is it true, pragmatic or useful to think that Peterson is a repressed homosexual?.