CDZ The Greatest, Most Articulate, Most Profound Social Commentator of Our Time: Jordan Peterson

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Shrimpbox, Aug 11, 2018.

  1. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,600
    Thanks Received:
    2,436
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,905
    Very well thought out response. Thank you shrimp.

    I do think he is pretty spot on for the most part but then I also do not see him actually challenged in any interview or debate I have seen of him thus far. Every one I have seen is terribly difficult to get through because it is nothing more than someone trying to tell him what he means when he never made any statements that were even in the same ballpark. The straw men that are thrown at him are so blatant I don't see how they are willing to even air such tripe without being ashamed.
     
  2. Shrimpbox
    Offline

    Shrimpbox Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Thanks Received:
    678
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Carrabelle, fl. 60 miles s of tallahassee
    Ratings:
    +2,623
    Try watching the videos of him in the classroom or in his home responding to questions. The videos on his rules seem more obtuse than his book. The videos with him on a dark stage are excellent too.
     
  3. McRocket
    Online

    McRocket VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,965
    Thanks Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +1,939
    I know a woman who used to have him as a prof when she was in university. All she says about him is he was arrogant and kept going on and on about the movie the 'Lion King'.

    From what I have seen of him...he is very intelligent, VERY arrogant, misogynistic, tries to impress with intimidation and verbiage and though he makes a few good points...most of it sounds like obviousness and/or semi-nonsense.

    He generally seems to appeal to weak people on the right who are unhappy with their lives and either want someone to tell them what to do and/or someone to tell them whom to blame.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
  4. sakinago
    Offline

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,592
    Thanks Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,723
    So going through the first article here, this guy is just making a bunch of strawmen arguments, I don’t know whether that’s purposeful or he just hasn’t heard him speak all that much. So, let’s start with his summation of Peterson on religion. This guy claims that Peterson is saying Christianity is superior to all other religions, and that people without religion are devoid of moral values, and will be bad people. And he references stories of the Old Testament that make modern day man cringe. I think you’d agree with my summation of this article so far? So, Peterson never claims outright that he believes Christianity is superior, closest thing he’s said to that is he thinks Christianity does the best when it comes to explaining the nature of evil. The reality is quite contrary to this articles claim. Peterson (if anyone has actually listened/read to a lick of him) they would hear him often reference other religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, and even ancient religions no longer in practice such as ancient Sumerian and Egyptian. He does this, along with Christianity, to point out the common themes. Despite their fantastical nature, like a hawk god fighting off his evil uncle rescuing his father and giving him one of his eyes, he points out the themes embedded within those stories of how they describe the world, and how to act in the world. He also explores these themes in non-religious stories such as Disney movies. He brings these up to illustrate that there a two types of truth, one is objective or scientific truth, the other is more of a moral truth or how to act in way where society doesn’t break down. The sort of objectivism or scientific truth by nature is supposed to be devoid of morality, or else it is no longer objective, and we come to scientific truth through the scientific method. As for moral truth, we come to that through telling stories or allegories that tell us how to act, like the boy who cried wolf (don’t do that), or the Good Samaritan (be like the samaratian and also don’t pre-judge strangers from a disliked group). He brings up these stories to show why they’re important, and to illustrate why he believes that mythology is almost in a way part of evolution, backing it up with psychology and neuroscience with how our brains work. This mythology came about from our ancient ancestors learning things the very hard, miserable, and bloody way. He never claims that no-one can become a good person if they’re not religious. His concern was Niche’s same concern in the parable of the old madman, “God is dead, we killed him with our “rationality”, whose going to replace him? Us? The murderers of all murderers. There’s not going to be enough water in the oceans to clean the blood off or hands, but it’ll take 40 years till we see how bad it gets. The church is at fault for killing God.” That’s a quick paraphrase of niches parable. Peterson’s point is scientific objectivism is not a good replacement for mythology, and leads us down dark paths, that the likes of Niche and Kipling warned about before we saw the major atrocities in the 20th century. His point is, if you’re criticizing books like the Bible on their scientific merits (a book written before science even existed), then you’re reading it the wrong way, not getting the point. If you’re also judging books like the Bible from the eyes of modern man, you’re also reading it wrong. This article cites a verse condoning the killing of you’re own children. What’s not mentioned is the context of the time period, which you could call for your kids to get publicly stoned, and it would be a village pass time, pretty much world wide. The verse he is citing is one that states, you CANNOT decide for yourself that your children deserve death for this or that, you MUST bring them to a court in which there will be a trial on if your kids deserve death, from impartial sources. That’s revolutionary, especially in a time where a common religion was Baal worship, where you toss your infants in a fire in hopes that Baal will bring in a good crop this year. That was one of the biggest religions at the time. The article also references God asking abraham to sacrifice his son, and says “well isn’t that just terrible,”. In our context yes (except when it’s in womb it’s all A ok) in that context NO, since god told him not too, and it was just a test. The Jews hated Baal worship, at least while they were well behaved Jews.There so much more nuance to this discussion than Peterson says Christianity is the only one ay to receive morals, everything else bad.

    Moving on to the articles take on Peterson’s individuality stance. The author implies that Peterson is trying to disavow or replace the golden rule by his “treat yourself as someone that you are responsible for,” which the author calls an inversion of ththis golden rule. Another strawman. Peterson’s rule here simply talks about how people are more likely to give prescription pills, in the correct dosages and timing per orders, to their pets than they are themselves. This is even when there are serious consequences for a person not taking their pills. Peterson’s point is how are you going to be capable of taking care of others if you’re not taking care of yourself. This rule is saying that you are someone of worth, treat yourself that way. Take your pills, exercise, eat healthy, be more productive with time, stop doing things that you know are bad for you. Once you get better at doing this for yourself, you will be more capable of helping others. Certainly not a replacement for the Golden rule. I really have a hard time seeing why someone would find this objectionable. There’s another aspect to this rule that is, take the plank out of your own eye. If your life is a mess, and if that’s largely due to your own choices, or at least if your not doing everything you can to make it better, you shouldn’t be telling other people how to live their life. This rule is only one aspect to Peterson’s stance on individualism, it no where near sums it all up. There are other aspects like, be honest with yourself and stop blaming everyone/thing around you for all your problems. If they are the source of all your problems, then you’re screwed because you’re powerless to fix them. And if you’re not being honest with yourself, you’re going to choose solutions that aren’t based on reality to try to fix your problems, and that’s not going to go well. This doesn’t mean that Peterson doesn’t acknowledge that the world/system/bad actors around you don’t cause tragic problems for you, in fact he often states that they will and do. You also have to be honest with the people around you, either you will make that relationship better, or find out that person/friend/workplace may not be best for you. If you don’t, you’ll become resentful and make bad situations worse in one way or another. Still this summation of Peterson is a far cry on what his stance is on individualism.

    That’s as far as I read in this article, I will continue reading more, and respond.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. sakinago
    Offline

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,592
    Thanks Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,723
    What specifically do you find mysoginistic? I haven’t heard it. I know the way some outlets have been portraying him blantantly dishonestly.

    Example: watch this vid first of the vice interview.


    Now watch the full segment.


    Holy cow, that crafty editing on vices part is waaaaay off the mark of Peterson point. Mind you the full interview lasted 2 hours, and Peterson had stated that at that point he was reaching the limit of the interview, with the interviewer he felt was trying to have a dishonest conversation. The first video is what many Peterson critics reference when they say he’s misogynistic, the other is his enforced monogamy line (which is an anthropological term for societies that are monogamous). The rest is because some on the left don’t like the fact that he’s using proven science explaining the differences between men women, because they do not like the fact that there are differences. So I’m just curious is there anything outside of the reasons I cited that give you the misogynistic impression of Peterson, or are you mostly going off of short clips and what others say about him?
     
  6. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,600
    Thanks Received:
    2,436
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,905
    Intimidation?

    I do not think you are watching the same videos that I am. I have not seen him try and intimidate anyone once.
     
  7. Shrimpbox
    Offline

    Shrimpbox Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Thanks Received:
    678
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Carrabelle, fl. 60 miles s of tallahassee
    Ratings:
    +2,623
    I guess there are no weak people on the left, or lefties who need to be told who to blame. He is only arrogant if you define that word as suffering fools gladly. It is a shame you are so narrow minded you can only see Peterson through an ideological lens.
     
  8. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,600
    Thanks Received:
    2,436
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,905
    Ran into some interesting things from him on YouTube. I would say that he really is not a conservative though. He just has some core arguments that agree with some conservative positions. Of course, that really gives me a more appreciation for him. He is not a partisan.

    You might find this interesting. It is very long (3 hours) but is very interesting IMHO. Worth the time IMHO.
     
  9. McRocket
    Online

    McRocket VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,965
    Thanks Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +1,939
    So you appreciate misogynistic egomaniacs who try to drown their 'followers' in excessive verbiage and 1950's ideas (phrased to sound modern)?

    So noted.

    Most of his ideas fall into two categories with me? 'Well duh' ones or 'nonsensical' ones (most - the latter).

    No offense, but if you are actually learning substantial things from this guy...than you are probably either generally confused and/or not terribly bright.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
  10. McRocket
    Online

    McRocket VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,965
    Thanks Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +1,939
    Half of the time, they seem to not be able to argue with him because they do not understand him fully. He is known for using unnecessary verbiage/terminologies. And it is obvious that he uses it to try an intimidate.
    It's called - in some business circles - Greenspan-talk.

    But if you actually listen to what he is saying - and break it down - it's largely nonsensical or staggeringly 'well duh'ish'. It's also LOADED with stereotypes and misogyny.
    The guy CLEARLY has a hate on for independent women.
     

Share This Page