Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Hego Damask

All the "liberals" gloating and loving someones suffering so much , they really are a hateful bunch..

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

..I think half the problem is people aren't capable of understanding him..

Half of the people haven't read what he claims to have. If they had they would understand he is talking bs.

He uses inaccurate terminology. The fact that he doesn't seem to understand Marxism.

The fact that he seems to think Kant was a counter enlightenment figure. (incorrect he is actually considered to be an enlightenment figure).

So it makes people believe he hasn't read Kant. Or doesn't have enough context to place Kant.

If you hate Marxism that's fine. But he makes huge mistakes. He claims Marx only spoke about 2 social classes in a capital society. But he spoke of many many more. He also said Marx didn't talk about nature etc. He did.

So it makes people believe he hasn't read Marx.


He presents himself as an expert on Philosophy ....clearly he isn't. He isn't even a very well read amateur.


Its about scholarly ethics. He is presenting nonsense as if it were deep knowledge on philosophical TEXTS. Its the TEXTS themselves he misquotes or completely misunderstands.

I can't say for his psychology i don't know enough about psychology.


But the philosophical community shuns him. Because he honestly keeps saying he has read something then talks about it and it becomes clear he hasn't read it and possibly is confusing the author with someone else.

But he gets away with it.

I mean he isn't a historian or a biologist but he makes claims about those topics too.


Its sad ..because i know it means his audience and not well educated.

If Peterson's audience ACTUALLY went and READ some of kant or something else he claims to have read ..they would get he is a snake oil merchant.

ILoveYourVibes

Hego Damask wrote: »

All the "liberals" gloating and loving someones suffering so much , they really are a hateful bunch..

I'm not. I'm really sorry he has an addiction that got so bad. I hope he can stay clean.

I am just being honest about the situation though.

And i don't blame him for not wanting to kick.

ILoveYourVibes

I tell you wha tho..that is some ****ing benzo addiction.

galwayllm

This guy is a genius at putting idiots back in their box!

RWCNT

Deleted User wrote: »

Myself included. He tends to use words/phrases/examples that only an insider or fanatic would know. I understand the basics but I get lost/bored fairly quickly.

It's not your fault, he has a rhetorical style where it's incredibly hard to pin down what he's actually getting at. It's difficult to tell if it's deliberate or not. I get the sense that most of his devout followers take what they want to hear from his ramblings, while snapping at others for drawing anything other than the most charitable conclusion possible.

He clearly meets the definition of intellectual IMO, although he tends to speak outside his wheelhouse a lot and do very well from it. He's demonstrated a lack of in depth knowledge on topics he discussed frequently like postmodernism and Marxism. Ive watched a few of his old psychology lectures and they were very interesting though.

QueenRizla

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They seem to be blaming the US medical system for a complicated withdrawal. And wanted to be placed in a coma....in order to avoid the 'kick'.

People in the US are reluctant to do it as they thing the 'kick' is part of how the addict learns not to use again.

In russia obviously ....hey we'll take your money.

Was the pneumonia caused by the cold turkey coma treatment? I know the daughter is saying that the US treatments were making him worse but surely his condition now is evidence the Russian treatment is dangerous? And fecked him up? I don’t understand why they seem to be sticking up for the Russian treatment. Or am I missing something. Like was he on deaths door when he flew to Russia (already had pneumonia?}

Tordelback

He's an obscurantist chancer, deploying an aggressive disparaging style to deliver convoluted self-reinforcing dogma based on very selective mining of academic and popular texts.

This wouldn't be much of a problem, if his message wasn't so resolutely nasty and so appealing to the victim/bully mentality of many people.

I wish him well in dealing with his addiction and a full and swift recovery, but at the same time I think the world would be a better place if he STFU.

ILoveYourVibes

QueenRizla wrote: »

Was the pneumonia caused by the cold turkey coma treatment? I know the daughter is saying that the US treatments were making him worse but surely his condition now is evidence the Russian treatment is dangerous? And fecked him up? I don’t understand why they seem to be sticking up for the Russian treatment. Or am I missing something. Like was he on deaths door when he flew to Russia (already had pneumonia?}

doubtful.

The intropine coma is KNOWN for causing infections of the lungs though. Your breathing is impaired during it as are certain reflexes associated with the treatment such as coughing.

ILoveYourVibes

Tordelback wrote: »

He's an obscurantist chancer, deploying an aggressive disparaging style to deliver convoluted self-reinforcing dogma based on very selective mining of academic and popular texts.

This wouldn't be much of a problem, if his message wasn't so resolutely nasty and so appealing to the victim/bully mentality of many people.

I wish him well in dealing with his addiction and a full and swift recovery,

Perfectly put. Well except for the last line.

ILoveYourVibes

QueenRizla wrote: »

Was the pneumonia caused by the cold turkey coma treatment? I know the daughter is saying that the US treatments were making him worse but surely his condition now is evidence the Russian treatment is dangerous? And fecked him up? I don’t understand why they seem to be sticking up for the Russian treatment. Or am I missing something. Like was he on deaths door when he flew to Russia (already had pneumonia?}

He didn't want to kick.

That looks REAL bad to a lot of people he has previously criticized.

He routinely bad mouths addicts. Or people he spoke of as 'WEAK'.

And now he can't kick.

It looks real bad.

He has lectured people on overcoming addiction. And been quite hard on them. He has said two weeks in a hospital should get even a heroine addict clean ....with no methadone nothing.

In other words Peterson was suggesting they should KICK REAL REAL HARD. Harder than most normal Drs suggest people kick. They usually taper using methadone.

And now he CANT kick.
Intropine coma treatment for rapid detox is usually reserved for maybe ...babies born addicted to heroin.

SO his family needs to say ...it was to save his life. Which is bs.

The funny thing is ....any addict now is gonna realize he just couldn't kick!

He can't counsel for addiction anymore.

BTW there is no shame in what he did. Its just he had been so harsh on addicts previously.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The fact that he seems to think Kant was a counter enlightenment figure. (incorrect he is actually considered to be an enlightenment figure).

The argument that Kant was one of the original counter-Enlightenment figures comes from Stephen Hicks's 2004 book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, which traces an intellectual genealogy of postmodernism going all the way back to the 18th century. See this excerpt, "Why Kant Is the Turning Point," from Hicks's own blog. The author is a professor of philosophy, and so we have someone squarely within the field making the claims that you claim are absurd and uninformed. Have you read Kant yourself? I'd love to know your basis for claiming that Hicks or Peterson are mistaken here.

I mean he isn't a historian or a biologist but he makes claims about those topics too.

Interestingly, the left always gives linguistics professor Noam Chomsky a free pass whenever he uses his credentials and position to opine on capitalism, US foreign policy, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and numerous other issues beyond the scope of his academic training, but they are all over Peterson like a hot rash the moment he talks about anything outside of psychology. You'd almost think there's some kind of double standard at play.

ILoveYourVibes

galwayllm wrote: »

This guy is a genius at putting idiots back in their box!

He is a genius in a way.

Or real dumb ...i mean ..look at where he ended up.

El_Duderino 09

Hego Damask wrote: »

All the "liberals" gloating and loving someones suffering so much , they really are a hateful bunch..

I don't see anyone loving his suffering. If discussing it is loving it, then I think it's more then the ""liberals"" who are involved.

In truth, the drug addiction is part of the discussion but I genuinely don't take pleasure in the idea of him suffering.

I would have the same Compassion for him as any other drug addict. I think the difference is that some people (not the ""liberals"") have expressed a compassion differential between a nice middle class, prescription drug addict, and a more common heroine or meth addict. Both are in need of, and deserve, help in my opinion.

Huntergonzo

Tordelback wrote: »

He's an obscurantist chancer, deploying an aggressive disparaging style to deliver convoluted self-reinforcing dogma based on very selective mining of academic and popular texts.

This wouldn't be much of a problem, if his message wasn't so resolutely nasty and so appealing to the victim/bully mentality of many people.

I wish him well in dealing with his addiction and a full and swift recovery, but at the same time I think the world would be a better place if he STFU.

Think that's a little bit harsh on Jordan, I think he's made some good points in relation to people's preferred pronouns becoming intrusive and all the ridiculous nonsense surrounding 'gender politics', such as the gender pay myth etc.

Now while these may not be big issues over here yet (although the media in Ireland does overplay the gender stuff), they appear to be big issues in the states, particularly on college campuses where Peterson has spent some time.

However I do think he is incredibly weak on some issues, religion and god is a good example of this. He generally tries to obscure question he doesn't like, eg:

Q - Jordan do you believe in god?

A - Well that depends on what you mean by god, it would take me 40 hours to answer that question

If it takes someone 40hrs to answer a straightforward question then they are talking olympic levels of b0ll0x.

When Jordan is uncomfortable with a question he immediately tries to muddy the waters and obscure the debate, which gets very tiresome very quickly.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He has published over 130 academic papers, written two books, one of which was fairly weighty, lectured at several universities..like, if he's not an intellectual, I don't know who is..I think half the problem is people aren't capable of understanding him..

He has been a contributing author over a hundred publications, lead author in much fewer and sole author in barely any. Par for the course for any acadamic. Not all academics are public intellectuals and Peterson is a pseudointellectual he is claiming expertise in fields and areas of knowledge he does not understand and listening to JP on any topic other than clinical psychology is likely to leave you less informed than if you had never heard of him at all

ILoveYourVibes

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The argument that Kant was one of the original counter-Enlightenment figures comes from Stephen Hicks's 2004 book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, which traces an intellectual genealogy of postmodernism going all the way back to the 18th century. See this excerpt, "Why Kant Is the Turning Point," from Hicks's own blog. The author is a professor of philosophy, and so we have someone squarely within the field making the claims that you claim are absurd and uninformed. Have you read Kant yourself? I'd love to know your basis for claiming that Hicks (or Peterson) are mistaken here.



Interestingly, the left always gives linguistics professor Noam Chomsky a free pass whenever he uses his credentials and position to opine on capitalism, US foreign policy, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and numerous other issues beyond the scope of his academic training, but they are all over Peterson like a hot rash the moment he talks about anything outside of psychology. You'd almost think there's some kind of double standard at play.

Its not disputed that Kant was a key enlightenment figure. Hicks himself doesn't dispute this.

I unlike Peterson have read kant himself and texts beyond hicks. That is the difference.

Hicks has a very high standard for the 'enlightenment'.

Kant sees reason as having limits. Hicks uses this to ..well undermine Kant's commitment to what Hicks sees as a key characteristic to the 'enlightment'.

Hicks is NOT suggesting that kant was a key founder of the counter- enlightenment.

That would be a complete misunderstanding of both hicks and kant.

Peterson is no Noam Chomsky.

I've met Noam Chomksy. I have listened to him.

Noam Chomsky has lived in Mandatory Palestine in a Kibbutz. He has lived in Israel.

He has studied Linguistics, Logic. He has collabed with many key experts on mathematical papers. He is a MAJOR figure in analytical philosophy. He is one of the founder of cognitive science.

And unlike Peterson if he talks about something he has read it.

Out of curiosity, why is "Noam Chomsky has lived in Mandatory Palestine in a Kibbutz." relevant or useful information for determining his expertise?

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why is "Noam Chomsky has lived in Mandatory Palestine in a Kibbutz." relevant or useful information for determining his expertise?

It might be why he feels he can talk about Israel - Palestine.

BTW he describes himself as a zionist ...but says what used to be zionist is now considered anti zionist and he criticizes Isreals shift to the right.

On the above i agree with him.


He calls israel an apartheid state.

The above i totally disagree with.

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He didn't want to kick.

That looks REAL bad to a lot of people he has previously criticized.

He routinely bad mouths addicts. Or people he spoke of as 'WEAK'.

And now he can't kick.

It looks real bad.

He has lectured people on overcoming addiction. And been quite hard on them. He has said two weeks in a hospital should get even a heroine addict clean ....with no methadone nothing.

In other words Peterson was suggesting they should KICK REAL REAL HARD. Harder than most normal Drs suggest people kick. They usually taper using methadone.

Why don't all those heroine addicts just cop on, stand up straight and fly to Russia for private treatment presumably costing tend of thousands of euro? Maybe they're just lazy.

It will be interesting to see how he deals with this stuff in the future. It's hard to see how he won't advocate for more publicly funded addiction treatment. But his audience doesn't want to hear about more socialism so he might just ignore it.

The Americans love a good story arc. Like those anti-gay religious pastors who are caught in gay affairs, they make it a part of their story arc and their audience loves them all the more. He might just come back and be even even harder on drug addicts.

ILoveYourVibes

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why don't all those heroine addicts just cop on, stand up straight and fly to Russia for private treatment presumably costing tend of thousands of euro? Maybe they're just lazy.

yeah...or poor

In fairness ...if it works i am not against it. Shame no everyone has the choice.

suicide_circus

So to summarise;

"Human being turns out to be flawed"

The man does his lectures and sells his books. If people make him out to be some kind of guru or messiah, thats on them. I dont get the vitriol towards him.

Gynoid

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Perfectly put. Well except for the last line.

The last line of the post you replied to was wishing him well in a recovery. A humanitarian sentiment from someone who disagrees with him. And one which you deliberately single out to dismiss.
For someone who perhaps has read the texts you claim to have, they seem to have had little conditioning effect on you, they do not seem to have matured a sense of balance, whereby mercy and justice can co-exist, in you. Seems a waste to have used time spent on philosophy, the love of wisdom, for shallow intellectual dabbling that has no effect on the heart. Disagree with him all you wish but try not to be callous to boot.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I unlike Peterson have read kant himself and texts beyond hicks. That is the difference.

You now expect us to believe that you know Kant better than Peterson does.

I see no evidence of that whatsoever from anything you've ever posted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The argument that Kant was one of the original counter-Enlightenment figures comes from Stephen Hicks's 2004 book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, which traces an intellectual genealogy of postmodernism going all the way back to the 18th century. See this excerpt, "Why Kant Is the Turning Point," from Hicks's own blog. The author is a professor of philosophy, and so we have someone squarely within the field making the claims that you claim are absurd and uninformed. Have you read Kant yourself? I'd love to know your basis for claiming that Hicks or Peterson are mistaken here.



Interestingly, the left always gives linguistics professor Noam Chomsky a free pass whenever he uses his credentials and position to opine on capitalism, US foreign policy, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and numerous other issues beyond the scope of his academic training, but they are all over Peterson like a hot rash the moment he talks about anything outside of psychology. You'd almost think there's some kind of double standard at play.

That book is rather notorious for peddling falsehoods.

YOUTUBE]EHtvTGaPzF4[/YOUTUBE

El_Duderino 09

Huntergonzo wrote: »

However I do think he is incredibly weak on some issues, religion and god is a good example od this. He generally tries to obscure question he doesn't like, eg:

Q - Jordan do you believe in god?

A - Well that depends on what you mean by god, it would take me 40 hours to answer that question

If it takes someone 40hrs to answer a straightforward question then they are talking olympic levels of b0ll0x.

When Jordan is uncomfortable with a question he immediately tries to muddy the waters and obscure the debate, which gets very tiresome very quickly.

The religious stuff is terrible. But his main audience of conservative American men would want to hear the he believes in the Christian god so he gives them incredibly convoluted arguments for the Christian god.

The bit where he changes the question “do you believe in god” to “do you act like you believe in god” is an incredibly bad bait and switch. He says he doesn’t know what you mean by the terms “believe” or “god”. But that’s just nonsense. You could use the totally normal use of the terms but he prefers to invent new meanings for the purpose of that question.

It’s just a matter of giving a clever sounding reason for believing in Christianity because that’s what his conservative American audience wants to hear.

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

his main audience of conservative American men

BOOOO! HISSSSSS!!!!

nkl12xtw5goz70

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

That book is rather notorious for peddling falsehoods.

Tell us more about this "notorious" book that you first heard about ten minutes ago, and your frantic search to find a YouTube video that allegedly discredits it.

ILoveYourVibes

Pep Guardiola 75 wrote: »

When did he tell heroine addicts to just cop on? Is this just coming from people's overactive imagination?

In the clip i just showed you he seemed to think Heroin addicts should be getting clean in 2 weeks.

That's cold turkey. You just refuse to admit it.



He suggests here that cocaine addicts should just find something to replace it.

He then goes vague and nonsensical. He rants about cellphones for some reason.

He then seems to suggest addicts have addictions because they have nothing better to do.

ILoveYourVibes

A man who kicked ...talking to a man who told others to ...but couldnt himself.