Jordan Peterson interview on C4

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 11:05am

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

... In saying all this the event in the 3 Arena was mostly boring due to the subject matter taking up far too much time, the existence of god (forever argued) can only be listened to so much when sitting in an extremely warm, little leg room, BO smelling 3 Arena. They really should have changed the subject a lot earlier or went to Q&A for some variety.

How many of his followers actually like his religious stuff?

Apart from the fact that he’s very careful never to explicitly say what he means by ‘god’, his arguments are weak as p1ss.

How central is god to his self improvement message?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 11:12am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How many of his followers actually like his religious stuff?

Apart from the fact that he’s very careful never to explicitly say what he means by ‘god’, his arguments are weak as p1ss.

How central is god to his self improvement message?

Which arguments in particular are weak as p1ss? That's a seriously arrogant statement unless you're prepared to back it up.

His series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories is fascinating.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 11:31am

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How many of his followers actually like his religious stuff?

Apart from the fact that he’s very careful never to explicitly say what he means by ‘god’, his arguments are weak as p1ss.

How central is god to his self improvement message?

Which arguments in particular are weak as p1ss? That's a seriously arrogant statement unless you're prepared to back it up.

His series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories is fascinating.

I watched the Peterson debate with Matt Dillahunty. His arguments are a half step away from Presupposition. But they’re not explicit enough to be anything though. You can’t have morality without god? Not good enough.

Metaphor plays a fascinating role in human psychology, no doubt. Ancient philosophers were on to that idea and Freud took it further etc.

The idea that the bible has any greater significance than any other myths like Irish myths or aboriginal Australian myths, needs an injection of presupposition.

An investigation of the role of metaphor in human psychology is fascinating. Restricting it to the bible or thinking the bible has significance over any other book of metaphors, is boring and stupid.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 11:36am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I watched the Peterson debate with Matt Dillahunty. His arguments are a half step away from Presupposition. But they’re not explicit enough to be anything though. You can’t have morality without god? Not good enough.

Metaphor plays a fascinating role in human psychology, no doubt. Ancient philosophers were on to that idea and Freud took it further etc.

The idea that the bible has any greater significance than any other myths like Irish myths or aboriginal Australian myths, needs an injection of presupposition.

An investigation of the role of metaphor in human psychology is fascinating. Restricting it to the bible or thinking the bible has significance over any other book of metaphors, is boring and stupid.

I'll watch the debate again and come back to you about the God idea.

Metaphor is not only fascinating but entirely necessary, as they are one of the best tools to approximate a description the indescribable.

The argument for the bible being more significant than other myths holds weight given the absolutely massive societal influence it has had over millennia and the fact that its stories not only lasted, but resonated with billions.

markodaly · 18-07-2018 11:37am

Akrasia wrote: »

What influence and power? They have a little bit of political momentum at the moment in that some of their policies are finding their way up the chain of decision making and get enacted. .

It was mentioned earlier but what electoral power did the church have? As far as I am aware there was never a bishop or a priest elected as a TD, but we know how organisations like that wield power in other ways. Just as today, there are groups and organisation who wield power and control certain narratives.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 11:41am

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I'll watch the debate again and come back to you about the God idea.

Metaphor is not only fascinating but entirely necessary, as they are one of the best tools to approximate a description the indescribable.

The argument for the bible being more significant than other myths holds weight given the absolutely massive societal influence it has had over millennia and the fact that its stories not only lasted, but resonated with billions.

It has had a big impact alright. Some of the stories are even interesting. And that’s all completely beside the point of a god.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 12:19pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It has had a big impact alright. Some of the stories are even interesting. And that’s all completely beside the point of a god.

If you refuse to see depth in art and stories beyond their face value, the discussion can never go futher.

Would you agree that there can be more to a painting than just "oh, that's pretty"? Similarly, can a story be more than just interesting?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 12:20pm

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Haven't read Petersen's '12 Rules For Life', but maybe an amended edition might include Rule 13 (Injunction) - Young men of Ireland, be sure to have a shower - or even a full bath - before coming to see me at Dublin's 3 Arena. Please.

I was there last Saturday night and the pong was insufferable.

Perhaps the warm, well packed arena caused people to sweat, despite showering.

Outlaw Pete · 18-07-2018 12:30pm

professore wrote: »

Why a gender imbalance in STEM is problematic but is fine in other areas. Have yet to hear any.

Paglia addressed that a few times in debates and she never gets a response. Always the prestigious, lucrative jobs these people demand want equality of outcome for, never sweeping the streets.

Here's an example of this crap (jump to 1min in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N4WY--sIWU

Would she have said the same had she witnessed that there were no women working for the sanitation company cleaning the set? Doubt it.

Brian? · 18-07-2018 12:58pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

My point is that in a general way, college students should try to attend to their own affairs and get their lives in order, before protesting about perceived flaws and issues in the system.

I understand that. But disagree. The right to protest perceived flaws and issues should have zero to do with their own affairs. It’s a subjective objection.

Something like the civil rights issue is obviously a huge issue. While still being complicated, the morality of the issue is fairly obvious, and I'd consider it in a different league to something like gender pronoun use, or a man making a sexist joke.

So we back to this: who decides whether issues are big enough to protest? Shouldn’t this be an individual choice?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 1:02pm

Brian? wrote: »

I understand that. But disagree. The right to protest perceived flaws and issues should have zero to do with their own affairs. It’s a subjective objection.

So we back to this: who decides whether issues are big enough to protest? Shouldn’t this be an individual choice?

His point is not about the right to protest. It's about the motivation to protest.

People are angry and upset and they generally don't have a full comprehension of what is making them upset, and clinging to an ideology as a source of belonging and a change to vent some aggression is easier than self examination. Peterson argues that these people themselves, as well as society at large, would be better served figuring out their own issue and organising their affairs.

Everyone has the right to protest and to decide what they feel strongly enough about to protest. Nobody is disputing that.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 1:27pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It has had a big impact alright. Some of the stories are even interesting. And that’s all completely beside the point of a god.

If you refuse to see depth in art and stories beyond their face value, the discussion can never go futher.

Would you agree that there can be more to a painting than just "oh, that's pretty"? Similarly, can a story be more than just interesting?

Of course art can be more than just interesting. I’ve agreed with that above with the use of metaphor in the unconscious. Sigmund Freud made a fortune from it.

But the link between art and god is the massive unsupported leap which Peterson is happy to make.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 1:31pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course art can be more than just interesting. I’ve agreed with that above with the use of metaphor in the unconscious. Sigmund Freud made a fortune from it.

But the link between art and god is the massive unsupported leap which Peterson is happy to make.

I'm not sure he's happy to make any leaps. He is exploring the stories in the context of them ultimately being an attempt to describe the spiritual. I haven't seen any claims from him to say "god is absolutely real and here is why" or anything in that direction.

An important thing to note as well as that the god that Peterson discusses is not the bearded man in the sky representation.

RandomName2 · 18-07-2018 1:42pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

His point is not about the right to protest. It's about the motivation to protest.

People are angry and upset and they generally don't have a full comprehension of what is making them upset, and clinging to an ideology as a source of belonging and a change to vent some aggression is easier than self examination. Peterson argues that these people themselves, as well as society at large, would be better served figuring out their own issue and organising their affairs.

Everyone has the right to protest and to decide what they feel strongly enough about to protest. Nobody is disputing that.

I don't think it's about a right to protest. Protest is another form of free-speech. I think anybody should protest about anything they like.

It's what form that protest takes that is the issue, in my opinion. If you're calling for individuals to be attacked, boycotted, or fired, that's not a legitimate protest. If you want to take the law into your own hands and trespass, intimidate, and obstruct members of the public, that's not a legitimate form of protest. If you want to launch terrorist attacks that destroys infrastructure or kills people, that's not a legitimate form of protest.

The point is that it shouldn't matter who you are. Belonging to a certain demographic doesn't bar you from protesting, nor does it bestow a monopoly of indignation to behave any way imaginable.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 1:43pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Why a gender imbalance in STEM is problematic but is fine in other areas. Have yet to hear any.

Would she have said the same had she witnessed that there were no women working for the sanitation company cleaning the set? Doubt it.

This gets trottedout again and again and again. As if it was original or clever.

I’ve yet to see street sweepers Male or female with much power. The fact is that it takes organisation and active campaigning to achieve change in most cases. The more education, status, influence and power a group has, the more likely they are to have their views reach critical mass.

If there are women who would like to be street sweepers, you’re unlikely to hear about them. But a group campaigning on a middle class issue like STEM is much more likely to be able to get its message out there.

There seems to be this idea amongst the men on these threads that things just change organically. But the reality is that people make things change be campaigning for changes.

Secondly, what makes you think the people who activate on a STEM issue would have any interest in street sweeping issues? They’re not exactly related fields.

If nobody campaigns on street sweeping, then nothing is likely to change. Same with any issue.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 1:46pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This gets trottedout again and again and again. As if it was original or clever.

I’ve yet to see street sweepers Male or female with much power. The fact is that it takes organisation and active campaigning to achieve change in most cases. The more education, status, influence and power a group has, the more likely they are to have their views reach critical mass.

If there are women who would like to be street sweepers, you’re unlikely to hear about them. But a group campaigning on a middle class issue like STEM is much more likely to be able to get its message out there.

There seems to be this idea amongst the men on these threads that things just change organically. But the reality is that people make things change be campaigning for changes.

Secondly, what makes you think the people who activate on a STEM issue would have any interest in street sweeping issues? They’re not exactly related fields.

If nobody campaigns on street sweeping, then nothing is likely to change. Same with any issue.

Is the street sweeping company with only male workers equally sexist to a film company with no female sound techs?

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 1:50pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I'm not sure he's happy to make any leaps. He is exploring the stories in the context of them ultimately being an attempt to describe the spiritual. I haven't seen any claims from him to say "god is absolutely real and here is why" or anything in that direction.

An important thing to note as well as that the god that Peterson discusses is not the bearded man in the sky representation.

He’s very careful not to articulate what he things god is, but he does say he thinks god exists.

I don’t know if he describes what he means by spiritual either. When I’ve heard him speak about god it veers quickly from interesting to word salad. ‘You can’t have morality reality without god’ is a very old and very poor argument for god.

RandomName2 · 18-07-2018 1:50pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This gets trottedout again and again and again. As if it was original or clever.

I’ve yet to see street sweepers Male or female with much power. The fact is that it takes organisation and active campaigning to achieve change in most cases. The more education, status, influence and power a group has, the more likely they are to have their views reach critical mass.

If there are women who would like to be street sweepers, you’re unlikely to hear about them. But a group campaigning on a middle class issue like STEM is much more likely to be able to get its message out there.

There seems to be this idea amongst the men on these threads that things just change organically. But the reality is that people make things change be campaigning for changes.

Secondly, what makes you think the people who activate on a STEM issue would have any interest in street sweeping issues? They’re not exactly related fields.

If nobody campaigns on street sweeping, then nothing is likely to change. Same with any issue.

Supreme vacuous term of 'change'. Things don't need to 'change' for there to be more women street cleaners or scientists, if they wish to pursue these careers they are free to do so, same as with men and primary school teaching or nursing.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 1:52pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Supreme vacuous term of 'change'. Things don't need to 'change' for there to be more women street cleaners or scientists, if they wish to pursue these careers they are free to do so, same as with men and primary school teaching or nursing.

Excellent point. For more women to become involved in STEM fields, more women have to choose to study a STEM subject.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 1:57pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’s very careful not to articulate what he things god is, but he does say he thinks god exists.

I don’t know if he describes what he means by spiritual either. When I’ve heard him speak about god it veers quickly from interesting to word salad. ‘You can’t have morality reality without god’ is a very old and very poor argument for god.

It's a seriously complex issue, so to be accurate requires a certain length of explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

Giraffe Box · 18-07-2018 2:03pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Perhaps the warm, well packed arena caused people to sweat, despite showering.

Perhaps so.
Though I have to say that I've been to quite a few indoor events in warm weather over the years - I'm no spring chicken - and this was definitely the worst ever for that pungent BO sensation.
The air was fetid.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 2:22pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Is the street sweeping company with only male workers equally sexist to a film company with no female sound techs?

Maybe. I don’t know enough about it.

It’s possibly that it’s sexist but not causing a problem. The street sweeping industry could be created to suit the needs of men, but if no women aspire to be street sweepers then no problems would be caused.

What do you think?

18-07-2018 2:30pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

It's a seriously complex issue, so to be accurate requires a certain length of explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

As much as I defend him, I'm getting sick of listening to him. He's worse than a politician with dodging questions :pac:

MrKingsley · 18-07-2018 2:31pm

On the STEM point I found this research paper quite interesting.

http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf

For those who arent bothered/dont have the time its a study of high school and college students (470,000 of them from all over the world) and the choices they make regarding third level education.

One of the key findings were that in the more equal socio-economic countries more women choose to study in the humanities where as in less equal countries more decide to study STEM subjects. One hypothesis for this is that less wealthy students see STEM as a way of becoming wealthier in the future and offer a chance to get out of their present economic state.

A second key finding was that more women choose to engage in literature/arts/humanities in third level education because they simply perform better in these subjects and take more enjoyment from them than they do in maths/science/engineering. Even though, on average, they score roughly the same as boys in these subjects they choose not to progress in them as they perform better in others. Boys similarly choose to enter STEM subjects in third level as they are, on average, the subjects that they perform best in and get the most enjoyment from in high school

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 2:43pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

It's a seriously complex issue, so to be accurate requires a certain length of explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

It is and it isn’t complicated. It’s super simple to limit claims to that which is known. It’s very complicated to shoehorn preordained beliefs into that which is known.

Apart from using normal words and giving them different meanings (see spirit in the video above) he takes a massive left turn with the guff about mastering death or whatever way he phrased it. He’s a half step away from a matrix style of mastering matter and becoming immortal (in a bespoke use of the term immortal)

Did Jesus physically rise from the dead is a super simple question. No need for the dramatic pause. I don’t know if he did and as far as we know it’s not possible. If Jesus or anyone else rose from the dead it would be a first as far as we know. So for all intents and purposes, no. But it can’t be categorically ruled out so I don’t know b

There’s nothing complicated about it unless you want to shoehorn in some guff about Christ’s divinity.

His use of the word divinity is completely bespoke for his argument. He took a word ‘divine’ and gave it a new meaning for the sake of the discussion.

You’re divine too - if you take divine yo mean ‘a poster on boards named Parker Fat Ladyfinger’. Something can be anything -if we take something to mean anything. But that’s not what divine means so you’re actually not divine, and neither is the logos except according to Peterson’s brand new definition above.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 2:44pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe. I don’t know enough about it.

It’s possibly that it’s sexist but not causing a problem. The street sweeping industry could be created to suit the needs of men, but if no women aspire to be street sweepers then no problems would be caused.

What do you think?

I think neither are inherently sexist, and that the gender ratio that manifests itself is largely organic and a largely the result of choices men and women make regarding their careers.

Deleted User wrote: »

As much as I defend him, I'm getting sick of listening to him. He's worse than a politician with dodging questions :pac:

I hear what you're saying to an extent. It's a difficult question to answer at the same time. Do you believe in God?

I certainly can't say no, but at the same time I can't confidently say yes as I've given nowhere near enough thought to the idea.

18-07-2018 2:59pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I think neither are inherently sexist, and that the gender ratio that manifests itself is largely organic and a largely the result of choices men and women make regarding their careers.

I hear what you're saying to an extent. It's a difficult question to answer at the same time. Do you believe in God?

I certainly can't say no, but at the same time I can't confidently say yes as I've given nowhere near enough thought to the idea.

It surprised me that he says he doesn't know if Jesus rose or not. He says the accounts are unclear. This a huge inconsistency with why I liked him in the first place. I like that he demands there be evidence or statistics to base any of his opinions on. They leave the realm of opinion and become fact if you can prove it. If Jesus rising was some lefty identity politics feminist theory, he'd shoot it down in a heartbeat.

20Cent · 18-07-2018 3:05pm

Hey Jordan do you want a cup of tea?

<kermit voice>
Well, that is an interesting question. And it's so very complex and complicated we must be careful in how we handle our relationship to tea. Is tea good? Certainly sometime like when you are thirsty and want a hot drink but don't want coffee. But 10,000 gallons of tea would be a bad thing causing one to drown, perhaps even everyone else in the room and that would be fatal. Tea is feminine like chaos and dragons. My wife had a dream about tea one it could talk and had cognition, except for the sense of smell for some reason.
</kermit voice>

Yes or no Jordan FFS.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 3:07pm

20Cent wrote: »

Hey Jordan do you want a cup of tea?

<kermit voice>
Well, that is an interesting question. And it's so very complex and complicated we must be careful in how we handle our relationship to tea. Is tea good? Certainly sometime like when you are thirsty and want a hot drink but don't want coffee. But 10,000 gallons of tea would be a bad thing causing one to drown, perhaps even everyone else in the room and that would be fatal. Tea is feminine like chaos and dragons. My wife had a dream about tea one it could talk and had cognition, except for the sense of smell for some reason.
</kermit voice>

Yes or no Jordan FFS.

Why does he evoke such an emotional response from you?

Galwayguy35 · 18-07-2018 3:13pm

I wonder will the Government here go down the same route as Canada passing laws that you have to call someone one of these so called gender neutral pronouns.

They can fook right off if they do.

20Cent · 18-07-2018 3:30pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Why does he evoke such an emotional response from you?

Not emotion, cold hard facts and logic.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 3:31pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It is and it isn’t complicated. It’s super simple to limit claims to that which is known. It’s very complicated to shoehorn preordained beliefs into that which is known.

Apart from using normal words and giving them different meanings (see spirit in the video above) he takes a massive left turn with the guff about mastering death or whatever way he phrased it. He’s a half step away from a matrix style of mastering matter and becoming immortal (in a bespoke use of the term immortal)

Did Jesus physically rise from the dead is a super simple question. No need for the dramatic pause. I don’t know if he did and as far as we know it’s not possible. If Jesus or anyone else rose from the dead it would be a first as far as we know. So for all intents and purposes, no. But it can’t be categorically ruled out so I don’t know b

There’s nothing complicated about it unless you want to shoehorn in some guff about Christ’s divinity.

His use of the word divinity is completely bespoke for his argument. He took a word ‘divine’ and gave it a new meaning for the sake of the discussion.

You’re divine too - if you take divine yo mean ‘a poster on boards named needwater’. Something can be anything -if we take something to mean anything. But that’s not what divine means so you’re actually not divine, and neither is the logos except according to Peterson’s brand new definition above.

What do you mean by divine?

He defines divine as "of ultimate value, of ultimate transcendent value". Is this largely inaccurate?

Dictionary.com has:

- of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being.

- addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred:

-proceeding from God or a god:

Under either definition Christ is divine. The question comes back to what one means by God.

Regarding morality / acting as if God exists:

If we act badly, there are consequences.

If we live well, things tend to be better for us.

At some level of abstraction this is essentially the idea of God.

On jesus' resurrection, I think he's leaning in the direction of transcendence of a zen like fashion, or mastering being in a sense. How is it that some buddhist monks can self immolate and not flinch once while burning to death?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 3:31pm

20Cent wrote: »

Not emotion, cold hard facts and logic.

I mean, your impression was sort of funny, but making up quotes inside a [kermit-voice] tag is not logical to any degree, and is surely an emotional response.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 3:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It surprised me that he says he doesn't know if Jesus rose or not. He says the accounts are unclear. This a huge inconsistency with why I liked him in the first place. I like that he demands there be evidence or statistics to base any of his opinions on. They leave the realm of opinion and become fact if you can prove it. If Jesus rising was some lefty identity politics feminist theory, he'd shoot it down in a heartbeat.

He’d at least ask for good evidence for the resurrection. If he set the bar of evidence at the resurrection, then his whole schtick would go out the window. I finally found a bit where he says what he thinks god actually is. He says ‘ it’s not at all unreasonable to think of god the father as the spirit that arises from the crowd that exists into the future’.

That’s not complicated, it’s just nonsense

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 3:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It surprised me that he says he doesn't know if Jesus rose or not. He says the accounts are unclear. This a huge inconsistency with why I liked him in the first place. I like that he demands there be evidence or statistics to base any of his opinions on. They leave the realm of opinion and become fact if you can prove it. If Jesus rising was some lefty identity politics feminist theory, he'd shoot it down in a heartbeat.

My understanding is that he is unclear as to whether the accounts literally mean the man physically died, woke up and walked around again, or they describe some sort of divine transformation.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 3:35pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’d at least ask for good evidence for the resurrection. If he set the bar of evidence at the resurrection, then his whole schtick would go out the window. I finally found a bit where he says what he thinks god actually is. He says ‘ it’s not at all unreasonable to think of god the father as the spirit that arises from the crowd that exists into the future’.

That’s not complicated, it’s just nonsense

That's an isolated sentence from a deeper explanation and context in which I'm confident it won't appear as nonsensical.

Do you have a link?

20Cent · 18-07-2018 3:36pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I mean, your impression was sort of funny, but making up quotes inside a [kermit-voice] tag is not logical to any degree, and is surely an emotional response.

It wreaks a joke when you have to explain it. Stand up straight shrug it off and move on.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 3:41pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

What do you mean by divine?

He defines divine as "of ultimate value, of ultimate transcendent value". Is this largely inaccurate?

Dictionary.com has:

- of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being.

- addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred:

-proceeding from God or a god:

Under either definition Christ is divine. The question comes back to what one means by God.

Regarding morality / acting as if God exists:

If we act badly, there are consequences.

If we live well, things tend to be better for us.

At some level of abstraction this is essentially the idea of God.

On jesus' resurrection, I think he's leaning in the direction of transcendence of a zen like fashion, or mastering being in a sense. How is it that some buddhist monks can self immolate and not flinch once while burning to death?

I’d just use the normal accepted meaning of divine.

He actually said the logos is divine if you take divine to mean... which is NOT covered by your dictionary.com definition. He made up his own definition of divine and then declared the logos divine under his own definition. That’s not convincing to you, is it?

I don’t know how monks self immolate without flinching. But the idea that they do it because they have ‘mastered being’ is a big leap and the idea that Jesus could physically resurrect because he had mastered being, is fanciful at best

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 3:46pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

[

That's an isolated sentence from a deeper explanation and context in which I'm confident it won't appear as nonsensical.

Do you have a link?

And what if it is exactly as presented it? That’s out of context has become a standard dismissal

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 3:48pm

https://youtu.be/zTHU5B2yOUg

Here it is. It’s near complete guff btw.

The fact that we can plan for the future is god the father. Christ on a bike

Giraffe Box · 18-07-2018 3:52pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

My understanding is that he is unclear as to whether the accounts literally mean the man physically died, woke up and walked around again, or they describe some sort of divine transformation.

Personally I think Norm Peterson from 'Cheers' was smarter:

"What's going down, Normie?"
"My butt cheeks on that bar stool."
"Pour you a beer, Mr. Peterson?"
"Alright, but stop me at one....make that one-thirty."

Here's something in plain English, I think he mentions the man upstairs in this bit, that's God not Nietzsche by the way.
Jordan Peterson at an Oxford Union Q & A:

''That’s a really good question. When Nietzsche announced the death of God—which was something he announced, actually, in sorrow and trembling, rather than triumphantly, which is often how that’s read, because people don’t actually read Nietzsche; they just read one half of a quote from Nietzsche. His prognostication was that we would have to become creators of our own values. And then it wasn’t long after that that he died. What that meant was that any further investigations into that idea by him came to an end. Not much later, Freud came along. Freud demonstrated quite clearly—even though he doesn’t get nearly as much credit for this as he should—that there was no evidence whatsoever that people were masters of their own houses; and that we were the playthings of the gods, in a Greek sense. We were driven perceptually and behaviourally, emotionally and motivationally, by forces that were not exactly under our voluntary control—autonomous internal forces. You could think about those as where the gods went when they depopulated the cosmos. That was Carl Jung’s notion. Jung was a very astute student of Nietzsche. He gave a seminar on the first half of Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, that’s 1,600 pages long. It’s actually quite a dense read as well, so it’s not 1,600 pages written in crayon.

Jung’s sense was that Nietzsche’s prognostication had to be wrong, because human beings cannot create their own values. We actually don’t have that capacity. We might be able to participate in the creation of those values, but we have to come to terms with our own nature while we’re doing so. I think the biological evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming. If you don’t believe that, then what that means is that either you don’t know anything about biology or that you’ve stuck your head in the sand to the point where you’re unable to see. Now Jung was very interested in how those internal forces manifested themselves, but also how they organized themselves across time. Ok, so there’s two answers to your question. One is that they organized themselves into a hierarchy, and there’s something at the top. He believed that what was at the top in the West was symbolized by the figure of Christ, and he thought of Christ as a symbol of the self. The self was an emergent consequence of the internal arranging of motivational states into a hierarchy, partly as a consequence of psychological activity—integration, maturation—but also partly as a consequence of social pressure, because how you organize yourself is partly a consequence of who you are and how you organize yourself, but it’s also partly a consequence of how other people demand you be organized. I think that Jean Piaget’s work fits very nicely into that. I think they were aiming in some sense at the same synthesis.''

Simples.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 3:55pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d just use the normal accepted meaning of divine.

He actually said the logos is divine if you take divine to mean... which is NOT covered by your dictionary.com definition. He made up his own definition of divine and then declared the logos divine under his own definition. That’s not convincing to you, is it?

I don’t know how monks self immolate without flinching. But the idea that they do it because they have ‘mastered being’ is a big leap and the idea that Jesus could physically resurrect because he had mastered being, is fanciful at best

If you accept Jesus as divine, why not the logos?

Sure, they're fanciful leaps, which is why the uncertainty that surrounds the topic when it's discussed. It is true however that monks can do so, and that we cannot understand how. It is also true that monks spend a lot more time connecting with the spiritual (can I say that? meditating if you prefer? ) and less dealing with the societal side of life, which is largely of our creation.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And what if it is exactly as presented it? That’s out of context has become a standard dismissal

It's not a dismissal. I don't think the line by itself should be dismissed either, it's not immediately obvious that it's true but it definitely deserves further exploration and explanation.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 4:04pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/zTHU5B2yOUg

Here it is. It’s near complete guff btw.

The fact that we can plan for the future is god the father. Christ on a bike

Thanks.

I honestly think that's a brilliant clip. Recommended watching. It's from his biblical series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHU5B2yOUg

I don't understand what's so controversial about it. God as a metaphor for the idea that we can negotiate with time in a somewhat reliable manner. Sacrifice now and reap rewards in the future.

Can you explain why you think it's complete guff?

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 4:08pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d just use the normal accepted meaning of divine.

He actually said the logos is divine if you take divine to mean... which is NOT covered by your dictionary.com definition. He made up his own definition of divine and then declared the logos divine under his own definition. That’s not convincing to you, is it?

I don’t know how monks self immolate without flinching. But the idea that they do it because they have ‘mastered being’ is a big leap and the idea that Jesus could physically resurrect because he had mastered being, is fanciful at best

If you accept Jesus as divine, why not the logos?

Sure, they're fanciful leaps, which is why the uncertainty that surrounds the topic when it's discussed. It is true however that monks can do so, and that we cannot understand how. It is also true that monks spend a lot more time connecting with the spiritual (can I say that? meditating if you prefer? ) and less dealing with the societal side of life, which is largely of our creation.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And what if it is exactly as presented it? That’s out of context has become a standard dismissal

It's not a dismissal. I don't think the line by itself should be dismissed either, it's not immediately obvious that it's true but it definitely deserves further exploration and explanation.

It’s interesting that he won’t say whether he believes in god because the likelihood that both people are working from the same meaning of belief or god. Then he carries on to use super ambiguous language to discuss his ideas. Sometimes making up his own meaning for common words.

So yes, you can use the word spiritual, but you probably should be super specific about what you mean by the term spiritual or meditation. And then you should be super specific about what you mean by mastering being, then you should be super specific about how mastering being is related to spiritual or meditation.

Because as far as I can see, the idea that physical resurrection is just nonsense that relies on a lot of leaps of faith and is shielded from investigation by the ambiguity of the language.

bnt · 18-07-2018 4:14pm

Reading that quote of Peterson's, this is the point at which he "jumps the shark", in my opinion:

Jordan Peterson wrote: »

Jung’s sense was that Nietzsche’s prognostication had to be wrong, because human beings cannot create their own values. We actually don’t have that capacity. We might be able to participate in the creation of those values, but we have to come to terms with our own nature while we’re doing so. I think the biological evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming. If you don’t believe that, then what that means is that either you don’t know anything about biology or that you’ve stuck your head in the sand to the point where you’re unable to see.

That leap from "human beings cannot create their own values" to "biology" is a big one. It starts as something Jung said (an opinion) that Peterson transmogrifies in to "fact" somehow, with the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is ignorant of biology, whether accidentally or wilfully. Is there really strong evidence in biology (a science) that we cannot create our own values (philosphy)?

Never mind all the evidence from history that we can and do create our own values. Unless by "values" Peterson means universal values applicable to all biology (including all mammals); he doesn't say that, but if he means that, that's a stretch not supported by any evidence. (Scriptures etc. are testimony and opinion, not evidence of anything but their own existence.)

I mean, as I've said before, I can understand the desire to find meaning in life, and Peterson's pedantic urge to give people such meaning if he can, but none of that means such meanings actually exist in any universal sense. We're on our own; we have to do it all for ourselves; get used to it.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 4:16pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s interesting that he won’t say whether he believes in god because the likelihood that both people are working from the same meaning of belief or god. Then he carries on to use super ambiguous language to discuss his ideas. Sometimes making up his own meaning for common words.

So yes, you can use the word spiritual, but you probably should be super specific about what you mean by the term spiritual or meditation. And then you should be super specific about what you mean by mastering being, then you should be super specific about how mastering being is related to spiritual or meditation.

Because as far as I can see, the idea that physical resurrection is just nonsense that relies on a lot of leaps of faith and is shielded from investigation by the ambiguity of the language.

Then the concepts being discussed are fundamentally beyond our understanding, what's a good alternative to ambiguous language?

Is resurrection the sticking point at the moment?

If you ask me whether I believe a man can physically die and come back from the dead? Well, it happens all the time in today's world when people are resuscitated by doctors.

While I'm not confident that the man Jesus Christ died on a cross, spent 3 days in a tomb, and then rose again, let me play devil's advocate for a minute.

Let's say Jesus was extremely skilled in meditation, to the point where he could essentially look dead to an observer. Is a pierce in the side with a spear necessarily fatal every time? Is it at all plausible that he did not die on the cross?

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2018 4:17pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Thanks.

I honestly think that's a brilliant clip. Recommended watching. It's from his biblical series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHU5B2yOUg

I don't understand what's so controversial about it. God as a metaphor for the idea that we can negotiate with time in a somewhat reliable manner. Sacrifice now and reap rewards in the future.

Can you explain why you think it's complete guff?

Ah no. Does that count as good? He takes a totally normal concept-planning for the future- and gives it the super loaded name god.

Why on earth is it reasonable to think of god the father as the fact that we can plan for the future? That’s a function of the prefrontal cortex in the brain. Lots of humans don’t have the ability to go it due to abnormal brain development. Does that mean god doesn’t exist for those people because they can’t plan for the future?

Giraffe Box · 18-07-2018 4:18pm

''God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain''

John Lennon said/sang that 48 years ago.
Succinct.

What exactly is Jordan Peterson trying to say, and why can't he keep it brief?
Does he get paid by the yard or something?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 18-07-2018 4:20pm

bnt wrote: »

Reading that quote of Peterson's, this is the point at which he "jumps the shark", in my opinion:

That leap from "human beings cannot create their own values" to "biology" is a big one. It starts as something Jung said (an opinion) that Peterson transmogrifies in to "fact" somehow, with the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is ignorant of biology, whether accidentally or wilfully. Is there really strong evidence in biology (a science) that we cannot create our own values (philosphy)?

Never mind all the evidence from history that we can and do create our own values. Unless by "values" Peterson means universal values applicable to all biology (including all mammals); he doesn't say that, but if he means that, that's a stretch not supported by any evidence. (Scriptures etc. are testimony and opinion, not evidence of anything but their own existence.)

I mean, as I've said before, I can understand the desire to find meaning in life, and Peterson's pedantic urge to give people such meaning if he can, but none of that means such meanings actually exist in any universal sense. We're on our own; we have to do it all for ourselves; get used to it.

I think the reference to biology refers to the idea of human beings being highly regulated by emotion. The concept of ideas having people, rather than people having ideas.

I think it's equally as arrogant to say we're all on our own, get used to it as it would be to say God is definitely real, just believe.

DickSwiveller Returns · 18-07-2018 4:26pm

Giraffe Box wrote: »

''God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain''

John Lennon said/sang that 48 years ago.
Succinct.

What exactly is Jordan Peterson trying to say, and why can't he keep it brief?
Does he get paid by the yard or something?

John Lennon also sang "I am the walrus, I am the eggman" so lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments