Teacher: jordan did you do your homework? Jordan Peterson: not only did I do it, I am still doing my homework in a meta happening Teacher: for fuck sake that is the 4th time this week you didn't do it
If you ask him what time is it: he'll say it straight. If you ask him what colour is the sky: he'll say blue But people ask or his talks are about the significance of the bible, the solution for psychologycal or society issues and other controversial topics and people expect him to answer with clear one liners Only dumb people, or people with big egos who aren't aware of how big the world or ideas are so sure about everything and answer simple things. If you take context into account and complexity your answer is bound to take different paths at once but people attention span is that of a 2 year old monkey therefore they call bs on everything he says
@@sakurasfish2115 The question in the video is Very straightforward: did the Exodus really happened as a historical fact? It can be answered with yes or no. There are no possible nuances, It is a very simple yes or no question. He just simply did not answered the question.
@@sanosukesagara9707 He answered the question. The answer is no, it didn't happen factually but in a more existential way it did, cause what the stories in Exodus represent are archetypes in human consciousness that are so accurate and repeated in history that it's just simplistic to qualify it as not real. (I used my words but that's roughly what he meant) I know it's a long answer but why not inquire stuff thoroughly? and I don't know the context of the interview maybe he had a reason to answer like that. Plus what is there to gain for the people wanting an straight forward answer?? Do they want him to say: NO IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OK? 👏👏👏 YOU WIN or YES IT DID HAPPEN, I'M DUMB YOU SMART OK LET'S NOT THINK ANYTHING THROUGH 👏👏👏
@@jimjimson6208yes bro it's intentional, and it is analysing a complex topic through different points of views. If a politician or someone selling you stuff does it it's misdirection to harm you. But if a person does it on an intellectual analysis of something it means they're actually giving a thought to the topic not just saying whatever simple short answer to appease simpletons.
I can't remember exactly what this is called, but it's scholastic obfuscation. The use of scholarly talk to hide the true meaning, lack of understanding, or to feign expertise. JP is a master of it.
I'd say its quite simply a red herring and a Psychologist's fallacy he distracts you from the core topic with the word salad while also failing to see his own subjectivity.
Nah nvm I googled the term you wrote. It's not scholastic obfuscation at least on Google it says it's called the scholastic fallacy where above all the injection of meta- in addition to confusing someone with political/philosophical/psychological jargon, but u are right
@Linni loov But that is christianity as a whole. The idea that god is loving but drowned the planet, or is love and coming back to condemn all who don't believe.
Petersen: Waiter, there's a fly in my soup. Waiter: It's meta soup, Sir, a soup representative of all the soups of mankind. The fly thus symbolises the angst of customers as they detect invasive species in menus down the ages. Wthout the fly the soup is diminished. With it, the customer experience is elevated into the domain of the divine.
@@kainuipenaloza9395 Jesus of Nazareth is God. Period. We Christian’s don’t follow myth or legend or believe in fairy tales as my comment makes clear. We follow accurate eyewitness testimony that no one can prove false; plus, Jewish, Greek and Roman historians agree that Jesus was crucified and that his followers believed him to be God. The circumstantial evidence outside the Bible actually helps Jesus’s case for being God in the flesh. So I don’t care to insult you, although Jesus would not like me doing that so guess you have a point there… I also am not afraid of what to say that might offend others. Did you vote for Joe Biden? You sound like a woke democrat who would like to be called a certain pronoun. May I refer to you as Bilbo Baggins?
If you ask him how many genders are there he’ll give you a direct answer. When you ask him if he believes in a God...What is do? What is you? What is believe? 😂
2 genders is easy we all know that many like to pretend it's a feeling outside of biology like a spirit but it's not. God is the creator of the universe to me as a Christian other's believe there's many God's some in the universe you as in culture indoctrination or you've come to your own conclusion Believe it what all people act on almost all the time as a philosopher will say we don't know anything we have a prospective even colours don't exist outside our brain
What exactly do you mean by “you” & “without” & “a”??? You’re speaking with such complicated complex linguistics that no one could possibly understand what you mean!!
In fairness smoking sensation has been reduced with the use of LSD and other psychedelics. Peterson just didn’t phrase it well - he wasn’t wrong though.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds. Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.
I love this great irony whenever it's pointed out. The last, great bastion against the evil of postmodernism is himself a postmodernist. Can't make this shit up.
@@sharathsh9987 but in Jordan's archetypal meta-manner post-modernism isn't post-modernism but some kind of "cultural marxist" thing where people band language. In the meta-narrative he is as correct as anything, such as saying postmodernism is a donkey spread with butter, and if there's a Jungian archetype for it you bet its not only real but we should live our lives in suv a fairytale of archetypal relations, i.e. stereotype every experience into neat boxes of "nature" we should never break. Because he said so, even though Jung didn't. Here's a graph without appropriate methodology to prove it. Also natural world is just some noumena unexperienced so may as well make up what nature is and state it with absolute certainty innit. *Um, he might not actually be PoMo though because he states absolutes, and PoMo is arguably more about relativistic acceptance in lack of knowledge.
JP isn't stupid, he's just trapped in thr middle, he can't decide if he believes or not, and that actually makes him intelligent. It's an extremely difficult thing to believe in and equally difficult to dismiss. Anyone who says otherwise is either lazy or a fool.
Yes, Peterson is smart enough to know that the question is historical, and we are smart enough to know what he means by "meta-manner". They may not describe exact historical events, but they carry archetypal value. It's not smart to play dumb to prove a point.
@Linni loov Well, he was always kind of a bullshit psychologist. You can't have a real practice when all you do is misquote Jung and Dostoevsky. He was a teacher more than a psychologist and a preacher more than a teacher. Now he's a right wing political commentator.
@@TrickiousRickious The stories told in the Bible did not literally happen. But they do happen throughout history in much the same spirit. Moses leading his people out of slavery is no different from Abraham Lincoln leading his nation out of slavery. They're truths for all times and places.
He dresses like a Batman villain and he answers direct questions with riddles and smoke bombs. He's a cartoon and anyone who takes him seriously is a fart-sniffer.
I’m assuming he also skirts question because if he told the truth he’d alienate a large chunk of his audience, and he refuses to ever lie for whatever reason.
I actually disagree, I think his answer makes a lot of sense. One of the main issues with religion is the fact that it emerged as a set of values rather than historical facts ; but as modern people, we try to disprove it using science and history. I understand Peterson's answer as the following : "The question is phrased in a binary way, and expects a yes or no response. But asking that question is missing the entire point. The events happened in a meta-way - which means that they didn't happen historically, physically, but they are a representation of what happened to everyone." Attacking religion by debunking facts is pointless, because religion isn't founded on those ideas. You have to morally contend with it, and it's a much more difficult task than simply dunking on Christians because there isn't an old man with a beard in the sky... IMO, Peterson understands this perfectly, and manages to bridge the gap between religion, science and history perfectly. Unfortunately, I think you are missing the point...
Then why didn't Peterson just answer in a very straightforward manner by saying, "I don't believe in the reality of God as an entity, but the Bible is allegorical and I believe in the morals that are distilled within it because they are still applicable today." Shit, that was easy enough for me, why not him?
Except this was not the question being asked. Many people have held that view without resorting to the babbling that Peterson does. He has to be absolutely boxed into a corner to give a straight answer and even then slithers around it. Why can't he just SAY: "I don't actually believe jesus really rose from the dead, but here's my theory as to why that belief is important in a meta way" Answer: he is still trying to market himself to American fundamentalist Christians, because at the end of the day he is grifter first, intellectual second. If you take issue with my calling him a grifter, remember: this is the guy who claims his opponents don't care about objective truth and want to reduce the world down to subjective interpretations. How can a man simultaneously claim to be championing objective truth whilst holding this hyper-meta subjectivist stance on truth? He says whatever keeps his audience invested.
knowing the words is one thing, knowing how to use them is another. i doubt your ability with the former and the latter is surely nonexistent by your own admission
Jordan Peterson will do everything to not say that he's an atheist directly because he knows his audience will get mad lol. Not that he's not allowed to be philosophical, but after seeing the amount of "Jordan Peterson is now a christian" videos, I think he's really struggling to actuall send his message his own audience lol
The reason he is vague is because such answer has many layers to it. Does he believe that God reassured after being crucified? No. Does he believe in something higher? Yes. Does he go to church every Sunday and pray every day? No. These are just few of the faucets of "being Christian". Some people would call him an atheist for not being 100% textbook believer, others would call him Christian for just mentioning the Bible. He is vague only when it is absolutely necessary. Religion is such topic. His audience will not "leave" him if he says directly "I do not believe in God" trust me.
@@HandleHandleson I agree. People want people to be in one of two camps so badly that they'll discard any attempt at nuanced discussion as dodging the question. It's like that one Limmy's Show skit with the politician.
That makes no sense at all and there's a huge difference between psychology and philosophy. He gets some things wrong but easy to find a flaw and use to dispute all he ever says but everyone is wrong it's just picking a side you want to not rational at all
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds. Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
What he's doing is pointing out that the literal physical historicity of the bible is the least important part of the whole book. It is extremely significant regardless of if any of it is historically accurate at all. That's his point: stop asking the boring question as if it's important and pay attention to the baby you're throwing out with the bathwater. I'm not saying that everyone throws the baby out, I'm saying that his message has been that since he first started the biblical lectures, with specific regard to Christianity and it's scriptures. As for me, I'm an atheist who practices buddhism, and one of my core religious beliefs is that a god or gods do not have to be real to be worthy of worship. Religious belief is a tool to mold a person to be a benefit to society, but it has to be used with skill. In an idealized American first amendment respecting country, this would put the responsibility on the individual to craft a religious ethic, or choose one (from options that include atheism) to mold themselves, and I think this is a great system. Eg, I venerate a character that I don't know actually existed, but is believed by some to be male, female, human, deity, from Buddha's time period, and from the middle ages simultaneously by different traditions, but I don't care about that. I care about the archetype of compassion that they represent, and worshipping my understanding of that character objectively increases my tendencies towards compassion and kindness. In my zendo, I'll never disrespect my fellow practitioners by degrading their understanding of Kanon by imposing my own, because perhaps that would prevent them from reaping the benefits, and this is choice made from the compassion I'm reaping from my own practice.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds. Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.
What he says makes sense because nobody can say with 100% certainty that those events happened exactly like they are described. It’s never going to be a yes or no question.
Yes, exactly. I'm so sick of him dancing around this question. He knows exactly what he's doing. Sam Harris has called him out on it to his face more than once, and he still comes up with some BS to say. It's frustratingly dishonest.
Jordan Peterson is honest. He knows exactly what hes doing, correct. Sam Harris just repeats making the same logical mistake over and over again and keeps asking. That doesn't make it right.
@tennebroussalley Not about his conviction on religion. Asking, "Are you convinced that the resurrection actually happened?" is a yes or no question. His dishonesty lies with his refusal to answer these types of questions. What "logical mistake" is Sam making?
@@MizzouRah78 answering that question is hard because both sides aren't sure what is meant by "actually" mostly. Besides who knows is it really did happen i think.
@@MizzouRah78 That is based on the assumption that a resurrection actually means the same thing to everyone today as it did long ago in a different context. Obviously, there are other stories of people coming back to life in other parts of the Bible, but what were the intentions behind these narratives? The Torah explicitly warns Israel not to follow a leader simply because of miraculous things they might demonstrate, so then why so many miracle stories in so much of Jewish writing both inside and outside the Bible?--To expound with rich symbolism on historic debates within the Jewish nation. Most people who believe in a resurrection have never stopped to question their interpretation of its meaning. To an original historic audience, stories of resurrection had to do with the rebirth of the nation of Israel. It really wasn't about getting people saved from hell by believing Jesus was god. So is the idea of rebirth--as in national renewal or even personal transformation against all odds--a lie? We can no longer say that it is a lie when we consider that there is a literal Jewish nation reborn in modern times and with a language that hadn't been a living tongue for ages now a robust reality. And om a more personal level, most of us are aware of difficult and positive changes in our lives that involve some death of beliefs or habits...followed by a new lease in life.
@Book Squid: Adventures in Home Therapy He has been asked, "Do you believe the resurrection happened as it is described in the bible?" There's only so much dodging you can do. If he admitted he didn't know and explained what you did, that would at least be something. Again, whether or not you are CONVINCED it happened (as described in the bible and accepted by most Christians) is a yes or no question. Same goes for asking if someone is CONVINCED there's a god. You are either convinced, or you're not.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds. Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
They are definitely not random lines. It's important to step out of the "God real or not" debate to understand. You can understand it as a language of It's own, a mythological language, with which you can say things that are definitely true and in a way that your common way of speaking will feel insufficient. Check out the analysis of Pinocchio on Peterson's channel.
@@juanchitaro5380 If you want to move away from the debate, then accept that he's not real. Why keep ducking the question? Could it be because you don't have any argument or evidence for the existence of God? In that case concede. What you are doing is just dishonest and an obvious misdirection.
@@simonboucher5170 I'm an atheist too, Simon. You and I already got our answer to that question. What about trying to dig into something new and see what can be learned? Learning about any religion in depth is a door to understanding so much about humans themselves and even ourselves. It's the paradigm of our ancestors; and they were no fools.
As a Christian, I agree with @Cosmicskeptic, Jordan Peterson (based solely on public declarations) does not actually seem to be a Christian, though perhaps he is on the path to become one someday.
"If one were cynical, one might say that his caginess and coyness about answering the question is deliberately calculated to promote his mysterious public image so as to make people even more interested in him. If you were a public relations agent for Jordan Peterson, you would tell him don't you dare answer that question straightforwardly. By not answering it, by being coy, it increases the mystique of Jordan Peterson and makes him interesting. People talk about it. They debate whether he really believes it or not. It increases his public notoriety. Whereas if he were to simply come right out and say yes or no, the debate would be over. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting. People wouldn't talk about it. So if you were cynical, you might say that this is just really well-calculated public relations." (William Lane Craig talking about Jordan Peterson on his Reasonable Faith podcast)
Peterson knows that his ideas appeal to a certain group of society. He certainly doesn't want to lose the great majority of his audience. He's not a philosopher. He's a businessman.
His knowledge in psychology field is really good. It's precise, with references and supported by scientific methods. If you watch his classes lectures (or some of his older lectures) you will see he really is a well-educated man. The problem are some of his personal ideas. He even said that, in general, the older the person gets, the less openness he demonstrates, which means less ability to modify his/her ideas
@@gerardo49078 It only seems precise to a layman. In practice, the way he's mangling all the people he quotes, and looking at the people he chooses to quote, he's clearly a preacher more than a teacher.
@@gerardo49078 All of his profesional rigor is worthless if he can't or won't communicate properly. He has actively decided to rail against modernity and has found an audience of INCELs and MIGTOWs who lap every single bullshit nonsensical argument he can spit out, so he panders to these people. He answers questions without answering them or twists the question in such a way to mean whatever he wants to answer without being clear in the slightest. He uses "meta" the same way Chopra uses "quantum". He uses his maybe rightfully earned credentials to muddle and obscure the simple meaning of his idiotic talking points, so that he may sound more profound. He is an enemy of progress and of discourse, please don't defend him.
@@RicardoMorenoAlmeida You make him look like he's a villain. I only place credit where it is deserved. He is just a man sharing his ideas, which he is entitled to, just as you are entitled to disagree. You can argue all you want about his irrational and ridiculous actions, but to deny that he has done more good than harm is unfair. Nobody is perfect. If you hate him for any specific reason, that's another matter
Sounds like the words I heard from the priest at my daughters choir performance. Something along the lines: Most people don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead when you ask them directly but in difficult times we believe it anyway.🤦🏽♀️
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds. Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
He already mentioned in that video that the events didn't occur in a historical manner which by itself indicates that he does not share the same set of Christian ideations pertaining to the question at hand. "Meta" (granted that you know what meta means) just means that they are self-referential depictions of human nature represented through stories. The truth element of it just refers to the idea that these stories that can be used as a proxy to extract facts or truths about human nature and experience informing our scientific understanding human behavior along the fields of psychology, sociology the remaining set of social science disciplines.
to be Christians advocate: the difference is that fiction creates a wholly new world, whereas exodus uses metaphor to describe real events. common language today is btw filled with "unrealistic" metaphors that you don't even realize unless you're an autistic child, certainly my native language which is Dutch.
@@andrewprahst2529if you want to avoid the question you were asked. Peterson knows exactly what those things mean he just asks for clarification on things he already knows in order to avoid the question.
This is the perfect example of Jordan peterson's pseudointellectualism, he just says nonsense with words designed to sound smart but really don't mean anything or are vague enough for his followers to attribute meaning to. The scary part is that I'm not sure if he's a con man or actually believes the jibberish that he says.
i don't think he's speaking non sense, peterson is really in love with Jung, if you actually read a bit about Jung you'd understand not to mention he's a psychologist, as a psychologist student i get what he tryna say. any sane person can see Jordan isn't a believer of christ but he's also hate promoting atheism, that's why he try so hard to avoid this kinda question. Camus once said about God, something about "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is". we all damn know Camus wasn't a religious tbh he can say "NO" but that would need a whole lecture to explain that answer
@@liamorwhat2665 >>i don't think he's speaking non sense, peterson is really in love with Jung,"" And yet does not see his own ego in denial and does not try and bring that shadow into conscious mind to be integrated or transmuted.
@@macmac1022I mean, that's something everyone is struggling with. It's probably the most difficult and universal problem among humans. How do you find a blind spot only you can find that is masked as knowledge? You have to deconstruct everything you think you know to find it. Ain't nobody want to do that, they just want to have things figured out already and be right! Only crazy people like us do that 😁
As a Christian, I actually agree. Jordan Peterson's statement regarding the Book of Exodus is pseudo-intellectual nonsense. For Christians, Exodus and the Bible as a whole are about events that occurred thousands of years ago, and are not one large metaphor. Sometimes the simplest reading of Scripture is the best.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds. Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
Evil? I can see where he's wrong on God but that doesn't make him evil. he's clearly a kind decent person, just wrong on many things. maybe the evil is in you?
@@HorusHerotic wrong on god? I don't think he's ever said that God is 'real' beyond saying the belief in God has positive consequences. Which is objectively true... depending on your metrics. 🙃
@@HorusHerotic He is certainly not a kind or good person. He is a right-wing shill who makes a ton of money talking in word salads that different people can interpret to mean what they want it to mean.
@@Raygun9000 So false, you mean. His schtick is evil. It's a con that has made him a millionaire on the backs of people who follow him, while only pretending to provide answers.
The point Peterson is making is that it's not very relevant whether or not it actually happened, but rather that, the principles involved in the story are timeless and therefore the story is eternally relevant.
he always does that when he's asked a question he doesn't actually want to answer. The real question is, how many of us does he think are so completely stupid that we don't notice him doing it?
Not really. Technically he's just saying "it's fictional, but has a lot of meaning still relevant today". It's just _really_ obfuscated. I'm pretty sure that's because he'd lose a major part of his audience and it could be really troublesome for the bs Shapiro project and the church with which he works together if he would be clear. His statements contradict both, but his followers can interpret them however they want.
I don't see how else he can draw people's attention to the deeper truths they miss when they settle for simplistic and fundamentalist assumptions. There are far more nuanced discussions regarding ethics and divinity in Jewish writing than Christianity recognizes. Hardly anyone is familiar with Judaism though. Perhaps it frustrates some on this channel to hear him avoid knee-jerk reactions based on overly simplistic and more popular ideas of what the Bible is talking about.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.The duality between subjective experience and objective experience is a long-standing topic in philosophy and psychology. Subjective experience refers to the individual's personal and internal experiences, thoughts, and feelings, while objective experience refers to external phenomena that can be observed and measured.
Peterson is a right wing grifter who seduces the right with big or obscure words to make himself look as if he's saying something profound when he isn't.
I'm getting kinda sick of people (no offence, Alex) saying things like "Jordan's smart enough to..." I mean, Jordan may well _be_ "smart enough", but in the future I'll still be asking for some proof first, 'cos I've never seen any evidence of it...
As a Christian I know hes been asked this many of times and its annoying but I remember one time he was asked and he basically said "well if I say I'm christian than all the denominations would ask which one he falls into and try to claim him" it's still annoying though.
Despite his claim to be something else, essentially Peterson is a politician who has learned that when you don't want to answer, you ramble, you fragment your sentences and you bullshit.
Doesn’t matter if he is a cabbage farmer in rural Romania or a psychologist, he was asked a fucking simple question that has yes or no answers then evidence/support for the nuance in those answers to come later. He gave none, he is a conman, playing it up for the audience. He could have just said” No, Not really, but we are living the truths of the history either way”which is fucking dead wrong to me but he could have said it. Or he could say Yes, and forever be a joke to rational thinkers. Instead he was smart and opted for a failure of a vague answer in word salad.
The correct answer is to say carl jung was a bad scientist and a mediocre psychologist. Man never tested shit, proclaimed christianity to be true, and made an entire theory based on what he observed in no joke 40 patients. Dude is basically a regular dude making up theories in todays terms.
@@EpicLemonMusicThat's called humans doing what humans do.... creating stuff. For example maths and time are a human creation, they may not actually exist at all.
@@Martyn_Wolf nope, science is testable, math is of course testable and proof of almost every single technological advancement of our age. Jung’s dumb fucking trash psychology is both proven wrong and outdated, Peterson is just hanging on to his ideas because they are mystical woowoo and bring in the followers.
It's interesting to note that Jordan Peterson thinks to a large degree symbolically. Richard Dawkins even accused him in an interview of being "drunk on symbolism", which is a perfectly understandable remark from an evolutionary biologist who has a much more candid and empirical thinking style contrasted with Jordan's somewhat theoretical analysis.
*You should totally invite and interview Dr Peterson in person; his interview and conversations with Richard Dawkins was intriguing. One inspiring story reported that a student that needed mental help rushed to Dr Jordan Peterson on stage for guidance*
His interview with Richard Dawkins is like a protracted comedy bit. Peterson keeps talking and talking, while Dawkins just makes faces like he's putting up with a kid telling him about his imaginary adventures.
@@phantom.wreath not my dog. They can understand the motion of pointing like if your were throwing something but generally u gotta put ur fingertip on what u want them to get at or make a motioned gesture
It was S. Francis of Assis that said: «Brothers, look at the Sun». And he pointed to the Sun. Everybody stared at the saint's finger. From then on saying «to look at the saint's finger» means «to miss the point».
That depends on your ability to follow what he is saying. And if course that is not an idea that you fancy so a better explanation for you would be that he does say anything.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 Sorry, the OP was correct. Peterson likes his 'word salad'. And for the record, I like Jordan and agree with him on many subjects. However, his religious arguments are horrible.
@@pillsareyummy yeah it does like to use complex language. I prefer a more simple one as it reaches more people but I can understand that if you own a sports car then you don't want to drive slow. And what he says is complex but never pointless. You can always see the overarching process in his thoughts, the coherence of it. It is inevitable that some people won't be able to follow it. That's why I prefer more simplicity but fully understand why he doesn't. His complexity isn't illogical though.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 He uses 'complex language' in his religious arguments on purpose, it's called Sophistry. He's not the only religious apologist to do so, others, like William Lane Craig, employ the same tactics. He's trying to defend a position that can't be (rationally) defended. Sam Harris has called him out on this a few times. Don't conflate/confuse rhetoric with profundity. Anybody who's studied logical discourse can see through Jordan's 'smoke and mirrors' easily. I don't think he's intentionally being deceitful (as others believe), I think religion gives him a sense of peace, I believe he's merely trying to defend said beliefs, albeit poorly. The brain has a wonderful way of protecting cherished ideas.
He's actually very good on matters psychological which is his area of expertise. I used to dismiss him as a showman, but there's plenty of intellectual rigor behind much of what he says, combined with a fair amount of rhetorical bluster. Listen to the talk he had with Richard Dawkins for an example of the latter, and to many of the interviews he's done on his podcast for the former.
@@formulaic78 He always seems to go a bit too hard on the weird conceptual Jungian stuff for me. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think a lot of Jung's ideas have really neat creative and self-reflective uses, but he really goes off the wall with it.
The word salad! Thank you!! He is a dumber (thank Peter Jordan) person's version of a smart person. I am convinced this is why Trump supporters still exist. You have to be that level of dumb that is dumber than Trump. Edit: I just realized that I messed up his name. Such a bland person. Jordon Peterson. Peter Jordon. Peterson Jordon. Whatever. Annoying white dude with a sense of entitlement and a world audience.
Thank you, Alex. You nailed it. And I have say this: Jordan Peterson is an Expert in Jung’s psychology. That’s it. It is sad to see this man as a guru of pretty much everything. Unfortunately, many people, himself included, seem to think he is the wisest man in the world. That makes this guy a dangerous influencer
Gonna have to disagree with you here as a life-long, Christian with several degrees on the matter. It is the "enlightened" man who separates literal and metaphorical. The ancients were fine with recognizing their own limitations and the limitations of stories. When they heard Exodus they believed it as something that really happened, but they recognized the nature of the specifics were unobtainable. We know this to be true. We have documents upon documents of people arguing about it. But we also know they saw the story as an archetype that invited them into it's current progress and its future predictions. If you haven't figure that out yet, I don't think your degrees were worth very much
If you can separate literal and metaphorical, then if someone asks you “in a literal sense, did it happen”, then you should certainly not talk about the metaphorical sense like Peterson did
I dont think he realizes the shadow ego he is building up with having this idea and enforcing it, and the denial he has that everyone is trying to tell him that he sounds delusional.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.The duality between subjective experience and objective experience is a long-standing topic in philosophy and psychology. Subjective experience refers to the individual's personal and internal experiences, thoughts, and feelings, while objective experience refers to external phenomena that can be observed and measured.
@@ryanhoffman5477 >>In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.The duality between subjective experience and objective experience is a long-standing topic in philosophy and psychology. Subjective experience refers to the individual's personal and internal experiences, thoughts, and feelings, while objective experience refers to external phenomena that can be observed and measured."" Well lets see who can answer the simple moral questions better and see who has more bias and will behave better ok? People of all kinds please state if your theists, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that person moral? #2 You ask them why they are not doing anything and they tell you they heard the reasoning is beyond human comprehension, but this will bring about a greater good, do you accept his claim and sit and watch or do you reject it and save the child? #3 Is it just to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider someone who laid a minefield knowing people were going to stop on the mines and how much damage would be done and who would die, and then forced their children to go an play in it a good parent?
@@ryanhoffman5477 >>depends on how you define religion or belief? "" I think answering the questions is dependent on your definition, even though many people have enough understanding to know what those words mean, and are not really part of the questions. >>The journey of knowing is admitting I don't know is how I investigate without bias."" So you cant answer the simple moral questions? What is the proper thing to do when asked a question? Why is it that 90% of my questions go unanswered? Why do politicians even ask each other questions when they avoid them constantly? What exactly do you think is happening and why people avoid so many questions? I will give you my answer after my own 2.5 years of research.
JP's wife: Did you do the dishes like I asked you to? JP: The dishes are meta-done. They're still being washed. We're all struggling with unclean dishes. When you do the dishes you don't get clean dishes, you get a dirty sink.
Yes but what exactly do you mean by “Jordan” and “Peterson” and “and?”
What do you mean by "what"?
I don't like that question.
Aha! Gotcha!
@@NotSure723 no but I love that username
It's actually much more complicated than that!
Teacher: jordan did you do your homework?
Jordan Peterson: not only did I do it, I am still doing my homework in a meta happening
Teacher: for fuck sake that is the 4th time this week you didn't do it
😂
Now, I'm imagining him still taking his SAT/ACT and writing his doctoral thesis (if he ever got that far in his collegiate studies, that is)!!
😂
This made me burst out lout at 2:30am while I should be sleeping 😂
Hahahahaha i die
🤣🤣🤣💀
Peterson is turning into a politician, answering the question without answering it.
If you ask him what time is it: he'll say it straight.
If you ask him what colour is the sky: he'll say blue
But people ask or his talks are about the significance of the bible, the solution for psychologycal or society issues and other controversial topics and people expect him to answer with clear one liners
Only dumb people, or people with big egos who aren't aware of how big the world or ideas are so sure about everything and answer simple things.
If you take context into account and complexity your answer is bound to take different paths at once but people attention span is that of a 2 year old monkey therefore they call bs on everything he says
@@sakurasfish2115 The question in the video is Very straightforward: did the Exodus really happened as a historical fact?
It can be answered with yes or no. There are no possible nuances, It is a very simple yes or no question.
He just simply did not answered the question.
@@sanosukesagara9707 no you can't say that bro jordan peepeeson would never resort to intentional misdirection in his speeches fr
@@sanosukesagara9707 He answered the question. The answer is no, it didn't happen factually but in a more existential way it did, cause what the stories in Exodus represent are archetypes in human consciousness that are so accurate and repeated in history that it's just simplistic to qualify it as not real.
(I used my words but that's roughly what he meant)
I know it's a long answer but why not inquire stuff thoroughly? and I don't know the context of the interview maybe he had a reason to answer like that.
Plus what is there to gain for the people wanting an straight forward answer??
Do they want him to say:
NO IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OK? 👏👏👏 YOU WIN
or
YES IT DID HAPPEN, I'M DUMB YOU SMART OK LET'S NOT THINK ANYTHING THROUGH 👏👏👏
@@jimjimson6208yes bro it's intentional, and it is analysing a complex topic through different points of views.
If a politician or someone selling you stuff does it it's misdirection to harm you.
But if a person does it on an intellectual analysis of something it means they're actually giving a thought to the topic not just saying whatever simple short answer to appease simpletons.
I can't remember exactly what this is called, but it's scholastic obfuscation. The use of scholarly talk to hide the true meaning, lack of understanding, or to feign expertise. JP is a master of it.
I believe the word you're looking for is "sophistry". If there ever was an exemplar of a true sophist, it would undoubtedly be JP
I'd say its quite simply a red herring and a Psychologist's fallacy he distracts you from the core topic with the word salad while also failing to see his own subjectivity.
Nah nvm I googled the term you wrote. It's not scholastic obfuscation at least on Google it says it's called the scholastic fallacy where above all the injection of meta- in addition to confusing someone with political/philosophical/psychological jargon, but u are right
I think that what Peterson is doing is trying to give an answer so vague that it pleases his whole audience. It's a good marketing practice.
“I would sound like an idiot”-no, you would sound like a stoner
Pretty much and I used to admired him
It's called the Barnum effect.
It’s clearly dishonest.
@Linni loov But that is christianity as a whole. The idea that god is loving but drowned the planet, or is love and coming back to condemn all who don't believe.
Petersen: Waiter, there's a fly in my soup.
Waiter: It's meta soup, Sir, a soup representative of all the soups of mankind. The fly thus symbolises the angst of customers as they detect invasive species in menus down the ages. Wthout the fly the soup is diminished. With it, the customer experience is elevated into the domain of the divine.
LOL
This is essential to the soup heirarchy that speaks to the very foundation of humanity!
Nice
😭 ugh. ”It’s meta soup, Sir” ☠️
That depends what you mean by "soup"...
How dare you. I graduated from Hogwarts and Bilbo Baggins was my classmate.
Me too i graduated with his nephew Frodo and Harry Houdini
Yo I think I was your classmate, didn’t you set your pants on fire at every graduation ceremony for all 7 years?
Was Dildo Faggins there too?
You’re insulting everyone with that statement, careful with what you say.
@@kainuipenaloza9395 Jesus of Nazareth is God. Period. We Christian’s don’t follow myth or legend or believe in fairy tales as my comment makes clear. We follow accurate eyewitness testimony that no one can prove false; plus, Jewish, Greek and Roman historians agree that Jesus was crucified and that his followers believed him to be God. The circumstantial evidence outside the Bible actually helps Jesus’s case for being God in the flesh. So I don’t care to insult you, although Jesus would not like me doing that so guess you have a point there… I also am not afraid of what to say that might offend others. Did you vote for Joe Biden? You sound like a woke democrat who would like to be called a certain pronoun. May I refer to you as Bilbo Baggins?
Imagine yourself lost in a new city/town, and asking Mr Peterson for directions.
3hrs later....
Haha 😆
@@TheVanessaGrantCompany probably why they took 40 years
3hrs later you remember the hose in the boot.
If you ask him how many genders are there he’ll give you a direct answer. When you ask him if he believes in a God...What is do? What is you? What is believe? 😂
And what is Gawd?☺️
2 genders is easy we all know that many like to pretend it's a feeling outside of biology like a spirit but it's not.
God is the creator of the universe to me as a Christian other's believe there's many God's some in the universe you as in culture indoctrination or you've come to your own conclusion
Believe it what all people act on almost all the time as a philosopher will say we don't know anything we have a prospective even colours don't exist outside our brain
@@khandakararraf2012 the creator of the universe
@@davidevans3223 it was sarcasm.
On the other hand, he might just put the cat among the pigeons by asking you what is gender.
Well, "you can't quit smoking without having a mystical experience" 🤣
LOL and the bible is a comedy as a comedy is a story with a happy ending LOL
What exactly do you mean by “you” & “without” & “a”??? You’re speaking with such complicated complex linguistics that no one could possibly understand what you mean!!
@@whysocurious7366 You'll have to buy my codex and a ticket to my 3 day seminar😄
In fairness smoking sensation has been reduced with the use of LSD and other psychedelics. Peterson just didn’t phrase it well - he wasn’t wrong though.
@@_Omega_Weapon Umm... maybe I'll just wait till the movie comes out? 🙂
“When you say happen, what do you mean by happen?”
-an actual quote from Jordan Petersen 😂
Pitching his voice up was nefarious 😂😂😂
Peterson is the master of using rhetoric in order to not actually answer a question.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds.
Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.
@@ryanhoffman5477 yes but unfortunately, intuition, divine revelation and myth do not always describe the true facts.
@@davidsuttie4192 just meta facts....lol
Actually... no.
The guy who constantly rails against postmodernism just said "It happened in a meta-manner."
Jordan Peterson is a postmodernist. Just don't tell his fans.
@@exu7325Yes, he definitely is.
I love this great irony whenever it's pointed out. The last, great bastion against the evil of postmodernism is himself a postmodernist. Can't make this shit up.
Facts 😂
@@sharathsh9987 but in Jordan's archetypal meta-manner post-modernism isn't post-modernism but some kind of "cultural marxist" thing where people band language. In the meta-narrative he is as correct as anything, such as saying postmodernism is a donkey spread with butter, and if there's a Jungian archetype for it you bet its not only real but we should live our lives in suv a fairytale of archetypal relations, i.e. stereotype every experience into neat boxes of "nature" we should never break. Because he said so, even though Jung didn't. Here's a graph without appropriate methodology to prove it. Also natural world is just some noumena unexperienced so may as well make up what nature is and state it with absolute certainty innit.
*Um, he might not actually be PoMo though because he states absolutes, and PoMo is arguably more about relativistic acceptance in lack of knowledge.
JP isn't stupid, he's just trapped in thr middle, he can't decide if he believes or not, and that actually makes him intelligent. It's an extremely difficult thing to believe in and equally difficult to dismiss. Anyone who says otherwise is either lazy or a fool.
Yes, Peterson is smart enough to know that the question is historical, and we are smart enough to know what he means by "meta-manner". They may not describe exact historical events, but they carry archetypal value. It's not smart to play dumb to prove a point.
you just have to add "meta" to every subject and make it pseudo-cerebral.
Peterson knows how to speak so much while saying so little
@@sorguvasfen2426 he'd make a good politician or preacher.
He found a spectacular word to touch perpetually online gamers. Lol
@@charlestownsend9280 sounds pretty accurate
@Linni loov Well, he was always kind of a bullshit psychologist. You can't have a real practice when all you do is misquote Jung and Dostoevsky. He was a teacher more than a psychologist and a preacher more than a teacher. Now he's a right wing political commentator.
“They happened in a meta manner” is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while
But they really do. He isn't lying.
@@DestinyAwaits19 no of course not, he's meta truthing
@@TrickiousRickious Oh cmon, stop meta messing with him…
@@TrickiousRickious The stories told in the Bible did not literally happen. But they do happen throughout history in much the same spirit. Moses leading his people out of slavery is no different from Abraham Lincoln leading his nation out of slavery. They're truths for all times and places.
Jordan is Metatron in a meta way. He's still happening
He dresses like a Batman villain and he answers direct questions with riddles and smoke bombs. He's a cartoon and anyone who takes him seriously is a fart-sniffer.
This would explain why everything smells like shit lately
of course, in a world where you are the inteligent one, everyone is stupid.
He does have his moments tho
Depends on what hes talking about. Hes 100% right on gender tbh
@@thepakistanipotatohe's right on tidying my room but I still don't do it
Lots of public speakers do this. If the answer to the question is not favorable to your cause then answer the question you wished they asked.
It isn't any less slimy just because it's common.
I’m assuming he also skirts question because if he told the truth he’d alienate a large chunk of his audience, and he refuses to ever lie for whatever reason.
Exactly@@GNAV3
Peterson was asked:
"What do you want for lunch?"
....he's still talking.
Well what the bloody hell exactly does that even mean, man?
To ask yourself this question you have ask yourself what is lunch, and what is want?
A meta-lunch.
@@alucarderipmavtube he's still preparing the lunch through his internal conflict between satiety and hunger
Well what do you mean by lunch? And what do you mean by want?
Gotta love the "...evil was always pressing up on our castle, man" XD
I actually disagree, I think his answer makes a lot of sense.
One of the main issues with religion is the fact that it emerged as a set of values rather than historical facts ; but as modern people, we try to disprove it using science and history.
I understand Peterson's answer as the following :
"The question is phrased in a binary way, and expects a yes or no response. But asking that question is missing the entire point. The events happened in a meta-way - which means that they didn't happen historically, physically, but they are a representation of what happened to everyone."
Attacking religion by debunking facts is pointless, because religion isn't founded on those ideas. You have to morally contend with it, and it's a much more difficult task than simply dunking on Christians because there isn't an old man with a beard in the sky...
IMO, Peterson understands this perfectly, and manages to bridge the gap between religion, science and history perfectly. Unfortunately, I think you are missing the point...
Then why didn't Peterson just answer in a very straightforward manner by saying, "I don't believe in the reality of God as an entity, but the Bible is allegorical and I believe in the morals that are distilled within it because they are still applicable today."
Shit, that was easy enough for me, why not him?
@@Fightconnoisseur96 he has addressed this.
Except this was not the question being asked.
Many people have held that view without resorting to the babbling that Peterson does.
He has to be absolutely boxed into a corner to give a straight answer and even then slithers around it.
Why can't he just SAY: "I don't actually believe jesus really rose from the dead, but here's my theory as to why that belief is important in a meta way"
Answer: he is still trying to market himself to American fundamentalist Christians, because at the end of the day he is grifter first, intellectual second.
If you take issue with my calling him a grifter, remember: this is the guy who claims his opponents don't care about objective truth and want to reduce the world down to subjective interpretations.
How can a man simultaneously claim to be championing objective truth whilst holding this hyper-meta subjectivist stance on truth?
He says whatever keeps his audience invested.
@@Fightconnoisseur96because he does believe in God as an entity.
@@DisgruntledPeasantBecause religion is to only way to obtain objective morality.
Translation: Probably, but that's not the real importance.
He makes too much money on his ambiguity, especially when it comes to religion. He'd lose so many of his followers if he answered, "Of course not."
Capitalism ruined intellectual class.
Exactly, he's a grifter that appeals to the naive.
He did say "god is the ultimate fictional character"
@@_Omega_Weapon His followers believe he started to believe for real at some point after that.
@@stevenicol1 sounds like a very toxic relationship
Jordan Peterson convinced me that all I need to be revered as a profound intellectual and thinker of our time is a thesaurus
knowing the words is one thing, knowing how to use them is another. i doubt your ability with the former and the latter is surely nonexistent by your own admission
@@tosmok Maybe not, but I have enough of a diction to describe someone who's throating peterson's boots more than someone who's healthy should
@@saavrinfaia and i the same for those somehow incapable of understanding what he says
@@tosmok And I have enough of a diction to explain how someone can lie about being able to actually understand what he says.
@@saavrinfaia its useful to talk about yourself agreed. you may want to invest in a dictionary if his generally simple sentences are too confusing
A lot of J. P. fanboys here. As slippery and dishonest as their master. And, therefore, all hypocrites too!
"Did you have breakfast today, Jordan?"
"I am still having breakfast in a meta-manner."
Jordan Peterson will do everything to not say that he's an atheist directly because he knows his audience will get mad lol. Not that he's not allowed to be philosophical, but after seeing the amount of "Jordan Peterson is now a christian" videos, I think he's really struggling to actuall send his message his own audience lol
The reason he is vague is because such answer has many layers to it. Does he believe that God reassured after being crucified? No. Does he believe in something higher? Yes. Does he go to church every Sunday and pray every day? No. These are just few of the faucets of "being Christian". Some people would call him an atheist for not being 100% textbook believer, others would call him Christian for just mentioning the Bible. He is vague only when it is absolutely necessary. Religion is such topic. His audience will not "leave" him if he says directly "I do not believe in God" trust me.
@@HandleHandleson I agree. People want people to be in one of two camps so badly that they'll discard any attempt at nuanced discussion as dodging the question.
It's like that one Limmy's Show skit with the politician.
Muslim Peterson fans believe that he's secretly a Muslim.
@@thezaher some indeed do. But that is quite a stretch on their end, especially after the JP and Jonathan Pageau conversation with Mo Hijab
@@thezaher The thing I've heard is "He's Muslim, he just doesn't know it yet"
Thank you for clarifying Peterson in a way most have been afraid of
That makes no sense at all and there's a huge difference between psychology and philosophy.
He gets some things wrong but easy to find a flaw and use to dispute all he ever says but everyone is wrong it's just picking a side you want to not rational at all
@@davidevans3223 Thank you. i was looking around to see an honest human here. Cosmic wouldnt dare try challenging psychology work of JP.
@@dojoparsnip9905 that'll be because he isn't a psychologist mate
@@willellis2688 Thanks for stating that. If you hadnt, I wouldnt have known. Feel free to add any other information that only YOU know.
@@willellis2688 yes, and Petersons not a historian?
Watching Peterson descend into madness has not been fun for me. I liked the guy.
I agree with you calling out Petersons equivocations on his beliefs
The word salad king showing off his talents
And as do so many purveyors of bullshit, he yells hoping to distract the listener from his innate hackery
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds.
Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
What he's doing is pointing out that the literal physical historicity of the bible is the least important part of the whole book. It is extremely significant regardless of if any of it is historically accurate at all. That's his point: stop asking the boring question as if it's important and pay attention to the baby you're throwing out with the bathwater.
I'm not saying that everyone throws the baby out, I'm saying that his message has been that since he first started the biblical lectures, with specific regard to Christianity and it's scriptures.
As for me, I'm an atheist who practices buddhism, and one of my core religious beliefs is that a god or gods do not have to be real to be worthy of worship. Religious belief is a tool to mold a person to be a benefit to society, but it has to be used with skill. In an idealized American first amendment respecting country, this would put the responsibility on the individual to craft a religious ethic, or choose one (from options that include atheism) to mold themselves, and I think this is a great system.
Eg, I venerate a character that I don't know actually existed, but is believed by some to be male, female, human, deity, from Buddha's time period, and from the middle ages simultaneously by different traditions, but I don't care about that. I care about the archetype of compassion that they represent, and worshipping my understanding of that character objectively increases my tendencies towards compassion and kindness. In my zendo, I'll never disrespect my fellow practitioners by degrading their understanding of Kanon by imposing my own, because perhaps that would prevent them from reaping the benefits, and this is choice made from the compassion I'm reaping from my own practice.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds.
Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.
What he says makes sense because nobody can say with 100% certainty that those events happened exactly like they are described. It’s never going to be a yes or no question.
Pseudo intellectual that never gives objective disagreement.
Yes, exactly. I'm so sick of him dancing around this question. He knows exactly what he's doing. Sam Harris has called him out on it to his face more than once, and he still comes up with some BS to say. It's frustratingly dishonest.
Jordan Peterson is honest. He knows exactly what hes doing, correct. Sam Harris just repeats making the same logical mistake over and over again and keeps asking. That doesn't make it right.
@tennebroussalley Not about his conviction on religion. Asking, "Are you convinced that the resurrection actually happened?" is a yes or no question. His dishonesty lies with his refusal to answer these types of questions. What "logical mistake" is Sam making?
@@MizzouRah78 answering that question is hard because both sides aren't sure what is meant by "actually" mostly. Besides who knows is it really did happen i think.
@@MizzouRah78 That is based on the assumption that a resurrection actually means the same thing to everyone today as it did long ago in a different context. Obviously, there are other stories of people coming back to life in other parts of the Bible, but what were the intentions behind these narratives? The Torah explicitly warns Israel not to follow a leader simply because of miraculous things they might demonstrate, so then why so many miracle stories in so much of Jewish writing both inside and outside the Bible?--To expound with rich symbolism on historic debates within the Jewish nation. Most people who believe in a resurrection have never stopped to question their interpretation of its meaning. To an original historic audience, stories of resurrection had to do with the rebirth of the nation of Israel. It really wasn't about getting people saved from hell by believing Jesus was god. So is the idea of rebirth--as in national renewal or even personal transformation against all odds--a lie? We can no longer say that it is a lie when we consider that there is a literal Jewish nation reborn in modern times and with a language that hadn't been a living tongue for ages now a robust reality. And om a more personal level, most of us are aware of difficult and positive changes in our lives that involve some death of beliefs or habits...followed by a new lease in life.
@Book Squid: Adventures in Home Therapy He has been asked, "Do you believe the resurrection happened as it is described in the bible?" There's only so much dodging you can do. If he admitted he didn't know and explained what you did, that would at least be something. Again, whether or not you are CONVINCED it happened (as described in the bible and accepted by most Christians) is a yes or no question. Same goes for asking if someone is CONVINCED there's a god. You are either convinced, or you're not.
The Bible: pee is stored in the balls
Jordan Peterson: it's a metaphor!
That is really say that!? 😂 I’m dead
i used to thought pee coming from the balls when i was like 4
>>The Bible: pee is stored in the balls""
Where does it say that?
@@Yourhighnessnona of course it doesn't wtf
@@macmac1022 Leviticus 12:36
Someone once said of Jordan Peterson that he’s drunk on symbolism. This is one of the best critiques I’ve heard of him. 😂
He has actual faith. Hes saying fractals occur and therefore still occur.a right of passage is a good example of "still happening".
That was a perfect Petersonism.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds.
Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
@@ryanhoffman5477 Memes...
Jordan's answers are as if I were drawing with my eyes closed: a bunch of random lines going in circles and ending up nowhere. 🤔
They are definitely not random lines. It's important to step out of the "God real or not" debate to understand. You can understand it as a language of It's own, a mythological language, with which you can say things that are definitely true and in a way that your common way of speaking will feel insufficient. Check out the analysis of Pinocchio on Peterson's channel.
@@juanchitaro5380 no
The question is very simple and it is very easy to deliver an answer to it.
No excuses.
@@juanchitaro5380 Woah. You sound so mystical.
@@juanchitaro5380 If you want to move away from the debate, then accept that he's not real. Why keep ducking the question? Could it be because you don't have any argument or evidence for the existence of God? In that case concede.
What you are doing is just dishonest and an obvious misdirection.
@@simonboucher5170 I'm an atheist too, Simon. You and I already got our answer to that question. What about trying to dig into something new and see what can be learned? Learning about any religion in depth is a door to understanding so much about humans themselves and even ourselves. It's the paradigm of our ancestors; and they were no fools.
As a Christian, I agree with @Cosmicskeptic, Jordan Peterson (based solely on public declarations) does not actually seem to be a Christian, though perhaps he is on the path to become one someday.
"If one were cynical, one might say that his caginess and coyness about answering the question is deliberately calculated to promote his mysterious public image so as to make people even more interested in him. If you were a public relations agent for Jordan Peterson, you would tell him don't you dare answer that question straightforwardly. By not answering it, by being coy, it increases the mystique of Jordan Peterson and makes him interesting. People talk about it. They debate whether he really believes it or not. It increases his public notoriety. Whereas if he were to simply come right out and say yes or no, the debate would be over. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting. People wouldn't talk about it. So if you were cynical, you might say that this is just really well-calculated public relations." (William Lane Craig talking about Jordan Peterson on his Reasonable Faith podcast)
Peterson knows that his ideas appeal to a certain group of society. He certainly doesn't want to lose the great majority of his audience. He's not a philosopher. He's a businessman.
Peterson is the Depak Chopra of Psychology...
Good analogy.
His knowledge in psychology field is really good. It's precise, with references and supported by scientific methods. If you watch his classes lectures (or some of his older lectures) you will see he really is a well-educated man. The problem are some of his personal ideas. He even said that, in general, the older the person gets, the less openness he demonstrates, which means less ability to modify his/her ideas
@@gerardo49078 It only seems precise to a layman. In practice, the way he's mangling all the people he quotes, and looking at the people he chooses to quote, he's clearly a preacher more than a teacher.
@@gerardo49078 All of his profesional rigor is worthless if he can't or won't communicate properly. He has actively decided to rail against modernity and has found an audience of INCELs and MIGTOWs who lap every single bullshit nonsensical argument he can spit out, so he panders to these people. He answers questions without answering them or twists the question in such a way to mean whatever he wants to answer without being clear in the slightest. He uses "meta" the same way Chopra uses "quantum". He uses his maybe rightfully earned credentials to muddle and obscure the simple meaning of his idiotic talking points, so that he may sound more profound. He is an enemy of progress and of discourse, please don't defend him.
@@RicardoMorenoAlmeida You make him look like he's a villain. I only place credit where it is deserved. He is just a man sharing his ideas, which he is entitled to, just as you are entitled to disagree. You can argue all you want about his irrational and ridiculous actions, but to deny that he has done more good than harm is unfair. Nobody is perfect. If you hate him for any specific reason, that's another matter
because ...slay the dragon
Sounds like the words I heard from the priest at my daughters choir performance. Something along the lines: Most people don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead when you ask them directly but in difficult times we believe it anyway.🤦🏽♀️
He sounds like me when I'm high lmao. Or any Lit major, tbh.
By saying it like that JP kinda defined “meta truth” to mean “it’s actually bullshit.”
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds.
Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
He already mentioned in that video that the events didn't occur in a historical manner which by itself indicates that he does not share the same set of Christian ideations pertaining to the question at hand. "Meta" (granted that you know what meta means) just means that they are self-referential depictions of human nature represented through stories. The truth element of it just refers to the idea that these stories that can be used as a proxy to extract facts or truths about human nature and experience informing our scientific understanding human behavior along the fields of psychology, sociology the remaining set of social science disciplines.
to be Christians advocate: the difference is that fiction creates a wholly new world, whereas exodus uses metaphor to describe real events. common language today is btw filled with "unrealistic" metaphors that you don't even realize unless you're an autistic child, certainly my native language which is Dutch.
What is Simple? What is Historical? What is a Question??
Those are actually all good questions
@@andrewprahst2529if you want to avoid the question you were asked. Peterson knows exactly what those things mean he just asks for clarification on things he already knows in order to avoid the question.
This is the perfect example of Jordan peterson's pseudointellectualism, he just says nonsense with words designed to sound smart but really don't mean anything or are vague enough for his followers to attribute meaning to. The scary part is that I'm not sure if he's a con man or actually believes the jibberish that he says.
i don't think he's speaking non sense, peterson is really in love with Jung, if you actually read a bit about Jung you'd understand not to mention he's a psychologist, as a psychologist student i get what he tryna say. any sane person can see Jordan isn't a believer of christ but he's also hate promoting atheism, that's why he try so hard to avoid this kinda question.
Camus once said about God, something about "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is". we all damn know Camus wasn't a religious
tbh he can say "NO" but that would need a whole lecture to explain that answer
@@liamorwhat2665 >>i don't think he's speaking non sense, peterson is really in love with Jung,""
And yet does not see his own ego in denial and does not try and bring that shadow into conscious mind to be integrated or transmuted.
@@macmac1022I mean, that's something everyone is struggling with. It's probably the most difficult and universal problem among humans. How do you find a blind spot only you can find that is masked as knowledge? You have to deconstruct everything you think you know to find it. Ain't nobody want to do that, they just want to have things figured out already and be right! Only crazy people like us do that 😁
@@macmac1022 you definitely don't know what ego is according to Jung also you speaking non sense
@@macmac1022 you quoted a sentence of mine to explain how Jordan is bad while i wrote 2 paragraph
As a Christian, I actually agree. Jordan Peterson's statement regarding the Book of Exodus is pseudo-intellectual nonsense. For Christians, Exodus and the Bible as a whole are about events that occurred thousands of years ago, and are not one large metaphor. Sometimes the simplest reading of Scripture is the best.
Many Christians and theologians do not read it simply though.
When a mind like Peterson's goes into mental gymnastics, it can be endless
Totally agree. I am arguing for a long time now that jordan Peterson is mumbling nonsense.
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed the theory of analytical psychology. According to Jung, the human psyche is composed of various archetypes, which are universal patterns of behavior and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors and reside in our unconscious minds.
Jung believed that archetypes are expressed through myths, fairy tales, and other forms of literature and art. These archetypal stories help individuals to understand their own personal struggles and to connect with universal themes that transcend cultural boundaries.
This is JP's MO.
He's a sophist and I cannot believe people still fall for his evil shtick.
Evil?
Evil? I can see where he's wrong on God but that doesn't make him evil. he's clearly a kind decent person, just wrong on many things. maybe the evil is in you?
@@HorusHerotic wrong on god? I don't think he's ever said that God is 'real' beyond saying the belief in God has positive consequences. Which is objectively true... depending on your metrics. 🙃
@@HorusHerotic He is certainly not a kind or good person. He is a right-wing shill who makes a ton of money talking in word salads that different people can interpret to mean what they want it to mean.
@@Raygun9000 So false, you mean.
His schtick is evil. It's a con that has made him a millionaire on the backs of people who follow him, while only pretending to provide answers.
The point Peterson is making is that it's not very relevant whether or not it actually happened, but rather that, the principles involved in the story are timeless and therefore the story is eternally relevant.
he always does that when he's asked a question he doesn't actually want to answer. The real question is, how many of us does he think are so completely stupid that we don't notice him doing it?
I feel JP was taking an opportunity to say something rather than answering the question.
That motivational music tho. 😂
he only talks like that so he can grift with evangelicals who might otherwise disregard him as the atheist he is
Man this guy is a really good writer
I knew Hogwarts was real. I just knew it!!
Ironic how Peterson says how important being honest is. Yet by his "meta"-talk he keeps bullshitting (himself and others) without a blink of an eye.
Not really. Technically he's just saying "it's fictional, but has a lot of meaning still relevant today". It's just _really_ obfuscated.
I'm pretty sure that's because he'd lose a major part of his audience and it could be really troublesome for the bs Shapiro project and the church with which he works together if he would be clear.
His statements contradict both, but his followers can interpret them however they want.
@@ThePandafriendbro, you just said "it isn't because it is" xdd
I don't see how else he can draw people's attention to the deeper truths they miss when they settle for simplistic and fundamentalist assumptions. There are far more nuanced discussions regarding ethics and divinity in Jewish writing than Christianity recognizes. Hardly anyone is familiar with Judaism though. Perhaps it frustrates some on this channel to hear him avoid knee-jerk reactions based on overly simplistic and more popular ideas of what the Bible is talking about.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.The duality between subjective experience and objective experience is a long-standing topic in philosophy and psychology. Subjective experience refers to the individual's personal and internal experiences, thoughts, and feelings, while objective experience refers to external phenomena that can be observed and measured.
Further cementing the notion that JP is the dumb person's idea of a smart person.
He becomes dumb when it's about religion. Besides that he's smarter than any of us.
@@DerAltruist Speak for yourself, Dude
@@captainhaddock6435 There are people smarter than Jordan Peterson. But you are definitely not one of them.
Just because he doesn't talk in a way that you find productive doesn't mean he isn't intelligent.
Peterson is a right wing grifter who seduces the right with big or obscure words to make himself look as if he's saying something profound when he isn't.
Wanna be shocked? Jordan Peterson admits he was wrong on The Jim Jefferies Show & the audience audibly gasped lol
He's Platonic in his thinking from my perspective.
I'm getting kinda sick of people (no offence, Alex) saying things like "Jordan's smart enough to..." I mean, Jordan may well _be_ "smart enough", but in the future I'll still be asking for some proof first, 'cos I've never seen any evidence of it...
“Eh meteh manner - tHeY’rE STILL hAppEniNG ✨✨✨”
"EveRyOnE sTiLl sTrUGgLeS wITh ThE sPiRiT Of tYrANny"
😂😂😂😂
Metehhhh mannnna😂
Holy shit your Chris brown video is famous lol
Peter hitchens was right.
As a Christian I know hes been asked this many of times and its annoying but I remember one time he was asked and he basically said "well if I say I'm christian than all the denominations would ask which one he falls into and try to claim him" it's still annoying though.
I look forward to the day when no one ever feels the need to ask Jordan Peterson anything.
The meta part comes from the Christ story surviving thousands of years into the future
Thats the Problem with you Pragmaticists, you just dont get it 😂
Despite his claim to be something else, essentially Peterson is a politician who has learned that when you don't want to answer, you ramble, you fragment your sentences and you bullshit.
He is simply pointing to what's important here. More important than what's asked in the question.
Peterson is the best example of people adding complex words to try and make themselves seem more intelligent.
exactly, always has been a grifting fool
It’s as true as every moral rhetoric ever written because it pertains to real life experience. That’s the gist
Well, you asked a Jungian Psychologist and not a Historian. So he did not fail. He answered only within his own realm of competence.
Doesn’t matter if he is a cabbage farmer in rural Romania or a psychologist, he was asked a fucking simple question that has yes or no answers then evidence/support for the nuance in those answers to come later. He gave none, he is a conman, playing it up for the audience. He could have just said” No, Not really, but we are living the truths of the history either way”which is fucking dead wrong to me but he could have said it. Or he could say Yes, and forever be a joke to rational thinkers. Instead he was smart and opted for a failure of a vague answer in word salad.
True
The correct answer is to say carl jung was a bad scientist and a mediocre psychologist. Man never tested shit, proclaimed christianity to be true, and made an entire theory based on what he observed in no joke 40 patients. Dude is basically a regular dude making up theories in todays terms.
@@EpicLemonMusicThat's called humans doing what humans do.... creating stuff.
For example maths and time are a human creation, they may not actually exist at all.
@@Martyn_Wolf nope, science is testable, math is of course testable and proof of almost every single technological advancement of our age. Jung’s dumb fucking trash psychology is both proven wrong and outdated, Peterson is just hanging on to his ideas because they are mystical woowoo and bring in the followers.
It blows my mind when Peterson can’t answer these straightforward questions.
I USIALLY NEVER CALL ANYONE UGLY
Dawkins put it best: He’s drunk on metaphor.
Because he loves to sound smart rather than state something factual
I think I can improve on Dawkin's verdict...
He's a twat.
Wow this is so refreshing. Someone intelligent dismantling the phenomenon known as Jordan Peterson.
Literally everyone criticizes him lol
When you can explain a complex topic simply, you’ve mastered the topic. Jordan Peterson on the other hand…
It's interesting to note that Jordan Peterson thinks to a large degree symbolically. Richard Dawkins even accused him in an interview of being "drunk on symbolism", which is a perfectly understandable remark from an evolutionary biologist who has a much more candid and empirical thinking style contrasted with Jordan's somewhat theoretical analysis.
*You should totally invite and interview Dr Peterson in person; his interview and conversations with Richard Dawkins was intriguing. One inspiring story reported that a student that needed mental help rushed to Dr Jordan Peterson on stage for guidance*
No, don't interact with Peterson at all. He talks absolute crap.
@@philb4462 Then confront him if you are so sure of yourself, prick.
His interview with Richard Dawkins is like a protracted comedy bit. Peterson keeps talking and talking, while Dawkins just makes faces like he's putting up with a kid telling him about his imaginary adventures.
Doc's living in the metaverse
Please debate Cliff Knechtle.
When a wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.
And Jordan Peterson says that it’s meta true that they’re the same thing
Are you calling my Rottweiler a fool?
@@jm6734 dogs can actually understand pointing
@@phantom.wreath not my dog. They can understand the motion of pointing like if your were throwing something but generally u gotta put ur fingertip on what u want them to get at or make a motioned gesture
It was S. Francis of Assis that said: «Brothers, look at the Sun». And he pointed to the Sun. Everybody stared at the saint's finger.
From then on saying «to look at the saint's finger» means «to miss the point».
Jordan Peterson is the master of saying a lot of words while at the same time not saying anything
My thoughts exactly. Grandiloquence.
That depends on your ability to follow what he is saying. And if course that is not an idea that you fancy so a better explanation for you would be that he does say anything.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 Sorry, the OP was correct. Peterson likes his 'word salad'. And for the record, I like Jordan and agree with him on many subjects. However, his religious arguments are horrible.
@@pillsareyummy yeah it does like to use complex language. I prefer a more simple one as it reaches more people but I can understand that if you own a sports car then you don't want to drive slow.
And what he says is complex but never pointless. You can always see the overarching process in his thoughts, the coherence of it.
It is inevitable that some people won't be able to follow it. That's why I prefer more simplicity but fully understand why he doesn't. His complexity isn't illogical though.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 He uses 'complex language' in his religious arguments on purpose, it's called Sophistry. He's not the only religious apologist to do so, others, like William Lane Craig, employ the same tactics. He's trying to defend a position that can't be (rationally) defended. Sam Harris has called him out on this a few times. Don't conflate/confuse rhetoric with profundity. Anybody who's studied logical discourse can see through Jordan's 'smoke and mirrors' easily. I don't think he's intentionally being deceitful (as others believe), I think religion gives him a sense of peace, I believe he's merely trying to defend said beliefs, albeit poorly. The brain has a wonderful way of protecting cherished ideas.
According to archeological findings, the exodus is a emigration from the priests of Amon to Canaan where they adopted the local religion
He was saying it’s an interpretation of an event that was believed to have happened and the story can still applied to things now
When JP talks 'Meta' I automatically think of Zucks and his virtual reality headset.. quite appropriate I think..
Thank you for this. I get so tired of friends who cite him as an authority even though he usually just spews word salad.
I think it goes like this. You confuse people till they give up trying to understand, then you tell them a story.
Lol so now this guy is ur new authority well done peasant
He's actually very good on matters psychological which is his area of expertise. I used to dismiss him as a showman, but there's plenty of intellectual rigor behind much of what he says, combined with a fair amount of rhetorical bluster. Listen to the talk he had with Richard Dawkins for an example of the latter, and to many of the interviews he's done on his podcast for the former.
@@formulaic78 He always seems to go a bit too hard on the weird conceptual Jungian stuff for me. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think a lot of Jung's ideas have really neat creative and self-reflective uses, but he really goes off the wall with it.
The word salad! Thank you!! He is a dumber (thank Peter Jordan) person's version of a smart person.
I am convinced this is why Trump supporters still exist. You have to be that level of dumb that is dumber than Trump.
Edit: I just realized that I messed up his name. Such a bland person. Jordon Peterson. Peter Jordon. Peterson Jordon. Whatever. Annoying white dude with a sense of entitlement and a world audience.
Thank you, Alex. You nailed it. And I have say this: Jordan Peterson is an Expert in Jung’s psychology. That’s it. It is sad to see this man as a guru of pretty much everything. Unfortunately, many people, himself included, seem to think he is the wisest man in the world. That makes this guy a dangerous influencer
Gonna have to disagree with you here as a life-long, Christian with several degrees on the matter. It is the "enlightened" man who separates literal and metaphorical. The ancients were fine with recognizing their own limitations and the limitations of stories. When they heard Exodus they believed it as something that really happened, but they recognized the nature of the specifics were unobtainable. We know this to be true. We have documents upon documents of people arguing about it. But we also know they saw the story as an archetype that invited them into it's current progress and its future predictions. If you haven't figure that out yet, I don't think your degrees were worth very much
If you can separate literal and metaphorical, then if someone asks you “in a literal sense, did it happen”, then you should certainly not talk about the metaphorical sense like Peterson did
I dont think he realizes the shadow ego he is building up with having this idea and enforcing it, and the denial he has that everyone is trying to tell him that he sounds delusional.
In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.The duality between subjective experience and objective experience is a long-standing topic in philosophy and psychology. Subjective experience refers to the individual's personal and internal experiences, thoughts, and feelings, while objective experience refers to external phenomena that can be observed and measured.
@@ryanhoffman5477 >>In psychology, intuition can be broadly categorized into two types: subjective intuition and objective intuition.Greek logos is primarily a subjective intuition that emphasizes individual reasoning and understanding, while Christian Logos is primarily an objective intuition that emphasizes the divine revelation of order and meaning in the universe.The duality between subjective experience and objective experience is a long-standing topic in philosophy and psychology. Subjective experience refers to the individual's personal and internal experiences, thoughts, and feelings, while objective experience refers to external phenomena that can be observed and measured.""
Well lets see who can answer the simple moral questions better and see who has more bias and will behave better ok? People of all kinds please state if your theists, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that person moral?
#2 You ask them why they are not doing anything and they tell you they heard the reasoning is beyond human comprehension, but this will bring about a greater good, do you accept his claim and sit and watch or do you reject it and save the child?
#3 Is it just to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider someone who laid a minefield knowing people were going to stop on the mines and how much damage would be done and who would die, and then forced their children to go an play in it a good parent?
@@macmac1022 depends on how you define religion or belief? The journey of knowing is admitting I don't know is how I investigate without bias.
@@ryanhoffman5477 >>depends on how you define religion or belief? ""
I think answering the questions is dependent on your definition, even though many people have enough understanding to know what those words mean, and are not really part of the questions.
>>The journey of knowing is admitting I don't know is how I investigate without bias.""
So you cant answer the simple moral questions?
What is the proper thing to do when asked a question?
Why is it that 90% of my questions go unanswered?
Why do politicians even ask each other questions when they avoid them constantly?
What exactly do you think is happening and why people avoid so many questions? I will give you my answer after my own 2.5 years of research.
Jordan "filibustering" Peterson. The most popular pseudo intellectual of our time.
JP's wife: Did you do the dishes like I asked you to?
JP: The dishes are meta-done. They're still being washed. We're all struggling with unclean dishes. When you do the dishes you don't get clean dishes, you get a dirty sink.