When a narcissist finds religion it becomes the most important thing in the world. It’s the same whatever they discover; music, literature, egg painting.
And when a narcissist has a goal and wants to manipulate others, he can bend anything to fit his need. Including the Bible. You don't even have to be a narcissist, you can have strong narcissistic trades. It takes time to realize that you may have been twisting reality just a bit too hard to fit your established views. Sometimes it is time to change your established views to fit reality. A person's reality 2000 years ago was very different compared to someone living today. Immensly different. It requires us to be different too. We have to grow out from some childish behavior and from exploiting others.
And when a narcissist has a goal and wants to manipulate others, he can bend anything to fit his need. Including the Bible. You don't even have to be a narcissist, you can have strong narcissistic trades. It takes time to realize that you may have been twisting reality just a bit too hard to fit your established views. Sometimes it is time to change your established views to fit reality. A person's reality 2000 years ago was very different compared to someone living today. Immensly different. It requires us to be different too.
And when a narcissist has a goal and want to manipulate others, he can bend anything to fit his need. Including the Bible. You don't even have to be a narcissist, you can have strong narcissistic trades. It takes time to realize that you may have been twisting reality just a bit too hard to fit your estabilished views. Sometimes it is time to change your estabilished views to fit reality. A person's reality 2000 years ago was very different compared to someone living today. Immensly different. Life requires us to be different too.
when I come home from a 12 hour night working in the ER and I see the transition from man-o-sphere grifting to anti-vax grifting to evangelical Christian grifting...endless cash for the people with no souls...not going to lie, wish I had didn't have a heart sometimes...
Zizek actually went on a boat to make his point about Jaws. Good grief. Peterson knows more than trump about christianity but they both believes in Christianity in about equal measure. They both use it in their own ways to further themselves. "Yeah... probably" peterson says about the resurrection is on the same level of trump being asked which testament he likes best and he says "both equally". Peterson is a cultural Christian like Dawkins.
Peterson says we must believe in christianity for its values, while advocating for the most brutal social Darwinism and bullying tactics. Truly a pathetic drug addict.
"because I have no idea what that means"... It means exactly what you said! That a fucking man would have been shown on the LCD screen walking out of the fucking tomb. Holy shit.
A video camera cannot actually show you the reanimation of a spirit though. It can only show you physical body moving - and human corpses move because of electrical signals in the early stages.
@@6Churches And? That’s still a claim that you know what it means to see a body moving on a video screen. When asked what you believe, the answer is what you believe happened, not what actually happened. So if you believe it, then you believe it. That’s it. If he believes that that video showed a man walking out of a tomb, then he can elaborate on that a bit. Does he think it means that the man was never truly dead? That the man had a soul that left and came back? That the body was swapped and a stranger walked out? Etc. he just beats around the bush to avoid saying that he doesn’t believe that god actually exists as more than a concept and/or something constructed by the human mind.
The dilemma occurs precisely because JBP doesn't process ideas in his body or in his identity. He feels safe when ideas are always way out there in the infinity of space or the dazzling multitude of the meta-narrative ..... he falters at the humility of stacking something and sticking by it.
"We can endlessly interpret and reinterpret and give unlimited charitability to the Bible, because it's old and enduring and millions have treated it with the utmost respect for 2000 years, and I like it. But we shouldn't interpret and reinterpret and give unlimited charitability to new things like gender ideology, because that's new and recent and I don't like it."
In one sense you're right, in another you're wrong. It depends on WHY you interpret/reinterpret the Bible but don't do the same for gender ideology. You're right in that: you can interpret/reinterpret the Bible until it says what they want it to say. This is intellectually dishonest You're wrong in that: when trying to solve a math problem you may break apart, rebuild, reframe the problem, etc. in an attempt to better understand the problem. Similarly, one can interpret/reinterpret the Bible. Given how dense, multidimensional (hyperlinked nature and hermeneutics), the Bible is, the probability that you understand the Bible completely is 0%, so further exploration and reconsideration is appropriate. Now, if you DON'T understand gender ideology, then you should be charitable, learn more, and reconsider your previous assumptions. If you DO think you understand it, then there's no need to. That's intellectually honest.
But Jords has STUDIED mythology for half a lifetime and it's full of archetypes, man, and it's so deep, man, atheists don't have a clue, man. It's like they don't even know they're religious, man!
The gender ideology doesn’t hold up to basic biological reality. The Bible at least touches on a meta-narrative; it provides wisdom and champions telling the truth as its highest value. The gender ideology forces people to lie. How can you compare the two?
Is Gender ideology inextricobaly tied to the development of European languages and writing systems? Does the soldier in the foxhole pray to the god of gender ideology when death is at his door? Does the mother arrange for the funeral of her dead child at the temple of gender ideology? You're comparing things that aren't even comparable.
If you replace the "a" in "Jaws" with an "e", it's not really hard to tell what the movie is about. Of course it's done ironically, but the meaning isn't infinite.
Jordan Peterson doesn't know what it means to believe in the resurrection? Really? He acts as if he's been asked a complicated question. People don't ask him how he believes in the resurrection, but whether he does. That's not a difficult question! Jordan Peterson just wants to be vague to have an out when people attack him.
Interesting choice of word, "handwavy" because Jords really does some serious hand fluttering when making big assertions. Especially when he says things like, to parpahrase, "that thing which sits at the top of the hierarchy of your value system is what we call god". Some would call it a tell.
Hmm, many years ago during one of his four conversations with Jordan, Harris managed to have Jordan concede that the bible is a story produced by human minds (rather than information about a deity that exists independent of human minds). Asserting that he thinks Jesus exited the tomb doesn't say all that much, granting Alex didn't ask Jordan if Jesus died. I have no idea why someone simply doesn't ask Jordan if he thinks God existed prior to the formation of planet earth, tbh.
People have tried, but the only way you can force JP to answer is to do the same thing you watched here. JP couldn't retort with "what do you mean by a LCD recorder?"
I am spiritual. I don't think that ressurection is the most important question today. Why do you have to ressurect to this world if there is an after life? I do know why it is important to believe in global warming though... Spiritual or not.
When World Cup winning Argentina lost their first game his critics were cackling, “Where is Messi? Where is Messi?”. Messi showed up. When I listen to world class obscurantist JP I’m left asking, “Where is precision? Where is precision?”. JP is a no show with an economy of phrase or linear logic.
So, here's the important thing to understand. George Pig loves jumping in muddy puddles, but why (*starts crying*) does he love doing that so bloody much? Why is there no figure in his life telling him 'keep yer puddles tidy, bucko'? And it's bloody sad, okay!
I really enjoyed this conversation, mainly due to Alex’s style of questioning. Also did you guys hear Andrew Gold’s shoutout to decoding the gurus in his interview? 😂
5:07 I disagree that Peterson says that the bible is special in its ability to be interpreted in multiple ways, if you are comparing how he talks about it to how he talks about 'post-modernism'. I think that there is a conflation happening here regarding two different uses of the word 'multiple' or 'innumerable', with one being a deeper epistemic claim. I'll try to unpack it and hopefully people can tell me whether they think I'm missing something. The chess analogy highlights the difference. Arguing that there are multiple paths on a chessboard isn't the same as arguing that there is an infinite number of valid moves, or that there are no correct moves. There is technically a best, objectively correct interpretation of chess, it is just not immediately perceivable to the human mind due to a cognitive limit (working memory etc.), unless you are somebody like Magnus Carlsen; either an exceptional person, or somebody who has spent most of their life playing chess and memorising positions. It's not the same as saying that the interpretations are truly 'innumerable' on a deeper, epistemic level. He is saying that they are unable to be comprehended because they are so complicated; I don't think that he is really saying that they are theoretically all equally valid. I think that his hyperbolic language and rhetorical flourishes cause the line to seem blurred here, but he is not quite making the same argument as a 'post-modernist' that he critiques. I still think that this sounds ridiculous for totally different reasons, because I don't regard the bible as being uniquely special even on this other level. But it's important to understand him properly. People in the comments here are treating it as if he has a double-standard in this regard, so they are totally unable to address his actual point.
Ah, yes, but then he has no idea what that means. This leaves the answer still ambiguous enough not to alienate his Christian audience, who often delight in any supposedly "intellectual " endorsement of the resurrection.
What does JBP believe when JBP believes in the resurrection? "a man leaves the tomb" is such a weak concession because to see that one would also see the stone rolled away, right? Another miracle event .. now recorded on camera. I think JBP would equivocate again. Alex's camera only records an event after a resurrection has taken place. It doesn't record the resurrection itself. It's not really a concession at all.
Peterson has openly admitted to being dishonest about being christian or what his religious views are. He is vague and admits to dodging questions on purpose
Not sure how to drop a comment about your specific podcast episodes. I don't know if you guys use email for that But I wanted to say I heard the third entry in the Dr. K series Great criticism as always. People will say "out of context" when all the context necessary to the criticism is infact there, like the way he addresses his wife on stream. But I did want to say, the over reliance on sarcasm borders the snarky/condescending approach that online lefties take. A couple times is funny and gets the point across but I feel like I hear Chris go "But don't you know Matt, it's okay because I said this isn't therapy before I started". or something of the sort. What you're saying is right but I feel like there is way too much of this going on. Purely subjective opinion. I agree with the content of the criticism regardless.
I think there is something to be said though about not permitting your atheism to get in the way of a literary or philosophical appreciation for ancient texts which are regarded by some as sacred. No one in the West thinks that if you're reading the Dao De Ching or the Dharmapada, that necessarily means you're a religious ideologue. But it's lamentable that -- on both the atheist side and the Christian side -- the Bible is usually regarded that way. Either you're in our tribe or your not type thinking. Like I kinda have Alex's attitude toward the Bible. I find parts of it fascinating from a historical and/or literary perspective. Both most Christians and a lot of atheists I find have a dismissive attitude toward that, because Christians are dogmatic and atheists are reacting against that. Even though like, no one thinks that to find the Iliad meaningful and speak of it with reverence, you must necessarily believe in a historical Trojan War.
I know that Jesus will return, in fact he already has. He was standing at an intersection flying a sign. He had long shaggy hair and a long beard. He was also dressed in a shabby robe and sandals. I know for a fact that he was Jesus returned, because he told me do. Also he washed my feet.
Jordan do you know that people actually like put the bible together from several texts and books so is the interpretation of relationship just something we invent to try make it profound?
Chris looks like, if you sat him down at a table full of assorted gourds, he'd be able to chomp clean through each one heck of a dental setup on the man Matt looks like the upper half of his body is poking out from the earth where he burrows as a crepuscular, segmented creature
When a narcissist finds religion it becomes the most important thing in the world. It’s the same whatever they discover; music, literature, egg painting.
Jorbie peterstone has said, before he ever got famous, he wants to run his own church.
And when a narcissist has a goal and wants to manipulate others, he can bend anything to fit his need. Including the Bible.
You don't even have to be a narcissist, you can have strong narcissistic trades.
It takes time to realize that you may have been twisting reality just a bit too hard to fit your established views. Sometimes it is time to change your established views to fit reality. A person's reality 2000 years ago was very different compared to someone living today. Immensly different.
It requires us to be different too.
We have to grow out from some childish behavior and from exploiting others.
And when a narcissist has a goal and wants to manipulate others, he can bend anything to fit his need. Including the Bible.
You don't even have to be a narcissist, you can have strong narcissistic trades.
It takes time to realize that you may have been twisting reality just a bit too hard to fit your established views. Sometimes it is time to change your established views to fit reality. A person's reality 2000 years ago was very different compared to someone living today. Immensly different.
It requires us to be different too.
same with philosophy
And when a narcissist has a goal and want to manipulate others, he can bend anything to fit his need. Including the Bible.
You don't even have to be a narcissist, you can have strong narcissistic trades.
It takes time to realize that you may have been twisting reality just a bit too hard to fit your estabilished views. Sometimes it is time to change your estabilished views to fit reality. A person's reality 2000 years ago was very different compared to someone living today. Immensly different.
Life requires us to be different too.
when I come home from a 12 hour night working in the ER and I see the transition from man-o-sphere grifting to anti-vax grifting to evangelical Christian grifting...endless cash for the people with no souls...not going to lie, wish I had didn't have a heart sometimes...
Zizek actually went on a boat to make his point about Jaws. Good grief.
Peterson knows more than trump about christianity but they both believes in Christianity in about equal measure. They both use it in their own ways to further themselves.
"Yeah... probably" peterson says about the resurrection is on the same level of trump being asked which testament he likes best and he says "both equally".
Peterson is a cultural Christian like Dawkins.
Cultural Christian because animals don’t have morals without GOD (they do). Dawkins stopped reading I guess.
Peterson says we must believe in christianity for its values, while advocating for the most brutal social Darwinism and bullying tactics. Truly a pathetic drug addict.
"because I have no idea what that means"... It means exactly what you said! That a fucking man would have been shown on the LCD screen walking out of the fucking tomb. Holy shit.
JBP is just an expert in word salad.
A video camera cannot actually show you the reanimation of a spirit though. It can only show you physical body moving - and human corpses move because of electrical signals in the early stages.
@@6Churches And? That’s still a claim that you know what it means to see a body moving on a video screen. When asked what you believe, the answer is what you believe happened, not what actually happened. So if you believe it, then you believe it. That’s it. If he believes that that video showed a man walking out of a tomb, then he can elaborate on that a bit. Does he think it means that the man was never truly dead? That the man had a soul that left and came back? That the body was swapped and a stranger walked out? Etc. he just beats around the bush to avoid saying that he doesn’t believe that god actually exists as more than a concept and/or something constructed by the human mind.
The coolest thing about being resurrected is that immediately afterward you get to go wherever it is that dead people go.
As AO'C does the set-up, JBP's discomfort as shown by body language is wonderful. He knows he's being pinned down for an unequivocal answer.
The dilemma occurs precisely because JBP doesn't process ideas in his body or in his identity. He feels safe when ideas are always way out there in the infinity of space or the dazzling multitude of the meta-narrative ..... he falters at the humility of stacking something and sticking by it.
"We can endlessly interpret and reinterpret and give unlimited charitability to the Bible, because it's old and enduring and millions have treated it with the utmost respect for 2000 years, and I like it. But we shouldn't interpret and reinterpret and give unlimited charitability to new things like gender ideology, because that's new and recent and I don't like it."
In one sense you're right, in another you're wrong. It depends on WHY you interpret/reinterpret the Bible but don't do the same for gender ideology.
You're right in that: you can interpret/reinterpret the Bible until it says what they want it to say. This is intellectually dishonest
You're wrong in that: when trying to solve a math problem you may break apart, rebuild, reframe the problem, etc. in an attempt to better understand the problem. Similarly, one can interpret/reinterpret the Bible. Given how dense, multidimensional (hyperlinked nature and hermeneutics), the Bible is, the probability that you understand the Bible completely is 0%, so further exploration and reconsideration is appropriate. Now, if you DON'T understand gender ideology, then you should be charitable, learn more, and reconsider your previous assumptions. If you DO think you understand it, then there's no need to. That's intellectually honest.
But Jords has STUDIED mythology for half a lifetime and it's full of archetypes, man, and it's so deep, man, atheists don't have a clue, man. It's like they don't even know they're religious, man!
The gender ideology doesn’t hold up to basic biological reality. The Bible at least touches on a meta-narrative; it provides wisdom and champions telling the truth as its highest value. The gender ideology forces people to lie. How can you compare the two?
You've really opened my eyes. Thank you. We need to reject both.
Is Gender ideology inextricobaly tied to the development of European languages and writing systems? Does the soldier in the foxhole pray to the god of gender ideology when death is at his door? Does the mother arrange for the funeral of her dead child at the temple of gender ideology?
You're comparing things that aren't even comparable.
I did not expect to see Žižek on the boat.
Emerging from the Tomb/Cave/Womb/Academy/Closet/Footnotes to notice that sometimes a Shark/Fish/Dagger/Trowel/Bookmark is just a cigar. 🙂
If you replace the "a" in "Jaws" with an "e", it's not really hard to tell what the movie is about.
Of course it's done ironically, but the meaning isn't infinite.
😂👌
If you replace the 'W' in Jaws with "M" you unlock it's true preservative meaning
Ah this is more classic DtG, feels like an old friend, with the Peppa Pig riff.
This isn't even a conversation, this is trying to get through grifters' bullshit while being nice to them.
JBP getting pinned down on this topic is one of the few good things that resulted from Alex's rebranding from Cosmic Sceptic to Within Reason.
Russell has branded Russell Brand very nicely.
Jordan Peterson doesn't know what it means to believe in the resurrection? Really? He acts as if he's been asked a complicated question. People don't ask him how he believes in the resurrection, but whether he does. That's not a difficult question!
Jordan Peterson just wants to be vague to have an out when people attack him.
The only journey Brand is on is toward a burgeoning bank account, or prison perhaps.
Holy crap. The Jaws thing is real? I thought that was someone satirizing Žižek.
Interesting choice of word, "handwavy" because Jords really does some serious hand fluttering when making big assertions. Especially when he says things like, to parpahrase, "that thing which sits at the top of the hierarchy of your value system is what we call god". Some would call it a tell.
Peppa Pig is a post-modern re-telling of Alice in Wonderland. Everybody know that 🙂↔️🙃
These 2 are brilliant podcasters👍and really good craic.😅
Hmm, many years ago during one of his four conversations with Jordan, Harris managed to have Jordan concede that the bible is a story produced by human minds (rather than information about a deity that exists independent of human minds). Asserting that he thinks Jesus exited the tomb doesn't say all that much, granting Alex didn't ask Jordan if Jesus died.
I have no idea why someone simply doesn't ask Jordan if he thinks God existed prior to the formation of planet earth, tbh.
well, it depends..what do you mean with "God", what do you mean with "existed", and what the bloody hell do you mean with "formation"??
People have tried, but the only way you can force JP to answer is to do the same thing you watched here. JP couldn't retort with "what do you mean by a LCD recorder?"
If someone denies global warming or that humanity has something to do with it, is it important to know about his view on the resurrection?
I am spiritual. I don't think that ressurection is the most important question today. Why do you have to ressurect to this world if there is an after life? I do know why it is important to believe in global warming though...
Spiritual or not.
When World Cup winning Argentina lost their first game his critics were cackling, “Where is Messi? Where is Messi?”. Messi showed up. When I listen to world class obscurantist JP I’m left asking, “Where is precision? Where is precision?”. JP is a no show with an economy of phrase or linear logic.
So, here's the important thing to understand. George Pig loves jumping in muddy puddles, but why (*starts crying*) does he love doing that so bloody much? Why is there no figure in his life telling him 'keep yer puddles tidy, bucko'? And it's bloody sad, okay!
I really enjoyed this conversation, mainly due to Alex’s style of questioning.
Also did you guys hear Andrew Gold’s shoutout to decoding the gurus in his interview? 😂
Great conversation. You two had me thinking and laughing over morning coffee in Michigan.
Good to hear!
Coming from Illinois man Michigan is beautiful.
Same, but in Israel
Jordan gives me the impression of a Tim Pool for religion - where he is so terrified of hurting his audience capture by taking a specific stance.
5:07 I disagree that Peterson says that the bible is special in its ability to be interpreted in multiple ways, if you are comparing how he talks about it to how he talks about 'post-modernism'. I think that there is a conflation happening here regarding two different uses of the word 'multiple' or 'innumerable', with one being a deeper epistemic claim. I'll try to unpack it and hopefully people can tell me whether they think I'm missing something.
The chess analogy highlights the difference. Arguing that there are multiple paths on a chessboard isn't the same as arguing that there is an infinite number of valid moves, or that there are no correct moves. There is technically a best, objectively correct interpretation of chess, it is just not immediately perceivable to the human mind due to a cognitive limit (working memory etc.), unless you are somebody like Magnus Carlsen; either an exceptional person, or somebody who has spent most of their life playing chess and memorising positions. It's not the same as saying that the interpretations are truly 'innumerable' on a deeper, epistemic level. He is saying that they are unable to be comprehended because they are so complicated; I don't think that he is really saying that they are theoretically all equally valid. I think that his hyperbolic language and rhetorical flourishes cause the line to seem blurred here, but he is not quite making the same argument as a 'post-modernist' that he critiques. I still think that this sounds ridiculous for totally different reasons, because I don't regard the bible as being uniquely special even on this other level. But it's important to understand him properly. People in the comments here are treating it as if he has a double-standard in this regard, so they are totally unable to address his actual point.
Ah, yes, but then he has no idea what that means. This leaves the answer still ambiguous enough not to alienate his Christian audience, who often delight in any supposedly "intellectual " endorsement of the resurrection.
Desperately delight , at higher rates than just “often” , just like the Muslims and Hindus.
What does JBP believe when JBP believes in the resurrection? "a man leaves the tomb" is such a weak concession because to see that one would also see the stone rolled away, right? Another miracle event .. now recorded on camera. I think JBP would equivocate again. Alex's camera only records an event after a resurrection has taken place. It doesn't record the resurrection itself. It's not really a concession at all.
Apparently Peterson has never encountered a fan of the Star Trek universe.
Alot of people open themselves up to a higher power after experiencing addiction. Not surprised old Jordan has gone all in on christ.
Holy shit, thanks to this video I’ve only just realised the Queen in Peppa Pig is a human 😂
the reason the queen was depicted as a human is because she was a real person being depicted. think of how insulting it would be. just FYI
Did you watch/listen to the entire conversation the first time you uploaded a video on this?
Matt is looking kinda Krishna Conscious in this one
That depends on how you define "admit" and "believe"
Always having a oblique go at KK... loving it😆
In a sense, one could say his reasoning is up yours woke moralists
Peterson has openly admitted to being dishonest about being christian or what his religious views are. He is vague and admits to dodging questions on purpose
what a pseud..
The question is whether Jordan Peterson believes that Jordan Peterson has magic powers too
Well he said he believed in God too, before he said he was actually an atheist.
He's wearing a biblical jacket for Christ's sake.
Jordan and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.
Not sure how to drop a comment about your specific podcast episodes. I don't know if you guys use email for that
But I wanted to say I heard the third entry in the Dr. K series
Great criticism as always. People will say "out of context" when all the context necessary to the criticism is infact there, like the way he addresses his wife on stream.
But I did want to say, the over reliance on sarcasm borders the snarky/condescending approach that online lefties take. A couple times is funny and gets the point across but I feel like I hear Chris go
"But don't you know Matt, it's okay because I said this isn't therapy before I started". or something of the sort. What you're saying is right but I feel like there is way too much of this going on.
Purely subjective opinion. I agree with the content of the criticism regardless.
Wow.
I think there is something to be said though about not permitting your atheism to get in the way of a literary or philosophical appreciation for ancient texts which are regarded by some as sacred. No one in the West thinks that if you're reading the Dao De Ching or the Dharmapada, that necessarily means you're a religious ideologue. But it's lamentable that -- on both the atheist side and the Christian side -- the Bible is usually regarded that way. Either you're in our tribe or your not type thinking.
Like I kinda have Alex's attitude toward the Bible. I find parts of it fascinating from a historical and/or literary perspective. Both most Christians and a lot of atheists I find have a dismissive attitude toward that, because Christians are dogmatic and atheists are reacting against that. Even though like, no one thinks that to find the Iliad meaningful and speak of it with reverence, you must necessarily believe in a historical Trojan War.
I know that Jesus will return, in fact he already has. He was standing at an intersection flying a sign. He had long shaggy hair and a long beard. He was also dressed in a shabby robe and sandals. I know for a fact that he was Jesus returned, because he told me do. Also he washed my feet.
Amazin
"Just to be clear, I agree, humans can do that, they can waffle endlessly about almost anything" - this podcast💤
Jordan do you know that people actually like put the bible together from several texts and books so is the interpretation of relationship just something we invent to try make it profound?
WTF is JP wearing?!?
Some tailor gifted JBP several jackets with very busy designs. An affront to woke moralists?
he's started to look like Mugatu from Zoolander
@@dugannash9109his clothes resemble his brain….❤
Chris looks like, if you sat him down at a table full of assorted gourds, he'd be able to chomp clean through each one
heck of a dental setup on the man
Matt looks like the upper half of his body is poking out from the earth where he burrows as a crepuscular, segmented creature
I;'d like this more if that dude didn't wear a dorag.
Or if you weren't so bigoted
zizek sucks