Atheist philosopher challenges Jordan Peterson on God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 чер 2024
- On June 18, 2024, I had the opportunity to attend Jordan Peterson's lecture, as part of his book “We who fight with God” tour, which took place in São Paulo with an audience of five thousand people. As part of the VIP "Meet and Greet" group, after a talk, I asked a provocative philosophical question to the psychologist and best-selling author who's been disseminating biblical stories and theism based on his psychological interpretations of Christianity and Abrahamic traditions.
My question was the following: even though reality has a metaphysical structure, why does he assume a theistic God instead of just the structure itself as a self-existing eternal realityl? The Canadian thinker considered my question good and agreed with me that the biblical scripture is implausible, but he said I would have to wait until his new book “We Who Wrestle with God” to get a satisfactory answer, given the complexity of the issue. He added, however, that his option for theism has to do with the centrality of sacrifices for the functioning of society.
Profesor I have a question about Nietzsche thought. I'm not a scholar but in my understanding Nietzsche didn't believe in free will and didn't believe you can get rid of the chains of determinism but still you could wear them in a more authentic way. When Peterson says there is something technically right about his values I think he is speaking from a place where the status quo of society is the highest end, Nietzsche thought wasnt for the masses but for radical people. I think Paterson is very emotionally biased in his views. You can see this same flaw of him when talking about antinatalism and starting a family, he only gives his opinon as fact and gives reasons to appeal to emotion and practicality. So the question would be if you think peterson actually understands Nietzsche because it dosen't seem that way to me
Good question. I think he did understand Nietzsche well, and disagreed with him. For Nietzsche, there were no values built in a metaphysical structure of reality. Nietzsche wanted us to create our own values, our own metaphysical systems, which was impossible. The ubermensch is impossible. Peterson got that right, I think. However, it does not imply theism.
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy in his wrestle with God lecture he acknowledges Greco Roman society and how it was basically a will to power. Peterson never proved the metaphysics of morality but instead gives his opinion about how nice it is to have kids for example. Also the over man it isn't an end but a means to live more authentically, living in authentic manner would be your morality, you wouldnt create it per se but you would live it. Peterson definitely dosent understand Nietzsche criticisms of christianity, I heard him talking about how Nietzsche disliked fundamentalism when Nietzsche never said that and also he thought communism is christianity's way of surviving the scientific revolution. It comes out very disingenuous to misinterpret his views
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy I would like to know why you think the Ubermensch is impossible and if the answer is people's incapacity of creating values I would like to know why is that
"Even though reality has a metaphysical structure". You know what a tautology is?
Personally, I agree that reality has metaphysical aspect to it. But, is that a necessity to all possible realities? I don't think "Even though reality has a metaphysical structure" is really an example of tautology.
Well, of course it is a tautology. But it was necessary to point it out in order to elucidate the question, my friend. Some materialists, for instance, think reality has no metaphysical structure.
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophymaterialist view that we can understand facts without caring about its value is so dumb that's postmodernist criticism of modernity. Jordan Peterson uses post modernism to criticize modernity and that's how traditionalist view come backs. I think Jordan Peterson is meta modernist not a post modernist, modernist or traditionalist. Empiricism is true then why we have caltural war. We can't even understand what's woman. In current caltural war they're only two sides exist postmodernist or traditionalism. Modernity and enlightenment is dying. That's what Jordan Peterson also gonna talk in his book.
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy Are you confusing ontological metaphysics with 'supernatural metaphysics' `?
Am wondering whats a atheist philosopher is, it sound quite absurd in philosophy we dont mean god as a being of theology like old man in the sky or allah we mean god as the principle,forces and the laws the universe itself thats what modern science as a whole shows us and questioning this guy does he think god of theology doesn't Exists if he does then in a way he's right but if he thinks god as a concept doens't Exists he is vaguely wrong
You are very ignorant. There isn't a common view in philosophy. You have many waves of thought and there are atheists philosophers just as Christian philosophers, agnostic, etc.
Philosophy isn't a political party, there are atheist, agnostic, polytheistic...etc philosophers. Read the history of philosophy and you will see
How can you know the God of theology doesn’t exist
@@AL-ll3qr you can't but those claims aren't to be taken seriously because they are inventions of ancient people. All of those texts that describe the nature of the world fail and with science we see that.
@@lucacuradossi1040 you can find a atheist, agnostic, polytheistic and a religious in a group of scientists and In a governing body but that doesnt defy absolute truth but yeah I get it although philosophy should aim towards truth but there's a whole different field for it, we Modern philosophers we should have a peak understanding of Epistemology and Logic
Atheism is built on the fact that anything is possible if you can't prove the opposite position, but we all know that proving anything 100% is impossible. Atheism is not a honest or even logical position and possibility is not a good argument because a absurd proposition like "My shit can become a human if you throw it in a blackhole and it end up in a different universe that can turn shit to a human being". The argument is totally absurd, but because you cannot 100% disprove it, the argument is still "possible".
Atheism is not "built" on anything: atheism is the default position, if someone had never heard any theory about god or gods it's very hard they'd form a theory about one of the modern religions on their own. Perhaps animism, polytheism, or maybe even monotheism could arise in the individual, but almost certainly not in the currently widespread form.
If anything, your example works in favor of atheism, as they're not the ones trying to disprove religions, the burden of proof doesn't fall on them.
@@fuma9532 Do you even know what default means? Every tribe and civilization in history believed in god. Atheism is like a civilizational mind rot that only appears in time of great prosperity.
@@fuma9532 Default? every tribe and civilization on earth believes in a god. It's very odd if we get thirsty but there's no water to drink.
what the hell are you on about, you've been brainwashed and seem to misunderstand the burden of proof.
Literally tried to sell his book off the question.
Good I fcking love capitalism, especially when it’s him profiting! Great man he deserves it!
@@Fatality2013 I don’t how to respond.
@@s33ur3lv3lvlyHe probably means it is a difficult question to answer and that he answers it in the book. Don't be so cynical
@@s33ur3lv3lvly Just accept the reality that the it makes sense for an individual to profit off of their lives work - using their labor to write and market their thoughts, that they have developed over a lifetime, into a marketplace of ideas that finds it of some value. It is a beautiful thing. Technically the public is exploiting Peterson for his knowledge as there is demand and interest for him to produce, so he does so, rather assiduously, and is rewarded in outsized measure because of his innovation. He was early to UA-cam, early to leave the failing university system, early to embrace AI and has set a new precedent for what a public intellectual can look like. Millions have found it valuable regardless of the controversy around him. This is what @Fatality2013 celebrates and I agree.