Go to ground.news/unsolicited for 50% off the Ground News Vantage plan. This is their best deal of the year, available for a limited time, so be sure to use my link! LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more (very occasional) philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Has anyone ever tried a non-anthropomorphic theology? People talk about this God character as if he is a man like them. Point that out and they say, NO, not at all. Really because from the looks of things God thinks like us, feels like us and intends like us. If it walks like a duck....
Let me ask you atheists something? what are you fighting against? Western religion has little power in your life. What is it about God that urges this inner debates? And why do atheists also interrelate their "fight" with God, with the concept of "free will"? I hear people say "its because our justice system should take into account that we dont have free will" So that means if I do a crime to you, you should forgive it because it was not really my fault because I had no "free will"? I dont think you guys are prepared to accept that. I too believe the justice system is unfair but that doesn't mean humans being, and life in general, has no agency. I've heard other stuff like "freedom starts when you realize you have no freedom", then what are you? can anyone of you answer that? what are you supposed to be, and why do you seek "freedom"? I want to know your point of view, mine is simple, I am already free, I don't need to "be God", this reality doesn't have to be like a lucid dream, in other for me to be free, I am already free. (prove it you say, I don't to prove that I am free to you, thats part of my freedom, I am at peace. But I see all this videos and all of this "philosophy" based on resentment and power seeking disguised as freedom searching, and I ask myself, what the hell do this people want?, why arent they happy with their lives?) I had no problem with atheists until they started coming for free will, why? Why do you want to "prove" that you don't exist, that you are just an illusion of your brain? why? Do you view life as such a torture that the only way to deal with it, is self deleting your own sense of self?
I don’t want it to go unstated how important it is that this man is engaging with the thoughts of someone he not only doesnt idealize but actively disagrees with on multiple levels but is still capable of rationalizing and understanding his argument I get this is supposed to be basic humanity but basic is more relative than the truth
It's not basic and it isn't supposed to be, it's pretty much the opposite of the human default. You need years of intellectual training to be able to do this
@ lol have you ever even watched Jordan Peterson do anything? 99.9% of his imprint on the internet is him being nice and curious to dogmatist and zombies
Honestly, the way he panders to the evangelist community with such flimsy argumentations and false constructs or unprovable conclusions...it definitely stands to reason to expect a far closer thought about the true nature of humans: We are greedy and like easy to achieve positive attention. Hard to find an easier audience in a better position of power as of late in the english speaking market...aka gods followers are easy pickings, no need to wrestle the old man himself.
I would love someone to put this to him: Q: "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" JP: "It would take days to answer that question" Q: "Did Odin hang himself from Yggdrasil?" JP?: "Well that one no, probably not" Q: "What is the difference"
@@notyoyoma Yeah, it is obviously a secondary issue, he would argue that that is not his point. Rightfully so. But he also doesn´t think of any of the consequences of just randomly poking the dark with argumentation and then having a whole slew of followers twisting his message to fit neatly as part of their cultish narrative that everyone has to believe in what they believe in because it is, as Peterson argues after all, the "truth". He is a dangerous ideologist, always, because he never thinks of others or what becomes of his messages. He doesn´t think of anyone else´s position but his own and in his own position it makes all too much sense to argue the way he does. Like said, not just does his whole premise of what atheism argues already go all the way besides the point and never actually arguing with what he should be arguing in the first place but his theory is also as correct as the bible itself (at least from what I take from these videos about the book, not that I read it myself so beware that), if you believe it, it certainly fits a whole lot better than if you don´t follow his line of thinking. But in no way has been mentioned that he ever put down a concrete possibility for his line of thinking to be strictly exclusive. As is said in the video, if I just don´t follow his logic at some points then he builds up argumentative castles on thin air.
@@notyoyoma- Yes, essentially that's the problem: Peterson can't really say why one mythology should be elevated over another, except because of the value he "finds" or imposes in/on one set of stories versus another. He attributes the success of Western Civilizations to the Bible when Guns, Germs and Steel works at least equally well.
Absolutely. Peterson finds "truths" in the Bible; he just doesn't want to alienate members of his audience who want to interpret that as meaning "the Bible is true".
these are manipulative tactics, i hope that would become clear to his strangely devoted followers. I'm not sure if Peterson himself has enough balls to see it. ad hominem: judging by his voice, he doesn't.
He’s being much too kind, probably because he’s a better person than me. There are multiple videos breaking down his recent book bit by bit and explaining how a majority of his points don’t follow or frankly, make any proper sense whatsoever.
@spencerjames9417 it's not that he's a better person than you, just a smarter one. He's explaining in great depth how he agrees and disagrees with JBP. Your bias won't let you be fair.
I do miss Peterson's older self. Especially his videos in those college classroom lectures, where it was more about psychology, self actuallization and improvement, and just overall understanding the human nature. I don't like how he deals with political stuff, especially regarding genders, specific people, and religion mostly because he delivers it in a way that he makes it out as an absolute statement rather than just his own view. I do hope he goes back to his simpler self where he's tackling the human psyche and journey and not just arguing about politics
@macrodraneel8035 I think you are viewing his lectures with Rose tinted glasses. Peterson has always seemed to intentionally use obscure language to allow his audience to interpret what he says anyway they want. The reason you disagree with his more specific takes is because it is harder to ignore the obvious toxicity of the way he thinks. His lectures always leaned towards the retrograde philosophy he now espouses. Even the clean your room stuff is a way of disregarding people pushing for change (his bout with Benzo addiction also highlights how hypocritical this take was).
You're the first person that I hear that really listened to Peterson's arguments and made a usefull critic of it. Even Peterson will beneffit from viewing this video. Thanks for that honest curiosity, it's scarse.
There are lots of people who critique Peterson's arguments. There are also people who critique the foundation of his ideas and arguments rather than simply accepting his assertions and assuming that the fact that he may make a seemingly cohesive framework that it is actually sensible or reasoned.
Peterson's "illegal chess move" line is lazy "conclusion language." He does this a lot, and he's not alone (Sam Harris has engaged in a lot of this of late, for example). I appreciate your dissection of this. RE: Peterson not distinguishing between the existential and symbolic concepts of god/God......he's also been doing this for ages, and it's quite frustrating.
Their both one in the same. The christian gods the one hes referring to. But he also recognizes that all religions have a truth to them. And god is a symbol and a tool for reality; god as a narrative. And that the real world narrative has to encompasses all religions.
Peterson does have a bad habit of working off a private set of definitions that’s different from what most people would assume when you hear them, and not communicating in any way thats he’s using different definitions. Depending on how much you like him and how charitable you want to be you could see this different ways. I don’t like him, so I see it as intentional sophistry to bob and weave around so he has to spend less time actually engaging.
Conclusion language? I haven't heard that term, but it fits. But in case anyone missed the point; saying "there is no god" is like saying "I have no king" while playing chess. You can't capture what isn't there, so the opponent can't win. You CAN checkmate their king, so inevitably your version of chess looks like it wins almost every game. Therefore, atheism looks like a sound, more rational way to play the game. But everyone else playing looks at the board and says "what are you, stupid?" while making wild claims about the importance of the king which don't make any sense in the context of the game the atheist isn't playing. And to take the metaphor a little further, what piece did you put there instead of a king? Mammon (the rook)? Fame (the queen, highly useful!)? Or are you playing with an "incomplete set of pieces" and this reflects in your constant need to interact with or contend with those who have kings, either in an attempt to understand without that piece to work with, or in an effort to level the playing field and show them how unfair it is to THEM to have a king, which just makes them more likely to lose, eventually.
Your videos are amazing. Especially for someone like me who didn’t study the subject and didn’t read the actual works, your way of explaining the underlying messages and giving your take on them, while staying remarkably neutral, is a breath of fresh air, and it is so very intellectually stimulating
As a Christian, Peterson's opinions about the Bible frustrate me for a few reasons. 1. (This relates to Paul's quote in the beginning of the video). If the lessons in the Bible were true while God did not exist, it would be a bleak reality. At the Bible's simplest core, it all points to sinful man needing a saviour, and thankfully that Saviour is perfect in nature, works, and will. Yet if there was no God; no Christ, no sacrificial death, no resurrection, no Pentecost; we would not have the ability to consistently value what is perfect. Without proper understanding of the gospel, many points and lessons the Bible makes are lost or misunderstood. I liked how you questioned if Peterson's opinions about the Bible were simply from the Bible or from his personal experiences. If Peterson does not believe in the gospel, he would find it difficult to understand exactly what the purpose of the Word is. 2. A smiliar point, the Bible is about God. Not some 'heirarchy of beliefs' but the holy God Himself. It showcases His attributes and what He does to fix man's broken relationship with Himself while also showing that God will never smile at sin, the thing that caused the broken relationship in the first place. To use the Bible's lessons as tools for a fulfilling life while completely ignoring that it says a whole, fulfilling life only comes from a saving relationship with God is irresponsible. He essentially tries to take God out of the Bible...which is obviously ridiculous. (I haven't read Peterson's book though so I could be exaggerating). The Bible also repeatedly states that God acts for His glory and believer's good. How can one make sense of what God does without these things in mind? If one's values were aligned with the Bible's, I would think they would have to know who God is. 3. If Jordan Peterson wants to present the Bible as an unquestionable moral compass for individuals and socieites, he will have to do better than an utilitarian argument for why he chose the Bible. For someone who cites Crime and Punishment so often, I feel like he should know that if there is a unviersal moral law, it is not simply for utilitarian reasons nor can a man such as himself define what it is and when/where its applicable. I appreciate the idea that truth is true whether we believe it or not, because that simple idea has become strangely unpopular these days, but it doesn't make much logical sense to me for someone who does not fully believe in the Bible's infallibility to use it this way. I think christians can get away with saying the Bible is unquestionable because they believe in a truthful, faithful, omnipotent God who makes it so. I should also point out the obvious. Anyone could read the Bible, and many make different conclusions afterwards, even professing believers. And its lessons are good and practical. Yet having a public figure who misses the main point of it while still acting like he has the authority to analyze it is baffling. If you want to learn more about the Bible, try listening to someone who genuinely believes its true. I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response. But idk, I'm just a random girl on the internet. Anyway, I agree that there is some value to Peterson's ideas about our priorities and the usefulness of stories. Great video, thanks for breaking down the book for people like me who are short on time. I wrote most of this before finishing the video, but I appreciate the ending. EDIT: I’m not trying to hate on Peterson, I really like what he has to say most of the time. It’s cool that he’s reading the Bible. These are just some random concerns I have.
Very good response. I like knowing how Christians think. Tbh sometimes I think that Peterson himself is confused about what he really believes in. He’s not sure whether he’s a Christian or an atheist so he flip flops between the two which leads to some of the baffling points you’ve mentioned eg trying to take God out of the Bible while trying to argue for the Bible etc
Thank you,im starting to read the bible and im so thankful to you for this comment,i was rise believing in God,not hardcore but it was there,i knew it was,and i know it its,although i never took it as seriously as i wanted,i had one feet in and the other out,now i want to embrace my love for God fully and i think im finally ready to read the bible as a child of God,sometimes our ego gets in the way,especially knowing that Peterson its so admired by many,sometimes that entitles us,recognition and admiration,it’s undeniable that he has helped me heal in so many ways and i think he has felt something that he’s not letting in,not everything can be decoded with logic but with the heart and the spirit,and that’s what brings you real peace,i know he’s on his path as most of us,understanding the love of God ❤️🩹
"I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response."
I'm so happy to have this engaging analysis. I started listening to JP when he was just doing UA-cam. Then I did his whole Self Authoring Suite thing, very helpful. Then read his books. Then studied Carl Jung a bit. Then completely fell out of infatuation with him over the last few years. I find this channel an intellectually fair and less polarized assessment of things I prefer to postpone judgement of while I gain an appreciation for. This channel strikes me as one of those channels run by someone who has much better things to do, but shares with people like me. TYTYTY!!!!
## Analysis of Dr. Peterson's Claims About Atheism **Premise 1:** Dr. Peterson defines "God" as the highest value in a person's hierarchy of values. **Premise 2:** Everyone acts in accordance with some value system, even if it is unreflective or naive. **Conclusion:** Therefore, everyone acts as if they have a "God" in the sense that they prioritize some things over others, making atheism (understood as the denial of any value hierarchy) untenable. **Analysis:** While the sources present Dr. Peterson's argument as seemingly sound, there are some key issues with the line of reasoning: * **Equivocation:** The argument conflates two distinct meanings of "God." The traditional understanding of God involves a supernatural, conscious being. Dr. Peterson's definition redefines "God" as the peak of a value hierarchy, a concept devoid of traditional theological implications. By shifting between these definitions, the argument creates a false equivalence. Atheists typically reject the notion of a supernatural God, not the existence of values or the act of prioritizing. * **Oversimplification of Atheism:** The argument presents atheism as a denial of any value system, which is a misrepresentation. Atheists can and do hold strong moral and ethical values, prioritize certain goals and principles, and engage in meaningful pursuits without attributing these values to a deity. The sources even acknowledge that most atheists understand their position as the rejection of a conscious, intentional force organizing the universe. * **Lack of Engagement with Metaphysical Questions:** While Dr. Peterson focuses on the pragmatic implications of values and beliefs, the sources acknowledge that the question of God's metaphysical existence remains significant. The potential existence of an afterlife, for example, would have a direct impact on how one might choose to live. By sidestepping these questions, Dr. Peterson's argument fails to address the core concerns of many who identify as atheists. **In essence, Dr. Peterson's argument relies on a redefinition of terms and a limited understanding of atheism. It fails to establish a compelling case against atheism as traditionally understood.**
In order to better understand this for myself, I would like to restate the premises in 'loglish'. I am only interested in the first premise here, but I think this entire analysis is pretty much on the mark. Premise 1) For every y, there is some v, such that y is a person, and v is a member of the set of valued 'objects', and v = "God", and y places v above all other members of the set of valued objects. v is not, as we might say, a Definite Description. That is, it does not uniquely describe any _single_ entity or object. And that suggests that the issue of equivocation is even more serious than you argue here. Understanding the set of values as the set of everything that could conceptually be valued by any individual, we're dealing with a very large, if not infinite number of members. If each one of these could be valued above all others, then any member of the set could = God. God is money; God is family; God is Christ; God is Brahman; God is the Emperor Ceasar; God is my favorite G.I. Joe action figure; God is an A in Biochemistry; God is ... It seems that rather than dealing with two understandings of God, we are potentially dealing with an infinite number of "Gods". That's a very strange monotheism. I feel like there needs to be an argument to establish exactly one v, such that for any y, y _ought_ to place v above all members of the set of valued objects or entities. But we run straight into Hume, here. How do we get from any v that we _do_ place above all other members of the set to exactly one member that we _should_ place above any member of the set? I haven't read the book, only going by a single viewing of the video, so I could easily be missing something, but my guess is that Peterson would respond that this has something to do with the bible's role in the success of the 'west' on the world stage. And, I don't know, but it seems like the book has led to very different kinds of 'successes': divine right of kings; manifest destiny; 'with this symbol, you will gain power'; persecution of Christians by the Romans; the burning of 'witches' and fellow Christians across Europe; the reformation, and other divisions of Christianity into all of the denominations, sects, and cults we have today; justification for slavery; the children's crusade; the ped0 abuse scandals; prosperity gospel, etc., etc., etc. It's hard to find a single strand that unites these into a single entity (and given the horror, it's hard to imagine that entity being deserving of the 'top v' title.)
Peterson - Believes that there's an optimal way of doing and valuing things that will lead to the best life... Also uses obscure, personal, or suboptimal definitions of words (ex."Belief"), which leads to miscommunication...
Your takes are always intriguing. You sir certainly encourage me to study philosophy on my own; it's less frightening when I see complex ideas explained easily as in this vid.
The issue that I have with the argument that God stands at the top of the hierarchy is that it ignores certain problems about whether value systems should be organized in a hierarchical way in the first place. This has to do with the law classical logic called the 'excluded middle', which says that 'not false' is semantically identical to 'true', but in Indian logic and in intuitionist logic, 'not false' is not semantically identical. So, something may not be best, but also not not be best. Churchill claimed 'Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that we've tried'. Another way of saying it is, 'It is not true that democracy is the best system of government, but it's also not not true.' Once you apply the tetralemma to ideas like hierarchy, you can come to the conclusion that something being better or worse doesn't have to apply.
"Logically best" is something quite different from "practically best". Some systems (as for instance hierarchy) just function "best" in practice, and that not because of some semantics, but because we have the genes of hierarchical primates' pack wired hard.
@alena-qu9vj I don't think even that holds true. I think that, even hierarchical systems themselves are more like the cup and handle example. In evolution, there's something called the Panglossian Paradigm, which about the belief that all things have reason to have risen to the top of the evolutionary hierarchy. It has this name because it's not actually true. Lots of evolved features evolved simply because they were non-detrimental. In the same way, I think that hierarchies are more so about minimizing some external factor, rather than maximizing an internal one and I think this largely bears out in how we think of the world. Another word from evolution is a spandrel-a feature of evolution that wasn't selected for, but is the logical consequence of other evolved features around it. I think hierarchy is a spandrel.
@@alena-qu9vj Huh? Why should I? I'm not arguing that a non-hierarchical civilization is better? I'm saying that the logic that value systems are subject to hierarchical rules of 'strictly better' and 'strictly worse' only works in a classical logic system. I am not passing a value judgement on systems of government because, in so many words, I think that we tend to identify types of governance by its hierarchical structure, but that the hierarchical structure may not be causal, but correlated to the outcomes of that system.
You've struck a chord with me, but again, one thing jumps at me intuitively, and I think will do for others too - if they've played some type of sport or competed really hard, or someone in medicine. It is the simple idea that when creating a solution to a problem, it must first not exacerbate the problem. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”. When you consider that statement, the utility of hierarchies becomes pretty self-evident, but I do agree that there must exist a better solution to the problem of arranging values in such a way. I think hierarchies - as of now - are not a bug, but a feature. I can definitely see how it could be a bug though. What I'm concerned about is that if you're right, we aren't far enough along in our thinking to come up with a solution for it. Not even theoretically, we aren't. But again, doesn't that mean it's just not really gonna blow up in our face, not until we recognize it? Genuinely asking. Cheers.
I think Peterson thinks that the pragmatic truth is so real that it reveals a metaphysical truth. But I think he struggles to speak about how these dots connect.
Things are either true or not. Otherwise the word truth loses all value. Stories like the garden of Eden, flood, etc are not literally true. They are stories. Can stories have useful teachings or meaning to us? Sure. But that doesn’t suddenly make the stories literally true. They are still after all, just stories.
His ideas are truly fascinating but i totally agree with you that he should use more "standard" definitions or at least clear up his terminology. It feels like reading Nietzsche when he meant that good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” - Thomas Jefferson
i think the reason his terminology is hard to grasp, is correlated to the way he is interpreting the stories. since language has been subtlety changing throughout history. to get the interpretation of the people who lived and wrote those stories, you need their language and way of using it (with that i mean how immensely metaphorically its all used). it really is a case of, if you want to understand it, there is a lot of digging, otherwise there is not really a point to it. pls tell me if that even made a bit of sense, cus i hope so.
@@ninofrikandello8175 It made plenty of sense, but it requires great effort to go through such lengths which is why most will not do it. It is easier to just criticize using someone else's thoughts and move on having learned nothing.
"good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do" If this is your current level of analysis, I really don't think you have a chance at even a 10% understanding of Peterson.
@@CMA418 This is why we have separation of church and state. In order both, that the selection mechanisms for spiritual leadership are not so perverse, and so our sensemaking apparatus is somewhat divorced from our position, and stake in the more insular and judgmental village circles (good of the many). There certainly will always be weak willed people who fall under the influence of devilish control freaks. But in my experience even the slightest amount of personal willpower (or faith) is enough to keep those people away. In a lot of ways, a good priest type is like a good-and-wise Mother who points and nudges you in the right direction, but lets you fail when you need to learn the right lessons in the right ways. Which is just one among many virtues a good Mother embodies. True wisdom is necessarily always just out of grasp, and I won't for a second take for granted all of those who have helped me get here.
As someone who grew up with religious parents who does not read the bible as a symbolic narrative with "true" morals within them, but rather in as an historic text. So its interesting to see some of the reasoning behind why JP reads it that way nad the arguments around it. I also think its a better application of it than as a historical text
@@Sonofsun.You started with" all Bible is good" Followed by "take the good and throw out the bad". So the Bible is not "all good". What a confused worldview 😂
That person said "good for" which might be a kind of a prepositional phrase and not exactly "good" as an adjective. Nothing is confused here in my opinion
Thank you! I finally found another atheist who disagrees with Peterson, yet understands what he's saying. I'm so tired of people accusing Jordan of producing word salad, when what he says is not, in fact, word salad. There is plenty to criticize in his views, but instead people go for the unfair accusations. As a result the substance of what he's saying remains unaddressed.
It’s not word salad- IF you go through all of his redefinitions of common usage. Once you learn what he means by all his own personal definitions, his ideas are easily followed. I still think they are sophomoric and facile, but not nonsense or gibberish. He used to be more grounded, but I think he’s going outside his lane and becoming convinced of his own genius.
@@Direwolf1771 I completely agree. But I also see him addressing this by being reluctant to answer questions directly and asking for definitions beforehand - yet that backfires as well, since people accuse him of being vague and disingenuous. Honestly, it feels like a lose-lose situation.
@ Perhaps. But forcing everyone to redefine a bunch of terms before you can have a conversation instead of just using the words we already have is bad communication in my opinion. Nobody wants to deal with that so they tune it out and then his ideas make no sense to them. If he wants to convey his ideas, he’s going to need to adapt his style to one that conforms to the common language, not invent his own.
@@planteruines5619 Not really. You don't "master" the rule by understanding the name. Which you don't need even French for. Afaik most Germanic and Romanic languages enable you to understand name of the move. Its semanticly not far from the English "to pass someone" or the German word (loaned from French) "Passant". But like I said this information is not enough to master the "En passant" rule. Sorry if you don't care, but I think how our languages are related is super interesting.
Really good video. I’ve always felt that Peterson could go a ways towards legitimizing himself as a philosophical thinker by, shocker, actually learning some philosophy. I think that his arguments are legitimately interesting and valuable, but like you said, it seems like he’s trying to be both a pragmatist and a platonist at the same time. Wittgenstein said that Freud’s work was neither science nor philosophy, but rather a kind of free form speculation, and I think you could say something similar about Peterson. This book is a total mishmash of neuroscience, philosophy, and literary analysis that is largely held together by the force of his rhetoric. Unsatisfying for a specialist in any of those fields, but compelling to the educated layman.
Peterson would be very lucky to have this young man as a student! Someone who could really follow all his ideas to the smalest detail, compare them to any philosopher one could possibly think of - and then even make something more of it!💫
Sweet amazing guy, you’re so brave navigating modern philosophy. I appreciate you working through this. I think every voice should be examined regardless of if you like them or not. You moved up in my respect of you.❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Well, I can't accept his playing either. He seems to be a utilitarianist, but just covers what he sees as the most practical as god. imo he is the one making an illegal chess move.
Atheist is not philosophy it's negation of belief. U can't create any civilization based on atheism. U need common shared story and myth. That's why atheism is highly stupid.
A simpler and more accurate analysis would be that Jordan Peterson is allergic to clarity. He insists on speaking a language nobody else speaks where every word is shared with English but has a completely different definition. Even when asked to, he will categorically refuse to stop speaking in this made up language, because to speak in plain language would lead to clarity, which is his worst enemy since his ideas are clearly stupid when exposed to it.
Pretty accurate. Excellent language is using just as many words as necessary and being as simple as possible to convey your thoughts - which might of course include the use of symbols. A lot of people tend to think that the one who produces the most bloated text is a master of language. The opposite is true. I find it a bit sad that people actually and seriously discuss a book like this.
I think you should view him through his historic progression which is readily available here on youtube. At first his stance against transgenderism and let's say male alienation. Something that was direly needed. And his personality was very different. Was he maybe a bit too keen for the spotlight? I think so, but he seemed much more natural for a psychologist. Then his breakdown, and later him joining Ben Shapiro. His new persona emerged around that time. As a hyperintellectual debate bro. I don't think he's larping that much tbh, it just seems to me that he has accumulated a lot of bitterness over the years and that shines through.
I appreciate the video, I think we need more direct, constructive criticism like this instead of "everything he says is wrong", which I see very frequently. I would also add that, perhaps, the reason why he uses this symbolic language, is because all of the texts and ideas associated with them, are very symbolic and if we would try to explain them in strict, scientific language, we would actually lose some of the implicit meaning (I've heard him explain that symbols are like clouds of meaning, they link many other symbols and ideas together and are more likely to be associated with other specific symbols), so I think he doesn't use these terms to 'deceive' the reader. Anyways I still agree with most of what you've said in the video
For me, everything he says is word salad. Of course, this is in reference to his original ideas, not what he is pulling from different other authors he doesn't understand anyway.
Immortal genius here so I'll chime in. This is a great analysis of Peterson's ideas, far and away the best I've seen. I do believe his position is one of philosophical pragmatism, even if he doesn't doesn't describe it as such. When I first encountered him I was always kinda interested in whether he believed in god as an entity or not, and since it's not mentioned in the video, he has been pressed on that question a few times. While he initially said he didn't like the question, he eventually did relent and admit or articulate that he 'acts like he does believe', which is something like, a pragmatic faith. His position on truth I think is much the same, as you outlined, it's a position that says what is useful in predicting outcomes is true, whether they be scientific or moral truths, it's a pragmatic view of truth. The theory of gravity is true in so much that it predicts physical phenomena, despite not being completely accurate, and 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is true in so much that it predicts that behaviour between humans is reciprocal, again despite not being perfectly accurate. I do think it's worthwhile to distinguish between scientific truth, which applies universally no matter your frame of reference, and moral truths, which are much more fuzzy and depend on locality and your frame of reference. The easiest trolley problem in the world in the world is 5 frogs vs 1 human infant on a train track, but you'll get different answers depending on whether you ask a human or a frog to answer it. Both can be crushed by a boulder coming down the hill. Peterson utterly fails to separate scientific truth and moral truth, which leads to much confusion, but he is using symbology and stories and strong reinforcement to get a message across, and it has worked, he has been influential and I would say in a positive way overall. I have a whole other rant about how philosophical arguments like free will is an illusion or positing the existence of philosophical zombies are only true if you want to sell books, or extend an academic career, and are not only anti-pragmatist but flat out wrong and the opposite of useful, but my time here is limited.
If it is true that Peterson takes a utilitarian view of biblical texts, he's engaging in some degree of sacrilege, no? I don't think Calvinists (for example) would view his analysis at all charitably. Perhaps this is why he is so secretive about his actual position on the existence of God.
Heresy, sacrilege is something else. I know one Calvinist that is a big fan. As long as JP talks about the Bible positively, he does not mind because it's all about belief anyway and the Bible is the symbol. Lying and cheating is fine as long as people are buying into the Bible. That seems to be the attitude. I think Christians are too nihilistic at this point to mind and are too divided on interpretation to mount any kind of dissent. It used to be punishable by death, worst than unbelief, so it just shows how things have evolved.
Having grown up a Mormon; accustomed to evangelicalism, and converts, I will not see utilitarian understanding as anything less than a step towards true belief. One thing the snide gossip types don't understand is the full extent of the power of redemption that only Christian philosophy fully embodies (because it's boring). As for Peterson I won't speak for him, but considering his world view is shaped heavily by Jungian Psychology, and the pursuit to understand Pure Human Evil I can only see that as drawing him closer to the deep psychologic Mythos surrounding the potential for whatever is the opposite of that evil.
For me, Peterson is someone who presents arguments adorned with seemingly logical and philosophical approaches, making them appear justified. Yet, in reality, these arguments have no validity. They confuse people's minds, drowning them in so much detail that one cannot immediately respond with, "Why did he say that?" or "What does he mean?" But amidst all this detail, his errors stand out glaringly. In my opinion, this approach is no different from the snake oil salesmen of the Wild West who fraudulently sold so-called miraculous elixirs that claimed to cure everything. My personal view is that he is either someone who lacks the courage to openly express his religious views as they are and pretends otherwise, someone who sees Christians as a profitable audience to exploit financially (as televangelists do well), or someone with a peculiar psychology who enjoys causing harm to society by insisting he is right even when he knows he's not. Like a cat playing with its prey-this behavior manifests in various human forms. I believe Peterson is fully aware that his arguments don’t hold water.
Can you egive an example i haven’t seen a lot of his newer stuff but i know a lot of stuff ive heard him say j came to similar conclusions before ever hearing of him
@@mrcheese5383 Look up Nathan J Robinson's essay titled "Jordan Peterson: the intellectual we deserve", Nathan has also done a lot of interviews on UA-cam explaining why Peterson can't be trusted. He did an interview with the majority report. That's a good place to start.
@@giggleman9908I looked the essay up since you recommended it. I found it absolutely horrible to read, a biased bad-faith egocentric arrogant piece of writing where the author comes in with the agenda to prove that Jordan Peterson is a bad writer and not an intellectual, but to me just reveals the author himself to be rather petty and lacking in intellectual curiosity. The main point of criticism he levers against Peterson is, correctly put, that Petersons writing style for his unscientific books is rather verbose, mystical, imprecise and with elements of spirituality. That is a matter of taste, and a matter of preference. Peterson speaks very highly of Nietzche - have any of you read Nietzche? I have. It is very hard to read properly. Many passages are meant to be digested for a time, and to be more thought provoking than to be a mathematical argument. That is clearly Petersons inspiration for that kind of writing style. You can leverage the same criticism about a poem, calling it imprecise and mystical and verbose and not a logical series of arguments, and all you reveal is your own inability to engage with what the author wants to do. Personally, I think it is a major mistake to conflate what Peterson does to help people and what he does to share his own thoughts. And I do think that many times, he himself makes that very hard to distinguish between. The most baseline fact is that he has had a long career as a clinical psychologist and his self-help books have helped an enourmous amount of people live more productive and happy lives. That is more than 99.99999% of us can claim to have done for the world, and it proves that he has deep knowledge in how to help people help themselves. The rest I think should be met with intellectual curisity as a challenge to the normal modern atheist mind, much like reading about Buddhism or something of that sort, and that's it.
"atheism is stupid" is a fatuous statement coming from someone who believes an invisible caucasian man in the sky created the universe and then hears and sees everything we do.
Really --- ? I also try for natural simplicity - in the life - thought and experience. Simplicity - is closer to reality and therefore - to happiness - itself. Travel light - is the dictum and another - Love is the Base. Fare thee well - in life's journey (From an intense meditator)
"There exists the biggest number" is a false proposition (infinity is not a number btw). So "there exists the best set of values to live your life according to" is not only non-obvious, but requires much proof to be postulated.
This is a great video and I really appreciate your charitable analysis of Peterson’s views. I also appreciate that you have read his book so I don’t have to. That may sound a little snarky, but I’ve logged enough time listening to him speak to have formed some clear impressions. Jordan strikes me as a smart person, but one who is lacking in intellectual humility. Far too confident in nearly everything he says and compulsively evasive when asked straightforward but pointed questions, his go-to move when pressed for clarity is to obfuscate by riffing on a tangent. That gets old quickly. There are plenty of contemporary intellectuals who have the ability to help me think more clearly and deeply, even when I happen to disagree with them. Peterson is not one of them. If anything, for me, he serves as a negative role model for cogent discourse. It’s not that there’s no substance at all in what he says. It’s just that separating the wheat from the chaff is time consuming and frankly exhausting, all for very little gain, in my experience. So again, thank you for this very fair-minded, lucid, circumspect breakdown.
Hi Joe, Thank you for your review of the book. I think you’ve completely missed the point here. Dr. Peterson, when speaking about the utility of biblical stories-which you referred to in your video as being in the domain of philosophical pragmatism-has a very deliberate approach. You suggested that he could have stripped the stories of mythical jargon and reduced them to mere propositions, moral lessons, or metaphysical and philosophical principles. However, that is precisely what he intentionally avoids. Dr. Peterson is playing the role of the ancient archetypal helper, similar to figures in myths like Horus and Osiris. In the myth, Osiris helps Horus to defeat Seth but can only do so from the realm of the dead. Osiris is non-existent in the earthly realm and cannot enter it. This pattern recurs across many myths, where the helper accompanies the protagonist only to the edge of his/her world, after which the protagonist must carry on the adventure alone. This is what Dr. Peterson is attempting to do with his exposition of biblical stories: he is not reducing them to mere moral lessons or utilitarian principles. While he operates within the realm of propositions when discussing these stories, he deliberately refrains from reducing them to absolute propositional statements. Your discussion on symbols and myths touches on their utility and how they condense a wealth of information. However, I think Dr. Peterson’s argument goes deeper: symbols and myths are intrinsic to our perception and attention, and we participate in them rather than simply having them convey abstract moral principles to us. Take, for example, the concept of a chair. When we see a chair, we perceive it immediately, yet it is impossible to define it exhaustively. A chair encompasses infinite variability-its color, material, number of legs, functionality (or lack thereof in the case of a “bad chair”), and even abstract art interpretations. This highlights the inherent inexhaustibility within seemingly ordinary objects, resisting reduction to mere propositional definitions or abstract concepts. Dr. Peterson suggests that it is logically impossible for humans to consciously create symbols and myths that condense this inexhaustible information. Instead, we receive them from above but are able to perceive and participate in them. Reducing myths and symbols to mere propositions or abstract philosophical principles is akin to the sin of Adam and Eve-reaching for the apple, destabilizing the hierarchy, and bringing about the curse of alternating totalitarianism and disillusionment. A parallel example is the concept of humility: if you think you have it, you’ve already lost it. Similarly, if you believe you can reduce the entirety of a symbol or myth to its attributes-such as a moral lesson or metaphysical concept-you lose any true comprehension of that symbol or myth. This is why Dr. Peterson refrains from explicitly stating his belief in God-it would reduce something infinite and incomprehensible to a mere proposition. This isn’t to say that one cannot make propositional statements about the infinite or the inexhaustible. Nor is it to undermine the world of propositions and abstractions, but rather to acknowledge the incompleteness of that realm (as reflected in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). Dr. Peterson’s point is that symbols and myths are more fundamental to humanity than philosophy, metaphysics, or psychology. In fact, the existence of the latter presupposes the former. That is to say, using reason, propositional truths, metaphysical concepts, and philosophy to explain human perception, attention, consciousness, myths, and symbols is misguided because the latter are fundamental and serve as the origin of the former. In his own way, he is trying to serve as a bridge between these realms-how successfully, only God knows. Thank you for taking the time to read my exposition.
Out of interest, when you say myths are “serve as the origin” of things like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and logic, what do you mean by that? Just because on the face of it that’s quite a mysterious statement.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 First of all, thank you for engaging with your audience. What I mean by myths serving as the origin of secondary fields like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and science is best explained through an example. When the USA embarked on its journey to the moon, it was an instantiation of the age-old myth of the mariner's journey into the unknown. While this achievement was heralded as a victory for science, many overlooked the underlying myth that inspired it. This myth was symbolically reflected in the act of planting the flag-a mythical gesture of uniting the new identity (the moon) with the old identity (the national identity of the USA). As a scientist by profession, I see parallels in the structure of academic work. Whenever we publish a paper in a journal, we always include the name of the university, followed by the contributors to the discovery, as a symbolic “flag” representing the origin of the work. Only afterward does the science itself take the forefront. This practice, I believe, reflects the influence of ancient myths, which subtly shape even the structure of scientific discourse. Even Descartes' curious inquiry into the self (Cogito)-which involved forgoing the existence of all external identities perceived through sense data-can be embedded within ancient myths, such as the apocryphal Hymn of the Pearl. In this myth, a person dives into deep waters (symbolizing the abandonment of stable, solid ground, akin to doubting the existence of all external identities) and descends into the dark ocean depths (representing the rejection of sense data) to retrieve the precious pearl (Cogito, ergo sum), a truth discovered at the bottom of the ocean. In my observation, myths and symbols often precede and guide the emergence of new truth statements, scientific discoveries, and even mathematical theorems. Unlike a worldview or philosophy, myths and symbols can serve as a stance toward the unknown-neither fully embracing the unknown nor entirely rejecting the existing center. I also believe that even atheists unknowingly participate in myths and symbols. For example, many who reject the Christian God often adopt imagery associated with Satanic or pagan traditions (such as Viking symbols) through their clothing or accessories. Even though they do not believe in the propositional truth claims of these traditions, they participate in their imagery. This suggests that myths and symbols possess an agency that transcends conscious belief. While no one fully understands myths and symbols consciously, everyone participates in them. In my view, belief is less about subscribing to a set of propositional truth claims and more about participating in the higher-order body of believers. Just as when I listen to music, I take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, trusting the music to guide me toward perceiving the edge of the known (coherence) and the unknown (uncertainty), allowing me to flourish accordingly.
26:07 correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Peterson also claim that he read Nietzsche and gets some of his definitions from him, idk how he comes to that conclusion reading someone whose life mission was critquing and tearing apart the basest assumptions of European philosophers leading upto him.
@@ramon2008I think that’s defensible. At least with my understanding of Nietzsche, he would rather his words inspire others to form their own beliefs than be used as their own beliefs.
Mr. Folley, As per your request (jocular or otherwise), I, an immortal genius, would like to introduce myself. Drawing from the insights of Popper, Descartes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and metaphysical traditions, I will demonstrate that my assertion is not only defensible but resilient against skepticism. Karl Popper’s philosophy of science teaches us that no theory can be definitively proven true; it can only resist falsification. My claim to immortality and genius, by its nature, resists refutation. Immortality is impossible to disprove so long as I live. The absence of evidence for my mortality supports the hypothesis until contradictory evidence arises-an event I claim will never occur. While subjective, my genius can be assessed through the resilience of the arguments I present here. A theory that withstands critique demonstrates intellectual strength, which I argue reflects my genius. René Descartes’ Cogito, ergo sum affirms that self-awareness is the only indubitable truth. From this foundation, I build the following argument. I am self-aware of my intellectual capabilities, which I interpret as genius. Genius, like existence, is subjectively undeniable to the one who experiences it. Immortality, while speculative, is not contradicted by any evidence available to me, and thus remains a viable hypothesis. Descartes does not demand external validation of subjective truths; instead, he grounds knowledge in the certainty of the individual’s experience. My awareness of my genius-and the absence of mortality-stands as an unassailable starting point. Nietzsche’s philosophy celebrates the individual who asserts their values in a world devoid of inherent meaning. My claim to be an immortal genius is an act of Will to Power. By declaring myself immortal and a genius, I create meaning in defiance of nihilism. This act exemplifies self-overcoming and creative freedom. Even if my physical form were to perish, the ideas I produce persist, ensuring my genius endures in perpetuity. Immortality, therefore, is reframed as the enduring resonance of one’s contributions. Furthermore, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s reflections on language and private experience support the integrity of my claim. My use of terms like “immortal” and “genius” carries meaning within the context I establish. These words express a reality coherent to my subjective experience. Subsequently, no one can access my internal experience, nor can they definitively refute my perception of myself as an immortal genius. Finally, metaphysical insights from Parmenides and Nietzsche lend a timeless dimension to my argument. Parmenides says existence is an eternal, unchanging whole. If existence itself is timeless, then my presence as a genius must be a perpetual truth within the fabric of being. Nietzsche’s concept of infinite repetition suggests that if reality recurs endlessly, my genius will inevitably manifest in every cycle. Through the lenses of Popper, Descartes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and metaphysics, my assertion of being an immortal genius is philosophically robust. I invite critique not as a challenge to my claim, but as a means to further demonstrate the intellectual resilience that confirms my genius. Immortality remains unassailable until disproven-a task I assure you is impossible. Sincerely, An Immortal Genius
"Nobody can be a true atheist"!? WTF! What does that even mean? I can totally have a working value system without believing in unicorns, Santa or god. And every human has a value system without ever seeing any god.
The fact that you have difficulty understanding the assertion does not imply that it's wrong. It implies that you don't have enough of a common contextual frame with the speaker (and with the other listeners who did understand it).
@@aguywithalotofopinions412 and some have done exactly that, and more power to them. It's a bit like shouting down the wind, but yes, if there are people who are not sure about him, it's worthwhile to have some analyses of his claptrap. On the other hand, as the old saying goes, a lie has make it around the world while the truth is still tying it's shoelaces. We can modify that a bit to say you can spout more gibberish in 5 minutes than you can show to be false in 5 hours. The gibberish spouters have the clear advantage.
JP is using all these poignant words, mythological interpretations, and poetic diction to communicate boundless nonsense. edit: This comment is made by a 30-something woman, so stop assuming I'm too young to understand the "genius" of Peterson ( though we shouldn't weaponize age in an argument ).
Ah, age, the time-honored excuse for not grasping complex ideas. It's fascinating, really, considering that peak cognitive performance is usually around the age of twenty to twenty-five. So, by that logic, the younger audience might actually have a sharper grasp on these concepts than their elders. But of course, it's always refreshing to see the timeless classics of "you just don't understand" trotted out in discussions on Jordan Peterson.
@ Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
@@kulturkriget Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
I came to know this channel few days ago ago and is extremely helpful, I have few suggestions: Could you colab with Alex O Connor and make a video. Also could you make a video regarding AI and future unemployment, on depression anxiety and loneliness, I understand these are not directly philosophical but I believe it will resonate with the audience and the advise should be inspired from philosophy and history
I haven't read Peterson's new book but I did read his last two. I love how you put into words so succinctly exactly my problem with the way he expresses himself. He always finds a way to talk around pointed questions about his belief in God.
Sometimes a pointed question is so idiotic it's not worth even engaging with. Like when speaking to a child. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do find it curious that so many build an identity in opposition to the idea of Faith. In order to answer a question which necessarily has no answer aside from the unsatisfying seek and you shall find. In my short lifespan would I really claim to know so well the rich tapestry of life in order that I should think to call into question the wisdom of the ages. Socrates can point, that is the full extent of his abilities. Pointing is important, just as a few scouts lead way for the army, but the scouts are not the army, nor are they the commandant. They don't even sit at the same table.
@@DiluviumEyesofThunder Bro. The fact that you immediately I assumed I am just another run of the mill village atheist without a clue what the Bible actually says is so typical. It's exactly what's wrong with Peterson's followers nowadays. If we don't fall into line with literally everything he says, trolls ever-so-eloquently give you an argumentative wall of text to try and prove us wrong. Like we are questioning the wisdom of the ages! (lmao) I had a period where I liked a lot of what he said. It was his university lectures that got me thinking about true character improvement, and what ultimately led me OUT of a CHRISTIAN CULT that I was being ABUSED in for 25 years. I know what belief can do to a person. Over time, I have noticed that Peterson has nothing new to say since his university days, and I have other people whose ideas I find more interesting and want to engage with right now. Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Philosophers, etc. Unsolicited Advice is doing a good job of explaining the valid criticisms that exist about Peterson's thoughts and opinions.
@@DiluviumEyesofThunder Bro. The fact that you immediately I assumed I am just another run of the mill village atheist without a clue what the Bible actually says is so typical. It's exactly what's wrong with Peterson's followers nowadays. If we don't fall into line with literally everything he says, trolls ever-so-eloquently give you an argumentative wall of text to try and prove us wrong. Like we are questioning the wisdom of the ages! (lmao) I had a period where I liked a lot of what he said. It was his university lectures that got me thinking about true character improvement, and what ultimately led me OUT of a CHRISTIAN CULT that I was being ABUSED in for 25 years. I know what belief can do to a person. Over time, I have noticed that Peterson has nothing new to say since his university days, and I have other people whose ideas I find more interesting and want to engage with right now. Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Philosophers, etc. Unsolicited Advice is doing a good job of explaining the valid criticisms that exist about Peterson's thoughts and opinions.
@@DiluviumEyesofThunder Bro I have no problem with capital F Faith, and i am in no way denigrating the 'wisdom of the ages.' I used to be a big fan of Peterson, hence why I read two of his books. I was a devout believer in a specific Christian faith for many, many years. I have just moved beyond Peterson's take on everything. I credit him as the one who opened my eyes to a lot of important PROBLEMS with religion, and he is one of the many reasons I woke up and got myself out of an ab*sive situation in my church. Just because someone is engaging with atheists and their ideas does not mean they are not still interested in a spiritual or religious point of view. Unsolicited Advice is offering a rare, balanced take on Peterson and the criticisms that exist about him and his philosophy.
@@_Erendis I relate also to this position except the abuse was within my family. But look this is apart from the point. I am trying to negotiate the line between Logos and Mythos. In an esoteric sense wisdom exists, and in a real sense it exists in relation to complex physical systems. Forms of logic are platonic and exist purely in as information. So, there is a spot where mythos (which is a great storehouse of wisdom) interlaps with Logos our sensemaking apparatus that is turbulent because quite frankly Myths are meant to be interpreted differently than facts, and so this idea that this form of information must conform 1to1 to a rational parsing algorithm. It's absurd. the compression artifacts ruin any information that was there, and then silly children turn to the camera and say look at all this silly nonsense! I understand when a wise mentor turns to abuser the impulse to turn away entirely, to assume that no good can come at all from a person so evil, and to then discard everything you learned for fear of turning into that person. There are however generational cycles to these things, and if you turn your back entirely you cannot discern what it actually is that turned foul. Bad Ideas can tick away for years before finally blowing up in your face. You cannot run from the past, but you can overcome it. Be stronger.
The story of Cain and Abel shows: 1. We must be mind readers who know what the people in power want. 2. It isn’t how hard you work, but whether the person in power favors your work. 3. Make sure to eliminate your enemies in a way the people in power like. After all, Cain worked harder than Abel, but Abel was favored because God liked to eat meat, and hated to eat vegetables. When Cain killed Abel, he didn’t give him as a sacrifice to God, so Cain was punished. From this we learn that God is a petulant child. And if the ideas of Jordan Peterson are truly useful only if you are willing to alter the definitions in your mind, then all we have to do is have someone translate the loaded language into more accurate scientific terms. NOBODY should read the book in it's existing form, as the definitions were carefully crafted as propoganda to alter people's beliefs. And if God is defined as the top of the moral hierarchy, then, in practicality, for many Christians, Jesus is HATE. They put hate of others as the top of their moral hierarchy, and their name for God is Jesus, so Jesus (aka God aka the top of their moral hierarchy) is whatever they rank highest in practicality. And that is hate for specific out groups.
I see how it could seem like god propaganda. but I think hes saying that god, if placed at our moral heriarchy, is a great tool to use in humanity, because it helps us better understand our maximum potential and how to get there, (aka have faith in a higher power) and use it as a forward manifestation to self actualate. He’s referring to Christianity here, but ive heard him say that all religions have some aspect of truth to them, so for this new religion revolution age that comes with the AI revolution, we further understand how we can use a god or a (higher power) to help guide humanity to the better, and if the new religion is good and adaptable that helps people deal with their reality and become better, more loving people and, society to its ultimate flourishing (anything is possible nowadays) and wins through the natural selection of ideas and the free will of the people. God does not judge, and god is holisitic concept beyond our understanding. We cannot comprehend of what he does of good or bad because then all the wars would be good, God is engrained in everything, including us, and by trying to better ourselves, through socio-cultural thinking can help align us to a “better” world, most optimally to be embedded and in tune with nature. The great ecosystem or the tiny cell biosphere here we call earth.
Bruh 😂 what kind of assumption is that do you really think god would accept Cain just because of the presentation? No. The fact that you think god likes human sacrifices is something you have to establish before all that
Lol you have such a narrow minded idea of Christianity. Christianity actually does put love and acceptance to be the top of hierarchy, the problem is that their morality is skewed because that's just how people who wrote it were back then, back then racism, slavery and discrimination were ok
My biggest criticism is that he downplays history and interprets other societies as insignificant. Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism were rarely considered. Christian Nationalism, or Nationalism in general have been under-considered after the bad reputation because of WW2. Still, one has to separate that with theism, separation of church and state, historical tradition and culture from our forefathers. He often makes tangential analogies and obfuscating language to sound profound and appeal to his conservative base, creating a conflict of interest.
If he considered those he’d be out of a job immediately. Can you imagine debating Buddhism, a religious system of incredible sophistication and brutal simplicity.
The beginning part explaining the implicit value of taking one action over another is exactly how the book Human Action by Ludwig von Mises starts too.
I’m really glad you addressed this book. Honestly I feel like every form of revelation that Jordan Peterson claims to have usually comes from his own determination to remain limited.
@@jamm_affinity I like to disagree with that. Peterson is as limited as we all are in most matters. Physically, mentally, financially (maybe not THAT much) and no matter your religion, he only has this one life as Jordan Peterson.
The thing I am most upset about religion is that it mixes a very tired and, frankly, settled, debate about the factual reality of how old the earth is and whether there was a global flood, with the much more interesting and confounding question of how to live a good life. Religion certainly has a lot to say about the latter but veering inevitably into the former just means we can never make any real progress. For that, I think religion owes us all an enormous debt.
@@KeiS14 Religions were invented when humans didn't even know the brain was for thinking but now we know a lot about the brain and will have a complete map of the human brain pretty soon. We know about mental illnesses and eventually I think we will be able to show that spiritual beliefs are a mental illness. I realize life is hard for most people and they have stress and trauma and I think this triggers spiritual beliefs. A good life is one that has minimal pain both mental and physical. Neuroscience shows us how we avoid mental pain. Religion itself has plenty of advice about this and not all of it necessarily bad but however it is obsolete now.
Tbh, sir, your video is just ATTRACTIVE not only for its content but also for your voice and appearance hehe Always thx for such visually and intellectually pleasing contents! Hope you reach 1M subscribers!
@@dominusantonius Why not compose a short poem? For the clarity forsaken, the meaning sooner is taken, to give the intended gifts, in a lovely art that uplifts. Should I not tell this in lie, Why not give it a try?
I’m very happy that you picked up on Peterson’s pragmatism so thoroughly and honestly! He has been very open about the fact that he is a pragmatist, but since most people don’t have philosophical training, they miss the importance of that admission. It is essential to understanding Peterson’s philosophy and especially his views on religion.
Spoken like a true angsty teen. I am sorry that for whatever reason you have learned to view authority, and wisdom as some sort of parent child relationship when in reality it lies the other way around. But I supposed if you take up the popular view that the individual is a Blank Slate you assume that every action is directly controlled by authority this makes sense. That idea implicates to me of the mind of a coward. Or at least one who follows blindly and has never had an original thought of their own.
You put much of what I suspected about Dr. Peterson's ideas into much better words than I could hope to use. While I am not a critic of him and I find his ideas genuinely interesting (and insightful sometimes, if not always original), sometimes I do feel confused at what exactly he means and have thought that his definitions of the keywords in his ideas are, while related, different from our usual conceptions of them, and as such lead to ideas that seem weird based on what people would usually conceive based on our usual definitions. He's basically constructing his own tracks under the guise of running the same race in public discourse on these subjects. Thank you. I am grateful.
I was heavily considering buying the book because i thought it was a justification of the metaphysical that would challenge my views on god. It does feel like a bait to use misleading language. Glad I watched this video and saved the time. Im a big fan of the channel. Well done!
there is a vid of him arguing for re-enacting concept/law of women as men's property. for the sake of women, ofc. worth listening to, it's very interesting, it's a perfect example of his views and philosophy. that order that he prays for is funded on raw power. not some 'lofty' 'leftist' ideals of human rights, just good ol' hierarchy of mighty and meek. i guess he does his philosophy out of genuine therapeutic intention to help people lost in chaos. it's that he got carried away from that noble aim a long time ago by his pride and delusions, to which best attest his frantic refusal to undergo supervisor's evaluation. ofc, the alternative explanation, or his, would be that he defies hostile, corrupted system. anyway, the vid about 'novel' ways of protecting women from male aggression is quite entertaining. and when it comes to Lot daughters, hush, it had been added by Them, the evil saboteurs aka devils aka postmodernists!
@@ohmaramusic Please...Peterson is a hack. Continues to prove it by not proving his "intellectual diagnocese" as a fact. He can't even admit whenever he's wrong, especially about social issues he has no horse in the race of. eg: trans issues. He's not an expert in the study and lives of trans people before and after transitions. Nor does he not show any respect for others' decisions, including the doctors and parents of those trans kids in which the group has the highest percentage of suicide rates compared to any other community in society. In other words, he thinks he's correct and be damned any nuance and the safety of those he attacks with the help of every other far right winger who also has no expertise in that area of psychology and medical diagnosis. This is the typical right wing grift in full motion used by these insensitive narcisisstic, nuance lacking and common sense avoiding people who are only in the game for the money and the hate. They can't do anything else as succesfully.
there's a clear distinction between ANY two things. we have to choose which distinctions to overlook and which of them to value. we do it unconsciously at every moment of our existence. For example, two perfectly similar potatoes are still different in position in space. but of course we don't care about that because the purpose of the potato for us is to eat it. we can't overlook location in space when the object of perception is a part of a mechanical system however. You see how purpose of things is what highlights their difference ? if you follow the chain of purposes/goals you reach higher and higher ones until you reach your highest value/goal. which for Peterson is God.
I think, out of all atheists, you are the most appropriate one to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson. I would pay to see that. You are critical, yet fair and humble (mainly, you don't exude arrogance like other atheists). Thank you for this. You make philosophy very approachable in a charismatic way 👏.
@@isiahs9312exactly, religious people claim absolute truth with their only evidence being an ancient text, which is just one of thousands other equally stupid ancient texts, yet they accuse others of arrogance. It’s ironic
@@isiahs9312 I'm agnostic, but thanks for providing a prime example of the arrogance that plagues many atheists. You make assumptions about people's beliefs and thoughts without even trying to engage with them in an honest conversation. Why? Well, one could think you don't seek meaningful communication, but you only seek cheap ways to make you feel like you're not the the dumbest one in the room.
I love the light and darkness on either side of you, very cool background design. Its like the angel and devil on either shoulder, except both are JBP lol
J.P tries to get his point across by conflating really specific religious ideas with vague theoretical concepts and psychological functions, and interchanging them whenever he feels like into order to falsely push specific concepts as having validity that they have nothing to do with. He would have a much easier time if he approached from a sort of pantheistic perspective, but he doesn't, indicating that he's out to push a specific idea, not actually genuinely interface with the questions intellectually. He's a grifter, enough said.
What I dislike the most about JP is how when discussing religion he is very fluid and refuses to pin down definitions, but the minute we begin speaking on cultural matters it becomes: “We all know what a woman is, up yours woke moralists.”
Truthfully, the parts here where Peterson basically just echoes Kierkegaard are the ones I like, and some of the stuff about narratives but I didn't pay enough attention to sort through whether most of that was UA's thinking or JP's, but mostly I agree with UA's critiques. Christian here, btw
I think Peterson makes several errors: (1) He tries to define God as the top-most thing in the value hierarchy, but this isn't what people mean by "God." They mean an omnipotent creator being. And proving such an omnipotent creator being exists is impossible. Christianity falls apart without the omnipotent creator being. Frankly, this equivocation is so persistent it's hard to take anything he writes seriously on this subject because of the ubiquitousness of this simple error. It's like he wants to force his definition into things and just completely ignore the fact it's an equivocation. (2) Peterson has an improper understanding of suffering and how it works. People suffer because there is a gap between their will and reality. Most people, Peterson included, are completely and utterly focused on making reality/the world come into alignment with their will. But this doesn't work. It doesn't work because our power is limited and the world is irredeemably corrupt. Instead suffering, after basic needs like food and shelter are taken care of, is most efficiently reduced by bringing one's will in alignment with reality, the complete opposite of what most people are doing. He's read Nietzsche, clearly, but it's like he just failed to read Schopenhauer.
Interesting. But saying "Christianity" falls apart without the omnipotent creator being is to accept, that judaistic Torah is more important for Christianity than the actual teachings of Christ. Which is probably true in the fundamental christian countries, but it is unfair and even dangerous in my understanding. Let judaism keep their Torah with its god, and lets concentrate more on the teachings of Jesus.
@@saintsword23 "Christianity" as you know it. What I mean is that this basicly on Torah - OT spirit functioning religion stole the name of Christ, but doesn't follow principles of the NT teachings of Jesus. And this "omnipotent creator god" of OT doesn 't seem to be the "Father" of Jesus. Jews would never acknowledge it, at still it seems not to bother those "Christians".
I think your first point shows your lack of understanding of the Christian God. God is not a being, he is being itself, or that which all being rests upon, the mind that holds the universe together, the wellspring of consciousness. He is at the very top.
@@GazedoBurrito If you try to tell a theologian that God is being itself I think you'll get called a heretic and a pantheist. I think I understand the Christian god just fine. Part of the problem is if you ask 1000 Christians what God is you'll get 1000 different answers. But it's way more than fair to say that when most people are referring to God, they mean an omnipotent creator being, or at least a being at all. Just defining god as the "top of the value hierarchy" is clearly wrong, because if I claim that an abstraction like freedom or peace is my "highest value" I'm clearly not referring to god. I'm referring to this abstraction. The fact that there are different or even "deeper" definitions really doesn't matter in this case, because the critique of JBP works in any case. "The top of the value hierarchy" may be necessary to the definition of God - I'd argue it's not because God isn't a value but a being and thus this is a category error - but it's definitely not sufficient, and JBP's leaving out of all the rest of the stuff you need to make a sufficient definition is really telling and destroys his critiques of atheism.
Go to ground.news/unsolicited for 50% off the Ground News Vantage plan. This is their best deal of the year, available for a limited time, so be sure to use my link!
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS
Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more (very occasional) philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Has anyone ever tried a non-anthropomorphic theology? People talk about this God character as if he is a man like them. Point that out and they say, NO, not at all. Really because from the looks of things God thinks like us, feels like us and intends like us. If it walks like a duck....
Why do you squint so much it's painful to watch
Jordan Peterson is a public ineffectual.
Let me ask you atheists something? what are you fighting against? Western religion has little power in your life. What is it about God that urges this inner debates?
And why do atheists also interrelate their "fight" with God, with the concept of "free will"? I hear people say "its because our justice system should take into account that we dont have free will"
So that means if I do a crime to you, you should forgive it because it was not really my fault because I had no "free will"? I dont think you guys are prepared to accept that. I too believe the justice system is unfair but that doesn't mean humans being, and life in general, has no agency. I've heard other stuff like "freedom starts when you realize you have no freedom", then what are you? can anyone of you answer that? what are you supposed to be, and why do you seek "freedom"? I want to know your point of view, mine is simple, I am already free, I don't need to "be God", this reality doesn't have to be like a lucid dream, in other for me to be free, I am already free. (prove it you say, I don't to prove that I am free to you, thats part of my freedom, I am at peace. But I see all this videos and all of this "philosophy" based on resentment and power seeking disguised as freedom searching, and I ask myself, what the hell do this people want?, why arent they happy with their lives?)
I had no problem with atheists until they started coming for free will, why? Why do you want to "prove" that you don't exist, that you are just an illusion of your brain? why?
Do you view life as such a torture that the only way to deal with it, is self deleting your own sense of self?
peterson is not an intellectual, he is a pseudo intellectual. pretends to be one.
I don’t want it to go unstated how important it is that this man is engaging with the thoughts of someone he not only doesnt idealize but actively disagrees with on multiple levels but is still capable of rationalizing and understanding his argument I get this is supposed to be basic humanity but basic is more relative than the truth
It's not basic and it isn't supposed to be, it's pretty much the opposite of the human default. You need years of intellectual training to be able to do this
it is very admirable indeed, although noone is perfect, but in this regard he sure seems to be a very decent human
Yes especially with someone that is not known to do the same thing to people he disagrees with.
@ lol have you ever even watched Jordan Peterson do anything? 99.9% of his imprint on the internet is him being nice and curious to dogmatist and zombies
@@travishendricks4818 I've consumed hours of his content. This is simply not true. Check out the dillahunty debate for starters.
Sometimes I wonder if Peterson is being intentionally confusing to maintain a religious audience.
Honestly, the way he panders to the evangelist community with such flimsy argumentations and false constructs or unprovable conclusions...it definitely stands to reason to expect a far closer thought about the true nature of humans: We are greedy and like easy to achieve positive attention.
Hard to find an easier audience in a better position of power as of late in the english speaking market...aka gods followers are easy pickings, no need to wrestle the old man himself.
I would love someone to put this to him:
Q: "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" JP: "It would take days to answer that question"
Q: "Did Odin hang himself from Yggdrasil?" JP?: "Well that one no, probably not"
Q: "What is the difference"
@@notyoyoma Yeah, it is obviously a secondary issue, he would argue that that is not his point. Rightfully so. But he also doesn´t think of any of the consequences of just randomly poking the dark with argumentation and then having a whole slew of followers twisting his message to fit neatly as part of their cultish narrative that everyone has to believe in what they believe in because it is, as Peterson argues after all, the "truth".
He is a dangerous ideologist, always, because he never thinks of others or what becomes of his messages. He doesn´t think of anyone else´s position but his own and in his own position it makes all too much sense to argue the way he does. Like said, not just does his whole premise of what atheism argues already go all the way besides the point and never actually arguing with what he should be arguing in the first place but his theory is also as correct as the bible itself (at least from what I take from these videos about the book, not that I read it myself so beware that), if you believe it, it certainly fits a whole lot better than if you don´t follow his line of thinking. But in no way has been mentioned that he ever put down a concrete possibility for his line of thinking to be strictly exclusive. As is said in the video, if I just don´t follow his logic at some points then he builds up argumentative castles on thin air.
@@notyoyoma- Yes, essentially that's the problem: Peterson can't really say why one mythology should be elevated over another, except because of the value he "finds" or imposes in/on one set of stories versus another. He attributes the success of Western Civilizations to the Bible when Guns, Germs and Steel works at least equally well.
Absolutely. Peterson finds "truths" in the Bible; he just doesn't want to alienate members of his audience who want to interpret that as meaning "the Bible is true".
What do you mean by "Jordan"? What do you mean by "Peterson"?
*starts crying*
Ah now, that truly is the question
🤣
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 you shouldn't take that conservative grifter seriously, he's a clown
these are manipulative tactics, i hope that would become clear to his strangely devoted followers. I'm not sure if Peterson himself has enough balls to see it. ad hominem: judging by his voice, he doesn't.
lol
"Up Yours, Woke Moralists! We'll See Who Cancels Who!"- J.P.
I love this. It’s cartoonishly funny.
Blud this is so tuff
Appeal to populism
He’s so obsessed with ‘wokeness’ instead of discussing philosophy in a productive way
by trying to be nonconformist, he conforms.
His take on Jordan Peterson is probably the best I've seen so far.
He actually gives JBP a fair take. A breath of fresh air from all the needless hate.
Hans Georg-Müller does some good stuff on JBP and Sam Harris.
carefreewandering or something like that
He’s being much too kind, probably because he’s a better person than me. There are multiple videos breaking down his recent book bit by bit and explaining how a majority of his points don’t follow or frankly, make any proper sense whatsoever.
@spencerjames9417 it's not that he's a better person than you, just a smarter one. He's explaining in great depth how he agrees and disagrees with JBP. Your bias won't let you be fair.
I found this channel around a week ago. It's so interesting to listen to these topics as a podcast, thank you for your work
Thank you for watching/listening to it :)
I have become a functional human because of this channel. I listen to it while I do my boring adult responsibilities.
I do miss Peterson's older self. Especially his videos in those college classroom lectures, where it was more about psychology, self actuallization and improvement, and just overall understanding the human nature. I don't like how he deals with political stuff, especially regarding genders, specific people, and religion mostly because he delivers it in a way that he makes it out as an absolute statement rather than just his own view. I do hope he goes back to his simpler self where he's tackling the human psyche and journey and not just arguing about politics
Totally agreed. I think he at large is hijacked by his public image
@macrodraneel8035 I think you are viewing his lectures with Rose tinted glasses.
Peterson has always seemed to intentionally use obscure language to allow his audience to interpret what he says anyway they want.
The reason you disagree with his more specific takes is because it is harder to ignore the obvious toxicity of the way he thinks.
His lectures always leaned towards the retrograde philosophy he now espouses. Even the clean your room stuff is a way of disregarding people pushing for change (his bout with Benzo addiction also highlights how hypocritical this take was).
@@wjd23104 maybe I am. Then again still appreciated those lectures nonetheless
Tyson (Neil), Shapiro, Bill Nye... they all chase after illuminaughty cash eventually 🙄
Pre benzo jbp is much more interesting than post
You're the first person that I hear that really listened to Peterson's arguments and made a usefull critic of it. Even Peterson will beneffit from viewing this video. Thanks for that honest curiosity, it's scarse.
There are lots of people who critique Peterson's arguments. There are also people who critique the foundation of his ideas and arguments rather than simply accepting his assertions and assuming that the fact that he may make a seemingly cohesive framework that it is actually sensible or reasoned.
As a lobster, i agree!
Btw buy my book: 12 rules for lobsters.
We Who Wrestle With Lobster
In the belly of pinokkio.
I prefer 12 lobsters for rules
Rock lobster.
I have lobster hands
Peterson's "illegal chess move" line is lazy "conclusion language." He does this a lot, and he's not alone (Sam Harris has engaged in a lot of this of late, for example). I appreciate your dissection of this. RE: Peterson not distinguishing between the existential and symbolic concepts of god/God......he's also been doing this for ages, and it's quite frustrating.
It’s called clickbait
Their both one in the same. The christian gods the one hes referring to. But he also recognizes that all religions have a truth to them. And god is a symbol and a tool for reality; god as a narrative. And that the real world narrative has to encompasses all religions.
Yeah. It's actually him whose cheating and not picking one
Peterson does have a bad habit of working off a private set of definitions that’s different from what most people would assume when you hear them, and not communicating in any way thats he’s using different definitions. Depending on how much you like him and how charitable you want to be you could see this different ways. I don’t like him, so I see it as intentional sophistry to bob and weave around so he has to spend less time actually engaging.
Conclusion language? I haven't heard that term, but it fits. But in case anyone missed the point; saying "there is no god" is like saying "I have no king" while playing chess. You can't capture what isn't there, so the opponent can't win. You CAN checkmate their king, so inevitably your version of chess looks like it wins almost every game. Therefore, atheism looks like a sound, more rational way to play the game. But everyone else playing looks at the board and says "what are you, stupid?" while making wild claims about the importance of the king which don't make any sense in the context of the game the atheist isn't playing. And to take the metaphor a little further, what piece did you put there instead of a king? Mammon (the rook)? Fame (the queen, highly useful!)? Or are you playing with an "incomplete set of pieces" and this reflects in your constant need to interact with or contend with those who have kings, either in an attempt to understand without that piece to work with, or in an effort to level the playing field and show them how unfair it is to THEM to have a king, which just makes them more likely to lose, eventually.
Your videos are amazing. Especially for someone like me who didn’t study the subject and didn’t read the actual works, your way of explaining the underlying messages and giving your take on them, while staying remarkably neutral, is a breath of fresh air, and it is so very intellectually stimulating
As a Christian, Peterson's opinions about the Bible frustrate me for a few reasons.
1. (This relates to Paul's quote in the beginning of the video). If the lessons in the Bible were true while God did not exist, it would be a bleak reality. At the Bible's simplest core, it all points to sinful man needing a saviour, and thankfully that Saviour is perfect in nature, works, and will. Yet if there was no God; no Christ, no sacrificial death, no resurrection, no Pentecost; we would not have the ability to consistently value what is perfect. Without proper understanding of the gospel, many points and lessons the Bible makes are lost or misunderstood. I liked how you questioned if Peterson's opinions about the Bible were simply from the Bible or from his personal experiences. If Peterson does not believe in the gospel, he would find it difficult to understand exactly what the purpose of the Word is.
2. A smiliar point, the Bible is about God. Not some 'heirarchy of beliefs' but the holy God Himself. It showcases His attributes and what He does to fix man's broken relationship with Himself while also showing that God will never smile at sin, the thing that caused the broken relationship in the first place. To use the Bible's lessons as tools for a fulfilling life while completely ignoring that it says a whole, fulfilling life only comes from a saving relationship with God is irresponsible. He essentially tries to take God out of the Bible...which is obviously ridiculous. (I haven't read Peterson's book though so I could be exaggerating). The Bible also repeatedly states that God acts for His glory and believer's good. How can one make sense of what God does without these things in mind? If one's values were aligned with the Bible's, I would think they would have to know who God is.
3. If Jordan Peterson wants to present the Bible as an unquestionable moral compass for individuals and socieites, he will have to do better than an utilitarian argument for why he chose the Bible. For someone who cites Crime and Punishment so often, I feel like he should know that if there is a unviersal moral law, it is not simply for utilitarian reasons nor can a man such as himself define what it is and when/where its applicable. I appreciate the idea that truth is true whether we believe it or not, because that simple idea has become strangely unpopular these days, but it doesn't make much logical sense to me for someone who does not fully believe in the Bible's infallibility to use it this way. I think christians can get away with saying the Bible is unquestionable because they believe in a truthful, faithful, omnipotent God who makes it so.
I should also point out the obvious. Anyone could read the Bible, and many make different conclusions afterwards, even professing believers. And its lessons are good and practical. Yet having a public figure who misses the main point of it while still acting like he has the authority to analyze it is baffling. If you want to learn more about the Bible, try listening to someone who genuinely believes its true. I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response.
But idk, I'm just a random girl on the internet.
Anyway, I agree that there is some value to Peterson's ideas about our priorities and the usefulness of stories. Great video, thanks for breaking down the book for people like me who are short on time. I wrote most of this before finishing the video, but I appreciate the ending.
EDIT: I’m not trying to hate on Peterson, I really like what he has to say most of the time. It’s cool that he’s reading the Bible. These are just some random concerns I have.
Very good response. I like knowing how Christians think. Tbh sometimes I think that Peterson himself is confused about what he really believes in. He’s not sure whether he’s a Christian or an atheist so he flip flops between the two which leads to some of the baffling points you’ve mentioned eg trying to take God out of the Bible while trying to argue for the Bible etc
marry me
@@SleepyOakTreeSleepy-w2pi think the same thing
Thank you,im starting to read the bible and im so thankful to you for this comment,i was rise believing in God,not hardcore but it was there,i knew it was,and i know it its,although i never took it as seriously as i wanted,i had one feet in and the other out,now i want to embrace my love for God fully and i think im finally ready to read the bible as a child of God,sometimes our ego gets in the way,especially knowing that Peterson its so admired by many,sometimes that entitles us,recognition and admiration,it’s undeniable that he has helped me heal in so many ways and i think he has felt something that he’s not letting in,not everything can be decoded with logic but with the heart and the spirit,and that’s what brings you real peace,i know he’s on his path as most of us,understanding the love of God ❤️🩹
"I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response."
Your closing remarks made me comment for the first time on this channel. That was awesome, it caught me off guard! Good luck wrestling God!
I love how this kid does this thing ❤
Thanks man! I really appreciate it
And the fact that he looks like the painting I want on my wall
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fallen_Angel_(painting)
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I’m not a man but that’s not here nor there.. you’re welcome or more like thank you for sharing 😊
@@Sandra_D.9you are one of us now, welcome to the brotherhood of men.
@ haha, thank you, okay if the only woman in the group then,
I'm so happy to have this engaging analysis. I started listening to JP when he was just doing UA-cam. Then I did his whole Self Authoring Suite thing, very helpful. Then read his books. Then studied Carl Jung a bit. Then completely fell out of infatuation with him over the last few years. I find this channel an intellectually fair and less polarized assessment of things I prefer to postpone judgement of while I gain an appreciation for. This channel strikes me as one of those channels run by someone who has much better things to do, but shares with people like me. TYTYTY!!!!
Wasn't expecting another Jordan Peterson video but I'll gladly listen. The previous one made me understand him a lot better
It is in a reasonably similar vein. A sort of continuation of many of the points I made there
great channel
## Analysis of Dr. Peterson's Claims About Atheism
**Premise 1:** Dr. Peterson defines "God" as the highest value in a person's hierarchy of values.
**Premise 2:** Everyone acts in accordance with some value system, even if it is unreflective or naive.
**Conclusion:** Therefore, everyone acts as if they have a "God" in the sense that they prioritize some things over others, making atheism (understood as the denial of any value hierarchy) untenable.
**Analysis:** While the sources present Dr. Peterson's argument as seemingly sound, there are some key issues with the line of reasoning:
* **Equivocation:** The argument conflates two distinct meanings of "God." The traditional understanding of God involves a supernatural, conscious being. Dr. Peterson's definition redefines "God" as the peak of a value hierarchy, a concept devoid of traditional theological implications. By shifting between these definitions, the argument creates a false equivalence. Atheists typically reject the notion of a supernatural God, not the existence of values or the act of prioritizing.
* **Oversimplification of Atheism:** The argument presents atheism as a denial of any value system, which is a misrepresentation. Atheists can and do hold strong moral and ethical values, prioritize certain goals and principles, and engage in meaningful pursuits without attributing these values to a deity. The sources even acknowledge that most atheists understand their position as the rejection of a conscious, intentional force organizing the universe.
* **Lack of Engagement with Metaphysical Questions:** While Dr. Peterson focuses on the pragmatic implications of values and beliefs, the sources acknowledge that the question of God's metaphysical existence remains significant. The potential existence of an afterlife, for example, would have a direct impact on how one might choose to live. By sidestepping these questions, Dr. Peterson's argument fails to address the core concerns of many who identify as atheists.
**In essence, Dr. Peterson's argument relies on a redefinition of terms and a limited understanding of atheism. It fails to establish a compelling case against atheism as traditionally understood.**
In order to better understand this for myself, I would like to restate the premises in 'loglish'. I am only interested in the first premise here, but I think this entire analysis is pretty much on the mark.
Premise 1) For every y, there is some v, such that y is a person, and v is a member of the set of valued 'objects', and v = "God", and y places v above all other members of the set of valued objects.
v is not, as we might say, a Definite Description. That is, it does not uniquely describe any _single_ entity or object. And that suggests that the issue of equivocation is even more serious than you argue here. Understanding the set of values as the set of everything that could conceptually be valued by any individual, we're dealing with a very large, if not infinite number of members. If each one of these could be valued above all others, then any member of the set could = God. God is money; God is family; God is Christ; God is Brahman; God is the Emperor Ceasar; God is my favorite G.I. Joe action figure; God is an A in Biochemistry; God is ...
It seems that rather than dealing with two understandings of God, we are potentially dealing with an infinite number of "Gods". That's a very strange monotheism.
I feel like there needs to be an argument to establish exactly one v, such that for any y, y _ought_ to place v above all members of the set of valued objects or entities.
But we run straight into Hume, here. How do we get from any v that we _do_ place above all other members of the set to exactly one member that we _should_ place above any member of the set?
I haven't read the book, only going by a single viewing of the video, so I could easily be missing something, but my guess is that Peterson would respond that this has something to do with the bible's role in the success of the 'west' on the world stage. And, I don't know, but it seems like the book has led to very different kinds of 'successes': divine right of kings; manifest destiny; 'with this symbol, you will gain power'; persecution of Christians by the Romans; the burning of 'witches' and fellow Christians across Europe; the reformation, and other divisions of Christianity into all of the denominations, sects, and cults we have today; justification for slavery; the children's crusade; the ped0 abuse scandals; prosperity gospel, etc., etc., etc. It's hard to find a single strand that unites these into a single entity (and given the horror, it's hard to imagine that entity being deserving of the 'top v' title.)
I wish hand you the highest honor i can grant you a thumbs up.
That’s ChatGPT, isn’t it?
@ofangelsanarchists2386 it's notebook LM.
If you were correct, Atheism would have produced at least one decent State by now heh
“
Peterson - Believes that there's an optimal way of doing and valuing things that will lead to the best life...
Also uses obscure, personal, or suboptimal definitions of words (ex."Belief"), which leads to miscommunication...
I love how you explain philosophy with daily stuff we do in life. Keep it up! ❤❤
Your takes are always intriguing. You sir certainly encourage me to study philosophy on my own; it's less frightening when I see complex ideas explained easily as in this vid.
The issue that I have with the argument that God stands at the top of the hierarchy is that it ignores certain problems about whether value systems should be organized in a hierarchical way in the first place. This has to do with the law classical logic called the 'excluded middle', which says that 'not false' is semantically identical to 'true', but in Indian logic and in intuitionist logic, 'not false' is not semantically identical.
So, something may not be best, but also not not be best.
Churchill claimed 'Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that we've tried'. Another way of saying it is, 'It is not true that democracy is the best system of government, but it's also not not true.'
Once you apply the tetralemma to ideas like hierarchy, you can come to the conclusion that something being better or worse doesn't have to apply.
"Logically best" is something quite different from "practically best". Some systems (as for instance hierarchy) just function "best" in practice, and that not because of some semantics, but because we have the genes of hierarchical primates' pack wired hard.
@alena-qu9vj I don't think even that holds true. I think that, even hierarchical systems themselves are more like the cup and handle example.
In evolution, there's something called the Panglossian Paradigm, which about the belief that all things have reason to have risen to the top of the evolutionary hierarchy. It has this name because it's not actually true. Lots of evolved features evolved simply because they were non-detrimental.
In the same way, I think that hierarchies are more so about minimizing some external factor, rather than maximizing an internal one and I think this largely bears out in how we think of the world.
Another word from evolution is a spandrel-a feature of evolution that wasn't selected for, but is the logical consequence of other evolved features around it. I think hierarchy is a spandrel.
@@dvklaveren Keep the theory and give me an example of a functioning non hierarchical civilization or society. And do not try this "democracy" on me.
@@alena-qu9vj Huh? Why should I? I'm not arguing that a non-hierarchical civilization is better?
I'm saying that the logic that value systems are subject to hierarchical rules of 'strictly better' and 'strictly worse' only works in a classical logic system.
I am not passing a value judgement on systems of government because, in so many words, I think that we tend to identify types of governance by its hierarchical structure, but that the hierarchical structure may not be causal, but correlated to the outcomes of that system.
You've struck a chord with me, but again, one thing jumps at me intuitively, and I think will do for others too - if they've played some type of sport or competed really hard, or someone in medicine.
It is the simple idea that when creating a solution to a problem, it must first not exacerbate the problem. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”. When you consider that statement, the utility of hierarchies becomes pretty self-evident, but I do agree that there must exist a better solution to the problem of arranging values in such a way. I think hierarchies - as of now - are not a bug, but a feature.
I can definitely see how it could be a bug though. What I'm concerned about is that if you're right, we aren't far enough along in our thinking to come up with a solution for it. Not even theoretically, we aren't.
But again, doesn't that mean it's just not really gonna blow up in our face, not until we recognize it? Genuinely asking. Cheers.
Been loving your work, brother.
Cant wait to watch this one.
If you're interested, I certainly hope you consider creating a video on Giordano Bruno.
I was waiting for a video in this topic
Ah! I hope it meets expectations
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Thanks for the reply sir 😊
I think Peterson thinks that the pragmatic truth is so real that it reveals a metaphysical truth. But I think he struggles to speak about how these dots connect.
Probably because they don't 🙃
@@markoslavicek Maybe they do, maybe they don't 🙃
@@jasonhendricks4562until it can be proved otherwise they don't, ✨ science ✨
His pragmatist take is odd since he tends to leave a scathing review of post-modernism.
Things are either true or not. Otherwise the word truth loses all value. Stories like the garden of Eden, flood, etc are not literally true. They are stories. Can stories have useful teachings or meaning to us? Sure. But that doesn’t suddenly make the stories literally true. They are still after all, just stories.
His ideas are truly fascinating but i totally agree with you that he should use more "standard" definitions or at least clear up his terminology. It feels like reading Nietzsche when he meant that good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” - Thomas Jefferson
i think the reason his terminology is hard to grasp, is correlated to the way he is interpreting the stories. since language has been subtlety changing throughout history. to get the interpretation of the people who lived and wrote those stories, you need their language and way of using it (with that i mean how immensely metaphorically its all used). it really is a case of, if you want to understand it, there is a lot of digging, otherwise there is not really a point to it.
pls tell me if that even made a bit of sense, cus i hope so.
@@ninofrikandello8175 It made plenty of sense, but it requires great effort to go through such lengths which is why most will not do it. It is easier to just criticize using someone else's thoughts and move on having learned nothing.
"good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do" If this is your current level of analysis, I really don't think you have a chance at even a 10% understanding of Peterson.
@@CMA418 This is why we have separation of church and state. In order both, that the selection mechanisms for spiritual leadership are not so perverse, and so our sensemaking apparatus is somewhat divorced from our position, and stake in the more insular and judgmental village circles (good of the many).
There certainly will always be weak willed people who fall under the influence of devilish control freaks. But in my experience even the slightest amount of personal willpower (or faith) is enough to keep those people away. In a lot of ways, a good priest type is like a good-and-wise Mother who points and nudges you in the right direction, but lets you fail when you need to learn the right lessons in the right ways. Which is just one among many virtues a good Mother embodies.
True wisdom is necessarily always just out of grasp, and I won't for a second take for granted all of those who have helped me get here.
As someone who grew up with religious parents who does not read the bible as a symbolic narrative with "true" morals within them, but rather in as an historic text. So its interesting to see some of the reasoning behind why JP reads it that way nad the arguments around it. I also think its a better application of it than as a historical text
The believe the majority of the New Testament should be read with a historical bend, but other books like Job or Revelations, not so much
@DesOttsel there is history in there for sure, but i wouldn't believe everything it says
Yes all bible is good for is to read, take some good lessons and throw out the bad ones
@@Sonofsun.You started with" all Bible is good"
Followed by "take the good and throw out the bad".
So the Bible is not "all good". What a confused worldview 😂
That person said "good for" which might be a kind of a prepositional phrase and not exactly "good" as an adjective. Nothing is confused here in my opinion
This is such a fantastic video, it's so layered with very detailed explanations. You're so good at making things simpler!!
Thank you! I finally found another atheist who disagrees with Peterson, yet understands what he's saying.
I'm so tired of people accusing Jordan of producing word salad, when what he says is not, in fact, word salad. There is plenty to criticize in his views, but instead people go for the unfair accusations. As a result the substance of what he's saying remains unaddressed.
So true. We can all do so much better than calling anything above a fifth grade reading level “word salad”.
@@lukehardin9 It's a shame that Peterson himself does not achieve such a reading level.
It’s not word salad- IF you go through all of his redefinitions of common usage. Once you learn what he means by all his own personal definitions, his ideas are easily followed. I still think they are sophomoric and facile, but not nonsense or gibberish.
He used to be more grounded, but I think he’s going outside his lane and becoming convinced of his own genius.
@@Direwolf1771 I completely agree. But I also see him addressing this by being reluctant to answer questions directly and asking for definitions beforehand - yet that backfires as well, since people accuse him of being vague and disingenuous.
Honestly, it feels like a lose-lose situation.
@ Perhaps. But forcing everyone to redefine a bunch of terms before you can have a conversation instead of just using the words we already have is bad communication in my opinion. Nobody wants to deal with that so they tune it out and then his ideas make no sense to them. If he wants to convey his ideas, he’s going to need to adapt his style to one that conforms to the common language, not invent his own.
Only a few understand En passant rule in chess
90% of the french chess players have mastered it (language advantage)
@planteruines5619 VG. I play the french as black
Everyone else accuses you if cheating
Not true
@@planteruines5619 Not really. You don't "master" the rule by understanding the name. Which you don't need even French for. Afaik most Germanic and Romanic languages enable you to understand name of the move. Its semanticly not far from the English "to pass someone" or the German word (loaned from French) "Passant". But like I said this information is not enough to master the "En passant" rule. Sorry if you don't care, but I think how our languages are related is super interesting.
Hi, immortal being here 👋
Really good video. I’ve always felt that Peterson could go a ways towards legitimizing himself as a philosophical thinker by, shocker, actually learning some philosophy. I think that his arguments are legitimately interesting and valuable, but like you said, it seems like he’s trying to be both a pragmatist and a platonist at the same time.
Wittgenstein said that Freud’s work was neither science nor philosophy, but rather a kind of free form speculation, and I think you could say something similar about Peterson. This book is a total mishmash of neuroscience, philosophy, and literary analysis that is largely held together by the force of his rhetoric. Unsatisfying for a specialist in any of those fields, but compelling to the educated layman.
Peterson would be very lucky to have this young man as a student! Someone who could really follow all his ideas to the smalest detail, compare them to any philosopher one could possibly think of - and then even make something more of it!💫
Sweet amazing guy, you’re so brave navigating modern philosophy. I appreciate you working through this. I think every voice should be examined regardless of if you like them or not. You moved up in my respect of you.❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Yes, atheism is an illegal chess move in a chess variant only doctor Peterson plays.
Well, I can't accept his playing either. He seems to be a utilitarianist, but just covers what he sees as the most practical as god. imo he is the one making an illegal chess move.
Atheist is not philosophy it's negation of belief. U can't create any civilization based on atheism. U need common shared story and myth. That's why atheism is highly stupid.
A simpler and more accurate analysis would be that Jordan Peterson is allergic to clarity. He insists on speaking a language nobody else speaks where every word is shared with English but has a completely different definition. Even when asked to, he will categorically refuse to stop speaking in this made up language, because to speak in plain language would lead to clarity, which is his worst enemy since his ideas are clearly stupid when exposed to it.
Pretty accurate. Excellent language is using just as many words as necessary and being as simple as possible to convey your thoughts - which might of course include the use of symbols. A lot of people tend to think that the one who produces the most bloated text is a master of language. The opposite is true. I find it a bit sad that people actually and seriously discuss a book like this.
Random atheistic comment for engagement purposes.
😮
🎉
Incredible video as always Joe- just got here from Alex's 1 million subs livestream, I love the chemistry between the two of you!
You always snatch my attention and hold it until the end of your video. Great content man.
If you view him through the lens of a Christian theocrat trying to LARP as a philosopher, Peterson's entire schtick makes way more sense.
I think you should view him through his historic progression which is readily available here on youtube. At first his stance against transgenderism and let's say male alienation. Something that was direly needed. And his personality was very different. Was he maybe a bit too keen for the spotlight? I think so, but he seemed much more natural for a psychologist.
Then his breakdown, and later him joining Ben Shapiro. His new persona emerged around that time. As a hyperintellectual debate bro. I don't think he's larping that much tbh, it just seems to me that he has accumulated a lot of bitterness over the years and that shines through.
love your channel and love philosophy great work pal
You became my favorite channel on youtube.
Ah thank you! That is very nice of you to say
I love that you put on the glasses, when you start a sponsorship advertisement, that way I immediately know when it is over.
What an interesting watch ❤ your the best philosophy youtybe channel out here!!
I appreciate the video, I think we need more direct, constructive criticism like this instead of "everything he says is wrong", which I see very frequently. I would also add that, perhaps, the reason why he uses this symbolic language, is because all of the texts and ideas associated with them, are very symbolic and if we would try to explain them in strict, scientific language, we would actually lose some of the implicit meaning (I've heard him explain that symbols are like clouds of meaning, they link many other symbols and ideas together and are more likely to be associated with other specific symbols), so I think he doesn't use these terms to 'deceive' the reader. Anyways I still agree with most of what you've said in the video
💯 Agreed
For me, everything he says is word salad. Of course, this is in reference to his original ideas, not what he is pulling from different other authors he doesn't understand anyway.
@@adalbertred I bet you think you're smarter than him. 🤣
@geneberrocal3220 yes, but I'm not unique. In his stupidity, he is.
@@adalbertred either you're stup!d or your attention span is 5 seconds long 😂
There is a rich history of hermeneutics in Christianity not limited to the stereotype given here with regard to literalism.
Im reading this right now, and Im super excited to watch after!!!
Only after 5 minutes in I realized the subtitles were not from UA-cam. Thanks!
I always love these videos! Keep up the work!
I just started it! 18 pages in.
Immortal genius here so I'll chime in. This is a great analysis of Peterson's ideas, far and away the best I've seen. I do believe his position is one of philosophical pragmatism, even if he doesn't doesn't describe it as such. When I first encountered him I was always kinda interested in whether he believed in god as an entity or not, and since it's not mentioned in the video, he has been pressed on that question a few times. While he initially said he didn't like the question, he eventually did relent and admit or articulate that he 'acts like he does believe', which is something like, a pragmatic faith.
His position on truth I think is much the same, as you outlined, it's a position that says what is useful in predicting outcomes is true, whether they be scientific or moral truths, it's a pragmatic view of truth. The theory of gravity is true in so much that it predicts physical phenomena, despite not being completely accurate, and 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is true in so much that it predicts that behaviour between humans is reciprocal, again despite not being perfectly accurate. I do think it's worthwhile to distinguish between scientific truth, which applies universally no matter your frame of reference, and moral truths, which are much more fuzzy and depend on locality and your frame of reference. The easiest trolley problem in the world in the world is 5 frogs vs 1 human infant on a train track, but you'll get different answers depending on whether you ask a human or a frog to answer it. Both can be crushed by a boulder coming down the hill.
Peterson utterly fails to separate scientific truth and moral truth, which leads to much confusion, but he is using symbology and stories and strong reinforcement to get a message across, and it has worked, he has been influential and I would say in a positive way overall.
I have a whole other rant about how philosophical arguments like free will is an illusion or positing the existence of philosophical zombies are only true if you want to sell books, or extend an academic career, and are not only anti-pragmatist but flat out wrong and the opposite of useful, but my time here is limited.
Thank you Joe, needed this summary as I wasn’t planning on reading his book. Great channel keep up the work!
Jordan, to me, Life is what Life ought to be. Stay well!🕺🏼
Thanks! from an agnostic transcendentalist courtesy of Ralph Waldo Emerson
If it is true that Peterson takes a utilitarian view of biblical texts, he's engaging in some degree of sacrilege, no? I don't think Calvinists (for example) would view his analysis at all charitably. Perhaps this is why he is so secretive about his actual position on the existence of God.
Maybe
Heresy, sacrilege is something else.
I know one Calvinist that is a big fan. As long as JP talks about the Bible positively, he does not mind because it's all about belief anyway and the Bible is the symbol. Lying and cheating is fine as long as people are buying into the Bible. That seems to be the attitude. I think Christians are too nihilistic at this point to mind and are too divided on interpretation to mount any kind of dissent. It used to be punishable by death, worst than unbelief, so it just shows how things have evolved.
Having grown up a Mormon; accustomed to evangelicalism, and converts, I will not see utilitarian understanding as anything less than a step towards true belief.
One thing the snide gossip types don't understand is the full extent of the power of redemption that only Christian philosophy fully embodies (because it's boring).
As for Peterson I won't speak for him, but considering his world view is shaped heavily by Jungian Psychology, and the pursuit to understand Pure Human Evil I can only see that as drawing him closer to the deep psychologic Mythos surrounding the potential for whatever is the opposite of that evil.
For me, Peterson is someone who presents arguments adorned with seemingly logical and philosophical approaches, making them appear justified. Yet, in reality, these arguments have no validity. They confuse people's minds, drowning them in so much detail that one cannot immediately respond with, "Why did he say that?" or "What does he mean?" But amidst all this detail, his errors stand out glaringly. In my opinion, this approach is no different from the snake oil salesmen of the Wild West who fraudulently sold so-called miraculous elixirs that claimed to cure everything.
My personal view is that he is either someone who lacks the courage to openly express his religious views as they are and pretends otherwise, someone who sees Christians as a profitable audience to exploit financially (as televangelists do well), or someone with a peculiar psychology who enjoys causing harm to society by insisting he is right even when he knows he's not. Like a cat playing with its prey-this behavior manifests in various human forms. I believe Peterson is fully aware that his arguments don’t hold water.
Can you egive an example i haven’t seen a lot of his newer stuff but i know a lot of stuff ive heard him say j came to similar conclusions before ever hearing of him
@@mrcheese5383 Look up Nathan J Robinson's essay titled "Jordan Peterson: the intellectual we deserve", Nathan has also done a lot of interviews on UA-cam explaining why Peterson can't be trusted. He did an interview with the majority report. That's a good place to start.
That is a lot of far-reaching assumptions to make about a guy that you clearly kmow that you don't understand the thought process of.
@@giggleman9908I looked the essay up since you recommended it. I found it absolutely horrible to read, a biased bad-faith egocentric arrogant piece of writing where the author comes in with the agenda to prove that Jordan Peterson is a bad writer and not an intellectual, but to me just reveals the author himself to be rather petty and lacking in intellectual curiosity.
The main point of criticism he levers against Peterson is, correctly put, that Petersons writing style for his unscientific books is rather verbose, mystical, imprecise and with elements of spirituality. That is a matter of taste, and a matter of preference.
Peterson speaks very highly of Nietzche - have any of you read Nietzche? I have. It is very hard to read properly. Many passages are meant to be digested for a time, and to be more thought provoking than to be a mathematical argument. That is clearly Petersons inspiration for that kind of writing style.
You can leverage the same criticism about a poem, calling it imprecise and mystical and verbose and not a logical series of arguments, and all you reveal is your own inability to engage with what the author wants to do.
Personally, I think it is a major mistake to conflate what Peterson does to help people and what he does to share his own thoughts. And I do think that many times, he himself makes that very hard to distinguish between. The most baseline fact is that he has had a long career as a clinical psychologist and his self-help books have helped an enourmous amount of people live more productive and happy lives. That is more than 99.99999% of us can claim to have done for the world, and it proves that he has deep knowledge in how to help people help themselves. The rest I think should be met with intellectual curisity as a challenge to the normal modern atheist mind, much like reading about Buddhism or something of that sort, and that's it.
@@theWebWizrd is it impossible to quit smoking without supernatural experiences?
"atheism is stupid" is a fatuous statement coming from someone who believes an invisible caucasian man in the sky created the universe and then hears and sees everything we do.
Really --- ? I also try for natural simplicity - in the life - thought and experience.
Simplicity - is closer to reality and therefore - to happiness - itself.
Travel light - is the dictum and another - Love is the Base.
Fare thee well - in life's journey (From an intense meditator)
They muddy the waters to make it seem deep. JP does this time and time again. Great video. Subscribed
"There exists the biggest number" is a false proposition (infinity is not a number btw). So "there exists the best set of values to live your life according to" is not only non-obvious, but requires much proof to be postulated.
This is a great video and I really appreciate your charitable analysis of Peterson’s views. I also appreciate that you have read his book so I don’t have to.
That may sound a little snarky, but I’ve logged enough time listening to him speak to have formed some clear impressions. Jordan strikes me as a smart person, but one who is lacking in intellectual humility. Far too confident in nearly everything he says and compulsively evasive when asked straightforward but pointed questions, his go-to move when pressed for clarity is to obfuscate by riffing on a tangent. That gets old quickly.
There are plenty of contemporary intellectuals who have the ability to help me think more clearly and deeply, even when I happen to disagree with them. Peterson is not one of them. If anything, for me, he serves as a negative role model for cogent discourse.
It’s not that there’s no substance at all in what he says. It’s just that separating the wheat from the chaff is time consuming and frankly exhausting, all for very little gain, in my experience. So again, thank you for this very fair-minded, lucid, circumspect breakdown.
Hi Joe,
Thank you for your review of the book.
I think you’ve completely missed the point here. Dr. Peterson, when speaking about the utility of biblical stories-which you referred to in your video as being in the domain of philosophical pragmatism-has a very deliberate approach. You suggested that he could have stripped the stories of mythical jargon and reduced them to mere propositions, moral lessons, or metaphysical and philosophical principles. However, that is precisely what he intentionally avoids.
Dr. Peterson is playing the role of the ancient archetypal helper, similar to figures in myths like Horus and Osiris. In the myth, Osiris helps Horus to defeat Seth but can only do so from the realm of the dead. Osiris is non-existent in the earthly realm and cannot enter it. This pattern recurs across many myths, where the helper accompanies the protagonist only to the edge of his/her world, after which the protagonist must carry on the adventure alone.
This is what Dr. Peterson is attempting to do with his exposition of biblical stories: he is not reducing them to mere moral lessons or utilitarian principles. While he operates within the realm of propositions when discussing these stories, he deliberately refrains from reducing them to absolute propositional statements.
Your discussion on symbols and myths touches on their utility and how they condense a wealth of information. However, I think Dr. Peterson’s argument goes deeper: symbols and myths are intrinsic to our perception and attention, and we participate in them rather than simply having them convey abstract moral principles to us.
Take, for example, the concept of a chair. When we see a chair, we perceive it immediately, yet it is impossible to define it exhaustively. A chair encompasses infinite variability-its color, material, number of legs, functionality (or lack thereof in the case of a “bad chair”), and even abstract art interpretations. This highlights the inherent inexhaustibility within seemingly ordinary objects, resisting reduction to mere propositional definitions or abstract concepts.
Dr. Peterson suggests that it is logically impossible for humans to consciously create symbols and myths that condense this inexhaustible information. Instead, we receive them from above but are able to perceive and participate in them. Reducing myths and symbols to mere propositions or abstract philosophical principles is akin to the sin of Adam and Eve-reaching for the apple, destabilizing the hierarchy, and bringing about the curse of alternating totalitarianism and disillusionment.
A parallel example is the concept of humility: if you think you have it, you’ve already lost it. Similarly, if you believe you can reduce the entirety of a symbol or myth to its attributes-such as a moral lesson or metaphysical concept-you lose any true comprehension of that symbol or myth. This is why Dr. Peterson refrains from explicitly stating his belief in God-it would reduce something infinite and incomprehensible to a mere proposition.
This isn’t to say that one cannot make propositional statements about the infinite or the inexhaustible. Nor is it to undermine the world of propositions and abstractions, but rather to acknowledge the incompleteness of that realm (as reflected in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). Dr. Peterson’s point is that symbols and myths are more fundamental to humanity than philosophy, metaphysics, or psychology. In fact, the existence of the latter presupposes the former. That is to say, using reason, propositional truths, metaphysical concepts, and philosophy to explain human perception, attention, consciousness, myths, and symbols is misguided because the latter are fundamental and serve as the origin of the former.
In his own way, he is trying to serve as a bridge between these realms-how successfully, only God knows.
Thank you for taking the time to read my exposition.
Out of interest, when you say myths are “serve as the origin” of things like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and logic, what do you mean by that? Just because on the face of it that’s quite a mysterious statement.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 First of all, thank you for engaging with your audience.
What I mean by myths serving as the origin of secondary fields like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and science is best explained through an example. When the USA embarked on its journey to the moon, it was an instantiation of the age-old myth of the mariner's journey into the unknown. While this achievement was heralded as a victory for science, many overlooked the underlying myth that inspired it. This myth was symbolically reflected in the act of planting the flag-a mythical gesture of uniting the new identity (the moon) with the old identity (the national identity of the USA).
As a scientist by profession, I see parallels in the structure of academic work. Whenever we publish a paper in a journal, we always include the name of the university, followed by the contributors to the discovery, as a symbolic “flag” representing the origin of the work. Only afterward does the science itself take the forefront. This practice, I believe, reflects the influence of ancient myths, which subtly shape even the structure of scientific discourse.
Even Descartes' curious inquiry into the self (Cogito)-which involved forgoing the existence of all external identities perceived through sense data-can be embedded within ancient myths, such as the apocryphal Hymn of the Pearl. In this myth, a person dives into deep waters (symbolizing the abandonment of stable, solid ground, akin to doubting the existence of all external identities) and descends into the dark ocean depths (representing the rejection of sense data) to retrieve the precious pearl (Cogito, ergo sum), a truth discovered at the bottom of the ocean.
In my observation, myths and symbols often precede and guide the emergence of new truth statements, scientific discoveries, and even mathematical theorems. Unlike a worldview or philosophy, myths and symbols can serve as a stance toward the unknown-neither fully embracing the unknown nor entirely rejecting the existing center.
I also believe that even atheists unknowingly participate in myths and symbols. For example, many who reject the Christian God often adopt imagery associated with Satanic or pagan traditions (such as Viking symbols) through their clothing or accessories. Even though they do not believe in the propositional truth claims of these traditions, they participate in their imagery. This suggests that myths and symbols possess an agency that transcends conscious belief. While no one fully understands myths and symbols consciously, everyone participates in them.
In my view, belief is less about subscribing to a set of propositional truth claims and more about participating in the higher-order body of believers. Just as when I listen to music, I take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, trusting the music to guide me toward perceiving the edge of the known (coherence) and the unknown (uncertainty), allowing me to flourish accordingly.
@@Top10facts569 That was very good, loved it!
26:07 correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Peterson also claim that he read Nietzsche and gets some of his definitions from him, idk how he comes to that conclusion reading someone whose life mission was critquing and tearing apart the basest assumptions of European philosophers leading upto him.
On lex Friedman's podcast Peterson said Nietzsche was a Christian who was criticizing people who were not pragmatic believers which I find laudable
Peterson loves to quote nietzsche but seems to completely ignore the fact nietzsche was a total anti Christian.
@@ramon2008I think that’s defensible. At least with my understanding of Nietzsche, he would rather his words inspire others to form their own beliefs than be used as their own beliefs.
I love your honest takes and analysis of these topics
Mr. Folley,
As per your request (jocular or otherwise), I, an immortal genius, would like to introduce myself. Drawing from the insights of Popper, Descartes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and metaphysical traditions, I will demonstrate that my assertion is not only defensible but resilient against skepticism.
Karl Popper’s philosophy of science teaches us that no theory can be definitively proven true; it can only resist falsification. My claim to immortality and genius, by its nature, resists refutation. Immortality is impossible to disprove so long as I live. The absence of evidence for my mortality supports the hypothesis until contradictory evidence arises-an event I claim will never occur. While subjective, my genius can be assessed through the resilience of the arguments I present here. A theory that withstands critique demonstrates intellectual strength, which I argue reflects my genius.
René Descartes’ Cogito, ergo sum affirms that self-awareness is the only indubitable truth. From this foundation, I build the following argument. I am self-aware of my intellectual capabilities, which I interpret as genius. Genius, like existence, is subjectively undeniable to the one who experiences it. Immortality, while speculative, is not contradicted by any evidence available to me, and thus remains a viable hypothesis. Descartes does not demand external validation of subjective truths; instead, he grounds knowledge in the certainty of the individual’s experience. My awareness of my genius-and the absence of mortality-stands as an unassailable starting point.
Nietzsche’s philosophy celebrates the individual who asserts their values in a world devoid of inherent meaning. My claim to be an immortal genius is an act of Will to Power. By declaring myself immortal and a genius, I create meaning in defiance of nihilism. This act exemplifies self-overcoming and creative freedom. Even if my physical form were to perish, the ideas I produce persist, ensuring my genius endures in perpetuity. Immortality, therefore, is reframed as the enduring resonance of one’s contributions.
Furthermore, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s reflections on language and private experience support the integrity of my claim. My use of terms like “immortal” and “genius” carries meaning within the context I establish. These words express a reality coherent to my subjective experience. Subsequently, no one can access my internal experience, nor can they definitively refute my perception of myself as an immortal genius.
Finally, metaphysical insights from Parmenides and Nietzsche lend a timeless dimension to my argument. Parmenides says existence is an eternal, unchanging whole. If existence itself is timeless, then my presence as a genius must be a perpetual truth within the fabric of being. Nietzsche’s concept of infinite repetition suggests that if reality recurs endlessly, my genius will inevitably manifest in every cycle.
Through the lenses of Popper, Descartes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and metaphysics, my assertion of being an immortal genius is philosophically robust. I invite critique not as a challenge to my claim, but as a means to further demonstrate the intellectual resilience that confirms my genius. Immortality remains unassailable until disproven-a task I assure you is impossible.
Sincerely,
An Immortal Genius
I'm learning philosophy from you thank you 🙏
Thank you for watching! That is very kind
"Nobody can be a true atheist"!? WTF! What does that even mean?
I can totally have a working value system without believing in unicorns, Santa or god. And every human has a value system without ever seeing any god.
The fact that you have difficulty understanding the assertion does not imply that it's wrong. It implies that you don't have enough of a common contextual frame with the speaker (and with the other listeners who did understand it).
This is partly why I dont take J.P criticisms seriously
You know your value hierarchy is messed up when you decide to take Jordan Peterson seriously.
Guy does have a huge following, so I'd argue it's not at all bad to engage with what he's saying, even if you come out of it thinking it's all bs.
@@aguywithalotofopinions412 So do Jake Paul or Tate, yet you wouldn't think there is something worthwhile to it
@@aguywithalotofopinions412 and some have done exactly that, and more power to them. It's a bit like shouting down the wind, but yes, if there are people who are not sure about him, it's worthwhile to have some analyses of his claptrap.
On the other hand, as the old saying goes, a lie has make it around the world while the truth is still tying it's shoelaces.
We can modify that a bit to say you can spout more gibberish in 5 minutes than you can show to be false in 5 hours. The gibberish spouters have the clear advantage.
I personally would love a conversation/discussion between you and Peterson. it'd be quite something. ✨
"If God didn't exist it would be nessesary to create Him; for God may not exist but the Devil certainly does" - something I once heard
JP is using all these poignant words, mythological interpretations, and poetic diction to communicate boundless nonsense.
edit: This comment is made by a 30-something woman, so stop assuming I'm too young to understand the "genius" of Peterson ( though we shouldn't weaponize age in an argument ).
You're too young to get it. Hope that's the case. Understandable.
Ah, age, the time-honored excuse for not grasping complex ideas. It's fascinating, really, considering that peak cognitive performance is usually around the age of twenty to twenty-five. So, by that logic, the younger audience might actually have a sharper grasp on these concepts than their elders. But of course, it's always refreshing to see the timeless classics of "you just don't understand" trotted out in discussions on Jordan Peterson.
No. He is well worth listening to.
@ Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
@@kulturkriget Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
What is he saying? The same thing he's always saying. Bow before the hierarchy. Because the hierarchy signs his paychecks.
I came to know this channel few days ago ago and is extremely helpful, I have few suggestions: Could you colab with Alex O Connor and make a video. Also could you make a video regarding AI and future unemployment, on depression anxiety and loneliness, I understand these are not directly philosophical but I believe it will resonate with the audience and the advise should be inspired from philosophy and history
I haven't read Peterson's new book but I did read his last two. I love how you put into words so succinctly exactly my problem with the way he expresses himself. He always finds a way to talk around pointed questions about his belief in God.
Sometimes a pointed question is so idiotic it's not worth even engaging with. Like when speaking to a child.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do find it curious that so many build an identity in opposition to the idea of Faith. In order to answer a question which necessarily has no answer aside from the unsatisfying seek and you shall find. In my short lifespan would I really claim to know so well the rich tapestry of life in order that I should think to call into question the wisdom of the ages. Socrates can point, that is the full extent of his abilities. Pointing is important, just as a few scouts lead way for the army, but the scouts are not the army, nor are they the commandant. They don't even sit at the same table.
@@DiluviumEyesofThunder Bro. The fact that you immediately I assumed I am just another run of the mill village atheist without a clue what the Bible actually says is so typical. It's exactly what's wrong with Peterson's followers nowadays. If we don't fall into line with literally everything he says, trolls ever-so-eloquently give you an argumentative wall of text to try and prove us wrong. Like we are questioning the wisdom of the ages! (lmao) I had a period where I liked a lot of what he said. It was his university lectures that got me thinking about true character improvement, and what ultimately led me OUT of a CHRISTIAN CULT that I was being ABUSED in for 25 years. I know what belief can do to a person.
Over time, I have noticed that Peterson has nothing new to say since his university days, and I have other people whose ideas I find more interesting and want to engage with right now. Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Philosophers, etc.
Unsolicited Advice is doing a good job of explaining the valid criticisms that exist about Peterson's thoughts and opinions.
@@DiluviumEyesofThunder Bro. The fact that you immediately I assumed I am just another run of the mill village atheist without a clue what the Bible actually says is so typical. It's exactly what's wrong with Peterson's followers nowadays. If we don't fall into line with literally everything he says, trolls ever-so-eloquently give you an argumentative wall of text to try and prove us wrong. Like we are questioning the wisdom of the ages! (lmao) I had a period where I liked a lot of what he said. It was his university lectures that got me thinking about true character improvement, and what ultimately led me OUT of a CHRISTIAN CULT that I was being ABUSED in for 25 years. I know what belief can do to a person.
Over time, I have noticed that Peterson has nothing new to say since his university days, and I have other people whose ideas I find more interesting and want to engage with right now. Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Philosophers, etc.
Unsolicited Advice is doing a good job of explaining the valid criticisms that exist about Peterson's thoughts and opinions.
@@DiluviumEyesofThunder Bro I have no problem with capital F Faith, and i am in no way denigrating the 'wisdom of the ages.' I used to be a big fan of Peterson, hence why I read two of his books. I was a devout believer in a specific Christian faith for many, many years. I have just moved beyond Peterson's take on everything. I credit him as the one who opened my eyes to a lot of important PROBLEMS with religion, and he is one of the many reasons I woke up and got myself out of an ab*sive situation in my church. Just because someone is engaging with atheists and their ideas does not mean they are not still interested in a spiritual or religious point of view. Unsolicited Advice is offering a rare, balanced take on Peterson and the criticisms that exist about him and his philosophy.
@@_Erendis I relate also to this position except the abuse was within my family. But look this is apart from the point. I am trying to negotiate the line between Logos and Mythos. In an esoteric sense wisdom exists, and in a real sense it exists in relation to complex physical systems. Forms of logic are platonic and exist purely in as information.
So, there is a spot where mythos (which is a great storehouse of wisdom) interlaps with Logos our sensemaking apparatus that is turbulent because quite frankly Myths are meant to be interpreted differently than facts, and so this idea that this form of information must conform 1to1 to a rational parsing algorithm. It's absurd. the compression artifacts ruin any information that was there, and then silly children turn to the camera and say look at all this silly nonsense!
I understand when a wise mentor turns to abuser the impulse to turn away entirely, to assume that no good can come at all from a person so evil, and to then discard everything you learned for fear of turning into that person. There are however generational cycles to these things, and if you turn your back entirely you cannot discern what it actually is that turned foul.
Bad Ideas can tick away for years before finally blowing up in your face. You cannot run from the past, but you can overcome it. Be stronger.
The story of Cain and Abel shows:
1. We must be mind readers who know what the people in power want.
2. It isn’t how hard you work, but whether the person in power favors your work.
3. Make sure to eliminate your enemies in a way the people in power like.
After all, Cain worked harder than Abel, but Abel was favored because God liked to eat meat, and hated to eat vegetables. When Cain killed Abel, he didn’t give him as a sacrifice to God, so Cain was punished.
From this we learn that God is a petulant child.
And if the ideas of Jordan Peterson are truly useful only if you are willing to alter the definitions in your mind, then all we have to do is have someone translate the loaded language into more accurate scientific terms.
NOBODY should read the book in it's existing form, as the definitions were carefully crafted as propoganda to alter people's beliefs.
And if God is defined as the top of the moral hierarchy, then, in practicality, for many Christians, Jesus is HATE.
They put hate of others as the top of their moral hierarchy, and their name for God is Jesus, so Jesus (aka God aka the top of their moral hierarchy) is whatever they rank highest in practicality. And that is hate for specific out groups.
I see how it could seem like god propaganda. but I think hes saying that god, if placed at our moral heriarchy, is a great tool to use in humanity, because it helps us better understand our maximum potential and how to get there, (aka have faith in a higher power) and use it as a forward manifestation to self actualate. He’s referring to Christianity here, but ive heard him say that all religions have some aspect of truth to them, so for this new religion revolution age that comes with the AI revolution, we further understand how we can use a god or a (higher power) to help guide humanity to the better, and if the new religion is good and adaptable that helps people deal with their reality and become better, more loving people and, society to its ultimate flourishing (anything is possible nowadays) and wins through the natural selection of ideas and the free will of the people. God does not judge, and god is holisitic concept beyond our understanding. We cannot comprehend of what he does of good or bad because then all the wars would be good, God is engrained in everything, including us, and by trying to better ourselves, through socio-cultural thinking can help align us to a “better” world, most optimally to be embedded and in tune with nature. The great ecosystem or the tiny cell biosphere here we call earth.
Bruh 😂 what kind of assumption is that do you really think god would accept Cain just because of the presentation? No. The fact that you think god likes human sacrifices is something you have to establish before all that
When you criticise something start from the beginning not the middle
Oof i see massive amounts of biase against Peterson
Lol you have such a narrow minded idea of Christianity. Christianity actually does put love and acceptance to be the top of hierarchy, the problem is that their morality is skewed because that's just how people who wrote it were back then, back then racism, slavery and discrimination were ok
My biggest criticism is that he downplays history and interprets other societies as insignificant. Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism were rarely considered. Christian Nationalism, or Nationalism in general have been under-considered after the bad reputation because of WW2. Still, one has to separate that with theism, separation of church and state, historical tradition and culture from our forefathers. He often makes tangential analogies and obfuscating language to sound profound and appeal to his conservative base, creating a conflict of interest.
Nationalism has been conflated with mid century germans by communist propagandists that don't want to admit what the US fought against was socialism.
If he considered those he’d be out of a job immediately. Can you imagine debating Buddhism, a religious system of incredible sophistication and brutal simplicity.
my first wishlist is to binge you after exams.
edit - OMG HE REPLIED. (i don't have a crush on him ig but he's cute 👀)
That's very kind! Best of luck with the exams
same!
Same 😂
Really good job man! defiantly earned a subscribe from me. really really good. clear concise and a breath of fresh air in a very polluted environment.
The beginning part explaining the implicit value of taking one action over another is exactly how the book Human Action by Ludwig von Mises starts too.
I’m really glad you addressed this book. Honestly I feel like every form of revelation that Jordan Peterson claims to have usually comes from his own determination to remain limited.
Peterson himself isn't limited. He just thinks that other people aren't capable of intellectual and moral freedom. Only he is.
@@jamm_affinity I like to disagree with that. Peterson is as limited as we all are in most matters. Physically, mentally, financially (maybe not THAT much) and no matter your religion, he only has this one life as Jordan Peterson.
The thing I am most upset about religion is that it mixes a very tired and, frankly, settled, debate about the factual reality of how old the earth is and whether there was a global flood, with the much more interesting and confounding question of how to live a good life. Religion certainly has a lot to say about the latter but veering inevitably into the former just means we can never make any real progress. For that, I think religion owes us all an enormous debt.
We don't need religion to tell us how to "live a good life" because we have neuroscience now
@@Jake-mv7yoHuh? Where did that dichotomy come from? And how is neuroscience related to both defining and achieving a “good” life?
@@KeiS14 Religions were invented when humans didn't even know the brain was for thinking but now we know a lot about the brain and will have a complete map of the human brain pretty soon. We know about mental illnesses and eventually I think we will be able to show that spiritual beliefs are a mental illness. I realize life is hard for most people and they have stress and trauma and I think this triggers spiritual beliefs.
A good life is one that has minimal pain both mental and physical. Neuroscience shows us how we avoid mental pain. Religion itself has plenty of advice about this and not all of it necessarily bad but however it is obsolete now.
Tbh, sir, your video is just ATTRACTIVE not only for its content but also for your voice and appearance hehe
Always thx for such visually and intellectually pleasing contents! Hope you reach 1M subscribers!
awwww you got a cruuush? don't be shy
The visuals? My guy the visuals here are pretty basic, it's just him and some historic paintings
You can just call him handsome, it'll be shorter.
@@dominusantonius Why not compose a short poem?
For the clarity forsaken,
the meaning sooner is taken,
to give the intended gifts,
in a lovely art that uplifts.
Should I not tell this in lie,
Why not give it a try?
I’m very happy that you picked up on Peterson’s pragmatism so thoroughly and honestly! He has been very open about the fact that he is a pragmatist, but since most people don’t have philosophical training, they miss the importance of that admission. It is essential to understanding Peterson’s philosophy and especially his views on religion.
The metaphysical language is probably at least in part a result of his study of Jung.
Another high-quality video, man! Great job!
8:19 The assumptions about its authoritative value have to be challenged before it’s lengthy usage can be considered of value.
Spoken like a true angsty teen. I am sorry that for whatever reason you have learned to view authority, and wisdom as some sort of parent child relationship when in reality it lies the other way around.
But I supposed if you take up the popular view that the individual is a Blank Slate you assume that every action is directly controlled by authority this makes sense. That idea implicates to me of the mind of a coward. Or at least one who follows blindly and has never had an original thought of their own.
@ my childish ass is so grateful for your wisdom
@@kariannecrysler640 I can't tell. hehe
@ 😂 just having a shitty day sorry. Thank you for the smile 🥰
@@kariannecrysler640 :)
You put much of what I suspected about Dr. Peterson's ideas into much better words than I could hope to use. While I am not a critic of him and I find his ideas genuinely interesting (and insightful sometimes, if not always original), sometimes I do feel confused at what exactly he means and have thought that his definitions of the keywords in his ideas are, while related, different from our usual conceptions of them, and as such lead to ideas that seem weird based on what people would usually conceive based on our usual definitions. He's basically constructing his own tracks under the guise of running the same race in public discourse on these subjects. Thank you. I am grateful.
I would love to see you talk with JBP
I would love to see you as a guest on Petersons show. Would be a great episode!
I was heavily considering buying the book because i thought it was a justification of the metaphysical that would challenge my views on god. It does feel like a bait to use misleading language. Glad I watched this video and saved the time. Im a big fan of the channel. Well done!
Hope Peterson addresses the story of Lot and his 2 daughters, a wonderful deep meaning story about family values,
there is a vid of him arguing for re-enacting concept/law of women as men's property. for the sake of women, ofc. worth listening to, it's very interesting, it's a perfect example of his views and philosophy. that order that he prays for is funded on raw power. not some 'lofty' 'leftist' ideals of human rights, just good ol' hierarchy of mighty and meek.
i guess he does his philosophy out of genuine therapeutic intention to help people lost in chaos. it's that he got carried away from that noble aim a long time ago by his pride and delusions, to which best attest his frantic refusal to undergo supervisor's evaluation. ofc, the alternative explanation, or his, would be that he defies hostile, corrupted system. anyway, the vid about 'novel' ways of protecting women from male aggression is quite entertaining. and when it comes to Lot daughters, hush, it had been added by Them, the evil saboteurs aka devils aka postmodernists!
And the caanite slaughter and the flood and the...
He already did in his Genesis lectures back in 2018 or so
You act like everything that happens in the bible is condoned. Does JK Rowling endorse voldemorts actions?
@@ohmaramusic Please...Peterson is a hack. Continues to prove it by not proving his "intellectual diagnocese" as a fact. He can't even admit whenever he's wrong, especially about social issues he has no horse in the race of. eg: trans issues. He's not an expert in the study and lives of trans people before and after transitions. Nor does he not show any respect for others' decisions, including the doctors and parents of those trans kids in which the group has the highest percentage of suicide rates compared to any other community in society. In other words, he thinks he's correct and be damned any nuance and the safety of those he attacks with the help of every other far right winger who also has no expertise in that area of psychology and medical diagnosis. This is the typical right wing grift in full motion used by these insensitive narcisisstic, nuance lacking and common sense avoiding people who are only in the game for the money and the hate. They can't do anything else as succesfully.
There's a clear distinction between a doughnut and loo roll. One is tastier than the other.
Which one tho?
there's a clear distinction between ANY two things. we have to choose which distinctions to overlook and which of them to value. we do it unconsciously at every moment of our existence.
For example, two perfectly similar potatoes are still different in position in space. but of course we don't care about that because the purpose of the potato for us is to eat it. we can't overlook location in space when the object of perception is a part of a mechanical system however.
You see how purpose of things is what highlights their difference ? if you follow the chain of purposes/goals you reach higher and higher ones until you reach your highest value/goal. which for Peterson is God.
@@borjaslamic I feel as though it is obvious and thus fear patronising your exquisite sensibilities if I were to explain further
@@moussaadem7933 Jordan? What are you doing here??
@@samuelmelton8353 name is Adam
I think, out of all atheists, you are the most appropriate one to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson. I would pay to see that. You are critical, yet fair and humble (mainly, you don't exude arrogance like other atheists).
Thank you for this. You make philosophy very approachable in a charismatic way 👏.
Thinks the creator of the universe cares where you spend Sunday morning, and thinks we are arrogant. Ok buddy whatever you say 😂
@@isiahs9312exactly, religious people claim absolute truth with their only evidence being an ancient text, which is just one of thousands other equally stupid ancient texts, yet they accuse others of arrogance. It’s ironic
@@isiahs9312 I'm agnostic, but thanks for providing a prime example of the arrogance that plagues many atheists. You make assumptions about people's beliefs and thoughts without even trying to engage with them in an honest conversation. Why? Well, one could think you don't seek meaningful communication, but you only seek cheap ways to make you feel like you're not the the dumbest one in the room.
making the mere diagreement or opposition to your positions frames as ´´arrogance´´ is ironically kind of arrogant.
@@FrenkieWest32 poisoning the well logical fallacy is what they did.
I love the light and darkness on either side of you, very cool background design. Its like the angel and devil on either shoulder, except both are JBP lol
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us
J.P tries to get his point across by conflating really specific religious ideas with vague theoretical concepts and psychological functions, and interchanging them whenever he feels like into order to falsely push specific concepts as having validity that they have nothing to do with. He would have a much easier time if he approached from a sort of pantheistic perspective, but he doesn't, indicating that he's out to push a specific idea, not actually genuinely interface with the questions intellectually. He's a grifter, enough said.
What I dislike the most about JP is how when discussing religion he is very fluid and refuses to pin down definitions, but the minute we begin speaking on cultural matters it becomes: “We all know what a woman is, up yours woke moralists.”
Might as well dislike hearing an actor read a script you do not like.
Well concepts like god are very fluid while the definition of a woman...... not so much.
Well we do know what a woman is.
Truthfully, the parts here where Peterson basically just echoes Kierkegaard are the ones I like, and some of the stuff about narratives but I didn't pay enough attention to sort through whether most of that was UA's thinking or JP's, but mostly I agree with UA's critiques. Christian here, btw
Loved the nod to Alex’s conversation with chat gpt with the coffe/malaria thing
I think Peterson makes several errors:
(1) He tries to define God as the top-most thing in the value hierarchy, but this isn't what people mean by "God." They mean an omnipotent creator being. And proving such an omnipotent creator being exists is impossible. Christianity falls apart without the omnipotent creator being. Frankly, this equivocation is so persistent it's hard to take anything he writes seriously on this subject because of the ubiquitousness of this simple error. It's like he wants to force his definition into things and just completely ignore the fact it's an equivocation.
(2) Peterson has an improper understanding of suffering and how it works. People suffer because there is a gap between their will and reality. Most people, Peterson included, are completely and utterly focused on making reality/the world come into alignment with their will. But this doesn't work. It doesn't work because our power is limited and the world is irredeemably corrupt. Instead suffering, after basic needs like food and shelter are taken care of, is most efficiently reduced by bringing one's will in alignment with reality, the complete opposite of what most people are doing. He's read Nietzsche, clearly, but it's like he just failed to read Schopenhauer.
Interesting. But saying "Christianity" falls apart without the omnipotent creator being is to accept, that judaistic Torah is more important for Christianity than the actual teachings of Christ. Which is probably true in the fundamental christian countries, but it is unfair and even dangerous in my understanding. Let judaism keep their Torah with its god, and lets concentrate more on the teachings of Jesus.
@@alena-qu9vjI mean...how do you have Christianity without an omnipotent creator God? There is no Christianity without it.
@@saintsword23 "Christianity" as you know it. What I mean is that this basicly on Torah - OT spirit functioning religion stole the name of Christ, but doesn't follow principles of the NT teachings of Jesus. And this "omnipotent creator god" of OT doesn 't seem to be the "Father" of Jesus. Jews would never acknowledge it, at still it seems not to bother those "Christians".
I think your first point shows your lack of understanding of the Christian God. God is not a being, he is being itself, or that which all being rests upon, the mind that holds the universe together, the wellspring of consciousness. He is at the very top.
@@GazedoBurrito If you try to tell a theologian that God is being itself I think you'll get called a heretic and a pantheist.
I think I understand the Christian god just fine. Part of the problem is if you ask 1000 Christians what God is you'll get 1000 different answers. But it's way more than fair to say that when most people are referring to God, they mean an omnipotent creator being, or at least a being at all. Just defining god as the "top of the value hierarchy" is clearly wrong, because if I claim that an abstraction like freedom or peace is my "highest value" I'm clearly not referring to god. I'm referring to this abstraction.
The fact that there are different or even "deeper" definitions really doesn't matter in this case, because the critique of JBP works in any case. "The top of the value hierarchy" may be necessary to the definition of God - I'd argue it's not because God isn't a value but a being and thus this is a category error - but it's definitely not sufficient, and JBP's leaving out of all the rest of the stuff you need to make a sufficient definition is really telling and destroys his critiques of atheism.