I got sick at this small hotel in Barcelona. I called to the front desk and they told me they had a doctor on staff. After his treatment, I told him how amazing that such a place had an doctor on their payroll. He nodded and said "No one expects the Spanish Inn physician."
Peterson enlisted a young undergrad at my alma mater to sue them. Eventually their previous connection at UBC came out. Peterson is a clinical psychologist. No academic background in most of the areas he dabbles in. And oddly obsessed with irrelevant Russian literature as if that's more important than the academic works of people in the relevant areas under discussion. No one would have ever heard of him if the Koch-fueled Christofascist industry wasn't funding him.
I don't even like to analyze Petersons claims. I don't trust that his definitions and claims are clear enough to provide any basis of constructive discussion. I don't care what his claims are about atheism, when his claims about Christianity are so vague. I also remain unconvinced that he does not frequently engage in deliberate obfuscations. The same behavior that we see in apologetics shows up in his presentations. They like use words in ways to make it seem profound and meaningful, while avoiding clearly addressing the core issues. And I grew tired of his adoring fans claiming any critics just don't understand him. When Peterson doesn't seem to want anyone to understand him, especially his fans.
I do have to admit, when I have watched anything involving him, I have had to pause and rewind numerous times just so I could untangle the word salad and try to make sense of it all. He works very hard at trying to make others feel dumb. Obfuscation is a very good way to describe the technique or, if you can't beat them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t!
Peterson is an atheist ally in the sense that he is an enemy of my enemy. Every time he says explicitly that atheists are really theists, he is also saying implicitly that theists are really atheists. And he knows this. And his deliberate obfuscation is evidence that his implicit meaning is the one he intends.
3 роки тому+2
@@ericb9804 Exactly right, everyone is in fact an atheist but some like to pretend they have a magic invisible friend.
"I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --- Susan B. Anthony
One of my biggest issues with JP is that he so intensely claims to know people better than they know themselves. I'll be the first to admit that someone else may sometimes have insights into my own motives that I do not (due to my own denial and/or other such blind spots.) Peterson, however, takes such liberties with imposing his assumptions about the motives to others that the term "straw man" seems wholly insufficient in describing his debate methodology. Also, you make a good point on his constant redefinition of words. That's my second biggest issue with his tactics. I'm fine with him having his own definitions for words, but he really needs to stop using those custom definitions to deflect questions and twist the words of others. It's like he got bored with moving goal posts and simply decided to define the term "goal post" as a crater on the moon. Now you have to achieve escape velocity just to make a statement about your own beliefs. When the word "true" no longer means "empirical fact" but rather "that which helps you survive" you now have subjective and incidental factors defining whether or not something is even a part of reality. I'm so tired.
My biggest problem with Jordan Peterson and his ilk is that they pretend to KNOW things which they simply like to believe and then they talk a lot of pseudo-intellectual rubbish to sound like an authority which unfortunately deceives a lot of people into buying the bullshit they are selling - basically "Chopra-ing". So much of what Peterson's fans feel he knows are simply things Peterson likes to believe, often based on no confirmatory evidence and while ignoring tons of contradictory evidence.
Like Trump, Peterson's fans accept everything he says because it reflects and affirms what they want to believe themselves. And because it makes them feel good, they never look either beyond it or too closely at it - just blur their vision so the flashing lights of the carnival don't hurt their eyes, and follow the clown.
Peterson has done all the work for them. Why bother enquiring for yourself about the world, or reading the great books, or immersing yourself in academic discipline like Philosophy when the "expert" Peterson has simplified everything into a self-help book.
4:11 - _"That has nothing to do with Oprah"_ Diana Nyad, the 64-year-old (at the time) who was recognized as the first person to swim between Cuba and Florida, was interviewed by Oprah. In that interview Nyad described herself as an atheist and said, "I can stand at the beach's edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity. All the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt and suffered. So to me, my definition of God is humanity and is the love of humanity." Oprah's reply to this statement was, "Well, I don't call you an atheist then." I don't know Mr. D... At the very least, Oprah's position runs parallel to that of Peterson and Chopra's _'no true Scotsman' esque_ positions.
Wonder how she'd feel with "You're rich? Then I don't consider you Black"? Atheism is not predicated on not being moved by beauty, nor race defined by wealth.
I feel like a lot of people think he talks in circles because they’re blind to the things he’s actually talking about. Sometimes you gotta go at the same thing from different angles to get a good picture of it
@@Benpriebe314: You miss the main point - Peterson does talk in circles. It's not an empty claim. Atheists and skeptics in general have looked at Peterson from all points on the compass. JP himself spews shit in every direction. Duck, it's coming your way.
_Peddling directions for a better life ;_ Indeed, I do have sympathy for anyone that becomes addicted to medication due to the immense pressures of dealing with the suffering of loved ones. But I can't ignore the irony, that this same person, makes a living in part by telling people how to _get their lives in order & overcome their personal problems._
Hang on - how can he claim that the end result of this fictional murder was objectively bad for humanity, while simultaneously claiming that an atheist can't conclude that murder is wrong? Isn't the fact that the outcome is objectively bad for humanity sufficient reason not to do it? You know, the justification he said atheists somehow don't have? Also, it's f-i-c-t-i-o-n. I don't care how much he thinks fiction is more true than reality, neither he nor his favorite authors get to speak for the rest of us. I hate the fact that JP and (other?) Christians seem to think that without a reason NOT to murder, we would all do it. Why is that? Is that how he feels inside? Maybe he should seek help for that! That's messed up.
"I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --- Susan B. Anthony
JP's initial position in his argumentation seems to be, "You only think you're an atheist, but you adhere to a number of societal ideas and values brought forth by religion(s) therefore you're not." I think we need to refute that position before arguing against the rest of what he says. The largest religions seem to have been written to impose a set of rules and values on society under threat of some holy scariness purported to exist in the supernatural realm of those religions. Can't we shut down a lot of JP's argument by simply saying, "I agree with a number of the humanist ideas presented in those religions as they're supported by empathy and social harmony, but there's still no evidence for the supernatural threats purported in them?"
Well, for me, it's a little worse than that for Peterson. Our society is not based on Judeo/Christian religion, but rather Enlightenment thinking and the science which inspired that thinking (See Timothy Ferris' "The Science of Liberty"). Look at the Bill of Rights. That document is a direct contradiction of what the Bible calls for - and the religious tyrannies of Christian Europe pursued for hundreds of years. At this point, Religion is stealing from the Enlightenment. If we were following religion, we'd be killing homosexuals, non-virgin girls, sabbath-breakers, apostates, etc...
The correct response to JP is that humanity existed for 100-250k years before Judaism, with moral ideas that whole time. It's Judaism & Christianity that are based on common social ideas/values, not the other way around.
Religion is a result (side-effect) of our neurological evolution and moral awakening, not the other way round. Raskolnikov thought he could "do what he wanted," but immediately felt so guilty, the investigator identified him as the prime suspect upon meeting him, he got caught, tried, and sentenced to hard labour in Siberia. Turns out there were consequences all along that Raskolnikov chose to ignore.
Humans invented morality, then invented gods to justify immorality. Village chief: "Throw the virgin into the volcano." Village henchmen: "Why?" Village shaman: "Because, well.... because it says here in this book that I like, that the gods say so." Virgin: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" .
He relies on his boneheaded fans to go, "oh, Crime and Punishment, I've heard of this book for fancy eggheads, this Peterson must be a real smart guy because he remembers a character from it." These are the same people that parrot every crazed conspiracy theory Trump shits out, but love to quote 1984 like it is talking about everyone but them. They never got the memo that you can read classic literature and yet still completely miss the point.
I have zero sympathy for what Jordan has been going through. He got himself addicted to benzos despite a comfortable and privileged white middle class lifestyle. Then he gave himself brain damage treating his own addiction because he could not accept the consensus opinion of his fellow experts in addiction treatment.
I often find that I need to watch these twice. The caption at 5:30 was so, well, unexpected that I lost the ability to hear what he was saying for like half a minute and had to rewind. Now, where did I leave those soft cushions?
I respect your stance on wishing him well, but I have no human respect and sympathy for people who WILLFULLY and SELFISHLY do/say things which hurt and disenfranchise others. He's a monster, on purpose.
didn't he admit in his example that all hell broke loose after the murder? in other words, that the actions had negative consequences for all involved? consequences that would be predictable to anyone using reason?
i don't think he understands the difference between using reason to reach a conclusion, and starting with the conclusion and then trying to rationalise it. probably because the latter is the only form of reasoning he knows
What Peterson needs to stop doing first and foremost though, is to stop talking about subjects he has no knowledge on. He seems to do this just so to uphold his appearance of being a smart gentleman. Mere Sophistry. He seems to have a very cursory level of understanding in history or medicine, but with his sophistry he spins pop science into verbose generalized speeches dotted with mentions of peripheral facts just to appear he is quite knowledgeable on these matters, but merely has no time to elaborate... but in reality he just has no real knowledge to be able to go into detail. Peterson's entire schtick is appearing rational and collected. 90% of the time masses of people are more enamored by appearances than actual rationale. Also, remember in an argument seldom do ppl shake themselves away from being caught onto the moment of arguing, that they hardly remember to ask the other person to elaborate their stubborn claims. If asked to elaborate, most of the time the arguers hardly have a coherently constructed argument to elaborate with, but all they've been doing is self-assurance and bold claims for the sake of appearing bold.
There’s examples of god condoned incest in the bible, Adam and Eve and her sons, one example, Genesis 1, Lot and his daughters, another, Genesis 19. My morals and scientific knowledge prohibits incest, but as incest is in the bible perhaps that is why it is a regular occurrence in the Bible Belt of the US? As is child sex? Don’t you bible believers do the morality thing on me.
A fellow atheist mentioned this debate to me, telling me Peterson made Dillahunty look like a fool. It was months after I listened to it, so I didn't push the matter. Also: The question put to Peterson was by Ozymandias Ramses II. He's not active on UA-cam anymore, last I checked, but his past work is worth listening to.
A sense of ethics evolved in all animals that live in herds or packs. Experiments have been done with dogs, monkeys, and elephants in which one animal is given a treat and another is given a rock with the result that both animals become upset. This is at the root of the morality that is often attributed to religion. It is notable that not all religious people are moral just as not all atheists are amoral. There is something more at play than religious belief.
"Every rational reason to split this woman's head in two" - "He does it, and then all hell breaks loose". Doesn't he realize that hell breaking loose is an explicit contradiction to 'every rational reason'? If 'wellbeing' really went up, then all hell wouldn't have broken loose. If there was no reason not to, hell wouldn't have broken loose. And if hell did break loose, that is an extremely rational reason not to fucking do it? Peterson's polemical takes on atheists disgusts me. He paints contradictory scenarios based on derogatory definitions.
Besides the fact that if we lived with our moral compass tied to the teachings of the old and new testaments, we'd all (like to be?) slave owning, murdering rapists, spilling blood for our god (or the victims thereof), it is also evident that our "morals" come from millenia of generation after generation of humans learning the best ways to live with each other long before anyone could utter the word, let alone have the capacity to write the word Abraham. We might be considered more civilised now but that, strangely, is probably proportionally due to religions loosening grip in comparison to when it had a strangle hold on much of "civilisation". At least I can now happily admit to my disdain and disbelief in all things religious without risk of being tortured and executed.
I've listened to a fair bit of Petersen. So what he's saying is... But seriously, he seems to be operating under the belief that that which is best for the continuation of humanity must be true. I suspect he doesn't believe God exists but that a common belief in God is beneficial, or perhaps necessary, to the continuation of humanity, hence it is better to believe in God, therefore belief in God must be supported and defended. He associates commonly held atheism with the genocidal communist regimes and concludes that atheism (and socialism) is extremely detrimental to civilization. He ignores or disassociates the harms of Christianity because of what appears to be a combination of appeal to tradition (cultural fallacy) and the benevolence of Christianities greatest hits (cherry picking). If we limit ourselves to reductionism and objectivity, as moral philosophers tend to do, we might come up with workable ethics code but no way to sell it to the hoi polloi except with threats of punishment. Petersen, for whatever reason, doesn't see biological explanation (what it means to be a subjective physical being, social animal, human) as an adequate meta-ethic, moral compass or motivation for the common man, perhaps even for uncommon men. He's an excellent curator of the fables of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche but seems captured by their wisdom, unable to move beyond. So his epistemology is flawed, assuming the answer must be religion and any explanation must come to that conclusion or, by imperative, be wrong. He is captured by his own creation, an ideology of supernatural worship for the sake of natural survival. But perhaps I'm no better with my ideology of subjective animals having evolved with social instincts.
He likely does believe in a god, but wants to avoid having to defend it intellectually. He prattles the same vacant talking points that the right want to hear. He has openly crowed about how he monetised SJWs (by catering to the anti-SJWs).
@@markhackett2302 if you look at his disagreement with Sam Harris over the definition of truth he reveals a utilitarian, almost darwinian, approach, rather than an acceptance of their being an objective reality. A theistic model that relies on a utilitarian epistemology is practically self refuting, and definitely breaks with conventional theology. It's also suspicious how cagey he can be when asked directly if he believes in God. He talks about religion enough that I can't agree that he's trying to avoid an intellectual conversation on the subject. He does however, as Brian has suggested, use something like a no true Scotsman fallacy. By disallowing a definition of atheists which includes the instincts common to social animals he defines atheists out of existence. "You say you're an atheist but you can't really be an atheist because if you were an atheist you would be trying to murder and/or rape me right now." It's ludicrous that he could be a professor of psychology without understanding humans are not the only social animal to engage in altruism. Although he would probably claim that all social animals recognize the moral authority of God or some nonsense to that effect. If I remember correctly the comment about making money off of opposing sjws had more to do with a counter argument against the power of cancel culture.
Before asking Peterson anything you need to establish a no Dostoyevsky rule because it seems for almost every answer, he has some sort of Dostoyevsky reference. Instead, I submit a debate where participants can call upon only Seinfeld references for point clarification and metaphor creation.
So Jordan Peterson's example of what he thinks an atheist is is a fictional straw man who ended up facing unintended consequences that were 100% determined by his presumably theist author? It's almost impossible to parody a position that stupid.
Sometimes JP gets it right, but when he gets it wrong, he's like 'Alexa, the artifical intelligence box' deciding what you should think according to his limited knowledge of such things as emotions...
So Jordan Peterson thinks that moral doesn't make logical sense and exists only as religious dogma. Thus if you don't believe in god you cannot have moral. Not only does moral makes logical sense, it could be mathematically modeled. Take a look of "Evolution of Trust" as a model how moral forms into a group...
"Why are so many of the people who stump for religion and objective morality such monsters?" Conservative religious people reject objective morality, except as a talking point, which is used to justify their immorality. Jesus repeatedly condemns conservative religious people in the Gospels. Don't pray in public, like the hypocrite. Don't give to charity publicly, like the hypocrite. Give everything you have to the poor. Let those without sin cast the first stone. .
C'mon. He was only accused of sexual impropriety three times, and had to keep his office door open when with female students on campus. Nothing creepy about that. They were probably wearing red-lipstick to signify their sexual arousal. Nothing he could do.
religious people often confuse the origin of moral. They think that the bible is written by a god and countains the basics of moral guidance for human . If the bible was written by a god it would be perfect but since it was written by humans it is not perfect and reflects all the good and the bad sides of humans. I would add that even animals that , I don't think have read the bible, can have a certain sens of moral.
Thank you dearest Mr. Deity. I live near him, & he pisses me off sooooooo much. He's such a clueless creep. He's compared atheists to murderers ffs. He's such a grifter.
I'm rarely the smartest person in the room so I'm probably missing something when it comes to Peterson and his niche popularity. To me, he seems like nothing more than a charismatic wannabe Sigmund Freud who desperately wishes that he would've been a teenager living in California during the late 60's living out of a van painted in a decorative, bright mural of flowers and artistic busts of The Beatles. He seems to have strange opinions on a variety of topics, opinions that really seem head scratching yet his fanbase eats it up like Ben & Jerry's. For example, we have no scientific evidence for ghosts or any supernatural phenomenon and when Matt Dillahunty points this out, he's like, "Yeah, but peyote buttons." It's like he wants to hang out with Billy the Kid's gang in Young Guns so he can parade around with Dirty Steve in the spirit world... "Hey, dog! Did you see the size of that chicken?!" For someone with his educational background, I would think that some of the things that he says and purports to believe in would be the _last_ things he would say if he wasn't trying to find a particular niche in order to gain notoriety, fame and/or money. I don't know... maybe he's sincere and he's just too far over my head to get. Or maybe he really is a snake oil salesman like he seems to be to me. Either way, I too wish him and his family the best with everything that they've had to deal with recently (I thought the beginning of this piece was very classy; kudos). Great video, as usual.
He panders. Look at Rave Dubin or Little Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, etc. They say what the right want to hear. Doesn't matter what. All the righties want is, like those who follow apologists, is someone "smart" to tell them that what they already believe is true.
I had written a previous comment which has already been buried in other comments in which I think I mistakenly referred to Jordan Peterson as Jason. I may not agree with him but I figured I should at least get his name right and apologize for getting his name wrong... to everyone named Jason, I am sorry for incorrectly using your name when I meant to say Jordan. And to everyone named Jordan who isn't THAT Jordan sorry to you too... just because.
I hope that Jordan Peterson and make a full recovery from both his physical ailments, and bad ideas, though I have a slight preference towards his recovery from the second of those.
I did my share of LSD back in the day. I never saw any sky genies. I never had an religious revelations. The Lobster is so full of batshit it’s literally mind numbing.
poor jordan. a cold, uncaring, indifferent universe depresses him. I myself, delight in it. yes there is pain... but there's so much more than that. stop the need to feel like you are special. it's a gross mutation of manifest destiny and causes horrible behavior.
Calling a person a coward is often a bullying manipulative insult. Manipulative by attempting to underhandedly change the percieved "coward" behavior to something percieved of as "brave". Perceptions which are subjective. Peterson refrences the quote " Perhaps I'm nothing but a moral coward for failing to undertake it?" as an example of an atheists rational thought. But to think that particular thought is not to think a rational thought , as jordan implies. Because this is a thought with a trojan horse. The kind of thought containing hidden manipulation initially created to force an action. An action to disprove one being a coward. To prove self bravery. And what action will prove this bravery? This sequence of thought is like a badly programmed robot. Murder in this case is an irrational solutuon used to eradicate problems the character finds overwhelming. Nothing rational here. Just deluded overwhelmed impulses. Impulses which Jordan P disquises as rational thought.
as an atheist who uses psychedelics regularly i find peterson's comments about them offensive.. sure, they help deal with neuroses, conquer addictions and fear, open up aesthetic experience, help you question reality and have ecstatic experiences, but hell ,no god is revealed, god seems even more absurd when one is tripping, and religion and trumpism seem odious.
When I first encountered Jordan Peterson I thought he had some good ideas. Upon further investigation it turned out to be a heavy emphasis on SOME. Plus a lot of BS.
You nailed it! I’ve been trying to find commentary that addresses this BS from JP, but it’s hard to find. In particular his “atheists act morally therefore deep down they really do believe in God”. To me it seems that you could reverse this. There seem to be many Christians who “say they believe in God” but then act as if God doesn’t exist and they ignore the truth of Christian morality (I’m no relation BTW!)
In regards to your "First Thing First", should that always be extended, also to people who won’t treat others in such a manner, or is there in your opinion individuals where it’s okay to say to someone they should go die a painful death in a cold and desolate ditch....???
Yeah, compassion and empathy are qualities I do not find Peterson possesses in abundance. I don't wish him active harm (though I deplore his popularity and influence) but I don't know that I wish him active good either.
For me, it’s less about him and what he deserves, and more about me and what I can give. If we’re only going to get what we deserve, we’re all in trouble (or lying to ourselves).
@@misterdeity haha. I once gave a kid valentine to my friend’s boyfriend (we were in our 20s at the time) and in it wrote “Hope you get what you deserve on Valentine’s Day”. My friend and I laughed maniacally at the double meaning and she said when she gave it to him he seemed a little scared.
@@dianamacpherson5851 Miss you! We haven’t messaged for a while! I’ll try to message you after I get out from under my videos for the month. One more day and I’m free!!!!
Thanks, Mr. Deity. Always great stuff. But whoa, even a small bit of Jordan Peterson goes a long way! I can't _imagine_ how that guy got to be popular with some people.
Um... he just told them what they wanted to hear. 'I shouldn't say this [laugh] but I figured out how to make a profit off of SJWs' - Jordan Peterson to Joe Rogan His first public stance was his opposition to Bill C-16 because ti will "force speech" onto people... people like him who do not believe transpeople exist. He publicly said he would never use the pronouns a transpeerson wants him to use, even if his student tells him to use it. Which is when the University sent him a little memo about professional conduct. He then took that to mean "they are forcing me to say words I don't want to say"... and I agree, they are or they will fire him for unprofessional conduct.
Peterson is the sort of guy who would be hugely offended and disturbed by a publishing company withdrawing a couple of obscure Dr Seuss books he'd never heard of and would never buy. Hes got no substance, and is all for show.
In this area, Peterson's cynical intellectual elitism really shines through. The idea that some people are better with god is part and parcel of the age-old notion that citizens who don't pursue higher education are a danger to society, and need moral steering. That being said...his general outlook on personal responsibility and self-respect seems to be generally a good direction to point young people in. I just wish it wasn't wrapped up in his particular brand of obscurantist pseudo-spiritualism
religion was invented around 50,000 years ago, which seems like a long time, but humans, in whatever form, were looking after mothers and babies, caring for the elderly and sick, feeding each other and generally being decent to each other so that they thrived for up to 5 MILLION years before that, religion borrows morality from secular societies.
'and then all hell broke lose'... this is why it wasn't a rational decision to kill. Peterson refutes his own claim in the very next sentence. If the well being being considered was not including the very predictable consequences of an action, then it was not a fully rational decision.
Peterson: “[Hitler] appeared to be someone who was very high in orderliness and very high in openness, and I think that was one of the things that made him charismatic.” Peterson: “So, [Hitler] becomes the embodiment of the dark desire of the mob. And that’s partly why he had the charisma. It’s right.” Peterson: “[In this Hitler Youth propaganda poster, Hitler and the boy are] looking far ahead into the future. That’s right. That’s good.” Peterson: “And… here’s something to think about with regards to Hitler… because one of the things you might ask is: how the hell could he be so absolutely compelling to his audiences?” Peterson: “[Hitler] was able to bring this tremendously artistic force into his politicking, and it was captivating to people.” Peterson: “[Hitler] tried to get into art school, like, four times, so really the person to blame for World War II was the four-person committee that wouldn’t let poor Hitler into the, I believe it was, the Viennese School of Art, ‘cause he really wanted to go, you know, and he had some artistic talent…”
The ending of the third quote clearly isn't Peterson's opinion, but the opinion of the crowd about Hitler. The rest of these don't portrait Peterson as a bad person either (except the one about committee looks stupid, IF that was not meant as a joke), but there certainly are interviews where... WTF is wrong with him?!
I’m a big fan of Peterson. I’m also an atheist, and I think Dillahunty won that debate. It’s an easy thing to do since anyone arguing for god is put into the position of having to explain the more base aspects of our nature. If god made us and determines our destiny he must also be responsible for all the worst aspects of humanity. Still, I fail to see the case for referring to Peterson as a “genocidal maniac”. He’s just got a different opinion than others about god. He’s still a great man who has done a lot of good in the world, including for me. I can forget our differences in that regard and still respect the man for the good he does.
Serious question. I've found not a word that I've heard from Peterson something that adds value. It has all seemed vacuous and even bigoted. I am curious what single thing has Peterson said that you find of most value?
I find it really curious and bizarre how JP sometimes makes very insightful and well thought-out arguments, and then sometimes he can spew complete and utter nonsense.
Instead of trying to rationalize apologetics and their weird dreams and projections as belonging to a realm of sanity and instead evaluate them as pure psychopaths their positions becomes so much more understandable.
Yes. That's so 1970's... There are many books on that topic since then. I wonder why people are so easily attracted to the "light". Shining a light in someone eyes (or mind) is the most effective way to blind them.
I feel bad about leaving this comment when the video already has the correct number of them (666), but I'm glad you made the comparison to Chopra - both he and Peterson are masters of tossing up a word salad that seems so appetising on the surface, that you have to chew it for a few seconds to realise that it's just meaningless, flavourless gibberish, and then spit it out in disgust.
JP: "That's fine because the foundation of The Enlightenment is the underlying religious fabric of European Society. Goalpost moved! Checkmate, closet theist!"
We’d have to inform Jordan that The Enlightenment was an outgrowth of the scientific, ethical, and philosophical thinking rediscovered in Europe within the the classics (Greek and Roman) - which Christianity tried to erase from human history. Checkmate, JBP!
The morals of atheists deal with doing good unto others, as they would do to you (a rule NOT invented by Xtians)...Xtian morals are to good to do good unto others, lest you be tortured for eternity...which is more just? Which has the true moral fiber of doing good? Because it is right, or because you will be punished???
I got sick at this small hotel in Barcelona. I called to the front desk and they told me they had a doctor on staff. After his treatment, I told him how amazing that such a place had an doctor on their payroll. He nodded and said "No one expects the Spanish Inn physician."
Awesome 👌🏿🤣🤣
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." - Arthur C Clarke
reasons not to murder
1. law
2. social condemnation
3. I would not want to be murdered.
You forgot the prison rape.
I'm not joking.
4. The mess
5. It's a lot of effort
6. Won't change the world meaningfully.
7. No gun.
It may involve touching someone you hate.
Peterson enlisted a young undergrad at my alma mater to sue them. Eventually their previous connection at UBC came out.
Peterson is a clinical psychologist. No academic background in most of the areas he dabbles in.
And oddly obsessed with irrelevant Russian literature as if that's more important than the academic works of people in the relevant areas under discussion.
No one would have ever heard of him if the Koch-fueled Christofascist industry wasn't funding him.
As a Canadian I feel compelled to apologize for the existence of JP. Or maybe Alberta. Or both. Both is good.
Thank you yellowwoodstraveler much appreciated.
I don't even like to analyze Petersons claims. I don't trust that his definitions and claims are clear enough to provide any basis of constructive discussion.
I don't care what his claims are about atheism, when his claims about Christianity are so vague.
I also remain unconvinced that he does not frequently engage in deliberate obfuscations.
The same behavior that we see in apologetics shows up in his presentations. They like use words in ways to make it seem profound and meaningful, while avoiding clearly addressing the core issues.
And I grew tired of his adoring fans claiming any critics just don't understand him. When Peterson doesn't seem to want anyone to understand him, especially his fans.
I do have to admit, when I have watched anything involving him, I have had to pause and rewind numerous times just so I could untangle the word salad and try to make sense of it all. He works very hard at trying to make others feel dumb.
Obfuscation is a very good way to describe the technique or, if you can't beat them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t!
Peterson is an atheist ally in the sense that he is an enemy of my enemy. Every time he says explicitly that atheists are really theists, he is also saying implicitly that theists are really atheists. And he knows this. And his deliberate obfuscation is evidence that his implicit meaning is the one he intends.
@@ericb9804 Exactly right, everyone is in fact an atheist but some like to pretend they have a magic invisible friend.
@@ericb9804 That sounds exactly like something JBP would say... wait... Jordan?
@@misterdeity well, you see...its complicated...it depends on what you mean by "Jordan"...One can't just "be" Jordan...
Jordan Peterson is a constant reminder of why I hate listening to junkie philosophy, even discounting his grift-based gish-gallop.
"I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --- Susan B. Anthony
One of my biggest issues with JP is that he so intensely claims to know people better than they know themselves. I'll be the first to admit that someone else may sometimes have insights into my own motives that I do not (due to my own denial and/or other such blind spots.) Peterson, however, takes such liberties with imposing his assumptions about the motives to others that the term "straw man" seems wholly insufficient in describing his debate methodology. Also, you make a good point on his constant redefinition of words. That's my second biggest issue with his tactics. I'm fine with him having his own definitions for words, but he really needs to stop using those custom definitions to deflect questions and twist the words of others. It's like he got bored with moving goal posts and simply decided to define the term "goal post" as a crater on the moon. Now you have to achieve escape velocity just to make a statement about your own beliefs. When the word "true" no longer means "empirical fact" but rather "that which helps you survive" you now have subjective and incidental factors defining whether or not something is even a part of reality.
I'm so tired.
Loved the comment. Thank you for the comment. A virtual toast to your excellent effort.
"Screaming to high Hitchens!" Love it!
Feel free to use is and spread it around.
My biggest problem with Jordan Peterson and his ilk is that they pretend to KNOW things which they simply like to believe and then they talk a lot of pseudo-intellectual rubbish to sound like an authority which unfortunately deceives a lot of people into buying the bullshit they are selling - basically "Chopra-ing". So much of what Peterson's fans feel he knows are simply things Peterson likes to believe, often based on no confirmatory evidence and while ignoring tons of contradictory evidence.
It's all in the delivery.
Like Trump, Peterson's fans accept everything he says because it reflects and affirms what they want to believe themselves. And because it makes them feel good, they never look either beyond it or too closely at it - just blur their vision so the flashing lights of the carnival don't hurt their eyes, and follow the clown.
Peterson has done all the work for them. Why bother enquiring for yourself about the world, or reading the great books, or immersing yourself in academic discipline like Philosophy when the "expert" Peterson has simplified everything into a self-help book.
4:11 - _"That has nothing to do with Oprah"_
Diana Nyad, the 64-year-old (at the time) who was recognized as the first person to swim between Cuba and Florida, was interviewed by Oprah. In that interview Nyad described herself as an atheist and said, "I can stand at the beach's edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity. All the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt and suffered. So to me, my definition of God is humanity and is the love of humanity."
Oprah's reply to this statement was, "Well, I don't call you an atheist then."
I don't know Mr. D... At the very least, Oprah's position runs parallel to that of Peterson and Chopra's _'no true Scotsman' esque_ positions.
Wonder how she'd feel with "You're rich? Then I don't consider you Black"? Atheism is not predicated on not being moved by beauty, nor race defined by wealth.
Yeah I thought of Oprah saying that to the atheist when I think of Peterson’s position as well.
Redefining everything that doesn't fit his narrative is Jordan Peterson's main tactic. He does this all the time, and his popularity is based on it.
I have never understood the appeal of Jordan Peterson. He reminds me a lot of William Lane Craig... he talks a lot but doesn't really say anything.
I feel like a lot of people think he talks in circles because they’re blind to the things he’s actually talking about. Sometimes you gotta go at the same thing from different angles to get a good picture of it
@@Benpriebe314: You miss the main point - Peterson does talk in circles. It's not an empty claim. Atheists and skeptics in general have looked at Peterson from all points on the compass. JP himself spews shit in every direction. Duck, it's coming your way.
_Peddling directions for a better life ;_
Indeed, I do have sympathy for anyone that becomes addicted to medication due to the immense pressures of dealing with the suffering of loved ones.
But I can't ignore the irony, that this same person, makes a living in part by telling people how to _get their lives in order & overcome their personal problems._
ditto.
-I'm a mur-diddly-erdler!
-Who did you kill.
-God.
Jordan Peterson produces obtuse word salad on par with a used car salesman turned career politician.
Hang on - how can he claim that the end result of this fictional murder was objectively bad for humanity, while simultaneously claiming that an atheist can't conclude that murder is wrong? Isn't the fact that the outcome is objectively bad for humanity sufficient reason not to do it? You know, the justification he said atheists somehow don't have? Also, it's f-i-c-t-i-o-n. I don't care how much he thinks fiction is more true than reality, neither he nor his favorite authors get to speak for the rest of us. I hate the fact that JP and (other?) Christians seem to think that without a reason NOT to murder, we would all do it. Why is that? Is that how he feels inside? Maybe he should seek help for that! That's messed up.
"I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --- Susan B. Anthony
That's got to be some of the laziest apologetics. Denying religious dissenters even exist. It's worse than a straw man, it's like a balloon man.
Oh, that's good! I might steal that (with your permission, of course)!
@@misterdeity Oh course. It'll sound a lot funnier coming from you. Love your stuff!
Pfffffffft
JP's initial position in his argumentation seems to be, "You only think you're an atheist, but you adhere to a number of societal ideas and values brought forth by religion(s) therefore you're not." I think we need to refute that position before arguing against the rest of what he says.
The largest religions seem to have been written to impose a set of rules and values on society under threat of some holy scariness purported to exist in the supernatural realm of those religions. Can't we shut down a lot of JP's argument by simply saying, "I agree with a number of the humanist ideas presented in those religions as they're supported by empathy and social harmony, but there's still no evidence for the supernatural threats purported in them?"
Well, for me, it's a little worse than that for Peterson. Our society is not based on Judeo/Christian religion, but rather Enlightenment thinking and the science which inspired that thinking (See Timothy Ferris' "The Science of Liberty"). Look at the Bill of Rights. That document is a direct contradiction of what the Bible calls for - and the religious tyrannies of Christian Europe pursued for hundreds of years. At this point, Religion is stealing from the Enlightenment. If we were following religion, we'd be killing homosexuals, non-virgin girls, sabbath-breakers, apostates, etc...
The correct response to JP is that humanity existed for 100-250k years before Judaism, with moral ideas that whole time. It's Judaism & Christianity that are based on common social ideas/values, not the other way around.
Communication is very difficult but possible if those involved are 15 IQ-points apart while nearly impossible if 30.
Religion is a result (side-effect) of our neurological evolution and moral awakening, not the other way round.
Raskolnikov thought he could "do what he wanted," but immediately felt so guilty, the investigator identified him as the prime suspect upon meeting him, he got caught, tried, and sentenced to hard labour in Siberia. Turns out there were consequences all along that Raskolnikov chose to ignore.
JP, the Depok Chopra of philosophy.
😆😆😆
... and religion, and politics, and life, and ... etc, etc, etc
I am currently binge watching all of your videos
Trying to get any philosophical wisdom from Peterson is like drinking a tall glass of air.
Humans invented morality, then invented gods to justify immorality.
Village chief: "Throw the virgin into the volcano."
Village henchmen: "Why?"
Village shaman: "Because, well.... because it says here in this book that I like, that the gods say so."
Virgin: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" .
Argument = Fictional Character is Present in Classic Novel
He relies on his boneheaded fans to go, "oh, Crime and Punishment, I've heard of this book for fancy eggheads, this Peterson must be a real smart guy because he remembers a character from it." These are the same people that parrot every crazed conspiracy theory Trump shits out, but love to quote 1984 like it is talking about everyone but them. They never got the memo that you can read classic literature and yet still completely miss the point.
@@LividImp JBP must have took the wrong point on Orwell's literature.
Many more skulls have been crushed in the righteous belief that some god or other was ok with it.
I have zero sympathy for what Jordan has been going through.
He got himself addicted to benzos despite a comfortable and privileged white middle class lifestyle.
Then he gave himself brain damage treating his own addiction because he could not accept the consensus opinion of his fellow experts in addiction treatment.
There is nothing Middle class about Peterson. He is minted thanks to a world full of simpletons with PayPal accounts.
Hubris is the deadliest drug it seems.
@@steven5054
Yup. Kind of like Steve Jobs who was killed by his choice to pursue whacky alternative therapies instead if svience-based medicine.
I often find that I need to watch these twice. The caption at 5:30 was so, well, unexpected that I lost the ability to hear what he was saying for like half a minute and had to rewind.
Now, where did I leave those soft cushions?
iKR? if I just LISTEN to these videos, I miss half the fun.
Sorry! What was the video about? I was distracted by all the murdering i was doing of my close friends and family.
@@shriggs55 are puppies any worse than pigs?
@@KyleCostanza seeing as all Abrahamic religions forbid pork, I leave the answer to you
I respect your stance on wishing him well, but I have no human respect and sympathy for people who WILLFULLY and SELFISHLY do/say things which hurt and disenfranchise others. He's a monster, on purpose.
didn't he admit in his example that all hell broke loose after the murder? in other words, that the actions had negative consequences for all involved? consequences that would be predictable to anyone using reason?
Pretty good point!
i don't think he understands the difference between using reason to reach a conclusion, and starting with the conclusion and then trying to rationalise it. probably because the latter is the only form of reasoning he knows
What Peterson needs to stop doing first and foremost though, is to stop talking about subjects he has no knowledge on. He seems to do this just so to uphold his appearance of being a smart gentleman. Mere Sophistry. He seems to have a very cursory level of understanding in history or medicine, but with his sophistry he spins pop science into verbose generalized speeches dotted with mentions of peripheral facts just to appear he is quite knowledgeable on these matters, but merely has no time to elaborate... but in reality he just has no real knowledge to be able to go into detail.
Peterson's entire schtick is appearing rational and collected. 90% of the time masses of people are more enamored by appearances than actual rationale.
Also, remember in an argument seldom do ppl shake themselves away from being caught onto the moment of arguing, that they hardly remember to ask the other person to elaborate their stubborn claims. If asked to elaborate, most of the time the arguers hardly have a coherently constructed argument to elaborate with, but all they've been doing is self-assurance and bold claims for the sake of appearing bold.
There’s examples of god condoned incest in the bible, Adam and Eve and her sons, one example, Genesis 1, Lot and his daughters, another, Genesis 19. My morals and scientific knowledge prohibits incest, but as incest is in the bible perhaps that is why it is a regular occurrence in the Bible Belt of the US? As is child sex?
Don’t you bible believers do the morality thing on me.
A fellow atheist mentioned this debate to me, telling me Peterson made Dillahunty look like a fool.
It was months after I listened to it, so I didn't push the matter.
Also:
The question put to Peterson was by Ozymandias Ramses II.
He's not active on UA-cam anymore, last I checked, but his past work is worth listening to.
A sense of ethics evolved in all animals that live in herds or packs. Experiments have been done with dogs, monkeys, and elephants in which one animal is given a treat and another is given a rock with the result that both animals become upset. This is at the root of the morality that is often attributed to religion. It is notable that not all religious people are moral just as not all atheists are amoral. There is something more at play than religious belief.
Yes, rational and critical thinking skills are needed. Society doesn't exist in moral absolutes like moral and amoral so much as the area in between.
Peterson is such an intellectual lightweight.
"Every rational reason to split this woman's head in two" - "He does it, and then all hell breaks loose". Doesn't he realize that hell breaking loose is an explicit contradiction to 'every rational reason'? If 'wellbeing' really went up, then all hell wouldn't have broken loose. If there was no reason not to, hell wouldn't have broken loose. And if hell did break loose, that is an extremely rational reason not to fucking do it? Peterson's polemical takes on atheists disgusts me. He paints contradictory scenarios based on derogatory definitions.
I was going to post this exact thing. It makes no sense and JP obviously had no idea how it came across.
Yes -- when I want to understand atheism, I always go to devout Christian apologist from the 1800s -- who else could possibly explain atheism better?
Besides the fact that if we lived with our moral compass tied to the teachings of the old and new testaments, we'd all (like to be?) slave owning, murdering rapists, spilling blood for our god (or the victims thereof), it is also evident that our "morals" come from millenia of generation after generation of humans learning the best ways to live with each other long before anyone could utter the word, let alone have the capacity to write the word Abraham. We might be considered more civilised now but that, strangely, is probably proportionally due to religions loosening grip in comparison to when it had a strangle hold on much of "civilisation". At least I can now happily admit to my disdain and disbelief in all things religious without risk of being tortured and executed.
Funny thing, psychedelics set me on the road to atheism, and for that I am so thankful. They are very interesting tools.
Oh great, let's use another novel to "prove" Christian morality... that'll work. 🙄
And funny how it is a Russian novel. Peterson seems to have a weird obsession with Russia.
I've listened to a fair bit of Petersen. So what he's saying is... But seriously, he seems to be operating under the belief that that which is best for the continuation of humanity must be true. I suspect he doesn't believe God exists but that a common belief in God is beneficial, or perhaps necessary, to the continuation of humanity, hence it is better to believe in God, therefore belief in God must be supported and defended. He associates commonly held atheism with the genocidal communist regimes and concludes that atheism (and socialism) is extremely detrimental to civilization. He ignores or disassociates the harms of Christianity because of what appears to be a combination of appeal to tradition (cultural fallacy) and the benevolence of Christianities greatest hits (cherry picking).
If we limit ourselves to reductionism and objectivity, as moral philosophers tend to do, we might come up with workable ethics code but no way to sell it to the hoi polloi except with threats of punishment. Petersen, for whatever reason, doesn't see biological explanation (what it means to be a subjective physical being, social animal, human) as an adequate meta-ethic, moral compass or motivation for the common man, perhaps even for uncommon men. He's an excellent curator of the fables of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche but seems captured by their wisdom, unable to move beyond.
So his epistemology is flawed, assuming the answer must be religion and any explanation must come to that conclusion or, by imperative, be wrong. He is captured by his own creation, an ideology of supernatural worship for the sake of natural survival. But perhaps I'm no better with my ideology of subjective animals having evolved with social instincts.
He likely does believe in a god, but wants to avoid having to defend it intellectually. He prattles the same vacant talking points that the right want to hear. He has openly crowed about how he monetised SJWs (by catering to the anti-SJWs).
@@markhackett2302 if you look at his disagreement with Sam Harris over the definition of truth he reveals a utilitarian, almost darwinian, approach, rather than an acceptance of their being an objective reality. A theistic model that relies on a utilitarian epistemology is practically self refuting, and definitely breaks with conventional theology. It's also suspicious how cagey he can be when asked directly if he believes in God. He talks about religion enough that I can't agree that he's trying to avoid an intellectual conversation on the subject. He does however, as Brian has suggested, use something like a no true Scotsman fallacy. By disallowing a definition of atheists which includes the instincts common to social animals he defines atheists out of existence. "You say you're an atheist but you can't really be an atheist because if you were an atheist you would be trying to murder and/or rape me right now." It's ludicrous that he could be a professor of psychology without understanding humans are not the only social animal to engage in altruism. Although he would probably claim that all social animals recognize the moral authority of God or some nonsense to that effect.
If I remember correctly the comment about making money off of opposing sjws had more to do with a counter argument against the power of cancel culture.
@@TRayTV He doesn't reveal anything other than his shallowness of thought.
I love that adjective (adverb?), "Chopraesque"! Brilliant!
If I can't be an artist AND an atheist, I'll give up art! Better than lying to myself.
I think it's okay to be a piss artist and an atheist, so there is that.
@@Britonbear true!
Peterson makes good sense here ... as long as you precede artist with bullsh%t.
Before asking Peterson anything you need to establish a no Dostoyevsky rule because it seems for almost every answer, he has some sort of Dostoyevsky reference. Instead, I submit a debate where participants can call upon only Seinfeld references for point clarification and metaphor creation.
I claim to have read Dostoyevski therefore I am an intellectual.
When it comes to Jordan Peterson, let’s face it - you can’t Torquemada anything.
So Jordan Peterson's example of what he thinks an atheist is is a fictional straw man who ended up facing unintended consequences that were 100% determined by his presumably theist author?
It's almost impossible to parody a position that stupid.
Sometimes JP gets it right, but when he gets it wrong, he's like 'Alexa, the artifical intelligence box' deciding what you should think according to his limited knowledge of such things as emotions...
So Jordan Peterson thinks that moral doesn't make logical sense and exists only as religious dogma. Thus if you don't believe in god you cannot have moral.
Not only does moral makes logical sense, it could be mathematically modeled. Take a look of "Evolution of Trust" as a model how moral forms into a group...
Why are so many of the people who stump for religion and objective morality such monsters?
"Why are so many of the people who stump for religion and objective morality such monsters?"
Conservative religious people reject objective morality, except as a talking point, which is used to justify their immorality.
Jesus repeatedly condemns conservative religious people in the Gospels. Don't pray in public, like the hypocrite. Don't give to charity publicly, like the hypocrite. Give everything you have to the poor. Let those without sin cast the first stone.
.
Peterson has always made feel like i need a bath.
C'mon. He was only accused of sexual impropriety three times, and had to keep his office door open when with female students on campus. Nothing creepy about that. They were probably wearing red-lipstick to signify their sexual arousal. Nothing he could do.
@@steven5054 Yeah🤣🤣 and wearing heels to push their pelvis forward 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 omg I can't even...🤣🤣🤣
You probably do
@@steven5054 why am I not surprised... I mean, after all, he knows what women _really_ need, better than they do... according to him.
@@AmberAmber I mean, longer legs, perkier bum, more defined calves too... Obviously gagging for it... it's the only thing that makes sense!
I can't watch debates with Peterson...that whinny ass voice drives me crazy. Reminds me of Tucker Carlson.
Maybe Peterson and Carlson both need to tan their testicles; Tucker said that it's the lack of testosterone 😁
religious people often confuse the origin of moral. They think that the bible is written by a god and countains the basics of moral guidance for human . If the bible was written by a god it would be perfect but since it was written by humans it is not perfect and reflects all the good and the bad sides of humans. I would add that even animals that , I don't think have read the bible, can have a certain sens of moral.
Well, it depends on what you mean by maniac.
Thank you dearest Mr. Deity. I live near him, & he pisses me off sooooooo much. He's such a clueless creep.
He's compared atheists to murderers ffs. He's such a grifter.
I'm rarely the smartest person in the room so I'm probably missing something when it comes to Peterson and his niche popularity. To me, he seems like nothing more than a charismatic wannabe Sigmund Freud who desperately wishes that he would've been a teenager living in California during the late 60's living out of a van painted in a decorative, bright mural of flowers and artistic busts of The Beatles. He seems to have strange opinions on a variety of topics, opinions that really seem head scratching yet his fanbase eats it up like Ben & Jerry's.
For example, we have no scientific evidence for ghosts or any supernatural phenomenon and when Matt Dillahunty points this out, he's like, "Yeah, but peyote buttons." It's like he wants to hang out with Billy the Kid's gang in Young Guns so he can parade around with Dirty Steve in the spirit world... "Hey, dog! Did you see the size of that chicken?!" For someone with his educational background, I would think that some of the things that he says and purports to believe in would be the _last_ things he would say if he wasn't trying to find a particular niche in order to gain notoriety, fame and/or money. I don't know... maybe he's sincere and he's just too far over my head to get. Or maybe he really is a snake oil salesman like he seems to be to me.
Either way, I too wish him and his family the best with everything that they've had to deal with recently (I thought the beginning of this piece was very classy; kudos).
Great video, as usual.
He panders. Look at Rave Dubin or Little Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, etc. They say what the right want to hear. Doesn't matter what. All the righties want is, like those who follow apologists, is someone "smart" to tell them that what they already believe is true.
I had written a previous comment which has already been buried in other comments in which I think I mistakenly referred to Jordan Peterson as Jason. I may not agree with him but I figured I should at least get his name right and apologize for getting his name wrong... to everyone named Jason, I am sorry for incorrectly using your name when I meant to say Jordan. And to everyone named Jordan who isn't THAT Jordan sorry to you too... just because.
Hahahahaha! You seem like a very decent chap.
Peterson so much wants god to exist. Not any god, just his god.
I hope that Jordan Peterson and make a full recovery from both his physical ailments, and bad ideas, though I have a slight preference towards his recovery from the second of those.
Anton LeVay looks like if Dillahunty and Aron Ra had a kid.
Thanks for this thoughtful analysis.
With the title of his vid referring to Jordan B. Peterson WHY would you have a pricture of Matt dillahunty?
You should produce and sell your PragerU (go devils) image as a sticker
Lets just say i do not share your concern for the man.
I did my share of LSD back in the day. I never saw any sky genies. I never had an religious revelations. The Lobster is so full of batshit it’s literally mind numbing.
Great photos of "Dillihunty" 🤣🤣🤣
I love how the atheist community has been able to completely debunk all of Peterson's bullshit. I cannot abide that man.
"First things first ..."
Well said / written!
Hear, hear / Read, read!
poor jordan. a cold, uncaring, indifferent universe depresses him. I myself, delight in it. yes there is pain... but there's so much more than that.
stop the need to feel like you are special. it's a gross mutation of manifest destiny and causes horrible behavior.
Calling a person a coward is often a bullying manipulative insult. Manipulative by attempting to underhandedly change the percieved "coward" behavior to something percieved of as "brave".
Perceptions which are subjective.
Peterson refrences the quote
" Perhaps I'm nothing but a moral coward for failing to undertake it?" as an example of an atheists rational thought.
But to think that particular thought is not to think a rational thought , as jordan implies.
Because this is a thought with a trojan horse. The kind of thought containing hidden manipulation initially created to force an action. An action to disprove one being a coward. To prove self bravery.
And what action will prove this bravery?
This sequence of thought is like a badly programmed robot. Murder in this case is an irrational solutuon used to eradicate problems the character finds overwhelming.
Nothing rational here. Just deluded overwhelmed impulses. Impulses which Jordan P disquises as rational thought.
as an atheist who uses psychedelics regularly i find peterson's comments about them offensive.. sure, they help deal with neuroses, conquer addictions and fear, open up aesthetic experience, help you question reality and have ecstatic experiences, but hell ,no god is revealed, god seems even more absurd when one is tripping, and religion and trumpism seem odious.
When I first encountered Jordan Peterson I thought he had some good ideas. Upon further investigation it turned out to be a heavy emphasis on SOME. Plus a lot of BS.
You nailed it! I’ve been trying to find commentary that addresses this BS from JP, but it’s hard to find. In particular his “atheists act morally therefore deep down they really do believe in God”. To me it seems that you could reverse this. There seem to be many Christians who “say they believe in God” but then act as if God doesn’t exist and they ignore the truth of Christian morality
(I’m no relation BTW!)
There's a video titled "Jordan Peterson is a Marxist". I think that's the video you're looking for. Yes, he hates Marxists, that's why he is one, lol.
Definitely check the playlist from a young intellectual at UA-cam Rationality Rules channel
Good comment, but to be clear, I'm pretty sure it was the Romans who nailed it.
In regards to your "First Thing First", should that always be extended, also to people who won’t treat others in such a manner, or is there in your opinion individuals where it’s okay to say to someone they should go die a painful death in a cold and desolate ditch....???
My inner five-year-old deeply resents the comparison. We’re short, not stupid.
I could never murder... I mean, how do you even dress for a murder?!
Put on a raincoat, lay down some newspaper to soak up the blood, then crank up Huey Lewis & The News.
@@Twannnng YEEEESSSSS!
🪓
If Dexter is anything to go by, there seems to be a lot of plastic and Saran Wrap involved.
Bravo! You hit the nail on the head.
Yeah, compassion and empathy are qualities I do not find Peterson possesses in abundance. I don't wish him active harm (though I deplore his popularity and influence) but I don't know that I wish him active good either.
For me, it’s less about him and what he deserves, and more about me and what I can give. If we’re only going to get what we deserve, we’re all in trouble (or lying to ourselves).
@@misterdeity haha. I once gave a kid valentine to my friend’s boyfriend (we were in our 20s at the time) and in it wrote “Hope you get what you deserve on Valentine’s Day”. My friend and I laughed maniacally at the double meaning and she said when she gave it to him he seemed a little scared.
@@dianamacpherson5851 Miss you! We haven’t messaged for a while! I’ll try to message you after I get out from under my videos for the month. One more day and I’m free!!!!
Jordan Peterson anagrams to "Pardon Jet Snore", therefore...god?
Also: Jester 'n sad porn
Thanks, Mr. Deity. Always great stuff. But whoa, even a small bit of Jordan Peterson goes a long way! I can't _imagine_ how that guy got to be popular with some people.
I think it’s the vests.
Um... he just told them what they wanted to hear. 'I shouldn't say this [laugh] but I figured out how to make a profit off of SJWs' - Jordan Peterson to Joe Rogan
His first public stance was his opposition to Bill C-16 because ti will "force speech" onto people... people like him who do not believe transpeople exist. He publicly said he would never use the pronouns a transpeerson wants him to use, even if his student tells him to use it. Which is when the University sent him a little memo about professional conduct. He then took that to mean "they are forcing me to say words I don't want to say"... and I agree, they are or they will fire him for unprofessional conduct.
Peterson is the sort of guy who would be hugely offended and disturbed by a publishing company withdrawing a couple of obscure Dr Seuss books he'd never heard of and would never buy.
Hes got no substance, and is all for show.
In this area, Peterson's cynical intellectual elitism really shines through.
The idea that some people are better with god is part and parcel of the age-old notion that citizens who don't pursue higher education are a danger to society, and need moral steering.
That being said...his general outlook on personal responsibility and self-respect seems to be generally a good direction to point young people in.
I just wish it wasn't wrapped up in his particular brand of obscurantist pseudo-spiritualism
religion was invented around 50,000 years ago, which seems like a long time, but humans, in whatever form, were
looking after mothers and babies, caring for the elderly and sick, feeding each other and generally being decent
to each other so that they thrived for up to 5 MILLION years before that, religion borrows morality from secular
societies.
Eugène O’Neill spent his career trying find god. He finally gives up at the end.
'and then all hell broke lose'... this is why it wasn't a rational decision to kill. Peterson refutes his own claim in the very next sentence. If the well being being considered was not including the very predictable consequences of an action, then it was not a fully rational decision.
"Peterson refutes his own claim in the very next sentence."
He does that a lot.
Listen, he knows we are all Christian, even if we don't know it. End of. He wrote books. He knows all!
Peterson's idea of an atheist is a fictional character
I love that you use a boom mike instead of sitting behind a rig, apropos of a comment you made in a more recent video.
Peterson: “[Hitler] appeared to be someone who was very high in orderliness and very high in openness, and I think that was one of the things that made him charismatic.”
Peterson: “So, [Hitler] becomes the embodiment of the dark desire of the mob. And that’s partly why he had the charisma. It’s right.”
Peterson: “[In this Hitler Youth propaganda poster, Hitler and the boy are] looking far ahead into the future. That’s right. That’s good.”
Peterson: “And… here’s something to think about with regards to Hitler… because one of the things you might ask is: how the hell could he be so absolutely compelling to his audiences?”
Peterson: “[Hitler] was able to bring this tremendously artistic force into his politicking, and it was captivating to people.”
Peterson: “[Hitler] tried to get into art school, like, four times, so really the person to blame for World War II was the four-person committee that wouldn’t let poor Hitler into the, I believe it was, the Viennese School of Art, ‘cause he really wanted to go, you know, and he had some artistic talent…”
The ending of the third quote clearly isn't Peterson's opinion, but the opinion of the crowd about Hitler. The rest of these don't portrait Peterson as a bad person either (except the one about committee looks stupid, IF that was not meant as a joke), but there certainly are interviews where... WTF is wrong with him?!
I’m a big fan of Peterson. I’m also an atheist, and I think Dillahunty won that debate. It’s an easy thing to do since anyone arguing for god is put into the position of having to explain the more base aspects of our nature. If god made us and determines our destiny he must also be responsible for all the worst aspects of humanity. Still, I fail to see the case for referring to Peterson as a “genocidal maniac”. He’s just got a different opinion than others about god. He’s still a great man who has done a lot of good in the world, including for me. I can forget our differences in that regard and still respect the man for the good he does.
Serious question. I've found not a word that I've heard from Peterson something that adds value. It has all seemed vacuous and even bigoted. I am curious what single thing has Peterson said that you find of most value?
The weekly sacrifice to the almighty algorithm
RAmen!
Thanks for dissecting JBP's word salad.
I find it really curious and bizarre how JP sometimes makes very insightful and well thought-out arguments, and then sometimes he can spew complete and utter nonsense.
I heard he was abusing drugs. Those drugs are working for him.
@@kiabvaj5656 Honestly, I don't think it's really related to his drug use.
Instead of trying to rationalize apologetics and their weird dreams and projections as belonging to a realm of sanity and instead evaluate them as pure psychopaths their positions becomes so much more understandable.
Wait, lemme guess: Peterson thinks near death experience (i.e., seeing a bright light) proves existence of God/heaven.
Yes. That's so 1970's... There are many books on that topic since then. I wonder why people are so easily attracted to the "light". Shining a light in someone eyes (or mind) is the most effective way to blind them.
peterson is quite good at spewing endless nonsense, there seems to be a market for that.
I feel bad about leaving this comment when the video already has the correct number of them (666), but I'm glad you made the comparison to Chopra - both he and Peterson are masters of tossing up a word salad that seems so appetising on the surface, that you have to chew it for a few seconds to realise that it's just meaningless, flavourless gibberish, and then spit it out in disgust.
JP: "That's fine because the foundation of The Enlightenment is the underlying religious fabric of European Society. Goalpost moved! Checkmate, closet theist!"
We’d have to inform Jordan that The Enlightenment was an outgrowth of the scientific, ethical, and philosophical thinking rediscovered in Europe within the the classics (Greek and Roman) - which Christianity tried to erase from human history. Checkmate, JBP!
I don't understand, if he is truly a genocidal maniac, why would you wish him a speedy recovery?
I'm pretty sure he wasn't being literal.
Because he's pretending not to hate on him, contradictory nonsense mate to make you think he's a good guy
The morals of atheists deal with doing good unto others, as they would do to you (a rule NOT invented by Xtians)...Xtian morals are to good to do good unto others, lest you be tortured for eternity...which is more just? Which has the true moral fiber of doing good? Because it is right, or because you will be punished???