Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Torino

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

I assure you I was badly addicted. Think it would have been easier to starve myself than resist smoking. Yet I did, like loads of other people have. no belief in god involved.

I don't see how a belief in god would help.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

The Illiad is a classical work of fiction, not a historical document.

The Iliad (at least try to spell the title correctly) teaches us nothing about historical Mycenaean civilization? Homeric scholars must be wrong, then...

Studies of warfare, conflict, and violence in late prehistoric and early historic societies don't make for easy reading. Those who would rant about the negative influence of the church do find it difficult to accept the reality of those pre-Christian times, and also generally resist acknowledging how Christianity produced a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous society, contributing enormously to literacy, education, medical care, art, music, literature, architecture, politics, law, and human rights — but this kind of black-and-white thinking doesn't negate the historical record, thankfully.

Peterson is correct in acknowledging that most people in the West until recently lived under the influence of a Judeo-Christian moral code that is now rapidly disintegrating. As we head into uncharted waters, those who mindlessly celebrate every nail in the coffin of "traditional values" don't exactly know where they are heading in the interests of so-called "progress" — and that leaves a profound void in many people's lives.

s7ryf3925pivug

Torino wrote: »

I don't see how a belief in god would help.

No me neither. I was responding to Peterson's assertion that you needed to believe in god to quit smoking.

Torino

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

No me neither. I was responding to Peterson's assertion that you needed to believe in god to quit smoking.

If he said that then he's talking bollox.

s7ryf3925pivug

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The Iliad (at least try to spell the title correctly) teaches us nothing about historical Mycenaean civilization? Homeric scholars must be wrong, then...

Studies of warfare, conflict, and violence in late prehistoric and early historic societies don't make for easy reading. Those who would rant about the negative influence of the church do find it difficult to accept the reality of those pre-Christian times, and also generally resist acknowledging how Christianity produced a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous society, contributing enormously to literacy, education, medical care, art, music, literature, architecture, politics, law, and human rights — but this kind of black-and-white thinking doesn't negate the historical record, thankfully.

Peterson is correct in acknowledging that most people in the West until recently lived under the influence of a Judeo-Christian moral code that is now rapidly disintegrating. As we head into uncharted waters, those who mindlessly celebrate every nail in the coffin of "traditional values" don't exactly know where they are heading in the interests of so-called "progress" — and that leaves a profound void in many people's lives.

How dare you imply consensus in the literature when no such thing exists!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Homeric_epics

It was written 400 years after the period it is set in and was a work of fiction. It is certainly not reliable as a historical document.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

How dare you imply consensus in the literature when no such thing exists!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Homeric_epics

It was written 400 years after the period it is set in and was a work of fiction. It is certainly not reliable as a historical document.

A Wikipedia article flagged as needing attention from an expert on the subject? Hardly an authoritative source.

Did you miss the part that says "it is most likely that the Homeric tradition contains elements of historical fact and elements of fiction interwoven"?

s7ryf3925pivug

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

A Wikipedia article flagged as needing attention from an expert on the subject? Hardly an authoritative source.

Did you miss the part that says "it is most likely that the Homeric tradition contains elements of historical fact and elements of fiction interwoven"?

You take from that that it is reliable as a historical source? It indicates the opposite. Your perception of reality is distorted to fit in with your preconceptions.

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The Iliad (at least try to spell the title correctly) teaches us nothing about historical Mycenaean civilization? Homeric scholars must be wrong, then...

Studies of warfare, conflict, and violence in late prehistoric and early historic societies don't make for easy reading. Those who would rant about the negative influence of the church do find it difficult to accept the reality of those pre-Christian times, and also generally resist acknowledging how Christianity produced a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous society, contributing enormously to literacy, education, medical care, art, music, literature, architecture, politics, law, and human rights — but this kind of black-and-white thinking doesn't negate the historical record, thankfully.

Peterson is correct in acknowledging that most people in the West until recently lived under the influence of a Judeo-Christian moral code that is now rapidly disintegrating. As we head into uncharted waters, those who mindlessly celebrate every nail in the coffin of "traditional values" don't exactly know where they are heading in the interests of so-called "progress" — and that leaves a profound void in many people's lives.

Ah here we go, the "traditional values" nonsense.


I'm not celebrating the decline of "traditional values". I believe a belief in collaboration and compassion lead to the creation of religion, not the other way round. There's plenty of evidence to support this idea.

This idea that without religious influence we'd all be out raping and murdering is complete and total nonsense. If you believe religion is needed to keep people on the straight and narrow, you have a much lower opinion of humanity that I do.

Morality because you believe in a higher power is not really morality imo, it's a fear of consequences.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

You take from that that it is reliable as a historical source? It indicates the opposite.

Again, I didn't claim that it is "reliable as a historical source."

Is Charles Dickens's novel Hard Times historically accurate? Obviously not. It is a work of fiction. But to claim that Hard Times does not tell us anything about the social and economic conditions of Victorian England would be stupid and wrong-headed.

Numerous works of pre-Christian antiquity portray a much more violent world than we are used to nowadays. Rome featured levels of depraved violence that would be unthinkable in modern society. A lot of that changed due to the influence of Christianity, whether you want to accept that or not.

Gynoid

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

those who mindlessly celebrate every nail in the coffin of "traditional values" don't exactly know where they are heading in the interests of so-called "progress"

The belief in a mystically gendered soul trapped for eternity in the hell of a wrongly appointed earthly body?

El_Duderino 09

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Numerous works of pre-Christian antiquity portray a much more violent world than we are used to nowadays. Rome featured levels of depraved violence that would be unthinkable in modern society. A lot of that changed due to the influence of Christianity, whether you want to accept that or not.

And what part does things like stable government and reduced hardship, play? The fact that there are laws and consequences for causing harm. The fact that there are banks where you can store resources and use them later, reduces the risk of running out of resources and gives stability.

Why on earth does Christianity need any credit for any of this stuff?

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't the mods say to give the diet talk a rest anyway?..

They did, but El Dude seems to have a bee in his bonnet about it.
Obsession is not just a perfume. lol

Torino

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And what part does things like stable government and reduced hardship, play? The fact that there are laws and consequences for causing harm. The fact that there are banks where you can store resources and use them later, reduces the risk of running out of resources and gives stability.

Why on earth does Christianity need any credit for any of this stuff?

Christianity, and many other religions, and the myths associated with it support civilisation by allowing sexually unattractive men to have access to sex, thus making them more productive members of society overall. If you look at religion, sex and property is a huge focus, it's all about allowing civilisation and economies to grow and prosper. "Thous shalt not covet neighbour's wife", "Thou shalt not commit adultery" etc.

I think the people who wrote much of the religious texts we have today were doing so understanding that human sexuality is at odds with civilisation. They needed to find a way to control human sexuality. Different societies approach the problem in different ways, when a woman is in estrus, all bets are off, hormones make her want to have sex with an "alpha" type, potentially resulting in her partner raising an another man's child.

Some religions make women cover their sexually appealing body parts with particular clothing so that the local "alpha" won't be sniffing around.

Most men underestimate how likely it is that a woman will cheat, because most men are sexually unattractive and don't tend to witness first hand a woman's true sexuality and how strong it is when aroused by the right man in the right place at the right time.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And what part does things like stable government and reduced hardship, play? The fact that there are laws and consequences for causing harm. The fact that there are banks where you can store resources and use them later, reduces the risk of running out of resources and gives stability.

Why on earth does Christianity need any credit for any of this stuff?

Do you really need a history lesson in how Christianity has influenced Western government, law, and family and societal structure over the course of centuries? Do we need to talk about how the Reformation, which placed authority in the individual soul, influenced the modern forms of democratic government under which most people live today?

Many posters on this thread seem to think that governments, laws, and economies just popped into existence one Tuesday with no help from anyone.

El_Duderino 09

Torino wrote: »

Christianity, and many other religions, and the myths associated with it support civilisation by allowing sexually unattractive men to have access to sex, thus making them more productive members of society overall. If you look at religion, sex and property is a huge focus, it's all about allowing civilisation and economies to grow and prosper. "Thous shalt not covet neighbour's wife", "Thou shalt not commit adultery" etc.

I think the people who wrote much of the religious texts we have today were doing so understanding that human sexuality is at odds with civilisation. They needed to find a way to control human sexuality. Different societies approach the problem in different ways, when a woman is in estrus, all bets are off, hormones make her want to have sex with an "alpha" type, potentially resulting in her partner raising an another man's child.

Some religions make women cover their sexually appealing body parts with particular clothing so that the local "alpha" won't be sniffing around.

Most men underestimate how likely it is that a woman will cheat, because most men are sexually unattractive and don't tend to witness first hand a woman's true sexuality and how strong it is when aroused by the right man in the right place at the right time.

Nothing unique to Christianity in any of that. Pre Christian, people coupled up and married.

Christianity is a major political influence in the course of this part of the would. No doubt about that. The notion of gifting the good in today's society, to Christianity, and the bad in society to something else, is just wrong.

El_Duderino 09

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Do you really need a history lesson in how Christianity has influenced Western government, law, and family and societal structure over the course of centuries? Do we need to talk about how the Reformation, which placed authority in the individual soul, influenced the modern forms of democratic government under which most people live today?

Many posters on this thread seem to think that governments, laws, and economies just popped into existence one Tuesday with no help from anyone.

Ha. Christianity can't lose. Anything good is a result of people acting in the name of Christianity. But people behaving badly is just people behaving badly on their own.

I acknowledge Christianity has been a political entity for a long time in this part of the world. I challenge the notion that it should be credited with the good things and wash it's hands of the bad. It's a neat little rhetorical truck, but it's just wishful thinking for a Christian. It's no surprises JP would sell the idea to his American audience. Sure they'd love to hear about how their religion is great.

Gynoid

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. Christianity can't lose. Anything good is a result of people acting in the name of Christianity. But people behaving badly is just people behaving badly on their own.

I acknowledge Christianity has been a political entity for a long time in this part of the world. I challenge the notion that it should be credited with the good things and wash it's hands of the bad. It's a neat little rhetorical truck, but it's just wishful thinking for a Christian. It's no surprises JP would sell the idea to his American audience. Sure they'd love to hear about how their religion is great.

To accord it both its bad and good effects would be the most reasonable and truthful thing. The literacy, science, architecture, philosophy, music etc plus the Inquisition, theocratic control, protection of criminals etc. The fact IS we live in a Judeo -Christian civilisation. As civilisations go it has been very successful on the whole and certainly when compared to some other civilisations - good access to education, literacy, health care, social democracy and population welfare, good levels of freedom and well being for the people. Other civilisations will arise to replace it, other civilisations exist alongside it such as Islamic, Chinese etc. But to deny the massive influence for BOTH good and bad of Christianity is to be wilfully ignorant.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. Christianity can't lose. Anything good is a result of people acting in the name of Christianity. But people behaving badly is just people behaving badly on their own.

I acknowledge Christianity has been a political entity for a long time in this part of the world. I challenge the notion that it should be credited with the good things and wash it's hands of the bad. It's a neat little rhetorical truck, but it's just wishful thinking for a Christian. It's no surprises JP would sell the idea to his American audience. Sure they'd love to hear about how their religion is great.

Alas, this post typifies the black-and-white, all-or-nothing reductionist thinking that passes for "debate" these days. Nobody has said that everything good that has ever happened should be credited to Christianity, or that Christians have never done anything bad. That is a comical twisting of what I wrote.

Christianity has been a profound historical influence upon the world we all live in today. That fact cannot reasonably be disputed. And yet the West, particularly over the past half-century, has demonstrably moved away from its Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Few young people today bother to attend church; sex and reproduction have become decoupled; fewer children are growing up inside a traditional nuclear structure; young men no longer have traditional roles as husbands, fathers, protectors, or providers; and young women are often just as confused about their own role and purpose in life.

We don't yet know what will happen as a consequence of this rapid change, but we know that levels of anxiety, depression, and alienation among young people are going off the charts. Peterson seems to speak to people who feel that their lives lack a sense of deeper meaning and purpose. They gravitate to him because he seems to provide a sense of direction, beyond just preaching PC mantras at them. And if that is helping people make sense of the world, I think he's serving an important purpose.

Arghus

Even if they are deluded reactionary words masquerading as hard fact, the most important thing is that they give people meaning.

El_Duderino 09

Gynoid wrote: »

To accord it both its bad and good effects would be the most reasonable and truthful thing. The literacy, science, architecture, philosophy, music etc plus the Inquisition, theocratic control, protection of criminals etc. The fact IS we live in a Judeo -Christian civilisation. As civilisations go it has been very successful on the whole and certainly when compared to some other civilisations - good access to education, literacy, health care, social democracy and population welfare, good levels of freedom and well being for the people. Other civilisations will arise to replace it, other civilisations exist alongside it such as Islamic, Chinese etc. But to deny the massive influence for BOTH good and bad of Christianity is to be wilfully ignorant.

OK obviously I haven't denied the influence it's had. But I think you're giving it far too much credit. You give it credit for "The literacy, science, architecture, philosophy, music etc plus the Inquisition, theocratic control, protection of criminals etc". It's responsible some of the "The literacy, science, architecture, philosophy, music".

Earlier you implied it's responsible for the institutions of government. To say you're eager to credit Christianity with things, would be an understatement.

20Cent

There is a perception that things are getting worse and that increased visibility of alternatives to the traditional family unit and roles is bad.
Truth is that there has always been gay, trans, out of wedlock babies etc just it was all hidden.
Much healthier to let people live as they want to in the open. Child abuse, staying in abusive marriages, the shaming of single mothers etc was all bad. Just now it's out in the open rather than hidden.

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Do you really need a history lesson in how Christianity has influenced Western government, law, and family and societal structure over the course of centuries? Do we need to talk about how the Reformation, which placed authority in the individual soul, influenced the modern forms of democratic government under which most people live today?

Many posters on this thread seem to think that governments, laws, and economies just popped into existence one Tuesday with no help from anyone.

That's a quality Straw man. No one said Christianity didn't influence modern society. It influenced in both good and bad ways. The demise of Christianity, as well as all other religions, would be a good thing imo.

People should stand on their own two feet and not attribute everything to a supreme creator.

buried

Brian? wrote: »

That's a quality Straw man. No one said Christianity didn't influence modern society. It influenced in both good and bad ways. The demise of Christianity, as well as all other religions, would be a good thing imo.

People should stand on their own two feet and not attribute everything to a supreme creator.

The indigenous European religions based on nature worship were all eradicated for Christianity when it took over. Sometimes be careful what you wish for. You want to see the demise of all religions, you should be very careful of just exactly what sort of new regime the temperamental human condition will start to worship next. Because we will.

Gynoid

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK obviously I haven't denied the influence it's had. But I think you're giving it far too much credit. You give it credit for "The literacy, science, architecture, philosophy, music etc plus the Inquisition, theocratic control, protection of criminals etc". It's responsible some of the "The literacy, science, architecture, philosophy, music".

Earlier you implied it's responsible for the institutions of government. To say you're eager to credit Christianity with things, would be an understatement.

You have me mixed up for someone else, chief re the institutions of government.
I'm not eager to be crediting, I am just relaying the historical facts, it has nothing to do with me personally or my inclinations, it is just factual. .And if you could tell me what other force or influence was facilitating architecture, philosophy, science, literacy etc etc for the past many centuries to a comparable degree in Europe that would be great. There have been other important forces but none so dominant or enduring I think. Overall we are the better for it on a macro level.
So I won't have to tire out me fingers typing after a long day, I will leave you this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization

nkl12xtw5goz70

buried wrote: »

You want to see the demise of all religions, you should be very careful of just exactly what sort of new regime the temperamental human condition will start to worship next. Because we will.

We're seeing it already — the new theology is fanatical political correctness. Its adherents present themselves as the only ones who are enlightened (or "woke"). They have a grand "good vs evil" narrative, their own set of sacred scriptures (Butler, Žižek, etc), their armies of offline and online evangelists, and numerous heretics who must be rooted out, subjected to their inquisition, and burnt at the stake (especially Jordan Peterson, TERFs, Christians). They even have transubstantiation, where adherents must accept that a male can become a female and vice versa.

This is the new religion.

buried

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

We're seeing it already — the new theology is fanatical political correctness. Its adherents present themselves as the only ones who are enlightened (or "woke"). They have a grand "good vs evil" narrative, their own set of sacred scriptures (Butler, Žižek, etc), their armies of offline and online evangelists, and numerous heretics who must be rooted out, subjected to their inquisition, and burnt at the stake (especially Jordan Peterson, TERFs, Christians). They even have transubstantiation, where adherents must accept that a male can become a female and vice versa.

This is the new religion

Yeah, you could be right P. The dangerous thing with this new sort of theology is the presumption that once all the enlightened aspects they presume are totally righteous and totally infallible are actually made manifest, all sorts of problems effecting the most darkest aspects of the human condition will be eradicated. This will never happen. So when it doesn't and the toys get thrown out the pram, it could get very very dangerous.

ILoveYourVibes

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Dunno why people want to take direction on how to be a man from a ****ing benzo addict.

A recovered benzo addict clean for a few years maybe. They might have some interesting insights. But right now in the heart of the storm and while in the middle of an addiction ..i dunno

ILoveYourVibes

Thread is now nothing to do with jordan peterson's interview.

buried

To me, the religions of the far east, have a far greater role to play in the advancement of the human condition. At least they acknowledge to a greater degree the fact that there is need for both the darkness/chaos to co-exist alongside the light/good/peace. The need for balance in the human mindset. The Judeo/Christian religions of the near east, especially Christianity and Islam have lost that balance to create a mindset of good vs evil, Heaven vs Hell, believer vs non believer. The balance is lost. The human condition is and never has been or will be infallible. Our whole make up is the same one created from the fabric of nature which is both peaceful and violently chaotic. To ignore one integral aspect of the human condition over the other is to create a whole raft of very very very dangerous possibilities. To be fair to Peterson, this is one of his main arguments and always has been. And it is a fair one. This argument doesn't get much scope in the modern world, and it desperately should. At least he talked about it. You won't hear many other mainstream voices discuss this vital aspect in the west at all these days.

nkl12xtw5goz70

buried wrote: »

Yeah, you could be right P. The dangerous thing with this new sort of theology is the presumption that once all the enlightened aspects they presume are totally righteous and totally infallible are actually made manifest, all sorts of problems effecting the most darkest aspects of the human condition will be eradicated. This will never happen. So when it doesn't and the toys get thrown out the pram, it could get very very dangerous.

You're totally right there, especially about the darker impulses of human nature. Marxist thinking strongly believes in the perfectibility of human nature — it sees individual character as a function of economic/social structures that Marxist theorists believe will evolve dialectically as we implement their idealized visions of justice and fairness. As we perfect society, in that view, we will also perfect individuals.

But I'm with the Western tradition — from the classics through the Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, and even George Lucas on this one. Darkness, destruction, and the lust for power will always be a part of human nature; the best we can do is find ways to keep it in check. We've already seen during the twentieth century what happens when we fail to do that.