Jordan Peterson interview on C4

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

I just read a book that kind of made this point.. that medieval man would have interacted with reality in a much different way than we do today.. They were looking back at the development of language, thinking it would have begun as more utilitarian, and become more metaphorical, but that didn't seem to be the case..it looks like language began as more metaphorical and became more utilitarian over time.. it kind of pointed to the relationship between the self and the external world becoming more detached over time..

I think medieval man would have a hard time fitting in to today's world


I saw a documentary about a girl from the rainforest who married a white american. She had to go back ...she said living in the west was taking a toll on her mental health she was always anxious etc. She felt she was going mad. She couldn't get the mentality.

ILoveYourVibes

buried wrote: »

History is the best subject to study in order to learn more about human nature.
Its an actual perfect litmus test.

Maybe.

The way its presented it kind of makes the psychology of the people behind the events hard to discern etc.

ILoveYourVibes

Torino wrote: »

Do you not think you can learn from people who dedicate their lives to understanding human nature and history?

I am not so certain. No.

Many a group of people together. Not one person.

buried

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Maybe.

The way its presented it kind of makes the psychology of the people behind the events hard to discern etc.

How do you mean? Not being a wisearse now, but is it because its all having to remember various dates or anything like that? I know that can put some people off the subject of History, but at it's basic heart, History is basically stories, but there is fact, data and evidence behind the stories which makes the subject just so interesting and enjoyable.
And there is so much of it to learn, the way of the human condition that makes it so rewarding.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I will understand human nature from a book? I find that doubtful.

Read the complete works of Shakespeare, Milton's Paradise Lost, and Melville's Moby-Dick. That will give you a pretty good understanding of human nature.

Brian?

Torino wrote: »

I think it has been useful, it has proffered the delusion which allows people to keep going and working to keep society moving forward.

I don’t understand your answer. You think it’s still useful?

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

You think it's "bleak" that darkness, destruction, and the lust for power will always be a part of human nature?

That's just the human condition, as Peterson and many others accept it to be. The perfectability of human nature is a dangerous illusion. Righteousness itself can quickly turn into destructive totalitarianism, as Milton showed in Paradise Lost 200 years before Marx published Capital.

Yep. I do think your general view of humanity is bleak.

ILoveYourVibes

Torino wrote: »

You are displaying a classic law of human nature right now, the law of defensiveness. You have the characteristics of human nature just like everyone else.

I am displaying the law of philosophy ..understand something by questioning it.

Brian?

Torino wrote: »

It is amusing how some people after man decades on this planet still do not understand human nature.

What’s amazing to me is that people think such a thing as “human nature” exists and can be used to explain any number of terrible things.

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Read the complete works of Shakespeare, Milton's Paradise Lost, and Melville's Moby-Dick. That will give you a pretty good understanding of human nature.

Or a pretty good understanding of some men’s view of human nature.

Why the constant references to works of fiction?

Brian?

Torino wrote: »

I think you are too attached to your particular view of what you think humanity is, which is incorrect. So when you hear a true description of humanity you become defensive.

I think that your view of humanity is incorrect. So when you hear a true description you become defensive.

Now, we’ve both said the same thing and disagreed. Can I ask you to fill out your point a bit?

I believe actions are dictated by a blend of nature and nurture, you’re leaning way too heavily on nature without really saying why.

buried

Brian? wrote: »

What’s amazing to me is that people think such a thing as “human nature” exists and can be used to explain any number of terrible things.

Of course human nature exists. Do you honestly think that we, as a natural species on this planet, we are somehow different to the intrinsic nature of the rest of our natural environment? We are a intrinsic part of the natural world. Nature has bred us and made us what we are. Are you trying to say we as a species, do not have an intrinsic human nature? Because you are totally and utterly wrong. The fact that you yourself are communicating with other human's is bone fide proof it exists.

Brian?

buried wrote: »

Of course human nature exists. Do you honestly think that we, as a natural species on this planet, we are somehow different to the intrinsic nature of the rest of our natural environment? We are a intrinsic part of the natural world. Nature has bred us and made us what we are. Are you trying to say we as a species, do not have an intrinsic human nature? Because you are totally and utterly wrong. The fact that you yourself are communicating with other human's is bone fide proof it exists.

I didn’t make my point well. Of course human nature exists. I was trying to make a point about people being a product of 2 things: human nature and their environment. I didn’t make that point though, I made a balls of it.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Brian? wrote: »

Or a pretty good understanding of some men’s view of human nature.

Why the constant references to works of fiction?

What's your issue now with my recommending great literature?

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

What's your issue now with my recommending great literature?

My issue is that they are works of fiction. They give insight mainly into the authors mind.

sbsquarepants

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

You think it's "bleak" that darkness, destruction, and the lust for power will always be a part of human nature?

It is bleak, but even the most cursory glance at any history book will confirm it's accuracy!

Brian? wrote: »

What’s amazing to me is that people think such a thing as “human nature” exists and can be used to explain any number of terrible things.

I'm baffled - you don't believe human nature exists?

nkl12xtw5goz70

Brian? wrote: »

My issue is that they are works of fiction. They give insight mainly into the authors mind.

Given that you've just claimed that "human nature" doesn't exist, I'm guessing you'd reject out of hand the idea that great works of literature from authors such as Milton, Shakespeare, Melville, Joyce, etc., can offer valuable insights into the human condition. Peterson makes extensive use of Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and other writers to talk about the human condition — something I presume you'd also reject.

If human nature doesn't exist, what do you see as the purpose of the humanities? Why would anyone get a degree in the liberal arts?

nkl12xtw5goz70

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It is bleak, but even the most cursory glance at any history book will confirm it's accuracy!

The work bleak suggests that it's nihilistic to acknowledge that human nature has a dark side that will always be there, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Rather, acknowledging our human nature challenges us to rise above its baser aspects, make ethical choices, deal with life's struggles head-on, cultivate resilience, and in doing so find a sense of deeper meaning in life.

Taking responsibility, finding a purpose, and dealing with life's struggles tends to give people a much greater sense of fulfillment than sitting on the sofa playing the Xbox, binge-watching Netflix, or scrolling their life away on their phone.

There are downsides to an easy life. People who have never have to struggle or face inner turmoil tend to take themselves and others for granted. They skim along the surface of life, doing all the right things, having all the right opinions, creating beautifully curated social media timelines — but do they ever truly know themselves?

sbsquarepants

Brian? wrote: »

My issue is that they are works of fiction. They give insight mainly into the authors mind.

I think sometimes fiction can provide at least as accurate if not a more accurate reflection of our nature than "fact"

As the saying goes, history is merely a tale told by the victors.

I read a thing the other day regarding the British Empire - what the Brits refer to as "The Indian Mutiny" the Indians call "The First Patriotic War".
Now i'm guessing those are two wildly different sets of "facts"!

sbsquarepants

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The work bleak suggests that it's nihilistic to acknowledge that human nature has a dark side that will always be there, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I suppose it is a bit nihilistic, but don't see our dark side going anywhere to be honest - by all means on an individual basis we can strive to be better people, and that should trickle down (up?) to society at large, and i think the evidence of that is fairly clear - life is generally a lot safer, less violent and so on from generation to generation.
But the reality is the sort of person who strives to be better was never going to be all that terrible anyway, and the sort of person who grows up to be a despot or even just a horrible person, was probably never interested in fighting their base nature to begin with.

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It is bleak, but even the most cursory glance at any history book will confirm it's accuracy!



I'm baffled - you don't believe human nature exists?

No. I corrected that.

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Given that you've just claimed that "human nature" doesn't exist, I'm guessing you'd reject out of hand the idea that great works of literature from authors such as Milton, Shakespeare, Melville, Joyce, etc., can offer valuable insights into the human condition. Peterson makes extensive use of Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and other writers to talk about the human condition — something I presume you'd also reject.

If human nature doesn't exist, what do you see as the purpose of the humanities? Why would anyone get a degree in the liberal arts?

Jesus. I corrected myself. Of course human nature exists.

My point is that it has a much smaller bearing on human behaviour than people claim. It’s so easy to explain things away as “human nature” when environment(nurture) also has a massive role to play.

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think sometimes fiction can provide at least as accurate if not a more accurate reflection of our nature than "fact"

As the saying goes, history is merely a tale told by the victors.

I read a thing the other day regarding the British Empire - what the Brits refer to as "The Indian Mutiny" the Indians call "The First Patriotic War".
Now i'm guessing those are two wildly different sets of "facts"!

I agree.

Permabear claimed reading Moby Dick etc. would tell you everything you need to know about human nature. That’s clearly not true.

sbsquarepants

Brian? wrote: »

Jesus. I corrected myself. Of course human nature exists.

My point is that it has a much smaller bearing on human behaviour than people claim. It’s so easy to explain things away as “human nature” when environment(nurture) also has a massive role to play.

I'd argue the exact opposite.

I think the modern day trend to believe you can just choose to be whatever the hell you feel like, is largely nonsense - nature just will not be silenced. You are what you are, you can work on yourself and try make changes and even succeed to a certain extent - but you just can not alter your base nature.

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'd argue the exact opposite.

I think the modern day trend to believe you can just choose to be whatever the hell you feel like, is largely nonsense - nature just will not be silenced. You are what you are, you can work on yourself and try make changes and even succeed to a certain extent - but you just can not alter your base nature.

That's largely contradicted by actual evidence though.

sbsquarepants

Brian? wrote: »

That's largely contradicted by actual evidence though.

It's not.

And I would also suggest that although people can be steered and molded to a reasonably sizeable degree, i'm not suggesting you are just born and then become the person you were always going to be regardless of external factors, what's happening there is more paint and polish than foundations.

We are all guided and nudged by parents, peers, society at large to be a certain way and we all conform to a certain extent - but the core of what makes you "you" is ingrained, it's not learned.
You can learn politeness and manners for example, but they are an act to be performed, you can't really learn kindness or compassion. Some people are just kinder or more compassionate than others.

EmmetSpiceland

Brian? wrote: »

I agree.

Permabear claimed reading Moby Dick etc. would tell you everything you need to know about human nature. That’s clearly not true.

It would certainly provide some “insight” into, certain, aspects of human nature. But don’t all literary works do that, to some degree?

Now, if it’s an insight into whaling, itself, I wouldn’t recommend ‘Moby-Dick’ at all. While it does provide “bits and pieces” you’d be better served having a read of Nathaniel Philbrick’s ‘In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex’.

It provides a lot of “technical” insight while also telling the tale of that was formed part of Melville’s story, along with his own experience on a whaling vessel.

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not.

And I would also suggest that although people can be steered and molded to a reasonably sizeable degree, i'm not suggesting you are just born and then become the person you were always going to be regardless of external factors, what's happening there is more paint and polish than foundations.

We are all guided and nudged by parents, peers, society at large to be a certain way and we all conform to a certain extent - but the core of what makes you "you" is ingrained, it's not learned.
You can learn politeness and manners for example, but they are an act to be performed, you can't really learn kindness or compassion. Some people are just kinder or more compassionate than others.

Can you define thus "core" so I know what we're debating.

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

Can you define thus "core" so I know what we're debating.

Why don't you do a bit of defining instead of just nope nope and more nope. You have people running round explaining what they mean and you merely handwave away their replies with nope.

Steven Pinker, who I am not overly fond of, wrote what is apparently a good book, against the varieties of the blank slate theories. Blank slate does not mean no nature but it emphasises the role of nurture way over and above it. It is apparently a beloved theory of authoritarians in the past - and I am beginning to think tabula rasa is being favoured by modern Utopians. We shall make the perfect specimens, overcome base gross human nature, remake bodies, minds, etc . Personally I think we will be rather a long time waiting.

sbsquarepants

Brian? wrote: »

Can you define thus "core" so I know what we're debating.

As in your base personality traits. These things are just in there when you are born. Things like kindness or greediness, aggression, are you caring or cold, extroverted or introverted, things like that.
The idea that we're born as some genderless, personality free, empty vessel and then filled up through experience to make the people we become is nothing short of pure horse shít.