Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Because Irish people are a bit more rational than Americans/Canadians when it comes to identity politics? It's not for kids.



My point is that in a general way, college students should try to attend to their own affairs and get their lives in order, before protesting about perceived flaws and issues in the system.

Something like the civil rights issue is obviously a huge issue. While still being complicated, the morality of the issue is fairly obvious, and I'd consider it in a different league to something like gender pronoun use, or a man making a sexist joke.



Sorry but that's nonsense.

"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Emphasis mine.

Where does it say here that women have to be in the kitchen where they belong?

The part you didn't highlight
" engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

The part you didn't highlight
" engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Is raising children not a duty?

It seems to me that it's undue ultra sensitivity to language, where this possibly could be construed as implying that women belong in the home, where clearly that's not the case. If a woman chooses to live at home, she clearly assumes some duties of being a mother. Similarly for men.

professore

Akrasia wrote: »

The part you didn't highlight
" engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

I think Peterson would not want this in the constitution either as he is all about personal choice.

7aubzxk43m2sni

professore wrote: »

I think Peterson would not want this in the constitution either as he is all about personal choice.

"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home (if she chooses to live at home), woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."


Is that better?

Chris_Heilong

Peterson is a smart guy and I like how he handles himself during debates but I also feel most of the things he is saying is just common sense and when he wants to explore an argument during an interview this is misinterpreted by many who are not the smartest of people. In saying all this the event in the 3 Arena was mostly boring due to the subject matter taking up far too much time, the existence of god (forever argued) can only be listened to so much when sitting in an extremely warm, little leg room, BO smelling 3 Arena. They really should have changed the subject a lot earlier or went to Q&A for some variety.

professore

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Is raising children not a duty?

It seems to me that it's undue ultra sensitivity to language, where this possibly could be construed as implying that women belong in the home, where clearly that's not the case. If a woman chooses to live at home, she clearly assumes some duties of being a mother. Similarly for men.

The problem is it only refers to women. If it said "parents" then it would be OK. Except for the bit where the State has ANY duty to make it possible for parents to stay at home. That I disagree with in principle. As a parent myself I don't need the State to make provisions for me to take care of my own kids - that's my and my wife's job !!!! So this should be removed from the Constitution.

Something about the rights of children being paramount is needed, and indeed exists, and maybe adding something about it being the duty of parents and guardians to ensure the welfare of children above all else ... including making by default all custody 50/50 in the event of separation and making parental alienation and parental abandonment a crime.

Article 42A

1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

professore

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home (if she chooses to live at home), woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."


Is that better?

No, because it still specifically refers to women. What if the mother is a crack addict and the father is a pillar of society? Should the constitution still support her over him? In family courts this is what happens today.

7aubzxk43m2sni

professore wrote: »

The problem is it only refers to women. If it said "parents" then it would be OK. Except for the bit where the State has ANY duty to make it possible for parents to stay at home. That I disagree with in principle. As a parent myself I don't need the State to make provisions for me to take care of my own kids - that's my and my wife's job !!!! So this should be removed from the Constitution.

Something about the rights of children being paramount is needed, and indeed exists, and maybe adding something about it being the duty of parents and guardians to ensure the welfare of children above all else ... including making by default all custody 50/50 in the event of separation and making parental alienation and parental abandonment a crime.

Article 42A

1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

I agree that it should be gender neutral, however we are being presented a vote on its removal.

I think it is extremely important that the state recognises the importance of parenthood and raising children. Children are literally the future of the state, and parents are a fundamental element of a child's development.

7aubzxk43m2sni

professore wrote: »

No, because it still specifically refers to women. What if the mother is a crack addict and the father is a pillar of society? Should the constitution still support her over him? In family courts this is what happens today.

Does it say that she should be supported over him?

Are family court judges making reference to this article of the constitution when ruling?

Giraffe Box

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Peterson is a smart guy and I like how he handles himself during debates but I also feel most of the things he is saying is just common sense and when he wants to explore an argument during an interview this is misinterpreted by many who are not the smartest of people. In saying all this the event in the 3 Arena was mostly boring due to the subject matter taking up far too much time, the existence of god (forever argued) can only be listened to so much when sitting in an extremely warm, little leg room, BO smelling 3 Arena. They really should have changed the subject a lot earlier or went to Q&A for some variety.

Haven't read Petersen's '12 Rules For Life', but maybe an amended edition might include Rule 13 (Injunction) - Young men of Ireland, be sure to have a shower - or even a full bath - before coming to see me at Dublin's 3 Arena. Please.

I was there last Saturday night and the pong was insufferable.

El_Duderino 09

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

... In saying all this the event in the 3 Arena was mostly boring due to the subject matter taking up far too much time, the existence of god (forever argued) can only be listened to so much when sitting in an extremely warm, little leg room, BO smelling 3 Arena. They really should have changed the subject a lot earlier or went to Q&A for some variety.

How many of his followers actually like his religious stuff?

Apart from the fact that he’s very careful never to explicitly say what he means by ‘god’, his arguments are weak as p1ss.

How central is god to his self improvement message?

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How many of his followers actually like his religious stuff?

Apart from the fact that he’s very careful never to explicitly say what he means by ‘god’, his arguments are weak as p1ss.

How central is god to his self improvement message?

Which arguments in particular are weak as p1ss? That's a seriously arrogant statement unless you're prepared to back it up.

His series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories is fascinating.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How many of his followers actually like his religious stuff?

Apart from the fact that he’s very careful never to explicitly say what he means by ‘god’, his arguments are weak as p1ss.

How central is god to his self improvement message?

Which arguments in particular are weak as p1ss? That's a seriously arrogant statement unless you're prepared to back it up.

His series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories is fascinating.

I watched the Peterson debate with Matt Dillahunty. His arguments are a half step away from Presupposition. But they’re not explicit enough to be anything though. You can’t have morality without god? Not good enough.

Metaphor plays a fascinating role in human psychology, no doubt. Ancient philosophers were on to that idea and Freud took it further etc.

The idea that the bible has any greater significance than any other myths like Irish myths or aboriginal Australian myths, needs an injection of presupposition.

An investigation of the role of metaphor in human psychology is fascinating. Restricting it to the bible or thinking the bible has significance over any other book of metaphors, is boring and stupid.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I watched the Peterson debate with Matt Dillahunty. His arguments are a half step away from Presupposition. But they’re not explicit enough to be anything though. You can’t have morality without god? Not good enough.

Metaphor plays a fascinating role in human psychology, no doubt. Ancient philosophers were on to that idea and Freud took it further etc.

The idea that the bible has any greater significance than any other myths like Irish myths or aboriginal Australian myths, needs an injection of presupposition.

An investigation of the role of metaphor in human psychology is fascinating. Restricting it to the bible or thinking the bible has significance over any other book of metaphors, is boring and stupid.

I'll watch the debate again and come back to you about the God idea.

Metaphor is not only fascinating but entirely necessary, as they are one of the best tools to approximate a description the indescribable.

The argument for the bible being more significant than other myths holds weight given the absolutely massive societal influence it has had over millennia and the fact that its stories not only lasted, but resonated with billions.

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

What influence and power? They have a little bit of political momentum at the moment in that some of their policies are finding their way up the chain of decision making and get enacted. .

It was mentioned earlier but what electoral power did the church have? As far as I am aware there was never a bishop or a priest elected as a TD, but we know how organisations like that wield power in other ways. Just as today, there are groups and organisation who wield power and control certain narratives.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I'll watch the debate again and come back to you about the God idea.

Metaphor is not only fascinating but entirely necessary, as they are one of the best tools to approximate a description the indescribable.

The argument for the bible being more significant than other myths holds weight given the absolutely massive societal influence it has had over millennia and the fact that its stories not only lasted, but resonated with billions.

It has had a big impact alright. Some of the stories are even interesting. And that’s all completely beside the point of a god.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It has had a big impact alright. Some of the stories are even interesting. And that’s all completely beside the point of a god.

If you refuse to see depth in art and stories beyond their face value, the discussion can never go futher.

Would you agree that there can be more to a painting than just "oh, that's pretty"? Similarly, can a story be more than just interesting?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Haven't read Petersen's '12 Rules For Life', but maybe an amended edition might include Rule 13 (Injunction) - Young men of Ireland, be sure to have a shower - or even a full bath - before coming to see me at Dublin's 3 Arena. Please.

I was there last Saturday night and the pong was insufferable.

Perhaps the warm, well packed arena caused people to sweat, despite showering.

Outlaw Pete

professore wrote: »

Why a gender imbalance in STEM is problematic but is fine in other areas. Have yet to hear any.

Paglia addressed that a few times in debates and she never gets a response. Always the prestigious, lucrative jobs these people demand want equality of outcome for, never sweeping the streets.

Here's an example of this crap (jump to 1min in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N4WY--sIWU

Would she have said the same had she witnessed that there were no women working for the sanitation company cleaning the set? Doubt it.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

My point is that in a general way, college students should try to attend to their own affairs and get their lives in order, before protesting about perceived flaws and issues in the system.

I understand that. But disagree. The right to protest perceived flaws and issues should have zero to do with their own affairs. It’s a subjective objection.

Something like the civil rights issue is obviously a huge issue. While still being complicated, the morality of the issue is fairly obvious, and I'd consider it in a different league to something like gender pronoun use, or a man making a sexist joke.

So we back to this: who decides whether issues are big enough to protest? Shouldn’t this be an individual choice?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

I understand that. But disagree. The right to protest perceived flaws and issues should have zero to do with their own affairs. It’s a subjective objection.



So we back to this: who decides whether issues are big enough to protest? Shouldn’t this be an individual choice?

His point is not about the right to protest. It's about the motivation to protest.

People are angry and upset and they generally don't have a full comprehension of what is making them upset, and clinging to an ideology as a source of belonging and a change to vent some aggression is easier than self examination. Peterson argues that these people themselves, as well as society at large, would be better served figuring out their own issue and organising their affairs.

Everyone has the right to protest and to decide what they feel strongly enough about to protest. Nobody is disputing that.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It has had a big impact alright. Some of the stories are even interesting. And that’s all completely beside the point of a god.

If you refuse to see depth in art and stories beyond their face value, the discussion can never go futher.

Would you agree that there can be more to a painting than just "oh, that's pretty"? Similarly, can a story be more than just interesting?

Of course art can be more than just interesting. I’ve agreed with that above with the use of metaphor in the unconscious. Sigmund Freud made a fortune from it.

But the link between art and god is the massive unsupported leap which Peterson is happy to make.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course art can be more than just interesting. I’ve agreed with that above with the use of metaphor in the unconscious. Sigmund Freud made a fortune from it.

But the link between art and god is the massive unsupported leap which Peterson is happy to make.

I'm not sure he's happy to make any leaps. He is exploring the stories in the context of them ultimately being an attempt to describe the spiritual. I haven't seen any claims from him to say "god is absolutely real and here is why" or anything in that direction.

An important thing to note as well as that the god that Peterson discusses is not the bearded man in the sky representation.

RandomName2

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

His point is not about the right to protest. It's about the motivation to protest.

People are angry and upset and they generally don't have a full comprehension of what is making them upset, and clinging to an ideology as a source of belonging and a change to vent some aggression is easier than self examination. Peterson argues that these people themselves, as well as society at large, would be better served figuring out their own issue and organising their affairs.

Everyone has the right to protest and to decide what they feel strongly enough about to protest. Nobody is disputing that.

I don't think it's about a right to protest. Protest is another form of free-speech. I think anybody should protest about anything they like.

It's what form that protest takes that is the issue, in my opinion. If you're calling for individuals to be attacked, boycotted, or fired, that's not a legitimate protest. If you want to take the law into your own hands and trespass, intimidate, and obstruct members of the public, that's not a legitimate form of protest. If you want to launch terrorist attacks that destroys infrastructure or kills people, that's not a legitimate form of protest.

The point is that it shouldn't matter who you are. Belonging to a certain demographic doesn't bar you from protesting, nor does it bestow a monopoly of indignation to behave any way imaginable.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Why a gender imbalance in STEM is problematic but is fine in other areas. Have yet to hear any.

Would she have said the same had she witnessed that there were no women working for the sanitation company cleaning the set? Doubt it.

This gets trottedout again and again and again. As if it was original or clever.

I’ve yet to see street sweepers Male or female with much power. The fact is that it takes organisation and active campaigning to achieve change in most cases. The more education, status, influence and power a group has, the more likely they are to have their views reach critical mass.

If there are women who would like to be street sweepers, you’re unlikely to hear about them. But a group campaigning on a middle class issue like STEM is much more likely to be able to get its message out there.

There seems to be this idea amongst the men on these threads that things just change organically. But the reality is that people make things change be campaigning for changes.

Secondly, what makes you think the people who activate on a STEM issue would have any interest in street sweeping issues? They’re not exactly related fields.

If nobody campaigns on street sweeping, then nothing is likely to change. Same with any issue.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This gets trottedout again and again and again. As if it was original or clever.

I’ve yet to see street sweepers Male or female with much power. The fact is that it takes organisation and active campaigning to achieve change in most cases. The more education, status, influence and power a group has, the more likely they are to have their views reach critical mass.

If there are women who would like to be street sweepers, you’re unlikely to hear about them. But a group campaigning on a middle class issue like STEM is much more likely to be able to get its message out there.

There seems to be this idea amongst the men on these threads that things just change organically. But the reality is that people make things change be campaigning for changes.

Secondly, what makes you think the people who activate on a STEM issue would have any interest in street sweeping issues? They’re not exactly related fields.

If nobody campaigns on street sweeping, then nothing is likely to change. Same with any issue.

Is the street sweeping company with only male workers equally sexist to a film company with no female sound techs?

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I'm not sure he's happy to make any leaps. He is exploring the stories in the context of them ultimately being an attempt to describe the spiritual. I haven't seen any claims from him to say "god is absolutely real and here is why" or anything in that direction.

An important thing to note as well as that the god that Peterson discusses is not the bearded man in the sky representation.

He’s very careful not to articulate what he things god is, but he does say he thinks god exists.

I don’t know if he describes what he means by spiritual either. When I’ve heard him speak about god it veers quickly from interesting to word salad. ‘You can’t have morality reality without god’ is a very old and very poor argument for god.

RandomName2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This gets trottedout again and again and again. As if it was original or clever.

I’ve yet to see street sweepers Male or female with much power. The fact is that it takes organisation and active campaigning to achieve change in most cases. The more education, status, influence and power a group has, the more likely they are to have their views reach critical mass.

If there are women who would like to be street sweepers, you’re unlikely to hear about them. But a group campaigning on a middle class issue like STEM is much more likely to be able to get its message out there.

There seems to be this idea amongst the men on these threads that things just change organically. But the reality is that people make things change be campaigning for changes.

Secondly, what makes you think the people who activate on a STEM issue would have any interest in street sweeping issues? They’re not exactly related fields.

If nobody campaigns on street sweeping, then nothing is likely to change. Same with any issue.

Supreme vacuous term of 'change'. Things don't need to 'change' for there to be more women street cleaners or scientists, if they wish to pursue these careers they are free to do so, same as with men and primary school teaching or nursing.

7aubzxk43m2sni

RandomName2 wrote: »

Supreme vacuous term of 'change'. Things don't need to 'change' for there to be more women street cleaners or scientists, if they wish to pursue these careers they are free to do so, same as with men and primary school teaching or nursing.

Excellent point. For more women to become involved in STEM fields, more women have to choose to study a STEM subject.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’s very careful not to articulate what he things god is, but he does say he thinks god exists.

I don’t know if he describes what he means by spiritual either. When I’ve heard him speak about god it veers quickly from interesting to word salad. ‘You can’t have morality reality without god’ is a very old and very poor argument for god.

It's a seriously complex issue, so to be accurate requires a certain length of explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8