Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Giraffe Box

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

Perhaps so.
Though I have to say that I've been to quite a few indoor events in warm weather over the years - I'm no spring chicken - and this was definitely the worst ever for that pungent BO sensation.
The air was fetid.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

Maybe. I don’t know enough about it.

It’s possibly that it’s sexist but not causing a problem. The street sweeping industry could be created to suit the needs of men, but if no women aspire to be street sweepers then no problems would be caused.

What do you think?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

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

As much as I defend him, I'm getting sick of listening to him. He's worse than a politician with dodging questions :pac:

MrKingsley

On the STEM point I found this research paper quite interesting.

http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf

For those who arent bothered/dont have the time its a study of high school and college students (470,000 of them from all over the world) and the choices they make regarding third level education.

One of the key findings were that in the more equal socio-economic countries more women choose to study in the humanities where as in less equal countries more decide to study STEM subjects. One hypothesis for this is that less wealthy students see STEM as a way of becoming wealthier in the future and offer a chance to get out of their present economic state.

A second key finding was that more women choose to engage in literature/arts/humanities in third level education because they simply perform better in these subjects and take more enjoyment from them than they do in maths/science/engineering. Even though, on average, they score roughly the same as boys in these subjects they choose not to progress in them as they perform better in others. Boys similarly choose to enter STEM subjects in third level as they are, on average, the subjects that they perform best in and get the most enjoyment from in high school

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

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

It is and it isn’t complicated. It’s super simple to limit claims to that which is known. It’s very complicated to shoehorn preordained beliefs into that which is known.

Apart from using normal words and giving them different meanings (see spirit in the video above) he takes a massive left turn with the guff about mastering death or whatever way he phrased it. He’s a half step away from a matrix style of mastering matter and becoming immortal (in a bespoke use of the term immortal)

Did Jesus physically rise from the dead is a super simple question. No need for the dramatic pause. I don’t know if he did and as far as we know it’s not possible. If Jesus or anyone else rose from the dead it would be a first as far as we know. So for all intents and purposes, no. But it can’t be categorically ruled out so I don’t know b

There’s nothing complicated about it unless you want to shoehorn in some guff about Christ’s divinity.

His use of the word divinity is completely bespoke for his argument. He took a word ‘divine’ and gave it a new meaning for the sake of the discussion.

You’re divine too - if you take divine yo mean ‘a poster on boards named Parker Fat Ladyfinger’. Something can be anything -if we take something to mean anything. But that’s not what divine means so you’re actually not divine, and neither is the logos except according to Peterson’s brand new definition above.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe. I don’t know enough about it.

It’s possibly that it’s sexist but not causing a problem. The street sweeping industry could be created to suit the needs of men, but if no women aspire to be street sweepers then no problems would be caused.

What do you think?

I think neither are inherently sexist, and that the gender ratio that manifests itself is largely organic and a largely the result of choices men and women make regarding their careers.

Deleted User wrote: »

As much as I defend him, I'm getting sick of listening to him. He's worse than a politician with dodging questions :pac:

I hear what you're saying to an extent. It's a difficult question to answer at the same time. Do you believe in God?

I certainly can't say no, but at the same time I can't confidently say yes as I've given nowhere near enough thought to the idea.

Parker Fat Ladyfinger

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I think neither are inherently sexist, and that the gender ratio that manifests itself is largely organic and a largely the result of choices men and women make regarding their careers.



I hear what you're saying to an extent. It's a difficult question to answer at the same time. Do you believe in God?

I certainly can't say no, but at the same time I can't confidently say yes as I've given nowhere near enough thought to the idea.

It surprised me that he says he doesn't know if Jesus rose or not. He says the accounts are unclear. This a huge inconsistency with why I liked him in the first place. I like that he demands there be evidence or statistics to base any of his opinions on. They leave the realm of opinion and become fact if you can prove it. If Jesus rising was some lefty identity politics feminist theory, he'd shoot it down in a heartbeat.

20Cent

Hey Jordan do you want a cup of tea?

<kermit voice>
Well, that is an interesting question. And it's so very complex and complicated we must be careful in how we handle our relationship to tea. Is tea good? Certainly sometime like when you are thirsty and want a hot drink but don't want coffee. But 10,000 gallons of tea would be a bad thing causing one to drown, perhaps even everyone else in the room and that would be fatal. Tea is feminine like chaos and dragons. My wife had a dream about tea one it could talk and had cognition, except for the sense of smell for some reason.
</kermit voice>


Yes or no Jordan FFS.

7aubzxk43m2sni

20Cent wrote: »

Hey Jordan do you want a cup of tea?

<kermit voice>
Well, that is an interesting question. And it's so very complex and complicated we must be careful in how we handle our relationship to tea. Is tea good? Certainly sometime like when you are thirsty and want a hot drink but don't want coffee. But 10,000 gallons of tea would be a bad thing causing one to drown, perhaps even everyone else in the room and that would be fatal. Tea is feminine like chaos and dragons. My wife had a dream about tea one it could talk and had cognition, except for the sense of smell for some reason.
</kermit voice>


Yes or no Jordan FFS.

Why does he evoke such an emotional response from you?

Galwayguy35

I wonder will the Government here go down the same route as Canada passing laws that you have to call someone one of these so called gender neutral pronouns.

They can fook right off if they do.

20Cent

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Why does he evoke such an emotional response from you?

Not emotion, cold hard facts and logic.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It is and it isn’t complicated. It’s super simple to limit claims to that which is known. It’s very complicated to shoehorn preordained beliefs into that which is known.

Apart from using normal words and giving them different meanings (see spirit in the video above) he takes a massive left turn with the guff about mastering death or whatever way he phrased it. He’s a half step away from a matrix style of mastering matter and becoming immortal (in a bespoke use of the term immortal)

Did Jesus physically rise from the dead is a super simple question. No need for the dramatic pause. I don’t know if he did and as far as we know it’s not possible. If Jesus or anyone else rose from the dead it would be a first as far as we know. So for all intents and purposes, no. But it can’t be categorically ruled out so I don’t know b

There’s nothing complicated about it unless you want to shoehorn in some guff about Christ’s divinity.

His use of the word divinity is completely bespoke for his argument. He took a word ‘divine’ and gave it a new meaning for the sake of the discussion.

You’re divine too - if you take divine yo mean ‘a poster on boards named needwater’. Something can be anything -if we take something to mean anything. But that’s not what divine means so you’re actually not divine, and neither is the logos except according to Peterson’s brand new definition above.

What do you mean by divine?

He defines divine as "of ultimate value, of ultimate transcendent value". Is this largely inaccurate?

Dictionary.com has:

- of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being.

- addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred:

-proceeding from God or a god:

Under either definition Christ is divine. The question comes back to what one means by God.

Regarding morality / acting as if God exists:

If we act badly, there are consequences.

If we live well, things tend to be better for us.

At some level of abstraction this is essentially the idea of God.


On jesus' resurrection, I think he's leaning in the direction of transcendence of a zen like fashion, or mastering being in a sense. How is it that some buddhist monks can self immolate and not flinch once while burning to death?

7aubzxk43m2sni

20Cent wrote: »

Not emotion, cold hard facts and logic.

I mean, your impression was sort of funny, but making up quotes inside a [kermit-voice] tag is not logical to any degree, and is surely an emotional response.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

It surprised me that he says he doesn't know if Jesus rose or not. He says the accounts are unclear. This a huge inconsistency with why I liked him in the first place. I like that he demands there be evidence or statistics to base any of his opinions on. They leave the realm of opinion and become fact if you can prove it. If Jesus rising was some lefty identity politics feminist theory, he'd shoot it down in a heartbeat.

He’d at least ask for good evidence for the resurrection. If he set the bar of evidence at the resurrection, then his whole schtick would go out the window. I finally found a bit where he says what he thinks god actually is. He says ‘ it’s not at all unreasonable to think of god the father as the spirit that arises from the crowd that exists into the future’.

That’s not complicated, it’s just nonsense

7aubzxk43m2sni

Deleted User wrote: »

It surprised me that he says he doesn't know if Jesus rose or not. He says the accounts are unclear. This a huge inconsistency with why I liked him in the first place. I like that he demands there be evidence or statistics to base any of his opinions on. They leave the realm of opinion and become fact if you can prove it. If Jesus rising was some lefty identity politics feminist theory, he'd shoot it down in a heartbeat.

My understanding is that he is unclear as to whether the accounts literally mean the man physically died, woke up and walked around again, or they describe some sort of divine transformation.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’d at least ask for good evidence for the resurrection. If he set the bar of evidence at the resurrection, then his whole schtick would go out the window. I finally found a bit where he says what he thinks god actually is. He says ‘ it’s not at all unreasonable to think of god the father as the spirit that arises from the crowd that exists into the future’.

That’s not complicated, it’s just nonsense

That's an isolated sentence from a deeper explanation and context in which I'm confident it won't appear as nonsensical.

Do you have a link?

20Cent

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I mean, your impression was sort of funny, but making up quotes inside a [kermit-voice] tag is not logical to any degree, and is surely an emotional response.

It wreaks a joke when you have to explain it. Stand up straight shrug it off and move on.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

What do you mean by divine?

He defines divine as "of ultimate value, of ultimate transcendent value". Is this largely inaccurate?

Dictionary.com has:

- of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being.

- addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred:

-proceeding from God or a god:

Under either definition Christ is divine. The question comes back to what one means by God.

Regarding morality / acting as if God exists:

If we act badly, there are consequences.

If we live well, things tend to be better for us.

At some level of abstraction this is essentially the idea of God.


On jesus' resurrection, I think he's leaning in the direction of transcendence of a zen like fashion, or mastering being in a sense. How is it that some buddhist monks can self immolate and not flinch once while burning to death?

I’d just use the normal accepted meaning of divine.

He actually said the logos is divine if you take divine to mean... which is NOT covered by your dictionary.com definition. He made up his own definition of divine and then declared the logos divine under his own definition. That’s not convincing to you, is it?

I don’t know how monks self immolate without flinching. But the idea that they do it because they have ‘mastered being’ is a big leap and the idea that Jesus could physically resurrect because he had mastered being, is fanciful at best

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

[

That's an isolated sentence from a deeper explanation and context in which I'm confident it won't appear as nonsensical.

Do you have a link?

And what if it is exactly as presented it? That’s out of context has become a standard dismissal

El_Duderino 09

https://youtu.be/zTHU5B2yOUg

Here it is. It’s near complete guff btw.

The fact that we can plan for the future is god the father. Christ on a bike

Giraffe Box

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

My understanding is that he is unclear as to whether the accounts literally mean the man physically died, woke up and walked around again, or they describe some sort of divine transformation.

Personally I think Norm Peterson from 'Cheers' was smarter:

"What's going down, Normie?"
"My butt cheeks on that bar stool."
"Pour you a beer, Mr. Peterson?"
"Alright, but stop me at one....make that one-thirty."

Here's something in plain English, I think he mentions the man upstairs in this bit, that's God not Nietzsche by the way.
Jordan Peterson at an Oxford Union Q & A:

''That’s a really good question. When Nietzsche announced the death of God—which was something he announced, actually, in sorrow and trembling, rather than triumphantly, which is often how that’s read, because people don’t actually read Nietzsche; they just read one half of a quote from Nietzsche. His prognostication was that we would have to become creators of our own values. And then it wasn’t long after that that he died. What that meant was that any further investigations into that idea by him came to an end. Not much later, Freud came along. Freud demonstrated quite clearly—even though he doesn’t get nearly as much credit for this as he should—that there was no evidence whatsoever that people were masters of their own houses; and that we were the playthings of the gods, in a Greek sense. We were driven perceptually and behaviourally, emotionally and motivationally, by forces that were not exactly under our voluntary control—autonomous internal forces. You could think about those as where the gods went when they depopulated the cosmos. That was Carl Jung’s notion. Jung was a very astute student of Nietzsche. He gave a seminar on the first half of Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, that’s 1,600 pages long. It’s actually quite a dense read as well, so it’s not 1,600 pages written in crayon.

Jung’s sense was that Nietzsche’s prognostication had to be wrong, because human beings cannot create their own values. We actually don’t have that capacity. We might be able to participate in the creation of those values, but we have to come to terms with our own nature while we’re doing so. I think the biological evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming. If you don’t believe that, then what that means is that either you don’t know anything about biology or that you’ve stuck your head in the sand to the point where you’re unable to see. Now Jung was very interested in how those internal forces manifested themselves, but also how they organized themselves across time. Ok, so there’s two answers to your question. One is that they organized themselves into a hierarchy, and there’s something at the top. He believed that what was at the top in the West was symbolized by the figure of Christ, and he thought of Christ as a symbol of the self. The self was an emergent consequence of the internal arranging of motivational states into a hierarchy, partly as a consequence of psychological activity—integration, maturation—but also partly as a consequence of social pressure, because how you organize yourself is partly a consequence of who you are and how you organize yourself, but it’s also partly a consequence of how other people demand you be organized. I think that Jean Piaget’s work fits very nicely into that. I think they were aiming in some sense at the same synthesis.''

Simples.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d just use the normal accepted meaning of divine.

He actually said the logos is divine if you take divine to mean... which is NOT covered by your dictionary.com definition. He made up his own definition of divine and then declared the logos divine under his own definition. That’s not convincing to you, is it?

I don’t know how monks self immolate without flinching. But the idea that they do it because they have ‘mastered being’ is a big leap and the idea that Jesus could physically resurrect because he had mastered being, is fanciful at best

If you accept Jesus as divine, why not the logos?

Sure, they're fanciful leaps, which is why the uncertainty that surrounds the topic when it's discussed. It is true however that monks can do so, and that we cannot understand how. It is also true that monks spend a lot more time connecting with the spiritual (can I say that? meditating if you prefer? ) and less dealing with the societal side of life, which is largely of our creation.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And what if it is exactly as presented it? That’s out of context has become a standard dismissal

It's not a dismissal. I don't think the line by itself should be dismissed either, it's not immediately obvious that it's true but it definitely deserves further exploration and explanation.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/zTHU5B2yOUg

Here it is. It’s near complete guff btw.

The fact that we can plan for the future is god the father. Christ on a bike

Thanks.

I honestly think that's a brilliant clip. Recommended watching. It's from his biblical series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHU5B2yOUg

I don't understand what's so controversial about it. God as a metaphor for the idea that we can negotiate with time in a somewhat reliable manner. Sacrifice now and reap rewards in the future.

Can you explain why you think it's complete guff?

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d just use the normal accepted meaning of divine.

He actually said the logos is divine if you take divine to mean... which is NOT covered by your dictionary.com definition. He made up his own definition of divine and then declared the logos divine under his own definition. That’s not convincing to you, is it?

I don’t know how monks self immolate without flinching. But the idea that they do it because they have ‘mastered being’ is a big leap and the idea that Jesus could physically resurrect because he had mastered being, is fanciful at best

If you accept Jesus as divine, why not the logos?

Sure, they're fanciful leaps, which is why the uncertainty that surrounds the topic when it's discussed. It is true however that monks can do so, and that we cannot understand how. It is also true that monks spend a lot more time connecting with the spiritual (can I say that? meditating if you prefer? ) and less dealing with the societal side of life, which is largely of our creation.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And what if it is exactly as presented it? That’s out of context has become a standard dismissal

It's not a dismissal. I don't think the line by itself should be dismissed either, it's not immediately obvious that it's true but it definitely deserves further exploration and explanation.

It’s interesting that he won’t say whether he believes in god because the likelihood that both people are working from the same meaning of belief or god. Then he carries on to use super ambiguous language to discuss his ideas. Sometimes making up his own meaning for common words.

So yes, you can use the word spiritual, but you probably should be super specific about what you mean by the term spiritual or meditation. And then you should be super specific about what you mean by mastering being, then you should be super specific about how mastering being is related to spiritual or meditation.

Because as far as I can see, the idea that physical resurrection is just nonsense that relies on a lot of leaps of faith and is shielded from investigation by the ambiguity of the language.

bnt

Reading that quote of Peterson's, this is the point at which he "jumps the shark", in my opinion:

Jordan Peterson wrote: »

Jung’s sense was that Nietzsche’s prognostication had to be wrong, because human beings cannot create their own values. We actually don’t have that capacity. We might be able to participate in the creation of those values, but we have to come to terms with our own nature while we’re doing so. I think the biological evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming. If you don’t believe that, then what that means is that either you don’t know anything about biology or that you’ve stuck your head in the sand to the point where you’re unable to see.

That leap from "human beings cannot create their own values" to "biology" is a big one. It starts as something Jung said (an opinion) that Peterson transmogrifies in to "fact" somehow, with the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is ignorant of biology, whether accidentally or wilfully. Is there really strong evidence in biology (a science) that we cannot create our own values (philosphy)?

Never mind all the evidence from history that we can and do create our own values. Unless by "values" Peterson means universal values applicable to all biology (including all mammals); he doesn't say that, but if he means that, that's a stretch not supported by any evidence. (Scriptures etc. are testimony and opinion, not evidence of anything but their own existence.)

I mean, as I've said before, I can understand the desire to find meaning in life, and Peterson's pedantic urge to give people such meaning if he can, but none of that means such meanings actually exist in any universal sense. We're on our own; we have to do it all for ourselves; get used to it.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s interesting that he won’t say whether he believes in god because the likelihood that both people are working from the same meaning of belief or god. Then he carries on to use super ambiguous language to discuss his ideas. Sometimes making up his own meaning for common words.

So yes, you can use the word spiritual, but you probably should be super specific about what you mean by the term spiritual or meditation. And then you should be super specific about what you mean by mastering being, then you should be super specific about how mastering being is related to spiritual or meditation.

Because as far as I can see, the idea that physical resurrection is just nonsense that relies on a lot of leaps of faith and is shielded from investigation by the ambiguity of the language.

Then the concepts being discussed are fundamentally beyond our understanding, what's a good alternative to ambiguous language?

Is resurrection the sticking point at the moment?

If you ask me whether I believe a man can physically die and come back from the dead? Well, it happens all the time in today's world when people are resuscitated by doctors.

While I'm not confident that the man Jesus Christ died on a cross, spent 3 days in a tomb, and then rose again, let me play devil's advocate for a minute.

Let's say Jesus was extremely skilled in meditation, to the point where he could essentially look dead to an observer. Is a pierce in the side with a spear necessarily fatal every time? Is it at all plausible that he did not die on the cross?

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Thanks.

I honestly think that's a brilliant clip. Recommended watching. It's from his biblical series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHU5B2yOUg

I don't understand what's so controversial about it. God as a metaphor for the idea that we can negotiate with time in a somewhat reliable manner. Sacrifice now and reap rewards in the future.

Can you explain why you think it's complete guff?

Ah no. Does that count as good? He takes a totally normal concept-planning for the future- and gives it the super loaded name god.

Why on earth is it reasonable to think of god the father as the fact that we can plan for the future? That’s a function of the prefrontal cortex in the brain. Lots of humans don’t have the ability to go it due to abnormal brain development. Does that mean god doesn’t exist for those people because they can’t plan for the future?

Giraffe Box

''God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain''

John Lennon said/sang that 48 years ago.
Succinct.

What exactly is Jordan Peterson trying to say, and why can't he keep it brief?
Does he get paid by the yard or something?

7aubzxk43m2sni

bnt wrote: »

Reading that quote of Peterson's, this is the point at which he "jumps the shark", in my opinion:

That leap from "human beings cannot create their own values" to "biology" is a big one. It starts as something Jung said (an opinion) that Peterson transmogrifies in to "fact" somehow, with the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is ignorant of biology, whether accidentally or wilfully. Is there really strong evidence in biology (a science) that we cannot create our own values (philosphy)?

Never mind all the evidence from history that we can and do create our own values. Unless by "values" Peterson means universal values applicable to all biology (including all mammals); he doesn't say that, but if he means that, that's a stretch not supported by any evidence. (Scriptures etc. are testimony and opinion, not evidence of anything but their own existence.)

I mean, as I've said before, I can understand the desire to find meaning in life, and Peterson's pedantic urge to give people such meaning if he can, but none of that means such meanings actually exist in any universal sense. We're on our own; we have to do it all for ourselves; get used to it.

I think the reference to biology refers to the idea of human beings being highly regulated by emotion. The concept of ideas having people, rather than people having ideas.

I think it's equally as arrogant to say we're all on our own, get used to it as it would be to say God is definitely real, just believe.

DickSwiveller Returns

Giraffe Box wrote: »

''God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain''

John Lennon said/sang that 48 years ago.
Succinct.

What exactly is Jordan Peterson trying to say, and why can't he keep it brief?
Does he get paid by the yard or something?

John Lennon also sang "I am the walrus, I am the eggman" so lets not get ahead of ourselves.