Jordan Peterson interview on C4

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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?

I don’t have an alternative to language. My issue is that Peterson uses the language to be purposefully ambiguous so his followers can take what they want from it.

If the resurrection was just a matter of faking death and tricking the Romans into letting him go, then I think it’s a relatively unambitious claims. Would David Blaine be comparable with his mastery of being? He can do some crazy physical stuff and he can fool people.

The more realistic you make the Jesus character, the further you he from a god and the bigger the leap of faith needed to get from one to the other.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t have an alternative to language. My issue is that Peterson uses the language to be purposefully ambiguous so his followers can take what they want from it.

If the resurrection was just a matter of faking death and tricking the Romans into letting him go, then I think it’s a relatively unambitious claims. Would David Blaine be comparable with his mastery of being? He can do some crazy physical stuff and he can fool people.

The more realistic you make the Jesus character, the further you he from a god and the bigger the leap of faith needed to get from one to the other.

I disagree that he is purposefully ambiguous. To what end?

David Blaine has definitely stretched our notions of what the human body is capable of. I do see what you're saying about Jesus, I'd require a fair bit more time to think about it before coming back to you

Giraffe Box

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

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

To be fair he was being deliberately jokey and frivolous, JL:"The words didn't mean a lot. People draw so many conclusions, and it's ridiculous. I've had tongue in cheek all along--all of them had tongue in cheek. Just because other people see depths of whatever in it...What does it really mean, 'I am the Eggman?' It could have been 'The pudding Basin' for all I care. It's not that serious."

Any examples of Jordan Peterson using humour for its own sake, or any reason at all, would be greatly appreciated.

Parker Fat Ladyfinger

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?

What about hamsters who keep food in their mouths :pac:

Where's your god now

blinding

I have been watching some great stuff from Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray on the Internet . This is what makes you appreciate the internet . You can watch / listen and make up your own mind .

Akrasia

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

Hence my Deepak Chopra comparison earlier

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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?

Even if Jesus was the David Blaine of his day, that only means that he was human and the religion is a fraud

El_Duderino 09

Akrasia wrote: »

Even if Jesus was the David Blaine of his day, that only means that he was human and the religion is a fraud

How on earth could could he get from Jesus/David Blaine to Peterson’s definition of god the father above being the ability to plan ahead?

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How on earth could could he get from Jesus/David Blaine to Peterson’s definition of god the father above being the ability to plan ahead?

There's the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

Giraffe Box

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

There's the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

Peace be upon them.....or him indeed, if it's just the one bloke.

Hector Savage

Have to say MArian Finucane didn't make a balls of it like Cathy Newman did.

It's a good interview ...


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

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How on earth could could he get from Jesus/David Blaine to Peterson’s definition of god the father above being the ability to plan ahead?

There's the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

Is there? Metaphorically or in a real sense?

Ok. So we have a definition of the father which is the ability to plan ahead, the son which is the David Blaine of his day who maybe used his powers to truck the Romans into letting him go before he was dead so maybe this could be seen as resurrection of sorts (but a long way from anything approaching godlike unless David Blaine is similarly godlike)

So what’s the Holy Spirit in this context?

Brian?

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

I actually understood that. I think.

God exists because man created an idea greater than the present. Agreed.

The conclusion from that should be god doesn’t actually exist then, it’s a mad made construct to provide a common goal.

Peterson seems to be using it to prove god does exist. Arse backwards logic.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there? Metaphorically or in a real sense?

Ok. So we have a definition of the father which is the ability to plan ahead, the son which is the David Blaine of his day who maybe used his powers to truck the Romans into letting him go before he was dead so maybe this could be seen as resurrection of sorts (but a long way from anything approaching godlike unless David Blaine is similarly godlike)

So what’s the Holy Spirit in this context?

I don't have the answers.

There's more to it than the ability to plan ahead.

The David Blaine comparison is a massive stretch from where I offered the example of the power of meditation and how monks can use it, as an example of something that is slightly beyond our understanding of the objective world.

My stance is that stories (being art) have value beyond their words. Some stories have more depth/value than others. It's reasonable to think that the Biblical stories may have substantial value, given the fact that they have survived millenia, have had such a massive impact across the world.

It's a worthwhile pursuit to try and explore the stories and attempt to understand more about them and the value within them.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

I actually understood that. I think.

God exists because man created an idea greater than the present. Agreed.

The conclusion from that should be god doesn’t actually exist then, it’s a mad made construct to provide a common goal.

Peterson seems to be using it to prove god does exist. Arse backwards logic.

Created or discovered?

I don't see Peterson claiming that God definitely exists.

Even if it's exactly what you describe, a man made construct to provide a common goal, and we've called it God, does that construct not exist?

What's the common goal in your description of God?

evolving_doors

Brian? wrote: »

You either allow the right to protest or you don’t. Otherwise who decides who has the right?

That would depend on the form the protest takes. Would you allow violent protest?
Protest shouldn't superseed free speech.

But anyway let's say I'll agree with you that any protest is fair game... my point is... the position is week if they are substituting debate with shouting down so a speaker can't be heard. I'd like to know what their position is, rather than watching them banging on a can shouting they don't like it.

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How on earth could could he get from Jesus/David Blaine to Peterson’s definition of god the father above being the ability to plan ahead?

It's all part of JP's quest, the search for meaning. When you talk in vague nonsense, it's a quest to find any kind of meaning in what he actually says. It's funny if you think about how far people are prepared to go to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just spouting waffle.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I don't have the answers.

There's more to it than the ability to plan ahead.

The David Blaine comparison is a massive stretch from where I offered the example of the power of meditation and how monks can use it, as an example of something that is slightly beyond our understanding of the objective world.

My stance is that stories (being art) have value beyond their words. Some stories have more depth/value than others. It's reasonable to think that the Biblical stories may have substantial value, given the fact that they have survived millenia, have had such a massive impact across the world.

It's a worthwhile pursuit to try and explore the stories and attempt to understand more about them and the value within them.

But what on earth make it sensible to put the label his on any of that depth in stories/art? Let alone split the god into 3 parts.

Don’t you need to work from the assumption that god exists and work backwards to find something to call god?

Akrasia

Hector Savage wrote: »

Have to say MArian Finucane didn't make a balls of it like Cathy Newman did.

It's a good interview ...


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

Listening to it now. Just started. I'm not a big fan of Marion Finucane but I hope she'll have some intelligent responses to his arguments or evasions

Akrasia

Brian? wrote: »

I actually understood that. I think.

God exists because man created an idea greater than the present. Agreed.

The conclusion from that should be god doesn’t actually exist then, it’s a mad made construct to provide a common goal.

Peterson seems to be using it to prove god does exist. Arse backwards logic.

Aahh, but god came from the future to, gave man the idea to create him as an idea in the first place

Aaaahhhhh

kubjones

Akrasia wrote: »

It's all part of JP's quest, the search for meaning. When you talk in vague nonsense, it's a quest to find any kind of meaning in what he actually says. It's funny if you think about how far people are prepared to go to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just spouting waffle.

Except its not vague at all, or at least is as vague as all philosophy ISN'T. For any one of us to claim we completely understand human behaviour would be a lie. There's no complete knowledge about the psyche, or the self, but we have a lot of ideas and theories, most of which he bases his arguments on.

Its so easy for you to say he talks nonsense, but your arguments about why its nonsense are far more nonsensical. Maybe its more likely that you simply don't understand it.

7aubzxk43m2sni

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But what on earth make it sensible to put the label his on any of that depth in stories/art? Let alone split the god into 3 parts.

Don’t you need to work from the assumption that god exists and work backwards to find something to call god?

You'd work on the premise that the stories are trying to describe some underlying pattern, phenomena or truth. These stories tell of a Father, Son and Holy spirit, so in an exploration of the stories the idea would be to discover what these were meant to capture or symbolize

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I don't have the answers.

There's more to it than the ability to plan ahead.

The David Blaine comparison is a massive stretch from where I offered the example of the power of meditation and how monks can use it, as an example of something that is slightly beyond our understanding of the objective world.

My stance is that stories (being art) have value beyond their words. Some stories have more depth/value than others. It's reasonable to think that the Biblical stories may have substantial value, given the fact that they have survived millenia, have had such a massive impact across the world.

It's a worthwhile pursuit to try and explore the stories and attempt to understand more about them and the value within them.

David Blaine froze himself in a block of ice in the middle of Time Square for more than 2.5 days. That's a lot more impressive than some guy pretending to be dead for a while, hiding out in a cave on his own for a couple of days and then disappearing

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

Aahh, but god came from the future to, gave man the idea to create him as an idea in the first place

Aaaahhhhh

Akrasia wrote: »

David Blaine froze himself in a block of ice in the middle of Time Square for more than 3 days. That's a lot more impressive than some guy pretending to be dead for a while, hiding out in a cave on his own for a couple of days and then disappearing

Sometimes you post some good comments which provoke thought and discussion, and sometimes you post sh1te, and I'm curious as to the thought process behind it

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

David Blaine froze himself in a block of ice in the middle of Time Square for more than 3 days. That's a lot more impressive than some guy pretending to be dead for a while, hiding out in a cave on his own for a couple of days and then disappearing

Did David Blaine cure leprosy, raise people from the dead, cure the blind?

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Created or discovered?

I don't see Peterson claiming that God definitely exists.

Even if it's exactly what you describe, a man made construct to provide a common goal, and we've called it God, does that construct not exist?

What's the common goal in your description of God?

It's not much of a common goal when there are over 4k different organised religions in the world, and a couple of billion individual understandings of what the concept of god actually means, in a sphere of discourse where people are prepared to die or kill to defend the honour of their particular version of their particular concept of god.

Dogmatic ideas like religion are not uniting on a grand scale, Locally they unite because they create a congregation of faith, but on a macro scale they are divisive because they have enormous inertia and there is a psychological barrier towards any religious devotees changing their minds. Religious belief is often enforced and removed by the pointy end of a sword.

El_Duderino 09

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You'd work on the premise that the stories are trying to describe some underlying pattern, phenomena or truth. These stories tell of a Father, Son and Holy spirit, so in an exploration of the stories the idea would be to discover what these were meant to capture or symbolize

Well, this is it. You need to assume the stories are telling you about something which actually exists beyond simply being story subject matter. But we don’t do the same thing with other stories. We don’t assume there was an actual Spider-Man even though the stories are cool and deal with interesting issues.

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Did David Blaine cure leprosy, raise people from the dead, cure the blind?

Well, he can probably cure leprosy pretty easily, just give them some antibiotics.

He can pay for surgery to cure countless children of preventable blindness, and raising someone from the dead, as has already been stated, is either impossible, or a routine medical procedure depending on how you define it.

But how exactly does any of this got anything to do with Jordan Peterson?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Akrasia wrote: »

David Blaine froze himself in a block of ice in the middle of Time Square for more than 2.5 days. That's a lot more impressive than some guy pretending to be dead for a while, hiding out in a cave on his own for a couple of days and then disappearing

The impressive thing would be surviving the crucifixion.

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Sometimes you post some good comments which provoke thought and discussion, and sometimes you post sh1te, and I'm curious as to the thought process behind it

It's like computer programming, garbage in, garbage out. If someone makes an interesting point that requires a thoughtful rebuttal, that's what they get. If people are trying to argue that Jordan Peterson makes sense when he says that Jesus might have risen from the dead because he was like a monk which some how gives himself super powers, then it's an obvious response to point towards someone who is a street magician who performed tricks in full view of the public that are much more impressive than the things JP attributes to Jesus and point out that these feats of endurance and sleight of hand are possible without any appeal to divinity, 'transcendence' or the supernatural