Bafflegab and bullshit
Keep in mind that this purports to be a DEFENSE of Jordan Peterson's self-unmasking in his interview on the subject of truth with Sam Harris. Which is amusing, as it reads a lot more like an indictment.
Of course, we have no idea if Jordan Peterson's specific non-truth "truth" is actually pragmatic correspondence truth or not, because this is only one of the FOUR different definitions presently on offer from members of Peterson's crazy cargo cult.
By the way, I finished 12 Rules of Life today. I'll do a Darkstream later to discuss my initial impressions, then will start writing my review of the book for Monday, but I really do have to retract my earlier statement that Jordan Peterson is the bastard spawn of Bill Kristol and Deeprak Chopra. He's actually more akin to the tragic love child of Bill Kristol and Stuart Smalley. And he is most definitely a Gamma male as well as a physical coward who quite literally ran from a fight as a sixth-grader.
He's also had a tremendous amount of tragedy in and around his life, which I expect accounts for his bizarre equation of both life and evil with suffering.
Anyhow, I'll read Maps of Meaning next, at which point I will have read more of Jordan Peterson's work than 99.9 percent of his fans currently complaining that I know nothing about him. Apparently they are also unfamiliar with the concept of "hypothesis" and "calling your shot". A sample of the cargo cult's responses.
For Harris, ideas are propositions about what really exists, independently of one’s mind, and science is an attempt to identify facts (i.e., ideas) about reality. However, to a pragmatist such as Peterson, reality – i.e. the world around oneself – is not the thing under consideration because one cannot obtain any knowledge at all of what causes one’s sensations: what exists outside of one’s own mind is not knowable. For Peterson, there are no “facts” about reality. For Peterson an “idea” is not a proposition about reality. Instead, for Peterson, every “idea” is a plan of action. The meaning of an idea is the effect of acting upon the idea. Thus, for a pragmatist, the meaning of “grizzly bear” is not “man-eating beast” but something like “run away!” or “throw a stone at it!”.Translation: Sam Harris, for all his various shortcomings, generally uses words as they are commonly understood. These Corresponding Truthy Pragmatists or whatever they happen to call themselves, are utilizing the old charlatan's trick of calling a spoon a fork in order to prove that one can eat soup with a fork.
On this view, the truth of an idea is determined by its efficacy in achieving some goal (different pragmatists have differing ideas about what sorts of goals should be achieved). For example, if the goal is to remain unbitten, “run away” is a plan of action that is sufficiently true to act upon if running away is an effective way to remain unbitten, but “run away” is not a sufficiently true plan of action to act upon if running away is not an effective way to remain bitten. Likewise, “throw a stone at it!” is sufficiently true to act upon if throwing a stone at the grizzly bear is effective in preventing one from being bitten, but “throw a stone at it!” is not sufficiently true to act upon if throwing a stone at the grizzly bear is ineffective in preventing one from being bitten.
It follows that, for Peterson, science is not an attempt to discover ideas about, or “facts” about, reality. Rather, science is an attempt to discover plans of action that, given the other ideas we hold, appear to be sufficiently true to act upon in order to attain one’s ethical purpose. Hence Peterson’s statement that:
“I think of science as a tool, rather than as a description of reality. And, well, that’s where we differ.”
Peterson’s Pragmatist Ethics/Purpose
For pragmatism, it is not enough for an idea (i.e., a plan of action) to “work” or to be “effective”. Pragmatism requires the idea to be effective in achieving an ethically good end. Thus, one might invent a weapon that is extremely effective in doing one thing: turning the Earth and every living thing on it to lifeless ash in milliseconds. However, such a weapon does not “work” – is not “efficacious” – by the pragmatic standard, because it does not achieve an ethically good purpose. Hence Peterson’s assertion that the sufficiency of an idea’s truth depends upon the idea being ethically good.
Different pragmatists hold differing versions of what constitutes a proper ethical purpose. Peterson’s clearly was: survival; survival of the individual or of humanity as a whole. Thus, for Peterson, an idea (i.e., a plan of action) is good if it is efficacious in achieving survival of the individual or of humanity as a whole. Staying with the grizzly bear example, if a given idea – e.g., “run away!” – is an effective plan of action for surviving, then the idea “grizzly bear” (meaning “run away”) is a sufficiently true idea because it is a good idea.
Contrast this with Harris’ perspective on truth. For Harris, “grizzly bear” is not a plan of action. It is instead a concept of a large, hairy, man-eating mammal. For Harris, it is true that a grizzly bear is a large, hairy, man-eating mammal because a grizzly bear can be observed to be exactly that, in reality. In other words, on the Correspondence theory of truth to which Harris subscribes, the concept of a grizzly bear being a large, hairy, man-eating mammal is true if the concept corresponds to the facts of reality. If grizzly bears – independently of what anyone thinks of them – really are large, hairy, man-eating mammals, then the concept in one’s head (i.e., large, hairy, man-eating mammal) is true because it Corresponds to the facts of reality. And, on the Correspondence theory of truth, the concept is true whether or not running from a grizzly bear would be effective in avoiding a grizzly bite.
What Harris Seemed to be Missing
At this point, it should be clear to the reader that Harris seemed unaware of the foundations of pragmatism, his talk about arguing with Richard Rorty in undergraduate courses notwithstanding.
Harris wrongly thought Peterson to believe that there are facts of reality that exist independently of ones senses. Peterson rejects the very idea that one can even consider any reality other than the experiences in one’s own head.
Harris wrongly thought that Peterson views ideas and propositions as ideas and propositions about reality; about the world around one. Peterson views ideas not as claims about what exists in reality, but as plans of action.
Harris wrongly thought that Peterson views the role of science as the endeavour to discover the facts of reality. Peterson views the role of science as the discovery of plans of action that are effective in achieving the ethical purpose of surviving.
Harris could not understand Peterson’s refusal to admit the truth of propositions independently of moral considerations because pragmatism is founded upon a whole lot of premises that Harris apparently is unaware of, and that were not discussed explicitly during the Harris-Peterson conversation.
Of course, we have no idea if Jordan Peterson's specific non-truth "truth" is actually pragmatic correspondence truth or not, because this is only one of the FOUR different definitions presently on offer from members of Peterson's crazy cargo cult.
By the way, I finished 12 Rules of Life today. I'll do a Darkstream later to discuss my initial impressions, then will start writing my review of the book for Monday, but I really do have to retract my earlier statement that Jordan Peterson is the bastard spawn of Bill Kristol and Deeprak Chopra. He's actually more akin to the tragic love child of Bill Kristol and Stuart Smalley. And he is most definitely a Gamma male as well as a physical coward who quite literally ran from a fight as a sixth-grader.
He's also had a tremendous amount of tragedy in and around his life, which I expect accounts for his bizarre equation of both life and evil with suffering.
Anyhow, I'll read Maps of Meaning next, at which point I will have read more of Jordan Peterson's work than 99.9 percent of his fans currently complaining that I know nothing about him. Apparently they are also unfamiliar with the concept of "hypothesis" and "calling your shot". A sample of the cargo cult's responses.
- Wow...never realized how incredibly insecure Vox was untill now
- don't waste your time... this is the lunatic. JP is awesome!!!
- You’re arrogant, puffed up and bitterly jealous. You’re also extremely boring, rambling, and no matter how many books you stand in front of, and no matter how long you ramble on for, you’re never going to convince me that you’re intelligent enough to pass comment on other people’s intelligence. I presume that you got your IQ score from one of those ads at the bottom of a web page for a gutter tabloid. Neither are you fit to tie Jordan Peterson’s shoelaces. He’s clear, you’re muddled. He’s gripping, you’re boring. Incredibly monotonous. He’s funny and witty. You’re painfully and excruciatingly robotic and clearly have no emotional intelligence. Your droning barely conceals your desperate whimper, “Please buy my books too!” My answer to that is NO! get off the screen of my iPad, you sad, pathetic little gnome!
Jordan Peterson is "clear", while I am "muddled"? That must be more of that incoherent truth in action.
Labels: Book Review, freakshow
30 Comments:
For Harris, ideas are propositions about what really exists, independently of one’s mind, and science is an attempt to identify facts (i.e., ideas) about reality. However, to a pragmatist such as Peterson, reality – i.e. the world around oneself – is not the thing under consideration because one cannot obtain any knowledge at all of what causes one’s sensations: what exists outside of one’s own mind is not knowable.
This is insanity. That there are grown men who espouse this and are so-called intellectual leaders is locus of infection in the Western mind.
I had always thought of Jordanson of being overly flowery in his language and sometimes even hard to follow his logic. The only real benefit and why I gave him a listen a few times was that his rationalising of why religious people are religious, while flawed and wrong as you pointed out, proved sufficient to actually get through to youtube atheists to at least understanding the religious worldview in a different, more familiar context. Not sure if that could possibly open the door for Christ or not, but I thought it was worth mentioning even if as only a devil's advocate kind of defence. Truth be told I hadn't given the man's character and methodology much thought, much like I didn't give Stephen Molyneux's personal motives much thought. I know he's well liked here as well, but I really lost a lot of affection for the man after I learned about his Defooing nonsense. Looks like Peterson is of a kind with Molynuex in some respects.
Peterson is a deconstructionist: if meaning regarding reality is "what exists outside of one’s own mind is not knowable"; then communication is impossible whether written, spoken, or painted; even the grizzly bear is unknowable as even existing let alone as a "grizzly bear! Run away!". A lemur has a better understanding of reality.
This is unbelievable.
I think the next thing to be explained is all these examples of "Peterson appears on X show, completely wows and stuns guests with his remarks". I suspect it's a combination of his IQ and professional expertise from interviewing so many people. Like the Cathy Newman debate that really catapulted him to the stratosphere, the only reason he won that is the fact that A) he knows basic facts about male/female psychology differences, and B) his job gives him both experience with hostile interviews and credibility in the eyes of the audience. After all, how can a feminist sit there and tell a clinical psychologist with experience in counseling women how to be better CEOs that he just wants women in the kitchen? The more I think about it, the more Cathy Newman seems like she was setup to take the fall
Good Grief! I am so glad I did not major in philosophy, the point of which seems to be to hijack words that already have a meaning and completely reverse them.
Common use of the term Pragmatist does not mean a person tied to ANY ethic or morality or tradition or habit. They are only interested in what works, thus they would find scientific information useful.....for survival, and a good many other things. I have never heard of a Pragmatism that was limited to survival considerations, or "ethical" Pragmatism, or a Pragmatism that needed any other justification, other than success or effectiveness.
The example given is simply awful. There is no running away from a grizzly bear. Unless the bear is sick, he can outrun and outclimb even a physically capable person. Getting into a bear cage is a good idea. Other than that, I would suggest "magnum", in one of the bigger calibers. Running away from a bear is about as effective as running away from a pit bull. They seem to like the chase.
Lemmie guess. The silly Pragmatist plan for dealing with a Great White shark is to "swim away"?
That is a DEFENSE? How does anyone think that that is a defense of the man? That seems like a troll.
A man who believes "what exists outside of one’s own mind is not knowable" has no faith: he has no faith in the tacit knowledge of his primary tool his physical body; he cannot be led to believe in the reality of the material world; furthermore, such one cannot be led to faith in God: it is more likely for him to be lead to believe in the Hindu concept of Maya: all is illusion.
Someone actually defended JBP by saying you lack emotional intelligence? Peterson himself has said that emotional intelligence doesn't exist. Hilarious how little his own defenders know about him.
I just read Rule 10 "Be precise in your speech". But the example he uses, a wife discovering her husband is cheating, would make little sense to his audience, young millennial males. I'm in my mid 30s and single and that example just makes no sense. What do these boys who've been helped by him get out of that?
What do these boys who've been helped by him get out of that?
Don't get cheating, presumably.
Well, He claims to be a "pragmatist," but we can guess even those goalposts will change whenever or wherever he runs into a conflict.
dienw's " A lemur has a better understanding of reality," is but one complete refutation of that Idea, although I guess JP would say the lemur is being pragmatic. Ha!
Everything is just the brain being pragmatic, but the sea slug digests it's rudimentary brain in it's adult phase, as it is no longer needed. If the brain is the ultimate reality, why the heck would any animal digest it's own brain, even a simplistic animal? Humans cull neurons heavily at certain phases of life too, as noted by brain scientists. If the reality happens inside ones head, how could this occur?
The answer might be that reality is more than the individual, and is indeed part of the Culture, and even Religion. Why would many Identify so heavily with their Culture and Religion? He would at this point contradict his pragmatism, suggesting self-sacrifice for the group is crazy. Yet the individualism and brain centered reality is exposed as "not normal" for all of humanity. Our souls are connected to these groups and always have been.
My earliest memories are of prayer, even before I could think in a literate way, which started to come about a year and a half later. With this came a caring about the past, and future generations. Remember thinking at age four that the fathers role was as a mentor for the future generations, and to do as good of job as possible. That mentoring was mainly for getting boys to grow into men, who can defend the Culture or Western Civilization. There is some individualism now involved, but not solipsism.
We are not born a blank slate brain. Reality is far more comprehensive on every level. Reality is both outside and inside, nd it is not just projection.
Harris' awareness of pragmatism would only relevant if they were debating the history of intellectualized solipsism. How much collective brainpower has been squandered trying to root trancendentals in subjective experience in a way that external reality is denied while "morality" preserved. The last thing a coward wants is someone else determining their own reality.
A lot of people probably hear "self-authoring" and think adjusting the movie in your head or self-image. But with the evo-psych morality and messiah complex, he is advocating something way more fundamental; essentially an immersive delusion. One that happens, coincidentally, to conform to the globalist talking points that get you t.v.
This whole process is very informative. It is interesting to observe Vox' approach to a problem in real time, and we are seeing widespread dysfunctional behavior in practice as well as theory. The followers are fascinating. The (relatively) more clever attempt simple word games. The dumber ones pile on ad hominems mixed with frantic reassurances that Peterson's a genius. But no one seems able to even attempt a defense beyond some variation on the theme that his toxic spew isn't a big deal because he helps people and likes real pronouns. None of them can provide a rational justification for placing him in a leadership role. Funny how purportedly authoring YOUR OWN reality is indistinguishable from mindless cultic allegiance.
Tell ya what pal, I'll run away while you stand here and throw rocks at the grizzly bear.
Crazy Christ is very fitting when you consider self-authoring in light of the logos.
He call himself a Christian yet doesn't believe in the Truth.
Yikes.
"He call himself a Christian yet doesn't believe in the Truth."
He doesnt call himself a Christian. He doesnt have a position on the Resurection even when asked directly about it.
what exists outside of one’s own mind is not knowable.
Do I need to be the guy who points out that this is a claim about what exists outside the mind, and is therefore unknowable by its own standard?
Peterson rejects the very idea that one can even consider any reality other than the experiences in one’s own head.
Woah, key quote there. Solipsism much?
Vox, you should wear a sweater and cry on camera.
Honestly, this defense isn't fair to Peterson, because it holds him out to essentially a Post-Modernist, which he certainly is not. The defense is worse than his actual shortcomings.
Phelps wrote:Honestly, this defense isn't fair to Peterson, because it holds him out to essentially a Post-Modernist, which he certainly is not. The defense is worse than his actual shortcomings.
That's the thing, as his defenses will change, and all the goalposts too, and even by him. He has a Cuck position is certain, and he defends the other cuck positions outside of himself far too often. Enough said!
Watch his allies in the near future, and it will tell you everything.
I think an example of developing your own catalogue of "narrative structures" (Peterson's phrase), which is separate from objective reality, which was well described by others, is the story of Timothy Treadwell.
Grizzly Man 2005 Documentary
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427312/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mauling-sounds-captured-on-tape/
http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/Tim_Treadwell.html
biologist Larry Van Daele in trying to make sense of this tragedy:
Tim’s foolish disregard for his own safety, and over confidence dealing with bears in the past, luck really, not to mention his mistake of placing anthropomorphic values on bears, and disregarding established federal guidelines when photographing and camping with brown bears contributed to both Tim and Amie’s death. Grizzly bears are wild animals and should always be treated as such, wild and unpredictable. Not a pet, or lovable cuddly bear.
Tim would often tell listeners about the time he calmly defused a dangerous encounter with a bear, by talking softly to it. When the confrontation was over, he claimed to have laid down and napped next to the sleeping bear. Likewise, in a 1994 interview when he was asked whether he was ever afraid of the bears, he responded with saying “They wouldn’t hurt me”.
What if you age and forget your own unique dozens of narratives? What if you confuse one narrative for another? It is not enough to say he died and so his narrative was wrong, per Peterson turning Darwinism into a philosophy.
The disregard for objective morality and reality described by others, who have demonstrated their success, is the flaw of variable Perspectives. We throw away biblical history and pretend it was just somebody's narrative so we can do our own desires, unrestrained. It is a mistake.
Maybe someone else has mentioned it, but it seems to me that Peterson has conveniently made his area of expertise, clinical psychology, to be the ultimate arbiter of truth. I'm a computer geek. I think I'll let AI somehow become that arbiter. (How convenient for me.) I'll get to work now on justifying that.
P.S. In a previous career, I've been around a lot of wild bears. I recommend that in the first few seconds, while sizing up the situation, de-escalate by NOT staring. Predators stare. Prey stare. While deciding your best option, give the bear the option of assuming that you are just passing thru.
Someone actually defended JBP by saying you lack emotional intelligence? Peterson himself has said that emotional intelligence doesn't exist. Hilarious how little his own defenders know about him.
The pragmatism of basing your celebrity off of convenient BS is usually offset by having equally low-rent followers.
Petersonians may disagree with this, but they are mistaken.
Very simply...
Giraffes are not purple.
This statement may seem completely irrelevant read at its face. However, to the pragmatist, "giraffes are not purple" has nothing to do with color. Instead, it may mean, "Petersonians believe in purple giraffes" or "Petersonians aren't rational."
Because the efficacy of this idea in accomplishing some goal is what determines it's truth, any cultist moved to feel even mild annoyance by the statement or its implication is sufficient to demonstrate its truthfulness.
And because every pragmatist has a different plan...
My point is irrefutable.
And, as fate would have it, this idea is ethically sound to boot, as it demonstrates the folly of buying into make-it-up-as-you-go systems of philosophy.
Presumably you shouldn't feed bears marshmallows with your own teeth. If I see them as friendly guys like Yogi and Boo-Boo they should treat me well.
Honestly, this defense isn't fair to Peterson, because it holds him out to essentially a Post-Modernist, which he certainly is not. The defense is worse than his actual shortcomings.
That seems to be a common occurrence among defenses of Peterson. Strange, is it not, than none of his defenders seem to be able to accurately characterize his views?
This is a pretty accurate defense of Peterson . The issue being is the paragraph that deals with ethical concerns and survival . It's true that this is what Peterson might believe in the most barest of senses but one has to consider the framework in which he believes evolution gave rise to proper behavior led to it being coded in our genes and in religion / culture/ myth.
Post a Comment
Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.