ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, May 01, 2018

It was right there all along

I'm deeply - DEEPLY - disappointed in you Jordan Peterson fans. His lunacy was openly on display from the very start. Did you never even read Maps of Meaning? It was all right there right before your eyes, a psychological purloined letter. How did none of you ever spot this nonsense?

From the 1999 Maps of Meaning Precis

1. We think we live in the “objective” world, but we do not. The objective world is something that has been conjured up for us recently – absurdly recently, from the perspective of evolutionary biology.

Pure existential relativist gobbledygook. And don't even think of opting for the obvious evasion that it's just that he defines "objective" differently than the bloody dictionary. If you haven't learned that bait-and-switch is the first sign of the charlatan, you're not tall enough for this ride.

Let's substitute, then paraphrase, the relevant definition just to show how crazy this is:

We think live in the world "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality", but we do not. The world existing independently as part of reality has been conjured up for us recently.

Jordan Peterson's mind may not live in a world existing independently from him as a part of reality, but those of us who are sane do, and this is particularly true if we are elements of a vast computer simulation. Now do you better trust my sense of discernment? I caught the scent of intellectual wrongness from this lunatic just from that one inexcusable error about intelligence.

Labels: ,

224 Comments:

1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Weouro May 01, 2018 1:04 PM  

Sounds like the intellectual twin of Scott Adams with his Many Movies view of reality.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 1:05 PM  

Why is he particularly wrong about reality if we are all parts of a computer simulation?

Blogger maniacprovost May 01, 2018 1:05 PM  

If he's speaking purely from a psychological perspective, it's true. I would tend to assume he is defining "live" differently.

Most people do not "live" in objective reality. They "live" in a distorted, oversimplified walnut shell where diversity is our strength and JFK was killed by a lone nutjob.

Blogger Nate73 May 01, 2018 1:07 PM  

I'm stepping out on a limb here, but I recall someone making a good case to me in pm that the Bill C-16 that launched his fame was not what people were saying it was (people would be fired/jailed for not using trans pronouns). That might be an avenue to go down to pursue the idea that he's being propped up somehow.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 01, 2018 1:18 PM  

No I didn't read Maps of Meaning. After not being able to stomach more than two chapters of his latest book I wasn't going to spend any more money on him.

Quite content to have my conclusion confirmed by someone of greater intestinal fortitude.

Blogger Nate73 May 01, 2018 1:19 PM  

@5: I learned a lot about crustacean biology though from chapter 1 (the only chapter I read).

Blogger 357Delta May 01, 2018 1:19 PM  

Oneness paganism dressed up in scientific jargon. He's repackaging Jung for another generation.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 1:19 PM  

i know it isn't what he said... and I'm not a JP apologist... but I do wonder if the concept he is trying, and failing, to get across is notion that our minds have been altered by the enlightenment.

Post enlightenment we have a population that expects things to make sense. We expect to be able to understand things. We expect things to work rationally and when things are not explainable empirically we often simply reject them out of hand as hogwash. Because Reason.


Blogger Lovekraft May 01, 2018 1:20 PM  

Quote of the decade:

"The baleful eye of the Dark Lord is now focused squarely upon the man."

Just put that up on the Jordan Peterson subreddit as well as this blog name, so you should expect some lurkers/trolls here in the next little while.

Wondering if it's possible to reduce this entire debate to its core essentials. Like a "IF suchandsuch THEN suchandsuch" (although I think you have with the nepotism argument and comparison to africans).

Is the end goal of this to break the stranglehold of cultural marxism?

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 1:21 PM  

the post enlightenment mind is an empirical one. But that only works within the confines of our finite understanding and observation. On subjects beyond them... our empirical mind retards us.

Blogger Brick Hardslab May 01, 2018 1:22 PM  

Paging Professor Hill, Professor Harold Hill to the courtesy phone.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 01, 2018 1:24 PM  

@6

So, you're saying that people should behave like lobsters?

Blogger Lovekraft May 01, 2018 1:25 PM  

Historians could offer up their theories that there are patterns which repeat themselves.

Take the omnipresent gay 90s, the quickbuck 80s, and so on. Would we see these repeated in other but similar forms, or would the historical cycle mean the next stages would mean a 'wiping of the slate' (read: horrific global upheaval/war)?

And is there another way: a wiping of the slate that simply puts certain groups that profited from cultural decay 'in their place?

Final note: there are two Jews that, in my lifetime, represented the ones we here are talking about: Ron Jeremy and Gene Simmons. Absolutely vile specimens.

Blogger Lovekraft May 01, 2018 1:31 PM  

@10 Nate:

Schopenhauer (tightening up eastern buddhist/tao philosophy) basically says the universe and all its forms are an expression of The Will - the blind, uncaring desire to be. In man's case, his entire structure is designed to obtain resources in order to reproduce. Nature does not care what his feelings are, and once man has fulfilled that role, he is discarded.

To deny the will is man's essential calling. To put an end to the cycle of all levels of selfish pursuit of The Will's violent and amoral demands.

Schopenhauer heavily criticized the Abrahamaic religions and had kind words for Christ, as well as 'art.'

Blogger Brick Hardslab May 01, 2018 1:34 PM  

Gene Simmons is worse than Soros?

Blogger Bilroy May 01, 2018 1:34 PM  

Isn't Jordan merely proposing idealism here? It's an interesting philosophy, perhaps a little kooky, but to say it's insane?

I'm not sure but then again I do find outlandish ideas attractive, much like the insane.

P.S. I hope this isn't going to cut short your coming critique of JBP, Vox - I'm very much looking forward to it.

Blogger SJ May 01, 2018 1:34 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SJ May 01, 2018 1:37 PM  

If JBP would discuss how your inner narrative can serve to alter your self image and a positive goal is to have a healthy and realistic self image he'd just be another guy writing another no duh deal help book. Sorta like he did after maps anyway.

I'm not sure why he's showing up all over my internet. I watched a bunch of his videos. He had picked up a few interesting ideas, probably from some old books, and mish-mashed the. together. He would then repeat said ideas over and over and over. Thankfully I never wasted my time with his actual books.

Hey I mean I never had a problem keeping my room clean and I don't see how cleaning my room is going to solve the problems with fiat or the foreign invasion the managerial class thinks will either solve their fiat ponzi scheme or cause enough civil unrest and lowering of IQ that nobody notices when it fails. It also didn't keep me from getting divorced from my first wife.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 1:39 PM  

"Schopenhauer (tightening up eastern buddhist/tao philosophy) basically says the universe and all its forms are an expression of The Will - the blind, uncaring desire to be. In man's case, his entire structure is designed to obtain resources in order to reproduce. Nature does not care what his feelings are, and once man has fulfilled that role, he is discarded. "

Even that makes me think of an empirical mindset. Because it focuses on nature as if it is all that there is.

I find myself viewing the post-enlightenment mindset with some contempt.

Blogger vanderleun May 01, 2018 1:42 PM  

I regret to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the miasma of envy is getting pretty thick here. We all need to reign in our obsessions.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook May 01, 2018 1:44 PM  

Maybe I am too short for this ride I thought some of his stuff was atleast ok. Do you think he'll respond to your criticisms or just shrug them off as an "alt-right racist/fascist attack on his good name"?

Blogger Giraffe May 01, 2018 1:46 PM  

I regret to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the miasma of envy is getting pretty thick here. We all need to reign in our obsessions.

You're wrong.

Blogger Nathan Wright May 01, 2018 1:48 PM  

Vox, I think you're going to have to go deeper into this piece. I haven't read it, but this is the sentence following the one you quoted:

This does not mean that the objective world is not real, even though theories about its nature are in constant flux. What it does mean is that the environment of human beings might well be regarded as “spiritual,” as well as “material.”

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 1:52 PM  

"but I do wonder if the concept he is trying, and failing, to get across is notion that our minds have been altered by the enlightenment.

Post enlightenment we have a population that expects things to make sense. We expect to be able to understand things."

He's talking about subjectivity, and how your mind's perspective is not internally rational, and people do not understand the workings of their own minds... but when it comes to the idea that our imperfect minds are in an objective world, he rather dissembles. "Quantum suggests that the universe may be inherently subjective" or some dribble like that.

Blogger Sevron May 01, 2018 1:59 PM  

Quantum mechanics is far from proven science, and in any case certainly does not say reality is subjective. Some aspects of reality are (likely) probabilistic until interacting with an outside force, but that’s hardly the same thing as subjective.

Blogger Manuel May 01, 2018 1:59 PM  

@8 Yes I think is correct. Having watched his videos on the Biblical stories (which made me get into symbolism) this is what he is basically saying. When you read the Bible or any pre-Enlightenment text, you do get a sense that something changed.

Blogger S1AL May 01, 2018 2:04 PM  

"the post enlightenment mind is an empirical one. But that only works within the confines of our finite understanding and observation. On subjects beyond them... our empirical mind retards us."

Or you end up agreeing with Lewis:

"If I find myself with desires that nothing on this world can satisfy, I must not have been made for this world."

Blogger Flair1239 May 01, 2018 2:05 PM  

I don’t know the context of this exact quote, but from the Maps Of Meaning lectures he says things like “We don’t see everything, we see what is useful” or something like that.

A lot of what Peterson says is context dependent. He also is sympathetic to a bit of mysticism.

The two quotes as posted are pretty difficult to evaluate without context.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2018 2:08 PM  

I read most of it, and agree that he is using "objective" (arguably a poor choice of words) in opposition to a spiritual reality. Here's how he contrasts the view he is arguing to be false:

As a consequence of adopting such a perspective, it may be possible to posit that we are no better at understanding our own past than we are at truly coming to grips with the conceptual systems of other cultures, and to remember or at least hypothesize that we really do not understand what our forebears meant when they used categories such as “spiritual” (any more than we understand what they meant when they said “virgin birth,” for example, or “holy Trinity,” or“resurrection of the Savior”, or even “Tao”). If that is the case (which is the only alternative to presuming that everyone unfortunate enough to live prior to the dawn of the scientific age was pathetically ignorant, despite their incontrovertible success at surviving), then things may still be seriously other than we presently presume.

Blogger Assyrian Nationalist May 01, 2018 2:08 PM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Why is he particularly wrong about reality if we are all parts of a computer simulation?

If we exist as part of a computer simulation, then the world that hosts our simulation must exist independently of our simulation. Pull the plug on the simulation and the world that hosts it will continue to exist.

Blogger Flair1239 May 01, 2018 2:10 PM  

@Nathan Wright

Wait for the other shoe to drop, I suspect Vox is trolling here. Quoting out of context is too hamfisted for him.

I suspect by days end there will be an update or another post with more meat to it. In the meantime I think this is just a pot stir.

Blogger szopen May 01, 2018 2:16 PM  

Hmmm so I tried to read the précis and it's unreadable at times for a midwit like me. But it really spurred my curiosity and, well, instead of paying I decided to download the copy from researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242860067_Maps_of_Meaning_The_Architecture_of_Belief

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 01, 2018 2:16 PM  

We think we live in the “objective” world, but we do not.

I think this is defensible, presuming he means that we construct mental models of the objective world and that our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are based on those mental models rather than the objective world itself.

The objective world is something that has been conjured up for us recently – absurdly recently, from the perspective of evolutionary biology.

And then he goes full retard.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2018 2:19 PM  

Now, my quote there is hilariously bad writing. You have to read it a couple of times before you have any idea what it's saying. Here's what it's saying: "Our own culture used to believe in spiritual things for most of its existence, and not just other cultures. We either have to say that we don't understand what they meant by those things, or we have to say that they were complete idiots."

Blogger Matt May 01, 2018 2:21 PM  

Odd, considering his lambasting of postmodernity.

He slams away at trannys, so I liked that much about him

Blogger John May 01, 2018 2:25 PM  

RIP lobster nationalism

Blogger kurt9 May 01, 2018 2:31 PM  

Reality is that which continues to exist even when you stop believing in it.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 01, 2018 2:31 PM  

@23 Saying completely contradictory things is another favorite technique of the charlatan. That way, everyone who isn't thinking critically comes away having heard exactly what they wanted to hear.

Blogger Difster May 01, 2018 2:35 PM  

I was fairly neutral on JP until now. I like some of the things he has to say. I like that he makes the SJWs scream REEEEEEEEE.

But this is stuff a 10 year old boy would think about when he first starts contemplating how the universe works.

Blogger Orthodox May 01, 2018 2:36 PM  

Sounds like he opposes being told what pronouns to call people because they are imposing their "reality" on him, not because it is false.

Blogger Peter Gent May 01, 2018 2:36 PM  

Assyrian Nationalist wrote:Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Why is he particularly wrong about reality if we are all parts of a computer simulation?

If we exist as part of a computer simulation, then the world that hosts our simulation must exist independently of our simulation. Pull the plug on the simulation and the world that hosts it will continue to exist.


It's the problem of one step removed. Objective reality exists somewhere, something has to the source of the reality we experience.

It's the same problem with aliens seeded the earth - that is where we came from. Well, where did the aliens come from? You peel the onion and in the end you get to the original source of all that is.

We call that God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Blogger Miguel May 01, 2018 2:37 PM  

But..but.....he made SJWs angry!

Blogger Othello May 01, 2018 2:38 PM  

"caught the scent of intellectual wrongness from this lunatic just from that one inexcusable error about intelligence."

Smelled like a prescription did it.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2018 2:43 PM  

The thing that really irritates me about reading that abstract is how many words are in quotes. The kind of quotes that say "this may not be the best word for this, but try to pick up my meaning". Just look at the damn thing, and visually scan for quoted words.

Blogger dienw May 01, 2018 2:44 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SouthRon May 01, 2018 2:47 PM  

On the previous post Vox said something that struck a chord. "The madman has to construct strict rules to successfully pass in society, so it should not be a surprise if following those rules allows others to do the same." I'd already figured out the second part years ago. But something about the first part really struck a chord.

JBP isn't simply a case of a somewhat dysfunctional person going into psych to understand his problems. Call it pattern recognition based on past experience, but my gut says that under the covers there is a full-blown sociopath/psychopath who is smart enough to deceive many and pass as normal most of the time. I've known a handful of these types over the years and when the mask finally comes off, start looking for the bodies.

@ghostfromplanetspook JBP will probably play it cool and try to play off Vox as the crazy one. It usually works for these types, but Vox, Taleb and many of the readers here have an SD or two on Peterson so that isn't likely to stick. Now if he were unmasked, in person, in a relatively private environment you could expect extreme aggression and physical threats while he could claim plausible deniability and flip the narrative publically.

This is why, if you encounter anyone like this, you record everything. Denial is how they survive.

JBP has already done talks on "Developing Your Inner Psychopath" and "How Narcissistic Psychopaths Fool You". Based on this, I'm leaning toward psychopathy. Survival of self without conscience towards harm done to others.

The man is evil. He is "helping" broken young men while making them "twofold more the child of hell" by offering them false and partial hope and answeres rather than using their brokeness to lead them to God.

Blogger great_o'rety May 01, 2018 2:48 PM  

I wasn't expecting you're gonna cut so quickly to Simulation Hypothesis. Dismissing a "sane" solipsism, so there's only a crazy one left on the table :)

Blogger dienw May 01, 2018 2:49 PM  

357Delta wrote:He's repackaging Jung for another generation.
This is true.

I think it was Mortimer Adler who declared that the problem with philosophizers is that they try to resolve the errors of previous philosophizers instead of just tossing out all of their works.

Blogger Zaklog the Great May 01, 2018 2:50 PM  

At risk of making myself a target here, I will say that I don’t think Peterson is saying what you seem to interpret him as saying. Now is a bad time, but I’d be happy to expand on my defense of JBP later tonight.

*Sighs. Crouches and cover head*

Blogger James Dixon May 01, 2018 2:51 PM  

> He also is sympathetic to a bit of mysticism.

A bit? Sounds like he's swallowed hook, line, and sinker to me.

> We either have to say that we don't understand what they meant by those things, or we have to say that they were complete idiots."

Well, maybe "he" has to. The rest of us are not so handicapped.

Blogger FP May 01, 2018 2:52 PM  

@16 Bilroy wrote:Isn't Jordan merely proposing idealism here? It's an interesting philosophy, perhaps a little kooky, but to say it's insane?

I'm not sure but then again I do find outlandish ideas attractive, much like the insane.



Call it whatever you want. Dress it up however you like.

From the earlier post today via Harris:
"He seemed to be claiming that any belief system compatible with our survival must be true, and any that gets us killed must be false."

Why is he fighting against the SJWs again? He is contradicting his own classical liberal canadianisms on immigration or his fears of sjw extremism. So, as many have said, he's the milquetoast moderate from Manitoba. Much like Milquetoast Mittens Romney from Massachusettes by way of Michigan. The center must hold so the centrists can die in peace with their golden retirements and world views intact.

Blogger szopen May 01, 2018 2:54 PM  

Hmmm so I am reading the maps of meaning (but I do not think I will continue reading, it's long and at moments very abstruse and obtruse book), but i came to this fragment which seems to be relevant:


"The “natural,” pre-experimental, or mythical mind is in fact primarily concerned with meaning – which is essentially implication for action – and not with “objective” nature. The formal object, as conceptualized by modern scientifically-oriented consciousness, might appear to those still possessed by the mythic imagination – if they could “see” it at all – as an irrelevant shell: as all that was left after everything intrinsically intriguing had been stripped away." [...] "It has taken centuries of firm discipline and intellectual training, religious, proto-scientific, and scientific, to produce a mind capable of concentrating on phenomena that are not yet or are no longer immediately intrinsically [instinctively (?)] gripping – to produce a mind that paradoxically regards real as something separable from relevant."


So, yeah, I think @8 Nate could be right. And I am almost afraid to write it. Anyways, précis was unreadable and nonsensical, and I find it strange that the arguments from the book (that pre-modern mind understood world differently than modern mind) do not really seem to fit the abstract. Maybe he later in book writes more about it, but since VD is already reading it, why should I suffer the pain.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2018 2:54 PM  

James Dixon wrote:Well, maybe "he" has to. The rest of us are not so handicapped.

*sigh*

THE NATURALIST either has to say that we don't understand what they meant by those things, or we have to say that they were complete idiots. You know, the naturalist that the article is written against.

Blogger electricsheeple May 01, 2018 2:55 PM  

Psychology has always blurred the lines between empirical science and Religion/Occult/New Age magical thinking/Esoteric Judaism. In one instance they will cite "the data." Then they will seamlessly transition into the gobbledygook.

IMO when you become a follower of a psychologist, you have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) have joined a spiritual movement.

Blogger RandyB May 01, 2018 2:56 PM  

It's kayfabe all the way down. Cathy Newman took a dive to set Peterson up as the new Face.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 01, 2018 2:57 PM  

I am enjoying this very much.

I will now go mow my lawn.

Blogger Robert What? May 01, 2018 2:58 PM  

@Vox, how dare you disrespect Jordan Peterson! Umm... Who is Jordan Peterson?

Blogger James Dixon May 01, 2018 2:59 PM  

> You know, the naturalist that the article is written against.

OK, not the global we then. That wasn't obvious from the excerpts to date.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2018 3:02 PM  

Yes, I summarized only that particular portion, in the context it appeared in. It indeed wasn't obvious from my message alone, now that I took another look at it.

Blogger steve brown May 01, 2018 3:04 PM  

Vox, this has gone too far. Why this war? Is Mr. Peterson Spacebunny's ex? Back off.

Blogger James Dixon May 01, 2018 3:04 PM  

> It indeed wasn't obvious from my message alone, now that I took another look at it.

We all make mistakes, Marrku. :) I try to keep careful track of yours as they're relatively rare. :)

Blogger James Dixon May 01, 2018 3:05 PM  

> Why this war?

Because Peterson's followers are being jerks. If you knew Vox at all you'd know this would be his response.

Blogger Peter Gent May 01, 2018 3:06 PM  

szopen wrote:"The “natural,” pre-experimental, or mythical mind is in fact primarily concerned with meaning – which is essentially implication for action – and not with “objective” nature. The formal object, as conceptualized by modern scientifically-oriented consciousness, might appear to those still possessed by the mythic imagination – if they could “see” it at all – as an irrelevant shell: as all that was left after everything intrinsically intriguing had been stripped away." [...] "It has taken centuries of firm discipline and intellectual training, religious, proto-scientific, and scientific, to produce a mind capable of concentrating on phenomena that are not yet or are no longer immediately intrinsically [instinctively (?)] gripping – to produce a mind that paradoxically regards real as something separable from relevant."
It all sounds like word salad to me. Maybe I am too short for this ride.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 3:06 PM  

Isn't Jordan merely proposing idealism here? It's an interesting philosophy, perhaps a little kooky, but to say it's insane?

No. And I'm saying Peterson is insane.

I regret to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the miasma of envy is getting pretty thick here. We all need to reign in our obsessions.

Leave now and don't ever comment here again. I am done tolerating idiotic retreats to "you just envy him" every fucking time I criticize anyone.

You are done here.

And no, I most certainly do not envy Jordan Peterson. He is seriously messed up.

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 3:08 PM  

@8- The Enlightenment brought up severe doubt as to whether the outside world even exists. Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Liebniz, Spinoza, the Idealists. Oh, the Idealists. The Pragmatists. Russell, Bergson, Alexander, Whitehead...these people were all reality-deniers or doubters. They certainly weren't people who thought experience was perfectly objective and the world makes sense and we understand it, thank you very much.

Not to say that people didn't doubt like that before, but one of the post-enlightenment themes is maybe I'm being tricked and I don't actually know anything.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 01, 2018 3:10 PM  

szopen wrote:"The “natural,” pre-experimental, or mythical mind is in fact primarily concerned with meaning – which is essentially implication for action – and not with “objective” nature.
So, he thinks to pontifcate o the nature of the "Pre-modern mind" without bothering to read what these pre-moderns actually wrote. Ten minutes reading of even completely and dedicatedly religious Western figures, like the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Julian the Apostate, or Augustine would disabuse him of this ridiculous notion.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 3:10 PM  

Vox, this has gone too far. Why this war?

Gone too far? I've haven't even started. By the time I'm done, what I did to Sam Harris is going to look gentle and loving.

As for why, it's because Peterson is a lunatic gamma preaching an evil gospel that is less coherent than Scientology and people are trying to sell it to me as wisdom. I was happy to ignore the guy until people started telling me to swallow obvious bullshit.

Now I'm paying attention.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2018 3:12 PM  

The “natural,” pre-experimental, or mythical mind is in fact primarily concerned with meaning – which is essentially implication for action – and not with “objective” nature

Look at this sentence. It's a randomly picked sentence from the text. Yet, there are two words there that are put in quotes that denote loose meaning. In one sentence. And this goes all through the text.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 3:13 PM  

Vox, I think you're going to have to go deeper into this piece. I haven't read it, but this is the sentence following the one you quoted:

This does not mean that the objective world is not real, even though theories about its nature are in constant flux. What it does mean is that the environment of human beings might well be regarded as “spiritual,” as well as “material.”


Like I said, gobbledygook. He said we do not live in that real world.

Do you live in that real world or do you not live in it? You can't have it both ways and just cry mysticism.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 3:14 PM  

Look at this sentence. It's a randomly picked sentence from the text. Yet, there are two words there that are put in quotes that denote loose meaning. In one sentence. And this goes all through the text.

Yet we are told that he is very careful to be precise with his words....

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 3:14 PM  

Reading this, I am reminded of a funny book called the Unrealists by Harvey Wickham, about various reality-denying modern philosophers.

One of his points about William James, John Dewey, and other pragmatists is that people think their system is based upon "by their fruits you shall know them." Which is a useful mindset. But actually, they believe something quite different. Something much stupider.

Blogger steve brown May 01, 2018 3:15 PM  

Vox, thank you.

Blogger Joshua Hardy May 01, 2018 3:16 PM  

Most of the people I know don’t live in the objective world. They live in a sort of squishy-notiony world in which they assume their subjective feelings reach out and modify their environs. I can interpret Jordan’s statement as both sense and nonsense. I conceptualize the world as being objective materially, but I also move through it as though it were a morality tale. I switch from the frame of purpose to the frame of blind physics as I perceive that I need to - I need to read the book to see the context. He could just be flat out saying that the objective world does not exist, but I don’t think he thinks that. Like I said, I can reasonably interpret the highlited section and I can also make it seem crazy.

I can also relate it to claims that are similar but not identical: science is recent because it requires a Christian belief in a knowable, rational world. However, I want to be careful and not swap what he said for what I think he said.

Blogger Flair1239 May 01, 2018 3:17 PM  

@Vox

You are not criticizing his work, you are attacking his character. You are smart enough to know the difference.

On the Jewish thing it was not enough to say “He is wrong, here is why”. You said it was obvious he was being deceitful.

What I read was a dude doing some quick napkin math based off another guy’s numbers.

Coming at him hard is cool and educational, but what you are doing seems personal.

Blogger OneWingedShark May 01, 2018 3:23 PM  

VD wrote:Vox, this has gone too far. Why this war?

Gone too far? I've haven't even started. By the time I'm done, what I did to Sam Harris is going to look gentle and loving.

Some people would call the joyful anticipation I'm feeling now 'unchristian'... but the truth is that the Christian ought to stand up against lies like this, for we know the Truth (who is Jesus).

I will pray for Peterson to know Jesus as well, but I will fully enjoy your dismantling.

As for why, it's because Peterson is a lunatic gamma preaching an evil gospel that is less coherent than Scientology and people are trying to sell it to me as wisdom. I was happy to ignore the guy until people started telling me to swallow obvious bullshit.

Now I'm paying attention.

Go for it Vox!

Blogger Damn Crackers May 01, 2018 3:25 PM  

He marries Jungian and evolutionary psych. What do you expect? Almost all Jungians are Neoplatonists. Just read Jung's interpretation of the "Solar Phallus Man", and you'll see how screwy his interpretations are.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 3:27 PM  

"Yet we are told that he is very careful to be precise with his words...."

And this is the indictment that matters I suppose... at least to me. Again... if I am correct that JP is attempting to say we have an issue with empiricism as I posited earilier... i suppose that is in fact a position I am sympathetic to and it is defensible. But he is so inarticulate that he isn't capable of making that point, or the defense of it, in a coherent fashion.

And if that is true... what good is he?

Blogger Carlos Eduardo Chies May 01, 2018 3:27 PM  

@54

electricsheeple wrote:Psychology has always blurred the lines between empirical science and Religion/Occult/New Age magical thinking/Esoteric Judaism. In one instance they will cite "the data." Then they will seamlessly transition into the gobbledygook.

IMO when you become a follower of a psychologist, you have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) have joined a spiritual movement.


I don´t agree, since I see the confusion of spiritual and psychology exactly the satanic part.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 01, 2018 3:30 PM  

I wasn't expecting you're gonna cut so quickly to Simulation Hypothesis. Dismissing a "sane" solipsism, so there's only a crazy one left on the table :)

@47 great_o'rety
The computer simulation hypothesis is actually one of the more Christian ones out there. The idea of us as ghosts in God's Matrix, being tested for worthiness.

Blogger tuberman May 01, 2018 3:30 PM  

74. Flair1239

Attacks by JP followers have lead to this, as they are constant, and have no substance whatsoever behind them. They made this personal, after Vox said he was done.

This reminds me of AA's followers doing the same.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 3:31 PM  

You are not criticizing his work, you are attacking his character. You are smart enough to know the difference.

No, I was initially attacking his character. Now I am seriously questioning his mental health. He is messed up and I suspect he's going to show it before too long.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 01, 2018 3:31 PM  

@ "What I read was a dude doing some quick napkin math based off another guy’s numbers."

That's not what happened. He chose a >145 IQ to examine simply because that made the math work out the way he wanted it to. The subject was the disproportionate number of Jewish millionaires and billionaires, and there are something like 20 millionaires for each individual with a >145 IQ in the US.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook May 01, 2018 3:35 PM  

VD wrote:You are not criticizing his work, you are attacking his character. You are smart enough to know the difference.

No, I was initially attacking his character. Now I am seriously questioning his mental health. He is messed up and I suspect he's going to show it before too long.


Hes cried on air and during his youtube streams already only thing that could make it worse would be if he were to go off his meds.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 01, 2018 3:35 PM  

In other words, Flair, Peterson pulled a laughably obvious bait-and-switch routine and you fell for it.

Blogger szopen May 01, 2018 3:41 PM  

Markku wrote:The “natural,” pre-experimental, or mythical mind is in fact primarily concerned with meaning – which is essentially implication for action – and not with “objective” nature

Look at this sentence. It's a randomly picked sentence from the text. Yet, there are two words there that are put in quotes that denote loose meaning. In one sentence. And this goes all through the text.


I go back to the text, reread it and you are completely right. In the first page of the first chapter he has empirical "fact", to explore something, to "discover what it is", The empirical object might be regarded as those sensory properties "intrinsic" to the object, tends "naturally" and the stimulus that "gives rise"

The first page of the first chapter.

And, if someone has no account on researchgate and the first link does not work, here is another: https://joeclark.org/peterson/peterson_mapsofmeaning-en.pdf

Blogger Damn Crackers May 01, 2018 3:44 PM  

The question is how close does he get to being the Canadian Joseph Campbell? Or false Joseph Campbell?

Blogger tuberman May 01, 2018 3:49 PM  

"Is the end goal of this to break the stranglehold of cultural Marxism?"

The end goal is a revitalization of Christian/Western Civilization with necessary elements of Roman/Greek/Common Laws and attitudes, I would suppose.

"Cultural Marxism" is just one head of the dragon. The Matrix is MK-Ultra type Narrative propagandas, promoting various inverted realities, and not some silly computer program.

Blogger Nate73 May 01, 2018 3:55 PM  

Well he does take anti-depressants, he's been open about that.

Blogger tuberman May 01, 2018 4:00 PM  

J. Campbell was a phony too. He was the start of the stupid, Margret Mead type anthropologists of the 20th century, and was a weak-willed tribal boot-lick.

The French School that came before this did a much better job. Campbell claimed they were cold, starers at humanity, but that was a lie, that permitted his ass-kissing ways, like today's response by SJWs that all foreign cultures are better than Western Civilization. He moved SJW attitudes far ahead.

Blogger great_o'rety May 01, 2018 4:00 PM  

SouthRon wrote:
JBP isn't simply a case of a somewhat dysfunctional person going into psych to understand his problems. Call it pattern recognition based on past experience, but my gut says that under the covers there is a full-blown sociopath/psychopath who is smart enough to deceive many and pass as normal most of the time. I've known a handful of these types over the years and when the mask finally comes off, start looking for the bodies.

Well, look no further for a confirmation than the video of his lecture posted by szopen under the previous post (OK, I've managed to excavate the link, here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvOeWgZMXR4&feature=youtu.be&t=52)

Blogger electricsheeple May 01, 2018 4:01 PM  

Carlos Eduardo Chies May 01, 2018 3:27 PM
@54

electricsheeple wrote:
Psychology has always blurred the lines between empirical science and Religion/Occult/New Age magical thinking/Esoteric Judaism. In one instance they will cite "the data." Then they will seamlessly transition into the gobbledygook.

IMO when you become a follower of a psychologist, you have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) have joined a spiritual movement.


I don´t agree, since I see the confusion of spiritual and psychology exactly the satanic part.

That's what I getting at.

Blogger spacehabitats May 01, 2018 4:06 PM  

Maybe this is damning with faint praise, but, for an academic psychologist, Peterson really impressed me during his interviews with Stefan Molyneux. His respect for Christianity, its values and traditions, seems to be greater than your average Alt righter and MUCH greater than our pagan brothers.

He really seemed to be someone, like Stefan being dragged into ethnonationalism, as an agnostic being dragged into Christianity by his intellectual integrity. THAT is what I found so disappointing about his current attacks. He has all of the behavioral signs of someone was given a choice between his current wealth and status or maintaining his integrity and ultimately failed the test.

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 4:09 PM  

@79- Is that sorta the idea behind Bishop Berkeley's idealism, or the monads of Leibniz? I forget, because it's been a time since I read either.

Blogger The Kurgan May 01, 2018 4:10 PM  

Schopenhauer was a retarded German gamma.

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 4:10 PM  

@73- The way you're thinking of people not living in the real world is figurative. Peterson sounds like he means it literally.

But I can't tell, because it's not clearly written

Blogger James Dixon May 01, 2018 4:11 PM  

> Most of the people I know don’t live in the objective world.

Oh, their body lives in the objective world. It's only their mind that doesn't. To a limited extent that's true of all of us, but some of us try to minimize the difference.

Blogger Sun Downer May 01, 2018 4:13 PM  

I don't even bother trying to reason with people who are that far off, I can't stop thinking there is something seriously wrong with them.

He's stuck in a blue pill fantasy, I think Rollo would say he's a hopeless beta. And that he is.

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 01, 2018 4:17 PM  

@92 its the otherway around, he had spiritual experiences that led him to being unable to discount god and religion but also unable to really believe due to some form of scienticsm

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 4:18 PM  

@89-Hear, hear. I already knew the left was mad about sociology and anthropology before I bothered reading any of it, so I steered clear of your Boases and Meads.

I read Durkheim and Le Bon, Aron, Pareto, Sumner, Weber, and so forth before I ever bothered with the Boas school. Backing into modernism like that really shows how two-dimensional it is.

Blogger LP999-16 May 01, 2018 4:18 PM  

Around here we all kinda know about the 'problems' of psychology.

67, not surprised at all.


RE: his followers and I wonder if Ben, Beck, Rubin, Rogan are going to defend him.

Maybe its a IQ SD matter or young persons thing like the 18 to 22 yr olds whom follow him or whom ever says they are huge fans of his work - I can understand that per the youtube videos I've listened to at the channel bite size philosophy, some of his work didn't ring true to me or was not applicable to off key. I will return with some examples/email them.

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 01, 2018 4:24 PM  

As for Peterson's health, we are somewhat fellow travelers. The man has suffered from crippling depression for his entire adult life until recently. Depression can really keep one humble to the point of self deprecating. I worry that with his new lack of depression he gets very hubristic.

As for judging him for such a thing,its hard to say. On one hand depression needs to be dealt with as the physical illness it is, on the other I cant fault a man for accomplishing as much as he has while fighting one of the worse illnesses known to man

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 4:27 PM  

Hold the presses... Just heard from JP (or is it Ezra Levant, hard to tell the diff) via the transmitter in my molar: They forgot to mention the actual reason for the super-intelligence of the (((master-race))) to you stupid goyim who've been shelling out the shekels for the received wisdom from on high:

Studying Talmud makes math geniuses, even better than consulting Ouija-boards.

Only (((select))) mathematical geniuses can determine the real IQ... back to your regularly shceduled program.

Blogger Lovekraft May 01, 2018 4:28 PM  

@94 The Kurgan:

got a chuckle out of that. You may be right, but doesn't mean his ideas are wrong. Many great thinkers were childless or loners. Part of being dedicated to deep study.

Peterson is tearing many people away from the false and destructive nest of identity politics/cultural marxism/moral relativism.

Various stages involved. There are the naturally inquisitive, then there are those who I suspect are latching onto JP like a surrogate father (not surprising. Canada is as anti-male/father as they come. Our media, entertainment, education system is inverted). Natural for these people to put up arguments.

Then we have JP's enemies and there are many. Pink-haired SJWs, his academic colleagues he called out for cowardice, the LGBT cabal, the gender flippers etc.

So what happens after the dust settles? Is JP given some credit for bringing so many away from the marxist/upside-down? Does his allies turn on us, thus giving the left a double victory?

Let me make one thing clear: a strong moral/ethical position cannot be compromised. We maintain our position there. But if we undermine JP, we have to present his followers with an alternative that benefits us all, no?

Blogger Cloom Glue May 01, 2018 4:30 PM  

Mr. Deficient wrote:As for Peterson's health, we are somewhat fellow travelers. The man has suffered from crippling depression for his entire adult life until recently. Depression can really keep one humble to the point of self deprecating. I worry that with his new lack of depression he gets very hubristic.

As for judging him for such a thing,its hard to say. On one hand depression needs to be dealt with as the physical illness it is, on the other I cant fault a man for accomplishing as much as he has while fighting one of the worse illnesses known to man


Depression is often a spiritual illness, and sometimes a poor nutrition illness. I don't know if it is another physical illness, so I make no comment about that.

Blogger Daniel Bendele May 01, 2018 4:30 PM  

I always found Jung difficult, but fascinating. Peterson was cool because his Bible videos made Jung more understandable. Peterson certainly isn't a Christian, he's not Alt-Right, and he says a lot of off the wall crap that people think sounds smart because he pauses for 30 seconds and acts like he's thinking REAL hard before he says it.

I liked parts of his 12 Rules book, and thought other parts were useless psycho babble. I read a lot of people I don't agree with. Often I can tell something is "off" so I discard it. I appreciate Vox eviscerating Peterson because it helps me explain the parts of what he says that are just way way off. I know a lot folks jumping on this guy's bandwagon so any ammo I can use to help point out the problems is much appreciated.

Thank you, Supreme Dark Lord!

Blogger great_o'rety May 01, 2018 4:33 PM  

Joshua Hardy wrote:Most of the people I know don’t live in the objective world. They live in a sort of squishy-notiony world in which they assume their subjective feelings reach out and modify their environs.
No, they LIVE in an objective world no matter what their not quite sane mind produces. What part of JBP peddling his gamma delusion that VD wrote about did you not understand?

VFM #7634 wrote:
The computer simulation hypothesis is actually one of the more Christian ones out there. The idea of us as ghosts in God's Matrix, being tested for worthiness.

Well, I'm not so sure about this. The concept looks dangerously gnostic to me.

Peter Gent wrote:Assyrian Nationalist wrote:Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Why is he particularly wrong about reality if we are all parts of a computer simulation?

If we exist as part of a computer simulation, then the world that hosts our simulation must exist independently of our simulation. Pull the plug on the simulation and the world that hosts it will continue to exist.


It's the problem of one step removed. Objective reality exists somewhere, something has to the source of the reality we experience.

It's not the point VD is making (correct me if I'm wrong). The original reality that produces the simulation is irrelevant (and that's good because we're in no position to know anything about it). The fact that we are part of the same simulation renders it objective. That is what we experience is "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality [a simulated one]"

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 4:42 PM  

"I liked parts of his 12 Rules book, and thought other parts were useless psycho babble."

Milo came to a similar conclusion. He mentioned that when he had Stefan on his show recently.


Here's a transcript of one of his Bible lectures. Scroll down to Section III

https://jordanbpeterson.com/transcripts/biblical-series-viii/#C3

Wherein he discusses the OT stories of people talking to God, by bringing up strokes and psilocybin.

Blogger Lovekraft May 01, 2018 4:45 PM  

Perhaps we can move from debating objective/subjective theory and break it down into the Real Meaning of this debate?

Someone break down what Peterson is claiming, what VD is countering, and what the implications are as to advancing whatever political/philosophical ideology?

Blogger John May 01, 2018 4:46 PM  

@103 But if we undermine JP, we have to present his followers with an alternative that benefits us all, no?

Destroying evil philosophers is its own reward.

Everyone always acts like we are on the verge of ratifying the Constitution and we have to make a decision RIGHT NOW on whether to compromise on slavery to unify North and South, or whether we take our chances apart.

In fact, we've only just now begun to fight the revolution. Destroying guys like JP is part of the war. We are decades away from having to worry about compromising principles for expedience.

Blogger SirHamster May 01, 2018 4:47 PM  

great_o'rety wrote:The fact that we are part of the same simulation renders it objective.

Being in a simulation together doesn't necessarily mean we are dealing with the same objective environment.

Ex: Simulation spawns special world for each agent in the sim. Which is what single player games are like. Millions of people playing with the same universe, but it only exists for them. With sufficient open-world design it would be a unique experience for each player.

But the one level up reality objectively exists by definition if we are in a simulation. Our reality can be objectively described despite our completely subjective experience inside it. (Players are in a sim. Player A is in World 1, Player B is in World 2.)

Blogger tuberman May 01, 2018 4:52 PM  

103. Lovekraft

Well, JP does do a decent job of attacking subjects like the Frankfort School sometimes, and many people think of those people as intellectuals, although their basic message is that people do not have the right to think at all. Deconstruction and Derrida lead to the conclusion that there is no "meaning to anything," and it is all myths and metaphors.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 5:01 PM  

He doesn't define "objective" differently than does the dictionary.

He uses the term "live" in a sense different from the one you're using.

I think his message is quite clear when he makes the following statement later in the same document you cite: "What if it could be demonstrated, for example, that the mind or even the brain has adapted itself to an environment that can best be described in non-material categories?"

In any event, he goes out of his way to affirm that the statement you quote "does not mean that the objective world is not real, even though theories about its nature are in constant flux."

The message I take away is that our bodies exist in an objective, real world, but our minds are adapted by long history to thinking in emotional, spiritual and mythological terms, not scientific, mathematical or statistical terms. Thinking rationally and scientifically about the objective world is a recently acquired and uncomfortable habit, and most people don't go about their daily business -- they don't "live" in their day-to-day world -- like Data from Star Trek TNG might.

That's what I take Peterson to mean; that's what I think he says pretty darn clearly in the document you cite; and, personally, I don't think that is a particularly unreasonable premise on which to start a philosophical rumination on the theory of meaning. There is a rich tradition of speculation on just such premises in the western canon.

Blogger Sterling Pilgrim May 01, 2018 5:06 PM  

Well, the_Donald seems to be a bit upset over Peterson's exposure...
http://i.magaimg.net/img/37le.png

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard May 01, 2018 5:10 PM  

benkurtzblog That's it, although I think he goes a little bit further. That reality is real is central to his thinking. But we construct our conscious experience in a goal-oriented way through narratives and archetypes. Another way he puts it is 'the world isn't made up of matter, but of what matters.'

It's our consciousness he sees as 'existentially subjective', not all of reality.

Blogger The Kurgan May 01, 2018 5:12 PM  

On whether reality is real, I have a fail-safe method I have used to great effect with journalists.

I posit the nearest visible coffee table or wall is real with absolute certainty and that in three seconds or less the journalist too will agree with me.

I say I can make absolute predictions about the coffee table and the journalist. Because they are journalists they usually scoff.
I then offer to smash their head into the coffee table or wall and then they can deny its reality to me.

No takers so far.
100% conversion rate I tell you.
Hard reality comes at ya fast!

Blogger SciVo May 01, 2018 5:14 PM  

Weouro wrote:Sounds like the intellectual twin of Scott Adams with his Many Movies view of reality.

IIRC, Scott Adams would say that we're all watching our different movies on the same screen. It isn't clear to me whether JBP is or is not saying the same kind of thing.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 5:16 PM  

He doesn't define "objective" differently than does the dictionary. He uses the term "live" in a sense different from the one you're using.

(facepalm)

I think... The message I take away... That's what I take Peterson to mean.

I repeat: Peterson provides highly compressed bullshit polished into a mirror that allows you to see what you want to see rather than what is actually there.

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 5:17 PM  

@112- "That's what I take Peterson to mean"

Then why doesn't Peterson say that?

How long did it take you to write that post? Now imagine being able to sit back and say the same thing at your leisure and be paid for the trouble, yet making infinitely less sense.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 01, 2018 5:17 PM  

E. Michael Jones laughs at Peterson, telling this one story about how when questioned about the JQ once, Peterson looked like a deer in the headlights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pf1cRQiDSM&spfreload=10&bpctr=1525210936

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 5:18 PM  

Another way he puts it is 'the world isn't made up of matter, but of what matters.'

I am so going to enjoy eviscerating this guy. Sweet Aristotle, who falls for this crap?

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 5:21 PM  

@101- If it is a physical illness, I'm sure medical science hasn't defined it yet, nor do they know how to treat it. Nor can we say for certain anyone has it, including Peterson.

Which doesn't mean his suffering isn't real. But you might just as well say he's melancholic or has spiritual torpor.

Blogger szopen May 01, 2018 5:21 PM  

The Kurgan wrote:On whether reality is real, I have a fail-safe method I have used to great effect with journalists.

I posit the nearest visible coffee table or wall is real with absolute certainty and that in three seconds or less the journalist too will agree with me.

I say I can make absolute predictions about the coffee table and the journalist. Because they are journalists they usually scoff.

I then offer to smash their head into the coffee table or wall and then they can deny its reality to me.

No takers so far.

100% conversion rate I tell you.

Hard reality comes at ya fast!



I feel like in mood for arguing, so...

Your's is very old argument, but of course unsatisfying from the philosophical point of view. If everything is illusion, then so is pain. And you. In fact, if I would be solipsist and you would come to me and smash me, causing me pain, that would only prove that my solipsist mind seems to be masochist (I am _not_ solipsist, just explaining).

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 5:21 PM  

Vox, you could lead off with pineapple on pizza not being real, since all right thinking people know pineapple on pizza doesn't matter.

Or we could decide the Japanese invasion of the West Coast of the Continental US is real because it obviously matters to us.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 5:23 PM  

Furthermore, this would invalidate the entire breast augmentation industry. Since boobs matter as well, they thus become real.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 5:25 PM  

What part of "stay out of it" was hard for you to understand, wrf3. I don't want you inserting yourself into this conversation concerning Jordan Peterson at all.

Knock it off.

Blogger August May 01, 2018 5:25 PM  

VD in this case means voice of doom. Media assisted implosion is likely to ensue.

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard May 01, 2018 5:26 PM  

Peterson doesn't believe the table isn't real, he believes that you've separated it out of reality as a discrete object because of your aims and actions.

Blogger great_o'rety May 01, 2018 5:27 PM  

SirHamster wrote:
Being in a simulation together doesn't necessarily mean we are dealing with the same objective environment.

If we are not dealing with the same objective environment, then we are not in a simulation together

Ex: Simulation spawns special world for each agent in the sim. Which is what single player games are like. Millions of people playing with the same universe, but it only exists for them. With sufficient open-world design it would be a unique experience for each player.
Well, yeah. Or we're dreaming. Irrelevant (as per the VD's definition of objective). It still doesn't depend on the one dreaming/playing through the simulation. That's really the crux of the question. If it did depend on the agent, as you call him, then we would be in no position to call Peterson insane or delusional.

But the one level up reality objectively exists by definition if we are in a simulation. Our reality can be objectively described despite our completely subjective experience inside it. (Players are in a sim. Player A is in World 1, Player B is in World 2.)
If we are in a simulation we can't say anything meaningful about one level up reality. Even stating that it exists wouldn't really mean anything (as we can only try to project our simulated meaning of existence on the original one and have no way of knowing if and to what extent the projection matches it). Also the last two of your sentences don't make any sense to me - you can't say "Players are in a sim...etc" from the point of your "completely subjective experience inside it".

Blogger Ex Caliburn May 01, 2018 5:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger lynnjynh9315 May 01, 2018 5:30 PM  

There is objective truth, but the Cartesian in me notes that certainty of the Objective World requires trust in my own senses.

I admit I liked Peterson's statements because the atheists are right: there is no giant, all-powerful, bearded man floating in space. But it never made sense to anthropomorphize God anyway.

In both cases, I sense the failure of defining truth in a materialist lens. I imagine I'm not the only one who has come to this realization as a result of Peterson.

Blogger Ranger May 01, 2018 5:33 PM  

This sounds a lot like Owen Barfield, who was influenced by Rudolph Steiner and the Anthoposophists and in turn influenced Lewis, Williams, and, to a lesser extent from what Ive read, Tolkien.

Blogger Carlos Eduardo Chies May 01, 2018 5:33 PM  

@91

"I don´t agree, since I see the confusion of spiritual and psychology exactly the satanic part.

That's what I getting at."

Ok. And I could not agree more. With people are not going closer to Christ with Peterson, then something is not good.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 5:36 PM  

[quote]Another way he puts it is 'the world isn't made up of matter, but of what matters.'

I am so going to enjoy eviscerating this guy. Sweet Aristotle, who falls for this crap?[/quote]

You really need to watch TV more. EVERYONE IN THE FREAK'N WORLD falls for that. Either from liberals or cons or people selling something.

That said I would encourage you to read the whole thing (or at least a chapter) before going to deep into 1 sentence. He's an academic and wordy and if the book is like many of his lectures he jumps around a bit. The only Academics who are succinct are engineers.

Blogger Teleros May 01, 2018 5:42 PM  

SJ wrote:

Hey I mean I never had a problem keeping my room clean and I don't see how cleaning my room is going to solve the problems with fiat or the foreign invasion the managerial class thinks will either solve their fiat ponzi scheme or cause enough civil unrest and lowering of IQ that nobody notices when it fails. It also didn't keep me from getting divorced from my first wife.


1. You're probably psychologically much healthier than the people he's targeting with that "clean your room" meme of his.

2. His shtick goes something like this: the good you do in the world must start with your own life before it expands out, and only when you've got, say, yourself & your family sorted out do you go and help those around your family, then those around them, and so on. Now, if "clean your room" is amazing self-help advice for you, this is probably a good idea, because you're frankly a bit of a failure and I don't want you "helping" me in my life. Besides that though, this is just a call to let the Left, who don't do what JBP advocates, overrun all the big institutions of civilisation whilst you're off in a corner trying to fix your alcoholic mother or whatever.

= = = = =

ghostfromplanetspook wrote:Maybe I am too short for this ride I thought some of his stuff was atleast ok. Do you think he'll respond to your criticisms or just shrug them off as an "alt-right racist/fascist attack on his good name"?

I think he comes up with some good stuff, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Personally I've enjoyed his Biblical lectures, and some of his more famous self-help bits of advice, but I also know when to tune out the gobbledegook. I've also not read any of his work, beyond that blog post where he "addresses" the JQ.

As for his response, I'm torn between "ignore" and "evil fascist". Sadly I doubt he's going to take the time out to address the criticisms here as they deserve.

= = = = =

Orthodox wrote:Sounds like he opposes being told what pronouns to call people because they are imposing their "reality" on him, not because it is false.

He opposes it because it's the state forcing him to say it, that's all. He's said as much in interviews before. The impression I got was that he might call a trannie by their preferred pronoun if they asked nicely and stuff, but he won't do it if he's being forced to by the state. Canadian boomer academic, so frankly that's probably the best we can expect under the circumstances :P .

= = = = =

OneWingedShark wrote:

Some people would call the joyful anticipation I'm feeling now 'unchristian'... but the truth is that the Christian ought to stand up against lies like this, for we know the Truth (who is Jesus).

I will pray for Peterson to know Jesus as well, but I will fully enjoy your dismantling.



Some people are idiots. See Romans 12:9, have a think, then decide whether a little schadenfreude is really un-Christian ;) ...

Blogger Nathan Wright May 01, 2018 5:45 PM  

VD wrote:Vox, I think you're going to have to go deeper into this piece. I haven't read it, but this is the sentence following the one you quoted:

This does not mean that the objective world is not real, even though theories about its nature are in constant flux. What it does mean is that the environment of human beings might well be regarded as “spiritual,” as well as “material.”


Like I said, gobbledygook. He said we do not live in that real world.

Do you live in that real world or do you not live in it? You can't have it both ways and just cry mysticism.


Yeah ... it is a Precis after all. I suspect you're right though - I certainly am not enthusiastic to wade through 31 pages of that, let alone the full text, and I would expect it to be a waste of time.

If I squint though, it sounds a bit like the argument in the first part of Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom, or in Owen Barfield's Worlds Apart. The idea is that "naive realism" and "metaphysical realism" are both wrong (Steiner's argument is philosophical, Barfield expands it with reference to physics post quantum mechanics).

Blogger S. Thermite May 01, 2018 5:50 PM  

Did you never even read Maps of Meaning?

Speaking for myself, of course not! The book is almost 20 years old, was the first book he wrote (and self-admittedly, while he was still hammering things out), and is ~$55 on Amazon Kindle ($20 for a rental). I’ve still got Castalia titles to finish before such dry acedemic nonsense...I haven’t even finished Milo’s book yet. My exposure to Peterson has mostly been listening to his interviews and lectures, in which I thought he was insightful and entertaining but certainly not a speaker of dogmatic truth.

More power to you though for going there so we don’t have to! Peterson’s popularity comes from his perceived willingness to say things that are true that others don’t want to hear, so it’s rich irony if you say things about him that are true and his fans don’t want to hear.

Blogger tuberman May 01, 2018 5:54 PM  

JP's big mistake, to me, is his suggesting that everyone that takes an Alt-Right position is extreme right, as in Alt-Retard. He is following the Left's or the Globalist Narrative big-time with no effort at discerning differences, or even if his assumption is fact based.

MSM's charlottesville Narrative is unquestioned by him, and that's a tip off to where he is at, on a big scale.

Blogger Ranger May 01, 2018 5:56 PM  

On the other hand, even though it sounds like Steiner and Barfield, a quick search of the PDF of the book does not mention any of them by name, so if thats his position it is indeed intellectually dishonest to omit them.

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2018 5:57 PM  

@134- "He opposes it because it's the state forcing him to say it"

Speaking of the Canadian Thought Prison, has anyone tried reading Peterson like a Straussian might read Plato? You know, for "esoteric meaning?"

Could there be a method to the despicability of his dishonesty?

Blogger Jack Ward May 01, 2018 6:00 PM  

A lot of 'posit' this or that by JP and a few here.

VD said: I repeat: Peterson provides highly compressed bullshit polished into a mirror that allows you to see what you want to see rather than what is actually there.

This may be the money quote of this posting/comment string. There is wisdom therein. You could do zen with that observation for weeks and not exhaust it.

VD also said, up page, that he is so going to enjoy tearing this guy apart. Or some such.

At the risk of getting splinters as VD's chainsaw goes to work I will posit something. Modern science says that at the tiny tiny microscopic realm, the quantum realm, all is chaos. I will posit that you go from macroscopic to microscopic [that chaotic region of the Plank measurement, IE quantum] push on through and you find things are not chaotic anymore. It is smooth again; about like a good bourbon. I think JP got lost somewhere between the Plank measurements and smaller and can't find his way out.
There. Its said. Now, for a glass of that fine bourbon, sit back and enjoy this show.
Lord, don't you folks love this blog!

Blogger artensoll May 01, 2018 6:42 PM  

140. Jack Ward: "Lord, don't you folks love this blog!"

Yes, Jack Ward, on this issue I defo stand with you.

I haven't paid any mind to JP since I heard him say people should not homeschool.

I hope Vox makes him cry.

Blogger Lovekraft May 01, 2018 6:43 PM  

"A scholar tries to learn something everyday; a student of Buddhism tries to unlearn something daily."

Alan Watts

Unless we tie this issue into real political consequence, we are just going to devolve into metaphysical claptrap.

Blogger artensoll May 01, 2018 6:44 PM  

Sounds like he could use a "reality" check.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 6:47 PM  

'There. Its said. Now, for a glass of that fine bourbon, sit back and enjoy this show.'

speaking of that... Don't believe the Wild Turkey Longbranch hype boys. JACIII brought a bottle down this weekend and we tried it. It is seriously bad. I mean... when it first hits your tongue you will be thinking "Kentucky Tavern?"

its that bad.

I feel sick to my stomach even typing this out. I hate disparaging a Wild Turkey product... but there it is.

honestly I blame Texas.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 6:51 PM  

"Furthermore, this would invalidate the entire breast augmentation industry. Since boobs matter as well, they thus become real."

There is no place in society for Boob Bigots.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 01, 2018 6:54 PM  

Well played, Vox.

Hey Nate, do you think God runs Alexa - divine edition - on his computer and that's how he speaks things into existence?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 7:00 PM  

No place, Nate.

Quit your whiskey whining, by the way.

Blogger SirHamster May 01, 2018 7:00 PM  

great_o'rety wrote:Being in a simulation together doesn't necessarily mean we are dealing with the same objective environment.

If we are not dealing with the same objective environment, then we are not in a simulation together


The simulation is the set of hardware/software that computes and holds the simulated environment. It can be objective and shared, and is a separate concept than the simulated environment we each individually experience. Are you grouping the simulation and the simulated environment together?

Ex: Unix mainframe, which provides each of us an account we can access through a session. Even If the mainframe completely segregates our accounts and sessions from each other, we are sharing the mainframe.

Well, yeah. Or we're dreaming. Irrelevant (as per the VD's definition of objective). It still doesn't depend on the one dreaming/playing through the simulation. That's really the crux of the question. If it did depend on the agent, as you call him, then we would be in no position to call Peterson insane or delusional.

Not saying it depends on the agent/player/whatever. Am only pointing out that simulations have the option of completely segregating individuals from each other, so simulation does not imply objective shared experience (I see what you see), only an objective reality containing the simulation. (3rd party can describe what I see and what you see, even if we can't see what each other sees)


If we are in a simulation we can't say anything meaningful about one level up reality.

We can guess at certain things. The one level up reality would by definition contain the simulation as a subset, so the simulation is a smaller world than the objective reality. Unless the outer reality is not logical and orderly, but then all this logical speculation is pointless.

If this were not the case, then you should be able to build a more detailed and interesting world inside the simulation, and do the same inside. This does not match human experience with simulations.


Also the last two of your sentences don't make any sense to me - you can't say "Players are in a sim...etc" from the point of your "completely subjective experience inside it".

If it's objective, the perspective doesn't matter. I am in a simulation, or I am not. I am a player in World 1, or I am not. Whether I can figure it out, whether I know or guess this is true, is irrelevant.

But one objective observer who can describe this reality accurately is the one running the sim, "God".

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 7:01 PM  

On topic:

https://kek.gg/i/3QkPYt.jpg

Thoughts? Should I simplify?

Blogger Samuel Nock May 01, 2018 7:06 PM  

@46 Vox indicated in a recent post or comment that Peterson is more intelligent than he (Vox) is. This is not a question of intelligence. Indeed, it shows that truth is far more powerful than intelligence in cutting through bullshit. Peterson is intelligent enough for his work to be very very dangerous, even evil, to himself and to others.

Blogger Mastermind May 01, 2018 7:15 PM  

P obvious from context that Peterson is talking about the concept of an objective world when he says the objective world if you actually read Peterson's words in context.

It's further obvious that he's just differentiating between the world we experience and the world that exists when he talks about the world we live in. It becomes really clear if you read the abstract before that point.

If Vox's criticism of Peterson is just gonna consist of more of this embarrassing nitpicking that makes him look like the lesser end of a large IQ communication gap then he's better off just not doing it at all.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 7:16 PM  

'Hey Nate, do you think God runs Alexa - divine edition - on his computer and that's how he speaks things into existence?'

I think sound is vibration... and I think vibration is almost everything. Electricity is vibration. So God using vibration to create the universe is perfectly fine with my understanding of physics... and also Nikola Tesla's.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 7:21 PM  

So this would be some good vibrations?

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 7:22 PM  

"Quit your whiskey whining, by the way."

a few thoughts on this...

1) You like scotch.. therefore you opinions are entirely invalid

2) you're from texas... which means you have shit taste in everything from music to barbecue and obviously includes spirits. see above.

3) You're a jarhead. Everyone knows the shit the corp jams down your throats kills what little sense of taste you texans may have had before you got in.

Sorry. Wild Turkey Longbranch is terrible. I wish it wasn't. I wanted to love it.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 7:25 PM  

You must envy me, Nate. You're obviously a closeted whiskey drinking Marine from Texas.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 7:27 PM  

mmmmm... rotting swamp dirt....

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 7:29 PM  

i really am concerned about the failure of Longbranch. Its the first product that was made with Jimmy Russell's son as the master distiller... and its a huge disappointment.

This has me concerned for the future of Wild Turkey.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 7:35 PM  

I'm a Wild Turkey junkie, all kidding aside, and this also troubles me.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 7:48 PM  

If Vox's criticism of Peterson is just gonna consist of more of this embarrassing nitpicking that makes him look like the lesser end of a large IQ communication gap then he's better off just not doing it at all.

It amuses me how frightened you Peterson fans are about this. Do you not realize that I've heard the exact same thing from fans of Dawkins, Harris, Myers, Dennett, Hitchens, and others?

I haven't even begun to make my case, but you're already trying to discredit, disqualify, and dissuade.

That alone would tell me there is blood for the blood god.

Blogger Flair1239 May 01, 2018 7:52 PM  

I think there is something up that we don’t know about. I have only been following Vox since before the election so I am not really familiar with how he operates. This seems like either trolling or a prelude to something with more substance.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 7:55 PM  

Forget the blood gods, Vox. THE DREAD ILK REQUIRE SUSTENANCE.

Blogger Wallace Beamfire May 01, 2018 8:01 PM  

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." Paul had the right of it. I've long predicted that the end will come when people "on our side" win. The Progressive Left was simply too inept and bald-faced. Thank you for your thoughts Vox Day.

Blogger Ceasar May 01, 2018 8:02 PM  

I always thought Peterson's draw was his willingness to stick a thumb in the eye of Libs saying stupid things. When confronted with contradicting views or direct questions they tend to fold at minimum and look stupid at maximum.

That being said, I have watched Peterson in several interviews with more serious people and at no point did I ever think that he was some Philosophical genius. After all, the field of psychology really the field of trying to understand how people behave to extract as much out of relationships (private and social) for personal benefit. So an "expert" of psychology using some of these tactics (deception and misdirection) is not surprising to me.

I consider myself familiar with existentialism but at no point did I ever think it was so disconnected to the idea of a truth or objective truth. If anything, it reinforced that there was both objective and subjective truths and you ability to navigate them both will dictate your success or failure in life.

Blogger James Dixon May 01, 2018 8:05 PM  

> But it never made sense to anthropomorphize God anyway.

Genesis 1:27 King James Version: So God created man in his own image...

Blogger Jack May 01, 2018 8:05 PM  

@94 "Schopenhauer was a retarded German gamma."

And Nietzsche was his Omega son.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 8:05 PM  

This seems like either trolling or a prelude to something with more substance.

I suggest you read The Irrational Atheist. Most of the regulars know what is coming. I'll have a book review in two weeks or so.

Blogger great_o'rety May 01, 2018 8:06 PM  

@148
Can we stay on topic? You went on building up the simulation analogy, but to what end exactly (apart from straying from what it was supposed to better illustrate)?

Are you grouping the simulation and the simulated environment together?
What's your rationale to consider it separately in the relevant context?

Not saying it depends on the agent/player/whatever. Am only pointing out that simulations have the option of completely segregating individuals from each other, so simulation does not imply objective shared experience (I see what you see), only an objective reality containing the simulation.
Neither I nor VD said anything about objective experience (shared or otherwise). And you yourself observed that the simulation has to be a subset of this greater, original, objective reality, so I see no point going any further if we're using a simulation analogy to make case for the existence of a reality that is independent of Jordan B. Peterson's mind.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 8:16 PM  

"blood for the blood god."

Skulls for the Skull Throne.

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 01, 2018 8:17 PM  

@104 My best guess is depression is a neuro inflammatory disorder that can be caused by a myriad of factors including stress induced by spiritual turmoil. Once you are depressed, spiritual belief in God can save botb your life and soul. Indeed, if peterson didn't have his combination of world view and semi belief he would never have been able to work for 30 years like that. I would have been lost to the world without Christ.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd May 01, 2018 8:25 PM  

That sucks. Kentucky Tavern is one tier above Kroger's Private Stock.
Been years since I drank, but it was always Wild Turkey for me.

Blogger Matthew May 01, 2018 8:32 PM  

Nate wrote:"Furthermore, this would invalidate the entire breast augmentation industry. Since boobs matter as well, they thus become real."

There is no place in society for Boob Bigots.



Traps are still gay, though.

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 01, 2018 8:35 PM  

@121

(((The psychologists))) have a vested interest in not treating it as a condition. Anti depressants (which are both the most popular drug types is also one of the least effective and most damaging. Most peoples depression is quite treatable through a ketogenic diet, microdosing psychedelics, exercise, cold showers, improving gut bacteria etc.

Peterson cured his by switching to an all meat diet after his daughter convinced him.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants May 01, 2018 8:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger DoubleB May 01, 2018 8:41 PM  

Because if we are just part of a computer simulation, the world certainly exists independent of us. Our interaction with the world would not make it real, it would objectively exist as it has been created by aliens or whatever.

Blogger Jack May 01, 2018 8:42 PM  

@169 Mr. Deficient

I think you're right about spiritual lack being a primary cause of depression. I'm not very familiar with Peterson or his worldview, but if others are correct that he's promoting a kind of Jungian ecumenism, a semi-traditionalism where religions all have value but one needn't commit to one, then I can see how this view might offer him some semblance of comfort, but ultimately leave him empty. It's like the difference between having a bunch of female friends vs. having a wife.

Other religions and philosophies have value to the degree that they lead to Christ. As someone else said, Christ is the only way to heaven, but there are many ways to Christ.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 8:47 PM  

"Traps are still gay, though."

Asylums exited for very good reason.

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 8:48 PM  

@172
"Peterson cured his by switching to an all meat diet after his daughter convinced him."

"Cured." He is still on antidepressants and intends to stay that way. That's not "cured," that's "pickled."

Blogger SirHamster May 01, 2018 8:56 PM  

great_o'rety wrote:Neither I nor VD said anything about objective experience (shared or otherwise). And you yourself observed that the simulation has to be a subset of this greater, original, objective reality, so I see no point going any further if we're using a simulation analogy to make case for the existence of a reality that is independent of Jordan B. Peterson's mind.

I should have quoted more context earlier:

The original reality that produces the simulation is irrelevant (and that's good because we're in no position to know anything about it). The fact that we are part of the same simulation renders it objective.

If we are in a simulation, we can't even know we are part of the same simulation. We can't trust our perception, not even that there's a "we".

But a simulation requires an objective reality to house it. This is based on the prerequisites of simulation, rather than what we can observe or experience inside the simulation.

The original reality is what makes it objective. If the world's a simulation, whether there's a we or not, there is objective reality. It is not us or anything about us that renders it objective.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 01, 2018 8:58 PM  

szopen wrote:If everything is illusion, then so is pain. And you. In fact, if I would be solipsist and you would come to me and smash me, causing me pain, that would only prove that my solipsist mind seems to be masochist (I am _not_ solipsist, just explaining).
The is and can be no evidence or logical argument that disproves solipsism. As far as disproving, if every perception is an illusion, what evidence can possibly be produced that would disprove it. All the evidence would, of necessity, be illusionary too.
But there can also never be evidence or logic that proves solipsism, for the same reasons.
Solipsism is founded on the (false) argument that all logical systems must eliminate any and all assumptions. This is simply impossible. Every logical argument begins with a premise., there is no way to make a logical argument without one. So while it's good to examine your premises, and eliminate all you reasonably can, they cannot be eliminated.
Solipsism rejects the premise of the reliability of perception, comes to the conclusion that perception has no particular relationship to reality and then, as my son put it "climbs up it's own asshole and passes out like a wino in an alley." Presumably a wino that had been given a bottle of Wild Turkey Longbranch.

Blogger S1AL May 01, 2018 9:02 PM  

Even Descartes concluded that shedding all assumptions left one necessary...

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 9:04 PM  

'comes to the conclusion that perception has no particular relationship to reality '

except that is demonstratable fact that perception has no relationship to reality.

or do you suppose that the reality of the world for the color blind is different than our own reality?

Reality is reality regardless of our perception of it.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 9:05 PM  

That's why it's called reality.

Blogger S1AL May 01, 2018 9:05 PM  

"except that is demonstratable fact that perception has no relationship to reality."

Oh come on Nate - there's no need for this level of hyperbole.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 9:13 PM  


"Oh come on Nate - there's no need for this level of hyperbole."

you think its hyperbole?

tell it to tribes of New Guinea. Tell it to the anorexic or anyone else with their bizarre forms of Body Dismorphia.

Perception has no influence on reality what-so-ever. Everything we see is tinted and altered by our own perceptions that are limited by nature and therefore incomplete at best...and at worse entirely false.

Ancient man was wise enough to understand this.

The enlightenment has rendered us retarded.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 01, 2018 9:14 PM  

Nate wrote:except that is demonstratable fact that perception has no relationship to reality.


An imperfect relationship is not no relationship. I shouldn't have to explain that to you Nate. Did you get some good bourbon?

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 9:18 PM  

"An imperfect relationship is not no relationship."

***chuckle***

You're three steps behind sweetheart.



Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 9:22 PM  

As long as he gets to walk behind you...

Blogger OneWingedShark May 01, 2018 9:34 PM  

lynnjynh9315 wrote:But it never made sense to anthropomorphize God anyway.
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
It's the most natural thing in the world to anthropomorphize God, because he "Deipamorphized" us by creating us in his own image. (Imago Dei.)

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 9:38 PM  

"It's the most natural thing in the world to anthropomorphize God, because he "Deipamorphized" us by creating us in his own image. (Imago Dei.)"

not to mention He walked around on the planet as a Man.

Blogger Bobiojimbo May 01, 2018 10:49 PM  

No, no I never did read Maps of Meaning. I was too enthralled by his videos. I'm not sure I would've caught it either, even if I had read it.

"We think we live in the “objective” world, but we do not. The objective world is something that has been conjured up for us recently – absurdly recently, from the perspective of evolutionary biology."

This has given me much to think about. I apologize for my ignorance, and thank you for sharing.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 01, 2018 11:39 PM  

"The is and can be no evidence or logical argument that disproves solipsism."

False. Kill the solipsist. The discontinuity of their world combined with the continuity of everyone else's neatly falsifies the concept.

"except that is demonstratable fact that perception has no relationship to reality."

False. If there is no reality, there can be no perception, regardless of whether or not that perception is accurate. Therefore, perception itself is necessarily a subset of some form of objective reality.

The point that perception does not necessarily have bearing on reality does not negate the point that reality is necessary for perception to exist. That is a relationship. A one way relationship, but there it is.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 11:49 PM  

Perception of nothing is nothing. Like dividing by zero.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 01, 2018 11:51 PM  

"Perception of nothing is nothing. Like dividing by zero."

Right. There are actually other problems that resolve themselves in the same way.

Blogger S1AL May 02, 2018 12:01 AM  

"Perception has no influence on reality what-so-ever."

Uh, well...

You're not even wrong.

Now go home, Nate, you're drunk.

Blogger Iamblichus May 02, 2018 12:19 AM  

"We think live in the world "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality", but we do not. The world existing independently as part of reality has been conjured up for us recently"


With respect Vox, quantum mechanics has categorically proved this statement to be true, there is no reality without the observer.

Peterson admitted he and his family members take anti-depressants. Isn't the whole point of being the words greatest psychologist, is to not have to take anti-depressants.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 02, 2018 12:39 AM  

"With respect Vox, quantum mechanics has categorically proved this statement to be true, there is no reality without the observer."

False. You don't know your quantum theory at all. Stop talking bull.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 02, 2018 12:41 AM  

Even if you subscribe to some version of wave function collapse, there's still reality there, you just don't know which option it is yet.

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 02, 2018 12:41 AM  

@177 according to his daughter he is off his meds.

http://mikhailapeterson.com/2018/04/19/april-19-2018-jordan-petersons-carnivore-diet-and-update/

Blogger Iamblichus May 02, 2018 12:47 AM  

Azure u can disagree without being a faggot. There is no position without an observer. Double slit, also double-slit quantum eraser experiment. Not saying the world is a relativist mess thats what Vox be alluding to.

Blogger Iamblichus May 02, 2018 12:50 AM  

Azure u can also go read physicist Tom Campbell when u not being gay

1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts