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

Jordan Peterson's existential relativism

I'm sorry, Peterson fans, but now that I have begun to look more closely at him, it increasingly appears your intellectual hero is a complete joke at best. At worst, he is a insane monster of inhuman ethics. Assuming that others have understood him correctly, his definition of "truth" is absolutely and utterly false - which explains his lack of intellectual integrity - and his Darwinian ethics are not only incoherent, they don't even rise to the functional level of Sam Harris's hapless utilitarianism.

Harris, who is far from my idea of a formidable intellect or coherent debater, has absolutely no trouble resoundingly dismissing Peterson's shoddy logic:
I recently interviewed the psychologist Jordan B. Peterson on the Waking Up podcast. As I said at the beginning of our conversation, I’d received more listener requests for him than for Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or, indeed, any other person on earth.

The resulting exchange, however, was not what our mutual fans were hoping for. Rather than discuss religion and atheism, or the relationship between science and ethics, we spent two hours debating what it means to say that a proposition is (or seems to be) “true.” This is a not trivial problem in philosophy. But the place at which Peterson and I got stuck was a strange one. 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. As I tried to show, this view makes no sense, and I couldn’t quite convince myself that Peterson actually held it.
I found this extremely hard to believe too, and I won't utilize it until I confirm it from Peterson's own writings, but the basic idea keeps cropping up again and again when I read what others have written about the man's ideas, as well as in the man's own words. Right now, I'm still at the "you have GOT to be fucking kidding me" stage; I am starting to suspect that this guy's genius lies in piling up so much highly compressed bullshit that the bedazzled reader only sees a mirror of what he wants to believe.
  • Events as they occurred are only factual but not necessarily true. True is a judgment call and is therefore open to interpretation. The claim of ‘something's’ validity can only be made when one can see ‘the bigger picture’ — the wellbeing of humanity or ‘life’ itself. Only then can we know if something is true rather than just factual or ‘materialistically true’. - Peterson
  • If it doesn’t serve life, it’s not true. - Peterson
  • He seems to claim that any belief system compatible with our survival must be true, and any that gets us killed must be false.
  • Why is Peterson dishonest in some ways? I think he explained this in the debate with Sam Harris, where he said things like " something which not benefits /potential harms humanity cant be true".
This is worse than moral relativism, this is existential relativism. Harris correctly demolishes this absurd, childish, and narcissistic conception of truth in his post-interview response.
In the year 2017, the question “How should we act in the world?” simply isn’t reducible to Darwinism. In fact, most answers to this question arise in utter defiance of the evolutionary imperatives that produced us. Caring for disabled children would most likely have been maladaptive for our ancestors during any conditions of scarcity—while cannibalism recommended itself from time to time in every corner of the globe. How much inspiration should we draw from the fact that killing and eating children is also an ancient “archetype”? Overcoming tribalism, xenophobia, honor violence, and other forms of apish barbarity has been unthinkable for hundreds of millennia—that is, until now. And our moral progress on these fronts is the basis of our most enlightened answers to Peterson’s question.

We didn’t evolve to do science, or to build institutions that last for generations, but we must do these things to thrive. Thriving requires the survival of the species, of course, but it’s not reducible to that. Getting our genes into the next generation simply isn’t our only (or even our primary) goal—and it surely isn’t the foundation of our ethics. If we were true Darwinians, every man’s deepest desire would be to continually donate sperm to sperm banks so that he could sire thousands of children for whom he’d have no further responsibility. If we really viewed the world from the perspective of our genes, no other answer to the question “How should we act in the world?” would seem more fitting. I’ll let readers judge how closely this maps onto the human minds with which they’re acquainted.

Peterson believes that there is an inverse symmetry to our views on the relationship between facts and values. According to him, I see “ethics as nested inside scientific realism,” whereas he sees “scientific realism as nested inside Darwinian competition” (which he views in ethical terms).  A clearer way of stating this is that he thinks I locate all values within a system of truth claims, whereas he locates all truth claims in a system that selects for a single value: survival. Hence our stalemate.

Peterson’s peculiar form of pragmatism, anchored to the lone value of survival, can’t capture what we mean by “truth” (or even what most pragmatists mean by it).

But I have always said that the scientific worldview presupposes the validity of certain values—logical consistency (up to a point), explanatory elegance, respect for evidence, and so forth. This is why I think Hume’s famous gap between “is” (facts) and “ought” (values) is misleading on the topic of morality. We can easily reverse direction and discover that we won’t get to “is” without first obeying certain “oughts.” For instance, to understand what the cause of an illness is, one ought to pay attention to regularities in the body and in the environment that coincide with it. (Additionally, we now know that one ought to emphasize material causes, rather than sympathetic magic or the evil eye.) Facts and values are connected.

However, the fact that some values lie at the foundation of our scientific worldview does not suggest that all scientific truth claims can be judged on the basis of the single (Darwinian) criterion of whether the claimants survive long enough to breed.  On the contrary, this assertion is quite obviously false (as I believe I demonstrated throughout our podcast). We can easily imagine our species being outcompeted by one that has no understanding whatsoever of the cosmos. Would a lethal swarm of disease-bearing insects possess a worldview superior to our own by virtue of eradicating us? The question answers itself—because no insect could even pose it. Mere survival doesn’t suggest anything about the intellectual or ethical achievement of the survivors.

Some who listened to my conversation with Peterson thought that in objecting to his conception of truth, I was endorsing materialism or denying that the mind could play any role in determining the character of reality. But that isn’t the case. I was merely arguing that Peterson’s peculiar form of pragmatism, anchored to the lone value of survival, can’t capture what we mean by “truth” (or even what most pragmatists mean by it).
Peterson is so philosophically incompetent that he quite clearly does not fully comprehend that his idiotic ethical system not only fully justifies the Holocaust, it can actually be logically utilized to require future repetitions on a regular basis! I suspect he may harbor a dim awareness of this, which would explain why he is clinging so desperately to the 115 IQ myth that I disproved.

I have not yet confirmed for myself that the way Peterson characterized his definition of truth during the interview is fully representative of his actual thinking on the matter, or that Harris and other commenters are correctly describing it. But if this "evolutionary pragmatism" is genuinely the basis for his conception of the truth, then I have absolutely no problem dismissing the man as an architect of an evil philosophy, an intellectual charlatan, and a false prophet whose works merit complete and comprehensive demolition.

Spare me the "oh, he does so much good for the broken little boys" argument. If this definition of his conception of truth is correct, then Jordan Peterson is not doing anyone any good at all, and unlike more honest atheists like Dawkins and Harris, he is a philosophical wolf in sheep's clothing, a Pied Piper who is attempting to transform those broken little boys into unethical monstrosities. He appears to have blown up his Gamma delusion bubble into an ethical system and a philosophy of life. I am even beginning to suspect that he isn't just comprehensively wrong, but that he is mentally ill. Not unlike Google muttering "don't be evil, don't be evil" to itself, Peterson is desperately seeking an antidote to the chaos of his mind.

So, if you're a Peterson fan, you might want to buckle up. I just read the transcript of the Harris interview, then put 12 Rules for Life and Maps of Meaning on my tablet. The baleful eye of the Dark Lord is now focused squarely upon the man. And we're not just looking at the possibility that the emperor has no clothes here, we're being forced to consider the very real possibility that the emperor is actually a recently shorn sheep that sincerely believes it's a cat.

Labels: ,

214 Comments:

1 – 200 of 214 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Paddy J S May 01, 2018 8:09 AM  

Cant wait to read your review Vox. Have been tempted to read it myself. Would like to hear your take. Do we need God to be good was one of best reads last year and wouldn't have known had it not been for this blog

Blogger Carlos Eduardo Chies May 01, 2018 8:15 AM  

"If it doesn’t serve life, it’s not true. - Peterson" Seems to me that when he is saying that, he mean the transcendent - or better, God. I think you should see the talks on the bible where speaks freely.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) May 01, 2018 8:19 AM  

VD
And we're not just looking at the possibility that the emperor has no clothes here, we're being forced to consider the very real possibility that the emperor is actually a recently shorn sheep.


and yet, very effective Rhetorically.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 8:20 AM  

Seems to me that when he is saying that, he mean the transcendent - or better, God.

No. This is exactly what I mean when I say that he piles up the bullshit and compresses it so hard that you see a mirror of your own ideas.

He doesn't believe in God. He is an existential relativist. He is beginning where even Dawkins and Harris are not foolish enough to tread.

Blogger Peter Gent May 01, 2018 8:24 AM  

This should be interesting. As an aside, I am constantly impressed by how much you are able to accomplish. Do you ever sleep? Your output and breadth of activity is mind-boggling. I pray for your health and vitality to be blessed to the uttermost and that you will be able to keep up this level of activity for some time into the future.

Blogger The Kurgan May 01, 2018 8:25 AM  

Hahhahahhaahha

Blogger John Regan May 01, 2018 8:28 AM  

Well, he's a psychologist. His intellectual training is all awry. But more fundamentally, he's an amateur dabbler in epistemology, like the vast majority of lawyers and judges, who embrace Nietzsche without any familiarity with, or understanding of, the 2,000 years of western thought that produced him. At least he's only an academic, who can't really hurt anyone from his position.

Blogger #7139 May 01, 2018 8:28 AM  

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

I almost feel sorry for Jordan Peterson. Almost. No one can endure the baleful eye of the SDL for very long.

Blogger Some Guy May 01, 2018 8:34 AM  

"Peterson is so philosophically incompetent that he quite clearly does not fully comprehend that his idiotic ethical system not only fully justifies the Holocaust, it can actually be logically utilized to require future repetitions on a regular basis! I suspect he may harbor a dim awareness of this, which would explain why he is clinging so desperately to the 115 IQ myth that I disproved."

Vox,

He is aware of this and he has an entire series of videos where he details the rationale behind the holocaust and how disgust (as in the type you feel for germs) was a major driver of it. It takes some time, but his videos really do break down his morality fairly well. Look forward to seeing your analysis.

Blogger Othello May 01, 2018 8:35 AM  

"this guy's genius lies in piling up so much highly compressed bullshit that the bedazzled reader only sees a mirror of what he wants to believe."

Ouch. That's funny.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 01, 2018 8:35 AM  

This is sadly hilarious

Blogger Patrikbc May 01, 2018 8:37 AM  

IMO, If he isnt knowingly and willingly telling untruths, he is not a liar

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 8:39 AM  

No, Some Guy, he is not fully aware of it, because if he was he would reject his system of delusion-based ethics. I'm not watching any videos; being a video producer myself I know that it is the worst possible way to get at the factual truth because it is a rhetorical medium.

I've just been reading the full interview with Harris, and from the intellectual perspective, Peterson is damned, damned, damned on morality, ethics, and even existence.

As for the idea that disgust was the major driver of the Holocaust, all he's doing is ripping off Jonathan Haidt there. This guy isn't just amateur hour, he's mentally broken.

Blogger The Deuce May 01, 2018 8:39 AM  

"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."

That's insane, but it follows from a materialist, Darwinian account of the mind. This is why post-modernism naturally follows from modernism. If Sam Harris were consistent, he'd agree with Peterson'so view (or what appears to be his view).

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 8:44 AM  

That's insane, but it follows from a materialist, Darwinian account of the mind. This is why post-modernism naturally follows from modernism. If Sam Harris were consistent, he'd agree with Peterson'so view.

Not necessarily. I'm not even remotely surprised that Peterson is a) interested in psychiatry or b) been on psychotropic drugs. He's literally crazy, it's just that he's smart enough to have constructed a Gamma delusion bubble that looks like a coherent system to the insufficiently intelligent.

Remember Vox's First Law: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from madness. Lots of normal people will look at both me and Jordan Peterson and assume we are crazy. But Peterson actually is crazy, he's just a very high-functioning form of bonkers.

His eventual meltdown promises to be epic.

Blogger Desdichado May 01, 2018 8:44 AM  

I've long thought that Peterson's only utility was in popularizing the least controversial of red-pill ideas about the most egregious excesses of feminism to the masses. Now that he's kind of done that already, I'm convinced he has little more to offer anyone.

I never looked very much at his body of work, because what little I did see seemed fairly shallow and baby steps away from the prog reservation, but I'm not really surprised to find that he's got a handful of good ideas thrown hastily on a bad foundation and has made that the basis of his faddish stardom, such as it is.

As Western civilization continues to red-pill itself at a rapid rate, Jordan Peterson and his type are merely early symptoms. They'll be left behind quickly as it becomes apparent that their baby steps away from the blue pill is insufficient to answer any of the questions and problems that face us.

Blogger Othello May 01, 2018 8:45 AM  

With all due respect, they don't put really smart people on TV do they?

I never thought popculture was supposed to be all that intellectually honest. Buckley was on TV, before he got canceled TV news has worse with the 24 hour news cycle. Little Benny think pieces are meh. Politically Incorrect, MSNBC, CNN et all are all fake news. Maybe this is as good as it gets before a hard reset.

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard May 01, 2018 8:46 AM  

What is it about a series of words that makes them true? Peterson's answer seems to be 'they're true to the extent that they _work_'

I think it's a good answer.

Blogger Othello May 01, 2018 8:48 AM  

"he's just a very high-functioning form of bonkers."

Bonkers. So good. Intellectual beat downs is what I'm glad the Internet was invented for.

Blogger pyrrhus May 01, 2018 8:49 AM  

Peterson needs to reframe jis proposition as "some falsehoods are useful for the survival of human civilization." Still can only be true in the short run....

Blogger The Deuce May 01, 2018 8:50 AM  

Oh, I don't disagree. I think Peterson is crazy. I just think it's funny that his insanity has caused him to actually embrace the absurd implications of Darwinian materialism that materialist atheists are always trying to avoid, and that Sam Harris is knocking him for it.

Blogger Salt May 01, 2018 8:52 AM  

Zarathustra's Bastard wrote:What is it about a series of words that makes them true? Peterson's answer seems to be 'they're true to the extent that they _work_'

I think it's a good answer.


I've noticed the same in the few JP vids I've seen. Something may work but one's belief about why it works does not equate to being the truth.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 8:53 AM  

I think it's a good answer.

It's not. It's a terrible answer. What makes a series of words true is the degree to which they correspond to objective reality.

Blogger LTHolder May 01, 2018 8:53 AM  

I am looking forward to your engaging with Peterson. I have read his two books and watched a number of videos and while I have found value in them, I am constantly struck that Peterson consistently approaches the (real-capital T) Truth, but then backs away because he can’t commit to it. He has something of value to offer in practical psychology, but I agree his philosophy, while on the surface appears appealing, is actually a muddled mess of truths and untruths. He desperately wants to argue for the truth of Christian morality, but can’t can’t bring himself to the ultimate Truth that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard May 01, 2018 8:54 AM  

It's not. It's a terrible answer. What makes a series of words true is the degree to which they correspond to objective reality.

What is the nature of that correspondence?

Blogger Rick May 01, 2018 8:55 AM  

Just ask the guy the question:

Is truth relative?

Case dimissed.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 8:57 AM  

Something that harms life... cannot be true.

This is possibly the worst attempt at philosophy it has ever been my sad misfortune to encounter.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 01, 2018 9:03 AM  

Peterson is heavily inspired by Carl Jung who believed actual spirit guides were speaking to him and influencing his psychological insights. Peterson's intellectual grandfather is a literal demon.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 9:04 AM  

"He doesn't believe in God. He is an existential relativist."

Peterson is an agnostic. He likes to be precise with his speech and so doesn't like talking publicly about things he can't scientifically define.

He does believe in metaphysics however, and has said in an interview w/ Patrick Coffin that miracles are when metaphysics intersect with the manifest. He's open to the possibility that the resurrection could have occurred, but he has no way of knowing scientifically. Fair enough.

He has said he acts as if God exists, and seems to be personally optimistic that He does.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 9:05 AM  

Something that harms life... cannot be true.

Well, that's one way to get rid of nuclear weapons. Just define them out of existence. The planet is saved! Get that man a Nobel Peace Prize!

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 9:08 AM  

He likes to be precise with his speech and so doesn't like talking publicly about things he can't scientifically define.

Bullshit. He was evasive and prone to changing the subject every time Harris started to pin him down. Moreover, he doesn't believe that science is capable of defining anything in the first place.

You don't understand the first thing about Peterson's philosophy.

He's open to the possibility that the resurrection could have occurred, but he has no way of knowing scientifically. Fair enough.

All he needs to know is if the Resurrection serves life. If it does, then it is true.

Blogger Orthodox May 01, 2018 9:08 AM  

Who's life?

Blogger Shamgar May 01, 2018 9:09 AM  

I'm a fan. I even did his writing program and am reading his book now. All along I've known that he is not the "savior" of a generation, since from what I've read of his book and seen of his videos, his understanding of Christianity is not complete. I think what happened was, I thought he was defending hierarchies, but no, he is merely describing them and calling them (sometimes) "useful." But if you are Christian (not even Catholic, just Christian) you have to believe that hierarchies, they are more than just useful or just "there" they are the way God has structured the world. To rebel against hierarchies is heresy, plain and simple. I suspect many fell for this and thought he was some kind of reactionary for mentioning hierarchies in society. I look forward to the beatdown.

Blogger bw May 01, 2018 9:11 AM  

If he isnt knowingly and willingly telling untruths, he is not a liar

Absurd

Blogger L' Aristokrato May 01, 2018 9:11 AM  

I initially dismissed Peterson long ago, when I heard him making arguments along the lines of "If you kill your enemies, they win". This here, however, is a whole new degree of nonsense.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 01, 2018 9:12 AM  

Basically, what we have here is a one sentance philosophy:

"The ends justify the means."

Blogger Nakota Publishing May 01, 2018 9:14 AM  

I agree that Peterson's philosophy is confused, and that any inconsistent philosophy can be abused. I still find value in his common sense observations. Perhaps he's more of a "John the Baptist" figure (not encouraging for his personal future.) At the very least, I don't buy the "controlled opposition" theory.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) May 01, 2018 9:14 AM  

27. Nate May 01, 2018 8:57 AM
Something that harms life... cannot be true.



indeed.

for Life harms Life.

the vast majority of Life would shortly die if it could not consume and destroy other Life.

thus, if this is actually Peterson's position, Life is False.

Blogger Salt May 01, 2018 9:14 AM  

Something that harms life... cannot be true.

"Mom, did the bear kill papa?"
"No dear, for that would be false. A bear killing your papa harms life, so that cannot be true."
"Then what killed papa?"
"I think it was his getting so angry and going for a walk after watching the Peterson video. The bear just happened to be there."
"You think the bear saw the JP video too?"

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard May 01, 2018 9:17 AM  

A scientific theory is true if enacting it makes accurate predictions.
A philosophy of life is true if enacting it enables you to live well.
A religion is true if it brings you into communion with God.

The point of correspondence between the subjective and the objective is human action. It's a good way to think about it.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 01, 2018 9:17 AM  

@16

"I never looked very much at [Peterson's] body of work, because what little I did see seemed fairly shallow and baby steps away from the prog reservation"

But what about Bob?

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 9:17 AM  

"Well, that's one way to get rid of nuclear weapons. Just define them out of existence. The planet is saved! Get that man a Nobel Peace Prize!"

JEFF SUTTON KNEW

Blogger Anonymous Conservative May 01, 2018 9:18 AM  

This is God's work, keeping the movement clean.

I am suspicious of his popularity. You know how hard it is to attract an audience, and you've kicked ass at it as good as anyone could honestly, so I know I should be seeing you around on 4Chan and Voat a lot more than Peterson. Even Scott Adams, who grasped Persuasion at the professional level of a trained hypnotist, is almost never mentioned. Yet over there ever twelfth post is about Peterson.

Here Harris got more requests for this guy than anyone else, including Snowden and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who practically has full MSM support? And that happened organically?

As you take everything in, it is amazing how easy some of these characters, so often of the same mold, cruise up.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 9:18 AM  

I still find value in his common sense observations. Perhaps he's more of a "John the Baptist" figure (not encouraging for his personal future.)

My explanation for this phenomenon is that Peterson is a mentally broken whack job who has come up with some simple rules to allow himself to function reasonably. These rules are obviously of use to other less-than-perfectly functional individuals.

But they are most certainly NOT a basis for an ethical system or a philosophy.

Blogger Carlos Eduardo Chies May 01, 2018 9:18 AM  

"VD wrote:No. This is exactly what I mean when I say that he piles up the bullshit and compresses it so hard that you see a mirror of your own ideas."

I take two things from this, 1) I do believe in God, 2) If this is true, and is done in full conscience than it is evil.

Blogger cavalier973 May 01, 2018 9:19 AM  

I am suspicious of anyone who claims that "the Bible is a valuable book, even though it's not true."

I got to about the two minute mark listening to Peterson talk about the Bible before turning him off.

I had the same reaction with Dan Carlin, and his "Hardcore History" series. I like the episode about Julius Caesar's Campaigns in Gaul, so I tried his episode about Darius of Persia. Carlin begins by reading from Daniel chapter 5, then says, "It almost certainly didn't happen that way."

I got annoyed, so I turned it off, then started looking,for someone who would talk about the reliability of the Book of Daniel. I found a guy named Chuck Missler, and am extremely glad I did. He has got some weird ideas, but he is, as far as I can tell, doctrinally sound. He teaches expositionally, and goes verse-by-verse. He ties in all of Scripture, and adds in historical context--like the reason Herod was "troubled, and all Jerusalem with him" about the magi visit was that the magi were from the Parthian Empire, with which Rome had been warring over the land of Israel. I hadn't ever heard that before.

Happily for him (though sadly for us), Chuck Missler was called Home last night,

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) May 01, 2018 9:20 AM  

you leave me out this, Girly.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 01, 2018 9:22 AM  

@39

Well, WHATEVER killed Papa, it must not be true....

Blogger Alphaeus May 01, 2018 9:23 AM  

"the emperor is actually a recently shorn sheep that sincerely believes it's a cat."

There is a lot of that going around nowadays.

There are differences between being wrong and being politically opposed and being malevolent. The reason I consider John Locke to be the greatest philosopher in history is because he had the good sense not to presume to propose an actual philosophical system. Philosophy cannot be bound and gagged and locked up in our basement. As it were, so to speak.

Where JBP is indubitably correct is when he tells kids who don't clean their room that they are presumptuous in supposing that they are prepared to change the world for the better by means of Progressive politics and SJW-ism.

Where he's wrong includes his utilitarian philosophy.

Where he's politically opposed to me and my movement is expressed in his statements against right wing misogynist anti-Semitic identity politics.

His malevolence would be a function of who is promoting him and why. Why hasn't he been fired and imprisoned for not using the legally required pronouns? I smell something Hegelian burning somewhere.

Blogger SidVic May 01, 2018 9:26 AM  

Good luck with Maps... That shit is dense.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 01, 2018 9:26 AM  

@47

Not you Bob, the other Bob... the one attached to the psychologist, taking baby steps....

Blogger Desdichado May 01, 2018 9:27 AM  

L' Aristokrato wrote:I initially dismissed Peterson long ago, when I heard him making arguments along the lines of "If you kill your enemies, they win". This here, however, is a whole new degree of nonsense.
It's hardly new. When I was a little tyke back in 1983 watching Return of the Jedi, I was amazed even then that that was Luke's position with regards to the Emperor. I win by refusing to fight you at all! Hahaha! Take that! Stupid beyond all reason.

George Lucas was hardly original either, he absorbed it from the vaguely Gandhian nonsense that was all the rage in San Francisco and elsewhere through the late 60s and 70s.

Blogger Nate May 01, 2018 9:28 AM  

"My explanation for this phenomenon is that Peterson is a mentally broken whack job who has come up with some simple rules to allow himself to function reasonably. "

we should not be surprised that a man that rejects The Truth replaces Him with something completely insane and obviously dumb.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 9:30 AM  

Good luck with Maps... That shit is dense.

Quelle surprise.

Blogger S1AL May 01, 2018 9:30 AM  

I'm curious to see what you think of 12 rules, Vox. It has gotten a lot of attention from some pretty sensible people.

Blogger szopen May 01, 2018 9:31 AM  

If one wants to understand the appeal of Jordan Peterson to the young males, I think the video linked below should be enough: when he breaks down while talking about responsibility. I stress this is not NOT understanding JP or becoming his fan, merely understanding in the sens how you can understand how some movie might appeal to some audience even if you think it's a horrible movie).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvOeWgZMXR4&feature=youtu.be&t=52

Also, is he is mentally broken whack job etc then the fact that his simple rules caused so much uproar and made him so popular tell a lot about the state of the West.

Blogger Volpack May 01, 2018 9:32 AM  

It is wonderful to reach the age where you don't have to read books that are stupid. Thank you Vox, for taking care of that little chore for me.

Blogger Unknown May 01, 2018 9:33 AM  

Petersons version of this idea is wrong, it's not about survival in the Darwinian sense - but the basic idea that "true" is what "works" is correct.

Correctly understood, this leads to the opposite of nihilism and materialism, and towards religion and morality. Whereas in Peterson's version, it leads to materialism and instrumentalism.

Kant showed our mental categories, if applied with rigor and consistency, produce contradiction. If we examine every situation, a and not-a both are correct. Take motion. Since every length can be infinitely subdivided, we should never reach our destination. Yet we do.

Therefore, our minds only give us "useful fictions", and we can't ever know ultimate reality.

All our knowledge, without exception, are symbols of an unknowable reality. Including science. We accept some symbols because they "work" - allow us to successfully navigate reality.

Time may not be real in an ultimate sense - but it is indispensable in our world of appearances.

Now, this does not lead to relativism, because we operate within constraints - we are not free to choose which symbols work, and which dont. However, it destroys sciences claim to a) have access to truth b) to have unique and sold access to truth in all areas of life.

Nor does it mean that there is no reality, or reality is whatever we say it is - which would be narcissism. It means humility - we cannot know reality, we operate within constraints, using symbols that help us navigate an unknowable world.

Plainly, the historical record shows that to successfully thrive and flourish, humans must assume the existence of God and morality. Even if they can't be logically proved, we know that logic itself provides us with no more than symbols.

The symbols of science work by making planes fly - religion and morality work by promoting mental and physical well being, happinness, high levels of motivation, sense of purpose and meaning, and long-term communal flourishing.

In any given situation, murder, theft, cannibalism may further short term survival for the individual, but they inevitably lead to long term decline, loss of motivation, ill health, mental and psychosomatic issues, and a failure to flourish.

It is not exceptional that short term advantage is bought at the expense of long term decay, as well as damage in another area. The sociopath may benefit short term material, but he is filled with rage, envy, and jealousy, fails to experience peace and happiness, and contributed to social collapse.

So, it is seems clear that religion and morality are "true" in the sense that they are symbols for a deeper reality we cannot fully describe - but the ignoring of which leads to coming up against a fundamental constraint of our world, and failing to tnrive. Just as the laws of motion and time may not be ultimately true, they are constraints of our world, the ignoring of which leads to death.

That the world of matter and appearances apprehended by our minds cannot literally be true, as science nihilistically claims, opens the way to religion and a larger reality - which seems just as true as science, but also used symbols to approach something our minds cannot fully grasp.

As Nietzsche understood, the concept of "truth" is what ultimately led to nihilism - the idea that our minds reveal truth to us. It is also narcissism. That reality is larger than our minds, and we use symbols to approach what we cannot know, restores us to humility, religion, the numinous, and morality.

Blogger B.J. May 01, 2018 9:36 AM  

Peterson sees the looming death spiral of the left and wants to create an anchor around himself. "This is far enough, let's stop 'progress' here." He wants to be the pope of liberalism.

Blogger Shamgar May 01, 2018 9:36 AM  

Maps is Jungian, so it's not going to make sense unless you are part of that Jungian Church. Check out JBP's conversation with Bret Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast. They get into a bit of truth definitions.

Blogger The Deuce May 01, 2018 9:37 AM  

Let's assume materialism. What you call "thoughts" are just lumps of greyish matter with blood and electrons moving through them. A lump of matter doesn't instrinsically "mean" or "correspond" to anything, and so makes no sense to say that a lump of matter is "true" or "false."

Likewise, when you engage in what you call "logical reasoning," it seems to you that you are grasping universal, abstract logical relationships between propositions, and that you are following these logical relationships from your premises and your conclusions. But again, assuming materialism, this isn't the case. Your "premises" and "conclusions" are both just lumps of matter, caused by blind, mechanical processes. One doesn't "follow" from the other by a universal logical relationship, and there is no "you" to do the following.

So why should you trust your own mind, and your own grasp of logic, to find truth, when materialism implies that there is no such thing? Well, the Darwinian "justification" here is that natural selection shaped your brain along with everything else, and that if your brain weren't generally geared towards reality, your ancestors wouldn't have survived and reproduced to create you.

But the implication of this is that what we call "truth" is just wet grey matter that has produced survival, and ditto for what we think of as "logic" and so on. And it does no good to distinguish between "truth" so constructed and that which *actually* true or "factual" (as even Peterson tried to do), because materialism implies that even when we try to make such a distinction, the only "truth" or "fact" we can talk about is lumps of grey matter that produced survival. There's not some "skyhook" that can allow us to grasp REAL abstract truths and REAL laws of logic and distinguish them from what Darwinian processes have caused us to call "truth."

What's funny is, most materialists embrace the above logic when it comes to MORAL truths. They understand that "right" and "wrong" (or "good" and "bad") are normative properties, and not material properties of physical objects, and thus that assuming the truth of materialism, they aren't objectively real but only subjective fictions that natural selection has caused us to project onto our thoughts and actions.

But they balk at doing the same for the concepts of "true" and "false" and "logical" and "illogical," even though they are every bit as normative as "good" and "bad," and even though materialism implies that they are every bit as much subjective projections.

They balk because they know that embracing it is incoherent and invalidates their entire worldview, that it implies that all of science and philosophy is subjective make-believe, and that is leads the post-modernist relativism that they pretend to be the antithesis of. Unfortunately, they don't balk enough to do the rational thing and reject materialism altogether.

It takes a lunatic to look at the lunatic implications of materialism and embrace them instead of rationalizing them away or rejecting materialism, and it seems that Peterson might be that lunatic.

Blogger ace May 01, 2018 9:38 AM  

Did truth not exist prior to stromatolites?

Blogger dienw May 01, 2018 9:40 AM  

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. As I tried to show, this view makes no sense, and I couldn’t quite convince myself that Peterson actually held it.

I commented on Peterson's Nietzschean/Jungian(sp?) philosophy on one of yeaterday's posts: the foundation of Peterson's philosophy is Man writ large; therefore, how can we expect anything else than "any belief system compatible with our survival must be true, and any that gets us killed must be false" from the man? Who wants to see his god die?

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 9:43 AM  

Also, is he is mentally broken whack job etc then the fact that his simple rules caused so much uproar and made him so popular tell a lot about the state of the West.

(nods) Again, I point out that the man is clearly very smart. It takes a very highly intelligent mind to produce even a modicum of order out of that kind of mental chaos. But that doesn't mean the chaos doesn't exist, to the contrary, the chaos is what required those simple rules for order.

Blogger SemiSpook37 May 01, 2018 9:44 AM  

Well, disappointing, but not at all surprising. Something about having our own sources comes to mind while thinking about this. Maybe that’s just me.

Blogger SDaly May 01, 2018 9:46 AM  

From this description, Jordan's understanding of "truth" seems akin to the Marxist concept of "Revolutionary Truth" - that which advances the revolution is true, that which hinders it is false.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 9:49 AM  

From this description, Jordan's understanding of "truth" seems akin to the Marxist concept of "Revolutionary Truth" - that which advances the revolution is true, that which hinders it is false.

Bingo.

Blogger Robert Coble May 01, 2018 9:49 AM  

Sam Harris:

"If we were true Darwinians, every man’s deepest desire would be to continually donate sperm to sperm banks so that he could sire thousands of children for whom he’d have no further responsibility."

I never realized that Darwinism was a "rabbit philosophy" generated by a "rabbit philosopher" prior to this observation by Mr. Harris.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 9:50 AM  

Damn. He's an existential relativist heuristic generator.

No wonder he's been allowed to go mainsteam "factual but false because it doesn't fit a subjective definition of survival" is an even worse version of "fake, but accurate". At least the latter can serve a narrative which isn't centred entirely on the self. Peterson is selling pure unadulterated evil - literally satanistic 'do as thou wilt (to survive) shalt be the whole of the law (and truth)'. That is exactly the philosophy of the pedoelite. I'd argue it's even worse then the Crowley rendition, because all Crowley is doing is removing boundaries to behaviour. He's not saying do as thou wilt (to survive) shall be the basis for determining scientific truth.

Vox you're much better then Harris at clearly articulating ideas. His victorious bug's analogy is unclear because he doesn't relate it to truth. I don't think 'worldview' is a good substitute for 'truth'. He should have just said an organism which can't understand anything that killed everyone must have superior understanding according to Peterson. That's what he actually means by his victorious team bug analogy.

Lol holy shit.

If it helps you survive, whatever that decides that means for you, it's true. Factual but not true.

Lol what the fuck. This guy is supposed to be the guy attacking post-modernism. How can he say this shit?

Factual but not true.

I'm so sad. I thought this guy had some value. I thought he was getting through to the normies. But he is a normie, just a really smart one.

I'm still torn. But if he genuinely thinks in terms of 'factual but not true absent survival assistance' he's a genuine loon and needs to be corralled away from impressionable young men.

I'm genuinely flabbergasted. I was going to vote for this guy. Damn it Vox truth hurts. I wanted Peterson to be the real deal so badly. You're exactly right. We mirrored our own truths on his tangle of ideas.


Blogger Desdichado May 01, 2018 9:53 AM  

No wonder he's been allowed to go mainsteam "factual but false because it doesn't fit a subjective definition of survival" is an even worse version of "fake, but accurate". At least the latter can serve a narrative which isn't centred entirely on the self.

He's been "allowed" to go mainstream because he went viral before any gatekeeper really had a chance to exclude him. Don't overestimate the competence of the Narrative stewards; stuff gets by them all the time.

Rather, I think it's more telling that the usual suspects haven't really attempted to swarm and destroy him yet. It speaks volumes to how much of a threat they view his philosophy.

Blogger August May 01, 2018 9:57 AM  

I read (part of) Maps of Meaning after youtube started showing me Peterson. I didn't feel much urge to read on when he had the Father as an archetype for what is known (also for order). But we give God a variety of attributes we don't actually have any experiential knowledge of- God is infinite, perfect, all-knowing, etc... So, even if you are just looking for some sort of Jungian and/or atheistic framework for deriving meaning from these stories- well, I think Peterson shuts the door on the ineffable to say the very least.

Blogger S1AL May 01, 2018 10:03 AM  

One might think that people would eventually realize that only the incredibly intelligent can rationalize such utter lunacy. It has happened over and over again, yet seems to always come as a shock.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 01, 2018 10:03 AM  

Peterson's concept of order vs chaos doesn't even make sense. Without a literal God you have no objective point of reference for what constitutes order. You can have subjective preferences for how things should be but he goes far beyond that and speaks in certain terms. His archetypes stuff is what originally made me realize he is full of crap.

Blogger Mike Hertz May 01, 2018 10:09 AM  

"your intellectual hero is a complete joke". JOKE. Jokes are told by comedians. Comedians are sometimes referred to as COMICS......comics. COMICS is also used as a shorthand for COMIC BOOKS.

ALT-HERO comics soon?

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 10:09 AM  

I always assumed that his what is true is what works applied only to stories. E.g. Harry Potter is true only to the degree that it successfully helps people manage their troubles in the real world.

As George Box said, "All models are wrong but some are useful."

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 10:10 AM  

"... any belief system compatible with our survival must be true, and any that gets us killed must be false."

If I had claimed that in my introductory Philosophy class back in 71 (or so), I would have received an F.

Now if I had claimed that any belief system that helped with our survival can be "useful", then that would have been acceptable. I would have been saying that even a delusion that helps us survive can be useful but is not necessarily the real objective truth.

If he is supposed to be so smart, why can he not see the difference between "useful" and "truth"?

Blogger Brick Hardslab May 01, 2018 10:15 AM  

The bear that killed papa is working in the service of life. While papa died, the bear will produce many more children of roughly greater or equal size to papa.

Rejoice in the truth of the bear all hail the great bear. You know in your hearts it is true.
*quickly grabs shaman garb and beggar's bowl*

Hi-how-are-ya! Hi-how-are-ya!

Blogger wreckage May 01, 2018 10:16 AM  

As far as I can see, any materialistic-atheistic system of thought absolutely requires exactly what Peterson seems to be advocating.

It requires it as a truth, or as the means by which truth can be known (via the evolution of intellect) or, it requires it as the Darwinian selecting-out of a rational universe from all possible universes.

Sam Harris is just stunned that someone actually SAID it; but under and veneer, this is strict materialism. Everything, including philosophy and the ability to compute philosophy, is and can be nothing more than whatever mechanistic reaction to the environment didn't get you killed.

Blogger FUBARwest May 01, 2018 10:16 AM  

JBP believes in a meta truth that supercedes facts. A lot of his philosophy and approach to life is based on meta truths that he cannot base in factual reality. He is not a Christian so he cant use God to justify his belief in truths not seen so he has come up with a definition of truth that allows him to continue to live and justify his philosophy.

Idk when you ever sleep Vox but God bless you. Looking forward to your breakdown.

Now that it's been pointed out I cannot unsee it from the man and now of course I'm seeing a bunch of signs pointing to this conclusion in the many videos and interview's he's done. It should be a hueristic if it isn't: If any man questions what 'is' is he's probably full of it.

To be fair to Jordan, I'm not sure if he is malicious with all of this. If he is crazy(And the man came up with 100+ rules to live by for himself to function properly/well hence the book) then this could all be his attempt to help people and the world.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 01, 2018 10:17 AM  

It's reminiscent of Taleb's definition of rational behavior but without the intellectual humility. Actually a lot of what he talks about politically reminds me of a very poor man's Taleb. Listen to him arguing with leftists and you'll see he makes the same kinds of arguments but less intelligently. I think a large part of why he's so popular is because he made those solid ideas palatable to people who don't read. And he did it all without attribution.

Blogger Peter Gent May 01, 2018 10:20 AM  

"If he is supposed to be so smart, why can he not see the difference between "useful" and "truth"?

I believe he suffers from what all who deny the source of all Truth suffer from: selective blinders. It allows them to maintain some sense of believe-ability by denying the reality that contradicts their construct.

Blogger Brick Hardslab May 01, 2018 10:20 AM  

@79 West, he has a hundred rules to live by? He'd do better to just listen to, "Simple kind of man" by Skynyrd.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 10:20 AM  

S1AL wrote:One might think that people would eventually realize that only the incredibly intelligent can rationalize such utter lunacy. It has happened over and over again, yet seems to always come as a shock.

I know. Guilty. But he was taking a stand against the Trannie Trannie Trap Traps perverting everything they are proximate to. He's the only one. But it's strange he'd even do that, because it's 'true' that a chick with a dick is a dude as long as the dude thinks he's a chick for his own survival.

What a strange man he is.

He's a walking contradiction and paradox. How can he genuinely believe this when he spends so much time acting contrary to it? It's almost incomprehensible how he finds order when the world is a swirl of falsities lethal to his surivival. Just thinking about how Peterson's mind must work is giving me a sense of spiralling into an abyss with no horizon and no landmarks or bearings.

It's like he's given himself an escape route from reality, based on a sense of being harried and assailed. So if a true thing could militate against his survival, he can decide it's false, and escape the truth. But that means that nothing is true. Because what aids survival can instantly change.

Man. No wonder he likes Hegel. This is what Vox means by Chaos. Jordan Peterson is like the warp in Warhammer 40k.

At best it's like a mode he can switch in and out of, but it's the default, primary mode, so even when he's switched it off it's still seeping through, like the chaos of the warp into the hull of a ship.

This is seriously dangerous stuff. That universe is characterised only by flux, threat, and change.

Peterson will betray anything or anyone, instantly, if he sees a threat to his survival, not just out of self-preservation, but out of preservation of the truth of his existence.

This is the path of perdition, even more dangerous because it's ostensibly trodden in sincere goodwill.

This is what Vox means by chaos and inevitable melt-down.

I don't even want to ponder that state of mind for too long.

Blogger Uncle John's Band May 01, 2018 10:21 AM  

Factual but not true may be the finest summation of SJW "Science!" I've heard.

Blogger wreckage May 01, 2018 10:21 AM  

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

Oh dear. Oh very dear.

Blogger Giraffe May 01, 2018 10:23 AM  

Why didn't you tell me he was dumber than Sam Harris BEFORE I bought his book.

Blogger Arthur Isaac May 01, 2018 10:23 AM  

On Rogan's podcast I heard Peterson talking about the amazing idealistic truth teller that Jesus Christ was. The simplistic question I have from that exchange and the Darwinian pablum he's shoveling is this: is it still true if it got Him killed? If he's going to worship the monomyth and hold that death is equivalent to falsehood is he going to describe the martyrs as charlatans or just the ones that were murdered in obscurity?

Blogger wreckage May 01, 2018 10:24 AM  

@83 "No wonder he likes Hegel."

He likes HEGEL?

Jordan Peterson is dead to me.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 10:24 AM  

My kid wanted to go see him talk so I bought a couple tickets. All I knew of him was his stance against compulsory gender pronouns, and that he was telling young men to clean their rooms so I figured what the heck.
My kid was the first to pick up that something was off about the guy. While he teaches some basic good red-pill advice for feminized millenial boys, he has absolutely no moral basis for any of it. And when pressed on the issue he dissembles and lies. His characteristic quick thinking and response turns to pauses, stuttering, and self contradiction.
I will still go to see him talk. The tickets are paid for. But it will now be an object lesson in the sad state of man without Christ, and why the godless should never ever be given earthly power.

Blogger Brick Hardslab May 01, 2018 10:24 AM  

It's no accident that the subject of Peterson and Christianity came up about the same time. Peterson is suffering from a lack that only Christ can fill. In the process of trying to handle the problem himself he is dragging down everyone who follows him to his conclusion.

Better to get the truth and find out you're not going to be an earthly Prince than to lead others astray.

Blogger S1AL May 01, 2018 10:27 AM  

"Why didn't you tell me he was dumber than Sam Harris BEFORE I bought his book."

He's not.

That's the problem.

Blogger Avalanche May 01, 2018 10:28 AM  

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

Thank you. A valuable use (to me/us; perhaps not so much to you) of your limited time.

(I will admit to wincing a bit at "Here's what Sam Harris says about Peterson, and therefore Peterson is malign." I do not think highly of Sam Harris, and some of that is borrowed from you.)

Blogger szopen May 01, 2018 10:28 AM  

FUBARwest wrote:
To be fair to Jordan, I'm not sure if he is malicious with all of this.


I do not think he is malicious.

To be honest I've started watching JP when I read about him in spandrell's blog few years ago, at least year or more before he went famous. I can see how I could become his fan if I would be twenty years younger and single. I still like his videos, because they are entertaining - first and the most important, they are great lessons in showmanships and from time to time he manages to say something interesting, thing which are obvious once he says them (e.g. "modern culture does not prepare men how to deal with crazy women"). I've never cared enough to actually read any work of his or analyse his longer lectures.

The most fascinating thing about him is how much some of the message resonates with young men. I think it's part because of his showmanship and rhetorical skills, because it's not like he is telling anything new or revolutionary. It's like visionary for the betas.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 01, 2018 10:32 AM  

I am starting to suspect that this guy's genius lies in piling up so much highly compressed bullshit that the bedazzled reader only sees a mirror of what he wants to believe.

Psychology condensed.

Blogger Avalanche May 01, 2018 10:36 AM  

@44 "My explanation for this phenomenon is that Peterson is a mentally broken whack job who has come up with some simple rules to allow himself to function reasonably. These rules are obviously of use to other less-than-perfectly functional individuals."

Of whom there are several millions. Including many, many of our young men.

Blogger S. Misanthrope May 01, 2018 10:36 AM  

He went on Joe Rogan with Brett Weinstein and clarified his position somewhat. Brett explicitly addresses the Holocaust as Darwinian programming, so might be worth a listen as you investigate.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 10:38 AM  

But he is a normie, just a really smart one.

No, he's not. Normal people are sane. Peterson is merely faking it.

As far as I can see, any materialistic-atheistic system of thought absolutely requires exactly what Peterson seems to be advocating.

No. That's completely and utterly wrong. That's why Sam Harris was horrified by what Peterson was saying. Harris is wrong and intellectually sloppy, but he is sane and he has some intellectual integrity as long as he's not pressed too hard.

Blogger Samuel Nock May 01, 2018 10:40 AM  

“That shit is dense.”

Even Peterson knows it was not well written. He has summarized the book into 70 or so paragraphs, and I recall seeing somewhere his saying that it contains all the main ideas of the full book.

https://www.scribd.com/document/99950208/27-1999-Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Precis-Psycology#

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 10:40 AM  

Of whom there are several millions. Including many, many of our young men.

Yes, Avalanche, we're all aware that he cries over them. Be that as it may, you no more want Peterson teaching those young men how to function as a sane member of society than you want Google teaching them how to not be evil.

It is a false path with a dead end.

Blogger Dangeresque May 01, 2018 10:43 AM  

I look forward to your review of his latest book. Many from the pick-up-artist/manosphere/whateveryouwanttocallit community have referred to it as "Building a Better Beta Male" which I think is spot on... Speaks to where he is most likely coming from in the sexual marketplace himself.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 10:45 AM  

Lol so I'm just trying to think about what the hell truth is when you have two people who take opposite positions on a propositions' implications for their survival.

So let's take the case of a man who wishes very much he was a pretty maiden. There are many many arguments that can be made by anyone adroit at producing words out of their mouth-hole to relate that preference to a greater Darwinian Good. Maybe being a maiden means he'll get to smash Dyke box. (Traps are fucking gay by the way).

But then person B turns up and says actually it's best for society if Mark goes and has some children with a white women, rather then try and be Marcia.

So where is truth?

Lol, you know where truth is?

Truth is with the man who can best explain how his position reflects the greater good.

Tell me I'm wrong?

How else do you generate 'truth' out of competing subjective determinations of what is conducive to personal survival?

Yep, this man perfectly fits in with the Jews. He also perfectly understands the SJW victim spiral, where truth belongs to whoever best defines threats to their survival via a victim narrative.

I need to invent a new character in 40k for Peterson.

It will have to be a Tzeentch hero. His vast, roaming intelligence will be obsessively focused on constant calibrations and re-interpretations of threats to his psyches survival. He will walk the void in solipsistic reverie. A terrible, powerful yet strangely subdued, sad force. Yet capricious, arbitrary. His percipience of threat allied to his demi-god like psyker powers will shape the form of the void and the surrounding universe itself, like a constantly re-assembling tower of cards, where one or other is always being pulled out collapsing the whole which re-assembles in a new threat configuration.

This character will have to be subject to a roll each turn. Evens means he still considers the enemy a threat. Odds means he considers his chaos brethren a threat. The effect of evens or odds changes according to a random number generator.

Clearly the right are Jordan's biggest perceived threat at the moment. But that could change.



Blogger RobertDWood May 01, 2018 10:46 AM  

This compressed bullshit point cuts through a lot of clutter . Thank you .

Blogger Jack Ward May 01, 2018 10:46 AM  

As has been said here often, 'Wow, just Wow'
To understand all this, while you're trying, stay away from the bourbon and probably the popcorn.
I think order of the day is to collectively save all these posts and comments, that are here, for future pondering.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 10:50 AM  

VD wrote:But he is a normie, just a really smart one.

No, he's not. Normal people are sane. Peterson is merely faking it.



Haha true. I stand corrected.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook May 01, 2018 10:55 AM  

The cruelest part about the thing is people came to Petersen because they thought he wasn't a leftwing nut job Marxist professor. The devil truly revels in turning the knife.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd May 01, 2018 10:58 AM  

"Existential Relativism" is the perfect term for it.
All of the social sciences are rife with it.
Believe it or not, that's actually a standard position for anthropologists of a certain stripe.

There are two roots that seem to drive them:
1. Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis
2. Applying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to studying culture.

So reality is this psychological construct, according to these people.
You'd think J.P. would be smarter than that. You'd think he'd grasp how his philosophy undercuts his message.
The things people come up with when they're not rooted in the Logos.

Blogger Frank Brady May 01, 2018 10:58 AM  

Peterson's ideas about truth are not original.

Kristol, Strauss, and their neoconservative disciples are moral relativists who share a disregard for truth that is nearly as great as their disdain for the essential American idea of individual liberty. Kristol wrote, "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

On the role of the State, Kristol is quite open. He wrote, "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity."

For his part, Strauss wrote an entire book ("Natural Right and History") praising what he called the political realism of the ancients who denied that there was any natural human right to liberty or truth. He was especially taken with Plato's discourses on "noble Lies." Strauss implicitly believed, as did Plato, that "noble Lies" were essential to stable government because they gave the people meaning and purpose. Strauss also believed that secrecy is necessary tool for ruling elites. In "Persecution and the Art of Writing", he explained that "the wise" must conceal their motives and actions in order to protect themselves from uprisings and reprisals.

Blogger wreckage May 01, 2018 11:00 AM  

@97; I'll take your word for it being unnecessary, but I don't see any way to disentangle it from a strictly materialist account of the evolution of perception. Not without admitting immaterial aspects of thought, or some other violation of strict materialism. Without which truth is brain function is an elaborate and drawn out stimulus response whose only strict discipline or check is survival-to-inherit.

Not trying to argue you down, but if you did elaborate what I'm missing, even briefly, it'd be valuable to me.

Blogger FUBARwest May 01, 2018 11:04 AM  

How many of the hoops he creates is due to him not being a believer? He sees a bit of effects from the Truth but doesn't accept it so he has to create something to justify what he sees as true?

Or is it just that he's unhinged?...

Blogger jimmy_the_freak May 01, 2018 11:04 AM  

Petersons version of this idea is wrong, it's not about survival in the Darwinian sense - but the basic idea that "true" is what "works" is correct.

Cargo cult FTW!

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 11:07 AM  

szopen wrote:FUBARwest wrote:

To be fair to Jordan, I'm not sure if he is malicious with all of this.


I do not think he is malicious.


Again, he's a paradox.

The apparent absence of malciousness derives from the fact that he is purely reactionary. His universe unfolds itself only as a reaction to threat. Whatever enables his survival according to subjective evaluation is true yes. So it's entirely reactionary. It's like a child on the early stages of Piaget's old development, exploring the world, trying to figure out what is dangerous, what is safe, what is warm, what burns. That's why Peterson has on initial impressions a kind of plaintive innocence. It's a creature that has been harmed. What could be more innocent then a blind man stumbling in a universe in which truth changes as he cognates the form of things. So threats/truth crystallise only after a period of fervent but furtive feeling out.

But then, once the world has taken it's temporary form, there are no depths to his maliciousness while that topography of threat remains in place. So Peterson has this kind of underling sense of sinister repressed violence.

Does that make sense? But because the quality of 'threat' based on subjective determinations can change so fast, Peterson's world is so often changing, that his malicious nature doesn't supersede his reactionary nature.

Lol I'm talking absolute shit but this is a convoluted personality. I know I'm throwing into the quarry even if I'm not hitting the fire at the centre.

Blogger wreckage May 01, 2018 11:08 AM  

@109, it seems like he's trying to accept as true too many systems. Like he's fallen in love with a lot of ideas and can't bring himself to settle down with a reliable one.

Blogger Patrick Kelly May 01, 2018 11:09 AM  

re: "...seems to claim "

I'm curious enough to follow this subject and see if Vox changes his evaluation after studying what he has actually claimed.

RE: Insane

It's a bit much to claim someone is insane based on them being wrong, intellectually sloppy, lacking intellectual integrity or even being observably deluded about something. That casts a rather broad brush that could be fashioned to capture anyone.

Blogger Nate73 May 01, 2018 11:12 AM  

I first became a little wary of JBP when he attacked the MRM and Mgtow in particular, calling them whiny and pathetic. Not that that's entirely false, but Paul Elam made a video saying his apology was fake and disingenuous which raised my antennae a bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Swy9tRrh7g

Note: Peterson's own tweets confirm this is his view.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/851466265860468736

Blogger The Deuce May 01, 2018 11:12 AM  

I think Harris is just a sloppy thinker like all the rest of the New Atheists, and he takes the basic classical Greek/Christian understanding of truth and logic for granted without really bothering to think about what his own materialist atheism implies about them, just as practically all atheists do with the many cultural vestiges of Christendom they take for granted while railing against the parts that get in the way of their sexcapades. If they did a bit of self-reflection, they'd realize that they are the very cause of the post-modernist rejection of scientific objectivity that they abhor so much.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 01, 2018 11:14 AM  

VoxDay_gassing_JordanPeterson.gif

Blogger tz May 01, 2018 11:16 AM  

The 12 rules sound like a bad list from one of those positive thinking televangelists (Originally NV Peale, then the guy in the "Crystal Cathedral", is there one now?).

But that is also why he doesn't want to address the JQ except to deflect it. Because yes, if I survive, it may mean at the expense of someone who is harming me. The difficulty is "survive" means something different if you are considering humanity as a whole (which can be bad enough), or my local "tribe", which can be my county or a place like Hungary or Poland.

And Israel realizes this with their population of Arabs and Palestinians. Its just that they can't quite genocide them yet, or drive them all into Egypt, Syria, or Jordan.

Blogger tz May 01, 2018 11:18 AM  

I think a parallel with Sargon of Akkad where he's great with SJWs but when even the fake right tries to take him on, he plays the squid squirting ink game.

Blogger GM May 01, 2018 11:18 AM  

I made it this far in that Harris interview and then stopped:

Peterson: "So then I would say that the proposition that the universe is best conceptualized as subatomic particles was true enough to generate a hydrogen bomb but it wasn’t true enough to stop everyone from dying, and therefore from a Darwinian perspective it was an insufficient pragmatic proposition."

Idiotic.

You don't need to accept that the universe is "best conceptualized" (whatever that means) as subatomic particles in order to know the truths of physics that make possible the creation of a hydrogen bomb.

And why does he think that having this euphemistic "best conceptualization" will magically prevent you from killing yourself?

There's a much simpler way to not kill yourself, and that's to not kill yourself.

I'm sympathetic to Peterson. I have gamma tendencies, and have made many gamma friends over the years. What is clear in retrospect was that preserving an uncorrupted understanding of truth kept my intellect from getting totally fried. It's too bad JP lost that understanding.

Blogger Some Guy May 01, 2018 11:21 AM  

"Not necessarily. I'm not even remotely surprised that Peterson is a) interested in psychiatry or b) been on psychotropic drugs. He's literally crazy, it's just that he's smart enough to have constructed a Gamma delusion bubble that looks like a coherent system to the insufficiently intelligent.

Remember Vox's First Law: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from madness. Lots of normal people will look at both me and Jordan Peterson and assume we are crazy. But Peterson actually is crazy, he's just a very high-functioning form of bonkers.

His eventual meltdown promises to be epic."

Vox, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'd loose and we both know it. But insufficiently intelligent? Vox, I'm a very capable individual but I have no background in philosophy (as in literally zero except one class college). I don't understand the structure of his arguments because I have not dedicated the time to understanding philosophy the way you have. I haven't done the ground work to begin, but it doesn't mean that I'm insufficiently intelligent to get it with some work though. I'm looking forward to your analysis of his thoughts. I understand that he is mentally broken. Most people on the left and a lot of people in general are. Being able to warn them would be good if I can get my head around why we should. What ways do you think he is mentally broken or do you even know just yet?

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 11:21 AM  

Patrick Kelly wrote:RE: Insane

It's a bit much to claim someone is insane based on them being wrong, intellectually sloppy, lacking intellectual integrity or even being observably deluded about something. That casts a rather broad brush that could be fashioned to capture anyone.



No. Vox is right. If we accept Jordan at his word based on the Sam Francis interview, then try to sythesise that world view with his other positions and extrapolate it, you arrive at an arcane insane mind.

You're looking at the symptoms, what's floating on the pond. Vox is looking at the currents and the condition that leads to Jordan's self-described paradigm.

I can perceive it as clear as day.

Read my posts. Try and understand the man of a mind who subjectively creates his universe according to his temporary capricious percipience of threat. He isn't self-preserving. He's actually perceiving truth via threat. Do you not see how fucking INSANE that is.

The only way, as Vox instinctively understands being a high IQ baller, to maintain any sense of permanence or self-control would be to possess vast intelligence, and a set of heuristics to automate behaviour to supersede threat impulses.

Clear as day bro. Peterson is the void. He is insane. He can't be trusted. He's spent so much time in self - examination and relating himself to the world that he can wear a normie skinsuit. Vox is right. I was being flippant calling him an intelligent normie. Nothing is normal in his rendition of existential relativism. It's an utterly alien, bizarre paradigm. It's only a paradigm you can arrive out from deep neurosis, which I understand Vox has elaborated within his 'Gamma' personality, which I don't fully understand but sense the basic form.

Blogger wreckage May 01, 2018 11:21 AM  

@118 What little I have seen of Sargon of Akkad is a longwinded, profoundly unwitty mediocrity. JP is at least capable of a decent delivery.

Blogger Ex Caliburn May 01, 2018 11:25 AM  

I am starting to suspect that this guy's genius lies in piling up so much highly compressed bullshit that the bedazzled reader only sees a mirror of what he wants to believe.

This is a persuasion technique that Scott Adams has detailed. After emotionally manipulating someone (or even just positioning yourself as someone who shares common ground), give many possible reasons to explain feelings of agreement. Their mind will latch on to one and rationalize it as the reason.

The 'fake because'.

Blogger Dire Badger May 01, 2018 11:26 AM  

Yes, some falsehoods work very well and are pro-survival. Falshoods like "She won't stab me in the back the moment she thinks she can get a better deal" are almost mandatory for the survival of the race.

That does not make them "TRUE" though.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 11:29 AM  

To my eyes, Peterson is merely colorblind, not dangerous like the New Atheist crowd.

A colorblind person who cannot see a red traffic light can still understand that red lights still play an important role in society by bringing order. He may even believe that "red" doesn't exist, yet defend the concept.

The Dawkinses cannot see the red, assume that everyone who says they see it are delusional and dangerous, and that the world would be much better off when all the traffic lights are thrown in the garbage - because after all, rational people can make rational decisions about when to cross a railroad track all by themselves.

Dawkins' way is death. Peterson's way is silliness. I can live with silliness, as long as the silliness is not allowed to grow.

Blogger Go clones May 01, 2018 11:30 AM  

Vox ... I think you're making a mistake here; a mistake thinking that JBP is a Philosopher or even has a consistent philosophy about anything. You could take 3 very smart people ... say you and Sam and somebody else ... and all 3 engage him on the very same topic ... engage him and try to pin him down. And ... you'd get 3 different answers. Or maybe no answers at all.

Guess what I'm saying ... is if you expect to find a consistent, logical, rational basis for anything Peterson says ... then you're barking up the wrong tree ... cause you ain't gonna find it.

Which reminds me of something funny I saw the other day while cruising politically incorrect vids on YT. Jesse Lee Peterson, lol. No relation. He's very entertaining too ... trying to talk truth to blacks ... instead of young men. Similar genre to JBP though, just different audience. At least Jesse is a legit Christian and believes in God. Jesse was hitting up someone pretty hard on why 96% of Blacks voted for Obama ... doesn't that make them worse racists than white people. Ever see 96% of white people vote for the same candidate ... because the candidate was white ? And they brought up that Bush lied about the Iraq war. And Jesse went off ... A politician lied ???? Really ??? Tell me that's not true. Politicians are born liars. The are cultivated to lie from the day they are born. They don't know anything but lying. Barack Obama spent 8 years in the White House and never spoke the truth once in 8 years ... and you voted for him ... twice !!!

Kinda thinking ... this applies to JBP. Vox is SHOCKED and I mean SHOCKED to find ... he's a mentally ill, yet very smart individual, who understands human nature and is pedaling lies to young men with no purpose, to give them some purpose. And I guess that's a good thing. His lies make him popular. That's all. That's all that's there. There is nothing else.

Blogger Ex Caliburn May 01, 2018 11:32 AM  

To my eyes, Peterson is merely colorblind, not dangerous like the New Atheist crowd.

They both give you poison.

Peterson makes it look, smell, and taste like hot cocoa.

Blogger Matthew May 01, 2018 11:34 AM  

GM wrote:"So then I would say that the proposition that the universe is best conceptualized as subatomic particles was true enough to generate a hydrogen bomb but it wasn’t true enough to stop everyone from dying, and therefore from a Darwinian perspective it was an insufficient pragmatic proposition."

"These friends of frankness depend almost entirely on Euphemism. They introduce their horrible heresies under new and carefully complimentary names."

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 11:40 AM  

It's a bit much to claim someone is insane based on them being wrong, intellectually sloppy, lacking intellectual integrity or even being observably deluded about something. That casts a rather broad brush that could be fashioned to capture anyone.

I'm not basing it on that. Be patient. I'll make my case and it might even be logically conclusive enough to get the guy committed in Canada.

Vox ... I think you're making a mistake here; a mistake thinking that JBP is a Philosopher or even has a consistent philosophy about anything.

Oh, he definitely has one. It can be encapsulated in one word: SURVIVE. How it manifests will vary.

To my eyes, Peterson is merely colorblind, not dangerous like the New Atheist crowd.

You have it backwards. Peterson is far more dangerous, because he is not fully sane.

Vox, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'd loose and we both know it. But insufficiently intelligent? Vox, I'm a very capable individual but I have no background in philosophy (as in literally zero except one class college). I don't understand the structure of his arguments because I have not dedicated the time to understanding philosophy the way you have.

Yes, insufficiently intelligent. This had nothing to do with my knowledge of philosophical systems, which is not particularly deep anyhow. It took me all of three clues to figure this out. Now it's just the i-dotting and t-crossing on the conclusive proof.

1. The lie about the high IQ.
2. This quote: Why is Peterson dishonest in some ways? I think he explained this in the debate with Sam Harris, where he said things like " something which not benefits /potential harms humanity cant be true"
3. The title of his book.

That was all I needed to reach my preliminary conclusion: crazy, high-IQ Gamma constructs intricate system to defend delusion bubble.

Everything since has just been confirming what I concluded. And most of you had far more information about Peterson than I did.

Blogger OGRE May 01, 2018 11:41 AM  

So JP is no modernist then. He is in fact a transmodernist. Hes not the antithesis, hes not the controlled opposition...he is the synthesis, a prophet of the new emerging movement.

JP in the transmodernist way is attempting to use traditionalism, structure, pragmatism, and spirituality as a means of creating meaning and value in an empty world. For example, in JP's worldview, God does not exist and is not a source of meaning, but our conception of God provides value nonetheless and should not be jettisoned.

This is pragmatism in the extreme, even beyond the darwinian/survivalist aspects, for if one finds value in something then it objectively has value...even if it doesn't exist! In logic it would be akin to ascribing a property to a non-existent object.

JP is attempting to appropriate the benefits of traditional beliefs without accepting the foundation upon which those beliefs are built. Go to church! Worship God! Exercise and eat right! Clean your room! If you do those things you will receive the corresponding benefits--your brain will emit the appropriate chemical responses, your personal well being will improve, your social status will increase, you will receive spiritual fulfillment. But its all an illusion. Its creating your own personal Matrix...you are your own Cartesian evil genius.

And that is the inherent danger, for it provides a substitute for the real thing. In the Christian sense it is extreme idolatry...worshiping a non-existent god in place of the living God, yet still (supposedly) receiving all the personal and societal benefits. JP provides a rational basis for the existence of the Christian Atheist; you can be a Christian without accepting Christ!

How incredibly Satanic...

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 11:41 AM  

wrf3 wrote:VD wrote:He doesn't believe in God. He is an existential relativist.

These aren't mutually exclusive.


They are mutually exclusive. Jordan's opinion of whether God is true is entirely a product of his evaluation of whether a thing occupying the position of God might constitute a threat to societies' survival.

It's not a matter of waxing and waning faith with respect to a God one acknowledges. Peterson doesn't acknowledge the existence of God. God is only true if he supports Jordan's survival. So right now, when things are going jiffy, Peterson probably thinks God could be true. When he eventually self-immolates, because he is insane, poof, God will be a threat, and therefore the idea of God will no longer be true.

Jordan doesn't believe in God.

At least that's my take. VD will probably correct me. But I don't see how Peterson could believe in God, or even the possibility of God, if his perception of the 'truth' of God changes on his evaluations whether God supports his survival.

Maybe God wants Peterson to die. That possibility alone in Peterson's universe means God must be false.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 11:43 AM  

Vox is SHOCKED and I mean SHOCKED to find ... he's a mentally ill, yet very smart individual, who understands human nature and is pedaling lies to young men with no purpose, to give them some purpose.

That doesn't shock me at all. What shocks me is how many people fell for the hallucinogenic snake oil.

Blogger paul b. May 01, 2018 11:43 AM  

wreckage wrote:@83 "No wonder he likes Hegel."

He likes HEGEL?

Jordan Peterson is dead to me.


Anyone with conservative and nationalistic tendencies ought at least appreciate Hegel.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 11:44 AM  

They are mutually exclusive

Ignore wrf3. He's just itching to run his usual routine. He was only two comments away from it.

Stay out of it, wrf3. Don't even think about trying to get involved.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 11:45 AM  

So JP is no modernist then. He is in fact a transmodernist. Hes not the antithesis, hes not the controlled opposition...he is the synthesis, a prophet of the new emerging movement.

(nods)

Blogger Jack Amok May 01, 2018 11:47 AM  

that doesn't mean the chaos doesn't exist, to the contrary, the chaos is what required those simple rules for order.

That would explain why he thinks you have to clean your room to change the world. He has some sort of spectrum-related problem and knows he can't trust his mind to wander in public, so he has to regiment it.

Maybe that's part of his appeal to so many young men. With the growing number of aspies, in addition to being maybe the first man they've seen who didn't apologize for breathing, the see him as one of their own.

Blogger Some Guy May 01, 2018 11:48 AM  

@Vox,

"Yes, insufficiently intelligent. This had nothing to do with my knowledge of philosophical systems, which is not particularly deep anyhow. It took me all of three clues to figure this out. Now it's just the i-dotting and t-crossing on the conclusive proof."

And this is why high intelligence people make terrible leaders. I'll stop commenting and just listen when it comes to Peterson. I'm looking forward to what you come up with.

Blogger S'mon May 01, 2018 11:50 AM  

My impression was fractionally better, that he was distinguishing scientific truth (actual truth) from moral truth (beliefs good for human flourishing). He elevates 'moral truth' to the same level as scientific truth - higher, in practice.

I think there is some value in recognising that the universe is not necessarily designed for human flourishing, but I think his use of the word 'truth' in this context is dangerous and wrong.

Blogger Alphaeus May 01, 2018 11:51 AM  

"You have it backwards. Peterson is far more dangerous, because he is not fully sane."

I wonder about that. If he's insane then there is no method in pursuit of political objectives in his madness. If he's posing as insane in order to drive us insane that seems much more dangerous.

There are lots of undoubtedly insane people where I live in the San Fran Sicko Bayarrhea of Gruberfornia, but I've noticed something about some of them. I've detected a SMIRK often enough to suppose that it is a thing about some insane people, that they know they are looking and sounding insane, and they are doing it on purpose to some extent, because their problem is more of a moral failing than a mental infirmity.

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 11:51 AM  

Transcripts of his Biblical series are also available on his website.

The closest definition he's come for "truth" is something like "that which is invariant depending on the reference frame," but that's still applied subjectively and incoherently. Pain, he says, is the most real thing, because it cannot be denied or ignored.

Blogger Jack Amok May 01, 2018 11:52 AM  

Something that harms life... cannot be true.

Ah, the No True Communist Fallacy.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook May 01, 2018 11:52 AM  

His Kermit the frog voice makes his insanity kind of endearing to be honest.

Blogger Patrick Kelly May 01, 2018 11:55 AM  

@121. yclepedbobali

"You're looking at the symptoms, what's floating on the pond. Vox is looking at the currents and the condition that leads to Jordan's self-described paradigm. "

I can accept that. This is very likely a case of the communication gap between Vox's IQ (probably your's and JP's are also a couple SD higher than mine from what I've been reading here) making my view of the prognosis of "insane" a bit opaque.

I am also having some difficulty dealing with the Cruelty Artist practicing his dark art with someone who my initial impressions of had been very optimistic and favorable.

There are young men I know who have observable become more "awakened" and challenged to be better men via JP writings and videos. These men also have very strong, established Christian backgrounds, and recognize that JP is very Jungian, not Christian (they are more educated and exposed to psychology than I am, I couldn't explain why Jungian vs. Christian myself without reviewing this blog and other writings), but also celebrate his apparent favorable (at least not hostile) view of religion and specifically Christianity, which is very rare in the cultural and educational world they live in.

Many of the "rules" JP espouses fit very well with the Christian values they were raised with, and at the same time challenge the current cultural pressure to accept some kind of lame, pussified version of manhood. Very similar to some of the reasons I read this blog.

So, it's a bit personal and painful for me. Usually I sit at the back of the Dojo to observe and learn, but now I risk questioning the Sensei about his mocking the sanity of the philoso-fu that until now looked effective and useful for others I care about.

What I'm hoping to learn is how to gently yet steadfastly reveal the weaknesses (hypocrisy, lack of integrity, etc.) of JP should the subject come up in any serious, profitable conversation. I want to truly understand, not just be repeating something I read, no matter how much I think it correct or true. These young men are very smart, energetic, and motivated, which is both good and bad news for me should I engage them in these matters.

I'll either get it, or I won't. In the mean time I'll shut up, keep my head down, and pray more.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 11:58 AM  

And this is why high intelligence people make terrible leaders.

You asked the question and I answered it. I don't want to be a leader.

Blogger great_o'rety May 01, 2018 12:00 PM  

The fundamental axiom that I'm playing with is something that was basically expressed by Nietzsche and its a definition of truth. And so I would say if it doesn't serve life, it’s not true.

This fucking guy has it all backwards. He wants to know what is worthy before he learns what is true.

Blogger Some Guy May 01, 2018 12:00 PM  

"You asked the question and I answered it. I don't want to be a leader."

Says the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil! Seriously though, I know Vox. Do your thing. It should be a good show.

Blogger Alphaeus May 01, 2018 12:00 PM  

"And this is why high intelligence people make terrible leaders." "
"You asked the question and I answered it. I don't want to be a leader."

If you leave us, can we go with you?

Blogger Sam Spade May 01, 2018 12:01 PM  

This is gonna be glorious.

Metokur (Internet Aristocrat) had good instincts about him as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFi4p4QC44&

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis May 01, 2018 12:02 PM  

Who is worse? Jordan Peterson or John Piper?

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 12:02 PM  

I am also having some difficulty dealing with the Cruelty Artist practicing his dark art with someone who my initial impressions of had been very optimistic and favorable.

I appreciate your honesty. Your sentiments are entirely legitimate. Irrelevant, of course, but understandable.

Many of the "rules" JP espouses fit very well with the Christian values they were raised with, and at the same time challenge the current cultural pressure to accept some kind of lame, pussified version of manhood.

Of course they do. 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. But it is still very, very unwise to follow the madman, because eventually he is certain to go where one should not follow.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 12:05 PM  

You have it backwards. Peterson is far more dangerous, because he is not fully sane.

I can't see Peterson signing a petition to outlaw sunday school, as the very sane Richard Dawkins did. Or making light of pedophilia as Dawkins did. Or playing the electric clarinet horribly, as Dawkins did.

But he may very well be insane as you say. If so he will likely self destruct sometime in the near future.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 12:06 PM  

Who is worse? Jordan Peterson or John Piper?

Piper, due to his position in the Church. Peterson has no spiritual responsibilities.

Blogger vanderleun May 01, 2018 12:08 PM  

Cure Van Morrison:

"Professional jealousy, started a rumour
And then it extended, to be more abuse
What started out as just, black propaganda
Was one day seen to be, believed as truth
They say the truth is, stranger than fiction
But a lie is more, deadly than sin
It can make a man very, bitter and angry
When he thinks that there's someone, is going to win"

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 01, 2018 12:09 PM  

"His eventual meltdown promises to be epic."

I have no doubt that the guy is going to publicly and spectacularly self-immolate in the near future. But is there a way to turn that prediction into profits?

Blogger Patrick Kelly May 01, 2018 12:10 PM  

" Peterson has no spiritual responsibilities."

I can see how this is dangerous to those who think he does or should when he eventually lets them down, or even turns on them.

Blogger FUBARwest May 01, 2018 12:12 PM  

"But he may very well be insane as you say. If so he will likely self destruct sometime in the near future."

U think that time is fast approaching. Talib being done with him seems to have unhinged him a bit, and his behavior has changed since getting over 100k a month via Patreon.

He's less cautious and he's striking out at a bunch of people, some of them turned out to be more logically sound than him. If he is a gamma, him being exposed this way on such a public stage is not going to end well.

Hopefully any young men who have found him useful won't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Blogger FUBARwest May 01, 2018 12:13 PM  

I not U

Blogger Markku May 01, 2018 12:14 PM  

Aquila Aquilonis wrote:Who is worse? Jordan Peterson or John Piper?

I can always count on you guys. You're the best.

Anonymous Anonymous May 01, 2018 12:16 PM  

@156

Yes. There are clues that Vox's estimation might be correct. As the pressure has increased he seems to get more chippy and incoherent.

Also, sudden Al Gore/ David Letterman beard is a huge danger sign.

Blogger Cloom Glue May 01, 2018 12:19 PM  

Who remembers Mythbusters polishing compressed bullshit?

I rewatched it to see if it is shiny enough to be a mirror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI

The last month Youtube fad was polishing aluminum foil balls. Mythbusters reminded me this is an already established Japanese thing; eg. dirt balls.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis May 01, 2018 12:19 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis May 01, 2018 12:21 PM  

Markku wrote:Aquila Aquilonis wrote:Who is worse? Jordan Peterson or John Piper?

I can always count on you guys. You're the best.


To be fair it was you who game me the idea.

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 12:22 PM  

The idea that truth is evolution comes, I think, from his use of the order-chaos duality. He has a narrative that he brings up repeatedly, which I excerpt from Chapter 2:

"To straddle that fundamental duality is to be balanced: to have one foot firmly planted in order and security, and the other in chaos, possibility, growth, and adventure. When life suddenly reveals itself as intense, gripping, and meaningful; when time passes and you're so engrossed in what you're doing you don't notice - it is there and then that you are located precisely on the border between order and chaos. The subjective meaning that we encounter there is the reaction of our deepest being, our neurologically and evolutionarily grounded instinctive self..."

Does he not know that people can find intense excitement and pleasure in things that are actually terrible for them?

I think it goes like this: He got that idea that this is how you find meaning, and then he got the idea that people are evolutionarily selected for this, and then the connection Blew. His. Mind. I think he takes it as if it's some sort of natural law that evolution will select for truth, or at least truthiness. And it is so much harder for somebody to admit error on something where their Mind. Has. Been. Blown... it is deceptively close to the process by which intelligent people think about a complicated issue and come to a deeper insight.

There may also have been mushrooms involved. Have you been told about the mushrooms yet? He hasn't ADMITTED to actually using psychedelics... but he does make it clear that he believes they instrumental in the development of spiritual consciousness.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 01, 2018 12:22 PM  

And we're not just looking at the possibility that the emperor has no clothes here, we're being forced to consider the very real possibility that the emperor is actually a recently shorn sheep that sincerely believes it's a cat.

Fantastic. I'm so glad this is finally happening. The time for dissection and study has begun.

Blogger Cecil Henry May 01, 2018 12:26 PM  

I wonder what Peterson would say about this?

Message him, I did.

https://twitter.com/LevittMichael/status/991305682086395904

Blogger Peter Gent May 01, 2018 12:27 PM  

Wynn Lloyd wrote:"Existential Relativism" is the perfect term for it...So reality is this psychological construct, according to these people.
All of these coincidental philosophies are essentially narcissism hiding behind word salad arguments to avoid facing the reality of their self-centeredness.

The self-centered can never be God-centered and that is why narcissism is so destructive as well as being Lucifer's fundamental sin.

Blogger The Deuce May 01, 2018 12:32 PM  

Here's something relevant regarding what a Darwinian, relativist paradigm implies about truth. I'm not sure if Peterson is consciously basing his ideas of "truth" on the issues described here, and I doubt it since he doesn't seem to be very philosophically rigorous to me, but it explains why atheists who take objective truth for granted are also barking up the wrong tree: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/04/reading-rosenberg-part-ix.html

What first made me wary about Peterson is that the "Christianity" he teaches empties it of its basic meaning. He'll project his Jungian archetypes or whatever on to the Scriptures to find "meaning" in them, but in so doing empties them of the points they were actually written to make about sin and redemption, which only have any worth if God is actually real.

Blogger OGRE May 01, 2018 12:36 PM  

@163 that passage is very Zen Buddhist, both on a metaphysical and a personal level.

Its like I'm saying, this is transmodernism; a part of which is incorporating transcendentalism and spiritualism into a modernist framework.

Blogger electricsheeple May 01, 2018 12:37 PM  

Did Stefan ever write you back about your JP criticisms?

Blogger Freddy May 01, 2018 12:40 PM  

The unveiling. How to win friends and influence people...Vox never dissapoints. Ha!

Blogger ace May 01, 2018 12:49 PM  

@Noah B
If only there were a public personae futures market where you could buy and sell stock in pundits.

Blogger DJ | AMDG May 01, 2018 12:50 PM  

I’ve read The 12 Rules and have started Maps of Meaning. There is much about JP’s core presentation that I find attractive. Nothing really new for me, but much stated in a different way that I can understand many would appreciate. Contextualization is import and if he has done anything well it was to properly contextualize is message for his target group.

12 Rules becomes quite repetitive toward the end. I suspect you will choke when you read his critical anger toward deceit as well as the types of conversation and who engages in them.

I look forward to your analysis.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 12:53 PM  

Did Stefan ever write you back about your JP criticisms?

I understand he'll look into the IQ thing, which was the only thing I brought to his attention.

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 12:57 PM  

@100
"I look forward to your review of his latest book. Many from the pick-up-artist/manosphere/whateveryouwanttocallit community have referred to it as "Building a Better Beta Male" which I think is spot on... Speaks to where he is most likely coming from in the sexual marketplace himself."

Chapter 1 is ABOUT social-sexual hierarchy, so that will definitely be interesting to see the Dark Lord's take.

Blogger Durandel May 01, 2018 12:58 PM  

Yes! Thank you SDL! Look forward to the intellectual vivisection of JP!

Blogger Peter Gent May 01, 2018 12:59 PM  

R Webfoot wrote:...Pain, he says, is the most real thing, because it cannot be denied or ignored.
He should read Buddhist thinking. It is centered in the denial of pain as an illusion as a way of dealing with the problem. Maybe he could find an out for his conundrum.

Blogger DJ | AMDG May 01, 2018 12:59 PM  

One other thing. He himself states that any psychological counseling system that is applied to a chaotic (broken) life is worthy since by its very nature the form of counseling is a “system”. It brings ORDER to CHAOS.

I was deeply concerned by that. It strikes me as very utilitarian and precisely the kind of utilitarianism he criticizes about tyrannical governing systems.

Blogger Robert May 01, 2018 1:09 PM  

Peterson reminds me of Emo. Don't know why. I like Emo, but don't always laugh at his jokes.
Now I see I should have heard alarm bells go off when I heard that JP went from Manitoba to Toronto to Harvard by giving lectures on what seems to be a moral philosophy that puts personal responsibility front and center. Does not compute.

Blogger SJ May 01, 2018 1:14 PM  

Young men go to JBP and say, help! My future wife is being desouled by fifteen guys in college! Son, he says, just go clean your room.

Help my future has been sold to banks before I was even born! Well kiddo, just go clean your room.

Invaders from foreign lands are colonizing my home as we speak doctor! Yes yes, but have you cleaned your room yet?

And if course he's insane I'm shocked you guys are trying to argue against this. Just watch a video of the guy here clearly up there defining not truth or reality but defining the things he thinks that allows him to roughly hold it all together. I do understand in a sense where he's at as I was in a similar place during my divorce, just trying to hold it all together, but yeah not forever.

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 1:15 PM  

@121
"Read my posts. Try and understand the man of a mind who subjectively creates his universe according to his temporary capricious percipience of threat. He isn't self-preserving. He's actually perceiving truth via threat. Do you not see how fucking INSANE that is."

Uhhhhhh
I'd figured out that "perceiving truth through threat" is completely insane, and the fount of insanities such as those he used to treat. I had not recognized that he is doing the same.

That does explain why he is so upset about identity politics qua identity politics, and his dissembling on the Jew thing. He was traumatized by Holocaust stories and rubbed his mind raw with the thought exercise "if you were in Germany, you'd probably be a Nazi, not one of the dissenters... now what would it take to get you to do all those terrible things?" So anything that kinda seems like those Bad Things causes emotional distress, and anything that can be used to speak against it seems to shine forth with sacred purpose or whatever the phrase he uses is.

Pain-speakers always lie, because pain-thinking is Hellish.

Blogger Patrick Kelly May 01, 2018 2:17 PM  

"Your room" is a metaphor for "your life". If your life is fkd up you really should unfk it up before you go on a crusade to fix the universe by yourself.

It is perfectly possible to have a great life with a messy room, as long as the rest of your house is in good shape. Messy rooms are great places for exploring creativity and spontaneity. Too much of that shit in proportion to the rest of you life can fk it up.

Blogger Carlos Eduardo Chies May 01, 2018 2:22 PM  

yclepedbobali wrote:The apparent absence of malciousness derives from the fact that he is purely reactionary.

That is very interesting, how would a adult than react?

Blogger Darwinite May 01, 2018 2:59 PM  

As far as I can tell, Peterson’s philosophy on this issue has a similar basis to Austrian economics, probably through Karl Popper. He argues that praxeology (which he aligns with theology and narrative) offers a different form of truth to materialism (which he aligns with science).

He bases this on what he calls a neuroscience view, that the brain sees the world in terms of tools, rather than objects, and that this action-oriented view allows a sense of meaning that is absent from an object-oriented view.

I haven’t spent a lot of time trying to poke holes in this tool-oriented approach, but is it wrong to say each approach can be valuable in its own realm? What’s wrong with using an objective view for scientific purposes, and a praxeological view for moral issues?

Blogger Cloom Glue May 01, 2018 3:00 PM  

Patrick Kelly wrote:"Your room" is a metaphor for "your life". If your life is fkd up you really should unfk it up before you go on a crusade to fix the universe by yourself.

It is perfectly possible to have a great life with a messy room, as long as the rest of your house is in good shape. Messy rooms are great places for exploring creativity and spontaneity. Too much of that shit in proportion to the rest of you life can fk it up.



Jordan Peterson is probably talking about feeling better, from his depression, when he does focused attention on that precise task of cleaning his room. That is what Jordan means by "what works". Some must be surprised it was that simple.

I am reasonably certain he did not originate that task as a metaphor, even if you can reasonably extend it as a metaphor.

You have to understand that room cleaning in this psychological context, and then add the other factors which have been discussed for a few days, in Vox Day's essays.

Blogger DJ | AMDG May 01, 2018 3:02 PM  

“Your room" is a metaphor for "your life".”

Maybe, but not according to JP in how he uses it in his practice. He is literally talking about having people first CLEAN THEIR ROOM/HOUSE. It comes from his clinical experience that when a patient’s life is a mess, chances are high so is their room/house. He pokes at that and when discovers it’s true instrucks then to clean their room. Each day. Keep it clean. Then come back a week later and report on what success they had.

He has also discovered most people don’t have the will necessary to keep a clean house, so discovering that in a patient helps him know where to start.

It’s literally not a metaphor for him. It’s a clinical psychiatric test of mental health and capability.

Blogger R Webfoot May 01, 2018 3:46 PM  

@130
"Hes not the antithesis, hes not the controlled opposition...he is the synthesis, a prophet of the new emerging movement."

PLEASE do not meme him into literally being the Antichrist.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 01, 2018 4:38 PM  

Petersen, and Harris and Nietzsche, and Kant and Darwin and Marx stand in the village square with Pilate and ask each other "What is truth?", averting their eyes from the tortured and condemned man in their midst.

Blogger La Jolla Cowboy May 01, 2018 5:08 PM  

Funny, I always saw Vox's adherence to Christianity as a perfect example of Peterson's view of truth.

I expected that Vox consciously viewed Christianity as the best available cultural foundation for civilization, as a practical matter. In which case I wouldn't expect such an excitedly hostile reaction to Peterson.

Or is the hostility a display of intellectual pride, locking horns?

If sanity is a matter of illogical philosophical views, then counter to Vox, it could be argued that blind faith is insanity--such as faith in an ancient parable written by Jews, based on a long succession of similar stories throughout antiquity addressing the objective movements of celestial objects. Or if Christianity is the one final obvious truth, does that mean all the Buddhists in China are insane?


Given that, despite Semitic claims, God hasn't actually shown the blueprint to humans, the big picture is left to our imaginations and sensations. Moral relativity is odious, but that seems to be the nature of nature. BLM and the commies morally support the black that assassinated five police in Dallas, and they morally oppose Zimmerman shooting Trayvon. Americans morally support Zimmerman, and morally oppose BLM assassins. In practice, morality functions positionally. Positionally, based on biological mandate, as Peterson seems to be pussyfooting around.

Blogger La Jolla Cowboy May 01, 2018 5:12 PM  

Re #187

What if the tortured condemned man was a traitor, an opponent of the God Emperor?

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 5:22 PM  

Funny, I always saw Vox's adherence to Christianity as a perfect example of Peterson's view of truth.

Then you saw it wrong. I adhere to Jesus Christ the way a man drowning in a sea of radioactive shit holds onto a live preserver. I can't know that the rope is attached to anything. I can't be sure that it's pulling me out of the shit.

But I'm not going to let go.

Blogger VD May 01, 2018 5:23 PM  

If sanity is a matter of illogical philosophical views, then counter to Vox, it could be argued that blind faith is insanity--such as faith in an ancient parable written by Jews, based on a long succession of similar stories throughout antiquity addressing the objective movements of celestial objects.

Blind faith has absolutely nothing to do with it. I know - absolutely know - that material evil exists. And I know that Christianity is the only religion, philosophy, or conceptual system that explains its existence to my satisfaction.

Blogger La Jolla Cowboy May 01, 2018 5:33 PM  

VD, it's hard to deny the existence of evil. Thanks for the response.

Blogger Alphaeus May 01, 2018 5:36 PM  

"God hasn't actually shown the blueprint to humans,"

John 14:4

"4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. "

So, you're wrong.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 01, 2018 5:58 PM  

My view of it:

Things (actually) in service to life certainly dovetail with truth to an very high degree.

However, life is not merely material in nature.

For an atheist or other non-Christian who believes that the mundane life is the only one, the concept that truth is only those things which serve life is pure chaotic poison. You get a neverending series of questions asking "whose life is of greater value" once you start following that path, and we all know where that ends up.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 01, 2018 6:19 PM  

"Basically, what we have here is a one sentance philosophy:

"The ends justify the means.""


I hate when people dig on that.

First of all, that the ends justify the means is simply what every non-idiot believes. They just believe in different ends.

Second of all, the concept "the ends justify the means is evil" was born of an outright hedonist whose next statement was "so whatever feels good, do it". I'll have to do some digging to recall the originator, as a lot of people misattribute the origin to Machiavelli (saying that the ends justify the means).

Another way of pointing out the error is straight out of the Bible "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death" and Matthew 7:16 "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 01, 2018 6:25 PM  

"Who remembers Mythbusters polishing compressed bullshit?"

Yes. I never even watched the show. My mother checked me out a book of theirs from the library (of her own volition) when I was around twelve and my main summer occupation was reading.

Basically every single experiment in the book was wrong on multiple grounds that I could see as a twelve year old. Methodological, factual, all sorts of errors. I've never looked back or placed any value on any of their judgements since.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 01, 2018 6:30 PM  

R Webfoot wrote:Pain, he says, is the most real thing, because it cannot be denied or ignored.
This is the giveaway of Peterson's personality for me.
First, it is simply false. Perhaps the emotional pain of the gamma cannot be ignored, but only because a gamma will not confront it.

I've been in pain since 1970. Pain is merely a sensation, and with practice anyone can learn to control his perception of pain. But it does require accepting the pain and confronting it directly. Which is what gammas won't do.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 01, 2018 6:34 PM  

"As far as I can see, any materialistic-atheistic system of thought absolutely requires exactly what Peterson seems to be advocating."

Agreed. Granted, Peterson may diverge on the specifics, but they're in the same ballpark.

Blogger Samuel Nock May 01, 2018 6:44 PM  

In terms of insane false prophet, here is his video lecture titled “How Christianity Will be Replaced With Something Bigger.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5GdcLD76A

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 01, 2018 6:46 PM  

Again Rambam?

1 – 200 of 214 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