The Jordan Peterson Thread


@tempogain, when are we getting the “ironic like” button installed? :rofl:

I wonder what would that Charlie say about Azathoth. :ponder:


Azathoth is related to the Shadow. He represents all that must remain dormant for business as usual to be possible.


I can’t find the whole video but a few clips. I enjoyed this clip where JP gave his definition of god. Start on the 7min mark if you don’t want to listen to the guy talking. I really like listening to people like Sam Harris, however he and his like minded thinkers like Dawkins always in my opinion attacked religion in a very simplistic way. I’ve yet to hear Sam really break down any particular religion and annoyingly groups all religions together and attacks the made up man in the sky definition of god and religion. I think Hitchens is one of the only guys I appreciate that can separate each religion.


Peterson Vs. Peterson :wink::smiley:


I vote “SOLVED”! :grinning:

But Tempo’s the OP here, so I guess he should decide.


Not a solution, but definitely an enjoyable comic interlude.


Mo’ Peterson and Harris


Finally getting them on the same page talking is great.

Although I think JP generally outwitted Sam. I think Sam is shocked by some of JPs answers for the utility of religion or at least Christianity as he’s used to destroying simple concepts of religion.


I didn’t get even the vaguest notion of that.

Though it was a good discussion, I doubt either of them would be moving the needle much to those who already have pretty firm opinions. Me being one of them, naturally. Although I do appreciate Jordan Peterson’s views here more than some of the other tripe he’s come out with. Not that I agree with him exactly, but he does have some more than valid points.

I think for the best stuff, jump to around 1 hour 26 min in the video. My personal favorite is around 1 hour 50 min. (Yes, I took notes on times as I was listening). I had more to say, but in the end it doesn’t really matter.

I will say I liked the moderator. And that’s basically it.


I think for me, I’ve listen to Sam Harris a lot before JP. I found him to be really intelligent but at the same time he lacks any sort of message. I always felt kinda like well what was the point of all of this after even if got his point intellectually. I think JP is giving many people something Sam can’t. Some meaning to all of this.


Aside from the man himself, I like what he says about free speech and tolerance on college campuses, personal pronouns, and such. The fact that he is a college professor who has encountered these issues in his work and has, in his view, had his civil rights impinged upon by his own government, makes me admire him for speaking out, particularly in such a thoughtful (if assertive) way. The aspect of him, now that he has gained such spontaneous notoriety, going out on the lecture circuit and on media tours is slightly less admirable, because it brings his motivation into question. That being said, people living in the free world are at liberty to maximize their personal income, and being suddenly and unexpectedly famous and having the ability to fill 5K+ seat auditoriums with people who have bought tickets and who, after his appearance, will very likely line up for a chance to buy his book(s) is a unique opportunity to cash in on. Why shouldn’t he? Taxes are very high in Canada and there are probably some very nice estates for sale where he can now envision himself and his family living a life of ease and luxury. Hey, if Hollywood actors and NBA basketball stars can command windfall riches and live on 20-acre estates in Malibu, why not an intellectual philosopher and social commentator? More power to him, say I. It would have been a bit more, I don’t know… romantic for him to have just remained on his college campus and not hired an agent (I don’t know that he has one but I have to assume so), but that’s asking a lot of any human faced with such opportunity for fame and fortune (and influence, which to many people is worth more than anything) as he has.


He lost his job at the university I believe and I suspect many universities wouldn’t hire him now. If people are wanting to hear you speak, I think it’s worthwhile to do it. And if people are willing to pay you for it, I think you should take it as your time is worth something and a man has to eat.

And to be fair he hasn’t just received the benefits of fame. He has gotten his name smeared from being far right to as ridiculous as being a Nazi. Pretty sure he lost his job for speaking out as well.


Regarding the personal pronoun issue, I have already had a run-in myself. I was told that the wife of a friend prefers to be referred to as “they”, rather than “her” or “she”. Not because of her sexual identity, but out of her personal conviction that gender-based personal pronouns are reflections of a patriarchal past that disadvantaged women. Having heard Peterson’s arguments helped me bring my own view into focus, and my response was that I would try to comply, out of social courtesy to her (oops! they), but that I hoped if I forgot or made a mistake she would also have the grace to let it pass and not correct me as if I were a school boy who had just said “ain’t” instead of “isn’t”. Sadly, I was warned that, based on past experience, errors would be called out. To which my reply was to the effect that I would therefore NOT comply at all, and if she/they didn’t like it she/they could file a complaint with the pronoun police. Seriously, this reminds me of some (non-religion/tradition based) vegetarians I know who don’t even say “thank you” when you have them over and prepare some special dishes for them, and then when they invite you to their place they don’t ask if you’d like something with meat in it, or even offer for you to bring your own dish with you, as if the mere presence of meat in their house would be offensive. WTF?


Ignore her. HER.


Does she expect someone who isn’t a Native and fluent speaker to comply?

Whether or not I would use a preferred pronouns depends on the person and how they ask like with most things.


I enjoy listening to Waking Up, and appreciate how patient and generous Harris is with his guests. He’s also pretty disciplined, except when talking about Trump, of course (but who is?) Every once in a while he goes off the deep end about psychedelic drugs and Buddhism, which leaves me scratching my head. But, we’re all human. Compared to some other prominent humanist/atheist types, at least he’s not a pompous ass. Dawkins is too emotionally in love with Darwinism and childishly dismissive of theism (for example, comparing faith in God to believing in Santa Claus), and Neil Degrasse Tyson thinks that science is always correct and can explain everything (which it can, at least in the physical world), but that doesn’t mean that a person who sees unfathomable beauty and truth in Scripture is a fool. Any human endeavor (which the study of science is) can be faulty, because we are imperfect, and scientists are prone to the same imperfections as anyone else. Yes, they say that the Scientific Method self-corrects, which is generally true over time, but there have been broad stretches of human history where the scientific establishment has stubbornly resisted new scientific evidence that contradicted established scientific doctrine - their pride made them resist being proved wrong, even when the data was strongly suggesting that they were. Devout scientists also tend to be uncomfortable with the role religion has played in the advancement of science, and prefer to harp on those episodes where the Church and Science were at odds. They seem to regard people who believe in a Creator as the personification of ignorance and superstition (and, often, evil as well). For many of them, it’s an “either/or” situation - either you believe in science or you believe in God (non-science) - it’s impossible to exist in both worlds. Interestingly, they have pardoned Einstein for doing so, but at the same time have difficulty tolerating NIH Director Francis Collins.

Carl Sagan, bless his soul, (“billions and billions… of stars”) used to say in the opening of “Cosmos” that the universe is all there is and all there ever was or will be. I don’t think he or anyone is qualified to make so grand and sweeping a statement - so patently speculative that it is almost supernatural. Can we see beyond the edge of the universe? No, so we should not say that there is nothing there. He might have been correct to have said, “The universe is all that we can currently observe that is in existence, and the evidence available to scientists suggests that it is all there is out there”. With the emergence of String Theory, which postulates the existence a multiverse as opposed to a universe, Sagan’s confidence in his conclusion that the observable universe is “all there is and will ever be” may someday put him in the same rogues gallery as pre-Copernicus gurus who were sure the sun revolved around the earth. But, again, we are all human, and prone to allow our enthusiasm and desire for a particular explanation of reality to blind us to the possibility that we might be wrong.


Round 2


It’s the new rock n roll.


It just occurred to me that JP has invented a new entertainment genre: stand-up philosophy. No wonder he’s getting rich.


Ladies and gentlemen. A man who needs no introduction. Direct from Toronto. Jor-dan Petersonnnn!