(Jun 29, 2019 07:28 PM)Syne Wrote: See, not only can't secular people make a compelling case for secular spirituality (aside from some hokey new age mysticism), they have to quote other secular people who can't either. Desperately trying to establish a consensus fallacy.
Since you brought this up, can we start with this first? Let’s tackle his opinion on hokey new age mysticism, shall we?
Quote:The new age is a very optimistic and naive movement. Its predicated on the idea that you can do nothing say follow your bliss and that will take you ever higher to enlightenment and that’s not the Jungian idea at all. The Jungian idea is that what you most need will be found where you least want to look. So, there’s this story of King Arthur and they’re all at this round table, right? King Arthur and his knights are all equals—they’re all superordinate but they’re all equals and they go off to look for the Holy Grail. From the Holy Grail is the container of the redemptive substance, whatever that is. It might be the cup that Christ used at Last Supper or it might be a chalice used to capture his blood on the cross, right? When he was pierced by a sword. The stories differ but that’s the Holy Grail and the Holy Grail is lost. That’s the redemptive substance, and the knights of King Arthur go off to search for the Holy Grail, but they don’t know where to look. So, where do you look, when you don’t know where to look for something that you need desperately but I’ve lost? Well, each of the knights goes into the forest at the point where it looks darkest to him and that’s Jungian’s psychoanalysis in a nut shell. It’s like that which you fear and avoid, that which you hold in contempt, that which disgusts you, and that you avoid, that’s the gateway to what you need to know. There’s nothing new age about that, that’s for sure.~Jordan Peterson
Jung is one of the prominent thinkers thought to influence the New Age Movement. While New Agers may lean towards magical thinking when it comes to symbolism, both parties hope to provide literal interpretations of the symbols and myths. Both are a collection of beliefs and practices and both attempt to interpret ancient beliefs with the hope of bridging science and religion.
Peterson is a traditionalist that honors the religious framework of our civilization. As you’ve pointed out before, like you, he doesn’t believe in a literal god as most Christians do, but he admits to being a Christian apologist.
He argues for the validity of a religious perspective and orientation towards life—an orientation that’s centered in meaning. This may corresponds with Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, but as you may know, many prominent atheists disagree with Gould’s conclusion. As Dawkins pointed out, an existence and creation claim is scientific.
Peterson’s religious perspective is simplistic and straight forward. He says that it’s a desire for all things to thrive insofar as that’s possible. A desire for people to speak the truth, and act out the truth, and act responsibly, and all of that. And he thinks that there’s something transcendently necessary about all of that and that it is the antidote to hell.
His desire to speak the truth is something that I’d like to come back to, but first, I’d appreciate it, if you would be kind enough to provide us with the key differences between his views and New Age religion.
Oh, and could you please explain the difference between his outlook and an appeal to ancient wisdom?
Thanks, Syne!
Like I was just telling Leigha, here, secularists, including many of the new-agey sort, tend toward hedonism, where their notions of spirituality mostly center on what makes them feel good, e.g. following their bliss. Their interpretations of symbolism are largely just wish fulfillment, as they tend toward self-gratification instead of lessons requiring anything approaching discipline. Comparing superficial features, even of one bastardized from the other, is pointless. Jungian philosophy is not a "collection of beliefs and practices", nor is it concerned with "bridging science and religion", although Jung certainly had thoughts on both.
My view of god and Christian apologetics were known before Peterson was. What are you attempting to refute by merely pointing them out?
Some atheists disagreeing with Gould's NOMA is, at best, a consensus fallacy/appeal to authority ("prominent"), not a refute of the idea.
You need to cite Peterson instead of paraphrasing and, potentially, putting words in his mouth. Otherwise, you could easily be arguing a straw man.
I'm not going to do your homework and show a difference between his views and New Age stuff, where you have not established any similarity and none are obvious. That is your argument to make. Don't try to shift the burden.
An appeal to ancient wisdom, like an appeal to authority, relies solely on that appeal for its validity. Religious ideals are valuable for practical reasons that have proven to be stabilizing to societies throughout history, and they are often linked to evolutionary psychology we couldn't avoid even if we wanted to. The ancient sources, themselves, only provides a long-running narrative and tradition for those ideals, which have practical value independent of those sources.
(Jun 30, 2019 06:19 PM)Syne Wrote: Like I was just telling Leigha, here, secularists, including many of the new-agey sort, tend toward hedonism, where their notions of spirituality mostly center on what makes them feel good, e.g. following their bliss. Their interpretations of symbolism are largely just wish fulfillment, as they tend toward self-gratification instead of lessons requiring anything approaching discipline.
I’m glad that you brought this up because that’s exactly what Peterson is doing. He’s claiming that the difference between his views and New Agers is that they follow their bliss, but what they really need to do is face their fears.
"It’s like that which you fear and avoid, that which you hold in contempt, that which disgusts you, and that you avoid, that’s the gateway to what you need to know. There’s nothing new age about that, that’s for sure."—Jordan Peterson
On the contrary, he then attempts to add validity to wishful thinking, delusions, and hallucinations with his reference to psychedelics (psilocybin). What he’s actually implying here is that wishful thinking is beneficial, and while we’re on the subject, he then goes on to exaggerate the study that he’s referring to. It wasn’t 85%, nor was it a single does, and it was an extremely small sample size, fifteen people to be exact. He admits that there’s a 10% risk of having a trip to hell, but 40% of the participants, six of them reported acute challenging (i.e., fearful, anxiety-provoking) psilocybin session experiences.
I can’t believe that I’m having to point this out, but the positive or negative experiences that people have when taking a hallucinogenic are characterized by fallacious thinking, in which reality-testing is disavowed, and thoughts are easily biased by either wishes or anxieties.
Syne Wrote:You need to cite Peterson instead of paraphrasing and, potentially, putting words in his mouth. Otherwise, you could easily be arguing a straw man.
Sure, no problem, but normally you complain about having to watch a video.
Syne Wrote:An appeal to ancient wisdom, like an appeal to authority, relies solely on that appeal for its validity. Religious ideals are valuable for practical reasons that have proven to be stabilizing to societies throughout history, and they are often linked to evolutionary psychology we couldn't avoid even if we wanted to.
I disagree. It’s not always valuable for practical reasons. It can and it has been extremely divisive. It can and it has led to war, self-harm (flagellation), auditory hallucinations, demonic possession, delusions of grandeur, and paranoia. People don't need falsity to find meaning or purpose to strive and flourish.
And besides, that’s not not exactly what Peterson is implying. He adds a touch of magic to it when he talks about the double snakes representing DNA. While he may be chipping away at literalism, he’s also adding mystical elements to it. At one point, he goes as far as implying that the ancients knew about DNA. [1][2]
For your convenience, I started the video at 1:45 and provided a transcription.
Transcription...
I really do believe this. Although, it’s very complicated to explain why I believe that’s a representation of DNA and that representation, that entwined double helix is everywhere. You can see it in Australian Aboriginal art. I’m using the Australians as an example because they were isolated in Australia for about 50,000 years. They’re the most archaic people that were discovered and they have clear representations of these double helix structures in their art and those are the two giant serpents out of which the world is made, roughly speaking. It’s the same thing that you see in that Staff of Asclepius, which is the healing symbol that physicians use. Although, usually that’s only one snake, but sometimes it’s two. So, that’s a Chinese representation, and then there’s this. This is the Egyptian representation, Isis and Osiris. So, there they are, cobras with their tails twined together. They emerge out of that. That’s the dragon of chaos that manifests itself as culture in nature.
In another lecture when he’s called out on it, he back peddles and says that "believe" is too strong of a word and that he just "suspects" that it’s a representation of DNA. He then says that in order to understand where's he's coming from, you’ll need to read this book, "The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" by Jeremy Narby.
I’m not trying to throw any stones here, but I can’t resist pointing out that even you said that Jon Bain’s claim was more likely to just be presentism with knowledge of Edison bulbs.
Peterson overwhelms his audience and tries to legitimize his claims by dropping names of great thinkers, non-comparable, and unreliable sources. In a face-to-face debate, they don’t have a chance, but with a little time and patience, his arguments can easily be broken down and town apart.
(Jun 29, 2019 11:02 PM)Syne Wrote: I won't be holding my breath.
Don't worry, there’s plenty more where that came from.
(Jun 30, 2019 06:19 PM)Syne Wrote: Like I was just telling Leigha, here, secularists, including many of the new-agey sort, tend toward hedonism, where their notions of spirituality mostly center on what makes them feel good, e.g. following their bliss. Their interpretations of symbolism are largely just wish fulfillment, as they tend toward self-gratification instead of lessons requiring anything approaching discipline.
I’m glad that you brought this up because that’s exactly what Peterson is doing. He’s claiming that the difference between his views and New Agers is that they follow their bliss, but what they really need to do is face their fears.
"It’s like that which you fear and avoid, that which you hold in contempt, that which disgusts you, and that you avoid, that’s the gateway to what you need to know. There’s nothing new age about that, that’s for sure."—Jordan Peterson
So far so good...
Quote:On the contrary, he then attempts to add validity to wishful thinking, delusions, and hallucinations with his reference to psychedelics (psilocybin). What he’s actually implying here is that wishful thinking is beneficial, and while we’re on the subject, he then goes on to exaggerate the study that he’s referring to. It wasn’t 85%, nor was it a single does, and it was an extremely small sample size, fifteen people to be exact. He admits that there’s a 10% risk of having a trip to hell, but 40% of the participants, six of them reported acute challenging (i.e., fearful, anxiety-provoking) psilocybin session experiences.
And then you're back to paraphrasing/straw manning without citation.
He never implies that wishful thinking is beneficial. He actually contrasts hallucination (knowing your experience is not reality) with delusion (not knowing your experience is not reality). And he quotes Jung as saying "beware of unearned wisdom" as it pertains to mystical experiences induced by drugs, where a substance-free religious experience would be earned wisdom.
Quote:I can’t believe that I’m having to point this out, but the positive or negative experiences that people have when taking a hallucinogenic are characterized by fallacious thinking, in which reality-testing is disavowed, and thoughts are easily biased by either wishes or anxieties.
And? Where has Peterson advocated hallucinogenic use? O_o
I see why you didn't cite him there.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:You need to cite Peterson instead of paraphrasing and, potentially, putting words in his mouth. Otherwise, you could easily be arguing a straw man.
Sure, no problem, but normally you complain about having to watch a video.
Compare the video I just posted. A 6 min video compared to your 2 1/2 hour video. You don't even bother to give time codes, which I could readily do for mine (if you really need them). I'm not watching a 2 1/2 hour video in the vain hope of finding something that vaguely relates to your straw men.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:An appeal to ancient wisdom, like an appeal to authority, relies solely on that appeal for its validity. Religious ideals are valuable for practical reasons that have proven to be stabilizing to societies throughout history, and they are often linked to evolutionary psychology we couldn't avoid even if we wanted to.
I disagree. It’s not always valuable for practical reasons. It can and it has been extremely divisive. It can and it has led to war, self-harm (flagellation), auditory hallucinations, demonic possession, delusions of grandeur, and paranoia. People don't need falsity to find meaning or purpose to strive and flourish.
Cherry-picking fringe cases in the face of history is intellectually dishonest. You'd have to show that religion itself (not just human nature) has done more harm than good, throughout its entire history. Anything involving humans will necessarily have some problems, but that is inherent to humans and happens without religion as well. Nor are all religions equal. Most sane people, of any creed, would find things like female genital mutilation divisive, but that is not a feature of every religion.
Quote:And besides, that’s not not exactly what Peterson is implying. He adds a touch of magic to it when he talks about the double snakes representing DNA. While he may be chipping away at literalism, he’s also adding mystical elements to it. At one point, he goes as far as implying that the ancients knew about DNA. [1][2]
For your convenience, I started the video at 1:45 and provided a transcription.
Transcription...
I really do believe this. Although, it’s very complicated to explain why I believe that’s a representation of DNA and that representation, that entwined double helix is everywhere. You can see it in Australian Aboriginal art. I’m using the Australians as an example because they were isolated in Australia for about 50,000 years. They’re the most archaic people that were discovered and they have clear representations of these double helix structures in their art and those are the two giant serpents out of which the world is made, roughly speaking. It’s the same thing that you see in that Staff of Asclepius, which is the healing symbol that physicians use. Although, usually that’s only one snake, but sometimes it’s two. So, that’s a Chinese representation, and then there’s this. This is the Egyptian representation, Isis and Osiris. So, there they are, cobras with their tails twined together. They emerge out of that. That’s the dragon of chaos that manifests itself as culture in nature.
In another lecture when he’s called out on it, he back peddles and says that "believe" is too strong of a word and that he just "suspects" that it’s a representation of DNA. He then says that in order to understand where's he's coming from, you’ll need to read this book, "The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" by Jeremy Narby.
First, what's with the links wholly unrelated to Peterson? Attempts to poison the well by tenuous association?
And? There's little doubt that ancient people seemed to depict, in their art, things that are not known to exist at the time but of which we can now see modern correlates. UFOs, brain surgery, etc.. And there may be nothing mystic about them.
It only requires entertaining the notion that we have lost previous knowledge before, and that some ancient art still bares hints of it.
Or that some knowledge/intuition is inherent in humans. Contrary to the notion of being born a blank slate, everything from evolutionary psychology to gays claiming to be "born that way" would tend to indicate some inherent knowledge.
And he never said the ancients knew about DNA.
He said they related that imagery to creation.
And weren't you claiming he made an appeal to ancient wisdom? Where did he ever claim "that ancient practices or beliefs are superior to modern ones"? You know, since that's a direct quote from your own link.
Quote:I’m not trying to throw any stones here, but I can’t resist pointing out that even you said that Jon Bain’s claim was more likely to just be presentism with knowledge of Edison bulbs.
And? You're making a straw man you haven't supported with anything but your own dubious inferences....putting words in his mouth by "reading between the lines" of what is actually said.
Quote:Peterson overwhelms his audience and tries to legitimize his claims by dropping names of great thinkers, non-comparable, and unreliable sources. In a face-to-face debate, they don’t have a chance, but with a little time and patience, his arguments can easily be broken down and town apart.
Then when do you plan to start tearing them apart? O_o
Even here, you're criticizing how he presents he thoughts rather than refute the thoughts themselves.
You've neither refuted Gould's NOMA, challenged the validity of a Judeo-Christian perspective, nor demonstrated that he's made an appeal to ancient wisdom...all of which you were at least attempting.
Your refutation is too weak to even merit a reply. I’m not willing to put in the effort to appease someone with such low standards. If anyone else should express an interest, I’d be happy to present a clear and precise rebuttal.
As I had mentioned a few posts back, there are some thoughtful points that Peterson makes, in terms of feminism, equality, traditional ideas, etc. I mean, he has a ''right'' to think as he wishes, but it's troubling that he has a large ''incel/MGTOW'' following. I don't care for these terms, but the men contained in those groups are typically, anti-women. Not anti-feminism, but anti-women. They blame women for their lot in life - and have a borderline disdain for women. Peterson is very bright, but a bit intellectually dishonest when he panders to those groups, in hopes of teaching those men how to become self reliant. Those groups aren't interested in that, lest they'd already be responsible, 'confident' men, not plodding through life blaming women for everything that goes wrong in their lives. Those types of men on average (there are outliers of course who are willing to change) aren't seeking a leader to help them become better men, rather they want someone to commiserate with them. Agree with them.
Having said that, Peterson makes a lot of decent points in terms of feminism and being treated fairly. He seems to believe from what I can tell, that men and women should be treated equally in personhood, but the equity of outcome is what he doesn't agree with. He feels that it would be a danger to society, if men and women seek the same outcomes, or strive perhaps, for the same goals?
What I do like about Peterson is that he offers a different perspective, despite it being controversial, that makes me think.
Here's an article that is worth the read. It's about an interview Peterson gave, in which it seems like he was being cornered, and his views twisted as to make him look sexist, etc. I feel if we're going to have genuine conversations about how to foster equality between men and women, we MUST start listening to exactly what either side is saying.
SyneJul 5, 2019 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: Jul 6, 2019 12:28 AM by Syne.)
(Jul 4, 2019 03:23 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jul 3, 2019 02:30 AM)Syne Wrote: People have lives, deary.
Yes, of course, and I'll be busy, and out of cell coverage for the next few days. We can pick up where we left off when I return.
Ciao!
(Jul 5, 2019 03:17 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Your refutation is too weak to even merit a reply. I’m not willing to put in the effort to appease someone with such low standards. If anyone else should express an interest, I’d be happy to present a clear and precise rebuttal.
As expected...you're only trolling and have zero arguments to back up your hateful ad hominems. Yaz called it.
Even though I assume you think you're aping me, I address every actual argument. It's only a lack of any argument whatsoever that requires no refute. So you can't even manage to be intellectually honest in your trolling.
(Jul 5, 2019 08:46 PM)Leigha Wrote: As I had mentioned a few posts back, there are some thoughtful points that Peterson makes, in terms of feminism, equality, traditional ideas, etc. I mean, he has a ''right'' to think as he wishes, but it's troubling that he has a large ''incel/MGTOW'' following. I don't care for these terms, but the men contained in those groups are typically, anti-women. Not anti-feminism, but anti-women. They blame women for their lot in life - and have a borderline disdain for women. Peterson is very bright, but a bit intellectually dishonest when he panders to those groups, in hopes of teaching those men how to become self reliant. Those groups aren't interested in that, lest they'd already be responsible, 'confident' men, not plodding through life blaming women for everything that goes wrong in their lives. Those types of men on average (there are outliers of course who are willing to change) aren't seeking a leader to help them become better men, rather they want someone to commiserate with them. Agree with them.
Having said that, Peterson makes a lot of decent points in terms of feminism and being treated fairly. He seems to believe from what I can tell, that men and women should be treated equally in personhood, but the equity of outcome is what he doesn't agree with. He feels that it would be a danger to society, if men and women seek the same outcomes, or strive perhaps, for the same goals?
What I do like about Peterson is that he offers a different perspective, despite it being controversial, that makes me think.
Here's an article that is worth the read. It's about an interview Peterson gave, in which it seems like he was being cornered, and his views twisted as to make him look sexist, etc. I feel if we're going to have genuine conversations about how to foster equality between men and women, we MUST start listening to exactly what either side is saying.
No one is responsible for the people who like them...unless they are inciting criminal behavior. Peterson's critics use them as a fallacious guilt by association. And do you have concrete examples of how you think "he panders to those groups"? Or is that just a feeling you get...after listening to the aforementioned guilt by association from his critics?
In today's society, with its prevalence of single mothers, many men may be hearing such manly advice for the first time, so it may not be fair to say they "aren't interested" in something new to them. And just about every person, man or woman, has to learn how to be a responsible adult over time. Guidance and positive role models (lacking from single mother households) help. Again, I'd like to see some examples of how he panders to their blaming behavior, when the thrust of his message is "clean your room" and "man up".
Incels and MGTOW can cherry-pick Peterson just like any loser will do when casting about for validation. That doesn't reflect on Peterson, just like cherry-picking the Bible doesn't reflect on Christianity and cherry-picking science doesn't reflect on the scientific method.
Yeah, that Cathy Newman interview was quite some time ago and transparently agenda-driven. It only helped Peterson.
LeighaJul 6, 2019 01:02 AM (This post was last modified: Jul 6, 2019 01:02 AM by Leigha.)
(Jul 5, 2019 10:48 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Jul 4, 2019 03:23 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jul 3, 2019 02:30 AM)Syne Wrote: People have lives, deary.
Yes, of course, and I'll be busy, and out of cell coverage for the next few days. We can pick up where we left off when I return.
Ciao!
(Jul 5, 2019 03:17 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Your refutation is too weak to even merit a reply. I’m not willing to put in the effort to appease someone with such low standards. If anyone else should express an interest, I’d be happy to present a clear and precise rebuttal.
As expected...you're only trolling and have zero arguments to back up your hateful ad hominems. Yaz called it.
Even though I assume you think you're aping me, I address every actual argument. It's only a lack of any argument whatsoever that requires no refute. So you can't even manage to be intellectually honest in your trolling.
(Jul 5, 2019 08:46 PM)Leigha Wrote: As I had mentioned a few posts back, there are some thoughtful points that Peterson makes, in terms of feminism, equality, traditional ideas, etc. I mean, he has a ''right'' to think as he wishes, but it's troubling that he has a large ''incel/MGTOW'' following. I don't care for these terms, but the men contained in those groups are typically, anti-women. Not anti-feminism, but anti-women. They blame women for their lot in life - and have a borderline disdain for women. Peterson is very bright, but a bit intellectually dishonest when he panders to those groups, in hopes of teaching those men how to become self reliant. Those groups aren't interested in that, lest they'd already be responsible, 'confident' men, not plodding through life blaming women for everything that goes wrong in their lives. Those types of men on average (there are outliers of course who are willing to change) aren't seeking a leader to help them become better men, rather they want someone to commiserate with them. Agree with them.
Having said that, Peterson makes a lot of decent points in terms of feminism and being treated fairly. He seems to believe from what I can tell, that men and women should be treated equally in personhood, but the equity of outcome is what he doesn't agree with. He feels that it would be a danger to society, if men and women seek the same outcomes, or strive perhaps, for the same goals?
What I do like about Peterson is that he offers a different perspective, despite it being controversial, that makes me think.
Here's an article that is worth the read. It's about an interview Peterson gave, in which it seems like he was being cornered, and his views twisted as to make him look sexist, etc. I feel if we're going to have genuine conversations about how to foster equality between men and women, we MUST start listening to exactly what either side is saying.
No one is responsible for the people who like them...unless they are inciting criminal behavior. Peterson's critics use them as a fallacious guilt by association. And do you have concrete examples of how you think "he panders to those groups"? Or is that just a feeling you get...after listening to the aforementioned guilt by association from his critics?
In today's society, with its prevalence of single mothers, many men may be hearing such manly advice for the first time, so it may not be fair to say they "aren't interested" in something new to them. And just about every person, man or woman, has to learn how to be a responsible adult over time. Guidance and positive role models (lacking from single mother households) help. Again, I'd like to see some examples of how he panders to their blaming behavior, when the thrust of his message is "clean your room" and "man up".
Incels and MGTOW can cherry-pick Peterson just like any loser will do when casting about for validation. That doesn't reflect on Peterson, just like cherry-picking the Bible doesn't reflect on Christianity and cherry-picking science doesn't reflect on the scientific method.
Yeah, that Cathy Newman interview was quite some time ago and transparently agenda-driven. It only helped Peterson.
True, he's not responsible for who ''gravitates'' towards him....but, why are they gravitating towards him if his message is about building up men to take responsibility for their own lives? Unfortunately, I think his bringing up that men and women shouldn't strive for the same ''outcomes'' (but should have the same equitable opportunities afforded to them) is what drives some of the attraction of certain groups. What does that really mean, when we peel back the layers?
I agree with you though that he doesn't directly pander to their blaming behaviors, but can you see that his discussion points can be taken the wrong way, by an audience looking to pick a bone with women? As you say though, it's not his fault, but he just needs to be mindful of how he comes across.
I hope he does help people in the end, of course.
I seriously don't know why I can't isolate quotes anymore.
Jun 30, 2019 06:19 PM
