Jordan Peterson thread
- Thread starter DAIR
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,354
Maybe he drank some dodgy cider again.
He doesn’t seem to fair too well when he comes up against Sam.
Maybe he drank some dodgy cider again.
He doesn’t seem to fair too well when he comes up against Sam.
I think the problem he has with Sam is that Sam is able to bring Islam into the fold. For a large part it runs contra to Petersons interpretation of religious benevolence (to a point).
If Peterson focused his attention toward the thought, meaning and allegorical elements of religion (in many ways that he does in his book) he would fare better. The two are concatenate thinkers, Peterson able to more broadly back himself up with scientific elements and Harris in understanding of other religious doctrine.
One line that got me in the book where I think Peterson was right about religion was "It was in the aftermath of Gods death that the great collective horrors of communism and fascism sprang forth".
In many respects, humanity is more than a match for destroying itself when compared to what destruction God might level. God as an entropic or enduring being (not Being lol), is one of JPs weaknesses going against Sam.
If I were debating him I would be steering the conversation toward what people are capable of rather than divine messages. As an example, in this discussion he struggled to solidify the message around the verse in context of the paragraph, the paragraph in the chapter and the chapter in the book. By that token he could say mankind is able to do that just fine without religion: Examples being given (communism and the Gulag).
Having said that I've seen other people who share Harris's view manage to beat him at other arguments (or at least that was my perception)
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,354
It started off pretty dry but around the halfway mark got way more interesting. I like them both very much, for quite different reasons. I must admit JP kind of loses me around certain topics which was brought home by Sams comments around the reserection, i.e. "It almost certainly didn't occur. What's wrong with saying that?" rather than the lengthy word salad that JP would almost certainly go into.
I have listened to Mr Reagans review of it and I have to say I will have to watch the rest.
What you have to remember is the JP has a lot of experience in depth psychology. Which is why some of what he says is so profound. I had to listen to one of his points in his Oxford Union address twice to make sure I understood it.
His arguments when he makes a statement on certain topics eg free speech are immense in that he will make several points that surround the core of his argument(s) and this is why it is difficult to refute things he says. Each has to be dismantled. The problem is a great deal of each of these points is proven by science or by history.
The start, JP seemed to convolute a simple message (this is one of his main strengths that he gets unwarranted criticism for). The middle I had stopped as the topical element were not really profound or anything beyond a back and forth.
I like Sam a little but he is so anti-theist he falls into his own trap of placing Science as his theism. That's just my take.
What you have to remember is the JP has a lot of experience in depth psychology. Which is why some of what he says is so profound. I had to listen to one of his points in his Oxford Union address twice to make sure I understood it.
His arguments when he makes a statement on certain topics eg free speech are immense in that he will make several points that surround the core of his argument(s) and this is why it is difficult to refute things he says. Each has to be dismantled. The problem is a great deal of each of these points is proven by science or by history.
The start, JP seemed to convolute a simple message (this is one of his main strengths that he gets unwarranted criticism for). The middle I had stopped as the topical element were not really profound or anything beyond a back and forth.
I like Sam a little but he is so anti-theist he falls into his own trap of placing Science as his theism. That's just my take.
I have and it's very good. He goes through the pertinence of them and gives backing to all of the claims (scientific/historic/story/moral etc).
You actually feel brain cells growing when you read it, I read a book on average one a week (unless its a long book (Battle Field Earth for example) and I have to say it is very concise and well written and he rarely waffles on in the book given the proclivity of other similar authorships.
Enjoy!
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Gave it to friend as a birthday present at the weekend. She said she'd read it on holiday in a few weeks. I wonder if some deranged Leftist will see her reading it by the pool and have a spackfit.
Where?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
It was a throwaway comment about eating well in an interview. The hystericals will jump on anything.
No, it was about him supporting his ill daughter's diet regime (good stuff) and taking that to his pedestal to push her (paid for btw) "advice" (super ******* bad ****), ofcourse a bunch of morons will jump into it because their daddy messiah told them so. The silly placebo most of them will get when it confirms their own belief's that he transplanted into them is humorously delicious.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,354
I know there was this. JPs very first sentence should clarify his position to be fair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLF29w6YqXs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLF29w6YqXs
Oh. I thought someone watched his JR show and immediately went off at the deepend.
LOL. You're so predictable.
Although in this post you forgot to throw in the words "Nazi" and "fascist", whilst simultaneously managing to support your favourite anti-semitic politician.
Lol i don't like Corbyn at all, but that's ok cupcake, you believe whatever you want to.
Going back to the Cathy Newman interview, I can't help thinking that the embarrassing moment of silence where she lost her train of thought was probably because he paid a compliment which surprised her and it went to her head. But most of the time her voice is horrible and screechy like that Emma Willis from Big Brother. In fact she'd have been more suited to interviewing a housemate instead of an intellectual giant like Peterson.
He does have quite an intimidating expression at times. Something of the Billy Bob Thornton or Dennis Hopper demeanour about him.
This is quite funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkcDOAPPFjs
He does have quite an intimidating expression at times. Something of the Billy Bob Thornton or Dennis Hopper demeanour about him.
This is quite funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkcDOAPPFjs
Last edited: