Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

Remove this Banner Ad

Seeds said:
Beep wrong. I thoroughly reject post modernism. have you been reading anything I even typed?
Click to expand...

You might find this hard to believe, but you're not actually the center of the universe and all posts aren't necessarily directed at you, but rather at the premise.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Geelong_Sicko said:
As the great philosopher Anon once wrote on a toilet wall at a pub (I'd like to say it was at the long-dead Punters Club down Brunsroy or Fitzwick area but really, f*cked if I can remember);

"What is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind."
Click to expand...
That came from the original Simpsons episode. Please don't disrespect great philosophers of our time with such rubbish!
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
As the great philosopher Anon once wrote on a toilet wall at a pub (I'd like to say it was at the long-dead Punters Club down Brunsroy or Fitzwick area but really, f*cked if I can remember);

"What is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind."
Click to expand...
I don’t think a silly play on words counts as insightful.

it’s the lowest form of humour along with fart jokes.
 
yebiga said:
Empirical evidence is not exactly new or miraculous as you suggest. Using modern scientific methods, we have just become better at discovering functional truths. But even back in ancient Greece, maths and euclidian geometry was used to exchange parcels of land. The ancients were not dysfunctional. The scientific method existed in cruder form prior to the scientific revolution - it wasn't called scientific - it was limited, more intuitive, riddled with superstitions, lacking formal rules but trial and error took place and discoveries occurred to improve functionality. Gravity was intuitively understood and existed before Newton defined it. Similarly, farmers understood agriculture, animal husbandry and mid-wives had a functional understand of female biology.

Our empirical evidence is always shackled, as it is an exercise performed by humans who have an ever expanding but limited understanding and limited senses that filter information through narrative and symbols. There is no objective point to locate or understand the empirical data except from our human perspective. Moreover, the empirical data is always incomplete, as we don't know everything. So, every peice of empirical information is hopelessly mired within the human condition, it come already value laden and it can only ever discover incomplete empirical evidence, whatever it is, it is only perceived from motives.

So what exactly has changed with this scientific method? An acceleration of discovery of new functions, new technologies, new capabilities that are useful to humans and only those that are useful within the prevailing economic and cultural constraints. And no matter what is discovered it is always limited within the available human definitions. The atom or the sub-atomic particle is meaningless and non-existent without us - we give it meaning.

Put another way, humans determine the truth they seek with the aid of science?

If you have understood this far, then you might perceive that Peterson is not talking about any and every old or new narrative. He is purporting to reveal the meta narrative - the narrative that contains all other possible human narratives. At least, he seems to have unearthed/elucidated something close to it: a sub-strata that enables us to better evaluate all our stories and motivations

There remains the possibility of change or evolution of this meta-narrative - but given the unbridled power that science has revealed - would it not be wise to collectively understand ourselves - understand this meta-narrative - understand how it may have influenced us powerfully in the past and how it may well be continuing to drive more than we realise now and in the future?

Personally, there are aspects of Peterson's thoughts that I find incomplete and erroneous. Or perhaps I don't understand. But, I can't deny that the general theme of his project cannot be dismissed - it's compelling - it is a synthesis of a number brilliant disparate thinkers: Nietzsche, Dostoeyevsky, Jung, Heiddegger, Husserl, Hegel, Kierdegard, Sarte... And more than that. I would argue that philosophy has been stuck for over a 100 years, waiting for this synthesis. The future looks exciting from here.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with Peterson trying to come up with a grand narrative. I openly encourage it.

unfortunately the one he came up with does not fit with what we know about reality. And yes you are largely right about the imperfection of the scientific method. But that doesn’t mean it’s not by far the best way to understand the world we live in. The Greeks society advanced because they very much used the scientific method. the West became a backwater for 1000 years cos they then rejected it and turned to religion. Peterson once again turns to religion for his grand narrative even though he rejects religion at an objective level. The only real value of religion was that it prevented free riding and created social cohesion In a time when we understood little about who we are and the world around us and could not enforce social cohesion their law and order and education. It’s no longer needed. It is not a source of a grand narrative. We should turn to the findings of biologists, theoretical physicists and neuroscientists to find our grand narrative.
 
You certainly do not speak on behalf of the human race when it comes to "reality"...................in fact.......................you don't even know what you're posting about.

What will you "refute" Peterson with next? An article in "House & Garden"? "Hydrangeas & reality"?
 
Snake_Baker said:
You certainly do not speak on behalf of the human race when it comes to "reality"...................in fact.......................you don't even know what you're posting about.

What will you "refute" Peterson with next? An article in "House & Garden"? "Hydrangeas & reality"?
Click to expand...
and I’m proud of that because if the human race chose who spoke on behalf of them when it comes to reality they would chose the bible, the Koran and memes on Facebook.
 
Seeds said:
and I’m proud of that because if the human race chose who spoke on behalf of them when it comes to reality they would chose the bible, the Koran and memes on Facebook.
Click to expand...


...............and this justifies your incessant drivel..........exactly how?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Snake_Baker said:
...............and this justifies your incessant drivel..........exactly how?
Click to expand...
It justifies nothing. It was nothing more then a response to your comment.

can you tell me who you were talking about when you posted the post modernist comment? It’s ironical you call someone a post modernist in a negative sense in a Peterson thread given he seems a bit post modernist himself. Sure not at the woke levels of post modernism but he ain’t exactly anti post modernist.
 
Seeds said:
So who do you take advice from when trying to find out about the nature of reality. A theoretical physicist or a psychologist?
Click to expand...

We can only understand reality from a human perspective. All science is carried out by humans. Scientists cannot escape their humanity. They can only ask questions a human is capable of asking.

And when we gather data about the universe it is nearly all third hand. It is a representation through mechanical devices via computers that allows us to percept the data based on a models we have constructed. That's not to say these models are not extremely useful, but we are not observing reality as it is but only ever a human contrived interpretation of it. But possibly the most intriguing phenomenon is how consciousness interacts with matter and energy. Quantum theory tells us that the reality of the physical world depends upon our observation of it.

Also, we don't just passively perceive the world, we actively generate it. Our senses and brain filter the infinite sources of data available and use a tiny fraction of it to enhance a reality that we have already constructed based on previous experience.
 
sorted said:
We can only understand reality from a human perspective. All science is carried out by humans. Scientists cannot escape their humanity. They can only ask questions a human is capable of asking.

And when we gather data about the universe it is nearly all third hand. It is a representation through mechanical devices via computers that allows us to percept the data based on a models we have constructed. That's not to say these models are not extremely useful, but we are not observing reality as it is but only ever a human contrived interpretation of it. But possibly the most intriguing phenomenon is how consciousness interacts with matter and energy. Quantum theory tells us that the reality of the physical world depends upon our observation of it.

Also, we don't just passively perceive the world, we actively generate it. Our senses and brain filter the infinite sources of data available and use a tiny fraction of it to enhance a reality that we have already constructed based on previous experience.
Click to expand...
I don’t get how that’s a response to my post concerning whether you take advice from a theoretical physicist or a psychologist about the nature of reality. Both interpret the world through a human perspective. One just has better tools and insight to do so than the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
561
Rusty Brookes
R
G
  • Locked
  • Poll
Society/Culture Biggest flog? Chief or Gough?
Replies
14
Views
574
Gethelred
Gethelred
Cmarsh
Society/Culture To what extent are Universities to blame for the current children's literacy crisis?
Replies
9
Views
820
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
B
  • Locked
Society/Culture White people arent so bad afterall
Replies
1
Views
590
Malifice
Malifice
Cmarsh
The Law Should assisted dying access be extended to the mentally ill?
Replies
21
Views
1K
Cmarsh
Cmarsh
Gainzo
Big Business
Replies
2
Views
399
Jello_B
Jello_B
Chief
Society/Culture School Old Boys clubs - what is the obsession?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Blue1980
Blue1980

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top