Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Snake_Baker]

1. Sure, that's fair enough.....Though I reckon the loss of certainty is more accurate, given that it also pertains to morality & pretty well every other field of human endeavour, where the notion of 'objectivity' hasn't traditionally applied.....

Certainty and objectivity are actually opposing terms.

 

[AM]

I put as much effort into that critique as the writer of it did getting their info right.

What is it about Peterson's messages that hits a nerve with you?

Thanks for confirming the little effort you put into the subject matter.

When you do we'll address the 'whataboutism'.

 

[Procrastinator35]

1. Sure, that's fair enough.....Though I reckon the loss of certainty is more accurate, given that it also pertains to morality & pretty well every other field of human endeavour, where the notion of 'objectivity' hasn't traditionally applied.....We can also see it in science for example, where Heisenbeg's Uncertainty principle applies, or in the perpetual self-checking mechanism at work there.....What ties post-modernism to the open-ended scientific method, is a radical scepticism, whereby the truth is always up for debate & is always fluid & never fixed.....We can have theories about it, but we can never really grasp it.

Certainty and objectivity are actually opposing terms.

No, they're not?....To claim that something is 'Objectively true' implies certainty.....Like to try again?

 

[Snake_Baker]

No, they're not?....To claim that something is 'Objectively true' implies certainty.....Like to try again?

Objectivity is not set in stone. It moves in accordance to empirically consistent data. Certainty is fixed and cannot shift.

Not interested in engaging in one of your long drawn out philosophical wanks. Quote something from Nietzsche, claim victory and move along.

 

[ShanDog]

Thanks for confirming the little effort you put into the subject matter.

When you do we'll address the 'whataboutism'.

I'm happy to go through the article and point out the issues, but it's time consuming and I don't have a lot of it to spare. Sunday is the earliest I can get back to you.

It's not whataboutism - I'm asking a different question. You've linked an article that critiques JBP without really adding much of your own other than to say he's engaging in pop pyschology and psuedo science. While I think those two assertions are ridiculous, they're just parroting the same sentiments of the article you posted (and the ones the author linked - all of which have been heavily criticised as incorrect). So rather than relying on other people's words, I want to know what YOU take issue with Jordan Peterson about.

 

[TimmeT]

I'm happy to go through the article and point out the issues, but it's time consuming and I don't have a lot of it to spare. Sunday is the earliest I can get back to you.

It's not whataboutism - I'm asking a different question. You've linked an article that critiques JBP without really adding much of your own other than to say he's engaging in pop pyschology and psuedo science. While I think those two assertions are ridiculous, they're just parroting the same sentiments of the article you posted (and the ones the author linked - all of which have been heavily criticised as incorrect). So rather than relying on other people's words, I want to know what YOU take issue with Jordan Peterson about.

It seems that article is really an opinion piece.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Terrible premise, some things are demonstrably good, some bad.

Of course it is. It's Shakespeare. But Shakespeare was not condoning that view.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Exactly. Which is where postmodern philosophy falls down. It's all good and well to understand that there are limitless interpretations of everything and therefore no objective truth, but there aren't limitless useful or good interpretations. Postmodernism lacks any utility beyond thought exercises.

Its just a good way to look at things when looking for a different perspective - if one is needed for better understanding. Trouble is people have used it to form a way to live.

 

[ShanDog]

It seems that article is really an opinion piece.

Which is fine. But I didn't read much that justified the opinons.

 

[Showbags]

He also had those supporting him yelling them down. Isn't that how discussion goes? His problem was his potential employers are a part of the biggest boys club around. Once seen as a distraction he had limited chance of getting back in.



What about the anti Trump media saying "Impeachment" from day 1? The media's behaviour in this, though not the only cause, can't be ignored either.



Sought a profile and obtained it. Never has a left leaning identity tried some trick to obtain a profile, right?



Speaking ill of the recently departed was the issue here. Is that wrong?



Yeah, not sure misappropriating the ANZAC message for her own agenda will many friends.



I'm not a gun advocate by any stretch but you've done exactly the same thing here in your description of those that legally own guns. The fact that these kids choose to tell the world the NRA are a terrorist organisation and are directly responsible for that and other mass shootings when most mass killers aren't NRA members means you could "drive a truck" through their argument.



Here or the USA?


It's usually partisan types that make that type of statement.

You have missed the point entirely. The poster asked for left wing examples of free speech being shutdown.

My point was there are plenty of examples on both sides. But many of these free speech warriors only defend free speech for arguments they agree with and conveniently stay quiet otherwise.

 

[ShanDog]

You have missed the point entirely. The poster asked for examples of left wing examples of free speech being shutdown.

My point was there are plenty of examples on both sides. But many of these free speech warriors only defend free speech for arguments they agree with and conveniently stay quiet otherwise.

At the end of the day, is this unexpected? People will go in to bat for others when the issue affects them. It's human nature. You could say they are spineless for not defending those on the opposite side (though it does happen), but you can't say they are hypocritical or holding double standards. Not being vocal in support of their opponents right to speak isn't the same as being OK with them being shut down. They still hold to the principle.

 

[kickazz]

Here's a totally unsubstantiated claim but I reckon I'd be right.

If you were sitting at the pub and someone dropped the phrase post-modernism into conversation and was then asked what it means... 50% chance they would be lost without the help of google.

80%?

And that's even after using Google

 

[Showbags]

At the end of the day, is this unexpected? People will go in to bat for others when the issue affects them. It's human nature. You could say they are spineless for not defending those on the opposite side (though it does happen), but you can't say they are hypocritical or holding double standards. Not being vocal in support of their opponents right to speak isn't the same as being OK with them being shut down. They still hold to the principle.

Can't agree at all on that sorry. It is tacit acceptance of the shutting down of free speech.

Both the left and right do it, so this isn't a partisan thing at all.

The ones that actually are principled are the ones that defend both sides. The ACLU are a progressive left wing organisation but regularly defend in court the right to speak for repugnant right wingers like the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, neo-nazis, Milo Yiannopolous etc.

 

[ShanDog]

Can't agree at all on that sorry. It is tacit acceptance of the shutting down of free speech.

Both the left and right do it, so this isn't a partisan thing at all.

The ones that actually are principled are the ones that defend both sides. The ACLU are a progressive left wing organisation but regularly defend in court the right to speak for repugnant right wingers like the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, neo-nazis, Milo Yiannopolous etc.

Ok I disagree, but that's fine. You're still of the opinion JBP doesn't do enough for free speech of those against him?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Thanks for the rigorous critique of the piece and attendant links. Appears to have hit a nerve.

Of far greater interest than your dismissive opinion is that of a character who has decided to monetise his pseudo science and pop psychology and peddle it to the gullible.

Do you class all psychology as 'pseudo science' and 'pop'? Or are you saying Peterson is particularly guilty of it? If so, please give examples of real and pop psychology.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Can't agree at all on that sorry. It is tacit acceptance of the shutting down of free speech.

Both the left and right do it, so this isn't a partisan thing at all.

Where do you want to draw that line?

The limitations of free speech by force is the only real issue of concern and ironically it lead to Peterson's rise to prominence.

 

[Showbags]

Where do you want to draw that line?

The limitations of free speech by force is the only real issue of concern and ironically it lead to Peterson's rise to prominence.

Exactly, I suppose when right wing snowflakes whine about their free speech being supposedly silenced because others have the temerity to provide a rebuttal, you'll be quick to tell them to suck it up from.now on?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Exactly, I suppose when right wing snowflakes whine about their free speech being supposedly silenced because others have the temerity to provide a rebuttal, you'll be quick to tell them to suck it up from.now on?

You're making a fundamental mistake if you are affiliating me with that bullshit.

I think the poorer elements of both "sides" on this board are elite level morons.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Objectivity is not set in stone. It moves in accordance to empirically consistent data. Certainty is fixed and cannot shift.

Not interested in engaging in one of your long drawn out philosophical wanks. Quote something from Nietzsche, claim victory and move along.

Not sure why the need to digress to the lowest common denominator here....Do you somehow feel inadequate to discuss this topic calmly & rationally?

Post-modernism is an attack on the notion of absolutes as such, on Platonic universals.....And the biggest absolute & universal concept there is, is God.

Is that too complex for your scientific-mind to handle?

 

[MrKK]

I just saw the 60 Minutes ad for him. I should know better with that show, but god the ad was an outrageous misrepresentation of his opinion.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Not sure why the need to digress to the lowest common denominator here....Do you somehow feel inadequate to discuss this topic calmly & rationally?

Post-modernism is an attack on the notion of absolutes as such, on Platonic universals.....And the biggest absolute & universal concept there is, is God.

Is that too complex for your scientific-mind to handle?

Another way of looking at it is that postmodernist thought would have to accept religion and God, because it does accept there is a truth for an individual or group.

Just like when Rabbis, Muftis and Arch Bishops get together and make a statement over the environment, war, or some such thing. These guys would have to think the others are loonies for worshipping a false God on one level. But on another level they also accept it is true for them and...hey! just like post modernist thinking. lol

 

[Procrastinator35]

Another way of looking at it is that postmodernist thought would have to accept religion and God, because it does accept there is a truth for an individual or group.

Just like when Rabbis, Muftis and Arch Bishops get together and make a statement over the environment, war, or some such thing. These guys would have to think the others are loonies for worshipping a false God on one level. But on another level they also accept it is true for them and...hey! just like post modernist thinking. lol

Sure....But that's the point....Truth only exists subjectively, there can be no objective, universal truth. It's an illusion. A conceptual trick & a human construct.

N's critique of the Western canon has it's eyes firmly affixed upon Plato & Christendom in particular, with it's monotheistic Deity & God-head.....Indeed, N refers to Christianity as Platonism for the masses.

N sees the Platonic philosophy as the beginning of the disease taking hold, that turned us away from the pluralistic, Greek pantheon & towards the world of Singular Universal definitions.....Of a systemisation of the world.....For N, this is pathologically driven.....Of a need for safety & certitude in an uncertain & unsafe, arbitrary, contingent world....Of drawing a veil, mask & curtain over the true face of reality, albeit it a conceptually, human created one.

 

[Frank Bunn]

So the Buddha was a post-modernist?....Huh.

Only using postmodernist logic.

Like saying that peas are carrots, because they are both vegetables.

 

[Taylor]

There are very few groups in society who reject this principle.

It's not a conservative thing.

It's arguable that those who believe the system is against them reject it while it's convenient to their goals, in the efforts for more.

The idea of responsibility goes hand in hand with total agency over yourself. While you believe you are oppressed you surrender your own agency, and I don't believe that standing in line behind more equipped people constitutes an unfair advantage to those better suited to a task.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Only using postmodernist logic.

Like saying that peas are carrots, because they are both vegetables.

On the other hand, I doubt anyone would accuse the Yanks of navel gazing this past Century or so.....Projection writ-large?.... Yes....Self-reflection?....Nay.