Jordan B. Peterson

[Anomaly]

Certainly not the convo I thought would happen. 

58 minutes ago, Pooooma said:

I haven't - I have a way of buying books, then sitting on them for months... er, years. I don't want to drop money on it now. It certainly interests me, though.

I've listened to more hours of his content than I can count. The guy legitimately has thousands of hours of content online - the VAST majority of it non-political. In the grand scheme of things, his comments on gender are an extreme exception.

His commentaries on Marxism interest me greatly. I've probably listened to all of his gulag-devoted content (at least as much as I'm aware of). Some of his OT commentaries have interested me, but I personally don't much like how secular they are. He explicitly ensured his commentaries were psychological and not theological, which I can understand, but that's not what I use the OT for, so it was hard to keep interested in.

 

By virtue of cross-reference, I think I'm rather familiar with the contents of the book. At least in a broad sense. Maybe I'll get to it next year.

 

I’m cheap.  It’s a digital borrow from library, though I’m considering buying it.  

It’s his extensive use of religion I find a bit off putting, but I expected a certain amount it from my preview.  I am intrigued at the correlation of religious themes and principles with ideas and concepts of human and animal behaviors.   Specifically, the natural order.   I can see why “cute” took umbrage at being challenged on chosen behaviors.   

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

I'm very much pale-skinned, but I married a Haitian so I guess I'm black by association.

LOL. I suppose. It never works the other way!

[fides' Jack]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Are you going to "pull up" on me?

Oh, so this is the thread that got the other dude to get fed up and try to leave Phatmass.

I agreed with your take in this argument, however I have no idea what this means.  Maybe that's for the best, I don't know...

[Aloysius]

Peterson's about as wrong as anybody else.  I find him to provide an interesting point of view.  Although he's not some kind greatest thinker of a generation like some of his followers feel him to be, he's got an interesting perspective on a lot of things, very much in a jungian tradition with all its pros and cons; those who dismiss him because of the political contentiousness of his positions I think are doing themselves a disservice.

Two issues I saw brought up: one, the question of whether far leftist identity politics and far rightist racist identity politics are equally dangerous and the other about his individualism. 

I would defend that first claim by saying that the far leftist identity politics he's arguing against are things that fuel racist identity politics, they feed off each other and grow in response to one another.  that's not to argue to be in the middle between being racist or not racist, that's to argue that we need a better non-racist discourse that actually effectively stops people's natural in-group bias and endogenous tendencies from growing into hateful ideologies.  the present day culture war's style of leftist identity politics seems to be increasingly pushing people into those hateful ideologies (and Peterson always claimed one of his big goals was to keep people with right leaning tendencies from falling into hateful ideologies.  I think there's something to be said for him doing that in some ways, especially considering that most alt-right people seem to sneer at him )

The other is the issue with his individualism against collectivism compared to the social teachings of the Church.  there's no question he's a bit disalligned with church social teachings (he is, after all, a guy engaged popularly in contemporary political discourse, a desolate place where the church's true social teachings are rarely stumbled upon); but I think there are legitimate arguments against some of the collectivist identity politics that would not be negative to marginalized groups.  it is by no means clear that those identity politics are the best solution for such groups, but are rather something that in the extreme seem to foment zero sum games between groups.  I'm not so sure peterson is radically individualist, though he leans that way, one often hears him talk about wanting conservatives and liberals to balance each other out, and I think he'd extend that to the idea of individualists and collectivists balancing each other out in terms of a need for individual freedoms and responsibilities but still needing community to guide and help ppl.

As far as his religion/belief in God... well his kind of deist ambivalence about that is something I hope Catholics following him won't follow him into.  if theology is archetypical in the jungian sense, as he supposes, a Catholic ought to hold that's just because our brains are wired towards a focus on an ultimate metaphysical truth about God, something JP is quite wishy washy about.

And finally, as far as the drama in the thread, try not to get so rowdy, I'd pick sides or something but I have a hard time seeing them with the plank of wood in my own eye

[Anomaly]

I guess you haven’t read his book either.  Your points are way off  from what I’ve actually ready.  

As far as individualism.  Pretty much his point is that we are self responsible first, and responsible to help others as members is society. He cautions helping others to reflect and make sure you are self deluded, covering your own vice with fake virtue, and letting yourself be dragged down.   He uses Jesus eating with tax collectors and prostitutes as the example to achieve, etc.  

 

If nothing else,  i’m reminded again I’ve got to put real effort into discerning the difference between who an individual claims to be and who others say that individual is.   The accuracy of either opinion is of questionable interpretation.

I meant to ask specifically about this book, but I stupidly also asked generally about Jordan, looking for back ground.  I had not anticipated the ensuing viciousness   I hadn’t thought he was that controversial   

Thanks got the perspectives and opinions.  I hope they help broaden my perspective and keep an open mind while I read his actual words.

One of his themes I do get is humans propensity to go too far in finding faults in yourself and others.  Though it’s rooted in evolutionary survival, human intelligence can corrupt it to destruction. 

[Peace]

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I agreed with your take in this argument, however I have no idea what this means.  Maybe that's for the best, I don't know...

That refers to a post in this thread that has since been deleted. It was some sort of threat of violence that the other poster made against me.

3 hours ago, Aloysius said:

And finally, as far as the drama in the thread, try not to get so rowdy, I'd pick sides or something but I have a hard time seeing them with the plank of wood in my own eye

It wasn't my intention for the thread to go into the gutter like that, although I guessed that he would take offense at what I wrote. I saw something written that was objectively incorrect. I corrected it. Heck, I argue with the Trads on this site when I think they have written something that is wrong, so I sure as heck am not going to sit there and let someone insinuate that a homosexual relationship is laudable.

[Lilllabettt]

36 minutes ago, Peace said:

That refers to a post in this thread that has since been deleted. It was some sort of threat of violence that the other poster made against me.

It wasn't my intention for the thread to go into the gutter like that, although I guessed that he would take offense at what I wrote. I saw something written that was objectively incorrect. I corrected it. Heck, I argue with the Trads on this site when I think they have written something that is wrong, so I sure as heck am not going to sit there and let someone insinuate that a homosexual relationship is laudable.

You probably could have handled it better. Just a little bit too kinfey/stabby in presentation. I am sad because cutie face was a good pot stirrer and was responsive to rejoinders, which is what's needed for good messageboards. But, he is probably too fragile for phatmass... Took even the non knifey/stabby things way too serious.  Didn't think arguing among Christians was morally acceptable <<<clearly not destined to enjoy phatmass banter.  I did not see what he posted to get banned but I'm assuming it was obscene. In which case was all that talk about edification just trolling? I guess we will never know ... 

[Aloysius]

@Anomaly, I've actually read his first book, Maps of Meaning, and seen many of his videos (his class lectures on his youtube channel are quite good, I prefer them to the more sensationalized interview circuits he was doing; his debate with Zizek was refreshingly civil but he was a bit out of his depth there, should've done more prep work deeper on Marx if he was going to take on Zizek like that), but I never did get around to reading anything more than a summary of 12 rules for life.  By way off do you mean they're just different topics that he doesn't address in 12 rules, or are you saying I've gotten something wrong about his positions as you understood them?

(when I say he's as wrong as anyone else I'm not disparaging him, just pointing out everyone is open to some criticisms)

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

You probably could have handled it better.

Yeah, you are probably right. What I wrote was too personal.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Peace

[Pooooma]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

You probably could have handled it better. Just a little bit too kinfey/stabby in presentation.

I'll take partial blame for that. People have a way of describing me as confrontational and aggressive, so I presume I may have started it by pushing him too firmly and putting him on the defense. Mea culpa.

 

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

I am sad because cutie face was a good pot stirrer and was responsive to rejoinders, which is what's needed for good messageboards.

I can fill this vacancy with ease

[Anomaly]

8 hours ago, Aloysius said:

 but I never did get around to reading anything more than a summary of 12 rules for life.  By way off do you mean they're just different topics that he doesn't address in 12 rules, or are you saying I've gotten something wrong about his positions as you understood them?

(when I say he's as wrong as anyone else I'm not disparaging him, just pointing out everyone is open to some criticisms)

I’m not sure how to respond, or if I want to engage.  Your opening statement is that he’s wrong.   I merely thought to discuss his opinions and observations I’m reading in 12 Rules constructively. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Anomaly

[Stanz]

I haven't read anything by Peterson, partially because his attempts at theology I've seen are subpar.  I find it charming, if not also frustrating, how he voraciously explores psychological and archetypal interpretations of the Bible, but almost lives in fear, by his own admission, of a spiritual reality of the Bible, of God.
Perhaps his is in a trapped state of Notional Assent without Real Assent, as Cardinal Newman put it.

But, I love and respect him for what he has stood his ground against, or rather that he stood at all, with all the slander and smearing.  I believe he is a man of honesty and integrity, and I owe it to him for helping me accept certain burdens, and become more of a player and contender in my own life.
And I am grateful and joyful that he has brought so many of my own peers to reconsider religion, especially Catholicism.

I pray often for his recovery and his salvation.


 

[Aloysius]

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I’m not sure how to respond, or if I want to engage.  Your opening statement is that he’s wrong.   I merely thought to discuss his opinions and observations I’m reading in 12 Rules constructively. 

I think you misunderstood my statement.  "he's as wrong as anyone else" was meant to mean something like "he's no more wrong about things than other people".  I guess it could be a confusing way to phrase it, in my mind I saw it as a clear defense of him (and in the rest of my post I mostly defend him against things I saw earlier in the thread criticizing him, except on the point of what I've seen as his ambivalent answers on belief in God that I did criticize more but I guess that's not what you're particularly interested in about him anyway).  Anyway no problem if you don't want to engage as the topics I am talking about are more generally his positions rather than the one specific book, but don't misunderstand me I was actually defending him as someone with interesting positions that I think are quite useful.

anyway, looking around my room right now I see it is currently quite a mess, so I am clearly demonstrating his point as I can neither keep my room clean nor organize the complex systems of the world, let alone this thread!

[Ash Wednesday]

On 10/3/2020 at 3:17 PM, Pooooma said:

I think this is the first "real" post I've made here, so before I forget, hello!

A warm welcome to phatmass. I think your name and avatar is absolutely ace and I love it. Felines, especially the off-beat and staring variety, are the kind of thing the internet was made for. 

[Anomaly]

10 hours ago, Aloysius said:

I think you misunderstood my statement. 

Yes I did misunderstand.

 My bad.  

 I often forget the internet is the place for debating, not conversation.   There is no poolside patio, where I will continue to read and muse with my spouse.