Jump to content

Jordan Peterson


Recommended Posts

Thought I'd share this with everyone here. I can't think of another group of people I'd rather share it with. His commentary moves me in ways I am not moved very often. His commentary reminds me I have so much to process through about myself - things that have been left unattended to for so long, too long. His commentary, as with that of CS Lewis, is an inspiration to me. I hope it touches you all in similar ways. Best. : )

Link to comment

It's unfortunate he is so maligned. I have followed him for ~5 years back when I listened to many of his class discussions about the psychology of things and such. He was an inspiration then and now he seems to have added a new dimension. I also listen to William Lane Craig a lot. I know the two of them have had contact. I wonder if Jordan's transition will encourage more between the two.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

It's unfortunate he is so maligned. I have followed him for ~5 years back when I listened to many of his class discussions about the psychology of things and such. He was an inspiration then and now he seems to have added a new dimension. I also listen to William Lane Craig a lot. I know the two of them have had contact. I wonder if Jordan's transition will encourage more between the two.

I've never heard of him, and even after watching that I still don't know who he is.  But his words in that video were insightful.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard of him, and even after watching that I still don't know who he is.  But his words in that video were insightful.

Worth a listen. : )

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard of him, and even after watching that I still don't know who he is.  But his words in that video were insightful.

Peterson is a very controversial public intellectual.  He is a professor of psychology at Univ of Toronto, and was formerly a professor at Harvard.  He has spent many years as a practicing therapist.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Peterson is a very controversial public intellectual.  He is a professor of psychology at Univ of Toronto, and was formerly a professor at Harvard.  He has spent many years as a practicing therapist.

What is controversial about him?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What is controversial about him?

His initial claim to fame is the issue around being legally compelled (Canada is struggling with this issue in their own ways) to use the 'pronoun language' that another requests.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

What is controversial about him?

Since he has been widely interviewed in Europe and North America, and since he has testified before the Canadian legislature on sensitive issues, he has become fairly well known in certain circles.  He does not accept woke definitions and refuses to be politically correct.  Most dangerous:  He believes in being honest and direct, which has made him a number of enemies -- including some on this board.

Link to comment
On 2/1/2022 at 1:16 PM, Vanguard said:

Thought I'd share this with everyone here. I can't think of another group of people I'd rather share it with. His commentary moves me in ways I am not moved very often. His commentary reminds me I have so much to process through about myself - things that have been left unattended to for so long, too long. His commentary, as with that of CS Lewis, is an inspiration to me. I hope it touches you all in similar ways. Best. : )

Not sure who’s super interested or not but I have a few thoughts about him
 

I think he lost touch with his best sensibilities, I found him shortly before his fame/infamy and really enjoy his “old school” lectures and thoughts when he wasn’t under so much stress and argument… he’s developed more defensively as a pundit than he’s developed his philosophy, which is all good, just not what I enjoyed the most. When he started getting into political back and forth fights it kinda crowded out his simpler ideas, imo. I notice when he’s speaking to his audience he tends to drift into speaking to his enemies as if they’re paying any good attention 
 

I used to listen to Jordan Peterson a lot… helped me think through things and I always thought when he gets teary it reminds me of being in church. (I don’t think he’s ever spoken of the LDS church.)

Nowadays I think he’s recognized he learned to “speak the language” more than translate or explain his thought process like he used to. He knows he’s been marketed as taking a side, being a one man “movement”… when he’s always seemed more like a bridge figure, just a philosopher rather than a thought leader

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since he has been widely interviewed in Europe and North America, and since he has testified before the Canadian legislature on sensitive issues, he has become fairly well known in certain circles.  He does not accept woke definitions and refuses to be politically correct.  Most dangerous:  He believes in being honest and direct, which has made him a number of enemies -- including some on this board.

He states that order is a masculine trait and chaos is a female trait. Climate change denier with his most recent antic being that climate is “everything” and because climate models do not include everything they are flawed. Also a fan of enforced monogamy.

His fans are mostly straight white males. He also claims that straight white males are horribly oppressed. Probably a coincidence.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Alexi Nakatology said:

Not sure who’s super interested or not but I have a few thoughts about him
 

I think he lost touch with his best sensibilities, I found him shortly before his fame/infamy and really enjoy his “old school” lectures and thoughts when he wasn’t under so much stress and argument… he’s developed more defensively as a pundit than he’s developed his philosophy, which is all good, just not what I enjoyed the most. When he started getting into political back and forth fights it kinda crowded out his simpler ideas, imo. I notice when he’s speaking to his audience he tends to drift into speaking to his enemies as if they’re paying any good attention 
 

I used to listen to Jordan Peterson a lot… helped me think through things and I always thought when he gets teary it reminds me of being in church. (I don’t think he’s ever spoken of the LDS church.)

Nowadays I think he’s recognized he learned to “speak the language” more than translate or explain his thought process like he used to. He knows he’s been marketed as taking a side, being a one man “movement”… when he’s always seemed more like a bridge figure, just a philosopher rather than a thought leader

Though I still like him quite a bit, I too more enjoyed his earlier stuff. He sometimes strikes me as one of those types who thinks he can comment on just about everything now that he has notoriety. I remember watching a clip where he argues against much of the global warming narrative and I thought immediately he should stick to his own lane. ; )

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He states that order is a masculine trait and chaos is a female trait. Climate change denier with his most recent antic being that climate is “everything” and because climate models do not include everything they are flawed. Also a fan of enforced monogamy.

His fans are mostly straight white males. He also claims that straight white males are horribly oppressed. Probably a coincidence.

Don't recognize any of that.  We are obviously discussing two different people.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yeh, I like this quote from that Wikipedia article:

Quote

In the Los Angeles Times, libertarian journalist Cathy Young commented that "Peterson's ideas are a mixed bag. ... But you wouldn't know this from reading Peterson's critics, who generally cast him as a far-right boogeyman riding the wave of a misogynistic backlash."[108] Nathan J. Robinson of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs writes that Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected."[109]

Doubt can be your lodestar.  A kind of agnosticism.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

chaos is a female trait.

Which is rather funny when I look at what goes on in most homes of married couples (the wife/mother is the one imposing an orderly framework where the rest of the family would just be off doing their own thing, resulting in chaos).  I get it is about symbolic language, but my guess it is a language that was created by men mostly who claimed the role of order for themselves or for masculinity and then logically had to find someone else to put the label of chaos on and females were the handiest target that wouldn’t argue with them…but even on a fundamental reproductive level, which one is more producing order (one egg monthly and then creates a body), which is chaos (millions of possibilities and then can walk away, stick around, whatever)?  But similar to the idea of ‘we are civilized, therefore the rest of the world are barbarians’.  Not exactly a way to create connection.

Peterson points to Disney as a great source for archetypes and talks about the witches in swamps…the most memorable were Maleficent and the Snow White Queen…compare them to Disney’s absentminded, can’t keep track of time Merlin.  Plenty of elements of chaos and order in each.  Unnecessary descriptive division IMO.

And then there is the whole who has been setting off the chaos of wars for the past thousands of years.  Men’s feminine side?

Simply because something has been used symbolically for eons doesn’t mean it is a healthy way to view things.

Also I got to admit anytime I hear a proponent of an extreme diet or health practice, I wonder how sensible and clear sighted they can be in other areas.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 2/1/2022 at 9:59 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Since he has been widely interviewed in Europe and North America, and since he has testified before the Canadian legislature on sensitive issues, he has become fairly well known in certain circles.  He does not accept woke definitions and refuses to be politically correct.  Most dangerous:  He believes in being honest and direct, which has made him a number of enemies -- including some on this board.

I was watching the The Dave Pakman show the other day where he was counteracting Jordan on Jordan's statement that the Bible is the first book in existence. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I was watching the The Dave Pakman show the other day where he was counteracting Jordan on Jordan's statement that the Bible is the first book in existence. 

David Pakman is normally very precise, but I can't imagine Peterson actually believing that the Bible is the first book in existence.  Only a fool would believe that, and Peterson is no fool.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

David Pakman is normally very precise, but I can't imagine Peterson actually believing that the Bible is the first book in existence.  Only a fool would believe that, and Peterson is no fool.

Well, maybe you have to listen to the whole show in context, but found this article as well. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2022/january/famed-psychologist-jordan-peterson-tells-joe-rogan-why-the-bible-is-lsquo-way-more-true-than-just-true-rsquo

Link to comment

Peterson's discussions of male/female categories are primarily meant to be archetypal/symbolic, not specifically gender-defined as we would think of those categories in the 21st century as they relate to individuals.

I think this video analyzes Peterson's position correctly.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, he is quoted there saying:

Quote

“Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible … for a while literally there was only one book,” Peterson told popular podcast host Joe Rogan. “Before it was the Bible, it was scrolls, writings on papyrus.”

The famous author and psychologist noted that most other books were, thus, birthed from the Bible, which he described as a robust collection of texts.

He is clearly conditioning his statement on the nature  of that "collection of texts."  And there is nothing wrong with his statement.  We have plenty of texts of various kinds, stories, and records kept long before the Bible comes into existence, but never such a collection or anthology before the Bible.  In that sense, the Bible is unique.  Homeric epic, the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Pali Canon, etc., simply do not offer such a broad anthology of separate records.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, he is quoted there saying:

He is clearly conditioning his statement on the nature  of that "collection of texts."  And there is nothing wrong with his statement.  We have plenty of texts of various kinds, stories, and records kept long before the Bible comes into existence, but never such a collection or anthology before the Bible.  In that sense, the Bible is unique.  Homeric epic, the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Pali Canon, etc., simply do not offer such a broad anthology of separate records.

One thing about Jordan Peterson is that he is EXTREMELY careful with the words he uses. When we try to explain what we are thinking, we do our best with our vocabulary to explain. We don’t always consciously give definitions for the words we use, but we use them anyway.

I get the feeling that Jordan has a very clear and definite definition for every word that leaves his lips, so when he speaks, he does so matter of factly and with assertiveness. I don’t think this is because he is arrogant and prideful, but because he is so exact and precise with his words, he doesn’t need to mince his phrases or try to explain… the only problem is that no one else knows how he is defining every word that leaves his mouth, or anyone’s mouth for that matter. Jordan is just the only person that seems to know exactly what he is saying all the time.

If you watch his recent Joe Rogan podcast, you can see that occasionally. A few times Joe call him out or corrects him on some seemingly none sense ideas, but he doesn’t back down, he just takes the time to define what he means and then goes back at it saying a million things with only a handful of words.

Listening to him talk, you can tell he is thinking 1000x faster.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Peterson's discussions of male/female categories are primarily meant to be archetypal/symbolic, not specifically gender-defined as we would think of those categories in the 21st century as they relate to individuals.

I think this video analyzes Peterson's position correctly.

 

If he wants to preach yin and yang great but no one should think it is original.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...