Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2024
- Sign up to Morning Brew for free today: morningbrewdaily.com/comicske...
(Sponsored by Morning Brew)
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
------------------------- VIDEO NOTES -------------------------
Jordan Peterson is famously vague when asked about his views on the existence of God. He's more enthusiastic about discussing religion and scripture broadly, but still then leaves some mystery about his actual views.
In this video, I try my best to identify and unpack Peterson's religious philosophy, before offering some objections.
------------------------------- LINKS --------------------------------
Peterson's podcast with Jonathan Pageau and Douglas Murray: • Douglas Murray and Jon...
Peterson on the Lex Fridman Podcast: • Jordan Peterson: Life,...
Peterson's podcast with Jonathan Pageau and Mohammed Hijab: • Talking to Muslims Abo...
Peterson on the divinity of Christ, from "Transliminal", via "Bite-sized Philosophy": • Jordan Peterson - I Ac...
------------------------ TIMESTAMPS --------------------------
0:00 Introduction
4:02 What is God?
14:15 Did the events of the Bible really happen?
23:04 "Science presupposes deism"
32:50 Peterson misuses religious language
42:49 Summary and conclusion
--------------------- SPECIAL THANKS -----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
John Early
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Adam Gray
Joe Dowling
Dmitry C.
Nolan Kent
Seth Balodi
Citizens of Civilization
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Fuu Harahap
---------------------------- CONNECT -----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
--------------------------- CONTACT ------------------------------
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![BOWKYLION - ส่วนต่าง (do it without me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7x-pwcMopzE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] Hell's Kitchen Thailand EP.14 | 12 พ.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MNspIlqlJcc/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks Morning Brew for my daily news briefing - sign up for free here morningbrewdaily.com/comicskeptic
(Sponsored by Morning Brew!)
*You should totally invite and interview Dr Peterson in person; his interview and conversations with Richard Dawkins was intriguing*
@@valmid5069 You mean decimating.
Simply Brilliant. So,... why does JP do this? Suggest in part - Experiential Avoidance (a major psychological process within ACT theory) in not embracing and accepting the thoughts and feelings that result from materialism & naturalism. Because he cannot emotionally cope with the internal consequences, this would emotionally mean and have to him. I seriously doubt this is intentional, but maybe, just maybe, if he ever watches Alex's cool & and skilled video, might prod him to "wake up". Too late now, though; he has now dug himself too deep into the very hole he has dug for himself.
What saddens me is that he started associating with radical-right wing outlets like The Daily Wire that has close ties with Breitbart
What a twat you are!! He emphasised their metaphorical reality. Perception forms your reality. Peoole like you get so hung up on the superficial aspects that you end up missing the jewels.
Jordan Peterson's wife, "honey can you take out the trash?" Jordan Peterson, "first off, what do you mean exactly by..honey, and what do you mean by you, or can?"
Imagine if this is how humans communicated, I bet we would still be in the bronze age
@@airplanes_aren.t_real That depends. What exactly do you mean by "we", or "be", or "bronze"?
What do you mean by *what* ?
What do you mean by do ?
What do you mean by you?
What do you mean by mean ?
What do you mean by by ?
What do you mean by ? ?
What do you mean by wife?
"It already happened. It is so fundamentally true that it never stopped happening. So when you ask, can I take out the trash, it is true in a meta manner, that the trash is already taken out. What does it mean? Well, of course the trash is what we identify as the evil that we want to rid our minds of. So if you ask me:"Can I take out the trash?", in a much deeper, much more profound way, I am always, was always and will always be taking the trash out."
@@airplanes_aren.t_real
We would have gone extinct.
Wife: Run! There is a saber tooth tiger behind you!
Husband: First off, what do you mean exactly by "run", what do you mean by "There is", or by "saber tooth tiger" or by "behind" or by "you"?
The reason JP won't give a straight answer is because the majority of his audience are religous. Using rhetoric to obscure the truth of his beliefs is how he is able to be an athiest preaching about christianity without outright lying.
I wouldn't say religious, some of my friends aren't materialists like me and watch his stuff without believing in a god, but have instead some sort of esoteric vagueness philosophy, which I think JP appeals to even more than to a religious person
A valid assumption, but I disagree.
I watched his old lectures before he got all famous and all, I think his position (or rather his description) didn’t change much.
And in a Australian TV show, he was asked point blank if he is religious. His answer was “I act as if God exists”, I think that clearly means that he does not believe that God literally exists.
I thinks it’s more likely that he himself couldn’t quite resolve this issue, so his language is vague and seems manipulative.
Of course, that’s is just my guess, I’m not a psychologist.
For me it is clear that he is religious. But he cant just say he believe because he want to be this 'intellectual knows evertyhing guy'
For what it’s worth, I think there’s a lot of truth in this. I wonder if you think it’s malicious.
He said all this stuff before he got famous tho
The concept of "over complication" personified. I laughed when he said "what do you mean by 'you'..."
See, "what do you mean by 'you'?" is a very valid question, when digging into the wuestions of free will and existance of soul. However, Peterson here is simply trying to evade the simole question by just trying to make it complicated.
@a_sari
Not even his brain over analyzes which comes out in abstract thoughts because he is someone who is obviously intelligent and well-articulated. I think he is someone who suffers from high functioning anxiety disorder and his behavior is a product of such condition. You can't expect the average person to be able to reason or identify with someone like that and that is the cost of being an intellect in society. Very few of the current age philosophers/evolutionist/psychologist are on a similiar level, Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris are two.
It’s always great when he gets into that sort of stuff. He’s almost saying “whatever term you use, we have to define that term further, then we end up in an infinite deferral into other definitions and so on”.
Precisely the sort of Derridean stuff he made his name trying to overthrow.
@@BobHowler ironic isn't it?
Postmodernist mode activated.
I am surprised you overlooked what Peterson says about Exodus at 15:53.
"𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘳"
That sounds like he admits that the actual event didn't happen as described.
It didn’t happen (definition 1) but it did happen (definition 2). Always nice to have multiple definitions so you can say anything and claim that it’s true.
For a guy who opposes the manipulation of language, he certainly does plenty of it himself
🎯
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👌
it’s projection
Which part, exactly?
Well, it's ideology
Holy Cow Alex has done the impossible and actually made sense of what Jordan Peterson’s word salad is trying to convey. I didn’t think it were possible.
So you believe in holy cows? Have you converted to Hinduism? 😊
@@cosmicprison9819 Well, what do you mean by "holy?" Whay do you mean by "cow?" What do mean by "believe?"
For the record, The Bible says that God will spue the lukewarm out of His mouth. This is what the Bible says about those who know not what they believe, when addressing a Church:
Revelation 3:16 KJV --
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Any individual who purports to be a born again Christian does not, and will not hesitate to profess their faith in Christ Jesus as the son of God.
@@FakingANerve I think the relevant and most precise answer would be:
_"We mean exactly what years and years of experience and human knowledge has been documented and proven to be, those words which we seem to display a usage of, have inherent meaning - I can explain further to you if you will to know."_
@@Seeker7257 That is You? Read in context
This is terrific, Alex. So clear and precise: You are using the precise language that Peterson recommends but avoids. This is so helpful. Thank you. I appreciate you.
That's really well put. I've completely gone off Peterson personally. I am getting fed up with his never being able to answer a simple question. Since his benzodiazepine addiction and coma, he has deliberately gone more towards to the religious stuff and he brings it into anything and everything that he talks about.
Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... If Alex can explain it... Ohw nooh we are the one not smart enough to understand 🥲.
Omg ☹️
@@ArThur_hara Your attemp at sarcasm is so bad I puked a few times
wtf is up with all the. spaces ?
Great job Alex love your content didn't take long for me to subscribe
The ability to break down and communicate complex ideas in a way that is easy to understand, is a reliable sign of intelligence.
+M. Linoge You give Peterson way too much credit for generating complex ideas.
What do you mean?
He does the absolute opposite
@@LiberatedNotes Cosmic Skeptic, or Peterson?
@@highroller-jq3ix JP
Alex, as a scientist, I can only say that you are truly doing -God’s- the Ontological Transcendent’s work.
+1
He pulled his god from his behind as you managed to get yourself out of the swamp. The only difference he's just in deep shit.
Amusing.
😂
Anyone that starts a sentence with the words: 'As a scientist', suggests that they are likely not one. Best case; they've rummaged through a few episodes of PBS Space Time.
An expert is someone who can take a complex concept and make it so simple that anyone can understand it. Peterson takes simple concepts and makes them so complicated that no one can understand them.
truth
Speak for yourself, I seem able to understand the things and I'm certainly no genius.
@@valhalla_1129 Your ability to understand sophistry is not the flex you think it is.
@Guyintheworld-bw3wg honestly these philosophical discussions can get way too abstract so I totally get this lol
Your vids are crazily thought provoking & interesting, shoutout my g
JP's ability to beat around the bush while sounding smart is just remarkable. I know loads of people who adore him yet can't produce any substantial idea of his when asked to, because his very purpose is to dwell in 'scholarly' ambiguity
He almost makes it seem like an artform, to be so vague and precise at the same time
There is no god in the sky 👍
or you just don't like him lmao
@@asian1599 i dont like his "waffling gibbirish" 👍
It's a rule in academia. If you can't astound them with knowledge, baffle them with BS. Of course the actual academics astound more than baffle. The opposite is true for JP.
Jordan Peterson speaks the way students write when they don't know the answer but try to answer everything in the hopes that the teacher will find the answer somewhere in there.
This was quite contradictory.
he gives me a headache
LOL bingo!
This is brilliant. You are so right.
With Dillahunty, he tried to gaslight and overcomplicate to avoid addressing points of conversation.
Recently came across your channel. Really enjoying your content and appreciate your deconstruction videos. More of these please.
Absolutely great job Alex, bringing this to the forefront. I wish and support that you do thousands of videos
I like JPs psychology stuff. But his religious stuff is BS.
"I base my thoughts on the literature, and studies I've read and base my thoughts on that" - JP.
Also JP: "God exists how ever we decide to define it"
He needs someone to explain the meaning of the words "you" and "do" and "believe", but has no problem using "ontological transcendence" without the need to define the terms more clearly? 😂
He's only good with the big words. The little ones confuse him. (Whenever it's convenient for him to be confused)
one of the first things I learned at my classical Christian school of logic and rhetoric is "define your terms", yet somehow in economics we still ended up listening to jp lectures 💀
I just had a big laugh watching that moment of his. Honestly, how can some people take him serious? He is like a used car salesman but for pseudo-intellectual ideas
@@manulito2 thank you perfectly and concisely stated.
Oh booo hooo... LOL!!!! I love watching the "intellectuals" get their asses handed to them by a man that's WELL thought out and NOT afraid to call you on your BULLSHIT. Cry some more, you granola crunching cunts.
The "complicated" part for Peterson, is that he cannot believe what he desperately wants to believe
Also, most of his followers are Christian and Catolic believers, he also has an enormous influence in politics. He's walking on thin ice
Nailed it
Nailed it. Like Jesus.
@@brettmixer7867 1. Your previous answer was so pathetic and petty, it was shadowbanned by TH-cam, it does not appear in the comments. The only way I was able to see it is to check your comment history on your profile.
2. Your response had nothing in it, nothing worthy of any discussion, mixed with baseless ad hominem about his brain and his sexuality. Give an actual argument, and you’ll get an answer. Calling someone stupid and gay to pat yourself on the back thinking you did something and proved your intellectual superiority is laughable.
3. After all that, coming back to the comment to demand a response is the cherry on the cake. You said nothing of value, thought you « owned » the original commenter, and then came back to ask for a response because you didn’t get the validation you crave. You are really reaching heights in intellectual performance here. Wow.
@@santiar117Christian’s don’t hate wise people suddenly all because those wise people don’t believe in God.
Great video. I'm glad to see your commentary coming from the other side. Not that I agree with it all, but the continued dialogue is what moves us forward.
Well, you've convinced me of your position on Hitchens and now with Peterson. Jolly good, keep it up!
TH-cam served-up the same combo in the same order to me this week. Had to hit the subscribe button just now.
Hitchens wouldn't have spared Alex from the hitchen slap, too bad we'll never know 😅😢
@@charismauniversity9626yep. Oh if only he were still alive today. Just imagine all the new Hitch-Slaps…
I love how respectful you are. Refutals like this restore my faith in actual, useful, meaningful debate. I hate that in most realms it's just become a matter of humiliating the opposing team and having a “gotcha” moment that hopefully goes viral bc for some reason it's entertainment. It makes me both sad and nervous, so thank you for this
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.
Same here. It's so comforting to listen to CSK after watching similar debates that take place in my Spanish speaking country. .
Because when I’m not smart enough to debate someone I post stuff they said and comment when their not there to defend their views……
Yessssss!
Well. This is sadly what the algorithm rewards... it shaped nowadays discourse
By far the most charitable and genuine criticism of Peterson I've ever seen. Thank you.
And the only reasonable way to respond to people with extreme standpoints. It has the best chance to make followers of Peterson put more thought on what he's saying.
How much criticism of Peterson have you read? There are loads of charitable and genuine criticism of Peterson. Don't play into his fan boys hands, who like to claim that everyone just misunderstands what Peterson says.
@@LouigiVerona Maybe there's 'loads', but it pales in comparison to the uninformed and uncharitable criticism, so it's not often I come across any.
@@Valosken You know, I am not sure I want to let this one slide just yet.
Sure, you get all sort of criticism in various comments, perhaps, but everything coming out of known TH-camrs has been, again and again, very informed and very charitable.
Dr Todd Grande, Hakim, Big Joel, Tom Nicholas, Matt Dillahunty, PZ Meyers, Three Arrows, CosmicSkeptic, Philosophy Tube, ContraPoints, Then and Now - and I can go on. These are all big channels that made their critique on Peterson, sometimes multiple times. So which one of them is uncharitable and uninformed exactly?
The exact same points that are made in this - excellent, of course - video were made by Matt Dillahunty, for example, years ago.
I am pushing back because there is a ton of valid and very informed criticism of Peterson out there. And the narrative that he is constantly being strawmanned is just that - a narrative.
@@LouigiVerona absolutely agree with you. Ofcourse there's a few people just repeating and shouting things. And there's a few performances where Peterson 'catches' the interviewer with his extremely vague and non-commitant word salads. Like the famous channel 4 interview. But these are exceptions. And when knowing more about Peterson and the way he handles his topics, it's not per sé that the interviewer was wrong, but that the interviewer was not prepared on how he would slither around the topic and then turn around to attack the interviewer, making it look like she doesn't know what he's talking about.
Very informative video. Analyzing a discourse in details. Thanks.
I just put this video on in the backround while working... but now i really whatch it because it's really good content
Thank you for this. I always struggled with Peterson's word salad on religion. You explained it really well.
Word salad is exactly right. He makes Deepak Chopra look like Child’s play.
Are you saying you don’t properly understand Kermit the fraud ?
@@georgekostarasoh god😭
The answer to what he thinks about religion is he doesn't know either, hence the word salad. He's just trying to point out that its possible to believe in some kind of "god" but you would need two days to even vaguely say what thay god is.
He could have just kept it simple and just say he doesn't believe in the Bible god, but he just refuses to and I constantly wonder WHY??
@@ciupenhauer I thinks the answer is pretty obvious between these two options (or both):
1. He can't square that thought with his own personal beliefs and philosophy
2. He can't say that because his whole career depends on him not saying that
I watch you for the exact opposite of what JP does. You explain complicated subjects with such eloquence that it makes them easy to understand, and explain to others. You are extremely precise with your language, and a fantastic orator. Thanks for another banger.
JP does the thing that most students hate about their teachers: being incapable of trying to be concise and clear
@@kris1123259 i always felt like he is very concise and clear
@@aice336 He's really not and I can tell because I do the exact same thing. Not in any overt manner, but in the way that I want to sound and seem smart, so I add large words here and there to do so. The difference is that I actually want to be understood, most of the time, whereas Mr. Peterson seems to be very uncaring when it comes to being understood.
@@drvurruct2274 i dunno ... for me the things mr. cosmic skeptic explains here about petersons views .. for me that wasnt hidden at all but quite clear. he was always picking things apart from a psychological point of view. but the assumption that he thinks those things didnt really happen as an historical event is false. he stated on numerous occasions that he doesnt know that and that he only talks about the psychological side of things.
tl;dr i never had problems understanding these things of peterson
@@aice336 he’s always concise until he talk about religion
Great video! Explained in such a clear way!🎉🎉🎉
The map analogy is great. I like the bluntness, pls keep it up
Best part of the video: Alex saying "Moses still moseying around"
It has to be the etymology of the word.
Right lol JP is something else
I am an ex Mormon, and the way JP explains religious concepts is the identical method Mormon scholars use in their apologetics, using as many words as possible without saying much at all.
I'm ex-Lutheran (which is striking similar to being ex-Mormon). The magic is not defining any terms...and if you're trapped...CHANGE the definition of terms.
So true. It’s like Bednar continually redefining all the words all the time.
Sophistry
Reality: it went over your head.
I feel JP is a christian in the same way my parents are. The Bible isn't a historical document, but a story that sets out to send a message that they find to be good. But then why call yourself christian and not Steven-Kingian for the example. His stories are also full of good ideas
Someone finally built a Peterson interpreter 🙂 Great video, Alex, exceptionally clear and well presented.
I think the thing you might be missing that distinguishes a religious text like the bible and a novel like Crime and Punishment is that I think JBP views the bible as a culmination of stories that have evolved over a much longer period of time. I've heard him talk a few times about how we have no idea how old these stories may be. And the fact that they've travelled this far through time makes them more special (i.e. "more real") than regular stories. In other words he believes there is a reason these specific set of stories have survived instead of these stories just being arbitrary. Like, in other words, he's the kind of person that asks himself why did these particular stories survive and not other stories
Alex has this uncanny ability to get right to the heart of things. He is so well spoken and articulate and thorough. You are truly an inspiration to me Alex
And at the age of what…21? Very impressive.
Yes a person that has time to redo it and take after take after take until it's finally as precise and accurate as possible comes across as a deep intellectual methodical thinker to you how amazing is that, and at 21 years old it's almost a guarantee that he doesn't have any wisdom in any field the Jordan Peterson is dealing with which seems to fit most people with a voice on the internet these days (no wisdom yet has an opinion)
You mean Alex gets to the fundamental brass tacks of the ontology of things.
But also, what do you mean by "Alex", "has", "this", "uncanny", "ability", "to", "get", "right" etc.
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome I think he's quite impressive in public forums as well (no editing or redos). I also can think of people who do multiple takes and are far less impressive than Alex
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome Ouch. Triggered much?
Personally I appreciate and favour Alex’s concise acuteness vs Peterson’s wild ambiguous verbosity that he employs when attempting to justify inanity. Regardless of age.
If anything, Peterson suffers from age and fame related piety.
I think Jordan benefits personally and professionally by maintaining himself within some religious circles, and so he usually avoids cutting those ties by never explicitly stating what he really thinks.
This is the truth. He needs the support from the Right to fight the evils perpetrated by the Left...Those of us who know the truth and see what's going on in our world should all cut him some slacks.
This is what I think as well!
yeah he would lose all his followers immediately if he said god was fiction. they would hate him overnight
@@JohnSmith-bs9ym Do you think being dishonest is a sign of good moral character?
And what makes you the expert on what he really thinks? I’m taking his word over yours when it comes to him
This was an amazing breakdown, thank you
Great watch!
Also, I know how the definition of God for Peterson was derived in the video but I am pretty sure he has clearly stated somewhere that God is whatever is at the top of your hierarchy when talking about the existence of God or atheism or something along those lines.
This was the perfect breakdown of the long-run problems I've had with Jordan. Thank you so much!
Tempted to back you off of this video alone. It's about time - you're one of the best modern philosophers.
well I would say he's on the right path to becoming one, but not there yet. I'm sure he will be though!
I agree, Alex humorously clarified months of my arguing at the laptop and posting inept requests for succinctness that drifted, unnoticed down the list JPs' viewers.
@@isaac1572 >>I agree, Alex humorously clarified months of my arguing at the laptop and posting inept requests for succinctness that drifted, unnoticed down the list JPs' viewers.""
Having trouble getting them to answer questions?
Highly recommend his videos on veganism! They made me rethink my entire world view.
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.
“Moses is still moseying around?” made me laugh more than it should have
🤣 same
😂😂😂
Does this mean we're all Moses ? But who are the rest of the characters in the story then, if everyone's Moses?
You don't leave your bedroom much do you?
This is your best vid i've seen Alex. I hope it does some good out there
I understand both Alex and Jordan and its great to have both these people on a platform like this educating us all
This might be one of your most ambitious videos yet. The way you deconstructed his rhetoric and word salad was quite precise. Oh and also you looked quite good with peterson in that picture
Would you like croutons with that salad?😅
Yes, the word salad IS strong in this one (JP)
He doesnt want to loose his religious audience, he found a way to have both atheist and religios people following him
jordan is closet Christian but he also knows he cant defend faith in this secular world so he plays both part from a safe distance and as you can see he got massive audience because of his trick.
I think he’s Christian but he’s very careful what way he steps in his ideas because he isn’t knowledgeable enough to argue everything. He holds back so that way he doesn’t get trapped and look bad. He’s know for being intelligent so the worst thing for his career would to have someone ask him a question he can’t answer. If he doesn’t step forward then he can never be pushed back. If he were to say “I believe in God” he would have so many questions flying at him he would be overwhelmed. He’s interested in the fantasy of theology and the allegories. He doesn’t want to have to defend scientific physical based questions.
He is trying to bring them together because there is something fundamentally important that both atheists and theists don't yet see (generally speaking across large populations). He's saying something more like "you're both right and wrong".
@@natanielb1445 Christians are told to spread the faith, though
@@Checkmate777 if you were asked if you believe in God, would you refuse to answer?
You are prescribing preposterous standards if JP cannot even claim to be Christian, something they are meant to be open about. And he clearly calls God a fictional character multiple times in this video. This seems more about preserving your preconceived notions about JP more than anything.
12 minutes in, already subscribed. You nailed it love the content😅🔥 I got introduced to you by the interview you did with Richard Dawkins. I briefly remember you from Piers Morgan talking about the monarch.
First time watching, what a great video.
I saw a lot of these issues with JP's beliefs about religion shortly after starting to watch some of his content. I am fairly certain the only reason he doesn't come out as an atheist is because he cannot afford to lose his base. And a lot of his base would not follow an atheist. The sad part is that the vast majority of those folks don't see through it.
I'm not a JP fan, but I don't think he bases his opinions on his base. He has pretty esoteric explanations for his views and I think he's sincere. I just think he's too definitive in his statements. I always feel I want to stop the tape and challenge several details in his argument.
Exactly
@@ecyranot I disagree. His base is conservative and I agree with the presenter that he himself does not believe in ANY deity but his followers mostly do. So he is left with the problem, "I don't believe in an actual God however, I can't say that directly'. Instead he gets around the problem by "peppering' his presentation with enough religiously flavoured words for the audience and then seems authoritative by the pretence of artificially deconstructing the language to NO CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE. Trump does exactly the same tactic but in a far more crude sense. He is not racist but he "dog whistles" his base with neutral comments concerning fascist activities "there are good people on both sides" Charlottesville riots. or blaming mexicans for America's economic woe and Andrew Tate does EXACTLY the same twisting of concepts, the good with the decidedly awful. If all three came and said "I don't believe in God" "Racists are good people" and "bashing women is your right and duty" The three would have ended on the rubbish pile of history.
"I am fairly certain the only reason he doesn't come out as an atheist is because he cannot afford to lose his base. And a lot of his base would not follow an atheist. The sad part is that the vast majority of those folks don't see through it."
I wouldn't say it's a matter of "can't afford" to lose is base, as that implies he's in it for the money, which I don't think he is. Granted, if he lost his base, he would definitely lose his income, so maybe he is motivated to some degree to pander, but I don't think that's where his heart is. I think he genuinely wants to help people, as both a psychologist and an educator, and so he probably chooses not to come out as an atheist for fear of alienating folks who could otherwise benefit from his message, albeit for the reason you mentioned which is because they would likely not follow an atheist. I think to Peterson, the question of whether or not he's an atheist is irrelevant to the messages he's trying to get across. Neil Degrasse Tyson is similar when it comes to science promotion, which is why he calls himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, which he clearly is.
I think he's sincere actually - I think he's sincere in his belief that left-wing secularism(and I think he considers the two things synonymous) is so terrifyingly pernicious that religion needs to exist as a bulwark against it. I think that is how he characterises his 'religious' belief - as a bulwark against godless commies(I also think he just likes the fact that religion tends to support social conservatism, and since he's a social conservative religion makes for a nice, warm, reassuring backdrop when he's railing against some progressive cause. I don't think _he's_ aware that this is one of the reasons why he likes religion though.).
So I think he's sincere. I just think he tangles himself up in knots because, well...he's not that bright. Also, he's a wanker.
Alex, thank you for this. I have been arguing for years that Peterson is deliberately vague and deflective when answering questions he doesn't want to answer. The fact that he is still taken seriously by many is concerning.
He is not totally wack. He makes sense when he's talking about things he actually knows about.
@@gidmanone sure, but he also peddles transphobic propaganda and other far-right ideas. So any sense he may make is worth essentially zero.
He can be taken seriously in any case where he isn't being verbally manipulative
@@jacobl4699 ad hominem
@@elbretto6062 no lol
I think this speaks more to the lack of precision of the question.
“Do you believe in god?” Is anything but precise.
When I was much younger, I got directions from a friend who was, admittedly, distracted at the time. He used a number of landmarks to steer me by, including at one point telling me I'd see a "very unfinished building..." when I saw it, I thought to myself I'd have called it a construction site, but okay. That formulation seems to be how Peterson thinks all the time.
I think clearly what he meant by 'use precise language' is that you should choose language carefully to make sure you don't expose the weakness of your underlying argument.
Thanks for a great entertaining video!
Yeah and that’s the irony. Jordan Peterson is an equivocating mess that is so ambiguous in how he says things that it tricks smooth brains into thinking that he is saying anything of substance.
His religious stuff just bores me. As well as videos like this dissecting it. I'm an agnostic and religious people and atheists talk too much about God for my taste. JPs lectures on psychology are really interesting though.
Thank you for breaking in down.
I’ve been trying to simplify my explanation of Jordan, that pretty much says the same thing but takes me forever…
This video is very helpful on that front.
Love your stuff, keep doing what you’re doing.
You can describe Jordan in one word - bloviation.
So you don’t understand what Peterson is saying?
@@chrisbarbero2608what they mean is that Peterson is being dishonest, and using vague and slippery language to obscure it. From listening to this video, that view seems pretty inescapable.
@@MrakS as a JP listener, I did not understand anything else.
@chrisbarbero2608
Depends what you mean by "peterson"..
29:14 and your explanation after, Alex, offer insight into how Peterson perceives *himself* as a scientist. It's his narcissism showing. His framework requires that any knowledge that could be had in his domain outside his own knowledge must be "transcendent" (i.e. divine). That's pretty grandiose.
You just made JP make sense to me. Suscribed !
The great thing about Jordan Peterson is that he not only tells us what we think, he also tells us what we said, saving us a great deal of effort.
Pity he couldn’t tell us what he thinks and what he says which would save a further great deal of effort…
@@colinross3755 peterson would make less money that way. To their very core they have no beliefs; they are just a grifter.
He's the same as a Christian apologist who says that atheists really believe in God, but they are only rebelling against God. Hilarious.
@@rodneywarren1905 yeah you are bang on 👍
@@brentwalker3300 yeah like when they say atheists are angry at god - nope can’t be angry with something I don’t think exists……
Waiter: "Are you ready to order?"
Jordan Peterson: "Well it depends on what you mean by order. I mean what is order? That's a easy question, although very tricky to answer, and often times order goes hand in hand with chaos. It reminds me of a story.. there's this guy named Peter Parker, he's pretty similar to your average person comparatively speaking let's say, and man!, he loves adopting responsibility, although he has to be careful because he also has a habit of pushing people away… and in Spider-Man (2002), a very classic story, Peter goes to meet his best friends father for the first time, and you may think meeting your best friends father is a walk in the park, but it's not man... especially if you're a human spider. There's even a scene where his friends father goes into Peters dirty room calls him a slob, and it's like... well yeah sometimes you need to clean your room, and before you try to save the world you have to have your house in order bucko. Then Peter finds out his best friends father is a Green Ogre... no actually he's more of a Green Goblin let's say, and this Green Goblin specifically wants to make Peters life miserable. And why is that?.. Because when you're a human spider who spends all his life pushing people away your only friend is going to be a Goblin to say the least. So eventually he learns that if you allow positive social bonds into your life, even if just for a moment, you can go from a human spider to a Spider-Man.”
Waiter: 👁👄👁
Hahahahaha well written !
I liked this response so much, I upvoted, unupvoted amdcupvoted again so I could upvote it twice
Hahaha this is perfect man. Great job
PURE GENIUS 👍
I believe this is where you're supposed to say 'Sir, this is a Wendy's'
Props Alex brilliant parsing
Holy smoke those drawings at 14:30 of the Moses sorry were great!
You are, sincerely, one of the best, most coherent voices on the internet.
Thanks for doing what you do, and for breaking down meta-men like Jordan Peterson. Please keep doing this as long as you can.
Lmao you’re a bot
Lol, peterson is right. You just dont want to believe in God
@@Cyprus_Is_GreekI def do not wish to believe in the god as described in the bible for sure.
@@Cyprus_Is_GreekI believed most of my life and was an ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist.
Then I decided to go with reality, and not because I didn't want to believe or start "sinning."
Listen to that cognitive dissonance you experience when confronted with evidence contrary to your belief system. Don't just avoid it.
@@Cyprus_Is_GreekYou are right. But I will also fight for your right to practice your faith. Just don't lump it on us?
My question to Dr Peterson would be: Do you think that being more explicit about your beliefs, particularly if you were to identify as an atheist, could potentially alienate a portion of your audience, affecting your subscribers, book sales, and ticket buyers? I'm genuinely curious about how this might factor into your approach.
Exactly. The one who pays the piper calls the tune. Some people start out on TH-cam with a "belief" that gets modified to chime with the likes of the greater number of subscribers. They 'fence sit' to test which way the wind is blowing and then confirmation bias sets their course.
Follow the money.
A kind of Emperor's clothes in reverse. (He knows he's naked but who is he to argue with paying crowd. Ch-ching)
It's like Boris Johnson who had two opposing speeches that he planned to use only the one which was more expedient to get him into No 10. It has nothing to do with actual belief.
I doubt that you would get a straight answer. Richard Dawkins tried to have a transparent convo with Peterson on religion and it failed really bad.
Yup! Cut the long story short...Its the grift! 👏👏👏😅👍
You wouldn't be allowed to ask it.
"Well, what do you mean by explicit, what do you mean by beliefs, what do you mean by audience...."
I have always wondered what Jordan Peterson was on about! Thanks.
Logically (mathematically) speaking, not every set can be ordered, and not every ordered set has a maximal element (real numbers do not have a maximal element).
Therefore, if "hierarchy of values" is comprised of elements that form a set of values, it is not clear whether it can be meaningfully ordered or have a well-defined maximal element.
As a Christian I've always had similar reservations about how Peterson obscures his thoughts on this matter, and I've never heard it unpacked as well as you just did. Well done!
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state is a reality that exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are. do you want to say that Jonatan is an atheist?
@@hitnapomoczanemirne7345 I've never heard Peterson say that he's just speaking about language semantics like this. Jonathan talks about things in a very different way
It's funny because I'm an atheist (at least I thought I was both secular and an atheist but being as I've been to a museum I clearly don't know my own mind 🤔) but was thinking exactly the same thing.... Peterson is all things to all men and that thing obscure and intentionally confusing
Exactly. I'm an atheist for all intends and practical purposes, but I've noticed the same thing every time Peterson talks about the topic. That way, he satisfies both audiences. Believers interpret the belief in God literally (Peterson "acts as if he believes" oh, ok so he's saying he believes but also acts) and atheists interpret it metaphorically, exactly what Peterson means ("I don't believe it literally, but those teaching are useful, have been useful for thousands of years and I value the value hierarchy religion presents").
@@aminromero8599 Nah, his talks are def geared towards appeasing his religious audience. JP is quite critical of atheists, he has said outright that they are "nihilistic" and has implied that they have no morality. He's a hypocrite.
That's hilarious, I said about this clip of Peterson a couple of days ago, we don't need to redefine basic word like "do" and "mean" in every conversation, we'd never get anywhere, but of course Peterson doesn't want to answer the question, that's why he does all the BS instead.
Do = do you partake on the action of belief and those that shape your worldview and subsequent actions?
You = the person I'm referring to in the question
Believe = does it makes sense to you
God = an all powerful being that has created everything
There done, if anyone wants to make it more specific then go to a philosophy class
It's kind of funny how he immediately tried to deconstruct the question so he wouldn't have to answer when he comes from the crowd that answers "what is a woman?" With "a woman is an adult human female"
@@airplanes_aren.t_real I'd say this is not enough at all if you want a serious discussion.
What do you mean when you say God is a being? Is he an incarnated being? is he a force that can become flesh? is the being only inside the narrative world or also in the material world?? than what do you mean by created everything?? Do you mean he created the earth and the heavens ? Or do you mean he created the concepts of earth and heavens as descriptions of the abstracted/narrative world opposed to material world??
@@Nicolas-mz3cb sorry, but you'll have to define what "enough", "serious" and "discussion" mean before we can continue...
@@Nicolas-mz3cb @Nicolas ok this is probably a troll but what I mean when I say "God" in this question is not a specific version/interpretation but the collective conscious understanding of a god or god in a colloquial sense, I say being because most people see god as an existing entity (an entity that partakes on the action of existing and being), that has created everything and can do anything
@42:21 I love your voice over, and I love you!
Capo on the 2nd fret minimum is generally going to get you good results. Well done Alex.
Absolutely great job. Every Peterson fan should watch this video, because it's the best deconstruction of his beliefs and rhetorical techniques I've seen without also taking shots at his politics (and this is coming from someone who strongly disagrees with his politics and thinks they deserve plenty of criticism too).
It is not a deconstruction of his beliefs. This is quite literally about religion. His arguments and logic in many other areas is rock solid and based on factual information or unquestionable morality.
@@sinxsideways5900 lol no it isn’t. everytime he talks about philosophy it’s incredibly obvious he’s never had to pass a class in it- he knows nothing. he’s an idiot, honestly. I mean if you’re stupider than him maybe he’ll seem smart.
@@elliotts5574 maybe if you read the title of the video u would realize its only about religion. Great way to try and insult me just bc you disagree with me. Like fucking hell people like you are what's wrong with the world. Learn how to have a civil conversation or debate without insulting people you incel. If im dumb then may God help you. His philosophy is also obviously gonna be based in his religious belief just like every other fucking person's so try and find a different angle to attack from.
@@elliotts5574 he is far from an idiot you just may be too stupid to understand that
@@sinxsideways5900 His arguments in other areas are worse than here.
Dude, Alex, this video is just on a whole different level. I completely wrote off Peterson in my recreational media consumption because of this exact issue. I remember a debate between him and Sam Harris brought it to light and it turned me off to a lot of his stuff. So for you to be able to pinpoint the exact issue with such grace is truly impressive. Thank you for such a phenomenal video I’m sure it took a ton of effort, time and energy.
You should still write him off lol. He is still a total charlatan. Alex probably has more clarity about what Jordan is saying than Jordan himself
Sam:" Why are you doing this and why does it have to be so hard?"
I remember that debate. Jordan Peterson described himself as a "philosophical pragmatist", and then proceeded to describe something that is not even close to actual pragmatism, but rather, what realists make fun of pragmatism for what they think it means.
Peterson talking about the hierarchy of reaching a Divine place is pretty much the religious argument of yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus
Great breakdown. One comment about the last section (Peterson misuses religious language): if you follow his line of thinking of "What is God" (your first section), his use of religious language (as you broke down in the last section) totally make sense. Definitely would love to see you and JP discusss/debate this (among other topics) Pangburn style. But Anyway, great content as always.
Peterson is the human personification of 'overthinking things' and I believe it has gone to the point where; the more he thinks, the more confused he becomes.
ehhh I would say it is literally impossible to over think any existential question as encompassing as these. we barely understand the nature of our existence and behavior - any degree of thought only probes into the surface of the mystery.
@@ihateyoutubesomuch371 And I'd say that's hippie-nonsense that doesn't lead to anything.
@@oyuyuy your approach to thinking, or promotion of anti-thinking, is what lead to religious fundamentalism and intellectual stagnation in the first place.
@@ihateyoutubesomuch371 Hahahaha, let me guess, you've been studying Philosophy for 3 weeks and now you think that you're Socrates? You should do less thinking and more learning, cause I can promise you that the answers can't be found in the vacuum of your head.
And learn how to capitalize letters too you lazy cow.
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! Because it’s self evident that you are the personification of “overthinking” and “confused”!!
Sorry to break it to you buddy but the fact is that under relativism, that is under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your very ironic absolute Truth claims about “overthinking” and “confused” is nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident that went neither “wrong” nor “right”, that is neither “good” nor “bad”!! Neither “TRUE” nor “FALSE”!!
Furthermore, under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction it’s all relative buddy, it’s all just subjective ultimately meaningless word games. Have you even read Nietzsche or Wittgenstein? Just live it out!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your “CONFUSED”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Equally, this world view is a denial of metaphysics. So under atheism, that is under fatalism and epistemological nihilism there is no unified conscious agent/freewill/Self/Soul/, that is no RATIONALITY ITSELF.
It’s all ILLUSORY buddy, it’s all just determined as you are nothing more substantive than an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. NOTHING more substantive than the delusions of an evolved “ape” who shares half their DNA with bananas. That is nothing more substantive than the accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your “confused”, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Sorry but under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical nationalism you and your very ironic “CONFUSED” argument are nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident, a “secular” cosmic FAIRYTALE that went neither “HAM” nor “SPAM”. Neither “properly” nor “improperly”!! Neither “delusional” nor “sane”,!! Neither “SANE” nor “WORD SALAD”!! Neither “rational” nor “Nutty as a fruitcake”!!
When our pride usurps metaphysics, that is when our pride usurps Truth and value and OBJECTIVE MORALITY, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, materialism, moral subjectivism and solipsism and narcissistic and ego driven reality!!
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting….
I learn something extremely useful every. single. time. I watch your videos. This time it was your breakdown and example of the difference in ontology and epistemology. A while back it was pointing out that you CANNOT choose what to want. (which I'm still kinda rattled by lmao) Thank you so much for the time and effort you give to educate our unworthy minds. May ye reap blessings from our highest hierarchical value.
The map analogy was spot on!
Amen. Great video
Brilliant. An honest and well rounded evidence driven breakdown of his language! Amazing job
Just type in "A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson" and be amazed.
!!!
Ah yes, let's talk about deconstructing JP while our country is being invaded by foreign economic migrants with lower IQ's replacing our native population.
I read this book (12 Rules for Life) in rehab in 2018 and became a huge Jordan Peterson fanboy, which became a gateway into far right wing conservatism and then fundamentalist Christiantiy. so embarrassed that I went down that path.
Why your embarrassed by that?
Don't be. I could vaguely see much of all this long ago, but Alex brilliantly articulates it better. Two friends went part down the rabbit hole you did. Thousands have, and are still there. You are not.
Well, did you get better though?
Many people don't understand just how dangerous people like Jordan are. They ensnare those that feel plagued by a lack of meaning in a semantic trap that seems like, once you understand it, will be beautiful and complete. But its really a kind of pseudo a intellectual smokescreen that hides the more dangerous ideas he's really trying to impose, all the alto right stuff.
People in this condition are extremely vulnerable to cults of personality, which is why there's a community of JP worshippers out there, ready to go to war against the neo-marxist, communist democrats who, of course, aren't "neo-marxist" or "communist" in any reasonable sense.
A clear result: public mass-shooters.
He's a bad man.
Peterson is a difficult figure to track as he's sometimes right, usually on psychology, and sometimes wrong, usually on everything else, so it's easy to get drawn in by the psychology and then be let down by the politics.
- what's your name?
- what do you mean "what"? what do you mean "is"? what do you mean "your"? what do you mean "name"?
This video really changed my mind on Jordan Peterson. It's up to you to figure out what I mean (subconsciously, of course) by "changed" and "my mind" and "Jordan Peterson".
I’m a Christian and I think this video was incredibly accurate. Thank you Alex.
@@LazyNightCrawler what do you mean by “do?”
@@randopedia1 what do you mean by “mean”?
@@Imbetterthanpaulallen why do you ask that question ?/J
LoL Keep it Going
that man jordan peterson dodging us 😂
@@Imbetterthanpaulallen when you say “what” - I assume you’re inserting the prerequisite of the highest value of divine meta-transience (or something?)
I've been saying this for years, that he isn't literally a theist. It's sensible to me because I grew up reformed Jewish, and this sort of way of thinking was how I grew up, and I assumed everyone felt the same more or less. It was a big shock to find out as a young adult that Christians most often believed it literally. It's so clear to me that his religious audience is hearing something very different from what he's actually thinking.
No he is literally a theist. He just doesn't believe in an anthropomorphic god. And theism, and thus atheism, is NOT restricted to anthropomorphic and conscious entity.
People are completely misusing the terms atheism, theism and God. They are specifically talking about ONE, or one branch of understanding of the God construct, which is what God ACTUALLY is, a construct. One that we attribute to, both tangible and intangible attributes and traits.
I also grew up Jewish, conservative. And it was a shock to me that Orthodox Jews and many Conservative Jews believe literally, in an anthropomorphic deity. I went to Hebrew school for however many years up to Bar Mitzvah, and by the age of 9 or 10, at least half my peers and I had already realized its all just mythology. So it was astonishing to me that ANY Jews believed that Torah was actually given to Moses at Mt Sinai and that prophecy and prophets actually speak for 'God". Which is where Christianity gets a lot of its nonsense, Rabbinic Judaism, or Pharisaic and Essene Judaism, which were both REFORM movements of the 2nd century BCE. Traditiona Judaism, as practiced by the Sadducees, the Zadokites, ONLY used Torah, did not believe in resurrection, did not believe in a conscious afterlife, did not believe in messiah, did not believe in the prophets and writings. That WAS traditional Judaism, which was Patrilineal, from around 700 BCE to around 1st century CE, when the tempe was destroyed by the Romans, the Sadducee aristocracy taken off to Rome and Egypt, leaving the superstitious and extremely hellenized in thought Pharisees and Essenes holding the bag of responsibility over the common masses of Judean diaspora community. And that's where most of these superstitious and ridiculous supernatural ideas come from, the Greeks. ALL only becoming part of "Judaism" AFTER Alexander. The idea of an afterlife from Elysian fields and Hades, the idea of a universal savior figure from all the Greco-Roman myths and the idea of resurrection, common throughout Indo-European, and especially Mediterranean lore, with many a figure taking a trip to the underworld and finding a way to return. So Judaism itself is what Jews do and the common beliefs of Jews. Rabbinic Judaism is ONE branch of Judaism, today the most common, but it is only one, now formalized branch of Judaism. Judaism itself is not and can not be formalized. Foundation of Torah is part of it. Foundation OF, not necessarily belief IN the literal and supernatural, non allegorical interpretation.
. But I never in my life believed in an anthropomorphic god, yet I am not an atheist. People attempt to insist I am an atheist all the time, but I am overtly not. I have absolutely ZERO faith in an anthropomorphic deity and am a theist. And my belief is quite simple, and based on deduction and not faith. The source of existence must exist for everything else to exist. And the source of existence is one of those attributes we attribute to the god construct.
I would like to see a debate between you and Jordan Peterson
Jordan has more important stuff than come to his podcast
Thank you for this video
Damn..... the man actually did it, he actually explain what peterson actually saying
Actually 👍👍
Peterson doesn't even know himself what he's saying, he's a grifter.
Please never stop what you are doing! Your logic and reason is like an antidote for my tired mind
Jordan's rhetoric is super fucking exhausting to me. Idk why ppl let him use them for his attention supply.
@@harithshah45 That's his M.O., make everyone's brain misfire so we just take what he says and make it fit to what we want it to mean. He's a calculated attention whore. What I don't understand is why no one ever asks him what he meant by something he said, as if EVERY person in the audience completely grasps his gobbledygook.
@alex Ontological is also a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them. Transcendence means that the beginning or some aspects of this world are outside of this world. To do science you must believe that there are some laws that govern the world. Believe. We can talk more if you want.
"Govern" is not a good word to use in this context. "Govern" is a verb, and when you use the word "govern", you need a "governor". All science does is describe what happens, again and again. You have inserted the need for a God all by yourself.
Just a thought as I'm watching (I'm not through the video) and I'm not trying to defend Peterson at all but some idea struck me.
If we were to take it to be true that every action requires a hierarchy of value then could it be the case that as a scientist the act of acknowledging the epistemologically transcendant as you described in fact leads to a "divine" space which we could call ontologically transcendant as it would by the above process require a sort of faith in the divine?
Like if we take the ontological argument here (which does have refutation) it essentially seems like well "if I must imagine some perfect thing, that perfect thing must be so perfect that it's the same as God" ?
Could this be the justification? Maybe I'm way off but perhaps someone could refute it.
Does JP make any reference to the ontological argument in his work? Certainly whenever I talk to a religious philosopher they tend to reach for it.
there is no belief in science that the root of of everything must be good or divine.
McDonald's employee - "Would you like fries with that?"
Jordan Peterson - "What is would? Who am I? What are fries?"
The technique of taking a question and deconstructing it, word by word, adjusting and rephrasing everything is his method of disparaging the questioner fundamentally.
This is intended to disarm and baffle the questioner and slides JP into the driver’s seat directing the conversation on his terms and applying his preferred language.
If the questioner doesn't want Jordan in the driver seat then why are they asking him questions? Sounds more like the questioner wants Jordan to agree with them and speak their language rather than putting their own view down and genuinely listening to Jordan explain his own world view so they can understand a new view and a new language.
@@bike4aday “…then why are they asking him questions?” Seriously? How about “He’s being interviewed on TV as a Guest”? That explain it for you sufficiently?
Your question suggests the Interviewer got something wrong somehow. No, the Interviewer did their job and Peterson resisted every single syllable of every single word all along the way.
Or maybe you’re onto something here - maybe dozens of professional Interviewers have violated Dr. Jordan Peterson’s sensibilities by continuing to apply imprecise language to their questions and he’s simply doing “Clean up on Aisle 3” janitorial work trying to remind each one how the English language works and why he, Dr. Jordy, is the sole arbiter of vocabularial authority?
I think maybe you’re persuading me - it’s the INTERVIEWER who assails Dr. Jordy time and time again. It’s poor widdle Jordy pulling a long face because he’s so victimized by the imbeciles assigned to dialog with him on air. I guess the truth is Dr. Jordy is beyond the scope of my feeble understanding and I need to adopt your view of him as a falsely stigmatized truth-teller? Is that about right, Biker? 🙃😬
Don't forget to mention all the flailing of the hands. Really kinda spooky, as if he's trying to concoct a spell!
@@bike4adayYes, Jordan's flailing fingers! What can you do with that?
Great work Alex.
I think JBP's sanity is inversely correlated with the psychedelic index of his jackets.
Similar to the way Conor McGregor's jacket index was correlated with hubris and failure.
This is why you’re my favorite TH-camr. You explain exactly what I don’t have the words to express.
But now you do have the words to express 'that' wich you couldn't put into words before 🤔 🙂
@@JohnStopman yep, because earlier he was thinking in "definition" and now he got the word for it. For ex- I don't know the word hierarchy, but I do try to explain it as something the goes up and is more than the latter one.
It’s like I had a gut feeling on Peterson’s style but couldn’t pinpoint what was off to me, and Alex perfectly dissects it here
THANK YOU!!! He's been driving me crazy with his definitional sleight of hand - and NO ONE catches him on it!!
There is nothing to catch. You simply are not intelligent enough to understand. Had you ever read Nietzsche you would understand the implications of what Jordan says.
@hyperretroactivehyperretro5992
Depends what you mean by "what"..
@@dfr6663 True. And even those statements are simple. Dude is acting like he caught Jordan somehow but Jordan explained this EXACT thing in his Dillahunty debate. It’s pretty simple. He even says I feel sorry for the fundamentalist types because they know that the stories are important etc etc.
@@hyperretroactivehyperretro5992who cares ?
@@pinkdollangel Apparently everyone commenting .
I feel like you overlook one of petersons strongest arguments in this video? How do you come to the belief and conclusion that the world is understandable to begin with?
A scientist has to have faith that what he doesn’t know can be understood
Quite the contrary, our minds aren't made to understand everything, and the universe doesn't care if we understand it. We're always going to hit a point where we simply can't truly understand things.
Curiously, this is as much a Biblical idea as it is a scientific one. We're not ever going to understand everything this side of eternity. So not to be mean, but I genuinely don't understand what you think you're arguing here.
Good point, I wonder how much of a difference it makes when he speaks about psychology with his belief in religion I’m wondering if that would be different in anyway, thanks for the reply
Love seeing fair takes like this. No smug remarks just reasonable questions and critique
Lol the guy is literally the epitome of smug
@@joelharvey I think thats a projection. Ive seen far worse takes on Jordan. Where the critique is valid but the rude remarks just makes watching them unbearable.
@@emilsundbaum5221 Why do you think I’m projecting?
@@joelharvey you're equating smugness with effective idea communication and explanations. He's done a concise job at calling out Peterson's nonsense when talking about religion, that's all.
@@joelharvey Becuase he appears quite objective to me. Peterson is really vague and diffuse on the religion issue. But then again im comparing him to Vaush and Somemorenews youtube channel, And they're just the worst. They can't go a second without making rude comments.
The most astonishing thing is how Peterson manages to say stuff that is more or less obvious and self-evident in a way that sounds incredibly mysterious and "deep". He's like that person who would say he suffers from nervus frenicus instead of "I have a hiccup".
Nervus frenicus? We can treat that easy! Right here and now! Just inflect deep into the metaphysical substrate of your ethos.
It’s poetry baby!
LoL. It's a diaphragmatic spasm.
@maestr Rogu
😂😂😂
when Peterson says that God is fictional, it means that our representation of God is a fictional symbolic representation of God, which we cannot represent in any other way than fictionally. it does not mean that God is not real. we are beings of symbols, we cannot perceive reality in any other way than through symbols. these symbols represent reality. for example, how will you present the country? through symbols! if you hit a policeman you hit the state, if you set fire to the flag you set fire to the country and so on... You can say "you didn't hit the state, you can't hit the state"... hit the policeman and see what happens!? Does this mean that the State does not exist??? The state exists in reality, but you cannot be in a relationship with the state except through symbols! peterson is not an atheist, he just understands better what symbols are.
As a person who enjoys listening to Jordan I have to admit that everything you brought up in this video made perfect sense to me. Thank you for changing my mind and clear my thoughts on this issue.
Great analysis!
I cannot listen to the “what do we mean by ‘do’…” piece without imagining a sitcom laughter track with it.
It is right out of the mouth of Bill Clinton...
Seinfeld
As a Christian and a scientist (but not a Christian Scientist), I really enjoyed your analysis of JPs thoughts on this matter. Very insightful, thank you for the food for thought 🙂
I agree. As a Catholic and a philosopher, I stopped listening to Peterson a while ago. Cosmic Skeptic is correct in his analysis of Peterson. Peterson is a Modernist (his hero is Jung). A Modernist believes that we can retain Christian ethics, morality and unity without the Religion i.e. God, Jesus, life after death, love thy neighbor etc. Nietzsche, may favorite atheist, ridiculed this belief. This is why N wrote the Transvaluation of Values. Which is a necessary endeavor to replace Christian ethics, morality and unity. Of course, Nietzsche's Atheism resulted in Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. As Dostoevsky said without complication (which Cosmic skeptic desires), If there is no Christian God, then ALL THINGS ARE PERMISSIBLE. H, S, M and PP became the most powerful, famous and successful based on atheistic principles.
One must remember, that N spent the last ten years of his life in an insane asylum quoting Scripture (according to his sister who visited him) God bless.
Cosmic Skeptic, ironically, does the same thing he accuses Peterson of by over complicating the discussion by referring to the glass and how we view it. I have found that most Atheists do not want to analyse their own DECONSTRUCTION with the same fervor as they apply to others. God bless.
@@Goodkidjr43 That is some serious misframing in the second half of your comment, I am sorry to say. You cannot just say that "Nietzsche's atheism resulted in hitler, stalin, mao and pol pot". That is a generalization so hasty it almost gave me whiplash just reading it. History is a lot more nuanced than that. Hitler was a Catholic, like you, actually. His number one bestselling book mentioned god a few times as well. Nietzsche's sister was a n*zi who gravely misrepresented his works, even rewrote some parts, after her brother went crazy; to fit her own ultranationalist views. Not to mention the fact that stalin, mao and pol pot did not subscribe to the same beliefs nor take them from Nietzsche's writings. Lastly, I feel it is necessary for me to add that morality is not reliant on christianity. I hope we can agree that arguing that would be a little bit silly, right? This is one of the most 'debunked' arguments against atheism/in favor of christianity.
@@Goodkidjr43 If you do not want to listen, or be open to different arguments, I will probably not be able to change your mind. I would however like to suggest something to you. You seemingly do not care for this content or interacting with it in a meaningful matter: why just not posting any comments down here, or watching these videos in the first place?
@@Ausrine336 not gonna disagree with the main shtick of your argument but respectfully Hitler was not a catholic by any means. This is rhetoric I’ve only seen Sam Harris and bill murr spew out. If you look at Hitlers view on Jesus he literally doesn’t believe Jesus is God which is the main must have in being a Christian let alone Catholicism, he also held contempt for much of established churches of all denominations and believed Jesus would be in favor of what he was doing, if you read the Bible you know that doesn’t make any sense.
I have always thought him to be a textbook sophist, but never bothered to listen enough to his lectures to pinpoint exactly what his opinion on religion was, thankyou.