Go to ground.news/unsolicited for 50% off the Ground News Vantage plan. This is their best deal of the year, available for a limited time, so be sure to use my link! LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more (very occasional) philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Has anyone ever tried a non-anthropomorphic theology? People talk about this God character as if he is a man like them. Point that out and they say, NO, not at all. Really because from the looks of things God thinks like us, feels like us and intends like us. If it walks like a duck....
Let me ask you atheists something? what are you fighting against? Western religion has little power in your life. What is it about God that urges this inner debates? And why do atheists also interrelate their "fight" with God, with the concept of "free will"? I hear people say "its because our justice system should take into account that we dont have free will" So that means if I do a crime to you, you should forgive it because it was not really my fault because I had no "free will"? I dont think you guys are prepared to accept that. I too believe the justice system is unfair but that doesn't mean humans being, and life in general, has no agency. I've heard other stuff like "freedom starts when you realize you have no freedom", then what are you? can anyone of you answer that? what are you supposed to be, and why do you seek "freedom"? I want to know your point of view, mine is simple, I am already free, I don't need to "be God", this reality doesn't have to be like a lucid dream, in other for me to be free, I am already free. (prove it you say, I don't to prove that I am free to you, thats part of my freedom, I am at peace. But I see all this videos and all of this "philosophy" based on resentment and power seeking disguised as freedom searching, and I ask myself, what the hell do this people want?, why arent they happy with their lives?) I had no problem with atheists until they started coming for free will, why? Why do you want to "prove" that you don't exist, that you are just an illusion of your brain? why? Do you view life as such a torture that the only way to deal with it, is self deleting your own sense of self?
I don’t want it to go unstated how important it is that this man is engaging with the thoughts of someone he not only doesnt idealize but actively disagrees with on multiple levels but is still capable of rationalizing and understanding his argument I get this is supposed to be basic humanity but basic is more relative than the truth
It's not basic and it isn't supposed to be, it's pretty much the opposite of the human default. You need years of intellectual training to be able to do this
@ lol have you ever even watched Jordan Peterson do anything? 99.9% of his imprint on the internet is him being nice and curious to dogmatist and zombies
these are manipulative tactics, i hope that would become clear to his strangely devoted followers. I'm not sure if Peterson himself has enough balls to see it. ad hominem: judging by his voice, he doesn't.
Honestly, the way he panders to the evangelist community with such flimsy argumentations and false constructs or unprovable conclusions...it definitely stands to reason to expect a far closer thought about the true nature of humans: We are greedy and like easy to achieve positive attention. Hard to find an easier audience in a better position of power as of late in the english speaking market...aka gods followers are easy pickings, no need to wrestle the old man himself.
I would love someone to put this to him: Q: "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" JP: "It would take days to answer that question" Q: "Did Odin hang himself from Yggdrasil?" JP?: "Well that one no, probably not" Q: "What is the difference"
@@notyoyoma Yeah, it is obviously a secondary issue, he would argue that that is not his point. Rightfully so. But he also doesn´t think of any of the consequences of just randomly poking the dark with argumentation and then having a whole slew of followers twisting his message to fit neatly as part of their cultish narrative that everyone has to believe in what they believe in because it is, as Peterson argues after all, the "truth". He is a dangerous ideologist, always, because he never thinks of others or what becomes of his messages. He doesn´t think of anyone else´s position but his own and in his own position it makes all too much sense to argue the way he does. Like said, not just does his whole premise of what atheism argues already go all the way besides the point and never actually arguing with what he should be arguing in the first place but his theory is also as correct as the bible itself (at least from what I take from these videos about the book, not that I read it myself so beware that), if you believe it, it certainly fits a whole lot better than if you don´t follow his line of thinking. But in no way has been mentioned that he ever put down a concrete possibility for his line of thinking to be strictly exclusive. As is said in the video, if I just don´t follow his logic at some points then he builds up argumentative castles on thin air.
@@notyoyoma- Yes, essentially that's the problem: Peterson can't really say why one mythology should be elevated over another, except because of the value he "finds" or imposes in/on one set of stories versus another. He attributes the success of Western Civilizations to the Bible when Guns, Germs and Steel works at least equally well.
Absolutely. Peterson finds "truths" in the Bible; he just doesn't want to alienate members of his audience who want to interpret that as meaning "the Bible is true".
He’s being much too kind, probably because he’s a better person than me. There are multiple videos breaking down his recent book bit by bit and explaining how a majority of his points don’t follow or frankly, make any proper sense whatsoever.
@spencerjames9417 it's not that he's a better person than you, just a smarter one. He's explaining in great depth how he agrees and disagrees with JBP. Your bias won't let you be fair.
Your videos are amazing. Especially for someone like me who didn’t study the subject and didn’t read the actual works, your way of explaining the underlying messages and giving your take on them, while staying remarkably neutral, is a breath of fresh air, and it is so very intellectually stimulating
You're the first person that I hear that really listened to Peterson's arguments and made a usefull critic of it. Even Peterson will beneffit from viewing this video. Thanks for that honest curiosity, it's scarse.
There are lots of people who critique Peterson's arguments. There are also people who critique the foundation of his ideas and arguments rather than simply accepting his assertions and assuming that the fact that he may make a seemingly cohesive framework that it is actually sensible or reasoned.
As a Christian, Peterson's opinions about the Bible frustrate me for a few reasons. 1. (This relates to Paul's quote in the beginning of the video). If the lessons in the Bible were true while God did not exist, it would be a bleak reality. At the Bible's simplest core, it all points to sinful man needing a saviour, and thankfully that Saviour is perfect in nature, works, and will. Yet if there was no God; no Christ, no sacrificial death, no resurrection, no Pentecost; we would not have the ability to consistently value what is perfect. Without proper understanding of the gospel, many points and lessons the Bible makes are lost or misunderstood. I liked how you questioned if Peterson's opinions about the Bible were simply from the Bible or from his personal experiences. If Peterson does not believe in the gospel, he would find it difficult to understand exactly what the purpose of the Word is. 2. A smiliar point, the Bible is about God. Not some 'heirarchy of beliefs' but the holy God Himself. It showcases His attributes and what He does to fix man's broken relationship with Himself while also showing that God will never smile at sin, the thing that caused the broken relationship in the first place. To use the Bible's lessons as tools for a fulfilling life while completely ignoring that it says a whole, fulfilling life only comes from a saving relationship with God is irresponsible. He essentially tries to take God out of the Bible...which is obviously ridiculous. (I haven't read Peterson's book though so I could be exaggerating). The Bible also repeatedly states that God acts for His glory and believer's good. How can one make sense of what God does without these things in mind? If one's values were aligned with the Bible's, I would think they would have to know who God is. 3. If Jordan Peterson wants to present the Bible as an unquestionable moral compass for individuals and socieites, he will have to do better than an utilitarian argument for why he chose the Bible. For someone who cites Crime and Punishment so often, I feel like he should know that if there is a unviersal moral law, it is not simply for utilitarian reasons nor can a man such as himself define what it is and when/where its applicable. I appreciate the idea that truth is true whether we believe it or not, because that simple idea has become strangely unpopular these days, but it doesn't make much logical sense to me for someone who does not fully believe in the Bible's infallibility to use it this way. I think christians can get away with saying the Bible is unquestionable because they believe in a truthful, faithful, omnipotent God who makes it so. I should also point out the obvious. Anyone could read the Bible, and many make different conclusions afterwards, even professing believers. And its lessons are good and practical. Yet having a public figure who misses the main point of it while still acting like he has the authority to analyze it is baffling. If you want to learn more about the Bible, try listening to someone who genuinely believes its true. I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response. But idk, I'm just a random girl on the internet. Anyway, I agree that there is some value to Peterson's ideas about our priorities and the usefulness of stories. Great video, thanks for breaking down the book for people like me who are short on time. I wrote most of this before finishing the video, but I appreciate the ending. EDIT: I’m not trying to hate on Peterson, I really like what he has to say most of the time. It’s cool that he’s reading the Bible. These are just some random concerns I have.
Very good response. I like knowing how Christians think. Tbh sometimes I think that Peterson himself is confused about what he really believes in. He’s not sure whether he’s a Christian or an atheist so he flip flops between the two which leads to some of the baffling points you’ve mentioned eg trying to take God out of the Bible while trying to argue for the Bible etc
Thank you,im starting to read the bible and im so thankful to you for this comment,i was rise believing in God,not hardcore but it was there,i knew it was,and i know it its,although i never took it as seriously as i wanted,i had one feet in and the other out,now i want to embrace my love for God fully and i think im finally ready to read the bible as a child of God,sometimes our ego gets in the way,especially knowing that Peterson its so admired by many,sometimes that entitles us,recognition and admiration,it’s undeniable that he has helped me heal in so many ways and i think he has felt something that he’s not letting in,not everything can be decoded with logic but with the heart and the spirit,and that’s what brings you real peace,i know he’s on his path as most of us,understanding the love of God ❤️🩹
"I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response."
Peterson's "illegal chess move" line is lazy "conclusion language." He does this a lot, and he's not alone (Sam Harris has engaged in a lot of this of late, for example). I appreciate your dissection of this. RE: Peterson not distinguishing between the existential and symbolic concepts of god/God......he's also been doing this for ages, and it's quite frustrating.
Their both one in the same. The christian gods the one hes referring to. But he also recognizes that all religions have a truth to them. And god is a symbol and a tool for reality; god as a narrative. And that the real world narrative has to encompasses all religions.
Peterson does have a bad habit of working off a private set of definitions that’s different from what most people would assume when you hear them, and not communicating in any way thats he’s using different definitions. Depending on how much you like him and how charitable you want to be you could see this different ways. I don’t like him, so I see it as intentional sophistry to bob and weave around so he has to spend less time actually engaging.
Conclusion language? I haven't heard that term, but it fits. But in case anyone missed the point; saying "there is no god" is like saying "I have no king" while playing chess. You can't capture what isn't there, so the opponent can't win. You CAN checkmate their king, so inevitably your version of chess looks like it wins almost every game. Therefore, atheism looks like a sound, more rational way to play the game. But everyone else playing looks at the board and says "what are you, stupid?" while making wild claims about the importance of the king which don't make any sense in the context of the game the atheist isn't playing. And to take the metaphor a little further, what piece did you put there instead of a king? Mammon (the rook)? Fame (the queen, highly useful!)? Or are you playing with an "incomplete set of pieces" and this reflects in your constant need to interact with or contend with those who have kings, either in an attempt to understand without that piece to work with, or in an effort to level the playing field and show them how unfair it is to THEM to have a king, which just makes them more likely to lose, eventually.
I'm so happy to have this engaging analysis. I started listening to JP when he was just doing TH-cam. Then I did his whole Self Authoring Suite thing, very helpful. Then read his books. Then studied Carl Jung a bit. Then completely fell out of infatuation with him over the last few years. I find this channel an intellectually fair and less polarized assessment of things I prefer to postpone judgement of while I gain an appreciation for. This channel strikes me as one of those channels run by someone who has much better things to do, but shares with people like me. TYTYTY!!!!
## Analysis of Dr. Peterson's Claims About Atheism **Premise 1:** Dr. Peterson defines "God" as the highest value in a person's hierarchy of values. **Premise 2:** Everyone acts in accordance with some value system, even if it is unreflective or naive. **Conclusion:** Therefore, everyone acts as if they have a "God" in the sense that they prioritize some things over others, making atheism (understood as the denial of any value hierarchy) untenable. **Analysis:** While the sources present Dr. Peterson's argument as seemingly sound, there are some key issues with the line of reasoning: * **Equivocation:** The argument conflates two distinct meanings of "God." The traditional understanding of God involves a supernatural, conscious being. Dr. Peterson's definition redefines "God" as the peak of a value hierarchy, a concept devoid of traditional theological implications. By shifting between these definitions, the argument creates a false equivalence. Atheists typically reject the notion of a supernatural God, not the existence of values or the act of prioritizing. * **Oversimplification of Atheism:** The argument presents atheism as a denial of any value system, which is a misrepresentation. Atheists can and do hold strong moral and ethical values, prioritize certain goals and principles, and engage in meaningful pursuits without attributing these values to a deity. The sources even acknowledge that most atheists understand their position as the rejection of a conscious, intentional force organizing the universe. * **Lack of Engagement with Metaphysical Questions:** While Dr. Peterson focuses on the pragmatic implications of values and beliefs, the sources acknowledge that the question of God's metaphysical existence remains significant. The potential existence of an afterlife, for example, would have a direct impact on how one might choose to live. By sidestepping these questions, Dr. Peterson's argument fails to address the core concerns of many who identify as atheists. **In essence, Dr. Peterson's argument relies on a redefinition of terms and a limited understanding of atheism. It fails to establish a compelling case against atheism as traditionally understood.**
In order to better understand this for myself, I would like to restate the premises in 'loglish'. I am only interested in the first premise here, but I think this entire analysis is pretty much on the mark. Premise 1) For every y, there is some v, such that y is a person, and v is a member of the set of valued 'objects', and v = "God", and y places v above all other members of the set of valued objects. v is not, as we might say, a Definite Description. That is, it does not uniquely describe any _single_ entity or object. And that suggests that the issue of equivocation is even more serious than you argue here. Understanding the set of values as the set of everything that could conceptually be valued by any individual, we're dealing with a very large, if not infinite number of members. If each one of these could be valued above all others, then any member of the set could = God. God is money; God is family; God is Christ; God is Brahman; God is the Emperor Ceasar; God is my favorite G.I. Joe action figure; God is an A in Biochemistry; God is ... It seems that rather than dealing with two understandings of God, we are potentially dealing with an infinite number of "Gods". That's a very strange monotheism. I feel like there needs to be an argument to establish exactly one v, such that for any y, y _ought_ to place v above all members of the set of valued objects or entities. But we run straight into Hume, here. How do we get from any v that we _do_ place above all other members of the set to exactly one member that we _should_ place above any member of the set? I haven't read the book, only going by a single viewing of the video, so I could easily be missing something, but my guess is that Peterson would respond that this has something to do with the bible's role in the success of the 'west' on the world stage. And, I don't know, but it seems like the book has led to very different kinds of 'successes': divine right of kings; manifest destiny; 'with this symbol, you will gain power'; persecution of Christians by the Romans; the burning of 'witches' and fellow Christians across Europe; the reformation, and other divisions of Christianity into all of the denominations, sects, and cults we have today; justification for slavery; the children's crusade; the ped0 abuse scandals; prosperity gospel, etc., etc., etc. It's hard to find a single strand that unites these into a single entity (and given the horror, it's hard to imagine that entity being deserving of the 'top v' title.)
I do miss Peterson's older self. Especially his videos in those college classroom lectures, where it was more about psychology, self actuallization and improvement, and just overall understanding the human nature. I don't like how he deals with political stuff, especially regarding genders, specific people, and religion mostly because he delivers it in a way that he makes it out as an absolute statement rather than just his own view. I do hope he goes back to his simpler self where he's tackling the human psyche and journey and not just arguing about politics
@macrodraneel8035 I think you are viewing his lectures with Rose tinted glasses. Peterson has always seemed to intentionally use obscure language to allow his audience to interpret what he says anyway they want. The reason you disagree with his more specific takes is because it is harder to ignore the obvious toxicity of the way he thinks. His lectures always leaned towards the retrograde philosophy he now espouses. Even the clean your room stuff is a way of disregarding people pushing for change (his bout with Benzo addiction also highlights how hypocritical this take was).
Your takes are always intriguing. You sir certainly encourage me to study philosophy on my own; it's less frightening when I see complex ideas explained easily as in this vid.
His ideas are truly fascinating but i totally agree with you that he should use more "standard" definitions or at least clear up his terminology. It feels like reading Nietzsche when he meant that good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” - Thomas Jefferson
i think the reason his terminology is hard to grasp, is correlated to the way he is interpreting the stories. since language has been subtlety changing throughout history. to get the interpretation of the people who lived and wrote those stories, you need their language and way of using it (with that i mean how immensely metaphorically its all used). it really is a case of, if you want to understand it, there is a lot of digging, otherwise there is not really a point to it. pls tell me if that even made a bit of sense, cus i hope so.
@@ninofrikandello8175 It made plenty of sense, but it requires great effort to go through such lengths which is why most will not do it. It is easier to just criticize using someone else's thoughts and move on having learned nothing.
"good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do" If this is your current level of analysis, I really don't think you have a chance at even a 10% understanding of Peterson.
@@CMA418 This is why we have separation of church and state. In order both, that the selection mechanisms for spiritual leadership are not so perverse, and so our sensemaking apparatus is somewhat divorced from our position, and stake in the more insular and judgmental village circles (good of the many). There certainly will always be weak willed people who fall under the influence of devilish control freaks. But in my experience even the slightest amount of personal willpower (or faith) is enough to keep those people away. In a lot of ways, a good priest type is like a good-and-wise Mother who points and nudges you in the right direction, but lets you fail when you need to learn the right lessons in the right ways. Which is just one among many virtues a good Mother embodies. True wisdom is necessarily always just out of grasp, and I won't for a second take for granted all of those who have helped me get here.
As someone who grew up with religious parents who does not read the bible as a symbolic narrative with "true" morals within them, but rather in as an historic text. So its interesting to see some of the reasoning behind why JP reads it that way nad the arguments around it. I also think its a better application of it than as a historical text
@@Sonofsun.You started with" all Bible is good" Followed by "take the good and throw out the bad". So the Bible is not "all good". What a confused worldview 😂
That person said "good for" which might be a kind of a prepositional phrase and not exactly "good" as an adjective. Nothing is confused here in my opinion
I appreciate the video, I think we need more direct, constructive criticism like this instead of "everything he says is wrong", which I see very frequently. I would also add that, perhaps, the reason why he uses this symbolic language, is because all of the texts and ideas associated with them, are very symbolic and if we would try to explain them in strict, scientific language, we would actually lose some of the implicit meaning (I've heard him explain that symbols are like clouds of meaning, they link many other symbols and ideas together and are more likely to be associated with other specific symbols), so I think he doesn't use these terms to 'deceive' the reader. Anyways I still agree with most of what you've said in the video
For me, everything he says is word salad. Of course, this is in reference to his original ideas, not what he is pulling from different other authors he doesn't understand anyway.
The issue that I have with the argument that God stands at the top of the hierarchy is that it ignores certain problems about whether value systems should be organized in a hierarchical way in the first place. This has to do with the law classical logic called the 'excluded middle', which says that 'not false' is semantically identical to 'true', but in Indian logic and in intuitionist logic, 'not false' is not semantically identical. So, something may not be best, but also not not be best. Churchill claimed 'Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that we've tried'. Another way of saying it is, 'It is not true that democracy is the best system of government, but it's also not not true.' Once you apply the tetralemma to ideas like hierarchy, you can come to the conclusion that something being better or worse doesn't have to apply.
"Logically best" is something quite different from "practically best". Some systems (as for instance hierarchy) just function "best" in practice, and that not because of some semantics, but because we have the genes of hierarchical primates' pack wired hard.
@alena-qu9vj I don't think even that holds true. I think that, even hierarchical systems themselves are more like the cup and handle example. In evolution, there's something called the Panglossian Paradigm, which about the belief that all things have reason to have risen to the top of the evolutionary hierarchy. It has this name because it's not actually true. Lots of evolved features evolved simply because they were non-detrimental. In the same way, I think that hierarchies are more so about minimizing some external factor, rather than maximizing an internal one and I think this largely bears out in how we think of the world. Another word from evolution is a spandrel-a feature of evolution that wasn't selected for, but is the logical consequence of other evolved features around it. I think hierarchy is a spandrel.
@@alena-qu9vj Huh? Why should I? I'm not arguing that a non-hierarchical civilization is better? I'm saying that the logic that value systems are subject to hierarchical rules of 'strictly better' and 'strictly worse' only works in a classical logic system. I am not passing a value judgement on systems of government because, in so many words, I think that we tend to identify types of governance by its hierarchical structure, but that the hierarchical structure may not be causal, but correlated to the outcomes of that system.
You've struck a chord with me, but again, one thing jumps at me intuitively, and I think will do for others too - if they've played some type of sport or competed really hard, or someone in medicine. It is the simple idea that when creating a solution to a problem, it must first not exacerbate the problem. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”. When you consider that statement, the utility of hierarchies becomes pretty self-evident, but I do agree that there must exist a better solution to the problem of arranging values in such a way. I think hierarchies - as of now - are not a bug, but a feature. I can definitely see how it could be a bug though. What I'm concerned about is that if you're right, we aren't far enough along in our thinking to come up with a solution for it. Not even theoretically, we aren't. But again, doesn't that mean it's just not really gonna blow up in our face, not until we recognize it? Genuinely asking. Cheers.
Okay, i have never watched your video before and i am only 6 minutes in, but this seems to be a very informed take, which is seen very rarely on the internet!
Peterson would be very lucky to have this young man as a student! Someone who could really follow all his ideas to the smalest detail, compare them to any philosopher one could possibly think of - and then even make something more of it!💫
Spoken like a true angsty teen. I am sorry that for whatever reason you have learned to view authority, and wisdom as some sort of parent child relationship when in reality it lies the other way around. But I supposed if you take up the popular view that the individual is a Blank Slate you assume that every action is directly controlled by authority this makes sense. That idea implicates to me of the mind of a coward. Or at least one who follows blindly and has never had an original thought of their own.
Thank you! I finally found another atheist who disagrees with Peterson, yet understands what he's saying. I'm so tired of people accusing Jordan of producing word salad, when what he says is not, in fact, word salad. There is plenty to criticize in his views, but instead people go for the unfair accusations. As a result the substance of what he's saying remains unaddressed.
It’s not word salad- IF you go through all of his redefinitions of common usage. Once you learn what he means by all his own personal definitions, his ideas are easily followed. I still think they are sophomoric and facile, but not nonsense or gibberish. He used to be more grounded, but I think he’s going outside his lane and becoming convinced of his own genius.
@@Direwolf1771 I completely agree. But I also see him addressing this by being reluctant to answer questions directly and asking for definitions beforehand - yet that backfires as well, since people accuse him of being vague and disingenuous. Honestly, it feels like a lose-lose situation.
@ Perhaps. But forcing everyone to redefine a bunch of terms before you can have a conversation instead of just using the words we already have is bad communication in my opinion. Nobody wants to deal with that so they tune it out and then his ideas make no sense to them. If he wants to convey his ideas, he’s going to need to adapt his style to one that conforms to the common language, not invent his own.
Sweet amazing guy, you’re so brave navigating modern philosophy. I appreciate you working through this. I think every voice should be examined regardless of if you like them or not. You moved up in my respect of you.❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Immortal genius here so I'll chime in. This is a great analysis of Peterson's ideas, far and away the best I've seen. I do believe his position is one of philosophical pragmatism, even if he doesn't doesn't describe it as such. When I first encountered him I was always kinda interested in whether he believed in god as an entity or not, and since it's not mentioned in the video, he has been pressed on that question a few times. While he initially said he didn't like the question, he eventually did relent and admit or articulate that he 'acts like he does believe', which is something like, a pragmatic faith. His position on truth I think is much the same, as you outlined, it's a position that says what is useful in predicting outcomes is true, whether they be scientific or moral truths, it's a pragmatic view of truth. The theory of gravity is true in so much that it predicts physical phenomena, despite not being completely accurate, and 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is true in so much that it predicts that behaviour between humans is reciprocal, again despite not being perfectly accurate. I do think it's worthwhile to distinguish between scientific truth, which applies universally no matter your frame of reference, and moral truths, which are much more fuzzy and depend on locality and your frame of reference. The easiest trolley problem in the world in the world is 5 frogs vs 1 human infant on a train track, but you'll get different answers depending on whether you ask a human or a frog to answer it. Both can be crushed by a boulder coming down the hill. Peterson utterly fails to separate scientific truth and moral truth, which leads to much confusion, but he is using symbology and stories and strong reinforcement to get a message across, and it has worked, he has been influential and I would say in a positive way overall. I have a whole other rant about how philosophical arguments like free will is an illusion or positing the existence of philosophical zombies are only true if you want to sell books, or extend an academic career, and are not only anti-pragmatist but flat out wrong and the opposite of useful, but my time here is limited.
@@planteruines5619 Not really. You don't "master" the rule by understanding the name. Which you don't need even French for. Afaik most Germanic and Romanic languages enable you to understand name of the move. Its semanticly not far from the English "to pass someone" or the German word (loaned from French) "Passant". But like I said this information is not enough to master the "En passant" rule. Sorry if you don't care, but I think how our languages are related is super interesting.
26:07 correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Peterson also claim that he read Nietzsche and gets some of his definitions from him, idk how he comes to that conclusion reading someone whose life mission was critquing and tearing apart the basest assumptions of European philosophers leading upto him.
@@ramon2008I think that’s defensible. At least with my understanding of Nietzsche, he would rather his words inspire others to form their own beliefs than be used as their own beliefs.
The story of Cain and Abel shows: 1. We must be mind readers who know what the people in power want. 2. It isn’t how hard you work, but whether the person in power favors your work. 3. Make sure to eliminate your enemies in a way the people in power like. After all, Cain worked harder than Abel, but Abel was favored because God liked to eat meat, and hated to eat vegetables. When Cain killed Abel, he didn’t give him as a sacrifice to God, so Cain was punished. From this we learn that God is a petulant child. And if the ideas of Jordan Peterson are truly useful only if you are willing to alter the definitions in your mind, then all we have to do is have someone translate the loaded language into more accurate scientific terms. NOBODY should read the book in it's existing form, as the definitions were carefully crafted as propoganda to alter people's beliefs. And if God is defined as the top of the moral hierarchy, then, in practicality, for many Christians, Jesus is HATE. They put hate of others as the top of their moral hierarchy, and their name for God is Jesus, so Jesus (aka God aka the top of their moral hierarchy) is whatever they rank highest in practicality. And that is hate for specific out groups.
I see how it could seem like god propaganda. but I think hes saying that god, if placed at our moral heriarchy, is a great tool to use in humanity, because it helps us better understand our maximum potential and how to get there, (aka have faith in a higher power) and use it as a forward manifestation to self actualate. He’s referring to Christianity here, but ive heard him say that all religions have some aspect of truth to them, so for this new religion revolution age that comes with the AI revolution, we further understand how we can use a god or a (higher power) to help guide humanity to the better, and if the new religion is good and adaptable that helps people deal with their reality and become better, more loving people and, society to its ultimate flourishing (anything is possible nowadays) and wins through the natural selection of ideas and the free will of the people. God does not judge, and god is holisitic concept beyond our understanding. We cannot comprehend of what he does of good or bad because then all the wars would be good, God is engrained in everything, including us, and by trying to better ourselves, through socio-cultural thinking can help align us to a “better” world, most optimally to be embedded and in tune with nature. The great ecosystem or the tiny cell biosphere here we call earth.
Bruh 😂 what kind of assumption is that do you really think god would accept Cain just because of the presentation? No. The fact that you think god likes human sacrifices is something you have to establish before all that
Lol you have such a narrow minded idea of Christianity. Christianity actually does put love and acceptance to be the top of hierarchy, the problem is that their morality is skewed because that's just how people who wrote it were back then, back then racism, slavery and discrimination were ok
The beginning part explaining the implicit value of taking one action over another is exactly how the book Human Action by Ludwig von Mises starts too.
A simpler and more accurate analysis would be that Jordan Peterson is allergic to clarity. He insists on speaking a language nobody else speaks where every word is shared with English but has a completely different definition. Even when asked to, he will categorically refuse to stop speaking in this made up language, because to speak in plain language would lead to clarity, which is his worst enemy since his ideas are clearly stupid when exposed to it.
Pretty accurate. Excellent language is using just as many words as necessary and being as simple as possible to convey your thoughts - which might of course include the use of symbols. A lot of people tend to think that the one who produces the most bloated text is a master of language. The opposite is true. I find it a bit sad that people actually and seriously discuss a book like this.
You put much of what I suspected about Dr. Peterson's ideas into much better words than I could hope to use. While I am not a critic of him and I find his ideas genuinely interesting (and insightful sometimes, if not always original), sometimes I do feel confused at what exactly he means and have thought that his definitions of the keywords in his ideas are, while related, different from our usual conceptions of them, and as such lead to ideas that seem weird based on what people would usually conceive based on our usual definitions. He's basically constructing his own tracks under the guise of running the same race in public discourse on these subjects. Thank you. I am grateful.
I think Peterson thinks that the pragmatic truth is so real that it reveals a metaphysical truth. But I think he struggles to speak about how these dots connect.
Things are either true or not. Otherwise the word truth loses all value. Stories like the garden of Eden, flood, etc are not literally true. They are stories. Can stories have useful teachings or meaning to us? Sure. But that doesn’t suddenly make the stories literally true. They are still after all, just stories.
Peterson - Believes that there's an optimal way of doing and valuing things that will lead to the best life... Also uses obscure, personal, or suboptimal definitions of words (ex."Belief"), which leads to miscommunication...
If it is true that Peterson takes a utilitarian view of biblical texts, he's engaging in some degree of sacrilege, no? I don't think Calvinists (for example) would view his analysis at all charitably. Perhaps this is why he is so secretive about his actual position on the existence of God.
Heresy, sacrilege is something else. I know one Calvinist that is a big fan. As long as JP talks about the Bible positively, he does not mind because it's all about belief anyway and the Bible is the symbol. Lying and cheating is fine as long as people are buying into the Bible. That seems to be the attitude. I think Christians are too nihilistic at this point to mind and are too divided on interpretation to mount any kind of dissent. It used to be punishable by death, worst than unbelief, so it just shows how things have evolved.
Having grown up a Mormon; accustomed to evangelicalism, and converts, I will not see utilitarian understanding as anything less than a step towards true belief. One thing the snide gossip types don't understand is the full extent of the power of redemption that only Christian philosophy fully embodies (because it's boring). As for Peterson I won't speak for him, but considering his world view is shaped heavily by Jungian Psychology, and the pursuit to understand Pure Human Evil I can only see that as drawing him closer to the deep psychologic Mythos surrounding the potential for whatever is the opposite of that evil.
For me, Peterson is someone who presents arguments adorned with seemingly logical and philosophical approaches, making them appear justified. Yet, in reality, these arguments have no validity. They confuse people's minds, drowning them in so much detail that one cannot immediately respond with, "Why did he say that?" or "What does he mean?" But amidst all this detail, his errors stand out glaringly. In my opinion, this approach is no different from the snake oil salesmen of the Wild West who fraudulently sold so-called miraculous elixirs that claimed to cure everything. My personal view is that he is either someone who lacks the courage to openly express his religious views as they are and pretends otherwise, someone who sees Christians as a profitable audience to exploit financially (as televangelists do well), or someone with a peculiar psychology who enjoys causing harm to society by insisting he is right even when he knows he's not. Like a cat playing with its prey-this behavior manifests in various human forms. I believe Peterson is fully aware that his arguments don’t hold water.
Can you egive an example i haven’t seen a lot of his newer stuff but i know a lot of stuff ive heard him say j came to similar conclusions before ever hearing of him
@@mrcheese5383 Look up Nathan J Robinson's essay titled "Jordan Peterson: the intellectual we deserve", Nathan has also done a lot of interviews on TH-cam explaining why Peterson can't be trusted. He did an interview with the majority report. That's a good place to start.
@@giggleman9908I looked the essay up since you recommended it. I found it absolutely horrible to read, a biased bad-faith egocentric arrogant piece of writing where the author comes in with the agenda to prove that Jordan Peterson is a bad writer and not an intellectual, but to me just reveals the author himself to be rather petty and lacking in intellectual curiosity. The main point of criticism he levers against Peterson is, correctly put, that Petersons writing style for his unscientific books is rather verbose, mystical, imprecise and with elements of spirituality. That is a matter of taste, and a matter of preference. Peterson speaks very highly of Nietzche - have any of you read Nietzche? I have. It is very hard to read properly. Many passages are meant to be digested for a time, and to be more thought provoking than to be a mathematical argument. That is clearly Petersons inspiration for that kind of writing style. You can leverage the same criticism about a poem, calling it imprecise and mystical and verbose and not a logical series of arguments, and all you reveal is your own inability to engage with what the author wants to do. Personally, I think it is a major mistake to conflate what Peterson does to help people and what he does to share his own thoughts. And I do think that many times, he himself makes that very hard to distinguish between. The most baseline fact is that he has had a long career as a clinical psychologist and his self-help books have helped an enourmous amount of people live more productive and happy lives. That is more than 99.99999% of us can claim to have done for the world, and it proves that he has deep knowledge in how to help people help themselves. The rest I think should be met with intellectual curisity as a challenge to the normal modern atheist mind, much like reading about Buddhism or something of that sort, and that's it.
I respect and appreciate your respectful treatment of those you don't agree with, and your charitable and non-demoralizing way of articulating their works honestly and fairly even when criticizing. A skill much missed in this modern age of vitriol and stupidity.
Tbh, sir, your video is just ATTRACTIVE not only for its content but also for your voice and appearance hehe Always thx for such visually and intellectually pleasing contents! Hope you reach 1M subscribers!
@@dominusantonius Why not compose a short poem? For the clarity forsaken, the meaning sooner is taken, to give the intended gifts, in a lovely art that uplifts. Should I not tell this in lie, Why not give it a try?
there is a vid of him arguing for re-enacting concept/law of women as men's property. for the sake of women, ofc. worth listening to, it's very interesting, it's a perfect example of his views and philosophy. that order that he prays for is funded on raw power. not some 'lofty' 'leftist' ideals of human rights, just good ol' hierarchy of mighty and meek. i guess he does his philosophy out of genuine therapeutic intention to help people lost in chaos. it's that he got carried away from that noble aim a long time ago by his pride and delusions, to which best attest his frantic refusal to undergo supervisor's evaluation. ofc, the alternative explanation, or his, would be that he defies hostile, corrupted system. anyway, the vid about 'novel' ways of protecting women from male aggression is quite entertaining. and when it comes to Lot daughters, hush, it had been added by Them, the evil saboteurs aka devils aka postmodernists!
@@ohmaramusic Please...Peterson is a hack. Continues to prove it by not proving his "intellectual diagnocese" as a fact. He can't even admit whenever he's wrong, especially about social issues he has no horse in the race of. eg: trans issues. He's not an expert in the study and lives of trans people before and after transitions. Nor does he not show any respect for others' decisions, including the doctors and parents of those trans kids in which the group has the highest percentage of suicide rates compared to any other community in society. In other words, he thinks he's correct and be damned any nuance and the safety of those he attacks with the help of every other far right winger who also has no expertise in that area of psychology and medical diagnosis. This is the typical right wing grift in full motion used by these insensitive narcisisstic, nuance lacking and common sense avoiding people who are only in the game for the money and the hate. They can't do anything else as succesfully.
Well, I can't accept his playing either. He seems to be a utilitarianist, but just covers what he sees as the most practical as god. imo he is the one making an illegal chess move.
Atheist is not philosophy it's negation of belief. U can't create any civilization based on atheism. U need common shared story and myth. That's why atheism is highly stupid.
Hi Joe, Thank you for your review of the book. I think you’ve completely missed the point here. Dr. Peterson, when speaking about the utility of biblical stories-which you referred to in your video as being in the domain of philosophical pragmatism-has a very deliberate approach. You suggested that he could have stripped the stories of mythical jargon and reduced them to mere propositions, moral lessons, or metaphysical and philosophical principles. However, that is precisely what he intentionally avoids. Dr. Peterson is playing the role of the ancient archetypal helper, similar to figures in myths like Horus and Osiris. In the myth, Osiris helps Horus to defeat Seth but can only do so from the realm of the dead. Osiris is non-existent in the earthly realm and cannot enter it. This pattern recurs across many myths, where the helper accompanies the protagonist only to the edge of his/her world, after which the protagonist must carry on the adventure alone. This is what Dr. Peterson is attempting to do with his exposition of biblical stories: he is not reducing them to mere moral lessons or utilitarian principles. While he operates within the realm of propositions when discussing these stories, he deliberately refrains from reducing them to absolute propositional statements. Your discussion on symbols and myths touches on their utility and how they condense a wealth of information. However, I think Dr. Peterson’s argument goes deeper: symbols and myths are intrinsic to our perception and attention, and we participate in them rather than simply having them convey abstract moral principles to us. Take, for example, the concept of a chair. When we see a chair, we perceive it immediately, yet it is impossible to define it exhaustively. A chair encompasses infinite variability-its color, material, number of legs, functionality (or lack thereof in the case of a “bad chair”), and even abstract art interpretations. This highlights the inherent inexhaustibility within seemingly ordinary objects, resisting reduction to mere propositional definitions or abstract concepts. Dr. Peterson suggests that it is logically impossible for humans to consciously create symbols and myths that condense this inexhaustible information. Instead, we receive them from above but are able to perceive and participate in them. Reducing myths and symbols to mere propositions or abstract philosophical principles is akin to the sin of Adam and Eve-reaching for the apple, destabilizing the hierarchy, and bringing about the curse of alternating totalitarianism and disillusionment. A parallel example is the concept of humility: if you think you have it, you’ve already lost it. Similarly, if you believe you can reduce the entirety of a symbol or myth to its attributes-such as a moral lesson or metaphysical concept-you lose any true comprehension of that symbol or myth. This is why Dr. Peterson refrains from explicitly stating his belief in God-it would reduce something infinite and incomprehensible to a mere proposition. This isn’t to say that one cannot make propositional statements about the infinite or the inexhaustible. Nor is it to undermine the world of propositions and abstractions, but rather to acknowledge the incompleteness of that realm (as reflected in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). Dr. Peterson’s point is that symbols and myths are more fundamental to humanity than philosophy, metaphysics, or psychology. In fact, the existence of the latter presupposes the former. That is to say, using reason, propositional truths, metaphysical concepts, and philosophy to explain human perception, attention, consciousness, myths, and symbols is misguided because the latter are fundamental and serve as the origin of the former. In his own way, he is trying to serve as a bridge between these realms-how successfully, only God knows. Thank you for taking the time to read my exposition.
Out of interest, when you say myths are “serve as the origin” of things like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and logic, what do you mean by that? Just because on the face of it that’s quite a mysterious statement.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 First of all, thank you for engaging with your audience. What I mean by myths serving as the origin of secondary fields like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and science is best explained through an example. When the USA embarked on its journey to the moon, it was an instantiation of the age-old myth of the mariner's journey into the unknown. While this achievement was heralded as a victory for science, many overlooked the underlying myth that inspired it. This myth was symbolically reflected in the act of planting the flag-a mythical gesture of uniting the new identity (the moon) with the old identity (the national identity of the USA). As a scientist by profession, I see parallels in the structure of academic work. Whenever we publish a paper in a journal, we always include the name of the university, followed by the contributors to the discovery, as a symbolic “flag” representing the origin of the work. Only afterward does the science itself take the forefront. This practice, I believe, reflects the influence of ancient myths, which subtly shape even the structure of scientific discourse. Even Descartes' curious inquiry into the self (Cogito)-which involved forgoing the existence of all external identities perceived through sense data-can be embedded within ancient myths, such as the apocryphal Hymn of the Pearl. In this myth, a person dives into deep waters (symbolizing the abandonment of stable, solid ground, akin to doubting the existence of all external identities) and descends into the dark ocean depths (representing the rejection of sense data) to retrieve the precious pearl (Cogito, ergo sum), a truth discovered at the bottom of the ocean. In my observation, myths and symbols often precede and guide the emergence of new truth statements, scientific discoveries, and even mathematical theorems. Unlike a worldview or philosophy, myths and symbols can serve as a stance toward the unknown-neither fully embracing the unknown nor entirely rejecting the existing center. I also believe that even atheists unknowingly participate in myths and symbols. For example, many who reject the Christian God often adopt imagery associated with Satanic or pagan traditions (such as Viking symbols) through their clothing or accessories. Even though they do not believe in the propositional truth claims of these traditions, they participate in their imagery. This suggests that myths and symbols possess an agency that transcends conscious belief. While no one fully understands myths and symbols consciously, everyone participates in them. In my view, belief is less about subscribing to a set of propositional truth claims and more about participating in the higher-order body of believers. Just as when I listen to music, I take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, trusting the music to guide me toward perceiving the edge of the known (coherence) and the unknown (uncertainty), allowing me to flourish accordingly.
This is a great video and I really appreciate your charitable analysis of Peterson’s views. I also appreciate that you have read his book so I don’t have to. That may sound a little snarky, but I’ve logged enough time listening to him speak to have formed some clear impressions. Jordan strikes me as a smart person, but one who is lacking in intellectual humility. Far too confident in nearly everything he says and compulsively evasive when asked straightforward but pointed questions, his go-to move when pressed for clarity is to obfuscate by riffing on a tangent. That gets old quickly. There are plenty of contemporary intellectuals who have the ability to help me think more clearly and deeply, even when I happen to disagree with them. Peterson is not one of them. If anything, for me, he serves as a negative role model for cogent discourse. It’s not that there’s no substance at all in what he says. It’s just that separating the wheat from the chaff is time consuming and frankly exhausting, all for very little gain, in my experience. So again, thank you for this very fair-minded, lucid, circumspect breakdown.
The use of symbols I think is the good point that Peterson brings up (his special definition of truth and belief only gives an unadapted perspective). Because every word we use symbolizes a reality, there are just more striking therefore more meaningful associations than others, if the word spirit is the best description of an important phenomenon that gives insight into human nature itself, then the nuance that word brings is valuable (plus the number of angles that it opens is the definition of creativity), though, I think it is necessary to separate the word from the "divine" sense that many give to it which represents a whole reality where the concept of punishment, servitude, guilt, are essential with an insistence on god as a being that is both the creator and the establisher of the moral order positioning him as a perfect and undefiable authority, therefore, someone for whom dying and killing, among others things, is legitime. This concept of god is fundamentally different from the one of the Greeks with their gods painting the human reality, its beauty and sins in all aspects (instead of rejecting it in puritanism). If there are flaws in the story of Jesus, they are that 1. he cannot represent us as being perfect and 2. he presents the concept of hell which is a symbol of everything wrong in religions.
I came to know this channel few days ago ago and is extremely helpful, I have few suggestions: Could you colab with Alex O Connor and make a video. Also could you make a video regarding AI and future unemployment, on depression anxiety and loneliness, I understand these are not directly philosophical but I believe it will resonate with the audience and the advise should be inspired from philosophy and history
Firstly, I don't think he quite understands what an atheist is, and I base this on what I've heard him say in the past about it. He made the mistake that I've heard often, which is that he seems to correlate atheism with nihilism and communism, as far as what it is and where it necessarily leads, but this simply isn't true. Secondly, it's also interesting that someone makes that connection yet doesn't make the nihilistic one with Christianity that Nietzsche made, in which he argues that the idea of a "true world" after this one makes it actively nihilistic; in other words, it makes this moment (the only time that does exist for sure) meaningless because you're living for hypothetical time and place (life after death and heaven). Finally, I would argue that the atheist "wrestles with God" more than a believer because they are actively asking a question about what's true rather than presupposing it is. Being a Christian or Muslim starts with the idea that God exists, not with questions about his mind or whether he exists. I'm not suggesting a "crisis of faith" doesn't bring questions of God's existence for many or most people, but I question how many of them actually wrestle with it versus how many do the question lip service but never really challenge the idea due to their fears of not believing and the beliefs they already have about what that means. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you don't wrestle with the psychological aspects of the God image or dismiss the metaphysical potentiality of an esoteric God; it just means that you don't believe in the theistic versions of a physical, sky Daddy.
He perfectly understands what an atheist is. He just falsely categorizes atheism into an easy target by using the implicit moral prejudices Christians have against atheists (ie: Atheists are evil, misguided, foolish, etc.). He does this in a way that sounds quite intelligent so that Christians can be confirmed in their sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
You can forget that there are more than one kind of atheist. Not all people who call themselves an “atheist” agree on their views and philosophies. The same as the theist, but I definitely agree with the statement about JP. Have a great day .
I don’t think you’re an atheist. Atheists don’t believe in any gods. They’re materialists who hold physical reality as the only discernible truths. I do understand your opinion on agnostics wrestling with god more, but I think you’re putting both in a box. Just as there are Christian’s, or rather, people who call themselves Christian, who have a superficial faith, there are agnostics who use their unsuredness as an excuse to be theologically lazy and never explore what they truly believe because they can never know anyways. It’d liken it to someone who does commit to relationships because they’re scared of committing themselves to the wrong person and getting hurt, so they never take that next step. I don’t think there’s anyone who is devout and trying to live their life in accordance with god that doesn’t wrestle with him often because you’ll be saddled with wondered what his plan is anytime suffering comes into your life and what purpose that could be trying to teach you instead of dismissing it as the world just being unfair.
@LibertarianGaIt communism has nothing to do with atheism the same way capitalism has nothing to do with theism. Unless it is your opinion that the multiple times the bible criticised greed and pecuniary gain is proof that it was very pro capitalist. Of course you could also take the whole messaging about a god as an argument for a strong hierarchy system and then the need for some people to exploit others. Doesn't seem like a strong argument and difficult to argue that limiting the freedom of everyone for the good of a few ultra wealthy people is an overall good.
I think you should view him through his historic progression which is readily available here on youtube. At first his stance against transgenderism and let's say male alienation. Something that was direly needed. And his personality was very different. Was he maybe a bit too keen for the spotlight? I think so, but he seemed much more natural for a psychologist. Then his breakdown, and later him joining Ben Shapiro. His new persona emerged around that time. As a hyperintellectual debate bro. I don't think he's larping that much tbh, it just seems to me that he has accumulated a lot of bitterness over the years and that shines through.
JP is using all these poignant words, mythological interpretations, and poetic diction to communicate boundless nonsense. edit: This comment is made by a 30-something woman, so stop assuming I'm too young to understand the "genius" of Peterson ( though we shouldn't weaponize age in an argument ).
Ah, age, the time-honored excuse for not grasping complex ideas. It's fascinating, really, considering that peak cognitive performance is usually around the age of twenty to twenty-five. So, by that logic, the younger audience might actually have a sharper grasp on these concepts than their elders. But of course, it's always refreshing to see the timeless classics of "you just don't understand" trotted out in discussions on Jordan Peterson.
@ Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
@@anyway-q9i Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
Truthfully, the parts here where Peterson basically just echoes Kierkegaard are the ones I like, and some of the stuff about narratives but I didn't pay enough attention to sort through whether most of that was UA's thinking or JP's, but mostly I agree with UA's critiques. Christian here, btw
29:40 The Fox and the Grapes is one of the best symbols of modern mens bitter resentment towards women. How many times have you seen a man romantically pursue a woman, only to be rejected and call her a "sl*t"? I've seen it time and time again. Symbols makes great stories - because they can be applied further and in more ways
I’m really glad you addressed this book. Honestly I feel like every form of revelation that Jordan Peterson claims to have usually comes from his own determination to remain limited.
@@jamm_affinity I like to disagree with that. Peterson is as limited as we all are in most matters. Physically, mentally, financially (maybe not THAT much) and no matter your religion, he only has this one life as Jordan Peterson.
"atheism is stupid" is a fatuous statement coming from someone who believes an invisible caucasian man in the sky created the universe and then hears and sees everything we do.
Really --- ? I also try for natural simplicity - in the life - thought and experience. Simplicity - is closer to reality and therefore - to happiness - itself. Travel light - is the dictum and another - Love is the Base. Fare thee well - in life's journey (From an intense meditator)
18:00 possibly... but a murderer might also have a temporary lapse in belief... or believe fully that a god told them someone specific had to die to help move the Divine Plan along.
I was heavily considering buying the book because i thought it was a justification of the metaphysical that would challenge my views on god. It does feel like a bait to use misleading language. Glad I watched this video and saved the time. Im a big fan of the channel. Well done!
Has anyone ever tried a non-anthropomorphic theology? People talk about this God character as if he is a man like them. Point that out and they say, NO, not at all. Really? Because from the looks of things God thinks like us, feels like us and intends like us. If it walks like a duck....
Of course many tried a non-anthropomorphic approach to transcendent. Most of Eastern teachings for instance, long before Jews pushed their "cruel and jealous" one on the world... But it is only the judeo-christians who think theirs god is the only hero possible.
@@addammadd Thanks for your thoughts. Projection is the human default, certainly, but what if we move beyond the default and use informal logic and rationality by asking such questions as, How would the mind of a limitless being operate? It would not operate the way our limited minds do. If God isn't human self-reference can lead only to error, so avoid it. That's what I'm saying.
I think, out of all atheists, you are the most appropriate one to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson. I would pay to see that. You are critical, yet fair and humble (mainly, you don't exude arrogance like other atheists). Thank you for this. You make philosophy very approachable in a charismatic way 👏.
@@isiahs9312exactly, religious people claim absolute truth with their only evidence being an ancient text, which is just one of thousands other equally stupid ancient texts, yet they accuse others of arrogance. It’s ironic
@@isiahs9312 I'm agnostic, but thanks for providing a prime example of the arrogance that plagues many atheists. You make assumptions about people's beliefs and thoughts without even trying to engage with them in an honest conversation. Why? Well, one could think you don't seek meaningful communication, but you only seek cheap ways to make you feel like you're not the the dumbest one in the room.
I just think the way Peterson defines truth renders it a completely different concept. His idea that certain truths are "more true" or "more real" than others because they are applicable to a wide range of situations feels like a complete inversion of how truth is defined by most people. Like, if, in a moment in time, I observe a cup sitting on a table, I can't think of a way in which the statement "the cup is/was on this table at this time" isn't true. It becomes true the moment the cup sits on the table at the correct time and remains true forever, no matter the current state of reality or the observer. If truth is a sliding scale, this is as close to 100% true as you can get. The statement "resentment will make your life a living hell" I feel is *less* true, because I can certainly think of real situations where resentment would be beneficial to someone's life, and the statement doesn't exclude these in any way. Resentment can be a motivator for some people to make positive changes in their lives, so from their perspective in that moment, the statement is obviously false. I feel like most atheists see the world this way - by making a claim that is more general, that is more applicable or practical, you actually diminish its truth. It doesn't transcend and become hyper-real, it's just wrong sometimes now.
I think the distinction is that the factual truth about a cup tea in time and space is a less relevant truth. It is so limited. While a higher truth goes beyond even what we can comprehend and is more something we feel as truly meaningful too. Any attempt to express that in words such as "resentment will make your life a living hell" reduces it and makes it less true. But we can't help it, it is how we communicate.
@@anyway-q9i There were times when idealism has been a legitimate worldview. Materialism succeded to assert itself as the only way to understand the reality, which is plainly false. In those happy times it was quite clear that the ideal truths are something fundamentaly different then the material truths. Sorry it is a sign of deep decline of the state of the human understanding that most of the "smart" materialists do not even realize the difference.
@@anyway-q9i It is not a higher truth but a more meaningful one. This is an example of the misuse of language common with Peterson and his acolytes. They invent (read: misuse) new meanings for words. Why do they do this? In part so they can seem more profound and insightful. Additionally, it is a method to avoid criticism.
@@alena-qu9vj I think it is about to change tbh. With the development around UAP-disclosure people are starting to rethink a lot of things and there is a lot of comments about the phenomena being "conscious in nature" whatever that means. Plus all the strange stuff CIA researched, like remote viewing. People's mind are being forced open with such a change of perspective.
Really good video. I’ve always felt that Peterson could go a ways towards legitimizing himself as a philosophical thinker by, shocker, actually learning some philosophy. I think that his arguments are legitimately interesting and valuable, but like you said, it seems like he’s trying to be both a pragmatist and a platonist at the same time. Wittgenstein said that Freud’s work was neither science nor philosophy, but rather a kind of free form speculation, and I think you could say something similar about Peterson. This book is a total mishmash of neuroscience, philosophy, and literary analysis that is largely held together by the force of his rhetoric. Unsatisfying for a specialist in any of those fields, but compelling to the educated layman.
"Nobody can be a true atheist"!? WTF! What does that even mean? I can totally have a working value system without believing in unicorns, Santa or god. And every human has a value system without ever seeing any god.
The fact that you have difficulty understanding the assertion does not imply that it's wrong. It implies that you don't have enough of a common contextual frame with the speaker (and with the other listeners who did understand it).
27:21 And therein lies the paradox behind the ideals and their adherence. Peterson is authoritarian in his anti authoritarian rhetoric. It might sound overly simplistic to say this, but I really think that you can’t hold the belief that the Bible holds the most appropriate moral structure to which we should all aspire to live by and admire its resilience and simultaneously say that you believe in the virtues of independent thought and curiosity and self determination. The moral system he reveres demands obedience, abstention, sacrifice of personal freedom and individuality, and total focus on singular behaviors and beliefs, the straying from which are met with severe punishments. These are all virtues that Peterson admires in a man and would say leads to a well rounded man of character, however he believes that it’s not simply one’s choice to follow these tenets but their civic duty to their society and even their governments to live by these biblical virtues. It really doesn’t get more authoritarian than that.
I love the light and darkness on either side of you, very cool background design. Its like the angel and devil on either shoulder, except both are JBP lol
By Peterson's arguments the other ancient tests really should be taken as seriously as the Bible. Confucianism is similarly old, and Daoists may be as old as the neolithic. Confucius also served to establish great civilizations and organize societies. Providing a framework for ethics and practical behavior that has endured the test of time. So why the Bible as the supreme text as opposed to treating it as a peer of other important books?
While I agree that Confucianism and Taoism are valueable spiritual concepts, there is an esoteric rule that one should stick to the spiritual traditions of the region where the soul is actually incarnated. But I personally accept only NT as "Christianity", Torahs judaism is not a tradition of my people.
But then Jesus himself was a Jew, and spoke from those traditions? To separate Jesus from his background is to ignore what his teachings actually aimed to do, which was to bring his people back to the spirit of God, rather than the letter.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Jesus was Christ's spirit incarnated in a body of a Jew, as the saying goes "among the darkness". It is more than striking that the spirit of OT is opposite to the NT - like darkness and light. I understand that it takes both poles to make the world, but official Christianity concentrates mostly on the dark pole (be it in its churches or in the deeds of the so called judeochristian countries) , it seems more like a prolonged hand of judaism with its "eye for eye" philosophy, then a religion of loving one's neighbour, compassion and looking for the Kingdom, which is not of this world. The "spirit of God" you are speaking about is very difficult to connect with the spirit of JHWH - this is what most atheist rightly state.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Jesus was Christ's spirit incarnated in a body of a Jew, as the saying goes "among the darkness". It is more than striking that the spirit of OT is opposite to the NT - like darkness and light. I understand that it takes both poles to make the world, but official Christianity concentrates mostly on the dark pole (be it in its churches or in the deeds of the so called judeochristian countries) , it seems more like a prolonged hand of judaism with its "eye for eye" philosophy, then a religion of loving one's neighbour, compassion and looking for the Kingdom, which is not of this world. The "spirit of God" you are speaking about is very difficult to connect with the spirit of JHWH - this is what most atheist rightly state.
Go to ground.news/unsolicited for 50% off the Ground News Vantage plan. This is their best deal of the year, available for a limited time, so be sure to use my link!
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS
Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more (very occasional) philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Has anyone ever tried a non-anthropomorphic theology? People talk about this God character as if he is a man like them. Point that out and they say, NO, not at all. Really because from the looks of things God thinks like us, feels like us and intends like us. If it walks like a duck....
Why do you squint so much it's painful to watch
Jordan Peterson is a public ineffectual.
Let me ask you atheists something? what are you fighting against? Western religion has little power in your life. What is it about God that urges this inner debates?
And why do atheists also interrelate their "fight" with God, with the concept of "free will"? I hear people say "its because our justice system should take into account that we dont have free will"
So that means if I do a crime to you, you should forgive it because it was not really my fault because I had no "free will"? I dont think you guys are prepared to accept that. I too believe the justice system is unfair but that doesn't mean humans being, and life in general, has no agency. I've heard other stuff like "freedom starts when you realize you have no freedom", then what are you? can anyone of you answer that? what are you supposed to be, and why do you seek "freedom"? I want to know your point of view, mine is simple, I am already free, I don't need to "be God", this reality doesn't have to be like a lucid dream, in other for me to be free, I am already free. (prove it you say, I don't to prove that I am free to you, thats part of my freedom, I am at peace. But I see all this videos and all of this "philosophy" based on resentment and power seeking disguised as freedom searching, and I ask myself, what the hell do this people want?, why arent they happy with their lives?)
I had no problem with atheists until they started coming for free will, why? Why do you want to "prove" that you don't exist, that you are just an illusion of your brain? why?
Do you view life as such a torture that the only way to deal with it, is self deleting your own sense of self?
peterson is not an intellectual, he is a pseudo intellectual. pretends to be one.
I don’t want it to go unstated how important it is that this man is engaging with the thoughts of someone he not only doesnt idealize but actively disagrees with on multiple levels but is still capable of rationalizing and understanding his argument I get this is supposed to be basic humanity but basic is more relative than the truth
It's not basic and it isn't supposed to be, it's pretty much the opposite of the human default. You need years of intellectual training to be able to do this
it is very admirable indeed, although noone is perfect, but in this regard he sure seems to be a very decent human
Yes especially with someone that is not known to do the same thing to people he disagrees with.
@ lol have you ever even watched Jordan Peterson do anything? 99.9% of his imprint on the internet is him being nice and curious to dogmatist and zombies
@@travishendricks4818 I've consumed hours of his content. This is simply not true. Check out the dillahunty debate for starters.
What do you mean by "Jordan"? What do you mean by "Peterson"?
*starts crying*
Ah now, that truly is the question
🤣
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 you shouldn't take that conservative grifter seriously, he's a clown
these are manipulative tactics, i hope that would become clear to his strangely devoted followers. I'm not sure if Peterson himself has enough balls to see it. ad hominem: judging by his voice, he doesn't.
lol
"Up Yours, Woke Moralists! We'll See Who Cancels Who!"- J.P.
I love this. It’s cartoonishly funny.
Blud this is so tuff
Appeal to populism
He’s so obsessed with ‘wokeness’ instead of discussing philosophy in a productive way
by trying to be nonconformist, he conforms.
Sometimes I wonder if Peterson is being intentionally confusing to maintain a religious audience.
Honestly, the way he panders to the evangelist community with such flimsy argumentations and false constructs or unprovable conclusions...it definitely stands to reason to expect a far closer thought about the true nature of humans: We are greedy and like easy to achieve positive attention.
Hard to find an easier audience in a better position of power as of late in the english speaking market...aka gods followers are easy pickings, no need to wrestle the old man himself.
I would love someone to put this to him:
Q: "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" JP: "It would take days to answer that question"
Q: "Did Odin hang himself from Yggdrasil?" JP?: "Well that one no, probably not"
Q: "What is the difference"
@@notyoyoma Yeah, it is obviously a secondary issue, he would argue that that is not his point. Rightfully so. But he also doesn´t think of any of the consequences of just randomly poking the dark with argumentation and then having a whole slew of followers twisting his message to fit neatly as part of their cultish narrative that everyone has to believe in what they believe in because it is, as Peterson argues after all, the "truth".
He is a dangerous ideologist, always, because he never thinks of others or what becomes of his messages. He doesn´t think of anyone else´s position but his own and in his own position it makes all too much sense to argue the way he does. Like said, not just does his whole premise of what atheism argues already go all the way besides the point and never actually arguing with what he should be arguing in the first place but his theory is also as correct as the bible itself (at least from what I take from these videos about the book, not that I read it myself so beware that), if you believe it, it certainly fits a whole lot better than if you don´t follow his line of thinking. But in no way has been mentioned that he ever put down a concrete possibility for his line of thinking to be strictly exclusive. As is said in the video, if I just don´t follow his logic at some points then he builds up argumentative castles on thin air.
@@notyoyoma- Yes, essentially that's the problem: Peterson can't really say why one mythology should be elevated over another, except because of the value he "finds" or imposes in/on one set of stories versus another. He attributes the success of Western Civilizations to the Bible when Guns, Germs and Steel works at least equally well.
Absolutely. Peterson finds "truths" in the Bible; he just doesn't want to alienate members of his audience who want to interpret that as meaning "the Bible is true".
His take on Jordan Peterson is probably the best I've seen so far.
He actually gives JBP a fair take. A breath of fresh air from all the needless hate.
Hans Georg-Müller does some good stuff on JBP and Sam Harris.
carefreewandering or something like that
He’s being much too kind, probably because he’s a better person than me. There are multiple videos breaking down his recent book bit by bit and explaining how a majority of his points don’t follow or frankly, make any proper sense whatsoever.
@spencerjames9417 it's not that he's a better person than you, just a smarter one. He's explaining in great depth how he agrees and disagrees with JBP. Your bias won't let you be fair.
I found this channel around a week ago. It's so interesting to listen to these topics as a podcast, thank you for your work
Thank you for watching/listening to it :)
I have become a functional human because of this channel. I listen to it while I do my boring adult responsibilities.
Your videos are amazing. Especially for someone like me who didn’t study the subject and didn’t read the actual works, your way of explaining the underlying messages and giving your take on them, while staying remarkably neutral, is a breath of fresh air, and it is so very intellectually stimulating
You're the first person that I hear that really listened to Peterson's arguments and made a usefull critic of it. Even Peterson will beneffit from viewing this video. Thanks for that honest curiosity, it's scarse.
There are lots of people who critique Peterson's arguments. There are also people who critique the foundation of his ideas and arguments rather than simply accepting his assertions and assuming that the fact that he may make a seemingly cohesive framework that it is actually sensible or reasoned.
As a Christian, Peterson's opinions about the Bible frustrate me for a few reasons.
1. (This relates to Paul's quote in the beginning of the video). If the lessons in the Bible were true while God did not exist, it would be a bleak reality. At the Bible's simplest core, it all points to sinful man needing a saviour, and thankfully that Saviour is perfect in nature, works, and will. Yet if there was no God; no Christ, no sacrificial death, no resurrection, no Pentecost; we would not have the ability to consistently value what is perfect. Without proper understanding of the gospel, many points and lessons the Bible makes are lost or misunderstood. I liked how you questioned if Peterson's opinions about the Bible were simply from the Bible or from his personal experiences. If Peterson does not believe in the gospel, he would find it difficult to understand exactly what the purpose of the Word is.
2. A smiliar point, the Bible is about God. Not some 'heirarchy of beliefs' but the holy God Himself. It showcases His attributes and what He does to fix man's broken relationship with Himself while also showing that God will never smile at sin, the thing that caused the broken relationship in the first place. To use the Bible's lessons as tools for a fulfilling life while completely ignoring that it says a whole, fulfilling life only comes from a saving relationship with God is irresponsible. He essentially tries to take God out of the Bible...which is obviously ridiculous. (I haven't read Peterson's book though so I could be exaggerating). The Bible also repeatedly states that God acts for His glory and believer's good. How can one make sense of what God does without these things in mind? If one's values were aligned with the Bible's, I would think they would have to know who God is.
3. If Jordan Peterson wants to present the Bible as an unquestionable moral compass for individuals and socieites, he will have to do better than an utilitarian argument for why he chose the Bible. For someone who cites Crime and Punishment so often, I feel like he should know that if there is a unviersal moral law, it is not simply for utilitarian reasons nor can a man such as himself define what it is and when/where its applicable. I appreciate the idea that truth is true whether we believe it or not, because that simple idea has become strangely unpopular these days, but it doesn't make much logical sense to me for someone who does not fully believe in the Bible's infallibility to use it this way. I think christians can get away with saying the Bible is unquestionable because they believe in a truthful, faithful, omnipotent God who makes it so.
I should also point out the obvious. Anyone could read the Bible, and many make different conclusions afterwards, even professing believers. And its lessons are good and practical. Yet having a public figure who misses the main point of it while still acting like he has the authority to analyze it is baffling. If you want to learn more about the Bible, try listening to someone who genuinely believes its true. I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response.
But idk, I'm just a random girl on the internet.
Anyway, I agree that there is some value to Peterson's ideas about our priorities and the usefulness of stories. Great video, thanks for breaking down the book for people like me who are short on time. I wrote most of this before finishing the video, but I appreciate the ending.
EDIT: I’m not trying to hate on Peterson, I really like what he has to say most of the time. It’s cool that he’s reading the Bible. These are just some random concerns I have.
Very good response. I like knowing how Christians think. Tbh sometimes I think that Peterson himself is confused about what he really believes in. He’s not sure whether he’s a Christian or an atheist so he flip flops between the two which leads to some of the baffling points you’ve mentioned eg trying to take God out of the Bible while trying to argue for the Bible etc
marry me
@@SleepyOakTreeSleepy-w2pi think the same thing
Thank you,im starting to read the bible and im so thankful to you for this comment,i was rise believing in God,not hardcore but it was there,i knew it was,and i know it its,although i never took it as seriously as i wanted,i had one feet in and the other out,now i want to embrace my love for God fully and i think im finally ready to read the bible as a child of God,sometimes our ego gets in the way,especially knowing that Peterson its so admired by many,sometimes that entitles us,recognition and admiration,it’s undeniable that he has helped me heal in so many ways and i think he has felt something that he’s not letting in,not everything can be decoded with logic but with the heart and the spirit,and that’s what brings you real peace,i know he’s on his path as most of us,understanding the love of God ❤️🩹
"I wouldn't ask a christian why an atheist doesn't believe in God the way I do and then frame my entire understanding of atheism based on their response."
As a lobster, i agree!
Btw buy my book: 12 rules for lobsters.
We Who Wrestle With Lobster
In the belly of pinokkio.
I prefer 12 lobsters for rules
Rock lobster.
I have lobster hands
Peterson's "illegal chess move" line is lazy "conclusion language." He does this a lot, and he's not alone (Sam Harris has engaged in a lot of this of late, for example). I appreciate your dissection of this. RE: Peterson not distinguishing between the existential and symbolic concepts of god/God......he's also been doing this for ages, and it's quite frustrating.
It’s called clickbait
Their both one in the same. The christian gods the one hes referring to. But he also recognizes that all religions have a truth to them. And god is a symbol and a tool for reality; god as a narrative. And that the real world narrative has to encompasses all religions.
Yeah. It's actually him whose cheating and not picking one
Peterson does have a bad habit of working off a private set of definitions that’s different from what most people would assume when you hear them, and not communicating in any way thats he’s using different definitions. Depending on how much you like him and how charitable you want to be you could see this different ways. I don’t like him, so I see it as intentional sophistry to bob and weave around so he has to spend less time actually engaging.
Conclusion language? I haven't heard that term, but it fits. But in case anyone missed the point; saying "there is no god" is like saying "I have no king" while playing chess. You can't capture what isn't there, so the opponent can't win. You CAN checkmate their king, so inevitably your version of chess looks like it wins almost every game. Therefore, atheism looks like a sound, more rational way to play the game. But everyone else playing looks at the board and says "what are you, stupid?" while making wild claims about the importance of the king which don't make any sense in the context of the game the atheist isn't playing. And to take the metaphor a little further, what piece did you put there instead of a king? Mammon (the rook)? Fame (the queen, highly useful!)? Or are you playing with an "incomplete set of pieces" and this reflects in your constant need to interact with or contend with those who have kings, either in an attempt to understand without that piece to work with, or in an effort to level the playing field and show them how unfair it is to THEM to have a king, which just makes them more likely to lose, eventually.
I'm so happy to have this engaging analysis. I started listening to JP when he was just doing TH-cam. Then I did his whole Self Authoring Suite thing, very helpful. Then read his books. Then studied Carl Jung a bit. Then completely fell out of infatuation with him over the last few years. I find this channel an intellectually fair and less polarized assessment of things I prefer to postpone judgement of while I gain an appreciation for. This channel strikes me as one of those channels run by someone who has much better things to do, but shares with people like me. TYTYTY!!!!
Wasn't expecting another Jordan Peterson video but I'll gladly listen. The previous one made me understand him a lot better
It is in a reasonably similar vein. A sort of continuation of many of the points I made there
I love how this kid does this thing ❤
Thanks man! I really appreciate it
And the fact that he looks like the painting I want on my wall
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fallen_Angel_(painting)
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I’m not a man but that’s not here nor there.. you’re welcome or more like thank you for sharing 😊
@@Sandra_D.9you are one of us now, welcome to the brotherhood of men.
@ haha, thank you, okay if the only woman in the group then,
## Analysis of Dr. Peterson's Claims About Atheism
**Premise 1:** Dr. Peterson defines "God" as the highest value in a person's hierarchy of values.
**Premise 2:** Everyone acts in accordance with some value system, even if it is unreflective or naive.
**Conclusion:** Therefore, everyone acts as if they have a "God" in the sense that they prioritize some things over others, making atheism (understood as the denial of any value hierarchy) untenable.
**Analysis:** While the sources present Dr. Peterson's argument as seemingly sound, there are some key issues with the line of reasoning:
* **Equivocation:** The argument conflates two distinct meanings of "God." The traditional understanding of God involves a supernatural, conscious being. Dr. Peterson's definition redefines "God" as the peak of a value hierarchy, a concept devoid of traditional theological implications. By shifting between these definitions, the argument creates a false equivalence. Atheists typically reject the notion of a supernatural God, not the existence of values or the act of prioritizing.
* **Oversimplification of Atheism:** The argument presents atheism as a denial of any value system, which is a misrepresentation. Atheists can and do hold strong moral and ethical values, prioritize certain goals and principles, and engage in meaningful pursuits without attributing these values to a deity. The sources even acknowledge that most atheists understand their position as the rejection of a conscious, intentional force organizing the universe.
* **Lack of Engagement with Metaphysical Questions:** While Dr. Peterson focuses on the pragmatic implications of values and beliefs, the sources acknowledge that the question of God's metaphysical existence remains significant. The potential existence of an afterlife, for example, would have a direct impact on how one might choose to live. By sidestepping these questions, Dr. Peterson's argument fails to address the core concerns of many who identify as atheists.
**In essence, Dr. Peterson's argument relies on a redefinition of terms and a limited understanding of atheism. It fails to establish a compelling case against atheism as traditionally understood.**
In order to better understand this for myself, I would like to restate the premises in 'loglish'. I am only interested in the first premise here, but I think this entire analysis is pretty much on the mark.
Premise 1) For every y, there is some v, such that y is a person, and v is a member of the set of valued 'objects', and v = "God", and y places v above all other members of the set of valued objects.
v is not, as we might say, a Definite Description. That is, it does not uniquely describe any _single_ entity or object. And that suggests that the issue of equivocation is even more serious than you argue here. Understanding the set of values as the set of everything that could conceptually be valued by any individual, we're dealing with a very large, if not infinite number of members. If each one of these could be valued above all others, then any member of the set could = God. God is money; God is family; God is Christ; God is Brahman; God is the Emperor Ceasar; God is my favorite G.I. Joe action figure; God is an A in Biochemistry; God is ...
It seems that rather than dealing with two understandings of God, we are potentially dealing with an infinite number of "Gods". That's a very strange monotheism.
I feel like there needs to be an argument to establish exactly one v, such that for any y, y _ought_ to place v above all members of the set of valued objects or entities.
But we run straight into Hume, here. How do we get from any v that we _do_ place above all other members of the set to exactly one member that we _should_ place above any member of the set?
I haven't read the book, only going by a single viewing of the video, so I could easily be missing something, but my guess is that Peterson would respond that this has something to do with the bible's role in the success of the 'west' on the world stage. And, I don't know, but it seems like the book has led to very different kinds of 'successes': divine right of kings; manifest destiny; 'with this symbol, you will gain power'; persecution of Christians by the Romans; the burning of 'witches' and fellow Christians across Europe; the reformation, and other divisions of Christianity into all of the denominations, sects, and cults we have today; justification for slavery; the children's crusade; the ped0 abuse scandals; prosperity gospel, etc., etc., etc. It's hard to find a single strand that unites these into a single entity (and given the horror, it's hard to imagine that entity being deserving of the 'top v' title.)
I wish hand you the highest honor i can grant you a thumbs up.
That’s ChatGPT, isn’t it?
@ofangelsanarchists2386 it's notebook LM.
If you were correct, Atheism would have produced at least one decent State by now heh
Your closing remarks made me comment for the first time on this channel. That was awesome, it caught me off guard! Good luck wrestling God!
great channel
I do miss Peterson's older self. Especially his videos in those college classroom lectures, where it was more about psychology, self actuallization and improvement, and just overall understanding the human nature. I don't like how he deals with political stuff, especially regarding genders, specific people, and religion mostly because he delivers it in a way that he makes it out as an absolute statement rather than just his own view. I do hope he goes back to his simpler self where he's tackling the human psyche and journey and not just arguing about politics
Totally agreed. I think he at large is hijacked by his public image
@macrodraneel8035 I think you are viewing his lectures with Rose tinted glasses.
Peterson has always seemed to intentionally use obscure language to allow his audience to interpret what he says anyway they want.
The reason you disagree with his more specific takes is because it is harder to ignore the obvious toxicity of the way he thinks.
His lectures always leaned towards the retrograde philosophy he now espouses. Even the clean your room stuff is a way of disregarding people pushing for change (his bout with Benzo addiction also highlights how hypocritical this take was).
@@wjd23104 maybe I am. Then again still appreciated those lectures nonetheless
Tyson (Neil), Shapiro, Bill Nye... they all chase after illuminaughty cash eventually 🙄
Pre benzo jbp is much more interesting than post
I love how you explain philosophy with daily stuff we do in life. Keep it up! ❤❤
I was waiting for a video in this topic
Ah! I hope it meets expectations
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Thanks for the reply sir 😊
Your takes are always intriguing. You sir certainly encourage me to study philosophy on my own; it's less frightening when I see complex ideas explained easily as in this vid.
Been loving your work, brother.
Cant wait to watch this one.
If you're interested, I certainly hope you consider creating a video on Giordano Bruno.
His ideas are truly fascinating but i totally agree with you that he should use more "standard" definitions or at least clear up his terminology. It feels like reading Nietzsche when he meant that good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” - Thomas Jefferson
i think the reason his terminology is hard to grasp, is correlated to the way he is interpreting the stories. since language has been subtlety changing throughout history. to get the interpretation of the people who lived and wrote those stories, you need their language and way of using it (with that i mean how immensely metaphorically its all used). it really is a case of, if you want to understand it, there is a lot of digging, otherwise there is not really a point to it.
pls tell me if that even made a bit of sense, cus i hope so.
@@ninofrikandello8175 It made plenty of sense, but it requires great effort to go through such lengths which is why most will not do it. It is easier to just criticize using someone else's thoughts and move on having learned nothing.
"good is what the strong do and evil what the weak do" If this is your current level of analysis, I really don't think you have a chance at even a 10% understanding of Peterson.
@@CMA418 This is why we have separation of church and state. In order both, that the selection mechanisms for spiritual leadership are not so perverse, and so our sensemaking apparatus is somewhat divorced from our position, and stake in the more insular and judgmental village circles (good of the many).
There certainly will always be weak willed people who fall under the influence of devilish control freaks. But in my experience even the slightest amount of personal willpower (or faith) is enough to keep those people away. In a lot of ways, a good priest type is like a good-and-wise Mother who points and nudges you in the right direction, but lets you fail when you need to learn the right lessons in the right ways. Which is just one among many virtues a good Mother embodies.
True wisdom is necessarily always just out of grasp, and I won't for a second take for granted all of those who have helped me get here.
This is such a fantastic video, it's so layered with very detailed explanations. You're so good at making things simpler!!
As someone who grew up with religious parents who does not read the bible as a symbolic narrative with "true" morals within them, but rather in as an historic text. So its interesting to see some of the reasoning behind why JP reads it that way nad the arguments around it. I also think its a better application of it than as a historical text
The believe the majority of the New Testament should be read with a historical bend, but other books like Job or Revelations, not so much
@DesOttsel there is history in there for sure, but i wouldn't believe everything it says
Yes all bible is good for is to read, take some good lessons and throw out the bad ones
@@Sonofsun.You started with" all Bible is good"
Followed by "take the good and throw out the bad".
So the Bible is not "all good". What a confused worldview 😂
That person said "good for" which might be a kind of a prepositional phrase and not exactly "good" as an adjective. Nothing is confused here in my opinion
I appreciate the video, I think we need more direct, constructive criticism like this instead of "everything he says is wrong", which I see very frequently. I would also add that, perhaps, the reason why he uses this symbolic language, is because all of the texts and ideas associated with them, are very symbolic and if we would try to explain them in strict, scientific language, we would actually lose some of the implicit meaning (I've heard him explain that symbols are like clouds of meaning, they link many other symbols and ideas together and are more likely to be associated with other specific symbols), so I think he doesn't use these terms to 'deceive' the reader. Anyways I still agree with most of what you've said in the video
💯 Agreed
For me, everything he says is word salad. Of course, this is in reference to his original ideas, not what he is pulling from different other authors he doesn't understand anyway.
@@adalbertred I bet you think you're smarter than him. 🤣
@geneberrocal3220 yes, but I'm not unique. In his stupidity, he is.
@@adalbertred either you're stup!d or your attention span is 5 seconds long 😂
The issue that I have with the argument that God stands at the top of the hierarchy is that it ignores certain problems about whether value systems should be organized in a hierarchical way in the first place. This has to do with the law classical logic called the 'excluded middle', which says that 'not false' is semantically identical to 'true', but in Indian logic and in intuitionist logic, 'not false' is not semantically identical.
So, something may not be best, but also not not be best.
Churchill claimed 'Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that we've tried'. Another way of saying it is, 'It is not true that democracy is the best system of government, but it's also not not true.'
Once you apply the tetralemma to ideas like hierarchy, you can come to the conclusion that something being better or worse doesn't have to apply.
"Logically best" is something quite different from "practically best". Some systems (as for instance hierarchy) just function "best" in practice, and that not because of some semantics, but because we have the genes of hierarchical primates' pack wired hard.
@alena-qu9vj I don't think even that holds true. I think that, even hierarchical systems themselves are more like the cup and handle example.
In evolution, there's something called the Panglossian Paradigm, which about the belief that all things have reason to have risen to the top of the evolutionary hierarchy. It has this name because it's not actually true. Lots of evolved features evolved simply because they were non-detrimental.
In the same way, I think that hierarchies are more so about minimizing some external factor, rather than maximizing an internal one and I think this largely bears out in how we think of the world.
Another word from evolution is a spandrel-a feature of evolution that wasn't selected for, but is the logical consequence of other evolved features around it. I think hierarchy is a spandrel.
@@dvklaveren Keep the theory and give me an example of a functioning non hierarchical civilization or society. And do not try this "democracy" on me.
@@alena-qu9vj Huh? Why should I? I'm not arguing that a non-hierarchical civilization is better?
I'm saying that the logic that value systems are subject to hierarchical rules of 'strictly better' and 'strictly worse' only works in a classical logic system.
I am not passing a value judgement on systems of government because, in so many words, I think that we tend to identify types of governance by its hierarchical structure, but that the hierarchical structure may not be causal, but correlated to the outcomes of that system.
You've struck a chord with me, but again, one thing jumps at me intuitively, and I think will do for others too - if they've played some type of sport or competed really hard, or someone in medicine.
It is the simple idea that when creating a solution to a problem, it must first not exacerbate the problem. It's sort of like the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”. When you consider that statement, the utility of hierarchies becomes pretty self-evident, but I do agree that there must exist a better solution to the problem of arranging values in such a way. I think hierarchies - as of now - are not a bug, but a feature.
I can definitely see how it could be a bug though. What I'm concerned about is that if you're right, we aren't far enough along in our thinking to come up with a solution for it. Not even theoretically, we aren't.
But again, doesn't that mean it's just not really gonna blow up in our face, not until we recognize it? Genuinely asking. Cheers.
You became my favorite channel on youtube.
Ah thank you! That is very nice of you to say
Okay, i have never watched your video before and i am only 6 minutes in, but this seems to be a very informed take, which is seen very rarely on the internet!
Peterson would be very lucky to have this young man as a student! Someone who could really follow all his ideas to the smalest detail, compare them to any philosopher one could possibly think of - and then even make something more of it!💫
8:19 The assumptions about its authoritative value have to be challenged before it’s lengthy usage can be considered of value.
Spoken like a true angsty teen. I am sorry that for whatever reason you have learned to view authority, and wisdom as some sort of parent child relationship when in reality it lies the other way around.
But I supposed if you take up the popular view that the individual is a Blank Slate you assume that every action is directly controlled by authority this makes sense. That idea implicates to me of the mind of a coward. Or at least one who follows blindly and has never had an original thought of their own.
@ my childish ass is so grateful for your wisdom
@@kariannecrysler640 I can't tell. hehe
@ 😂 just having a shitty day sorry. Thank you for the smile 🥰
@@kariannecrysler640 :)
Hi, immortal being here 👋
Thank you! I finally found another atheist who disagrees with Peterson, yet understands what he's saying.
I'm so tired of people accusing Jordan of producing word salad, when what he says is not, in fact, word salad. There is plenty to criticize in his views, but instead people go for the unfair accusations. As a result the substance of what he's saying remains unaddressed.
So true. We can all do so much better than calling anything above a fifth grade reading level “word salad”.
@@lukehardin9 It's a shame that Peterson himself does not achieve such a reading level.
It’s not word salad- IF you go through all of his redefinitions of common usage. Once you learn what he means by all his own personal definitions, his ideas are easily followed. I still think they are sophomoric and facile, but not nonsense or gibberish.
He used to be more grounded, but I think he’s going outside his lane and becoming convinced of his own genius.
@@Direwolf1771 I completely agree. But I also see him addressing this by being reluctant to answer questions directly and asking for definitions beforehand - yet that backfires as well, since people accuse him of being vague and disingenuous.
Honestly, it feels like a lose-lose situation.
@ Perhaps. But forcing everyone to redefine a bunch of terms before you can have a conversation instead of just using the words we already have is bad communication in my opinion. Nobody wants to deal with that so they tune it out and then his ideas make no sense to them. If he wants to convey his ideas, he’s going to need to adapt his style to one that conforms to the common language, not invent his own.
Sweet amazing guy, you’re so brave navigating modern philosophy. I appreciate you working through this. I think every voice should be examined regardless of if you like them or not. You moved up in my respect of you.❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I love that you put on the glasses, when you start a sponsorship advertisement, that way I immediately know when it is over.
Immortal genius here so I'll chime in. This is a great analysis of Peterson's ideas, far and away the best I've seen. I do believe his position is one of philosophical pragmatism, even if he doesn't doesn't describe it as such. When I first encountered him I was always kinda interested in whether he believed in god as an entity or not, and since it's not mentioned in the video, he has been pressed on that question a few times. While he initially said he didn't like the question, he eventually did relent and admit or articulate that he 'acts like he does believe', which is something like, a pragmatic faith.
His position on truth I think is much the same, as you outlined, it's a position that says what is useful in predicting outcomes is true, whether they be scientific or moral truths, it's a pragmatic view of truth. The theory of gravity is true in so much that it predicts physical phenomena, despite not being completely accurate, and 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is true in so much that it predicts that behaviour between humans is reciprocal, again despite not being perfectly accurate. I do think it's worthwhile to distinguish between scientific truth, which applies universally no matter your frame of reference, and moral truths, which are much more fuzzy and depend on locality and your frame of reference. The easiest trolley problem in the world in the world is 5 frogs vs 1 human infant on a train track, but you'll get different answers depending on whether you ask a human or a frog to answer it. Both can be crushed by a boulder coming down the hill.
Peterson utterly fails to separate scientific truth and moral truth, which leads to much confusion, but he is using symbology and stories and strong reinforcement to get a message across, and it has worked, he has been influential and I would say in a positive way overall.
I have a whole other rant about how philosophical arguments like free will is an illusion or positing the existence of philosophical zombies are only true if you want to sell books, or extend an academic career, and are not only anti-pragmatist but flat out wrong and the opposite of useful, but my time here is limited.
Only a few understand En passant rule in chess
90% of the french chess players have mastered it (language advantage)
@planteruines5619 VG. I play the french as black
Everyone else accuses you if cheating
Not true
@@planteruines5619 Not really. You don't "master" the rule by understanding the name. Which you don't need even French for. Afaik most Germanic and Romanic languages enable you to understand name of the move. Its semanticly not far from the English "to pass someone" or the German word (loaned from French) "Passant". But like I said this information is not enough to master the "En passant" rule. Sorry if you don't care, but I think how our languages are related is super interesting.
26:07 correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Peterson also claim that he read Nietzsche and gets some of his definitions from him, idk how he comes to that conclusion reading someone whose life mission was critquing and tearing apart the basest assumptions of European philosophers leading upto him.
On lex Friedman's podcast Peterson said Nietzsche was a Christian who was criticizing people who were not pragmatic believers which I find laudable
Peterson loves to quote nietzsche but seems to completely ignore the fact nietzsche was a total anti Christian.
@@ramon2008I think that’s defensible. At least with my understanding of Nietzsche, he would rather his words inspire others to form their own beliefs than be used as their own beliefs.
Incredible video as always Joe- just got here from Alex's 1 million subs livestream, I love the chemistry between the two of you!
You always snatch my attention and hold it until the end of your video. Great content man.
The story of Cain and Abel shows:
1. We must be mind readers who know what the people in power want.
2. It isn’t how hard you work, but whether the person in power favors your work.
3. Make sure to eliminate your enemies in a way the people in power like.
After all, Cain worked harder than Abel, but Abel was favored because God liked to eat meat, and hated to eat vegetables. When Cain killed Abel, he didn’t give him as a sacrifice to God, so Cain was punished.
From this we learn that God is a petulant child.
And if the ideas of Jordan Peterson are truly useful only if you are willing to alter the definitions in your mind, then all we have to do is have someone translate the loaded language into more accurate scientific terms.
NOBODY should read the book in it's existing form, as the definitions were carefully crafted as propoganda to alter people's beliefs.
And if God is defined as the top of the moral hierarchy, then, in practicality, for many Christians, Jesus is HATE.
They put hate of others as the top of their moral hierarchy, and their name for God is Jesus, so Jesus (aka God aka the top of their moral hierarchy) is whatever they rank highest in practicality. And that is hate for specific out groups.
I see how it could seem like god propaganda. but I think hes saying that god, if placed at our moral heriarchy, is a great tool to use in humanity, because it helps us better understand our maximum potential and how to get there, (aka have faith in a higher power) and use it as a forward manifestation to self actualate. He’s referring to Christianity here, but ive heard him say that all religions have some aspect of truth to them, so for this new religion revolution age that comes with the AI revolution, we further understand how we can use a god or a (higher power) to help guide humanity to the better, and if the new religion is good and adaptable that helps people deal with their reality and become better, more loving people and, society to its ultimate flourishing (anything is possible nowadays) and wins through the natural selection of ideas and the free will of the people. God does not judge, and god is holisitic concept beyond our understanding. We cannot comprehend of what he does of good or bad because then all the wars would be good, God is engrained in everything, including us, and by trying to better ourselves, through socio-cultural thinking can help align us to a “better” world, most optimally to be embedded and in tune with nature. The great ecosystem or the tiny cell biosphere here we call earth.
Bruh 😂 what kind of assumption is that do you really think god would accept Cain just because of the presentation? No. The fact that you think god likes human sacrifices is something you have to establish before all that
When you criticise something start from the beginning not the middle
Oof i see massive amounts of biase against Peterson
Lol you have such a narrow minded idea of Christianity. Christianity actually does put love and acceptance to be the top of hierarchy, the problem is that their morality is skewed because that's just how people who wrote it were back then, back then racism, slavery and discrimination were ok
love your channel and love philosophy great work pal
Im reading this right now, and Im super excited to watch after!!!
The beginning part explaining the implicit value of taking one action over another is exactly how the book Human Action by Ludwig von Mises starts too.
Jordan, to me, Life is what Life ought to be. Stay well!🕺🏼
Thank you Joe, needed this summary as I wasn’t planning on reading his book. Great channel keep up the work!
A simpler and more accurate analysis would be that Jordan Peterson is allergic to clarity. He insists on speaking a language nobody else speaks where every word is shared with English but has a completely different definition. Even when asked to, he will categorically refuse to stop speaking in this made up language, because to speak in plain language would lead to clarity, which is his worst enemy since his ideas are clearly stupid when exposed to it.
Pretty accurate. Excellent language is using just as many words as necessary and being as simple as possible to convey your thoughts - which might of course include the use of symbols. A lot of people tend to think that the one who produces the most bloated text is a master of language. The opposite is true. I find it a bit sad that people actually and seriously discuss a book like this.
You put much of what I suspected about Dr. Peterson's ideas into much better words than I could hope to use. While I am not a critic of him and I find his ideas genuinely interesting (and insightful sometimes, if not always original), sometimes I do feel confused at what exactly he means and have thought that his definitions of the keywords in his ideas are, while related, different from our usual conceptions of them, and as such lead to ideas that seem weird based on what people would usually conceive based on our usual definitions. He's basically constructing his own tracks under the guise of running the same race in public discourse on these subjects. Thank you. I am grateful.
Yes. Thank you. This is the only problem I have with JBP , and I am an agnostic. This is the best take I saw.
I always love these videos! Keep up the work!
I think Peterson thinks that the pragmatic truth is so real that it reveals a metaphysical truth. But I think he struggles to speak about how these dots connect.
Probably because they don't 🙃
@@markoslavicek Maybe they do, maybe they don't 🙃
@@jasonhendricks4562until it can be proved otherwise they don't, ✨ science ✨
His pragmatist take is odd since he tends to leave a scathing review of post-modernism.
Things are either true or not. Otherwise the word truth loses all value. Stories like the garden of Eden, flood, etc are not literally true. They are stories. Can stories have useful teachings or meaning to us? Sure. But that doesn’t suddenly make the stories literally true. They are still after all, just stories.
I just started it! 18 pages in.
I'm learning philosophy from you thank you 🙏
Thank you for watching! That is very kind
I love your honest takes and analysis of these topics
Only after 5 minutes in I realized the subtitles were not from TH-cam. Thanks!
Peterson - Believes that there's an optimal way of doing and valuing things that will lead to the best life...
Also uses obscure, personal, or suboptimal definitions of words (ex."Belief"), which leads to miscommunication...
If it is true that Peterson takes a utilitarian view of biblical texts, he's engaging in some degree of sacrilege, no? I don't think Calvinists (for example) would view his analysis at all charitably. Perhaps this is why he is so secretive about his actual position on the existence of God.
Maybe
Heresy, sacrilege is something else.
I know one Calvinist that is a big fan. As long as JP talks about the Bible positively, he does not mind because it's all about belief anyway and the Bible is the symbol. Lying and cheating is fine as long as people are buying into the Bible. That seems to be the attitude. I think Christians are too nihilistic at this point to mind and are too divided on interpretation to mount any kind of dissent. It used to be punishable by death, worst than unbelief, so it just shows how things have evolved.
Having grown up a Mormon; accustomed to evangelicalism, and converts, I will not see utilitarian understanding as anything less than a step towards true belief.
One thing the snide gossip types don't understand is the full extent of the power of redemption that only Christian philosophy fully embodies (because it's boring).
As for Peterson I won't speak for him, but considering his world view is shaped heavily by Jungian Psychology, and the pursuit to understand Pure Human Evil I can only see that as drawing him closer to the deep psychologic Mythos surrounding the potential for whatever is the opposite of that evil.
There is a rich history of hermeneutics in Christianity not limited to the stereotype given here with regard to literalism.
They muddy the waters to make it seem deep. JP does this time and time again. Great video. Subscribed
What an interesting watch ❤ your the best philosophy youtybe channel out here!!
For me, Peterson is someone who presents arguments adorned with seemingly logical and philosophical approaches, making them appear justified. Yet, in reality, these arguments have no validity. They confuse people's minds, drowning them in so much detail that one cannot immediately respond with, "Why did he say that?" or "What does he mean?" But amidst all this detail, his errors stand out glaringly. In my opinion, this approach is no different from the snake oil salesmen of the Wild West who fraudulently sold so-called miraculous elixirs that claimed to cure everything.
My personal view is that he is either someone who lacks the courage to openly express his religious views as they are and pretends otherwise, someone who sees Christians as a profitable audience to exploit financially (as televangelists do well), or someone with a peculiar psychology who enjoys causing harm to society by insisting he is right even when he knows he's not. Like a cat playing with its prey-this behavior manifests in various human forms. I believe Peterson is fully aware that his arguments don’t hold water.
Can you egive an example i haven’t seen a lot of his newer stuff but i know a lot of stuff ive heard him say j came to similar conclusions before ever hearing of him
@@mrcheese5383 Look up Nathan J Robinson's essay titled "Jordan Peterson: the intellectual we deserve", Nathan has also done a lot of interviews on TH-cam explaining why Peterson can't be trusted. He did an interview with the majority report. That's a good place to start.
That is a lot of far-reaching assumptions to make about a guy that you clearly kmow that you don't understand the thought process of.
@@giggleman9908I looked the essay up since you recommended it. I found it absolutely horrible to read, a biased bad-faith egocentric arrogant piece of writing where the author comes in with the agenda to prove that Jordan Peterson is a bad writer and not an intellectual, but to me just reveals the author himself to be rather petty and lacking in intellectual curiosity.
The main point of criticism he levers against Peterson is, correctly put, that Petersons writing style for his unscientific books is rather verbose, mystical, imprecise and with elements of spirituality. That is a matter of taste, and a matter of preference.
Peterson speaks very highly of Nietzche - have any of you read Nietzche? I have. It is very hard to read properly. Many passages are meant to be digested for a time, and to be more thought provoking than to be a mathematical argument. That is clearly Petersons inspiration for that kind of writing style.
You can leverage the same criticism about a poem, calling it imprecise and mystical and verbose and not a logical series of arguments, and all you reveal is your own inability to engage with what the author wants to do.
Personally, I think it is a major mistake to conflate what Peterson does to help people and what he does to share his own thoughts. And I do think that many times, he himself makes that very hard to distinguish between. The most baseline fact is that he has had a long career as a clinical psychologist and his self-help books have helped an enourmous amount of people live more productive and happy lives. That is more than 99.99999% of us can claim to have done for the world, and it proves that he has deep knowledge in how to help people help themselves. The rest I think should be met with intellectual curisity as a challenge to the normal modern atheist mind, much like reading about Buddhism or something of that sort, and that's it.
@@theWebWizrd is it impossible to quit smoking without supernatural experiences?
“
I respect and appreciate your respectful treatment of those you don't agree with, and your charitable and non-demoralizing way of articulating their works honestly and fairly even when criticizing. A skill much missed in this modern age of vitriol and stupidity.
Loved the nod to Alex’s conversation with chat gpt with the coffe/malaria thing
Tbh, sir, your video is just ATTRACTIVE not only for its content but also for your voice and appearance hehe
Always thx for such visually and intellectually pleasing contents! Hope you reach 1M subscribers!
awwww you got a cruuush? don't be shy
The visuals? My guy the visuals here are pretty basic, it's just him and some historic paintings
You can just call him handsome, it'll be shorter.
@@dominusantonius Why not compose a short poem?
For the clarity forsaken,
the meaning sooner is taken,
to give the intended gifts,
in a lovely art that uplifts.
Should I not tell this in lie,
Why not give it a try?
Hope Peterson addresses the story of Lot and his 2 daughters, a wonderful deep meaning story about family values,
there is a vid of him arguing for re-enacting concept/law of women as men's property. for the sake of women, ofc. worth listening to, it's very interesting, it's a perfect example of his views and philosophy. that order that he prays for is funded on raw power. not some 'lofty' 'leftist' ideals of human rights, just good ol' hierarchy of mighty and meek.
i guess he does his philosophy out of genuine therapeutic intention to help people lost in chaos. it's that he got carried away from that noble aim a long time ago by his pride and delusions, to which best attest his frantic refusal to undergo supervisor's evaluation. ofc, the alternative explanation, or his, would be that he defies hostile, corrupted system. anyway, the vid about 'novel' ways of protecting women from male aggression is quite entertaining. and when it comes to Lot daughters, hush, it had been added by Them, the evil saboteurs aka devils aka postmodernists!
And the caanite slaughter and the flood and the...
He already did in his Genesis lectures back in 2018 or so
You act like everything that happens in the bible is condoned. Does JK Rowling endorse voldemorts actions?
@@ohmaramusic Please...Peterson is a hack. Continues to prove it by not proving his "intellectual diagnocese" as a fact. He can't even admit whenever he's wrong, especially about social issues he has no horse in the race of. eg: trans issues. He's not an expert in the study and lives of trans people before and after transitions. Nor does he not show any respect for others' decisions, including the doctors and parents of those trans kids in which the group has the highest percentage of suicide rates compared to any other community in society. In other words, he thinks he's correct and be damned any nuance and the safety of those he attacks with the help of every other far right winger who also has no expertise in that area of psychology and medical diagnosis. This is the typical right wing grift in full motion used by these insensitive narcisisstic, nuance lacking and common sense avoiding people who are only in the game for the money and the hate. They can't do anything else as succesfully.
Yes, atheism is an illegal chess move in a chess variant only doctor Peterson plays.
Well, I can't accept his playing either. He seems to be a utilitarianist, but just covers what he sees as the most practical as god. imo he is the one making an illegal chess move.
Atheist is not philosophy it's negation of belief. U can't create any civilization based on atheism. U need common shared story and myth. That's why atheism is highly stupid.
Thanks! from an agnostic transcendentalist courtesy of Ralph Waldo Emerson
I personally would love a conversation/discussion between you and Peterson. it'd be quite something. ✨
Thanks for saving us the time of having to read this.
Hi Joe,
Thank you for your review of the book.
I think you’ve completely missed the point here. Dr. Peterson, when speaking about the utility of biblical stories-which you referred to in your video as being in the domain of philosophical pragmatism-has a very deliberate approach. You suggested that he could have stripped the stories of mythical jargon and reduced them to mere propositions, moral lessons, or metaphysical and philosophical principles. However, that is precisely what he intentionally avoids.
Dr. Peterson is playing the role of the ancient archetypal helper, similar to figures in myths like Horus and Osiris. In the myth, Osiris helps Horus to defeat Seth but can only do so from the realm of the dead. Osiris is non-existent in the earthly realm and cannot enter it. This pattern recurs across many myths, where the helper accompanies the protagonist only to the edge of his/her world, after which the protagonist must carry on the adventure alone.
This is what Dr. Peterson is attempting to do with his exposition of biblical stories: he is not reducing them to mere moral lessons or utilitarian principles. While he operates within the realm of propositions when discussing these stories, he deliberately refrains from reducing them to absolute propositional statements.
Your discussion on symbols and myths touches on their utility and how they condense a wealth of information. However, I think Dr. Peterson’s argument goes deeper: symbols and myths are intrinsic to our perception and attention, and we participate in them rather than simply having them convey abstract moral principles to us.
Take, for example, the concept of a chair. When we see a chair, we perceive it immediately, yet it is impossible to define it exhaustively. A chair encompasses infinite variability-its color, material, number of legs, functionality (or lack thereof in the case of a “bad chair”), and even abstract art interpretations. This highlights the inherent inexhaustibility within seemingly ordinary objects, resisting reduction to mere propositional definitions or abstract concepts.
Dr. Peterson suggests that it is logically impossible for humans to consciously create symbols and myths that condense this inexhaustible information. Instead, we receive them from above but are able to perceive and participate in them. Reducing myths and symbols to mere propositions or abstract philosophical principles is akin to the sin of Adam and Eve-reaching for the apple, destabilizing the hierarchy, and bringing about the curse of alternating totalitarianism and disillusionment.
A parallel example is the concept of humility: if you think you have it, you’ve already lost it. Similarly, if you believe you can reduce the entirety of a symbol or myth to its attributes-such as a moral lesson or metaphysical concept-you lose any true comprehension of that symbol or myth. This is why Dr. Peterson refrains from explicitly stating his belief in God-it would reduce something infinite and incomprehensible to a mere proposition.
This isn’t to say that one cannot make propositional statements about the infinite or the inexhaustible. Nor is it to undermine the world of propositions and abstractions, but rather to acknowledge the incompleteness of that realm (as reflected in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). Dr. Peterson’s point is that symbols and myths are more fundamental to humanity than philosophy, metaphysics, or psychology. In fact, the existence of the latter presupposes the former. That is to say, using reason, propositional truths, metaphysical concepts, and philosophy to explain human perception, attention, consciousness, myths, and symbols is misguided because the latter are fundamental and serve as the origin of the former.
In his own way, he is trying to serve as a bridge between these realms-how successfully, only God knows.
Thank you for taking the time to read my exposition.
Out of interest, when you say myths are “serve as the origin” of things like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and logic, what do you mean by that? Just because on the face of it that’s quite a mysterious statement.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 First of all, thank you for engaging with your audience.
What I mean by myths serving as the origin of secondary fields like philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, and science is best explained through an example. When the USA embarked on its journey to the moon, it was an instantiation of the age-old myth of the mariner's journey into the unknown. While this achievement was heralded as a victory for science, many overlooked the underlying myth that inspired it. This myth was symbolically reflected in the act of planting the flag-a mythical gesture of uniting the new identity (the moon) with the old identity (the national identity of the USA).
As a scientist by profession, I see parallels in the structure of academic work. Whenever we publish a paper in a journal, we always include the name of the university, followed by the contributors to the discovery, as a symbolic “flag” representing the origin of the work. Only afterward does the science itself take the forefront. This practice, I believe, reflects the influence of ancient myths, which subtly shape even the structure of scientific discourse.
Even Descartes' curious inquiry into the self (Cogito)-which involved forgoing the existence of all external identities perceived through sense data-can be embedded within ancient myths, such as the apocryphal Hymn of the Pearl. In this myth, a person dives into deep waters (symbolizing the abandonment of stable, solid ground, akin to doubting the existence of all external identities) and descends into the dark ocean depths (representing the rejection of sense data) to retrieve the precious pearl (Cogito, ergo sum), a truth discovered at the bottom of the ocean.
In my observation, myths and symbols often precede and guide the emergence of new truth statements, scientific discoveries, and even mathematical theorems. Unlike a worldview or philosophy, myths and symbols can serve as a stance toward the unknown-neither fully embracing the unknown nor entirely rejecting the existing center.
I also believe that even atheists unknowingly participate in myths and symbols. For example, many who reject the Christian God often adopt imagery associated with Satanic or pagan traditions (such as Viking symbols) through their clothing or accessories. Even though they do not believe in the propositional truth claims of these traditions, they participate in their imagery. This suggests that myths and symbols possess an agency that transcends conscious belief. While no one fully understands myths and symbols consciously, everyone participates in them.
In my view, belief is less about subscribing to a set of propositional truth claims and more about participating in the higher-order body of believers. Just as when I listen to music, I take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, trusting the music to guide me toward perceiving the edge of the known (coherence) and the unknown (uncertainty), allowing me to flourish accordingly.
@@Top10facts569 That was very good, loved it!
This is a great video and I really appreciate your charitable analysis of Peterson’s views. I also appreciate that you have read his book so I don’t have to.
That may sound a little snarky, but I’ve logged enough time listening to him speak to have formed some clear impressions. Jordan strikes me as a smart person, but one who is lacking in intellectual humility. Far too confident in nearly everything he says and compulsively evasive when asked straightforward but pointed questions, his go-to move when pressed for clarity is to obfuscate by riffing on a tangent. That gets old quickly.
There are plenty of contemporary intellectuals who have the ability to help me think more clearly and deeply, even when I happen to disagree with them. Peterson is not one of them. If anything, for me, he serves as a negative role model for cogent discourse.
It’s not that there’s no substance at all in what he says. It’s just that separating the wheat from the chaff is time consuming and frankly exhausting, all for very little gain, in my experience. So again, thank you for this very fair-minded, lucid, circumspect breakdown.
The use of symbols I think is the good point that Peterson brings up (his special definition of truth and belief only gives an unadapted perspective). Because every word we use symbolizes a reality, there are just more striking therefore more meaningful associations than others, if the word spirit is the best description of an important phenomenon that gives insight into human nature itself, then the nuance that word brings is valuable (plus the number of angles that it opens is the definition of creativity), though, I think it is necessary to separate the word from the "divine" sense that many give to it which represents a whole reality where the concept of punishment, servitude, guilt, are essential with an insistence on god as a being that is both the creator and the establisher of the moral order positioning him as a perfect and undefiable authority, therefore, someone for whom dying and killing, among others things, is legitime. This concept of god is fundamentally different from the one of the Greeks with their gods painting the human reality, its beauty and sins in all aspects (instead of rejecting it in puritanism). If there are flaws in the story of Jesus, they are that 1. he cannot represent us as being perfect and 2. he presents the concept of hell which is a symbol of everything wrong in religions.
I came to know this channel few days ago ago and is extremely helpful, I have few suggestions: Could you colab with Alex O Connor and make a video. Also could you make a video regarding AI and future unemployment, on depression anxiety and loneliness, I understand these are not directly philosophical but I believe it will resonate with the audience and the advise should be inspired from philosophy and history
Firstly, I don't think he quite understands what an atheist is, and I base this on what I've heard him say in the past about it. He made the mistake that I've heard often, which is that he seems to correlate atheism with nihilism and communism, as far as what it is and where it necessarily leads, but this simply isn't true.
Secondly, it's also interesting that someone makes that connection yet doesn't make the nihilistic one with Christianity that Nietzsche made, in which he argues that the idea of a "true world" after this one makes it actively nihilistic; in other words, it makes this moment (the only time that does exist for sure) meaningless because you're living for hypothetical time and place (life after death and heaven).
Finally, I would argue that the atheist "wrestles with God" more than a believer because they are actively asking a question about what's true rather than presupposing it is. Being a Christian or Muslim starts with the idea that God exists, not with questions about his mind or whether he exists. I'm not suggesting a "crisis of faith" doesn't bring questions of God's existence for many or most people, but I question how many of them actually wrestle with it versus how many do the question lip service but never really challenge the idea due to their fears of not believing and the beliefs they already have about what that means.
Being an atheist doesn't mean that you don't wrestle with the psychological aspects of the God image or dismiss the metaphysical potentiality of an esoteric God; it just means that you don't believe in the theistic versions of a physical, sky Daddy.
He perfectly understands what an atheist is. He just falsely categorizes atheism into an easy target by using the implicit moral prejudices Christians have against atheists (ie: Atheists are evil, misguided, foolish, etc.). He does this in a way that sounds quite intelligent so that Christians can be confirmed in their sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
You can forget that there are more than one kind of atheist. Not all people who call themselves an “atheist” agree on their views and philosophies. The same as the theist, but I definitely agree with the statement about JP.
Have a great day .
I don’t think you’re an atheist. Atheists don’t believe in any gods. They’re materialists who hold physical reality as the only discernible truths.
I do understand your opinion on agnostics wrestling with god more, but I think you’re putting both in a box. Just as there are Christian’s, or rather, people who call themselves Christian, who have a superficial faith, there are agnostics who use their unsuredness as an excuse to be theologically lazy and never explore what they truly believe because they can never know anyways. It’d liken it to someone who does commit to relationships because they’re scared of committing themselves to the wrong person and getting hurt, so they never take that next step.
I don’t think there’s anyone who is devout and trying to live their life in accordance with god that doesn’t wrestle with him often because you’ll be saddled with wondered what his plan is anytime suffering comes into your life and what purpose that could be trying to teach you instead of dismissing it as the world just being unfair.
@LibertarianGaIt
communism has nothing to do with atheism the same way capitalism has nothing to do with theism. Unless it is your opinion that the multiple times the bible criticised greed and pecuniary gain is proof that it was very pro capitalist.
Of course you could also take the whole messaging about a god as an argument for a strong hierarchy system and then the need for some people to exploit others.
Doesn't seem like a strong argument and difficult to argue that limiting the freedom of everyone for the good of a few ultra wealthy people is an overall good.
@LibertarianGaIt So you're saying that Marx wanted to replace the bible with communism?
If you view him through the lens of a Christian theocrat trying to LARP as a philosopher, Peterson's entire schtick makes way more sense.
I think you should view him through his historic progression which is readily available here on youtube. At first his stance against transgenderism and let's say male alienation. Something that was direly needed. And his personality was very different. Was he maybe a bit too keen for the spotlight? I think so, but he seemed much more natural for a psychologist.
Then his breakdown, and later him joining Ben Shapiro. His new persona emerged around that time. As a hyperintellectual debate bro. I don't think he's larping that much tbh, it just seems to me that he has accumulated a lot of bitterness over the years and that shines through.
JP is using all these poignant words, mythological interpretations, and poetic diction to communicate boundless nonsense.
edit: This comment is made by a 30-something woman, so stop assuming I'm too young to understand the "genius" of Peterson ( though we shouldn't weaponize age in an argument ).
You're too young to get it. Hope that's the case. Understandable.
Ah, age, the time-honored excuse for not grasping complex ideas. It's fascinating, really, considering that peak cognitive performance is usually around the age of twenty to twenty-five. So, by that logic, the younger audience might actually have a sharper grasp on these concepts than their elders. But of course, it's always refreshing to see the timeless classics of "you just don't understand" trotted out in discussions on Jordan Peterson.
No. He is well worth listening to.
@ Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
@@anyway-q9i Jordan Peterson is, if nothing else, a master of the obvious wrapped in the mystique of pseudo-intellectual bravado. His arguments, often paraded as groundbreaking insights, rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy, conflating “is” with “ought” as if the behavior of lobsters has any bearing on human societal structures. This would be laughable if it weren’t so transparently reductive. Beyond this, his reliance on Jungian archetypes and a vaguely mystical interpretation of Western tradition offers nothing new-merely a regurgitation of long-digested ideas, repackaged with a tone of unearned profundity. He is less an original thinker than a well-marketed echo of better scholars, riddled with fallacies and grandiosity. One might listen for entertainment, but to take him seriously? That would require ignoring the glaring contradictions in his reasoning and his peculiar habit of dressing up banalities as wisdom.
Another high-quality video, man! Great job!
Truthfully, the parts here where Peterson basically just echoes Kierkegaard are the ones I like, and some of the stuff about narratives but I didn't pay enough attention to sort through whether most of that was UA's thinking or JP's, but mostly I agree with UA's critiques. Christian here, btw
7:08 i wont
Random atheistic comment for engagement purposes.
😮
🎉
Your have great knowledge of philosophy and great understanding love the Frank Ramsey reference.
29:40 The Fox and the Grapes is one of the best symbols of modern mens bitter resentment towards women. How many times have you seen a man romantically pursue a woman, only to be rejected and call her a "sl*t"? I've seen it time and time again. Symbols makes great stories - because they can be applied further and in more ways
I would love to see you talk with JBP
I’m really glad you addressed this book. Honestly I feel like every form of revelation that Jordan Peterson claims to have usually comes from his own determination to remain limited.
Peterson himself isn't limited. He just thinks that other people aren't capable of intellectual and moral freedom. Only he is.
@@jamm_affinity I like to disagree with that. Peterson is as limited as we all are in most matters. Physically, mentally, financially (maybe not THAT much) and no matter your religion, he only has this one life as Jordan Peterson.
"atheism is stupid" is a fatuous statement coming from someone who believes an invisible caucasian man in the sky created the universe and then hears and sees everything we do.
Really --- ? I also try for natural simplicity - in the life - thought and experience.
Simplicity - is closer to reality and therefore - to happiness - itself.
Travel light - is the dictum and another - Love is the Base.
Fare thee well - in life's journey (From an intense meditator)
18:00 possibly... but a murderer might also have a temporary lapse in belief... or believe fully that a god told them someone specific had to die to help move the Divine Plan along.
I was heavily considering buying the book because i thought it was a justification of the metaphysical that would challenge my views on god. It does feel like a bait to use misleading language. Glad I watched this video and saved the time. Im a big fan of the channel. Well done!
Has anyone ever tried a non-anthropomorphic theology? People talk about this God character as if he is a man like them. Point that out and they say, NO, not at all. Really? Because from the looks of things God thinks like us, feels like us and intends like us. If it walks like a duck....
Any theology will be anthropomorphic because any deity will be a projection of some human focalization on account of being focalized by a human.
Of course many tried a non-anthropomorphic approach to transcendent. Most of Eastern teachings for instance, long before Jews pushed their "cruel and jealous" one on the world... But it is only the judeo-christians who think theirs god is the only hero possible.
I’d say some of the eastern religions are less human centered. Also some Native American ones
@@addammadd Thanks for your thoughts. Projection is the human default, certainly, but what if we move beyond the default and use informal logic and rationality by asking such questions as, How would the mind of a limitless being operate? It would not operate the way our limited minds do. If God isn't human self-reference can lead only to error, so avoid it. That's what I'm saying.
Consider taoist approach
I think, out of all atheists, you are the most appropriate one to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson. I would pay to see that. You are critical, yet fair and humble (mainly, you don't exude arrogance like other atheists).
Thank you for this. You make philosophy very approachable in a charismatic way 👏.
Thinks the creator of the universe cares where you spend Sunday morning, and thinks we are arrogant. Ok buddy whatever you say 😂
@@isiahs9312exactly, religious people claim absolute truth with their only evidence being an ancient text, which is just one of thousands other equally stupid ancient texts, yet they accuse others of arrogance. It’s ironic
@@isiahs9312 I'm agnostic, but thanks for providing a prime example of the arrogance that plagues many atheists. You make assumptions about people's beliefs and thoughts without even trying to engage with them in an honest conversation. Why? Well, one could think you don't seek meaningful communication, but you only seek cheap ways to make you feel like you're not the the dumbest one in the room.
making the mere diagreement or opposition to your positions frames as ´´arrogance´´ is ironically kind of arrogant.
@@FrenkieWest32 poisoning the well logical fallacy is what they did.
I just think the way Peterson defines truth renders it a completely different concept. His idea that certain truths are "more true" or "more real" than others because they are applicable to a wide range of situations feels like a complete inversion of how truth is defined by most people.
Like, if, in a moment in time, I observe a cup sitting on a table, I can't think of a way in which the statement "the cup is/was on this table at this time" isn't true. It becomes true the moment the cup sits on the table at the correct time and remains true forever, no matter the current state of reality or the observer. If truth is a sliding scale, this is as close to 100% true as you can get.
The statement "resentment will make your life a living hell" I feel is *less* true, because I can certainly think of real situations where resentment would be beneficial to someone's life, and the statement doesn't exclude these in any way. Resentment can be a motivator for some people to make positive changes in their lives, so from their perspective in that moment, the statement is obviously false.
I feel like most atheists see the world this way - by making a claim that is more general, that is more applicable or practical, you actually diminish its truth. It doesn't transcend and become hyper-real, it's just wrong sometimes now.
I think the distinction is that the factual truth about a cup tea in time and space is a less relevant truth. It is so limited. While a higher truth goes beyond even what we can comprehend and is more something we feel as truly meaningful too. Any attempt to express that in words such as "resentment will make your life a living hell" reduces it and makes it less true. But we can't help it, it is how we communicate.
@@anyway-q9i There were times when idealism has been a legitimate worldview. Materialism succeded to assert itself as the only way to understand the reality, which is plainly false. In those happy times it was quite clear that the ideal truths are something fundamentaly different then the material truths. Sorry it is a sign of deep decline of the state of the human understanding that most of the "smart" materialists do not even realize the difference.
@@anyway-q9i It is not a higher truth but a more meaningful one. This is an example of the misuse of language common with Peterson and his acolytes. They invent (read: misuse) new meanings for words. Why do they do this? In part so they can seem more profound and insightful. Additionally, it is a method to avoid criticism.
@@alena-qu9vj I think it is about to change tbh. With the development around UAP-disclosure people are starting to rethink a lot of things and there is a lot of comments about the phenomena being "conscious in nature" whatever that means. Plus all the strange stuff CIA researched, like remote viewing.
People's mind are being forced open with such a change of perspective.
@@semidemiurge Deeper, higher, more meaningful... It isn't really a misuse of language, it is an attempt to grasp at something beyond our words.
I would love to see you on an interview with Jordan Peterson. That would be such an interesting conversation
Incredible work.
Really good video. I’ve always felt that Peterson could go a ways towards legitimizing himself as a philosophical thinker by, shocker, actually learning some philosophy. I think that his arguments are legitimately interesting and valuable, but like you said, it seems like he’s trying to be both a pragmatist and a platonist at the same time.
Wittgenstein said that Freud’s work was neither science nor philosophy, but rather a kind of free form speculation, and I think you could say something similar about Peterson. This book is a total mishmash of neuroscience, philosophy, and literary analysis that is largely held together by the force of his rhetoric. Unsatisfying for a specialist in any of those fields, but compelling to the educated layman.
"Nobody can be a true atheist"!? WTF! What does that even mean?
I can totally have a working value system without believing in unicorns, Santa or god. And every human has a value system without ever seeing any god.
The fact that you have difficulty understanding the assertion does not imply that it's wrong. It implies that you don't have enough of a common contextual frame with the speaker (and with the other listeners who did understand it).
This is partly why I dont take J.P criticisms seriously
27:21 And therein lies the paradox behind the ideals and their adherence. Peterson is authoritarian in his anti authoritarian rhetoric. It might sound overly simplistic to say this, but I really think that you can’t hold the belief that the Bible holds the most appropriate moral structure to which we should all aspire to live by and admire its resilience and simultaneously say that you believe in the virtues of independent thought and curiosity and self determination. The moral system he reveres demands obedience, abstention, sacrifice of personal freedom and individuality, and total focus on singular behaviors and beliefs, the straying from which are met with severe punishments. These are all virtues that Peterson admires in a man and would say leads to a well rounded man of character, however he believes that it’s not simply one’s choice to follow these tenets but their civic duty to their society and even their governments to live by these biblical virtues. It really doesn’t get more authoritarian than that.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us
I love the light and darkness on either side of you, very cool background design. Its like the angel and devil on either shoulder, except both are JBP lol
By Peterson's arguments the other ancient tests really should be taken as seriously as the Bible. Confucianism is similarly old, and Daoists may be as old as the neolithic. Confucius also served to establish great civilizations and organize societies. Providing a framework for ethics and practical behavior that has endured the test of time. So why the Bible as the supreme text as opposed to treating it as a peer of other important books?
While I agree that Confucianism and Taoism are valueable spiritual concepts, there is an esoteric rule that one should stick to the spiritual traditions of the region where the soul is actually incarnated. But I personally accept only NT as "Christianity", Torahs judaism is not a tradition of my people.
But then Jesus himself was a Jew, and spoke from those traditions? To separate Jesus from his background is to ignore what his teachings actually aimed to do, which was to bring his people back to the spirit of God, rather than the letter.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Jesus was Christ's spirit incarnated in a body of a Jew, as the saying goes "among the darkness". It is more than striking that the spirit of OT is opposite to the NT - like darkness and light. I understand that it takes both poles to make the world, but official Christianity concentrates mostly on the dark pole (be it in its churches or in the deeds of the so called judeochristian countries) , it seems more like a prolonged hand of judaism with its "eye for eye" philosophy, then a religion of loving one's neighbour, compassion and looking for the Kingdom, which is not of this world. The "spirit of God" you are speaking about is very difficult to connect with the spirit of JHWH - this is what most atheist rightly state.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Jesus was Christ's spirit incarnated in a body of a Jew, as the saying goes "among the darkness". It is more than striking that the spirit of OT is opposite to the NT - like darkness and light. I understand that it takes both poles to make the world, but official Christianity concentrates mostly on the dark pole (be it in its churches or in the deeds of the so called judeochristian countries) , it seems more like a prolonged hand of judaism with its "eye for eye" philosophy, then a religion of loving one's neighbour, compassion and looking for the Kingdom, which is not of this world. The "spirit of God" you are speaking about is very difficult to connect with the spirit of JHWH - this is what most atheist rightly state.
@@alena-qu9vjso do you think that if you’re a native Chinese or Korean you can’t be Christian?