jordan peterson phenomena - Page 13

On May 31 2018 22:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: as a norwegian I feel like humanism describes leading social morals (and certainly the ones I've been raised in accordance with) more than christian morals do. If I'm gonna say that 'christian morals' have dictated morality of my society then I must be extremely selective in which christian morals I refer to. (however I'm basically in agreement with all aspects of humanist morality). As of 2016, more Norwegians identify as non-religious than religious anyway. Southern Europe might well be different in this regard.

secular humanism is an extension of Christian doctrine.

"As commonly practiced, philosophy is the attempt to find good reasons for conventional beliefs. In Kant's time the creed of conventional people was Christian, now it is humanist. Nor are these two faiths so different from one another. [...] There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace."

"The evidence of science and history is that humans are only ever partly and intermittently rational, but for modern humanists the solution is simple: human beings must in future be more reasonable. These enthusiasts for reason have not noticed that the idea that humans may one day be more rational requires a greater leap of faith than anything in religion. Since it requires a miraculous breach in the order of things, the idea that Jesus returned from the dead is not as contrary to reason as the notion that human beings will in future be different from how they have always been. "

(John N. Gray)

as for the anthropocentrism, my impression is that most secular humanists would agree with Kurtz; "The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings and the planet as a whole." I don't think your Gray quote is a good representation of what secular humanism is about, tbh, especially not when following a claim that it's an extension of Christian doctrine. I've yet to see a secular humanist want to decide how people express their sexuality or control their fertility (these are key aspects where it so clearly distances itself from Christianity) - I will however grant that euthanasia is a more divisive topic.

As for the second paragraph, humanists typically concern themselves with education and educational practices, wanting to alter them to be more in line with Habermasian ideals - geared towards critically examining dominant patterns of thought to increase rationality. Future humans being more rational than past humans is certainly less of a leap of faith than the implementation of anarchy..? I mean, there are ways in which we have hardly improved as a species, but I do not at all accept all human societies have always been equally irrational (which would be the logical extension of 'future humans cannot be more rational than today's humans').

That quote still exemplifies the kind of anthropocentrism Gray speaks of. By and large if you look at the way we have ravaged this planet and killed each other en masse for thousands of years, we don't appear to be the most conscious species; and the ultimate goal being human flourishing means that other conscious animals do not share the same basic equal rights as us, even if we are "concerned" with them (and that concern seems to be a lot more often related to how best to use/kill conscious beings rather than whether you should use/kill them or not).

Anarchism begins with the understanding that hierarchies of dominance are the precondition whence the greatest amount of the least desirable behaviors in society actualize. It doesn't seek to abolish irrationality, obviously, as that wouldn't be anarchistic, but to minimize its potential destructive manifestations through free associations. It doesn't require a leap of faith, let alone a faith in a grand narrative leading to universal emanticipation like that of humanism. It doesn't have faith that science can solve ethical problems like many humanists argue. It doesn't believe in that which there is no evidence for and it doesn't project itself into the future any more than it has to. It's only with TZM and The Venus Project that you get something like a leap of faith but they aren't anarchists even though in theory they share some core ideas.

I admittedly am not familiar with Habermas' writings, and I don't know to what extent Gray's critique of humanism extends to his philosophy. I think Gray is writing about the first face of humanism, where humans are the measure of all things, the source of all values, the masters of nature and where progress is a law of history. He is not concerned with its second face as it developed with Montaigne and Montesquieu, which boils down to fraternity.

Personally, I am pro-bias research and I think understanding biases can make a difference in human behavior, but I feel like the limitations of this work and human rationality in general are radically understated by most humanists/rationalists. The humanism I can stand behind is not the simplistic technocentric/data driven one, it's a planetary humanism that recognizes the concrete interdependence between human beings which was brought about by globalization. Edgar Morin calls it a "communauté de destin" (literally, a community with a shared destiny). Globalization means we all share some of the same existential risks, which means it's no longer about moral precepts, arbitrary rights and values, its become a primary imperative that everyone learns to cooperate. But this is not going to happen under capitalism, so... yeah, Socialism or Barbarism!

Isn't there some academic research on primal instincts connection to moral compass? We either collaborate and treat each other nicely or we perish as species ... it's basic common sense and quite logical.. if that type of research doesn't exist someone should do it

There is research done on the evolutionary roots of morality, most notably the work performed by Frans de Wall (there's a good TED talk on it). And yes, there is plenty of research showing how essential cooperation is to the survival of species. In fact, life would have never evolved if it wasn't for cooperation (endosymbiotic theory of evolution) and we also know that human cognition and the acquiring of language was fundamentally reliant upon it (Santiago theory of cognition). It's not that top scientists don't know this, it's that people can't be taught these things widely because they don't benefit the current mainstream economic ideology that's based on competition and infinite growth. Facts will never get in the way of power. "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

On April 13 2019 07:01 Loco wrote:

Where did the Satanists get the concept of Satanism? From Christians?

I always thought the idea of Sisyphus smiling as he pushed the rock up the hill sort of unbelievable. I mean some days he might smile at the absurd, smile at the task of doing his best but there have got to be days where Sisyphus is just not really feeling it and surely it is hard work. In a flow state he would not be smiling he would be in the zone exerting the most efficient effort. But, if the rock stays the same size it would surely become somewhat painstaking and/or boring. If the rock is too heavy burnout and anxiety would take hold.

Clearly Peterson gets a lot wrong but somethings sort of right.

It is nice to see someone else coming to this "whole life hedonism" conclusion but it feels like there is more to it than just that. Hence, why he brings up Camus. La vie est absurde. It would be nice to meet young, attractive women on the beach and spend the day together (The Stranger) but there is a reason I don't mess around with firearms. It's like the Sartre idea of why are we afraid of heights? Are we afraid of falling or of jumping?

I could eat $10 worth of Wendy's Fast Food and have a wank to Jenna Jameson and it will be pleasurable in some grotesque way....

Or, I could venture out into the forest for some shinrin-yoku and have some lasting peace and well-being.

Pussy worship is only good when a woman is already moist and one is eating her out. I don't think it's good as a blanket principle but of course we all should respect women.

He got all the theatricality of Contrapoints but instead of funny he is obnoxious and boring and somehow even gayer lol

I'll really have to find some time to watch this but Peterson can be so annoying and the way Zizek talks can be hard to deal with for me. Oh, I don't have shit to do until GoT? May as well check it out RIGHT NOW.

Phew... 37 minutes already knocked off. It's not really 3 hours guys let's all watch and discuss.

This moderator is a douche.

a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans. Meanwhile real academics work in their offices, mark papers, publish a few articles a year, and no one knows about them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284505512_Black_Anality

the true heroes

unknown authors who publish things like these

NOT clinical psychologists who help people improve their lives

On April 22 2019 05:35 Stroggoz wrote: a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans.

not familiar with zizek, why do you think he's a charlatan?

On April 22 2019 05:35 Stroggoz wrote: a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans. Meanwhile real academics work in their offices, mark papers, publish a few articles a year, and no one knows about them.

so are you saying Daniel Negreanu isn't the best poker player in the world?

On April 22 2019 18:30 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On April 22 2019 05:35 Stroggoz wrote: a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans. not familiar with zizek, why do you think he's a charlatan?

There's nothing complicated about it, try reading the literary theory-it's largely nonsensical and pretty terrible scholarship. Arguments are supposed to be simple, and rigorous, and made easy to understand as possible. That's the standard in science as it should be. In the postmodern tradition which he seems to come from it's the opposite. This has been a good strategy, because 99% of what academics write about in journals is incomprehensible to the public or even other academics, at first glance.
He got called out by chomsky when someone asked chomsky about him once, and responded: 'I don't know anyone who has been so empirically wrong', and proceeded to use some lie he probably found on the internet to defame him. So he doesn't take academic scholarship seriously and he accuses people without evidence.

Also, while character doesn't mean anything when it comes to scholarship, someone who marries models and pictures of stalin on their office door really does say something about them. He is putting a picture of stalin on his door because he want's to appear edgy, imo. Someone who valued morality over appearing edgy would never do this.

Good academics are usually socially akward nerds who have substantive things to write and talk about, and those are the ppl we should listen to.

On April 22 2019 15:52 Santafairy wrote: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284505512_Black_Anality the true heroes unknown authors who publish things like these NOT clinical psychologists who help people improve their lives

you could just as easily pick an article on computation complexity theory. There are topics written on basically everything in university 99% of them will appear to be completely meaningless to someone unfamiliar with the topic. I've only ever seen 30 seconds of peterson in video but he said the most outrageous lie; "attempts to reduce inequality have never worked in history", ok, so i assumed he was a charlatan after that because he knows nothing of history and speaks so confidently about it. It's really easy to spot some charlatans. If they make factual claims, then u ask yourself if that's true or not.

On April 22 2019 18:30 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On April 22 2019 05:35 Stroggoz wrote: a debate between 2 ego driven charlatans. not familiar with zizek, why do you think he's a charlatan?

He is a controversial figure with some reactionary views but he is certainly not a charlatan (just looking at his google scholar citations page should give you an idea of that). His scholarship on Hegel and Lacan, ideology and cinema is especially well respected by academics. Peterson on the other hand is not a cited scholar in the humanities outside of a niche area of personality psychology.

Stroggoz oversimplifies Zizek's work due to his strong analytical bias and whatever feud he might have had with Chomsky. As far as I know Stroggoz has never found value in a single continental philosopher including Nietzsche, so keep that in mind. The idea that philosophy should be nothing but making simple arguments that the average Joe could understand is ironically the most anti-philosophy thing someone could say imo. Why impose those constraints on human curiosity and creativity? Especially when you consider the fact that there are people who can write introductions to them and make them more accessible (popularizers).

The same is true in scientific works. Most people read the popularizers, but that doesn't mean the scientists are just jerking themselves off in academia. You can explain things in simple terms, sometimes use analogies or metaphors that carry a lot of weight, but it's not necessarily possible to get a deep understanding of a subject in this way. Arguments themselves are pretty limited. You certainly don't push the envelope of human understanding by constraining yourself in this way, but of course there are always risks of being seduced by obscurantist language, both as a reader and as a writer. There's a process by which you might become disillusioned with a person's philosophy for this reason; Cioran talked about that with relationship to Heidegger who is notoriously difficult to follow.

Sometimes a philosopher can do both. They have a body of work that's more inaccessible and another destined for a larger public. Zizek's "Perverts guide to cinema" and "Perverts guide to ideology" work in this manner, they're both accessible and entertaining. Think of Schopenhauer who is known for his absolute disdain for Hegel's obscurantism (but mostly his popularity), he himself had "The World as Will and Representation" and "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" that is mostly impenetrable and it was the accessible "Parerga and Paralipomena" that finally got him widespread attention.

Stroggoz's attack on "postmodernism" (post-structuralist thinkers/critical theory) is reminiscent of Baal's idea that there is absolutely nothing of value in gender studies, or Peterson's idea that there is no value in Marx's writings. They're all dismissals that stem from ignorance, and in Peterson's case, the debate served to perfectly illustrate that when he exposed himself as someone who has only read a fucking pamphlet written by Marx (which he completely mangled).