[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jul 19, 2024 - 12:18pm
 
Joe Biden - Beaker - Jul 19, 2024 - 12:12pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Jul 19, 2024 - 12:03pm
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - Jul 19, 2024 - 12:00pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Jiggz - Jul 19, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - RPnate1 - Jul 19, 2024 - 11:34am
 
Trump - kurtster - Jul 19, 2024 - 10:43am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Jul 19, 2024 - 10:19am
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - Jul 19, 2024 - 10:14am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Jul 19, 2024 - 9:57am
 
Israel - R_P - Jul 19, 2024 - 9:49am
 
Song of the Day - buddy - Jul 19, 2024 - 9:29am
 
The Republican Convention - steeler - Jul 19, 2024 - 9:11am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - sunybuny - Jul 19, 2024 - 7:02am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - hialtidude - Jul 19, 2024 - 6:58am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - sunybuny - Jul 19, 2024 - 6:56am
 
Climate Change - ColdMiser - Jul 19, 2024 - 6:35am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 19, 2024 - 6:07am
 
Republican Party - thisbody - Jul 18, 2024 - 11:03pm
 
Europe - thisbody - Jul 18, 2024 - 10:59pm
 
July 2024 Photo Theme - Summer - thisbody - Jul 18, 2024 - 9:54pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Jul 18, 2024 - 8:43pm
 
Poetry Forum - oldviolin - Jul 18, 2024 - 8:40pm
 
Living in America - black321 - Jul 18, 2024 - 8:14pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jul 18, 2024 - 11:13am
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - oldviolin - Jul 18, 2024 - 10:28am
 
Jon Stewart interview - Steely_D - Jul 18, 2024 - 7:36am
 
The Human Condition - dkathrens77 - Jul 18, 2024 - 6:51am
 
Gardeners Photos - Beaker - Jul 18, 2024 - 5:43am
 
Project 2025 - Beaker - Jul 18, 2024 - 5:09am
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - kurtster - Jul 17, 2024 - 7:45pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 17, 2024 - 6:03pm
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jul 17, 2024 - 2:04pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Steely_D - Jul 17, 2024 - 7:51am
 
Best Song Comments. - q4Fry - Jul 17, 2024 - 7:32am
 
Rhetorical questions - sunybuny - Jul 17, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Musky Mythology - Red_Dragon - Jul 17, 2024 - 5:47am
 
What questions would you like to answer for the world? - oldviolin - Jul 16, 2024 - 5:43pm
 
Democratic Party - Red_Dragon - Jul 16, 2024 - 4:48pm
 
Race in America - Red_Dragon - Jul 16, 2024 - 3:53pm
 
Live Music - skyguy - Jul 16, 2024 - 3:44pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Jul 16, 2024 - 3:43pm
 
New Music - thisbody - Jul 16, 2024 - 2:26pm
 
Gimmie 5 Kurt! - thisbody - Jul 16, 2024 - 12:30pm
 
China - thisbody - Jul 16, 2024 - 12:05pm
 
Acoustic Guitar - thisbody - Jul 16, 2024 - 11:08am
 
Bear! - Beaker - Jul 16, 2024 - 6:43am
 
2024 Elections! - R_P - Jul 15, 2024 - 8:43pm
 
Favorite Quotes - Isabeau - Jul 15, 2024 - 3:43pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - Isabeau - Jul 15, 2024 - 12:25pm
 
The Truth About (Modern) Popular Music - Proclivities - Jul 15, 2024 - 8:18am
 
Please don't ban me, but: Taylor Swift... - sunybuny - Jul 15, 2024 - 4:55am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Beaker - Jul 14, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jul 14, 2024 - 12:52pm
 
Media Bias - Beaker - Jul 14, 2024 - 9:46am
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2024 - 7:51am
 
AH! There's an elephant in the room! - Red_Dragon - Jul 13, 2024 - 3:42pm
 
Outstanding Covers - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jul 13, 2024 - 12:49pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:34am
 
Eclectic Sound-Drops - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:23am
 
RP on Mac Just Stopped Working - tourtelot - Jul 12, 2024 - 9:35pm
 
Are they married yet? YES THEY ARE! - Manbird - Jul 12, 2024 - 2:51pm
 
Tech & Science - Manbird - Jul 12, 2024 - 2:46pm
 
Classic TV Curiosities - Proclivities - Jul 12, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jul 12, 2024 - 10:48am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Jul 12, 2024 - 7:05am
 
Regarding Birds - Jiggz - Jul 12, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - thisbody - Jul 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - Jul 11, 2024 - 2:36pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 11, 2024 - 2:05pm
 
Record Store Day - Proclivities - Jul 11, 2024 - 8:18am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Jul 11, 2024 - 5:12am
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - Jul 11, 2024 - 4:39am
 
Russia - thisbody - Jul 11, 2024 - 3:11am
 
France - thisbody - Jul 11, 2024 - 3:04am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Get the Quote Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 4:17pm

black321 wrote:
Absence of belief? An atheist believes there is no god/deity. I've seen as much evangelist/fundamentalist dogma from atheists as southern babtists.
Perhaps absence of belief would fit an agnostic.

He/Dostoevsky does a pretty good job with the argument, that morality hinges on a higher value/transcendence, beyond the self. 
I don't contend that you need belief in a deity to be a good person, and don't believe Peterson argues that either.
But, you need belief beyond oneself (transcendence)  to remain what we universally consider moral.

We have other places to argue this, so this will be my last attempt: atheism means (literally) a (without) -theos (god) -ism (belief in or adherence to a doctrine of). Not believing in something is not the same as believing in the non-existence of something. You may be thinking of antitheists, who actively deny that god(s) exist, presumably inviting god(s) to smite them as rebuttal.

An agnostic doesn't know whether god(s) exist or not; most atheists are also agnostics.

The atheists I know would say that they'd be willing to believe in god(s) given evidence for one (or more), but there is no such. Most theists will readily admit that; they base their belief on, basically, belief: the idea appeals to them or they have a feeling that it's true, therefor there is (are) god(s). This is the essence of faith: believing in something without evidence.

Peterson's approach to arguing about the source of morality is a bit different, sort of arguing the inverse: instead of claiming that morality follows from religion (which he takes as a given) he argues that what atheists claim is a rationally-derivable morality is just a remnant of a religious dogma so embedded in the cultural milieu that atheists can't see it. He doesn't prove this (he can't, really—how could he know which cultural forces other people are immune to?) but he uses it to dismiss an argument without really considering its merits. An argument he admits (over and over in the clip I linked to) that he doesn't understand.

And since you're making a claim similar to what Peterson assumes as an axiom I'll invite you to prove it. Setting aside sectarian-specific beliefs (like not suffering a witch to live or that eating shellfish will damn you for all eternity) demonstrate that no one can derive a universally-acceptable set of moral principles without resorting to higher powers or deities or whatever you mean by "transcendence".

Peterson doesn't even attempt it, so I won't be disappointed if you don't pick up that gauntlet.

Moreover numerous people have done just that (derived a set of more-or-less universally-acceptable moral principles without resorting to deities), and unless you can point out some kind of flaw in their thinking you have your work cut out for you.
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 3:49pm

 black321 wrote:
Absence of belief? An atheist believes there is no god/deity. I've seen as much evangelist/fundamentalist dogma from atheists as southern babtists.
Perhaps absence of belief would fit an agnostic.

Definitions matter.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 2:49pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view?
Is not atheism a belief?

I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. 
For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.

In order:

1. No, religions have profound impacts on our lives, both in what we are called to d by them and by what others are called to do to us by them.

2. I don't think he was arguing anything of the sort, but I'll let noenz speak for himself here.

3. No, atheism is the absence of belief, just as clear is not a color and nothing for me, thanks is not a sandwich.

4. Um, ok, but claiming (as Peterson does) that the absence of belief means an absence of morality is simply an ignorant form of religious chauvinism. He admits not understanding the opposite view, but seems genuinely incurious about understanding it.

Absence of belief? An atheist believes there is no god/deity. I've seen as much evangelist/fundamentalist dogma from atheists as southern babtists.
Perhaps absence of belief would fit an agnostic.

He/Dostoevsky does a pretty good job with the argument, that morality hinges on a higher value/transcendence, beyond the self. 
I don't contend that you need belief in a deity to be a good person, and don't believe Peterson argues that either.
But, you need belief beyond oneself (transcendence)  to remain what we universally consider moral.

Sanctimonious? No, but most of these guys are salesmen, figuratively and literally with their latest book... 



haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 2:19pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view?
Is not atheism a belief?

I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. 
For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.

In order:

1. No, religions have profound impacts on our lives, both in what we are called to d by them and by what others are called to do to us by them.

2. I don't think he was arguing anything of the sort, but I'll let noenz speak for himself here.

3. No, atheism is the absence of belief, just as clear is not a color and nothing for me, thanks is not a sandwich.

4. Um, ok, but claiming (as Peterson does) that the absence of belief means an absence of morality is simply an ignorant form of religious chauvinism. He admits not understanding the opposite view, but seems genuinely incurious about understanding it.
 
3. I tell people my father was a devout atheist. His atheism sustained him through WWII as he disproved the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." Me, I'm pretty much an Apatheist, which leads to...

4. Agree. Live your life so it doesn't matter if God exists or not. Whether for the benefit of society or future lollipops, take your best shot at doing good.

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 2:10pm



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


Without watching more of the debates (which I fully intend to do) I have a feeling where this is headed. The debate with Sam Harris staked out the playing field between the "catastrophe" of dogma and the "catastrophe of moral relativism", which both wanted to avoid.

But by appealing to human psychology, Jungian archetypes, narrative, and Christian beliefs, I see a desperate attempt to find a universal moral language - a commonality I think he called it - that is neither dogmatic nor relative to culture.
I have not yet met anyone who has squared that particular circle and, quite frankly, I don't expect to.

I have a strong suspicion that JP wants to establish that we are only free moral agents within some form of universal moral construct (which is where the sanctimonious shit comes in, he speaks like someone who thinks he has found these "universal rules" which is just another word for dogma) but does a mental back-flip to position himself as a free-thinker outside of the structure he posits. But actually he is championing some kind of dogma, dressed up in modern garb and I think that is why he is annoying: a supreme intellect, highly erudite but fundamentally using his cerebral prowess to fool himself... ok, I 'm stretching here.. may my further research prove me wrong.

Whatever, the debate was one of the best I have seen, so I have to give him credit for that.

 
That's weird, trying to find a universal moral language based on Christian beliefs that is not relative to culture. Not dogmatic? I guess that means finding your "universal moral language" by picking and choosing the Christian beliefs you like. You know, like the evangelicals. 

Better off recognising that all this shit is based on your culture. That leads you to situational ethics - in the original sense that, if I remember correctly boils down to "do it with love for other people"

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 1:27pm

black321 wrote:
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view?
Is not atheism a belief?

I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. 
For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.

In order:

1. No, religions have profound impacts on our lives, both in what we are called to d by them and by what others are called to do to us by them.

2. I don't think he was arguing anything of the sort, but I'll let noenz speak for himself here.

3. No, atheism is the absence of belief, just as clear is not a color and nothing for me, thanks is not a sandwich.

4. Um, ok, but claiming (as Peterson does) that the absence of belief means an absence of morality is simply an ignorant form of religious chauvinism. He admits not understanding the opposite view, but seems genuinely incurious about understanding it.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 1:19pm

 black321 wrote:


 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly.
The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too. 
 
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view?
Is not atheism a belief?

I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. 
For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.

 
that one.

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 1:07pm

 sirdroseph wrote:

To be fair, I don't even know that much about Peterson's view on religion.  I am much more interested in his views on human psychology, society, free speech and individual responsibility.  As I have listened to him more and more, I can hear snippets of his championing Christianity but I am not one to get bogged down in the semantics of a person's religious preference unless they are Evangelical or Fundamental.  I tend to poo poo that.  I am more interested in one's behavior and ideas.  Religion including Atheism is nothing but style and delivery, the real measure is how all of this is manifest in the individual in the spirit world.{#Meditate}
 
Without watching more of the debates (which I fully intend to do) I have a feeling where this is headed. The debate with Sam Harris staked out the playing field between the "catastrophe" of dogma and the "catastrophe of moral relativism", which both wanted to avoid.

But by appealing to human psychology, Jungian archetypes, narrative, and Christian beliefs, I see a desperate attempt to find a universal moral language - a commonality I think he called it - that is neither dogmatic nor relative to culture. I have not yet met anyone who has squared that particular circle and, quite frankly, I don't expect to.

I have a  strong suspicion that JP wants to establish that we are only free moral agents within some form of universal moral construct (which is where the sanctimonious shit comes in, he speaks like someone who thinks he has found these "universal rules" which is just another word for dogma) but does a mental back-flip to position himself as a free-thinker outside of the structure he posits. But actually he is championing some kind of dogma, dressed up in modern garb and I think that is why he is annoying: a supreme intellect, highly erudite but fundamentally using his cerebral prowess to fool himself... ok, I 'm stretching here.. may my further research prove me wrong.

Whatever, the debate was one of the best I have seen, so I have to give him credit for that. 
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 12:50pm



 sirdroseph wrote:

To be fair, I don't even know that much about Peterson's view on religion.  I am much more interested in his views on human psychology, society, free speech and individual responsibility.  As I have listened to him more and more, I can hear snippets of his championing Christianity but I am not one to get bogged down in the semantics of a person's religious preference unless they are Evangelical or Fundamental.  I tend to poo poo that.  I am more interested in one's behavior and ideas.  Religion including Atheism is nothing but style and delivery, the real measure is how all of this is manifest in the individual in the spirit world.
{#Meditate}
 
I would agree, the cornerstone of most of his discussions have little to do with religion, or politics. 

black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 12:49pm



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly.
The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too. 
 
So all religion is meaningless? Or are you arguing for a more fundamentalist view?
Is not atheism a belief?

I think the philosophy of religion is a meaningful discussion; but not the belief/disbelief of God. 
For the latter, both sides have faith in answering a question they really can't answer.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 12:38pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly.
The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too. 
 
To be fair, I don't even know that much about Peterson's view on religion.  I am much more interested in his views on human psychology, society, free speech and individual responsibility.  As I have listened to him more and more, I can hear snippets of his championing Christianity but I am not one to get bogged down in the semantics of a person's religious preference unless they are Evangelical or Fundamental.  I tend to poo poo that.  I am more interested in one's behavior and ideas.  Religion including Atheism is nothing but style and delivery, the real measure is how all of this is manifest in the individual in the spirit world.{#Meditate}
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 12:27pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
sirdroseph wrote:
"I don't think it is possible to grow up without having children."   Jordan Peterson


I would like to add that having children does not guarantee growing up either.  Caveat is that this opinion does not put a judgment on growing up as a goal or as a pejorative.

This is the kind of hyperbole is what keeps people from taking him seriously. He has interesting/relevant/true things to say and brackets them with sanctimonious nonsense like this.
 
I must admit the first video I saw of him was precisely that sanctimonious up-his-own-arse side to him and I pigeon-holed him pretty quickly.
The debate with Sam Harris I watched yesterday at least made me pause. To his credit, JP can follow a clear line of argument through multiple recursions and side-tracking, which is not something many people manage. So yeah, he does have a brain. But ultimately the line he is arguing is untenable, (i.e. that religion speaks to some higher truth that can only be expressed or explored in narrative). To make this logically consistent he would have to water it down to meaningless (which he tries to do to make it salonfähig in front of the likes of Sam Harris) but by paying lip service to the narrative he stokes a fanbase of believers. He's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too. 
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 11:45am

Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Shakespeare
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 11:35am

 Lazy8 wrote:

Yeah, seriously. He became a free speech martyr and rode that to stardom, but there just isn't that much to him.

I'm glad he used his alt-platform to re-introduce people to Enlightenment values, glad he is an articulate defender of intellectual honesty. That's commendable and all, but that should be the minimum for being a public intellectual. What he brings to the table beyond that is bland Christian moralism. He's no Christopher Hitchens.

The fact that he is seen as a radical—by both his detractors and supporters—is a sad comment on the current intellectual atmosphere.
 
I don't see him as radical at all, if I did I would probably not be a supporter, not that radicalism is a presumed pejorative.  Does not mean that I am correct in my assessment of him as radical or not, but I am quite sure of how I see him.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 10:13am



 Lazy8 wrote:
sirdroseph wrote:
This will provide some context as with all deep thinkers, it is not that simple.  Also how can it be sanctimonious if I already provided a caveat that this is not even about judgment or saying that growing up is better than not growing up, I made that quite clear.  Anyway, if you are interested in a full explanation:
 
 
As for keeping people from taking him seriously, some may not, but I was not aware that this was an overall issue with him.  Seems to me he is doing alright for himself and is a well respected thinker for those that value such things.  Pretty sure credibility is not an issue, there are plenty who disagree with him, but not taking him seriously.....seriously?
{#Eek}

Yeah, seriously. He became a free speech martyr and rode that to stardom, but there just isn't that much to him.

I'm glad he used his alt-platform to re-introduce people to Enlightenment values, glad he is an articulate defender of intellectual honesty. That's commendable and all, but that should be the minimum for being a public intellectual. What he brings to the table beyond that is bland Christian moralism. He's no Christopher Hitchens.

The fact that he is seen as a radical—by both his detractors and supporters—is a sad comment on the current intellectual atmosphere.
 
Well that's pretty friggin obvious.
Peterson is far from any form of fundamentalism.

R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 10:11am

 Lazy8 wrote:
What he brings to the table beyond that is bland Christian moralism.
 
Cleverly repackaged as self-help for reactionaries/conservatives.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 10:05am

sirdroseph wrote:
This will provide some context as with all deep thinkers, it is not that simple.  Also how can it be sanctimonious if I already provided a caveat that this is not even about judgment or saying that growing up is better than not growing up, I made that quite clear.  Anyway, if you are interested in a full explanation:
 
 
As for keeping people from taking him seriously, some may not, but I was not aware that this was an overall issue with him.  Seems to me he is doing alright for himself and is a well respected thinker for those that value such things.  Pretty sure credibility is not an issue, there are plenty who disagree with him, but not taking him seriously.....seriously?
{#Eek}

Yeah, seriously. He became a free speech martyr and rode that to stardom, but there just isn't that much to him.

I'm glad he used his alt-platform to re-introduce people to Enlightenment values, glad he is an articulate defender of intellectual honesty. That's commendable and all, but that should be the minimum for being a public intellectual. What he brings to the table beyond that is bland Christian moralism. He's no Christopher Hitchens.

The fact that he is seen as a radical—by both his detractors and supporters—is a sad comment on the current intellectual atmosphere.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 8:50am

 Lazy8 wrote:
sirdroseph wrote:
"I don't think it is possible to grow up without having children."   Jordan Peterson


I would like to add that having children does not guarantee growing up either.  Caveat is that this opinion does not put a judgment on growing up as a goal or as a pejorative.

This is the kind of hyperbole is what keeps people from taking him seriously. He has interesting/relevant/true things to say and brackets them with sanctimonious nonsense like this.
 
This will provide some context as with all deep thinkers, it is not that simple.  Also how can it be sanctimonious if I already provided a caveat that this is not even about judgment or saying that growing up is better than not growing up, I made that quite clear.  Anyway, if you are interested in a full explanation:
 
 
As for keeping people from taking him seriously, some may not, but I was not aware that this was an overall issue with him.  Seems to me he is doing alright for himself and is a well respected thinker for those that value such things.  Pretty sure credibility is not an issue, there are plenty who disagree with him, but not taking him seriously.....seriously?{#Eek} 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 8:05am

sirdroseph wrote:
"I don't think it is possible to grow up without having children."   Jordan Peterson


I would like to add that having children does not guarantee growing up either.  Caveat is that this opinion does not put a judgment on growing up as a goal or as a pejorative.

This is the kind of hyperbole is what keeps people from taking him seriously. He has interesting/relevant/true things to say and brackets them with sanctimonious nonsense like this.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 30, 2021 - 5:03am

"I don't think it is possible to grow up without having children."   Jordan Peterson


I would like to add that having children does not guarantee growing up either.  Caveat is that this opinion does not put a judgment on growing up as a goal or as a pejorative.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next