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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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 radicalâby both his detractors and supportersâis a sad comment on the current intellectual atmosphere.
Well that's pretty friggin obvious. Peterson is far from any form of fundamentalism.
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?
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 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?
"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 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.
âIf you are happy as a human then so be it. But be warned â just as we humans split from chimpanzees years ago, so cyborgs will split from humans. Those who remain human will likely become a subspecies. They will, effectively, be the chimpanzees of the futureâ
If you're always angry, outraged, and believe the world is out to get you, you're being sold self-sabotage under the guise of empowerment.
- Ayishat Akanbi
Not to mention it is the height of narcissism and self importance. Sounds like something Jordan Peterson ie Hitler would say. I always suspected you were a closet Nazi.
