Jordan Peterson - profesor na fronti kulturološkog rata

[Branka62]

пре 15 часа, Vladan ::: рече

текстови и озбиљне дискусије сијају од објективности и непристрасности

Vladane, kada naidješ na ovakav tekst, budi siguran da je ili autor teksta AI ili da se tekst u potpunosti slaže sa tvojim* već formiranim stavovima.

*To važi i za mene i za svako ljudsko biće.

пре 15 часа, Vladan ::: рече

а очигледно је да је наручена

Studiju jesu finansirale organizacije za koje se može reći da su zainteresovane za pozitivne rezultate. I, naravno, kada se čita takva studija, bez obzira šta je tema istraživanja, trebalo bi da smo obazriviji. Ali već drugi put ponavljaš " očigledno da je naručena". Ako imaš neke konkretne podatke da je naručena/naštimovana, OK ali ih iznesi. To što ima nedostatke ( a o ovim nedostacima ću pisati kasnije ) nije dokaz za naručenost.

 

пре 15 часа, Vladan ::: рече

Ако није прочитана и схваћена студија како треба

Šta da ti kažem - studiju sam pažljivo pročitala i to još davno. Da li sam je pravilno shvatila? Moguće je danisam.

[Branka62]

пре 15 часа, Vladan ::: рече

јер своје тврдње нису претходно рашчистили.

 

пре 15 часа, Vladan ::: рече

поступили неодговорно према осталима

Svoje tvrdnje sam raščistila ( onoliko koliko, kao informisani laik, za ovu oblast mogu ). Moja greška jeste što nisam dala link do neke super neoborive studije ( ako takva postoji ) i može se to protumačiti kao neodgovoran postupak. Ali ono malo što znam o studijama iz oblasti sociologije i psihologije je da male, longitudinalne, non- random sampling studije imaju svoja ograničenja – rezultati samo jedne takve studije se ne mogu generalizovati. Zato sam i napisala da se sa tvojim primedbama slažem. Medjutim, takve studije nisu bezvredne. One omogućavaju da se ispitanici prate tokom dugog vremenskog perioda. Što velike najčešće ne uspevaju. Kada se sumiraju rezultati više malih longitudinalnih i rezultati velikih, pa još slučajnog uzorka, pa još sa kontrolnom grupom, dolazi se do saznanja koja se mogu generalizovati. To je i uradjeno i zaključci ( ako se dobro sećam ) 75* od obradjenih 79 su se slagali sa rezultatima ove. Tako da, ne znam da li se ona »bruka« odnosi na mene ili na autore ( ili I jedno I drugo ), ali.... pa ti sad vidi. A moguće je da sam ja toliko pristrasna da, i pored kritike, ne uvidjam da smo se ja i/ili autori studije obrukali.

E sad, možda sam nedokazana/preopterećena predubedjenjima ali ja dadoh link do rada – svako je mogao da vidi gde je rad štampan/ko gaje finansirao/kako se došlo do zaključaka...., i da dalje potraži kritike studije/da li je studija možda povučena..... Ti si dao citat sa nepoznate fb stranice i linkove do ispovesti troje ljudi u novinama. I sad sam ja neodgovorna, (možda) trol, (ne)namerni obmanjivač, (možda) bi trebalo da me je blam.... a pročitala sam, na onoj drugoj temi, da sam ti i mučninu izazvala.

 *Jedna od tih 75 je ova o kojoj smo raspravljali.

пре 15 часа, Vladan ::: рече

немам ништа против људи

Nisam ni pomislila da imaš nešto protiv mene.

[Paradoksologija]

Pogrešna interpretacija studija je česta pojava, uglavnom počinje već pri prvom pojavljivanju u medijima, i to uglavnom ne namerno, prosto jer je za razumevanje naučnih studija potrebno pomno i detaljno čitanje uz znanje metodologije i terminologije, a svi mi imamo predrasude, potrebu da pojednostavimo stvari, potrebu da vidimo proste uzročno-posledične veze i gde ih nema, i svi volimo da brzamo kad zaključujemo.

Odgovornost je zajednička i najbolji način na se izbegnu gluposti jeste da svi kritički čitamo date izvore i reagujemo.  

[Ћириличар]

Нема ме неко вријеме и наравно да џумбус испадне око Питерсона без мене. Ццц... Да допринесем страни његових критичара, јер су ( коначно ) освануле добре критике које га не блате или не користе нека неоснована повезивања њега и свачега нечега.

Jordan Peterson' Truth - Debunked ( препоручујем, веома )

Jordan Peterson' Archetypes - Debunked 

Jordan Peterson' "Atheists haven't addressed the hard-hitters" - Debunked

Jordan Peterson is not a Christian ( у праву је, али и није. Питање је млаћење празне сламе свакако )

Jordan Peterson' "Everyone is religious" - Debunked ( опет, у праву је, али и није. Препоручујем )

Answering Jordan Peterson on Marxism ( овај канал је, буквално, постмодернистичко-марксистички, по сопственом признању )

Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism ( најбољи "тејкдаун" до сада, јер је добро показао како је ово истина )

А кад будем могао приуштити времена за свађање по форуму, ето ме. За сада, дости од мене.

[Ћириличар]

пре 12 часа, ana čarnojević рече

I was once his strongest supporter.

That all changed with his rise to celebrity. I am alarmed by his now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people’s emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

Цитат

He is a social order warrior.

Please Internet, make this catch on.

Цитат

That was our last conversation. He was playing out the ideas that appeared in his first book. The social order is coming apart. We are on the edge of chaos. He is the prophet, and he would be the martyr. Jordan would be our saviour. I think he believes that.

Yup. Can confirm. 

Ово је заправо суштина читаве његове приче са Мапама значења - појединац херој је тај који ће се дрзнути да говори истину и бори се против нереда Хаоса или тираније Реда.

Цитат

Currently, Jordan is the darling of the alt-right

Нетачно. Разочарани су јер их је одбио рекавши да су исти као ови лијеви идентитарци. Назвао је идеологију алт-рајта, еуфемистички, "недовршеном", јер у својој идеји имају само архетип Оца, и да немају мјеста за "хероја" приче - тј. појединца:

Jordan Peterson: The problem with the alt-right

Због оваквих детаља не могу да се отресем осјећаја да га људи просто у старту не заготиве и онда олако упијају шта други кажу о њему, а не шта он говори. Али, са друге стране, човјек јесте ексцентрик и тешко га је упратити.

Него, има један ранији дио текста гдје се забринуто говори о томе да је Питерсон селективан у томе да је попустљив према говору алт-рајта али не жели да се чује говор радикалне лијевице. Па... ни то није тачно, јер се сами алт-рајтовци жале како Питерсон неће да прича са њима. Ево са највећег алт-рајт канала: Jordan Peterson refuses to debate ethno-nationalists. Има и читав један говор у којем се, веома лоше, жали и критикује Питерсонове ставове - The passion of Jordan Peterson. Да не спомињем његове Твитер тираде и понижавања алт-рајта као "неосварених људи који своје личне недостатке траже да надомјесте у неком колективном расном идентитету". Врх је што је то, када је ријеч о овом алт*рајт каналу којег сам поставио, истина. Лик је пропали студент умјетности ( иронија је очигледна, зар не? ).

Али да, он је "мезимац алт-рајта"...

Цитат

Currently, Jordan is the darling of the alt-right. He says he is not one of them, but has accepted their affection with relish. Andrew Scheer, the leader of the federal Conservative party, has declined any further appearances on The Rebel, but Jordan continues to appear.

Ту мрежу је основао и водио - Јевреј. Тек сам недавно сазнао да постоји мали дио алтрајта који заправо воли Јевреје ( и послије нека причају о идеолошкој неконзистентности... ), али већина је свакако класично антисемитска. Равнање Ребела са алтрајтом на овај начин је потпуно нетачно. Чак су се и у Ребелу удаљили од своје новинарке када није била довољно критична према алтрајту у једној алтрајт емисији. Питерсон је касније опозвао поозивницу за дебату управо тој новинарки, дајући управо тај разлог ( који ми је оно... безвезе разлог. Очигледно је да је пазио на то како ће га јавност гледати ак осе појави поред ње ). 

Цитат

Jordan is not part of the alt-right. He fits no mould. But he should be concerned about what the “dark desires” of the alt-right might be. He could be, perhaps unwittingly, activating “the dark desires” of that mob.

Ииии натраг на фазон Панкаџа Мишре...

Цитат

Jordan presents a confusing picture, and it’s often hard to know what he is up to. In one of his YouTube videos, Jordan said that if you are not sure of what or why someone is doing what they are doing, look at the consequences. They could be revealing.

That keeps me up at night.

Given Jordan’s tendency toward grandiosity, it should not be surprising to learn that he is politically ambitious. He would have run for the leadership of the federal Conservative party but was dissuaded by influential friends. He has not, however, lost interest in the political life.

Не би ме, искрено, зачудило да не осване једног дана као политичар. Али да, ако погледамо на посљедице онога што ради - човјек је путујући предавач, говорник итд. Имао је неки састанак са вођством Конзервативне странке о томе шта би конзервативци могли да понуде у својој платформи. Дао је и одбрану слободе говора са конзервативне стране, али је уједно дао и одбрану слободе говора се лијеве стране. Еве:

A left-wing case for free speech

Цитат

Jordan is a powerful orator. He is smart, compelling and convincing. His messages can be strong and clear, oversimplified as they often are, to be very accessible. 

Ово ми је тек сад синуло - зашто сви кажу да Питерсон све поједностављује? Јер то и ради ( "Вау, које откриће. Дај себи награду" , тренутак, саслушај ), али не бих рекао да му је мотивација ту да превесла будале, него јер заиста вјерује да се мора имати једноставна прича. То каже на задњем предавању Мапа значења ( или у неком интервјуу, не могу се сјетити сад ), али на свој начин, наравно:"Оно што нам треба је прича ниске резолуције која је довољно тачна да погађа она генерална мјеста, тј. да је генерално тачна. Потребна нам је нова прича, нови мит.". Када се узме у обзир да он посматра идеологије и митологије као оруђа која људи користе да структурирају своја друштва, то онда се чини апсолутно логичним да се ради ако се жели понудити "нови наратив". Оно, скоро свака нација има своје оснивачке митове и митологизације или романтизације које представљају основ идентитета те групе људи.

Но можда само жели да превесла будале. Не искључујем ту могућност.

Цитат

He has played havoc with the truth

Depends on what you mean by truth, bucko 

Цитат

He frightens by invoking murderous bogeymen on the left and warning they are out to destroy the social order, which will bring chaos and destruction.

Дап, ту се слажем да претјерује. Али лицимјерје прозивања Питерсона за застрашивање страшилима Лијевице, док у истом тексту се шири страх од страшила са Деснице преко Питерсона. Мислим, реално...

Обојица би требала да се примире мало.

Цитат

he said children are little monkeys trying to clamber up the dominance hierarchy and need to be kept in their place. I thought he was being ironic. Apparently, not.

А зар нису? А зар је лоше држати дјецу "на мјесту" док не одрасту и не сазру? Не контам. Проблем је што је то рекао ријечима које звуче грубо? Или?

Цитат

He is also very much like the classic Social Darwinists who believe that “attempts to reform society through state intervention or other means would … interfere with natural processes; unrestricted competition and defence of the status quo were in accord with biological selection.” (Encylopedia Britannica, 2018.) From the same source: “Social Darwinism declined during the 20th century as an expanded knowledge of biological, social and cultural phenomena undermined, rather than supported, its basic tenets.” Jordan remains stuck in and enthralled by The Call of the Wild.

Ох да, реци да је исти као А у једној тачки, па онда наведи најекстремнији цитат од А и представи то као да се слаже са тим. 

Не кажем ја да није, али овако рећи за некога и не дати конкретан примјер гдје се слаже са цитираном екстремном констатацијом је лоше.

Цитат

We should be concerned about his interest in politics. It is clear what kind of country he would want to have or, if he could, lead.

Све би собе биле поспремљене, а и јастози на броју 

Текст је 50-50. Бољи од Мишриног далеко, али има ове наведене фалинке. 

[Avocado]

On 29.5.2018. at 8:43, Ћириличар рече

Ово је заправо суштина читаве његове приче са Мапама значења - појединац херој је тај који ће се дрзнути да говори истину и бори се против нереда Хаоса или тираније Реда.

...
...

Depends on what you mean by truth, bucko 

 

On 29.5.2018. at 8:43, Ћириличар рече

Ох да, реци да је исти као А у једној тачки, па онда наведи најекстремнији цитат од А и представи то као да се слаже са тим. 

Не кажем ја да није, али овако рећи за некога и не дати конкретан примјер гдје се слаже са цитираном екстремном констатацијом је лоше.

Ali to nije najekstremniji citat od nekog socijal-darviniste nego prilično opšti i tačan opis iz enciklopedije o tome šta su manje ekstremni socijal-darvinisti između ostalog smatrali...

Mogao je svakako bolje da demonstrira da Piterson deli navedeni stav sa socijal-darvinistima ali mensčini da iz Pitersonovog opusa to uopšte nije ni najmanje sporno, a i ti ne pokušavaš da osporiš, pa je onda nejasno što uopšte iznosiš ovu primedbu.

Naveo je stav koji uopšte nije najekstremniji nego baš najmanje ekstreman (da društvo ne treba menjati jer je u skladu sa prirodom) i to stav koji Piterson deli sa njima... da je rekao da je Piterson isti kao oni socijal-darvinisti koji su se zalagali za eugeniku (da društvo treba menjati u skladu sa prirodom), onda bi tvoja primedba bila na mestu... ali to nije ni rekao...

 

On 29.5.2018. at 8:43, Ћириличар рече

Све би собе биле поспремљене,

Jel ti svoju sobu uredno i redovno pospremaš?

 

[RYLAH]

[Ronald]

The Peculiar Opacity of Jordan Peterson’s Religious Views

written by Matt Johnson

During a recent conversation in Vancouver—the first night of a massive four-part event sponsored by Pangburn Philosophy—Sam Harris asked Jordan Peterson a question that he can never quite answer: “What do you mean by God?”

If you’ve ever heard Peterson discuss the subject or read either of his books, the answers he provided in Vancouver will not surprise you. God is “how we imaginatively and collectively represent the existence and action of consciousness across time.” God is “that which eternally dies and is reborn in the pursuit of higher being and truth.” God is “the highest value in the hierarchy of values.” God is the “voice of conscience.” God is the “source of judgment and mercy and guilt.” God is the “future to which we make sacrifices and something akin to the trascendental repository of reputation.” God is “that which selects among men in the eternal hierarchy of men.”

It went on like this for awhile, but you get the idea. Or do you? Peterson’s definition of God is a sprawling, book-length collection of abstractions, some of which are grounded in narratives about the human condition, while others are mere descriptions of psychological and temporal realities (“…the future to which we make sacrifices”). In other words, it’s a definition that’s so elastic and subjective as to be almost meaningless. As Harris put it, “That’s not how most people most of the time are using the word, and there’s something misleading about that.”

To which Peterson responded, “I never made the claim that what I’m talking about is like what other people are talking about.” That’s true, and he often says he doesn’t define ‘belief’ or ‘God’ in the same way as anyone else. Even when he’s asked a more specific question—about, say, his belief (or lack thereof) in the divinity of Christ—he says the answer depends on the interviewer’s definitions of ‘Christ’ and ‘divine.’ But Peterson still uses words like ‘divine’ all the time. He’s happy to describe consciousness as divine, which he considers to be an “axiomatic statement.” He’s more than willing to tell you “magical things happen as the logos manifests itself” before announcing his firm belief that the logos is divine, too. But only if, by ‘divine,’ you mean “Of ultimate transcendent value.”

But then, what does Peterson mean by ‘transcendent’? Or ‘value’? And what will he mean by all the words he uses to answer those questions? Communication becomes extremely difficult if we allow ourselves repeatedly to be drawn into a labyrinth of semantic distinctions. That is precisely why there has to be some fundamental agreement about what words actually mean at the beginning of any conversation. This is something Peterson can be particularly bad at doing, when the mood takes him—just listen to his excruciating two-hour conversation with Harris that never managed to get past the disputed meaning of the word ‘truth.’

With some questions, Peterson behaves the same way as anyone else trying to communicate an idea or argument. He clarifies what subjective terms mean to him in specific contexts and then does his best to answer the question at hand. But with others, he says there are insuperable semantic differences that make clear answers unattainable. Instead of doing his best to adhere to definitions of words like ‘God,’ ‘divine,’ and ‘religion’ that are likely to be understood and shared by his audience, Peterson endlessly repurposes them in ways that make it impossible to have a straightforward discussion.

It’s no surprise that Peterson struggles to make coherent claims about his religious beliefs—his use of religious language and imagery has always been slippery. For example, he often professes his belief that “hell exists,” but it’s clear he isn’t talking about a supernatural, eternal torture chamber—he’s just using the word as a metaphor for suffering (as many people do). In his 1999 book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, he argued that the “rejection of the unknown” is a manifestation of “Luciferian pride, which states: all that I know is all that is necessary to know. This pride is totalitarian assumption of omniscience—is adoption of God’s place by ‘reason’—is something that inevitably generates a state of personal and social being indistinguishable from hell.”

Peterson also described the rejection of the unknown as something “tantamount to ‘identification with the devil,’ the mythological counterpart and eternal adversary of the world-creating exploratory hero.” Does he think the Devil is a real supernatural being that actually interacts with the world? Does he think hell is a physical reality? If asked, I suspect he would answer “No” to both of these questions, but he always wants to split the difference—after all, hell (in the sense that Peterson uses the word) is perfectly real to those who are in it. The “world-creating exploratory hero” wouldn’t make any conceptual sense without an “eternal adversary,” and so we call that adversary the Devil.

While it’s helpful to view some psychological facts through the lens of archetypes, mythological narratives, and metaphors about heaven and hell or God and the Devil, Peterson doesn’t want you to think of these things as mere literary devices or explanatory tools. He wants you to think of them as true in a more fundamental sense; as integral components of the human experience that we discard at our peril. To Peterson, our ancestors may have had an impoverished understanding of the world from a scientific perspective, but their spiritual life was rich and sustaining. Now that spiritual life is falling away, and he wants us to reclaim it.

Religious apologists have long sought to reconcile faith with science, and I doubt that Peterson would take issue with this project. But he’s willing to admit that scientific and philosophical progress has diminished the power of religious and spiritual traditions in our lives. As he puts it in Maps of Meaning: “Prior to the time of Descartes, Bacon, and Newton, man lived in an animated, spiritual world, saturated with meaning, imbued with moral purpose. The nature of this purpose was revealed in the stories people told each other—stories about the structure of the cosmos and the place of man.”

Peterson is nostalgic for the “mythic world” that has been deconstructed by scientific and philosophical inquiry over the past few centuries, and he laments this process in Maps of Meaning: “Now we think empirically (at least we think we think empirically), and the spirits that once inhabited the universe have vanished.” For Peterson, this is a slow-moving catastrophe, and not just because it has sapped our lives of meaning. It has also undermined our sense of morality.

Recall what Peterson wrote about the “adoption of God’s place by ‘reason’” and the “totalitarian assumption of omniscience.” Peterson isn’t just concerned about what many religious people regard as the intellectual hubris of atheists—in Maps of Meaning, he writes that the rejection of religion is inherently corrosive to our “belief in the utility and meaning of existence.” He even uses the words ‘religious’ and ‘moral’ interchangeably: “We have become atheistic in our description, but remain evidently religious—that is, moral—in our disposition.”

If you think atheism is, by definition, a rejection of morality and meaning, then nobody who lives an ethical and purposeful life can possibly be an atheist. In Peterson’s world, to the extent that someone is really an atheist, he is a malevolent agent of chaos. To the extent that someone is committed to the values that underpin Western civilization, he is not really an atheist. This is why he identifies with Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that the “death of God” would destroy the moral and psychological pillars that once held Western civilization aloft. And it’s why he blames the greatest moral cataclysms of the twentieth century on atheism.

In a recent interview, Peterson stated that he regards Nietzsche’s writings as prophetic warnings about the “deaths of tens of millions of people in the aftermath of the death of God.” But this is just the same false dichotomy—a society is either God-fearing or murderous (a dichotomy Peterson extends to individuals)—that apologists have been repeating for decades.

Nietzsche’s theory can’t account for the fact that fascism co-existed with Catholicism everywhere from Spain and Portugal to Italy, Croatia, and Slovakia (where the despot who ran the country was actually a Roman Catholic priest, Jozef Tiso). Nor can it explain the bizarre synthesis of beliefs that made up the religious substrate of Nazism—a tangle of Christian millenarianism and anti-Semitism, Nordic blood myths, and other scattered forms of mysticism. Call this ideological abomination whatever you want, but it certainly wasn’t atheism.

Although some Nazis were hostile to Christianity, it’s not as if German soldiers, members of the SS, and other Nazi elites repudiated Christianity en masse—on the contrary, many of them continued to take their faith very seriously. And Hitler frequently used Christian symbolism in his speeches for a reason. He understood that the vast majority of Germans were Christians (Catholicism doesn’t deserve all the blame here—many were Protestants as well), and he wanted them to see that Nazism was compatible with their faith.

How does Peterson accommodate these facts? Does he argue that Nazis couldn’t possibly be true Christians? That would just leave him with the same tautology mentioned above: if you behave well, you’re a Christian, and if you don’t, you’re not. If he refuses to declare who is and isn’t a Christian, he’s left with the fact that the most heinous crimes of the twentieth century were committed by people for whom God was still very much alive.

During the most recent Pangburn event in London on July 16, Peterson made his now-routine claim about the horrors of “secular” systems like communism and fascism: “The secular alternatives [to religion] that we produced in the twentieth century were certainly no less blood-sodden, and they produced nothing of any productivity whatsoever.” However, earlier in the evening, he had made a concession that seemed to complicate this claim. After asserting that democratic institutions “grew out of the Judeo-Christian substrate,” he went on to observe that, “There are Christian substructures—maybe most obviously in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church—where the same metaphysical principles apply, but out of which a democracy did not emerge.”

Despite his simplistic claims about the provenance of fascism and communism, Peterson is clearly capable of recognizing that the historical development of large-scale political and cultural institutions is a complex process that can’t be solely attributed to religion. He even admits that the criticism of religion was a necessary component of the rise of democratic institutions in the West: “It does seem to me that what we have in the West is the consequence of the interplay between the fantasy-predicated poetic Judeo-Christian tradition and the rational critique that was aimed at that by the Enlightenment figures.”

Doesn’t it give him pause that many of these figures—such as David Hume and Baruch Spinoza—were atheists? Would a society based on the principles they espoused be a “bloody catastrophe” that would lead to the “deaths of tens of millions of people”? Harris made a similar point onstage in London: “It was not the ideas of Bertrand Russell and David Hume that brought us to the Gulag or to Auschwitz.”

But this is where Peterson’s redefinitions come in handy—he can simply say that Hume, Spinoza, and Russell weren’t really atheists. He even said this about Harris several times, describing his attempt to ground ethics in a scientific understanding of well-being as a “transcendent” project to move the world as far away from hell as possible. To Peterson, anyone who “acts out the logos” in the service of making the world a better place is participating in a divine process, whether they admit it or not. Under this assumption, even the most vociferous attack on religion can ultimately be construed as a religious exercise if it’s undertaken for the right reasons.

Because Peterson believes morality is inextricably bound to religion, he says every other attempt to behave ethically is a religious exercise, too. In his international bestseller 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, Peterson dismisses the protestations of any unbeliever who doesn’t spend his days raping, murdering, and stealing. After explaining the moral necessity of internalizing a religious structure, he writes, “You might object, ‘But I’m an atheist.’ No, you’re not … You’re simply not an atheist in your actions.” Hitler and Stalin, on the other hand, were real atheists: “It was in the aftermath of God’s death,” Peterson writes, “that the great collective horrors of Communism and Fascism sprang forth.”

It’s almost always a mistake to argue that a single variable is responsible for systems as complex and historically contingent as fascism and communism—particularly when the precise role of that variable is wide open to interpretation. In his infamous interview with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News, Peterson said, “If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis.” Yet that’s exactly what he has done with his assertion that atheism is to blame for the greatest engines of chaos and bloodshed in the twentieth century.

This misreading of history is suggestive in the context of the rest of Peterson’s work. As he explains in Maps of Meaning, he has spent much of his life trying to “make sense of the human capacity, my capacity, for evil—particularly for those evils associated with belief.” And the nightmares of the twentieth century were what drove this pursuit: “How was it possible,” he asked, “for people to act the way the Nazis had during World War II?” It must have been a powerful and indelible revelation when he realized the Nazis acted that way because they had abandoned God.

Which brings us back to the problem with which we began. What does Peterson mean by God? What is this force that gives our lives a transcendent purpose and binds us to the values and principles that ward off the evil he has been trying to understand for so long? Peterson’s definition encompasses everything from our most fundamental moral axioms to the psychological forces that compel us to assume greater responsibility for ourselves and our fellow human beings. In other words, his idea of God is too vague and expansive to be useful: He might as well just add an ‘o’ to the word.

Despite Peterson’s strenuous insistence that his definition of God is unique, he still wants you to know that someone’s God is, in fact, your God—a point he makes repeatedly in Maps of Meaning: “The fundamental tenets of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition continue to govern every aspect of the actual individual behavior and basic values of the typical Westerner.” When it comes to telling us where our morality comes from, Peterson’s equivocal, opaque language suddenly falls away and he leaves us in no doubt about what he’s trying to say. He’s making yet another simplistic, monocausal argument that ignores all the elements of our philosophical and cultural tradition that contradict it.

So what about the rationalist critiques of religion written by Enlightenment atheists like Hume and Spinoza? Or the withering attacks on Christianity by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine? What about all the aspects of our Christian heritage that Peterson doesn’t emphasize, like the virulent anti-Semitism that infected the Third Reich, the scriptural warrants for slavery and genocide, and the savage religious wars that preceded the Enlightenment? Why has moral progress so often required our civilization to renounce the dogmas and dictates of the Judeo-Christian tradition Peterson reveres?

Peterson knows he doesn’t have to answer these questions because, despite all his declarations to the contrary, he isn’t bound by this tradition. In one breath, he tells the audience they live in a society that would collapse without the immovable foundation of Judeo-Christian values. In the next, he reminds them that his God is a modern God, unsullied by the barbarism of ancient texts and unencumbered by the immense weight of history. There’s just one problem: Jordan Peterson’s God is nobody else’s God.

Featured pic by Andy Ngo.

 

Matt Johnson has written for Stanford Social Innovation Review, Editor & Publisher, Splice Today, Forbes, and the Kansas City Star. He was formerly the opinion page editor at the Topeka Capital-Journal and, last year, the Kansas Press Association named his column and opinion page the best in the state. You can follow him on Twitter @mattjj89

https://quillette.com/2018/07/23/the-peculiar-opacity-of-jordan-petersons-religious-views/

[RYLAH]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/jordan-peterson-daughter-mikhaila-meat-carnivore-diet

Мирољуб Питерсон

[Avocado]

пре 5 минута, RYLAH рече

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/jordan-peterson-daughter-mikhaila-meat-carnivore-diet

Мирољуб Питерсон

Da ponovim jedan od svoja dva omiljena opisa: Dipak Čopra za oldejdžere (konzervativce)

 

[Branka62]

1 hour ago, RYLAH рече

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/jordan-peterson-daughter-mikhaila-meat-carnivore-diet

Мирољуб Питерсон

improve physically but not all the way mentally for the last 3 years.

He’d been severely depressed since he was 13 

His depression and anxiety vanished; his mind was sharp

Da li ovo znači da je sve što je pričao pre dijete, pričao zamagljenog uma?

[Paradoksologija]

SAUDI ARABIA DIALS UP THE CRAZY, CALLS JORDAN PETERSON A POLITICAL PRISONER

Riyadh’s bizarre diplomatic feud with Canada keeps getting stranger.

BY ISOBEL THOMPSON
AUGUST 8, 2018 3:11 PM

As it crucified a convicted murderer in Mecca on Wednesday, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was also busy crucifying Canada’s human-rights record—including making the outlandish claim that Canadian author and Internet celebrity Jordan Peterson had been made a political prisoner by Justin Trudeau’s government. (Peterson, as far as anyone knows, has never been arrested, although his self-help guide received a rather harsh review in The New York Review of Books.) The bizarre feud began Sunday, when Ottawa condemned Riyadh’s arrests of several political activists, including the women’s rights campaigner Samar Badawi, and called for their release. The Saudis—exhibiting their fondness for disproportionate justice—responded by expelling the Canadian ambassador, banning new trade, halting upcoming Saudi Airlines flights to Canada, ordering the removal of some 12,000 Saudi citizens studying at Canadian universities, and barring all Saudi citizens from receiving health care in Canada. (The Trump administration, ever a friend to Riyadh, dismissed the tiff as a “diplomatic issue” and urged both sides to “work it out together.”)

And still, the saga gets stranger. The Saudi-owned news network Al Arabiya has also joined the fray, posting a series of videos berating Canada’s prison system and focusing attention on its suicide rates. In one particularly perplexing video, the channel challenged the arrests of multiple “prisoners of conscience” in Canada, suggesting that Peterson—a psychology professor who has recently become a cause célèbre on the right for his outspoken views on gender and sexuality—is some sort of enemy of the state. It also cites, among other “prisoners of conscience,” the Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel who, during the 80s, was twice convicted under an uncommon law criminalizing speech that could cause harm to the public interest. (Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, recently passed a law equating criticism of the king of crown prince with “terrorism”—a charge that can be punishable by death.)

There are several theories that seek to explain Saudi Arabia’s muscular hypocrisy. One is that it stems from frustration directly aimed at Canada: as University of Ottawa’s Thomas Juneau told CBC Radio, Riyadh was irked when Trudeau reneged on a $15-billion arms deal signed by his predecessor, which the Saudis had expected to strengthen ties with Canada across trade, defense, security, and academia. That didn’t happen, he observed, “mostly because the Liberals really didn’t want to be seen as deepening co-operation with such a brutal dictatorship.” Writing in Al Jazeera, journalist Bill Law suggests another pain point: Badawi’s sister-in-law, Ensaf Haidar, lives in Canada, giving her the freedom to regularly berate the Saudi regime. That criticism has surely frustrated Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who hopes to charm foreign governments into investing in the kingdom as he tries to wean its economy off an unsustainable reliance on oil.

A diplomatic cold war with Canada seems an unlikely way to win a charm offensive. Then again, this is not the first time that M.B.S. (as he is popularly known) has displayed an erratic approach to foreign policy. In November 2017, he effectively kidnapped the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, who was coerced into resigning in a speech broadcast from Riyadh—a resignation he later overturned. In the same year, Saudi Arabia removed its ambassador from Germany after a minister made comments interpreted as a criticism of Saudi military action in Yemen. In 2015, it recalled its ambassador to Sweden following criticism of the flogging of Badawi’s brother. Seen in context, Canada looks like just another scapegoat for M.B.S. as he works to unite his subjects in nationalist fervor. (In a press conference Wednesday, Saudi foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir tripled down, threatening another wave of retaliatory measures that could limit investment flows with Canada. “Canada knows what it needs to do,” Al-Jubeir said, explaining that there would be no compromise. “We don’t accept interference in our affairs.”)

Perhaps the crown prince is betting potential foreign investors won’t care about Canada when calculating their R.O.I. Certainly it helps that Donald Trump has no love for Justin Trudeau, and is waging a vehemently nationalist, anti-Canadian campaign of his own. “One is hard-pressed to truly understand what officials at the Royal Court are thinking,” notes Steven A. Cook in Foreign Policy. “Beyond taking a cue from the Trump administration and declaring, ‘We are Saudi Arabia, bitches.’”

 

[Lady Godiva]

пре 28 минута, Paradoksologija рече

Peterson, as far as anyone knows, has never been arrested, although his self-help guide received a rather harsh review in The New York Review of Books.

[Paradoksologija]

пре 3 минута, Lady Godiva рече

[Lady Godiva]

@Paradoksologija 

#snowflakes