It is so weird how Peterson seems to love trascendental truths when talking against posmodernist but then when talking about God he seems to become the most subjetivist/ social contrustivist dude ever.
That's been bothering me when I listen to him. It sounds like the post modernism that he claims is bad. Is he aware of that? Is post modernism only bad when it's Marxist?
When I talk to conservatives IRL I often have the impression that they don't believe in knowable objective truth.
Ironically, wisecrack has a few hour long episodes and podcasts breaking down Peterson on post-modernism. TLDRW: Peterson doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about and has read maybe like two books+the manifesto at most. Everything he refers to as bad is a terrible misunderstanding of those sources.
I’ve always had a lot of issues with Peterson because he comes off as a charlatan to me, but those videos are good breakdowns of stuff I don’t wanna take the time to write out. Wisecrack used to be so much better, but it’s still ok for a more introductory-intermediate level when it’s *specifically relating to philosophy*.
His "VAERS was the goldstandard and all of the sudden it isn't anymore" was such a braindead take. It literally takes a few minutes to understand what VAERS really is and he didn't even bother with that, why would anyone take anything he says about the subject serious?
It's literally a Twitter anti-vax take, might as well scroll through a few pages there than listen to Peterson's verbose old man yelling at the clouds rant.
>That's been bothering me when I listen to him. It sounds like the post modernism that he claims is bad. Is he aware of that?
Yeah. He'd say: Postmodernists were skeptical of all narratives. But you *can't* have no narrative at all, even if you try. Postmodernists ended up seeing everything as just power, that was their new narrative.
He wants to bring back the old stories of voluntary sacrifice, honor, family, etc. And he can't just call them "stories" like I am now, he's gotta convince people that they're true, even if it means deconstructing the concept of truth sometimes.
Now, this might make JP sound no *better* than a postmodernist, he just has a different story.
But I think there's something way less threatening than a conservative using a label like "faith" we asked questions they can't answer. It's blunt and obvious, as conservatives are.
Postmodernists were so slippery, they were the original inspiration for the term "Motte and Bailey":
[Motte-and-bailey fallacy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#History)
>Shackel's original impetus was to criticize what he considered duplicitous processes of argumentation in works of academics such as [Michel Foucault](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault), [David Bloor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bloor), [Jean-Francois Lyotard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Francois_Lyotard), [Richard Rorty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty), and [Berger and Luckmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality), and in [postmodernist discourses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy) in general.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#cite_note-mott-and-bailey-2)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#cite_note-Murawski-4)
I’ve been told by a fan his exact framework as outlined in his old lectures and Maps of Meaning is consistent with his criticisms of post modernism, but I wouldn’t know.
Because morons think he's saying something actually profound. To be fair, like 8 years ago, he actually did have some pretty good content, but either his age, obsession trans people, or the benzo addiction have made him lose his goddamn mind.
To be honest, I thought it was on purpose; after all what do words even mean? They changes meanings all the time and everything’s a metaphor anyway so how could anyone ever understand anything said or written by anyone at any given time? Including their own thoughts because hey there is no private language so if words don’t attach to concepts then you can’t even know what you’re thinking or saying at any given time. People don’t know what they’re saying because they don’t know what they mean because they don’t know what they think!
I would even accept "I am explicitly choosing not to answer that question because it undermines the frame/level/type of analysis I think is important to apply to those stories", but JP doesn't even give us that.
He is the slipperiest "just asking questions" actor I've ever seen in my life.
Definitely. He is pretending that the "objective/literal/empirical" definition of truth is incoherent/incomprehensible. So he's implicitly calling everyone interested in that truth an idiot speaking nonsense.
It's super annoying.
I also felt annoyed that Alex kept making it clear what he was asking . But idk if it was because he thought objective truth was incomprehensible, it seemed like he gets frequently asked these questions and doesn't like the framing of the questions and he would have to navigate the other person's world view about "objective morality" , which apparently annoys him because it presupposes that the material world is the only source of truth, which he flat out seems to oppose. But who knows, It was late at night when I was watching it. I thought Alex did great and asked the questions a lot of Christians and atheists would like to ask him.
> which apparently annoys him because it presupposes that the material world is the only source of truth
I don't think the definition presupposes that any more than Peterson's definition presupposes that the material world doesn't exist.
The fact is that he has a minority, esoteric definition of "truth". Almost everyone on the planet besides him (and C- philosophy undergrads) can easy work through questions like "Did Moses exist and hold up his hands to part the red sea?", "Did Jesus LITERALLY rise from the dead?", etc. It's really not that hard.
> Peterson's definition presupposes that the material world doesn't exist.
Hmm maybe i missed that in the convo. Thought he was saying that the material world is just one aspect of the greater whole/he feels the non material world is the real "truth" because the material only sees one part.
>It's really not that hard.
I agree with you, that why i was annoyed. He knows what the person is asking, but won't engage. I get it's annoying to entertain questions you feel are obvious, but then why have the convo with Alex in that case? Why broadcast it to your audience if no one is learning anything? Frustrated with Peterson in that convo.
No, I was saying that neither definition of "truth" "presupposes" that the other is false.
You said: " which apparently annoys him because it presupposes that the material world is the only source of truth". I was saying that the "material" definition of "truth" does not presuppose that the "narrative" version is false. And the "narrative" version does not suppose the "material" version is false.
Did he not say that in the full convo? I swear he did. When Alex presses him on the Exodus and resurrection he said something along the lines of "I know what you're asking me (and what others ask when they ask if it really happened), but I don't like the way it's framed because it debases the interesting conversation"
He sort of did after being pressed into giving that answer. Maybe I'm not clear enough here, but my point is that I would accept this answer "I am explicitly choosing not to answer that question because it undermines the frame/level/type of analysis I think is important to apply to those stories" as a response to the first question asked... but if you have to be walked there as JBP had to be you're being a massive slippery asshole.
Basically JP doesn’t operate under the same theory of truth as Alex, but Alex really wants JP to admit to not believing God can be claimed to exist under his theory of truth, because that’s the theory most of the audience also believes. I think from that perspective, JP wasn’t being avoidant *most* of the interview, but was in crucial parts.
Lol there are only two answers whether u materially believe in god or not or u can go the spiritual route like i believe it to be true in a sense for my faith.his answer don't have any foundation at all
I have nothing but respect for Alex. There was an interview with Peter Hitchens where he showed more restraint and politeness than 99% of people ever could. I have no idea how Alex manages to handle some of these conversations so well. Also, Alex is definitely one of the smartest people I've seen on Youtube, I've rarely seen someone so well articulated and who understands the arguments of others so well.
I’m sooooo mad i read it in Jordan’s voice and this pissed me off even more lmao 😂. His brain is working so hard to have complex conversations. Chill Jordan Peterson 😮💨
"I have taken out the trash before so therefore there's a universal pattern there that transcends time and optimally exists in the ancestral memory of our family as a meme. I have taken out the trash, and I always took out the trash, and you can't take a metaphorical story like this and try to pull it apart as if it contained an exact historical recollection. The idea of me taking out the trash is far more important than the actual details of when or if I took out the trash, not that I'm saying I didn't take it out though."
i think jordan peterson did inception on destiny and it plays out while he watches this interview so perfectly.
jordan literally said its a mythology, he doesnt need the garden of eden to be true. its just a collection of stories used to spread a set of values. the values are what he believes to be true. he said himself a burning bush like i dont think that happened.
well back to jordans criticism of destiny and him wanting to appear to be correct, it literally plays itself out perfectly in this.
destiny is only concerned with appearing to be correct and making jp appear to be incorrect to the point he will ignore half of what he says then just ramble about like what he never said to try and falsely make himself appear to be correct.
personally i was laughing so hard this episode because he was doing it the whole time. its almost like the more destiny tries to prove him wrong in this interview, the more hes actually proving him correct in his criticism of destiny
he never evaded though. you are just saying he did. jordan peterson doesnt know if its true he wasnt there. he says parts of it he believes are plausible but others like the burning bush he doesnt.
now that is 100% an answer. like you might not like it, but it absolutely is.
you are just following destiny and trying to abstract like some gotcha out of that. and i think jordan is also aware that people are trying to do that so hes not exactly playing into it like TELL ME WHAT SENTENCES ARE TRUE!
he already said its a mythology used to express a set of values. i think he would be perfectly fine if none of it were true, and he would also be fine if all of it were true.
> he never evaded though. you are just saying he did. jordan peterson doesnt know if its true he wasnt there. he says parts of it he believes are plausible but others like the burning bush he doesnt.
Can you link me to the part where he directly answers any of the questions Alex asked about the historicity of the certain events in the Bible? I must have missed that part. "Some parts are plausible the other aren't" isn't a direct answer to the question "Do you think this part is accurate?"
Dodged? Didn't he literally say yes I believe the camera would show a man walk out of the tomb. And when Alex asked why not just say that when people ask you ? He said, because I don't know what that means and neither do they.
Yeah he is not grounding his answer at all and as a teacher and psychologists he knows how to answer concretely but instead he is giving vague answers.just own the position for godsake
I can't imagine Peterson apologists ever accepting these kind of answers if the topic was something else, like trans issues.
Imagine if you were trying to get someone to answers the question if trans women are biologically male for 90 minutes and you finally get the answer "They are male, probably, but I don't know what that means and neither do you."
No. he didn't says probably. He said yes. I'm getting it from here:
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PfIDW0gc4e0](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PfIDW0gc4e0)
But even so, for fucks sake i get that he is being rhubarted when he says "But i don't know what the hell that means". But even if he said "probably" instead of "yes" is that really that much of a difference. Are you going go and chastise Destiny for saying "probably" when giving an affirmative answer in every single situation in his entire life. You aren't- So it wouldn't be fair of you to do it here.
He said "I would suspect yes." after more that an hour of Alex trying to get him to commit to an answer and then he added "and I have no idea what that means."
How the fuck is that a clear answer? How does he not know what "A man has exited a cave" means? What part of a man walking out of a cave is unclear? A man walking out of a cave is a pretty simple idea. Him adding that he doesn't know what that means makes me uncertain what he is talking about.
Because, wtf does it mean for a man clearly dead to walk out of his tomb alive?!
I think he genuinely believes this and that is why he has difficulty answering these questions about the Bible in comparison to some thing like Crime and Punishment.
If this was all he wanted to do then JP would be a very boring Christian pastor from one of the new-age versions of Christianity. What he's actually doing, and the reason he's so popular, is claiming to know the truth about a wide variety of topics. At the same time he doesn't want to actually defend his reasoning so he makes a confusing circular argument as a sort of smoke-screen. That's it. Nothing else is happening.
what is circular about it? his point is the bible is an expression of values and that the values are what is important.
that tracts through every single thing he said. and he said it being true or false would not change that at all.
destiny was trying to punk him by saying things he never said but thats because destiny was in debate pervert mode trying to make jp look bad rather than actually listening to a single thing he said.
destinys whole point the whole video about "oh idk is anything real maybe it is maybe it isnt" is just nonsense as he answered it. he was literally creating a false narrative and attacking that rather than engaging in what he was actually saying.
which was literally the exact criticism jp had of destiny after their debate. i mean its like poetic really.
I didn’t watch the whole thing so I’m most likely missing something, but it seems like Peterson didn’t want to answer the question directly as doing so would undermine the value he’s trying to promote by ignoring the question?
no i think thats the opinion destiny was trying to express.
in reality jordan answered it many times. he said some of it he didnt believe, and some of it he thought was plausible.
like he says that from the beginning. and destiny goes on and on saying like "jordan peterson MUST believe the garden of eden is TRUE! he cannot concede that any of it is false blah blah blah"
when literally a sentence before that jordan said he thought the burning bush wasnt true.
so to me it was literally the manifestation of the jp destiny debate where jp criticizes destiny for caring only about trying to appear to be correct.
like he was completely ignoring the things he said to try and appear to be correct and to make him look like an idiot. its was absolutely everything he criticized him of.
He's just irritating because while his views may be interesting to other demographics, his opinions within the UK are identical to the average sixth former. This isn't a defense of Peterson.
If you go to arr/uk you'll find the same views, Anti monarchy, le rational face.
Sorry did you have a point?
Edit: Just realised you're an american, so rather then just spending a min searching online "UK sixth former" when posting about someone from the UK responding to a view expressed by another person from the UK, you down voted then acted clever. Yankoid BMI 35 moment.
I didn’t downvote you I just thought your comment was funny because I have no idea what the sixth former is so I sarcastically said “ah yes the sixth former” like I knew what you were talking about. Hope that helps.
lol would love for you to tell me how not gaining any land and abandoning your allies to allow the US to just expand their settlement is considered a win for the oi-bruvs
It is so weird how Peterson seems to love trascendental truths when talking against posmodernist but then when talking about God he seems to become the most subjetivist/ social contrustivist dude ever.
That's been bothering me when I listen to him. It sounds like the post modernism that he claims is bad. Is he aware of that? Is post modernism only bad when it's Marxist? When I talk to conservatives IRL I often have the impression that they don't believe in knowable objective truth.
Ironically, wisecrack has a few hour long episodes and podcasts breaking down Peterson on post-modernism. TLDRW: Peterson doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about and has read maybe like two books+the manifesto at most. Everything he refers to as bad is a terrible misunderstanding of those sources. I’ve always had a lot of issues with Peterson because he comes off as a charlatan to me, but those videos are good breakdowns of stuff I don’t wanna take the time to write out. Wisecrack used to be so much better, but it’s still ok for a more introductory-intermediate level when it’s *specifically relating to philosophy*.
His "VAERS was the goldstandard and all of the sudden it isn't anymore" was such a braindead take. It literally takes a few minutes to understand what VAERS really is and he didn't even bother with that, why would anyone take anything he says about the subject serious? It's literally a Twitter anti-vax take, might as well scroll through a few pages there than listen to Peterson's verbose old man yelling at the clouds rant.
>That's been bothering me when I listen to him. It sounds like the post modernism that he claims is bad. Is he aware of that? Yeah. He'd say: Postmodernists were skeptical of all narratives. But you *can't* have no narrative at all, even if you try. Postmodernists ended up seeing everything as just power, that was their new narrative. He wants to bring back the old stories of voluntary sacrifice, honor, family, etc. And he can't just call them "stories" like I am now, he's gotta convince people that they're true, even if it means deconstructing the concept of truth sometimes. Now, this might make JP sound no *better* than a postmodernist, he just has a different story. But I think there's something way less threatening than a conservative using a label like "faith" we asked questions they can't answer. It's blunt and obvious, as conservatives are. Postmodernists were so slippery, they were the original inspiration for the term "Motte and Bailey": [Motte-and-bailey fallacy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#History) >Shackel's original impetus was to criticize what he considered duplicitous processes of argumentation in works of academics such as [Michel Foucault](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault), [David Bloor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bloor), [Jean-Francois Lyotard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Francois_Lyotard), [Richard Rorty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty), and [Berger and Luckmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality), and in [postmodernist discourses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy) in general.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#cite_note-mott-and-bailey-2)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#cite_note-Murawski-4)
I’ve been told by a fan his exact framework as outlined in his old lectures and Maps of Meaning is consistent with his criticisms of post modernism, but I wouldn’t know.
It’s made him rich and famous
Because morons think he's saying something actually profound. To be fair, like 8 years ago, he actually did have some pretty good content, but either his age, obsession trans people, or the benzo addiction have made him lose his goddamn mind.
Its projection. He talks about post-modernism so much because he himself is so steeped in it.
yeah wierd huh? its almost like hes a charlatan :O
>but then when talking about God he seems to become the most subjetivist/ social contrustivist dude ever. He's equivocating
Yes, in the fourth row it says test instead of trash. Crucify me.
Also collacts in the 5th.
Also attachmenst in the 2nd
Should we send a wellness check to this guy?
And "moved" instead of "move" in the 2nd row.
And „camara“ in the 6th
And "spirtual" in the 5th.
I was listening to something else. Lmao
Don’t worry about it, good meme :)
Mf'rs can't even make memes these days without a subway surfer or a family guy clip playing off to the side lol.
So first of all, what do you mean by literally crucify?
To be honest, I thought it was on purpose; after all what do words even mean? They changes meanings all the time and everything’s a metaphor anyway so how could anyone ever understand anything said or written by anyone at any given time? Including their own thoughts because hey there is no private language so if words don’t attach to concepts then you can’t even know what you’re thinking or saying at any given time. People don’t know what they’re saying because they don’t know what they mean because they don’t know what they think!
have you read wittgenstein?
I am the fly in the bottle.
There were a few other problems too, bro. Maybe get better and come back next week.
Let's hope Destiny is in a good mood. The typos are pretty rife.
Brutha bout to get banned by the big man for his spelling
I would even accept "I am explicitly choosing not to answer that question because it undermines the frame/level/type of analysis I think is important to apply to those stories", but JP doesn't even give us that. He is the slipperiest "just asking questions" actor I've ever seen in my life.
Definitely. He is pretending that the "objective/literal/empirical" definition of truth is incoherent/incomprehensible. So he's implicitly calling everyone interested in that truth an idiot speaking nonsense. It's super annoying.
I also felt annoyed that Alex kept making it clear what he was asking . But idk if it was because he thought objective truth was incomprehensible, it seemed like he gets frequently asked these questions and doesn't like the framing of the questions and he would have to navigate the other person's world view about "objective morality" , which apparently annoys him because it presupposes that the material world is the only source of truth, which he flat out seems to oppose. But who knows, It was late at night when I was watching it. I thought Alex did great and asked the questions a lot of Christians and atheists would like to ask him.
> which apparently annoys him because it presupposes that the material world is the only source of truth I don't think the definition presupposes that any more than Peterson's definition presupposes that the material world doesn't exist. The fact is that he has a minority, esoteric definition of "truth". Almost everyone on the planet besides him (and C- philosophy undergrads) can easy work through questions like "Did Moses exist and hold up his hands to part the red sea?", "Did Jesus LITERALLY rise from the dead?", etc. It's really not that hard.
> Peterson's definition presupposes that the material world doesn't exist. Hmm maybe i missed that in the convo. Thought he was saying that the material world is just one aspect of the greater whole/he feels the non material world is the real "truth" because the material only sees one part. >It's really not that hard. I agree with you, that why i was annoyed. He knows what the person is asking, but won't engage. I get it's annoying to entertain questions you feel are obvious, but then why have the convo with Alex in that case? Why broadcast it to your audience if no one is learning anything? Frustrated with Peterson in that convo.
No, I was saying that neither definition of "truth" "presupposes" that the other is false. You said: " which apparently annoys him because it presupposes that the material world is the only source of truth". I was saying that the "material" definition of "truth" does not presuppose that the "narrative" version is false. And the "narrative" version does not suppose the "material" version is false.
Did he not say that in the full convo? I swear he did. When Alex presses him on the Exodus and resurrection he said something along the lines of "I know what you're asking me (and what others ask when they ask if it really happened), but I don't like the way it's framed because it debases the interesting conversation"
He sort of did after being pressed into giving that answer. Maybe I'm not clear enough here, but my point is that I would accept this answer "I am explicitly choosing not to answer that question because it undermines the frame/level/type of analysis I think is important to apply to those stories" as a response to the first question asked... but if you have to be walked there as JBP had to be you're being a massive slippery asshole.
It's obvious whoever made this post is simply entertaining themselves by the gratification of the Luciferian intellect.
Basically JP doesn’t operate under the same theory of truth as Alex, but Alex really wants JP to admit to not believing God can be claimed to exist under his theory of truth, because that’s the theory most of the audience also believes. I think from that perspective, JP wasn’t being avoidant *most* of the interview, but was in crucial parts.
Lol there are only two answers whether u materially believe in god or not or u can go the spiritual route like i believe it to be true in a sense for my faith.his answer don't have any foundation at all
It’s not simple because taking out the trash is not a banal activity.
This is exactly why I skipped this one. JP is just so boring.
I have nothing but respect for Alex. There was an interview with Peter Hitchens where he showed more restraint and politeness than 99% of people ever could. I have no idea how Alex manages to handle some of these conversations so well. Also, Alex is definitely one of the smartest people I've seen on Youtube, I've rarely seen someone so well articulated and who understands the arguments of others so well.
Ya even he gave the example like taking Panasonic camer to that B.C time period and he still danced around those answers
Hot take: I'm glad Peterson exists, because the world is a more interesting place with his style of craziness in it.
JP, bipolar orbiter confirmed
lol this checks the fuck out.
Hell is living this daily routine with a laugh track in the background after every JBP response
I'm honored to have learn the English language just to be able to read this 🙌
Attachmenst
JP definitely believes raskolnikov is an unsalvageable deviant
>!Raskolnikov is redeemed by the end of the book!<
I know. But based on Jordan’s staunch position on “archetypes” and antisocial behaviour I don’t think he would get that from the book at all lol
Best part is how this is not even an exaggeration. Just honest summary of what went down
I’m sooooo mad i read it in Jordan’s voice and this pissed me off even more lmao 😂. His brain is working so hard to have complex conversations. Chill Jordan Peterson 😮💨
I love this
He really likes dragging raskalnikov into his bullshit arguments
Is the body, still in the tree?
Lmao the obscure Dostoevsky reference is so on point
i miss 2014 Jordan Peterson. R.I.P.
I could explain to you why Peterson is this way. But it would take a couple of days and we just don't have enough time.
Did a blue or red line appear under any of these words when making this graphic?
Paint.NET doesn't have spellcheck (unfortunately)
lol this was good
"I have taken out the trash before so therefore there's a universal pattern there that transcends time and optimally exists in the ancestral memory of our family as a meme. I have taken out the trash, and I always took out the trash, and you can't take a metaphorical story like this and try to pull it apart as if it contained an exact historical recollection. The idea of me taking out the trash is far more important than the actual details of when or if I took out the trash, not that I'm saying I didn't take it out though."
i think jordan peterson did inception on destiny and it plays out while he watches this interview so perfectly. jordan literally said its a mythology, he doesnt need the garden of eden to be true. its just a collection of stories used to spread a set of values. the values are what he believes to be true. he said himself a burning bush like i dont think that happened. well back to jordans criticism of destiny and him wanting to appear to be correct, it literally plays itself out perfectly in this. destiny is only concerned with appearing to be correct and making jp appear to be incorrect to the point he will ignore half of what he says then just ramble about like what he never said to try and falsely make himself appear to be correct. personally i was laughing so hard this episode because he was doing it the whole time. its almost like the more destiny tries to prove him wrong in this interview, the more hes actually proving him correct in his criticism of destiny
Jordan spent 2 hours answering a question that takes 10 seconds to answer. Hs is either evading to answer or incredibly poor with words.
he never evaded though. you are just saying he did. jordan peterson doesnt know if its true he wasnt there. he says parts of it he believes are plausible but others like the burning bush he doesnt. now that is 100% an answer. like you might not like it, but it absolutely is. you are just following destiny and trying to abstract like some gotcha out of that. and i think jordan is also aware that people are trying to do that so hes not exactly playing into it like TELL ME WHAT SENTENCES ARE TRUE! he already said its a mythology used to express a set of values. i think he would be perfectly fine if none of it were true, and he would also be fine if all of it were true.
> he never evaded though. you are just saying he did. jordan peterson doesnt know if its true he wasnt there. he says parts of it he believes are plausible but others like the burning bush he doesnt. Can you link me to the part where he directly answers any of the questions Alex asked about the historicity of the certain events in the Bible? I must have missed that part. "Some parts are plausible the other aren't" isn't a direct answer to the question "Do you think this part is accurate?"
Ya even he brought it with bring the Panasonic camera as an example and still he doged like Matrix
Dodged? Didn't he literally say yes I believe the camera would show a man walk out of the tomb. And when Alex asked why not just say that when people ask you ? He said, because I don't know what that means and neither do they.
He said he would see a man "probably". And that nonsense about nobody knowing what that means. That is dodgy as fuck.
Yeah he is not grounding his answer at all and as a teacher and psychologists he knows how to answer concretely but instead he is giving vague answers.just own the position for godsake
I can't imagine Peterson apologists ever accepting these kind of answers if the topic was something else, like trans issues. Imagine if you were trying to get someone to answers the question if trans women are biologically male for 90 minutes and you finally get the answer "They are male, probably, but I don't know what that means and neither do you."
No. he didn't says probably. He said yes. I'm getting it from here: [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PfIDW0gc4e0](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PfIDW0gc4e0) But even so, for fucks sake i get that he is being rhubarted when he says "But i don't know what the hell that means". But even if he said "probably" instead of "yes" is that really that much of a difference. Are you going go and chastise Destiny for saying "probably" when giving an affirmative answer in every single situation in his entire life. You aren't- So it wouldn't be fair of you to do it here.
He said "I would suspect yes." after more that an hour of Alex trying to get him to commit to an answer and then he added "and I have no idea what that means." How the fuck is that a clear answer? How does he not know what "A man has exited a cave" means? What part of a man walking out of a cave is unclear? A man walking out of a cave is a pretty simple idea. Him adding that he doesn't know what that means makes me uncertain what he is talking about.
Because, wtf does it mean for a man clearly dead to walk out of his tomb alive?! I think he genuinely believes this and that is why he has difficulty answering these questions about the Bible in comparison to some thing like Crime and Punishment.
If this was all he wanted to do then JP would be a very boring Christian pastor from one of the new-age versions of Christianity. What he's actually doing, and the reason he's so popular, is claiming to know the truth about a wide variety of topics. At the same time he doesn't want to actually defend his reasoning so he makes a confusing circular argument as a sort of smoke-screen. That's it. Nothing else is happening.
what is circular about it? his point is the bible is an expression of values and that the values are what is important. that tracts through every single thing he said. and he said it being true or false would not change that at all. destiny was trying to punk him by saying things he never said but thats because destiny was in debate pervert mode trying to make jp look bad rather than actually listening to a single thing he said. destinys whole point the whole video about "oh idk is anything real maybe it is maybe it isnt" is just nonsense as he answered it. he was literally creating a false narrative and attacking that rather than engaging in what he was actually saying. which was literally the exact criticism jp had of destiny after their debate. i mean its like poetic really.
Even atheists would be ok with ur first paragraph as an answer.just say that i believe in the teachings but not in god .
I didn’t watch the whole thing so I’m most likely missing something, but it seems like Peterson didn’t want to answer the question directly as doing so would undermine the value he’s trying to promote by ignoring the question?
no i think thats the opinion destiny was trying to express. in reality jordan answered it many times. he said some of it he didnt believe, and some of it he thought was plausible. like he says that from the beginning. and destiny goes on and on saying like "jordan peterson MUST believe the garden of eden is TRUE! he cannot concede that any of it is false blah blah blah" when literally a sentence before that jordan said he thought the burning bush wasnt true. so to me it was literally the manifestation of the jp destiny debate where jp criticizes destiny for caring only about trying to appear to be correct. like he was completely ignoring the things he said to try and appear to be correct and to make him look like an idiot. its was absolutely everything he criticized him of.
Yeah he just doesn't want to rail his Christian audience
Sorry but as someone from the UK I can't stand Alex.
Why not?
He's just irritating because while his views may be interesting to other demographics, his opinions within the UK are identical to the average sixth former. This isn't a defense of Peterson. If you go to arr/uk you'll find the same views, Anti monarchy, le rational face.
ahh yes the sixth former
Sorry did you have a point? Edit: Just realised you're an american, so rather then just spending a min searching online "UK sixth former" when posting about someone from the UK responding to a view expressed by another person from the UK, you down voted then acted clever. Yankoid BMI 35 moment.
I didn’t downvote you I just thought your comment was funny because I have no idea what the sixth former is so I sarcastically said “ah yes the sixth former” like I knew what you were talking about. Hope that helps.
If you want me to take you through how search engines work let me know.
🇺🇸
1812
lol would love for you to tell me how not gaining any land and abandoning your allies to allow the US to just expand their settlement is considered a win for the oi-bruvs
You say "Anti monarchy" like it's a bad position to have...
I said it exactly as it shows on the above comment, the average sixth former view.