Jordan Peterson is an odd duck. He's a Christian (or at least, says he is - and that's the only requirement to be one) but seems to me (I don't follow him closely) to acknowledge that a whole lot of the Christian faith is myth. He doesn't seem to be a fundamentalist to me.
Dawkins' point is, of course, well taken. Part of Peterson's career is based on his expertise on myth and I can agree that he probably places too much emphasis on it.
I second the recommendation by Prof. Dawkins of the recent, fascinating Catherine Nixey book. It appears the title changes names crossing the Atlantic. In the U.S. the title is "Heretic" with the subtitle "Jesus Christ and the other Sons of God."
metaphors is the language of the social animal soul and the only way to optimally process emotions.
jp is off some though, but its prolly the same amount that you are off dr. dawkins. you two are off in different ways but the same amount.
humans body need objective grounding in physics based optimal moral principles, mindset and worldview.
the secular evolved social animal soul/ consciousness is pure emotions and the only way to speak for it, is emotionally, which means metaphors. to do this optimally though, the metaphors need to be wrapped in a physics layer, so the person is always honest and reason based about what is fantasy and what is reality.
humans need to use fantasy and metaphors from time to time to “golf ball wash” their emotional soul. confront the feelings, process them and move the emotional sewage on.
anti- reality principles and a lack of honest maintainance in “emotional dialysis machine “ of the individual self are the source of mental illness.
mental illness is 2ndary to the individuals moral mindset.
I recall listening to Peterson debating an atheist a while back. During the debate, Peterson conflated the word 'metaphor' with the word 'metaphysics', as if they were synonyms. I don't know if it was an accident, or if the switch was purposeful, and designed to confuse the listener. Anyway, it did me. I'd trust Peterson's view of reality as far as I could throw the universe.
So, what about all those idiots who take the Bible literally, and are in positions of power both religious and political?
Talk about a midwitted take … but then you’re defending JokePete, so I really wouldn’t expect better from you 😂
(Yes, that’s an ad hominem, but it’s not where I’m ending my critique — you simply deserve mockery)
You are correct that rationalism can’t explain deterministically what mythology “means” to us.
And yet, a scientific approach is yielding more and more insight into the neurological correlates of thoughts, emotions, and memories, the neurochemical & physiological bases & effects of those same “mysteries”, and the genetic & environmental factors which contribute to differences of responses to various stimuli.
Your argument boils down to:
- “we can’t possibly keep track of all the momenta of individual particles, therefore the Laws of Thermodynamics are impossible,”
and
- “we can’t possibly keep track of all the molecules in a fluid, therefore the Navier-Stokes equations are impossible”.
It’s an argument from ignorance and incredulity. And it’s not even wrong 🤦♂️
Emergence is a phenomenon that is also yielding to mathematical and physical scrutiny.
Imagine thinking that because *you* demonstrate no inkling of how the material world exists, you are positioned to “kill rationalism”.
Intellectually speaking, that’s like an ant attacking a mountain.
But carry on, Don Quixote!
All that’s said, I guess I can’t really fault you: determinism*, the impossibility of free will, and all 🤷♂️
*As a trained astro- and nuclear physicist, I’m very much aware of quantum indeterminacy, and what appear based on exceptionally well designed experiments to be truly random effects. As such, the simplistic “determinism” as strawmanned by free will accommodationists like the lively but deeply irrational Dan Dennett, should be replaced by all rational thinkers by causal necessity: we can’t actually roll back time to retrodict every causal link when operating at non-classical scales, nor could we ever predict every future event at those scales no matter how much information we had available, but at the same time it’s impossible for any event in this particular slice of the Everettian multiverse to have happened differently.
Don’t like that? Well, in another slice, “you” do. But you’re both equally mistaken in your beliefs.
What are you talking about? You’re just schizo posting.
I’m talking about the quantifiably immeasurable and consciously known or unknown aspects of the world and human condition. Not “we can’t keep count of all the moments of individual particles, therefore the Laws of Thermodynamics are impossible.”
What is this? I never said or implied this, and the fact that you think I did clearly shows the level of emotion that is biasing your “critique.”
I’m talking about understanding mythology on its own terms, which is the domain of the immeasurable, and your response is that there exists rational, measurable truths. No shit. I would never deny that. It is wholly irrelevant to what we’re talking about.
It’s amazing how many of you rationalists claim I’m arguing from “incredulity” when any “incredulity” (if you say so, btw) is after I explained my argument. The incredulity arises from your mistakes, and is not the foundation of my argument. It’s just obvious
cope.
At no point did I say or imply that there is no “inkling of how the material world exists…”
…no. I would appeal to science for that. The domain of quantifiably measurable and consciously known, and not mythology because mythology is the domain of the irrational internal soul.
The fact that you responded to my anti-rationalism by pimping out your scientific credentials—which is to say by pointing out how rational you are—is beyond parody. The material origins of something aren’t really that relevant to the quantifiably immeasurable content they produce, so your screed about finding connections is delusional. You will find connection in so far as you can account for the quantifiably measurable and consciously known, nothing else.
You take the whole, sector a part from it—that which is conducive to rationality—and transpose the whole onto the part.
Nothing that you said refutes anything I said. But your emotional response clearly reveals that you, like all rationalists, can’t control yourself because you can’t rationally account for your feelings. I will not respond in the future. Good luck.
You keep saying “quantifiably immeasurable” as though that makes it true. That’s your continued, and fundamental, argument from incredulity. And ignorance, as it’s clear you don’t know what either of those words mean, or how oxymoronic their juxtaposition is. Perhaps a lesson from David Hilbert on countably infinite sets (including the natural numbers, which are … check notes … what we use to count) is in order for you.
Maybe “probably immeasurable” is what you were scraping together in your mind: if so, such a proof would be incredible to see.
(See, I too can be incredulous!)
You are *literally* incredulous about the *reality* that these things that happen in our material universe are ultimately measurable, based on your lack of understanding of how rationalism & the material world work.
Or you’re positing an unevidenced immateriality for our universe, which would be news for the good folks at CERN and beyond.
Once again, I’m *incredulous* about the possibility that you have evidence to back your strong claims. One might even posit that you’re letting your emotional compulsion to be correct drive your incoherent and irrational responses. 🤔
You’re also so dimwitted as to fail to understand the analogy between the emergent properties of “uncountably”* large numbers of molecules interacting & the emergent properties of consciousness & emotion (art, science, everything we actually interact with daily) that stem from really complicated and extraordinarily large numbers of those same basic molecules interacting.
The “schizo” is the icing on the cake as you complain about my “emotional response”. Methinks you project harder than an IMAX theatre.
(Which is truly ironic, seeing as what a dim bulb you are 😂)
I look forward to reading your “kill rationalism” work: I have a feeling it’ll rank up there with LessWrong in its self-importantly mistaken inanity.
Perhaps you should call it “Not Even Wrong” and save everyone some time 🤡
The problem-set that RD is addressing is that so many (billions) *do* act and govern as you say "as if the Bible is a history textbook" --or whatever their magical thinking holy books happen to be in their childhood brainwash. They also treat it as science and total cosmic truth. Mythology is "stories with meaning" (per J. Campbell) but religion is myth spun out on meth and it is the real "ruin our days". FYI your ad hominem stuff really distracts/detracts from any good point you may have to make. It makes you seem like a crank. Peterson is just a caffeinated dude trading on faux-gravitas and working on his media career. I've always found him be either just a rehash-artist or incomprehensible.
Jordan Peterson is an odd duck. He's a Christian (or at least, says he is - and that's the only requirement to be one) but seems to me (I don't follow him closely) to acknowledge that a whole lot of the Christian faith is myth. He doesn't seem to be a fundamentalist to me.
Dawkins' point is, of course, well taken. Part of Peterson's career is based on his expertise on myth and I can agree that he probably places too much emphasis on it.
I second the recommendation by Prof. Dawkins of the recent, fascinating Catherine Nixey book. It appears the title changes names crossing the Atlantic. In the U.S. the title is "Heretic" with the subtitle "Jesus Christ and the other Sons of God."
i thought this said what its like to date Jordan peterson
metaphors is the language of the social animal soul and the only way to optimally process emotions.
jp is off some though, but its prolly the same amount that you are off dr. dawkins. you two are off in different ways but the same amount.
humans body need objective grounding in physics based optimal moral principles, mindset and worldview.
the secular evolved social animal soul/ consciousness is pure emotions and the only way to speak for it, is emotionally, which means metaphors. to do this optimally though, the metaphors need to be wrapped in a physics layer, so the person is always honest and reason based about what is fantasy and what is reality.
humans need to use fantasy and metaphors from time to time to “golf ball wash” their emotional soul. confront the feelings, process them and move the emotional sewage on.
anti- reality principles and a lack of honest maintainance in “emotional dialysis machine “ of the individual self are the source of mental illness.
mental illness is 2ndary to the individuals moral mindset.
Thank you Professor
I recall listening to Peterson debating an atheist a while back. During the debate, Peterson conflated the word 'metaphor' with the word 'metaphysics', as if they were synonyms. I don't know if it was an accident, or if the switch was purposeful, and designed to confuse the listener. Anyway, it did me. I'd trust Peterson's view of reality as far as I could throw the universe.
So, what about all those idiots who take the Bible literally, and are in positions of power both religious and political?
Talk about a midwitted take … but then you’re defending JokePete, so I really wouldn’t expect better from you 😂
(Yes, that’s an ad hominem, but it’s not where I’m ending my critique — you simply deserve mockery)
You are correct that rationalism can’t explain deterministically what mythology “means” to us.
And yet, a scientific approach is yielding more and more insight into the neurological correlates of thoughts, emotions, and memories, the neurochemical & physiological bases & effects of those same “mysteries”, and the genetic & environmental factors which contribute to differences of responses to various stimuli.
Your argument boils down to:
- “we can’t possibly keep track of all the momenta of individual particles, therefore the Laws of Thermodynamics are impossible,”
and
- “we can’t possibly keep track of all the molecules in a fluid, therefore the Navier-Stokes equations are impossible”.
It’s an argument from ignorance and incredulity. And it’s not even wrong 🤦♂️
Emergence is a phenomenon that is also yielding to mathematical and physical scrutiny.
Imagine thinking that because *you* demonstrate no inkling of how the material world exists, you are positioned to “kill rationalism”.
Intellectually speaking, that’s like an ant attacking a mountain.
But carry on, Don Quixote!
All that’s said, I guess I can’t really fault you: determinism*, the impossibility of free will, and all 🤷♂️
*As a trained astro- and nuclear physicist, I’m very much aware of quantum indeterminacy, and what appear based on exceptionally well designed experiments to be truly random effects. As such, the simplistic “determinism” as strawmanned by free will accommodationists like the lively but deeply irrational Dan Dennett, should be replaced by all rational thinkers by causal necessity: we can’t actually roll back time to retrodict every causal link when operating at non-classical scales, nor could we ever predict every future event at those scales no matter how much information we had available, but at the same time it’s impossible for any event in this particular slice of the Everettian multiverse to have happened differently.
Don’t like that? Well, in another slice, “you” do. But you’re both equally mistaken in your beliefs.
What are you talking about? You’re just schizo posting.
I’m talking about the quantifiably immeasurable and consciously known or unknown aspects of the world and human condition. Not “we can’t keep count of all the moments of individual particles, therefore the Laws of Thermodynamics are impossible.”
What is this? I never said or implied this, and the fact that you think I did clearly shows the level of emotion that is biasing your “critique.”
I’m talking about understanding mythology on its own terms, which is the domain of the immeasurable, and your response is that there exists rational, measurable truths. No shit. I would never deny that. It is wholly irrelevant to what we’re talking about.
It’s amazing how many of you rationalists claim I’m arguing from “incredulity” when any “incredulity” (if you say so, btw) is after I explained my argument. The incredulity arises from your mistakes, and is not the foundation of my argument. It’s just obvious
cope.
At no point did I say or imply that there is no “inkling of how the material world exists…”
…no. I would appeal to science for that. The domain of quantifiably measurable and consciously known, and not mythology because mythology is the domain of the irrational internal soul.
The fact that you responded to my anti-rationalism by pimping out your scientific credentials—which is to say by pointing out how rational you are—is beyond parody. The material origins of something aren’t really that relevant to the quantifiably immeasurable content they produce, so your screed about finding connections is delusional. You will find connection in so far as you can account for the quantifiably measurable and consciously known, nothing else.
You take the whole, sector a part from it—that which is conducive to rationality—and transpose the whole onto the part.
Nothing that you said refutes anything I said. But your emotional response clearly reveals that you, like all rationalists, can’t control yourself because you can’t rationally account for your feelings. I will not respond in the future. Good luck.
You keep saying “quantifiably immeasurable” as though that makes it true. That’s your continued, and fundamental, argument from incredulity. And ignorance, as it’s clear you don’t know what either of those words mean, or how oxymoronic their juxtaposition is. Perhaps a lesson from David Hilbert on countably infinite sets (including the natural numbers, which are … check notes … what we use to count) is in order for you.
Maybe “probably immeasurable” is what you were scraping together in your mind: if so, such a proof would be incredible to see.
(See, I too can be incredulous!)
You are *literally* incredulous about the *reality* that these things that happen in our material universe are ultimately measurable, based on your lack of understanding of how rationalism & the material world work.
Or you’re positing an unevidenced immateriality for our universe, which would be news for the good folks at CERN and beyond.
Once again, I’m *incredulous* about the possibility that you have evidence to back your strong claims. One might even posit that you’re letting your emotional compulsion to be correct drive your incoherent and irrational responses. 🤔
You’re also so dimwitted as to fail to understand the analogy between the emergent properties of “uncountably”* large numbers of molecules interacting & the emergent properties of consciousness & emotion (art, science, everything we actually interact with daily) that stem from really complicated and extraordinarily large numbers of those same basic molecules interacting.
The “schizo” is the icing on the cake as you complain about my “emotional response”. Methinks you project harder than an IMAX theatre.
(Which is truly ironic, seeing as what a dim bulb you are 😂)
I look forward to reading your “kill rationalism” work: I have a feeling it’ll rank up there with LessWrong in its self-importantly mistaken inanity.
Perhaps you should call it “Not Even Wrong” and save everyone some time 🤡
The problem-set that RD is addressing is that so many (billions) *do* act and govern as you say "as if the Bible is a history textbook" --or whatever their magical thinking holy books happen to be in their childhood brainwash. They also treat it as science and total cosmic truth. Mythology is "stories with meaning" (per J. Campbell) but religion is myth spun out on meth and it is the real "ruin our days". FYI your ad hominem stuff really distracts/detracts from any good point you may have to make. It makes you seem like a crank. Peterson is just a caffeinated dude trading on faux-gravitas and working on his media career. I've always found him be either just a rehash-artist or incomprehensible.