Yes, it should have been posted in JP's thread and now it can be merged.
Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Yes, it should have been posted in JP's thread and now it can be merged.
I just watched the remainder of the interview and I agree, Stephen Fry did a great job and Jordan Peterson said the same thing. Loved the fact that he put his arm around Jordan's shoulder while pictures were being taken. I do think Goldberg made a good point when she said that she receives the same kind of backlash when she writes about the way the IDF deals with the Palestinians (trying to paraphrase what she said) which is in line with what SOTT has said as well: Zionism is the Right's 'Identity Politics' -- Sott.net
And: The Truth Perspective: Identity Politics on Steroids: How Zionism Outdoes Them All -- Sott.net
Peterson is a classy man, because after the debate he immediately walked up to Dyson and shook his hand and he will accompany him to a black church. I can't say the same thing about Dyson.
Thanks Turgon and Bobo and Marina for the other videos, I hope I can watch them soon.
Merged.
Wow.
Peterson got a bit too worked up, but then it's hard to blame him. Dyson fancies himself as this glorious black intellectual, but he really was a grumbling slimy childish preacher. He was also seriously hostile towards Peterson especially, and even nasty to Fry apparently because Fry is gay! So much for lefty progress...
What's really interesting is the closing remarks... Peterson and Fry basically said nothing, whereas Goldberg and Dyson took every opportunity to slam Peterson. Goldberg even brought up the "women shouldn't wear makeup" Vice hit-video and told people again to go watch it.
That's particularly telling. It's also quite sad, because when you watch that interview (and you have a functioning brain) it's very easy to see that Peterson was making a specific point and Vice edited the whole thing - and thus people like Goldberg are taking what Peterson said SO out of context that it's actually ridiculous.
Most interesting is that the poll results can be found here: Munk Debates - Munk Debates
Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress…
Pre-debate: 36% Pro, 64% Con
After: 30% Pro, 70% against
Which means that before the debate, more people sided with the Peterson/Fry side, and even more did after.
Peterson got a bit too worked up, but then it's hard to blame him. Dyson fancies himself as this glorious black intellectual, but he really was a grumbling slimy childish preacher. He was also seriously hostile towards Peterson especially, and even nasty to Fry apparently because Fry is gay! So much for lefty progress...
What's really interesting is the closing remarks... Peterson and Fry basically said nothing, whereas Goldberg and Dyson took every opportunity to slam Peterson. Goldberg even brought up the "women shouldn't wear makeup" Vice hit-video and told people again to go watch it.
That's particularly telling. It's also quite sad, because when you watch that interview (and you have a functioning brain) it's very easy to see that Peterson was making a specific point and Vice edited the whole thing - and thus people like Goldberg are taking what Peterson said SO out of context that it's actually ridiculous.
Most interesting is that the poll results can be found here: Munk Debates - Munk Debates
Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress…
Pre-debate: 36% Pro, 64% Con
After: 30% Pro, 70% against
Which means that before the debate, more people sided with the Peterson/Fry side, and even more did after.
I'll watch it later on in full as well. In the little snippet of this "debate" I did see so far though, I can only agree that this Dyson guy is more then just a little appalling. He certainly exposed himself and his ideas to be rather pathological and I think Jordan noticed that as well. He certainly missed no chance to paint Jordan in a bad light. In regards to the rocking back and forth mentioned above, I'm somehow reminded of the following guy. I dunno why though.
Sorry I couldn't resist this one...
What follows is another interesting discussion that was recently published between Peterson and the self proclaimed atheistic activist Matt Dillahunty. Haven't watched all of it completely, but from what I did see, it looked to me like a pretty fruitful discussion and this time from an atheist/materialist who didn't seem to determent to paint Peterson in a bad light or smash him, but rather someone who tried to understand (as best as possible from his point of view) what Paterson is saying. I dunno if something happened before the show started, that made Peterson rather worked up (or so it seemed) that might have pushed him in a way, to more like wanting to win arguments rather then bringing points across, but this time it seemed to me that Jordan was maybe trying to hard to disproof the arguments of opponent and proofing himself right?
On several occasions Dillahunty felt in some way personally attacked (at some points I could sort of understand, how he got that feeling although I don't think that was Petersons intention) and explains that this is not what the discussion was supposed to be. In fact it gets rather rough between the two (verbally) and obviously both are very skilled talkers and thinkers. Toward the end, I got the feeling it developed into an intellectual/verbal battle between the two, skillfully not directly pointed against each other, but through metaphors while answering questions from the audience. Hard to explain, you have to watch it! It seems like the tension between the two, developed to a point that you could really feel it. I think the tension between the two was there from the get go, but more from Petersons side OSIT.
Nonetheless both stayed polite. I have to say, in this case, I probably have seen much better argumentations and performances of Peterson and at some points during the discussion I think Dillahunty had some decent/understandable points, which Peterson didn't seem to handle all that well (for his standards!). He also seemed to be pretty nervous/edgy (as for example seen by his shaky hands and drinking from the bottle instead of the glass, which he just filled with the water of that same bottle). But that is criticism on a very high level and I certainly don't think I'm in any position to do so. But I thought I should bring it up to see if others can figure it out far better then I can.
Since I haven't watched it in its entirety though, I'm not sure at all if any of the above is in any way accurate. So take the above with a big grain of salt! Would be nice to hear other opinions!
Here is the discussion:
On several occasions Dillahunty felt in some way personally attacked (at some points I could sort of understand, how he got that feeling although I don't think that was Petersons intention) and explains that this is not what the discussion was supposed to be. In fact it gets rather rough between the two (verbally) and obviously both are very skilled talkers and thinkers. Toward the end, I got the feeling it developed into an intellectual/verbal battle between the two, skillfully not directly pointed against each other, but through metaphors while answering questions from the audience. Hard to explain, you have to watch it! It seems like the tension between the two, developed to a point that you could really feel it. I think the tension between the two was there from the get go, but more from Petersons side OSIT.
Nonetheless both stayed polite. I have to say, in this case, I probably have seen much better argumentations and performances of Peterson and at some points during the discussion I think Dillahunty had some decent/understandable points, which Peterson didn't seem to handle all that well (for his standards!). He also seemed to be pretty nervous/edgy (as for example seen by his shaky hands and drinking from the bottle instead of the glass, which he just filled with the water of that same bottle). But that is criticism on a very high level and I certainly don't think I'm in any position to do so. But I thought I should bring it up to see if others can figure it out far better then I can.
Since I haven't watched it in its entirety though, I'm not sure at all if any of the above is in any way accurate. So take the above with a big grain of salt! Would be nice to hear other opinions!
Here is the discussion:
I listened to the whole thing a few days ago (didn't watch the video, though). There's a lot of interesting stuff going on. I agree that I don't think Peterson made his points as well as he could have, but on these topics he usually doesn't, because I don't think he has articulated them well enough for himself. I'm planning on either doing a video commentary on this interview, or playing clips and discussing them on Truth Perspective (or both!), because I think there's a way of taking the best points of both of them and making a synthesis. But on the whole, I think Peterson is more correct than Dillahunty.
I'll just comment on one point for now. Dillahunty took offense to Peterson saying Dillahunty is "not a real atheist". On the one hand, Dillahunty was kind of justified. It's like saying someone's "not a real Christian" or "not a real Muslim". Unless they're actively faking their religion, it's better to just accept their self-identification - there are many different Christianities and Islams. But that wasn't really Peterson's point. He probably would have said the same thing if Dillahunty were a solipsist. Here's a hypothetical exchange:
Peterson's claim, which I agree with, is that it's impossible to act in a way that isn't predicated on some sort of theism. (Just like religions, there are various sorts of theisms, some better than others.) But that takes a while to flesh out, thus the plan to make a video or radio show on the subject.
One more thing on the Dillahunty interview. Peterson gave this interview before doing it:
It gives some context for the interview, and he's freer to develop his ideas. Peterson gives his opinion of the "celebrity atheists" and lays out some of the fundamental things he thinks they get wrong, can't explain, or ignore.
The debate with Matt Dillahunty was a tough one for me to watch, and I agree with you Pashalis, that there was something up with Jordan Peterson that night. I can't help but wonder if going on a relentless tour de force to promote his book, and coming across so many hostile interviewers, that it has put him on edge and hostile himself. Even the strongest and most put-together person must have their limits when faced with journalists and interviewers that are 'out to get him'. And having every little thing he say's scrutinized must be very difficult for him.
But Dillahunty was definitely far more relaxed and in good spirits about the whole thing, although thinking about it, his position of atheism is also a lot easier to convey, which in a roundabout way is because we can't see god, and there is no way to really prove or provide smoking gun evidence of the existence of higher realms outside our immediate realms of perception, therefore, it doesn't have to play a major role in conducting our lives. We can get along without those belief systems in place. Jordan Peterson has to prove that there is something that underlies our moral choices, and that without it, we'd be lost, or not able to navigate the world the same way. And that's more difficult because it does require a leap of faith, just not a leap of ignorance. But then you have to explain the difference between the two.
I think it's also what's part of the idea of service to others and how Life is religion. How exactly do you convey that to somebody when it's something that permeates our entire existence? Even writing this particular paragraph, people could easily gawk at that, but then again, deep-down, when I hear that, and write it out, I'm also struck with this emotional up-welling, and sense that gives me an indication of the inherent truth and value of it. Now, an atheist could easily just say I'm having a physiological experience marked by electrical responses in my brain that are somehow activated when hearing those words, and that prescribing additional meaning to that is a product of my imagination or subjective impressions, and maybe that is true. But is that all that's happening?
I think where he finally started explaining himself well was when answering the question at the 1 hr 20 minute mark of the video. He goes back to his roots of Order and Chaos, Being, and the purpose of meaning in helping us to orient and navigate between the known and unknown. And there in-lies Jordan Peterson's marker that says, Atheism cannot explain it all away and can present a strong argument why that's the case. Because how do you explain the unknown in Atheism, where the limits of what there is resides in the physical universe, yet the idea of god, archetypes and thought exists in the abstract?
That's my take on it, anyways.
But Dillahunty was definitely far more relaxed and in good spirits about the whole thing, although thinking about it, his position of atheism is also a lot easier to convey, which in a roundabout way is because we can't see god, and there is no way to really prove or provide smoking gun evidence of the existence of higher realms outside our immediate realms of perception, therefore, it doesn't have to play a major role in conducting our lives. We can get along without those belief systems in place. Jordan Peterson has to prove that there is something that underlies our moral choices, and that without it, we'd be lost, or not able to navigate the world the same way. And that's more difficult because it does require a leap of faith, just not a leap of ignorance. But then you have to explain the difference between the two.
I think it's also what's part of the idea of service to others and how Life is religion. How exactly do you convey that to somebody when it's something that permeates our entire existence? Even writing this particular paragraph, people could easily gawk at that, but then again, deep-down, when I hear that, and write it out, I'm also struck with this emotional up-welling, and sense that gives me an indication of the inherent truth and value of it. Now, an atheist could easily just say I'm having a physiological experience marked by electrical responses in my brain that are somehow activated when hearing those words, and that prescribing additional meaning to that is a product of my imagination or subjective impressions, and maybe that is true. But is that all that's happening?
I think where he finally started explaining himself well was when answering the question at the 1 hr 20 minute mark of the video. He goes back to his roots of Order and Chaos, Being, and the purpose of meaning in helping us to orient and navigate between the known and unknown. And there in-lies Jordan Peterson's marker that says, Atheism cannot explain it all away and can present a strong argument why that's the case. Because how do you explain the unknown in Atheism, where the limits of what there is resides in the physical universe, yet the idea of god, archetypes and thought exists in the abstract?
That's my take on it, anyways.
In another interview he said that he is actually an agreeable person, and to run into such relentless hostility, even though balanced by the warmth his 'constituency' feels for him, is wearing.
I'm not surprised that he's on edge, if only for the pace he is driving himself at. He described his situation once as 'surfing a 100 ft. wave' and in his estimation 'it can only end badly'. So I think he's doing all he can before that hypothetical bad ending comes. He's fairly pessimistic in general, so things may not go as poorly as he envisions. But he's always on guard for it.
I think it's much more difficult for JP to have conversations with atheists because they seem to have a very different way of searching for the truth. JP also did appear to be a bit flustered throughout the talk. To me it seems something like this:
The truth is only that which I can confirm without a doubt is the truth - which seems to be more along the lines of Matt Dillahunty's thinking.
All is a possible truth except that which I can confirm is not the truth - Which seems closer to Jordan Peterson's line of reasoning.
Given those two extremes I've seen JP struggle to close the gap in these conversations and it looks like he can really only poke around at the edges of an atheists idea of truth. Mouravieff talks about it in one of his Gnosis books, from memory, and he says that holding onto a seed of truth and rejecting all else versus seeing all as a possible truth are both valid paths although they have their differences.
The truth is only that which I can confirm without a doubt is the truth - which seems to be more along the lines of Matt Dillahunty's thinking.
All is a possible truth except that which I can confirm is not the truth - Which seems closer to Jordan Peterson's line of reasoning.
Given those two extremes I've seen JP struggle to close the gap in these conversations and it looks like he can really only poke around at the edges of an atheists idea of truth. Mouravieff talks about it in one of his Gnosis books, from memory, and he says that holding onto a seed of truth and rejecting all else versus seeing all as a possible truth are both valid paths although they have their differences.
I think Ruppert Sheldrake expressed the problem well that people who argue with Atheists usually face in this short video:
The debate is actually a philosophical one between rigid materialism and other options that allow "higher realms" or the unknown that exists outside the framework of rigid materialism. But Peterson has no philosophical background and has never really thought through these things, hence he doesn't go there, and I think it's wise - the power of his presentations lies in the fact that he has deeply thought about what he's presenting; he doesn't just repeat some arguments he has read about somewhere.
But as Sheldrake says in the video, you cannot win a debate against an atheist/materialist if you take the materialist perspective for granted. Then it's how you said, Turgon: you are on the defensive, and you need to explain why "supernatural" things should be possible if by the very definition of materialism they are not.
I think the only "weapon" Peterson has is the is-ought problem: empirical facts tell us what is, but they can't tell us how we should act. I think Peterson does a great job nailing this problem when he says that we orient ourselves in the world through stories, religious beliefs and so on, and that we literally can't see without a value structure.
But the thing is that 19th century materialism, on which the atheist faith (sic) is based, doesn't hold up - it's riddled with contradictions and rests on assumptions that make no sense when you look at them closely. Sheldrake has done a splendid job in his book "the science delusion" showing all this.
In fact, the atheists/materialists always imply that their worldview - the universe is a lifeless machine, everything is just made of dead matter and nothing but dead matter etc. - is totally obvious and proven and that we "believers" need to provide definite proof in the form of some repeatable miracle in the lab or something.
But it's actually the other way around: our default, world view that is totally obvious for almost everyone is that we are all conscious beings, that animals, humans and plants are living organism with a life force that connects all of us, that we are the architects of our own fate because we are conscious beings with free will, that our actions have moral meaning, that nature is full of wonder and surprises, that everything is made up of cycles and subject to constant change, that life is sacred and so on. That's the obvious way to look at the world. The materialists, on the other hand, think that we are just machines with illusions, life sprang into being "randomly" by "billiard ball atoms" bouncing around, that everything is determined and we have no free will, the whole universe is a big machine like a steam engine, the laws of nature are weirdly forever existing outside time and space and immutable, yet nothing can really exist outside the material world, that we have it all figured out except for some details and are on a linear path, somehow having escaped the cyclical nature of the cosmos etc.
So, it's a theory this outrageous and far-fletched that needs "definitive proof", and not the obvious (religious) view that the realm of consciousness is the true driver of the universe. In other words, to debate an atheist, you need to turn the tables and attack his ridiculous 19th century materialism that he doesn't even know he's possessed by.
fwiw Peterson’s discussions with materialists reminds me of all the interactions Laura has had with them over the years (I vaguely remember a back and forth email exchange, but I can't find it).
Here's something she wrote back in 2012 - Science and Religion
Here's something she wrote back in 2012 - Science and Religion
From painful experience, that is a "debate" that I will simply not engage in anymore. I tried it several times, and there is simply no common ground to be found.
The atheist/materialist generally won't even accept that, "I have my views, and you have yours". Even that's not allowed. In fact, it's disallowed with a ferocious intensity that is exactly the fiery type of "faith" that materialists claim to be against!
That's a particular type of mind-BLEEP that is insanely strong, and the only one who can change it is the materialist/atheist themselves. The same is true of "true believers" of whatever religion. We think that those ideas and beliefs are SO central to who we are that we don't leave much room for discussion or doubt. To do so often means inner collapse.
The only thing that works is time, life experience, and more time... And even then, most people will go to their graves still clinging to the same ideas they formed at a rather young age.
