Is Jordan B Peterson's new website idea an atrocious one or reasonable one?

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I think certain areas of study get underestimated by some when they don't like the politics of those engaging in it. For instance, I do think gender studies, specifically within history, is more valid then people give it credit. Women are a part of history and yet their role tends to get overlooked often. Studying history with a focus on the roles women played within societies of the past is a legitimate endeavor which falls under gender studies but some get triggered by the very notion that studying gender as a concept has any value.

In other words HISTORY is important.

But even if we look at history it's simply not a very useful degree to earn. People spend thousands of dollars on schooling and unfortunately there isn't much of a return on investment since its not really giving you any real employable skills. That is the metric we gauge value with.

I can still respect people from these fields, some more than others.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

That seems to get said by people who haven't actually read any of the material from the field.

Are you saying this in response to the little value he gives it credit for or that these fields are extremely pliable due to their subjectivity?

 

[emax]

It would have to come down to how credible the area of study would be I suppose. I think we all have enough common sense and can suss that out for ourselves. Like Noam Chomsky for example, he is an intellectual juggernaut no matter what you think.

Unfortunately though both sides discredit people when they do not share the same world view they do because they will always view them as fundamentally flawed. Sort of like when someone says 2+2=5, sometimes things simply cannot be computed because of political slants being injected into areas of study that won't register.

But English and history are left leaning?

Undoubtedly so. In fact, now, anything in the vein of English, literature, history as well as STEM fields, possibly sans of a select number of engineering subfields, are left leaning or left dominant. Therefore, someone as experienced in the academic world as Dr Peterson would not consider a field to be lacking in value simply for being on the left side of the political spectrum. It goes on a more fundamental level.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Undoubtedly so. In fact, now, anything in the vein of English, literature, history as well as STEM fields, possibly sans of a select number of engineering subfields, are left leaning or left dominant.

That i knew, i was confused by what he meant there which he clarified.

Therefore, someone as experienced in the academic world as Dr Peterson would not consider a field to be lacking in value simply for being on the left side of the political spectrum. It goes on a more fundamental level.

Be clear when you say an area of study is left leaning/dominant in the way that it's infested with its adherents. Undoubtedly there is some value to be had but don't forget that Peterson is burrowed in the world of academia where it serves him much better than outside of it. Come to think of it having a contrarian like him adds more value to those fields because you can diversify thought in fields that really need it rather than having a slanted echo chamber at all times.

 

[IDL]

That i knew, i was confused by what he meant there which he clarified.


Be clear when you say an area of study is left leaning/dominant in the way that it's infested with its adherents. Undoubtedly there is some value to be had but don't forget that Peterson is burrowed in the world of academia where it serves him much better than outside of it. Come to think of it having a contrarian like him adds more value to those fields because you can diversify thought in fields that really need it rather than having a slanted echo chamber at all times.

I don't think it is a matter of being left leaning in general, but more specifically it is the influence of NeoMarxism and Postmodernism and the radicalization and anti-rationality of that. So there is chaff amongst the wheat.

If it wasn't for those ideologies being pushed in and his resistance to it, Peterson would probably be considered another left leaning professor (center-left, apolitical)

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

His YouTube videos have made your life better?

Lol

Is that funny?

 

[21 Savage]

Is that funny?

Its funny when it leads to shit like this

 

[RubberGuard5]

Yikes...

I may be misinterpreting what he's trying to say, but this tweet doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. Personality traits distribute differently in men and women, resulting in more women that are, let's call it, nurturing. So in an age where people don't have children as early as it used to be, a lot of women focus their nurturing side on something else in life. One manifestation of that could be trying to care and protect individuals or groups that they deem oppressed, in other words in need of care and protection.

I can't think of a reason why would this be considered misogynistic way of thinking. What am I missing?

 

[hillelslovak87]

You keep writing the same thing and it's wrong every time you write it. The point you are trying to make hasn't been relevant for hundreds of years.

If you are a fundamentalist who takes every word in the bible literally as historical and scientific fact, then that is your choice. Many, including Peterson, do not share your beliefs and there's nothing you can do to change that.

He is out of his element. he likely has not studied the relevant fields other than the odd wikipedia research. But that is 90% of sherdog.

My critiques are based upon Jordan Peterson's own words. It really is odd to me that you argument seems to be rooted it "The days of literalism are past!! Christians haven't been taking the bible as fact for a couple hundred years, so that's the way the books were originally intended!!" Knowing full well the Bible was written by people who thought all those myths literally happened, and were willing to die for the shit.

He obfuscates and redirects in order to not qualify his beliefs, as many modern christians do when embarassed by the implausibility of the book. Pretending as if the book was not made to be taken as fact, and picking and choosing may make you sound smart, but it undercuts the belief system you seek to defend.

 

[21 Savage]

I may be misinterpreting what he's trying to say, but this tweet doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. Personality traits distribute differently in men and women, resulting in more women that are, let's call it, nurturing. So in an age where people don't have children as early as it used to be, a lot of women focus their nurturing side on something else in life. One manifestation of that could be trying to care and protect individuals or groups that they deem oppressed, in other words in need of care and protection.

I can't think of a reason why would this be considered misogynistic way of thinking. What am I missing?

"Women need to make babies and when they dont make babies they go crazy!"

I too like to reduce women to their base instincts.

 

[IDL]

My critiques are based upon Jordan Peterson's own words. It really is odd to me that you argument seems to be rooted it "The days of literalism are past!! Christians haven't been taking the bible as fact for a couple hundred years, so that's the way the books were originally intended!!" Knowing full well the Bible was written by people who thought all those myths literally happened, and were willing to die for the shit.

He obfuscates and redirects in order to not qualify his beliefs, as many modern christians do when embarassed by the implausibility of the book. Pretending as if the book was not made to be taken as fact, and picking and choosing may make you sound smart, but it undercuts the belief system you seek to defend.

So would you say that bible literalists are the only true Christians, and that anyone who doesn't view things that way but still identifies as Christian aren't the real deal?

 

[IDL]

edit: oops wrong thread..

 

[RubberGuard5]

"Women need to make babies and when they dont make babies they go crazy!"

I too like to reduce women to their base instincts.

What are you talking about?

 

[hillelslovak87]

So would you say that bible literalists are the only true Christians, and that anyone who doesn't view things that way but still identifies as Christian aren't the real deal?

I think if you have a belief system that revolves around a man who said you have to believe in him alone, and cant pick and choose from his book, and you pick and choose, I dont see you as a real adherent to his system. I think it's good that people dont follow that book literally, but I make no pretense in pretending as if the book was not supposed to be taken literally as a collection of actual events. The gospel writers even attempt to triangulate (and failed) Jesus into history.

Christianity is based upon one question: Did Jesus rise from the dead and become the messiah? An extremely simple yes or no question. Faith has no use for rationalization and metaphysical dodges. Faith demands a straight answer, and faith is what these belief systems are supposed to be based upon, seeing as they cannot defend these beliefs on their own merits.

 

[IDL]

I think if you have a belief system that revolves around a man who said you have to believe in him alone, and cant pick and choose from his book, and you pick and choose, I dont see you as a real adherent to his system. I think it's good that people dont follow that book literally, but I make no pretense in pretending as if the book was not supposed to be taken literally as a collection of actual events. The gospel writers even attempt to triangulate (and failed) Jesus into history.

Christianity is based upon one question: Did Jesus rise from the dead and become the messiah? An extremely simple yes or no question. Faith has no use for rationalization and metaphysical dodges. Faith demands a straight answer, and faith is what these belief systems are supposed to be based upon, seeing as they cannot defend these beliefs on their own merits.

So if you were to believe in a more metaphorical story about the resurrection, but still viewed him as an archetypal figure to use as a guide, and adopted Christian philisophy and 'acted it out', you wouldn't be a Christian?

I honestly don't know, but for all intents and purposes I think you would be. There could be a technicality disqualifying you but I don't know the literature on that.

 

[lfd0311]

To begin with, Dr Peterson has man ideas that I wholeheartedly support and I can legitimately say his youtube videos have in some capacity truly helped me out already. I think that he has numerous ideas that are genuinely fresh and new and has in the last couple years made a name for himself because of how well he expressed them at a time when the skepticism of, for example, New Atheists and similar movements have become obsolete.

That said, what do you make of this idea?

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...asses-he-calls-indoctrination-cults-1.4396974

Is this an example of he who fights monsters becoming them or a reasonable way to fight back in current times? Has Dr Peterson succeeded or not so much when it comes to making sure he doesn't become an ideological cult leader himself the way he says cultural Marxists have?

I think it is, if nothing else, absolutely opening the door to the slippery slope argument.

"I hate cults" says the newly minted cult leader. ugh.

100 bucks says he's a Nazi, AMIRITE?!?!?!

 

[Fawlty]

What about a PhD in history? Or sociology? Or English? Plenty of fields lean left, not just stuff like gender studies. Point being w9/10 a certain sort of right winger takes a kind of anti-intellectual stance in which being a part of academia is not only not a source of legitimacy but the opposite, until they latch onto one academic who mirrors their views and then suddenly the PhD matters.

I'd love to watch any of these turdish acolytes spend, say, 15 minutes getting shredded by a former prof of mine, who is earning her PhD through feminist interpretation of mythology. That's so librul it's like gender studies of gender studies. She'd eat their fucking lunch.

 

[21 Savage]

Can we all take a moment and appreciate the fact that JP is upset about and thinks Frozen was a propaganda film because it supposedly showed women not needing men to be successful

 

[hillelslovak87]

So if you were to believe in a more metaphorical story about the resurrection, but still viewed him as an archetypal figure to use as a guide, and adopted Christian philisophy and 'acted it out', you wouldn't be a Christian?

I honestly don't know, but for all intents and purposes I think you would be. There could be a technicality disqualifying you but I don't know the literature on that.

If you call yourself a christian, you must think that the events of the Bible are representative in reality. You must think this book describes reality. If you think Adam and Eve were more metaphors, or that Jesus rising from the dead was more metaphor, then you can safely take the bits of philosophy you want from the bible (scant as they may be) and discard all the stuff you dont want. I would see no reason to call myself a christian at that point, and I would not expect anyone else to regard me as such.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Can we all take a moment and appreciate the fact that JP is upset about and thinks Frozen was a propaganda film because it supposedly showed women not needing men to be successful

And people view him as some transcendental figure. This is what I dont get, when he spouts shit like that. One of the hallmarks of a cult, or cult of personality is the ready disregarding of any bullshit you hear your guru say, and pretending he never said it.