Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If nothing else comes from his lectures, videos of such and his books, two of his driving points -- that people have both personal responsibility to this world AND the choices they make have tremendous effect on the outcomes of their own lives -- have major value and will stand the test of time.
Thanks for posting this. Interesting. I need to look at this stuff before expressing any kind of assessment. This looks particularly useful:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life...idote+to+Chaos
BBL
Essay:
Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, And The Identity Politics Conundrum
There is an emerging centrist, libertarian movement that believes identity politics is amongst the greatest threats to American and Western civilization in history. What are the limits of identity politics, and is it a useful way of interpreting the world?
BEN COHEN. APR 13, 2018 https://thedailybanter.com/2018/04/t...ics-conundrum/
You see language all the time, but the error (for me, anyway) is to assume I know what it means, based on the context!
Wikipedia:
Identity politics:: refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify. Identity politics includes the ways in which people's politics are shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations. Examples include social organizations based on age, religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. Not all members of any given group are involved in identity politics. Identity politics are used by minority and civil rights organizations to form a coalition with members of the majority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
Libertarianism:: is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment; they believe in individual rights. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic syste… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Unless I'm mistaken, his Self Authoring Suite, a writing program to improve effectiveness, is not available on Amazon but on his site: https://www.selfauthoring.com
Not that expensive; I'll probably try it.
Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 04-14-2018 at 08:21 PM..
I never got from either Dawkins or Harris, whom I've read pretty extensively, that they think the natural person is going to eventually be rational. Nor do I think either of them would disagree that rationality is a surface facade.
This is strange stuff and doesn't satisfy like reading Russell, Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens. I read them for pleasure, because they delight. Peterson seems obscurantist.
Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 04-14-2018 at 08:36 PM..
I never got from either Dawkins or Harris, whom I've read pretty extensively, that they think the natural person is going to eventually be rational. Nor do I think either of them would disagree that rationality is a surface facade.
This is strange stuff and doesn't satisfy like reading Russell, Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens. I read them for pleasure, because they delight. Peterson seems obscurantist.
It all depends on where you are coming from, what you happen to resonate with. I do NOT resonate with Dawkins AT ALL. He is my antithesis. I also consider him, and all the others like him, to represent profound irrationality disguised as rationality.
There are smart people on all sides of the issues, and it's pretty useless trying to convince anyone. We all spent many thousands of hours studying, or just absorbing, to form our point of view.
I never got any satisfaction from reading atheists/materialists. I did it just because I needed to know if they were right.
In my world, everything is connected and inherently meaningful. That's just how it is, how I experience life. But I also believe that is the scientific way of looking at things. To me, Dawkins represents an illusion of science and rationality.
I resonate somewhat with Peterson, and I get where he is coming from. To some extent, he is reacting against the arrogance of people like Dawkins, and reminding us that we are part of something infinitely greater.
I can't understand how anyone could resonate with Dawkins or find him satisfying in any way. But that is because I am coming from a different perspective.
I also never resonated with Russell or Hitchens or Harris. But never got immersed in reading them either.
To me, Peterson is not obscurantist at all, because I understand what he says and why he says it. I just think he is over-confident and being famous can do that.
You're very gracious. What that proves is that you can be friends with someone, and like them yet be fundamentally at odds with their views. We're so shaped by what our personal histories are and what we've read.
I've had two hospital stays over the last few years and live in one of the most conservative towns in America. My guess is that at least 90% of the population are Christian fundamentalists. So they come into my room and I have to ask them to leave. They're free to believe what they want but not free to impose it on me.
Quote:
I also never resonated with Russell or Hitchens or Harris. But never got immersed in reading them either.
I find this a little confusing. I thought you said you spent years studying atheist literature but found it unsatisfying. If you didn't read Russell or Hitch or Harris, what did you read? (I used to carry Russell's _Why I am not a Christian_ on the school bus with me, just to annoy people.)
You're very gracious. What that proves is that you can be friends with someone, and like them yet be fundamentally at odds with their views. We're so shaped by what our personal histories are and what we've read.
I've had two hospital stays over the last few years and live in one of the most conservative towns in America. My guess is that at least 90% of the population are Christian fundamentalists. So they come into my room and I have to ask them to leave. They're free to believe what they want but not free to impose it on me.
I find this a little confusing. I thought you said you spent years studying atheist literature but found it unsatisfying. If you didn't read Russell or Hitch or Harris, what did you read? (I used to carry Russell's _Why I am not a Christian_ on the school bus with me, just to annoy people.)
I didn't read all their books. I have read articles. I also read a lot of atheist books and articles. I definitely think I can explain their reasoning and their philosophical perspectives.
But since I don't get any enjoyment from reading Russell, for example, I didn't want to devote a whole lot of time.
I could come up with an exact list of which atheist philosophers and scientists I read. I don't think it would be a great use of time though.
I came at the question from several main directions. I tried, very hard, to understand evolution theory. That's where Dawkins' ideas mostly come in. And I looked, also very hard, at artificial intelligence and computer science, to see if humans really can create human-like intelligence (no they can't). And I looked at neuroscience, to see if the brain has been proven to be the source of consciousness and intelligence (no it has not).
Who exactly I read in studying those subjects doesn't matter that much. Lots of the important thinkers. Lots of articles, sometimes books. Took many psychology courses, got a PhD in it. Studied computer science enough (self-taught) to have a computer programming career.
I thought those 3 subjects are the most essential for evaluating atheism/materialism.
I also should mention that I understand how resistant to logic and science fundamentalist Christians can be. On the other hand, I sympathize with them because I feel their striving is mystical, more than dogmatic or ideological. But Christianity is the only form of mysticism they have been exposed to. And Christianity, unfortunately, teaches that you cannot integrate various mystical paths, you must stick rigidly to only one.
The ultimate question, to me, is whether Matter creates Mind, or Mind creates Matter. And obviously my answer is the latter. I have found absolutely nothing in science to support materialism. Not when you look deeply into it.
please.p!ease.p!ease? They're really beautifully written! He always has some concluding snapper at the end of the paragraph. He's such an obnoxious old fart. He's the guy who in his '80's was protesting the war in Viet Nam on the steps of Parliament and he was so old and feeble, they had to carry him to jail on a blanket!
It all depends on where you are coming from, what you happen to resonate with. I do NOT resonate with Dawkins AT ALL. He is my antithesis. I also consider him, and all the others like him, to represent profound irrationality disguised as rationality.
There are smart people on all sides of the issues, and it's pretty useless trying to convince anyone. We all spent many thousands of hours studying, or just absorbing, to form our point of view.
I never got any satisfaction from reading atheists/materialists. I did it just because I needed to know if they were right.
In my world, everything is connected and inherently meaningful. That's just how it is, how I experience life. But I also believe that is the scientific way of looking at things. To me, Dawkins represents an illusion of science and rationality.
I resonate somewhat with Peterson, and I get where he is coming from. To some extent, he is reacting against the arrogance of people like Dawkins, and reminding us that we are part of something infinitely greater.
I can't understand how anyone could resonate with Dawkins or find him satisfying in any way. But that is because I am coming from a different perspective.
I also never resonated with Russell or Hitchens or Harris. But never got immersed in reading them either.
To me, Peterson is not obscurantist at all, because I understand what he says and why he says it. I just think he is over-confident and being famous can do that.
Dawkins writes very sloppy pop science books, he's ok as long as he sticks to biology but as soon as he wanders into his own opinions he makes a fool of himself.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
If nothing else comes from his lectures, videos of such and his books, two of his driving points -- that people have both personal responsibility to this world AND the choices they make have tremendous effect on the outcomes of their own lives -- have major value and will stand the test of time.
I don't see how that's ultimately any different from what "leftish" advocacy groups promote - like calling people out on their intolerances, calling on corporations and business owners to pay a living wage to the lowest rank of workers, mitigate (or better yet) reverse environmental damage. Isn't that personal responsibility and recognizing the negative affects of our acts on others?
I've watched about a dozen Jordan Peterson videos.
A coworker (clearly a super fanboy) told me about him--said that he's been kicked off Twitter, fired from his teaching job, and prevented from earning a livelihood online by the evil SJW uprising. None of which is true.
Even still, I knew that if I was going to discuss his ideas, I would have to spend some time hearing him out. So I did my homework.
At first I was intrigued by his assertions regarding free speech, however, after reading views from both sides, I have decided that he has built up his base on fear-mongering and slippery slope fallacy.
I have more thoughts about him, but I don't want my post to get too long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
