10
11

Anyone else also disappointed that Jordan Peterson is religious? (self.samharris)

fabhellier が 投稿

To me it seemed totally at odds with his belief in freedom of expression and individualism. He also seemed to have little faith in the notion that morality lies within the scientific realm. Would be interesting if he and Sam spoke about it.

全 49 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]keyohtee9 17ポイント18ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't think he is religious in the sense that there is a God on a cloud, sitting, and micromanaging everything in everyone's life. This is a superficial interpretation of religion that I'm sure he despises, and this superficial interpretation, and the logical inconsistencies that go along with it, are what the "new atheists" often spend their time criticizing (in some ways I feel like this is the low hanging criticism of religion, it's not that hard). This is why I'd like to see Sam and Jordan have a debate about religion (Sam is the perfect interlocutor here because despite his harsh criticisms of religion, he is also open to the phenomena of spirituality).

I think he was saying that religion at its best, through devices like parables and myths, transfer to us metaphorical truths which seem to be universally attractive for our species, as these archetypes appear over and over again (in different religions, literature, movies, most of what we create). So these archetypes seem to be incredibly resilient as they show up in one form or another, in one time or another, in one culture or another, and seem to offer us deep insights into the nature of our being, and lead us towards something resembling self-transcendence (ie. overcoming egocentrism). It seems arrogant to tell people that whatever heightened state of being, or insight they achieve through a deep, honest reading or interpretation of religious text is merely delusion. I'm not religious but I feel it when I read say...Tao Te Ching, and I'm a better, wiser person for it (I think).

So one could be religious in the sense that one sees profundity and feels reverence for this phenomena, as if it connects one with a deeper underlying harmony, helps them see the world through the eyes of a true sage (and this is interpreted as a different kind "truth", one that can't necessarily be reached through reductive thought or experimentation). Isn't this part of what we call spirituality? Opening up to insights about our own being that transform us into an ideal? For the Christian this is Christ, for the Buddhist this is the Buddha and so on. This would also btw offer us a good point on which we can do comparative analysis of the different religions, i.e. what ideal is this religion seeking to produce in its followers?

[–]fabhellier[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting explanation.

[–]Wizened1 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly this. He takes issue with Dawkins because the God that Dawkins refutes is the same god that "a smart thirteen year old boy" refutes.

"There are those that think that they think scientifically, but they don't. And then there are people that think scientifically at a genius level. Then there are people that think they think religiously, but they don't. And then there are people that think religiously on a genius level" - Peterson.

[–]BridgesOnBikes 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well put. I think if you are missing this pod then you are missing one of the best JRE of all time...

[–]Marcruise 12ポイント13ポイント  (9子コメント)

I don't know if it's 'religiosity' I don't like, so much as this sort of 'detached ideas mode' that's all very exciting and interesting, but turns out to be not even wrong. Jung has this mode of argumentation where he gets so wrapped up in symbolism that, by the end, you have absolutely no idea on what level he's arguing. Peterson seems to be channelling that.

People who argue like this are basically cheating. They know damn well that they wouldn't let anyone else get away with such flights of fancy. But when it comes to them, to their ideas, they want the rules of the game to be suspended, and for everyone to play along with this new game where it's suddenly OK to just posit connections everywhere and advance about 10,000 miles ahead of the empirical evidence.

It must also be said that there's a performative element to this. One of the things that's clear from the podcast is that Peterson is seriously considering moving out of academia into the 'university' on YouTube. It's hard to push down the suspicion that what he is doing, probably at a subconscious level, is performing the role of the prophet. (Note how 'dangerous' everything is. He even uses the word 'apocalypse'!)

I want to be clear here. I don't think he's a 'crackpot' or a 'lunatic'. We're not watching Network here. I do think, though, that he is a bit narcissistic and given to grand-standing, which is why the performance prophet stuff is creeping in. It's healthy to approach him with some caution and scepticism.

[–]hippydipster 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This seems a likely description of the Peterson phenomenon.

My main issue is, did the university really tell him he couldn't say that he won't use gender neutral pronouns?

[–]lastsuppah 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I largely agree. The sensation I get when watching him, no matter how much I admire the man, is akin the when you listen to/read continental philosophers. It's the intentional use of obscure and often mythological language in order to trigger a sense of profoundity in the listener. You want to believe. That said I'm new to his ideas, and it may well be that I simply don't understand his views fully yet.

[–]RetractionFelix 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

He really gives off an 'aspiring cult leader' vibe.

Seems like it's working.....

[–]Marcruise 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sure, but vibes are just that. Everyone has a personality, and there's always going to be something that rubs you up the wrong way about them. This is doubly the case when you get into the small realm of people who are vaguely interesting to listen to or read - lots of them are going to be weirdos.

Sam Harris, for instance, has that annoying quality that he has to be the smartest guy in the room. This can make him do incredibly stupid things, like trying to have a 'sensible discussion' with a drunk man on a very emotive topic.

That doesn't make Sam Harris a bad person, or someone not worth listening to. It just makes him a flawed person, like we all are. (And I could point out my own flaws, but I think it's much more fun to let other people do it!) With Peterson, I think all that's needed is just approaching with caution, and try not to get sucked into the charismatic authority schtick.

I do think Peterson is basically right about political correctness, and right to be concerned (though without the doom-mongering) about the direction Canadian law has been moving in. I see his main contribution as providing arguments and evidence against the idea that PC is typically well-intentioned, whilst preserving the insight that clearly some people are. He's managed to articulate something that has been bumbling around, inchoately, in my head since 2012, and for that I'm grateful.

[–]chartbuster 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sam Harris, for instance, has that annoying quality that he has to be the smartest guy in the room. This can make him do incredibly stupid things, like trying to have a 'sensible discussion' with a drunk man on a very emotive topic.

I think, to be frank, you're mistaken on this point. Or at least you're not looking at it with the proper depth. Sam had no way of knowing how uncharitable Hannibal would be on that topic, and it had nothing to do with Sam needing or wanting to be the smartest person in a room, at all. On the contrary, something I see as a partial blind spot is that Sam sometimes gives the people he's communicating with too much intellectual benefit of the doubt- assuming that they are at least on the same page with him, which is not exactly a negative thing to do, it's actually quite complimentary. It can sometimes be problematic when discussing sensitive topics- but the fact that other people are too sensitive and lack reasonable reflexes, isn't SH's fault- especially given that he is a fair and honest 'interlocutor.' Everyone has to condition themselves in discussion, and certain people have a better gauge of when to hold back and when not to depending on context and other social factors. I doubt Sam shows up at dinner party's and screams, "Hey everyone. Your attention please. I think torture should be illegal, but there are some far reaching cases where it should be allowed. If you don't get that, then you're an idiot." haha.

[–]Marcruise 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

OK, fair enough. I brought it up because I thought that it relayed my point (that we all have flaws but it's not the end of the world) quite well. Feel free to substitute in a different evaluation about someone else. I'm really not that committed to it. After all, I don't even know the guy (same goes for Peterson, for that matter).

[–]kidamnesiac94 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

On the contrary, something I see as a partial blind spot is that Sam sometimes gives the people he's communicating with too much intellectual benefit of the doubt-

This is it. He's not arrogant, he's socially naive.

[–]Wizened1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The main point he pushes in his university lectures, is "don't fall for any ideology" - presumably that goes for his own ideology, if you can call it that.

[–]BridgesOnBikes 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

I did the same at first... in my head I was making a silent judgement about him, as if his religious views had some way effected his free speech views. But then I listened again.

This man views religion in a very unique way and I really got a ton out of hearing this pod. Possibly one of the best ever, even by Joe's account. I'm going to listen again and really try to absorb his arguments fully. I think you missed the best part of the pod if you turned it off at the religion point.

His claims more revolve around the metaphysical ideas of hell being a place on earth I.e anywhere that corruption of the mind has driven people to have contempt for the innocent, and how this place is an extension of ideologies parasitically sucking the truth from our lives. It is an interesting concept and he uses the framework of the Christ demagogue as representation of pure truth.

He talks a lot about the balance of the yin yang model and draws equivalence in Batman/joker, Harry Potter, and a few other, non biblical representations of this idea. It's much deeper than religion as you and I too initially thought. Don't miss this podcast.

[–]fabhellier[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

used the framework of the Christ demagogue as a representation of pure truth.

Yeah, no. That makes absolutely zero sense. Jesus was an eccentric rabbi operating in a largely illiterate part of the pre-enlightened world. How you derive pure truth from that I cannot fathom.

It's all very well using hell as a metaphor for what you perceive to be the worst parts of human behaviour and civilisation as a whole, but unfortunately it doesn't do very much to explain how these things work.

And sorry but the moment you invoke Batman and Harry Potter to explain your metaphysical viewpoints, you relinquish your case for being taken seriously.

[–]BridgesOnBikes 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

None of these are my ideas... they are Jordan Peterson's interpretations of the works he explained. You obviously are being overtly literal and not observing the greater points. I'm guessing you never listened to the podcast.

You are missing the forest for the trees here.

[–]fabhellier[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm guessing you never listened to the podcast.

Well you guessed wrong. I wouldn't have made this post otherwise.

I never said these were your ideas. I don't believe I'm missing anything actually. I just find them to be superfluous and nonsensical.

[–]BridgesOnBikes 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fair enough. But writing off works of fiction because of the fictitious aspects to the works Is missing the message, and it seems clear to me that this is what you are doing here.

[–]fabhellier[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair point, in principle works of fiction are not necessarily useless because of their fictitious nature, but in these cases I think they are.

[–]Wizened1 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

As others have said, he isn't really religious. He is in much deeper than that. Watch this video and try to find fault with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

I've watched/listened to it around 10 times, given the fact it blew my mind the first time I watched it. At no point does he seem at all like a religious weirdo or cult leader.

[–]bizud 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

This video needs more views and discussion.

[–]pistolpierre 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

To me his use of religious language in this context bordered on an almost Chopra level of obscurantism. I mean Rogan was asking very clear, specific questions about religion, which Peterson never really seemed interested in answering directly – he instead went to make tangentially related analogies about comic book archetypes. All I wanted to know was does he think there is a man in the sky, in whom you are required to believe to be saved. If he answered that, I wasn’t able to tell.

[–]Radiodef 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

All I wanted to know was does he think there is a man in the sky, in whom you are required to believe to be saved.

I've watched his lectures and he doesn't believe that. What he actually believes is more like e.g. that the Judeo-Christian God is an archetypal metaphor for culture and the dominance hierarchy. He also subscribes to an idea (which, I think, also comes from Carl Jung) that some descriptions of psychological ideas are so deep that they can only be properly conveyed with religious language. So Peterson will e.g. talk about something like a soul, and what he means is something like an individual's sense of existence.

I guess another way to explain it is that he is using religion to fulfill spiritual experience, without subscribing to any belief that the stories are at all describing historical fact. He would rather say something like that an idea can be "real", in an existential sense, insofar as that idea keeps society glued together. That's sort of like saying that if God is a metaphor, and if the metaphor holds true, then God is "real" in that it's a true metaphor.

Peterson might therefore say something like "submit yourself to God" and what he actually means--literally--is to devote your life to the highest goals of humanity. He says a monologue at the end of Dave Rubin's interview, something about looking towards the highest star, and he is, again, saying something like devoting yourself to the highest virtue. He says it with religious language because he wants you to feel it in that spiritual sense. If you know all his presuppositions then you know exactly what his metaphor is referring to but the presuppositions take kind of a long time to explain and if you don't know them you get the general idea from the spiritual language anyway.

I've heard him say in one of his lectures that typical religious people actually don't like his ideas, so maybe that is why he isn't more explicit. In any case, it's in his lectures.

Actually Peterson is a great example of the kind of religiosity that Sam Harris argues for: spirituality without delusional belief in God as a literal divine being.

[–]softlump 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

He didn't say that he was part of any specific religion and as I recall he also spoke against religious dogma, so I don't see any conflict towards either freedom of expression or individualism.

And I would really like to see an argument for any inherent morality in science. Personally I don't see how science has anything to do with morality, just observable and reproducible truths. What would science look like if everything connected to its moral implications? doesn't make sense to me.

No one discipline is adequate to explain the world. Science as part of the truth, spirituality has another and they are not opposed, I don't know why you would think they are.

[–]BridgesOnBikes 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Have you read The Moral Landscape? It's a quick read and outlines a relatively simple view of morality based in the occurrence of suffering.

[–]RoSoDude 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

You could argue that the moral precept that underlies Sam's position (the worst suffering for everyone is something we want to avoid) is essentially the same principle Jordan Peterson outlines in the Joe Rogan podcast, which is that a moral system is one in which one's actions are good for oneself, one's family, one's neighbors, one's society, and so on. The idea is that there is a worst hell of suffering where none of this is upheld, and the idea of morality is built on the comparison.

Where I think Sam (and I) diverge from Peterson is in the mode of analysis that best generates so-called moral truths. I am skeptical of the idea that religious archetypes, which I agree are programmed into the human race on a deep level, provide the best answer to our ethical questions. I'm not saying that they don't provide a deep insight into our being, but I don't think it's obviously self-evident that an archetypal story like that of Jesus or Pinocchio has within its "religious substructure" a prescription for the best way to form a society.

[–]Radiodef 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not saying that they don't provide a deep insight into our being, but I don't think it's obviously self-evident that an archetypal story like that of Jesus or Pinocchio has within its "religious substructure" a prescription for the best way to form a society.

There are basically 2 archetypal stories he is referring to:

  • Periodic revision, where culture is old, dead and partially tyrannical in nature and younger generations must revivify it. That is, culture evolves slowly over time via micro-adjustments rather than radical restructuring.
  • Turning chaos in to order, like slaying the dragon and getting the gold. That's like personal development or scientific discovery. You confront the things you don't understand, learn from them and use the information to make the world a better place.

There's kind of an extrapolation there, especially with the first myth, which is that right now in history we are at a point where belief in God as a literal historical fact is the dead part of culture that we need to revivify. Religion might not be real in the scientific sense but it's a useful metaphor for life and the cultural aspect keeps large groups of people glued together. But again, instead of throwing religion away outright, we should make it new in whatever way is appropriate for modern people. From listening to his lectures, I think that is his general stance.

[–]BridgesOnBikes 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. I'm not sure Peterson is trying to prescribe a "best" way to form a society though. More so a best way to conduct ones self alone. And I think Sam's view is probably more practical in the current structures of society. Great points though and very well outlined.

[–]fabhellier[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

No one discipline is adequate to explain the world.

I think this is wrong. Science is the only reliable means we have of ascertaining how the world around us works. No other discipline has succeeded in doing so. Now, you may invoke other more introspective disciplines such as spirituality and morality, and these are indeed essential concepts, but these disciplines still exist within the discipline of science, for the simple reason that they exist at all. Anything that can be said to exist, even if only in the mind, even if only as a societal construct, can be said to pertain to the realm of scientific inquiry, since even the most subjective experience is governed by the physicality of the brain, and is most likely dependent on other physical systems.

[–]hippydipster 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But science is not "one discipline". It is many.

[–]Eldorian91 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

I was listening to the Joe Rogan podcast, and I have to admit I turned it off when he started into religious truths being different from scientific truths. I just have a hard time taking anyone seriously who holds that sort of position. Dualism is just one giant eyeroll when I listen to it.

[–]EvilGeniusPanda 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

I honestly thought it was probably one of the most interesting and reasonable discussions I've heard in the dualist vein, complete with detours into the Marvel universe, Harry Potter and cross-fit. It's not quite as hollow as the usual "well my truth just isn't open to scientific investigation because i say so" nonsense. He didn't sway me to his point of view, but I don't regret listening to it.

[–]repmack 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

You are really going to cut yourself off to a lot of things in life if you act refuse to listen to people you disagree with.

[–]Eldorian91 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You misunderstand. I would listen to him on Walking Up or Polite Conversations or Very Bad Wizards. But not on the JRE or Rubin Report or Saad Truth.

[–]RedemptiveStruggle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Original point still stands. You're a close-minded dumbass if you celebrate the fact that you shut off things that you disagree with, no matter how passionately.

[–]softlump 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

You should have listened to what he had to say.

[–]notverymindful 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel the same way about religious people. I'm not sure how beneficial that is.

[–]Wizened1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think that is dualism? I might be wrong..

People have different modes, eg work mode and play mode. Things, when looking constantly through a scientific lens, will never look any different, and that scientific lens will always be there to look through. You aren't losing anything, (except science time) when looking through other lenses (Buddhism, Christianity, stoicism, whatever).

[–]Thecalculatorman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't care.

[–]RetractionFelix 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Rogan made some half-hearted efforts to pin down Peterson's actual views about his Christianity and God in particular. I wish he would have pressed harder. Peterson mostly dodged and refused to acknowledge these questions directly and honestly, preferring to just jump into whatever metaphors he was comfortable discussing. A half hour of that sort of back and forth and I don't think Peterson ever said, nor am I sure I could fully deduce, whether he actually believes in an omnicient Sky Man, some sort of fuzzy "stuff" that we can't comprehend, or just some nice code of rules and traditions that conveniently give him justification for his rigid views on gender.

edit: syntax

[–]Wizened1 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you are interested, check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

[–]RetractionFelix -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks, but he's already had more of my time than he deserves. Pulling the plug on this one.

[–]_nefario_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

i couldn't care less. he's just not that interesting. his stance on free speech is commendable, but that's about it.

[–]gloryatsea 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think he's a psychoanalyst, too.

[–]g0aliegUy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, is this the Jordan Peterson subreddit now? What the fuck does this have to do with Sam?

[–]motodoto 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not a surprise. The view that we shouldn't accept something new, especially ones related to gender identity/sexuality/etc... is often correlated with religiosity, at least in my experience. It's a right wing position.

To me it seemed totally at odds with his belief in freedom of expression and individualism.

Why? The religious historically led the charge on these fronts in our society. Freedom of "my" expression is how it turned out, but the principle was still there. "My own individualism is okay, but not if part of being an individual is identifying outside of the typical binary gender normativity.". Seems pretty religious to me.

He also seemed to have little faith in the notion that morality lies within the scientific realm.

As does most people with a philosophy education that are professors/philosophers. Sam is in the minority in this. He is always vague about how he proposes we go about it, and seems to dismiss criticism that he would indeed need to use non-scientific reasoning to set the groundwork to even get started. It's a logical conclusion of this sort of educational path to accept the limitations of science. It's not a logical conclusion of this sort of education to conflate science with "reason" and thus dillute the meaning of science for the sake of saying "science can solve moral questions".

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)