Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed

Man of the Sea

DUDE PLAYING A DUDE
kiwifarms.net
Eh, I think you can reply to a question like that as precisely as you please without dancing around with 50 questions first.
That depends on the question. If a question requires a simple yes or no without information or evidence supporting your answer, then sure, but if you're trying to answer a question about how hierarchies are relevant to human society or the social implications of more women working with men, its much harder to answer precisely since you have to question outlier scenarios and bring up statistical evidence and how they are relevant to your answer. People can write an entire book about some of the questions Peterson has attempted to answer. Are his answers right a lot of the times? Fuck no. Does he try to back his answers with evidence? Most of the time, and I'd rather have detailed explanations behind an answer than just a straight answer for some of the questions he has to answer.
 

GranDuke

kiwifarms.net
Answering if you believe in god or not is not philosophical or complex question. Yes/no/maybe is sufficient.

Now, if you want to explain and "prove" why you don't or do believe in god then sure, you need to be precise about your terms. But outside of few debates I think nobody has ever asked him to prove that god exists. Most of the time it is simple questions like do you believe in god or do you believe that Jesus literally resurrected. And to my knowledge he still hasn't plainly answered these simple questions.
 

Feline Darkmage

Queen Trap Tank, the Vice Catto
Staff Member
Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net

ExceptionallyExceptional

Autism Incarnate
kiwifarms.net
Answering if you believe in god or not is not philosophical or complex question. Yes/no/maybe is sufficient.

Now, if you want to explain and "prove" why you don't or do believe in god then sure, you need to be precise about your terms. But outside of few debates I think nobody has ever asked him to prove that god exists. Most of the time it is simple questions like do you believe in god or do you believe that Jesus literally resurrected. And to my knowledge he still hasn't plainly answered these simple questions.
I refuse to believe that Peterson needed the question clarified. He knew damn well what the questioner meant, he just desperately needed a way not to answer yes or no. Either answer would turn off part of his audience and lose him potential paypigs.
I wouldn't have let it slide, either. I would have pressed it. "Well, Professor, if you need it laid out in terms that even the mentally deficient can understand then allow me to elaborate. Do you accept as true the claims of the Bible regarding a divine creator, specifically one named Yahweh who is worshipped by both the Jews and the Christians, yes or no?"

At that point any refusal to answer directly would make him look incredibly dishonest or else incredibly stupid.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
When you're debating philosophy you need to be precise about your terms. I don't see how it makes him a fraud to insist that he and the questioner work from the same definitions of philosophical terms, especially one as fuzzy as "belief".
This is the problem, and why him and Sam Harris had so much difficulty. On the topic of truth, the problem is that if people think they know what truth means they haven't actually thought about it enough. So when someone says "we need to define truth" and people act like that's ridiculous, it's really not. If you delve into metaphysics and philosophy the concept of truth is very complex. It's not just another word for "accuracy." Someone like Kant can commit years of research and argument to the concept of a priori truth, meaning the most reduced essence of the thing, stripped of all the bells and whistles, or the mere symptoms of its existence.

You could imagine the same argument if someone tries to define what a soul is; it's not a ghost or a spirit, necessarily. It's the idea that there is something inside of humans that cannot be reduced any further, and is not just the sum of sensory information. It's a very heady concept.
So when Peterson, or anyone, seem to struggle with "do you believe in god?" that's a big concept. Atheists think God is a magic man in the sky who grants wishes, agnostics may see god as a force like gravity without human consciousness, Christians may see God as a consciousness that cannot be understood, there's all sorts of ways to look at it if we are being honest about the conversation. It's especially important to define those terms if you're speaking to someone like Richard Dawkins who literally thinks religious people are mentally ill (and said as much in his debate with Bret Weinstein.) So yeah, establishing terms are important and people who seem baffled that it needs to be done haven't really thought about it.

It's not like it's a conversation killer to try and clarify it, and the fact that the person asking the question can rarely summarize it seems to prove this. If someone asks what they mean and they say "what do you mean what do I mean?!" just tells me they struggle with it too. Like if someone asked me "are you against heavy drinking?" I would ask "well what do you mean by heavy drinking?" as in, drinking till you black out, or having 4 beers instead of 2? And the person could very easily say "I mean drinking until you black out." Boom, easy. So with the God thing, it seems like in every single instance the person asking the question struggle to summarize it themselves and that's where they get caught up.

Like if I asked anyone here "do you believe in truth?" I find it very hard to believe nobody would come back with "well what do you mean by truth?" And if you asked that, I don't think I could call you a fraud.
 
Last edited:

GranDuke

kiwifarms.net
So when Peterson, or anyone, seem to struggle with "do you believe in god?" that's a big concept. Atheists think God is a magic man in the sky who grants wishes, agnostics may see god as a force like gravity without human consciousness, Christians may see God as a consciousness that cannot be understood, there's all sorts of ways to look at it if we are being honest about the conversation. It's especially important to define those terms if you're speaking to someone like Richard Dawkins who literally thinks religious people are mentally ill (and said as much in his debate with Bret Weinstein.) So yeah, establishing terms are important and people who seem baffled that it needs to be done haven't really thought about it.
Nothing is stopping you from saying "yes, I believe in god and this is what I mean by that...". And nobody expects you to drop philosophical thesis on existence of god during Q&A session so simple yes would be sufficient 9 times out of 10. You are deliberately making this more complicated than it has to be.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
Nothing is stopping you from saying "yes, I believe in god and this is what I mean by that...". And nobody expects you to drop philosophical thesis on existence of god during Q&A session so simple yes would be sufficient 9 times out of 10. You are deliberately making this more complicated than it has to be.
So you must realize that your problem is semantics, right? So if someone asks a question and you need clarification, asking for clarification or hazarding a guess are the exact same thing.
Also, let's just state for the record that Peterson has, in fact, answered the question. I think people are forgetting that, they keep acting like he always dodges it but in many interviews he has explained it and clarified it. So to me it's not this giant glitch in the matrix people are saying it is.

The problem is that explaining it takes like 10 minutes, as it should, as it should for any serious thinker. So unless every time you wanna have a 10-15 minute dissection of the belief, maybe it makes sense to ascertain the specifics of the question beforehand? Like if you don't want a philosophical thesis about god during as Q&A, why even ask it?
Again, it comes back to the problem of the person asking the question not knowing the parameters of their own question or the breadth of its scope.

Here's one for you. It's like if someone asks you "do you believe in love?" Now sit there and imagine someone asking you that. If you're not an idiot, your mind will ask "what do they mean by love, exactly?" And that is a normal question. Romantic love? Familial love? Love of country? Is narcissism love? Are we saying love can only be positive, or can it also be destructive? Are we defining it by commitment or obsession, or both? How specific and how broad are we using the term?

And then once we ask that, we get into the weeds, which again is where you should be if you think about this seriously. And it's similar to the God question. See love is hard to prove, but we know it exists. Love isn't just happiness which can be triggered biologically and neurologically; that's a part of it, but not the whole. Love can be applied in different degrees and in different shades to different levels, like children and country and things you believe in. Love is something we can't actually measure, really.
But like Kant says we can know it exists as an a priori thing, because we can reduce it down to its pure essence and know it exists without all the trappings of sensory input. Entire empires can fall on love, love can create and end life, we know it exists but like dark matter we can only measure it by the effect it has on the universe. If we had to describe love, we might say... It is the intersection of attraction, culture, commitment, imagination, and biological survival. But you can't hold or measure it or quantify it, really.
We all understand it is real, but we never dissect it, we seem to have different conceptions of it, and some people only believe in it cynically or as a corrupting force.

So if someone asks you "do you believe in love?" Well... What do you mean by believe, and what do you mean by love? If you've thought about it for like 15 seconds, that should be your response.

I am not making it more complicated. You are just defending the fact that you do not take the topic seriously and think it's insane that people appreciate the complexity of it.
 

BurningPewter

10 Lolcows who are gay - 9 will shock you!
kiwifarms.net
this internet daddy seems to have a daughter that maybe wouldn't make most father's proud

It's a fitness "after" photo FFS.

I've got a friend who's a devout Evangelical Christian and loves JP, and he's obsessed with the idea that JP is going to come out as a (clear) Christian, and he's gone to see him speak twice with the intention of asking him to define his beliefs and forcing him to admit he loves God in front of the crowd. I cringe when I read his facebook plans to re-try at his next UK show.
 

Man of the Sea

DUDE PLAYING A DUDE
kiwifarms.net
I have to say, I just came across Atheist youtubers thinking Peterson is a secret Christian and trying to discredit him that way, and its hilarious how these idiots fall over their heads trying to prove that point by taking every statement as literally as possible. Specifically, I was watching some of Hugo and Jake's shitty interpretation of his book and its fucking hilarious. Peterson brings the cows out in force.
 
Last edited:

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
And then once we ask that, we get into the weeds, which again is where you should be if you think about this seriously.
There's a difference between recognizing in earnest that words can have multiple definitions, and muddying the waters with semantics in the service of obscurantism. Great thinkers strive to effectively articulate the complexities of something in as clear and concise manner as possible; people who merely pose as great thinkers tend to do the opposite. It seems to me that many Peterson fans can't tell the difference.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
There's a difference between recognizing in earnest that words can have multiple definitions, and muddying the waters with semantics in the service of obscurantism.
If he was muddying the waters with semantics he would say "I can't answer the question because we have different definitions and can't talk about it." Asking for clarification and working towards a common definition isn't obscurantism. What would that goal be of someone trying to obscure the issue, but at the same time delving deeper into it and chasing after it?

If someone tries to obscure an issue strategically that means they are trying to change the subject and move away from it. These questions do literally the exact opposite as they tend to stay on the issue for awhile when it comes up.
He's up there articulating the complexities of the issue and explaining why he is doing it, which you say great thinkers do, but when he does that... apparently he's dodging?
 

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
If he was muddying the waters with semantics he would say "I can't answer the question because we have different definitions and can't talk about it."
That would only be the case if you assume him to be as forthright and truthful as he presents himself.

If you think him to be intentionally deceptive about his point his answer makes a lot of sense. Because it evades having to give an answer. Your answer wouldn't work in that case, because it wouldn't cause people to come to his defense, because it would leave no room for interpretation. They could only repeat the weak "he doesn't want to talk about".

Like his refusal to talk about 200 years together, Solzenitshyen's other book, despite having been prompted at least twice (recorded) and receiving a free translated copy.

It's a much weaker position than allowing people discuss the epistomology and semantics if what words mean. In that sense I admire Peterson for managing to hoodwink people.

And to hear a defense of the podcast with Harris about truth being some high brained thing; Peterson himself has admitted on Rogan that it was a shit podcast and came up with not having slept for 30 days as a reason for it being shit.

Pretty amazing that people would still defend that podcast. I suppose that ends now that they know daddy admitted it was a bad podcast?
 
Last edited:

Steamboat_Bill

Going to beat the record of the Robert E. Lee
kiwifarms.net
That would only be the case if you assume him to be as forthright and truthful as he presents himself.

If you think him to be intentionally deceptive about his point his answer makes a lot of sense. Because it evades having to give an answer. Your answer wouldn't work in that case, because it wouldn't cause people to come to his defense, because it would leave no room for interpretation. They could only repeat the weak "he doesn't want to talk about".

Like his refusal to talk about 200 years together, Solzenitshyen's other book, despite having been prompted at least twice (recorded) and receiving a free translated copy.

It's a much weaker position than allowing people discuss the epistomology and semantics if what words mean. In that sense I admire Peterson for managing to hoodwink people.

And to hear a defense of the podcast with Harris about truth being some high brained thing; Peterson himself has admitted on Rogan that it was a shit podcast and came up with not having slept for 30 days as a reason for it being shit.

Pretty amazing that people would still defend that podcast. I suppose that ends now that they know daddy admitted it was a bad podcast?
Has he read anything else on the USSR other than Solzhenitsyn?
 

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
Has he read anything else on the USSR other than Solzhenitsyn?
That depends on what you mean by 'USSR' and would probably require upward of 40 hours of lectures to answer.

Lol, I haven't heard him mention any other, though of course he mentions the pre-USSR russian writers. I always assumed he had, but that may be giving him too much credit.

Which books should he have read?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GranDuke

Steamboat_Bill

Going to beat the record of the Robert E. Lee
kiwifarms.net
That depends on what you mean by 'USSR' and would probably require upward of 40 hours of lectures to answer.

Lol, I haven't heard him mention any other, though of course he mentions the pre-USSR russian writers. I always assumed he had, but that may be giving him too much credit.

Which books should he have read?
I'm no student of Soviet Russia, so I can't tell you, but it just seems strange that he never seems to talk about any other writers who've written on the subject.

(Maybe he's never read anything on the USSR other than Solzhenitsyn?)
 

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
Asking for clarification and working towards a common definition isn't obscurantism. What would that goal be of someone trying to obscure the issue, but at the same time delving deeper into it and chasing after it?
Peterson generally doesn't work towards a common definition though, he mostly just deconstructs the definitions other people are using without offering a better alternative. This could be forgivable if his purpose was to highlight the error in another person's thinking, but the sad reality is that his ruminations usually obfuscate far more often than they elucidate. When it comes to the subjects of epistemology and theology in particular, he is incredibly vague about what his position is.

In light of this, I think my charge of obscurantism is fair.

He's up there articulating the complexities of the issue and explaining why he is doing it, which you say great thinkers do, but when he does that... apparently he's dodging?
Articulating the complexities of something and overwhelming the listener with semantics as a substitute for genuine insights are not mutually exclusive. Language is a complex thing; so complex that if you had to define every word before uttering it, you would never be able to finish your sentence. Still, would this really be a worthwhile use of language?
 

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino