It's ironic that I am repulsed by Jordan Peterson's "just be a Christian and believe in demons and dragons" advice when I post this picture everyday and people recommend him to me.
I don't want to pretend to believe in dragons and God in order to stop being a lazy gfless person. Lots of people do just fine without them. Peterson is great for fighting pomo but he is doing it with his own brand of bullshit. "Truth depends on the result, so Christianity is true since it helps people." So it was true during the Spanish Inquisition? Or untrue then and true now? And why does he try to co-opt the word "truth" for this meaning? This is dishonest. Why doesn't he use "efficacy" or invent a word?
>Lots of people do just fine without them. And you aren't one of them. It's clear you haven't found anything worth worshipping except for muh idealized gf. The problems that prevent you from connecting with romantic partners will still be there even if/when you find a significant other.
Thomas Powell
Why does a segment of the population look for authorities to guide their beliefs, and then find one that is certainly no Kant or Ratzinger or Luther, and make him their hero?
I dont have a problem with this man, his position against the canadian law in question is correct, but I certainly wouldnt want him to guide my personal beliefs and become my goto internet intellectual.
Hudson Adams
I think Peterson is right that you have to as Nietzsche would say it 'recognise untruth as a condition of life'. But he does so sophistically because he can't sell untruth to the masses (and himself) as being untruth. In order for his project to succeed one has to massively strain to uphold untruth without explicitly stating its untruth, which can be easy for plenty of people but can be a massive strain of cognitive dissonance to anyone really doing the thinking. I think this shows itself in himself as a person. He has to go really, really far to salvage life from truth.
Most of the people who you see doing fine without God and dragons have merely substituted those untruths for different ones but don't have the intellectual appetite for the technical foundation of their values someone like Peterson has. They can simply hold false believes with less effort, although none of them are completely comfortable with it. Everyone is constantly in denial of death and decay and suffering and meaninglessness on some level. If you look at Ernst Becker or Terror Management Theory there's an approach that pins the human condition as basically functioning in this state of constant denial, because we are a species aware to a degree that we do not wish to be (also see Zapffe).
Ridding oneself of untruths as much as possible leads to nihilism and to the downfall of individuals and humanity.
Philosophy is the organon of extinction, m8. Life thrives on denial, it's the only way a being capable of metacognition can justify itself.
Sebastian Hall
looks like he's sniffing his finger after putting it inside his ass so deep ah does it feel good yes it does
Dylan Howard
wat to do
Jose Walker
You can't sell "efficacy" to people, but everyone's after Truth
Aiden Reed
Is JP some sort of a closet empiricist?
Christopher Martinez
There's nothing Christian, truthful or helpful to people in the Spanish Inquisition.
It was formed in an allegedly "Catholic" country but didn't even answer to the Pope: the secular authority of the monarchs just wanted an inquisition of their own. How does a Catholic king "defend Catholic orthdoxy" without the supervision of the Pope?
He doesn't, he just wants to terrorize innocents and increase ideological conformity in the survivors.
>This is dishonest It's a pragmatist theory of truth, it's not even Petersonian original content.
You seem very confused. I think you are not in the position of arguing with the classical pragmatists and should stick to your area of competence.
>Lots of people do just fine without them That's the point, people do fine without them, but people with them do even better.
was actually extremely successful and a well known psychologist of aggression, conflict and education before.
Michael Ross
>So it was true during the Spanish Inquisition? Or untrue then and true now? It was true always and will be forever.
Isaiah Jones
Peterson is doing as much damage to faith as the nihilists he aims to oppose There is no compromise with scientism
Jayden Watson
Christianity and Scientism are One Learn the Truth about the Demiurge
Dylan Richardson
Denying death is literally affirming life you sadsack. The "denial of death" is preceded by a realization of death, which then becomes an impetus for creation while reconciling it with knowledge of this death. It is how our life becomes more than life. Ofc you have autists who are like "but you'll still die lol you're in DENIAL" but isn't this premised upon a concept of life as being merely the lonely thing that happens between your birth and death?
It's all denial/projection/sublimation/transference blah blah is an unnecessary pathologization by those too weak to appreciate creation for what it is. Life as universally "pathological" is a misuse of pathology as methodology, whose purpose is to separate the wheat from the chaff through psychiatric means.
I can understand lone sheep who have lost their way and need a shephard, but active proselytizing nihilists are literally ressentiment filled mentally ill loonies.
Jaxson Brooks
These don't seem to be "the same" at all
Nolan Hernandez
This is a literature board, retard.
Isaiah Miller
>I don't want to pretend to believe Then believe. >Lots of people do just fine without them By pretending.
Ethan Hall
>Jordan Peterson's "just be a Christian and believe in demons and dragons" advice If you want to argue about JP perhaps don't start with some silly strawman. If you want dating advice go away.
Joseph Collins
What a fucking great post.
Hudson Morales
I've never watched one of his lectures and I never will.
Aiden Diaz
...
Dominic Parker
Denial of death isn't life affirming, but the result of the inevitability of death being so disturbing that people develop coping mechanisms in order to not deal with it.
That's something different than accepting death and thereby experiencing life as more precious.
People who would wholly appreciate creation for what it is would never seek to deny death in the first place as it is an inherent part of said creation. To truly embrace existence you need to accept that it is in a constant flux and that decay and life feeding on itself are everywhere.
Most people aren't willing to do that, they accept some compartmentalised view of life and try to ignore the parts they deem unacceptable, that's why they (and perhaps (You)) get triggered by non-optimistic worldviews. Not because they really appreciate existence, because then they would appreciate existence inclusive of the plurality of worldviews within it, but because they get uncomfortable with people breaching their walled off experience of some mere aspects of existence.
If there is some aspect of existence you want to avert your eyes from, you're not appreciating it for what it is. In that case you are fundamentally living life (partly) in denial, which is what we all do.
Lincoln James
>It's ironic that I am repulsed by Jordan Peterson's "just be a Christian and believe in demons and dragons" advice
These are metaphor you simple fuck. You aren't actually supposed to believe in literal dragons and man-eating whales. They are figures your Western subconscious uses to stand-in for your insecurities. You are illiterate and really should leave Peterson for later when your IQ is a bit higher.
Austin Sanchez
The interesting thing is that Peterson himself refuses to say aloud 'these are all mere metaphors, the nihilists are right, but these fables will get you through the day perhaps'.
Ethan Hall
I think it's a bit odd to expect that. Peterson clearly cites his sources. Jung, especially. And just because metaphors are used to describe the form of the human shadow doesn't mean anyone has gained advantage over this method. Nihilists are never right. It's not merely about getting through the day, but struggling into a meaningful existence.
Jason Bailey
yes, well said
Jack Adams
>I think it's a bit odd to expect that Not when he's asked directly and still refuses.
He's wilfully obscurantist.
Brody James
He tells people to read Nietzsche all the time lol
Luis Richardson
I'm not saying he doesn't talk about sources. He's obscurantist about his truth claims. He knows very well that he tries to re-appropriate the phrase and that what he calls truth is not what is conventionally called truth, but he still wants the word 'truth' for 'ideas that help us thrive' rather than 'ideas that correlate to factual reality'.
When he has the option of clarity, he refuses to makes things as clear as possible. He prefers an emotionally laden misleading term over a less enticing more descriptive one.
Chase Roberts
>So it was true during the Spanish Inquisition? Yes, and we should have burned you all
Joseph Cook
>He has to go really, really far to salvage life from truth.
what would be the better way?
>have merely substituted those untruths for different ones
like what?
if philosophy is the organon of extinction and getting rid of untruth leads to nihilism, wouldn't it be much more enjoyable to live in denial? why pursue philosophy at all? for "truth" that you pay for with loss of meaning? is this really a good trade?
Bentley Kelly
>"Truth depends on the result, so Christianity is true since it helps people." So it was true during the Spanish Inquisition? Or untrue then and true now? And why does he try to co-opt the word "truth" for this meaning? This is dishonest. Why doesn't he use "efficacy" or invent a word?
could it be that he's a terrible philosopher and doesn't realize that his position cannot be meaningfully distinguished from that of the "postmodernists" he claims to understand and critique?
Dylan Wright
I don't subscribe to this "coping mechanism" pathology. Look at the Piraha people, ignoring whether the initially popularized account of their language is empirically accurate for the moment. They short circuit metacognition by having a non-recursive language that is dominated by the present tense. This allows them to be untroubled by death because death cannot be spoken of. This is a "return to innocence" in the face of death, which is done by literally conceptually walling off death. Supposedly they're quite happy despite life being brutal and short.
Now the alternative path is to eat the fruit and think recursively. You can interpret this allegorically as Adam and Eve not being immortal, but "immortal" in the way the Piraha allegedly are. But by obtaining metacognition they set themselves out on a path where they obtain mastery over life. One can then put one's life in service of something, or even put at end to one's life having realized that this is what "life" is, which is inseparable from death that is always-already there. This is what I mean by a life that is more than "life", which is the life of mere animals, another "denial" that Becker mentions. So I am triggered yes.
Becker would call both of the cases above "denials" of death. Why? According to him religion is one way we deny death, but I claimed that the Piraha deny death (in the most literal fashion), but they also deny the existence of deities they can't see of their presentism. So in terms of explanatory power, what does Becker's account give us when it levels the distinction between the two purported "denials"? Isn't man before the fall more limited in his worldview than man after the fall? Is it not a better account to claim that the former is a denial and the latter involves the lack of a denial? As you said, we affirm both the creation and the destruction and everything else, which is not incompatible with an optimistic worldview. Of course one tends to temporarily suspend judgement between worldviews that are mutually incompatible. So by adopting an optimistic worldview, I suspend my adoption of a pessimistic worldview, if only temporarily. But I don't lose my knowledge of it, owing to my metacognition.
Maybe i'm attributing a pejorative tinge to "denial" to him, when it could just be value-neutral, but it seems like that was the way he was using it, no? Seems like he was saying, "you're just making a bunch of excuses because you can't handle the truth etc."
