Posted March 28, 2019
low rated
Thanks for the background info. Not sure I can agree with all of that though - Jews have been persecuted for pretty much throughout all of history, so this (on the surface at least) seems little different. Not that I'm disagreeing entirely that Jews haven't managed to do quite well for themselves regardless - it was like that from the beginning.
Speaking of which, this kind of ties into one of the negative aspects of Catholicism - Catholics were not allowed to lend money to others and charge interest, which would have hampered capitalist expansion if not for the Jews (who had no such qualms, and profited quite well from it, despite being forced to live in ghettos throughout the middle ages for example).
I do agree that the Catholic church did contribute a lot to science - it's well known that some of the first ever scholars in the Western world were monks, and later on they often taught others to read if I'm not mistaken. I also believe the first beer was brewed by monks, and possibly also the first wine. So it's definitely not all bad.
One could argue that the Lutheran version of Christianity is "more pure" than the Catholic version, since they kept pretty much everything except the Pope, and did away with most of the taxation/extortion and other excesses the Church was known for. These days there isn't that much difference though, apart from not having a Pope (they have no "infallible" central leaders).
My point with respect to religion though is that there is no religion that can claim to be "pure". Even if looking only at the "teachings", there is some seriously fucked up shit in the bible, to put it bluntly. Which is why these days most of it isn't taken literally by most Christian denominations.
Here is a good critique from Canadian philospher, Paul Thagard, who specialises in cognitive science. He lays out how weak Peterson's arguments are and provides numerous examples, for example how he totally misinterprets Heidegger.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life I wasn't claiming to be insightful, intellectual or original - I merely stated that this is what JP thinks. The main thing about JP isn't originality or insight, but rather that he's capable of articulating these so-called "right-wing" ideas in a way that tends to win arguments while doing so in a respectful manner (i.e. without going red in the face and shouting at people with spittle flying everywhere, which seems to be common on both sides lately).
There are plenty of examples of him demolishing his left-wing opponents when it comes to things such as the gender pay gap - a lot of that though is actually the interviewer completely misinterpreting what he's actually said. The left seem very keen to immediately attempt to portray anyone disagreeing with them as either a misogynist or a Nazi or something similar.
It's sad that these "conservative" ideas are considered so terrible that whenever anyone mentions them, they immediately get attacked by rabid leftists. Logic should win out over stupidity at all times, and scientific results and analysis should win out over "feelings".
BTW I don't really care too much about his views with respect to his field as much as I consider him to be one of the few people on the right who can successfully challenge the left without looking like a loon. Previously I would have turned to Christopher Hitchens to be this spokesperson, but unfortunately he's no longer alive. The only other person who could successfully debate for the right is potentially Milo - unfortunately he's too much of a shit-stirrer for most people to take him seriously (and some of his views I definitely don't agree with).
BTW this also doesn't mean I 100% agree with everything JP says - I never blindly agree with someone on everything, as it depends on the issue in question. That should be obvious, since I like both Hitchens and Peterson - yet in some ways Hitchens is the opposite of Peterson (with respect to religion for example).
Speaking of which, this kind of ties into one of the negative aspects of Catholicism - Catholics were not allowed to lend money to others and charge interest, which would have hampered capitalist expansion if not for the Jews (who had no such qualms, and profited quite well from it, despite being forced to live in ghettos throughout the middle ages for example).
I do agree that the Catholic church did contribute a lot to science - it's well known that some of the first ever scholars in the Western world were monks, and later on they often taught others to read if I'm not mistaken. I also believe the first beer was brewed by monks, and possibly also the first wine. So it's definitely not all bad.
One could argue that the Lutheran version of Christianity is "more pure" than the Catholic version, since they kept pretty much everything except the Pope, and did away with most of the taxation/extortion and other excesses the Church was known for. These days there isn't that much difference though, apart from not having a Pope (they have no "infallible" central leaders).
My point with respect to religion though is that there is no religion that can claim to be "pure". Even if looking only at the "teachings", there is some seriously fucked up shit in the bible, to put it bluntly. Which is why these days most of it isn't taken literally by most Christian denominations.
squid830: Most people who support Jordan Peterson just happen to agree with his stances regarding equal opportunity versus forced equality, and his stances regarding freedom of speech being more important than not offending people. That pretty much sums it up.
Example: he believes in no one being discriminated against in the workforce, but he is against lame quotas to enforce ratios (whether males/females or ethnic groups or whatever). Which makes perfect sense since quotas have the effect of achieving the opposite of "equal opportunity" for obvious reasons - anyone advocating for them is effectively advocating a system of discrimination not that different to what previously existed (e.g. where white males got preferential treatment).
I'm happy to elaborate further if this is unclear.
If it's pure fantasy, show me one example from a credible source that shows Jordan Peterson ever getting defeated in an argument. Just one.
skinandbones13: What you have stated isn't original, insightful or intellectual in any form. These are pretty standard conservative views and don't show any underlying nuance or deeper level of thinking. Please do elaborate and provide examples of what you think to be his most insightful thinking on these matters are. Example: he believes in no one being discriminated against in the workforce, but he is against lame quotas to enforce ratios (whether males/females or ethnic groups or whatever). Which makes perfect sense since quotas have the effect of achieving the opposite of "equal opportunity" for obvious reasons - anyone advocating for them is effectively advocating a system of discrimination not that different to what previously existed (e.g. where white males got preferential treatment).
I'm happy to elaborate further if this is unclear.
If it's pure fantasy, show me one example from a credible source that shows Jordan Peterson ever getting defeated in an argument. Just one.
Here is a good critique from Canadian philospher, Paul Thagard, who specialises in cognitive science. He lays out how weak Peterson's arguments are and provides numerous examples, for example how he totally misinterprets Heidegger.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life
There are plenty of examples of him demolishing his left-wing opponents when it comes to things such as the gender pay gap - a lot of that though is actually the interviewer completely misinterpreting what he's actually said. The left seem very keen to immediately attempt to portray anyone disagreeing with them as either a misogynist or a Nazi or something similar.
It's sad that these "conservative" ideas are considered so terrible that whenever anyone mentions them, they immediately get attacked by rabid leftists. Logic should win out over stupidity at all times, and scientific results and analysis should win out over "feelings".
BTW I don't really care too much about his views with respect to his field as much as I consider him to be one of the few people on the right who can successfully challenge the left without looking like a loon. Previously I would have turned to Christopher Hitchens to be this spokesperson, but unfortunately he's no longer alive. The only other person who could successfully debate for the right is potentially Milo - unfortunately he's too much of a shit-stirrer for most people to take him seriously (and some of his views I definitely don't agree with).
BTW this also doesn't mean I 100% agree with everything JP says - I never blindly agree with someone on everything, as it depends on the issue in question. That should be obvious, since I like both Hitchens and Peterson - yet in some ways Hitchens is the opposite of Peterson (with respect to religion for example).
Post edited March 28, 2019 by squid830