|
|
Post by kj on Feb 8, 2018 12:32:40 GMT
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this man, who is currently enjoying "his moment", as they say. Peter Hitchens is not convinced. Curiously, he is the first person I know of to point out that Peterson is a very Post-Christian writer trying to help his acolytes adopt to a post-Christian world. I don't consider him a traditionalist or conservative in any real sense - his use of Christianity seems very post-modern in its pragmatism. I am so glad that the whole nature of Dr Peterson’s work is alien to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 8, 2018 12:50:33 GMT
I admire his stand in favour of free speech and against political correctness-- aside from that, I think his ideas are rather banal.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 8, 2018 18:09:30 GMT
I like the fact he so willing to take on feminism and political correctness and fight them as a psychologist. He points out they are bad ideas and lead to bad consequences and a self indulgent victim centred culture.
He is combatitive , witty and entertaining. He is one of the few public figures who regularly attacks the shameful leftist silence on the marxist atrocities of the 20th century.
I disagree that his ideas are banal. He may not be original but he teaches truth especially to men and specifically young men . He uses the power of classical mythology and the biblical narratives to teach deep truths about the human condition and our spiritual yearnings in an educational wasteland where these beliefs are ridiculed or undermined. He has a message and he has the gift of spreading it.
|
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Feb 9, 2018 22:19:51 GMT
I think Jordan Peterson is great, a breath of fresh air from the North American continent at a time when someone like him is most needed.
His three most quoted influences as far as I can see are Solzhenitsyn, Jung and Nietzsche. He seems to get his dislike of dictatorial ideologies from the horrors outlined by Solzhenitsyn in the The Gulag Archipelago, hence his point blank refusal to be coerced into using new words and language invented by the transgenders. He also hates the postmoderns, especially the French postmodernists (Foucault and Derrida) - perhaps because, amongst other things they have sucked all meaning out of life.
I like his 'common sense' approach to life. He (much like the bible) maintains that life can be tough, but that there are things that you can do to help you cope and make the best of your life. There is no sugar coating going on here, there is no attempt to blame someone else for your woes, you have to take responsibility for yourself where possible. This is an antidote to the current leftist ideology whereby a utopia of sorts could be achieved if we got rid of male white privilege, the nation state and traditional Christian views of sexuality.
He is taken by the wisdom that he sees in religious traditions, particularly the bible and the old testament but he cannot go that extra inch to call himself a Christian, although he says that 'I act as if God exists'.
A few months ago I more or less 'overdosed' on Jordan Peterson videos on youtube, as he has a video on nearly every subject going. My only fear is that, like many people and movements, he has peaked in 2017, just after Brexit and Trump. How does he keep going as he has said much of what he has to say and is at risk of tackling new, but less relevant, topics, and losing his sharpness and relevance.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 28, 2018 17:05:15 GMT
He also is an idealised father figure particularly for young men who may not have had a strong unapologetic directive father figure in their lives. His defence of patriarchy and of distinct gender roles strikes a cord with many who suspect feminist dogma is really an assault on objective truth which has demonised half of humanity.
Many male leaders are either pathetically feminised and neutered like Justin Trudeau or are following the advice of focus groups and are afraid of taking strong principled leadership roles like virtually every Irish/European politician. Trumph's popularity among his core base may have something to do with his unapologetic non feminist male style of leadership too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 28, 2018 19:21:14 GMT
He also is an idealised father figure particularly for young men who may not have had a strong unapologetic directive father figure in their lives. His defence of patriarchy and of distinct gender roles strikes a cord with many who suspect feminist dogma is really an assault on objective truth which has demonised half of humanity. Many male leaders are either pathetically feminised and neutered like Justin Trudeau or are following the advice of focus groups and are afraid of taking strong principled leadership roles like virtually every Irish/European politician. Trumph's popularity among his core base may have something to do with his unapologetic non feminist male style of leadership too. It certainly strikes a chord with me. I'm very drawn to his unreconstructed masculinity. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 29, 2018 19:19:28 GMT
Peterson is coming to Dublin in July to debate with Sam Harris. The British Islamosceptic Douglas Murray is the referee. Looks like an interesting event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 29, 2018 19:37:57 GMT
Sam Harris is someone I don't respect at all-- I think he is an intellectual lightweight.
|
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jun 13, 2018 13:45:01 GMT
I see that Jordan Peterson's honeymoon period is over. He is being analysed much more critically now since his book '12 rules for life' hit the bestsellers list in the U.S. and elsewhere.
He is still very popular. The criticisms now directed at him may be intellectually valid but I would still insist that his overall message and direction are correct, even if, for example, his understanding of concepts like postmodernism and marxism may be quite lightweight compared to those people better read in these areas.
Where I think he should be more careful is his representation of religion, particularly Christianity. In a few debates where he is supposed to put the case for God he has been equalled or outgunned by a competent atheist. This is partly due to the fact that he is not a practicing Christian and argues from an understanding of religion and God through archetypes and myths. Moreover he cannot say with certitude that he believes that Christ rose from the dead. He talks a lot about the 'Logos' which I find, and perhaps others do, a difficult concept to visualise, and it comes across as slightly ethereal when contrasted with a cynical atheist's materialist, evolutionary and scientific argument.
I hope that he has good friends and advisors that tell him to concentrate on areas he knows well (psychology, gender issues, addiction, depression/anxiety, societal behaviour, cultural marxism, university education, race issues, nazism, archetypes, mythology....). There is no reason that he cannot talk and contribute to debate about God and religion, but as a sole representative of the argument for God in a 2 way debate with an atheist, the odds are stacked against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2018 14:15:46 GMT
Couldn't agree more assisi.
Anyone who is bashing political correctness is doing good work, in my view. (Well, almost anyone. Someone like Katie Hopkins is just odious.)
The thing is, Petersen has his ardent fan base who don't care what his detractors say.
The backlash against PC is amazing. Stephen Colbert had a skit making fun of supposed bigots who supposedly hated the Last Jedi (and Solo) because there were too many ethnic minorities and women in them. Underneath the official video of this skit on YouTube, every single comment that I read is attacking Colbert for his lazy-mindedness and PC....as they all point out, the fans hate the movies because they're terrible, and the characters in question because they're ciphers.
I think Petersen is riding that wave, and that he helped launch it. I hope it keeps on rolling for a long time to come, and that it demolishes as much of PC as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 13, 2018 17:48:23 GMT
I see that Jordan Peterson's honeymoon period is over. He is being analysed much more critically now since his book '12 rules for life' hit the bestsellers list in the U.S. and elsewhere. He is still very popular. The criticisms now directed at him may be intellectually valid but I would still insist that his overall message and direction are correct, even if, for example, his understanding of concepts like postmodernism and marxism may be quite lightweight compared to those people better read in these areas. Where I think he should be more careful is his representation of religion, particularly Christianity. In a few debates where he is supposed to put the case for God he has been equalled or outgunned by a competent atheist. This is partly due to the fact that he is not a practicing Christian and argues from an understanding of religion and God through archetypes and myths. Moreover he cannot say with certitude that he believes that Christ rose from the dead. He talks a lot about the 'Logos' which I find, and perhaps others do, a difficult concept to visualise, and it comes across as slightly ethereal when contrasted with a cynical atheist's materialist, evolutionary and scientific argument. The term Logos was used a lot in Jewish and Hellenistic thought around the time of Jesus. From what I recall the term "Word" in St John's Gospel prologue is Logos in Greek. So professor Peterson is using a profound biblical term that the church has taught refers to Christ and not simply the word as a message or the scriptural text. In the Catechism the Son is refered to as the Logos of the Universe (813) Perhaps Peterson assumes a high level of Religious knowledge which doesn't exist anymore? I hope that he has good friends and advisors that tell him to concentrate on areas he knows well (psychology, gender issues, addiction, depression/anxiety, societal behaviour, cultural marxism, university education, race issues, nazism, archetypes, mythology....). There is no reason that he cannot talk and contribute to debate about God and religion, but as a sole representative of the argument for God in a 2 way debate with an atheist, the odds are stacked against him. I agree Peterson is not a conventional Christian apologist but he doesn't claim to be one. We could ask why there are no professed christians in the public space bar Bishop Barron and a few evangelical protestants. Peterson borrows much of his religious terminology from Carl Jung , who is a favorite of many new age practioners. From my reading of Peterson he is a passionate seeker of truth in all ots forms but doesn't (yet) possess the gift of faith in the truth personified. I think some of his Christian critics miss the point that he is not Christian but is fighting many of the public battles they should be fighting and does so with style courage and determination lacking in most christian spokespeople. Perhaps the Lord may be using him to get Christians to start contesting the public square again rather than leave it to atheists and well meaning well disposed non believers? |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 13, 2018 17:53:38 GMT
I see that Jordan Peterson's honeymoon period is over. He is being analysed much more critically now since his book '12 rules for life' hit the bestsellers list in the U.S. and elsewhere. He is still very popular. The criticisms now directed at him may be intellectually valid but I would still insist that his overall message and direction are correct, even if, for example, his understanding of concepts like postmodernism and marxism may be quite lightweight compared to those people better read in these areas. Where I think he should be more careful is his representation of religion, particularly Christianity. In a few debates where he is supposed to put the case for God he has been equalled or outgunned by a competent atheist. This is partly due to the fact that he is not a practicing Christian and argues from an understanding of religion and God through archetypes and myths. Moreover he cannot say with certitude that he believes that Christ rose from the dead. He talks a lot about the 'Logos' which I find, and perhaps others do, a difficult concept to visualise, and it comes across as slightly ethereal when contrasted with a cynical atheist's materialist, evolutionary and scientific argument. Reply from Cato - The term Logos was used a lot in Jewish and Hellenistic thought around the time of Jesus. From what I recall the term "Word" in St John's Gospel prologue is Logos in Greek. So professor Peterson is using a profound biblical term that the church has taught refers to Christ and not simply the word as a message or the scriptural text. In the Catechism the Son is refered to as the Logos of the Universe (813) Perhaps Peterson assumes a high level of Religious knowledge which doesn't exist anymore? I hope that he has good friends and advisors that tell him to concentrate on areas he knows well (psychology, gender issues, addiction, depression/anxiety, societal behaviour, cultural marxism, university education, race issues, nazism, archetypes, mythology....). There is no reason that he cannot talk and contribute to debate about God and religion, but as a sole representative of the argument for God in a 2 way debate with an atheist, the odds are stacked against him. I agree Peterson is not a conventional Christian apologist but he doesn't claim to be one. We could ask why there are no professed christians in the public space bar Bishop Barron and a few evangelical protestants. Peterson borrows much of his religious terminology from Carl Jung , who is a favorite of many new age practioners. From my reading of Peterson he is a passionate seeker of truth in all ots forms but doesn't (yet) possess the gift of faith in the truth personified. I think some of his Christian critics miss the point that he is not Christian but is fighting many of the public battles they should be fighting and does so with style courage and determination lacking in most christian spokespeople. Perhaps the Lord may be using him to get Christians to start contesting the public square again rather than leave it to atheists and well meaning well disposed non believers? |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2018 18:17:40 GMT
I see that Jordan Peterson's honeymoon period is over. He is being analysed much more critically now since his book '12 rules for life' hit the bestsellers list in the U.S. and elsewhere. He is still very popular. The criticisms now directed at him may be intellectually valid but I would still insist that his overall message and direction are correct, even if, for example, his understanding of concepts like postmodernism and marxism may be quite lightweight compared to those people better read in these areas. Where I think he should be more careful is his representation of religion, particularly Christianity. In a few debates where he is supposed to put the case for God he has been equalled or outgunned by a competent atheist. This is partly due to the fact that he is not a practicing Christian and argues from an understanding of religion and God through archetypes and myths. Moreover he cannot say with certitude that he believes that Christ rose from the dead. He talks a lot about the 'Logos' which I find, and perhaps others do, a difficult concept to visualise, and it comes across as slightly ethereal when contrasted with a cynical atheist's materialist, evolutionary and scientific argument. The term Logos was used a lot in Jewish and Hellenistic thought around the time of Jesus. From what I recall the term "Word" in St John's Gospel prologue is Logos in Greek. So professor Peterson is using a profound biblical term that the church has taught refers to Christ and not simply the word as a message or the scriptural text. In the Catechism the Son is refered to as the Logos of the Universe (813) Perhaps Peterson assumes a high level of Religious knowledge which doesn't exist anymore? I hope that he has good friends and advisors that tell him to concentrate on areas he knows well (psychology, gender issues, addiction, depression/anxiety, societal behaviour, cultural marxism, university education, race issues, nazism, archetypes, mythology....). There is no reason that he cannot talk and contribute to debate about God and religion, but as a sole representative of the argument for God in a 2 way debate with an atheist, the odds are stacked against him. I agree Peterson is not a conventional Christian apologist but he doesn't claim to be one. We could ask why there are no professed christians in the public space bar Bishop Barron and a few evangelical protestants. Peterson borrows much of his religious terminology from Carl Jung , who is a favorite of many new age practioners. From my reading of Peterson he is a passionate seeker of truth in all ots forms but doesn't (yet) possess the gift of faith in the truth personified. I think some of his Christian critics miss the point that he is not Christian but is fighting many of the public battles they should be fighting and does so with style courage and determination lacking in most christian spokespeople. Perhaps the Lord may be using him to get Christians to start contesting the public square again rather than leave it to atheists and well meaning well disposed non believers? I think you are right, Cato. Petersen's apologetics are very vague and clumsy, but I think the fact that he is defending faith in the first place will impress many people and have a good effect on the whole. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 13, 2018 19:14:04 GMT
I don't know if I can add much more to what has already been said. From my point of view he is a great way for the average young man to get introduced into a world bigger than himself. Good book to give to a none practicing person, to allow a range of discussion from it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 14:38:04 GMT
Peterson recognizes that the grainy image he sees on the wall of the modernist academic cave is not true life; he has gotten up to search for the real world. Increasingly he draws on older truths to guide his quest, much to the wrath of the cave. May he keep borrowing from the past until he reaches back 2000 years or so. Then he'll find his way to the Son-lit lands.
|
|
