Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hello Davros Kitty

Jordan Peterson & Matt Dillahunty

165 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hello Davros Kitty

I watched very little off these two videos due to time constraints. My point is I just learned of JP, and that he is becoming popular. From what I see he's a Deepak Chopra for the Xtian community with his word salads. If anyone knows anything about JP please post a comment. Thanks

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Quote

Deepak Chopra for the Xtian community

I assume you're ex-ing out Christ?  He speaks very little about religion and is mainly about criticizing the absurdity and dangerous philosophy coming from the left and also helping people to get their lives on track as per his book titled 12 rules to life or something like that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty
12 hours ago, OverSword said:

I assume you're ex-ing out Christ? 

I'm using the Greek 

"Χριστός"

Christos starts with an "X".

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

He speaks very little about religion and is mainly about criticizing the absurdity and dangerous philosophy coming from the left and also helping people to get their lives on track as per his book titled 12 rules to life or something like that.

Ok. Thanks

I heard something about him calling for "forced monogamy" to save society,  or something? Ever hear of that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
29 minutes ago, davros of skaro said:

I heard something about him calling for "forced monogamy" to save society,  or something? Ever hear of that?

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

 He explains it there, seems to be angry that he wasn't understood by the reporter or by viewers. 

 Though I'd take the stance that as the expert it's his job to better explain his position to be understood by the layman. (I'm critical of experts in other fields of this as well.)

 And I wince a bit as he's making claims about anthropology (and sourcing a paper as old as I am) while being a psychologist. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty
3 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

 He explains it there, seems to be angry that he wasn't understood by the reporter or by viewers. 

 Though I'd take the stance that as the expert it's his job to better explain his position to be understood by the layman. (I'm critical of experts in other fields of this as well.)

 And I wince a bit as he's making claims about anthropology (and sourcing a paper as old as I am) while being a psychologist. 

 

Thanks.

Yes. He needs to explain himself better upfront instead  of a later social media retort.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)

Jordan Peterson is a Jungian. I am an admirer of Jung, too, but Peterson's a clinician and I'm not. (I don't know whether he still sees analysands; that's time consuming and he's obviously busy lately). As a Jungian, he uses words like "God," "God-image," and "Christian" in ways that Southern Baptists from Texas don't. I think that's part of the problem that Dillahunty is experiencing, although that seems to be a manageable problem, since Dillahunty repeatedly expresses a wish to pursue further conversations.

I'm unsure where Deepak Chopra fits in. Peterson obviously isn't Chopra, Chopra isn't Jungian, so far as I know, and I just don't see the resemblance. Imagining a "Christian Chopra" doesn't help me at all.

It is not unusual for a Jungian to incorporate anthropology into psychology (nor for a non-Jungian, either; Tanya Luhrmann at Stanford does, to name one). Since Dillahunty apparently knows the work of Joseph Campbell, I expect he has some understanding of how Jung, Freud, Russian novels and anthropology might all go together (while retaining their separate identities).

I like the "evening with..." video as a startling depiction of a textbook introvert meeting a textbook extrovert. Peterson is an introvert, more thrust into the public arena than seeking it out. At least not at first. Now that he's there, he's adapting to a new role and new challenges, just what Jung would have told him to do. There's part of him that understands that 10-second soundbites from the frontiers of hypothetical philosophical discourse will more likely be misunderstood than absorbed. That part needs to grow.

Meh. He's a bright guy; he'll catch on. Matt's not chopped liver, either. This could work, for the benefit of both.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
7 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Thanks.

Yes. He needs to explain himself better upfront instead  of a later social media retort.

More likely the press purposely misinterpreted what he said and any half-wit sitting there while he said it would need no explanation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty
18 hours ago, OverSword said:

More likely the press purposely misinterpreted what he said and any half-wit sitting there while he said it would need no explanation.

Then you'll like this article? 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/

Here's a JP qoute I found.

"Women select men. That makes them nature, because nature is what selects. And you can say "Well it's only symbolic that women are nature", it's like no, it's not just symbolic. The woman is the gatekeeper to reproductive success. And you can't get more like nature than that, in fact it's the very definition of nature."

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/282885.Jordan_B_Peterson

I beg to differ. I've seen plenty of women fawning over total idiots. These women are instinctively attracted to a confident man. They do not take into account the men that are just full of themselves, and, or hopped up on drugs. 

There needs to be a balance to instinct with reason, logic, and knowledge. Not feel good affirmations. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@davros of skaro

Peterson is a political libertarian, so it is not unusual for the Left to hear something said by a libertarian one way while the Right hears that same thing differently.

As to the primacy of female sexual selection, that observation is hardly original with Peterson (it probably was not original with Darwin, either, but it was Darwin who made the idea famous). It's also not a specifically human thing, but we're the only species with language. Thus, human guys are the only ones who can say aloud "WTF does she see in that clown?" but all sentient males of every species are thinking it.

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty
On 5/24/2018 at 7:34 AM, eight bits said:

@davros of skaro

Peterson is a political libertarian, so it is not unusual for the Left to hear something said by a libertarian one way while the Right hears that same thing differently.

Those cherry pickers. :P

On 5/24/2018 at 7:34 AM, eight bits said:

As to the primacy of female sexual selection, that observation is hardly original with Peterson (it probably was not original with Darwin, either, but it was Darwin who made the idea famous). It's also not a specifically human thing, but we're the only species with language. Thus, human guys are the only ones who can say aloud "WTF does she see in that clown?" but all sentient males of every species are thinking it.

 

Oh... Hardy har har.... 

Instead of debating the obvious flaw in JP's feel good quote with a hint of magical thinking I'll just leave a link.

Crazed girls flood Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz with fan mail

I finally watched the talk. I see you, and JP get some ideas from the same people. But what sums him up to me is the first audience question, and his answer @105:00-108:00.

Referring him to Deepak Chopra is unfair, and insulting. But I can see "word salad" with psychobabble dressing. I can see the appeal of him if I was stoned.

I thought he was something to be concerned about, but he's just debris in the road in that some will swerve, and some will be stuck on the side fixing a flat.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
On 5/24/2018 at 2:34 AM, davros of skaro said:

"Women select men. That makes them nature, because nature is what selects. And you can say "Well it's only symbolic that women are nature", it's like no, it's not just symbolic. The woman is the gatekeeper to reproductive success. And you can't get more like nature than that, in fact it's the very definition of nature."

 

Actually, I kinda like that.

 

On 5/24/2018 at 2:34 AM, davros of skaro said:

I beg to differ. I've seen plenty of women fawning over total idiots. These women are instinctively attracted to a confident man. They do not take into account the men that are just full of themselves, and, or hopped up on drugs. 

Nature can be just as arbitrary and stupid. After all, look at the Duck-Billed Platypus. 

Perhaps this sort of thing is why Arranged Marriages came about. If the girl is too dumb, then just fall back on a whole family of dummies to make a slightly less-bad choice for her.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty
On 5/29/2018 at 11:27 PM, AnchorSteam said:

Perhaps this sort of thing is why Arranged Marriages came about. If the girl is too dumb, then just fall back on a whole family of dummies to make a slightly less-bad choice for her.

It's a maintaining/gaining social status, and treating women as a commodity type of thing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
7 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

It's a maintaining/gaining social status, and treating women as a commodity type of thing.

I was being sarcastic ;) .... but then again, why are all the professional match-makers always women?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 7:42 AM, davros of skaro said:

I watched very little off these two videos due to time constraints. My point is I just learned of JP, and that he is becoming popular. From what I see he's a Deepak Chopra for the Xtian community with his word salads. If anyone knows anything about JP please post a comment. Thanks

 

I confess to not watching the video you posted but I have watched several videos of JP. Truthfully I dont see the appeal he kinda gives me the creeps but he seems to have some sort of cult type following with young males. 

Every time I watched one of his videos I just found myself asking why?  There seems to be no intent other than to "make mommy mad by saying potty words" for lack of a better way to put it. Perhaps that explains the appeal to young males.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

While I don't feel like becoming Jordan Peterson's advocate here, we have enough in common that I do feel some sympathy when he's Choprafied or summarily dismissed.

Brother davros ( @davros of skaro) called our attention to the first question in the Q&A portion of the "Evening with..." video, at 1:05 or thereabouts, and running for about three minutes.

First, the question itself, would God cease to exist if all human consciousness ceased to exist? IMO, that's an outstanding question, but I know that many webly atheists are thinking "If all human consciousness ceased, would this chair I'm sitting in case to exist? Of course not. Harumph!"

OK, conclude that some people approach the Question of God almost more deeply than even Richard Dawkins. That's  a mind expanding thought all by itself, lol.

As to Peterson's answer (in the end he couldn't answer, which can hardly be a surprise, since that was one fracking deep question), OK, if the question doesn't speak to you, then how is his acknowledged failure to answer it, giving instead an explanation of why the question is hard, going to come across to you as anything but a "word salad"?

BTW, Peterson digresses onto the subject of animal consciousness. Like Jung, he's minimalist about that. It must be pretty obvious that I don't share that view. I REALLY don't want to be this guy's advocate, that's an important issue to me.

As to his following skewing young-adult and male, he's noticed that, too. It isn't a Jungian thing, although it may be a libertarian thing. Regardless, I think it is largely political. There is some sense of a hostility to maleness as such in educational settings, and even if that perception were ultimately exaggerated, perception suffices to motivate behavior.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
On 5/23/2018 at 3:39 AM, davros of skaro said:

He needs to explain himself better upfront instead  of a later social media retort.

I guess I don't think there is a 'better' to stuff like this:

"The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

That same link has some mighty fine word salad also, from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/05/19/the-vapid-sexist-world-of-jordan-peterson/ :

"

Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.

“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”

It’s a hard one.

“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”

But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious.”

There’s a very useful word in the English language for passages like this, groups of words that make no sense whatsoever. That word is gibberish. There’s nothing remotely coherent or interesting about any of this. It’s like trying to take a bite of air."

 

Included the blogger's comment at the end as I entirely agree with it.  Peterson seems to be 'deep' all right, just not in the way he thinks...

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
7 hours ago, eight bits said:

First, the question itself, would God cease to exist if all human consciousness ceased to exist? IMO, that's an outstanding question, but I know that many webly atheists are thinking "If all human consciousness ceased, would this chair I'm sitting in case to exist? Of course not. Harumph!"

What's the diff, harumph?  Let's go deeper, if human consciousness is required for God to exist, then how much human consciousness is required?  Just one person is required?  If that one person is an atheist does God exist?  If the one person is perpetually asleep, or insane, or in a vegetative state, is that enough?  If cryogenics becomes a reality and the only humans left are frozen, but obviously not conscious, does God pop back into existence when they awaken?  IMO no answer to any of these questions are 'good' as far supporting a link between consciousness and God, it's problematic to that linkage that these questions even logically follow from it.

I think he states that if you destroy consciousness you destroy reality/'the material substrate', so maybe if you take that as a given the question of God's status is more interesting, but then the hypothetical atheist response I don't get.  Peterson from what he could explain seems to say that yes, the chair ceases to exist, I'll have to try and find in the video where he supports that idea.

I just watched the small bit of Q and A you referenced where this question is asked, so not sure what earlier discussion makes this such an outstanding question, maybe he's either playing with the definition of the word 'god' or, as he's attempting to do in my post above, the word 'exists'.  Or maybe he lays out a good case why we should even suspect that if you destroy human consciousness you destroy reality in the earlier part of the talk.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

Jordan Peterson is just the typical self-help guru, mixed with a right-wing sophist, who's excellent at stringing together big fancy words in a poetic way that makes him appear as though he's saying something deeply intellectual, when in reality he's just filling the air with noise that's not in the least bit substantive. 

People really only follow the guy cause he's a college professor who's right-wing. That's like being a black astronaut.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
Quote

There is no polite way to put this, but since Peterson claims that “If you worry about hurting people’s feelings and disturbing the social structure, you’re not going to put your ideas forward,” I’m just going to say it: Spend half an hour on his website, sit through a few of his interminable videos, and you realize that what he has going for him, the niche he has found—he never seems to say “know” where he could instead say “cognizant of”—is that Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person.

Peterson’s videos go on and on. It’s like opening up a tab for one of those bird’s nest webcams at the height of its popularity: Lots of people are watching, you feel like you should too, but nothing is happening. You keep checking back, the viewer numbers have risen, but the scene is just so grey and drab. You can make out a white object on your screen that may or may not be cracking up, but as time goes on you start to think, “This thing was not incubated properly.”

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Liquid Gardens

Quote

Let's go deeper, if human consciousness is required for God to exist, then how much human consciousness is required?

Beats me. Do you happen to have the time mark where Peterson said some "human consciousness is required for God to exist"?

That's not a trick question; I reviewed the vid. No doubt it's my hearing, but when Peterson was asked something like that, what croaked out of my speakers sounded a lot like him saying "I don't know." And he said it just the way Deepak Chopra doesn't.

Beyond that, I have no brief from Peterson to speak on his behalf, and I've already said that I disagree with him on a matter of importance to me. What I rose to say here was that disagreeing with somebody doesn't imply that I cannot understand what he said. I understand him just fine; that's how I know we disagree.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
18 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Beats me. Do you happen to have the time mark where Peterson said some "human consciousness is required for God to exist"?

That's not a trick question; I reviewed the vid. No doubt it's my hearing, but when Peterson was asked something like that, what croaked out of my speakers sounded a lot like him saying "I don't know." And he said it just the way Deepak Chopra doesn't.

Understood, I'm only responding to what I quoted from you.  You said you thought the question that was posed was outstanding, and implied there's some depth to it beyond the usual celebrity atheist musings.  What you just quoted from me is one reason why I'm not seeing the depth. I did watch the vid up to the Q&A to get more context, and I guess it might be an outstanding question to pose to him specifically just because of his ideas that human consciousness is required for reality to exist and how that jibes with his ideas about god and perhaps this question challenges that; I didn't fully nail down his specific religious beliefs from what I've watched. But I don't know why there's depth to it especially compared to what you think the webly atheist answer would be, it seems to be maybe an outstanding question for him, but not an outstanding question in general.

After watching an hour of him he throws out some interesting propositions but seems real light on the reasoning behind it.  Not the worst, not the best, although jesus he pulls out the 'you believe in god and just don't know it' canard, and refers to the ever mysterious, better, more serious arguments for god than what the celebrity atheists tackle, without of course actually stating them ("Dostoevsky! Jung!"). 

I think I agree with davros, it might be better stoned; a lot of his statements would definitely be in a more apt context if they were preceded with the phrase, 'Like... dude, what if...'.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Liquid Gardens

Quote

You said you thought the question that was posed was outstanding, and implied there's some depth to it beyond the usual celebrity atheist musings.

 

Yes.

Jung, wisely I think, confined his professional remarks about the divine to the image of God (the human response to the concept), which is observable and has consequences. Jung left his personal opinions about the ontological status of God as just that: personal opinions. Those were strongly held and nuanced, and more bluntly expressed as he got older:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/carl-jungs-knowledge-of-god/

I'll bet Matt doesn't get a lot of calls about that kind of God.

Peterson's God seems to be nicer than Jung's, and more conventionally like the Nicene Christian. I don't know whether or not Peterson hypostasizes God. (Yes = as goes the chair, so goes God if all natural consciousness ceased). Not every theist does hypostasize God; but Nicenes do.

Many webly atheists, so far as I can tell, argue as if hypostasis were a universal feature of gods. I suppose if you insistently define your beliefs by what they aren't, then you end up being defined by your opponents (= not them, rather than anything in particular).

As to other ontological statements, Peterson might do well to stay with talking about the image of witches and the image of dragons for general consumption, especially for visibly hostile press. (You did notice that your NYT article freely mixed direct quotations from Peterson with unsourced 'helpful explanations' of the reporter's invention.)

On a point arising,

Quote

the 'you believe in god and just don't know it' canard,

I don't know if we're talking about the same part, but it did seem to me that somewhere along the way Peterson conflated Tillich's "ultimate concerns" (which don't exclude atheists) with God (which does exclude atheists).

If so, then that was an error on his part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
8 hours ago, eight bits said:

I'll bet Matt doesn't get a lot of calls about that kind of God.

Agreed.  Not only that, but I'm entirely missing where Jung's god is incompatible with or any kind of challenge to atheism.  I'm not familiar with the word hypostasis, but if it essentially means 'actually exists', then no atheist that I know of disputes definitions of gods that include their not actually existing.  Nor does any atheist dispute images of gods or conscience or morality.

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

Many webly atheists, so far as I can tell, argue as if hypostasis were a universal feature of gods.

Is this another way of saying that many atheists argue that a universal feature of gods is that they are defined as actually existing as opposed to being solely mental concepts with no actual reality?  That kinda seems justified.  If someone wants to believe 'God is love' or 'God is our conscience, morality, etc' I don't think atheists nor their definition of 'god' are in any way deficient by not delving deeply into refuting these, if there is actually something to refute. 

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

As to other ontological statements, Peterson might do well to stay with talking about the image of witches and the image of dragons for general consumption

Er, yes, that seems abundantly obvious to me, since in 99%+ of situations these are significantly different and would never be conflated.  I have a very rudimentary understanding of philosophy, but I'm skeptical that this isn't an important distinction within that discipline either.

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

You did notice that your NYT article freely mixed direct quotations from Peterson with unsourced 'helpful explanations' of the reporter's invention.

Definitely, my criticism relies only on the fact that the included Peterson quotes are accurate.  If you'd like to provide a hypothetical surrounding context that untosses this salad:

"But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.

“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious.” "

...into something meaningful and relevant, be my guest.  I'd be especially interested in how things 'exist absolutely more than anything else'.

I'm totally with you as far as allowing for 'I don't know but here's what I think maybe' as an acceptable answer, and an honest one, and that it is preferable to the Chopra approach.  If I can cheat and end around unpacking the specifics of Jung's/Peterson's god and rely on your understanding of them, I'd pose these questions to you:

- I think I and Matt and celebrity atheists have roughly the same definition of atheism and gods.  Do you think there is something unfairly or unjustifiably limiting or incomplete about those definitions?  If they were better or more complete, they should include gods that need not actually exist?

- Is there anything in Jung's definition of God that can actually be disproven or refuted, that an atheist or anyone can even deny exists?  I'm only going from the uncertaintist link's information, but I have trouble seeing how you can refute that people's conscience and experiences, et al, are not 'god' unless something else is added to 'god' to differentiate them.  Otherwise we're just using another word for something we already have a word for, or at best are describing not 'god' but 'what makes people believe there is a god'.  I agree that ideas about conscience and morality may make someone believe there is a non-Jungian-normal-definition-God, in the same way that I think bears have made people believe in Bigfoot. But that doesn't change that bear <> Bigfoot.

- What common qualities does Jung's god actually have with the gods referred to by most everyone else?  Is it a separate being?  Does it have sentience?  Does it have a will of its own?  Ha, to come full circle, does it exist without human consciousness and if it doesn't, is that because it doesn't actually exist?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Liquid Gardens

Quote

I'm not familiar with the word hypostasis, but if it essentially means 'actually exists',

No, not just exists in some sense, but exists with a specific form. Even in contemporary naturalistic ontology, we hypostasize what isn't inherently fixed in a specific form. For example, tropical storm Alberto wasn't a "thing," but rather was a process that unfolded as a dynamic relationship among things that exist with concrete forms. We gave "it" a name anyway, and don't much object to professional meterologists saying that "it" existed.

Non-hypostatic invisible intelligent powers are pretty common in comparative religion. Jung wrote about encountering a tribe (mixing anthropology research with psychology) who worshipped the dawn (not the sun, but the transition from darkness to light). That's unusual today, but we have classical ancient texts that "personify" the dawn as Aurora, and it would seem that she was a goddess (= an object of worship) with European devotees.

As I mentioned, Nicene Christians have a hypostatic God. However, go back to early (maybe earliest) Christianity, and you find "adoptionists." Their "Christ" needs a form (which suggests it doesn't inherently have one), so it "descends on" Jesus, as its "host." When the going got tough, the Christ got going, leaving Jesus behind, hung out to dry.

If there's a multiverse, then maybe there's an alterative Texas where that's the theism that Matt defines himself in opposition to. Maybe multiverse theory has a sense of humor, and the Jordan Peterson in that universe makes obscure references to a "Nicene Creed," which has something to do with the Christ and its martyr Jesus being one and the same being. Can you imagine?

Quote

Er, yes, that seems abundantly obvious to me, since in 99%+ of situations these are significantly different and would never be conflated.

It would depend on whether the image refers, and if so, to what (for witches, say, a sufficiently advanced technology?). Peterson is entitled to his opinion. I'm just giving him a little practical PR advice (nothing "philosophical" about it), and pointing out that somebody whom he and I both admire (Jung) adopted that very policy.

Quote

"... They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. ..."

Doesn't that pretty much settle it? Peterson has disclosed that he's using the word to exist in a different way than "you" would. Did he explain further? We'll never know. The only other witness was busy whetting her axe for the hatchet job she cranked out.

Quote

Do you think there is something unfairly or unjustifiably limiting or incomplete about those definitions?

I think it varies among individuals how much comparative religion they know, and how much they care about religions other than the ones they deal with daily.

Quote

Is there anything in Jung's definition of God that can actually be disproven or refuted, that an atheist or anyone can even deny exists?

People do deny that Jung's God exists, so it must be possible. As you know, I believe QoG in its entirety is a matter of opinion and as yet unsettled.

Quote

Otherwise we're just using another word for something we already have a word for,

It's amazing how often showing that has furthered the progress of knowledge in science, and even in mathematics. So, it's not necessarily bad news that that is a possibility. In the meantime, I am confident that Jung thought about this with enough care for me to take seriously that he wasn't simply coming up with a new word (or new use for an old word) for something that had already been named and understood without the "new" term.

Quote

What common qualities does Jung's god actually have with the gods referred to by most everyone else?

I don't know if you read his underlying letter, but Jung seems to think that his idea of God is everybody else's idea, too. They just don't know it (shades of Peterson's "canard" that ticked you off).

I am reluctant to psychoanalyze Jung, lol, but I think his ideas about God are ancient ones (some of them "Gnostic," but not all), just not "popular" ideas in modern Europe and its far-flung former colonies today.

As you probably know, I really like Hume's phrase "invisible intelligent power," a category that includes "gods" but is more descriptive, I think. What Jung conceives as "interfering" in his life is an invisible intelligent power, and so he's a theist of sorts, just not his father's sort (his father was a Swiss Reformed pastor).

That's how it seems to me anyway.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
56 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Doesn't that pretty much settle it? Peterson has disclosed that he's using the word to exist in a different way than "you" would.

Settle what, that he can concoct quite a word salad?  Using words in a different way than, not only 'me', but the vast majority of people would is a very common salad dressing.

58 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Did he explain further? We'll never know. The only other witness was busy whetting her axe for the hatchet job she cranked out.

Since we don't know if he explained further we logically don't then know if what you are labeling 'hatchet job' isn't actually 'normal editing'.  I'll wait to be shown the evidence of something like quote mining before assuming such.

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

In the meantime, I am confident that Jung thought about this with enough care for me to take seriously that he wasn't simply coming up with a new word (or new use for an old word) for something that had already been named and understood without the "new" term.

I guess with some of the things I have read about Jung I don't share that confidence.  Is it true as I've heard that Jung believed in astrology?  More importantly, the above sounds like even you are not that clear on what Jung's god is defined as being, if he had said something that differentiates his god from things already named you wouldn't have to just be 'confident' we could just point to it.  You may have already done this though by stating that Jung believes his god is at least an IIP, which means to me at least that it's something different than just a renaming/combining of our sense of morality and our conscience.

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

I think it varies among individuals how much comparative religion they know, and how much they care about religions other than the ones they deal with daily.

Technically though atheists deny gods not religions.  I did read the part on the Jung article about the tribe 'worshiping' the transition from dark to light and vice versa and Jung referring to it as 'their god'.  I like it, I think it's a cool ritual actually.  I also think it's pretty clear that no atheists deny that if 'the moment darkness turns to light'='god', then that 'god' exists.  It just has very little to do with the vast majority of god propositions; not all that is worshiped are gods.

I know you've stated you have no interest in defending Peterson, but there is a part in the video where he expresses something that I think you've vaguely hinted at with  certain humorous pot shots you've made occasionally, and something on which you both may be agreed with, concerning webly or celebrity atheists and either their shallowness/narrowness.  In the video at 11:32, Peterson talks about this, and how atheists don't address Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Jung 'at all' and that these are the 'real issues' and 'a big problem', and is like biologists not knowing Darwin.  Do you agree?  From what I know of those authors, they don't say anything that challenges atheism or that even would fall under the purview of atheism that atheists haven't indeed talked a lot about.  I think Dostoevsky's, 'without God all things are permissible', is mentioned; that's an interesting subject with a lot of also interesting discussion surrounding it, but I don't think any of that discussion includes any argument in favor or not in favor of god existing.  I agree with what Matt says immediately after Peterson's statement about what atheism is and concerned with, especially around 12:40 where he starts with, 'are there arguments...'.  So to the extent it is flat-out stated by Peterson, and maybe implied by you with "OK, conclude that some people approach the Question of God almost more deeply than even Richard Dawkins", I'm not seeing why he or you would think that celebrity atheists should be addressing these supposedly 'real issues' any more than celebrity chefs should be.  There seems to be some implied obligation that atheists need to deal with these, but I don't see that given what atheists actually claim.

The Question of God to atheists is whether he exists or not; the Question of God that also includes Jung's 'something that people call God' I don't see as something that atheists are wrongfully overlooking or failing to address.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.