Jordan B. Peterson - hero or villain?

[Immanuel Can]

I think many interpreted those interactions consistent with their bias, prejudices and presuppositions. If you liked JP going in, you liked him going out and vice-versa.

That wouldn't explain his massive rise in popularity, though. Something more needs to be said about that, I think.

[Immanuel Can]

SH listens quickly, and he's heard most everything coming from across the table a hundred times before. He interrupts to try to keep the focus on topic.

Ah, so you've noticed how quickly he interrupts again, too. And I don't doubt he THINKS he's heard it all before...the man certainly has no low-self-image issues, that's for sure. But he clearly hasn't. He hardly even listened to JP at all, and by any fair account, even for all his faults, JP's the much more intelligent man of the two.

I actually find Sam Harris rather underwhelming. It's not merely that his snipes at Theism are generally trite and obvious, though they are, or that he's often never bothered to check and find out what answer to them have already been produced. And it doesn't help one's impression of the man that he usually fails even to realize how routine and unimpressive his objections often are. He seems very self-satisfied anyway, as if he's up to some great venture. He's clearly on an agenda of his own, and has very little interest in refining his own ideas.

The same decidedly cannot be said about JP. My contacts with him have indicated he's actually quite self-critical and reflective, and more interested in making progress in understanding things than in proving himself right all the time. I find him humble and tractable, even when something is offered in criticism or modification.

I suggest that JP's the real thinker of the two.

[Sculptor]

False dichotomy aside, i know JBP to be seriously wrong in his fundamentals but he gives plenty of good, honest, practical advice otherwise. The people I've heard stand against him are usually for reasons that are inaccurate and the people i've heard stand for him are basically a cult of personality. What are your thoughts?

Should the question be "Dead or Alive?"

He's has severe health problems for 4 years. I can't imagine anyone hold that much hate inside himself and staying alive much longer.

[KLewchuk]

SH listens quickly, and he's heard most everything coming from across the table a hundred times before. He interrupts to try to keep the focus on topic.

Ah, so you've noticed how quickly he interrupts again, too. And I don't doubt he THINKS he's heard it all before...the man certainly has no low-self-image issues, that's for sure. But he clearly hasn't. He hardly even listened to JP at all, and by any fair account, even for all his faults, JP's the much more intelligent man of the two.

I actually find Sam Harris rather underwhelming. It's not merely that his snipes at Theism are generally trite and obvious, though they are, or that he's often never bothered to check and find out what answer to them have already been produced. And it doesn't help one's impression of the man that he usually fails even to realize how routine and unimpressive his objections often are. He seems very self-satisfied anyway, as if he's up to some great venture. He's clearly on an agenda of his own, and has very little interest in refining his own ideas.

The same decidedly cannot be said about JP. My contacts with him have indicated he's actually quite self-critical and reflective, and more interested in making progress in understanding things than in proving himself right all the time. I find him humble and tractable, even when something is offered in criticism or modification.

I suggest that JP's the real thinker of the two.

Disagree. Spend sometime on Harris' podcast. Most of them are interviews of "very" real thinkers rather than individual sermons (like JP) but Sam holds his own very well.

FWIW, I know several people who have similar opinions to yours regarding Harris but they always struggle to articulate why other than a certain distaste for his style or specific conclusions.

[Immanuel Can]

Spend sometime on Harris' podcast. Most of them are interviews of "very" real thinkers rather than individual sermons (like JP) but Sam holds his own very well.

Oh, I know Mr. Harris. And I've seen him in a number of things. He's just recirculating the old canards of the "New Atheist" movement, really.

FWIW, I know several people who have similar opinions to yours regarding Harris but they always struggle to articulate why other than a certain distaste for his style or specific conclusions.

He often doesn't remotely know what he's really talking about when he talks about faith, for one thing; and for many of his cheery epithets for Atheist, he simply has completely insufficient warrant.

How am I doing?

For example, he actually imagines that he can solve Hume's Guillotine by appealing to his own personal view of "wellbeing." That shows he hasn't even understood the problem, let alone fashioned an any kind of plausible answer...OR it means he IS aware of the issues, and is deliberately trying to deceive his followers, and to lull them into a false sense of having an answer he knows he doesn't have, so they don't call him on so serious a problem, one he knows he cannot solve at all.

Take your pick, I guess.

[FlashDangerpants]

See also how an actual philosopher (Dan Dennett) tore Harris's clumsy free will argument apart. I'm an atheist, and even I would touch Harris with shitty stick, every argument of his that I've seen where he addresses any subject from the realm of philosophy has been puerile nonsense.

[Immanuel Can]

See also how an actual philosopher (Dan Dennett) tore Harris's clumsy free will argument apart. I'm an atheist, and even I would touch Harris with shitty stick, every argument of his that I've seen where he addresses any subject from the realm of philosophy has been puerile nonsense.

Ouch. Maybe strong as a way to put it, but okay.

Maybe to put it more gently, he's a sort of publicizer, not really a theoretician. One searches in vain among his works for an idea that is not time-worn and has not already been thrashed thin by someone. Yet he seems to hold his worldview with untroubled tranquility, as if no thought of serious contradiction or any genuine problem has ever disturbed Atheistic contemplations.

His conversation with JP was one-sided not because of Harris's wisdom, but of his blissful unawareness that JP was there to offer a serious challenge to his blithe suppositions. Like Hitchens before him, but with somewhat less rhetorical panache, Harris seems to see his mission as merely to find winsome ways to restate the prejudices his supporters already hold, and make sure those are heard last, if anyone else speaks up.

[KLewchuk]

See also how an actual philosopher (Dan Dennett) tore Harris's clumsy free will argument apart. I'm an atheist, and even I would touch Harris with shitty stick, every argument of his that I've seen where he addresses any subject from the realm of philosophy has been puerile nonsense.

Ouch. Maybe strong as a way to put it, but okay.

Maybe to put it more gently, he's a sort of publicizer, not really a theoretician. One searches in vain among his works for an idea that is not time-worn and has not already been thrashed thin by someone. Yet he seems to hold his worldview with untroubled tranquility, as if no thought of serious contradiction or any genuine problem has ever disturbed Atheistic contemplations.

His conversation with JP was one-sided not because of Harris's wisdom, but of his blissful unawareness that JP was there to offer a serious challenge to his blithe suppositions. Like Hitchens before him, but with somewhat less rhetorical panache, Harris seems to see his mission as merely to find winsome ways to restate the prejudices his supporters already hold, and make sure those are heard last, if anyone else speaks up.

Mr Pants... I think you should get off the computer and do some more reading. If Harris' argument on free will has any issues, it is that it isn't particularly original. You can go back to Spinoza, et al and find similar. However, I would call that debate for Harris. I see their key point of difference was on the "definition" of free will. Dennett was "hell-bent" on saving the concept but in order to do so he needed to define it a certain way (old philosophical game; redefine terms and claim victory). Harris was correct in that his definition is how most people think about free will.

I also found it one sided, because JP had problems putting together sentences that made sense. JP couldn't really clearly articulate his view of God, truth... or much else. However, evidently he does see visions of his father. Simplicity and clarity is a feature, not a bug.

You really don't understand Harris; his PhD these was on on the neuroscience foundations of faith.

[Dubious]

Just another boring chapter in the enlightenment business with nothing outstanding to say; just more regurgitation of the stupid crap albeit spiced somewhat differently to make it look original.

[KLewchuk]

To be clear, JP is effective within certain topics but fails when he goes too far afield.

I think this is indicative of JP when he is being effective.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan ... ctionality

[KLewchuk]

See also how an actual philosopher (Dan Dennett) tore Harris's clumsy free will argument apart. I'm an atheist, and even I would touch Harris with shitty stick, every argument of his that I've seen where he addresses any subject from the realm of philosophy has been puerile nonsense.

Ouch. Maybe strong as a way to put it, but okay.

Maybe to put it more gently, he's a sort of publicizer, not really a theoretician. One searches in vain among his works for an idea that is not time-worn and has not already been thrashed thin by someone. Yet he seems to hold his worldview with untroubled tranquility, as if no thought of serious contradiction or any genuine problem has ever disturbed Atheistic contemplations.

His conversation with JP was one-sided not because of Harris's wisdom, but of his blissful unawareness that JP was there to offer a serious challenge to his blithe suppositions. Like Hitchens before him, but with somewhat less rhetorical panache, Harris seems to see his mission as merely to find winsome ways to restate the prejudices his supporters already hold, and make sure those are heard last, if anyone else speaks up.

Mr Pants... I think you should get off the computer and do some more reading. If Harris' argument on free will has any issues, it is that it isn't particularly original. You can go back to Spinoza, et al and find similar. However, I would call that debate for Harris. I see their key point of difference was on the "definition" of free will. Dennett was "hell-bent" on saving the concept but in order to do so he needed to define it a certain way (old philosophical game; redefine terms and claim victory). Harris was correct in that his definition is how most people think about free will.

I also found it one sided, because JP had problems putting together sentences that made sense. JP couldn't really clearly articulate his view of God, truth... or much else. However, evidently he does see visions of his father. Simplicity and clarity is a feature, not a bug.

You really don't understand Harris; his PhD these was on on the neuroscience foundations of faith.

FYI; if you think that Harris is so inferior to Dennett... try this. You may give it ti Dennett but I don't think Harris is exactly out of his league

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLvtg9s0Vkg

[Immanuel Can]

If Harris' argument on free will has any issues,

It certainly does.

Harris was correct in that his definition is how most people think about free will.

If most people believed in unicorns, would that make unicorns real?

"How people think about" an issue is one thing, and what is true is quite another, obviously.

Now, I happen to agree that Harris's view on free will is better than Dennett's, but not for any of Harris's reasons, which seem to me untenably thin. After all, a strict Materialist like Harris should be more consistent than to espouse any view that allows for free will; that is, unless consistency is not something he's good at.

Simplicity and clarity is a feature, not a bug.

It depends. Simplicity is a feature; oversimplification is most certainly a bug.

His PhD these was on on the neuroscience foundations of faith.

Amazing, then, that he never bothered to get a nuanced understanding of a key word in his thesis. Perhaps his examiners did not really do their job. That can happen, though it shouldn't. They should have called him on it...unless the definition he used in his thesis was substantially different from the view he puts into his public lectures, which is possible, of course.

Just not particularly consistent.

[Scott Mayers]

Jordan's rise in popularity was/is limited to his stances against our (Canadian) rise of accusations by minority status people to be granted a form of 'faith' in laws and relates to how Canada and the U.S. are protesting to this day on issues of IDENTITY politics and, incidentally due to his publicity, FREE SPEECH, given the University he was at had mobs of protestors attempting to prevent him from speaking. The other topics regarding religion, et cetera are trivial. While many like myself can agree to his intensions, he is not prized for his arguments about the latter.

He is likely 'sick' due to social pressures more than anything, in my opinion. He is also somewhat awkward to speak to and may indicate some mental health concerns.

On the bill (C-16? was it), the proposal prior to the literal formal bill was challenged by him because it appeared to be suggesting that the law would list out who is 'protected' rather than default to ALL people as protected. I can't recall if he emphasized this but it is how I would have logically interpreted the issue at the time but felt he couldn't quite express it. The problem is about logical classification, something that I independently understood. In the British traditional systems, they interpret a right to make SPECIAL laws for people based upon cultural or religious interpretations that are completely opposite to the U.S. First Amendment type law that separates ones' religious beliefs from the power of government imposed laws.

Technically, Canada is a 'theocracy' in that we have a constitution that grants freedoms for all but technically undoes them by how it has exceptions to FOUNDING peoples, of which there is the Catholic French (abandoned by France during the foundation of the U.S.), the British Anglican LOYALISTS, and, by recognizing they cannot succeed in their methods without, the Aboriginal 'First Nations' populations. They more recent Constitution established in 1982, framed this to lock in the heritage of these primary groups and so granted perpetuity of extended excepton to these people in our Rights section. This gave us (and the world) the term, "Multiculturalism" in a specific trademarked meaning that is technically true (for being more cultures than one) but falsely gives the impression that we are accepting of ALL people equally. Our system was designed to precisely PREVENT a freedom of speech law like the U.S. that was to separate church from state. This means that our system is permitted to make laws that DO regard religious or religious-related ideals in a biased way.

One such modern issue is with the modern ADVOCATING feminists, who in the time of Jordan's rise, was demanding special laws that posited faith for women and girls as though they are universally understood as a victim class. This extends to advocating ethnicities as well.

Many interpreted (and still interpret) any criticism of special advocacy law proposals as 'racist' or 'sexist' without justice. That bill being proposed was suggested to posit WHO the laws of discrimination should protect uniquely rather than the other way around: posit ALL people to not be discriminated. You don't need to list who is included unless you represent unfair bias FOR those you list and implicitly biases those left out. THIS is the intrinsic problem of classification that Jordan meant to dispell. However, he was then harrassed by many who demanded that he be removed from the University and they would do anything and everything to disrupt him from further speaking.

I share this concern with Jordan and is what I believe has bled into the rest of the world today, most particularly the United States. The political correctness and demand for reversals of innocence before being proven guilt by those who get accused of something by these 'specially protected' peoples are what the issues are about and what I think Jordan Peterson represented. But I don't think he argues consistently well and sometimes comes across annoying by no fault of his own. [I can't tolerate listening to him for great lengths of time due to his voice alone, for instance.]

I hope he gets better and tries to improve on those issues but his intellect is on par with the problem as I see it. He only accidentally fell into that position though. I can't speak of his other opinions on religion except that I disagree on many particulars of what I did hear. The last time I saw him was as a guest on "Real Time" with Bill Maher. He came across with his awkwardness as it appeared to Bill's own apparent cricket-like reflections on what he was saying.