1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

Thoughts on Dr.Jordan Peterson as of late?

Discussion in 'Self Improvement' started by Runtilmylegsdropoff, Feb 25, 2018.

  1. Runtilmylegsdropoff

    Runtilmylegsdropoff Fapstronaut

    1,522
    1,750
    143
    I bought a ticket to go see Dr.Peterson in San Francisco in May.
     
    Toni7 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Personally very much like the guy. While, like anyone, there are points where I don't entirely agree with him, he's always level-headed, and it's clear he's come to his conclusions through reasoning, rather than just holding views and not really understanding why he has them, like the vast majority of people. That earns him respect in my book.

    I think almost all of the controversy surrounding him, comes not from him, but from out of context clips of him that people have used on YouTube to, one side, push/back up their own views, and on the other side, discredit him without giving the proper context that would have explained his point. He does attract a lot of idiots, from both sides of the fence.

    He's a smart guy, and has a way with words. Don't be foolish and worship the guy just because he's knowledgeable and well-spoken though. Nor should you do the opposite and dismiss or discredit him just because of a few out of context clips people have put together, or because of those who use similar out of context clips of him to push their own agenda.

    Give a few of his lengthier talks a listen and make your own mind up IMO, rather than buying into the groupthink on either side of things. A handy lesson for life in general: Don't judge a person purely based on who their fans or their detractors are, as often a good portion of both are idiots! ;)

    I don't think he's as controversial as people make out when you actually give him a fair listen. Of course that's just my take, again, give him a listen yourself and make up your own mind rather than letting someone else tell you.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2018
  3. That's the thing some people seem to be worshipping. For some, it seems like he can do or say no wrong.
     
  4. SirImprovement

    SirImprovement Fapstronaut

    12
    18
    3
    A pivotal human being against the Marxist plague ruining society. I agree with him in most parts, but he emphasizes on individuality too often however. We need a balance of both individuality and collectivism for a healthy society.
     
  5. Peace467

    Peace467 Fapstronaut

    Yes! You see it outplaying more and more. The weird thing is that it feels more like it's coming from the students then the lecturers and teachers at the universities.

    But overall it's bad. You have to have both sides of every argument and consider all science to form proper views. Any view that is biased and leads to biased laws etc in society I believe will work out in a negative way and ultimately harm everyone! This is also why protecting freedom of speech is important and learning to disagree with someone is important.

    I'm scared that we are not teaching people to think! Society (I.e. Facebook) promotes echo chambers beucase it keeps people engaged in their product so people never get exposed to the opposit views and they when people do cross the boundary it ends in hate and fighting. It's so sad.


    I agree with this, he's someone who can easily get portrayed as something he's not by his 'followers'. It's kinda awesome that he has so much of his lectures online in their entirety, it's been fun to listen to some psychology as someone who is interested in it but never gotten the chance to learn about it!
     
  6. I actually like his Christianity - it actually makes more sense than what many fundamentalists say.
    But the fact is if you're a conservative Christian you should consider him to a heretic.

    The trouble is what he says about God and the Bible are inconsistent with his views on gender.

     
  7. Lonewolfpt

    Lonewolfpt Fapstronaut

    My understanding is that Jordan Peterson's philosophy is very harsh, like the real world. He tells the truth as harsh as it is.

    . When I hear Jordan Peterson speaking about things like status hierarchy and women being driven to it i get really depressed because that's the truth. At first I get depressed, then I get motivated to get better.

    (obviously there are exceptions, some women - rare - will love you for what you really are)
     
    Toni7 and Lazarus Shuttlesworth like this.
  8. I wouldn't want him to be my tutor. I would need a year's worth of counselling if I did.
     
    Lonewolfpt likes this.
  9. Lonewolfpt

    Lonewolfpt Fapstronaut

    I understand that. But you can't run from the truth. Sometimes when I hear things he says I also get down and depressed. Then a moment later I am extra motivated to keep fighting :)
     
    Toni7 likes this.
  10. The thing is there a way of speaking truth in a kind way and there's a way of speaking truth in a harsh way. I had a tutor who wasn't afraid to give constructive criticism but I received it well because he also praised my good points. Plus he also apologised when he felt he was wrong. I suppose it's a different relationship if all you do is watch his lectures or interviews on YouTube and interacting with face to face or telephone conversation. But I'm up and down with Peterson sometimes I like him and sometimes I hate him. At times he reminds me of Mark Driscoll.
     
  11. Toomuchh

    Toomuchh Fapstronaut

    263
    231
    43
    I like what he is trying to do and how he handles himself (especially in interviews). I don't like how it feels like there is a cult behind him and how other people are trying to use him to further their own political agenda.

    I think it's sad the world needs him to teach people how to live more than anything tho. He say's some cool things, some insightful things, and has a charisma that makes it hard not to listen to him. But sometimes I wonder if the people listening are really listening to what he is saying. I really like how he practices self-suspicious at all times, the humility to understand that at anytime his success can corrupt him so he stays on guard, and is careful about what he says to an almost obsessive degree.

    I respect the man, but for some reason I feel pity for him too, I don't understand why.
     
  12. I like the guy but it seems at times that either by chance or by design, he seems to avoid certain questions and he seems to play around with certain answers especially with regards to Christianity. It could potentially be that he does this in order to keep his Christian followers.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2018
    Deleted Account likes this.
  13. Sean Edie

    Sean Edie Fapstronaut

    I bought his book but not started it yet. I've also been listening to his podcast and it's pretty good
     
    Toni7 likes this.
  14. Battlestar

    Battlestar Fapstronaut

    19
    18
    3
    He's a genius, but he doesn't have all the answers. He sees the questions very clearly. He is very perceptive and extraordinarily well read. He's a very analytical and precise thinker. It helps to know that he approaches everything from two perspectives: Carl Jung, and 20th c. totalitarianism (communism). He considers himself a scientist first, so he talks a lot about published literature when discussing facts. His view of human nature is in my view somewhat compromised by his study of totalitarianism. He knows all the bad stuff, but is not always as clear about the good. So, he can be a bit too harsh at times, including too harsh on himself. He believes in God. He is tending toward Roman Catholicism. It seems questionable whether he's a actually a Christian (belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity), but has definitely turned in that direction. He is both very perceptive, and often mistaken in his Bible series. He is too subtile for most audiences, and chooses his words very carefully. He's extremely honest and open and sincere.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2022
    im_done likes this.
  15. im_done

    im_done Fapstronaut

    138
    274
    63
    He's necessary. Say what you want about his politics which I don't think they are as pompous or absurd as people think, but his psychology lectures are great. I don't agree with everything he has said but he is absolutely necessary in a time where many people are stuck in a mental and physical sludge of comfort and lack of accountability.
     
  16. Morior Invictus

    Morior Invictus Fapstronaut

    136
    161
    43
    Love his psychological and mythological interpretations.

    Don't really listen to him for the politics though.
     
  17. amx

    amx Fapstronaut

    His rhetorical style is very impressive and he deserves everything nice in his life simply for how often he mentions the Gulag Archipelago.
     
    Toni7 likes this.
  18. Semtex

    Semtex Fapstronaut

    Dr. PhDr. PhD. M.D. J.D. MuDr. MvDr. Jordan Petereson???

    I'm sorry, I couldn't hear - he has a college degree you said?
     
  19. smh_fam

    smh_fam Fapstronaut

    142
    303
    63
    My impression is that he has written off postmodernism as a dead end. If there are indeed an infinite number of possible (and valid) interpretations of everything, you don't really have any way to construct a functional belief system. You can deconstruct everything until you're left staring into the abyss, but that's it.

    I don't think anybody in academia is actually a postmodernist. At least I've never met one. The people I've interacted with who claim to be postmodernists are actually critical-theorists. They have an extremely dogmatic black and white worldview where everything they believe is absolutely 100% true and everything they don't believe in is absolutely 100% false (and extremely offensive).

    The postmodernist argument seems to always be used very very selectively, they will use it to deconstruct something very specific that they already don't like (i.e. capitalism) which renders that specific value system arbitrary and meaningless. Then they abandon postmodernism entirely and claim that that system is not just arbitrary, but objectively wrong and evil. Then they point to a bizarre racial-sexual-marxist cocktail as the unquestionably, objectively correct solution.

    There's no real philosophy or coherent logic there.
     
    WildEntheology likes this.
  20. smh_fam

    smh_fam Fapstronaut

    142
    303
    63
    I can understand the intention behind using a postmodernist frame to re-examine accepted norms and values, but ultimately I don't think it can give you any clear guidance on where to draw the boundaries between what is permitted to be deconstructed and what is off-limits. After all, the idea of "Universal Rights" itself is "just a social construct". The idea that the well being of marginalized people is important to society is "just a social construct". The value we place on logic and reason to solve problems? "Just a social construct". The possibilities are endless.

    It would be very easy for us to accidentally, with the very best intentions in mind, end up unraveling and deconstructing the wrong thing.

    Here's the thing though, in your example, Capitalism has already been identified as the problem and as "the thing we can and should deconstruct". How can we be so confident that that is the correct path forward? That the economic system is the primary cause of unnecessary human suffering? Or any institution for that matter?

    Marx and Engels had a pretty solid understanding of the downsides of Capitalism, especially during the industrialization of the West. I think they both wrote harrowing tales of children working 16+ hours a day in factories, frequently becoming ill due to exposure to chemicals and filthy environments, missing fingers and toes due to lack of basic safety precautions and on top of that they still weren't making enough money to feed themselves properly. In the end, however, when their grand solution had a chance to be implemented in Russia, you had children operating under the same conditions. Different economic base, same outcome.

    Exactly.

    Peterson is basically a modern interpreter for Nietzsche and Jung's ideas that a lot of what we currently "know" and value had been discovered organically and irrationally over a very long period of time. Maybe understanding that irrational base (and assuming there is inherent value and truth there) is a way forward. It's basically approaching the same problem from the exact opposite direction as postmodernism.
     

Share This Page