Dawkins vs Peterson

[Nilsi]

My god, this was hard to watch.

Dawkins desperately tries to enforce a naive realist distinction between what is "real" and what is "imaginary," while Jordan is attempting to collapse these distinctions within his conception of an implicit order of reality, as portrayed in biblical texts.

The core idea here is to be understood by archaeologically tracing human moral systems back through natural evolution, which is conditioned by cultural influences - stretching back through human civilization, pre-homo sapiens "societies," and even to the "origin of the universe." This interplay between evolution and culture gives rise to archetypal structures, or a logos to reality, as seen, for example, in the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis, which reflects the adverse relationship between historical agents, or something along those lines.

This "story," by the way, is very much "scientific" and could be likened to something more formal like Game Theory.

Dawkins, however, takes issue with the fact that an archetype like Cain’s can’t be proven to be "real" (whatever that even means). This stance is just one step away from dismissing Game Theory as "not real," which is particularly ironic given that Dawkins’ fame rests on ideas from his book The Selfish Gene (which is essentially a book on Game Theory).

This whole debate, in essence, is just a trivial language game that distracts from the genuinely contentious positions Jordan holds.

Jordan fundamentally wants to advocate for an archetypal order that reflects the most universal patterns of human existence, from which he derives a moralistic structure. Yet, intrinsic to the notion of order is chaos. Jordan’s goal is for us to "confront" this chaos, by subordinating it to the moral order most archetypically represented in the biblical text.

This idea is most evident in his treatment of Nietzsche, whom he one hands concedes is an absolute genius, but who, according to Jordan, made a grave mistake: the idea of the "Übermensch," the individual creating their own values. This notion is, of course, antithetical to an eternal moral order, to which the individual must subordinate himself so as not to "upset the Gods."

Ironically, Jordan’s own philosophy is extremely eclectic and Promethean. It weaves together depth psychology, postmodernism, comparative theology, systems theory, and numerous other disciplines to create a unique worldview. There’s nothing in the Bible that suggests one should study Foucault, Psychoanalysis, Neuroscience, etc., and yet Jordan does, relying heavily on these influences to construct his worldview.

My point is this: Jordan seems to overlook the deeper dialectic between order and chaos that underpins and shapes his idea of the absolute goodness of the archetypal order. This, I believe, is where a serious conversation with him could actually begin.

Edited October 22 by Nilsi

[Schizophonia]

What a bad Jungian this JP

[Leo Gura]

Two guys who don't understand reality acting very hard like they do.

[zurew]

I do agree with you on that Dawkins has a very naive realist distinction between real and imaginary, but at the same time I think that Jordan was dishonest and dodged a lot of questions and obfuscated unnecessarily.

 

If a question is given to me in a specific context (in this case, the context was scientific and empirical) for example the question of Did Jesus rise from the dead (not in a metaphorical sense, but literally) -  Jordan answering to that "Thats misses the point" or "I don't think its meaningful or valuable" is just a dodge.

He can say that those parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted in a non-literal way, and at the same time give his position whether he thinks certain mentioned events actually happened historically in a literal way or not.

 

This is irrelevant to the substance, but my speculation why Jorday doesn't want to give honest answers to empirical questions about the Bible, is because he doesn't want to upset his Christian audience.

18 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Dawkins, however, takes issue with the fact that an archetype like Cain’s can’t be proven to be "real" (whatever that even means).

He probably means  - proving it using the scientific method.

Edited October 23 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

What struck me is Dawkins is stuck in the Exterior quadrants of Wilber's Four Quadrants, trying to communicate with Peterson who jumps between all the quadrants.

Edited October 23 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What struck me is Dawkins is stuck in the Exterior quadrants of Wilber's Four Quadrants, trying to communicate with Peterson who jumps between all the quadrants.

Is he stuck, or he simply doesn't give a fuck about other things than facts and science? 

 

I mean, im not familiar with the model in depth, but I assume there is a difference between having a preference for something and having a capacity to do things.

If there is a difference (according to the model), then how do you make the case, that Dawkins doesn't have the capacity ?

Edited October 23 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Is he stuck, or he simply doesn't give a fuck about other things than facts and science? 

Stuck, doesn't give a fuck; "it's the same thing!"— J. Peterson 😆

He seems stuck on a completely Exterior notion of truth.

Edited October 23 by Carl-Richard

[Spiritual Warfare]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Stuck, doesn't give a fuck; "it's the same thing!"— J. Peterson 😆

Jordan gets more fuck than Dawkins at least. Dawkins is so close-minded that it makes me sick.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Stuck, doesn't give a fuck; "it's the same thing!"— J. Peterson 😆

Lmao.

Reading that in JP's voice is really funny.

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

He seems stuck on a completely Exterior notion of truth

Okay I see.

Edited October 23 by zurew

[zurew]

I think when Dawkins says "I care about facts"  I doubt that he cares only about knowing those facts just for the sake of it  - I think he just assumes that all scientific facts are necessarily useful, but thats not the case, especially for everyday people.  

Knowing about certain facts is completely irrelevant to the quality of your life, and in other cases, knowing about those facts can even make the quality of your life worse. 

I think the same thought is applicable to perennial patterns and abstract objects as well. If they don't have any effect on you, then the question of 'why should I care about them' comes up and I think thats a valid question in the context of pragmatism. But this assumes that there are no abstract objects that could change you or could have an effect on you.

 

 

 

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

What struck me is Dawkins is stuck in the Exterior quadrants of Wilber's Four Quadrants, trying to communicate with Peterson who jumps between all the quadrants.

An autistic person and a schizo walk into a debate...

[Spiritual Warfare]

 

[Leo Gura]

People who think they can reduce reality to "facts" are naive as children.

[Majed]

@Leo Gura i watched the entire episode, for the most part it was a waste of time. 

[Shodburrito]

@Leo Gura haha yes. 👏 best way to put this 

[AION]

I would love to see Gura and Peterson being locked in a room for a day or two, and then open the door and see what happened 😂

[Nilsi]

I actually think Jordan is getting way too much flak.

He navigates authentic post-postmodern waters and has a profound grasp on reality; I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't see this is just ignorant.

Of course, I'm turned off by the neo-conservative posturing and bombastic theological imagery just as much as the next person, but still, the force and brilliance of his thought are glaringly obvious.

[zurew]

I think this is a fair criticism from JP.

 

[Cireeric]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

I actually think Jordan is getting way too much flak.

He navigates authentic post-postmodern waters and has a profound grasp on reality; I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't see this is just ignorant.

Of course, I'm turned off by the neo-conservative posturing and bombastic theological imagery just as much as the next person, but still, the force and brilliance of his thought are glaringly obvious.

+1 Especially on this forum. Every once in a while when I watch some Video of him, like his last appearance on Lex Friedman im impressed by some of his ideas and his articulation of it. He grapples with the deepest topics in a brilliantly articulate way like very few and still gets dismissed way too easy.

[bambi]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I actually think Jordan is getting way too much flak.

He navigates authentic post-postmodern waters and has a profound grasp on reality; I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't see this is just ignorant.

Of course, I'm turned off by the neo-conservative posturing and bombastic theological imagery just as much as the next person, but still, the force and brilliance of his thought are glaringly obvious.

He has 0 conversational skills or emtoional development. He dominates people and loves the sound of his own voice, he barely or rarely lets anyone speak.

I dont see how he doesnt get more flak, hes an extremist, theres veery few people as intense and self absorbed as jordan