Jordan Peterson on Moral Law

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, Setty said:

 

Do I see it wrong? 

 

If you come to understand relativism/ subjectivism both conceptually and through direct experience, you will evolve beyond JP and have a more holistic view.

[Outer]

6 hours ago, Setty said:

Most people here think people like him because of his views on traditional gender roles and tradition in general but I believe that it not the case. People here also like to project A LOT how he thinks and how his supporters think and are not really interested in understanding his views. You just demonize him. 

Yeah, and making assumptions about his motives. He speaks about traditional gender roles like 0.1% of all of his speech, if even that. He MUST have a secret agenda of exactly THIS way his audience must interpret 0.1% of his speech. Or am I projecting, am I assuming?

It's interesting how the human mind works. For a hammer everything is a nail. How it works is you search for something you want to hear Jordan's opinion on - once you did that you have ignored 99.99% of what he has said. About how news stations utilize the Availability heuristic to instill fear and clicks in the population, even though the world is proven to become better and safer every year world-wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

I've listened to quite some of his lectures, teachings female students to become good psychologists (high rating on ratemyprofessor), and he speaks about how it's important to tell the truth and so on. Even if he is regressive for Women's rights or whatever, or has traditional gender roles, or other traditions, you can still take the rasisins out of the oatmeal. I see Jordan say a lot of batshit crazy shit, sometimes just thinking out loud, but some of his content is beyond deep from the shoulders of the giants he's standing on. Just search for his lecture on phenomenology of Being.

Confirmation bias. Appeal to Motive. Other logical fallacies.

Someone's regressive since their uncertain about gay rights and bring up make-up to facilitate a discussion women-men in the workplace, or give advice to women that appears traditional. Let's forget 99.99% of his speech.

Quote

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.

Quote

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

Now if 0.01% of his speech is up for motive assumption, and that's how you decide what you think of him, really? Is that how we decide who is regressive? By assumptions? Seems like a witch hunt. It's best to let it go on. Truth wins. Truth is guaranteed.

[Matt8800]

On 11/17/2018 at 8:22 AM, Serotoninluv said:

@Matt8800 Yellow level beings have a meta view and can see through Green’s perspective. Yellow understands the perception that  JP demonizes Green.

Orange will limit themselves to an analysis of pros and cons. Orange gets attached to details and is unaware of the Big Picture.

Yellow has embodied Green and has a more integrated / expansive view than Orange.

Turqoise has transcended all stages. Turqoise is everything and nothing. Turqoise is One with the substance of reality and JP is within the substance of reality (of which he is unaware). 

https://www.prageru.com/videos/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids

 

@Serotoninluv To "demonize" is to attribute motivation. Lets go beyond our assumptions about his motivations.

Im not saying he has not made factually incorrect claims. What Im saying is that all Ive seen is a strong green ideological reaction against his claims based on shoulds and shouldnts and Ive never heard him make a false claim. 

My question is this - what claims exactly has he made that are factually incorrect? 

[SOUL]

Oh look, another JP thread where his haters and cucks come out in droves which is like every time he's mentioned ever.

I avoid his stuff not because of the content or ideology but because as I listen to him I can feel the conditioning oozing out of him filled with intolerance and misery.

So even if he has valuable insights in his words, it's bathed in monkey mind suffering that makes it an obstacle to bringing well being.

Edited November 18, 2018 by SOUL

[Matt8800]

22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He's said plenty of dumb things:

By JP's logic men shouldn't trim their nose hair.

Universities are liberal because they are stage Green. Plain and simple.

@Leo Gura 

Regarding video 1 - 

The claims that I hear him making are:

1. Females can do things to their appearance which makes them more sexually attractive to males.

2. Males pursue females more aggressively if they are sexually attracted.

The implication to that is that if women are less sexually attractive, they will be less aggressively pursued. If we ignore the shoulds and shouldnts of whether women should be able to dress however they want, is the statement correct? Males that belong to other ape species pursue females more aggressively if they find them more desirable. Is there any reason to believe that is not true with humans?

Regarding your statement of men trimming their nose hair - if men would be more aggressively pursued sexually by women because their nose hairs are trimmed, I think more men would trim their nose hair because being aggressively pursued means something different to most men than most women. (Another unpopular claim by JP seems to be that men and women are different.)

Regarding video 2 - 

His main points are that a) universities lean to the radical left side and b) that social justice ideology and radical left intolerance tends to influence students that attend the school.

1. Is it a true statement that ideology tends to be contagious within the in-group of institutions? Conversely, wouldnt it be true to say that someone would be more likely to be radical right if their in-group were evangelicals from Mississippi? 

2. Wouldnt it be fair to state that the extreme social justice ideology of green is undesirable without necessarily justifying the regressive ideology of orange?

 

[Outer]

21 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Oh look, another JP thread where his haters and cucks come out in droves which is like every time he's mentioned ever.

I avoid his stuff not because of the content or ideology but because as I listen to him I can feel the conditioning oozing out of him filled with intolerance and misery.

So even if he has valuable insights in his words, it's bathed in monkey mind suffering that makes it an obstacle to bringing well being.

What you're saying is mostly true.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv To "demonize" is to attribute motivation. Lets go beyond our assumptions about his motivations.

Im not saying he has not made factually incorrect claims. What Im saying is that all Ive seen is a strong green ideological reaction against his claims based on shoulds and shouldnts and Ive never heard him make a false claim. 

My question is this - what claims exactly has he made that are factually incorrect? 

He uses the concepts “moral” and “evil” quite often. I’d say associating a group with “evil” is demonizing. If someone asserts that postmodernism is “evil” is to associate postmodernists as evil.

One of JP’s deficiencies is that he believes in universal objective morality. He does not understand relativism and subjectivism. He loathes anything to do with it. That is a main reason he is trapped in Blue/Orange and is unable to evolve up to Green. Once a person evolves above Orange, they will no longer resonate with JP. New higher conscious teachers will enter their life that they now resonate with.

I went through a similiar process with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I couldn’t understand why people criticized them. I didn’t think the criticism was fair. Then once I evolved above their level it became totally obvious.

[Matt8800]

On 11/17/2018 at 8:51 AM, Emerald said:

I call Jordan Peterson the Trojan Horse of human regression. His desire is to go back to some golden age... that he would probably hate if it was actually achieved (to be honest). 

So, he give 95% good advice for living and laces it with 5% regressive ideologies that demonize progress and seek to bring the state of society backward. One such way, is by painting a much smaller box for everyone (especially women and anyone who doesn't conform to gender) to live within. He thinks there is something special and natural about the gender roles of the past. So, he thinks everyone would be happier living within those confines. 

Everything about his perspective holds up Blue as the end all be all of healthy and natural human social structures. And he wants us all to go back to that. That's why I call him the Trojan Horse of human regression. It's the pill inside the peanut butter that he feeds all of his fans. And they eat it up like it's the best thing on the planet, as it gives them the illusion of expansion while they're contracting into a less expansive perspective. Kind of like running on an conveyor belt that's even more quickly bringing you backward.

@Emerald

I agree that 95% is good advice for living and 5% is poor advice but isnt that pretty much true of anyone that espouses ideology?

Is stating that men and women are generally different a false statement? Rather than making claims about what he wants or what his motives are, what claim exactly has he made that are false? I have never seen a direct argument against the claims he has made; they seem to always be against the assumed shoulds and shouldnts those claims are interpreted to imply.

Can you point a claim by JP, by quoting him directly, that is false?

Edited November 18, 2018 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Emerald

I s stating that men and women are generally different a false statement? 

It’s his objectivist views that are the problem. He wants to use an objective  bioligical framework for distinguishing male vs female. This is fine for sex determination. Where he fails is denying relative gender identities. 

If someone has a relative experience of identifying as female gender, it’s irrational to tell them they are wrong and they actually are a male gender because a quantification analsis of their gonads indicates they are actually experiencing maleness.

Acknowleding relativism means surrending a belief in universal moral law, which JP is unwilling to do. He is actually fighting like hell against it.

JP’s foundation is a belief in universal objective morality. This lens clouds all his views. This is obvious to Green, not to Blue/Orange

[Matt8800]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

He uses the concepts “moral” and “evil” quite often. I’d say associating a group with “evil” is demonizing. If someone asserts that postmodernism is “evil” is to associate postmodernists as evil.

One of JP’s deficiencies is that he believes in universal objective morality. He does not understand relativism and subjectivism. He loathes anything to do with it. That is a main reason he is trapped in Blue/Orange and is unable to evolve up to Green. Once a person evolves above Orange, they will no longer resonate with JP. New higher conscious teachers will enter their life that they now resonate with.

I went through a similiar process with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I couldn’t understand why people criticized them. I didn’t think the criticism was fair. Then once I evolved above their level it became totally obvious.

@Serotoninluv He may have used concepts of morality and good/bad but isnt that any ideologue? I am not familiar with all his beliefs because I am not an ideologue. Regardless, making claims of good and evil is not what green people are reacting against because they do it themselves. They are reacting because green has different claims of good and evil.

Epistemology and critical thinking does not resonate with relativism. If you make a claim that the earth is flat because your culture and religion tells you that, that does not mean it is factual. If the Mormon church tells you that certain underwear has magical protective powers or Christianity tells you that human sacrifice (Jesus') is sometimes effective, that does not mean those claims are true just because you believe them. If you think green people are relativistic, try telling them that social justice ideology is just their subjective opinion that does not need to be accepted by everyone and see what happens. Wouldnt that fall in the category of hypocrisy? 

What Im saying is that I have never heard him make a factual claim that is false. Can you point a claim by JP, by quoting him directly, that is false?

 

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv He may have used concepts of morality and good/bad but isnt that any ideologue? I am not familiar with all his beliefs because I am not an ideologue. Regardless, making claims of good and evil is not what green people are reacting against because they do it themselves. They are reacting because green has different claims of good and evil.

Epistemology and critical thinking does not resonate with relativism. If you make a claim that the earth is flat because your culture and religion tells you that, that does not mean it is factual. If the Mormon church tells you that certain underwear has magical protective powers or Christianity tells you that human sacrifice (Jesus') is sometimes effective, that does not mean those claims are true just because you believe them. If you think green people are relativistic, try telling them that social justice ideology is just their subjective opinion that does not need to be accepted by everyone and see what happens. Wouldnt that fall in the category of hypocrisy? 

What Im saying is that I have never heard him make a factual claim that is false. Can you point a claim by JP, by quoting him directly, that is false?

 

JPs deficiencey is his attachment to an objective universal *moral* law. 

If the relative experience of a person is to identify as male, would you acknowledge that experience ad being equally valid to the gender you identify with? 

JP can’t accept what he views as moral relativism, because he is obsessed with objective morality.

[Matt8800]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It’s his objectivist views that are the problem. He wants to use an objective  bioligical framework for distinguishing male vs female. This is fine for sex determination. Where he fails is denying relative gender identities. 

If someone has a relative experience of identifying as female gender, it’s irrational to tell them they are wrong and they actually are a male gender because a quantification analsis of their gonads indicates they are actually experiencing maleness.

Acknowleding relativism means surrending a belief in universal moral law, which JP is unwilling to do. He is actually fighting like hell against it.

JP’s foundation is a belief in universal objective morality. This lens clouds all his views. This is obvious to Green, not to Blue/Orange

@Serotoninluv I have never heard him say that people should not identify with a non-biological identity. What I have heard him say is that people's expectation that everyone understands and affirms their identification is irrational. Why? Because humans are animals with particular hard-wiring that has causal effects on ideas about sexuality. Whether that is "right" or "wrong", that is the way it is. Gorillas have certain mores that are expected from the males and females. Some gorillas may behave outside those customs which may cause a rejection by the rest of the gorillas. Is that "wrong"?

Please provide a direct JP quote so we can discuss that. Otherwise, I get the strong impression that people are just reacting from their own ideological standpoint, which is simply more ideology.

[Matt8800]

14 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

JPs deficiencey is his attachment to an objective universal *moral* law. 

If the relative experience of a person is to identify as male, would you acknowledge that experience ad being equally valid to the gender you identify with? 

JP can’t accept what he views as moral relativism, because he is obsessed with objective morality.

@Serotoninluv

You have no problem pointing out JPs attachment to objective morality but seem to completely miss green's attachment to their own ideas of objective morality. Try telling social justice warriors that their ideas of shoulds and shouldnts are not objectively true and see what happens

Lets clean up our own backyard before we start judging our neighbors.

I am just interested in factual claims and what I am pointing out is that green people reject facts that dont support their ideas of shoulds and shouldnts. While orange may do the same, that does not mean it is not also true of green. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv

You have no problem pointing out JPs attachment to objective morality but seem to completely miss green's attachment to their own ideas of objective morality. Try telling social justice warriors that their ideas of shoulds and shouldnts are not objectively true and see what happens

I am just interested in factual claims and what I am pointing out is that green people reject facts that dont support their ideas of shoulds and shouldnts. While orange may do the same, that does not mean it is not also true of green. 

You can watch the video the OP posted un which JP pushes for a universal objective morality. That is delusional.

Yes, Green has it’s limitations. Yet they have a rudimentary understanding of subjectivism and relativism that Orange lack.

JP’s views go through a filter of belief in external universal objective morality. That is a low conscouous level. Does JP have some nuggets of truth? Yes, but he is fundamentally delusional at a low blue/orange level. Green also have their delusions, just less so than nlue/orange.

 

[Matt8800]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You can watch the video the OP posted un which JP pushes for a universal objective morality. That is delusional.

Yes, Green has it’s limitations. Yet they have a rudimentary understanding of subjectivism and relativism that Orange lack.

 

Green is more evolved overall than orange but they only understand subjectivism when it doesnt conflict with their own ideology. With that said, I agree with you that green has a more complete understanding subjectivism.

JP is obviously orange but he points out facts that green rejects when it contradicts their beliefs, which is also a short-coming of green. Yellow could just as easily say that men and women are different, with different natural strengths and weaknesses, and many green people would react to yellow in the exact same way they react to orange on many levels.

[AlwaysBeNice]

20 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You can watch the video the OP posted un which JP pushes for a universal objective morality. That is delusional.

Yes, Green has it’s limitations. Yet they have a rudimentary understanding of subjectivism and relativism that Orange lack.

JP’s views go through a delusional universal objective morality filter.

I think we all know when we push the boundary of respect, or cross it, to people in general or loved one's close to us, albeit some seem to be in denial about that to various degrees.

I think when it comes to more broad choices, like is what we do good for the environment, etc., it becomes much more of a gray area, and imo, quite less important.

And sure, ultimately nothing matters, but is that your experience in daily living? And can we respect that it may mean a lot to others?

In that sense, it's certainly universal.

[AlwaysBeNice]

Though I must add, I also find he has some quite misguided views in some regards and don't recommend him as a teacher or anything, <direct experience/exploration above all>

-

this ending though, hella cute

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by AlwaysBeNice

[SOUL]

So what makes the moral objectivist's morality objective? Just saying it is doesn't make it so.

Science doesn't provide an objective morality so using it's objectivity as a guide is still subjectively applied. Any number of discussions found on youtube will clearly show there is no universal interpretation of the facts provided by science that offers an objective criteria to derive morals from so is relativist.

Few moral objectivists will rely on science and instead say their 'God' or religious book provides the standard for it. So, then, which 'God'? Whose book? Which parts of who's book since some do claim it's only part of the book that's the right standard. Some even say it only applies to just some people in certain circumstances and differs depending on those circumstances.

So both science and religious beliefs give relative standards for morality, then how can we even begin to apply it? From this it is that all morality is relativist and it is simply someone trying to impose their own morality beliefs on others. There are no objective morals so JP or anyone else is just ignorant or hypocritical in their assertion they are morality objective.

[Emerald]

On 11/18/2018 at 2:10 PM, Matt8800 said:

@Emerald

I agree that 95% is good advice for living and 5% is poor advice but isnt that pretty much true of anyone that espouses ideology?

Is stating that men and women are generally different a false statement? Rather than making claims about what he wants or what his motives are, what claim exactly has he made that are false? I have never seen a direct argument against the claims he has made; they seem to always be against the assumed shoulds and shouldnts those claims are interpreted to imply.

Can you point a claim by JP, by quoting him directly, that is false?

I didn't say it 95% good advice and 5% poor advice. I said it's 95% good advice laced with 5% regressive propaganda to convert people to his ideologies. So, it isn't a matter of him just giving some shabby advice here and there. He's very calculated with how he gives his advice, as he hides his agenda in it. And his agenda is dangerous.

Stating that men and women are generally different is true. But it's the implications that are left open in Peterson's "musings" (which are really just regressive talking points posed as open contemplations), that make his rhetoric dangerous to progress. It's his disguise as an open-minded intellectual that throws most people off of his ideological agenda that is the beginning, middle, and end of the influence that he wants to have. 

Now, you ask me to give you the claims that he's made that are false. I'm sure he's made some false claims before. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about some false claims that Jordan Peterson accidentally made. I'm talking about purposefully placed regressive propaganda, that implies the impetus for societal regression.

For example, if we go back to the statement "men and women are generally different." This is true from some perspectives and untrue from others. But  regardless of the truth in the statement, it's the fact that he will make this statement then he will muse about the potential implications. Like saying, "Due to these differences, can men and women really co-exist in the workplace?"  or "What do we do now that women have come to be in male dominance hierarchies?" or "Why don't we ban women from wearing make-up (which is only for sexual provocation, anyway) in the workplace?"

And he poses these as just one question out of a litany of questions, so that he seems like a fair-minded person just exploring all the perspectives in the free marketplace of ideas.

But this is not what he's actually doing. What he's actually doing is leaving it to his audience to connect the dots that women and men can't co-exist together in the workplace and that women don't belong in male dominance hierarchies. And from there, it's only logical to come to the conclusion that all of the liberation that women have had in the past 60 years has been a wrong move and that we need to go back to more patriarchal times where women stayed at home and had kids and men went out and worked in the dominance hierarchy. And perhaps if we did that, the social decay would cease and the "golden age" would return.

So, the dangerous part is not the falsehoods that he states. The dangerous part is how he NEVER MAKES A REGRESSIVE CLAIM, yet he muses on regressive things in front of an impressionable audience just enough to have them connect the right dots on their own. And he knows what people will generally do with those musings. And this tactic is done on purpose, so that he can divest himself of any responsibility for claiming, "Women and men can't work together, so women need to get out of male spaces." And he can divest himself of that because he never made that claim... he just mused on it in front of his impressionable young male viewers. 

Most people won't see that this is what Jordan Peterson is doing. But it's really clear if you look at his whole shtick. 

So, no. I can't point to a single claim that JP ever made that is dangerous. He never puts the dangerous stuff in his claims. He keeps it in his musings. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Emerald

[Forestluv]

On 11/18/2018 at 3:19 PM, AlwaysBeNice said:

And sure, ultimately nothing matters, but is that your experience in daily living? And can we respect that it may mean a lot to others?

In that sense, it's certainly universal.

At the human level, what "matters" is highly subjective and is not universal.

I suppose one could argue that a subjective sense that something "matters" is universal at the human level. Yet, this would depend on one's definition of "matters".

Yet, even if we agree that every human has some sense that something "matters", what that is would not be universal.