Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

"

1453R wrote:

You mention Fountainhead as one of your favorite books, so I'm going to assume you know about and at least respect/tolerate, if not practice, Objectivism. What would an Objectivist think of the common religious notion that the individual is worthless unless it's willing to submit all of its desires, all of its goals, and all of its energy and drive to the central authority that is the religion in question?

"Do you practice Objectivism?" she asks. All of my goddamn keks. Have you read Nathaniel Branden's memoir of his time with Rand yet? It's a good read. After the success of the Fountainhead she had her own cult. Get this: they even originally called themselves the Collective while they were trying to think up the name "Objectivism!"

To answer that question: they'd deny it as part of doing it. Objectivism is one of the cults with the lowest tolerance for dissenting with orthodoxy; those who mostly but do not fully agree find themselves quickly excommunicated.

"

1453R wrote:

What you're talking about is conviction, which does not have to be sacred to be worth upholding. Every man, woman and child in this world should be allowed to be their own god. We do not need to venerate anything outside of ourselves; our own ideals and convictions should be enough. You're correct in that true conviction is born of deep introspection and consideration, of a sort that's increasingly rare these days. Positions change, minds change, and people are far too willing to let their favorite Twitter celebrities tell them what their ideals and convictions should be, which is a lamentable state of being. People clamor for attention, hurl their opinion out in front of them like a battleaxe and attempt to chop it into the heads of everyone else with no consideration for what's been hacked into their own.

It's important to understand here the evolutionary impact of economic specialization on the human mind since the dawn of civilization (meaning mostly the earliest civilizations). Knowledge is not just one thing subject to economic specialization, but the primary thing subject to it; you are given permission to be an idiot regarding the technique of raising the food you eat, the collection and sanitation of the water you drink, and the manufacture of the car you (presumably) drive, in exchange for being considerably smarter than average at what you do. For any given field of knowledge, the expectation is that a tiny fraction of the population completes the homework legitimately, while the vast majority pay them to copy the answers.

What this means is that you have a biological drive to defer to apparent authority — and, in the absence of apparent authority, to the group consensus presumed to be previously nurtured by that authority — on matters for which you are stupid, which thanks to economic specialization is probably the vast majority of them. We are biologically predisposed to a type of collective thought wherein the leader says, the followers repeat, and we believe. What you are describing on Twitter is an evolutionary adaptation.

Because you want to feel okay with yourself, you deny to yourself how much you do this, as we are all biased to do, but independent confirmation of incoming information is just too much of a duplication of effort, for which the many unspecialized are woefully unprepared, for human beings to consistently do so. Most of what you know is based solely in your trust of other people, and so it must be. Simply put, you've more important things to do.

If your customers weren't idiots about the things you feel passionate about, they wouldn't be customers or you'd have a different occupation. Or both. Therefore, they are. Thing is: you're a customer more often than you're a business.

Deferring to authority does not have to mean blind, slavish, frothing religious devotion to said authority. You can defer to an expert's opinion on the subject of his expertise without having to fall to your knees and worship that expert as a living god who validates your worthless existence through his benediction. This need to equate specialization with religious submission and the worthlessness of the self bothers me, and I don't understand why it's an important point.

I don't independently verify every single piece of information that comes my way, no. I try to maintain an awareness that I do not do this, however, and a corresponding willingness to adjust my ideas and assumptions on the basis of incoming information. Sometimes that takes a bit of digesting because I'm a fiery-spirited sorta gal and that's my bad, but I do make the attempt. Humanity, as they say, is not perfect. What I do know is that the statement "either you're religious or you're lying to yourself", as seems to be being espoused here, bothers me on many levels.

Going to see if I can find some sneak time to get that Channel 4 must-watch interview down at least if I'm going to be debating that point here. Nevertheless. My own stance is that I do not want to be that kind of person, and if I must paradoxically take a religious stance on being irreligious because my human brain is failing me, then that is the stance I will take. I'll determine my own worth or lack thereof myself, thanks.

EDIT:: Whoops. Forgot to mention - I didn't peg you as Objectivist, no. I just know I've never said ten words on/about Ayn Rand before without it coming up. Heh, my understanding of that particular philosophy is admittedly flawed as my knowledge comes from Wikipedia and reading Dr. Universe bits in Spinnerette. Did not mean to exhaust your supply of keks.

"

1453R wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

A lot of people call themselves atheist Jews.

Ali Rivzi likes to call himself an atheist Muslim.

I'm an atheist Christian. Why not?

Penn Jillette once said that there's no such thing as (the popular perception of) an agnostic. To be a Christian, one must believe in Jesus Christ the Lord as their savior and in the existence and benevolence of God. This is the absolute coremost, fundamental tenet of Christianity, to the point that it is literally their name. 'Christ'-ianity.

If someone asks you if you believe in God and you say "I don't know, but I'm willing to keep an open mind"...that makes you an atheist, in that you do not believe in God. You are willing to believe in God if provided evidence sufficiently convincing, but until then the don't-knower generally acts as if God does not exist.

Keeping an open mind does not qualify one for a special title, other than 'not an asshat'. It is perfectly possible to believe in the values Christianity espouses - tolerance, familial closeness and loyalty, generosity and charity, humility and traditional virtues - and not be a Christian. I believe in most of those myself (perhaps not so much the 'humility' bit - there are times when a woman is perfectly friggin' justified in being proud of herself, damnit), but I do not believe in Christ the Savior, the Holy Trio, the Afterlife, or in any of the million and three denominations of Christian church.

It's a lesson I wish more people could learn, honestly. You don't have to be religious or pseudo-religious to be a decent human being. Atheists can be not-asshats, too.

These values exist in western society because the Catholic Church ingrained them into society.

If Jesus never came, and there was no Catholic Church, we would have a totally different cruel culture, that would have developed out of the pre-Catholic era, Greek- Roman culture.

Yes, those values exist in western society because the Catholic Church originally put them there.

The Catholic Church also tries to tell everyone that they're an actively horrible person and were born an actively horrible person, and nothing they can ever do will make them not a horrible person until and unless they decide to Accept Jesus. Which comes with a whole huge host of side requirements that just-so-happen to include enriching the Catholic Church, and also forsaking basically everything they might otherwise enjoy because having hobbies, interests, healthy biological urges, or in fact deriving any enjoyment from life whatsoever that isn't religious fervor Is A SIN.

Pardon me if I don't buy into formal religion and its nasty trappings, or the notion that I have to be religious in order to be a decent human being. Now admittedly, the sheer overwhelming crush of religion-induced guilt Catholicism inflicts on its practitioners is a very heavy load, non-indicative of religion as a whole...but then again, Catholicism is also basically the default religion in the western world, the one most ordinary folks think of when they hear the word 'religious'.

So maybe they don't get off the hook for anti-humanist beliefs? Heh, I can respect the strength of someone's faith and their right to feel that faith without sacrificing my right to dispute the maxims that faith comes with. Just like y'all are perfectly free to dispute my beliefs and debate me in an attempt to change them and/or present your own side of the issue.

"

1453R wrote:

Spoiler

Deferring to authority does not have to mean blind, slavish, frothing religious devotion to said authority. You can defer to an expert's opinion on the subject of his expertise without having to fall to your knees and worship that expert as a living god who validates your worthless existence through his benediction. This need to equate specialization with religious submission and the worthlessness of the self bothers me, and I don't understand why it's an important point.

I don't independently verify every single piece of information that comes my way, no. I try to maintain an awareness that I do not do this, however, and a corresponding willingness to adjust my ideas and assumptions on the basis of incoming information. Sometimes that takes a bit of digesting because I'm a fiery-spirited sorta gal and that's my bad, but I do make the attempt. Humanity, as they say, is not perfect. What I do know is that the statement "either you're religious or you're lying to yourself", as seems to be being espoused here, bothers me on many levels.

Going to see if I can find some sneak time to get that Channel 4 must-watch interview down at least if I'm going to be debating that point here. Nevertheless. My own stance is that I do not want to be that kind of person, and if I must paradoxically take a religious stance on being irreligious because my human brain is failing me, then that is the stance I will take. I'll determine my own worth or lack thereof myself, thanks.

You'll find I've gone pretty far off-topic. Peterson does respect the psychlological power of religious mythology (to include a lecture series on the Bible), but through the (AFAIK atheist) lens of Jungian archetypes. IIRC this doesn't even come up in that interview.

"

1453R wrote:

EDIT:: Whoops. Forgot to mention - I didn't peg you as Objectivist, no. I just know I've never said ten words on/about Ayn Rand before without it coming up. Heh, my understanding of that particular philosophy is admittedly flawed as my knowledge comes from Wikipedia and reading Dr. Universe bits in Spinnerette. Did not mean to exhaust your supply of keks.

I mean, I truly love the Fountainhead. It's perhaps my favorite novel (competing with Fight Club, which is much more in the "humor" genre). I also like a decent amount of Rand's nonfiction. However, I actively hate on Atlas Shrugged and I'd very much be considered a heretic in Objectivist circles.

My point was: you say you can have all the good values that the Catholic Church teaches, without the Catholic Church.

and I am saying not a chance; these values would not be ingrained into society if it weren't for the Catholic Church.

We would instead have a cruel culture developed out of pre Catholic Greek-Roman society.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

My point was: you say you can have all the good values that the Catholic Church teaches, without the Catholic Church.

and I am saying not a chance; these values would not be ingrained into society if it weren't for the Catholic Church.

We would instead have a cruel culture developed out of pre Catholic Greek-Roman society.

To whatever extent I'm an atheist Christian, I'm an atheist Protestant, not an atheist Catholic. I believe that under both you end up with a division of intellectual labor such that only a few study Christian values within the context of a fictional, but by no means worthless, Bible; however, the whole point of the Protestant Revolution was the dissolution of the cleracy's vice-grip of control over access to the raw text such that any who wish to confirm the text independently, and thus dip their toes in the water of becoming an authority themselves, had the freedom to do so. Anything as important as dissemination of moral knowledge should be left to the free market, not to centralized control.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

My point was: you say you can have all the good values that the Catholic Church teaches, without the Catholic Church.

and I am saying not a chance; these values would not be ingrained into society if it weren't for the Catholic Church.

We would instead have a cruel culture developed out of pre Catholic Greek-Roman society.

To whatever extent I'm an atheist Christian, I'm an atheist Protestant, not an atheist Catholic. I believe that under both you end up with a division of intellectual labor such that only a few study Christian values within the context of a fictional, but by no means worthless, Bible; however, the whole point of the Protestant Revolution was the dissolution of the cleracy's vice-grip of control over access to the raw text such that any who wish to confirm the text independently, and thus dip their toes in the water of becoming an authority themselves, had the freedom to do so. Anything as important as dissemination of moral knowledge should be left to the free market, not to centralized control.

Well Jesus disagrees, that is why he gave teaching authority to the leadership of the Church. ( I know you personally don't care, obviously, but in the context of Christianity, it is kind of a good idea for people to have a common understanding of important stuff, like salvation)

And the Catholic Church chose the books in the New Testament at the turn of the 4th century, why wouldn't i defer to their teaching on what's in it? If i dont, then how can i even know the Catholic Church chose the correct books?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Joe Rogan Experience #958

Freedom of Speech or Political Correctness

Cathy Newman interview on Channel 4 (must watch)

with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin

A Glitch in the Matrix (documentary)

Great videos btw, never heard of this guy before. Thanks for sharing.

That purple pony thing makes me so glad I live in Cecil County. I don't ever have to worry about any child of mine being subjected to that.

"

1453R wrote:

Penn Jillette once said ....

First, I respect and fervently support your choice to believe, not believe, or refuse to acknowledge the "question" as a legitimate one to even ask. :)

Jillette is a magician. That's a wonderful thing and I'm a fan. He also, sometimes, has some interesting things to say on other subjects. I'm a fan of those, too. But, he's not an "authority" on religious matters. He could be considered to be an outspoken supporter of atheism or a critic of religion, which is fine. But, simply because "Penn Jillette" said something doesn't lend it credibility or argumentative value.

People have a right to choose. If that is true, then they also must have a right not to choose or, perhaps, to deliberate before making a choice. Human beings are often undecided about a great many things. That is human nature. Some things require immediate decision-making capability, like whether or not to leap out of a fire or to wait to see if it gets any worse before deciding... Some things may require more consideration and it would be unreasonable to demand ill-informed or ignorant choices in those matters.

One can not say that someone has made a choice if... they haven't yet made a choice. If that choice would define them in some way and they have not yet made it, for themselves, then they must remain "undefined."

That is, however, if one values "choice" and truly values it in terms of how it may define someone. If one doesn't value that ability to choose, then one would obviously define someone out-of-hand, likely based upon one's own bias or desires. That is ungoodthink and results in the seeming subversion of another's will... That is "bad."

Note: "Even a slave has a choice" and "We are doomed to choose" are related quotes that are often brought up in such discussions. They are true, of course, within their appropriate context. But, if they are true, it is also true that someone can not declare, without true knowledge, the choice or status of a person who has not yet declared that choice.