zurew

You can fuck with conservative Christians with bringing up the argument that since Jesus only had a mother (and no biological father), he probably only had xx chromosomes, so he must have been a trans man. And if Jesus taken to be God, then God is a trans man.

Its not just that, but the serpent must have had female nature as well.

"lets not even entertain these possibilities because just the thought that something can threaten the idea that Im superior by my nature makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable" So what empirical evidence do you have that establish that in general men are spiritually superior than women?

The "boys will be boys" phrase actually means "boys will be enlightened masters thanks to their nature" according to highly secure and confident men.

Men must be superior otherwise we feel emasculated and since we are very confident and highly rational and advanced truth seekers by our nature, the conclusion has to be that women are dumb , bad, unconscious creatures . Yeah and women are also evil since they make us feel insecure. There is no way that women can score higher on metrics that we care about.

Im sure that you have an argument that shows why the difference is explained by nature and not by social conditioning and culture. And that goes under the assumption that the difference is as big as you try to make it to be. Im also sure that since you have done the research and thinking on this you have a good response to this: You can rule out the possibility that a bunch of women were and are spiritually advanced its just that they dont want to be gurus and they dont and didnt want social recognition.

A secure , highly confident man casually sharing his feelings about how men are born truth seekers and how women aren't. Buddy, its fine if you get spiritually mogged and spiritually outpaced by women once in a while. You dont need to create a big cope story about how men are spiritually superior by their nature. "Okay this woman spiritually mogged the fck out of me, but im calm because I know that men are superior anyway". This is similar to the cope some men comes up with when there is a woman who earns more than them and who has more IQ than them. "Okay, this woman is smarter and earns more than me, and all of my confidence comes exclusively from those 2 things, so let me create a cope story so that I can feel better and ignore the fact that I have a bunch of insercurities that I need to deal with".

Having different definitions for terms wouldnt necessarily be an issue (if one can desribe what he/she means by the term) - the real issue is when one equivocates (using the same term in two or more different senses).

The "its not understood by almost anyone" doesn't say much, because most people dont study phil of science, but people who do , this point doesnt say anything novel to them. Its like saying people who dont study quantum physics dont understand this x point about quantum physics. Okay, but what supposed to be interesting about that? Why not debate and concentrate on the views of experts who study philosophy of science and epistemology? If you want to signal how intelligent you are , then why not pick on people who are experts in the field you are trying to criticize? "Get owned scientists and rationalists who dont study any philosophy at all , see how intelligent I am?!"

You are wasting your time, you wont see any epistemic humility here.

How does your view differ from non-duality?

JP :"By the time you have got there, you have made so many mistakes" "I would have done everything to not be in that situation" I cannot not interpret that as an individual's moral failing. Even your rephrasing seems to be loaded with individual responsibility - what leads to one being out of alignment with the Self?( Not with the ego but with the structure of reality)

He can have this stance, but it is a ridiculous stance. The idea that by just being moral you can avoid being in situations like that is just false. Under this view lying would be impossible (which is presumably not something that Peterson would want to go with, because he probably wants to maintain the position that lying is possible). Yes you cant toss aside what your shared grasp of objective reality is - but this is another case where he would equivocate on a term (in this case on the term lying) - the young dude by lying didnt meant "tossing aside your grasp of objective reality", he meant expressing a false statement about what you take to be true (this is clearly a different notion of lying).

This is another clear dodge, where he appeals to how that specific part of the Bible ought to be interpreted. But thats not the question and the question posed in a literal way is intelligible to him, but he still refuses to answer. So yes, I will maintain my postion that he is bad faith.

The lack of quality is almost all on Peterson, who jumps between meanings and cant use a given term in a consistent and clear way. In that whole 2 hour talk, Peterson used the term 'God' to mean conscience, something on the top of the value hierarchy , something that is worshipped and also something that commands people to genocide others - and I probably missed some . So ironically, when it comes to his first prompt about atheists not knowing what they are rejecting - Peterson has no fucking clue what he means by God, therefore he doesnt know what he is accepting. Convo between a Peterson fan and a regular dude: "Wow, Peterson established that everyone is a Christian" - what do you mean by that dude? - "Well, I mean that even the atheists who deny that Jesus existed and that Jesus resurrected, even those atheists are Christians because they act out a certain pattern" Oh wow, how profound and interesting, Peterson managed to redefine the term 'Christian' in a way, where being a Christian is literally compatible with atheism. This is not to say that the myths in the Bible arent interesting and profound, but it is to say, that he uses the terms in a highly idiosyncratic way for mostly rhetorical reasons. Its not silly - the issue is that being a casual Christian is compatible with being a functional truth believing Christian. You can believe in all the empirical, literal truths described in the Bible (that Jesus actually existed, that he actually resurrected etc) and you can also believe that there are perennial patterns as well - so him being the mythical Christian (who believes in the perrenial patterns) , doesn't exclude him from being also a Christian who believes in a triomni God - and he perfectly knows this, thats why he muddies the water around his stance when it comes to casual Christianity. So I treat him like a guy who doesnt have a spine and someone who likes to muddy the waters around what his actual stance is. Why is it so fucking hard for him to say : No, I dont believe in the triomni God, I only treat the Bible as a library of perennial patterns and functional truths? He doesnt say that, what he does is this: He rambles for hours and hours about myths and when he asked a question that is purposefully framed in a literal way (asking for empirical truths not about functional truths) - then he doesnt answer and endlessly obfuscates. I will express this again - there is no contradiction in saying that the events described in the BIble didn't happen in a literal way, but they are perennial patterns - so he could perfectly answer all the empirical questions, without there being any entailment about mythical and psychological truths being false or less foundational. No one frames anything as more foundational. You are confusing truth semantics with metaphysics . If I ask you an empirical question, then there is no metaphysical entailment that empirical truths are more foundational than functional truths. Its not like "Oh fuck, I answered an empirical question where I stated that I dont believe in the resurrection of Christ (as a historical event), and now I need to ditch the idea that the perennial patterns are true". No, again this doesnt work, because he does have the concept, but he still refuses to answer. He takes historical questions applied to the Bible to be "banal" - which couldn't possibly be the case, if he has no concept about what he is being asked. How can you put attributes (like banal) on a question, when you have no clue what the question means? When it comes to specifically the "Do you believe in God" question btw, multiple atheists managed to define the terms in a perfectly coherent and intelligible way, but he still refused to answer. There is a reason why he has that famous meme clip where he asks the question "What do you mean by [do; you; believe; God]" - in what world would anyone need to explicate what they mean by the term "you" and "do" in that context? Also In the Piers clip he answered "I am terrified there might be" , how can you give that answer if you have no clue what the question is about? This is evidence that he has a concept about how the term 'believe' is generally used ."Its shallow" - How can something meaningless be 'shallow' mr Peterson? This is nothing more than a business move, so that he can maintain his casual christian audience by not being clear about what his stance is on the historical facts.

It would be a non-evasive and honest move if the question wouldnt be intelligible to him, but it is. I could understand a move where one says "look given this context and frame , I have no clue what you are asking" , but this is not the case here. Questioning the motive of the question instead of answering the question is a clear evasion on my view. He explcitly said in his convo with Alex, that the reason why he doesn't answer is because he doesnt want to reduce the Biblical stories down to only empirical facts, but this is a false dichotomy that he created in his mind - by answering the empirical question , there is no entailment that there is no truth to the stories in the mythical sense. You can say that those stories don't have any empirical basis and also say that they are perennial patterns - there is no contradiction there and there is no need to obfuscate.

No I reject this, he is bad faith , I have seen enough content from him to determine that he perfectly understands what the term "God" and "believe" means outside his framework. Its not like its opaque to him - this fucking guy has read the Bible more than most Christians and pretends that he doesn't have any understanding of those terms. He can stick to his notion of truth as much as he wants, but he should be able to engage with other notions and step inside other frameworks for the brief second of answering a question. There is no excuse for not doing this (unless the goal is to be bad faith and dodge the question). Yep, exactly. "Thats not my problem"

I dont know what it would mean for propositional truth to be the ground of reality. I dont think I need to presuppose a specific notion of truth in order to make the point I made there. But lets grant that its a functional notion of truth, im not sure what and how that changes things in terms of implications and substance. The point I was making there is just that from him establishing that under atheism there cant be objective morality and objective purpose doesnt follow that atheism is false. Sure you can object there and say "look, you are using a special notion of truth there, but under Jordan's functional notion of truth the sentence 'atheism is false' means something completely different" - okay so what does he mean by that? Would he mean that atheism can't provide actionable manifestation? Okay, under that notion sure atheism would be false - but thats substantially the same as what I said , when I said that it would only give a pragmatic reason for people to adopt Christanity. It doesn't matter which frame is used, the substance is the same - we would just use different terms to communicate the same thing. At that point though why even use terms like "true" and "false", when most people will be misled by it? Just insert "actionable manifestation" when something is true and insert "no actionable manifestation" when something is false. Then no one needs to get bogged down in truth semantics and everyone can follow and understand what he is saying and he would lower the probability of anyone strawmanning him.

Are you a Christian? If so, do you have a good response to the problem of evil?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKPu4MppDnj/

No, he did horrible. He dodged many hypotheticals and questions. For example the one where even if he perfectly follows God's moral code, he is still guaranteed to end up in hell - which is a great point showing the scenario where objective morality goes against your own values and interests you wont have any motivation to abide by those moral rules (even if they are objective). He said multiple things that are wrong: He said people cant have different conceptions of God (yes they clearly can) , he said the definition the dude gave is circular(even though it wasn't), he said to end up in a situation where the best choice is to lie, that would indicate that one must have done morally bad things beforehand - which is an insane and clearly wrong claim, his claim about Cardinal Newman defining God as conscience was also wrong. He was bad faith multiple times . Its peculiar, that he understood what other people meant by the Christian God (when he tried to run defense for God making the command to slaughter children in one case) , but in other cases he plays the "I have no clue what you mean by believe and God" Most of the things that you mentioned that he is right about are trivial things that almost no one disagreed with in the firstplace, its just that he redefines terms in a way that misleads everyone. The only thing that was informative and novel and substantive to some atheists is his comment about "purpose and morality cant be found in science". But even thats not as a heavy hitter as he thinks it is, because that doesnt rule out objective morality and purpose being true under atheism and even if he could establish that , that wouldn't be anything more than a pragmatic argument for theism at best.

Also sometimes one big issue is that you are in storytelling mode. "I should have done xyz , I should have achieved xyz , I should have xyz skills, by now". This creates a lot of unnecessary pain. It doesnt matter what your evaluation is , what matters is what you do with what you have right now. The other issue is trying to create always the best possible conditions for any given action - you search for having the right feeling, the right amount of money, the right people etc - you know its like the guys who have a 4 hour morning routine and they pretend that they are productive, even though they could have spent those hours actually focusing on the things that makes a difference - you can use your intuition here, because if you are open, it will tell you generally what you are afraid of and what you are delaying. If you have no idea what you want to do, you still probably have some idea about some of the character traits that you want - take steps that will gradually transform you into the person who embodies those traits. So when it comes a job the question isnt necessarily "What am I getting here?" - the question is (as Jim Rohn said) Who am I becoming here?

This might be garbage, but this sometimes works for me - I would just say try to feel (not think) into what your best version would do in this given moment right now. Even if you have 0 idea what "best version" means for you, you will probably have a general rough intuition about it and you can start to get into that headspace, whatever that headspace is.

Im not sure how any of that responds to the issues I brought up. The issue isn't that he uses a unique definition, the issue is that he uses two different definitions for the same term (equivocation). Btw the funny thing is that Leo would object to almost everything that you said there. He rejects the apriori aposteriori, and the analytic synthetic distinctions. He would also reject your characterization of God , because when he invokes that term he doesn't mean an abstract object. The other funny thing is that Leo would be categorized as a hardcore empiricist - he is the one who holds the position that you can solve and settle metaphysical issues with purely empirical investigation (and validate things for yourself) and there is no need for arguments and debates. I think you conflate "modern epistemologists " with casual scientists (and even there I would be catious what positions they hold), but as you outlined scientists are generally not philosophers and not into epistemology and philosophy of science - but philosophers who are into those things , they also study metaphysics , so im not sure what would be the futility in engaging with them. The general notion how philosophers are characterized on this forum is just wrong. This is thanks to Leo's charaterization of them, where we pretend that most academic philosophers are retarded , white belt atheists or theists, but thats just not the case.