Controversial Opinion: Jordan Peterson won the Jubilee Debate

[Aaron p]

Jordan Peterson and the atheists in the video engage in a debate with distinct arguments:

________________________________________

Jordan Peterson's Primary Arguments:
 * Atheists misunderstand God: They reject a simplistic view, not the complex, archetypal, or conscience-based understanding of God.

____________________
 * Morality and purpose are not scientific: Science is value-free; religion provides the necessary moral framework for society and human endeavor. ~

---

Here He's sort of trying to highlight some of the limitations of science. 

____________________
 * Everyone worships something: Worship is defined as prioritizing and sacrificing for something. Even atheists align their lives with a foundational value, which functions as their "God."

---

This arguement is focusing on flattening the definition of worship. It's kind of a word game. The definition of a word and the connotative, social implied definition of that same word are very very different. Atheists do not worship that which they value in the way theists worship God. This is a basic ability to recognise the common parlance definition of the word worship and what people actually mean. 

____________________
 * Atheists adopt Christian morality without acknowledging its roots: Many atheist moral principles stem from Judeo-Christian traditions and their historical impact on free societies.

---

And eastern atheists adopt islamic morality.

________________________________________

________________________________________

Atheists' Primary Arguments:
 * Atheists understand what they reject: Many atheists have studied religion deeply and their rejection is informed, not reductive. They argue Peterson's definition of atheism is also reductive.

____________________
 * Morality exists outside religion; science can inform it: Morality is an evolutionary, intrinsic aspect of social animals, preceding religion. They also highlight morally questionable aspects of religious texts.

____________________
 * Peterson's "worship" definition is overly broad/semantic: If prioritizing anything is worship, the term loses its common meaning. They accuse him of semantic games rather than direct engagement.

____________________
 * Peterson avoids the ontological truth of biblical stories: His metaphorical interpretation of biblical stories as "meta-truths" is ambiguous, especially when religious consequences are tied to specific historical beliefs.

________________________________________

 

 

Overall JP is super avoidant and indirect, refusing to directly answer simple questions like "are you ab Christian" (likely because if he explicitly deviates to far from Christianity online he could lose lots of his profitable Christian supporters).

It's all a show, to me this isn't really a debate it's publicity.

[Razard86]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes. I am creating a high ethical standard because I care about epistemics.

If we don't set the bar high then we end up with epistemic scoundrels running amok on social media.

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychiatrist by trade, with no true knowledge of Spirituality and Consciousness. So you two aren't even in the same league when it comes to epistemics. You are like a Mixed Martial Arts Champion and Master judging a fair weather practitioner as unethical because his form is bad when it took him 2 decades to create it and it has proved effective for him in fights. 

You are correct that high standards are important but standards have to fit ability level.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychiatrist by trade, with no true knowledge of Spirituality and Consciousness. So you two aren't even in the same league when it comes to epistemics. You are like a Mixed Martial Arts Champion and Master judging a fair weather practitioner as unethical because his form is bad when it took him 2 decades to create it and it has proved effective for him in fights. 

You are correct that high standards are important but standards have to fit ability level.

You don't have to be Jedi master to understand that milking drama for clicks is wrong.

[Razard86]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You don't have to be Jedi master to understand that milking drama for clicks is wrong.

You yourself said God created all of this to be entertained....and you can only keep human interest by entertainment. It's how human minds are wired. Also he doesn't do everything just for clicks. 

[Scholar]

On 07/06/2025 at 2:21 PM, zurew said:

I dont know what it would mean for propositional truth to be the ground of reality.

It's the idea that truth itself is propositional.

 

On 07/06/2025 at 2:21 PM, zurew said:

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.

This is mute to the point given that none of this was even brought up by the interlocutors. Peterson made many wrong arguments that he got no pushback for, partly because of how atrocious and superficial the engagement of the interlocutors were. That is why overall I think he was superior in the debate.

But there is a deeper point about peterson that you are missing. When he is talking about Christianity, he views Christianity as simply the description of the most accurate "archetypical" truths that exist and are more foundational and real that actual propositional and mechanistic truths. I don't think Peterson has translated this into a robust philosophical stance that would survive scrutiny, but that is his stance.

Think of Platonic Forms, or Hegelianism in general. His metaphysics is grounded in subjectivity essentially, in that what we can even say about truth is fundamentally restricted by the nature of our being. In many ways to Peterson, our psychology is the ground of reality, and that would be inescabable.

So when he says Christianity is true and people are Christian, he says that they are acting out functional truths about reality and the mind, and that truth really is an expression of those functions. Therefore, to frame propositional statements as more fundamental than this reality is nonsensical, which is what reductionist atheists usually do, including all of the people he debated given that we simply live in such a reductionist culture.

 

Like I said, you still treat Peterson like a casual Christian. If he was, he wouldn't be this popular. And to engage him as if he was simply a normal Christian advocating for Christianity in a purely ideological, literalist way, is to me silly.

 

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I like how your entire post is you making assertions and expressing feelings without concrete facts or argumentation.

This is what Jordan Peterson's problem is: when asked by Alex O'Connor (paraphrasing) "but don't you think people will misunderstand you and think you mean Jesus literally arose from the dead", he answered "I don't care". He cares more about his expression of his ideas, not whether they land or not. There are pros and cons to that, but it's at this point an undeniable character flaw.

Had he been able to empathically adjust his framing to the particular person he is talking to, he would not spend so much time and energy calling atheists religious, not accepting people calling him a Christian, regularly asking "what do you mean by belief?" not as a genuine question but as a defensive preamble to unpack his own views, telling fifty stories instead of putting it in brief terms; generally fumbling with communicating what he means all the time.

You are misreading something here in my view. Peterson does not express his ideas clearly for a specific reason: To maintain his attachment to his Christian faith.

It's not as simple as him simply not caring about if his points land, it's about him maintaining his identity, fundamentally.

 

19 hours ago, zurew said:

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).

I disagree. Peterson is in a lot of ways a deconstructionist. It's like, I know what people mean by "free will" when they talk about free will, but really, given I have deconstructed the notion of free will, I actually know that people themselves do not know what they mean when they speak of free will, because the concept is an illusion (meaning when you interrogate it's semantic pointers, it will lead to contradictions, incoherence or simply emotive dispositions).

Another example would be a non-cognitivist. When you bring up morality, and you bring up the notion of "should" or "ought", the non-cognitivist will obviously quesiton "What do you mean by that?". The other side will be perplexed: "You use that word all the time, so you know exactly what I mean! It's what we SHOULD do.", but they are missing that the non-cognitivist genuinely believes that the other side is engaging in a delusional way of applying the term, they believe that the semantic pointers of the word "should" or "ought", lead to incoherent dispositions. In the same way, Peterson's notion of truth and believe is a deconstructed notion that, as with the non-cognitivist, refers to psychological realities (in the way I suspect you will be confused by, given that even the nature of psychological reality will differ between you and Peterson, given that his metaphysics plays out differently than yours most likely).

That is the point he is obviously making. The point is that, if you look more closely at these notions beyond their immediate semantic impression, you will find them to actually be empty, or lead to non-semantic objects within the mind.

So when he talks about what believe means, it is perfectly valid to challenge that. What does it truly mean that something is true? What is the nature of that concept, in actual phenomonological terms?

Well, truth actually is a sort of psychological disposition. You cannot capture that word semantically because it's reference point is not conceptual, it's not a notion, it's a fundamental aspect of human cognition or consciousness.

 

You can say he is clumsy, but I don't think it is particularly bad faith. There is a point to what he is doing that is obvious to anyone who themselves recognizes how difficult it is to express such ideas in the first place. In most cases, the most effective strategy actually is to challenge the interlocutor and attempt a process of self-reflectivity.

This doesn't work because Peterson is engaging in a debate, which makes genuine self-reflectivity unlikely given the goal is defeating the opponent not deconstructing the semantic reality of the human mind.

Edited June 8 by Scholar

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

partly because of how atrocious and superficial the engagement of the interlocutors were. That is why overall I think he was superior in the debate.

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.

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

Like I said, you still treat Peterson like a casual Christian. If he was, he wouldn't be this popular. And to engage him as if he was simply a normal Christian advocating for Christianity in a purely ideological, literalist way, is to me silly.

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.

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

Therefore, to frame propositional statements as more fundamental than this reality is nonsensical, which is what reductionist atheists usually do, including all of the people he debated given that we simply live in such a reductionist culture.

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".

 

 

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

That is the point he is obviously making. The point is that, if you look more closely at these notions beyond their immediate semantic impression, you will find them to actually be empty, or lead to non-semantic objects within the mind.

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.

Edited June 8 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Aaron p said:

Overall JP is super avoidant and indirect, refusing to directly answer simple questions like "are you ab Christian" (likely because if he explicitly deviates to far from Christianity online he could lose lots of his profitable Christian supporters).

In that very debate, he intentionally and deliberately ostracized 1/3 of Christians in America by saying he doesn't care about what Evangelicals think. So that doesn't seem to be why he can't answer whether he is a Christian. Again, the most fitting explanation is that he simply doesn't care about conceding his frame to anybody else.

 

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

You are misreading something here in my view. Peterson does not express his ideas clearly for a specific reason: To maintain his attachment to his Christian faith.

What does that mean exactly? In what way is he attached to the Christian faith that needs him to be unclear? Ironically, what you said is unclear. Regardless, it doesn't seem like these explanations are mutually exclusive.

 

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

It's not as simple as him simply not caring about if his points land, it's about him maintaining his identity, fundamentally..

I did not make it that simple. That's what I said in the first half of the sentence: he cares more about his expression of his ideas; his frame, his identity. You know, you don't have to always disagree with people, right?

Edited June 8 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

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.

Edited June 8 by zurew

[Guest Nilsi]

I’ve been thinking more about what we talked about - that Peterson is so rigid, authoritarian, intense. He never breaks frame. He’s like a psychopath of conviction, just locked into this character and never lets it slip. And yeah, that’s off-putting. But I actually think there’s a good reason for it. Not just in terms of personality, but in terms of metaphysics. Once you see where he’s coming from - what his worldview actually is - it all becomes crystal clear. There’s a real structure to it. It’s coherent.

He’s operating from what is essentially a kind of radical ontological idealism. His entire worldview is shaped by Jung, psychedelics, religion, and this mystical, almost esoteric psychology of Being. He might never say that directly - but it’s there, woven into everything he says.

Take the common moral challenges people throw at him. The classic example: “If you were hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and soldiers came to your door - would you lie?” Or: “If someone had a gun to your head, would you lie about believing a pen exists?” And Peterson always says something strange. He’ll say, “I’m not so sure you’d lie.” Or even more bizarrely: “That situation wouldn’t happen to me.”

Which sounds evasive - until you realize he actually means it. Because in his view, those scenarios aren’t just morally complex - they’re ontologically downstream. They’re what the world looks like after you’ve already fallen into sin, chaos, incoherence. For Peterson, the structure of the world arises from the moral alignment of the individual. So if Nazis are already at your door, the real problem isn’t whether you lie or not - it’s that your world, the one you were responsible for generating through speech and order and truth, has already collapsed.

Same thing with the pen. If someone says, “I believe this pen exists, but I’d lie about it if my life depended on it,” Peterson says: No, you wouldn’t. And what he means is that your belief in the existence of the pen - your shared grasp of objective reality - is not some trivial proposition you can just toss aside. It’s a metaphysical anchor. Lying about it isn’t just strategic - it unravels the coherence of your whole world.

This becomes much clearer when you remember that Peterson is, first and foremost, a psychologist. That’s crucial. He studies the mind - not just in cognitive or behavioral terms, but in this Jungian, religious, even esoteric register. He’s spoken about doing psychedelics, about undergoing intense ego death, experiencing DPDR, confronting the terrifying fragility of meaning itself. He’s been to the edge. He’s seen what happens when the internal scaffolding of reality begins to break apart. And it left him with a kind of metaphysical PTSD.

So all his obsession with speech, truth, coherence, Logos - it’s not just moralism. It’s protection. It’s structure against collapse. He’s not just promoting virtue. He’s holding reality together. And if you lie, or misalign yourself morally, then reality becomes unstable. He’s not making a philosophical claim - he’s describing a lived experience of existential disintegration. And now he lives in opposition to that breakdown.

And this also explains why he’s so hostile to postmodernism and Marxism, and why he came up with that infamous term “postmodern neo-Marxism.” It’s not that he’s accurately diagnosing some real alliance between Foucault and Lenin. It’s that he sees both movements doing the same metaphysical thing: de-centering the individual.

Postmodernism says there’s no stable self, no objective truth, just language games and power structures. Marxism centers class, not the individual soul. Identity politics centers race, gender, social position. And for Peterson, all of that is a deferral of responsibility. The minute you say, “It’s not up to me,” or “I’m just a product of the system,” you’re giving up the one thing that actually holds the world together: your individual alignment with Being.

Even Nietzsche - who Peterson clearly respects - is suspect here. Because Nietzsche’s whole project after the death of God is a de-centering one. The self is fragmented, perspectival, Dionysian. There’s no ground anymore. And while that’s liberating for Nietzsche, it’s unacceptable for Peterson. Because he needs the world to have a center. And that center is the responsible individual.

That’s also why he refuses politics. He always says, “I’m not a politician, I’m a psychologist.” Because for him, politics is downstream of psychology. Systems, ideologies, revolutions - they’re all meaningless if the individual hasn’t straightened themselves out. That’s the foundation. You can’t fix the world by fixing the system. You fix the world by fixing you - because you are the world.

So yeah, he’s rigid. But it’s not incoherence - it’s absolute coherence, grounded in this mystical-psychological metaphysics where the self is the axis of reality. And once you see that, it all starts to make sense. He’s not debating. He’s not even arguing. He’s defending the structure of Being itself - because he knows what it looks like when it breaks.

[Leo Gura]

The gist of it is:

JP has a cross up his ass. And he gets really snarky when anyone dares pull on it.

[zurew]

31 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

For Peterson, the structure of the world arises from the moral alignment of the individual. So if Nazis are already at your door, the real problem isn’t whether you lie or not - it’s that your world, the one you were responsible for generating through speech and order and truth, has already collapsed.

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.

31 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Same thing with the pen. If someone says, “I believe this pen exists, but I’d lie about it if my life depended on it,” Peterson says: No, you wouldn’t. And what he means is that your belief in the existence of the pen - your shared grasp of objective reality - is not some trivial proposition you can just toss aside. It’s a metaphysical anchor. Lying about it isn’t just strategic - it unravels the coherence of your whole world.

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).

Edited June 8 by zurew

[Guest Nilsi]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

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).

Look, I get that Peterson’s stance sounds ridiculous if you’re only hearing it through a conventional lens - “just be moral and nothing bad will happen.” But that’s not what he’s saying. Or at least, not in the way it sounds. To really get where he’s coming from, you have to understand the metaphysical shift that’s taken place in his thinking, especially post-Benzodiazepine, post-breakdown.

Earlier in his career, Peterson was working within a broadly existentialist framework. He quoted Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Frankl. Suffering, in that frame, was central: it was the given. The task of life was to confront suffering honestly and turn it into meaning. That was the game. But at some point - after the crisis, after the drugs and the collapse - that framework no longer held. And if you listen to him now, those figures have all but disappeared. He hardly quotes them anymore. No more Nietzsche beyond the basic “God is dead” diagnosis. No more Frankl. That’s not accidental.

He’s moved into deeper waters - into something far more mystical, more rigid, and arguably more Protestant. But not in the liberal-theological sense. I mean in the cosmic, Old Testament sense, where Being has a structure, and deviation from that structure leads to real metaphysical consequences.

Peterson has always been obsessed with Jung. And in Jungian metaphysics, the fully integrated Self is the archetype of God. That’s what the “Self” means: it’s not just your personality or your conscious ego - it’s the axis of your psychological and metaphysical universe. Peterson takes that seriously. For him, the Self is not just important; it’s the center of reality. And when the Self is out of alignment - with Logos, with Truth, with Being - reality starts to unravel.

That’s why he’s not saying “if you’re good, nothing bad will happen.” He’s saying: you only end up in a world where certain horrors are possible if the Self has already collapsed. The example with the pen is a case in point. His argument is that if you truly believe in something, you’d stake your life on it. That’s what belief means. And if you don’t - if you equivocate, if you hedge, if you lie - then it’s not just that your actions are wrong; it’s that you’ve already deviated from the structure of Being itself. You’re already in the chaos.

And this is where the logic gets misunderstood. He’s not working with a materialist or social-causal frame, where “bad things happen” because the world is random or because others are evil. He’s working in a metaphysics where the moral alignment of the Self determines the very shape of reality. So when he says something like, “that wouldn’t happen to me,” he’s not claiming invincibility. He’s saying: if I were misaligned enough to be in that situation, the disintegration would already have started inside me. The chaos out there is just the echo of the breakdown in here.

Is that a defensible worldview? Maybe not. But it is a coherent one. And it helps explain why he’s so rigid, so intense, so unwilling to break frame. Because the moment he breaks frame - even rhetorically - he risks falling out of alignment. And from where he stands, that’s not just a personal failure. That’s the end of the world.

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychiatrist by trade, with no true knowledge of Spirituality and Consciousness. So you two aren't even in the same league when it comes to epistemics. You are like a Mixed Martial Arts Champion and Master judging a fair weather practitioner as unethical because his form is bad when it took him 2 decades to create it and it has proved effective for him in fights. 

You are correct that high standards are important but standards have to fit ability level.

When do you have true knowledge of spirituality and consciousness? When you take incredible doses of psychedelics? When you have experienced God sober? When you talk about having spiritual awakenings? When you practice Kriya Yoga? Jordan Peterson has done all that. He has been distracted by life.

Edited June 8 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

He has been distracted by life.

There are 3 big blockages in him:

1. Christian brainwashing and paradigm-lock
2. Grifting for maximum success and fame
3. Political outrage and paranoia, moral outrage at liberalism

The combo of all those creates an ornery old mule. Such a creature is unsuitable for understanding God/spirituality/Mind.

Edited June 8 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

“just be moral and nothing bad will happen.” But that’s not what he’s saying.

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)

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There are 3 big blockages in him:

1. Christian brainwashing and paradigm-lock
2. Grifting for maximum success and fame
3. Political outrage and paranoia, moral outrage at liberalism

The combo of all those creates an ornery old mule. Such a creature is unsuitable for understanding God/spirituality/Mind.

Brainwashing, paradigm-lock, grifting, political outrage, moral outrage. Sounds like the average "spiritual person".

Next Jubilee should be "one true spiritual person vs 20 fake spiritual people", and at the end, we'll realize they are all the same.

Edited June 8 by Carl-Richard

[Guest Nilsi]

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

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)

Yes, but here the individual is reframed as the Jungian Self - and the world becomes a mirror of that Self. Or to borrow Schopenhauer’s formulation (whom Jung was profoundly influenced by): „the world is the appearance of the will.“

So the Nazis interrogating you aren’t some external contingency - they are already the appearance of your will. And Peterson wants you to take responsibility for that.

It sounds radical from a material-realist perspective, but from a deeply idealist point of view, it’s actually logical and internally coherent.

Edited June 8 by Nilsi

[Guest Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

There are 3 big blockages in him:

1. Christian brainwashing and paradigm-lock
2. Grifting for maximum success and fame
3. Political outrage and paranoia, moral outrage at liberalism

The combo of all those creates an ornery old mule. Such a creature is unsuitable for understanding God/spirituality/Mind.

Such an intellectually bankrupt approach to philosophy.

[Basman]

[Aaron p]

Honestly I think if Jordan Peterson skipped breakfast that morning, it would've transformed his his entire mind and he would've got instantly enlightened