Jordan Peterson on Moral Law

[Joseph Maynor]

I also don't think that Enlightenment is for everyone.  This is something that's always kinda puzzled me.  Is Enlightenment for everyone or just certain people?  If that's the case, Jordan Peterson maybe perfectly fine not being Enlightened.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Outer]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Emerald I imagine all his notoriety, book sales, speaking gigs and adoration is reinforcing his ideology, which makes it harder to wake up. 

I don't think he's an ideologue with an ideology. They tend to have very narrow theory of everything.

[Emerald]

22 minutes ago, Outer said:

You actually believe this?

Not only do I believe this, I think it's quite obvious if you listen to his work. 

He is very anti-progress, and seems to credit the social progress of women over the course of the past several decades for the social decay he perceives. So, if you listen to his work, it's really clear that he wants to bring up a lot of the social mores of yesteryear... especially relative to women's place in the world. 

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Outer said:

I don't think he's an ideologue with an ideology. They tend to have very narrow theory of everything.

I’m oversimplifying the term ideology. He may have a network of related ideologies. Yet I think he is clearly closed-minded to many modes of thought such as post-modernism and cultural relativism. Not just closed-minded. He demonizes groups of people and actively tries to discredit them. As well, his ideas like “Universal Moral Law” are highly regressive.

[VioletFlame]

@Serotoninluv He best start psycho-analyzing himself before he proceeds to discuss everyone else's issues. 

[Outer]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Not only do I believe this, I think it's quite obvious if you listen to his work. 

He is very anti-progress, and seems to credit the social progress of women over the course of the past several decades for the social decay he perceives. So, if you listen to his work, it's really clear that he wants to bring up a lot of the social mores of yesteryear... especially relative to women's place in the world. 

Do you think he is dishonest?

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, VioletFlame said:

@Serotoninluv He best start psycho-analyzing himself before he proceeds to discuss everyone else's issues. 

For sure!

It seems people with a strong aversion to relativism are unable to relate to the relative experience of others. Objectivists loath subjectivity and tend to lack empathy with others. They feel safe in their head and unsafe in their heart.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Outer said:

Do you think he is dishonest?

Yes. But I think that he thinks he's being dishonest for a good reason. 

He thinks he's fixing society by bringing us backward and what he considers a more "natural" way of being. So, he's willing to be manipulative and dishonest for his mission. 

The problem is that he has things wrong, and he's actually bringing us back into something we've already outgrown and is really just causing issue for women and people who don't conform to gender roles. 

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Yes. But I think that he thinks he's being dishonest for a good reason. 

He thinks he's fixing society by bringing us backward and what he considers a more "natural" way of being. So, he's willing to be manipulative and dishonest for his mission. 

The problem is that he has things wrong, and he's actually bringing us back into something we've already outgrown and is really just causing issue for women and people who don't conform to gender roles. 

It seems like he has a lot of inner conflict. 

[Emerald]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

It seems like he has a lot of inner conflict. 

I agree. And he probably remembers a time in the past where he didn't have that conflict, and sees that time through rose-colored glasses. This is a common thread for those that are enamored by the archetype of the golden age. 

They believe that the best times are behind us, and now there is no goodness in the world because we've strayed from the traditions of the "golden age". 

But really, it's just an internal conflict projected out onto the world. And a deep longing for a time that occurred long ago. 

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I agree. And he probably remembers a time in the past where he didn't have that conflict, and sees that time through rose-colored glasses. This is a common thread for those that are enamored by the archetype of the golden age. 

They believe that the best times are behind us, and now there is no goodness in the world because we've strayed from the traditions of the "golden age". 

But really, it's just an internal conflict projected out onto the world. And a deep longing for a time that occurred long ago. 

I think he adds window dressing so he appears modern and not some guy living in the 1970s.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

I think he does a good job of adding window dressing so he appears modern. 

I agree. He knows how to be sneaky about his agenda and appeal to most people. That's why he's so popular and effective with his rhetoric, which doesn't even register as rhetoric to most people. 

He's an excellent mask-maker, so a lot of people don't see the mask. 

[Jack River]

36 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

For sure!

It seems people with a strong aversion to relativism are unable to relate to the relative experience of others. Objectivists loath subjectivity and tend to lack empathy with others. They feel safe in their head and unsafe in their heart.

Ignorance or lack of understanding of our own limits (thought) seems to augment our false sense of perspective as being total/compete. Thought seems to go beyond its own limit due to not seeing the fact of that limit.

Seems that without understanding the nature of the self with its fear and assumption based structure, mixed with the tendency for thought to fragment itself, then it will be impossible to ever meet anyone half way. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Jack River

[Outer]

36 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

From my POV it is relative because you seem to have resistance toward what people in this thread are trying to reveal to you. To expand your mind, queston your own assumptions and beliefs. Question how your own relative experience has shaped and biased these beliefs. Question whether there is attachment and identification with these beliefs.

Leo covered much of this in his recent 65 principles for a good life video.

I think it's best to have as little to no beliefs as possible.

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. ..." - Wikipedia

 

[Angelite]

I wish men chivalry would be the new cool in today's society.

Men should respect the honor of a women, & everyone regardless of their consciousness level( it should go vice versa too).

And women should have self-respect and self-love too

 

it's hard to find such qualities nowadays.There is, but only few~

 

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Outer said:

I think it's best to have as little to no beliefs as possible.

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. ..." - Wikipedia

 

That seems like a poor definition from wiki. It assumes there is an external objective reality.

[Jack River]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That seems like a poor definition from wiki. It assumes there is an external objective reality.

Yep. Again, no sense of our own limitations. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Yep. Again, no sense of our own limitations. 

To me, beliefs are more about degree of attachment and identification with an idea.

[Jack River]

36 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, beliefs are more about degree of attachment and identification with an idea.

I agree. Attachment(fear in movement of escape that avoids a state of possible insecurity) brings about the process/movement of identification with an idea that fortifies or validates “my” belief/point of view. 

Belief imples fear/seeking security in a psychological illusion. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Jack River

[Setty]

JP threads have always so much action and excitement in them. I am fan of his work because he raises great points regarding your individual responsibility in your own life. And this point is critical and it is the reason he is so popular on the internet. He teaches people to stop feeling like a victim of life and instead take responsibility for it. This insight is something that is so important to understand and is hugely missing in the general knowledge of people. 

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. 

Do I see it wrong?  I see it this way because when I talk about things he does right people just tell me I am cherrypicking a I should see my own bias. Yes I might be biased and I could do a better job adressing that but if you think you aren't biased on this matter you are just deluding yourself.