Jordan Peterson, outraged over diversity efforts, quits tenured professorship

[Preety_India]

13 minutes ago, Opo said:

What would you call his making fun of religious people?

Lol couldn't resist. 

Watch this it's about hearts. 

 

You can make fun of people all you want but facts are facts and opinions are opinions. And yes I do understand people psychically. A psychic and empath are two different people though. If you look at things very dry and mechanically you will lose psychic intuition. Jordan Peterson only acts "nice" whereas Richard Dawkins is actually "nice." 

However I'm an open minded person so even if I thought someone didn't have a good heart, I still choose to listen to them, because at the end of the day whether good bad, both are sides of human nature so if I find Jordan saying something that sounds good, then I'm all ears to it. I don't discard the baby with the bathwater. I don't reject something, especially if it's an intelligent idea or information that I find useful. 

However judgement is judgement and to have a basic judgement on character is important to avoid being manipulated

So i can listen to Jordan Peterson without being manipulated. It's wearing the proverbial tin foil hat, is what I call it. 

(just because someone is dogmatic doesn't mean they have a bad heart and I don't agree with Leo's video on good intentions, I might agree slightly that good intentioned people might be prone to error, however they cannot cause significant harm, that will go against universal principle, good intentions are extremely important and so having a psychic understanding of things is even more important than having an intellectual understanding of things. We aren't given the senses for nothing.) 

 

[DocWatts]

Richard Dawkins has a particular paradigm that he's locked in to every bit as much as JP is, and there's limitations to his worldview for sure, but he manages to embody that worldview with integrity. That and unlike Jordy P, Richard Dawkins can actually answer a question in a straitforward manner without the sense that he's being evasive and trying to obfuscate.

If and when Jordy P writes something half as well written, thought provoking, and important as The Selfish Gene I'll consider taking him seriously as an academic.

Edited January 24, 2022 by DocWatts

[Preety_India]

5 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Richard Dawkins has a particular paradigm that he's locked in to every bit as much as JP, and there's limitations to his worldview for sure, but he manages to embody that worldview with integrity. That and unlike Jordy P, Richard Dawkins can actually answer a question in a straitforward manner without the sense that he's being evasive and trying to obfuscate.

If and when Jordy P writes something half as well written, thought provoking, and important as The Selfish Gene I'll consider taking him seriously as an academic.

You stole words from my mouth. 

[Opo]

25 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I don't agree with Leo's video on good intentions, I might agree slightly that good intentioned people might be prone to error, however they cannot cause significant harm, that will go against universal principle, good intentions are extremely important and so having a psychic understanding of things is even more important than having an intellectual understanding of things. We aren't given the senses for nothing.) 

My level 9 psychic ability is telling me that you are operating from level 2 and you need to be at least level 6 to understand what was Leo saying in that video. 

Here is what Rich thinks about this. 

https://youtu.be/bCTzHFSe1LQ

[Preety_India]

3 minutes ago, Opo said:

My level 9 psychic ability is telling me that you are operating from level 2 and you need to be at least level 6 to understand what was Leo saying in that video. 

Here is what Rich thinks about this. 

https://youtu.be/bCTzHFSe1LQ

You're probably this type of psychic. I ain't that. So I'm good at level 2.

You on the other hand though... 

Did you say P for Preety? Omg

[Yog]

It takes at least lvl3 to stop mistaking toothaches for ill hearts.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, LordFall said:

Would rationally dismantling Jordan Peterson's more problematic ideas not be a massive way to introduce higher consciousness topics to the general masses? As being one of the only current celebrity intellectuals, contending with him would be one of the best ways to gain traction in the public field, I feel like that would just be good marketing.

A) I already have a video explaining JP.

B) I am not interested in marketing. I have serious work to do.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Richard Dawkins has a particular paradigm that he's locked in to every bit as much as JP is, and there's limitations to his worldview for sure, but he manages to embody that worldview with integrity. That and unlike Jordy P, Richard Dawkins can actually answer a question in a straitforward manner without the sense that he's being evasive and trying to obfuscate.

If and when Jordy P writes something half as well written, thought provoking, and important as The Selfish Gene I'll consider taking him seriously as an academic.

What do you think about Hitchens?

[DocWatts]

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What do you think about Hitchens?

I'm comfortable saying I'm very familiar with Richard Dawkins, and have read and enjoyed many of his books. 

I can't say I have nearly the same familiarity with Hitchens, so I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other.

In my mind I associate Hitchens with aspects of Dawkin's paradigm that I find less interesting than his work on evolutionary theory (namely his anti-religiousity and his advocacy for atheism), but I realize that might not be doing justice to Hitch's body of work.

Edited January 24, 2022 by DocWatts

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I'm comfortable saying I'm very familiar with Richard Dawkins, and have read and enjoyed many of his books. 

I can't say I have nearly the same familiarity with Hitchens, so I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other.

In my mind I associate Hitchens with aspects of Dawkin's paradigm that I find less interesting than his work on evolutionary theory (namely his anti-religiousity and his advocacy for atheism), but I realize that might not be doing justice to Hitch's body of work.

When I was younger, I used to view people like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens as logically infallible, undeniably good faith and generally argumentatively rigorous. This view kind of stuck with me after my worldview changed, explaining my change in worldview as merely a change in values, not as a change in logical capability. However, then I watched this young atheist criticizing Hitchens' flawed argumentation:

 

I also rewatched a Harris debate with William Lane Craig and noticed that Harris completely derailed the debate into a pathos-fueled stone throwing match, using his speaking time to just shit on anything and everything about religion that doesn't fit his values, completely disregarding the debate format and Craig's good faith philosophical arguments.

58:35

 

I haven't done a deep dive on Richard Dawkins regarding these issues yet, but considering his general neopositivist disregard of philosophical sensitivies ("science, yay! - philosophy, boo!"), I have a feeling I won't be surprised.

EDIT: Here Dawkins literally argues "don't read up on what you're criticizing." It initially looks like he concedes the point, but later he says "no it's actually not worth my time". It's really disappointing.

38:32

 

Then again, nobody is infallible. I think everybody engages in fallacious argumentation from time to time, but as mentioned here, the frequency and consistency of Hitchens and the absolutely malicious and sociopathic Chess move of Harris really surprised me.

[Preety_India]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Then again, nobody is fallible.

Nobody is infallible. (corrected) 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Preety_India said:

Nobody is infallible. (corrected) 

Ah thank you. So many vertical letters, it confuses me 

[DocWatts]

@Carl-Richard I'm actually in the same boat in that I also saw people lile Dawkins and Harris as somewhat infallible when I was much younger, and had little understanding of things like metaphysics and epistemology.

I'd say for Richard Dawkins, the limitations of logical positivism are fairly obvious to someone with philosophical literacy. I think his body of work on biology and evolutionary theory (such as The Selfish Gene) still stands up to scrutiny. So long as you don't take his meta-paradigm too seriously, his scientific works have a ton to offer an inquisitive mind.

When I say that Richard Dawkins has similarities to JP, I'm mostly referring to his being locked in to a paradigm and being not curious about other perspectives. Unlike Jordy P and Sam Harris, I've always found him very honest and forthcoming about his views, and never got the sense that he was obfuscating aspects of his world view.

Edited January 24, 2022 by DocWatts

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I'd say for Richard Dawkins, the limitations of logical positivism are fairly obvious to someone with philosophical literacy. I think his body of work on biology and evolutionary theory (such as The Selfish Gene) still stands up to scrutiny. So long as you don't take his meta-paradigm too seriously, his scientific works have a ton to offer an inquisitive mind.

True. Invaluable contribution to the field.

 

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

When I say that Richard Dawkins has similarities to JP, I'm mostly referring to his being locked in to a paradigm and being not curious about other perspectives. Unlike Jordy P and Sam Harris, I've always found him very honest and forthcoming about his views, and never got the sense that he was obfuscating aspects of his world view.

I still find that "don't read about theology - it's a waste of time, but watch me spend decades criticizing it" is arguably at the level of performative contradiction and doesn't require much meta-systematic observation to realize the absurdity of (it's not merely an issue of paradigm lock)... or maybe I'm wrong. CosmicSkeptic is Green after all.