Sunday School

[_Robert_Participant]

JP strikes me mostly as someone mostly trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame. To me he’s the “Hawk-Tua girl” of the identity wars.

He has no real answers for young men because that would alienate them away from him and his fame. So instead, it’s babble-talk-time when someone like Sam Harris calls him out. I don’t see why he climbed out of bed, back into the public eye, the day after that conversation, so he’s got that ability going for him, LOL.

[Belle RoseParticipant]

@robert I wouldn’t classify JP as an atheist. I didn’t see the Sam Harris one I’ll have to watch that. I guess I view him completely differently because i watched his lectures so I understand the framework from where he’s coming and there are many things I took away from his lectures that I still use and remember to this day. I think he gets it right because when he’s talking about Biblical stories he DOES say that about it. He calls them stories and acknowledges that stories are made by man. But he talks about the “lesson” of the story and how it applies to the real world in a clinical setting. His “fan base” is by happenstance. He never set out to “speak to young men,” but he has resonated with them. But not just men.

[_Robert_Participant]

Belle Rose wrote:

@robert I wouldn’t classify JP as an atheist. I didn’t see the Sam Harris one I’ll have to watch that. I guess I view him completely differently because i watched his lectures so I understand the framework from where he’s coming and there are many things I took away from his lectures that I still use and remember to this day. I think he gets it right because when he’s talking about Biblical stories he DOES say that about it. He calls them stories and acknowledges that stories are made by man. But he talks about the “lesson” of the story and how it applies to the real world in a clinical setting. His “fan base” is by happenstance. He never set out to “speak to young men,” but he has resonated with them. But not just men.

He multitude of deflections on the yes/no question of belief are all over the map, but this one from a while ago is the best deflection he has ever had. Obviously, he does not believe in the biblical god of the bible.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Everything obeys rules, but that doesn’t in itself imply complete determinism.  My free will is constrained by rules: I will never be able to do exactly what I like.  As for the rest, I can employ free choice.

You talk about free will in a way that presupposes its existence. That’s what I accused you of in my prior post.

Whatever you do is the result of causes, rules (laws), on the one hand, unless they are random. Neither of those are within your control, ultimately.

So, what you are talking about would seem to involve some third category that vindicates free will. Yet, you seen unable to do much more than claim it exists.

Talking to you about this resembles talking to someone with an unshakeable belief in ghosts.

As people have been saying, physical evolution has given me the faculty of limited freedom of choice.

Pure and unadulterated gobbledygook. No one denies that people do make choices freely when free of duress or compulsion. And yet, those choices are made somehow. This is where arguments for free will break down  because they are either made according rules operating on perceived conditions or they simply happen randomly.

Rulebound or not rulebound (random). It’s a rather clean distinction. It’s hard to imagine where free will is hiding in there.

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

JP strikes me mostly as someone mostly trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame. To me he’s the “Hawk-Tua girl” of the identity wars.

I don’t think he’s a fame-whore at all.  Being a little bit up close to him, I was impressed with his integrity and responsibility.  He was quite happy to apologise and say he was wrong about something.  For example, he once said that the manosphere is worthless, but was proved wrong, and was fine about it.

All scientists with theories (he was a psychologist and professor) have something to say and they want to say it.  I believe he means well, I just can’t understand his ideas.  If people can take away something from it, then that’s good.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

You talk about free will in a way that presupposes its existence. That’s what I accused you of in my prior post.

Maybe, but my point is, that there’s evidence for its existence.  If I had no free will, I could not respond to contingent, random circumstances by deliberating and picking and choosing.

Just because I can’t directly figure out how it arises from the brain and body, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  It doesn’t mean it does, either.

[jakelafortParticipant]

I think we discussed J P.

Only credit i can give him is in his treatment of some woke nonsense.

First time i listened to him debate Sam Harris i wanted to pull out my hair even if i am bald. Annoying in his intransigence and i am pretty sure Harris had his BP elevated having to debate him. And the way he arrived at his religious convictions is absurd. His answer to whether he believes in a god in the vid that Robert linked is pathetic. And of course the sycophants were cheering.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Yes, but he deals in stories, human psychology and human nature.  It doesn’t have to make perfect logical sense.  It can have a psychological logic – a human logic rather than a mathematical or physical logic.

If you’re expecting a meticulously logical philosophical treatise, you won’t get one out of him.  But his stories make sense in a human setting.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

You talk about free will in a way that presupposes its existence. That’s what I accused you of in my prior post.

Maybe, but my point is, that there’s evidence for its existence. If I had no free will, I could not respond to contingent, random circumstances by deliberating and picking and choosing.

Is this “evidence” any better than the evidence that deja vu is evidence that we are connected to a separate but disjointed parallel world where we experience things we then experience again later on?

Computers can effectively “deliberate” between alternatives. Make choices in other words. Deliberation isn’t evidence of free will.

Just because I can’t directly figure out how it arises from the brain and body, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t mean it does, either.

So, deja vu may be significant after all, eh?

[jakelafortParticipant]

Simon, if i want a good story i’ll read Washington Irving.

Ronald Reagan might have appreciated him. Tell me a story so i know what you mean. That was me channeling the dead guy. His son is an atheist so the apple defied gravity.

Somebody asks you do you believe? Have the integrity to say yes or no. And if asked for an explanation don’t go all cock and bull jive turkey circumlocution and obfuscation.

[_Robert_Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

Simon, if i want a good story i’ll read Washington Irving. Ronald Reagan might have appreciated him. Tell me a story so i know what you mean. That was me channeling the dead guy. His son is an atheist so the apple defied gravity. Somebody asks you do you believe? Have the integrity to say yes or no. And if asked for an explanation don’t go all cock and bull jive turkey circumlocution and obfuscation.

We need a JP Quote Generator like Deepak Chopra has.

http://wisdomofchopra.com/

Oh, damn, too late

Peterson

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Oh, damn, too late

JP has become a parody of himself.

I’m reminded of a quote Google can’t find so I’ll have to paraphrase it, but JP reminds me of it:

“There’s no difference between the avant-garde and a parody of the avant-garde.”

A parody of Jordan Peterson is indistinguishable from Jordan Peterson.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I was asked recently why I have no interest in reading anything else that JP writes, especially his new book about Catholic Jesus (roughly speaking!!). I replied that he may have had some opinions worth consideration in the past but not since he was ‘Deephacked Choprafied’.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I’m not going to dismiss him, because I don’t understand him.  He might be Deepak Chopra by now, he might not.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

jakelafort wrote:

Somebody asks you do you believe? Have the integrity to say yes or no. And if asked for an explanation don’t go all cock and bull jive turkey circumlocution and obfuscation.

Seems to me that all JP was saying is that for him, stating a belief in God is hypocritical unless he can actually fully walk the walk of what a truly dedicated belief would require, e.g. in some form of heretofore unattainable perfection.

But I don’t know his prolific views well or spend enough time to, and I have the impression he’s caught up in his ability to out-intellectualize even some of the most intellectual. Like it’s an addictive drug for him. Opposite of a non-intellectual/anti-intellectual like Trump, who is perhaps even driving intentionally below zero into negative, waste-product level intellect, yet Trump, too, can still stun the intellectually-inclined speechless. With eyes glazed over, perhaps even fearful of the future. While his minions are delighted, with admiration, and addicted to the New Schadenfreude. (I’m trying to add humor here.)

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I replied that he may have had some opinions worth consideration in the past but not since he was ‘Deephacked Choprafied’.

Dang, Deepak came to my mind, too. I think both are sincerely trying to be smart. As am I, but will never attain Godlike perfection. Human constructs; can’t live with them, or without them.
P.S. They’re emergent, too.

LOL, Deepvat Chopra-fried

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: choprafried

[Author]

Posts