On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 06:21:10PM -0300, Juan wrote: > On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 19:11:48 +1000 > Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > > However, there is much more to this particular conversation than just > > the negatives. > > false. Virtually everythign that scumbag says is right wing > garbage. > > And notice how if he followed his own advice such as "DONT LIE" > he should shut up forever since everything he says is a lie. > > > > Peterson is re-enlivening meaning - be it Buddhist Daoism, "Western" > > (Christian) theology and even, truth be, existential "scientific" > > atheism. > > > > Now THAT's a firetrucking feat! > > OK, too bad but you've been re-evaluated. I thought you were able > to think for yourself - but you are clearly an echo chamber for > peterson. Pathetic. And evil.
Peterson frustrates the atheists because he discusses and dissects Christian theology. Then he alienates the "committed Christians" by analysing the scientific literature suggesting (biologically) emergent ethics - in e.g. rats and lobsters. Further, he does a fine job of highlighting how the very concept of hierarchy is inevitable the moment you or I choose to act in the world, and then suggests that perhaps our mythology was a best attempt (at the time each myth was first spoken) to explain to subsequent generations (without paper and writing of course) the insights of their forefathers about the collective human reality itself. And to top it off, these "emergent" mythologies are surprisingly similar (in their foundations) across religions and cultures. Just one quick example of many: In Christianity, there is the idea of "the king of kings", and some historical figure, in this case a man named Buddha, sorry I mean Jesus, is held up as that ideal of the king of kings. "Ain't no firetruckin man be a king of me" I hear you (rightly) say. But the concept "king" in this context can be taken as "someone who displays the most admirable qualities within a particular hierarchy" - and Peterson gives the classic example of poor vs good sportsmanship - the real king of the game is he who displays those qualities most admired, but across all games in a season, or all games that he ever plays in, and not just the winner of one game - this is the concept of sportsmanship. And the concept "sportsmanship" or "sportsman" (I emphasize man for the trigger-prone here) is just another noun for which "king" in "king of kings" plays a similar role. So those qualities worthy of striving for (of which sportsmanship rather than winning is merely one of many of course) make someone the king of that game - in the case of Michael Jackson, he was named the king of pop music. So, each hierarchy has an abstract king - someone who, theoretically, displays all the finest qualities that can be achieved by someone aiming to develop in the best "sportsman like" way across all games, performances, etc within his field (hierarchy). And the king of kings is then that abstract representation of someone who lives all those admirable qualities across all possible hierarchies or endeavours. It seems useful to teach ones children "good sportsmanship" ("It's not about winning, it's about how you play"). Likewise it seems useful, or at least this is what humans have done across time and across cultures, to abstract "the best possible qualities a human can strive for, across time and across all possible pursuits". Today, "king of kings" sounds a little quaint and old fashioned, but this does not make the concept -- however one chooses to name this concept -- any less instrinsicly useful (of course). Now this might be hard to believe, but some folks are so caught up in winning the particuylar game(s) they play, that they demonstrate poor sportsmanship, and further, hard as it may be to believe, some folks have not even been taught what it means to be a good sport. So in the West we tend to agree that the concept "good sportsmanship" is worth teaching to our children. To teach any concept at all, one must first be able to cognize and identify it, second name it and speak about it in ways which make sense to others. Jordan Peterson is doing a fine job of naming a bunch of things, identifying where, how and presumably why they arise in our mythology, and delivering this in talks, discussions and interviews which are evidently compelling to millions of people. Please feel free to do better - there is evidently a real market for those who can communicate complex concepts in compelling ways, so if get good at doing so, you may well get a massive following.