Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson is Saying?

Well it seems standards have been lowered.

Peterson actually explains why this sort of thing happens. And I will go on a search to find the video that I'm remembering and I'll get back to you if you're interested.

He states that Newman was attempting to dominate him in the conversation. She wasn't trying to understand anything because she adheres to an ideology and she wants to prove that ideology correct she doesn't want to evaluate it. Any way Peterson does a much better job of explaining but you have to commit about 40 minutes to it because he takes a long time explaining it.

Like I said if you're interested I'll try and find that video.

 

Well I disagree with him on what post-modernism is but what we have now is what post-modernism wroght.

End of the thing about cleaning the room is if you can't get yourself in order you're not going to be able to get Society in order. I think he struck a nerve.

 

I doubt you know anything about postmodernism either

 

We are in the age of liberal scripted results

The left doesent care how women and minorities get to the top so long as all of them do

 

The International Dark Web denizens, eh.

Waffling, academic nonsense-makers set loose in the wilds? It'll end in more than a few car crashes.

Peterson on himself:

“I’m worried always that I’ll make a mistake in what I say… impulsive mistake, careless mistake, that I won’t be on top of things in a combative interview, that sort of thing, that I’ll make a mistake. I’ve been worried about that, almost to the exclusion of everything else for the last 15 months.” 

 

yes nobody knows what it is except you.

 

Postmodernism is the body of philosophy and literature criticizing Modernism. Modernism is the body of philosophy and literature concerned with the potential of rationality and reason to create complete and victorious narratives of the world. Postmodern (Well, in philosophy proper they prefer to be called Poststructural, but that's a quibble) philosophers include Michel Foucault (who criticized modernism by analyzing how several modern institutions with ostensibly humanitarian aims are in reality purely based on power), Jacques Derrida (who argued that all signs are inherently meaningless and only communicate through pure difference), and Jean-Francois Lyotard (who argued a ton of **** that's so abstract that I don't know how to explain it without giving a crash course on semiotics)

 

It is not real. It is a myth.

 

Post modernism is liberal progressivism or really, neomarxism.

 

you should have saved you breath I took retarded waste of time and money classes in college to.

 

Well he thinks that everyone should be paid exactly the same amount no matter what they do he's a communist. Not surprising because feminism is communistic.

 

Women are paid less overall because they work shorter hours on average and on average work lower paying jobs, not because they are women. This means there is only a gap in the amount of work done between men and women, there is no pay gap for the the same position, meaning the whole pay gap thing is patently false. On average women work less. And I'm not saying this is a problem. If women want to work more or get higher paid positions they can, but statistically they don't.

If people have a problem with facts, that's their problem, not the governments, and not societies.

 

No, I just explained what it is <Rule 2>And I, you know, referenced primary authors, because that's the kind of thing that makes what you're saying more credible.

I haven't taken a single class where any of these guys are mentioned. I just read books from philosophers, because that's where philosophers explain their ideas themselves, you don't need a class for that.

the entire point of what i was saying is that there are structural reasons why these things are the case and that those reasons should be examined

 

So I caught the Monk debate yesterday afternoon. I think there will be a lot of discussion around it, ala the Cathy Newman discussion because of the invective flung by the left in the absence of any rational support of their position. Both on the left actually disagreed with the premise they were supposedly supporting.

That aside, I thought that Stephen Fry was much more effective at discussing the topic before them, with the exception of one rather ironic statement. He said that the was concerned that the left was far too focused on being right, than being effective. I really wish that Peterson had taken on that subject, though I suspect he didn’t because Fry was actually on his side of the debate.

Guys like Peterson, Gad Saad, the Weinstein brothers, Harris, Pinker, eta all are all so effective specifically because they are focused on discussing and discovering the essence of truth. Being right is everything as it pertains to being effective. Peterson’s entire truth argument is that truth is whatever effectively promotes evolution. Naturally this requires he reject the post modern argument that truth is relative to perspective, because none of the guys I mentioned share the same perspective, yet all agree that truth is discoverable, and that a discoverable truth requires an unshifting framework. Some apply an evolutionary framework, or a deterministic framework, or an objectivist.. etc. But the end result is always truth as a pathway to improved outcome.

In response to any argument otherwise, I would simply say that lies in the service of good outcomes by their very definition can’t be effective in the long term. If they were, they wouldn’t be lies, they would be truths.

Another aspect of the debate I wish was discussed was the subject of progress. They never really got to the fundamental principle of what progress really means. Anything can be considered progress if you’re moving in a direction. The question is, is the movement in that direction GOOD? Only truth can determine the answer to that.

 

They should be examined so that people have all the information, yes, as long as your line of reasoning stops precisely right there that's fine.

Anyways, these "structural" reasons are more biological reasons than anything else. Beyond that these things take time for both sexes to accept, many generations. It's not societies duty to enforce any sex to take up positions they do not want to do, whether or not their reasons are "structurally" enforced in some way.

 

postmodern is a philosophy not guys.

spoken like a truely uneducated person. You don't need education to be educated and just say you read a bunch of books that makes people smart.

 

Post modernism is essentially an attempt to deconstruct established (modern) value hierarchies because of the belief that they were created and exist solely due to a dichotomy between people with power, and people oppressed by power. It takes a nugget of truth, that there are in infinite number of ways to interpret sensory input, and expands on that nugget without acknowledgement of the flaw in its premise. The number of valid interpretations are quite limited.

We are all on this space rock playing games with each other. There may be interpretations that win individual games, but only the interpretations that win over the entire series of games are valid. You can go to a soccer field, cut off everyone’s legs, and score the most goals, but no one will let you play soccer in the next game. Cutting off people’s legs is not one of the infinitate interpretations of the way to play soccer is not among the limited subset of valid interpretations.

 

Education isn't getting arbitrary certificates from institutions with impressive names, education is encountering and coming to understand new concepts. All philosophies can be conceptualized in terms of their foundational authors, because philosophy is generally relayed through text. You can find these books for free in libraries, and you can just start reading them until you understand what these authors were talking about.

That's a completely superficial and underdeveloped interpretation. The concepts you're trying to argue have already been addressed if you actually look at primary sources instead of sourcing all of your information about poststructural philosophy from people who do nothing but bitch about it all day.

 

They can hear what he's saying: They just don't care. Anything that contradicts or undermines their Utopian vision for mankind must be ignored, dismissed, or attacked regardless of its logic or factual basis.

 

didn't say it was.

so how do you know you understand them? Where is your benchmark?

can they so if you know who wrote what you understand the philosophy but if you don't know you don't understand the philosophy?

I find that dubious.

how do you know you understand them? How do you know that you're not just putting in them through the filter of your own bias? Or are you so uneducated that you think you have no bias?

 

Well, as Peterson repeatedly points out, it's not a "root cause" but root "causes". Secondly, how can it be a problem if one of the root causes is the innate preferences of most women?

 

Same way philosophers figure out what's correct and what isn't: You argue with people.

Philosophers intentionally misread each other all the time in order to find interesting new concepts. I mean, Deleuze read Nietzsche as a philosopher of Positivity and Joy, and Deleuze is one of the most cited philosophers of the 20th century, so there's a clear precedent there. The point of philosophy is building new concepts and then using them to argue with each other until you develop a more accurate understanding. If you ever feel that you're 100% on the money, you've just stagnated and stopped learning, the point is to constantly be aware that you don't know everything and to constantly be learning and interpreting.

 

Uh... what?

Hubris.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But for all intents and purposes, everyone behaves as if free will exists, including you.

 

Did you intend to have something of substance to say? You missed the mark.

 

so how do you know that you are discussing subjects with people to better learn about them rather than you're just arguing with people to try and dominate them?

that only works if the members in the discussion know how to recognize there by us and not be pig headed to bigots.

So what have you done to recognize your bias or do you have one?

I think it's ironic that you of all people are saying this.