Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked


So let me begin by saying that I entirely
appreciate why so many venerate and idolize Jordan Peterson, as he’s obviously an intelligent
and insightful man, whose defence of free speech and biological facts has been truly
admirable. In fact, it’s precisely for these reasons
that he has my respect. However, unlike many of his critics, who caveat
their criticisms by first making clear that they’re very fond of the man, I won’t…
because I’m not. To be blunt, while I recognize Peterson’s
intellect and charisma, I’m convinced that he’s one of the most overrated public intellectuals
of our time, and that this is especially the case when it comes to his views on religion. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jordan
Peterson is the Deepak Chopra of Christianity, and within the following few videos I intend
to explain precisely why. Of course, I’d prefer to address all of
his religious views in just one session, but given my current situation I unfortunately
can’t justify doing this, but, as just indicted, what I can justify is creating a series of
videos which each address a pillar of his beliefs, and then later compile them all together. And so, with that said, where better to begin
than with epistemology 101? This, is Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked. On the 9th of November, 2015, in an interview
with Transliminal, Peterson had the following to say on the topic of truth: “So, now, then
you have to ask yourself, well, how do you determine whether or not a theory is true? Then you ask yourself, well, what do you mean
by true? Well then you’re in trouble! Okay, because, I think you can take a Newtonian
perspective on that, or a Darwinian perspective, but you can’t do both at the same time…” Okay, so I’m going to interject quite a
lot within this video, but it’s only to simplify and adequately address what’s being
said. So far, Peterson has claimed that there’s
two perspectives on truth, the first is what he calls Newtonian, which he later defines
as strictly materialistic “Truth as defined by the axioms of materi… of the materialist
philosophy”, and the second is what he calls Darwinian, which he later defines as that
which permits survival “sufficient truth is the truth that allows you to survive and
reproduce, and from a Darwinian perspective, there isn’t any truth past that”. But there’s immediately several problems
here… and not the least of which is that he’s committing a Black and White fallacy. He’s falsely asserting that there’s only
two perspectives of truth, when in fact there’s many more, including the most-subscribed to,
which is realism. Realists, like me, and probably you, hold
that reality exists with or without our viewing it – that is, that a falling tree makes
a sound with or without our being there to hear it, but we don’t assert that reality
is strictly materialist. And a second problem that’s worth emphasizing
at this point is that while Peterson’s definition of truth can be seen as Darwinian, it does
not represent Darwin’s view, and so when Peterson says or implies that it does “And
that’s basically Darwin’s claim”, know that he’s putting words never spoken into
Darwin’s mouth. Anyhow, here’s Peterson fleshing out his
perspective of truth (which, courtesy of Bret Weinstein, is now known as ‘metaphorical
truth’). “So Nietzsche said ‘truth serves life’,
okay, in some sense that’s a Darwinian idea – okay? If it’s true enough so that you act it out
or hold it, that increases your chances of survival and reproduction over long spans
of time. That’s true.” And here’s him putting it more clearly to
Sam Harris while on Harris’ podcast: “The fundamental axiom that I’m playing with
is something that was basically explained by Nietzsche, and it’s a definition of truth
– and so I would say, if it doesn’t serve life it’s not true.” Now while this definition is needlessly confusing,
it’s not inherently flawed – if Peterson and his ilk want to call that which serves
life (or that which increases human flourishing) ‘true’ then that’s fine… again, it’s
confusing, because it means, for example, that if the fact that atoms store potential
energy should one day prove fatal to us, then while this fact will remain true in the colloquial
/ realist sense of the word, it will all of a sudden become false in the Peterson sense
of the word… But what’s not fine, is to insist, as Peterson
does, that should a fact become false according to the Peterson definition of truth then it
will also become false according to the realist definition of truth. Or in other words, that metaphorical truth
supersedes literal truth; “It sounds like what you’re saying is that truth is as much
about action as it is about some sort of material, measurable, objective reality. No I’m saying it’s more about action! Oh yes, yes, the fundamentals of truth are
those that guide action, and then the objective science is nested inside that, it has to be! There’s no way around that!” There’s only one way you can define truth
in relationship to finite beings – it’s true enough. True enough for what? True enough so that you survive and reproduce. That’s it. You don’t get to go any further than that. What’s more true than that? Sorry, can’t ask that question. That’s it. You’ve hit the limit – and that’s basically
Darwin’s claim.” And to provide just one more example, here’s
him putting it another way, but this time as a response to an excellent criticism from
Weinstein: “So my point was, essentially, that there is something called metaphorical
truth and that it’s a real thing, so I was… I’m in agreement with you on that, where
we might be in disagreement is that there’s simultaneously a thing that I would call literal
truth, or scientific truth (and by the way I’m not saying that what scientists say
is in this category inherently – scientists can be wrong). But the point is truth that is scientifically
verifiable, that makes predictions, has a special priority in this hierarchy because
it is the one objective version. It is not contingent on being nested in another…
series, of, of beliefs, so—” “What if it’s a scientific truth that’s metaphorically
wrong?” “Oh, and there are—” “Like, I can
give you an example. Okay, so, I read this… the memoirs of a
KGB scientist, KGB agent, who worked with the Russians in this erh… biochemical lab
and their job was to meld, erh, Ebola was smallpox, cause smallpox is… Ebola’s not that contagious, so that’s
kind of annoying if you’re trying to kill people, whereas smallpox – but it’s really
fatal! Whereas smallpox is really contagious, so
if you can get the two together and then develop an aerosol spray you could kill a lot of people,
and in fact they did kill about 500 Russians by mistake when some of what they were doing
escaped. But it isn’t obvious to me that that’s
an invalid scientific pursuit… but I do think that it’s an invalid ethical pursuit,
and so that seems to indicate that the ethical pursuit supersedes the scientific pursuit
with regards to truth claim.” Now just before I crackdown on Peterson’s
assertion, and in the anticipation of being accused of not understanding his position,
I want to make something extremely clear. I entirely understand and accept that our
perception of facts and reality (that is, our perception of realist truth) is subject
to natural selection (or metaphorical truth), and so if Peterson’s assertion was merely
that this fact prevents us from having access to raw realist truth, then I’d have no objection,
but he’s not merely asserting this – he’s asserting that scientific, objective, realist,
literal truth is outright the product of metaphorical, Peterson truth: “The fundamentals of truth
are those that guide action, and then the objective science is nested inside that […] The
ethical pursuit supersedes the scientific pursuit with regards to truth claim.” So, what exactly is wrong with Peterson’s
assertion? Why doesn’t metaphorical truth supersede
literal truth? Well, first and foremost: “It doesn’t
supersede with respect to the truth claim, it supersedes with respect to considerations
of behaviour and policy.” Secondly, though more importantly, it violates
the law of non-contradiction… To borrow an example from Weinstein, the concepts
of heaven and reincarnation can both be considered metaphorically true, because they both increase
our chances of survival due them encouraging us to cooperate and behave… but the problem
is that they can’t both be true – they’re mutually exclusive. One claims that when we die we’ll rise up
to cloudsville to be reunited with our loved ones, while the other claims we’ll manifest
a new body and start anew… or as Weinstein puts it: What I’m arguing is that what makes
the scientific truth hierarchically superior is that it explains all the subordinate truths
in a way that is logically consistent, whereas if you were to prioritize heaven as a truth
then would have to say that well reincarnation is false, or you would have to have them all
simultaneously be true in some irreconcilable way, and so the only one that has the special
characteristic of accounting for all the others is the scientific truth. And thirdly, though perhaps even more importantly,
Peterson is conflating our perception of reality with reality itself – the map with the place,
as it were. Peterson is asserting that because our ability
to perceive facts and reality is nested in Peterson truth, therefore facts and reality
is nested in Peterson truth… which is akin to me asserting that because you’re currently
perceiving me in two dimensions, I am two dimensions… Or to put it another way, Peterson is asserting
that because we can only perceive objective facts subjectively, therefore there are no
objective facts… but that’s not how it works, and it’s not what all of the evidence
indicates. To quote Harris, “You clearly have to have
a conception of facts and truth that is possible to know, that exceeds what anyone currently
knows, and exceeds any concern about whether it is useful or compatible with your own survival
even, to know these truths.” Anyhow, after explaining this to Peterson
over seven times, Harris, in fair frustration, delivered the following elegant bombshell:
“Now, the claim, about whether or not she’s cheating on you, is an intelligible claim
[…].That’s a claim that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you wind up killing
yourself based on your reaction to this unhappy truth. If you then end up killing yourself we could
say at the end of the day it would’ve been better if he hadn’t known that; it certainly
would’ve been better if she hadn’t done that; it would’ve been better if he had
married a different woman – surely we would want to say that–” “It might have been
better if he would’ve paid attention to his damn marriage, and to attribute the—”
“Sure!” “To attribute the cause of his demise to
the existence of the photographs… this is why I brought up Josh Greene, is that investigations
into this kind of morality always frame it in such a way–” “Jordan… Jordan, you
have to grant one thing here – there’s one piece that doesn’t get moved here. You cannot move the piece that because you
killed yourself it’s not true that she was having an affair – that move is not open
to you, and yet you’re acting like it is!” Now, in my opinion, this application of the
Reductio Ad Absurdum technique annihilates Peterson’s assertion. It’s simple. If one was to commit suicide because their
partner was cheating on them, the act of suicide wouldn’t make their partner’s cheating
on them untrue in the realist sense. Sure, it would make it untrue in a Peterson
sense, but it wouldn’t in the realist – period. If a tree falls and nobody hears it, it still
makes a sound… it still omits vibrations… Now with Peterson’s definition of truth
thoroughly addressed, I want to ask a potent question… why does Peterson want to nest not only our
perception of realist truth, but realist truth itself within Peterson truth? Is it perhaps possible that he has a motive? Well, I’m convinced that he does… You see, this slight of hand comes in extremely
useful to apologists such as Peterson, because when he’s asked a question to which he has
a justifiable answer, such as ‘Is it true that there are only two sexes?’, he can,
and does, answer according to the realist definition of truth, but when he’s asked
a question to which he doesn’t have a justifiable answer, such as ‘Is it true that a literal
historical man called Jesus resurrected?’, he answers according to the Peterson definition
of truth (which, considering his animosity for postmodernism, is ironically postmodern). To borrow a phrase from Harris, this is how
you play tennis without the net, and it’s so disingenuous that I can’t help but conclude
that Peterson is doing it on purpose. That he’s being deliberately obtuse in order
to preserve beliefs that he knows damn well are false. Now if you’re not already convinced of this
then perhaps the follow clip will change your mind: “Quick question – are you a Christian?” “I suppose the most straight-forward answer
to that is yes, although… I think it’s, it’s… let’s leave it
at yes.” “Well… I’m a bit dissatisfied by that because there
are so many kinds of Christians and I– I would never imagine that you were a very literal
minded Christian.” “Well, there are truths other than the literal,
that are perhaps more truthful than the literal truths. There are many kinds of truth, and I don’t
mean that in a… I don’t mean that in a post-modern way, actually. But the truths that govern behavior and the
truths that emerge from facts are not the same truths.” “Do you believe Jesus rose again from the
dead… literally?” “I find it… I cannot answer that question… and the reason
is because… okay, let me think about it… and see if I can come up with a reasonable
answer to that. Well, the
first answer would be that it depends on what you mean by Jesus.” “A historical human being that existed–”
“In a body? In a body?” “Yes.” “And it was a physical body and it was on
earth?” “Yes.” “It was on earth and was literally, um,
was literally, um, er, came back to life… after death.” “I would say that at the moment I’m agnostic
about that issue – which is a lot different to saying I don’t believe that it happened.” You see, once someone corners Peterson by
forcing him to answer religious questions according to the realist definition of truth
(that is, the definition that he uses in every other domain of discourse), his religious
views are exposed for what they are… unjustified nonsense. It seems to me that the reason Peterson insists
on his definition of truth is because it renders everything we confidently know – all facts,
all knowledge, as ultimately unknown, because at any moment, however unlikely, they may
lead to our demise and thus become untrue in the Peterson sense, and therefore, as he
insists, also untrue in the realist sense… To put it bluntly, redefining ‘truth’
in order to avoid an inconvenient truth is as dishonest as it gets. Intelligent and sceptical people don’t accept
such utter nonsense from New Age Spirituality, and so neither should they accept it from
New Age Christianity. Peterson is no doubt a very smart, knowledgeable
and insightful person, but when it comes to religion he’s no better than any other apologist. He manipulates language, misrepresents philosophy
and science, and is fallacious in his reasoning. This video alone doesn’t prove this outright,
of course, but it does make a good start, and I’ll be sure to follow it up. As always, thank you kindly for the view,
and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those who’ve donated via PayPal. Your support is what allows me to create videos
such as this. Anyhow, I’m going to leave you another lucid
bombshell from Mr. Rationality himself: It seems to me that a realistic conception of
what’s going on there, and really the only sane one, if you look long enough at it, is
that our language didn’t put the energy in the atom – it’s not because we spoke
a certain way about it, that that determined the character of physical reality, no, physical
reality has a character whether or not there are apes around to talk about it.

100 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked

  1. I can't stand Jordan Peterson – he really strikes me as one creepy mf. I'm shocked that he has such a huge and loyal following. I love that you are debunking him.

  2. It's annoying to watch Jordan Peteraon discuss a subject at length with clear distinct intellect only for that intellect to suddenly evaporate as soon as he starts rationalizing his religious beliefs. His beliefs shape his evidence rather thanthe other way around.

  3. Peterson has a horrible habit of using a hell of a lot of big words without actually saying anything of much informational value. I tend to ramble on a bit myself so I would be inclined to forgive him but for the fact that I believe it to be intentional on his part, and that seems to be especially true when he discusses his religion. He seems to be very afraid to give a straight answer to very basic questions on his belief in a god so he hides behind childish word games. I suspect this is because if he answered honestly and succinctly he would either sound quite ridiculous and silly or he would have to admit he really doesn't believe. A little honesty would go a long way for me in this case.

  4. 1:42
    deliberately spreading misinformation makes me sad
    Darwin and Newton made discoveries in completely separate fields of science, not conflicting with each other in any way whatsoever.
    keep in mind BOTH of their theories have held up for centuries
    It's pure nonsense to say you should agree with one theory but not the other

  5. He certainly does not deserve the title of "public intellectual",

    It is clear that he is deliberately using complex language and pseudoscience to convince his audience of his special expertise and deep knowledge, like any religious charlatan, including Deepak Chopra.

    The point of all this is to get attention, fame and money.

  6. (And the Masonic hand signs make me sick.) WELL DONE! Ah. Why? Read Miles Mathis's paper on 'The Matrix'. It's a CIA psyop. 1 branch is the 'Mandela effect' – see the new paper, 'Dolly's Braces'. Oh, I'd love it if you turned your attention to this! (Essentially, the psyop assumes that if we think nothing is real, we won't care what is being done to our world.)

  7. As usual, I find myself in full agreement with you. I have watched a number of Peterson videos, and like yourself, I am impressed by rhetorical style and knowledge of biological and psychological topics. But, I am very confused by one incident which thrust Peterson into the broader public awareness.

    He objected to some Canadian law that was to add sexual orientation and sexual identity to a class of protected persons. He somehow concluded that this would violate his free speech because he would suffer at the hands of the law if he didn't call trans-sexuals by their preferred pronouns. How did he conclude that? That seems like an absurdly extreme opinion.

  8. He is an excellent psychologist … but he really goofs up sometimes thinking that makes him an excellent intellect in a much broader sphere. The key will be whether he admits that he is human and goofed here and there. Personally he will not advance his own intellect until he is not afraid of that old mythical place called Hell.

  9. You are splitting hairs a bit. Peterson is unwilling to define his personal belief's, which is fine being that it is a personal thing. I would not hesitate to deny Jebus but I am not Peterson.

  10. The problem with your video is that your entire argument is based on assumptions about reality and the nature of consciousness such as object permanence to which we cannot actually know the truth of whether or not that is actually so although it may seem as though it is. The ironic part of this is that it would be most helpful to the sustaining of the Self and the reproduction of life and living an overall “good” life if we acted as if it were true! If you want to argue about object permanence and objective reality I’ll just refer you to Sam Harris’s discussion with Nick Bostrom.

  11. I could not care less about petersons new definition for truth. It is irrelevant because it does not fit the actual meaning of the word. If he can do it then hello now means "Give me $20". Ffs why not just make up a new word? Why the need to distort common understanding of an already complicated as fuck language? Who the hell thinks this is actually a good idea and why?

  12. You'd think someone this "smart" would just use the word "correct" and bypass this bout of mental masturbation and obfuscation. But maybe it's just me…

  13. Atheists are so full of saying oh look there's no proof for what you believe they forget there's no proof for what they themselves believe ..there's no proof there is no god.. just as there is no proof there is..

  14. Apart from his religious views, we all agree that he is amazing, right?
    He destroys ppl in free speech debates and against third wave feminism

  15. 8:43 Hey hold on… I used to fantasize that I would go to heaven after I die, then high-five all my loved ones and hang out there for a while, before reincarnating as an alien that will grow to become a crewmember aboard a starship of a galactic federation in another galaxy.

  16. Not debunked. Partially criticized in a sophomoric, overly confident way, but you are not even CLOSE to understanding Peterson nor what he was trying to get across in those dialogues (among many others). (Much like Harris' filtering and restating his points while frequently missing the mark). Hung up on the minor (easy) stuff.
    Clickbait college philosophy gotchas, at best. Not gonna waste my time illuminating you since no room with that ego and bias in the way of your comprehension.
    Then you throw in the whole "tree falling in the woods" koan and answer it so easily without proof or "truth". 🤣 (someone needs to wake your ass up to reality with a keisaku!)
    And YES, heaven and reincarnation CAN be reconciled. They are not mutually exclusive. But you are no where close to being able to understand nor comprehend that yet.
    Wake up! 👏🙏 (You keep getting hung up on trees and missing all the forests. Literally!) 🤣

  17. If you ask a tree whether it has fallen and made a sound (or created vibrations for that matter) it will not answer you. Because it has no conception of what falling or creating vibrations is. It just is what it is. The mind creates conceptions in inter-relation with the physical reality. So when you assert that the tree still makes a sound when it falls (by the virtue of creating vibrations) then you are virtually equating vibrations with sound, or in other words stating that the sound IS the vibrations. Clearly, this is not true. It is a reductionist view that disregards the inter-relation of physical and mental phenomena which reinforce each other, and in their inter-relation co create the world, and therefore, the truth. There is no truth without the perceiver. On deeper examination, even the fine line between the perceiver and the object of perception starts to dissolve. However, this cannot be comprehended merely by the application of intellectual faculty. There are limits to the levels of reality that the intellect can access.

  18. Jordan Peterson is does not profess Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, so he's not a christian. I listened to most of his classroom lectures and all of his biblical series over a few months. Maybe 60 hours. Then I listened his hourlong streams where he answers questions on marriage, parenting, etc. It gave me as a parent and married dude a lot of good advice. I figure a man with 20,000 hours counseling has distilled knowledge and he's articulate as hell, plus he's giving it all away. I don't know about his motives. He's a genuinely caring soul. I finally read the gulag archipelago and paradise lost, after years of trying, and it was worth it. Dostoyevsky is proving good too. He's turned you onto the best literature in the universe. Your characterization of JP is like science fiction version of my impression, since I've actually invested many hours listing to his lectures, and you've gone after his supposed christianity, which doesn't exist. Nested in Peterson truth? That's rich. You might try to make some t shirts of that to sell to your atheist buddies. You claim he makes points he doesn't make, then you go after the chruch. Its always the same with you clowns. I drove to Richmond and paid $60 to listen to him muse while pacing an oreiental carpet and he fascinated me. He's not a christian. He thinks the bible stories are myths. I don't fault his inability to to grasp the gosepl due to his scientific materialist worldview, or yours, for that matter. "The first drink of science makes one an atheist, but God is waiting for you at the bottom." -Wurner Heisenberg

  19. Peterson spent 30 years spewing nonsense to undergrads who had to write down everything he said as if it were gospel, because you got to get your grades or you don't get into grad school. You have to parrot the b***** Dogma the priests of the Church of higher education demand that you regurgitate on command. After all that time with a captive audience he came to believe the bs he spews and came to believe that he was actually somehow a wise or enlightened person.

  20. idfk why petersons so big. I swear its his old person voice and big words. He doesn't say anything different than what millions of people think/say everyday..

  21. .Great video, thanks. Just one point I always puzzle over. "A tree falling in the forest always makes a sound" I am not sure that this is true. A falling tree creates vibrations but it needs a brain present to translate those vibrations into perceived sound

  22. 9:29 I'm glad you brought this up, because while I'm not an expert in Nietzsche I did take a whole class on him and read quite a bit of his work (in English), and from what I can recall Peterson is misunderstanding Nietzsche's position on this subject when he claims to be adopting Nietzsche's view here. While Nietzsche might use language that makes it sound like he's on board this train with Peterson, I think it's pretty contextually clear often enough that he's really only ever attempting to explain human behavior, not establish an ontological framework for the universe. I think that's one of the criticisms levied at his sister and posthumous publisher with regards to some of the claims made in The Will to Power, if I'm not mistaken.

  23. "Yes, Mister Peterson, do you want a window or an aisle seat?"
    "Well that depends, what's a window?"

  24. Love your work. Please review some TED Talks promoting the co-existence of Religion and Science / God and Science.

  25. Peterson is entirely overrated. He obfuscates criticism of him by being a sesquipedalian. Oh, wait… did I just slip into my Peterson personae?

  26. In all opinions there are greys
    . That's what makes an idea get better through the times
    . I follow Jordan Peterson and the message that he proclaim is really constructive

  27. Truth has 1 definition.
    If we try to hide this fact then we risk being lied to.
    If we tear away this lie about truth then the very stereotype of a Jordan Peterson argument (the infamous "well that depends on what you mean by _") is revealed to be nothing more then deception.
    I will clarify that it is important to clarify the definitions and context in a argument but Peterson often just uses it to stall and make himself look smart and that's what we should look out for.

  28. I think the clip of Peterson being asked if he believes Jesus rose from the dead is quite illustrative. It is a very straight forward question. But, even after the question is narrowed down to a physical Jesus literally rising from the dead he still really have to think about it for a long time. Why? I interpret his pause as him having to internally go through his "bullshit" in order to not contradict himself or make an incoherent answer. If your philosophical views prevents you from answering such an easy question, your philosophical views are completely useless. As far as I am concerned he is just playing with words. He defines concepts like 'truth' to suit his needs, but when cornered you realize he can barely keep up with his bullshit himself.

  29. When the tree falls it does produce vibrations as you put it but don't they have to hit an eardrum and vibrate that before it is a sound as we understand it ?
    Really like your channel by the way.

  30. I'm an atheist so I don't believe this, but in regard to heaven & reincarnation, I do know people who explain how they can both be simultaneously true. They think reincarnation is basically the ladder to reach heaven. If you do bad things, karma & reincarnation work in tandem to make sure that in your next life you have a lower standing, like being reincarnated as an animal or a bug or having more struggles in life, so that you can earn your way up in the next life. So basically every unit of "Bad Karma" brings you down a certain amount and dictates what you'll be reincarnated as not really, as a punishment, but rather the opportunity to learn, grow & do better. The opposite is also true, if you do a lot of good things then you are reincarnated as higher on the food chain or under better, more favorable circumstances like with more money or less obstacles. They feel that the point of reincarnation is to learn all of the most important lessons that you need in order to enter Heaven. So basically they think that reincarnation is your opportunity to work your way up the ladder and prove that you deserve entry. Once you learn all that you need to you know, you no longer need to be reincarnated. Almost like a literal stairway to heaven.

    I found the idea interesting because I've never heard anything like it before. The way that they put those two things together even though we usually assume that they're mutually exclusive, just seemed really creative and honestly not the kind of harmful philosophy that people usually develop in regards to an afterlife. I still don't think having beliefs that aren't true isn't dangerous, however, this is one of the least dangerous I've ever heard and it doesn't revolve around as many awful ideas. However, obviously, it does leave open the possibility for believing that anyone who has any kind of struggle or hardship or becomes a victim of violence or any other kind of negative experience in life must have deserved it and that's an idea that I really do hate. However, they didn't seem to see it like that either so as far as harmful beliefs go, it's pretty low on the list.

  31. heaven and re-incarnation are not exclusive, simply because there is a theme-park in the sky that is eternal, does not,a nd limbo and hell support this, does not make it mandatory.

    The existence of both in the way one way doors to tesco and asda, doesn't not make leaving impossible simply because we do not have a view to it from our perspective, nor because we are unable to recognize, those who do leave and re-enter.

    this is an unquallified assertion, and while interesting and supportive as a what if, it is not a statement of fact,

  32. That is how facts work, facts are not absolute as reality is, as truth is, they are the best guess, fact, well, they are laws, not justice itself.

  33. Facts are laws, truth is justice.

    but law isn't necessarily truth, and facts not necessarily just.

    Similarly Justice is not necessarily true, but the two pairs each the same relationship to each other, the other pair has.

    That someone is found guilty is a fact, but it's not necessarily a truth.

  34. JP is entertaining. I think so many people came down with Petersonitis because their immune systems couldn't fight the pseudo intellectual word salad virus.
    But I do respect his knowledge of psychology. He's very smart.

  35. One problem with 'naive pragmatism'…as in the statement that 'Truth is nothing but what allows survival and reproduction'; is that people holding very different beliefs and paradigms can still survive and reproduce.. and will do so until something about the world in itself intervenes… Peterson's pragmatist position which would have been acceptable to Rorty (who was clearer)..but it is basically a form of Relativism as found in the very 'Postmodern' school he riles against… his evocation of Nietzsche also puts him very close to the relativism he thinks he is crusading against….then when he evokes sociobiology as explanations….. as in claims that we are bound by the same drives as lobsters etc…he is evoking a higher order realism than his pragmatist approach to truth allows… The main issue though is that, not being a properly trained philosopher in the habit of publicly doing philosophy, Peterson slips from Epistemic to ontological claims as if the difference doesn't matter…

  36. Peterson is a very ambitious man. He has to trim his religious views to keep his. supporters happy. Ditto views on gender as he relies on support of the least educated.

  37. The thing about Peterson's belief in Jesus is that he realizes the importance of people's belief in Jesus to keep them in line, more or less. It is true that religion, in this case Christianity, plays a vital role in shaping people's character. Take that belief away and society might disintegrate into a downward spiral. Therefore he has to maintain his belief in Christianity even though he does not believe in the devine nature of Jesus. At the same time he cannot come clean and admit the truth that he does not believe in Jesus as a devine being but is a Christian none the less because of society's need of the values and virtues Christianity brings. This admission would defeat the purpose. If the person of Jesus is removed from the picture, then the Bible is reduced to a self help book with zero accountability on the readers' part. And I think he recognises the threat of expanding Islam too. If western society does not have a strong belief system of its own, it will not be able to withstand the invasion of another belief system. So he is unable to be 100% honest with his answer when it comes to the question of his belief.

  38. Very fine video! Thanks. I think Peterson is a fine clinical psychologist and motivator. He thinks it's okay to obfuscate, though, in philosophy and science. Has he ever said upon reflection he was wrong?? on something he said during these videos. Once he even said bluntly during a heated back and forth, "I am an evolutionary biologist."

  39. Knowing that fact about the atoms' potential energy would allow us to prepare against its danger, so it would serve life which would make it true in Peterson's Darwinian sense wouldn't it?

  40. Heaven and reincarnation aren't mutually exclusive, you can go to heaven stay there for a while and then reincarnate.

  41. It's a pity that he plays mind gimnastics regarding some topics, doing so discredits all of his correct assertions on other topics and his accurate reading on society in front of his audience.

  42. Guy is a meme. I think he and his fans have no idea what he is talking about. He is just a terrible philosopher imo. A bullshitter if you want. He thinks he is awesome. But he is not. Sam and others are on a different level. He is not as bad as Shapiro when it comes to bullshit but pretty close^^

  43. This guys pessimistic outlook makes me think he is a cyborg with an AI brain and not a sentient being that really understands its position in existence.

  44. You have invested a lot of time learning about the different types of fallacies… now you have to see everything from that perspective… seems like you are committing the sunken cost fallacy.

  45. "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it does it make a sound." When I was young, before I understood the question, as most people don't, I answered, "Of course." Because I, like most people, thought the question was asking about objective reality. It isn't. Sound, color, flavor, smell, and the like don't exist in nature. They are products of brain function.

    "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it does it cause vibrations in the matter around it." Yes. And those vibrations, when heard by someone, may produce a sound in the hearer's mind. But without someone to hear the vibrations, there is no sound, because there is no brain to produce the sound.

  46. That was well done, I like Peterson, but this view of truth I don't understand, and it does seem like he is jumping back and forth when convenient. As far as realism, a large majority of modern Mathematicians are Platonist and not realist. I side with the mathematicians over the physicist, but even in in physics its trending non-realist.

  47. This video would confuse 80% of people since everyone defines stuff differently and perceives it differently. Aren't we a unike species? 🤔

  48. I’d agree with you. He’s so overrated. I don’t think he’s a charlatan. He’s not dishonest. He’s just a bit of an idiot.

  49. He is confusing "truth" with "facts". Facts are not "truth". Because all facts are inherently relative and can and will be disproven. Any fact only exists under certain circumstances within the limits of a certain defined area of spacetime while truth is a fact that is true everywhere and always. So truth doesnt exist. Its created in our mind as far as science is concerned. Peterson seems to understand this. This guy here doesnt. "A tree still makes a sound even though none hears it" makes sense but again quantum physics has disproven that fact as well a long time ago.

  50. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
    Hey, Jordan, you never heard of speech therapy? Quit inflicting audiences with that dreadful voice.

  51. Have been JP's fan for a long time but I have always got puzzled by him when it comes to his description of God and what He represents. If science keeps explaining God away, JP, being a scientist in his own right, will soon become unstuck. How many other Jesuses rose from the dead? You either believe it or not? It is either true or not. Truth has no grey matter, it's either black or it's white.

  52. In the summation a little past the 15-minute mark, what he was basically saying was, Jordan Peterson is a liar. Agreed.

  53. I get the feeling that JP is constructing his own world model wherein the bible is literally 'the word of God', and that means that even though it was written over numerous centuries, the author [God] could write the grim early chapters knowing exactly what would happen later in his book and so feel justified in depicting himself as cruel, racist, sexist etc because without this the 'happy' ending doesn't work. So this horrible God is actually a literary trick to misdirect the reader so they can have a knowing ' I see now' smile when they reach the latter sections and understand in hindsight why he was so horrible at the beginning. Anyway, that was my interpretation [which if true is completely mad].

  54. Jordan Peterson: the Deepak Chopra of Christianity. Love it!

    It seems to me that JP is an atheist who has decided he wants to (pretend to) believe in Christianity because he thinks its good.

  55. In a meat-eating society, everyone telling that meat is good for ya will be met with open hands and praised.

  56. Petersonian "truth" is nothing more than a form of pragmatic theory of truth, as opposed to the more reasonable correspondence theory (what you're calling realism).

  57. Nietzsche is not even a philosopher for some philosophers. He is a philologist and kind of writer. So his "truth is something that serves life" hardly can be considered as a strict notion for everyone.

  58. Jesus raist from the dead?
    Read the bible again becouse it is a manual fore human traficing, drugs- and sex-traficing.

    Is this jesus was real, then he was a rape-baby becouce a baby can not be made out of thin air.
    Next to that…there are cluws in the bible that he slept with men and childeren.
    "Let the childeren come to me"…..creepy talk

    He is shure profiled as a psygopath in the bible when he knows how to present himself as the "perfect man" who knows how to listen ans talk….like a psycopath.

    And "nobody comes to the father the only via me"???
    Are you kidding me?
    So he claims all attention to an invisible dude in the sky (god) as that all attention needs to go trum him?
    Dat makes him a selfish asshole.

  59. But, Conan said: "There is one and only one truth!"

    And he will find it, because he's a detective who uses logic and scientific reasoning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *