Jordan Peterson / Cathy Newman debate

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah he gets $45k they just said it on the H3 Podcast.

When I first watched the debate I took it as her playing devils advocate but upon reflection I think she was just trying to misrepresent him. Still I think he performed well.

conceptual consistency? Jordan Peterson? - yeah, well. but *only* compared to that interviewer.

I was surprised at how many intellectual constructs he stole from me...

A really good Atlantic-style article on him from The Chronicle of Higher Education:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What- ... out/242256

Thx 4 that...

Some snippets from the article...


An amazing man...

These are apparently a big meme now.

ROFLMAO!



I read a couple of days ago it was up to $60K a month now...
I hope his fame isn't going to kill him...
Apparently, he is very stressed out and has been prone to bouts of depression in the past...

Could Jordan Peterson become the best-selling Canadian author of all time?

Right now, University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson is the world’s most-read Canadian author. Given that he also narrates his own audiobooks, it’s possible he may currently be buzzing through more earbuds than any other Canadian voice.


http://edmontonjournal.com/news/canada/ ... edfd4b75ae

A pitty he is a theist...
I new there was something that was gnawing at me...

I just finished 12 Rules For Life a couple nights ago. Even if you've watched hundreds of hours of his interviews and lectures already there are at least a few stories and anecdotes from his life situations, previous friendships, etc. that I hadn't heard before. I can see where he had a lot of life experience to inform his worldview.

Also I really don't think he's a theist. Deist in the most abstract sense maybe but nowhere close to believing in a brooding Jovian sky-daddy.

jp gets too much offspring, but these are higly enjoyable
benjamin a boyce

someone else

The memes have been the fun part of that debacle.

I think there are podcasts where it is indicated that he is a "believer"...
But that could have simply been click-bait...<shrug>
I might have a closer look...

I mean...if they're into that sort of thing...

He's always been super-evasive on that point and he's said in the past that he didn't want to get confined to what nearly anyone meant by 'believing in God' because his own take on it was too abstracted.

He tried to say something again at his last show in Australia (from a few days ago) after admitting that so many people were asking him about what he actually believed that he felt some obligation to explain what he meant. It stayed super-conceptual and despite talking for at least half the lecture about St. Joseph's Oratory in Montreal he still phased the conversation in terms of individual ideals and the distillation of those ideals that are needed to keep people going.

I'm personally quite compassionate to that way of thinking, partly because I don't think agnosticism necessarily always needs to take the full naive materialism buy-in and also to the degree that so much of his appeal is with the secular community (Sam Harris commented on this in his Ask Me Anything #11) there's a tendency of that community to use theist vs. atheist as a sanity check, and in his case while I think he has high respect for a lot of theistic concepts he both knows what it publicly means to bite the theistic hook and I think that's a problem for him not just from the PR and respectability end but quite literally if he's entertaining anything it seems to be a type of deism or pantheism where matter isn't necessarily dead and where the great religious stories do hold loads of salient information with respect to living life, so the two (ie. the religious story and actual cosmology) likely aren't the same to him as the the religious story is more purely pragmatic and the actual cosmology needs all of the most careful discernment and exploration that science and philosophy can afford without jumping the gun and buying into a revealed narrative.

He also gave a significant nod to certain forms of Platonism in his debate with William Lane Craig and he's reiterated often in his lectures that his concern with the term 'materialism' is that by the time we get to the bottom of what matter actually is we'll have a significantly different sense of what the word 'material' actually means to us.