Is Mr. Jordan Peterson a false prophet or ravenous wolf?

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
I think much of their authority comes from their supposed understanding of the self. If they are recognized as superiors in that realm, the individual doesn't take much convincing that the Psychologist understands you and what is best for you. So if they understand (more or less) all the "you"s out there, then they must be able to figure out how to mediate between them optimally. Not a big leap to ethics.



I would disagree that morals and ethics are equivalent. Morality is absolute. Ethics are specific to situation and application. Morality implies Moral government. Ethics imply "best suited to maintain order and right action". So Peterson is, I think, trying to get at the reality. Jung called archetypes "living psychic forces" so he wasn't just dealing in the abstract. I think Jungians take on a metaphysical air because of that.

That's funny you should say that. I almost said the exact same thing (then deleted it)!
I elaborated upon this theme in my OP.
I'm more cautious. Because Jung got fairly involved in spiritism, I think he probably took on something that had an air of appeal and reality to it. The closer that is to the truth, the more dangerous it can be. Some good quotes of Jung on Christ here:

Jung on the Antichrist Archetype
There's no such thing as a Christ archetype. There is Christ, and then as hubristic men are wont to do, they take a perfect singularity and invent a set or category, of which Christ is but a member. Not so. Christ is categorically unique and there is just One of Him.

What is the distinguishment between ethics and morals but the knowledge of good and evil? And what is the pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil but the pursuit of happiness? And what is the right to the pursuit of happiness but the right to ethical independence? And what is ethics but the knowledge of good and evil? And what is the knowledge of good and evil but the distinguishment between ethics and morals?

How you distinguish ethics and morals is your ethics, is how I'm using the word.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
I elaborated upon this theme in my OP.

There's no such thing as a Christ archetype. There is Christ, and then as hubristic men are wont to do, they take a perfect singularity and invent a set or category, of which Christ is but a member. Not so. Christ is categorically unique and there is just One of Him.

What is the distinguishment between ethics and morals but the knowledge of good and evil? And what is the pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil but the pursuit of happiness? And what is the right to the pursuit of happiness but the right to ethical independence? And what is ethics but the knowledge of good and evil? And what is the knowledge of good and evil but the distinguishment between ethics and morals?

How you distinguish ethics and morals is your ethics, is how I'm using the word.
If ones morals are not ethical, they are not moral.
If one's ethics are not moral, they are not ethical.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
We're talking about two different categories of things. One category is those ethical matters that are moral matters, and the other category is the rest of the ethical matters that are not moral matters, but they are still ethical matters.

Like smoking and exercise, but also every other thing that we do.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
We're talking about two different categories of things. One category is those ethical matters that are moral matters, and the other category is the rest of the ethical matters that are not moral matters, but they are still ethical matters.

Like smoking and exercise, but also every other thing that we do.
Can you name an ethical matter that isn't somehow rooted in morals?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Can you name an ethical matter that isn't somehow rooted in morals?
Having now read Mr. Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire enough to see that it's his later Justice for Hedgehogs, only version one; here is my thought development.

He says and I agree that 'prima facie' ethics is a matter of interpretation. There are all sorts of interpretations extant. His 'take' is that morals comes from our ethical interpretation, but having now seen the extent of his thought I have to slightly disagree with him, although it's a mere matter of rearranging his concepts rather than any sort of substantive disagreement.

I believe the relationship between ethics and law and morality is like this: Law proceeds from morals, and bounds ethics. Ethics, being a matter of interpretation, can be based on any sort of supposition, my own personal one is that we ought not let our dopamine systems 'direct traffic' in our lives.

From my view, as a Catholic, my ethics is a combination of input from my supposition about dopamine rewards, with the Apostles' ethical dictates, them basically being in Catholicism ethical dictators. There are reasons why Catholicism believes this, but the short of it is that the Apostles dictate ethics to us.

The practical application of this arrangement is that I have my personal ethics (interpretation) that I feel is the best way for me to prosper before I 'go softly into the night' of physical death. My personal ethics is bounded by the Apostles, who provide ethical dictates which 'set the edge' of my own personal ethics. So my personal ethics is delimited by my Catholic faith.

My morals are also determined by the Apostles, although obliquely. It has come to pass that Catholicism admits to not properly apprehending our God given human rights throughout all her centuries, but she is now firmly in the moral 'camp' where our morals and morality, which directs moral lawmaking, is identical with our individual and indivisible inherent and inalienable, universal and pre-political human rights. These rights are defended, though not all of them and not by name, in the Old Testament law, and defined by the New Covenant "royal" law You shall love your neighbor as yourself. It is through this lens that our rights appear objectively self-evidently real and existing.

So whether I exercise as much as I ought, or not smoke as much as I oughtn't, are ethical matters that are not moral in any sense. They are only ethical matters, and therefore matters of interpretation, of which I and everyone else has every right to independently pursue; our enshrined 'right to the pursuit of happiness'.

Part of my understanding of that right, is the freedom and liberty to ignore ethical dictators like the Apostles and like Christ Himself; and every other normative ethical dictator. Remember our rights come from God. So it is immoral to infringe upon anybody's God-given right to ethical independence, but it is immoral to not infringe upon anyone attempting or accomplishing anything objectively immoral, which is defined by rights theory as any infringement of any of our rights.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Having now read Mr. Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire enough to see that it's his later Justice for Hedgehogs, only version one; here is my thought development.

He says and I agree that 'prima facie' ethics is a matter of interpretation. There are all sorts of interpretations extant. His 'take' is that morals comes from our ethical interpretation, but having now seen the extent of his thought I have to slightly disagree with him, although it's a mere matter of rearranging his concepts rather than any sort of substantive disagreement.

I believe the relationship between ethics and law and morality is like this: Law proceeds from morals, and bounds ethics. Ethics, being a matter of interpretation, can be based on any sort of supposition, my own personal one is that we ought not let our dopamine systems 'direct traffic' in our lives.

From my view, as a Catholic, my ethics is a combination of input from my supposition about dopamine rewards, with the Apostles' ethical dictates, them basically being in Catholicism ethical dictators. There are reasons why Catholicism believes this, but the short of it is that the Apostles dictate ethics to us.

The practical application of this arrangement is that I have my personal ethics (interpretation) that I feel is the best way for me to prosper before I 'go softly into the night' of physical death. My personal ethics is bounded by the Apostles, who provide ethical dictates which 'set the edge' of my own personal ethics. So my personal ethics is delimited by my Catholic faith.

My morals are also determined by the Apostles, although obliquely. It has come to pass that Catholicism admits to not properly apprehending our God given human rights throughout all her centuries, but she is now firmly in the moral 'camp' where our morals and morality, which directs moral lawmaking, is identical with our individual and indivisible inherent and inalienable, universal and pre-political human rights. These rights are defended, though not all of them and not by name, in the Old Testament law, and defined by the New Covenant "royal" law You shall love your neighbor as yourself. It is through this lens that our rights appear objectively self-evidently real and existing.

So whether I exercise as much as I ought, or not smoke as much as I oughtn't, are ethical matters that are not moral in any sense. They are only ethical matters, and therefore matters of interpretation, of which I and everyone else has every right to independently pursue; our enshrined 'right to the pursuit of happiness'.

Part of my understanding of that right, is the freedom and liberty to ignore ethical dictators like the Apostles and like Christ Himself; and every other normative ethical dictator. Remember our rights come from God. So it is immoral to infringe upon anybody's God-given right to ethical independence, but it is immoral to not infringe upon anyone attempting or accomplishing anything objectively immoral, which is defined by rights theory as any infringement of any of our rights.
That seemed like a lot of writing just to say you don't have to obey God or His apostles because you have the right to.
And then to call God given rights to your rescue?
It must be the catholic in you that can use God to equivocate unethical immorality.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
That seemed like a lot of writing just to say you don't have to obey God or His apostles because you have the right to.
And then to call God given rights to your rescue?
It must be the catholic in you that can use God to equivocate unethical immorality.
Went right over your head.

Not surprised, tbh.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member

Philosophically Mr. Peterson comes from materialism, he doesn't believe in God----so when he does think about God (the non-local hidden Person Who made everything) what does he think of? He thinks of ethics; morals. It's because being a materialist he 'gravitates' to the 'salient' things about religion as regards materialism, which basically means, physical, visible, observable things. Not the 'theory' or 'theology' of the thing, but what's obvious and apparent and patent; 'prima facie'.

2000 years ago being a materialist Mr. Peterson would have gravitated not to the ethics of religion but to the 'idolatry' of it; the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities or gods. Since Christians (with arguably some assistance from Muhammadans) have basically extinguished the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities (except for Christians themselves, who do practice the offering of sacrifices on altars to their own deity), Mr. Peterson today gravitates to ethics instead of idolatry, because that's the next materialistic 'layer of the onion' in religion (the 'top layer', idolatry, being 'removed' by Christians).

So morals and or ethics is Mr. Peterson's 'door' to God, coming as he is from materialism. He's safe and confident with materialistic theory so if he can 'wade' into religion through this 'door' then he's going to be more comfortable in his quest.

Yes he does cry in this video, so no surprises.
He in neither, he is a clicnical psychologist who is gradually learning more and more about God at his own pace. I admire his good and common sense and it is that very common sense that is leading him to God and the Bible
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
He in neither, he is a clicnical psychologist who is gradually learning more and more about God at his own pace. I admire his good and common sense and it is that very common sense that is leading him to God and the Bible
I haven't been keeping up on him. If he's as smart you say, he'll convert to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, all the smart ones do.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
I believe he is smarter than that. He is the kind of scientist that goes where the facts lead him. He is not a believer in unicorns and fairy dust and [the Real Presence of Christ in the sacraments].
So he doesn't take the Bible literally, at its word, you mean. Plain.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
So he doesn't take the Bible literally, at its word, you mean. Plain.
I don't take the Bible literally exclusively. God uses plenty of figures of speech throughout His Word. We have to learn to recognize what is literal and what is figurative.

But more to your point. Dr. Peterson may not yet have been genuinely instructed in Biblical scholarship. He may not want to learn from the typical religious zealots who twist and water down scripture to fit their pet theology. There are plenty of those on this website.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Aha! I see!
Logic makes things easy to see.

I don't take the Bible literally exclusively. God uses plenty of figures of speech throughout His Word. We have to learn to recognize what is literal and what is figurative.
Is the Flood literal?
But more to your point. Dr. Peterson may not yet have been genuinely instructed in Biblical scholarship. He may not want to learn from the typical religious zealots who twist and water down scripture to fit their pet theology. There are plenty of those on this website.
The whole idea that you can learn to be a Christian from studying the Scripture alone is like thinking you can become a Mason by studying their lodge manuals. At some point you do have to enter the fray, and meet people.

Catholicism, and Orthodoxy have the most compelling logical cases to be made. For someone pursuing clarity of thought like Mr. Peterson, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he converts to one of these traditions, as opposed to for example Church of England or evangelicalism, because of the logical comfort with Orthodoxy, and Catholicism.
 

blueboy

Member

Philosophically Mr. Peterson comes from materialism, he doesn't believe in God----so when he does think about God (the non-local hidden Person Who made everything) what does he think of? He thinks of ethics; morals. It's because being a materialist he 'gravitates' to the 'salient' things about religion as regards materialism, which basically means, physical, visible, observable things. Not the 'theory' or 'theology' of the thing, but what's obvious and apparent and patent; 'prima facie'.

2000 years ago being a materialist Mr. Peterson would have gravitated not to the ethics of religion but to the 'idolatry' of it; the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities or gods. Since Christians (with arguably some assistance from Muhammadans) have basically extinguished the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities (except for Christians themselves, who do practice the offering of sacrifices on altars to their own deity), Mr. Peterson today gravitates to ethics instead of idolatry, because that's the next materialistic 'layer of the onion' in religion (the 'top layer', idolatry, being 'removed' by Christians).

So morals and or ethics is Mr. Peterson's 'door' to God, coming as he is from materialism. He's safe and confident with materialistic theory so if he can 'wade' into religion through this 'door' then he's going to be more comfortable in his quest.

Yes he does cry in this video, so no surprises.
Couple of red flags. The video was a slick production with a whole lot of full facials and an exposure of deep emotion, or seemingly deep emotion. Now this was done in many takes and that emotional stuff could have been redone, because it was meant to be about content and not personality. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but it was a Disneyish, in that his deep revelation of self had to be signposted with a weeping shot.

What worries me about this guy is that he is becoming incredibly rich from all this and there is a personality cult starting to grow around him. It remains to be seen if he can practice what he is preaching. The world is full of self-help, TV evangelist rubbish that serves no other purpose than to make a talking head filthy rich.

As for content, well he declares himself to not be an atheist, so we must accept that. And he is at that age of reflection when one's mortality becomes pretty obvious. We all need to reflect rather than follow blindly and behave as if God exists makes sense to me. Imagine a world in which the followers of all religions behaved as if they really believed. It would be heaven on earth.

He states that to say, God exists, comes with a very powerful caveat and he's not sure he can live up to that standard, (yet, or perhaps?) so he's on a path of self-actualising what a true state of belief might look like, or become in his life. He is closely observing his wife, whom he clearly has a great respect for and taking in the various forms and traits of her belief.

The general take-away as I see it is that Belief and Faith are calls to action, they are not philosophical concepts that begin and end with words and as such I wish him well.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I will give him the benefit of the doubt

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt in this situation is to assume that he or she is not saved, and to continue to preach the gospel to them.
 
Top