the diagnosis of Gender Disphoria

Status
Closed

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,271
#81
The notion that Peterson would have any sympathy at all with white supremacism or the alt-right is utterly absurd because he is a liberal individualist who hates any kind of identitarian politics. Molyneux on the other hand is distinctly iffy, a glint comes into his eye when he talks about IQ and race for instance, but he has openly complained of being unable to get a rise out of Peterson on the issue.
there is nothing liberal about Peterson. All morality is from god. really liberal individualist. pull the other one.

everything Peterson dos *IS* identifiarian poltics.

Molyneux isnt iffy he's out and out white supremacist. Why is Peterson targeting Molyneux as a marketing opportunity? Does he ever challange Molyneux really?
Why does Peterson peopel who follow Molyneux are his people?
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
#82
If he is often far from clear in what he says, I think it is because he is wrestling with very difficult problems.
Thank you for sharing the video. Your assessment seems fair to me, again based upon my limited exposure to what he has to say. His interlocutors, generally speaking, are promoting an idea which, while it has many underlying difficulties, is sufficiently wide spread and shared that they can generally avoid being pulled into having to grapple with those difficulties or suffer from having the articulation of their thought stymied by them, simply because most people will hear what they have to say and get the gist of it immediately, and moreover, will already be in implicit agreement. By contrast, the idea I understand Dr. Petersen to be trying to articulate not only also has many underlying difficulties, but is also a divergence from the most prominent conception of epistemology, which means that all of those underlying difficulties are going to be brought up every single time he discusses his thoughts. If we want to be maximally fair to him -- and we have an incentive to do so, as being maximally fair to him is also the best way to ensure we learn what we can from whatever insights he has to provide, even if they are limited or imperfect -- we need to take that into account when considering his position.

Interestingly, I can't help but suspect that his own theory of "Petersen Truth" (to borrow the phrase from the first video) might actually have a "Petersen Truth Value" of false, which is to say that even if it describes a real world phenomenon (i.e. has a "Realism Truth Value" of true), actually believing it and living according to it is probably maladaptive, at least for the average person. That's probably tangential to the actual discussion going on in this thread, though.
 
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
#84
Thank you for sharing the video. Your assessment seems fair to me, again based upon my limited exposure to what he has to say. His interlocutors, generally speaking, are promoting an idea which, while it has many underlying difficulties, is sufficiently wide spread and shared that they can generally avoid being pulled into having to grapple with those difficulties or suffer from having the articulation of their thought stymied by them, simply because most people will hear what they have to say and get the gist of it immediately, and moreover, will already be in implicit agreement. By contrast, the idea I understand Dr. Petersen to be trying to articulate not only also has many underlying difficulties, but is also a divergence from the most prominent conception of epistemology, which means that all of those underlying difficulties are going to be brought up every single time he discusses his thoughts. If we want to be maximally fair to him -- and we have an incentive to do so, as being maximally fair to him is also the best way to ensure we learn what we can from whatever insights he has to provide, even if they are limited or imperfect -- we need to take that into account when considering his position.

Interestingly, I can't help but suspect that his own theory of "Petersen Truth" (to borrow the phrase from the first video) might actually have a "Petersen Truth Value" of false, which is to say that even if it describes a real world phenomenon (i.e. has a "Realism Truth Value" of true), actually believing it and living according to it is probably maladaptive, at least for the average person. That's probably tangential to the actual discussion going on in this thread, though.
Yes, I think there's a problem with the way in which he uses the term 'truth' in this context, when it seems to be more a matter of effectiveness in governing on'e life and doubtless also moral cogency; he perhaps wants to talk in terms of 'truth' because it would otherwise imply that the criteria involved are purely subjective, but I'm not sure that that necessarily follows; and the fact that he ties himself up into knots at times does suggest that there is something wrong with his approach. Though I do think that if one finds criteria for living a coherently meaningful life, that does suggest that those criteria do have some truth value, in relation to one's understanding of human nature and one's place in the world, so I don't find it wholly inappropriate for him to talk in those terms. After all, we know what we mean in thinking that someone has achieved a certain wisdom in the conducting of his life, and that does seem to involve real insight, even if we might find it hard to define the nature of the truths that he might be said to have discovered!
 

holoow

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
3,824
Vilnius, Lithuania
#87
Calling it truth is essentai error. Saying teh objective truth depends of utility it to degrade the concept of objetcive truth to uselessness as concept.

His ability to wrap poor ideas in a lot pseudo scientific psycho babale is quite large and obscures the essential emptiness of almost veyerthing he says,

Other dumb stuff he says is that ALL moralisty comes from God, that without Christianity there is just murder, and anyone who oppposes murder must in their darkest heart be christain no matter what they actually profess on tthe matter.. Athesist = murdere. r Insulting clap trap of the lowest water.

But his fans just lap it up,.
Btw, Christianity is highly anthropocentric religion. I may be wrong, but problems related to cruelty against animals never mattered to Christians. Compare that to Jainism.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,593
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#88
Yeah...

THREAD CLOSED.

btw, all of you - pugsville has visual problems and cannot easily see the spellcheck underline, so give him some leeway please.

pugsville, there are several tools that you can install that make the screen contents easier to see. I strongly suggest you check some of these out. Sometimes, the errors in your posts make them very difficult to decipher.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions