The Jordan Peterson thread

Lawrence87

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I would obviously not say that Peterson is the antichrist, that would be absurd. However I do think he embodies something that I believe will be seen in the antichrist.

What I mean by this is that the antichrist is going to have to be able to appeal to a lot of Christians in order to lead them into deception. It's naive to assume that this would not be the case. He will probably talk about Biblical themes and ideas that will entice and appeal to the masses, in a similar way to how Peterson does. And like Peterson, the antichrist will not be able to confess Christ as Lord.

Many people seem to naively think the antichrist will be some sort of obviously anti-Christian figure, but in reality words will come out of his mouth that many Christians will find appealing, and they will find themselves deceived. I can imagine how the antichrist might worm their way around questions about their views on Christ.
 

Northumber

Pigeon
Protestant
I would obviously not say that Peterson is the antichrist, that would be absurd. However I do think he embodies something that I believe will be seen in the antichrist.

What I mean by this is that the antichrist is going to have to be able to appeal to a lot of Christians in order to lead them into deception. It's naive to assume that this would not be the case. He will probably talk about Biblical themes and ideas that will entice and appeal to the masses, in a similar way to how Peterson does. And like Peterson, the antichrist will not be able to confess Christ as Lord.

Many people seem to naively think the antichrist will be some sort of obviously anti-Christian figure, but in reality words will come out of his mouth that many Christians will find appealing, and they will find themselves deceived. I can imagine how the antichrist might worm their way around questions about their views on Christ.

Yes, this was where my mind was going as well. Most of my exposure to Peterson is through his Orthodox friend Pageau. I've also listened to others who are tangential: people like John Vervaeke (not Christian), Paul VanderKlay (Protestant), and Paul Kingsnorth (Orthodox). I enjoy the discussions between Pageau and Peterson and other people who are "Christian positive" but I sometimes wonder if something ill-formed will pop out of that niche. Their discussions dive deep and do show the shortcomings of atheistic modern/postmodern thought. But my concern is the intent behind Peterson's interest and inquiry into Christ. I understand how certain aspects of Christianity appear as if they've been rediscovered when we are so buried in our culture; and Peterson represents part of this movement of people waking from our culture and rediscovering Christianity. If that is the only intent, okay, but there is also an element of intent that pushes "rediscovery" so fundamentally that it seems to push into a new religion.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
I said I'd keep out of here, until JP changes course. But just wrote a note to someone on why JP's worldview is lacking and essentially self-defeating.

A requirement for a society is something, which I believe Peterson calls substrate, or something that is underlying the society, that continues across generations. Without that you have chaos. And the only thing that fits this is a religion that most people broadly believe. If everyone has their own spiritual beliefs that they have divined themselves, I don't think that will work. That is chaos. Another Peterson point is that you need to have some core that you all/mostly agree on, which has historically come from religion. You need rules that most people will agree to play by. You don't get that from philosophy, self-divined spirituality and certainly not politics. Politics is delivering the exact opposite, of countries that are roughly divided 50-50 in people who fundamentally don't believe what the rules of society are.

The future of society.

Increasing moral decline, rootlessness, people making increasingly worse lifestyle decisions, atomisation, dependence on the government-corporate merger, CBDCs, social credit score similar to what they have in China. There are a lot of plans elites have for hi-tech, but I think they are far too ambitious, and people will end up living in a increasingly materially painful mire, for which they have no real way of looking at through a non-materialist lens.

Recommendation.

(little O) orthodox Christianity. This has shown that it can serve as the substrate of a slowly morally improving society for a very long time. Depends on your perspective, but you could say around 1,000 years.

All of the essentially atheist, man-centred political and philosophical systems that emerged in the late 18th century to 20th century have failed, or in the case of social democracy, is failing. When the leader dies, than it's often open season. These regimes have no real substrate. Their concern is power. Always another radically different ideology waiting to get in - for power. The current system is social democracy, and it's at the point when it can only fail. No turning it around.

The basis of our society is traditionalism. So far as I am aware this is the basis of all civilisations. Strong families, tough regulation of marriage and polygamy. Islam is somewhat of an exception on polygamy, which is why they have such issues with certain things relating to women and other topics. A top-down ruling class, that mirrors the natural structure of the world and doesn't submit itself to the will of the masses. Generally a universal religion. Remove the universal religion, or make it a pantheon and you get instability.

Essentially all the basis of society is tradition.

Essentially all of the wealth and colour of society is liberalism, of which I would say JP is the primary representative of today.

And essentially all of the decline in society comes from leftism and other materialist ideas, but primarily leftism, which is the most materialist of all views. See San Francisco.

Liberalism had to grapple with tradition. Tradition held wealth and material improvement back for centuries. Liberalism won this battle by the wealth it was able to produce, successively seducing monarchs, who were eventually overthrown by their own greed.

Liberalism created an increasingly materialist environment. To the point we are to day where few people have even the vaguest conception of Christianity's opposing proposition to materialism.

People were increasingly given to sins of pleasure and sensation - pride, greed, gluttony and lust. Those who did not have the Christian counter to those occurrences, were given to jealousy, anger and despondency in light of others' materialism.

We are now living in an age in which the sins of pleasure and consumption have given way to the sins of rage and pestilence. As Peterson quotes from Heidt, the primary psychological drive of leftists is "malicious envy" and other such drive. Though both Peterson and Heidt are looking at this occurrence with too small a lens in too small a time frame.

Leftists seek to debase those who benefit from the previous liberal system, which they often characterise as far-right. So we have a proliferation of systems that output less than they have put in. The liberal system is being toppled in something of an inversion of the toppling of the traditional systems. While the traditional system was toppled by greed and pride. The liberal system is being toppled by jealousy and anger.

But while the liberal system was established on a base it eroded, by now the liberal and particularly leftist system has eroded the base of society to such an extent that there is increasingly little for it to crash through. To what extent society is held up is often from inertia, of people carrying on the last days of traditions from the past without specifically being inducted into them or having much idea of their relevance or meaning. The requirement for strong families that are not wracked with various ills like infidelity are well known to Peterson, and he faced extreme backlash for talking about them, e.g. "enforced monogamy". Peterson sees some of the fundamental flaws with liberalism, but I think it's the case he only wants to roll them back a bit, so liberalism can have another hurrah. But as established above, that would only lead to another decline into leftism and materialism. I feel that there is spiritually and psychicly no possibility of actually turning this around for anything other than something of an 8-year stint of Reaganesque materialism. This is a deep cycle. The only way you'd ever be able to get to a leftist society is first through liberalism

We are now at the stage at which leftist radicals are seeking to destroy the married family as a tyrannical hetronormative tyranny. The married, fidelitous family is the fundamental basis of traditional society. It isn't being removed because it's oppressive. It is being removed by deeply spiritually afflicted people who resent what is good that they do not posses. Do not give one atom of quarter to those who are attacking it.

We are seeing the return of facets of a pagan society. That is, things that were stamped out and destroyed by traditional societies. Things like polygamy, irregular "romantic" relations and ways of raising children, elevation of animals and nature, fractured societies where no one agrees of anything - go to the next village that defends itself with a primitive fortified mount where they believe in things completely different. The current path is a return to a pagan way of life, with human sacrifice, harems begging to be slain dead on the carcass of their warlord husband and so on.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
JBP recently called for anonymity to be removed from Twitter.

What happened to the dude?


You don't get promoted by this system, whether you are an athlete, or a celebrity, or a "thinker" :rolleyes: like Jordan Petereson, if you are also red pilled and speak truth to power. And it is getting worse by the day.

If you want real thinkers, and real growth, you have to find red pilled folks who are not promoted by the system and likely banned from big tech.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
You don't get promoted by this system, whether you are an athlete, or a celebrity, or a "thinker" :rolleyes: like Jordan Petereson, if you are also red pilled and speak truth to power. And it is getting worse by the day.

If you want real thinkers, and real growth, you have to find red pilled folks who are not promoted by the system and likely banned from big tech.
It’s weird to hear him talk about the problem with people whose speech “costs them nothing,” as if his didn’t result in massively amplified wealth and fame. I respect people whose speech comes at a cost, to be clear. But he isn’t one of them.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Ostrich
Orthodox
What happened? I dunno, he's always been a gimp

This clip is amazing. He is arguing for KYC (Know Your Customer) rules, so that tech companies can track users, and then report them for wrongthink.

If he doesn't like trolls, then surely he can turn off his comments section, or change his settings to only see posts from those whom he follows?
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
This clip is amazing. He is arguing for KYC (Know Your Customer) rules, so that tech companies can track users, and then report them for wrongthink.

If he doesn't like trolls, then surely he can turn off his comments section, or change his settings to only see posts from those whom he follows?
Nah, better for Big Tech to know your address and social security number.
 

Essentialist Tech Expat

Chicken
Trad Catholic
Nah, better for Big Tech to know your address and social security number.
Fundamentally I don't understand the framing of this perspective. I'm not arguing for de-anonymizing people either.

Here is why; the system as it is right now is already a de facto global surveillance tool operated by private companies at the behest of the western governments. The address and SS number are irrelevant. The big tech system is a free ad-supported model that weaponizes user data across platforms to sell to advertisers and other shadowy entities. They suck everything they can from you, IP addresses, contact books, MAC addresses, IMEI, GPS, embed tracking pixels, and sends the data to behaviorists to manipulate you better.

JP has the right psychological perspective on this; anonymous loser trolls can be bad and harmful, they cause a bunch of negativity and even worse they are the dregs of society, yet their voice seems relatively louder than the normal person. But he has the wrong solution because he doesn't understand technology. People need to interact more at the local level of organization, engagement (online), than jockeying with each other to try to reach the whole world at scale. A CNN journalist doesn't deserve a blue checkmark and the preference of the algorithm. There needs to be a higher barrier to entry that makes trolling and low effort negative posting more costly, OR, an incentive system that rewards quality contributions and engagement. Twitter is perversely messed up because because the character length is 280. Negativity sells. TikTok is messed up because the average video length is 21-34 seconds. Vine was messed up because the max video length was 6 seconds. Brevity sells. We all know that context and nuance matter if we want good constructive things to happen. I think there are several solutions as I've alluded to, but one more would be to take more steps to remove bots, through some sort of human verification process, i.e. an automated phone phone to register your account, only one account per number. Removing behaviorist design UI elements and algorithmic elements would also fix this. We have warning lights and buzzers in our vehicles that remind us to put on seat belts. This is better than nothing, but it too also is better than stopping us from starting the car because the seat belt isn't clicked in. Respecting people's agency but promoting a social positive.

Speaking of local communities, Facebook groups used to be awesome before facebook imposed their global standards on each group unilaterally, and before they started shutting down groups for various spurious reasons.

Another obvious option is to benevolently gatekeep to ensure better content and a more social, social network of global users would be to make people pay a nominal sum for use. We already do this with tv and film streaming, music streaming, internet bandwidth, cloud compute, web hosting, VPNs, Xboxlive and many other services.

News organizations have by and large removed comment sections from websites. This was a mistake obviously. Instead there should of been a better system for user contributions with a straightforward and motivating incentive structure. Make the system better instead of breaking it or removing it.

As a final thought, services like Twitter and Facebook are obviously broken. Twitter has stalled with growth, and facebook has lost billions in value since their metaverse gambit and topping out with their growth years ago. Design better products and services and people will follow. All engineers to experiment more to improve the service instead of being risk averse.
 
Last edited:

Uzisuicide

Kingfisher
Protestant
Gold Member
Brother Nathanael refutes Jordan Peterson
"Peterson mistakenly conflates the Biblical theocratic nation of Israel with the secular state of today."


Jordan Peterson is not necessarily incorrect. While I respect Brother Nathanael's view on replacement theology, it's by no means settled theology in Christianity as a whole.

www.cufi.org which was founded by Pastor John Hagee is probably the largest Christian Zionist group in the world. The founding of Israel as a state is to them a pre-requisite to the Second Coming of Christ and an extension of the Biblical Israel.

Furthermore, two things can be true at once. Jordan Peterson didn't suggest that the Old Testament was psychologically false. In the Old Testament, belief in the coming Messiah was Jewish doctrine. Christ is the Messiah and therefore fulfilled the Old Testament scriptures. From there on, a personal belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection as payment for sin became the central tenant of Christianity. The Jews obviously missed that and still wait for a Messiah.

The idea that you take up your cross and accept Christ is a PERSONAL decision. Being a member of a certain Church or denomination isn't going to lead to your Salvation. The idea that the individual is made in the image of God, possesses a Devine spark and is sacrosanct is a central tenant of Christianity and the fundamental basis of Western Civilization. Jordan Peterson got that right.

The whole replacement theology debate is interesting but it isn't essential doctrine so I won't waste time with it because it is trivial to me. In so many of Peterson's lectures that I've heard he speaks of the individual confronting their fears forthrightly, carrying the suffering of life and walking up-hill. Christ was the greatest example of this and it didn't go un noticed by Jordan Peterson.
 
Last edited:

Eusebius Erasmus

Ostrich
Orthodox
The whole replacement theology debate is interesting but it isn't essential doctrine so I won't waste time with it because it is trivial to me. In so many of Peterson's lectures that I've heard he speaks of the individual confronting their fears forthrightly, carrying the suffering of life and walking up-hill. Christ was the greatest example of this and it didn't go un noticed by Jordan Peterson.

If it isn't essential doctrine, are you suggesting that a person can get to Heaven by practicing Judaism while rejecting Christ?
 

RonaldB

Sparrow
Catholic
I take that to mean you didn't watch the two minute vid where he explained exactly where he was at with Christianity. lol.

This guy is a prime example of the typical JBP fan. JBP defenders project their beliefs into Jordan Peterson. As of now, no one can't really say what JBP believes because he always gives the same type of answer: "It depends of what you mean?"

It also reminds me of Ben Shapiro having conversations about "The importance of having conversations" which leads to nothing."
 
Top