Search Results
6/9/2025, 1:02:17 PM
Used to follow Jordan Peterson.
I read his "Maps of Meaning" book, and I thought it was interesting. Maybe more so as a character study of an interesting personality than a useful work of psychology or philosophy, but I got some entertainment out of it.
Lost interest in him shortly after he became mainstream, as it seemed like he lost sight of his own arguments in Maps of Meaning in favor of pandering to the right wing talking heads who were giving him attention.
I watched the "Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists" thing last night.
I don't know why I bothered. It became lolcow tier shit quickly, and I don't particularly derive joy from that.
But there were some interesting notable moments.
At around the 34 minute mark he absolutely refuses to say he would ever lie to protect jews in Nazi Germany, and essentially says he'd consider himself to have "catastrophically failed" somewhere along the line if he were ever in a position where he'd have to lie to protect jews.
If you follow his reasoning per Maps of Meaning the idea he seems to be referencing is his argument that if people commit themselves to what they individually believe to be true, to their conscience, not going along with what is told to them, a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany cannot occur. So, by Maps of Meaning, he would consider himself to have failed to have committed to truth and his conscience if he ever found himself in a situation where he would have to lie to protect jews.
You can interpret this as a noble thing, as if he's committed to his "truth", but it's also really funny if you just take it at face value outside of the context of his arguments.
Without context, it's comedically bald-faced anti-semitism "I would NEVER lie to protect jews, and if I somehow found myself in a position to do so, it would be a catastrophic failure of my conscience!"
The other funny point: He's definitely not a christian. Not by any definition found within christianity, or by any definition other christians would use. He refuses to call himself or allow himself to be defined as a christian at several points in the debate.
He gets called out on this by a twink and humiliates himself by ragequitting the conversation. This apparently led to the title of the video being changed from "1 Christian vs. 20 Atheists (ft. Jordan Peterson)" to "Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists"
And yet he's very insistent on calling westerners christians.
For a moment this struck me as some kind of Nietzschean power move; where it's obvious to himself that he's not a christian, but he pretends to be and is attempting to hypnotize everyone else into believing they "really are a christian deep down". As if he's trying to enslave the masses under his brand of "christianity", setting himself up as its high priest, while being free himself to be whatever he wants.
The problem of course is that anyone with half a brain cell will be able to call him out on this.
I read his "Maps of Meaning" book, and I thought it was interesting. Maybe more so as a character study of an interesting personality than a useful work of psychology or philosophy, but I got some entertainment out of it.
Lost interest in him shortly after he became mainstream, as it seemed like he lost sight of his own arguments in Maps of Meaning in favor of pandering to the right wing talking heads who were giving him attention.
I watched the "Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists" thing last night.
I don't know why I bothered. It became lolcow tier shit quickly, and I don't particularly derive joy from that.
But there were some interesting notable moments.
At around the 34 minute mark he absolutely refuses to say he would ever lie to protect jews in Nazi Germany, and essentially says he'd consider himself to have "catastrophically failed" somewhere along the line if he were ever in a position where he'd have to lie to protect jews.
If you follow his reasoning per Maps of Meaning the idea he seems to be referencing is his argument that if people commit themselves to what they individually believe to be true, to their conscience, not going along with what is told to them, a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany cannot occur. So, by Maps of Meaning, he would consider himself to have failed to have committed to truth and his conscience if he ever found himself in a situation where he would have to lie to protect jews.
You can interpret this as a noble thing, as if he's committed to his "truth", but it's also really funny if you just take it at face value outside of the context of his arguments.
Without context, it's comedically bald-faced anti-semitism "I would NEVER lie to protect jews, and if I somehow found myself in a position to do so, it would be a catastrophic failure of my conscience!"
The other funny point: He's definitely not a christian. Not by any definition found within christianity, or by any definition other christians would use. He refuses to call himself or allow himself to be defined as a christian at several points in the debate.
He gets called out on this by a twink and humiliates himself by ragequitting the conversation. This apparently led to the title of the video being changed from "1 Christian vs. 20 Atheists (ft. Jordan Peterson)" to "Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists"
And yet he's very insistent on calling westerners christians.
For a moment this struck me as some kind of Nietzschean power move; where it's obvious to himself that he's not a christian, but he pretends to be and is attempting to hypnotize everyone else into believing they "really are a christian deep down". As if he's trying to enslave the masses under his brand of "christianity", setting himself up as its high priest, while being free himself to be whatever he wants.
The problem of course is that anyone with half a brain cell will be able to call him out on this.
Page 1