Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Jordan Peterson's Truth - Debunked" video.

  1. I'd say he's smart, but not as smart as he thinks he is, which is a problematic combination at best.
    14
  2. The capstone to the whole thing is we already have other words to describe what he talks about. True is objective truth. Useful can be used for what's being called metaphorical truth here. Right can be used to describe what he's calling ethical truth. Using "truth" in all contexts when we have an extensive vocabulary (which he's clearly not short on himself) is just intentionally obfuscating things to make it hard to argue against him. He's a hack.
    12
  3. He constantly needs to redefine terms and invent new language even when it seems unnecessary because it starts to isolate the thinking of his adherents from everyone else where they might run into views that differ from those he pushes or strawmans....and yes, that is a dangerous sign.
    11
  4. The capstone problem to the whole thing is we already have other words to describe what he talks about. True is objective truth. There's also "known truth" or "believed truth" to take into account limited knowledge. Useful can be used for what's being called metaphorical truth here. Right can be used to describe what he's calling ethical truth. Using "truth" in all contexts, especally in a philosophic discussion about truth, when we have an extensive vocabulary (which he's clearly not short on himself) is just intentionally obfuscating things to make it hard to argue against him. He's a hack.
    4
  5. Diabeetus no, we don't hold "Christian values", most Christians hold secular values. Christianity through most of its existence has violently suppressed dissent, for example. A great many "Christian values" had to be abandoned to pave the way for modern society.
    3
  6. If we take JP's position and judge people's intent by their actions and effects, peddling bullshit to those who need help for profit just makes him an opportunistic charlatan, sorry.
    3
  7. Diabeetus a secular state is needed for peaceful religious coexistence precisely because such a thing is not a religious value. It's just the opposite of what you think. Athiests aren't trying to twist logic to justify their values without appeals to religion. The religious are trying to twist their beliefs, actions, and even interpretations of their texts to try and be compatible with real human (read: secular) values. For a stark example, when was the last time someone was stoned to death for working on the sabbath? Religion doesn't create human morality. It merely perverts it. Even if the statistic you pulled out of your ass happened to be true, that'd merely be the expected result of a society with ~90% religious parents, and doesn't support the claim that the younger generations share the same values as their parents (which nearly every poll disproves). Theft of Our Values, while slightly overstated on some minor details, does a pretty good job at utterly debunking any notions that modern, western society is based on religious values. https://youtu.be/dPOMNdvKZtQ
    2
  8. Diabeetus except religion doesn't make people more moral. States (both nation states in the developed world and states within the US) all show a strong connection between rates of religion and things like violent crime. This bares out in individuals too, with athiests making up something like 0.01% of prison populations in the US dispite making up at least several percent of the general population. This is what we should expect as well. Psychology consistently finds humans to behave less ethically in authoritarian contexts. Religious texts are notoriously self contradictory, and can easily be used to cloak almost any evil action in the reputation of saints (whether to justify one's own actions, or to convince otherwise good people to do evil for you). Making 'sins' out of totally arbitrary nonsense that doesn't harm anyone undermines the entire notion of morality (as does telling people they can't be moral without a god telling them what's right). To top it off, the subject of Hell you brought up is eternal torture for a finite crime, which is contrary to all civilized notions of justice because it is completely contrary to the notion of proportional punishment which even the old testiment claims to pay lip service to with the eye for an eye limitation. There are moral believers and immoral athiests, sure, but religion (especially organized religion) makes people less moral. That's not my opinion, that's a fact reguardless of what your "common sense" expectations are.
    2
  9. Getting back to the op, it is absolutely a waste of time at best as we already can describe "that which helps one survive and reproduce" as useful. Trying to redefine truth to mean the same thing as we can already describe without changing the definition of the word. In short, it removes a core word from our vocabulary to redefine it into a synonym for another. That's not a defensible position to take, sorry.
    1