Almost every post about something Peterson has recently said has a top comment that begins with, "What he really meant..."
Almost every post about something Peterson has recently said has a top comment that begins with, "What he really meant..."
You would think they would eventually realize if 50 different people get 50 different versions of the same event maybe the speaker is just bullshitting them and letting them fill in the blanks for him
It’s sad to think that people in a Jordan Peterson sub cannot even admit that a person is able to be wrong
"What Jesus really meant ..."
He gets interpreted to be a horrible person suspiciously frequently.
What he really meant was that there was a long period in Western history in which the Bible was the only book the vast majority of people were exposed to. Of course, he said it in his typical sloppy and exaggerated way, so now people will be able to mock him for it and dismiss whatever reasonable point he was making. Does anybody else wish that Peterson was better at following his own rule, "Be precise in your speech"?
Does anybody else wish that Peterson was better at following his own rule, "Be precise in your speech"?
Have you really not figured this out yet? The rules are for YOU, not for him, he doesn't need them as his life is perfect and he handles it perfectly.
Ha! Yes, I realize I could have just asked whether anyone else wished that Peterson wasn't such an arrogant prick. I waffle between suspecting that he doesn't even realize how bad he is at following his own rules and suspecting that he just doesn't care because, in his mind, he's already ascended above the need for such basic self-help principles. Probably it's some foul mixture of both.
Probably time for him to get off the benzos again too.
I can imagine that. I don't know how much of a cliché it is, but movies paint a picture of a history of religious folk who can't read. It's not too much to imagine one family member reading Bible verses to the others, would suffice.
It's not just religious folk. Until very recently in human history, most people couldn't read. Until the invention of the printing press almost no one had any books at all, and they would only have encountered the Bible in church.
Certainly. I'm just pointing to the fact that most people would have developed their ability to read through the bible, ergo the bible would lay their base understanding of literature.
Yup. Definitely. It gets annoying a few times. But it's our responsibility to interpret things, to take out what's useful from it (since we can't change how he talks). I like Gad Saad's description of Free Speech and what it means in this regard.
Public intellectuals should only be taken seriously if they show discipline and precision in what they choose to contribute to public discourse. Dr. Peterson has been shockingly lax with his speech and is rapidly losing the respect I had for him.
He said what he said, nothing more or less.
That you then engaged in tea leaf reading to extract from it something that isn't laughably ahistorical is not very interesting to me.
Did you listen to the podcast? You’re entirely misrepresenting the section, no tea leaf reading required. The idea that someone can post a quote of 10 seconds of dialogue to represent probably 25 minutes of discussion is absurd. The point of that discussion, which you’d know if you listened to it, was the idea of a fundamental idea. An idea is fundamental the more other ideas rely upon it—similarly a text is fundamental based upon how many other texts are reliant upon it. The Bible is the fundamental text. You can agree with that or not, that was his point. Stop with the tea leave nonsense when you can easily discern the point of the discussion.
I've seen the whole episode. The evidence Dr. Peterson advances for this notion of the Bible being fundamental in this sense is deeply flawed.
This is not to say that the Bible isn't one of the most important texts that explain the development of Western printed culture.
All you have to offer is that he was making these false claims in service of a larger point.
1) So what if he was? 2) Would that not make the legitimacy of his larger point suffer in your evaluation?
Edit: Also the notion that his argument is easily discernible is... I don't even know how to approach that. I guess you and I come from radically different intellectual traditions. In this video I found in him a profound lack of clarity, veracity, and precision. It's difficult for me to litigate whether his speech is actually messy; the fact that it is is overwhelmingly evident to me. The fact that you all have to engage in tortured exigeses to save him from his messiness should also be proof in my mind.
I’m not trying to be combative, but if your verbal comprehension is half as good as your vocabulary, you should’ve easily been able to determine the central point of that conversation.
Let me clarify: I know his central point. I knew it when I watched it as well. The fact that the broadest stroke of his argument is clear is not a defence against:
1) The messiness of his argument, in general, and particularly in this component on the primacy of the Bible.
2) The falsehood of important components of his argument.
When I point out he is flat out wrong about many things he's saying, and that he's saying them in a way that makes them hard to understand and difficult to connect to each other, it is very strange to me for you to respond by saying "but here is his overall point".
Does the mere fact that he had a larger point to make mean that:
1) The larger point is valid?
2) The problems with his supporting evidence are irrelevant?
3) That he made his argument clearly?
My answer to all of them is no, and his larger point shouldn't be taken seriously either.
What book would you say is the most fundamental text, the book that is most connected to other books?
I would dispute the need to identify a singular such book. It's an unhelpful oversimplification.
I also don't find the idea of 'root works' very compelling in the first place. It is an overly centralised view of how culture propagates, and does not reflect the actual dynamics of cultural trends over the scale of something like 'civilisation'.
Gun to my head, you can probably have a category of works that would satisfy the criterion 'disproportionately influenced subsequent intellectual/cultural work'. Maybe you could even narrow that category down to a few works if you pushed the threshold for 'disproportionately' high enough, but you risk distortion again.
I'd find it hard to exclude the Yi Jing, the Analects, the Hippocratic Corpus, Republic, Al-Kindi's corpus off the top of my head. They all continue to animate political, social, scientific ideas today, and have visible direct influences in vast swathes of modern life.
I appreciate your thorough answer, but you truly wouldn't put the bible in that group?
I would. Sorry, I forgot which thread of replies I was in. There's another comment in this post where I've said the Bible is very influential, so I listed things other than the Bible.
It is a recorded conversation between two people having a chat. He is not claiming to be talking ex cathedra or whatever.
But if you don't like it, don't listen. I thought it was quite interesting. I didn't find the idea that the bible effectively was the first book for many people to get that confusing either. For the a huge number of people, it was, it was the only book they had.
Yes it is two people in a conversation. One of those people is a public intellectual, though. I don't think Rogan should be held to the same standards as Dr. Peterson, because Rogan has no expert training, does not claim expertise, and is not perceived as an expert by society at large.
Telling me I shouldn't watch if I don't like it is the ultimate concession. Is the intellectual value Dr. Peterson has to offer only perceptible to people who already agree with him? That's an incredible indictment of his competence as an academic, someone who deals professionally in thinking seriously about ideas and presenting them for public scrutiny.
I didn't say you shouldn't watch/listen, I said if you don't like it, you don't need to. If you want the filtered carefully thought out version, read the books. I just think you are being unrealistic to expect exchanges like that, to be like the books. Hell, even in that podcast, JP talks about the freedom of two people just being able to sit, chat freely, shoot the shit. He isn't dictating a book or article.
It is nothing to do with whether you agree with him or not, you definitely should be listening to stuff you disagree with, but you need to be willing to do it with an open and fair mind to get the most value.
It just seems like you are expecting something that he has deliberately said isn't there.
Is the intellectual value Dr. Peterson has to offer only perceptible to people who already agree with him?
That's an incredible indictment of his competence as an academic
Well, you are making the premise and drawing your own conclusions from it. Which is fine, but if you are asking if it is valid, no, I don't your conclusion is valid because I don't think your premise is valid. In fact, I would think it can't logically be true, unless you think that JP doesn't offer anything new to anyone. I don't think we can say that about anyone.
So probably worth staying away from JP on that kind of medium (podcasts, youtube, etc.), or lower you expectations to that of what you would expect from any mere mortal :)
But if you don't like it, don't listen.
I didn't say you shouldn't watch/listen, I said if you don't like it, you don't need to.
C'mon, man.
Anyway.
He claims the Bible functions as the reference for all subsequent intellectual and cultural work because it was: the first things of its kind, and the only thing of its kind for a long time.
Neither of his premises are true. His overall claim is specious at best.
If you think that my intellectual standards can't be met by any mortal, I have no idea what you have been consuming. Many public intellectuals, and indeed many people who are not intellectuals, are significantly more coherent and accurate than Dr. Peterson.
That you think this is an unreasonable standard makes me feel bad. You deserve better, and the best part is, it is easily available.
There is a huge different between "if you don't" and "you shouldn't".
"You shouldn't" is a recommendation or a command even. "If" is a conditional statement. There is no obligation to make one, or any, of the clauses that follow (well, unless someone is trying to use it as a threat I guess). They are two fairly different things though. Not sure if you are trying to score a point, but you will need try harder than that :)
He claims the Bible functions as the reference for all subsequent intellectual and cultural work because it was: the first things of its kind, and the only thing of its kind for a long time.
Neither of his premises are true. His overall claim is specious at best.
OK. Given the context, I don't think you need to take everything quite so literally. I guess you do because it is JP and public domain, but as mentioned above, to me (and to him, or that is what he said) this is a chat between two friends, so I am fine not holding it to those standards, I am not sure why you would expect to take it quite so literally.
Given his thoughts and beliefs, he clearly feels that it is most important book (in terms of being foundational) for our society. But that isn't a yes/no thing. So I think he can be forgiven for getting a little carried way chatting with a friend, even if it is being recorded, even if it is going on a podcast, even if lots of people might watch it. But if you disagree with the context, great. But you are probably not looking in the right place for what you want. And that is all I can say about it really. I can't argue about what he meant, I can't argue about what he has said in his biblical podcasts (I haven't listened) or his books about (haven't read any where he has talked about the bible). But I can just say, that I think you are looking for the wrong thing in a podcast. In my opinion.
If you think that my intellectual standards can't be met by any mortal, I have no idea what you have been consuming. Many public intellectuals, and indeed many people who are not intellectuals, are significantly more coherent and accurate than Dr. Peterson.
Maybe. Haven you listened to them having an informal conversation on a podcast with a friend, when they are under a similar amount of stress and pressure? If so, how do you know how authentic they are really being? How do you know, they have the same pressure in their lives? Even for the people you hold the highest, you don't expect all the same standards as you would in a formal setting right? Or maybe you just hold JP in too high regard :)
That you think this is an unreasonable standard makes me feel bad. You deserve better, and the best part is, it is easily available.
We all get different things out of different exchanges. I disagree with a lot of what JP does and thinks. I think his exchange on climate at the beginning was fucking nuts. I am also an atheist, so if is a believer in any of those stories being literally true (I don't think he is), that is a huge point of disagreement also. But I take value where I find it, and JP has made an ENORMOUS difference (for the best obviously, or I might not be reply to your comment on the sub, probably just upvoting it or something) to me over the past several years. I am not some basement dwelling 20 year old virgin male, I have a wife, family, I had a good job and never need to worry about money, but I still took a lot from it. It changed my trajectory a bit I guess.
But that is the thing about these domains. They click for some people and not for others right? So if you find *your* value in someone who you think meets your definition of quality better, great. If not, keep looking. It doesn't have to be JP, and for the vast majority of people on the planet it won't be. It won't be anyone for the vast majority, and that is fine.
Either way, hope you find it, or enjoy looking!
Also it wouldn't be accurate to say "the bible" since versions abound. The king James version has played a foundational role on our language. But the king james bible wasn't the first or most popular version until I think the 19 century.
Something about being precise in your speech.
That's a fair criticism to make since one of Peterson's rules is to always be precise in your speech.
However, I think we need to grant a little leway due to this being a 4 hour podcast and not some sort of speech or university lecture. It's possible that this wasn't one of the topics he prepared beforehand and may have not had all his facts straight.
I think the standards for veracity and precision in speech that we hold public intellectuals to should be much higher than that we hold normal people to.
Dr. Peterson is indistinguishable in this segment from Rogan himself. A lack of preparation and expertise is completely understandable. Speaking as if that were not the case is not! Academics regularly get asked to talk on subjects outside of their expertise and they regularly either refuse to do so or offer modest claims tempered by caveats on their lack of certainty. Dr. Peterson wants to be taken as seriously as any public intellectual, but he does not keep his end of the bargain.
If he were just another Rogan guest I would have dismissed this. Why extend this benefit of doubt appropriate for an ordinary person when he wants the advantages of a higher station?
A higher station? I've got news for you, "public intellectuals" are normal people too. If you get anyone going in a normal conversation you're going to hear all sorts of wild stuff.
What your doing here is arguing over semantics. Was there ever a time when the Bible was "the only book"? No. Was it the only book for a lot of people during certain points in history? Definitely. Is it the basis for much of western culture? Yes. That was the point Peterson was trying to make.
If trashing Peterson for making an awkward or technically inaccurate claim a week after he made it is your way of feeling superior, then you need to get out more.
This is disingenuous. Peterson very often overemphasizes the Bible's importance as a codex of human morality & more than once compromised his professional credibility due to the same cognitive bias, like Freud's predilection for fellating cigars.
That's a fair debate to have ( the part about the Bible not why Freud loved cigars).
OP is making a big deal about how Peterson mispoke about the Bible being the first/only book which is problematic but not a good reason to throw out the whole argument.
A more apt analogy for Peterson's cognitive bias really lies in the work of Carl Jung, who Peterson actually cites much more often than Freud.
They both overuse Christian symbology because they both grew up in Christian societies, but I think they're both short-sighted in recognizing the post-national & religiously pluralistic internet community interpreting their messages.
And I mean, Jung deserves some slack because he died a cool 60 years ago, but Peterson should be hip enough to the new millennium to be a bit more progressive in his cultural references & not lean on Jesus so hard.
My friend, of course public intellectuals are perfectly normal people. The function they perform is of providing thoughtful and well-researched ways to better understand our world. With regards to that function we must hold them to a higher standard than we do normal people.
A professional athlete is also a normal person. This doesn't stop us from rightly criticising them when they miss an easy chance to score a point. Would it be meaningful to say then that if "you put a normal person in that position they would also often miss"? We don't hold professional athletes to normal standards and we shouldn't!
Being responsible about information and opinions is literally Dr. Peterson's job. He is extremely well rewarded for it, and clearly enjoys the platform he has. Therefore, for us to take him more seriously than we do a normal person, he must in turn be more reliable than a normal person.
Athletes are only made into stars when they repeatedly show us how talented they are. Imagine an athlete missing all their chances and people still thinking they should be treated as competent?
No need to be interested. I agree he shouldn't be taken seriously most of the time at this point.
It’s obvious to anyone who doesn’t worship him that he meant exactly what he said. Even if he didn’t mean what he said and somehow actually meant what you’re saying, he’d still be factually incorrect.
Well, I certainly don't worship him, and that's partly because he's often really bad at expressing his ideas clearly. Why you would assume that he always expresses himself exactly accurately, I can't imagine, especially if you've ever listened to him speak at length.
I was just talking about this specific part in the podcast, he’s claiming cold, hard facts based in our physical reality and he’s completely wrong. He’s expressing himself just fine here.
When I followed him, I noticed most times he wasn’t able to fully express himself was when he was cornered in debates.
He's not "expressing himself just fine." He's expressing himself like a rambling idiot. What confuses you is that he usually sounds completely confident even when he's making all kinds of mistakes. Those rare times when "he wasn't able to fully express himself" are far from the only times when he's doing a bad job of expressing himself.
The way I see it, he was expressing himself exactly how he intended, but the point he was trying to make is factually incorrect - so there is no way it can come across not idiotic when the truth is shown
I don't know why you think you have so much insight into what he intended, and I also don't know what point you think he was trying to make.
I assume I have more insight than you, both because I know him (took classes with him) and because, aside from the assertion that the Bible was "literally" the first book, most of what he's saying in the quoted passage is reasonably historically accurate: for a long time before the printing press was invented, the only book that most people in Western culture ever would have encountered was the Bible. The Bible was the first book to be widely distributed after the invention of the printing press. And the Bible is indeed put together from previous writings that would often have been written on scrolls and papyrus, and so it is essentially a collection of earlier books.
Also, in favor of my judgment that he's being sloppy is the fact that he starts by saying the first book was the Bible but ends by acknowledging that the Bible is basically a collection of earlier books (which weren't shaped like modern books, but were basically books in their content, written on scrolls and papyrus), meaning the Bible obviously wasn't the first book.
Except the point of the Bible being a collection of books, nothing of what you said was uttered by him. What was said is factually innacurate. Point blank. And I don’t think taking classes with him allows you to assume what he meant anymore than anyone else that has seen his lectures/interviews/debates/podcasts. This whole JP phenomenon has taught me there are large swaths of the population that have never learned to learn properly.
And it's taught me that many people have very poor reading comprehension.
Well, at least you got something out of it. Feel free to point out my mistake.
How am I supposed to point out your mistake when you haven't told me what assertions you think Peterson was making? You tell me what you think, and then I'll tell you why I think differently.
Your previous comment said, "nothing of what you said was uttered by him," -- well, obviously I wasn't quoting his exact words because what would be the point of that? We can both already read his exact words at the top of the thread. What I said was my attempt to paraphrase his points so that you could see where I was coming from. You should do the same, and then I'll point out your mistake (if I see one).
If you want to make it really simple, pick one short part of the quote and then say what you think it means.
Well we just have a different view on what he meant. If I were to type what I thought he meant it would literally be a copy/paste from the transcription of that portion of the podcast. I think he meant everything literally and only made the contradiction at the end because he was talking out of his ass.
And like I said earlier, if he actually meant “there was a long period in Western history in which the Bible was the only book the vast majority of people were exposed to”, my own judgement is that he would’ve just said that. Even if he did mean this though, it would still not be entirely true. For example, Europe was translating Arabic texts on science and philosophy in the 12th century, and there were many books written before the Bible and during the period the Bible was created.
For example, Europe was translating Arabic texts on science and philosophy in the 12th century, and there were many books written before the Bible and during the period the Bible was created.
Totally true, but it's still the case that the vast majority of people couldn't read, didn't encounter books in general, and the only one they might encounter would be the Bible, in a church. We're talking peasants here, man!
So go ahead: copy/paste a sentence of the podcast. Then tell me what you think it means. Just use your own words to restate it as literally as possible.
What he was saying was no different than 'In East Asia, Confucian ideas have had a major role in shaping the culture and civilisation'.
It was a very straightforward uncontroversial thing to say and an educated audience will understand. At best it is an example of Peterson giving his audience too much credit.
The AH thread is being way too literal and go down weird tangents about the Iliad and books in China as if the average person in Europe 400-1700 would have found those texts more familiar than the biblical stories that were passed down across generations.
As a reader or a listener, you have to be somewhat sympathetic to what is being read or said to fully understand their point. Because it is easy to misrepresent someone and claim 'So what you are saying is...'
Yes, I think that's all correct. Except that it's also an example of Peterson speaking a bit sloppily. "Literally" was a stupid word to use in that context.
I think its reasonable to criticize JP for this if it was a lecture as it's much more of importance to be precise however how many of can claim that we can have a 4 hour conversation while being 100% precise. I bet most people can't be 100% precise in conversation for 10 minutes.
Maybe not most people, but most people who are academics can be far more precise than this. People need to call it what it is, he's talking far too freely and authoritatively about something he frankly doesn't know a ton about. That's another thing most academics are much better at avoiding than he apparently is.
From Wikipedia:
The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) was the earliest major book printed using mass-produced movable metal type in Europe.
I can only assume this is what Peterson meant.
Books were sold to the public for literally more than a millenium before Gutenberg introduced mass publishing.
And when Gutenberg introduced it, the Bible was only one of many books printed and sold, like the Nuremberg Chronicle or the Fasciculus Temporum.
There was literally never a time when the Bible was either the only book discussed or the only book available.
This is such disappointingly ahistorical analysis from Dr. Peterson. His argument is fabricated retrospectively to aid a conclusion that is neither very interesting nor requiring of such sweeping premises to hold water.
I feel like there are some potentially interesting implications of that. If we’re talking about mass production and the Bible, it kind of brings us into a communications studies type lens - like how does the shift from the Bible as being consumed through sermons vs being consumed through private reading shift the power dynamics in Christianity / in society in general. From a “meaning” point of view, that really ties our sense of meaning to the origin of modern mass media. Which is fascinating, but different from a general high level reading where one assumes he’s talking basically about all of time. In the high level reading, we’re taking away that the Bible is central to our core for ancient/timeless reasons; but in the printing press one, it’s central to our core for technological reasons
I believe this is true and Peterson could have been referring to that. I haven't watched the show so am unaware of the context of the conversation.
I am concerned that there is a hint of "in the beginning was the word" behind the comment.
Also, 42 lines? is that a book, or a pamphlet?
A pamphlet would imply propaganda, to me. Distributed freely amongst the people.
I might be wrong, but maybe, since I've seen a Bible and how thick it is, it means 42 lines per page... Or you could Google it yourself like I'm about to....
...42 lines in 2 columns per page.
I mean, you say that, and I did look it up. Knowing the truth should never get in the way of a joke.
You have to admit that it sounds like a pamphlet, which is technically a bbook, and one would imagine that the first book off the press, would be something like a pamphlet. Just as a test run, if nothing else.
Then if you consider that the intent was surely to spread the word of god to people who can barely read, a huge volume would be off-putting, and a burden to distribute. Much better to condense the whole thing down into simple phrases that simple people understand.
(btw I'm an Athiest)
I can boil it down to a single sentence
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
My apologies for ruining the joke though.
I'm nothing. I've been an atheist, an agnostic, and a nihilist, hedonist. In a way I am still all of these things, because all of these things create me.
"Do unto others..." is sufficient guidance for anybody except cowards.
“In many ways…”
"Metaphorically speaking of course..."
Another case of him trying to make some grand revelation when he doesnt know wtf hes even talking about regarding the subject being discussed. Look at his two snakes intertwined symbolize DNA mishap and realize this is just another example
The point was that is was THE first book, not just a first book. It's speaking to how important the bible was/is in western society.
Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally.
Ignore the forest for the trees
You're ignoring the word literally
The Bible is a collection of at least two separate books, written hundreds of years apart. It can't possibly be the first book.
I think what he meant to say is that it is the first self-help book.
Yikes, makes you wonder how much other misinfo he puts out there given how confidently he talked about this. What a snake
Try to focus on ideas rather than people. Don't assume JBP is claiming to be perfect or that he has already lived up to all the rules he has laid out. People are fallable.
Assimilate his ideas that help to better your life. Discard the ideas that don't. There is no need for an all or nothing outlook. JBP being wrong about something does not invalidate every other thing he has said or the people he has helped.
This is a perfect example of ad hominem
Care to be more specific? I pointed out his account looks suspicious due to its newness and hostility. I then addressed his concern if not his question. Not sure which part of that you see as an ad hom.
Older book, Peterson wrong, deboonked petersonians!
It was the first book ever mass printed.
I think its actually unclear what the word "literally" means in this statement.
His use of the word "literally" is the smoking pistol here.
None. Think of the Greek, Egyptians, Persians,Aztecs, Jewish, Hindu , Muslim Chinese contributions to history. He is referring to Christian and by that the New Testament publication.
I understood what point he wanted to make, but it's the exact opposite of "literal"
Well, "literally" did recently get redefined in dictionaries to include "figuratively". It was a bit controversial.
Speaking informally while wearing a tux is a mixed message
Equivalent to wearing a loud shirt in a quiet zone.
It was a joke - the mix formal clothing with informal language. Don't take it seriously
The loud shirt in a quiet zone is also a joke. Originally by Rowan Atkinson.
Oh! Well that is funny