Scientific Truth VS Religious Truth - Dr Jordan Peterson on

Post Reply New Topic

https://youtu.be/UFer9TeV5gU

The truth as I see it is that the human species is incidental in the frame-work of absolute reality...
Jordan Peterson simply commits to a system that was thrust/forced onto him...

To use his own intellectual construct from another podcast, he needs to detach himself from comfortable indoctrinated philosophies and the concept that there is some inherent meaning to life though internal harmony/resonance if he wished to look into the naked and unforgiving face of truth...

He talks about the Phoenix...
From my perspective he needs to embrace that metaphor himself...

Objectively, the desire to help oneself and help others is an admirable quality (and I respect his position), but it isn't the same as trying to understand "life, the universe and everything..." as it truely is...
From my perspective, Jorden is in a state of denial... to which he is entitled...

To each their own...
Just not my thing...<shrug>

Science works, Religion doesn't.

Jordan Peterson is a postmodern sophist (postmodern as in: mixing science with religious beliefs, accepting contingency, eventually creatibng his own, personal myths) obsessed with a dangerous ideology (his own, somewhat arbitrarily traditionalist ideas). He's insulting intellectuals for the actions of their followers, and often shows poor scholarship.

he said repeatedly that he is a scientist. but applies Jungian psychonalaysis as a framework, as if it was a scientific set of ideas.

ignore what he says, and read what he talks about. he does talk about interesting things. he doesn't seem to have read much of it though. if he actually has read the things he talks about and reached the conclusions he's reached, I conclude that he's a delusional, verbose idiot.

[opinion=mine]

At least Jungian "science" is somewhat better than the ridiculous idea that we all have a demon on our left shoulder and an angel on our right, arguing with us about what we want to do at any given moment.

Freud was a pioneer in psychoanalysis. As such, he stumbled around in the dark, half-blinded by his own "mommy issues" and misogyny. Along cam Jung and elaborated on those ideas with his own ideologies, and voila! Psychology evolves in much the same way as Greek mythology, with incestuous relationships predominating the actions of its foremost leaders.

But what else is there? Anyone who does not at least give lip service to Jungian ideals is likely to have his or her research papers given short shrift during the peer-review stage (with few notable exceptions), thus placing psychology firmly on the border between Science and fantasy.

[/opinion]

Not true! Think of all the limbs regrown by faith healing!

I regrew seven of my limbs after praying to the devil.

! !! !

well... Freud basically put the devil on the shoulder, the angel on the shoulder and the thing inbetween inside the head, calling them id, superego and ego.
psychology is not a proper science, I agree.

really? Jungian archetypes are that deeply engraved into psychology? maybe I should rethink my statement and call psychology a branch of palm-reading (which is where, I am convinced after reading Freud, psychoanalysis belongs).

I understand that Freud was a pioneer. But there were also pioneers of miasma-theory, and while it can be thought of an important step on the way to germ-theory, I hope we can agree taht the miasma theory has been firmly superceded.

Perhaps, but it does incorporate objective observation, testing and reasoning in it's methodology...
Are you suggesting psychology is in the same basket as spirituality and religion?

As long as the "Science vs. Religion" debate goes on, I will continue to post this reminder...

"Science flies you to the Moon; Religion flies you into buildings."

Thinkimg about it, I come to the conclusion that it's probably best compared to s iences that deal with complex systems. It definitely has shown that it's effective on a mass scale, in advertising. But it seems to be quite a mixed bag when it's trying to explain causes and effects in individual behaviour. - and it seems to have understood that, not going down the evolutionary approach anymore which was fashionable around Freud's time, but rather attempting a structuralist approach with things like cognitive behavioural therapy.

Putting the whole field in one basket with religion and myth is certainly wrong - but Jung basically asked for his brand of mysticism to be put there.

I find what you are saying here a little confusing to me...
I am a big fan of considering evolution when trying to comprehend the human animal...
I wasn't aware of the lack of interest by psychologists/psychiatrist in the evolutionary ramifications on the human psyche...
At this stage I am not convinced this is the case...
Convince me...

Thanks for sharing...

Religion alone could never have produced the Boeing 767s necessary for those terrorists to fly into buildings.

Remember that science could be our undoing through nuclear war or environmental catastrophy. Religion alone couldn't cause either of those scenarios to occur.

ok, that's on me for using terminology specific to some social sciences, like anthropology, but not all - and least common usage of the terms.
evolutionist approaches look at the development of things - not necessarily in the sense of darwinian evolution.
so, what Freud brought to the field was the idea that a single individual would go through certain phases throughout his development into an adult human being. that was new. - before, people would consider children as humans who just don't know very much, and send them off to work in factories at age 5 to ten (as in Charles Dickens novels).
But this approach was how he got the idea that there would be events in early childhood that caused neuroses in later life.
Now, that may not be entirely wrong, however, trying to talk to a patient until he remembers that one thing that happened when he was 3 has shown to be quite a pointless task, because really, human memory isn't that good, and it is open to suggestions.
so, finding the cause of neuroses and then trying to fix that cause and rebuild a person's identity is what psychoanalysis does. it's time consuming, needs a very close relationship with an expensive psychoanalyst and eventually, it turned out, the cause, the solution and the newly rebuilt identity are more the suggestions of the analyst than anything else. That doesn't mean it can't help people, but so does hypnosis.

the structuralist approach is to look at a system as-is, figure out what the parts do, and try to change the parts that cause problems. so, with this approach, you try to work forward- what can a patient do now, to better his life.
this is more practical, less time consuming, can show immediate effects, and it isn't so much subject to the patient's intimate relationship to the psychoanalysist.

this, again, is about individual therapy.
psychology as a field certainly has ideas about the evolution of psychological mechanisms - but they are due to the nature of evolution- rather speculative.
engaging with these becomes more important when dealing with masses of people - as I said, in advertising for example: sex sells - that concept is well rooted in evolutionary biology. but that has relatively little practical relevance in therapy of an individual.
Freud and Jung however dove deeply into the speculative treasure trove, citing anecdotes from 19th century armchair anthropology as evidence for their stories about why things are the way they are - ripping things out of context etc.

Freud for example was obsessed with the incest-taboo in almost all human cultures and took it as a reason to state that there must be a strong attraction between relatives, otherwise, why would everyone, even the most "primitive" peoples have such a law. Interestingly, by now we know that whether you like your siblings has a lot to do with whether you have smelled them as a child. - if you did, your brain marks them as "not a potential mate".
the kibbutz movement in israel learned that the hard way, when it turned out that the communaly raised children in the kibbutz wouldn't want to marry each other, even though they were noclosely related.
Freud just looked at the data and made up a story.
Jung looked at mythology, and approached them in a similar fashion as Freud had done with "primitive" traditions and habits - he looked at similarities, picked and chose them to make up a story that fit his ideas.
in a way, they chose the data they had as a rohrschach-test and came up with their own intepretations.
later anthropology showed that there have been a lot of misunderstandings and that individual elements from a culture or myth can't just be taken out of context and understood in the terms of some elderly well-off europeans who grew up in the austro-hungarian empire.

again, Freud brought some good ides to the field. and a lot of his own private mythology. Jung, I think, brought fewer good ideas, and more mythology. And it would take until the 70s until biologists would bring in the research on monkeys to restart an approach based on evolutionary biology - but knowing that human males are attracted to females is not necessarily useful in therapy.