Peterson argues that Myth came before morality and was used to derive propositional truths. On the evidence I've seen I think he is probably correct however I don't think it's relevant today. Myth is important because it can improve a person's life through a variety of mechanisms but in today's age the Myth first to morality second pipeline won't work. I can't take anyone who is literate and has grown up with common technology and give them a story, however beautiful and expect them to derive morality from it alone. As soon as they express to someone their reason for that particular perspective they will have it knocked down as a fiction, if they don't knock it down themselves first internally. I would argue that Myth has been used to justify harm in vastly more cases than it has been used to justify good.Am I wrong to think this? Can Myth > Morality still work today. Or must we abandon it and now accept Truth > Morality > Myth. Myth itself does not have to be abandoned it requires truth first.
>Myth > Morality`What does that even meanDoes Peterson think people just made-up myths and randomly stumbled on morality
>ABLOO ABLOO ABLOO THE COMMUNISTS ARE TRYING TO KILL GOD!!! BOOOOHOOOOHOOOOOHOOOOOWhy should I give a shit what this brain damaged histrionic bitch has to say?
>>18765980The dream logic and often lack of clear thesis to a lot of myths does lend to the idea that they predate structured moral systems.They are stories for their own sake that just function as narratives rather than instructions on life and ethics.Someone like Plato complained about myths and stories for their amorality and lack of principle.Moral systems are derived from myths, but not all myths become the seeds of morality systems.The ones that don't often feel strange or disturbing or amoral.
>>18765980Yes. >>18765999You act histrionic while calling someone else histrionic. You are more like the person you have critiqued than you are consciously aware of.>>18766038This is accurate. Do you agree with my general thesis. If we are to answer Nietzsche it goes Truth > Morality > Myth and that Myth > Morality is no longer viable?
>>18765943I think of it in terms of logic.The soundness of an argumtnet is the truth. The validity is the myth.I use the same framework with nomenclature. The truth is tied to the concrete meaning, and the abstract meaning is the argument that progresses beyond the observation."Sound" is required to hear the truth, and you need an ἐγώ to see. ∴ A myth, or a word, or an argument that is not tied to personal experiance is meaningless, and unuseful. Or even worse, degenerate.
>>18766055He literally said that though.
The abstract is a toy for children.Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
>>18765943The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. If you don't start with God, where are you starting from?
>>18766522Plato starts with abstract forms. God relates everything back to lived experience.
>>18766522>If you don't start with God, where are you starting fromChaos.>>18766609Based Plato
>>18766038>Moral systems are derived from myths,Myths are etiologies of the natural world and of existing social and religious practice.
>>18766623In the beginning, God and Chaos are the same thing, until He says, let there be light.
>>18765943Jordon Petersons entire philosophy involves coming up with a premise and then finding ways of stretching said premise with buzzwords and rhetoric that don't actually mean anything so the sad saps who payed for his 3 hour lectures don't feel ripped off
>>18766845I like Jordan, but I don't think he is a guru. If he really wants to understand religion, he should do a podcast with some priest or something and ask questions, instead of going on 20 vs 1 and arguing about a theology he doesn't really seem to have all figured out.
>>18766845>>18766885He's often doing very bad Jungian and Nietzschean synthesis on topics that he doesn't understand well enough. His Biblical lectures were impossible to listen to for the fact that he doesn't know anything about the language or narratives so instead hyperfocuses on ridiculous tangents.By credentials (clinical psychology) he was better off adhering to his claimed American pragmatism, such as in "12 Rules for Life" which tries to tell people how to sanely behave in the world. That's much better to think about than the fever-dream abstractions he would rake up. But at the same time I think he legitimately had trouble going beyond individualism and resolving advice in the interpersonal domain. That's perhaps the biggest failure because people need to work and live together in not-so-curmudgeonly ways.
>>18766845>>18766885His spiral into what seemed to hit its bottom during the 20 v 1 reminds me of Richard Dawkins. It may have been 10 years ago now he was doing a lot of open question panels and became bitter from it. He would be red in the face in frustration while responding to shallow critiques. The way a person presents themselves in slop debates is of no relevance to their argument, perspective or their literature. I am neutral of as I am with Dawkins I engage in the idea not the person. I would never do the slop debate circuit it clearly damaged Dawkins and Peterson. It appeals to the lowest common cattle that won't read a book so they get their perspectives from that shit.
>>18767111If you haven't read Maps of Meaning you don't know Peterson. Like I said here >>18767180 you seem to be watching the slop.Do you think that Nietzsche would have articulated himself well in slop debates? No. And we should be thankful that what we know of him comes from his books.
>>18767180>His spiral into what seemed to hit its bottom during the 20 v 1 reminds me of Richard Dawkins. It may have been 10 years ago now he was doing a lot of open question panels and became bitter from it. He would be red in the face in frustration while responding to shallow critiques. The way a person presents themselves in slop debates is of no relevance to their argument, perspective or their literature. I am neutral of as I am with Dawkins I engage in the idea not the person.Jordon and Dawkins issues is that they can't recognize when they shouldn't take critique seriously. There could've been a graceful way for someone like him to handle the 20 v 1 debacle, the first step would've been recognizing just how insane the debate format was in the first place, but he's too far up his own ass. People like Jordon aren't stupid but they also aren't as smart as they think they are. A smarter man would've recognized when they were being gish-galloped instead of panicking and resorting to splitting hairs over definitions. It's really painful to watch honestly
