The psychologogist who shall not be named just pops up on my You Tube “you might like”.
Listen to it; its only 10 minutes.
Though it sounds like Peterson is making a significant contribution to the discussion, but is her really?
Let me see if I can parse this out, kind of stream of my thinking here…
I have not seem the whole discussion so I can’t really know, but if you listen the the response from the other philosopher, the “yessss” that we hear right at the end, the part that the You tuber who posted this thinks is a slam dunk (I think) — or he was making fun of Peterson? I don’t really know.
…if one is philosophical informed or at least interrogative of her world, then we might hear this “yesss” less as a “you got me there Peterson” and more as a “yesss, but we already know this, and Im not sure why you are sounding like its new news.”
What I mean is, I think Peterson definitely thinks that he is making a point that sticks it to the other dude.
But, the point that Peterson is making everyone already knows, or should know if they have thought about the history of religion at all.
The point he is making is that the very idea of goodness, even without all the God metaphysics and such, without all the “religion”, argues that there must be a sort of messianic essence or foundation to the being of human.
Now. I am not a very smart dude. I mean, I am smart, I think, but Im no scholar. But I have been very interested in religion for most of my life, and it did not really take me very long to realize the coincidence of ethics and the appearance of religion in history. As well, when one begins to read philosophy — Hegel, in particular, I think, but I could be wrong — people have already noted that Christianity is the pinnacle of the practical ethical reasoning of humanity. The on-the-ground of Reason in relation to ethics (goodness), in a dialectical relation with the natural world, whatever that is, produces a certain sensibility of religious reckoning that, basically, culminates in Christianity. Somehow, I feel it has to do with Adorno ? Who was it? I can’t think right now, but Zizek has mentioned it, Im sure: The merger of Athens and Jerusalem, one author put it.
I feel like I even described this somewhere in this blog, but maybe not. Yet, one merely has to look at the history of religion, its development through time, civilizations as such –it really doesn’t take much — to see that the rationale of reasoned “God-things” cannot go anywhere else once Christianity is come upon. We can definitely go back or sidewards, or round and round, but there is simply no other manner of discerning the relationship given God(s)- Goddess(es)-Man (woman)-world once we reach Christianity. This is to say, that every type of belief about the relational triad for knowledge has already been done.
The thing is, this “end” of Christianity does not mean that it is the best or that it must be true. In my opinion, it only means that we have found one parameter toward the finding out what the human being is by what it does.
In any case, it is difficult for me to imagine that those other philosophers did not already know this. I find it difficult to believe that Peterson’s argument had any real effect for the discussion, I mean, in opening up some significance. I would be interesting to hear more of the talk.
OK. So what does this mean?
Consider who Peterson’s audience is.
In general, it is medium educated but probably skillful, white Christians. People, in general, who’s thinking is…simple, shall we say.
Now, what is Peterson arguing?
He is setting up an argument for the ethical substance of the truth of Christianity.
So, why does he act like his argument is new? Like he just slammed the other dude?
Because his audience doesn’t know that we have known this for a long time. He is presenting this argument in the debate as though it is a new thing.
Well. I can’t really know if Peterson is being honest in his belief of his own wit and intelligence. But…
Isn’t it obvious?
check this out and then read the comments .
Peterson’s point is valid, but where he takes it (as we see everywhere) is just positing of a proper Order over everything and everyone. It is a “going backward and imposing” kind of reasoning as opposed to a “drawing back and applying” kind of reasoning, a “dictating by the Father” effort over a “understanding by the Son”, if we want to stay in that realm.
Leave a Reply