have a hard time understanding the basic premise. The idea that there was once some kind of "golden era" or "an enchanted time" when people took religion seriously (including actually believing in God) seems alien to me. — baker

It's kind of Nietzsche-lite. The elevator pitch -The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the disenchantment of the world.

Climate science IS science, not shit philosophizing.

I also think with Peterson many people are terribly jealous and resentful that someone like him has come along and become huge when they think they are so much smarter and better informed than Peterson. — Tom Storm

That may be. i’m not jealous of Peterson, I’m jealous of philosophers who produce remarkable ideas I wish I thought of. There are untold interpretations of every major philosopher, and that is as it should be. I don’t think there are such things as ‘correct’ vs ‘incorrect’ readings , only those that to me are more or less interesting or expand the boundaries of my own thinking. Peterson’s reading of writers like Nietzsche isnt wildly outside the mainstream , it’s simply on the conservative end of that spectrum, which I think explains a lot of the hostility he gets from the left. To readers like me, Nietzsche is offering an exciting and profound worldview that is still ahead of its time 140 years later, so its a bit depressing to say the least when he is reduced to a mouthpiece for 19th century liberalism. But if I cringe at Peterson’s treatment of certain philosophers, I react similarly to the efforts of numerous respected academic writers. But to me any mention of Nietzsche or other philosophers in popular culture is welcome , even if it’s by Dwayne Johnson in ‘Fast and Furious ‘. In fact, I’d probably prefer Johnson’s take on Nietzsche to Peterson’s.

I take the view that consciousness , affect, empathy, language , sociality, take care of themselves and can be measured and understood. The hard problem of consciousness... I suspect science will resolve this one day and may already have come close, but people seem to absolutely hate and revile physicalist understandings of subjects they prefer to remain mysterious and connected to, shall we call it, God? — Tom Storm

Let me turn this thinking on its head a bit. Instead of the choices being those indicated by the so-called ‘hard problem’ , either a mysterious inner subjectivity or the clear light of objective empiricism, or a muddled synthesis of the two ( Chalmers) , let me suggest that both sides of that binary are caught up in an inadequate construction of reality. Dennett’s solution to the ‘mystery’ of consciousness is to pick physicalism, but in doing this he stays within the subject vs object, inner vs outer binary.

Phenomenology doesn t force us to choose between these two but instead puts them together in a much more radical way than the mere cobbling of ‘inner feeling’ and ‘outer things’.

There is only a ‘hard problem’ if one begins from a science which ignores the subject’s perspective ( relativity and qm only take the subject into account as another physical object , which is not what I’m talking about )
and a subject whose ‘values’ are irrelevant to the understanding of ‘external’ reality.

There is only a ‘hard problem’ if one begins from a science which ignores the subject’s perspective — Joshs

I can't say if you are correct or not (I am not qualified in the area) but I have never understood how phenomenology can settle anything. I'm assuming a realist not idealist version? Can you elaborate on how using it can help us understand the nature of consciousness? Just some indicative dot points will do.

But if I cringe at Peterson’s treatment of certain philosophers — Joshs

I only have a fleeting knowledge of his work but I am interested in anything that has traction with people - especially if it is public intellectuals. It's the phenomenon that arrests attention. I find it fascinating that JP seems to have riffed off Stephen Hicks' views on post modern Marxism without understanding that he is really referring to Frankfurt School figures, for the most part, not so much post modernists.

I guess if I agreed with his political
philosophy I would notice his passive-aggressive style of argumentation less. — Joshs

Give me one example of what you consider passive-aggressive. He's had thousands of interviews, so it shouldn't be hard to point to one.

Perhaps , like me, you notice their personal idiosyncrasies because you dislike their ideas. — Joshs

Well they don't really say much, and that's the point. As far as posturing goes -- yeah, that's pretty obvious. I wouldn't care so much if they had anything useful to say, though. But I really can't find anything. Could just be me -- who knows? But I don't see any reason to waste time with them.

I’m assuming youre a fan of Chomsky’s political thinking? — Joshs

A fan? I think Chomsky is clear and relevant. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's never irrelevant or obfuscating.

It really speaks to your character that you'll invite secondary sources for the determination of your stances on primary ones, before acting facetiously so as to evade it. — Aryamoy Mitra

Because both these men, and you, mean so little to me that's it's not worth the effort of writing it myself. If that's hard for you to figure out, again that's your issue.

Yes, I've read both of those frauds. Hence why I agree with Robinson.

Give me one example of what you consider passive-aggressive. He's had thousands of interviews, so it shouldn't be hard to point to one. — Xtrix

I readily admit that I may be projecting here. When I began a sincere attempt to investigate the foundations of Chomsky’s political philosophy, I had a heck of a time figuring how to integrate his ideas with other political thinkers I had some familiarity with. Was he a fan of Marx? No. he stated explicitly that he was not a Marxist. Well, what about the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt school? No luck there. Postmodernists like Foucault? His discussion with Foucault , available on youtube , clearly puts that out of play. I finally came to the conclusion that Chomsky goes back to the very early era of socialist theorization, when Marx was just one among a variety of responses to capitalism, which was at that time still relatively young.

How did Chomsky end up picking what to me was a peculiarly idiosyncratic niche in political thought? This is where my potential projecting comes into play.
I began to liken Chomsky to others I have known who pride themselves on the imperviousness of their ideas to subsumption by umbrella philosophies, as if they have an instinctive abhorrence of categorization, of being mainstreamed.

This suspicion was strengthens considerably by a long video I watched of a debate between Chomsky and Dershowitz on Israeli politics. I began the video fully prepared to be on Chomsky’s side. After all , he is on the left and Dershowitz is a conservative. I really wanted him to nail Dershowitz to the wall. But to my surprise I became more and more exasperated with Chomsky’s performance. Dershowitz, as you would expect , presented straightforward lawyerly arguments that I expected to see Chomsky directly refute. Instead what I witnessed was a caginess and focus on not being pinned down at the expense of direct debate. I stated to wonder if Chomsky’s entire political career was therapy for some
neurotic relationship with his father. I know, you could probably say the same thing about a majority of philosophers. All I can tell you is the dominant impression I get from Chomsky is a need to be seen as the ultimate outsider.

Peterson’s reading of writers like Nietzsche isnt wildly outside the mainstream , it’s simply on the conservative end of that spectrum, which I think explains a lot of the hostility he gets from the left. To readers like me, Nietzsche is offering an exciting and profound worldview that is still ahead of its time 140 years later, so its a bit depressing to say the least when he is reduced to a mouthpiece for 19th century liberalism. — Joshs

Exactly. He has one edifice of interpretations, that is rigid, well-structured and thoroughly developed over two or three decades. Naturally, one caveat is that a number of his assertions on Nietzsche aren't actually tenable or universally agreeable, because he aligns them with his beliefs; but that's a price that anyone pays when listening to a critique.

Insofar as Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Jung's ideas are concerned, he's a messenger, as opposed to an originator. That's why it's preferable for one to first read any texts by quintessential philosophers and academics, instead of characterizing them by virtue of how other individuals construe them.

Phenomenology doesn t force us to choose between these two but instead puts them together in a much more radical way than the mere cobbling of ‘inner feeling’ and ‘outer things’.

There is only a ‘hard problem’ if one begins from a science which ignores the subject’s perspective ( relativity and qm only take the subject into account as another physical object , which is not what I’m talking about )
and a subject whose ‘values’ are irrelevant to the understanding of ‘external’ reality. — Joshs

As I say I am not qualified to explore this but my minimal understanding of Dennett consist of watching several videos of him summarizing his ideas and a few essays (by him and by detractors), but what you say doesn't seem to fit. He seems to be particularly interested to explore the subjective experience of consciousness, especially qualia and to accurately describe and explain. I understand that people dislike his conclusions.

How would a phenomenological understanding of the subject's experience provide a superior understanding? It almost sounds to me like you are saying if you label things differently the hard problem goes away. Which is not quite the same thing as solving it. Or is it?

It almost sounds to me like you are saying if you label things differently the hard problem goes away. Which is not quite the same thing as solving it. Or is it? — Tom Storm

What if I say there is a hard problem of the relation between God and nature? If as an atheist you re-label the relation between the divine plan and the actual world as an internal relationality inherent within nature itself would you say you solved the problem or dissolved it?

If as an atheist you re-label the relation between the divine plan and the actual world as an internal relationality inherent within nature itself would you say you solved the problem or dissolved it? — Joshs

I have no idea what that means, Josh. What is an internal relationality inherent within nature itself? On the whole re-labeling always makes me nervous. If you re-label a serial killer as a person who is chasing their own bliss and working to reach their full potential does that mean the crimes go away?

I readily admit that I may be projecting here. When I began a sincere attempt to investigate the foundations of Chomsky’s political philosophy, I had a heck of a time figuring how to integrate his ideas with other political thinkers I had some familiarity with. Was he a fan of Marx? No. he stated explicitly that he was not a Marxist. Well, what about the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt school? No luck there. Postmodernists like Foucault? His discussion with Foucault , available on youtube , clearly puts that out of play. I finally came to the conclusion that Chomsky goes back to the very early era of socialist theorization, when Marx was just one among a variety of responses to capitalism, which was at that time still relatively young. — Joshs

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Anarchism has a long tradition, and he talks very clearly about it. Related to socialism, Marxism, communism, etc., but not identical. This isn't hard to find out. So why you think it's his trying to evade being "labeled" is kind of odd. He's also, to use your term, a very big fan of Marx indeed. Also Rudolph Rocker, Bakunin, and other anarchist thinkers.

This suspicion was strengthens considerably by a long video I watched of a debate between Chomsky and Dershowitz on Israeli politics. I began the video fully prepared to be on Chomsky’s side. After all , he is on the left and Dershowitz is a conservative. I really wanted him to nail Dershowitz to the wall. But to my surprise I became more and more exasperated with Chomsky’s performance. Dershowitz, as you would expect , presented straightforward lawyerly arguments that I expected to see Chomsky directly refute. — Joshs

I really can't see how anyone watches that debate and comes out thinking that Dershowitz wasn't a complete and utter weasel and fraud. Chomsky literally destroys him, and I've known people who are ultimately on the side of Dershowitz agree -- a terrible showing. Especially when he invokes "Bill Clinton told me so" when confronted with the long, extensive documentary record which Chomsky refers to and gives a sampling of. If you showed up "fully prepared" to be Chomsky's side, and yet came away "exasperated," perhaps you're simply not listening. Chomsky is a rather dull speaker, and rattles off facts and figures and terminology that's very hard to follow -- so there's a double-whammy there. Dershowitz, on the other hand, is just a buffoon -- but keeps it simple and uses a lot of debate tricks and appeals to the audience.

Maybe we're just living in different realities, I don't know. I don't even care to defend Chomsky -- but on the two points you mention, it's just too off track to ignore.

If you re-label a serial killer as a person who is chasing their own bliss and working to reach their full potential does that mean the crimes go away? — Tom Storm

Yes, but only if you can put yourself in their shoes and see their intent as justified from their perspective , a perspective that you can build a bridge to. “Chasing ones own bliss” implies not giving a damn about other person’s feelings. That’s a no no because it implies a knowing intent to harm On the other hand , if they follow their delusional voices which tell them the victims were evils dna danger to society we would relabel the crime as an illness.

What is an internal relationality inherent within nature itself? On the whole re-labeling always makes me nervous — Tom Storm

As an atheist ( I assume you are one?), how would you describe the paradigm shift in thinking that takes us from a divine plan to a world which operates via its own mechanisms?

Maybe you don’t think in terms of worldviews , gestalts, paradigms and their transformations when you think about knowledge and the way it changes over the course of cultural history. If that’s the case , then relabeling as dissolving problems won’t make much sense to you because it implies the change in a gestalt.

If you're referring to JP, I really doubt you can, or are of the temperament to have read Maps of Meaning. Either way, feel free to drown yourself in pretense. — Aryamoy Mitra

Like, for example, by reading Maps of Meaning?

I literally can't even type the titles of these turds without laughing a little. They sound so profound. Again: "an elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory" sums it up nicely.

If you find him obfuscating, that's a personal misgiving - unless you can substantiate it with more than a derisive piece of journalism. — Aryamoy Mitra

It's a personal misgiving to think this fraud is "profound." What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A rather thorough, accurate article is all you deserve -- and you're lucky you got that. Please go read more Maps of Meaning and be happy with it, I don't care.

I apologize for this in advance but I can’t resist. This is basically my view of Chomsky. Welcome to my alternative universe:

“Chomsky is a very unattractive personality. (I don’t mean that he’s a bad person; this is about his public presentation only.) He is bullying, hectoring, and tends to berate those who disagree with him. He is intellectually ungenerous – he appears not to have heard of the principle of charity.[1] In her 2003 New Yorker profile of Chomsky, Larissa MacFarquhar described his prose this way:

To read Chomsky’s recent political writing at any length is to feel almost physically damaged. The effect is difficult to convey in a quotation because it is cumulative. The writing is a catalogue of crimes committed by America, terrible crimes, and many of them, but it is not they that produce the sensation of blows: it is Chomsky’s rage as he describes them. His sentences slice and gash, envenomed by a vicious sarcasm. His rhythm is repetitive and monotonous, like the hacking of a machine. The writing is as ferocious as the actions it describes, but coldly so. It is not Chomsky’s style to make death live, to prick his readers with lurid images. He uses certain words over and over, atrocity, murder, genocide, massacre, murder, massacre, genocide, atrocity, atrocity, massacre, murder, genocide, until, through repetition, the words lose their meaning and become technical. The sentences are accusations of guilt, but not from a position of innocence or hope for something better: Chomsky’s sarcasm is the scowl of a fallen world, the sneer of Hell’s veteran to its appalled naïfs.[2]

Why does this appeal to Chomsky’s followers?

For one thing, entering into Chomsky’s world provides some of the benefits of conspiracy theory. Not that Chomsky is a conspiracy theorist. But his model of politics offers an oversimplified, easy-to-understand framework that enables those who adopt it to make superficial sense of the political world, without having to study it closely.[3] It also – again like conspiracy theory – allows them to imagine that they possess a kind of inside knowledge of politics. While the rest of us are beguiled by patriotic clichés and nationalist myths, they see through the ideological illusions and understand power as it is really exercised, namely cynically and brutally.

Chomsky delivers these goods by adopting an archetypal American persona, that of the populist village explainer.[4] [5] The activity of the village explainer consists essentially in debunking, exposing the lies of conventional political wisdom and offering an apparently simpler, clearer, and better-informed appraisal. Chomsky achieves this by reducing political actors and events to caricatures, abstractions, and avatars of crude causal mechanisms. Chomsky’s tone, like that of the village explainer, is basically melodramatic: the virtuous poor versus the parasitic rich, predatory banks and corporations amassing profits on the backs of honest workers, government officials and their lackeys in the media dedicated to hiding the truth and deceiving worthy citizens. With his heavily footnoted essays, allusions to “respected” sources, and references to “official” documents, Chomsky creates an appearance of expertise that lends a spurious authority to his explanations. He offers a dumbed-down picture of politics as if it were the result of keen analysis and laborious scholarship.

To those who haven't bought into the cult, Chomsky comes off as a tedious windbag flogging a crackpot theory. To the initiated, he is a fount of wisdom and insight.

Like many very clever people, Chomsky is prone to acting like a know-it-all. An occupational hazard of intellectuals is the tendency to believe that if you read something, understand it, and find it plausible, then it must be true. Such people memorize an enormous amount of superficial information pertaining to a vast range of topics. They forget that not all forms of knowledge and judgment can be acquired by book-learning alone, and they tend to mistake the map for the territory.”

Frederick Dolan, U.C. Berkeley

As an atheist ( I assume you are one?), how would you describe the paradigm shift in thinking that takes us from a divine plan to a world which operates via its own mechanisms? — Joshs

Joshs, I appreciate your taking the time.

All atheism means to me is I do not have good evidence to support the proposition that a god exists. Nothing changes in the world based on my belief. The 'facts' do not change only my relationship to them. This is not a significant enough transformative event. I have never been committed to any 'supernatural' ideas so I can't say I have ever experienced the clanging of a paradigm chief inside me. But I well understand the idea from Kuhn and the philosophy of science.

Maybe you don’t think in terms of worldviews , gestalts, paradigms and their transformations when you think about knowledge and the way it changes over the course of cultural history. — Joshs

I work in the area of mental health and addictions so I am well aware of the various narratives held by individuals, sub-cultures and society.

I am well aware of the various narratives held by individuals, sub-cultures and society. — Tom Storm

Yes, but do you view a scientific theory as essentially a value narrative? And do you then see empirical facts as sub components of those value narratives , such that the ‘fact ‘ would be incoherent apart from the narrative that gives it meaning? If you do, then isn’t the shift from one narrative to another a ‘dissolving’ rather than a ‘solving’ of the problem as it is defined via the
old narrative?

Interesting take on Chomsky and pretty much what many in the left here were saying about him in the 1980's. Many people also thought him crazy.

But these words by MacFarquhar are more ad hom than a robust analysis of his work. There is a paucity of good examples and it still leaves open the question is he right.

Yes, but do you view a scientific theory as essentially a valuative narrative? — Joshs

Depends on the theory but I guess so - I generally think of them as the best model we have for now based on the available evidence.

these words by MacFarquhar are more ad hom than a robust analysis of his work. — Tom Storm

I see them as both as hominem and a reflection of his political work because I think his anarchism conveniently allows him to see cartoon villains around every corner. Is he right? Is he right that the complex motivations of individual actors and groups in society can be reduced to the villainous caricatures that he often turns them into?
My political preference is for postmodernists like Deleuze.

Depends on the theory but I guess so - I generally think of them as the best model we have for now based on the available evidence. — Tom Storm

But keep in mind that the evidence will itself be a product of the narrative. New evidence only becomes evidence when the narrative changes. So in a way the shift in paradigm precedes and makes possible the appearance of evidence. The narrative doesn’t just organize the evidence. It produces it.

Is he right that the complex motivations of individual actors and groups in society can be reduced to the villainous caricatures that he often turns them into? — Joshs

Well, if you have already made the assumption that he is reductive cartoonist, then no. But it could easily be maintained that the power grabs, turf wars and the military industrial complex actions he describes are in fact made by bunch of unnuanced, evil cocksuckers engaged in human rights violations on a daily basis, for mere money, land and ideology.

But this is like talking abstractly about the idea of truth. It is better to look at specific examples of C's work on a given issue and carefully parse his analysis. Is it really so bereft and reductive? I don't have a view and this isn't the place.

But keep in mind that the evidence will itself be a product of the narrative. New evidence only becomes evidence when the narrative changes. So in a way the shift in paradigm precedes the evidence. — Joshs

I know this is a strong view with some. I wonder if there are some tricks of language involved. I need to ponder more.

It's a personal misgiving to think this fraud is "profound." What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A rather thorough, accurate article is all you deserve -- and you're lucky you got that. Please go read more Maps of Meaning and be happy with it, I don't care. — Xtrix

This is indicative of Hitchens' razor.

Science does not disprove God. Religion carves its edicts in stone and then can't learn. St Augustine argued that no rational and divine truth could be in conflict. This wasn't the position the Church adopted, but it's part of their cannon insofar as its been expressed in theological discussion by a Saint, and so it was available.

If we entertain the notion that St Augustine was right, it may have been that Galileo were welcomed, and science imbued with divine authority, and technology applied in accord with science as an emerging, sacred understanding of reality. And had that occurred, it would have been as if a red carpet unfurled at the feet of man, welcoming him into the future.

Nietzsche's understanding of evolution was scientifically quite poor, and viewed almost entirely through the lens of a theologically informed sociological perspective, and it's this that leads him astray. He believed man in a state of nature to be an amoral brute - and took this as an ideal moral model - the ubermensch is modelled on a misconception of man.

With the benefit of almost 200 years of scientific progress, specifically in biology, genetics, anthropology and so on, its obvious that morality (of sorts) is evident in animal behaviours. Jane Goodall identifies mutual grooming and food sharing particularly in primate behaviours, and so morality existed in us prior to the occurrence of intellectual intelligence. Morality is behaviourally intelligent and deeply ingrained, and one might argue that is the probable source of the values expressed in religious texts, for the political purpose of defining an objective source we are all subject to. That's civilisation. Nowadays, some degree of democracy gives us some input into the values of society; I think it's just the same. We agree what's right and should act accordingly.

With the benefit of almost 200 years of scientific progress, specifically in biology, genetics, anthropology and so on, its obvious that morality (of sorts) is evident in animal behaviours — counterpunch

No question. And think of this - if humans didn't have innate empathy we wouldn't have been able to rear children. Empathy is the gateway to a veritable cosmos of moral considerations.

But look at human history since the enlightenment project began.... is there a relationship between this and widespread apathy, the failure of democratic institutions, increased tribalism, the crumbling of social order? You can certainly make a case for this. I'm not a fan of identify politics but I read an interesting piece (can't remember where) that they are the product of our dying Christian tradition rather than the oft referenced post-modern Marxism. Food for thought.

Some of that is true, some is blatantly ridiculous. My feeling is that Chomsky could intellectually mop the floor with any of those writers, as he's done in nearly every debate I've seen.

To accuse him of being a "bully" of some kind is common, and kind of a joke. He's not a pushover, true. But he's never insulting and always sticks to the facts, whether or not he's curt. Sam Harris made the same claims, for example. And I like Sam. But if you read the e-mail exchanges, it's pretty clear that Chomsky, although clearly being cantankerous, is also factually correct. The same is true in most cases. He's very rarely factually wrong, so far as I can see. That's all I'm interested in -- not in opinions about his personality, his voice, or his writing style. Even if the claims are true about those things -- and they usually aren't -- it's more or less irrelevant.

So already to compare to JP or Zizek is irrelevant, because neither say anything value even despite their posturing.

Yes, Hitchens' razor. Classic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Well done. :clap:

What's rather sad is that you haven't placed forth any constructive criticisms; many of which I might concur with. — Aryamoy Mitra

Very true. Nor do I care to. They're so irrelevant as to not even be worth the effort. Pointing out that they're frauds, when possible, is sufficient. As it is with most charlatans. If I said Deepak Chopra was basically a fraud, I don't see many disagreeing -- unless it's a New Age forum. But if someone did, I would certainly not be willing to quote him chapter and verse and have a long debate about it. Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following. Anyone with such poor judgment isn't even worth debating. So I leave it to them. And to you.

They shouldn't be contextualized together, because they use entirely contrasting areas of knowledge to construct their arguments.