The big insight for Jordan Peterson was the value of obedience, and the moral need for the sacrifice of autonomy. The reason for Jordan Peterson’s bitternis is that he has not fully made the sacrifice. It is still a sacrifice to him.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
I feel the same way about Alan Watts but of course his message was different.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benajibayassine
At least he is not a spiritual actor like Spira or Wallace. His bumbling is a genuine journey.
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
.. he sounds and feels like his primary drive is rationalizing the Christian faith as the way out of suffering. But I understand why he is so popular though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benajibayassine
He is not a theist, though. His God is not a supernatural being, it is the identification with a single highest purpose outside of the individual, which is a healthy thing to have if you are a cooperative species.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @benajibayassine
He sees the Christian faith not as an accident, but as deliberate construct to synchronize purposes and build a non-transactionally cooperating society. The epistemological distortion due to faith is a steep price but he thinks it can be resolved, and the alternatives are worse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I thought so until I watched his debate with Dillahunty on YouTube and then someone asks at the end during the Q&A whether God would still exist if all people died and he has a really hard time to answer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, because God has the status of a law in his ontology. Does a law change its status of existence when noone is left to obey it? Or would that compromise the axiomatic definition of laws? Not a simple question to answer for the first time, if you care to get it right.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.