If you want to know more about these specific ideas related to my new political paradigm, I suggest you check them out in my first blog post here. (I'll hopefully write more posts, once my brain gets up to speed again.)https://monophyleticfish.wordpress.com/2018/02/26/a-new-political-paradigm/ …
-
Show this thread
-
In conclusion, Jordan Peterson made me think a lot about the evolutionary origins of religious thinking. He's interesting, and has many novel ideas. But I think he's very wrong when it comes to his interpretation of evolutionary principles to bolster his religious metaphysics.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Further, I haven't seen any criticisms of his application of evolutionary principles from within an evolutionary framework, and I've only seen a flat rejection of his metaphysics without properly addressing the interpretation of scientific theory he uses to defend it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
I don't know if there's anything like that out there and I'm just very ignorant of it, or I'm just a slow thinker, but I figured that it was valuable to share my thoughts on this even if I feel like it was overdue, both as my own ideas, and as a general address of Peterson.
5 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @M_Methuselah
At the core of Peterson's argument about religion is not a belief in a supernatural being, but in shared purpose as a foundation for non-transactional interaction, which is required for a functioning society. Religion aligns purposes. Peterson does not believe in God, but purpose
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @M_Methuselah
The fundamental innovation of monotheist religion is the ultimate accountability of the individual to a social superorganism above individual, family or tribe. God is not the tribe, but the tribe's organizational principle. This is an adaptation to multi-level selection.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @M_Methuselah
The Abrahamic religions are designer viruses. They have been purposefully created and optimized as operating systems of their host societies. While their rationality is inferior to antique and modern secularism, they are exceptionally stable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @M_Methuselah
We are probably adapted to religion, in part because our ancestors had a habit of genociding other tribes and thus replacing the godless population. But Peterson is probably not correct that religion is the only or even the best tool to sustainably organize a scalable society.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
That makes a lot of sense. You're right, I also think that Peterson is wrong when it comes to whether or not religious organization is the best tool.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @M_Methuselah
But he is right in observing that the West is romantic; that even most of our atheists are driven by a need for higher meaning, and that the Western ideals are based on the sense of purpose once created by religion. (China is not romantic, for instance.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Also, Peterson is centrist. Placing him to the far right just means that the classifyer is authoritarian far left.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
He is certainly centrist based on the literal classification of our one dimensional political spectrum. But I was talking about why he is often considered "right," and I believe it has to do with how people intuit the spectrum, as I described in my linked blog post.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.