4 ms·

Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. The values you say are 'Christian values' are expressed, (in many cases more eloquently), in classical Greek

by Matl 4y ago

Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. The values you say are 'Christian values' are expressed, (in many cases more eloquently), in classical Greek texts. Values like democracy itself are indeed much more prominent there than in the Bible, which is why I imagine you're seeing the sort of replies that you are.

thepasswordis 4y ago
This is so frustrating to me. People hear "the bible is foundational" and I think they're hearing "the magical stories in the bible are literally true. God sat on a cloud and poofed western civilization into existence!" What I'm saying is that, the Dawkins sense, The Bible was an extremely successful meme. I don't think that's even up for debate. >Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins. Before that there was this little known German Philosopher saying something similar too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_God_and_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_G...
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  Just because a book and an institution were present for the last 2000 years doesn't mean that they were the foundation of a society that exists today. Especially a society that most likely exists despite of them then because of them.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    I think the 30 Years War, which tore apart Europe for decades over a disagreement over details in the interpretation of Christianity (and the Protestant and Catholic bibles differ). I would say at the very least the bible is one of the most important pieces of literature in the world, has had a tremendous impact in all its forms, played a role in the formation of the modern world's moral codes, and at the same time, is not the unique, one, and only "foundational" document leading to the modern western world- there isn't one. (FWIW, I really do respect the King James bible as a world of literature, even though I am agnostic and consider the Silmarillion to be a more enjoyable origin story)
- joenot443 4y ago
  Namedropping Peterson when he has 0 relevance to the conversation at hand is just juvenile flamebait and a pretty easy tell that the GP isn't really acting in good faith. I don't think @matl is interested in a serious conversation about the historical relevancy of the Bible, nor are they equipped to have one.
  - Matl 4y ago
    > Namedropping Peterson when he has 0 relevance to the conversation at hand He absolutely has relevance considering he's the most recent prominent public figure pushing the Bible as "the foundational stories" without which we cannot live. Yes, there are others and it may be that OP arrived at this independently, but I've heard this most from his followers. I acknowledge that I may've been slightly nudged by OP's unfounded "You have no time to waste on western civilization's foundational text?", which sounded extremely judgmental to me, but shouldn't have jumped on the bait.
    - joenot443 4y ago
      He really doesn't though. Just because you personally make company with his followers doesn't mean anyone else on this site does. In all my time here I don't think I've _ever_ seen someone take his side, I've only ever seen him used as a weird strawman in the same fashion you are. I think it's a pretty dull tactic to namedrop e-celebs you don't like as a very crude way of making a point. Clearly you have some fairly progressive views, so it'd be a bit like if I brought up other e-celeb clowns like Hasan or Destiny specifically so I could make a bad dunk. That kind of discourse just doesn't have a place on HN, imo. I don't doubt you can think of better ways to articulate your points, and I'd encourage you to do so.
      - Matl 4y ago
        As I said in my previous reply, I don't disagree I could have framed my response better, however I am not just throwing Peterson here for fun, I am reacting to "You have no time to waste on western civilization's foundational text?" which is in my opinion a non-constructive argument of the sort that the likes of Peterson use to make people who disagree with their arguments feel like they're just not on the same level if they're missing the brilliance of the Bible. I came across this sort of thing a lot in my life from Christians trying to convert me so I don't necessarily have the same amount of patience as others might to these sorts of tactics. Note that I'm not even arguing against reading it to inform oneself, (something I've done multiple times), just this particular tactic of trying to get people to read it. That's all.
- WanderPanda 4y ago
  I think it could only ever have been such a successful and resilient meme because it resonates deeply with human social dynamics.
- Matl 4y ago
  > People hear "the bible is foundational" and I think they're hearing "the magical stories in the bible are literally true. God sat on a cloud and poofed western civilization into existence!" That's not what I hear. What I hear is more along the lines of "What's in the Bible is somehow original/more profound than what came before and so THAT is the book to take note of", which just isn't true. > People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins. Yes, they all pander to similar audiences be it back when Hitchens and Dawkins are more akin to Sam Harris imo.
  - mchaver 4y ago
    Agreed, that is what I hear as well. It is kind of like Neo-reactionary gotcha, like ok, you are not Christian, but you still need to accept the bible as being really important. That being said, there are lots of Bible references in the canon of English language literature. So if ones goal is to understand that, then a synopsis of the Bible stories and commonly quoted phrases might just be sufficient. The book is dry, repetitive and a bit inconsistent. It's value is that it is really old and is associated with a big religion. If a modern writer created the same thing it would have a really low rating on Goodreads.

by Matl 4y ago

thepasswordis 4y ago

This is so frustrating to me. People hear "the bible is foundational" and I think they're hearing "the magical stories in the bible are literally true. God sat on a cloud and poofed western civilization into existence!" What I'm saying is that, the Dawkins sense, The Bible was an extremely successful meme. I don't think that's even up for debate. >Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins. Before that there was this little known German Philosopher saying something similar too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_God_and_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_G...

Kbelicius 4y ago
Just because a book and an institution were present for the last 2000 years doesn't mean that they were the foundation of a society that exists today. Especially a society that most likely exists despite of them then because of them.
- dekhn 4y ago
  I think the 30 Years War, which tore apart Europe for decades over a disagreement over details in the interpretation of Christianity (and the Protestant and Catholic bibles differ). I would say at the very least the bible is one of the most important pieces of literature in the world, has had a tremendous impact in all its forms, played a role in the formation of the modern world's moral codes, and at the same time, is not the unique, one, and only "foundational" document leading to the modern western world- there isn't one. (FWIW, I really do respect the King James bible as a world of literature, even though I am agnostic and consider the Silmarillion to be a more enjoyable origin story)
joenot443 4y ago
Namedropping Peterson when he has 0 relevance to the conversation at hand is just juvenile flamebait and a pretty easy tell that the GP isn't really acting in good faith. I don't think @matl is interested in a serious conversation about the historical relevancy of the Bible, nor are they equipped to have one.
- Matl 4y ago
  > Namedropping Peterson when he has 0 relevance to the conversation at hand He absolutely has relevance considering he's the most recent prominent public figure pushing the Bible as "the foundational stories" without which we cannot live. Yes, there are others and it may be that OP arrived at this independently, but I've heard this most from his followers. I acknowledge that I may've been slightly nudged by OP's unfounded "You have no time to waste on western civilization's foundational text?", which sounded extremely judgmental to me, but shouldn't have jumped on the bait.
  - joenot443 4y ago
    He really doesn't though. Just because you personally make company with his followers doesn't mean anyone else on this site does. In all my time here I don't think I've _ever_ seen someone take his side, I've only ever seen him used as a weird strawman in the same fashion you are. I think it's a pretty dull tactic to namedrop e-celebs you don't like as a very crude way of making a point. Clearly you have some fairly progressive views, so it'd be a bit like if I brought up other e-celeb clowns like Hasan or Destiny specifically so I could make a bad dunk. That kind of discourse just doesn't have a place on HN, imo. I don't doubt you can think of better ways to articulate your points, and I'd encourage you to do so.
    - Matl 4y ago
      As I said in my previous reply, I don't disagree I could have framed my response better, however I am not just throwing Peterson here for fun, I am reacting to "You have no time to waste on western civilization's foundational text?" which is in my opinion a non-constructive argument of the sort that the likes of Peterson use to make people who disagree with their arguments feel like they're just not on the same level if they're missing the brilliance of the Bible. I came across this sort of thing a lot in my life from Christians trying to convert me so I don't necessarily have the same amount of patience as others might to these sorts of tactics. Note that I'm not even arguing against reading it to inform oneself, (something I've done multiple times), just this particular tactic of trying to get people to read it. That's all.
WanderPanda 4y ago
I think it could only ever have been such a successful and resilient meme because it resonates deeply with human social dynamics.
Matl 4y ago
> People hear "the bible is foundational" and I think they're hearing "the magical stories in the bible are literally true. God sat on a cloud and poofed western civilization into existence!" That's not what I hear. What I hear is more along the lines of "What's in the Bible is somehow original/more profound than what came before and so THAT is the book to take note of", which just isn't true. > People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins. Yes, they all pander to similar audiences be it back when Hitchens and Dawkins are more akin to Sam Harris imo.
- mchaver 4y ago
  Agreed, that is what I hear as well. It is kind of like Neo-reactionary gotcha, like ok, you are not Christian, but you still need to accept the bible as being really important. That being said, there are lots of Bible references in the canon of English language literature. So if ones goal is to understand that, then a synopsis of the Bible stories and commonly quoted phrases might just be sufficient. The book is dry, repetitive and a bit inconsistent. It's value is that it is really old and is associated with a big religion. If a modern writer created the same thing it would have a really low rating on Goodreads.