Entry 2193, on 2021-12-21 at 20:35:48 (Rating 2, Comments)
I really like Jordan Peterson. I mean, he has some ideas which I disagree with, but I think he is thoughtful, interesting, intelligent, and provocative. And all of those silly political criticisms calling him alt-right are just ridiculous, and show the exact attitude he often criticises - that is unthinking name-calling and failure to engage in honest debate.
There is one aspect of his beliefs which I find very frustrating though: that is his idea of what is true. I remember one of my first experiences with him was a podcast he did with Sam Harris (another one of my favourite modern intellectuals) which dragged on for hours and still didn't resolve the issue being debated: what is truth.
Peterson often speaks, and thinks presumably, in highly metaphorical terms, which is no doubt partly due to his background in Jungian psychology. He has a particularly interesting attitude to religion, and despite hearing him speak about this subject on many occasions, including direct questions about what he actually believes, I still don't really understand his religious beliefs.
The podcasts with Harris are particularly noteworthy for the prolonged, and often somewhat heated, debate over the nature of truth. Harris wanted to define truth on more objective, concrete terms, while Peterson said that many things which many people might label as mythology or fiction are in fact "truer that true".
For example, do many of the stories in the New Testament, even though most historians accept they probably never happened, represent a type of truth which is more true than hard scientific truths like the value of the speed of light?
I have discussed the philosophy behind truth claims many times in the past. For example, when I am asked whether evolution is true, I say yes it is, at least if we are going to make practical pronouncements on issues such as this. I am fully aware that new evidence might come to hand which might significantly modify current evolutionary theory, but it is both unlikely to change the current theory significantly, and even if it did, we are still justified in calling evolution true at this point in our knowledge on the subject.
Additionally, of course, there is the ultimate philosophical issue regarding truth: solipsism. This states that the only thing we can be certain of is that we, ourselves, exist as individuals. Everything else could be an illusion, but I know I exist because, if I didn't, what else would be contemplating my existence? I believe some philosophers reject even this, but I'm not aware of the exact argument they use.
But again, I think saying that the universe exists, including the computer I am typing this on, and maybe even the people who read it, is justified, even if it cannot be absolutely established as true.
But saying that the story of Jesus's resurrection is true because it has deep meaning in Western culture and is important to understanding the human condition is going too far. You might say that none of what I believe is undeniably supported by facts, just like the resurrection, but their factuality is a matter of degree to the extent that the difference becomes qualitative as well.
Peterson has used the term "meta-true" which seems to mean that it is a truth about truth. He applies this term to areas of human "knowledge", like religion and literature. I completely disagree.
I think I understand what he is trying to say, but using words like "true" to describe ideas which might only have some indirect relevance, or some metaphorical appropriateness, or some occasional properly supported accuracy to real phenomena is misleading.
Real facts are true to everyone who wants to test them in a correct way. For example, any person anywhere in the universe, could use rationally and objectively valid methods to establish the speed of light, but could they use similar tests to establish what is morally right, or what the purpose of the universe is? I don't think so.
There is one element in science which I think shows its effectiveness in establishing truth: that is its tendency to converge on a truth even when the initial approximations to that truth might be in wild disagreement, or come from completely different areas of knowledge.
For example, for many years scientists have been attempting to establish the age of the Earth and the Universe. This type of study has involved many independent areas of knowledge: chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, etc, and at various times the estimate of one area has shown to be "impossible" by the information provided by another, as well as by different results from within one area.
But gradually these problems have been overcome, by finding flaws in studies which gave anomalous results, by refining techniques, and my applying new theoretical knowledge to observational results. So all of those completely independent branches of knowledge now give the same results: the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, and the Earth is about 4.5 billion.
I agree that the whole question of the age of the universe might need to be re-examined if a new theory indicates a multiverse exists, but given the current level of understanding, that age is a fact.
Compare that with religious knowledge: that the universe is just 6000 years old, or that a god created life in a particular way, or about the nature of gods and their prophets (like Jesus and Mohammed) and you will see a completely different phenomenon, because those facts diverge over time. That is why there are so many different branches of the major religions, who often violently disagree (to the extent of going to war over it).
I agree that the "trivial" facts that both religion and science both study - like the origin and age of the universe - might not be sufficiently "deep" for Peterson to worry about, but it is the "bigger" questions as well which are also the subject of disagreement. For example, different branches of Christianity disagree about predestination. I would have though that was one of the most fundamental aspects of life that any area of study might tackle.
And let's look at some other areas where Christians might disagree: is Jesus god? what is the status of Mary? to what extent should the Old Testament laws be followed? does Hell really exist, and is anyone sent there? The consensus on these does not exist within one religion, and it is even worse when we look at them across other religions.
So I think this is one claim that Jordan Peterson makes which is utterly absurd. I would be completely in agreement that by studying the underlying message of metaphors and myths in religion and literature we might gain some insight into the human condition, but calling that truth is going much too far. Call it something else, while maintaining its level of significance. But don't confuse us with a word which has an existing meaning that we all understand.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2022-01-28 at 21:58:17:
Oh I see, a big Jordan Peterson are you. I guess you like Alex Jones as well. Alt right!
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 21:58:54:
Yes, I am a fan of Jordan Peterson, although there are some arguments he makes that I really don't accept. I think I have mentioned this in previous posts, as well as this one.
I think Alex Jones is very entertaining, and a surprisingly number of his claims are true. His problem, I think, is that he takes various facts and puts them together to produce invalid conclusions, and I suspect he is as much about outrageous entertainment as revealing genuine information.
And this "alt right" thing is just silly. Peterson points out that the alt right is one of his greatest enemies. How could he be part of that ideology (whatever it actually is)?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE