I don't think you've quite thought this through yet. The actual new Gnosticism is the separation of the material body from the 'true self' which is everywhere these days. (See Trans ideology, Disney animation, Woke culture, following your dreams, etc.) I think Peterson and Vervaeke see this and in their own ways are trying to answer the questions. I think the real temptation here is in syncretism, the blending of a Christian faith with other aspects of other religious views. But that is always going on in different ways. Every praise team singing Hill Song tunes is engaged in the same practice, in a much worse way, because they don't understand that they have mixed the contemporary concept of the global market, with the faith. And this really does undermine the Christian realities. The emotionalism of a megachurch is in a way far more syncretic than either Peterson or Vervaeke, whom I wouldn't lump together. The good aspect of their work is to encourage dialogue both within and without the church. But indeed there are things that must be challenged. And what I think that people are responding to is the fact that for most Christians deep conversation is discouraged within the whole society, and certainly the churches have mostly gone along with it. We have bought the notion the Christianity is a market, and what people 'really' want are simple packages. PS. Ten minutes isn't much time at all if you are going to attend to the meaning of people like Peterson of Vervaeke. If you you are going to swim in these waters I'd suggest looking at how long their videos are, and what sort of commitment it's going to take to even begin to address their ideas. And if you are saying to yourself well my audience doesn't have that kind of attention span, you have missed one of the central points of what their work means. People are hungry for depth. Too many Christians have sold their birthright for the sound bytes of a fractured postmodern reality. I am encouraging you to dig here. And not to skim. Keep going.
Peterson is a jungian, plain and simple. Vervaeke is some mixture of a Gnostic zen ecumenist. In other words, he’s a heretic through and through. He talks on and on in circles using five dollar words. If you can’t say what you mean to everyday salt of the earth people, your message won’t survive. It maybe will do something in the intellectual circles but that’s a kind of “high IQ ghetto” that most people don’t have time for or frankly give a shit about.
I have been following Peterson and Vervaeke's work closely for years, and I find your critique simple, concise and fair for a 10 min video format. and it makes me want to know more about Gnosticism and do my own comparision. But I do think their work is more complicated/complex rather than just simply advocating "story" and "practices", for Peterson, story is connected to this Jungian archetypal framework of myth, the mythological truth demonstrates meta patterns in life that actually gives itself more advantages than unorganized historical facts. Vervaeke's practice is not the end goal but for people to engage the other 3p of knowing rather than doing proposition management. And I do find their work connects to certain metaphsics, that Peterson is clearly stoic and kierkgaardian existential while Vervaeke is very neo-platonic, in my opinion.
that is true, but in Peterson's case I perceived this pragmatic conception of religion (I mean William James' pragmatism) which defeats the purpose of Christianity, in this case, which is Jesus as the Truth to be accepted cognitively as factual.
@@belen_hummus Yes! I agree, also Glen Scriviener released several videos (alone, with Gavin Ortlund) analyze Peterson theologically, and these were very good
I've said it before, but what a beautiful channel. You manage to cram so much into so little time, I find myself having to listen three or four times - which isn't a chore, because you deliver it very well. I'd love to see you and the Bible Project do a co-lab!
You've done a wonderful job summarizing what I've been thinking about Jordan Peterson. Like you, I believe that he is a benefit to society, especially in todays world the promotes lack of self accountability. However, he comes up short when it comes to religion. It is not simply something we tell ourselves to make society better, we genuinely practice it because we believe it to be true.
Check out Jay Dyers stil stuff on Peterson and alchemy and philosophy and dialectical manipulation. He has a good video and Gnosticism as well. Father Seraphim Roses, books Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future and orthodox survival course. Also get into this.
Absolutely true. Most Evangelicals believe that John 3:16 is the portal to faith, but actually there is a verse that is anterior to that: Hebrews 11:6, which establishes the fundamental metaphysical assertion which is a-priori to any doctrinal details, practical application or psychological metaphor, i.e., regarding the existential question. Taken on their own, Job's councilors were condemned by God not because what they said about Him was incorrect but rather because they were attempting to define Him so they could worship their formalized concept of Him instead of the ontological reality. This is idolatry in its most subtle form. "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him MUST BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Those who place faith in their assent to a collection of creedal statements instead of a relationship I fear are in for a surprise when they hear the words, "Depart from me...I never knew you."
Agreed. They (specifically peterson) have helped many see God more openly and entertain the idea. But deny the full power/truth of it. They're so close, yet far. Hope and pray they do come around. 🙏
"They're so close, yet far." True. But to use some analogy, at least they are shifting the compass back to North so to speak. Because it was well and truly heading South before their arrival. ;)
Perhaps it’s good to have people in that position to draw in the sceptical materialists without scaring them off. But if they did go further it would be interesting to see!
They are so close and far but many will get a distorted view of Christianity. That will be younger than gnostic ever Vaky. It will definitely be in Vervaeke with Vicky. It will definitely be anti-Christian even when distorting it in a sick way. His project is post modern at the core to include his religion. Religion That’s not a religion as a position that’s not a position. To steal the culture away.
First of all, what does any of this have to do with gnosticism? In fact, isn't an oxymoron, given that gnosticism is inherently metaphysical -- believing in a corrupt world of illusion, and "another" world of truth? Not to mention the demiurge, Sophia, Aeon, and a host of other supernatural characters and metaphysical structures. How did Gnosticism come to mean "denial of metaphysics and ontology"? Second of all, have you watched any of John Vervaeke's videos? Particularly those with Jonathan Pageau? It's beyond a mischaracterization to say that he doesn't talk about or deal with metaphysics and ontology. Heck, he's basically a Neoplatonist. Obviously he doesn't subscribe to Christian metaphysics -- but is it really fair to say that he ignores the question? Not remotely.
Yes, Gnosticism is metaphysical and evil theology, even when demythologized into a materialistic and rational ideology like Marxism or Hitler’s Gnostic nightmare. It needs body and turns to churches, schools, and systems like Neoplatonism, Kabbahla and mutates mimetically, drawing from marginal radicals and esotericists and their ex eclectic grimoires, then always slips categories to avoid criticism, like all the marxisms and post modern intersectionslisms. Often creates a pagan and heirarchal Gnostic backlash in the dialectics. One of the many gnosticisms was to reduce Christ to just plain wisdom dude, and this is how Thomas Jefferson used him to "internalize the sage." And this ranges from that to syncretic esotericism, techno gnosticism today, and the outright Crowley and Mason style use of Neoplatonism for inversion and the Secret Gospel of John.
A lot of people recognize the problem you're addressing, but I don't know if I would call it 'gnostic.' Esoteric, yes. But the approach in many ways is the opposite of Neoplatonism despite (especially Vervaeke) claiming that it is consistent with it. In Greek philosophy, the most ontological is the realm of ideas or "spirit", and the material exists by virtue of participating in the forms. For all of these modern figures, they may use Neoplatonic language, but they are essentially physical-reductionists. This was the point I made on a recent Jonathan Pageau video: "spiritual reality is within the realm of idea" is a term that both Classical Greeks _AND_ modern materialist atheists can accept and yet understand it in polar opposite ways. There's a failure to acknowledge equivocation.
Check out 1 John as he addresses the secessionist movements of the first century church. The people who didn't outright apostatize ended up doing exactly what the video talks about - separating the physical from the metaphysical. Their heresy was that Jesus was either human and had the divine spirit on him, or was the divine spirit and never really human. John was dealing with the root theology of second century Gnosticism.
@@vngelicath1580 editing my original response with apologies. Glad you've got it covered, I was just responding to the apparent confusion in your first sentence.
I was not clear Peterson has not denied the resurrection so that is not the similarity I’m pointing to. Peterson endlessly defers questions of history and ontology, thus implying that those are not necessary or unimportant for meaning construction.
Yes. I think that even Peterson would agree with your overall assertion here- that there is an underlying reality behind the beliefs that we act out. In the past, he's called this 'pragmatism,' which I think is intended to imply some kind of relationship between the effectiveness or benefit or even beauty of one's actions and the *Truth* of the underlying reality that they seem to represent. Peterson has also defined *faith* as the experience of *reality* that the outcome of speaking what one believes to be true- no matter the short term negative outcome- will result in a long-term goodness in the world. This same experience is what is expressed is the overall biblical cannon, in my view. So, in my view, Peterson would say that he is participating in the same metaphysical reality as believing christians. We are now left with really only a couple of remaining differences between the two worldviews, which, in my estimation, are the issues of historicity and biology of things like the historical Jesus, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection/ascension, etc. Even though most christians would insist on the physical and/or literal truth of these aspects of the biblical cannon, I, like Peterson, have always been much more interested in their truth as metaphorical/psychoilogical, etc. Here's one more thing that I've drawn from Peterson's work that I think is relevant: The moral value of our actions does not just affect the present and the future, italso affects and co-creates the past! An example that he uses is a marriage in which one party is unfaithful to the other. Not only does this unfaithfulness negatively affect the present and make rebuilding trust in the relationship difficult for the future, it also destroys the story about the nature of who we are and what we've been building. If the marriage is a lie now, how much past time has in been a lie? This question has the capacity to destroy anything and everything, in the same way that the question about who I could be has the ability to build something in the future. Is there a way to use this 'trans-temporal' view of moral value to shed light on the historical/physical truth of The Bible?
I'm not a fan of Peterson or Vervaeke, but I don't really get the criticism here. It sounds like your assessment is correct that they doubt the historicity of biblical events, but you're argument against their doubt is just that, if the stories aren't historically true, it's all a big waste of time, a play. You're not really attempting to prove that the story is historically true, you're just trying to prove that it better be, otherwise it's all for naught. As opposed to Peterson who is attempting to salvage something useful from the story that might not be historically accurate. Shouldn't you be meeting him on his level and attempting to prove the historicity of the bible? Not just attacking his project, given that if you can't prove the bible historically true, you might as well join peterson in his project so you still have a hope at something positive. I don't see the point of this video, or who it's serving.
The point of the video is to argue that meaning and practices have their value/meaning when their grounding stories are true. I’m arguing that the true, good, and beautiful are a necessary unity. And that Peterson and Vervaeke seem to think that you can have one without the other and I believe that to be false. Arguments for the truth are an important part but many more abler man have undertook that project. Thanks for the comment.
The bible has been proven historically true already? But you missed his point, he is talking about the metaphysics. If death is the end then all of it is just a meaningless waste of time. It's not a waste of time because the metaphysics is true, so even if people don't believe in it and act as if it's true that's already good, but that wouldn't be the case if the metaphysics wasn't true. Jordan Peterson does love to doge the metaphysics all the time, calling it "not very interesting".
@@TheBibleisArt Vervaeke and Peterson might performatively contradict themaelves in this regard unknowingly when they are talking about this trias in other places. But in this conversation they explore the True, Good, and Beautiful explicitly and state their interrelatedness explicitly. ruclips.net/video/pzndbpwJtX0/видео.html
@@TheBibleisArt "meaning has meaning when its grounding story is true" what? "the true, good, and beautiful are a necessary unity" necessary for what? "you can't have one without the other" what do "one" and "other" refer to here? Maybe I'm autistic or something, but I can't make any sense out of your language. My best interpretation was in my original comment, but maybe I've completely misunderstood what you're talking about.
@Disqus Menisqus Well I believe that what your saying is true, and I think you worded it very well. I'm not sure if thats exactly what this video was saying, but if it is, then I would just say that I think it's a misreading of Peterson, since he's said on record that he's not a reletavist. For example, he often talks about the undeniable realness of pain and evil, while mocking nihilists, and then will suggest there must be real good at the opposite end of the spectrum.
If you listen to Jordan Petersen you know he does not deny the power of Godliness. He may not be ready to accept or profess the literal Atonement of Christ as such, but he teaches truth as found in the scriptures and proven in life experiences. I personally have come to a much greater understanding of the scriptures and their relevance to me through his teachings. I believe God works through anyone will accept and teach truth even if they are not as fully on the path.
I think that Peterson finds it hard to reconcile arcane occult and mythological events that are very similar to ones in the bible throughout the new and old testament in a categorical manner. However, I think the primary difference he sees is that the figures in the bible actually existed and that revitalizing Christianity as a bedrock of western morality is imperative to prevent a repeat of 20th century revolutions.
Peterson's "fake it until you make it" approach is pragmatic but ultimately useless when it comes to answering questions about meaning and purpose. Your video and these comments gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
Practicing accountability, dependability, creativity all make sense outside the context of work and will improve your capacity to work when called to. Practicing attending to the good, the true, and the beautiful outside of a biblical context will also still serve you when called.
Wow, thank you so much for this video. It’s something that has been bothering me for a long time despite respecting Peterson. This separation of ontology from epistemology definitely echoes neo-orthodoxy and theological liberalism.
Having watched most of Vervaeke's videos, my advice to anyone out there is to avail yourself of some of the books that he references and read them for yourself. I know this is difficult but it's important to actually understand the background to actually know when to agree and when to find better sources in various fields. I learned a lot in the Meaning Crisis series about recent Cog Sci. The intellectual history, philosophy sections to my my mind have been done better by others. I still applaud his King Canute-like battle of swimming against the tide of academic specialzation and trying to knit together quite a lot that of things that seem separate just can't be.
Why do you call it gnosticism when the historical gnostics actually had a clear and well defined metaphysics, unlike the gentlemen you're critiquing? It doesn't make much sense to identify this as gnosticism if the core essence of the issue is a lack of metaphysics and you are associating them with gnosticism on that basis.
The employment simile is top notch. It puts the finger precisely on the issue at hand. Hadn‘t thought of it this way before. However, I guess the problem still persists due to the fact that employment can (at least seemingly) be experienced way more directly than some other ontological status such as marriage, and actually IS being experienced by most people most of the time in some form. That is, even though you might not be formally employed (and might never have been) there is always some approximation to that state that you can experience. For example a child that receives candy („salary“) from his parents („employer“) for washing the dishes („work“). With other, more „abstract“, more distantly experienced ontological realities such as marriage, it might be very difficult to gain any insight about them when you have no way of accessing (ie experiencing) these realities.
I'm 100% on board with the critique (on Peterson at least, as I don't know Vervaeke). Deliberately and even masterfully emptied words with meaning only the listener can (and will) fill in, thus ending up identifying with the "teacher". And sadly, in most cases it is the loss of meaning connecting deep down the listeners being. Btw I find Peterson's loathing of deconstructionist quite hilarious while at the same time even an attempt to (re)define you-name-it almost paralyses the man with such anguish.
2:00 "sit there, and a feeling will come at one time" is literally Dzogchen, which is a "practice makes you" branch of classical Buddhism. Don't have to believe in anything but the fact that it is your nature and purpose to receive God's grace. Or however Christians phrase the thing. It's not like it matters what you call it, once you know it and that it's there for you now, always.
I think you hit the nail squarely (gnosticly speaking (sic)). Gnosticism is pervasive in the churches today as well. Yes, it is understood that Christ came in the flesh and worked through means of stuff, base stuff at that; He used water and dirt to name a couple, He certainly saved us by His actual body and blood on the cross. Yet even though it is shown that 100% of the church fathers spoke of baptism as efficacious and regenerative, today many church bodies believe otherwise. That God works by means of stuff such as His promise in the waters of baptism is thought absurd and even against faith, even though Martin Luther, who held to baptismal regeneration, coined the "faith alone" expressions that are clearly taught in scripture. The Lord's Supper in many churches are mere theater and do not believe nor convey the Body and Blood of Christ. They are seen as a mere remembrance of... and not as a partaking of, or a partisipation in and with His Body and blood. So the "practicing of the truth" for many has given way to gnosticism and so speaks inline with achieving a better moral position. John, in 1st John, says the One he has seen, heard, and handled, he is declaring that they may have fellowship... Practicing the truth is partaking of His gifts in word and sacrament to give a short hand rendering. There is the place were we fellowship. The place where we actually see, hear, and handle Him. It's not about our coming to a level of knowledge or understanding. The Christian, John shows, "Knows all things" . Being given Christ by His chosen means, means the water (of baptism) saves, that Bread and Wine (Consecrated in the Lord's Supper) are His True Body and Blood, and therefore give the forgiveness of sins as promised. It gives the fellowship, the true "Knowing" of all things, real tangible means giving the real Substance, and not concepts for mere reflection. It's a matter of how much gnosticism you can swallow? There are some good things that Jordan Peterson teaches and there are good things too that many sacramentarian (Those who deny the efficacy of the sacraments) churches teach. There are measures of gnosticism like quail; though how much is too much before it makes you sick or kills you?
I think Dr Peterson dodged the question his beliefs because he probably didn’t want people to jump into this church quickly or willly-nilly. And he didn’t want to become a new guru in that sense. I’ve heard he has gone back to church, but he’s still very reticent to talk about it, which is understandable. While Peterson doesn’t share the heretical cosmogony of gnostics, he does seem to be at the forefront of a “movement” (perhaps too strong a word) of science (quantum physics and in his case psychology) circling back around after 2,000 years to consciousness, religion and God. It’s fascinating as a Christian to watch. In psychology though, “fake it till you make it” is a thing. You can change and influence mood through behaviors and physiology. You can just as likely develop an appreciation for Beauty and the Good, by starting to keep your room clean (as trite as it may sound).
Excellent commentary. Peterson is a pied piper, a wrapped up intellectual powerhouse on the outside but with an empty core, soul, missing the source of the divine. He also won't discuss the elephant in the room behind the inversion of all that is good. He is a tool of the same forces that crucified Jesus. Thank you.
I’ve been thinking this. But have to thank them for actually bringing mw back to the bible. You have to read and research it for yourself in the end to truly understand the truth of it.
During Peterson's Biblical series on Genesis, it seems that both he and his huge audience of mostly young men do not know why there is such an attraction to the subject matter. He is exploring and mining the meaning of the stories and his audience is compelled to drink it in and explore with him and search for meaning. Yet still, they both do not seem to grasp the reality, ontology, and power behind it all. Thinking men, without humility, fear belief. But it is the Holy Spirit knocking. God's words will not return to Him empty.
Perhaps they are trying to train us through practice. "Behave the way you want to believe" ( and risk bad faith like Sartre's waiter). Make a habit, and the mind will follow. But it would be a culture without a metaphysics, or a culture that seeks its metaphysics only after one is committed to it (St. Augustine: I believe in order to understand)...or just plain sophism. Socrates argued for truth being justified true belief. For something to be true, you actually have to believe it, and this is to either make the ontological claim implicitly or explicitly that what you believe is real. Verveke actually says in the after Socrates series you cannot lie to yourself. I think he is right. What I think I see is that the psychologists have taken Heidegger's distinction between zuhandensien and vorhandsein, the primordality of zuhandensien, and developed it in many ways. Now the dialectic is being interpreted within the "unconcious..."? We disagree on what reality is, but yes. Seek reality!
2 Corinthians 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." To me, all that analysis that JP does to find the hidden practical philosophical meaning behind Christ and the Bible is what Paul warned us about. To be aware of those preaching a different and complicated/gnostic gospel that isn't the simple and straightforward Gospel of salvation by the Grace of God through faith in the blood of His Son Jesus Christ.
I appreciate your critique. It would seem your main objection is the lack of explicit truth claims, propositions. They proceed on the premise of the ineffability of truth good and beauty. Is this the main substance of your objection?
Wait a minute, how can they be gnostics if their position is "I don't know whether the stories of the Bible are true, but some of them seem to lead people toward choices that empirical evidence supports as being better for people's lives"? In order to be gnostic you have to believe you have gnosis, which means knowledge of the truth by means of revelation and/or faith. You are the one claiming that you KNOW the stories of the Bible are true without any good reason beyond faith...
Good commentary. I also admire JP and JV, and ponder their resistance (as I perceive it) to Christianity. Jonathan Pageau is ‘intellectually’ weaker but seems closer the real truth.
@@TheBibleisArt He's described it as more like being hyper truth and for being true in the same way that numbers are true. Specifically for his biblical work he describes exodus as being so true that it represents every level of our lives at all times, being far more than a historical event. As for the bet hedging, I think Jordan he has a very valid point. He's being asked if he believes in God, by someone who only accepts an idolatrous god in their conception. No Christian would believe in that god either. Then there's the motive of the asker, which is usually to categorize him into a group specifically so they don't have to listen to what he has to say. Even the use of the term believe needs to be reevaluated as to the athiest it's requesting whether someone accepts the propositional, to someone else it can be a statement of faith. To me what he says doesn't look like a dodge at all, it's pointing to the flaws in the question.
I agree that context and practice cannot be separated, but also that foundational practices do not require immovable contextual boundaries. You gotta start somewhere. Fake it till you make it works within the bounds of potential, like jumping a dead battery. Some practices do require fixed context, like those you listed for marriage. But core practices of marriage not only make sense outside but must be applied outside of marriage to form marriage. Practicing commitment, determination, acceptance, and care with a beloved scaffolds a marriage. Even somebody completely unfamiliar with the concept or story of marriage practicing fundamental rituals of marriage will be on the path towards it. Applying practices emanating from aspiration toward an emerging potential forms a powerful trajectory. John might call this serious play. Do enough of it, and the Bible begins to make sense again.
What about people who renew their vows? That's essentially a purely symbolic marriage. They are doing the whole ceremony and everything but the actual status of their relationship hasn't changed at all.
@@TheBibleisArt Right but they are playing a game where they pretend to get married again? It doesn't make sense. Perhaps my thoughts are just muddled idk.
And then you are told to *Have Faith* and believe that miracles are/ were real (they aren't fictional parables)... and that's where you lose me (and a lot of people). 😅 A *literal* reading of Blibical Texts (all aspects... every word)... 😅 sorry, no.
I don't know where you're getting any of this. When I listen to Peterson he has a very structured way of communicating. He tells you his point, and historical or fictional illustrations of his point, how to accomplish his point, and what the benefits will be of doing it. Where you're getting this story of him separating form from function and telling disconnected stories and all that is entirely different from my experience of listening to him. The video is also curious in that it seems only tenuously connected to gnosticism. You made a point about how one element of their communication style could be similar to a style that has been identified in the past with gnosticism. To me, it makes the title of the video clickbait.
I find your characterization of especially Pieterson inaccurate. Firstly, If I understand you correctly you are saying that there is a necessity for the events in the Bible to have actually occurred (as described?). That is difficult to believe, not because imagining a man killing a lion by ripping its jaws apart is difficult, but because humans tend to remember and describe events according to what they noticed at the time and their interpretation, rather than in a cold, scientific, police-report type of way. Secondly, I understand Pieterson to be pointing at and emphasizing the metaphysical and ontological reality of the events in the Bible (sure, over their historical accuracy). He is pointing to how the resentment Cain bears to Abel is harmful not just to Abel, but to Cain himself for example, and how that pattern is eternally and ontologically true, regardless of whether those events took place or not. I believe that to be a higher truth than the forensic version. As for Vervaeke, my 'defense' of his position is weaker as a Christian, but I believe him to be saying that the form and substance ARE one, as you say, that they are so united that they are co-influencing; that you can 'obtain' the substance by assuming the form. This being his way of attempting to bypass the propositional belief system that so scarred him. To be fair that does strike me as semi-gnostic, but only semi; he is still trying to grasp at the metaphysical. Thank you for your video, it made me think.
Jordan Peterson has the heart but he’s too scared to dive in. I think he is still clinging on the idea that he could save everyone of the new generations without trying to offend people with the real salvation itself.. which is Christ’s
There isn't even a physical resurrection in the Bible, just a missing body and if you think that there has to be a physical resurrection I don't see why. Nobody saw the physical body of Jesus after it disappeared. He came to Paul in what I can only interpret as a vision but that's the extent of it
I didn’t discuss neo-platonism. I’m using gnostic in the sense that they denied the physical resurrection but thought that they could nevertheless have meaning.
@@TheBibleisArt this video totally misses the mark, you mischaracterize Drs Peterson & Verveke's position, and you use historical terms in novel ways instead of speaking clearly. You come across as an ideologue. Watch the latest video (released yesterday) where JBP interviews Dr Verveke and back up your claims precisely. Engage in the argument (Dia Logos) instead of flinging arrows for the algorithm.
@@mkfort I will but you have not engaged with my main proposition. I understand that these are complex thinkers but I am addressing one aspect of their thought, namely, the belief that you can forestall questions of ontology and retain meaning. Yes, I understand that Peterson provides various explanations of what he means by Christianity being true. None of those, however, address the common sense of did it happen in real life. And yes, I understand that that is not the only sense of true and yes I understand that that question is seen in academic discourse as of lower status and marginally important but the purpose of this video is to argue that is indeed important. And that it holds a structurally important place in any philosophy. Finally, calling someone an ideologue without engaging in the actual substance of the argument is precisely not engaging in a dialogos.
@@mkfort I was not clear Peterson has not denied the resurrection so that is not the similarity I’m pointing to. Peterson endlessly defers questions of history and ontology, thus implying that those are not necessary or unimportant for meaning construction.
This video is a strawman. I need only to cite the concept of "onto-normativity", which John Vervaeke defends and clarifies, to show that he doesn't deny ontology, but in the contrary, affirms the normativity of it. But I can go beyond. Their friend, Jonhatan Pageau, always says that these symbolic patterns, like that of the bible, are not just symbolic, but a reality. We participate in them in reality. I've never seen any objections to that by his friends, Peterson and Vervaeke. Moreover, Verveake defends the philosophy of neoplatonism, which gives priority to ontology and participation. And labeling them as gnostics just shows ignorance of the concept of gnosticism, which pressuposes a duality between man/God and the world: "the world is evil, and we need to escape it". Contrary to that, Vervaeke and Peterson always talks about the importance of embodied cognition and of loving reality as such.
Pageau is different, he believes all the stuff. Peterson and Vervaeke believe that all the stories are psychologically important and informative but not ontologically true (Peterson might but he avoids the question). I was not arguing that they are gnostic in every way only the way that I explained. That is, that meaning can be obtained apart from a robust ontology, without the truth of these stories.
I don't think your criticism applies to them and even think they would agree with you that there needs to be a meta physics. However they don't presume it's christian. You explain that successful stories tap into some sort of "meta" reality. But then say this must be a christian reality. JP often talks about archetypes a.k.a "meta" characters and sees how the bible employs these. JV talks relevance realization a.k.a. seeing part of the real reality and how this is important to our meaning making machinery. They both would agree with you're argument but they just don't see the need for a christian meta physics. I believe they explicitly discuss this idea in (Deeper Yet Into The Weeds | Pageau & Vervaeke | EP 277) when they critique Sam Harris.: ruclips.net/video/pzndbpwJtX0/видео.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
Can you answer my question? Do you believe in science? I guess you do. Even if you don't then you still use things that was possible becouse of science. Without science you wouldn't be able to upload your video and share your thoughts about what is real for you and make the claim about what we need: "to say what is true (to create ontology), methaphysics is mandatory ". Doesn't this tell us something about reality? Is it not real? I think it's real event and I engage in a comment under your video in real way. Yet, I think it's reasonable to characterize science as "useful fiction", because it has limits and we were witness of many events where "scientific truths" turn out to be false. These facts and characterization as "useful fiction" didn't dimished value of science. We can say it's a healthy humility and good practice to stay open minded and don't allow dogmatism to sneak in. It's a virtue to think in scientific way and yet don't fall for scienticism. I am predicting that John will address your point in his present series in episode with Kierkegaard that is comming. Actually I think he already talked about this topic many times. But maybe this time he will present the topic in more articulated manner, in a way that allow you to reconsider your objection. I see work of J. Varveake as a technology without scientism, as cultivation of virtues without dogmatism. I am curious about examples you gave. Becouse it seems that you selected social constructs - conventions / institutions / practices or whatever you what to call it to demonstrate what is real. I am thinking... people 150 000 years ago which biologically weren't different than modern humans - weren't real? They don't have marrieges and work contracts. If they loved - they loved, if they worked - they worked. Does their actions weren't real? Sorry if I misintreted you here, I am only playing with idea, maybe to get better understanding of context that we are exploring here together. You characterized John's work as play in periorative sense - as something inauthentic: hypocrisity. Then what do you think about concept coined by JV and named: "serious play"? If someone train in dojo and is pacifist - does he is fake warrior? If someone exercise empathy in circling practices - Does she will be hypocrite when she show kindness and understanding to someone on the street? I have probably a diffrent way of thinking than JV and JBP. I am NeoAnimist. I am not fan of JBP and don't follow his line of reasoning/justification, he is very smart guys but he said here and there many not so smart things... If it comes to JV I heard many times in his talks about ontological grounding and importance of Truth with capilat T. He shared the same or similar points with your line arguments. I really wonder why you send your objection towards him? It's doesn't make sense to me. I have definitly different aproach but not necesserly contradicting one. NeoAnismism take whole another point of view. If someone want know more then may read a book named: "Error and loss: a licence to enchantment". It's about why ontology is meaningless cathegory and reason for endless confusion and meaningless ideological fights." But that whole another discussion. I want back for a moment to your example. I have female friend which got married only because of her partner family beliefs, the reason was purely practical - to avoid social pressure. Judging by your standards - her marriege is fake, a play, essentially nothing. And yet, they are very happy couple, they are living thogeter, love each other and there is nothing wrong with their relationship. In situation like this if we include observer to the picture - only observer has a problem becouse of possed beliefs of what we can call real (he is confused by ontological thinking). Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day/night. 🙋♂️
So anyone who hasn't read bible can't see reality?. Is this a a serious argument lol. Vervaeke is neo platonist and Christianity take a lot of platonism of plotinus and gives words different labels. The one and many was solved by plato himself in parmanedies. I would go as far as hegel as philosophy is the true revelation but christianity is good for the normie masses i guess.
You need to be precise with your criticism, that wasn’t my argument. You would definitely be in the minority thinking Plato solved the one and the many. Given that for him the many is a secondary fall from the one unity so placing one hierarchically above another is hardly solving it. Notice, you think appealing to the Bible as the source of truth is problematic but then you do the same with Hegel. And it is wildly pretentious to claim that Christianity is for the “normie masses”. Christianity has produced thinkers of infinitely higher caliber than you or me and has had the most transcultural and temporal persuasion. I would be careful of flippant dismissal…Hegel didn’t do that to Christianity.
@@TheBibleisArt I would request the same from you. Of course I agree that there have been great thinkers from the Christian tradition. But what you are fighting is strawman platonism. Plotinus has the inner and outer world in a non-temporal identity ( emanations). Also there is contemplative virtue. It doesn't deny reality that would be radical skepticism/relativism. Plato is always against these streams of thought in the dialogues.
@@ReflectiveJourney The video was not about platonism and primarily about Peterson. I draw in Vervaeke because of his emphasis on practices and little ontology (that I've seen).
Yeah... the discussion between Vervaeke and Bishop Maximos destroys this as some kind of "neoplatonism is better" argument. And Hegelian dialectics if you pay attention to the theological part of the discussion.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't think you've quite thought this through yet. The actual new Gnosticism is the separation of the material body from the 'true self' which is everywhere these days. (See Trans ideology, Disney animation, Woke culture, following your dreams, etc.) I think Peterson and Vervaeke see this and in their own ways are trying to answer the questions. I think the real temptation here is in syncretism, the blending of a Christian faith with other aspects of other religious views. But that is always going on in different ways. Every praise team singing Hill Song tunes is engaged in the same practice, in a much worse way, because they don't understand that they have mixed the contemporary concept of the global market, with the faith. And this really does undermine the Christian realities. The emotionalism of a megachurch is in a way far more syncretic than either Peterson or Vervaeke, whom I wouldn't lump together. The good aspect of their work is to encourage dialogue both within and without the church. But indeed there are things that must be challenged. And what I think that people are responding to is the fact that for most Christians deep conversation is discouraged within the whole society, and certainly the churches have mostly gone along with it. We have bought the notion the Christianity is a market, and what people 'really' want are simple packages.
PS. Ten minutes isn't much time at all if you are going to attend to the meaning of people like Peterson of Vervaeke. If you you are going to swim in these waters I'd suggest looking at how long their videos are, and what sort of commitment it's going to take to even begin to address their ideas. And if you are saying to yourself well my audience doesn't have that kind of attention span, you have missed one of the central points of what their work means. People are hungry for depth. Too many Christians have sold their birthright for the sound bytes of a fractured postmodern reality. I am encouraging you to dig here. And not to skim. Keep going.
Peterson is a jungian, plain and simple.
Vervaeke is some mixture of a Gnostic zen ecumenist. In other words, he’s a heretic through and through. He talks on and on in circles using five dollar words. If you can’t say what you mean to everyday salt of the earth people, your message won’t survive. It maybe will do something in the intellectual circles but that’s a kind of “high IQ ghetto” that most people don’t have time for or frankly give a shit about.
I have been following Peterson and Vervaeke's work closely for years, and I find your critique simple, concise and fair for a 10 min video format. and it makes me want to know more about Gnosticism and do my own comparision.
But I do think their work is more complicated/complex rather than just simply advocating "story" and "practices", for Peterson, story is connected to this Jungian archetypal framework of myth, the mythological truth demonstrates meta patterns in life that actually gives itself more advantages than unorganized historical facts. Vervaeke's practice is not the end goal but for people to engage the other 3p of knowing rather than doing proposition management.
And I do find their work connects to certain metaphsics, that Peterson is clearly stoic and kierkgaardian existential while Vervaeke is very neo-platonic, in my opinion.
that is true, but in Peterson's case I perceived this pragmatic conception of religion (I mean William James' pragmatism) which defeats the purpose of Christianity, in this case, which is Jesus as the Truth to be accepted cognitively as factual.
@@belen_hummus Yes! I agree, also Glen Scriviener released several videos (alone, with Gavin Ortlund) analyze Peterson theologically, and these were very good
@@BobWangwenyi23 great, I will check those as well!
I've said it before, but what a beautiful channel. You manage to cram so much into so little time, I find myself having to listen three or four times - which isn't a chore, because you deliver it very well. I'd love to see you and the Bible Project do a co-lab!
You've done a wonderful job summarizing what I've been thinking about Jordan Peterson. Like you, I believe that he is a benefit to society, especially in todays world the promotes lack of self accountability. However, he comes up short when it comes to religion. It is not simply something we tell ourselves to make society better, we genuinely practice it because we believe it to be true.
Check out Jay Dyers stil stuff on Peterson and alchemy and philosophy and dialectical manipulation. He has a good video and Gnosticism as well. Father Seraphim Roses, books Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future and orthodox survival course. Also get into this.
Absolutely true. Most Evangelicals believe that John 3:16 is the portal to faith, but actually there is a verse that is anterior to that: Hebrews 11:6, which establishes the fundamental metaphysical assertion which is a-priori to any doctrinal details, practical application or psychological metaphor, i.e., regarding the existential question.
Taken on their own, Job's councilors were condemned by God not because what they said about Him was incorrect but rather because they were attempting to define Him so they could worship their formalized concept of Him instead of the ontological reality. This is idolatry in its most subtle form.
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him MUST BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Those who place faith in their assent to a collection of creedal statements instead of a relationship I fear are in for a surprise when they hear the words, "Depart from me...I never knew you."
This was such a great video. Thank you!
Agreed. They (specifically peterson) have helped many see God more openly and entertain the idea. But deny the full power/truth of it. They're so close, yet far. Hope and pray they do come around. 🙏
"They're so close, yet far."
True. But to use some analogy, at least they are shifting the compass back to North so to speak. Because it was well and truly heading South before their arrival. ;)
Perhaps it’s good to have people in that position to draw in the sceptical materialists without scaring them off. But if they did go further it would be interesting to see!
LOL - you have it totally backwards 🤦♂
@@historynerd6630 In what way?
They are so close and far but many will get a distorted view of Christianity. That will be younger than gnostic ever Vaky. It will definitely be in Vervaeke with Vicky. It will definitely be anti-Christian even when distorting it in a sick way. His project is post modern at the core to include his religion. Religion That’s not a religion as a position that’s not a position. To steal the culture away.
First of all, what does any of this have to do with gnosticism? In fact, isn't an oxymoron, given that gnosticism is inherently metaphysical -- believing in a corrupt world of illusion, and "another" world of truth? Not to mention the demiurge, Sophia, Aeon, and a host of other supernatural characters and metaphysical structures. How did Gnosticism come to mean "denial of metaphysics and ontology"?
Second of all, have you watched any of John Vervaeke's videos? Particularly those with Jonathan Pageau? It's beyond a mischaracterization to say that he doesn't talk about or deal with metaphysics and ontology. Heck, he's basically a Neoplatonist. Obviously he doesn't subscribe to Christian metaphysics -- but is it really fair to say that he ignores the question? Not remotely.
Yes, Gnosticism is metaphysical and evil theology, even when demythologized into a materialistic and rational ideology like Marxism or Hitler’s Gnostic nightmare. It needs body and turns to churches, schools, and systems like Neoplatonism, Kabbahla and mutates mimetically, drawing from marginal radicals and esotericists and their ex eclectic grimoires, then always slips categories to avoid criticism, like all the marxisms and post modern intersectionslisms. Often creates a pagan and heirarchal Gnostic backlash in the dialectics. One of the many gnosticisms was to reduce Christ to just plain wisdom dude, and this is how Thomas Jefferson used him to "internalize the sage." And this ranges from that to syncretic esotericism, techno gnosticism today, and the outright Crowley and Mason style use of Neoplatonism for inversion and the Secret Gospel of John.
A lot of people recognize the problem you're addressing, but I don't know if I would call it 'gnostic.'
Esoteric, yes. But the approach in many ways is the opposite of Neoplatonism despite (especially Vervaeke) claiming that it is consistent with it. In Greek philosophy, the most ontological is the realm of ideas or "spirit", and the material exists by virtue of participating in the forms.
For all of these modern figures, they may use Neoplatonic language, but they are essentially physical-reductionists. This was the point I made on a recent Jonathan Pageau video: "spiritual reality is within the realm of idea" is a term that both Classical Greeks _AND_ modern materialist atheists can accept and yet understand it in polar opposite ways.
There's a failure to acknowledge equivocation.
Check out 1 John as he addresses the secessionist movements of the first century church. The people who didn't outright apostatize ended up doing exactly what the video talks about - separating the physical from the metaphysical. Their heresy was that Jesus was either human and had the divine spirit on him, or was the divine spirit and never really human. John was dealing with the root theology of second century Gnosticism.
@@dw5523 I know what Gnosticism is lol
@@vngelicath1580 editing my original response with apologies. Glad you've got it covered, I was just responding to the apparent confusion in your first sentence.
Gnostic in the sense of denying the resurrection and trying to retain the meaning and practices.
I was not clear Peterson has not denied the resurrection so that is not the similarity I’m pointing to. Peterson endlessly defers questions of history and ontology, thus implying that those are not necessary or unimportant for meaning construction.
Yes. I think that even Peterson would agree with your overall assertion here- that there is an underlying reality behind the beliefs that we act out. In the past, he's called this 'pragmatism,' which I think is intended to imply some kind of relationship between the effectiveness or benefit or even beauty of one's actions and the *Truth* of the underlying reality that they seem to represent. Peterson has also defined *faith* as the experience of *reality* that the outcome of speaking what one believes to be true- no matter the short term negative outcome- will result in a long-term goodness in the world. This same experience is what is expressed is the overall biblical cannon, in my view.
So, in my view, Peterson would say that he is participating in the same metaphysical reality as believing christians. We are now left with really only a couple of remaining differences between the two worldviews, which, in my estimation, are the issues of historicity and biology of things like the historical Jesus, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection/ascension, etc. Even though most christians would insist on the physical and/or literal truth of these aspects of the biblical cannon, I, like Peterson, have always been much more interested in their truth as metaphorical/psychoilogical, etc.
Here's one more thing that I've drawn from Peterson's work that I think is relevant: The moral value of our actions does not just affect the present and the future, italso affects and co-creates the past! An example that he uses is a marriage in which one party is unfaithful to the other. Not only does this unfaithfulness negatively affect the present and make rebuilding trust in the relationship difficult for the future, it also destroys the story about the nature of who we are and what we've been building. If the marriage is a lie now, how much past time has in been a lie? This question has the capacity to destroy anything and everything, in the same way that the question about who I could be has the ability to build something in the future.
Is there a way to use this 'trans-temporal' view of moral value to shed light on the historical/physical truth of The Bible?
Just came across your channel. Great piece of work here man!
Great to have a man of the shire here
I'm not a fan of Peterson or Vervaeke, but I don't really get the criticism here. It sounds like your assessment is correct that they doubt the historicity of biblical events, but you're argument against their doubt is just that, if the stories aren't historically true, it's all a big waste of time, a play. You're not really attempting to prove that the story is historically true, you're just trying to prove that it better be, otherwise it's all for naught. As opposed to Peterson who is attempting to salvage something useful from the story that might not be historically accurate. Shouldn't you be meeting him on his level and attempting to prove the historicity of the bible? Not just attacking his project, given that if you can't prove the bible historically true, you might as well join peterson in his project so you still have a hope at something positive. I don't see the point of this video, or who it's serving.
The point of the video is to argue that meaning and practices have their value/meaning when their grounding stories are true. I’m arguing that the true, good, and beautiful are a necessary unity. And that Peterson and Vervaeke seem to think that you can have one without the other and I believe that to be false.
Arguments for the truth are an important part but many more abler man have undertook that project.
Thanks for the comment.
The bible has been proven historically true already? But you missed his point, he is talking about the metaphysics. If death is the end then all of it is just a meaningless waste of time. It's not a waste of time because the metaphysics is true, so even if people don't believe in it and act as if it's true that's already good, but that wouldn't be the case if the metaphysics wasn't true. Jordan Peterson does love to doge the metaphysics all the time, calling it "not very interesting".
@@TheBibleisArt Vervaeke and Peterson might performatively contradict themaelves in this regard unknowingly when they are talking about this trias in other places. But in this conversation they explore the True, Good, and Beautiful explicitly and state their interrelatedness explicitly. ruclips.net/video/pzndbpwJtX0/видео.html
@@TheBibleisArt "meaning has meaning when its grounding story is true" what? "the true, good, and beautiful are a necessary unity" necessary for what? "you can't have one without the other" what do "one" and "other" refer to here? Maybe I'm autistic or something, but I can't make any sense out of your language. My best interpretation was in my original comment, but maybe I've completely misunderstood what you're talking about.
@Disqus Menisqus Well I believe that what your saying is true, and I think you worded it very well. I'm not sure if thats exactly what this video was saying, but if it is, then I would just say that I think it's a misreading of Peterson, since he's said on record that he's not a reletavist. For example, he often talks about the undeniable realness of pain and evil, while mocking nihilists, and then will suggest there must be real good at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2 Timothy 3:5
If you listen to Jordan Petersen you know he does not deny the power of Godliness. He may not be ready to accept or profess the literal Atonement of Christ as such, but he teaches truth as found in the scriptures and proven in life experiences. I personally have come to a much greater understanding of the scriptures and their relevance to me through his teachings. I believe God works through anyone will accept and teach truth even if they are not as fully on the path.
New Gnosticism a lot like the old Gnosticism- philosophy veiled in allegory
I think that Peterson finds it hard to reconcile arcane occult and mythological events that are very similar to ones in the bible throughout the new and old testament in a categorical manner. However, I think the primary difference he sees is that the figures in the bible actually existed and that revitalizing Christianity as a bedrock of western morality is imperative to prevent a repeat of 20th century revolutions.
Well said. Knowledge of his beliefs do not invalidate what Dr. Peterson is trying to accomplish or the necessity and perhaps urgency of his work.
Peterson's "fake it until you make it" approach is pragmatic but ultimately useless when it comes to answering questions about meaning and purpose. Your video and these comments gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
Practicing accountability, dependability, creativity all make sense outside the context of work and will improve your capacity to work when called to.
Practicing attending to the good, the true, and the beautiful outside of a biblical context will also still serve you when called.
Wow, thank you so much for this video. It’s something that has been bothering me for a long time despite respecting Peterson. This separation of ontology from epistemology definitely echoes neo-orthodoxy and theological liberalism.
Totally agree, and thank you for articulating this so well. Reminds me of Hans Boersma’s book, “Heavenly Participation.”
Having watched most of Vervaeke's videos, my advice to anyone out there is to avail yourself of some of the books that he references and read them for yourself. I know this is difficult but it's important to actually understand the background to actually know when to agree and when to find better sources in various fields. I learned a lot in the Meaning Crisis series about recent Cog Sci. The intellectual history, philosophy sections to my my mind have been done better by others. I still applaud his King Canute-like battle of swimming against the tide of academic specialzation and trying to knit together quite a lot that of things that seem separate just can't be.
Why do you call it gnosticism when the historical gnostics actually had a clear and well defined metaphysics, unlike the gentlemen you're critiquing? It doesn't make much sense to identify this as gnosticism if the core essence of the issue is a lack of metaphysics and you are associating them with gnosticism on that basis.
The employment simile is top notch. It puts the finger precisely on the issue at hand. Hadn‘t thought of it this way before.
However, I guess the problem still persists due to the fact that employment can (at least seemingly) be experienced way more directly than some other ontological status such as marriage, and actually IS being experienced by most people most of the time in some form. That is, even though you might not be formally employed (and might never have been) there is always some approximation to that state that you can experience. For example a child that receives candy („salary“) from his parents („employer“) for washing the dishes („work“). With other, more „abstract“, more distantly experienced ontological realities such as marriage, it might be very difficult to gain any insight about them when you have no way of accessing (ie experiencing) these realities.
thumbs up just for bringing up the uncomfortable reality of the beliefs of Peterson
💯
Very insightful
I'm 100% on board with the critique (on Peterson at least, as I don't know Vervaeke). Deliberately and even masterfully emptied words with meaning only the listener can (and will) fill in, thus ending up identifying with the "teacher". And sadly, in most cases it is the loss of meaning connecting deep down the listeners being.
Btw I find Peterson's loathing of deconstructionist quite hilarious while at the same time even an attempt to (re)define you-name-it almost paralyses the man with such anguish.
Its prejudice towards multiplicity that ignores unity, an atomistic primacy of the parts that doubts the existence of the whole.
2:00 "sit there, and a feeling will come at one time" is literally Dzogchen, which is a "practice makes you" branch of classical Buddhism. Don't have to believe in anything but the fact that it is your nature and purpose to receive God's grace. Or however Christians phrase the thing. It's not like it matters what you call it, once you know it and that it's there for you now, always.
This is a good take down of his aversion to ontological claims. I love the point about vocab.
I think you hit the nail squarely (gnosticly speaking (sic)).
Gnosticism is pervasive in the churches today as well. Yes, it is understood that Christ came in the flesh and worked through means of stuff, base stuff at that; He used water and dirt to name a couple, He certainly saved us by His actual body and blood on the cross. Yet even though it is shown that 100% of the church fathers spoke of baptism as efficacious and regenerative, today many church bodies believe otherwise. That God works by means of stuff such as His promise in the waters of baptism is thought absurd and even against faith, even though Martin Luther, who held to baptismal regeneration, coined the "faith alone" expressions that are clearly taught in scripture.
The Lord's Supper in many churches are mere theater and do not believe nor convey the Body and Blood of Christ. They are seen as a mere remembrance of... and not as a partaking of, or a partisipation in and with His Body and blood. So the "practicing of the truth" for many has given way to gnosticism and so speaks inline with achieving a better moral position. John, in 1st John, says the One he has seen, heard, and handled, he is declaring that they may have fellowship...
Practicing the truth is partaking of His gifts in word and sacrament to give a short hand rendering. There is the place were we fellowship. The place where we actually see, hear, and handle Him. It's not about our coming to a level of knowledge or understanding. The Christian, John shows, "Knows all things" . Being given Christ by His chosen means, means the water (of baptism) saves, that Bread and Wine (Consecrated in the Lord's Supper) are His True Body and Blood, and therefore give the forgiveness of sins as promised. It gives the fellowship, the true "Knowing" of all things, real tangible means giving the real Substance, and not concepts for mere reflection.
It's a matter of how much gnosticism you can swallow? There are some good things that Jordan Peterson teaches and there are good things too that many
sacramentarian (Those who deny the efficacy of the sacraments) churches teach. There are measures of gnosticism like quail; though how much is too much before it makes you sick or kills you?
I think Dr Peterson dodged the question his beliefs because he probably didn’t want people to jump into this church quickly or willly-nilly. And he didn’t want to become a new guru in that sense. I’ve heard he has gone back to church, but he’s still very reticent to talk about it, which is understandable.
While Peterson doesn’t share the heretical cosmogony of gnostics, he does seem to be at the forefront of a “movement” (perhaps too strong a word) of science (quantum physics and in his case psychology) circling back around after 2,000 years to consciousness, religion and God. It’s fascinating as a Christian to watch.
In psychology though, “fake it till you make it” is a thing. You can change and influence mood through behaviors and physiology. You can just as likely develop an appreciation for Beauty and the Good, by starting to keep your room clean (as trite as it may sound).
Excellent commentary. Peterson is a pied piper, a wrapped up intellectual powerhouse on the outside but with an empty core, soul, missing the source of the divine. He also won't discuss the elephant in the room behind the inversion of all that is good. He is a tool of the same forces that crucified Jesus. Thank you.
He's mentioned the Luciferean spirit plenty of times.
💯
I’ve been thinking this.
But have to thank them for actually bringing mw back to the bible.
You have to read and research it for yourself in the end to truly understand the truth of it.
Around the 4:00 mark, he makes Nietzsche’s “Death of God” argument... Who definitely wasn’t a gnostic, either.
During Peterson's Biblical series on Genesis, it seems that both he and his huge audience of mostly young men do not know why there is such an attraction to the subject matter. He is exploring and mining the meaning of the stories and his audience is compelled to drink it in and explore with him and search for meaning. Yet still, they both do not seem to grasp the reality, ontology, and power behind it all. Thinking men, without humility, fear belief. But it is the Holy Spirit knocking. God's words will not return to Him empty.
Those that heed the call still respect these men but move on to Pageau and VanderKlay.
Perhaps they are trying to train us through practice. "Behave the way you want to believe" ( and risk bad faith like Sartre's waiter). Make a habit, and the mind will follow. But it would be a culture without a metaphysics, or a culture that seeks its metaphysics only after one is committed to it (St. Augustine: I believe in order to understand)...or just plain sophism. Socrates argued for truth being justified true belief. For something to be true, you actually have to believe it, and this is to either make the ontological claim implicitly or explicitly that what you believe is real. Verveke actually says in the after Socrates series you cannot lie to yourself. I think he is right. What I think I see is that the psychologists have taken Heidegger's distinction between zuhandensien and vorhandsein, the primordality of zuhandensien, and developed it in many ways. Now the dialectic is being interpreted within the "unconcious..."? We disagree on what reality is, but yes. Seek reality!
2 Corinthians 11:3
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
To me, all that analysis that JP does to find the hidden practical philosophical meaning behind Christ and the Bible is what Paul warned us about. To be aware of those preaching a different and complicated/gnostic gospel that isn't the simple and straightforward Gospel of salvation by the Grace of God through faith in the blood of His Son Jesus Christ.
I appreciate your critique. It would seem your main objection is the lack of explicit truth claims, propositions. They proceed on the premise of the ineffability of truth good and beauty. Is this the main substance of your objection?
I am also a fan of Dr Peterson, and his friend Johnathan Pageau. I find it hard to follow Mr. V, maybe you already explained why.
Wait a minute, how can they be gnostics if their position is "I don't know whether the stories of the Bible are true, but some of them seem to lead people toward choices that empirical evidence supports as being better for people's lives"? In order to be gnostic you have to believe you have gnosis, which means knowledge of the truth by means of revelation and/or faith. You are the one claiming that you KNOW the stories of the Bible are true without any good reason beyond faith...
Good commentary. I also admire JP and JV, and ponder their resistance (as I perceive it) to Christianity. Jonathan Pageau is ‘intellectually’ weaker but seems closer the real truth.
I wouldn’t say Pageau is weaker. They have different domains of expertise.
@@TheBibleisArt I guess a question was hidden in my comment. Would you critique against Pageau the same way - I suspect not
@@johnsalamito6212 nope, he believes it.
But Peterson explicitly says that biblical stories are true or even most true of all
Where? Because every time I hear him talk about it he hedges.
@@TheBibleisArt ruclips.net/video/6T7pUEZfgdI/видео.html
@@TheBibleisArt He's described it as more like being hyper truth and for being true in the same way that numbers are true. Specifically for his biblical work he describes exodus as being so true that it represents every level of our lives at all times, being far more than a historical event.
As for the bet hedging, I think Jordan he has a very valid point. He's being asked if he believes in God, by someone who only accepts an idolatrous god in their conception. No Christian would believe in that god either. Then there's the motive of the asker, which is usually to categorize him into a group specifically so they don't have to listen to what he has to say.
Even the use of the term believe needs to be reevaluated as to the athiest it's requesting whether someone accepts the propositional, to someone else it can be a statement of faith.
To me what he says doesn't look like a dodge at all, it's pointing to the flaws in the question.
I agree that context and practice cannot be separated, but also that foundational practices do not require immovable contextual boundaries.
You gotta start somewhere. Fake it till you make it works within the bounds of potential, like jumping a dead battery.
Some practices do require fixed context, like those you listed for marriage. But core practices of marriage not only make sense outside but must be applied outside of marriage to form marriage.
Practicing commitment, determination, acceptance, and care with a beloved scaffolds a marriage. Even somebody completely unfamiliar with the concept or story of marriage practicing fundamental rituals of marriage will be on the path towards it.
Applying practices emanating from aspiration toward an emerging potential forms a powerful trajectory. John might call this serious play. Do enough of it, and the Bible begins to make sense again.
What about people who renew their vows? That's essentially a purely symbolic marriage. They are doing the whole ceremony and everything but the actual status of their relationship hasn't changed at all.
They’re actually married
@@TheBibleisArt Right but they are playing a game where they pretend to get married again? It doesn't make sense. Perhaps my thoughts are just muddled idk.
@@Laocoon283 in the Bible there are covenant renewal ceremonies. But in both cases you are enacting rituals for a marriage that actually exists.
And then you are told to *Have Faith* and believe that miracles are/ were real (they aren't fictional parables)... and that's where you lose me (and a lot of people). 😅
A *literal* reading of Blibical Texts (all aspects... every word)... 😅 sorry, no.
The story of the boy who cried wolf..
Is it true?
I don't know where you're getting any of this. When I listen to Peterson he has a very structured way of communicating. He tells you his point, and historical or fictional illustrations of his point, how to accomplish his point, and what the benefits will be of doing it.
Where you're getting this story of him separating form from function and telling disconnected stories and all that is entirely different from my experience of listening to him.
The video is also curious in that it seems only tenuously connected to gnosticism. You made a point about how one element of their communication style could be similar to a style that has been identified in the past with gnosticism. To me, it makes the title of the video clickbait.
I find your characterization of especially Pieterson inaccurate.
Firstly, If I understand you correctly you are saying that there is a necessity for the events in the Bible to have actually occurred (as described?). That is difficult to believe, not because imagining a man killing a lion by ripping its jaws apart is difficult, but because humans tend to remember and describe events according to what they noticed at the time and their interpretation, rather than in a cold, scientific, police-report type of way.
Secondly, I understand Pieterson to be pointing at and emphasizing the metaphysical and ontological reality of the events in the Bible (sure, over their historical accuracy). He is pointing to how the resentment Cain bears to Abel is harmful not just to Abel, but to Cain himself for example, and how that pattern is eternally and ontologically true, regardless of whether those events took place or not. I believe that to be a higher truth than the forensic version.
As for Vervaeke, my 'defense' of his position is weaker as a Christian, but I believe him to be saying that the form and substance ARE one, as you say, that they are so united that they are co-influencing; that you can 'obtain' the substance by assuming the form. This being his way of attempting to bypass the propositional belief system that so scarred him. To be fair that does strike me as semi-gnostic, but only semi; he is still trying to grasp at the metaphysical.
Thank you for your video, it made me think.
Jordan Peterson has the heart but he’s too scared to dive in. I think he is still clinging on the idea that he could save everyone of the new generations without trying to offend people with the real salvation itself.. which is Christ’s
If the past, the present, and the future are all happening at once, perhaps Jordan Peterson is becoming Jesus.
how and why is Gnosticism a topic of this video?! I don't understand... The title is obviously badly chosen...
A pox upon Abrahamism and the Djinn it rode in on.
Mate, you can't call it Gnostic just because you don't like it xD
No, gnostics deny the physical resurrection but don’t think anything is lost.
There isn't even a physical resurrection in the Bible, just a missing body and if you think that there has to be a physical resurrection I don't see why. Nobody saw the physical body of Jesus after it disappeared. He came to Paul in what I can only interpret as a vision but that's the extent of it
@@Heathmcdonald well, literally the entire Christian tradition and earliest creed thinks differently. So you take on quite the burden of proof.
What about Paul’s defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15?
What about Paul’s defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15?
Deep.
What about cultures that do not have marriage? You are prejudice to people that are not part of the Christian tradition.
Sorry, ignore my comment. I made the mistake of starting a conversation on the internet again. Have a nice day!
@@33BiGBoB33 moving the goal post.
Neo-Platonism is neither Gnosticism nor incompatible with Christianiy. I'm not convinced you have a good understanding of any of these.
I didn’t discuss neo-platonism. I’m using gnostic in the sense that they denied the physical resurrection but thought that they could nevertheless have meaning.
@@TheBibleisArt this video totally misses the mark, you mischaracterize Drs Peterson & Verveke's position, and you use historical terms in novel ways instead of speaking clearly. You come across as an ideologue. Watch the latest video (released yesterday) where JBP interviews Dr Verveke and back up your claims precisely. Engage in the argument (Dia Logos) instead of flinging arrows for the algorithm.
@@mkfort I will but you have not engaged with my main proposition. I understand that these are complex thinkers but I am addressing one aspect of their thought, namely, the belief that you can forestall questions of ontology and retain meaning.
Yes, I understand that Peterson provides various explanations of what he means by Christianity being true. None of those, however, address the common sense of did it happen in real life.
And yes, I understand that that is not the only sense of true and yes I understand that that question is seen in academic discourse as of lower status and marginally important but the purpose of this video is to argue that is indeed important. And that it holds a structurally important place in any philosophy.
Finally, calling someone an ideologue without engaging in the actual substance of the argument is precisely not engaging in a dialogos.
@@TheBibleisArt you sound like a two-tier Thomist. Sorry if I missed it, but where precisely does Peterson deny the bodily resurrection?
@@mkfort I was not clear Peterson has not denied the resurrection so that is not the similarity I’m pointing to. Peterson endlessly defers questions of history and ontology, thus implying that those are not necessary or unimportant for meaning construction.
they're demiurge/ were not supposed to worship
This video is a strawman. I need only to cite the concept of "onto-normativity", which John Vervaeke defends and clarifies, to show that he doesn't deny ontology, but in the contrary, affirms the normativity of it.
But I can go beyond. Their friend, Jonhatan Pageau, always says that these symbolic patterns, like that of the bible, are not just symbolic, but a reality. We participate in them in reality. I've never seen any objections to that by his friends, Peterson and Vervaeke.
Moreover, Verveake defends the philosophy of neoplatonism, which gives priority to ontology and participation.
And labeling them as gnostics just shows ignorance of the concept of gnosticism, which pressuposes a duality between man/God and the world: "the world is evil, and we need to escape it". Contrary to that, Vervaeke and Peterson always talks about the importance of embodied cognition and of loving reality as such.
Pageau is different, he believes all the stuff. Peterson and Vervaeke believe that all the stories are psychologically important and informative but not ontologically true (Peterson might but he avoids the question).
I was not arguing that they are gnostic in every way only the way that I explained. That is, that meaning can be obtained apart from a robust ontology, without the truth of these stories.
Totally agree. Great insight. Classic liberal theologians.
Sloppy thinking and motivated reasoning
Sloppy comment.
The crooked books on the shelf drive ne nuts.
You and I both
I don't think your criticism applies to them and even think they would agree with you that there needs to be a meta physics. However they don't presume it's christian. You explain that successful stories tap into some sort of "meta" reality. But then say this must be a christian reality. JP often talks about archetypes a.k.a "meta" characters and sees how the bible employs these. JV talks relevance realization a.k.a. seeing part of the real reality and how this is important to our meaning making machinery. They both would agree with you're argument but they just don't see the need for a christian meta physics.
I believe they explicitly discuss this idea in (Deeper Yet Into The Weeds | Pageau & Vervaeke | EP 277) when they critique Sam Harris.:
ruclips.net/video/pzndbpwJtX0/видео.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I ll respond when I have a bit more time.
Can you answer my question?
Do you believe in science?
I guess you do.
Even if you don't then you still use things that was possible becouse of science.
Without science you wouldn't be able to upload your video and share your thoughts about what is real for you and make the claim about what we need: "to say what is true (to create ontology), methaphysics is mandatory ". Doesn't this tell us something about reality? Is it not real? I think it's real event and I engage in a comment under your video in real way.
Yet, I think it's reasonable to characterize science as "useful fiction", because it has limits and we were witness of many events where "scientific truths" turn out to be false. These facts and characterization as "useful fiction" didn't dimished value of science. We can say it's a healthy humility and good practice to stay open minded and don't allow dogmatism to sneak in. It's a virtue to think in scientific way and yet don't fall for scienticism.
I am predicting that John will address your point in his present series in episode with Kierkegaard that is comming.
Actually I think he already talked about this topic many times. But maybe this time he will present the topic in more articulated manner, in a way that allow you to reconsider your objection.
I see work of J. Varveake as a technology without scientism, as cultivation of virtues without dogmatism.
I am curious about examples you gave. Becouse it seems that you selected social constructs - conventions / institutions / practices or whatever you what to call it to demonstrate what is real. I am thinking... people 150 000 years ago which biologically weren't different than modern humans - weren't real? They don't have marrieges and work contracts. If they loved - they loved, if they worked - they worked. Does their actions weren't real?
Sorry if I misintreted you here, I am only playing with idea, maybe to get better understanding of context that we are exploring here together.
You characterized John's work as play in periorative sense - as something inauthentic: hypocrisity.
Then what do you think about concept coined by JV and named: "serious play"?
If someone train in dojo and is pacifist - does he is fake warrior?
If someone exercise empathy in circling practices - Does she will be hypocrite when she show kindness and understanding to someone on the street?
I have probably a diffrent way of thinking than JV and JBP. I am NeoAnimist. I am not fan of JBP and don't follow his line of reasoning/justification, he is very smart guys but he said here and there many not so smart things... If it comes to JV I heard many times in his talks about ontological grounding and importance of Truth with capilat T. He shared the same or similar points with your line arguments. I really wonder why you send your objection towards him? It's doesn't make sense to me.
I have definitly different aproach but not necesserly contradicting one. NeoAnismism take whole another point of view. If someone want know more then may read a book named: "Error and loss: a licence to enchantment". It's about why ontology is meaningless cathegory and reason for endless confusion and meaningless ideological fights." But that whole another discussion.
I want back for a moment to your example.
I have female friend which got married only because of her partner family beliefs, the reason was purely practical - to avoid social pressure. Judging by your standards - her marriege is fake, a play, essentially nothing. And yet, they are very happy couple, they are living thogeter, love each other and there is nothing wrong with their relationship. In situation like this if we include observer to the picture - only observer has a problem becouse of possed beliefs of what we can call real (he is confused by ontological thinking).
Thank you for your attention.
Have a nice day/night. 🙋♂️
So anyone who hasn't read bible can't see reality?. Is this a a serious argument lol. Vervaeke is neo platonist and Christianity take a lot of platonism of plotinus and gives words different labels. The one and many was solved by plato himself in parmanedies. I would go as far as hegel as philosophy is the true revelation but christianity is good for the normie masses i guess.
You need to be precise with your criticism, that wasn’t my argument.
You would definitely be in the minority thinking Plato solved the one and the many. Given that for him the many is a secondary fall from the one unity so placing one hierarchically above another is hardly solving it.
Notice, you think appealing to the Bible as the source of truth is problematic but then you do the same with Hegel. And it is wildly pretentious to claim that Christianity is for the “normie masses”. Christianity has produced thinkers of infinitely higher caliber than you or me and has had the most transcultural and temporal persuasion. I would be careful of flippant dismissal…Hegel didn’t do that to Christianity.
@@TheBibleisArt I would request the same from you. Of course I agree that there have been great thinkers from the Christian tradition. But what you are fighting is strawman platonism. Plotinus has the inner and outer world in a non-temporal identity ( emanations). Also there is contemplative virtue. It doesn't deny reality that would be radical skepticism/relativism. Plato is always against these streams of thought in the dialogues.
@@ReflectiveJourney The video was not about platonism and primarily about Peterson. I draw in Vervaeke because of his emphasis on practices and little ontology (that I've seen).
Yeah... the discussion between Vervaeke and Bishop Maximos destroys this as some kind of "neoplatonism is better" argument. And Hegelian dialectics if you pay attention to the theological part of the discussion.
Vervaeke is a non-theist I think
New Gnosticism a lot like the old Gnosticism- philosophy veiled in allegory