Stephen Hicks: About Jordan Peterson

From March 12th-16th of 2020, Dr. Stephen Hicks took the stage for a series of events in Melbourne, Australia as he navigated the mysterious cultural landscape of current-day political correctness and postmodernism, exploring where it all came from and how it's affecting our present and halting our drive for progress.

Prof. Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, Illinois, is the Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship and is the Senior Scholar for the Atlas Society and has lectured world-wide. Prof. Hicks is well known for his expertise in demystifying postmodernist ideology and is growing in international acclaim for his approachable and solutions-driven lectures.

The recordings captured the following events:

1. Culture Wars 2.0: How Political Correctness is Shaping Your World

With Professor Stephen Hicks

2. Searching for Solutions: A Deep Dive into the Postmodernist Epidemic

With Professor Stephen Hicks

3. Justice Warriors: Against the Anti-Social Warriors

With Professor Stephen Hicks and Gloria Alvarez

[joecoolmccall]

This is one tbe most succinct explanations I've ever heard.

[blackerpanther]

There’s a reason Peterson resonates with so many people.

[kunipeg]

Jordan Peterson book sales: 5 million copies

Very Smart People in comments section COMBINED: 0.00

Ok then.

[ryuuoto]

So, I believe JBP is actually not a believer, even although he says he is. I do not think JBP is a believer as we understand a believer in a faith. JBP in my opinion does not believe in God! jBP just understands the "power" and the "need" people have for this kind of stories/narratives/ideas because MOST PEOPLE do not take the time to think I'm a philosophical way about life, about their doings, don't reflect on deep feelings or actions, etc. Most people and especially before the industrial revolution had their hands full from sunrise to sunset with difficult labors, and difficult social situation if not even life threatening situations (on a daily basis). MOST PEOPLE could not afford 5 minutes a day to reflect on their problems, on themselves, etc. But that doesn't mean that these same people did not feel the need for some kind of meaning in their lives! That's why for as long as we can remember we had "gods". We had that something that was higher then us FOR WHOM OUR DAY TO DAY STRUGGLES had value! We outsourced the importance of the results of our efforts, to someone who might find more mensing in it then even ourselves. And that makes you endure a bit more your struggles, because is like "even if it's hard and I don't think the effort is worth the results FOR ME, at least (I choose to believe that) it's useful for (some kind of) higher being... Someone somewhere is "fueled" by my results, not just me, so my effortes are not in vain!" (Especially when there's also a promise involved, that says that your efforts will be reworded I'm the afterlife: heaven, Valhalla, etc).
I believe JBP is just aware that right now, with all the things we face as a civilization, we are not ready to be "on our own", that people still need this faith based ideas, so he just tried to make them as "plausible" as possible, as "rational" as possible. I'm agnostic, but I love watching JBP's talks about religion... Not because it makes me believe in the christian god, but because it brings forward some "universal" human conditions and "laws". Things that preoccupy us for as long as we can remember: how to conduct ourselves, what makes 'me' be like this and can I be better? Etc..
So I applaud the work of JBP, and I think it helped more people then it hurt.

[grantsmythe]

There's a guy, a Brit named Iain McGilchrist who's working on that area that Dr. Hicks speaks of, that intersection or point of frustration-contact between the world of facts and the world of values. McGilchrist is trying to "Re-Enchant" the world...I think that's his term.

[JohnnyCarthief]

JP is rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients as it applies to the modern.

We’ve simply lost the connection to that wisdom, claiming rationality answers it sufficient substitute.

[QED_]

If Peterson's health allows him to return to the conversation, I'd like to see him do so with some bold step: like, for example, adopting Ken Wilber's framework as a way to move forward . . .

[MrBeautifulmountain]

This says it was posted 4 years ago. Perhaps the tension described helps to explain why Peterson has come out as full-theist now, thereby making it much easier for him to explain how he can believe in both the science of a 'created' world and an 'objective' morality at the same time.

[claudiapost-schultzke]

JP ist Woke as Woke can be.
Bitter man now

[Paradigm]

God is not looking for a synthesis, there is no solution through man's vain attempts to "improve" God's clear instructions as is found in the Bible. God has provided the solution... Jesus Christ.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:16-18

[divergentone]

Peterson should study his Bible more, and study science objectively, and he will find synthesis - The Creator is the greatest scientist there is, and all of the truely great scientists of the past were inspired by nature and the Bible. Modern day science is a religion in of itself, (scientism) there is no real objective study, it's all based on a limited view point - the *Theory* of Evolution.

[tyshekka]

I don't think I ever heard JP say that he was trying to synthesize the postmodern with anything.

[helenachase]

Have the two nen debated ? I bet that would be over my head, but I love to listen anyway.

[kenmcd]

No, you are wrong. JP is miles ahead.

[Youdamana]

The synthesis is in philosophy and religion. More specifically, the only worldview that completely dovetails with our actual selves as we are is to be found in Thomism...(after the monk scholar Thomas Aquinas). His profound development of the brillance of Aristotle literally built the west.it's Logos. At the core of reality is Person, not matter as our free will indicates and the whole point of our responsible freedom, is Love. This is the philosophy that integrates the path Peterson walks which is indeed the path of faith, hope and love. Thomistic realism puts it all together.

[guyroseen]

I found this very insightful, intriguing even, until the end where whoever posted this clip, forgot to post any opinions by the Stephen Hicks other than a criticism of a contemporary. Criticism isn’t really criticism without an actual debate. In this clip there is only criticism. And no counter argument. I cant learn anything from this. Is this how far debate has fallen? I don t know what Stephen Hicks believes or even why. Unfortunately that makes this clip shallow. I expected way more

[klausmuhlhoff]

hi .your words are well spoken and chosen, but empty . ?

[jerrygreene]

Hicks describing Peterson? This I have to see. There is a synthesis of science and values? Does this video or Hicks have a point?

[psychcowboy]

Apparently Hicks thinks Peterson is smart, Peterson is a scientist, and Peterson is pondering the important questions of our time in his effort to explain the world to everyone. Thank you for your offer to explain the world to me Jordan, but I will pass.

As chaotic, pointless, and arrogant as his speaking appearances are, we can get a deeper glimpse into his delusional pretend smart guy stuff from his written material.
[From Peterson Website]

"Over the last fifty years, specialists in the measurement of personality (a field known as psychometrics) have been applying advanced statistical techniques such as factor analysis to study the language people use to understand themselves and each other. According to the “lexical hypothesis” – the primary guiding idea behind such work – each and every human language contains a relatively complete description of the important similarities and differences between individuals. Language has encapsulated such description because human beings are exceptionally social, and need to understand each other to cooperate effectively and avoid conflict....People who are likely to describe themselves as sad, for example, are also more likely to describe themselves as fearful, anxious, uncertain and volatile, and less likely to describe themselves as cool, collected, calm and stable...people who are nice are compassionate, empathic, caring and soft, while their polar opposites are hard, competitive, blunt and tough.
"

[So apparently, specialists like Peterson have determined that people are social and use language to describe stuff. Thank you specialists. Sad people can also be fearful and uncertain, and nice people are caring and compassionate. Thank you again Specialists. One question though; it really took you 50 years using advanced techniques figure this stuff out?]

[jerrygreene]

According to Hicks there is a big debate in the modern world: 'There isn't a relationship between the fact orientation and value orientation in our thinking, he does not see how it is possible to define value between good and bad in science, since values is important, the modern world can't deliver, you can't find a rational ground..'

[There is a big debate on facts and values and good and bad can't be defined with science, and the modern world can't help us understand values? Where is this big debate going on Stephen? I watch the news, I listen to politicians, I check social commentary on modern political discussion; I have never heard anyone in a debate about 'there isn't a relationship between fact and value orientation'. It sounds like you just made this all up. Can you give us an example of where this big debate is happening? Thanks.]

We need to go back to the ancients, but then you can't find a rational ground, then JP becomes unsatisfying. I agree with Hicks here that JP's language and ideas are ambiguous, and unsatisfying, due to its pointlessness.