/lit/ - Literature

>>8913920
He's not a deist, he just thinks those self same stories have value as being informative on the nature of humanity -- particularly because all cultures evolved similar stories. It is extremely suggestive of something fundamental in man.

Sadly the crux of his argument with Harris will be one neither of them is very suited to discuss, the crux of Peterson's viewpoint is that science does not adequately explain consciousness in a way that is useful to us. Harris doesn't know anything useful to contribute there, but he will certainly meme at various tried and true atheist strawmen.

>>8849965
Hah, a lot of people finish C&P with that line of thinking, but I'd say it's the result of being overawed by the name of the book, of the author. Essentially, in thinking there is something essential there to be understood, you misunderstand.

For example, Plato and Aristotle are interesting and important reads, but you don't walk away from them subscribing to their theories on natural science, do you? Of course not, they lived so long ago their views are clearly a dated product of their time. Likewise with Dostoevsky. His return to religiosity is quaint, but little more, no-one who takes it seriously has any respect for his own position as a modern man, and too much respect for Dostoevsky.

A sagacious reader doesn't directly apply his lesson, but rather interprets it; I came away from C&P thinking Raskolnikov was too weak to be a Napoleon, not that there are no Napoleons, and he was weak for the same reason most people are, there's a need for religion, for delusion, for avoiding the bleakness of reality. It's less of an answer to nihilism and more of a proof of its terrible power. C&P was about fundamental human weakness, not their salvation.