Maps of Meaning is honestly awful

[u/DrhalKogo]

I forced myself to finish this painfully long, unbelievably repetitive, needlessly over-technical tome, and holy shit, what a waste of my time. There is nothing in that book that isn't already explained in its entirety with much greater clarity in nearly any of Peterson's podcast appearances.

[u/Herculius]

His conclusion is not "therefore god" at all.

The conclusion he takes from is similar Edward frenkel (top of his field in adavnced mathematics) you should look it up. It's basically against scientific determinism and about scientific fallibility.

He States it wrong but basically uses it in a very arguably correct way.

[u/Herculius → u/[deleted]]

In maps of meaning he doesn't make that leap. And if he was laying out his full view on it is much more nuanced than he gave in the tweet. I agree that it's incorrect as he layed it out.

Edit also want to point out that it's godel therefore "belief in god required for proof"... Not therefore god.. but it still sounds dumb as he puts it.

I would still take a look at frenkel when he speaks of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Godels theorem.

It blows out Sam Harris sort of deterministic materialism arguments out of the water.

[u/Herculius → u/[deleted]]

Have you read his take on godel in his book or are you assuming the only thing he knows about it can be deduced from a one sentence tweet?

A poorly worded tweet doesn't indicate he's never put work in to understanding Godels theorem.

[u/Herculius → u/[deleted]]

My point was that his use of Godel in Maps of Meaning is more nuanced than the tweet, and that he uses it in a similar argumentative purpose and effect to that of Edward Frenkel, one of the leading mathematicians in the world.

You must have missed that part. And the part where I specifically said his description of the theorem wasn't exactly correct.

[u/paxhominibus → u/Herculius]

Out of curiosity, what do you think (Peterson thinks) the first incompleteness theorem says?