Loading...

Jordan Peterson | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » Philosophy/Politics
AK Mod
AK Aug 24
So, from a religious perspective there's a lot about this guy I don't agree with *but* from a sociological / political perspective I do find myself agreeing with a better-than-50/50 amount of his content. Have you heard of him, if so, what are your thoughts? 


What I make of it is that he's only controversial insofar as reason has become this scarce commodity lately, and that if we did not live in a world of snow flakes nothing he's saying would be worth the attention given to it. Still, these are salient points for troubled times. 


Edit: the whole "women will work because men won't" for as absurd as it sounds that's actually the case - and has been for at least a generation - in quite a few countries. I kid you not. 


The Forum post is edited by AK Aug 24
Share:
T. Volt
T. Volt Aug 27
He's got a lot of media attention, and takes advantage of it for lolz and self-dome. I agree with you AK, he's mostly spewing the obvious. This generation have developed giant fragile egalitarian bubble to avoid responsibility, and most things of reality poke right through it. I think he tries too hard to be publicly acceptable, and doesn't bite back hard enough; always taking the moral high ground instead of hitting it home, but then again, he'd have a harder time selling books and his whole persona altogether.
The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Aug 27
AK Mod
AK Aug 28

Quote from T. VoltI think he tries too hard to be publicly acceptable, and doesn't bite back hard enough; always taking the moral high ground instead of hitting it home.
Agreed, and at times even I'm like "ok, he's laying it on a little thick". It comes across as contrived, and I can't tell if that's sort of his shtick, that he's sort having to choose his words carefully on account of his profession, or that his shtick is that he has to act as if he has to choose his words carefully on account of his profession. 


Certainly I'm not sold on the guy's self-help book, but his lectures are actually a nice change of pace from what normally amounts to people who will never see eye to eye just seeing who can talk over the other the loudest concerning issues that amount to controversies that wouldn't really matter that much to begin with were they not just so entertaining to watch people get all riled up about.

The Forum post is edited by AK Aug 28
One Eye
One Eye Aug 28

I dunno about his work on clinical psychology my take on his activism is that he got spooked by the increasingly “totalitarian” and “illiberal” political left and probably the political right so he’s trying to preserve the status quo of 20 years ago. This is impossible, society is far more polarized politically on top of the creeping anxieties that stem from the developing economic, demographic and geo-political situation that threatens supplant the status quo and overturn polite “discourse” in western society. He did say he wants to save the left from itself, if only they would just remove these totalitarian SJW’s and things would be hunky dory again.


He blames this new “illiberal” leftism on a boogeyman called postmodernism which has infiltrated Western academia. “Postmodernist” ideas are prevalent in Western academia right now and he’s spooked by them but to my knowledge Peterson never actually engaged with the social critiques and the deconstruction of Western society and culture presented by postmodernists. He never argues against their observations, he never explains why social critique and deconstruction is a bad thing instead he does the thing where the postmodernists are actually Marxists (they were in fact influenced by Marxism) and then goes off in righteous indignation about how Marxism and Marxist Leninists are evil, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot= totalitarianism and that’s bad because violence but this doesn’t really follow. The SJW’s aren’t even Marxist Leninists they are group that is pandered to by the media and the corporations they are probably one of the biggest defenders of the state and the establishment (academic, media, corporate) and they just want more money from the state and the licence to not only celebrate their newly acquired mental illnesses but gain mandatory social recognition and support for having them.


His approach is a baby boomer mantra which doesn’t offer any solutions to the actual social problems we have. He famously tells his followers to “clean their rooms” first which is basically the variation of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps “ this is what boomer classical libs like Peterson know and it is their answer to all things. Don’t seek external blame or causes for your misfortunes real or imagined instead focus on self improvement it obviously doesn’t work when there real and imagined external threats and injustices that prevent people from living what they think should be the good life and the present polarized climate, general atmosphere and uncertain economic situation causes a lot of the hysterics and extremism.


His anxiety over all this is probably why he’s concerned with “Truth” and “meaning” because he feels that the plights of modern society are largely caused by a lack of these two which is why he does his whole thing about Christianity. He’s too smart to come out and say that Christianity is what’s needed to inject a sense of “meaning” back into society he probably doesn’t believe that Jesus was a dude who was the son of god/god himself who resurrected and performed miracles he probably has big doubts about that and if he does believe it he will have to defend it’s claims and he’s too smart for that. But, he does recognize the utility of having an overarching “mythos” that governs society which is why he claims that “ideology’ is a castrated religion ideology provides its own “mythos” and sense of purpose and meaning that animate society forward toward some concrete goal.


He’s struggling with this because it doesn’t mesh well with his own classical lib ideology and individualism. Where do you derive meaning truth and purpose when your ideal society are atomized rational consumers in a global market? You don’t, clean your room and do well in your workplace  basically is what he’s left with there is no meaning without struggle, there’s no religion or “mythos”  without sincere belief in the supernatural and he doesn’t like that he also doesn't like it that ideological extremism is gaining traction combined with some imported religious extremism and he can’t do anything about it.

AK Mod
AK Aug 30
His clinical psychology is as interesting as it is offensive to those of the notion that, like, genders are equal. Surprisingly so. That's actually where this cat shines. 


Also. Where is this "status quo" these circa 2011-2016 quote-unquote-satanists speak of? By even mentioning that, they're doing the same thing: pointing a finger at "that" - as if emergent systems even have a face - as if it was even possible to stand outside of it, when even the most radically abnormal of outputs are still tallied in there just the same to weigh the average that it is. 


I would challenge anyone to point out for the jury the lead starling (allegorically speaking, of course) and I can almost promise you that the ball that was never thrown to begin with will be somewhere thereabouts if you sniff around enough. 


Truth and meaning - those are things we manufacture intrinsically - that's our "job" - just as surely and for all the same reasons that arachnids weave such intricate webs. Largely for their own amusement. Somewhat to the amusement or befuddlement of others. Partially to eat. 


I suspect the guy knows this somehow. 


No one with more than zero (or whatever the German word for that is) brain cells to rub together suspects that this show has a real point: it's a matter of infinite jest. Mockery of kings. And that's where you and I may differ. Meaning is *not* derived. It is manufactured by man's own hands, and largely for their own amusement. Onanists.





*lesser known fact: it's the same chick in both of those pictures. I promise. Scout's honor. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Aug 30
AK Mod
AK Sep 3
This is another good one. What I like about it is that this guy nails the very meaning of sacrifice, constriction, form, severity and limitation which are, intrinsically, what this "left-hand-path" actually refers to.



The Forum post is edited by AK Sep 3
Knievel74 Member
Knievel74 Sep 3
I just discovered this guy. I need to watch more of his videos to really form an opinion but his stance on behavior is right on from my point of view.
AK Mod
AK Sep 3
Good deal. (also good to see you around) - were it not that he is admittedly Christian, I'd say he's about as Satanic as they come at least from a psychological perspective. He's grounded as all hell. I look forward to your opinion, because he's not right about everything, but what's cool about him is that he's the first to admit that. 
The Forum post is edited by AK Sep 3
One Eye
One Eye Sep 6
"Truth and meaning - those are things we manufacture intrinsically - that's our "job" - just as surely and for all the same reasons that arachnids weave such intricate webs. Largely for their own amusement."


They are an evolutionary adaptation. When you have a pack of 15 wolves the strongest wolf rules he doesn't need to legitimize his authority to the rest of the pack because he's the strongest and they know it. A wolf can leave the pack and die alone. When you're an agricultural civilization of 200k people you can no longer rely on brute force as a tool to keep the hierarchy in line "society" takes shape and common purpose is given form by "meanings" that explain and define the shape and function of society and provide and give legitimacy to the social and political hierarchy, at this point he who is unable to live in a society or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a beast or a god. 

AK Mod
AK Sep 6
I question, though, if it's necessarily about "strongest" so much as it is about "dominance" proper - for example: assertiveness like the whole "Rocky and Musgsy" type-deal characterized here in this trope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6SSETwRkhk


I'm not convinced it's ever been a brute-strength thing. Maybe strength in the abstract strength of character type of way you'll find referred to on Motivational posters and what not. Persistence of character that has vision and can embody it sufficiently enough to set an example to follow that 1) just seems to work and 2) is a whole lot simpler than having to think about and re-tool on one's own. Directing the clearest path through the forest - even if the path doesn't actually lead anywhere - as long as those following don't starve.


This is bordering on rambling, so to cut to the chase: I just think dominance is only very, very loosely tied to brute-force. Additionally, I'm not convinced any human can live outside of society - unless you're talking the rare flies that wind-up trapped between the window pane and the screen on a desert island somewhere. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Sep 6
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Donate

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.

Like and Share