Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[its free real estate]

Why are JP supporters criticising Contra for his religious beliefs ?

Peterson sits somewhere between saying interesting things to the outright wacky. But the most interesting thing about him is the reaction he provokes in those locked in to the progressive group think. To them he’s a Strasserite threat, an intellectual for crypto fascists. All he points out is that many aspects of progressivism are complete bullshit, which they are.

Contra is funny because he has an association with a church that murdered millions (what happened to the Cathars?) and covered up decades of sexual abuse. He derides others as incels, while remaining involved with an institution run by incels, volcels and paedos. A heady mix!

Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a world where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.

What?

 

[Proud SJW]

Monorail...

Yup, sober now.
I'm that guy who got it and laughed 10 hours after the joke was done

 

[ShanDog]

Yup, sober now.
I'm that guy who got it and laughed 10 hours after the joke was done

To be fair, it was a reach.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Why are JP supporters criticising Contra for his religious beliefs ?

Um....Maybe, just maybe, because those universal archetypes for which he is so critical of J.P for utilising as a defence for his position, lie at the heart of his own faith.

You can't claim a fully conscious awareness of another persons ideological underpinnings, while at the same time, fudging on your own.

Something about having one's cake & eating it too.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Why are JP supporters criticising Contra for his religious beliefs ?

Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a world where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.

You're barking up the wrong tree Jim.

I don't see Peterson showing up at ANTIFA rallies shouting over them with a loud speaker.

 

[nicky]

You're barking up the wrong tree Jim.

I don't see Peterson showing up at ANTIFA rallies shouting over them with a loud speaker.

Antifa SJWs are dickheads; this is something nearly everyone can agree on. Just because JP isn't as bad as they are doesn't make him good.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Antifa SJWs are dickheads; this is something nearly everyone can agree on. Just because JP isn't as bad as they are doesn't make him good.

I think the big mistake is seeing him in terms of bad and good in the first place.

Is he a credible source of opinion? I find it hard to believe he isn't considering his credentials.

Is his material flawed? I have yet to see a suitably qualified party step forward and significantly debunk him.

I mean, plenty try to character assassinate by way of building strawmen, but that is politics, not clinical psychology.

 

[JimDocker]

You're barking up the wrong tree Jim.

I don't see Peterson showing up at ANTIFA rallies shouting over them with a loud speaker.

I wasn't criticising JP in this instance. I was criticising the guys that support JP's views yet criticised Contra for his religious beliefs.

 

[smokingjacket]

The main problem with Peterson is for someone who bases his political persona on the delivering of HARD FACTS over ideology, he frequently gets them wrong due to his own ideology, not to mention his field of research is psychology...

 

[Snake_Baker]

I wasn't criticising JP in this instance. I was criticising the guys that support JP's views yet criticised Contra for his religious beliefs.

A significant part of the JP fan club are morons that also don't understand him.

 

[ShanDog]

The main problem with Peterson is for someone who bases his political persona on the delivering of HARD FACTS over ideology, he frequently gets them wrong due to his own ideology, not to mention his field of research is psychology...

Hear this regularly but so often the errors are hardly critical to main points. Take the lobster thing for example - people argue the chemical relations between lobsters and humans is incorrect. For arguments sake, let's say that's correct and he is wrong. It still doesn't change the whole point of the comparison which is the existence of hierarchical structures as a natural and inevitable part of life since the earliest of life forms.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Hear this regularly but so often the errors are hardly critical to main points. Take the lobster thing for example - people argue the chemical relations between lobsters and humans is incorrect. For arguments sake, let's say that's correct and he is wrong. It still doesn't change the whole point of the comparison which is the existence of hierarchical structures as a natural and inevitable part of life since the earliest of life forms.

The majority of critiques are straight out of the Alinsky play book, but they somehow overlooked rule 12:

"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

 

[smokingjacket]

Hear this regularly but so often the errors are hardly critical to main points. Take the lobster thing for example - people argue the chemical relations between lobsters and humans is incorrect. For arguments sake, let's say that's correct and he is wrong. It still doesn't change the whole point of the comparison which is the existence of hierarchical structures as a natural and inevitable part of life since the earliest of life forms.

But the Communists, the revolutionaries? They aimed, grandly and admirably, at least in theory, at a much more heavenly vision—and they began their pursuit with the hypothetically straightforward and oh-so-morally-justifiable enforcement of economic equality. Wealth, however, was not so easily generated. The poor could not so simply become rich. But the riches of those who had anything more than the greatest pauper (no matter how pitiful that “more” was)? That could be “redistributed”—or, at least, destroyed. That’s equality, too. That’s sacrifice, in the name of Heaven on Earth. And redistribution was not enough—with all its theft, betrayal and death. Mere economic engineering was insufficient. What emerged, as well, was the overarching and truly totalitarian desire to remake man and woman, as such—the longing to restructure the human spirit in the very image of the Communist preconceptions. Attributing to themselves this divine ability, this transcendent wisdom—and with unshakable belief in the glowing but ever-receding future—the newly-minted Soviets tortured, thieved, imprisoned, lied and betrayed, all the while masking their great evil with virtue. It was Solzhenitsyn and The Gulag Archipelago that tore off the mask, and exposed the feral cowardice, envy, deceit, resentment, and hatred for the individual and for existence itself that pulsed beneath.

In equality is the deepest of problems, built into the structure of reality itself, and will not be solved by the presumptuous, ideology-inspired retooling of the rare free, stable and productive democracies of the world. The only systems that have produced some modicum of wealth, along with the inevitable inequality and its attendant suffering, are those that evolved in the West, with their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition; precisely those systems that emphasize above all the essential dignity, divinity and ultimate responsibility of the individual. In consequence, any attempt to attribute the existence of inequality to the functioning of the productive institutions we have managed to create and protect so recently in what is still accurately regarded as the Free World will hurt those who are weakest and most vulnerable first. The radicals who conflate the activities of the West with the oppression of the downtrodden therefore do nothing to aid those whom they purport to prize and plenty to harm them. The claims they make to act under the inspiration of pure compassion must therefore come to be regarded with the deepest suspicion—not least by those who dare to make such claims themselves.

How many factual errors can you spot in these two passages from Peterson forward to the Gulag Archipelago? If this case he's factually wrong on the founding principles of his argument, so he's wrong.

 

[ShanDog]

How many factual errors can you spot in these two passages from Peterson forward to the Gulag Archipelago? If this case he's factually wrong on the founding principles of his argument, so he's wrong.

I'm guessing you're referring to his statement that only the systems to produce wealth have been western ones. And I agree that's a highly contentious statement. If he had qualified them with the addition of "without the pain, suffering and misery of millions as exemplified in numerous one-party communist states in the 20th century" it would be more accurate.

What else?

 

[smokingjacket]

The whole introduction basically bounces from one set of historical falsehoods to strawman arguments and over again in pursuit of his conservative politics. The Gulag Archipelago is a powerful denunciation of the Stalinist Soviet Union and it's an ideological book, but introducing obvious lies to make your argument stronger is an appalling thing to do in a book of historical significance. Why is it not enough to say that the Stalinist police state was monstrous and that socialism is prone to these types of horrors because of the collectivist mindset, as is the point made by Solzhenitsyn? - itself a debatable topic but tbf that's in the book.

Wealth, however, was not so easily generated. The poor could not so simply become rich.

An absurd strawman. I'm wincing reading it again.

hatred for the individual and for existence itself that pulsed beneath.

Highly arguable, and yet it was frequently the Soviets who were willing to back down in the Cold War when the Americans upped the nuclear rhetoric. We might not be here now if Khrushchev didn't value humanities existence over national pride. The Soviets were frequently shocked then appalled by the flippancy of the US in regards to nuclear weapons considering the outcome. US politicians frequently referred to the Cold War in religious terms of the evil atheist state of Soviets versus the Christian West with the path of heaven.

the newly-minted Soviets tortured, thieved, imprisoned, lied and betrayed, all the while masking their great evil with virtue.

If we sub out Soviets for Americans in 1783, could anyone object?

Every social system produces inequality, at present, and every social system has done so, since the beginning of time. The poor have been with us—and will be with us—always

Highly questionable attempt to fit his ideology into a 'human nature' argument. Capitalism has been with us for 300, maybe 600 if you're being very lenient with the parameters. We spent far longer as humans in hunter gatherer societies with very low levels of economic inequality, what does that mean? His arguments about not recognising ability are ridiculous. Are we really saying that the Soviet Union didn't produce great scientists or architects or soldiers or artists? The Soviet Union aimed for reducing a variable, economic or class inequality, but in liberal societies we have taboos on certain types of inequalities or heirarchy too, such as racial inequality.

In consequence, any attempt to attribute the existence of inequality to the functioning of the productive institutions we have managed to create and protect so recently in what is still accurately regarded as the Free World will hurt those who are weakest and most vulnerable first.

Is such an absurd statement that, I honestly don't even know how you could devise a method to prove this correct. Changes to our politics and economic structure through our institutions change economic inequality in our society. For arguments sake, I'll say he has used 'the Free World' in his argument, even though Russia post 1990 is the best example to test his theory, but even in the West as we have spoken about recently, you can see the effects of political and economic restructuring and how that effects not just economic inequality but the living standards of the poorest in the Western world for the worse.

I could go through the whole forward line by line because there are so many objectionable points, but the summary is: his forward is an ideologues, not based in reality, and inserting these ahistorical points into the forward for this particular text, which isn't a right wing text it's important for all people, really devalues the book.

 

[its free real estate]

I wasn't criticising JP in this instance. I was criticising the guys that support JP's views yet criticised Contra for his religious beliefs.

I don’t support his views. Contra’s posts show nothing but contempt for those who do support JP. Peterson so far seems to do more good than harm, which is a lot better than can be said for Contra’s religion.

 

[yebiga]

The whole introduction basically bounces from one set of historical falsehoods to strawman arguments and over again in pursuit of his conservative politics. The Gulag Archipelago is a powerful denunciation of the Stalinist Soviet Union and it's an ideological book, but introducing obvious lies to make your argument stronger is an appalling thing to do in a book of historical significance. Why is it not enough to say that the Stalinist police state was monstrous and that socialism is prone to these types of horrors because of the collectivist mindset, as is the point made by Solzhenitsyn? - itself a debatable topic but tbf that's in the book.

An absurd strawman. I'm wincing reading it again.

Highly arguable, and yet it was frequently the Soviets who were willing to back down in the Cold War when the Americans upped the nuclear rhetoric. We might not be here now if Khrushchev didn't value humanities existence over national pride. The Soviets were frequently shocked then appalled by the flippancy of the US in regards to nuclear weapons considering the outcome. US politicians frequently referred to the Cold War in religious terms of the evil atheist state of Soviets versus the Christian West with the path of heaven.

If we sub out Soviets for Americans in 1783, could anyone object?

Highly questionable attempt to fit his ideology into a 'human nature' argument. Capitalism has been with us for 300, maybe 600 if you're being very lenient with the parameters. We spent far longer as humans in hunter gatherer societies with very low levels of economic inequality, what does that mean? His arguments about not recognising ability are ridiculous. Are we really saying that the Soviet Union didn't produce great scientists or architects or soldiers or artists? The Soviet Union aimed for reducing a variable, economic or class inequality, but in liberal societies we have taboos on certain types of inequalities or heirarchy too, such as racial inequality.

Is such an absurd statement that, I honestly don't even know how you could devise a method to prove this correct. Changes to our politics and economic structure through our institutions change economic inequality in our society. For arguments sake, I'll say he has used 'the Free World' in his argument, even though Russia post 1990 is the best example to test his theory, but even in the West as we have spoken about recently, you can see the effects of political and economic restructuring and how that effects not just economic inequality but the living standards of the poorest in the Western world for the worse.

I could go through the whole forward line by line because there are so many objectionable points, but the summary is: his forward is an ideologues, not based in reality, and inserting these ahistorical points into the forward for this particular text, which isn't a right wing text it's important for all people, really devalues the book.

I am enraptured by JP - I believe his work is without a shadow of a doubt the most significant philosophical contribution for nigh on 70 years.
That said, when it comes to history and Marxism or Nazism even he is regurgitating the worst kind of cant.

I have no problem with reciting the failure of communism in praxis but you have to acknowledge the sentiment inspiring it, there is nothing wrong with the sentiment - its ambitious and fundamentally well meaning. you have to acknowledge that conservative forces were and are actively funded to destroy communism at every turn. You simply cannot make the claims he does about such important historical events and entirely ignore so much of the contra evidence.

This is also the case of Nazism - it is almost unforgivable for JP to succumb to such conservative and self serving depictions of the most significant events in modern history. Further, you cannot begin to critique post modernism without acknowledging the darkness caused by the events of the 20th century - namely ww1 and ww2.

These are horrible and irresponsible flaws in his theories.

However, I will not condemn a man who achieves so much for his all too obvious failing on the edges. Who the s**t cares about communism or nazism - that is not the essence of his ideas.

The essence of his theories is much more significant and is quite frankly monumental even if patently obvious.

* the lobster - humans are competitive hierarchical monkeys. We are social animals and we have evolved within a hierarchies from before time.
More over JP contends - and I suggest proves that complex social animals will always operate under some kind of hierarchy. The hierarchies we have evolved - evolved because they were adapted to best enable us to thrive and survive.

We are social and communal but incurably competitive within the hierarchical structure - this competition has helped over come every predator and every challenge on this planet from before time. It is in our DNA. And even if it were not, without our inane competitive nature we would find life meaningless and cease to function coherently resulting in apocalyptic regression.

That said the environment and the hierarchies are never static but for ever evolving to best adapt to the circumstances before us. This is the canvas we are confronted with. The circumstances are never of our individual making but they always allow for our wilful intercession to adapt them and orient them always better.

On the veneer the post modernists are right that circumstances and our beliefs aren't fixed - truth is changeable - but on another level truth is anchored inexorably to the past and that past is where we came from and therefore always sufficient - whilst the path forward is always evolving and uncertain.

At its highest iteration this is where JP thoughts lead and it is almost astonishing that whilst he s able to integrate all past philosophies - he is incapable of seeing how it logically must follow to integrate the post modern nihilistic scepticism and the existential absurdity all into one symphony - which is an incredible achievement. But also something he hints at repeatedly but just can't make the final step.

Whatever! that final step has already been made by many thinkers and the missing piece - the reconnection to the whole - is Peterson's contribution. For that he should be lauded not defied or condemned.

To my mind, this is philosophy - pure and simple - how do we live? how do we understand our selves in the world. The combination here of Peterson together with a commonsense everyday integration of the post modern critique leads us all a small but significant step further And when you integrate these ideas - philosophy can finally say its caught up with science.

Art, Science, Religion, history, psychology, education.... all unites in a common dance and celebration

the only fitting way to end this outrageous post is with a distinctly Neitzschean question "why I am so clever?"

 

[smokingjacket]

I am enraptured by JP - I believe his work is without a shadow of a doubt the most significant philosophical contribution for nigh on 70 years.
That said, when it comes to history and Marxism or Nazism even he is regurgitating the worst kind of cant.

I have no problem with reciting the failure of communism in praxis but you have to acknowledge the sentiment inspiring it, there is nothing wrong with the sentiment - its ambitious and fundamentally well meaning. you have to acknowledge that conservative forces were and are actively funded to destroy communism at every turn. You simply cannot make the claims he does about such important historical events and entirely ignore so much of the contra evidence.

This is also the case of Nazism - it is almost unforgivable for JP to succumb to such conservative and self serving depictions of the most significant events in modern history. Further, you cannot begin to critique post modernism without acknowledging the darkness caused by the events of the 20th century - namely ww1 and ww2.

These are horrible and irresponsible flaws in his theories.

However, I will not condemn a man who achieves so much for his all too obvious failing on the edges. Who the s**t cares about communism or nazism - that is not the essence of his ideas.

The essence of his theories is much more significant and is quite frankly monumental even if patently obvious.

What other major public intellectual of value can you say has some important ideas on one hand that everyone should listen to, but on the other hand his political persona is at best a deeply ignorant and reactionary academic who imposes himself in conversation where he lacks the knowledge to comment on, or someone who lies and fabricates arguments to preach to his young audience for ideological reasons?

you have to acknowledge the sentiment inspiring it, there is nothing wrong with the sentiment - its ambitious and fundamentally well meaning.

This is exactly the attitude that Peterson himself condemns. The sentiment behind communism, a fairer society and economy, is fundamentally well meaning. The same reason that it's a bad idea to restrict free speech and exaggerate about the Nazi's is that when people discover the truth they can be radicalised when they think there's a conspiracy. The same applies to the Soviet Union. There are good reasons a society shouldn't attempt to recreate the the Soviet political-economy, none of them have to do with it being a bad way to move from an agricultural society to an industrialised one.

The reason Peterson's political arguments are poor is because he extrapolates his politics from opposition to a made up version of the Soviet Union. In much the same way that people criticize SJW's for calling all of their opponents Nazi's, which gives them a sense of moral superiority that they're fighting some great modern terror, Peterson has convinced himself he's fighting the heirs of his made of version of the Soviet Union, which to him was so incompetent and so evil and so bad in every way, that all socialism is as dangerous.

If Jordan Peterson was simply an academic talking about his theories of psychology and evolution, with a bit of free speech and anti-gender studies culture war thrown in, he would be an interesting addition as a public voice, where I think it's true that many people from the left have concerns about the direction that gender studies has gone. The issue is the way he insists on inserting his deeply misinformed and reactionary historical viewpoint onto the modern day, and spreading this as not only a good thing but HARD FACTS that cannot be questioned. It's wise to view all ideologues like this with great skepticism, because in harsher times they got people killed.

 

[yebiga]

What other major public intellectual of value can you say has some important ideas on one hand that everyone should listen to, but on the other hand his political persona is at best a deeply ignorant and reactionary academic who imposes himself in conversation where he lacks the knowledge to comment on, or someone who lies and fabricates arguments to preach to his young audience for ideological reasons?


This is exactly the attitude that Peterson himself condemns. The sentiment behind communism, a fairer society and economy, is fundamentally well meaning. The same reason that it's a bad idea to restrict free speech and exaggerate about the Nazi's is that when people discover the truth they can be radicalised when they think there's a conspiracy. The same applies to the Soviet Union. There are good reasons a society shouldn't attempt to recreate the the Soviet political-economy, none of them have to do with it being a bad way to move from an agricultural society to an industrialised one.

The reason Peterson's political arguments are poor is because he extrapolates his politics from opposition to a made up version of the Soviet Union. In much the same way that people criticize SJW's for calling all of their opponents Nazi's, which gives them a sense of moral superiority that they're fighting some great modern terror, Peterson has convinced himself he's fighting the heirs of his made of version of the Soviet Union, which to him was so incompetent and so evil and so bad in every way, that all socialism is as dangerous.

If Jordan Peterson was simply an academic talking about his theories of psychology and evolution, with a bit of free speech and anti-gender studies culture war thrown in, he would be an interesting addition as a public voice, where I think it's true that many people from the left have concerns about the direction that gender studies has gone. The issue is the way he insists on inserting his deeply misinformed and reactionary historical viewpoint onto the modern day, and spreading this as not only a good thing but HARD FACTS that cannot be questioned. It's wise to view all ideologues like this with great skepticism, because in harsher times they got people killed.

Good post
To my mind - a guy who remains married to his childhood sweet heart, who grows up in rural Canada - it’s going to be tough for him to not be intrinsically conservative no matter what variety of lifestyles he is exposed to professionally.

He is trapped as we all must be within our own biography and temperament.

That said his core ideas remain brilliant no matter how flawed he may be.

If JP had the capacity to confront the post modernist with understanding and empathy - both in person and within his broader ideological frames then he would be truly superhuman and dangerous.

Better he is flawed.

 

[nicky]

What other major public intellectual of value can you say has some important ideas on one hand that everyone should listen to, but on the other hand his political persona is at best a deeply ignorant and reactionary academic who imposes himself in conversation where he lacks the knowledge to comment on, or someone who lies and fabricates arguments to preach to his young audience for ideological reasons?

.

I have see a few people claim JP is the most important thinker of the last 100 years.

They know JP because of his reactionary dumbarse opinions AND have no clue about philosophers and great thinkers of our time.

 

[its free real estate]

Most important thinker of the last 100 years is Ted Kaczynski.

 

[ShanDog]

This piece from Aero Magazine that has just been released is excellent:

https://areomagazine.com/2018/11/14...ally-heterodox-fundamentally-uncontroversial/

 

[Procrastinator35]

I have see a few people claim JP is the most important thinker of the last 100 years.

They know JP because of his reactionary dumbarse opinions AND have no clue about philosophers and great thinkers of our time.

Perhaps you could give us a run-down of the Top 100 greatest thinkers of the last Century.

 

[Jibroni]

Most important thinker of the last 100 years is Ted Kaczynski.

Interesting call that one, the FBI would not be on the same page as yourself.

Think Bill Gates would have him covered.

 

[ShanDog]

Interesting call that one, the FBI would not be on the same page as yourself.

Think Bill Gates would have him covered.

Should Gates really be described as a 'thinker'? I mean, the guy has achieved amazing things and clearly is intelligent, but should he go in that category?