Jordan Peterson

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, actually - there's a fair amount of simplified existentialism in his thinking. He's obsessed with Nietzsche, often cites Kierkegaard, and Camus and Heidegger make occasional appearances as well. He hates Sartre because he was a commie, but he's a fan of most of the other existentialists. It's the post-structuralists that he loathes.

I don't like that Nietzsche is used by Peterson, but it isn't surprising:

Nietzsche wasn't entirely a philosopher, tbh; he was (by degree) a linguist, and his first work was a comparison of ancient elements in drama, the somewhat famous treatise on the apollonian and the dionysian. Other works show strong sociological interest, rather than philosophical; for example his theory regarding ethics and how it might have come to be formed in non-christian societies (eg ancient Greece).
Even Zarathustra is a hybrid, having many sociological focal points. Even some of his most quoted passages are - in context - about his reaction to (from a sociological perspective) (german) idealism. Eg the one about staring for long into an abyss, and the abyss staring back, is actually about that, and not something more poetic.

While Nietzsche obviously is far more of a philosopher than (actual uni degree in philosophy) Marx (because Marx isn't a philosopher at all), he still should be categorized mainly as a thinker who dealt with and wrote about sociology and ethics (ethics are part of philosophy, but of the rather more surface philosophy).

Many people used Nietzsche as an influence, including (mentioning it cause it shows how influencial and aso how easy to twist to fit one's own agenda he was) Adolf Hitler. Which is even funnier given that Nietzsche himself was very angry about "antisemites" using his views. Iirc parts of Ece Homo are about this issue as well.

One of the most famous quotes by Nietzsche is the one about life being a "will to power". Again, if someone hasn't read Nietzsche, they wouldn't know that he had very lingering psychological issues, which led to his early death. He did lose his mind, in the end, and collapsed. His worth is not equal in everything he presented. His fight against (what he viewed as, imo crudely) idealism was mixed with and driven by personal problems, which he did try to account for by presenting himself as a victim of german church/religious (thus idealistic) view, which he saw as anti-life.

That said, Peterson isn't anything of Nietzsche's value. At least Nietzsche did provide some work of note, and was a serious thinker.
 
Last edited:
So, this NY Times piece on Jordan Peterson just dropped.

It is... an interesting read.

In particular, I'm interested in hearing @Bootstoots' defense of the man since you seem to be the only one truly willing to go to bat for him here.
 
There's nothing new in that. Same offense at his "oughts" as usual, and we're 1200 posts in.
 
There's nothing new in that. Same offense at his "oughts" as usual, and we're 1200 posts in.

Feel free to report as spam, then. The resounding defense for his views has consistently been, "He's being misinterpreted." I'm just curious if that can still be the defense when he personally confirms them, or if these views are somehow secondary to some underlying positive driving force for the aimless white male.
 
Why would I be a big enough ******* to report it as spam?
 
*looks at smudged writing on hand*

Urban Man?

Edit: This clever retort only makes sense with your "Who do you think you're speaking with?" question you removed. :(
 
Pew pew!

Edit: I know, but I thought it was kinda jerky, so I took it out before I realized you'd responded. But hey, any opportunity to stompy stompy robutts. Though I suppose urbanmechs are dakka pew, not pew pew.
 
Last edited:
Giant Mechas made from Bagels that shoot Cream Cheese?
 
The fact that he attracts some obviously odious followers and seems happy enough with them does say something about him that goes beyond his harmless conservatism.
 
So, this NY Times piece on Jordan Peterson just dropped.

It is... an interesting read.

In particular, I'm interested in hearing @Bootstoots' defense of the man since you seem to be the only one truly willing to go to bat for him here.
If ever I needed confirmation that Peterson is a lunatic...
 
So, this NY Times piece on Jordan Peterson just dropped.

It is... an interesting read.

In particular, I'm interested in hearing @Bootstoots' defense of the man since you seem to be the only one truly willing to go to bat for him here.
NYT said:
Nellie Bowles covers tech and internet culture from San Francisco for The New York Times. Before joining The Times, she was a correspondent for “VICE News Tonight.” She has written for California Sunday, Recode, The Guardian, and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Emphasis added
 
They probably should have tried observing Baby Boomers some time before 2018.
 
Peterson is like the wall that stops you head-on from involuntarily speeding downhill in a car with defect breaks. It's great that you're no longer speeding downhill on a seemingly endless slope, but now all of your bones are broken, there's glass all over your face and you can't move at all anymore while your car, or what is left of it, has started burning. Not exactly the ideal solution I would say.

Reading the stuff the guardian and consorts fabricate about him is highly amusing though.
 
No, guys, you don't understand. Metatron doesn't like those publications. They're bad. Because he doesn't like them. What is it you ignorant Visigoths can't understand about this?
 
VICE is a more reliable news source than CNN
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom