[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 310 KB, 474x438, 1511124998889.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10550066 No.10550066 [Reply] [Original]

>reading beyond good and evil
>Realise that Jordan Petersons "dominance hierarchy" meme is literally just a watered down version of Nietzsches will to power

how have I been so blind

>> No.10550078
File: 13 KB, 250x301, 513Q6HNMzaL._UX250_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10550078

>>10550066
literally everything peterson says or does is just shitty neechee bud.

the only guy working on interesting thoughts that isn't just doing shitty neechee these days is this proud, Eastern Mediterranean Levantine.

>> No.10550084

>>10550078
Anglos can't compete, it's pretty pathetic to watch them try.

>> No.10550087
File: 458 KB, 1280x800, mhboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10550087

>>10550078
>the only guy working on interesting thoughts that isn't just doing shitty neechee these days

>> No.10550092

>>10550066
I watched a YouTube video of him explaining that hiearchies are inherent to social organization.
It was the worst line of reasoning, I had only know about the guy for about 5 minutes and that was the point I realized he is a complete brainlet

>> No.10550097

>>10550066
I watched a YouTube video of him explaining that hiearchies are inherent to social organization.
It was the worst line of reasoning, I had only know about the guy for about 5 minutes and that was the point I realized he is a brainlet.

>> No.10550099

>>10550087
zizek is not working on interesting thoughts.

>> No.10550103

It comes from animal behaviour silly goose

>> No.10550105

>>10550087
Taleb is creating new content, while Zizek just repeats the same old shit with some twists, fuck off slavshit.

>> No.10550162

>>10550066
>KERMIT, THE UH, PSEUD HERE

>> No.10550168

>>10550105
nothing's really new in Taleb from a philosophy perspective (most of Nietzsche wasn't 'new' either) but he's definitely brought a lot of respect back to chance and does it in a way that doesn't really fall into the systemization or mysticism traps that plague philosophy. Taleb's doing cool work in risk engineering though which I feel separates the wheat from the chaff these days. There are plenty of people like Peterson who can spend all day providing self-help for fatherless losers and reading fairy tales. Very few people like Taleb who don't have to beg/famewhore for success.

Like honestly I've read Zizek, and I'm pretty sure I get what he's saying. As far as interlocutors of Hegel go he's a pretty good one, but like Hegel and all continental philosophers since he just can't stop himself from needlessly complicating even the simplest thoughts he presents (though he is nowhere near as bad as daddy Hegel in this respect).

I don't know if they can't see what they're doing, if it's some sort of crypto-reactionary plebfilter or if they want to create tea leaves for the next generation of imbeciles to read all sorts of shit into it. I actually prefer him orally which is pretty rare for me.

>> No.10550177

>>10550097
>>10550092
>Implying hierarchies aren't a default in any large social organisation

>> No.10550182

>>10550168
> I actually prefer him orally which is pretty rare for me.

That's what she said.

But I agree, Zizek is fun to listen to (and I've pretty much listened to his every lecture), but I wouldn't dedicate my life to becoming a Zizekian, Lacanian or Hegelian.

>> No.10550187

>>10550066

It's actually stolen from the ethology of people like Robert Ardrey.

>> No.10550194

>>10550066
The will to power is a proposal of a metaphysical vital drive underpinning life like in German idealism.
Dominance hierarchy seems like more of a modal description of social relationships and human interaction. Could be wrong but this is just the impression I get from what little I've seen of Peterson.

>> No.10550199

>>10550177
They aren't.
Unless you mean organizational hiearchies in the ecological sense, and I'm sure you dont. Hell even that is discordant with the concepts of panarchy and hetrarchy.
As far as power structure goes, 'anarchy'( sense of: absence of hiearchial domination) is the baseline

>> No.10550219

>>10550199
Even In the most egalitarian groups in the most egalitarian country you'll still find men who rule over and direct men below doesn't matter if it's china under Mao you still have to divide labour among people with different traits and skills and rank the according to worth to people and yourself.

>> No.10550221

>>10550177
>>10550199
I read an article, not too long ago, that said that wolves in captivity organized around an alpha while wolves in the wild organized in families so that the whole alpha male (or female) cliche is flawed. Maybe it's prison culture more than anything (even if not literally in a prison). Reminds me of Deleuze's power as control (pouvoir) vs power as capacity (puissance). The former limits and cuts short, the latter is creative and goes to the end in what it can do.

>> No.10550234

>>10550194
Agreed. I wouldn't equate the two, even if just because will to power is a much broader notion. It doesn't mean striving for power so much as doing what you are capable of doing ('macht' in German is kind of like 'making' in English). Of course the result can be competence and hierarchy, but that's already determined by power as the creative force that brought about the system (as opposed to another) that then determines the criteria for hierarchy.