I think I've realized a serious error in Peterson's theory

[Anonymous No.19893683]

Jordan Peterson's theory or way of thinking does not actually provide meaning in the way Peterson, for the benefit of the doubt, seems to believe it does. I'm unsure of whether I believe he's unaware of this but if he is aware of it it could be that he just doesn't know what to do about it.
The "meaning" derived from responsibility is not actually meaning, its positive emotion. Jordan Peterson's advice is effective for treating nihilistically depressed people because he teaches them to realize that if you don't have any goals your brain doesn't experience any progress from which to derive positive emotion. Once you set goals and take responsibility for achieving them, you have a sense of "meaning" that is felt through the undertaking of responsibility. This brings the depressed person back to functioning because the sense of novelty that has been restored. They saw nothing in their future but benign repetition and shallow consumerism but Peterson offered them the practical steps to self-growth.
This made people excited because it convinced them that their lives aren't as shitty as they think, but that isn't actually meaning. Its novelty.
Jordan Peterson's advice would attempt to convince a nihilistically depressed person that responsibility is the meaning of life, and that happiness is not. So they take on responsibility because they are told it's meaningful. They are told it is meaningful because it will make the best of things and prevent things from deteriorating into an unnecessarily hellish state. Its also an antidote to first-world comfort and over-satiety by articulating the novelty that can be achieved through challenge. At one point Jordan Peterson refers to Notes From Underground quoting how "If men had nothing left to do but eat, sleep, and busy themselves with the continuation of the species, they would just smash everything just so that something interesting would happen". So his solution is to renew novelty through individual growth thereby rekindling positive emotion. Well, what happens when the novelty of the renewal of novelty expires? What happens when being in "the zone" where the proper balance of challenge and ability is achieved, generating the most potent and efficient feeling of novelty, is no longer interesting? What if the state of forward motion can become as uninteresting as the utopian state of satisfaction turned into boredom?
This appears to be the consequence of Peterson's attempt to create a model of behavioral efficiency that could replace faith in God.

[Anonymous No.19893972]

Too long; didn't read.

[Anonymous No.19894012]

>>19893683
I think if people want meaning in their lives (if they have none) should read Sartre, Marcel and then go for people like Maritain and finally Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.19894028]

>>19893683
Peterson doesn't talk about Descartes much but I think that his correlation between positive thoughts/feelings and "meaning" is an extension of the idea that humans think therefore they are. I think that's less of a philosophical borrowing from Descartes though and more just a borrowing from the assumptions of the field of psychology that he's more known for.

[Anonymous No.19894046]

>instead of just talking about it we have to do belief calculus and drag religion and Ra into it
it's like you view everything through the lens of le cult of bersonality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0

[Anonymous No.19894516]

>>19893683
>Its novelty.
Why?
>Well, what happens when the novelty of the renewal of novelty expires? What happens when being in "the zone" where the proper balance of challenge and ability is achieved, generating the most potent and efficient feeling of novelty, is no longer interesting? What if the state of forward motion can become as uninteresting as the utopian state of satisfaction turned into boredom?
Arguments?

[Anonymous No.19894548]

>>19893683
>Jordan Peterson's advice is effective for treating nihilistically depressed people because he teaches them to realize that if you don't have any goals your brain doesn't experience any progress from which to derive positive emotion.
You think people who are depressed because nihilism need Peterson to tell them that

Read fucking Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus and see what an actual thinking human being with good arguments sounds like. It's good that you read Peterson though: don't knock it until you try it.

[Anonymous No.19894551]

>>19894012
Oh thanks. I've been trying for days to remember the Catholic philosopher that considered themself Socratic. Gabriel Marcel.

[Anonymous No.19894559]

>>19893972
Same. Boring topic as well. What's up with you?

[Anonymous No.19894561]

>>19893683
>faith in god
lost me there

[Anonymous No.19894657]

>>19894551
you're welcome

[Anonymous No.19894816]

>>19893683
I think I agree with you. His is a sort of affective pursuit which ignores the spontaneous generation and recognition of "meaning" in all things through the usual human faculties. To be a "nihilist" (uninvolved and depressed zoomie) is itself meaningful, but Peterson doesn't want to draw attention to the reasons and structures giving rise to this layabout autism. He's a psychological reductivist, so he kind of knows how to convince you to construct some mentally positive routines and narratives. He's also a social constructivist in this personally narratological sense, telling you to tell yourself a story about why you're doing what you're doing ("responsibility" or whatever, arbitrary subjective evaluations towards finding "meaning" (happiness)).

If cleaning your room is meaningful then so is not cleaning it. But like you say, it's not meaning, it's all emotional redemption he's concerned with. If he were intelligent and read beyond adoloscent Dostoy he would help people see the meaning inherent in all things, which develops through structures of differention and identity.

Ironically he gets to this realization in his recent Rogan talking about patterns of music. He describes musical progressions overlaying and harmonizing, and makes it a metaphor for society in that we, as individuals, must fit into the larger cultural patterns, he says, like notes in a chord in a melody in a composition and so on. The important thing he doesn't realize he's realizing is that the individual note is almost mutedly irrelevant and entirely arbitrary unless it finds itself in relation to the larger structure, and only in this way are all things meaningful, including "individuals" and "truth". But then he cries and has a purely affective reaction to the feeling of this metaphoric musical symphony of life or whatever. Meanwhile music actually has a physical, entirely formal reality just as glorious to musical theorists, and unemotional. But like you say, he is unaware of how emotionally derived his self-helpism is.

[Anonymous No.19894825]

>>19894561
supreme gentlemen yiff in hell

[Anonymous No.19894836]

>>19894816
first "meaning" in my post should not be parenthesized. It's the real shit.

[Anonymous No.19894857]

>>19893683
>This appears to be the consequence of Peterson's attempt to create a model of behavioral efficiency that could replace faith in god
because a faith in god is not a viable source of meaning anymore, midwit.

[Anonymous No.19894860]

>>19893683
>Le hecking based god is only way for meaning
Retard.
But yeah hedonic treadmill is true, but you're mistaken. By definition the state of flow and novelty and meaning cannot become boring. Else literally everyone would be depressed and suicidal, which is obviously not true.

[Anonymous No.19894878]

>>19894860
god might be only way to ground an ethics, but certainly not meaning, true.

[Anonymous No.19894894]

>>19894860
>By definition the state of flow and novelty and meaning cannot become boring.

Interesting inertial argument, but retarded. This flow is operating everywhere at all times, yet stupid people get bored. Boredom itself is a possible station of the flow, which allows people to bounce back out of it. Only because it too is of the flow, by definition.

[Anonymous No.19894949]

>>19894878
>god might be only way to ground an ethics
Does he command it because it is good or is it good because he commands it.

[Anonymous No.19894960]

the man is nervous because he has no wife if he has a wife and she was not a virgin one day he will be nervous for no reason. I was nervous and now I have a wife who was a virgin and when I get bored I don't get nervous because I play video games or I'm looking for something to work

[Anonymous No.19894963]

>>19893683
I stopped reading to

>Jordan Peterson's theory or way of thinking does not actually provide meaning in the way Peterson, for the benefit of the doubt, seems to believe it does.

[Anonymous No.19895021]

>>19894949
the latter, but he does not command it, he manifests it and in further manifesting this "good because he manifests it" we enter into his sublime categorical field.

[Anonymous No.19895056]

>>19893683
>"Meaning" is arbitrary, so what Jordan Peterson calls "meaning" isn't actually meaningful
Ok, define "meaning."

[Anonymous No.19895068]

>>19894949
It's all meaningless unless you choose for it not to be. Those who are religious choose to define religion as the very definition of "meaning." If you ask them whether worship is meaningful, they will answer "yes" because they have defined "meaningful" in relation to God.

[Anonymous No.19895264]

lol

[Anonymous No.19895267]

>>19894816
>not cleaning your room is meaningful
This is disingenuous, to say the least. If you want to play that game, you might as well say that not acting is not inconsequential (which yes, depending on your school of thought might be the case), only that the consequence is, nothing happens.
Both you and OP seem to get hung up on semantics and forget that JP is foremost a capitalist businessman who is talking to depressed laymen. I'm sure he'd do a better job describing what he means when he says "meaning" than I could, but I'm sure the definition wouldn't be your dismissive one: "everything has meaning"

[Anonymous No.19895290]

>>19895056
The mechanism by which consciousness affirms its own existence.

[Anonymous No.19895424]

>>19893683
i heard him described once as "providing positive moral guidelines for a society in which right/wrong is largely restrictive and automatic." seems cool.

it's so basic but his argument for reading the bible (for its "fundamentality") has finally inspired me to start it (though i haven't yet (soon though))

[Anonymous No.19895448]

>>19895424
(you are [{literally and} unbeknownst to you {massively}] a faggot)

[Anonymous No.19895462]

>>19895448
you are unable to read (specifically, my nested parentheses (because you're gay (lol)))

[Anonymous No.19895467]

>>19893683
>Jordan Peterson
WASH YOUR BALLS
CLEAN YOUR ROOM

[Anonymous No.19895487]

>>19895467

You are boring.

[Anonymous No.19895695]

>>19893683
>Jordan Peterson's theory
I don't think he anywhere clearly articulates any unique theory of anything. Maybe I'm wrong though.

>The "meaning" derived from responsibility is not actually meaning, its positive emotion
You're going to find him espousing boilerplate anglo lolbertarian ideas and also telling you to subordinate yourself to transhistorical imperatives and such. No coherence.

[Anonymous No.19895705]

>>19895695
Oh boy reddit on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.19895740]

>>19895705
I'm saying he doesn't actually synthesis half the shit he spews so there's no coherence there, besides being a goofball. The Jungian woowoo and liberalism really don't mix and he's telling boys they're going to find their true self on an astrological chart after reading the bible and studying the neurology of lobsters.

[Anonymous No.19895749]

OP here, went to bed before this got replies. I'll explain myself further.
>>19895695
>I don't think he anywhere clearly articulates any unique theory of anything. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Maps of Meaning is his theory of perception and motivation that is the foundation of his self-help.
>>19894816
>Ironically he gets to this realization in his recent Rogan talking about patterns of music. He describes musical progressions overlaying and harmonizing, and makes it a metaphor for society in that we, as individuals, must fit into the larger cultural patterns, he says, like notes in a chord in a melody in a composition and so on. The important thing he doesn't realize he's realizing is that the individual note is almost mutedly irrelevant and entirely arbitrary unless it finds itself in relation to the larger structure, and only in this way are all things meaningful, including "individuals" and "truth". But then he cries and has a purely affective reaction to the feeling of this metaphoric musical symphony of life or whatever. Meanwhile music actually has a physical, entirely formal reality just as glorious to musical theorists, and unemotional. But like you say, he is unaware of how emotionally derived his self-helpism is.
Theres something very important here, something ironic. Later in that podcast Jordan Peterson starts talking about the Will to Power. He calls it a psychopathic postmodern ideology. What is ironic is that he either completely misunderstands it or completely misrepresented it on purpose because he's afraid of people understanding it. Will to Power is the only thing that justifies his teaching of becoming the highest individual you can and find meaning in responsibility.
Peterson describes Will to Power as the ability to materialistically dominate others, to use them for some dishonest advantage that makes it so you don't want or love them intrinsically. It is true that power exists in that form, "the will to impose your will onto the world", but does that explain the power of music? or of a good joke? Don't artists desire to create good art rather than bad art... because its powerful? And that once that form of power is wielded it overflows to others, spreading laughter or musical catharsis. Truly powerful individuals want to empower others rather than dominate them because they don't pathologically lust after cheaper forms of power. Jordan Peterson was crying and comparing life to music because its powerful.
Power is that which overcomes resistance. When a good joke is told, the resistance of the room (be it awkwardness, boredom, confusion) is overcome through the joke by the people who laughed at it. Power is that which overcomes the tragedy of existence. Peterson's entire teaching is a refinement of the Will to Power.

[Anonymous No.19895757]

>>19895749
A lot of his advice and commentary have been heavily revised since he published that. After he blew his brain on drugs at this point I doubt he could even remember half of what he wrote a couple decades ago

[Anonymous No.19895783]

>>19895749
This problem gets deeper when Peterson is asked about duty. Jordan Peterson will say "you have certain duties as a member of society". This is true within the context of agreements. For example, it is the duty of a spouse not to cheat on their partner. This duty exists because by agreeing to be in the relationship you've made a promise not to betray, such that the relationship may remain in tact or at least in its ideal state of purity.
This raises the question, what is the value of these agreements to begin with? Relationships, citizenship, etc.? The value is that you benefit from them. Or that you would be homeless and isolated without them. Or because you love them. But in either case, the nihilistically depressed person who suffers from anhedonia would ask, if I can't feel any positive emotion from these things, and therefore my only incentive to them is to avoid the painful consequences that come of rejecting them, why don't I simply kill myself?
You cant say you have duties that are couched within agreements, and then say those agreements are only necessary because of their pragmatic utility. Nietzsche criticized people who use duty ethics in the gay science, saying their type is forced to use eloquence and dramatic forms of expression just to be effective at all. They require this because duty is, in all truth, an empty superstition that people cling to. It is bottomless in that is has no basis in pragmatism or religious truth, so it becomes disguised as both in the mind of the one who serves duty ethics. This is a recipe for nihilism. But worse, refined nihilism. I think Jordan Peterson's attempt to "save the west" is merely going to refine the Antichrist.

[Anonymous No.19895789]

>>19895783
Love is interesting, because its the closest people get to meaning without God. I actually wonder if it implies belief in God, similar to how Jordan says "I act as though I believe". The reason for this is that in order to love someone you have to actually believe they exist. Nihilism does not permit this. Midwit nihilists realize that if God isn't real then morality is subjective or some illusion, but not many of them realize that if everything is a matter of perspective and therefore everything is equal in its incorrectness of interpretation then nothing can possibly be real, even the material world we experience. So the nihilist who still loves people is saved by his cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.19895793]

>>19893683

[Anonymous No.19895801]

>>19895264
that's some great prose desu

[Anonymous No.19895829]

>>19895056
>Ok, define "meaning."
I never said meaning was arbitrary. Meaning is significance. Religious people think life is meaningful because it is significant as a creation of God with an intended purpose that characterizes the cosmos a priori. Jordan Peterson's meaning is "if I do x that means I'll get y". That's novelty. A means to an end, or in some cases a means to a means.

[Anonymous No.19895867]

>>19894516
>Its novelty.
>>Why?
As I said here>>19895829
Meaning is significance. Novelty is like meaning except its not eternal so it always has a lifespan. Because the meaning provided by religions/metaphysics is eternal it does not expire. Because Jordan Peterson's method of producing "meaning" does not go beyond novelty it cannot last forever.

[Anonymous No.19895876]

>>19893683
I haven't read his books but from what I've seen of his interviews I agree.
He wants to help people fit into society by suppressing their questions about what society is, where it goes, whether its rules are justified or not. That's conservatism: convincing people to skip the question of whether the status quo fits Man, going straight to the question of how to fit in the status quo.

[Anonymous No.19895885]

>>19895876
Basically dogmatism or apathy also. Instead of questioning the "self evident", why don't you just be a gud boy and be an npc (individual).

[Anonymous No.19895894]

>>19895876
Johnathan Pageau said that at the end of the first day they met when Peterson was about to go home Johnathan said to him "Jordan, you're gonna bring back Christianity", to which Jordan paused for a moment and then replied "Well, I hope I can teach people about the psychological significance of the biblical stories.", implying that bringing back Christianity isn't his goal.

[Anonymous No.19895918]

>>19893683
Meaning (or value) is relative

[Anonymous No.19895931]

>>19893683
>too long and not cohesive enough

Peterson's problem is that he refuses to accept that things beyond the individuals control can have an effect on them. Ideology, other people, economic conditions, living situations, etc. He simply does not factor outside forces into his self-help tripe.

And this is the real essence of the Peterson vs. Zizek 'debate'. Internal Locus of Control vs. External Locus of Control.

[Anonymous No.19895946]

>>19895931
A good summation of Peterson's outlook is basically.

>The Bible and Jung say pull yourself up by your own bootstraps bucko

[Anonymous No.19895954]

>>19894046
You did not finish reading the post. If you did, you missed the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.19895969]

>>19895918
But Peterson says he's reuniting the West with the eternal Logos. He specifically says that morality and ethics are not relative. But his only justification for this is moral pragmatism which is disguised will to power. Because he skirts around the fact of will to power he retreats into a politician's duty ethics, attempting to express his values as objective truths hoping the listener forgets how he arrived at them to begin with.

[Anonymous No.19895989]

I think that the state of forward motion in pursuit of personal progress is somewhat self-regulating. Progress and success aren't plotted like a straight line on a graph sloping upward in a neat, consistent manner. Progress towards your goals comes with its own challenges and pitfalls; periods where we appear to be failing or even regressing. The negative emotions bound to surface from these negative experiences will help keep things "interesting" and the novelty fresh while providing an opportunity for self-reflection on what went wrong, and what can be done to change it if we have the power to do so. Additionally, having different goals and responsibilities of varying size and scope could help alleviate the pressure of negative emotion while also maintaining a sense of novelty. When one ambition stagnates, briefly focus on another where you can still make progress and keep the spirits high.

I suppose a ceaseless pursuit of foward progress may also carry the potential of burning out. We have to rest at some point. Look over what we have accomplished and take some sense of momentary satisfaction that leaves us yearning to push forward once more.

[Anonymous No.19895998]

>>19894559
>>19893972
>lit
>doesn't read
>>19894816
I agree with you somewhat. Your analysis of that metaphor does and does not work, notes vary incredibly in importance, as do people. It can be viewed from an unemotional/formal lense, but this isn't typical nor is it prosperous, it provides its own sort of meaning, but misses original intent, which inherently is partially emotional. Meaning is inherent in all things, including people, but how much of that is reflected is not a sum, nor should it be. Peterson would be worse off without emotion, even though it influences him heavily, maybe far too much. Which is ironic, given all of his talk about order and chaos.

[Anonymous No.19896019]

>>19893683
You're incorrect.

There's an entire literature on positive emotion in animals and humans that contradicts your hypothesis quite spectacularly. Socially normative animals won't become addicted to drugs that stimulate the positive emotion centers of the brain of their own free will. Meaning and positive emotion are not casually related.

[Anonymous No.19896047]

>>19895998
>Your analysis of that metaphor does and does not work, notes vary incredibly in importance, as do people.
OP here, I disagree. In a hypothetically "perfect" composition, every note is equally as significant in its participation in the whole. Obviously different instruments play different roles and there is a kind of foreground/background, but fundamentally if the composition were perfect, every part of it would have to be perfect and therefore equally significant.
This metaphorically translates to the Christian idea of the soul. In the Christian worldview (the one Peterson is trying to intellectually re-create) you are saved as soon as you realize everyone is equal no matter their position in society. To quote Bob Dylan,
I've heard you say many times
That you're better than no one
And no one is better than you
If you really believe that
You know you have
Nothing to win and nothing to lose

As soon as you truly believe all people are equal before God you become impossible to insult or threaten.

[Anonymous No.19896073]

>>19896019
>Socially normative animals won't become addicted to drugs that stimulate the positive emotion centers of the brain of their own free will. Meaning and positive emotion are not casually related.
Rats don't have the capacity to become nihilistic. I see what you're saying, but people can become existentially depressed whether or not they have people in their lives.

[Anonymous No.19896093]

>>19896047
This is true, though I'll still stand by the relevance of emotion.

[Anonymous No.19896103]

>>19893683
Exactly right

[Anonymous No.19896125]

>>19896093
I think if pragmatically derived emotion were enough to replace meaning Peterson would not be depressed.

[Anonymous No.19896190]

>>19896073
>Rats don't have the capacity to become nihilistic
The mouse utopia experiment points otherwise

[Anonymous No.19896262]

>>19896190
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/
>“Not all of Calhoun’s rats had gone berserk. Those who managed to control space led relatively normal lives.”
The rats became "nihilistic" when they became overcrowded. The one's who could dominate and maintain their own personal space while still benefitting from the "utopia" of unlimited food and such did not show abnormal behavior.

[Anonymous No.19896313]

>>19893683
Peterson's theory?
I saw a video where Peterson laid out his theory: complexity. Mental illness (and I mean this as distinct from brain disease) is a result of an inability to deal with the complexity of the world. I dunno, maybe true.

[Anonymous No.19896424]

>>19896313
>Mental illness (and I mean this as distinct from brain disease) is a result of an inability to deal with the complexity of the world.
This partially true but insufficient. Anxiety disorders or phobias definitely have to do with cognitive mapping and one's perception of their own competence. People abused by narcissistic parents often develop avoidant personality disorder which is basically the condition where one completely lacks any recognition of their own competence or is incapable of feeling adequately competent despite the fact that they are and have witnessed themselves be, causing them to avoid social engagements and important tasks. The narcissistic trauma occurs through the normalization pathological boundary transgressions between the parent and child that deform the childs perception of themselves and what constitutes appropriate moral behavior, causing them to expect people to behave irrationally towards them all the time even when they don't. This expectation of irrationality only exists because of the internalization of the narcissistic parent's projections onto the child. This is an example of the complexity of the world causing mental illness in the form of deep cognitive confusions.
The problem here is that Peterson's theory is all Logos and no Eros. By articulating the world you can escape dysfunctional cognitions, but that doesn't solve the problem of disconnection from fulfillment. Its actually psychopathic in a way because all the meaning is logistical, which means its all division and no unification. That's "radical individualism".

[Anonymous No.19896448]

>>19895783
>Jordan Peterson will say "you have certain duties as a member of society".
>This is true within the context of agreements
This is not what he means at all; almost the opposite. The implication of "as a member of society" is that your duties should, and indeed, do, go beyond what you agree to do. That is to say, being a member of a society is not something you've agreed to do, not part of an agreement, but still, your duty is to, at the very least, not be a leech, and if you can, be a productive and respectable member of said society. It's a duty to society and a duty to yourself as, he believes, this will improve your life. There are definitely huge moral implications, but from what I gather, his claim is that morally good things are objectively good all around.
>But in either case, the nihilistically depressed person who suffers from anhedonia would ask, if I can't feel any positive emotion from these things, and therefore my only incentive to them is to avoid the painful consequences that come of rejecting them, why don't I simply kill myself?
I'm sure the criminally insane often do ask themselves such things and end up creating chaos, I'm not sure any philosophy should be built around those types, however.

[Anonymous No.19896456]

Nihilistically depressed people need to stop being retarded cucks. Go outside and fight someone. Read Nietzsche. It's literally that simple

[Anonymous No.19896489]

>>19896448
>your duty is to, at the very least, not be a leech, and if you can, be a productive and respectable member of said society.
According to what?
>It's a duty to society and a duty to yourself as, he believes, this will improve your life.
Duty has no relationship to pragmatism. Read Notes from Underground. Just because something is to your benefit does not make it your duty to do it. "If I were you, I would do x" does not justify statements of duty. This is Nietzsche's criticism of Kant's categorical imperative. Duty implies law no matter what, it is spoken of as law. Duty is what motivates people to do things that do not benefit themselves (nor other people, in some cases), because its their "duty". In fact, that's the very defense the Nazis used during the Nuremberg trials, "I was just following orders", in other, more provocative words, "I was just doing my civil duty".

[Anonymous No.19896537]

>>19896448
>>19896489
>There are definitely huge moral implications, but from what I gather, his claim is that morally good things are objectively good all around.
Furthermore, this moral implication is actually the exact thing Peterson has vocalized complete disproval of: the will to power. To quote the Antichrist:
What is good? - All that increases the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man.
What is bad? - All that proceeds from weakness.

When he gives advice such as "stop saying things that make you weak", he's implying that you should concentrate on maximizing the efficiency of your own empowerment. The secret axiom is the same which Nietzsche wrote, that good = power. Its not your duty to empower yourself, its just the most direct way of receiving positive emotion. He is trying to use duty ethics to replace theological moral law because he won't admit that his theory is completely materialistic. That's the lie that people of duty ethics tell to themselves.
>I'm sure the criminally insane often do ask themselves such things and end up creating chaos, I'm not sure any philosophy should be built around those types, however.
The point is that people who experience anhedonia do not benefit from Jordan Peterson's advice unless his advice brings them to accept faith in God and actual metaphysical meaning. Philosophy is built around those types because they are limit cases. That's why when people propose moral scenarios to make a point (such as "if an axe murderer is at your door and he demands to know where your wife and kids are, is it right to lie?), they demonstrate the salient details of the argument.

[Anonymous No.19896638]

>>19896489
>According to what?
According to Peterson's discourse.
>Just because something is to your benefit does not make it your duty to do it.
Of course, which is why neither JP or I would make that claim. It's more a question of, if we act in accordance with laws that we developed over hundreds of thousands of years (or laws that have been there since before "we" had a say in the matter), we ourselves will fare better in life. (we being social beings)
>In fact, that's the very defense the Nazis used during the Nuremberg trials, "I was just following orders"
He doesn't advocate for excessive order and acknowledges the dangers that come with it i.e. authoritarianism or totalitarianism. He's only preaching about the need for order now because, he says, society is currently too chaotic and there's too much talk of rights and privileges, and not enough talk of responsibility and duty.
>>19896537
>He is trying to use duty ethics to replace theological moral law because he won't admit that his theory is completely materialistic. That's the lie that people of duty ethics tell to themselves
I'm inclined to concede this because he himself says he only believes in God as far as "acting as if though He were real". Belief in God, however, as far as I can tell, is not something you can choose, it happens or it doesn't, and so his "faith" is, I would say, more virtuous. That said, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying "So long as he doesn't truly believe in God, his philosophy is materialistic". It's only that, it's no coincidence, laws given by Divinity and laws developed by us serve to empower society, empower us, and if you choose that avenue, provide you with a spot in Heaven.
Regarding the Will to Power criticism, again, he warns the dangers of excessive power (and order).

[Anonymous No.19896650]

>>19896537
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/destruction-reason/ch03.htm
>It now grows quite clear how Nietzsche carried on the irrationalist tradition in comparison to Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard. These authors, in contesting idealist dialectics as the highest form of the bourgeois conception of progress, had likewise to oppose the dialectical self-agitation of Being and to fall back on a contrastingly mythical, only intuitively apprehensible Being. But since their polemics against Hegelian dialectics were only a conflict of orientation within bourgeois philosophy, they could content themselves with narrowing and distorting dialectics in a reactionary irrationalist spirit. (Schelling’s distinction between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ philosophy, Kierkegaard’s ‘stages’.) True, the resultant distinctions between ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ types of Being have an anti-scientific character and structure, but formally they remain — at least until Kierkegaard’s ‘leap’ — within the sphere of a certain logical order. One might say that the tattered pieces of dialectics taken over in garbled form from Hegel restore, for Schelling and Kierkegaard, the appearance of a modicum of rational coherence. Nietzsche, however, did away with the connecting links from the outset in his epistemology, which followed the line of Berkeley, Schopenhauer and Mach. And to the extent to which we can speak of a logico-philosophical order in his work here at all, it can have but one meaning. The more fictive a concept is and the more purely subjectivist its origins, the higher it stands and the ‘truer’ it is in the mythical scale of values. Being, so long as its concept contains even the slightest vestiges of a relationship to a reality independent of our consciousness, must be displaced by Becoming (equals idea). Being, however, when freed from these shackles and viewed purely as fiction, as a product of the will-to-power, may then, for Nietzsche, be a still higher category than Becoming: an expression of the intuitive pseudo-objectivity of myth. With Nietzsche, the special function of such a definition of Becoming and Being lies in supporting the pseudo-historicity vital to his indirect apologetics and in simultaneously dismissing it, confirming philosophically that historical Becoming can produce nothing that is new and outruns capitalism.

[Anonymous No.19896655]

>>19896650
>But the significance of Nietzschean epistemology as a structural tool for the systematic articulation of his thoughts exceeds this single instance, central though it is. It encompasses the full totality of his universe. To help complete the picture, let us take another important example. In contrast to contemporary neo-Kantianism and Positivism, whose basic approach was a specific objectivism, an avowedly solely scientific abstention from any explicit attitude and relation ship to praxis, Nietzsche vigorously shifted the connection between theory and praxis to the centre of his whole epistemology. Here, too, he drew all the inferences of agnosticism and of the relativism succeeding it earlier and more radically than his contemporaries. By rejecting any criterion of truth other than usefulness for the biological survival of the individual (and the species), he became an important precursor of imperialist pragmatism. ‘We have always’, he stated,
>‘forgotten the main thing: why does a philosopher want to know? Why does he value “truth” more highly than appearance? This valuation is older than any cogito ergo sum: even presupposing the logical process, there is something inside us which affirms it and denies its opposite. Whence the preference? Every philosopher has neglected to explain why he values the true and the good, and none has sought to attempt the same for the opposite. Answer: the True is more useful (for preserving the organism) — but not in itself more acceptable. Enough; from the very beginning we find the organism speaking as a whole, with “purposes” — there fore making value judgements.’[117]

[Anonymous No.19896660]

>>19896655
>It goes without saying that this applies to an even greater degree to the truths of morality: ‘All moralists join in drawing lines regarding good and evil, depending on their sympathetic and egotistic impulses. I regard as good that which serves some end: but the “good end” is nonsense. For the question is always “good for what?” Good is always merely a term for a means. The “good end” is a good means to an end.’[118] And in The Will to Power, Nietzsche summed up this doctrine in the suggestive words: ‘Truth is the type of error without which a particular type of living being could not exist. In the last resort the decisive value is the value for living.’[119]
>Nietzsche, however, was not satisfied with tracing the good and true back to biological vital interests, thereby depriving them of all absolute, objective worth. The object of his endeavours went even beyond his referring in general to biological usefulness for the species, rather than merely for the individual. For the life of the species — this returns us to the sphere of Becoming — is, firstly, a historical process and, secondly, as historical content, the uninterrupted conflict between two human types, two races, namely masters and slaves. In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche expressly emphasized that his starting-point was an etymological one: the insight that the morally positive element is identical with the socially eminent man, and the negative with the socially subordinate.[120] But this ‘natural’ condition is dissipated in the course of history: there arises that embittered struggle between masters and herd whose philosophical, moral and other consequences, as well as its perspectives for Nietzsche, we have portrayed in detail in other contexts. And the function which all categories acquire in this struggle determines the degree of truth they possess. More precisely, the determining factor is their potential usefulness to the master race in obtaining and establishing ultimate control. To refer back just briefly to what we have already expounded, let us quote the statement, likewise from the Genealogy: ‘Egotism and a kind of second innocence go hand in hand.’[121]

[Anonymous No.19896690]

>>19894857
Why not? Because the book of Genesis doesn't provide an account of creation that is in line with observable evidence? You can just assign the initiation of the Big Bang to God and everything's settled again.

[Anonymous No.19896749]

>>19896456
Nietzsche was a copecel. An optimist in reaction to pessimism feeling bad.

[Anonymous No.19896762]

he's saying that "meaning" and "fear of death" (as both transcendent and not) can replace the need for a religion. The lack of a religion is now inevitable because all that the people can hope for is "meaning" and "fear of death" post death of God. The sad part is that this is an empty "meaning" that can only be achieved through repetition and adherence to societal norms that are ever changing and often manipulated by hegemonic power holders.

[Anonymous No.19896769]

>>19896650
>>19896655
>>19896660
Jesus, does all commie shit read like something written by a psychologist? This is like Four Humors era interpretation of medicine for politics and history.

[Anonymous No.19896789]

Most people in his audience tend to either be nihilistically depressed or directionless and anxious. Peterson's value is as a surrogate father figure for lost young men and as a sort of quasi therapist due to his psychological background. His advice can be valuable to people who are in an emotional storm because it will induce some feeling of meaning which will serve as a beginning towards a journey of self actualization and out of nihilist thought patterns. His specialty is psychology which is why he is more adept at this sort of role compared to his philosophical commentary.

[Anonymous No.19896793]

>>19896650
>>19896655
>>19896660
>More precisely, the determining factor is their potential usefulness to the master race in obtaining and establishing ultimate control
I think this in a nutshell is the ultimate sign of someone getting filtered by Nietzsche. Jesus lived Nietzsche's ideal of a free spirit. Like I said earlier in the thread, people who overcome all weaknesses of the human condition are invincible in the sense that they cannot be insulted or threatened with death or pain. This is achieved by recognizing that human beings are metaphysically equal despite their individual diversity. By living as Jesus did it becomes impossible for you to be an enemy to someone else, and you are maximally empowered. This defeats the idea that Nietzsche's ideal is a megalomaniac who tyrannizes over everybody who is physically inferior. Jesus does not control people, because when you've achieved the free spirit state you not only no longer require control over others but you also no longer prefer it, for it is less pleasing to you and less empowering to others. Jesus doesn't force, he welcomes.
Also, Nietzsche introduces the idea that religious truths which are questioned due to their mythological origins may be discovered later as pragmatic laws.

[Anonymous No.19896832]

>>19894857
>because a faith in god is not a viable source of meaning anymore, midwit.
Just because faith in god does not appeal to scientific verification does not make it unviable in any way whatsoever. "God is dead" doesn't mean belief is invalid, it means that faith is no longer a sufficient justification for societies values because people are becoming atheistic.
I've never seen or heard of anybody coming close to achieving Nietzsche's ideals without religious faith. People make fun of Peterson ad hominem because he seems to have either failed to live up to his own ideals or his own ideals failed to prevent his serious mistakes.

[Anonymous No.19896839]

>>19896073
Define nihilistically depressed.

[Anonymous No.19896865]

>>19896839
"If God isn't real, then everything is a subjective perspective, including not only meaning and morality but objects themselves. Nothing is real, and to treat life as though it is real creates cognitive dissonance. Everything is a lie, including the existence of myself and the people I love. How can I love people if they don't actually exist? Everything is just an appearance, substance is gone, I cannot enjoy or find anything interesting. I have to keep these thoughts a secret or else everyone will think I'm either insane or a psychopath, or worse, they think I'm right and have meaning collapse on them as well. I have to lie in order to live and love."

[Anonymous No.19896877]

>>19896749
I'd say its more accurate to say that Nietsneed was an optimist because he believed being pessimistic would hold you back from becoming who you really are

[Anonymous No.19896879]

peterstein

[Anonymous No.19896885]

>Ctrl + F
>"Ted K"
>"Uncle Ted"
>"Kaczynski"
>0 results
shameful of you, /lit/

Kaczynski is the ultimate anti-peterson and his superior brain blasts huge holes in Peterson's ill defined arguments because in the end Peterson is one of the strongest defenders of Liberalism, Democracy, and the organizational technology which has enslaved modern man
he is helping to fit men into the system and opposed to bending the system to fit man (if that can even really be done)

[Anonymous No.19896904]

>>19896865
To not lie is to reduce people to those who can handle the discomfort of collapsed ideals. Loneliness is therefore present.

[Anonymous No.19896910]

>>19896885
Systems are average of all mem so if all men are average the systems fits them all perfectly.

[Anonymous No.19896926]

>>19896910
No, this is some kind of weird platitude
a system in society can operate without regard to the interests of people inside it

your statement would be like saying if we put everyone in a hellish prison and are able to make them believe there is no escape, then that system fits them perfectly?

[Anonymous No.19896928]

>>19896904
>To not lie is to reduce people to those who can handle the discomfort of collapsed ideals
Its not about collapsed ideals its about the complete collapse of meaning as such. Nietzsche said this was the sickness of nihilism, that when a belief structure collapses people lose trust in the idea of the existence of any meaning whatsoever. Peterson has tried to cure this sickness by playing a slight-of-hand between pragmatism and duty ethics. Pragmatism is purely materialistic, so he coats it in this dress of "duty" to make it sound metaphysical when actually he's just pretending that the definition of duty is "that which maximizes the efficiency of power", which when done subtly is effective at making people forget that their reasoning is materialistic.

[Anonymous No.19896944]

>>19896865
this is a pretty good take on why the existence of a Godhead is a necessary precondition for the existence of good as a category, but most people don't get that far or really even need to consciously

it is simple, the existence of God cannot (probably) ever be proven as it is outside of the realm accessible to deduction (deductive reasoning which lies at the absolute bedrock of all science or knowledge) thus to believe in God must be taken on faith, meaning it is a choice to believe in God, but the choice is possible to actually believe in

[Anonymous No.19896945]

>>19893683
OP, ou are almost correct but you missed one thing. Im too deaded so I will be ahoet and add later. Jordan is balancing to the order of western civilization.Yes he is limited in context and capacity. Yes he prefers Demiurge worship as the origin of the belief in the eternity of the ideals that underpin the meaning but so do billions of npc. He is their new idolatry. He does refine antichrist for his approach is agitating the reactionary disdain of the last men that shaves off all their inadequacy of intellectual domain. Its boring and tiresome. Read my book. Its for free. Not to mention his inability to discuss natural philosophies like taoism as a contrast to synthetic problem solving oriented Demiurge worship we know as abrahamic trio. Its all so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.19896953]

>>19896926
Isnt that what hell is?

[Anonymous No.19896955]

>>19896944
>but most people don't get that far or really even need to consciously
Correct, but that's not the point. The point is that Peterson has sold novelty, not meaning. Novelty has an expiry date no matter what. The psychological inevitability is that without belief in God, Peterson's solution is only temporary. Cognitive dissonance that only highly intelligent people recognize effects everybody regardless of whether they are conscious of it.

[Anonymous No.19896956]

>>19896928
Ideals are the holders of the ultimate meaning

[Anonymous No.19896960]

>>19896944
Supreme being or demiurge?

[Anonymous No.19896992]

>>19896945
>OP, ou are almost correct but you missed one thing. Im too deaded so I will be ahoet and add later. Jordan is balancing to the order of western civilization.Yes he is limited in context and capacity. Yes he prefers Demiurge worship as the origin of the belief in the eternity of the ideals that underpin the meaning but so do billions of npc. He is their new idolatry. He does refine antichrist for his approach is agitating the reactionary disdain of the last men that shaves off all their inadequacy of intellectual domain. Its boring and tiresome. Read my book. Its for free. Not to mention his inability to discuss natural philosophies like taoism as a contrast to synthetic problem solving oriented Demiurge worship we know as abrahamic trio. Its all so tiresome.
>Jordan is balancing to the order of western civilization.
I believe we're on the same page, my suspicion was that he's doing this deliberately. I think its because he wants to neutralize the white-supremacist right before it claps back hard against the current leftism. He's trying to sell radical individualism so that the hierarchy of "what's best for yourself>your family>your community>the world" skips "whats best for your heritage", preventing the Nazis from returning. This is a serious problem because the West is founded on European culture and if his message of how important it is to preserve Western values is correct, white people need to be at least enthusiastic about their responsibility of ownership over their culture. He has specifically said "white people need to stop being white" and argued that its because "pride in the achievements of your ancestors as though they were your own achievements is taking credit for other people's work and pathological". In the same way that he skirts over the fact that power is the secret motivation behind his life advice, he's denied the validity of heritage to stop white people from collectivizing. The problem is that he's half-correct. In the same spirit of the principle of "I don't exist to serve the government, the government exists to serve we the people", racial identity should be seen as "I don't belong to my race/culture/heritage, but my race/culture/heritage belongs to me and whoever else is apart of it, a shared ownership".

[Anonymous No.19897006]

>>19896955
Agreed. Which is why he was so pathetically hesitant to eventually admit (probably lie) very tamely that he believes in God

>>19896960
haha, I don't know that's probably up to you
but I think the demiurge is necessarily below the supreme being,
I think though that "good" systems (as not to just pigeonhole good into meaning orderly or nonchaotic) tend to be able to take over bad systems, as evidenced that there is anything at all around to be considered good, so God is good
but in any case, God is great.

[Anonymous No.19897012]

>>19896885
>Peterson is one of the strongest defenders of Liberalism, Democracy, and the organizational technology which has enslaved modern man
>one of the strongest
You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous No.19897017]

>>19896944
> is a pretty good take on why the existence of a Godhead is a necessary precondition for the existence of good as a category
It's literally one of the most laziest claims possible without any justification. A god doesn't even necessarily nullify goofy forms of subjectivism and just opens a floodgate of theological controversy.

>the existence of God cannot (probably) ever be proven
Well you better inform most religitards because there's a huge literature of supposed proofs and most yokels aren't even satisfied with just faith alone which creates a mass industry of goofy pseudo-edutainment otherwise there'd be no need for biblical archeology or anything

[Anonymous No.19897023]

>>19896885
pynchon's better

[Anonymous No.19897025]

>>19897012
well, he does some of the worst work for it by taking otherwise disaffected people and shoving them back into the system

like taking pain pills to make the psychological pain go away instead of curing the problem
oh wait....

[Anonymous No.19897037]

>>19896928
The critical theory enthusiast is still unable to comprehend the huge overlap between duty and pragmatism.

[Anonymous No.19897043]

>>19897006
>Which is why he was so pathetically hesitant to eventually admit (probably lie) very tamely that he believes in God
Why do you think he's like that? It escapes me. I wonder if he's committed terrible acts in his life that he can't forgive himself for, causing him to be terrified of god's judgement? Or even of the existence of actual meaning?

[Anonymous No.19897059]

>>19897037
Duty is an obligation, a requirement. Pragmatism does not create obligations, only opportunities. Peterson has taught you a lie which is "the fact that you have the opportunity to live in a way you would naturally prefer means that you are objectively required to do those things". Its a lie because the sentence actually ends "...required to do those things if your goal is to achieve what you would prefer". Your idea of "duty" is literally the same as "that which is required in order to achieve my personal goals which happen to be agreeable to the people around me". It's not duty.

[Anonymous No.19897067]

>>19897043
Hes a boomer/gen x liberal. These people are extremely atheist; it was driven into their skulls so deep they have trouble even comprehending how anyone can truly believe in God.

All of Peterson's "conservative" stuff is a Liberal rediscovering the value of conservative values, but from the perspective of an overarching atheist/lib metaphysics. Hence all the internal contradictions and confusions the poor guy has to deal with.

[Anonymous No.19897072]

Too much ironical postings, I'm losing track. No way the Peterstein apologists meant what they said.

[Anonymous No.19897073]

>>19897043
Because belief (if I might be so bold as to say- true belief) in God, is not up to you. Much like love, (which is what true belief should be- loving God- more than anything else, if possible) it happens, or it doesn't. It's purely emotional and not within your power to decide whether you do so or not. So (assuming he's honest regarding this) he's doing the next best thing, acting as though he believed, similarly to how you'd treat your son as if you loved him, even if, for some weird, unfortunate reason, your holding him in your arms doesn't impact you emotionally.

[Anonymous No.19897076]

>>19897017
>It's literally one of the most laziest claims possible without any justification
I wouldn't say it is without justification, in fact it is one of the harder claims to really get across to people, but it is such a big topic I can't give a proper treatment of it on a malay glass blowing discussion board

>>19897017
>most yokels aren't even satisfied with just faith alone
correct, most people will go along with whatever the consensus says [and that's a good thingTM]
this phenomenon is seen all across evolved social and even non social animals, it's the natural hedging of bets

the only method of proving some things to some (maybe most) people is to have a large enough portion of the population (and leaders) believe it\
the evolutionary benefits of this are obvious, otherwise the one with the highest IQ could probably hoodwink the rest of the population into doing something that might kill off
hell, even a percentage of slime mold cells stay behind when the rest of the organism is moving, just in case it moves to an even more inhospitable place and dies

>>19897043
I think he's just an atheist and not convinced
of course I also don't think he has been bitten by the system in any way, so he is naturally thankful to it and starts with its necessary good as one of his priors
power, and the prospect of good feelings, are much more powerful things than argument

[Anonymous No.19897083]

>>19897076
*kill them off

[Anonymous No.19897085]

>>19897067
That's an optimistic answer but I see it as possible. People have religious experiences through psychedelics and still hesitate on whether they believe they were encountering metaphysical entities or merely psychological manifestations. It's testament to how powerful the materialistic atheist perspective is to people.

[Anonymous No.19897100]

>>19897085
Optimistic? What do you mean?

Psychedelics are a big gamble. They can make you feel something that compels you to seek out God, they can also convince you that "nothing is real or true or good or bad" and similar things. Of course some people think that latter perspective is the correct one and I cant say they are necessarily wrong.

I dont think psychs are capable of bringing about a genuine change in your basic metaphysical outlook though. That has to be accomplished sober I believe; it has to be integrated with your normal waking reality, since it is at heart a shift in what that reality is.

[Anonymous No.19897115]

I'm glad my wife cheated on me

[Anonymous No.19897120]

>>19897085
This
but I'd say it's really the power that POWER has on people
the atheistic perspective is in power because it produced lots of knowledge and physical things that we like
when it becomes apparent, as it kind of is now, that it is not the end all be all of goodness, the opinion will start to sour, which is pretty much what is happening among some of the smartest people among us

the battle will be to fight those who want to go further to see if it gets better in the end
it's like humanity tried heroin for the first time and has not crashed yet
the problem is, with worship of technology we could easily end up ODing, to continue the meataphor, and it would likely be fatal

[Anonymous No.19897126]

>>19897067
this
and the system rewards him with several million dollars a year and prestige and admiration and a genuine sense of helping people (who do benefit from his self help stuff)
that must be a very hard thing to see through

[Anonymous No.19897140]

>>19897100
Optimistic because if that or something like that is not the case then perhaps he secretly worships something else. He's said that Jung's Aion will give you nightmares for the rest of your life but never talks about why. He leaves people to assume that his sentiments towards the book are to do with the discovery of the shadow in oneself, how dangerous you truly are, etc. He doesn't talk about the antichrist. He also claims to believe that Nietzsche was wrong about the Overman. He clearly deliberately leaves certain things out of his message such as the will to power and the difference between meaning and novelty, duty and divine law. He wants white people to stop being white and abandon their ethnic heritage while making no comment on that same behavior being done by other groups. Its very fishy to me.

[Anonymous No.19897148]

>>19897059
read: overlap
You'd have to be really malicious to misinterpret his discourse to this degree. His stance is:
We have, through Divinity (refer to the Biblical Series) or through evolution (refer to lobster) developed/ been given/ been encoded with a certain set of principles that, should we adhere to them, not only will we have secured our place in Heaven and eased our souls, but our material life will also have improved.
We have had nothing but the Bible to decide what's good in life, until some asshole cried: "God is Dead!" and we were made to renounce all that we had known. But lo! We can scan brains to find out, the brain's pleasure centers become activated as people decide to donate part of a new stash of money to charity.
A lot of what's good for the soul, happens to also be good for the body. This is not a novel idea by any means.
Still, feel free to defer to your will to power tripe.

[Anonymous No.19897155]

>>19897148
trite*

[Anonymous No.19897156]

>>19893683
I’m not a peterson shill generally, but you are just playing a word game. Having responsibility makes your actions have consequences and your decisions mean more. The sense of well being that comes with this could easily be described as feeling that your life is meaningful.
> Well, what happens when the novelty of the renewal of novelty expires? What happens when being in "the zone" where the proper balance of challenge and ability is achieved, generating the most potent and efficient feeling of novelty, is no longer interesting? What if the state of forward motion can become as uninteresting as the utopian state of satisfaction turned into boredom?
Idk, get addicted to Benzos?
We are always going to be bored here because we are essentially zoo animals compared to our ancestors. I don’t know to what extent faith in God solves that, as I susspect that self reported meaningfulness would correspond more to stuff like ties to the community than to religious faith.

[Anonymous No.19897171]

>>19897140
Oh I see what you mean. I guess you're right, that is another possibility. Jung was obviously dabbling in very murky waters

[Anonymous No.19897207]

>>19897076
Point I was making is faith isn't even popularly sufficient and people require proof (even if from a positivist perspective that's not quite right), faith is merely a rhetorical crutch... but no one actually is going to depend on it. Every idea is produced under real conditions and yes hoodwinking occurs. Why did hunter gathering stop to be a dominate lifestyle and people settle down to do hard work cultivating land to be taxed and listen to and support priests if someone didn't pull a fast one?

>>19897148
You're misunderstanding Peterson's entire public career, Lukacs's Destruction of Reason best analyzes historically this entire strain of thought

>...We have demonstrated that Nietzsche’s challenge to Darwin was a myth arising from the justified fear that the normal course of history must lead to socialism. We have also shown that behind eternal recurrence there hides a self-consoling, mythical decree that evolution can produce nothing fundamentally new (and therefore no socialism). Another point we can see quite easily is that the Superman came about in order to steer back on to capitalist lines, etc., etc., the yearning spontaneously springing from the problems of capitalist life, its distortion and stunting of human beings. And the ‘positive’ part of the Nietzschean myths is no more than a mobilization of all the decadent and barbaric instincts in men corrupted by capitalism in order to save by force this parasitical paradise; here again, Nietzsche’s philosophy is the imperialist myth designed to counter socialist humanism.

[Anonymous No.19897228]

>>19897207
The problem with socialism is not that it's new, it's that it's internally incoherent and its own advocates cant define it clearly. Nowhere is this more obvious than the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat". You might as well say "sharp pinnacle of the wide flat bottom".

[Anonymous No.19897236]

>>19897148
>not only will we have secured our place in Heaven and eased our souls
I'm assuming you're using that as a metaphor for positive emotion and harmony among people.
>But lo! We can scan brains to find out, the brain's pleasure centers become activated as people decide to donate part of a new stash of money to charity.
Duty is an "objective ought" statement. Your argument literally implies that because there is an objective path towards achieving the most preferable experience for yourself possible (which coincidentally involves what is most preferable to other people, assuming they understand what they ultimately hypothetically prefer), it is written in the universe that it is a persons duty to take that path. Duty means "requirement", and in order for something to be equal to divine law, it has to be metaphysically real. As in, a property of the cosmos that is not subjective. Something that does not disappear the moment your subjective goal changes. The fact of an objective path towards a most preferable state exists (defined as one which a person would most want to relive, as in eternal recurrence), does not mean that you have objective duties. The idea that the brain/psyche has goals no matter what does not mean that those goals are objectively righteous. They're objectively agreeable to you and to others. The objective path isn't metaphysically good, it is materialistically and sensationally good. That is the limit of their objectivity. They aren't ultimately meaningful, just ultimately novel. Phenomenology isn't enough because skeptics will just contemplate simulation theory, and because it still doesn't escape perspectivism. Religion is the threshold past which novelty becomes meaning.

[Anonymous No.19897242]

>>19897207
>marxist OWNS peterson with facts and logic
Anyone who engages in conversation with you after this reply has to be deprived of any social interaction or clinically retarded.

[Anonymous No.19897365]

>>19897236
>I'm assuming you're using that as a metaphor for positive emotion and harmony among people.
If you so want to interpret it. What I meant was, we've known for a while what's right and wrong, what one's duty to himself and to society was, and we've used different metaphysical claims to back it up.
Lately we've been able to point out to how "good" behavior objectively improves your life, and I suspect you're one to say; this further lessens the need for God, whereas I'd says, this is further proof of God's existence (feel free to replace "God" with "a moral system we've developed/ been given etc.").
I guess what we're disagreeing on is, you think it's mere coincidence that what is "preferable for me involves what is most preferable to other people", whereas I'm of the belief that we're hardcoded to want to be good. You'll find that approaches towards power that are narcissistic/psychopathic(/evil, if you'll allow me) in nature are detrimental to the individual in the long run.

[Anonymous No.19897386]

>>19897365
>Lately we've been able to point out to how "good" behavior objectively improves your life, and I suspect you're one to say; this further lessens the need for God, whereas I'd says, this is further proof of God's existence (feel free to replace "God" with "a moral system we've developed/ been given etc.").
That's what I've been arguing this entire thread. The fact that we've found the objective path to everybody's best interests does not substitute belief in God. Your definition of duty is "that which is most advantageous". Just because there is an objective path to the highest advantage/affirmation of life does not close the gap between novelty and meaning. Meaning exists when and only when there is as a fact independent of our universe laws that objectively bestow value onto the universe. To mistake novelty for meaning here is to mistake ones own consciousness for God.

[Anonymous No.19897409]

>>19896865
You're forgetting about the phenomenology of pain as a fundamental and immutable irrational preconditional fact.

You can argue as much nominalistic nonsense as you'd like (I'm not saying you are, in fact your argument is quite good) but the fact of the matter is you will respond to pain as if you believe it has intrinsic meaning.

If that's not true, put a knife through your hand and show me the picture with a timestamp.

[Anonymous No.19897411]

>>19897386
>Your definition of duty is "that which is most advantageous".
No, and I'm sincerely not sure if you're being disingenuous or I have been unable to make it clear enough. My definition of duty is "that which you ought to do, because it's righteous", and by no mere coincidence, it's also almost always advantageous to you.

[Anonymous No.19897442]

>>19897411
>righteous
According to who? That is a value, a quality, which you express as though it exists independent of you or anybody else or anything in the universe. Righteousness is only an objective quality when God exists to create it. My position is that actual belief in God is necessary and that Peterson's intellectual mapping of how people's best interests can be understood to the level of a science does not make those interests meaningful, it makes them novel. God makes them meaningful.

[Anonymous No.19897466]

>>19897409
>you will respond to pain as if you believe it has intrinsic meaning
Yes but its still subjective. The pain is a sensation which can be taken away with drugs. You *really* feel it when you feel it, but that doesn't make it meaningful in any metaphysical sense. Its just sensualism.

[Anonymous No.19897484]

>>19893683
>theory
>about self help
Ok that’s just your opinion against someone who has decades of experience in clinical psychology

[Anonymous No.19897485]

>>19897442
>According to who?
Refer to this >>19897148
This is what I've been saying, even if you don't believe in God, we're hardwired to know what is righteous and what isn't. Granted, there are people who act in spite of their programming (or suffer genetic defects), but, as you say here >>19896537, they should only serve to prove my argument right.
What, you want to get into objective morality, bucko?

[Anonymous No.19897501]

>>19897485
Now you're misusing the term righteous the same way Peterson misuses the term duty. Righteousness "to me", or "to us" is the best you get without literal belief in God. You're implying that human consciousness is the arbiter of morality, not God.

[Anonymous No.19897527]

>>19897501
>You're implying that human consciousness is the arbiter of morality, not God.
I've never done that. My position on that is very clear yet you keep dancing around it.
Divinity dictates morality and we, as a species, have notions of morality coded into us. I've said this many times.
Granted, sometimes things seem grey, thankfully we have the Bible for that.

[Anonymous No.19897563]

>>19897527
>Divinity dictates morality and we, as a species, have notions of morality coded into us
You're correct that divinity dictates morality, but the fact that we as a species have genetic code that dictates what we perceive as divinity does not prove that divinity exists independent of the material universe. You've just taken "the most adaptive path" and named it Divinity, and then mistook that naming for proof that Divinity exists independent of matter and psyche. Assuming that psychological truths = metaphysical truths is to assume your consciousness is God.

[Anonymous No.19897575]

>>19897563
And by the way, I agree that this "most adaptive path" is Divinity, except I believe it because I believe God exists and that the path we've discovered scientifically reveals some of his creative intentions.

[Anonymous No.19897643]

>>19897527
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lysz7RvfTVc
Jordan speaking on his belief in god.
>no but I'm afraid he might exist
He no longer tries to hide that teachings don't substitute faith in God.

[Anonymous No.19897647]

>>19897643
>that teachings
His teachings*

[Anonymous No.19897649]

>>19897575
>And by the way, I agree that this "most adaptive path" is Divinity, except I believe it because I believe God exists
Then surely you know that our expulsion from Eden was caused by our eating from the Tree of knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL. But I can see how this argument wouldn't hold.
>>19897563
>but the fact that we as a species have genetic code that dictates what we perceive as divinity does not prove that divinity exists independent of the material universe
Note that I've said "perceive as righteous (have notions of morality..)", and not "perceive as divine". Righteousness is a trait of divinity that we can emulate, not divinity itself.
And as far as that goes, my argument is that we've deemed things immoral thousands of years before we could scientifically explain why they're wrong, have held these beliefs as fact, then became secular and renounced them, then embraced them when science proved them right.
>>19897643
I've addressed this, but even still, I was now talking about my beliefs.

[Anonymous No.19897679]

>>19897649
>Righteousness is a trait of divinity that we can emulate, not divinity itself.
Divinity itself only exists if God exists. Understanding "what objectively feels the best" does not prove of the existence of God. You're acting like science can do the work for you. A person must choose to believe, there is no way to know certainly, just like you can't know the existence of the objects in front of you certainly. Jordan's theory is Christianity without Christ.

[Anonymous No.19897729]

>>19897679
>Divinity itself only exists if God exists.
Yes. As does righteousness. I generally agree with you.
>A person must choose to believe
Here, I don't. Refer to >>19897073
>You're acting like science can do the work for you.
That's not what I've been saying at all. For the hundredth time, my point is that we're told what's righteous. We know what's righteous. Even without promise of eternal bliss, acting in a righteous manner is beneficial to you in the long run (as opposed to employing more malicious tactics for quick personal gain).
>>19897679
>Jordan's theory is Christianity without Christ.
Yes. True belief is something hard to achieve for most, so he's showing disenfranchised people the benefit of living a Christian lifestyle, even if you can't bring yourself to believe in God. This is the whole theme of the Biblical Series.

[Anonymous No.19897740]

>>19897729
>For the hundredth time, my point is that we're told what's righteous.
Yes we do know what is righteous, I agree. We just don't know THAT its righteous. To know THAT it is righteous is to know that God exists and is responsible for why you feel righteous, otherwise your explanation is materialistic.

[Anonymous No.19897751]

>>19895946
What’s the alternative?

[Anonymous No.19897785]

>>19897740
>otherwise your explanation is materialistic
Oh I see what you're saying.
Then we'll go back to this; if you can truly believe in God, and act in accordance with His wishes, great. If you can't believe and you still act in that manner, I'd argue it's even better, because it shows desire to transcend materialism: even if Heaven is not promised to you, you want to be righteous because you believe in higher, objective good.
Yeah, it's materialistic because it then only serves to make you feel better. I don't see the problem with that.
Case closed I guess

[Anonymous No.19897795]

>>19897751
pulling yourself by the bootstraps with other ends in mind ;)
but i mean if you read peterson you'd know that

[Anonymous No.19897809]

>>19897148
>We have had nothing but the Bible to decide what's good in life
What christcucks unironically believe

[Anonymous No.19897811]

>>19897466
Then stab yourself in the hand and post a timestamped image.

[Anonymous No.19897814]

>>19897785
>If you can't believe and you still act in that manner, I'd argue it's even better, because it shows desire to transcend materialism: even if Heaven is not promised to you, you want to be righteous because you believe in higher, objective good.
>Yeah, it's materialistic because it then only serves to make you feel better. I don't see the problem with that.
The problem is that the antichrist is literally described as an imitator of Christ who lacks faith. Johnathan Pageau describes here how the antichrist is any aspect of Jesus removed from and mistaken for the whole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSxwhXdYl3E

[Anonymous No.19897832]

>>19897811
Even if I were on drugs that could enable me to do that painlessly I probably wouldn't. That doesn't indicate objective truth, just that I'm not self-destructive. Some people are masochistic (see pain Olympics) and some people self-harm and kill themselves. Its not an objective meaning, just a phenomena that objectively occurs.

[Anonymous No.19897916]

>>19897814
>The problem is that the antichrist is literally described as an imitator of Christ who lacks faith.
Uhh, sure. But unless you want to go into how Peterson's benzo rehab shenanigans are the equivalent of the antichrist of Revelation healing from a deadly wound, I wouldn't talk about that too much. Like I said, loving God is a hard endeavor, and if someone can teach people to behave in spite of their shaky/nonexistent belief, I'll take it. If you sincerely dedicate yourself to Christianity and the Bible, I admire you, myself, I can't do it, and though I hope and wish that Christ returns soon, the next best thing is people being "cultural Christians" for a while.

[Anonymous No.19897998]

>>19897916
I'm not calling for Jordan Peterson to be hated or anything. I just think "cultural Christianity" will have catastrophic consequences even if it temporarily makes things better. Its like what he said about climate change. The error increases exponentially across time, like lines on a protractor becoming wider from each other the further you are from the center point. By the time people begin to notice the error it will be too late.

[Anonymous No.19898027]

>You're not nice you're just harmless, bucko! Bear witness to the catharsis of my potential for violence.

[Anonymous No.19898200]

>>19897832
Then mere sensualism is your most cherished believe.

The only way to prove me wrong is to stab yourself in the hand.

[Anonymous No.19898211]

>>19898200
I don't have to stab myself in the hand to prove that I believe in God.

[Anonymous No.19898237]

>>19898211
well Jordan "how dare you ask me if I believe in God" Peterson sure doesn't

[Anonymous No.19898261]

>>19898237
That wouldn't even be acting as though God exists.

[Anonymous No.19898521]

>>19898211
But your failure to stab yourself in the hand does mean you believe in pain and it's intrinsic meaning.

[Anonymous No.19898541]

>>19898521
No, it means that I don't want to feel pain. Its meaning isn't metaphysical. If I had to stab myself in the hand to save a bus full of children from drowning I would do it. Because this is trivial I have no reason to endure the pain that will occur. My aversion to pain isn't evidence of a metaphysic, its just pragmatic.

[Anonymous No.19898581]

>>19893683
I hate this guy because he sounds gay as fuck but to be fair I don’t think this philosophy is supposed to be an actual real certain answer to life it’s just a practical answer on what to do. Your scenario of it getting boring has a very low chance of happening in one man’s lifetime. Also interestingly enough notes from the underground makes your exact point (I think) in that chapter. The narrator says even if humanity started doing everything they supposed to defined by natural Law they would purposely fuck it up. Also a responsibility be long term enough that it’s not just novelty right

[Anonymous No.19898608]

>>19896885
I have one life. I would rather spend it learning to coexist with this dysfunctional system so I can eek out some happiness in this shit existence than impotently rebel against it and end up suffering for a cause that, even if it sees fruition, I won't live to see the fruits of.

[Anonymous No.19898612]

>>19898521
>>19898541
To clarify, we "really" experience pain, just like we "really" experience the outside world even though we cant know for certain that it exists. That doesn't mean we believe there is a god, because to believe in a god one has to consciously acknowledge its actual existence and authority. Avoiding unpreferable phenomena is proof that you believe in the phenomena you're trying to avoid but its not proof that the phenomena is real. I did argue earlier in the thread that loving someone might indicate unconscious belief in God because you have to believe people exist in order to love them and people can only be real if God is there to grant that they aren't an illusion. If this is granted, perhaps avoidance of pain at least proves belief in oneself.

[Anonymous No.19898652]

>>19898608
meh, that is the choice to stay in the matrix, but your philosophy there cannot be scaled up to the level of everyone
of course there will be bugmen who will just do whatever the current system tells them, and we need their personalities because not everyone can rebel against the system according to their own philosophy or there would be chaos and humans would go extinct

but you can't pretend then that you want to be a righteous person, only a happy person
in which case when simulation booths or brain computer interfaces come out you should immediately get in and stay in, disregarding any dignity you have from that point forward to live in a land of anime sex where you can't experience pain
because why would you bother experiencing the pain of coming out and your family being sad or disappointed in you to have lost you for so long when you could live having anime sex at every second and never get tired?
which goes to the extent of wanting to change oneself so as not to ever experience pain, in which case you may become (as edited in a computer) a simulation of just one emotion: joy
so you can see how your argument degenerates into the probably opposite of what you really want

[Anonymous No.19898662]

>>19893972
>lit

[Anonymous No.19898681]

>>19898541
>It means that I don't want to experience pain
>It means
>Means
Well, you said it, my friend. Is there a reason you're incapable of admitting I'm right?

[Anonymous No.19898703]

>>19898681
Anybody can admit that pain has subjective meaning without believing in God. Its called solipsism.

[Anonymous No.19898711]

>>19898652
I don't pretend to be righteous and frankly i'm not even particularly interested in happiness. I feel firmly now that our species is a genetic dead end whom will never be able to live in functional societies I would consider to be acceptable. I'm not that familiar with Ted's 'solution' but I presume he has no answer for the fact that even if the system is brought down, humans will simply industrialise all over again.

My position is one of 'opting out'. I try to be good in an everyday sense but I am unconcerned with the general direction of humanity because I know it's not going anywhere good. So I cope and try to content myself with my brand of uninvolved, contemplative solipsism.

[Anonymous No.19898739]

>>19898703
>>19898681
Actually, you have enlightened me to something. Everyone knows the novelty of pleasure can expire, but what about the novelty of pain? Is there a limit past which pain cannot possibly be tolerated or habituated, no matter how long the pain endures? It would definitely seem more difficult.

[Anonymous No.19898814]

>>19898711
well then no one cares what you have to say on the matter

[Anonymous No.19898820]

>>19898711
you might as well say "life is hard" and spare us all the reading

[Anonymous No.19898876]

>>19895829
No it’s hedonism. The meaning is happiness. It’s that simple

[Anonymous No.19898942]

>>19898876
>No it’s hedonism. The meaning is happiness. It’s that simple.
Same thing, the point is that the "meaning" provided by responsibility is only novel and not metaphysical. Eternal meaning doesn't expire. That's why people can love one another for their entire lives and not get "bored" of loving, because to love you must believe that what you love is real, and unless skepticism overcomes the person that belief tends to last. Love is an eternal thing. Jordan Peterson's theory basically says that the only things that are eternal are abstract semantic categories and numbers, not individual souls.

[Anonymous No.19898991]

>>19898739
Now you're getting it.

Would you rather be in an infinite amount of pain or an infinite amount of pleasure?

Also, consider this ... any degree of perceptible sensation, in comparison to the oblivion of unconsciousness, is by definition painful. Pain is the floor, it's the one thing you WILL respond to as if it had inherent meaning because it DOES have inherent meaning.

Pain is the most real thing a conscious being can experience.

[Anonymous No.19899043]

>>19898991
>Would you rather be in an infinite amount of pain or an infinite amount of pleasure?
Just because my preference exists doesn't make my preference an objective quality of the cosmos, even if pain is unanimously avoided in all life forms besides some exceptional conditions.
>any degree of perceptible sensation, in comparison to the oblivion of unconsciousness, is by definition painful.
I don't see how this follows but I wont argue
>it's the one thing you WILL respond to as if it had inherent meaning because it DOES have inherent meaning
Inherent to my psyche, and materially inherent to my biology, but that does not make it inherent to the cosmos as a value. Even if it's inherent to all living things, to assume that proves the universe was created with objective metaphysical values is to assume that the existence of the psyche itself proves the existence of God, or that your consciousness is God. Again, solipsism.

[Anonymous No.19899143]

>>19893683
tl;dr but. if you just realized you can drive a truck through practically everything he says outside the field of psychology you are slow thinking. peterson is a midwit whose only skill is getting full of benzos to be relaxed enough to slay retard feminists on talk shows. I do think that popularizing some of motivational ideas to the younger gen are worth it though (it's better than having no direction and being confused). i suspect my life would've been better if I read some of his stuff in my youth.

[Anonymous No.19899222]

>>19899043
>Just because my preference exists doesn't make my preference an objective quality of the cosmos, even if pain is unanimously avoided in all life forms besides some exceptional conditions.
See, you keep saying that, yet you wont stab yourself in the hand with a knife. So, either you're a liar, or "mere" sensualism is your highest motivational influence.

"Look, I know you're stabbing me in the stomach with a chainsaw right now bro, but because pain isn't an objective reality, I'm simply choosing not to respond as if this qualia has any inherent motivational significance ... oh wait, I mean AAHHHHGGHHHH AGHHHAGHHGHHGHG

lmao

>Inherent to my psyche, and materially inherent to my biology, but that does not make it inherent to the cosmos as a value.
What's the difference between your subjective experience of reality and ... well, actuality itself? Are you not familiar with the phenomenological literature?

[Anonymous No.19899242]

>>19893683
>This brings the depressed person back to functioning
Truly depressed have physical issues or metabolism issues.

[Anonymous No.19899354]

>>19899143
>Human neuroscientists are frequently cortex centric, concentrating on the large prefrontal, temporal and parietal cortices that distinguish man most clearly from the animals – or, if not that, studying the structure and function of the underlying limbic system. But the really important circuitry, phylogenetically ancient and extremely sophisticated, is deep down in the central nervous system, near the brain stem. When the chips are down, it is the hypothalamus that is in control, not the cortex (and, if not the hypothalamus, then the periaqueductal gray (PAG), or something else equally demanding, interesting, and unpleasant). Basic motivation stems from activity in these low level, low resolution, high power, dominating circuits. In the case of aggression, the hypothalamus and PAG circuits underly negative-affect potentiated defensive rage, or incentive reward motivated sexual/predation/exporation. Diverse forms of pathologies or abnormalities, genetic, psychopharmacological, and developmental, likely undermine the capacity of finely differentiated, phylogenetically newer emotional and cognitive circuits to modulate these more ancient systems. Poor modulation, regardless of cause, produces chronic, situationally inappropriate, socially troublesome aggressive behavior, both predatory and defensive.
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/docs/230/2014/20Petersonaggression.pdf

Most of what he says in public is constructed to be consumed by the general public. Treating it as if it's philosophy and not just social commentary from a talking-head media figure is the pseud move. It's a pretty pathetic way to pat yourself on the back.

[Anonymous No.19899377]

>>19895749
>Power is that which overcomes resistance.
Good analysis and a necessary continuation of the thinking in the post your replying to. Reminds me of these lines from Geneology of Morals, second essay, which synthesizes a lot of this:

The man who can command, who is naturally a "master," who comes forward with violence in his actions and gestures—what has a man like that to do with making contracts! We cannot negotiate with such beings. They come like fate, without cause, reason, consideration, or pretext. They are present as lightning is present, too fearsome, too sudden, too convincing, too "different" even to become hated. Their work is the instinctive creation of forms, the imposition of forms. They are the most involuntary and unconscious artists in existence. Where they appear something new is soon present, a living power structure, something in which the parts and functions are demarcated and coordinated, in which there is, in general, no place for anything which does not first derive its "meaning" from its relationship to the totality.

If Peterson has read Nietzsche he hides it well, because the latter makes very clear in what ways the willful, the affective, and the formal/structural are inseperable, and Peterson is constantly revealing this.

[Anonymous No.19899414]

>>19899143
>>19899354
Neither of you know what you're talking about.

I guarantee neither of you have read Maps of Meaning.

[Anonymous No.19899422]

>>19893683
>I'm unsure of whether I believe he's unaware
Stopped reading here

[Anonymous No.19899451]

>>19899422
I admit, I knew I wasn't being honest when I said that. I don't believe he's unaware of this at all.

[Anonymous No.19899469]

>>19893683
you don't understand at all

[Anonymous No.19899494]

>>19899469
How so? Telling people to pursue goals in order to achieve positive emotion is like saying "move forward if you want to feel the force of motion". Well, the force of motion becomes habituated once you've reached your speed. The only way to continue the upward feeling is to continue accelerating. Human beings cant do this.

[Anonymous No.19899506]

I like your thread OP, but please for the love of God, press enter to divide your giant blocks of text from time to time like this guy right here>>19894816

[Anonymous No.19899563]

>>19899494
>Telling people to pursue goals in order to achieve positive emotion
> positive emotion
He doesn't. You're wrong. He says pursue goals to minimize long-term suffering, which is a very different thing.

[Anonymous No.19899576]

>>19899563
Still pragmatic, not religiously moral.

[Anonymous No.19899603]

>>19899563
If Peterson's theory were to minimize long-term suffering his advice would be a bullet to the brain

[Anonymous No.19899644]

>>19899414
I actually took his class before he blew up. That abstract/paper was on the reading list faggot (it's the lobster paper). Did you not even realize the greentext was written by Papa Peterson? Sad.

[Anonymous No.19899648]

>>19895749
>Power is that which overcomes resistance.
>Peterson's entire teaching is a refinement of the Will to Power.
Good analysis and necessary continuation of the post you're responding to. On the Rogan they go on to talk about the love of funny friends one-upping eachother and playing at power-roles in the circumscribed bounds of affection, but they don't address how they're lauding what is essentially a pleasurable power. Silly example perhaps but just to say these social formulations are embedded always. Reminds me of these lines from the Geneology of Morals, second essay, which synthesizes a lot of this:
>The man who can command, who is naturally a "master," who comes forward with violence in his actions and gestures—what has a man like that to do with making contracts! We cannot negotiate with such beings. They come like fate, without cause, reason, consideration, or pretext. They are present as lightning is present, too fearsome, too sudden, too convincing, too "different" even to become hated. Their work is the instinctive creation of forms, the imposition of forms. They are the most involuntary and unconscious artists in existence. Where they appear something new is soon present, a living power structure, something in which the parts and functions are demarcated and coordinated, in which there is, in general, no place for anything which does not first derive its "meaning" from its relationship to the totality.

If Peterson has read Nietzsche he does a good job of hiding it, else he wouldn't be so confused by the the willful, the affective, and the formal/structural, which are inseparable. But Nietzsche had his own reactionary and ahistorical aims for this.

[Anonymous No.19899652]

>>19899648
>>19896650, >>19896660 are related to these force-of-forms origins, which Nietzsche describes as possibly later developing into mythic categories and laws, removing them from history or the "merely" temporal, into a spectacle of both the eternal and natural. The implication is that all cycles and countercycles of history are just implements of this final inescapable metaform. Peterson definitely also rejects history in this way, always arguing from neurobiological as well as mythic grounds in his prescriptions.

>>19896793
>Jesus doesn't force, he welcomes.
This is rhetorically true, but Jesus is still a creator (like the Father), artist of boundary lines which describe a means of liberation. His bounds are those of a divine levelling and soteriological equality (eternal life, the will to this, denial of death). William Blake attaches deeply to this and denies all forms of organized religion precisely because they take Jesus' trajectory out of law and redirect it into their own hands, using the delineations Jesus created for their own earthly gains. The seeds of this reversion back to bonds and oppresion are necessarily present in Jesus simply for the reason that he proclaimed his message within history, I think is fair to say. Which then holds the seeds of further revolutions and returns, and so on.

[Anonymous No.19899758]

>>19893683
Why is this smug looking bitch even regarded as a philosopher?

[Anonymous No.19899828]

>>19899758
he's not. did you read this thread?

[Anonymous No.19900159]

>>19893683
Peterson's a cuck for the western frame of thinking and while he says some things that sound great, his overall message misses the mark because of what it lacks.

[Anonymous No.19901667]

OP here. Another point has entered my mind.
Jordan Peterson describes love as "when you desire and act out what is best for someone". Under examination this definition is absolutely absurd and almost makes me sympathetic to the people who call him a Nazi. People who love each other will often waste time together. According to Peterson's definition of love, those two people when they are wasting time together are acting loveless towards each other. Its as if to say you only love when you are strictly and logically scrutinizing your behavior constantly to make sure you aren't falling into slack. Obviously if Jordan Peterson were confronted with this point, he would say "oh that's the archetypal tyrannical father you're mistaking me for", but to that I would say "your social principles are 100% masculine (you only have masculine social archetypes to choose from) meaning that there is no Eros in your theory of socializing that serves to connect human beings to each other". His idea of self-improvement implies this Nazi like deference to responsibility that has a hole in it and love itself is going to drain through that hole.

[Anonymous No.19901690]

>>19893683
At the end of the day he is an angloid. More discipline=harder work=more utillity

[Anonymous No.19901719]

>>19901667
I mean look at his personal life and home much of a train wreck he is behind closed doors. "work will set you free" certainly doesn't seem to be working out for him and he stubbornly keeps adhering to it. All the money he makes didn't stop him from having a nervous breakdown and getting twisted on drugs, if his kids are any indication his parenting style certainly didn't do much for them either.

The tragic thing about him is that there is a grain of truth to what he says. That people do need to be productive and mind their own business. But he over focuses on that to the point of pathology. Like a carpenter who thinks all of his problems are nails if you get what I mean.

[Anonymous No.19901894]

>>19901719
>Like a carpenter who thinks all of his problems are nails if you get what I mean.
All of his advice is to use logic, which is discriminatory cognition, dividing the world into pieces without an essence that connects them. When someone starts logically reevaluating their behavior from their speech down to their body language it eventually creates a disbalance, especially when you use what he teaches to evaluate other people. He can't escape objectifying the human being. His idea that because Lucifer is the light bringer, the snake of intellect acts as the key to enlightenment, in the sense that with knowledge you can see things and use that vision to set the world straight. But there's another aspect of the light that he seems to miss, and that's that it either comes from the fire or from the sun, and both of those provide warmth and heat. When Peterson speaks of fire, he speaks of burning off the parts of you that are unworthy. He skips the part where if you don't have heat you freeze to death.

[Anonymous No.19901915]

>>19901894
And also, that would be exactly why his vision of an ideal human being insofar as he articulates it as a theory is antichrist. One aspect of Christ removed from and mistaken for his wholeness.

[Anonymous No.19901930]

>>19901667
I am intrigued by your idea of the "existence of the person". Or this post for example >>19895290
Or when you said "to love someone you must believe that they exist". I think I'm also tackling similar issues from more semantic, phil. of language perspective, and epistemology perspective. Where can I learn more about this "existence of the self"? If I'm breathing, doesn't it mean I don't need to doubt my existence anymore. I think we are into something that is close within grasp, though with different strategies.

[Anonymous No.19902001]

>>19901930
This post you quoted >>19895290 actually wasn't me
>I think I'm also tackling similar issues from more semantic, phil. of language perspective, and epistemology perspective.
That's actually where I come from as well, its all semantic.
>Where can I learn more about this "existence of the self"?
To be honest I don't know. Nietzsche seems to write about the I not being real, I don't buy that at all. I think Nietzsche's ideas of that plus his notion that you shouldn't pity or feel guilt are wrong (although I'm very careful about that because I'm weary of misunderstanding him) because to get rid of those feelings you have to get rid of empathy itself and I don't believe that psychopaths have as high a potential for power as people who wield the power of love most loyally and courageously. I think his error is that he mistakes vulnerability for weakness. Or maybe someone who reaches complete individuation or overmanhood transcends tragedy and no longer feels bad for people while still remaining capable of being happy for them, sensing and appreciating their emotions, etc.
>I think we are into something that is close within grasp, though with different strategies.
I think the problem is that you have to believe in order to be sane. It is impossible to hold together your psyche without belief. Jordan Peterson's theory accounts for that logically but it provides such a certainty that people lean on it and stop using the function in their brain that is belief itself. I believe that is why some people have extreme difficulty believing in God. In fact, I think that if a person like Peterson can't bring himself to believe in God after all he knows he probably has trouble believing in other people too.

[Anonymous No.19902017]

>>19893683
Meaning is derived from helping other people. His point is not just about setting a hedonistic goal. His thinking is more akin to Weber’s Protestant ethic and Grundvigt’s idea of nationalism.

[Anonymous No.19902078]

>>19902001
I think we have different background knowledge and (possibly) different semantics as well? I'm thinking about modality. There is a possible world where my father and mother didn't meet and thus I wouldn't be born. But then there's the problem of "I". If MY existence as MYSELF is contingent, does it mean that the "I" is necessary? I could have "inhabited" other person's body, or be born from my father and mother but being different gender than in this actual world and so on. So what happens is YOU and only YOURSELF has access to experience your own consciousness. Other people can only affirm our existence in terms of identities, man or woman, left wing or right wing, religious or atheist, and so on. But these are the necessary conditions of possibility to be perceived and affirmed by other people, but what they really perceive is in actuality contingent. When you see a cleaning staff at the McDonald's, there's a possible world where YOU inhabit his body, or the cleaning staff doesn't exist at all, or you don't exist at all as yourself, or either of cleaning staff or you exist at all, yet your consciousness is necessary and it has to inhabit some body though in different space, time, and contingent identities.

[Anonymous No.19902213]

>>19893683
>right winger grifter's ideology is dogshit
water is wet

[Anonymous No.19902236]

>>19902078
He spoke once about how the idea of free will seems to imply parallel universes that exist as potential and our consciousness exists to select which potential to make actual. But no matter what we are serving an ideal. So on a psychological level our consciousness is in a sense contingent upon the ideals/archetypes/deities we serve through our choices, which is ultimately the most real way to contextualize a person's true identity. Without belief in a God, the only way to escape solipsism is to either buy simulation theory or ignore the contradiction of a thing-in-of-itself without a creator or a substrate to objectively validate the existence of people and the meaning we consciously recognize. This seems to be the only way to solve the identity crisis.

[Anonymous No.19902246]

>>19897811
>gamestop power reward card
>road rage
>too much pasta
unironically and literally me irl rn

[Anonymous No.19902271]

>>19901894
>he speaks of burning off the parts of you that are unworthy.
So just as he objectifies the body, which is a kind of endless and ultimate utilization, he objectifies and utilizes "knowledge" as integral means to further this end? But
>He skips the part where if you don't have heat you freeze to death.
Which renders knowledge not just another util, like duty or emotion, but as constitutive to being itself?

In which case, the implication is: this necessary light, without which one dies, is the metaphor that without knowledge there can be no essential claims about the self, nothing is grounded and being (at least as idea) "freezes to death" in a baseless nihilism. So you're invoking epistemology, which he can't account for, his theory begs the question of question?

Or did you refer to fire and the sun in a far more literal sense than I took it?

[Anonymous No.19902285]

>>19902236
>our consciousness is in a sense contingent upon the ideals/archetypes/deities we serve through our choices
And here I say I disagree either with you or Peterson. Those "identities" seems "identical" to the consciousness inhabiting the body to an outsider's perspective, or to put it simply a posteriori. I'm not saying the individual doesn't feel the feeling of being a certain identity or archetype and so on. I'm just saying that those "identities" are ultimately contingent with your consciousness being necessary. Contingent but inescapable in our phenomenal world because it is the necessary mode of being perceived by others and to an extent by self, the purer form of mode would be space and time. But I postulate there's this "purer" consciousness that is necessary in all possible worlds but inhabits infinite possibilities either through space, time, or inescapable identities such as sex.

[Anonymous No.19902422]

>>19902271
>In which case, the implication is: this necessary light, without which one dies, is the metaphor that without knowledge there can be no essential claims about the self, nothing is grounded and being (at least as idea) "freezes to death" in a baseless nihilism. So you're invoking epistemology, which he can't account for, his theory begs the question of question?
Pretty much. Peterson's well refined model of the Logos has to be complimented by belief or else the Eros is lost and nihilism evolves into some kind of antisocial psychopathy.

[Anonymous No.19902483]

>>19902285
>I'm not saying the individual doesn't feel the feeling of being a certain identity or archetype and so on.
I didn't mean to imply that people were archetypes. Archetypes are a part of a person, not their whole. They serve archetypes, but they have free will so they can choose not to, by serving different ones instead. The ultimate Jungian Individual is technically "self-serving".
>I'm just saying that those "identities" are ultimately contingent with your consciousness being necessary.
If you're saying your consciousness constitutes an identity, I agree.
>But I postulate there's this "purer" consciousness that is necessary in all possible worlds but inhabits infinite possibilities either through space, time, or inescapable identities such as sex.
Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.19902738]

>>19902483
>can you elaborate?
One night I was wondering what makes "me" "me"? Is it necessary for me to be born on this body? What if my father and mother didn't meet? Will I be born at all? Then I realized that it is necessary for my consciousness to exist. It might be from a different parents, different sperm, different genetic expression that will yield 'me', but my consciousness is necessary. The "I" in the subject cannot be reduced to identity such as male, communist, rich person, or whatever. But we are always accustomed when referring to other person, "Anon is a man", so that Anon will internalize that "I" is necessarily a man, basically I'm opposed to essentialism. What happened to majority of posters of /pol/, their reactionary opinions stem from radical essentialism. They see these "jews" as trying to subvert basic values, basic identities, so their reaction is to become as essentialist as possible, mainly about sex, I have to admit that sex is one of the hardest identity to "overcome" but ultimately it is not necessary in all possible worlds. That's why, I think a good example is men usually are easily gaslighted. Because they have this "built-in ontology" that men are supposed to be strong, take on challenges no matter hard, if men are getting shitted on in society today, it's not the society's fault, it's the man's fault that he's not "man enough", it's the man's fault for not taking the responsibility that are imposed on them because they're not "man enough". Things like this deteriorate the soul because most people can't get over the rigid designator between "I" and the most prevalent identity, sex. That's why upon not meeting societal expectations on what "a man" is, many become troons because they want to ease up the contradiction. I'm a man. But society told me that I'm not man enough. Therefore, I don't exist. It is enough to induce terrifying existential crisis.

[Anonymous No.19902814]

>>19902738
>men are gaslit by essentialism
This is a good take and further evidence of obsession with identity politics on all sides.

But I disagree that consciousness is the sole determinant of self, which is also an essentialist claim, just with a different object. Are you gnostic or christian? What about your body, you experience it singularly and you’ve never been conscious in its absence. It’s through your body that you experience sensually all contingency.

[Anonymous No.19902829]

>>19902738
>What if my father and mother didn't meet? Will I be born at all? Then I realized that it is necessary for my consciousness to exist. It might be from a different parents, different sperm, different genetic expression that will yield 'me', but my consciousness is necessary
I don't understand how you arrive at this. Do you mean that because your soul was created by God you had to have been born by someone?

[Anonymous No.19902853]

>>19902814
I view consciousness in more of a 'tabula rasa' view in which your consciousness is "colored" by the constituent of your body, including your brain and also of events happening to and around you up to this point, and yes, those events are partly influenced by the constituent of your body, attractive people gets more pleasant events that constitute their experiences, and so on. Perhaps I'm a dualist, but I'm not sure what type of dualist I am, substance dualism seems unlikely, so perhaps property?

I was baptized Catholic but lately my faith has been waning, or maybe I have no faith in the first place, I don't know. I'd say I'm irreligious but I can't say that I'm an atheist. Lately I've been fascinated by the realm of a priori such as pic related. So yes, God, consciousness, all these transcendent entities can only be "reached" through a priori means. Is it possible? Kant seems to disagree.

[Anonymous No.19902858]

>>19902738
>that men are supposed to be strong, take on challenges no matter hard, if men are getting shitted on in society today, it's not the society's fault, it's the man's fault that he's not "man enough", it's the man's fault for not taking the responsibility that are imposed on them because they're not "man enough".
The masculine principle isn't driven to "take on any challenge no matter how hard". It can be expressed that way if the person is very immature but as soon as a man becomes at all mature they aim for efficiency. That's Peterson's ideal of walking the line of order and chaos, challenging yourself enough that you're learning but not overwhelmed. What you're describing sounds more like a god complex, being resentful or disenfranchised over the fact that you're not ideal.

[Anonymous No.19902863]

>>19902829
The way I see it, "events" are contingent. Since there is a relationship between consciousness and identity, in which identity is shaped by events, then the consciousness is the necessary part of the "self". There's no way to verify its truth, but there's no way to verify its falsity either, so I guess we can get closer to "truth" only by means of logic.

[Anonymous No.19902886]

>>19902853
>So yes, God, consciousness, all these transcendent entities can only be "reached" through a priori means. Is it possible? Kant seems to disagree.
Drugs, fasting, sleep/light deprivation, etc.

[Anonymous No.19902937]

>>19902863
>There's no way to verify its truth, but there's no way to verify its falsity either, so I guess we can get closer to "truth" only by means of logic.
I suppose so, seeing as I arrived at this criticism of Peterson's theory by means of logic. Although its logic that indicates a sort of yielding to irrationality.

[Anonymous No.19904467]

>>19902853
you might find Spinoza's single substance with multiple attributes, such as intensive mind and extended matter, of which thoughts and bodies are modes, interesting. It's a kind of rationalist mysticism.

[Anonymous No.19904585]

>>19901719
>look at his personal life
I think this seeming hypocrisy between theory and personal consequences has a naturalizing, objectifying effect. His inability to be happy could be seen not as discrediting, but as actually bulwarking for the very reason that it relegates claims to an objective realm ("order" and so on), implicating subjective effects are beside the point. Which lends a sense of sacrifice and submission to truths greater than consumptive liberal decadence.

Ironically this goes full "facts dont care about your feelings" mode but replacing "facts" with tenuous utilities from a range of unsynthesized "proofs": myth, Bible, evo-psych, socio-economic political shit, common sense, spectre of communism. So meaning isn't consciously replaced by emotionality or power per se, but some impersonal "order" drawn bricolage from all these. Peterson's life both proves and belies this.

[Anonymous No.19904769]

>>19904467
Yeah, but wasn't he a hard determinist? In my view, only consciousness is necessary, everything else is contingent.

[Anonymous No.19904775]

>>19893972
tldr to your tldr

[Anonymous No.19905052]

>>19904769
I would say Spinoza designates consciousness (tho he might say mind or specifically intellect, both rational and intuitive) as the site of possible freedom through knowledge regarding affective determinism. But I’m still unclear just how this freedom differs from his conception of power and love of God. The final book of his Ethics is titled “Of the Power of the Intellect, or of Human Freedom”

>The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed along with the body, but something of it remains, which is eternal. Book 5 Proposition 23

Not saying you’re crypto-Spinozist, just that you might find him worth reading.

[Anonymous No.19905073]

You're all just arguing over the metaphysics of illogical thinkers and I hate every single God damn one of you fucking monkeys

[Anonymous No.19905137]

>>19905052
Thanks! I'll definitely check him out after I'm finished with my reading list. Do you have a suggestion on secondary literature? I heard Spinoza is a difficult writer.

[Anonymous No.19905203]

>>19905137
Honestly I’m still searching for good secondaries myself, just read the Ethics last month. The Hackett introduction was helpful.

[Anonymous No.19906409]

>>19904585
>Which lends a sense of sacrifice and submission to truths greater than consumptive liberal decadence.
He's not submitting to truths, he's submitting to facts.
>Ironically this goes full "facts dont care about your feelings" mode but replacing "facts" with tenuous utilities from a range of unsynthesized "proofs": myth, Bible, evo-psych, socio-economic political shit, common sense, spectre of communism. So meaning isn't consciously replaced by emotionality or power per se, but some impersonal "order" drawn bricolage from all these. Peterson's life both proves and belies this.
Yes but the more you analytically derive utilitarian interpretations of these things you're just extrapolating facts from the material and are left without any higher truth to believe in. That's the ironic thing about Peterson; the "truth" he stands for is actually beneath him, not above him. That's what happens to people who can't stand believing in things so they build factual structures to do the work for them.

[Anonymous No.19906535]

>>19896073
>he hasn't heard of learned helplessness
Read Ray Peat. Rats with limited external freedom and monotonous routines become nihilistic; they choose to take morphine (when presented with either water or morphine) and die off much earlier than freer rats, who chose water over morphine.

[Anonymous No.19907764]

>>19906535
>Rats with limited external freedom and monotonous routines become nihilistic; they choose to take morphine (when presented with either water or morphine) and die off much earlier than freer rats, who chose water over morphine.
Yes, limited external freedom and monotonous routines. That's unnatural. Unlike humans, rats do not become nihilistic when they are not suffering from practical deprivation. They aren't deprived of God, they're deprived of the natural conditions they are meant to live in. People with normal lives that aren't synonymous with the issues the rats were dealing with can become nihilistically depressed intellectually.

[Anonymous No.19907767]

>>19893972
based, reading is for fags

[Anonymous No.19907832]

>>19907764
In fact, this is exactly what separates humans from animals. Our free will is the capacity to believe voluntarily. The more intellectually refined we become, the lazier we become with regards to using our faculty of belief and the more antisocial we become.

I read a paper on psychopathy which hypothesized that it is actually an attention disorder rather than an emotional one. Psychopaths when tested proved to almost exclusively respond to threat-related stimuli when compared to non-threatening stimuli. Psychopathy is an illness where the person is only capable of rational cognition and has no empathy or connection to others, basically a solipsist. Well, Lucifer is the light bringer, and the snake in the garden of Eden. Intellect is that which allows us to see, allowing us to become more godlike, but the means by which we access vision is through sin, which is doubt. By doubting we literally use the part of our brain that detects threats, because the only reason you doubt is because once you're aware of untruth, truth becomes a problem.
So if you were to discover the objective path to positive emotion and harmonious righteousness with others and the world, leaving only the gap of faith between you and a literal God, you become a psychopath.

[Anonymous No.19907842]

>>19907832
>So if you were to discover the objective path to positive emotion and harmonious righteousness with others and the world, leaving only the gap of faith between you and a literal God, you become a psychopath.
if you don't choose to believe in God.*

[Anonymous No.19907974]

>>19907764
How confined you to your environment in reality is a product of your mind. Very rare people are literally enslaved by the system, they are just too helpless to realize their potential freedom.

If you realize you're under the authority of God only, you don't fear other men, but God alone. It does provide a kind of freedom in the mind, in my experience

[Anonymous No.19907989]

>>19895749
Off topic but I was reading Rene Girard and he mentioned something about a scene where a bunch of cannibals laughed around a dying corpse (hypothetically) and how people bond over sacrifice, which is a form of ritual domination

[Anonymous No.19908037]

>>19893683
It was enough for me to know that he believes in evolution, therefore I don't have to take him seriously.