The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Silhouette » Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:43 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:You use a lot of words for saying less than nothing.
Get on the fucking topic. This is my thread and I don't want your wretched apologies here.

Dude it was DIRECT fucking response to what your lackey said, sticking solely to his terms, nothing more.

If you want to trump up accusations, drop your stupid tribalism and direct them to the instigator - at least pretend to be objective.

Aside from falling straight into my demolition of him yourself: simply stating that I am saying less than nothing with zero explanation - the fact that you think my actual explanations of my views is "less than nothing" is really quite telling. You've really gone downhill, mate. Disrespect.

And this post thus far is also nothing more than a direct response to what YOU have just said to me - if you don't want me to respond to some off topic baiting, don't continue it by directing your own off-topic things to me. Stick to leading by example like you did in your next post. We done now? It's up to you and your partner from here - he has nothing on me anyway so we ought not to expect more of his actual "less than nothing" (as actually explained by me rather than merely stated like by both of you).

Now, "on the fucking topic", at least by reference to JP, I am honestly not surprised in the least that I've not heard him even hint at VO thus far - and claiming he incorporated into his temperament is straight-up Narcissism. I agree with some of what you say about Zizek, and like the term psychoanalyst-analyst. But quite clearly his application to Hollywood fables has worked given his fame exceeding that of Peterson - though I am not sure if JP won't overtake him seeing as he is riding right on the crest of a wave of fashionable thought whether intentionally or not. Also, JP does the exact same thing to Disney fables and perhaps to as wide a range of film as on which Zizek comments - I don't remember listening to him extending his commentary to Hollywood just yet but I would be extremely surprised if we wasn't interested and opinionated on it though - seeing as it would be highly applicable to his line of work. However, perhaps your beef was not in the application to Hollywood, but in the way Zizek does it where JP's application might be a bit more up your street - assuming his take would be of any interest to you at all.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:12 pm

Silhouette wrote:
UrGod wrote:I like to study the insanity, the mindless deathfetish that 'people' like you represent. For some reason it fascinates me, the morbid nothingness of it. Probably because I am the exact polar opposite value as you, I represent and value pure life itself, truth, being; therefore whatever manages somehow to do literally none of that, would arouse my curiosity.

I am indeed an expert on such things, having studied them up close for so long.

Of course I would be tempted to say that you would do well to get over yourself and start doing the real work. Ask real questions, for one thing. Pause, think, re-evaluate. Get into a legitimate conversation. But I won't say it, because I recognize there is zero chance of you saving yourself from the hell-vortex trip you are on. This is fate. Idiocy and non-being are facts of this existence, thanks to strange eddies in how valuing logistics manage to unfold in complex multi-tectonic environments; you are free to acquire value (existence) from others at their expense, and so you do that. Never learning how to actually... exist.

What makes you think that the exact opposite isn't true - that the words you say above don't in fact apply precisely to you instead of me, and that I couldn't just as justifiably say the exact same thing about you? I genuinely think the exact same thing about you. Why exactly is it more justified coming from you rather than me? Explain yourself properly for once.


Because I happen to be right, and you happen to be wrong. On this issue anyway.

The modal number of lines you've written in each of your posts for the last 25 you've made is 1. You average 4 lines and your median is 2.


What lies? Please identify them. Unsourced statistics are... boring. At least cite your sources or make your point coherently.

You say next to nothing, if anything at all. What you do say is formulaic and unoriginal, and that one time I remember posting something of length, probably uncharacteristically spread out over more than 1 post I seem to remember, it was literally pure description of just a small number of your views with zero explanation, simple reiteration of the same sentiments that were already quite predictable from just a few of your shallow previous 1- or 2-liner posts. There is pure nothingness to justify your absolutely bafflingly high opinion of yourself. I explain the logic behind my analyses, go through contingencies, advance conversations and am agonisingly self-critical in all of my opinions, willing to re-think them - even actively trying to disprove them myself and to draw out disproofs from others.


absolutely bafflingly high opinion of yourself



This is what justifiably demonstrates me to represent truth, and by extension, life and values that are in line with it. Your approach of simply stating things, either minimally, or repeating the same minimal statements over and over is exactly the same kind of nihilism and death shown in religion, particularly Islam, that states that one simply need to take the words of the Quran for what they are, and that it says the final truth and that no more thought is needed. As for existing though, both you and I appear to do that fine...

You can go ahead and say something along the lines of "is there a point in there at all?" like you usually do (also with zero analysis or justification of any meaning to such a question), or just drop a meme, but this is more of the same of what I have just described about your style - you will only be proving my point. Equally, if you simply make re-iterated statements about how great you think you are (it's YOU who needs to get over yourself) and give descriptions of what your views are in numerous different ways without explaining anything, then you will also only be proving my point.

In short, you have zero reason to accuse me of any of the things you have accused me of, and I have every reason to accuse you of them.


I ask you to make a point because... you don't actually make one. You make assertions, with nothing to back them up.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:03 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
JP errs quite often but always on the side of caution. This means his errors aren't interfering with his successes. They are just standalone statements too conservative to apply to this insane world.


A good example of this is when asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: "I think the proper response to that is No, but I'm afraid He might exist".

Something happens to a person when they have an overload of intellectualism and Peterson is 'guilty' (for want of a better word) of this. What he dismisses is and what Jung wrote that to understand the world only by the intellect limits our perception of it, it cannot be denied that we apprehend it just as much by feeling. "Therefore the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy,” something I could not see Peterson agreeing with, although my understanding of the man is limited to date. I find the man sort of "stressful", similar to Camille Paglia and to my surprise there is a vid with both Peterson and her in discussion. I challenge anyone to watch it to the end, all 1 hour 43 minutes. She is the perfect example of the liberated woman who falls into the trap where she loses the vital link with her feminine identity, consequently finding herself in a double bind situation. I found nothing new or unique in either of them, in fact I suspect there is more wisdom in the man on the street, than either of them.

Modern Times: Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson
https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:34 pm

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:
JP errs quite often but always on the side of caution. This means his errors aren't interfering with his successes. They are just standalone statements too conservative to apply to this insane world.


A good example of this is when asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: "I think the proper response to that is No, but I'm afraid He might exist".

Something happens to a person when they have an overload of intellectualism and Peterson is 'guilty' (for want of a better word) of this. What he dismisses is and what Jung wrote that to understand the world only by the intellect limits our perception of it, it cannot be denied that we apprehend it just as much by feeling. "Therefore the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy,” something I could not see Peterson agreeing with, although my understanding of the man is limited to date. I find the man sort of "stressful", similar to Camille Paglia and to my surprise there is a vid with both Peterson and her in discussion. I challenge anyone to watch it to the end, all 1 hour 43 minutes. She is the perfect example of the liberated woman who falls into the trap where she loses the vital link with her feminine identity, consequently finding herself in a double bind situation. I found nothing new or unique in either of them, in fact I suspect there is more wisdom in the man on the street, than either of them.

Modern Times: Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson
https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM


I have seen that video, a couple of times. I think it’s great and I saw nothing wrong in what Paglia said, where do you think she is mistaken? What “double bind” is she stuck in?
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Silhouette » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:11 pm

UrGod wrote:Because I happen to be right, and you happen to be wrong. On this issue anyway.

He states. Well, I'll simply state that I happen to be right and you happen to be wrong, and I'll be just as justified as you in simply stating such a thing. Still not quite got the hang of backing up statements with justification have you? - as evidenced by the fact that you don't recognise them when I use them:

UrGod wrote:I ask you to make a point because... you don't actually make one. You make assertions, with nothing to back them up.

Let me formalise a lesson for you. An example of an explanation is what I say about JP's understanding of Marxism:

1. As I linked, he thinks Marxists are characterised by wanting to have a go at being in Stalin's position, thinking they'd do the job better than Stalin.
2. Both Socialism and Communism are defined by not having Totalitarian rulers like Stalin, with the State:
(a) in Socialism ruled collectively by the working class, not by an elite leader or group of elite leaders, or
(b) in Communism, as stated by Lenin, with the State "withered away", with rule again collective but devolved to individual Communes that interact with one another in a decentralised way.
3. "1" and "2" are incompatible by definition, therefore a Marxist is not characterised by wanting to have a go at being in Stalin's position as JP states - meaning either
(a) JP has got his definition of Marxism wrong or
(b) he is mistakenly classing people as Marxists when they want to have a go at being in Stalin's position.

Hopefully now you better see the structure of a logical explanation such as I have been using so far, and to which I refer when I say I am using explanations in contrast to your approach.

Also note the correct definition of Socialism that I used as opposed to how the American layman misuses it to describe their own indirectly democratically elected political elites assigned to moderate their Capitalism. The correct term for this is "Social Democracy". Socialism is without Capitalism altogether by definition, because nobody is permitted to use money as capital: thereby making everybody working class as defined by their use of money not as capital but just for consumption. They are all thus able to be grouped together under this one term, however they retain all their individual differences in all other ways with all their inequalities in comparison to one another, and any inequality in reward is still present if such is the wish of the Commune, which they decide themselves, it's not decided by any central State or State-like body. And yes, you can move to another commune or start your own if your current one isn't to your liking.

The most depressingly funny thing is that once "anti-leftists" hear the actual definition of these terms, they are usually faced with the horrifying realisation that they actually fit with their own economic ideals! On the off-chance that you are one of these, welcome to the actual left.

UrGod wrote:
Silhouette wrote:The modal number of lines you've written in each of your posts for the last 25 you've made is 1. You average 4 lines and your median is 2.

What lies? Please identify them. Unsourced statistics are... boring. At least cite your sources or make your point coherently.

Haha! This is gold, he can't even read :lol:
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:54 pm

Silhouette wrote:
UrGod wrote:Because I happen to be right, and you happen to be wrong. On this issue anyway.

He states. Well, I'll simply state that I happen to be right and you happen to be wrong, and I'll be just as justified as you in simply stating such a thing. Still not quite got the hang of backing up statements with justification have you? - as evidenced by the fact that you don't recognise them when I use them:

UrGod wrote:I ask you to make a point because... you don't actually make one. You make assertions, with nothing to back them up.

Let me formalise a lesson for you. An example of an explanation is what I say about JP's understanding of Marxism:

1. As I linked, he thinks Marxists are characterised by wanting to have a go at being in Stalin's position, thinking they'd do the job better than Stalin.
2. Both Socialism and Communism are defined by not having Totalitarian rulers like Stalin, with the State:
(a) in Socialism ruled collectively by the working class, not by an elite leader or group of elite leaders, or
(b) in Communism, as stated by Lenin, with the State "withered away", with rule again collective but devolved to individual Communes that interact with one another in a decentralised way.
3. "1" and "2" are incompatible by definition, therefore a Marxist is not characterised by wanting to have a go at being in Stalin's position as JP states - meaning either
(a) JP has got his definition of Marxism wrong or
(b) he is mistakenly classing people as Marxists when they want to have a go at being in Stalin's position.

Hopefully now you better see the structure of a logical explanation such as I have been using so far, and to which I refer when I say I am using explanations in contrast to your approach.

Also note the correct definition of Socialism that I used as opposed to how the American layman misuses it to describe their own indirectly democratically elected political elites assigned to moderate their Capitalism. The correct term for this is "Social Democracy". Socialism is without Capitalism altogether by definition, because nobody is permitted to use money as capital: thereby making everybody working class as defined by their use of money not as capital but just for consumption. They are all thus able to be grouped together under this one term, however they retain all their individual differences in all other ways with all their inequalities in comparison to one another, and any inequality in reward is still present if such is the wish of the Commune, which they decide themselves, it's not decided by any central State or State-like body. And yes, you can move to another commune or start your own if your current one isn't to your liking.

The most depressingly funny thing is that once "anti-leftists" hear the actual definition of these terms, they are usually faced with the horrifying realisation that they actually fit with their own economic ideals! On the off-chance that you are one of these, welcome to the actual left.

UrGod wrote:
Silhouette wrote:The modal number of lines you've written in each of your posts for the last 25 you've made is 1. You average 4 lines and your median is 2.

What lies? Please identify them. Unsourced statistics are... boring. At least cite your sources or make your point coherently.

Haha! This is gold, he can't even read :lol:


So.... no sources then?
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Silhouette » Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:49 am

UrGod wrote:So.... no sources then?

Urgh :icon-rolleyes:

Yes, primarily "The State and Revolution" by Lenin, Chapter 1, section 4, pg 19 in my book starts by looking into Engels' words about the withering away of the state during the transition from Socialism to Communism.

Also the derivation of the word "commune" is from the suffix "co-" and "munis" which mean "together" and "working". Not one guy ruling everyone...

Logic 101 can tell you all about contradiction.

And best of all, this thread is my source for you reading the word "line" as "lie".

When have you ever quoted a source? If you ever didn't, would it invalidate your argument? Where is your source on the definition of appeal to authority? :-"
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:48 am

Silhouette wrote:
UrGod wrote:So.... no sources then?

Urgh :icon-rolleyes:

Yes, primarily "The State and Revolution" by Lenin, Chapter 1, section 4, pg 19 in my book starts by looking into Engels' words about the withering away of the state during the transition from Socialism to Communism.

Also the derivation of the word "commune" is from the suffix "co-" and "munis" which mean "together" and "working". Not one guy ruling everyone...

Logic 101 can tell you all about contradiction.

And best of all, this thread is my source for you reading the word "line" as "lie".

When have you ever quoted a source? If you ever didn't, would it invalidate your argument? Where is your source on the definition of appeal to authority? :-"


So no actual... quotes, then? No ideas, no arguments?

Just, like, this one book on this one page like said it! Geez! Like, cmon like, dude do your homework!





T
O
P

K
3
K
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:49 am

I wish that you were not insane. I sincerely mean that.


I really do.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Silhouette » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:05 am

UrGod wrote:So no actual... quotes, then? No ideas, no arguments?

The beginning of the section is an entire quote of Engels by Lenin, douche.

I bet you didn't even check. Geez! Like, cmon like, dude do your homework!

I wish you were not insane. I sincerely mean that.


I really do.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:44 pm

Silhouette wrote:
UrGod wrote:So no actual... quotes, then? No ideas, no arguments?

The beginning of the section is an entire quote of Engels by Lenin, douche.


Yep, I just looked again, and no quote. Maybe you are delusional?

You do realize there is no quote in this, right?

Yes, primarily "The State and Revolution" by Lenin, Chapter 1, section 4, pg 19 in my book starts by looking into Engels' words about the withering away of the state during the transition from Socialism to Communism.

Also the derivation of the word "commune" is from the suffix "co-" and "munis" which mean "together" and "working". Not one guy ruling everyone...

Logic 101 can tell you all about contradiction.

And best of all, this thread is my source for you reading the word "line" as "lie".

When have you ever quoted a source? If you ever didn't, would it invalidate your argument? Where is your source on the definition of appeal to authority?
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Silhouette » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:26 pm

Remind me to never underestimate how much you need babysitting, of course you don't own a Leftist book, never mind this one. Have you even read one and bothered to find out the actual position of the left that you are so certain you are against? I'll hold you to the same standards and assume that if you can't quote one then it never happened 8-[

Also, it's incredibly funny how you're asking me for direct quotes when your current signature is "Reality is just a racist lie, invented by male troglodytes." --Feminism
Not a person, not a source, and nobody ever even said that, right? No wonder you are so suspicious of others just making up shit they took out their own asses - it's because you habitually do it yourself! Classic projection.

The entire section I mentioned is packed full of commentary about the withering away of the State as Socialism transitions into Communism, no need for a single quote, but if it will shut you up and help you to realise that your whole cause against the left is utterly unfounded (haha, yeah right, as if that would even cross your mind even if you were shown proof)....

The section literally starts:
"Engels' words regarding the "withering away" of the state are so widely known, they are so often quoted, and so clearly reveal the essence of the customary counterfeiting of Marxism into opportunism that we must deal with them in detail."
Marxism involves the withering away of the state in Engel's own words as quoted by Lenin - how does this reconcile with state-authoritarian oppression by a Totalitarian leader like Stalin - as told to you by opportunists. Yes, let's delve into this one in detail....

How about this gem in the same section:
"The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not 'abolished', it withers away."
There is no government of people, no egalitarian oppression. Not people, but THINGS and their production are planned, and again not by any state which withers away. He is referencing Anarchism when he contrasts Communism to the State being 'abolished'.

He describes the State thus:
"as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state."

Need I go on? There is nothing more to repress once the class domination of Capitalism (the anarchy of production existing up to now/the struggle for individual existence) is eliminated, as opposed to being present and merely moderated as under Social Democracy e.g. in the contemporary USA and much of the more developed countries of the West.
THERE IS NOTHING NECESSITATING A STATE UNDER COMMUNISM.

Now Jordan Peterson:
And then when the Marxists say "well that wasn't real Marxism", what it really means, and I've thought about this for a long time - it's the most arrogant possible statement anyone could ever make. It means "If I would have been in Stalin's position I would have ushered in the damn Utopia instead of the genocidal massacres because I understand the doctrine of Marxism and everything about me is good". It's like "well think again, Sunshine".

Excellent punchline, ignorant content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSzpc2vh8Ow 4:44-5:09

Do you even remember who told you that Stalinism was Communism? Sources? Quotes? I would be completely unsurprised if you weren't aware of the particular point when you were indoctrinated because it happens over a long period of time and is undetectable by fools, even until the point where they believe it blindly, unrelentingly and will even fight for it without even the slightest doubt and urge to fact check. Wake up.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:18 am

UrGod wrote:
I have seen that video, a couple of times. I think it’s great and I saw nothing wrong in what Paglia said, where do you think she is mistaken?


I gave her as an example only of how she gives her presentation similar to Peterson, I have no interest in debating her wisdom or lack of and it would deviate from the OP's original topic.
What “double bind” is she stuck in?


To answer briefly your question of her double bind, there is only one way, I think, and that is to put it colloquially, she is a ball buster, mimicking what seems like a male attitude, insisting with that annoying unstoppable flow of talk her unyielding convictions and to me she appears to be someone who pursues and values only the intellect. Coupled with intelligence, women do have a specific biological identity which is nurturing and receptiveness, but she seems more concerned with liberating women from the feminine and down playing their intuitiveness. Simone de Beauvoir is also a member of this sisterhood. I think women in general should be warned against sacrificing their personal instincts and feeling for 'ideals', that doesn't mean we have to surrender any modicum of intelligence given to us.

:-k there are women on this Forum who may or may not disagree with this, but it probably should be located in another topic not this one. wouldn't want to incite the wrath of the OP.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:34 am

You never knew a good, truly feminine woman who is a ball buster?

Man, that sucks for you. Your loss.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:41 am

https://youtu.be/qzt6Q-LHbFg

Jordan Peterson in Australia, that was news for many, had no idea he was here.

A rather disjointed interview with Bettina Arndt an Australian sex therapist, journalist and clinical psychologist.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:46 am

UrGod wrote:
You never knew a good, truly feminine woman who is a ball buster?

Man, that sucks for you. Your loss.


Let me tell you, there’s not one man out there who enjoys having his balls busted by a woman.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:51 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:UrGod wrote:
You never knew a good, truly feminine woman who is a ball buster?

Man, that sucks for you. Your loss.


Let me tell you, there’s not one man out there who enjoys having his balls busted by a woman.


Ball busting women only bust the balls of men who deserve it. And rightly so.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby URUZ » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:57 am



Modern day Morrison.

This guy has a truly beautiful soul.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Silhouette » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:09 am

UrGod wrote:This guy has a truly beautiful soul.



Here he is speaking publically about liberals (from 20:30) and how they are creative, open to experience, they lead the vanguard and are the ones who change/transform the world, they drive the economy forward, are absolutely necessary, you need them at the top and getting conservatives (who aren't/don't do these things) to understand is like discussing colour with someone who is colourblind - all his words.

Truly a beautiful soul indeed.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:14 am

I think his understanding of what creativity is is quite crude. He repeats the Romantic idea that creativity is something mysterious and irrational, which I think is non-sense. Creativity is simply the ability to create things that are original, which means things that are different from everything that preceded them. The act of creating things that are original, you will note, is a task like every other; it is in no way lacking in form. It's a labor is what I want to say. There is nothing that is inherent to creativity that stops employers from creating creative job positions and filling them with creative people. The notion that creative people can't follow orders is dumb. If people can't follow orders it's not because what they want to do is formless, it's because what they want to do is different from what they are asked to do. The problem is that noone is offering them the kind of job they would like to do which simply means that no employer thinks they need their contribution. It does not mean that employers are lacking in creativity, it means they don't need it, that they don't think they would benefit from it. Creativity isn't inherently good. Past a certain point, innovation makes no sense and you're better off repeating with pinpoint precision what has been done in the past.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users