I read The Subtle Art Of Not Giving A Fuck and I found it more in my wheelhouse.
His time in the limelight has been quite brief, and he was propelled there by his free speech crusade, not his academic pursuits. Everything I've watched of his was either the "political" stuff or talks related to Maps of Meaning, I think generally taken from the course lectures that either led to, or derived from, the book. I guess what I like most about him is his ability to stand firm and clear in the face of the sometimes dubious rhetorical landscape of politically motivated social discussion/debate. Some of his ideas about psychology pique an interest in me (psychology is not an area I've invested much time in beyond taking an MBT assessment, so I wouldn't know Jungian traditionalism if I tripped over it) and lately I've been hungry for something to read outside the usual fare. Might be a waste of time and effort.ZAFCorrection wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:09 pmThat being said, beyond the self help I get the vibe that he is the guy who, having found a hammer (Jungian traditionalism), sees nails everywhere and won't be told otherwise. It might be asking too much to expect public intellectuals to be continuously holding themselves up to scrutiny.
I disagree. Everything in our perceptual world is a narrative or story. Our individual and group identities, what things are important, what they mean etc. These are all stories. A culture is just a set of stories shared by a group of people. Prosperous cultures propagate their stories.
I'm pretty sure the book Descartes' Error has been discussed here. Its about the Somatic Marker Hypothesis. People with damage to emotion processing areas of the brain can't make decisions. To decide on an action means to have an *emotional* preference about the outcome. (Philosophy is the "love" of wisdom. Science is the pursuit of truth insofar as truth is *desirable*.) Physiology influences emotion, which influences values, which influences behavior, which influences decisions. (Behavior comes before "decisions", because the conscious mind will rationalize our behavior after the fact. [Confabulation])
jacob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:05 pmIn short, I think it's myopic to insist that all humans use narratives to explain the world. It reminds me of myself when I was 19 and had discussions about just that thing. I was absolutely sure that other people run internally on formal logic in which every conclusion derived from individual underlying axioms. Just like me! Insofar two people every disagreed on something it was either because the axioms differed; because one had incomplete information; or because there was a formal error in the derivation of the conclusion. It took me a long time to accept that many people make decisions based mostly on feelings.
maybe Dear Leader jacob should leave an angry 1-star review on Amazon, citing the lack of diagrams and equations, and how the book was not nearly abstract enough and too actionable
brute holds a similar opinion of JP. the 12 rules seem.. fine. but they're like the Wheaton level 1 (or whatever) equivalent of FIRE: "1.Get out of debt, 2.Build an X month safety buffer, 3.Live below your means". Not wrong, just... so fundamental.
oh god, really? brute finds JP a catastrophic speaker. interestingly, it's not the exact same criticism that Dear Leader jacob has.ThisDinosaur wrote:I was disappointed by the book (12 rules...). And I think its mainly because I think he's a better speaker than a writer.
most of JPs ramblings eventually compute to "wtf is he talking about" in brute's mind, and then get filtered out for insufficient signal to noise ratio.Jordan Peterson paraphrased wrote: And it's, like, what are they even talking about? Look at the biblical story of Herp Derp, and he's, like, a lobster too! And by that I don't mean literally he's a lobster, but he's an animal, is he not? Animals are immoral! But that's what the neomarxist left doesn't want to accept! They're like, we like to have sex with lobsters, so fuck you JP! But it's just the nature of truth that <complicated philosophical term used incorrectly> begets <something completely unrelated>! So the lobsters are like, biblical figures, and the same is seen in all religions and metaphors and the greek mythology had the story of X, and it's like, they're all connected! So all of humanity is founded on this common theme of <something completely unrelated>, but gender pronouns are a clear violation of truth. and by truth I mean the flight of the arrow, the arrow strikes true, arrows predate truth. the usefulness of the arrow is inherent in its truth, it striking the target, thus the Aristotelian purpose of truth is to be useful, going back to the lobster.
Evaluating the defective specimens is an excellent way to figure out how the more typical specimens work. Some people suffer depression and other pathologies when they lose those allegories. From personal experience, going from theist to non-theist can lead to an unpleasant sense of meaninglessness. Psychology is a mess of a science, so there is a lot of room for someone like Peterson improve on it. He's helping large numbers of people find meaning in responsibility and becoming useful to the tribe. That's tentative evidence that its not all bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0jacob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:19 pm
Add: One thing I found fascinating (from the prefix) was JP's fascination with totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. He decorates his living space with old posters from the USSR (did he get them on eBay?) as a reminder of the danger when people go wrong. He makes continual references to Dostoyevsky (I've read Notes, Karamazov, and Crime) and Solzhenitsyn (I've read nothing, but it sounds like I should). There are some comments about the recent rise of authoritarian national-populism in the US and parts of Europe (Poland, Hungary, Turkey). I would like to see/hear more about his thoughts on that. Also Asia (China and Cambodia). Maybe there is youtube stuff?