jacob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:17 am
I just finished the "12 rules for life" book and I think it would have been clearer had it contained more diagrams and equations
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
jacob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:17 am
I mean most of the rules are about how not to be/act/like/feel like an idiot, no? That's of course a good thing. I was expecting a bit more though.
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.
but over the last 2 years or so, brute has realized more and more that the current generation of young (male? or all?) humans does not learn these basic facts any more. it might be an unintentional side effect of both parents working, of single parenthood, or maybe, as JP claims (it's fun to call him JP), because Judeo-Christian values have become lost.
there are now so many substitute father figures on the internet, and young male humans (it seems to be mostly males) are flocking to them. brute finds it positively amusing, but maybe there really is a lack of father figures in the lives of those young humans, something that brute and Dear Leader jacob's generation has not experienced? brute wouldn't say his own male parental unit was a glorious example of manhood, but thinking back, there were definitely "men" around. in culture, being a man was not portrayed as negatively as it is today. grandfathers were around, and they were tough as nails. neighbors with rifles chased kids off their lawn. even if each individual father might not have been perfect or around all the time, there was a general concept of fatherly figures present in communities and in culture. nowadays, the closest thing to those figures is Ron Swanson, who's the comic relief on a sitcom.
and if there is a need for internet father figures, JP is probably not the very worst possible. brute has seen some other ones, some he likes better, some he likes worse. most of them are less preachy and abstract than JP, some of them are more hateful. most of them, if they become popular enough, develop something of a guru personality, just like JP has in brute's opinion. maybe guruism is just what happens if a human is revered by enough other humans.
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.
oh god, really? brute finds JP a catastrophic speaker. interestingly, it's not the exact same criticism that Dear Leader jacob has.
brute's mind is actually largely full of narratives, stories, and analogies. but very few of them are about biblical and mythological stuff. sure, brute has heard of some or even most of those stories, but they really don't connect on an emotional level. just like DLj (heh) connects emotionally with Star Trek fan fiction, brute has his own personal canon.
thus, when speaking in allegories and metaphors, humans run into the risk of landing mostly NullPointerExceptions when they try to hit the allegories and metaphors in the other human's mind.
in addition, JP is one of the most confused, rambling humans brute has ever heard speak. it is really just as DLj describes the randomized Bob Ross. brute has listened to JP speak for 30 minutes straight without having an idea what he said.
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.
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.
but hey, if it helps some young male humans, and they don't follow the more hateful father gurus out there (alt right or woman hating or whatever), sure. JP seems like a relatively harmless one for now.