Knx

3y

yep.

he's a right wing disguising as a centrist.

also has brought up plenty of studies done by nazi's in his speeches.

"to be clear, I'm not saying Jordan B. Peterson is a nazi; I'm just saying, he definitely would have been."

s***, this video explained it clearly. Very in depth, well done, he definitely did proper research.
a very long video, though, has taken me like week to finish.

maxx

3y

i have a youtube playlist of songs i like with 90k views lol

rather late

3y

Hes build up a following an right wing twitter for years. I remember dude from when i was into politics

maxx

3y

ill never understand the urge to defer your entire information intake to a filtered secondary or tertiary source as anything but laziness when the source material is freely and easily available in english like yes mr youtube man loserlectual video essayist i dont read or think so im glad you read and thought for me, now tell me my opinion give me my thoughts!

Knx

3y

Brother I do not take anything you say seriously.

Every single time I’ve seen some of your posts in other threads, it’s always got to do with some sort of racism, red pill bullshit.

A troll indeed.

maxx

3y

ill never understand the urge to defer your entire information intake to a filtered secondary or tertiary source as anything but laziness when the source material is freely and easily available in english like yes mr youtube man loserlectual video essayist i dont read or think so im glad you read and thought for me, now tell me my opinion give me my thoughts!

cold mountain

3y

yes bro he should read every peterson work and listen to each lecture before he comes back and calls him a rightoid shill even though it's transparently obvious that's a good one my bro

way to assume he didn't engage with any of his material before posting this too btw, keep grasping at straws

maxx

3y

why are you like this?

americana

3y

Because you’re an embarrassing human

maxx

3y

dont gaslight me

americana

3y

You’re simply proving my point

maxx

3y

Jordan Peterson’s theory of motivation and perception in Maps of Meaning, which he uses as the basis for his unique psychotherapeutic approach, has nearly articulated the most effective and efficient means of achieving positive emotion and social harmony while minimizing long-term suffering. He has lifted thousands if not millions out of nihilistic depression by publicly teaching that positive emotion can only be obtained by means of pursuit, by setting goals and acting responsibly towards them to make them achieved. He has taught the structures of personality in a concise manner accessible to the average viewer by incorporating principles of Jung, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, and Piaget among others into what many people have called “the secret order beneath common sense”, or a revivification of the eternal Logos. The problem with Jordan Peterson’s solution to modern nihilism is subtle yet profound. What Jordan Peterson teaches as the path to “meaning” is really only a path to novelty. The distinction drawn here is simple: meaning is eternal because it comes from belief in a metaphysic, which describes the significance of the universe as objective from a third-party perspective (the word of God); novelty is finite because its significance is subjective and not believed in metaphysically, thereby rendering it subject to entropy. In other words, meaning lasts, novelty decays. If this distinction is correct, it means that even if Peterson has discovered the means by which novelty can be renewed, the novelty of the renewal of novelty is both subject to entropy and impossible to sustain. To explain by a***ogy, Peterson’s method of harvesting positive emotion through goal pursuit requires an understanding of emotions as feelings of psychological movement. When sitting in a car, one can only feel the force of motion as they accelerate, not when they are idle or moving at a constant speed. Peterson’s method of novelty renewal implies the need to accelerate indefinitely forever to “outrun” the entropy of novelty. Objectifying the human experience in this way creates a d***-addicted relationship between a person and their capacity for positive affect that gradually requires greater and greater dosages over time until the user perishes. On Joe Rogan’s podcast, Peterson candidly stated that the will to power is a psychopathic postmodern ideological mistake. Intentional or not, his hypocrisy could not possibly be more ironic. In order to understand it, the definition of “power” must be examined closely. Peterson describes power as “the ability to impose will onto the world”, using examples that involve materialistic domination and the arbitrary pursuit of success in hierarchies. But earlier in the podcast he brought himself to tears over the metaphor of musical harmony and human flourishment. As he recalls a Ramones concert where the crowd became like a collective spirit in ecstatic unison, he wept in awe of one thing: power. Musical catharsis is powerful, and artistic quality is described in terms of power. Power is that which overcomes resistance. From this perspective it is easy to understand Nietzsche’s definition of happiness, “the feeling that a resistance is overcome”; boredom is an entropic effect, and suffering is a precondition of life. When there is social awkwardness among people in a room, and someone tells a well-timed joke, the awkwardness (resistance) is overcome by humor as laughter spreads. The people laughing become more powerful in that moment by transcending the resistance of awkwardness. Power in that they can tolerate greater resistance (laughter is the best medicine), in that the sensation they feel is powerfully potent (joy), and in the sense that laughter is contagious, like the power of music, so that it overcomes people. In this sense, power has nothing to do with the imposition of will onto the world. Power enables but is not defined by opportunity and control. Even if one argued that the will of the musician is imposed on the listener, they would not escape the fact that sounds in nature, such as thunder, rain, wind, and the ocean also have an aesthetic power. The idea of harvesting positive emotion by taking responsibility for your potential out of pragmatism is identical to the will to power. Peterson’s description of the will to power as fundamentally psychopathically motivated is correct, yet his work only serves to refine it. Peterson has explained his definition of love during conversations and Q&A sessions on YouTube. He described it as “acting out the desire for someone’s best interests”. This definition is erroneous because people who love each other often love to waste time together, and nobody in their right mind accuses two lovers or best friends who waste their time together of being callously loveless towards one another. Though obviously absurd when examined, this definition is the backbone of Peterson’s teaching and is the concealed will to power that renders his work both useful and dangerous. Johnathan Pageau, an Orthodox Christian and friend of Peterson, has very similar ideas regarding a phenomenological worldview and symbolic meta-narratives, but defines love as “diversity within unity”. His definition is more sophisticated than Peterson’s because it articulates the balance between the individuality Peterson attempts to perfect and the collectivism he rejects to an idiosyncratic fault. People who love each other, are healthy, and don’t suffer from attachment issues are both unified and diverse among each other simultaneously. Without diversity there can be no individuality but without unity people are antisocial. Peterson tries to account for this by stating that social behavior involves reciprocation, but that does not help at all because reciprocity is the same as teamwork and psychopaths are completely capable of that. All reciprocity means is cooperation, and that does not require empathy. Peterson’s theory is dangerously incomplete because its logical conclusion is solipsism. Peterson attempts to solve the postmodern problem of canonical interpretation by articulating personality at such a sophisticated level that he turns social values into a pragmatic science, thereby objectifying the human being despite his stated attempt at intellectualizing sovereign individuality as the divine principle. Peterson’s “Architecture of Belief” removes the necessity for belief because the values people previously either chose or did not choose to believe in are now understood objectively as tools. Peterson acts as though he has rekindled the meaning of traditional values, but all he has really done is turn old values into facts. This means that Petersonian ethics are completely dominated by the principle of Logos (discriminative cognition), and completely devoid of the Eros (connective cognition, belief). The danger is simply this: in order to love a person, and to not merely use them as an object to facilitate growth and power, be that power aesthetic, pragmatic, or tyrannic, you must believe they exist. In order to believe someone exists, you must believe that there is a canonical interpretation of the cosmos provided by a third party, or else you enter a cognitive dissonance by either ignoring or being ignorant of the problem of perception, or by assuming your own consciousness can possess independent and absolute knowledge of truth, or in a word, God. It is here that ignorance literally becomes bliss. This hypothesis is supported by psychological research. A study found that fear-potentiated-startle (FPS) in psychopaths is exclusively moderated by attentional focus rather than the intensity of the uncontrolled stimulus. Psychopaths only displayed FPS when the threat-positive stimulus interfered with the goal they were focusing on at that moment. The researchers concluded that psychopathy may be an attention deficit, rather than an emotional one, as threat-positive stimuli would always bypass their attention when it was peripheral to their current object of focus. Peterson refines this goal-directed psychological state by applying his theory of personality and motivation to an ethical doctrine of radically individualistic pragmatism. Every object, person, activity, and moment under Peterson’s ethics become pragmatized as a means, including the concept of God itself. Psychopaths function almost exclusively on discriminative cognition, as they only believe in values that exist between them and their conscious aims. Because radical individualism does not permit the existence of motivation outside of self-interest (as Peterson admits when describing his definition of love) the value of other people’s emotions becomes pragmatized in a manner that is incompatible with compassion and empathy because both require the capacity to identify with other people (otherwise the needs of other people cannot be valued as an end in themselves, only a self-interested means). Discriminative cognition requires threat detection, otherwise there would be no value distinction between good and bad, true and false, obstacle and facilitator. There would be no reason to think unless you were threatened by problems, and problems only are problems when they are threatening. If people learn to act primarily according to logical discrimination, and to stop using their faculty of belief, the psyche will become dominated by the separation of things and deprived of connection itself. Logic brings enlightenment, just as the serpent in the garden of Eden brought knowledge of good and evil, and Lucifer is the lightbringer. The process by which enlightenment is discovered is called “doubt”. Peterson’s entire framework is built on and aimed at the reduction of all phenomena to an objective system so that we are intellectually equipped to know as much as we can about ourselves without faith. But as Nietzsche and Jung described Christ as a symbol of the self having overco

maxx

3y

Jordan Peterson’s theory of motivation and perception in Maps of Meaning, which he uses as the basis for his unique psychotherapeutic approach, has nearly articulated the most effective and efficient means of achieving positive emotion and social harmony while minimizing long-term suffering. He has lifted thousands if not millions out of nihilistic depression by publicly teaching that positive emotion can only be obtained by means of pursuit, by setting goals and acting responsibly towards them to make them achieved. He has taught the structures of personality in a concise manner accessible to the average viewer by incorporating principles of Jung, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, and Piaget among others into what many people have called “the secret order beneath common sense”, or a revivification of the eternal Logos. The problem with Jordan Peterson’s solution to modern nihilism is subtle yet profound. What Jordan Peterson teaches as the path to “meaning” is really only a path to novelty. The distinction drawn here is simple: meaning is eternal because it comes from belief in a metaphysic, which describes the significance of the universe as objective from a third-party perspective (the word of God); novelty is finite because its significance is subjective and not believed in metaphysically, thereby rendering it subject to entropy. In other words, meaning lasts, novelty decays. If this distinction is correct, it means that even if Peterson has discovered the means by which novelty can be renewed, the novelty of the renewal of novelty is both subject to entropy and impossible to sustain. To explain by a***ogy, Peterson’s method of harvesting positive emotion through goal pursuit requires an understanding of emotions as feelings of psychological movement. When sitting in a car, one can only feel the force of motion as they accelerate, not when they are idle or moving at a constant speed. Peterson’s method of novelty renewal implies the need to accelerate indefinitely forever to “outrun” the entropy of novelty. Objectifying the human experience in this way creates a d***-addicted relationship between a person and their capacity for positive affect that gradually requires greater and greater dosages over time until the user perishes. On Joe Rogan’s podcast, Peterson candidly stated that the will to power is a psychopathic postmodern ideological mistake. Intentional or not, his hypocrisy could not possibly be more ironic. In order to understand it, the definition of “power” must be examined closely. Peterson describes power as “the ability to impose will onto the world”, using examples that involve materialistic domination and the arbitrary pursuit of success in hierarchies. But earlier in the podcast he brought himself to tears over the metaphor of musical harmony and human flourishment. As he recalls a Ramones concert where the crowd became like a collective spirit in ecstatic unison, he wept in awe of one thing: power. Musical catharsis is powerful, and artistic quality is described in terms of power. Power is that which overcomes resistance. From this perspective it is easy to understand Nietzsche’s definition of happiness, “the feeling that a resistance is overcome”; boredom is an entropic effect, and suffering is a precondition of life. When there is social awkwardness among people in a room, and someone tells a well-timed joke, the awkwardness (resistance) is overcome by humor as laughter spreads. The people laughing become more powerful in that moment by transcending the resistance of awkwardness. Power in that they can tolerate greater resistance (laughter is the best medicine), in that the sensation they feel is powerfully potent (joy), and in the sense that laughter is contagious, like the power of music, so that it overcomes people. In this sense, power has nothing to do with the imposition of will onto the world. Power enables but is not defined by opportunity and control. Even if one argued that the will of the musician is imposed on the listener, they would not escape the fact that sounds in nature, such as thunder, rain, wind, and the ocean also have an aesthetic power. The idea of harvesting positive emotion by taking responsibility for your potential out of pragmatism is identical to the will to power. Peterson’s description of the will to power as fundamentally psychopathically motivated is correct, yet his work only serves to refine it. Peterson has explained his definition of love during conversations and Q&A sessions on YouTube. He described it as “acting out the desire for someone’s best interests”. This definition is erroneous because people who love each other often love to waste time together, and nobody in their right mind accuses two lovers or best friends who waste their time together of being callously loveless towards one another. Though obviously absurd when examined, this definition is the backbone of Peterson’s teaching and is the concealed will to power that renders his work both useful and dangerous. Johnathan Pageau, an Orthodox Christian and friend of Peterson, has very similar ideas regarding a phenomenological worldview and symbolic meta-narratives, but defines love as “diversity within unity”. His definition is more sophisticated than Peterson’s because it articulates the balance between the individuality Peterson attempts to perfect and the collectivism he rejects to an idiosyncratic fault. People who love each other, are healthy, and don’t suffer from attachment issues are both unified and diverse among each other simultaneously. Without diversity there can be no individuality but without unity people are antisocial. Peterson tries to account for this by stating that social behavior involves reciprocation, but that does not help at all because reciprocity is the same as teamwork and psychopaths are completely capable of that. All reciprocity means is cooperation, and that does not require empathy. Peterson’s theory is dangerously incomplete because its logical conclusion is solipsism. Peterson attempts to solve the postmodern problem of canonical interpretation by articulating personality at such a sophisticated level that he turns social values into a pragmatic science, thereby objectifying the human being despite his stated attempt at intellectualizing sovereign individuality as the divine principle. Peterson’s “Architecture of Belief” removes the necessity for belief because the values people previously either chose or did not choose to believe in are now understood objectively as tools. Peterson acts as though he has rekindled the meaning of traditional values, but all he has really done is turn old values into facts. This means that Petersonian ethics are completely dominated by the principle of Logos (discriminative cognition), and completely devoid of the Eros (connective cognition, belief). The danger is simply this: in order to love a person, and to not merely use them as an object to facilitate growth and power, be that power aesthetic, pragmatic, or tyrannic, you must believe they exist. In order to believe someone exists, you must believe that there is a canonical interpretation of the cosmos provided by a third party, or else you enter a cognitive dissonance by either ignoring or being ignorant of the problem of perception, or by assuming your own consciousness can possess independent and absolute knowledge of truth, or in a word, God. It is here that ignorance literally becomes bliss. This hypothesis is supported by psychological research. A study found that fear-potentiated-startle (FPS) in psychopaths is exclusively moderated by attentional focus rather than the intensity of the uncontrolled stimulus. Psychopaths only displayed FPS when the threat-positive stimulus interfered with the goal they were focusing on at that moment. The researchers concluded that psychopathy may be an attention deficit, rather than an emotional one, as threat-positive stimuli would always bypass their attention when it was peripheral to their current object of focus. Peterson refines this goal-directed psychological state by applying his theory of personality and motivation to an ethical doctrine of radically individualistic pragmatism. Every object, person, activity, and moment under Peterson’s ethics become pragmatized as a means, including the concept of God itself. Psychopaths function almost exclusively on discriminative cognition, as they only believe in values that exist between them and their conscious aims. Because radical individualism does not permit the existence of motivation outside of self-interest (as Peterson admits when describing his definition of love) the value of other people’s emotions becomes pragmatized in a manner that is incompatible with compassion and empathy because both require the capacity to identify with other people (otherwise the needs of other people cannot be valued as an end in themselves, only a self-interested means). Discriminative cognition requires threat detection, otherwise there would be no value distinction between good and bad, true and false, obstacle and facilitator. There would be no reason to think unless you were threatened by problems, and problems only are problems when they are threatening. If people learn to act primarily according to logical discrimination, and to stop using their faculty of belief, the psyche will become dominated by the separation of things and deprived of connection itself. Logic brings enlightenment, just as the serpent in the garden of Eden brought knowledge of good and evil, and Lucifer is the lightbringer. The process by which enlightenment is discovered is called “doubt”. Peterson’s entire framework is built on and aimed at the reduction of all phenomena to an objective system so that we are intellectually equipped to know as much as we can about ourselves without faith. But as Nietzsche and Jung described Christ as a symbol of the self having overco

le epic poster xD

3y

Common Tate W