Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jordan Peterson interview on C4
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
His views are probably a result of being involved in campus life which seems to have taken a turn towards the utterly Orwellian.
Feel free to collapse those arguments while you're here anyway
True enough, I imagine he has clocked this aspect of the problem at close range for a long time. However, the guy is a very intelligent adult, obviously a 'global' thinker, and can add more than one and one together logically.
This is why his glaring omission of half the causal picture is so curious. As well, he seems to be committing a fundamental attribution error in blaming the 'other side' in a way that suggests its output is a result of wrong thinking and corrupt values. The guy is a clinical psychologist, so to say he has no insight into the circumstance and psychological motivations of the other side is some sort of political nonsense.
After this, it's a case of discerning what his politics consist of. Since the potential for more trouble in society goes up with every fundamental angle he willfully ignores, there's a distinct chance that his claim of being most concerned about the fate of the west is not quite true. He's a psychologist, so there's a chance that his desire to help young western people overrides everything else. Except that he most certainly knows that the future of the western world depends mostly on the harmonious realignment of men and women, -- not on winning a war for his bank balance, being adored by throngs of lost men, or even successfully bolstering their self-esteem.
So, this is the basis of my criticism here. To attempt to address the apparent imminent failure of the western world, both men (lost in malaise), and women (apparently lost in willfully illogical entitlement) -- and both parties lost in necessary group-think, have all got to be rehabilitated. Peterson most certainly understands this, he also understands that economic and social factors can produce exactly these flavours of negative affects according to multiple variables, including gender.
According to this, if his desire and interest is as comprehensive and far reaching as affecting the future of the western world, his approach is without the full complement of his understanding and capability. But then again, we have no idea what the guy is really thinking, what his long-term plan may look like (according to indications now, it looks like he's entrenching himself behind a 'one side' barricade for the foreseeable future), and how he really conceives of the issue.
My best guess is that he thinks the error on the 'other side' is a failure of logic, a kind of braindead selfishness, which if accurate, should be dispellable with legions of logically secure, unapologetic men. Which might eventually solve and re-balance things, if the system to be addressed was actually a dichotomy, and the other side willful enactors of destruction.
In my opinion, Peterson knows this is not just wrong, but impossible. The rise of post-modernist thought is related to the specific mode and social effect of modern economics. Neo-feminism is ostensibly the response of young women with a reactive narcissism issue (related to the boom and false expectations), and a very obvious loss of compassion and concern, for themselves, others, and the future. The malaise in men that Peterson is responding to is more complex, and has been building slowly for as long as the west has made an effort to screen out 'male aggression' via parenting and within society.
Anyway, I hope that Peterson moves to either modify his approach to match what he claims his overall aim is, or, modifies his stated interest to match his apparent approach. By not addressing more of the more complete picture, or orienting his followers positively towards this picture, he doesn't seem to mind the devil having to take the hindmost. A most modern approach, in some ways
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Intothesea wrote: »True enough, I imagine he has clocked this aspect of the problem at close range for a long time. However, the guy is a very intelligent adult, obviously a 'global' thinker, and can add more than one and one together logically.
This is why his glaring omission of half the causal picture is so curious. As well, he seems to be committing a fundamental attribution error in blaming the 'other side' in a way that suggests its output is a result of wrong thinking and corrupt values. The guy is a clinical psychologist, so to say he has no insight into the circumstance and psychological motivations of the other side is some sort of political nonsense.
After this, it's a case of discerning what his politics consist of. Since the potential for more trouble in society goes up with every fundamental angle he willfully ignores, there's a distinct chance that his claim of being most concerned about the fate of the west is not quite true. He's a psychologist, so there's a chance that his desire to help young western people overrides everything else. Except that he most certainly knows that the future of the western world depends mostly on the harmonious realignment of men and women, -- not on winning a war for his bank balance, being adored by throngs of lost men, or even successfully bolstering their self-esteem.
So, this is the basis of my criticism here. To attempt to address the apparent imminent failure of the western world, both men (lost in malaise), and women (apparently lost in willfully illogical entitlement) -- and both parties lost in necessary group-think, have all got to be rehabilitated. Peterson most certainly understands this, he also understands that economic and social factors can produce exactly these flavours of negative affects according to multiple variables, including gender.
According to this, if his desire and interest is as comprehensive and far reaching as affecting the future of the western world, his approach is without the full complement of his understanding and capability. But then again, we have no idea what the guy is really thinking, what his long-term plan may look like (according to indications now, it looks like he's entrenching himself behind a 'one side' barricade for the foreseeable future), and how he really conceives of the issue.
My best guess is that he thinks the error on the 'other side' is a failure of logic, a kind of braindead selfishness, which if accurate, should be dispellable with legions of logically secure, unapologetic men. Which might eventually solve and re-balance things, if the system to be addressed was actually a dichotomy, and the other side willful enactors of destruction.
In my opinion, Peterson knows this is not just wrong, but impossible. The rise of post-modernist thought is related to the specific mode and social effect of modern economics. Neo-feminism is ostensibly the response of young women with a reactive narcissism issue (related to the boom and false expectations), and a very obvious loss of compassion and concern, for themselves, others, and the future. The malaise in men that Peterson is responding to is more complex, and has been building slowly for as long as the west has made an effort to screen out 'male aggression' via parenting and within society.
Anyway, I hope that Peterson moves to either modify his approach to match what he claims his overall aim is, or, modifies his stated interest to match his apparent approach. By not addressing more of the more complete picture, or orienting his followers positively towards this picture, he doesn't seem to mind the devil having to take the hindmost. A most modern approach, in some ways
While I don't really agree with that, at least this is a fair argument against his approach thats actually listening to what he is saying (and not saying).
I am not a mega fan of his from the rather limited amount I have watched and read most of the stuff he says and the stands he takes shouldn't be taken as extreme, they may be debatable but its the attempt to paint the opinions as extreme rather than coming from a fairly classical tradition thats the important part.
I would also be doubtful that he got into this for the money, his profile has been rising pretty sharply for the last 12 months but he was knocking around before that and his real job is pretty prestigious and well remunerated, this isn't a 20 something year old guy with a webcam trying to cash in on the gamer-gate crowd.
Something thats not brought up very often in discussion about him is that he is operating from within a Canadian context, Canada isn't Ireland, the UK or the USA, its in my opinion a deeply conformist society more similar to some of the European countries, how one conforms has changed but that deeper social force hasn't, thus his push back is pretty meaningful.0 -
Intothesea wrote: »Anyway, I hope that Peterson moves to either modify his approach to match what he claims his overall aim is, or, modifies his stated interest to match his apparent approach. By not addressing more of the more complete picture, or orienting his followers positively towards this picture, he doesn't seem to mind the devil having to take the hindmost. A most modern approach, in some ways
Lots of good points there but Peterson does speak about a wide variety of topics at a huge variety of levels since I started following his work. He tells postmodernist radical leftists to stop blaming the boogeyman and he tells young men to sort themselves out. He appears to me to propose individualism (and individual responsibility) as the best chance for society as a core ideology and is critical of postmodernist collectivism and their antics.0 -
-
RDM_83 again wrote: »I would also be doubtful that he got into this for the money, his profile has been rising pretty sharply for the last 12 months but he was knocking around before that and his real job is pretty prestigious and well remunerated, this isn't a 20 something year old guy with a webcam trying to cash in on the gamer-gate crowd.
Something thats not brought up very often in discussion about him is that he is operating from within a Canadian context, Canada isn't Ireland, the UK or the USA, its in my opinion a deeply conformist society more similar to some of the European countries, how one conforms has changed but that deeper social force hasn't, thus his push back is pretty meaningful.
(cantdecide, my response to your points is buried in this helter-skelter )
True, it's likely that Peterson's Canuck-ness gives his initial appraisal of the problem a more local spin. That is, he'd be without first-hand awareness of neo-feminism (not tangible in America at least), for example. His picture would still be complete though, including his supposed source for all increases in postmodern thinking in the West: universities.
And I agree, his general output is very valuable when gauged in one way: his ability to reach and inspire young men to confidently stand up straight in this modern economic/social milieu. After that, it's a question of why this milieu is so hard to stand up in. If young men are missing their strong cores of self-belief in the west, can the cause really be as one-sided and simple as university teachings? Can a modern style of thinking that people adopt by political or psychological necessity be responsible?
It's not much a matter of opinion to say that the way in which we conduct modernity, that is, economic and economically-derived social policy, is involved in creating conditions that hurt our most vulnerable people the most, and provoke the very issues that Peterson is blaming. That is, the system that Peterson knows by definition he has to address includes a fair appraisal of people who by necessity manifest a post-modern approach to interpreting reality. Neo-feminists are manifesting illogical modes of deconstructionist thinking as a weapon to fight for their rights in the modern system. They only appear to be hellbent on destruction, hard as it may be to believe when you 'talk' to one.
They are, in effect, fighting for what they feel is their entitlement in a way that makes no concessions to other people, or the future, and ostensibly to their future selves. Where could this supremely selfish and unthinking response come from? Where have emotional intelligence and compassion disappeared to?
Peterson's approach is ultimately analogous, in that legions of men (well-educated in the mode that Pumpkin4life outlines above) are being instructed to use their logical rightness to counteract an apparent contingent of willful destructors. That is to say, Peterson is failing to address reality, likely reality, or even emotionally-logically inferred reality.
As a clinical psychologist none of this is beyond him. This is why he can be accused of deliberate bipartisanship in a compound complex system (and of risking greater polarization between the 'sides'), with the cause of his one-sided approach being attributable to only a few possibilities:
- He's an undying, uncritical fan of the neo-liberal economic and social approach. This seems plausible.
- He's profiting in cash and fame without having to carry out any actual work as he formerly defines it. The script he's giving his followers seems to be a selection of his pet intellectual and philosophical theories -- ones that enabled him to take up such a strong position in defending modern western economic and social policy.
It can't be missed, his insistence that although our present system 'isn't perfect', it's still the best you can get anywhere in the world!
This is what he says before taking naturally-occurring aspects of the failures of the current system to task anyway 0 -
Intothesea wrote: »(cantdecide, my response to your points is buried in this helter-skelter )
True, it's likely that Peterson's Canuck-ness gives his initial appraisal of the problem a more local spin. That is, he'd be without first-hand awareness of neo-feminism (not tangible in America at least), for example. His picture would still be complete though, including his supposed source for all increases in postmodern thinking in the West: universities.
I'm not sure there if your saying he would or wouldn't have first hand experience of neo-feminism.
If your saying he wouldn't that's just not the case, he's not in say Alberta he's Toronto based which is super progressive and under Trudeau there could be viewed as a real feeling that it's about saying the right thing with no deeper thought to quote himself "because it's 2015". Dont believe me look at Black lives matters interactions with Pride or M.Atwood getting heat.0 -
Sorry RDM, I was guessing that since neo or standard feminism is undetectable in America that it would be likely to be similar in Canada. I can't decide which side of the fence is worse
Though I understand the picture you're talking about, a city that is saturated with modern-day progressives managing to bend public expression to neo-liberal snowflake levels of illogical hypersensitivity.
I'd like to address things like the snowflake phenomenon, optional-gender-labeling, and neo-feminism in more detail later.
And maybe look at how snowflakes can convince people around them to go with their take -- including people who didn't grow up in conditions that would produce a snowy response. So far, it's fair to say the mind boggles 0 -
Intothesea wrote: »Sorry RDM, I was guessing that since neo or standard feminism is undetectable in America that it would be likely to be similar in Canada. I can't decide which side of the fence is worse
Though I understand the picture you're talking about, a city that is saturated with modern-day progressives managing to bend public expression to neo-liberal snowflake levels of illogical hypersensitivity.
1: I'd like to address things like the snowflake phenomenon, optional-gender-labeling, and neo-feminism in more detail later.
2: And maybe look at how snowflakes can convince people around them to go with their take -- including people who didn't grow up in conditions that would produce a snowy response. So far, it's fair to say the mind boggles
I'm going to have a bash at this.
1: The education system and the increased compartmentalization of modern life. Creches. The aul pair both working. The atomization of the individual. Also the fact that teachers in the public sector tends to be people who are typically more leftist and compartmentalized themselves. Also more and more women running the education system. Nearly all of my teachers in school were women for example. What this results in is an environment whereby suffering and conflict are avoided as much as possible. The problem is, is that life is suffering and horrible events happen all the time to people. As Peterson has talked about in that Channel 4 interview, women are far more agreeable than men are. What happens when an institution gets dominated by women? They become more agreeable, which can have some terrible results.
A lad in the 1950s say would have grown up in a more fractured (in someways) environment, known that life is tough and built up the emotional resilience to bad things in life.
A lad in the 2000s was told when he was bullied to tell the teacher and ignore him and all the problems will magically go away. The bad thing happens.
He folds. Big difference.
It's a pavlonian dog response. Block all the stress out by banning it. PTSD response. Gender labelling is narcissism. Neo feminism is its own thing entirely which is another post in itself.
2: Convergence. One of the biggest tech companies in Dublin add points to people who are notably leftist, minority, gay, some wan, in terms of interviewing. Unspoken. Big. People hire people like themselves, so often what you're seeing is the less extreme brushing off again the more extreme. In addition, most people are sound lads and don't like firing people or getting in rows with people. Finally, people I think are becoming more mentally ill in general, so you get like hiring like and a "eh sure, be grand like, even if he's a bit of a psycho lad."
There's more too, but those are the least batshìt insane ideas that I have. I'll add the other ones later cause it's me lunch break.0 -
I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear on the point you are making so forgive me if I have misconstrued it, it isn’t deliberate.RDM_83 again wrote: »Intothesea wrote: »(cantdecide, my response to your points is buried in this helter-skelter )
True, it's likely that Peterson's Canuck-ness gives his initial appraisal of the problem a more local spin. That is, he'd be without first-hand awareness of neo-feminism (not tangible in America at least), for example. His picture would still be complete though, including his supposed source for all increases in postmodern thinking in the West: universities.
I'm not sure there if your saying he would or wouldn't have first hand experience of neo-feminism.
If your saying he wouldn't that's just not the case, he's not in say Alberta he's Toronto based which is super progressive and under Trudeau there could be viewed as a real feeling that it's about saying the right thing with no deeper thought to quote himself "because it's 2015". Dont believe me look at Black lives matters interactions with Pride or M.Atwood getting heat.
In terms of Peterson ignoring why people are turning towards Post Modernism, I think you have a point, He does address it but I don’t think he addresses it in a complete sense that relates to the current social and economic conditions. He believes that the fall of religion (God is dead) in the West has created a 'Values' vacuum. The great achievement of the West was to understand the importance of the individual and to champion and protect the rights of the individual over the group. The West came to this conclusion in part due to Christianity but also through a long history of myths that championed certain values over others. Peterson sees religions as a type of meta myth, a consolidation of thousands of years of myths, stories and fables that had ‘truth’ and wisdom. This meta myth used those ‘truths’ and wisdom to create a framework for life which protected the individual in the face of Totalitarianism. In some sense I think he believes that totalitarian ideologies are a natural consequence of human civilisation as they have been dominant in most of the world for much of history. He posits that Nazism and Communism and the Second World War were a consequence of the ideological vacuum that was created when modernity, rationalism and science essentially killed religion and religious values.
I think he now believes that the West is in a precarious position as a mostly secular society without an overarching framework of belief that reinforces the value of the individual. The value we place in the individual is the only thing that is protecting us from totalitarianism. He sees the rise of the SJW’s, Neo-Marxist left and the Alt-Right to some extent as a natural phenomenon in humans who are attracted to totalitarian ideologies; He believes that the people who believe in these ideologies are not educated re the dangerous consequences of enforcing these ideas in society. He believes that young people are being indoctrinated in a way of thinking about the world by professors and teachers who mean well (high in compassion and agreeableness) but don’t where this kind of thinking can end up (gulags, concentration camps).
His method for fighting back is to champion the individual and personal responsibility, to help people realise the value in religion and the ‘truths’ it contains. He imo has attempted the latter via his biblical lectures series which takes the bible and communicates its value to the religious and atheists alike. I guess in a roundabout way what I’m saying is that he may not see the problem in the same way you do and doesn’t believe that current economic and social conditions in the West play a significant role in the problems we are facing re political correctness and totalitarianism.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear on the point you are making so forgive me if I have misconstrued it, it isn’t deliberate.
In terms of Peterson ignoring why people are turning towards Post Modernism, I think you have a point, He does address it but I don’t think he addresses it in a complete sense that relates to the current social and economic conditions. He believes that the fall of religion (God is dead) in the West has created a 'Values' vacuum. The great achievement of the West was to understand the importance of the individual and to champion and protect the rights of the individual over the group. The West came to this conclusion in part due to Christianity but also through a long history of myths that championed certain values over others. Peterson sees religions as a type of meta myth, a consolidation of thousands of years of myths, stories and fables that had ‘truth’ and wisdom. This meta myth used those ‘truths’ and wisdom to create a framework for life which protected the individual in the face of Totalitarianism. In some sense I think he believes that totalitarian ideologies are a natural consequence of human civilisation as they have been dominant in most of the world for much of history. He posits that Nazism and Communism and the Second World War were a consequence of the ideological vacuum that was created when modernity, rationalism and science essentially killed religion and religious values.
I think he now believes that the West is in a precarious position as a mostly secular society without an overarching framework of belief that reinforces the value of the individual. The value we place in the individual is the only thing that is protecting us from totalitarianism. He sees the rise of the SJW’s, Neo-Marxist left and the Alt-Right to some extent as a natural phenomenon in humans who are attracted to totalitarian ideologies; He believes that the people who believe in these ideologies are not educated re the dangerous consequences of enforcing these ideas in society. He believes that young people are being indoctrinated in a way of thinking about the world by professors and teachers who mean well (high in compassion and agreeableness) but don’t where this kind of thinking can end up (gulags, concentration camps).
His method for fighting back is to champion the individual and personal responsibility, to help people realise the value in religion and the ‘truths’ it contains. He imo has attempted the latter via his biblical lectures series which takes the bible and communicates its value to the religious and atheists alike. I guess in a roundabout way what I’m saying is that he may not see the problem in the same way you do and doesn’t believe that current economic and social conditions in the West play a significant role in the problems we are facing re political correctness and totalitarianism.
Playboy, thank you for this thoughtful sum-up. My general angle isn't of deconstruction and destruction, as it might seem to be. My bones of contention relate to Peterson's obvious (and inscrutable to me, another party with a deep concern about the fate of the western world and the individuals in it) total lack of criticism for or investigation into some of the biggest influences on same, or their related negative expressions across society (which he also casts as causes).
Overall, the biggest conclusion I can come to in relation to this is that he is a very thoughtful and committed supporter of current economic and social reality, as it appears in his Canadian/American locality. Because my concept of fairness for people and society doesn't include neo-liberal approaches as being 100% positive or desirable, I interpret his stance with some level of cynicism. Also, I'm in America where the hand of neo-liberalism is much in evidence and deeply dispiriting, to put it mildly.
The way in which Peterson instructs his followers to move to shut down liberal university departments to attempt to wipe out certain modes of thought (post-modernist and Marxist) is, to use Jung's idea, roughly equivalent to an effort to ignore the id or 'shadow' in the psyche. Given Peterson's profession, I doubt he is incapable of spotting this error, which further pushes impressions of him into the area of politics. In the end I believe his politics are coming from a genuine belief (related to his own struggle against spiritual malaise) that the way forward is a neo-liberal-compatible march. This means my criticism is of the mode of his politics, which I believe to be either deliberately or inadvertently counterproductive to at least his stated aim.
Overall, I would recommend investigating the exact nature and aims of neo-liberal policy, its known negative effects on society and individuals, and how these effects 'turn up' lack of social cohesion and group identity to produce different modes of dysfunction across society. On the other side, stake out what happens to individual psychology when society is redefined in terms of a strict money or money-making meritocracy, and also different expressions of distress expressed according to gender (and age: people coming of age during the boom, in particular) in a neo-liberally defined boom and bust (i.e. Ireland's specific case).
Also have a look at how Peterson can claim that some people have a natural tendency to want a totalitarian system, and his idea of what this constitutes in modernity. On first pass, we can say that religion wrested total power from corrupt earthly entities and gave it to the fair and just edifice of god. Religion is consequently extremely popular with powerless people in an unfair social system. When the power of religion recedes, what overarching power can guarantee fairness and justice for the type of people who are capable of desiring such a power in the age of individuality and self-determination (the most obvious cause of the fall of religion)?
The key here is that there is a certain flavor of person who needs, on a psychological level, a monolithic controller to keep things fair. Along with this, it is my contention that the scurrilous affects of neo-liberal policy effect a strong component of the rise in apparent narcissism throughout society (another wordy story in itself, although rising narcissism is generally noted and agreed on by psychologists) today. According to this coincidence, and the fact that neo-liberal social affects include leaving everyone to their own devices and to total apparent freedom, it is predictable that some part of society will find this value-freedom intolerable and discomfiting.
What do you think a likely output to society will be from such people? One-woman or one-man would-be monolithic dictators of a selfish and naive concept of 'goodness' and 'rightness'?
Overall, I would argue that the effect wouldn't be so show-stoppingly ridiculous (snowflakes, minutia-focused SJWs, neo-feminists, to name a few easily-identified players in the picture) without the pernicious effect of a rising tide of narcissism. This amps up the illogical and impenetrable nature of the demand, and the sheer impertinence of it.
Anyway, anything that Peterson is saying can be examined in more detail according to psychology, psychotherapy concepts, sociology, and practically anything else. Because he seems to be pointing his followers towards full and unquestioning participation in neo-liberal society, don't forget that Ireland is a unique case, and that Irish people have experienced an intensity of conditions that Peterson never has, and never will. It is my wish, evidently along with Peterson, for Irish men to launch off with absolute faith, to sweep through the ceaseless rings, and never be quiet again (from Walt Whitman), and also to give themselves the right and necessary space to decide if American-style neo-liberal reality is really what they want the ultimate destination of their journeys to be.
Okay, I'll leave it there 0 -
You are really over complicating matters that you pressumably do not understand. Neo Liberal? For one I would say Peterson is certainly edging right wing not 'Neo Liberal'. Nor is he indoctrinating his followers to go hate on someone, he is merely offering up ideas, which is needed and healthy in any society. It particularly ideas value however to his ideas that we know he is a qualified professor of psychology and has completed much research on these ideologies and beliefs. There will always be idiots and trolls on YouTube comments who misinterpret his message and go and spread hate to the person he's speaking out against. But anyway, as for you, you're like me, unknown and without significant knowledge in these areas just surfing the web finding dodgy articles. So. I suggest you take off your tin foil hat and reconsider making ridiculous statements like the one above and maybe go outside and catch some fresh air.Intothesea wrote: »Playboy, thank you for this thoughtful sum-up. My general angle isn't of deconstruction and destruction, as it might seem to be. My bones of contention relate to Peterson's obvious (and inscrutable to me, another party with a deep concern about the fate of the western world and the individuals in it) total lack of criticism for or investigation into some of the biggest influences on same, or their related negative expressions across society (which he also casts as causes).
Overall, the biggest conclusion I can come to in relation to this is that he is a very thoughtful and committed supporter of current economic and social reality, as it appears in his Canadian/American locality. Because my concept of fairness for people and society doesn't include neo-liberal approaches as being 100% positive or desirable, I interpret his stance with some level of cynicism. Also, I'm in America where the hand of neo-liberalism is much in evidence and deeply dispiriting, to put it mildly.
The way in which Peterson instructs his followers to move to shut down liberal university departments to attempt to wipe out certain modes of thought (post-modernist and Marxist) is, to use Jung's idea, roughly equivalent to an effort to ignore the id or 'shadow' in the psyche. Given Peterson's profession, I doubt he is incapable of spotting this error, which further pushes impressions of him into the area of politics. In the end I believe his politics are coming from a genuine belief (related to his own struggle against spiritual malaise) that the way forward is a neo-liberal-compatible march. This means my criticism is of the mode of his politics, which I believe to be either deliberately or inadvertently counterproductive to at least his stated aim.
Overall, I would recommend investigating the exact nature and aims of neo-liberal policy, its known negative effects on society and individuals, and how these effects 'turn up' lack of social cohesion and group identity to produce different modes of dysfunction across society. On the other side, stake out what happens to individual psychology when society is redefined in terms of a strict money or money-making meritocracy, and also different expressions of distress expressed according to gender (and age: people coming of age during the boom, in particular) in a neo-liberally defined boom and bust (i.e. Ireland's specific case).
Also have a look at how Peterson can claim that some people have a natural tendency to want a totalitarian system, and his idea of what this constitutes in modernity. On first pass, we can say that religion wrested total power from corrupt earthly entities and gave it to the fair and just edifice of god. Religion is consequently extremely popular with powerless people in an unfair social system. When the power of religion recedes, what overarching power can guarantee fairness and justice for the type of people who are capable of desiring such a power in the age of individuality and self-determination (the most obvious cause of the fall of religion)?
The key here is that there is a certain flavor of person who needs, on a psychological level, a monolithic controller to keep things fair. Along with this, it is my contention that the scurrilous affects of neo-liberal policy effect a strong component of the rise in apparent narcissism throughout society (another wordy story in itself, although rising narcissism is generally noted and agreed on by psychologists) today. According to this coincidence, and the fact that neo-liberal social affects include leaving everyone to their own devices and to total apparent freedom, it is predictable that some part of society will find this value-freedom intolerable and discomfiting.
What do you think a likely output to society will be from such people? One-woman or one-man would-be monolithic dictators of a selfish and naive concept of 'goodness' and 'rightness'?
Overall, I would argue that the effect wouldn't be so show-stoppingly ridiculous (snowflakes, minutia-focused SJWs, neo-feminists, to name a few easily-identified players in the picture) without the pernicious effect of a rising tide of narcissism. This amps up the illogical and impenetrable nature of the demand, and the sheer impertinence of it.
Anyway, anything that Peterson is saying can be examined in more detail according to psychology, psychotherapy concepts, sociology, and practically anything else. Because he seems to be pointing his followers towards full and unquestioning participation in neo-liberal society, don't forget that Ireland is a unique case, and that Irish people have experienced an intensity of conditions that Peterson never has, and never will. It is my wish, evidently along with Peterson, for Irish men to launch off with absolute faith, to sweep through the ceaseless rings, and never be quiet again (from Walt Whitman), and also to give themselves the right and necessary space to decide if American-style neo-liberal reality is really what they want the ultimate destination of their journeys to be.
Okay, I'll leave it there0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement