3 ms·

Is that you Mr. Peterson? But seriously though are you convinced that no worthwhile values exist outside of nationalism and religion? You seem to be interested

Is that you Mr. Peterson? But seriously though are you convinced that no worthwhile values exist outside of nationalism and religion? You seem to be interested in this topic so it strikes me as a bit willfully disingenuous for you to not see the low hanging fruit in all of your statements. Like, you clearly have your opinion and you're entitled to it obviously but have you tried at all to find counterarguments? Peterson's ideas have been pretty thoroughly analyzed and debunked outside of his echo chamber, they're just a straightforward google search away. If you really believe his writing you owe it to yourself to challenge his ideas.

classicsnoot 9y ago
I'd love a link to someone "debunking" Peterson, as he is just another scale on the ouroboros that is philosophical critique of the human experience. I'm quite interested in the topic, but I am loathe to engage in the meta-representation of the topic; I wish to discuss messages not messengers. Though there is maple in my blood I am not who you seek to disparage. I believe the most effective social organization strategies evolved are religion and nationalism, with religion being the simplest and nationalism being the strongest. I do not believe in an evolutionary stairway to enlightenment, rather a shifting physical world that creates arbitrary "final exams" for species that wish to continue proliferation. Ideas evolve like biological life forms, and meta-analysis is not a determining factor in the survival of ideas without the addition of death squads and concentration camps. With this as a point of departure, there is no precedent for social organization that can claim consistent superiority over any other. Each has a matched set of strengths and weaknesses that exhibit or recess depending on the situation under review. I firmly believe that the core criteria for a "working idea" is that it propagates generationally, through actors either cognizant or ignorant of it. Past that, all observable attributes are valued based on a particular situation, not a connected series of events (rather, a dialectic).

classicsnoot 9y ago

I'd love a link to someone "debunking" Peterson, as he is just another scale on the ouroboros that is philosophical critique of the human experience. I'm quite interested in the topic, but I am loathe to engage in the meta-representation of the topic; I wish to discuss messages not messengers. Though there is maple in my blood I am not who you seek to disparage. I believe the most effective social organization strategies evolved are religion and nationalism, with religion being the simplest and nationalism being the strongest. I do not believe in an evolutionary stairway to enlightenment, rather a shifting physical world that creates arbitrary "final exams" for species that wish to continue proliferation. Ideas evolve like biological life forms, and meta-analysis is not a determining factor in the survival of ideas without the addition of death squads and concentration camps. With this as a point of departure, there is no precedent for social organization that can claim consistent superiority over any other. Each has a matched set of strengths and weaknesses that exhibit or recess depending on the situation under review. I firmly believe that the core criteria for a "working idea" is that it propagates generationally, through actors either cognizant or ignorant of it. Past that, all observable attributes are valued based on a particular situation, not a connected series of events (rather, a dialectic).