3 ms·

Peterson makes an error in the conclusion. The scarceness of opportunity to be happy does not mean to neglet things that make you happy. There is a difference

Peterson makes an error in the conclusion. The scarceness of opportunity to be happy does not mean to neglet things that make you happy. There is a difference between claiming happiness and seeing happiness as "bad" or "degenerating". Both will likewise cause suffering. Peterson (if he knows or not) is a Nietzsche apologist. Nietzsche perverted the philosophy of Schopenhauer and turned everything around. Schopenhauer saw that life itself follows an irrational principle - the "Will" in nature. Every being or even substance longs for existence and to take effect at the cost for other beings or substances. This "will" causes suffering. Schopenhauers way to cope with the evil in life is to neglegt this "will". To take an outside position, to reflect on it - to "philosophize", if you want, to participate in art. The principle of nature, to recognize it and to make your own conclusion out of it are independent things. This is the difference between Schopenhauer (Darwinism) and Nietzsche / Peterson (Social Darwinism). Nietsche identifies with the "Will". He propagates opportunism. "what is supposed to fall, you should push", "Prey on the weak, obey the strong". Out of the fact, that there is suffering in the world, he concludes that this is "good", an imperative. The might / power / will is the only sacred rule he accepts. Even if christianity seems to represent mercy ethics on the surface, the bible itself also sanctifys power itself. All power is from god. All power is good. So Nietzsche was not really anti Christian. He is very christian and religious regarding opportunism. Of cause "community","society", "the nation", ... => the higher order super organisms want individuals to sacrify their individual goals and to give up strive for happiness and take over "abstract" values which are the values of others. Mostly these "abstract" values of others (best example nationalism) caused a lot of suffering. More on side of the people believing in it than on the side of the people that propagate it. Peterson is good at rethorics. Beside of that, he s just a religious tradcon with a strong tendency to fascism. Following the power or opportunism principle of Nietsche / Peterson IMHO would result in perpetual holocaust. I prefer Schopenhauer, he taught to stand up for the weakest: rationality. Even being irrational beings with evil drives we can find ways to satisfy them without harming others or ourselfs - or at least reduce harm. Schopenhauer: live out your irrationality in a rational way versus Nietsche / Peterson: live out your irrationality with rational reasoning as a tool (under the the shield of old school values "family", "nation" ...).

jffhn 6y ago
>Social Darwinism/"what is supposed to fall, you should push" I always wondered how one could misinterpret natural laws, that whatever you do you cannot not obey, as human commandments, that you can obey or not. Considering that Darwin findings would command us to ignore the weak (or that any knowledge could command anything, for that matter), is like considering that sending rockets into space would be an offense to the law of gravity, and that it would command us to spend our lives crawling on the ground like snakes. (In the case of Nietzsche, maybe that's the "Will" subconsciously manipulating the puppet of consciousness, as a defense mechanism against the purposeless void reached by thinking through the irrationality of life).
- DrLindemann 6y ago
  It is a (short term) self enforcing principle, that is the pitty. Like in other ideologies. Civilization should mitigate such effects. And in some cases suceeded. So progress might be possible and should be thought of. But not in changing people or the "nature" of people. There has been progress in history (also backfalls). We would not have warm houses or water supply or electricity if someone had not believed in making a better life.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jffhn 6y ago

>Social Darwinism/"what is supposed to fall, you should push" I always wondered how one could misinterpret natural laws, that whatever you do you cannot not obey, as human commandments, that you can obey or not. Considering that Darwin findings would command us to ignore the weak (or that any knowledge could command anything, for that matter), is like considering that sending rockets into space would be an offense to the law of gravity, and that it would command us to spend our lives crawling on the ground like snakes. (In the case of Nietzsche, maybe that's the "Will" subconsciously manipulating the puppet of consciousness, as a defense mechanism against the purposeless void reached by thinking through the irrationality of life).

DrLindemann 6y ago
It is a (short term) self enforcing principle, that is the pitty. Like in other ideologies. Civilization should mitigate such effects. And in some cases suceeded. So progress might be possible and should be thought of. But not in changing people or the "nature" of people. There has been progress in history (also backfalls). We would not have warm houses or water supply or electricity if someone had not believed in making a better life.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]