Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:00 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
#1
Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
I have felt bad for derailing Rob's original thread-- I think at that point, we all had opinions about Peterson we wanted to express, but not that many of us had the actual book.

I've got a .pdf of it now, which means I'll be able to give quotes from the text.  I won't copy whole chapters out of respect for copyright.

I hope this thread will be more about his specific ideas as expressed in the book than about arriving at a position about what kind of person he is / isn't.



Overture

Quote:I proposed in Maps of Meaning that the great myths and religious stories of the past, particularly those derived from an earlier, oral tradition, were moral in their intent, rather than descriptive. Thus, they did not concern themselves with what the world was, as a scientist might have it, but with how a human being should act. I suggested that our ancestors portrayed the world as a stage—a drama—instead of a place of objects. I described how I had come to believe that the constituent elements of the world as drama were order and chaos, and not material things.

Order is where the people around you act according to well-understood social norms, and remain predictable and cooperative. It’s the world of social structure, explored territory, and familiarity. The state of Order is typically portrayed, symbolically—imaginatively—as masculine. It’s the Wise King and the Tyrant, forever bound together, as society is simultaneously structure and oppression.

I give this quote because of the word "chaos."  He's establishing the struggle between chaos and order as a fundamental theme of his world view.  This is very much in accord with someone interested in early psychology, philosophy or literature: the dialectic of Apollo vs. Dionysus is one of the most common literary devices in the past hundred or so years.

But for someone looking for misogyny, we can get into this right away.  My position so far (from videos and only from this passage), is that he's probably using ideas that are considered canonical or uncontroversial among academic circles, but which appear sexist or otherwise disturbing to those outside them.

For example, and this is largely for Rob, try the following link, type the word "feminine," and prepare to rage.

http://faculty.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Notes/Ae...hotomy.htm
Reply
#2
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
I'm not going to talk about the book specifically, just what it signifies in general when referencing self help books.

I believe these types of books are in lieu of the comfort religious ideas bring to theists, just a secular version. No less flowery or cognitively harmless. The basic foundation behind any of these types of books can be precisely summed up with: a lie I told myself and am now selling to others.
Reply
#3
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
(September 23, 2018 at 3:52 am)bennyboy Wrote: I have felt bad for derailing Rob's original thread-- I think at that point, we all had opinions about Peterson we wanted to express, but not that many of us had the actual book.

I've got a .pdf of it now, which means I'll be able to give quotes from the text.  I won't copy whole chapters out of respect for copyright.

I hope this thread will be more about his specific ideas as expressed in the book than about arriving at a position about what kind of person he is / isn't.



Overture

Quote:I proposed in Maps of Meaning that the great myths and religious stories of the past, particularly those derived from an earlier, oral tradition, were moral in their intent, rather than descriptive. Thus, they did not concern themselves with what the world was, as a scientist might have it, but with how a human being should act. I suggested that our ancestors portrayed the world as a stage—a drama—instead of a place of objects. I described how I had come to believe that the constituent elements of the world as drama were order and chaos, and not material things.

Order is where the people around you act according to well-understood social norms, and remain predictable and cooperative. It’s the world of social structure, explored territory, and familiarity. The state of Order is typically portrayed, symbolically—imaginatively—as masculine. It’s the Wise King and the Tyrant, forever bound together, as society is simultaneously structure and oppression.

I give this quote because of the word "chaos."  He's establishing the struggle between chaos and order as a fundamental theme of his world view.  This is very much in accord with someone interested in early psychology, philosophy or literature: the dialectic of Apollo vs. Dionysus is one of the most common literary devices in the past hundred or so years.

But for someone looking for misogyny, we can get into this right away.  My position so far (from videos and only from this passage), is that he's probably using ideas that are considered canonical or uncontroversial among academic circles, but which appear sexist or otherwise disturbing to those outside them.

For example, and this is largely for Rob, try the following link, type the word "feminine," and prepare to rage.

http://faculty.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Notes/Ae...hotomy.htm

All I can say to that is to keep reading. As usual, he's setting up something that sounds reasonable, and will later start abusing it. He descends fairly quickly into literally assigning chaos to women, and order to men. If that isn't something that is considered sexist, if not misogynist, then I would just have to agree to disagree.

And his attitudes towards women come up very frequently in the rest of the book. So again, keep reading Smile

PS: I have no long-standing grudge or agenda against Peterson. I only found out he existed fairly recently, when a YouTube video brought him to my attention, misrepresenting the Canada situation for fame.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#4
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
(September 23, 2018 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: All I can say to that is to keep reading. As usual, he's setting up something that sounds reasonable, and will later start abusing it. He descends fairly quickly into literally assigning chaos to women, and order to men. If that isn't something that is considered sexist, if not misogynist, then I would just have to agree to disagree.

He's echoing Jung and Nietzsche, and much of the literature in modern psychology as well.  That's why when you see him in interview with female academics, they are much more likely to nod knowingly than to flip out when he says this stuff.

But yeah, I'm still just going through the intro.  Just an observation that maybe some of the criticism comes because people don't know the background behind some of the terminology.

--edit-
Okay, I though I got that byte, but here's the very next paragraph:

Quote:Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise). 

So he's for sure talking about that symbolic dialectic.  He mentions yin/yang the next paragraph.

He does a conflation of symbolic representation and actual women in men's life when he talks about how the scorn of a woman is one of the most chaotic things a man can experience.

Not taking what you've already read, and just looking at it so far, would you say that from a male perspective, a female doesn't normally represent a force for chaos?  Cuz I've had girlfriends and marriage, and plenty of chaos Big Grin
Reply
#5
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
Erm... well sure, they can be, but so can men. And women can be just as good at creating order. It's a ludicrous connection to try and systematically apply to genders.

What's actually happening, in my opinion, is Peterson is (probably unwittingly) projecting himself all over the book. He's clearly experienced hurt and rejection from women, and he's taking it out on the text. This book is really a study of his psychology, more than anything else.

I'll throw this in, copied from the other thread, in case anyone wants to try and defend Jordan "whack a mole" Peterson here.

P141 in the book, chapter starting, "If your child is the kind..."

"...

If that fails, being turned over a parent's knee might be required. For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of the responsible adult. There are some situations in which even that will not suffice, partly because some children are very determined, exploratory, and tough or because the offending behaviour is truly severe.

..."
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#6
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
(September 23, 2018 at 7:58 am)robvalue Wrote: What's actually happening, in my opinion, is Peterson is (probably unwittingly) projecting himself all over the book. He's clearly experienced hurt and rejection from women, and he's taking it out on the text.

Eh.  That's far from clear.

(September 23, 2018 at 7:58 am)robvalue Wrote: If that fails, being turned over a parent's knee might be required. For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of the responsible adult. There are some situations in which even that will not suffice, partly because some children are very determined, exploratory, and tough or because the offending behaviour is truly severe.

It seems that you are quite certain that spanking is always wrong, and that anyone recommending is therefore revealing an abusive nature.  Is that your intent?
Reply
#7
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
Sure, my projection idea is just a hypothesis. I'm not claiming to have evidence for that. But from the book as a whole, that is what I get from him.

About the spanking, I think it's debatable whether it's wrong. That's not the issue here. He is advocating going further than spanking. That is what worries me. What could he mean? He doesn't say. But I find it hard to imagine any situation where "more than spanking" is a suitable punishment, even if we allowed spanking for the sake of argument.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#8
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
(September 23, 2018 at 8:28 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, my projection idea is just a hypothesis. I'm not claiming to have evidence for that. But from the book as a whole, that is what I get from him.

About the spanking, I think it's debatable whether it's wrong. That's not the issue here. He is advocating going further than spanking. That is what worries me. What could he mean? He doesn't say. But I find it hard to imagine any situation where "more than spanking" is a suitable punishment, even if we allowed spanking for the sake of argument.

First of all, as a psychologist, I would assume he would know that the field is very heavily against spanking.  He does qualify it, though-- extreme case, etc. etc.

I sense he's more of a philosophical psychologist (he talks about Jung all the time, or Nietzsche) than a child psychologist.  I'm pro-spanking to a degree, but only if I'm the one doing it, because I'm so wise and all that.  But those OTHER guys-- well, the literature is pretty clear.

I don't think he's necessarily advocating going further than spanking, at least based on the quoted material you gave. I'd interpret that as-- sometime's, nothing you can do is going to bring a kid in line. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he talked about the benefits of really roughing a kid up. . . like, if they were really asking for it.
Reply
#9
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
Quote:Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise).

Is it only me or is this Deepak Chopra-grade BS?

Chaos is not "unexpected. Thats BS equivocation. Later he tells us that chaos = unpredictable? Now, which is it? This guy is so full of it (and full or deepities).
Arbitrarily assigning *chaos* to being feminine? Why? Because its BS. I am not impressed, not at all.


He is nothing but Deepak Chopra V2.0.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
Reply
#10
RE: Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion
(September 23, 2018 at 9:12 am)bennyboy Wrote:
(September 23, 2018 at 8:28 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, my projection idea is just a hypothesis. I'm not claiming to have evidence for that. But from the book as a whole, that is what I get from him.

About the spanking, I think it's debatable whether it's wrong. That's not the issue here. He is advocating going further than spanking. That is what worries me. What could he mean? He doesn't say. But I find it hard to imagine any situation where "more than spanking" is a suitable punishment, even if we allowed spanking for the sake of argument.

First of all, as a psychologist, I would assume he would know that the field is very heavily against spanking.  He does qualify it, though-- extreme case, etc. etc.

I sense he's more of a philosophical psychologist (he talks about Jung all the time, or Nietzsche) than a child psychologist.  I'm pro-spanking to a degree, but only if I'm the one doing it, because I'm so wise and all that.  But those OTHER guys-- well, the literature is pretty clear.

I don't think he's necessarily advocating going further than spanking, at least based on the quoted material you gave.  I'd interpret that as-- sometime's, nothing you can do is going to bring a kid in line.  I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he talked about the benefits of really roughing a kid up. . . like, if they were really asking for it.

The only way I can see to interpret this in a way other than advocating escalated physical punishment is if he's saying sometimes spanking just doesn't work. In such a case, he seems to be out of options entirely, since he's already said this thing they've done is so bad that it requires physical punishment yet it's not going to work. So if there's a more effective non-physical punishment, why weren't we doing that in the first place?

I think, from the structure of the paragraph, he is escalating from physical punishment 1, to 2, to 3, to 4. I'd love to hear his clarification here, because I think he's written himself into a corner.

(September 23, 2018 at 9:37 am)Deesse23 Wrote:
Quote:Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise).

Is it only me or is this Deepak Chopra-grade BS?

Chaos is not "unexpected. Thats BS equivocation. Later he tells us that chaos = unpredictable? Now, which is it? This guy is so full of it (and full or deepities).
Arbitrarily assigning *chaos* to being feminine? Why? Because its BS. I am not impressed, not at all.


He is nothing but Deepak Chopra V2.0.

Yes, he is absolutely full of it. He talks an awful lot of bullcrap.

PS: Well, I said "spanking" is debatable, but it seems the overwhelming evidence is that it's a harmful and ineffective practice. That doesn't surprise me.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Peterson vs. Harris #3-- Dublin bennyboy 0 334 September 26, 2018 at 8:34 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this? Whateverist 901 68740 September 24, 2018 at 4:19 pm
Last Post: robvalue
  Jordan Peterson vs. Sam Harris in Vancouver bennyboy 7 684 September 6, 2018 at 10:35 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread Whateverist 598 64048 June 12, 2018 at 6:29 pm
Last Post: SaStrike
  Thinking of writing a book... Sayetsu 4 588 March 13, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Actual Infinity in Reality? SteveII 478 62512 March 6, 2018 at 11:44 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Actual infinities. Jehanne 48 9227 October 18, 2017 at 12:38 am
Last Post: Succubus
  How do you deal with life now that you are an atheist? (With a little of my life) Macoleco 135 14804 September 1, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  Are other atheists of one book? carusmm 14 1846 May 30, 2016 at 12:04 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  The Book of Genesis Parashu 16 2710 February 20, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)