Everything Jordan Peterson says or writes reminds me of the 1970s Trident
Sugarless Gum advertisements that claimed "Of the best-tasting gums,
Trident is sugarless!"
The two clauses appear logically connected but are not, and the second
clause indicates a fact but implies exclusivity it doesn't actually claim.
Peterson appeals to the ideas of Jung without understanding them, and
evolutionary biology while misconstruing what it actually means. And he
uses them in a lofty-sounding pseudo-academic pastiche to justify his
misogyny, homophobia and racism.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:14 PM Clint Anderson <clinta@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted 63 lines if you can explain to me how a group doesn't suffer while the individuals
> if you can explain to me how a group doesn't suffer while the individuals
> in it are suffering, you'll have well and truly triumphed over both logic
> and grammar
> it sounds like a logical assertion, yet careful examination reveals a lack
> of any actual hard logic
>
> Clint Anderson
> Systems Engineer
> "Freedom -- paint me a picture!" -- Burton Cummings
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:09 PM kent williams <chaircrusher@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> He uses bits of this:
>> https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/new-years-letter/
>> "A close reading of 20th century history indicates, as nothing else can,
>> the horrors that accompany loss of faith in the idea of the individual. It
>> is only the individual, after all, who suffers. The group does not suffer –
>> only those who compose it. Thus, the reality of the individual must be
>> regarded as primary if suffering is to be regarded seriously. Without such
>> regard, there can be no motivation to reduce suffering and, therefore, no
>> respite. Instead, the production of individual suffering can and has and
>> will be again rationalized and justified for its supposed benefits for the
>> future and the group."
>>
>> Discussing this is as difficult (and off topic here) as anything Peterson
>> says or writes. He says all sorts of things that in isolation can seem
>> reasonable, but it's always in service of one of his cockamamie conclusions
>> that are ahistorical, wooly-minded and wrong, and yet irresistible to
>> people of a particular turn of mind. Just this one quote above can appeal
>> to all of us who regard ourselves as unique individuals, who want to
>> determine our own path through life. But it is a buttress to a large
>> argument that is misogynistic, reductive, and deeply silly. "The primary
>> image for women is not the Divine Individual, because of the heavy burden
>> they bear for reproduction."
>>
>> And once again Professor FroggyVoice has suckered me into spending more
>> time than it is worthy of to deconstruct his idiocy. Damn him and his
>> tweedy speciousness!
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:03 AM Connor Higgins <connor1higgins@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lol, which quote? Is it the one about taming your internal chaos dragon
>>> by over-dissecting Disney classics?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 8:38 AM kent williams <chaircrusher@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...by including a big Jordan Peterson sample in a track on his new
>>>> record "Udaya", not out yet.
>>>>
>>>> Why Wes why?
>>>>
>>>> ...and if you haven't heard Moon B, I'm intrigued by his stuff, which
>>>> is pretty originally derivative. He's kind of in the middle of the
>>>> styistic triangle of Com Truise, Boards Of Canada, and Vaporwave. Real
>>>> nostalgia for an imaginary musical past.
>>>>
>>>>