Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

T.C. said:
I believe he's a social Darwinist.

Well, wiki says the following about social Darwinism:

Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in "survival of the fittest."

Which is another distortion, because apparently Darwin meant something else as well, as revealed from works by Peter Kropotkin:

Kropotkin's most famous book, Mutual Aid, maintains that cooperation within a species has been an historical factor in the development of social institutions, and in fact, that the avoidance of competition greatly increases the chances of survival and raises the quality of life. He contended that mutual aid is a factor that is both biological and voluntary in nature, and is an enabler of progressive evolution. Without it, life as we know it could not exist. This can be also seen in the animal kingdom. [...]

The naturalist, Thomas H. Huxley, championed the philosophy of Hobbes in Kropotkin's day, particularly in his 1888 essay, The Struggle for Existence, which promoted an ideology that saw struggle, fighting, and competition as the most important tenets in the survival and evolution of human society. Kropotkin asserted that Huxley's interpretation of Darwinian theory was misconstrued and inaccurate, and viewed Huxley's school of Hobbesian arguments as "taking possession of Darwin's terminology rather than his leading ideas" (Kropotkin 1989, 78).

Another source:

In his seminal publication Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin mentioned two forms of struggle – the first one direct and pits organism against organism in a fight for limited resources, the second what Darwin termed metaphorical that pits organism against the environment, a battle that leads to cooperation between organisms.

Huxley took this first struggle of competition and emphasised that aspect – of organisms competing fiercely against each other. Later, social darwinists took this view and reflected it in human society. We now have many products of this thought-line in modern society in areas such as classical microeconomics, business models and our constant striving for scarce money resources.

Kropotkin, on the other hand, emphasised Darwin’s second aspect of struggle. In his study of animal societies in Siberia, he found little evidence of competitive struggle and more evidence of organisms cooperating to find resources to survive. It could be that his views were informed from a situation where resources were thin and that organisms needed to cooperate to survive rather than the Malthusian opposite of many organisms competing for resources that are somewhat more abundant. Kropotkin also identified that the more advanced species were ones that cooperated more and that “the unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay”.

So, knowing that Peterson is very familiar with Russian literature and writers, what "Darwinism" he subscribes to? Huxley's version or Kropotkin's?
 
Keit said:
T.C. said:
I believe he's a social Darwinist.

Well, wiki says the following about social Darwinism:

Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in "survival of the fittest."

Which is another distortion, because apparently Darwin meant something else as well, as revealed from works by Peter Kropotkin:

Kropotkin's most famous book, Mutual Aid, maintains that cooperation within a species has been an historical factor in the development of social institutions, and in fact, that the avoidance of competition greatly increases the chances of survival and raises the quality of life. He contended that mutual aid is a factor that is both biological and voluntary in nature, and is an enabler of progressive evolution. Without it, life as we know it could not exist. This can be also seen in the animal kingdom. [...]

The naturalist, Thomas H. Huxley, championed the philosophy of Hobbes in Kropotkin's day, particularly in his 1888 essay, The Struggle for Existence, which promoted an ideology that saw struggle, fighting, and competition as the most important tenets in the survival and evolution of human society. Kropotkin asserted that Huxley's interpretation of Darwinian theory was misconstrued and inaccurate, and viewed Huxley's school of Hobbesian arguments as "taking possession of Darwin's terminology rather than his leading ideas" (Kropotkin 1989, 78).

Another source:

In his seminal publication Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin mentioned two forms of struggle – the first one direct and pits organism against organism in a fight for limited resources, the second what Darwin termed metaphorical that pits organism against the environment, a battle that leads to cooperation between organisms.

Huxley took this first struggle of competition and emphasised that aspect – of organisms competing fiercely against each other. Later, social darwinists took this view and reflected it in human society. We now have many products of this thought-line in modern society in areas such as classical microeconomics, business models and our constant striving for scarce money resources.

Kropotkin, on the other hand, emphasised Darwin’s second aspect of struggle. In his study of animal societies in Siberia, he found little evidence of competitive struggle and more evidence of organisms cooperating to find resources to survive. It could be that his views were informed from a situation where resources were thin and that organisms needed to cooperate to survive rather than the Malthusian opposite of many organisms competing for resources that are somewhat more abundant. Kropotkin also identified that the more advanced species were ones that cooperated more and that “the unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay”.

So, knowing that Peterson is very familiar with Russian literature and writers, what "Darwinism" he subscribes to? Huxley's version or Kropotkin's?

T.C. said:
I believe he's a social Darwinist

I say this based on something he once said in one of his lectures. I'm quite sure he said he's a Darwinian and it was in the context of social and societal structure.

T.C. said:
I believe he's a social Darwinist
Here's a video where he talks a bit about it. There are links to different sections in the box underneath.

 
Turgon said:
I would have considered myself a "liberal-minded" person just a few years ago, maybe even last year. But this melting pot that they are trying to create of gender fluidity, even delving into the realm of saying biological sex is a social construct is totally nuts. If "they" are willing to push forward with that kind of agenda, there's no telling what's next and how far this will go.

Same here. I used to equate "liberal" (politically) with open mindedness, compassion, and education and rational thought and "conservative" with close-minded adherence to tradition, fear of others and blindly following contradictory positions (simultaneously "pro-life" and pro death penalty). Perhaps I was conflating conservative" with "authoritarian follower" and "liberal" with its opposite.

In any case I agree with you, "gender theory" is insane.

Joe said:
This is a 30 minute video by Peterson from Nov. 8th called "My Message to Millenials: How to Change the World -- Properly".

I agree, great video. I signed up for the Self Authoring program he mentions towards the end of the video, I'll post back here when I get into it to give a review.

Joe said:
I like Peterson, he's a very smart guy, but I was wondering if his stance against neo-marxist liberalism contains the same vehement attachment to an ideology, in his case anti-neo-marxist liberalism and the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused. I suppose a guy a smart as him has thought about that though.

Watching his recent videos yesterday left me with the impression that he knowingly chose his position and realizes that he must hold the line where he drew it. You can see the strain on his face and the pain he is enduring. He says several times that he has spent the last 40 years studying the radical totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, both Marxist and Fascist/Nazi. I don't think he expected his initial "Professor against PC" video to erupt into such a firestorm but once it did he made a decision to take a stand and stick to his position to try to fight this thing as early in the process as possible.
 
Joe said:
This is a 30 minute video by Peterson from Nov. 8th called "My Message to Millenials: How to Change the World -- Properly".

I didn't see it posted here, but it is very interesting in the way in which it converges with our own ideas.

It's rather interesting that this guy has come on the scene recently over the "gender pronoun" business. If taken in isolation, that issue just sounds like madness, but when you think about it and connect the dots and listen to Peterson's take on it and what it is connected to, it goes far beyond that one issue and right into the heart of the meaning of human existence and the stark choices that now face us as individuals and a species.

Indeed, it is very interesting that he connected all his research in this way. Any other researcher could have reached entirely different conclusions from the same input - a hint about his being? He comes very close to the ideas of being/creativity/order versus non-being/destruction/chaos, which, we have to remember repeatedly, seem to be the primary phenomena which are reflected everywhere.
 
Seamas said:
Joe said:
I like Peterson, he's a very smart guy, but I was wondering if his stance against neo-marxist liberalism contains the same vehement attachment to an ideology, in his case anti-neo-marxist liberalism and the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused. I suppose a guy a smart as him has thought about that though.

Watching his recent videos yesterday left me with the impression that he knowingly chose his position and realizes that he must hold the line where he drew it. You can see the strain on his face and the pain he is enduring. He says several times that he has spent the last 40 years studying the radical totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, both Marxist and Fascist/Nazi. I don't think he expected his initial "Professor against PC" video to erupt into such a firestorm but once it did he made a decision to take a stand and stick to his position to try to fight this thing as early in the process as possible.

I've noticed this about him as well, and I think it's also because when he's out there debating (not the 1-1 interviews), it's usually set up in a way that he has to contend with two or more people who sometimes hurl accusations his way, and so if he changes his mind or seems unsure about something, particularly in that context, I have a feeling the PC Thought Police might take advantage of that in some way. Since he isn't having an open conversation with peers and is, in a way, being attacked, and kind of on his own out there as the lone voice speaking out against this, it makes sense why he might come across like that. Also, most people won't look into this too deeply, and so if he has a particular stance and sticks to it, it'll be easier to understand his position.
 
T.C. said:
Joe said:
I like Peterson, he's a very smart guy, but I was wondering if his stance against neo-marxist liberalism contains the same vehement attachment to an ideology, in his case anti-neo-marxist liberalism and the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused. I suppose a guy a smart as him has thought about that though.

I believe he's a social Darwinist.

He talks now and then about "the transcendent". I haven't see him talk anywhere about actual spirituality. His darwinist approach seems to be how he defines basic human interaction and "dominance hierarchies", which is hard to argue with as far as basic humanity goes. He makes the connection between darwinist ideas and archetypes, basically saying that the latter is an outgrowth of the former. He says that "we don't know what role consciousness plays in being", that that's "not a simple question" and that the "deepest strata of thought" he has encountered is makes the case that "the most real thing is the eternal battle between good and evil", and that that is a complicated idea.

One other interesting point he makes about animal sacrifice; he interprets it as "giving up something of value now so that things might be better in the future" Kind of like "paying in advance".
 
Joe said:
I like Peterson, he's a very smart guy, but I was wondering if his stance against neo-marxist liberalism contains the same vehement attachment to an ideology, in his case anti-neo-marxist liberalism and the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused. I suppose a guy a smart as him has thought about that though.

It's a good question Joe, and judging by Peterson's favourable stance towards open discussion and dialogue, a question he would probably welcome. He strikes me as the kind of person who thinks deeply about the subjects he is passionate about and makes an effort to examine and understand both sides of an argument before formulating a position. It's seems that his views are predicated on the horror and disgust he felt when researching examples of extreme totalitarian ideologies in history, so there may be some kind of reactionary position he has taken in response to that.

Of course, being human, I suppose none of us can ever be completely free of bias in that sense, and as long as we are open to feedback from others (like we have in the network here), these can be kept in check.

Sometimes I feel a little concerned about Peterson because, even though he is very intelligent and has taken a brave stand for something he believes in, he doesn't have a similar support network (his professional colleagues have stayed silent or pretty much abandoned him). The neo-marxist ideological system he opposes is huge and deeply entrenched and I worry that being a single individual, they might end up making a martyr of him or he'll simply succumb to general law.

I have one question about your statement above... when you say "the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused", by "it" do you mean neo-marxist liberalism or anti-neo-marxist liberalism?
 
I think he's intellectually aware that he has a bias in the sense where he defines what is "truth" from the "darwinian" perspective as he interprets it (which is different from social darwinism as interpreted by others): If it preserves life and has a utility, it is true because it is congruent with the evolution of the universe, otherwise it is at odds with the universe and therefore false.
I've watched his "maps of the mind" lectures a couple of years ago I think and my memory on how he sees things is a little blurry but it seems that he acknowledges that there is no strictly rational (or reductionist) reason for empathy and cooperation (or benevolence according to Nietzsche - last time I read Nietzsche was 15 years ago so I could be using the wrong word) unless it is rooted in a successful strategy for the preservation of life (from the strictly materialist point of view, psychopaths are right and we all are delusional because there is no meaning nor value).
He's in a very vulnerable position not only because society is becoming more and more crazy and polarized, but also because academia is corrupt to the core and very rigid in its dogma. He was okay as long as his thinking was all theoretical but as soon as his views become public, he becomes a moving target for the establishment. On the other hand the establishment may not want to make a martyr out of him, which gives him a slight chance to navigate the troubled waters more or less safely. Only time will tell.
 
Joe said:
I haven't see him talk anywhere about actual spirituality.

I've often wondered about this, actually. Based on what I've seen, I'm pretty sure he's not an atheist. But then I suppose he has his own definitions of words and concepts. I've heard him talking about deeper aspects of reality, and then say something specific about it, and then say something along the lines of, "And that's the problem the atheist run into..." etc.

If you watch this interview, for example, it's a debate/discussion about an atheist NGO who put up ads on buses to promote atheism that said something like, "There probably isn't a God, so stop worrying."

In it, Peterson is on the other side, arguing against the atheists, and he certainly isn't a Dawkins fan.

 
T.C. said:
Joe said:
I haven't see him talk anywhere about actual spirituality.

I've often wondered about this, actually. Based on what I've seen, I'm pretty sure he's not an atheist. But then I suppose he has his own definitions of words and concepts. I've heard him talking about deeper aspects of reality, and then say something specific about it, and then say something along the lines of, "And that's the problem the atheist run into..." etc.

If you watch this interview, for example, it's a debate/discussion about an atheist NGO who put up ads on buses to promote atheism that said something like, "There probably isn't a God, so stop worrying."

In it, Peterson is on the other side, arguing against the atheists, and he certainly isn't a Dawkins fan.


I couldn't get through more than half of the video,found it too frustrating.Jordan tries to make a point by asking serious questions that provoke though and people get offended and bend his words to fit their own presumptions.Some ''rational thinkers'' they are,ugh.
 
Hindsight Man said:
I couldn't get through more than half of the video,found it too frustrating.Jordan tries to make a point by asking serious questions that provoke though and people get offended and bend his words to fit their own presumptions.Some ''rational thinkers'' they are,ugh.

I found it interesting to listen to how some of the other speakers would do that. I think part of it, is that a lot of the other speakers are very rooted in or emotionally attached to their ideas, so were not very open minded. I find I have the same problem sometimes. If I go into a conversation and I am heavily identified with my ideas (and are they really mine), I sometimes have a tendency of not hearing, or hearing what I want to hear from the other person. Whereas if I have an open mind about it and am not attached to any particular outcome, I can listen more clearly and think more quickly and with better understanding. So in part, rationality requires leaving emotional biases at the door. Some of the other speakers did not do that.
 
Joe said:
I like Peterson, he's a very smart guy, but I was wondering if his stance against neo-marxist liberalism contains the same vehement attachment to an ideology, in his case anti-neo-marxist liberalism and the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused. I suppose a guy a smart as him has thought about that though.

Well, this thought crossed my mind as well, but from the videos I have seen, I think he rather uses Marxism to get his point across, maybe knowing that many people in America believe Marxism/communism is a bad thing by default. He also brings up Nazism here and there, but my impression is that he's cautious because comparing things to Nazism is kind of a no-go in the public/academic discourse. Also, for the kind of issues he talks about (Orwellian language and so on), the Chinese cultural revolution and Soviet-style communism might be better examples. But yeah, he seems to be a bit lost with all these ideologies, and I think the reason is that what he's missing is precisely the Ponerology perspective. Without that, it's difficult to find your way through the maze of philosophical and ideological discourse.


T.C. said:
Joe said:
I like Peterson, he's a very smart guy, but I was wondering if his stance against neo-marxist liberalism contains the same vehement attachment to an ideology, in his case anti-neo-marxist liberalism and the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused. I suppose a guy a smart as him has thought about that though.

I believe he's a social Darwinist.

I'm not so sure. He talks about his soul at one point and as Data pointed out (and I agree), he really comes darn close to some of the spiritual concepts we discuss here (self-transformation, acquiring of being etc.).

I think he's leaning towards what we in Europe call 'liberalism' and Americans call (confusingly) 'conservatism', which borders on neoliberalism. He quotes John Stuart Mill and Michael Friedman for example, who are - along with F.A. Hayek - part of the neoliberal canon. In fact, his arguments resemble those of Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" - the notion that egalitarianism leads directly to the Gulag and communist totalitarianism. The neoliberals took this so far as to say that a welfare state, or even a progressive income tax, is sufficient to take us straight to communist hell. I don't think Peterson would take it that far, but his thinking seems to be rooted in that tradition.

Again, without Political Ponerology, I think it's impossible to make sense of all this. For example, the idea of a welfare state or worker unions is NOT the problem, the problem is that a group of pathological people use these concepts to promote an idiotic, over-simplified 'egalitarian' ideology, where the psychological differences of individuals and their unique strengths and talents as well as hard work as a means to rise on the social ladder are not taken into account, as Lobaczewski pointed out. Similarly, the neoliberal ideas à la Hayek, Friedman etc. do make some good points, but the problem is that pathologicals misused and oversimplified them to justify obscene inequality, ripping the bottom of society of their rights and their means to 'make it', and, ironically, created a fascist corporate-controlled system that actually has more to do with communism than with the liberal state of J.S. Mill and other thinkers in that tradition.

Ah, what a tangled web. We can be grateful for Lobaczewski that he offered a new perspective from which we can see through this maze of 'isms', and the key is that there are people out there who have a completely different thinking and psychological makeup (psychopathology) and who, if we not notice it, will twist everything around in a brutal Orwellian maneuver that leaves us completely baffled and confused.

My impression though is that Peterson comes rather close to all of that.
 
T.C. said:
Joe said:
I haven't see him talk anywhere about actual spirituality.

I've often wondered about this, actually. Based on what I've seen, I'm pretty sure he's not an atheist. But then I suppose he has his own definitions of words and concepts. I've heard him talking about deeper aspects of reality, and then say something specific about it, and then say something along the lines of, "And that's the problem the atheist run into..." etc.

Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon the following video of his earlier lecture, where he talks a little bit about consciousness, but more about stories and myths, and their symbology as a collective memory, or as a warning or reminders to ourselves. It is similar to the Jungian ideas, of course, but Peterson also talks about other practical and important issues in a very entertaining and funny way. :lol: It's like a motivational talk about the importance of being aware and "mapping reality".

It makes me wonder if Peterson isn't similar to David Paulides in the way both of them are very careful about what they say, and make sure to remain within the "mainstream zone" in order to continue doing their job and be approachable to others.

 
I find it interesting that what this whole Gender Pronouns nonsense uncovers deeper issues with culture and society, as well as with the psychological makeup of the individuals identifying with such phenomena. Recent events such as Political Correctness (thought control) and "Fake News" (like a list of authorized books) reveal a zealous authoritarianism. IMHO the situation is well described by the following:

session 22 July 2000 said:
A: We wish to review some things first. The concept of a "master race" put forward by the Nazis was merely a 4th density STS effort to create a physical vehicle with the correct frequency resonance vibration for 4th density STS souls to occupy in 3rd density. It was also a "trial run" for planned events in what you perceive to be your future.

Q: (L) You mean with a strong STS frequency so they can have a "vehicle" in 3rd density, so to speak?

A: Correct. Frequency resonance vibration! Very important.

We have a generation bred for entitlement, wishful thinking, exceptionalism, pleasure seeking, authoritarianism, a tendency to prefer lies over truth, divorce from reality, etc.
OSIT
 
Timótheos said:
I have one question about your statement above... when you say "the destruction of moral values and suffering it has caused", by "it" do you mean neo-marxist liberalism or anti-neo-marxist liberalism?

Good points Timótheos, and I meant "neo-marxist liberalism"
 
Back
Top Bottom