Very insightful post, and one (if I am understanding correctly) egregious example of the application of chrono-politics that immediately comes to mind, to me, is how members of the Republican Party and the NRA, promptly attempt to depoliticize the nature of a mass shooting, "killing time", by suggesting that "now is not the time for politics", and stretching the time in which it will be appropriate to discuss political solutions to a undisclosed future in which the urgency and the emotion will have dissipated.

Haha alrighty then.

You are misunderstanding entirely. You mistakenly believe that by contextualizing Peterson within a genealogy of intellectuals, some of whom were Fascist, that we are claiming Peterson is a Fascist too. Neither Jung nor Campbell, both of whom are hugely influential for Peterson, were out-and-out Fascists, and yet Jung believed that Aryan's were a superior race, and Campbell, who also spoke disdainfully of academic Marxists who were "overtaking American universities", harbored a deep hatred of Blacks and Jews.

As Umberto Eco wrote regarding "Ur-Fascism", incidentally also in the New York Review of Books:

The fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some 'family resemblance,' as Wittgenstein put it.

There is no doubt, to me, that some of Peterson's views harbor "family resemblance" to Fascism, which aren't "hilariously uniformed caricatures" (seriously...have you even read Peterson's work, or watched a single video? And he literally has a video titled "Identity Politics and The Marxist Lie of White Privilege", as posted in the beginning of this thread).

I am not claiming Peterson is a Fascist. 'Y' might overlap in several key conceptual ideas with "X", without being considered "X", outright. What I found most interesting about Pankaj Mishra's article is how Peterson's thought fits into a larger intellectual history, and how this history can help explain Peterson's sudden prominence and influence. I don't see how you can consider his views innocuous, but I suppose if you position your own political views to the right of Peterson, well then that would explain quite a bit.

I don't think it's incumbent upon the critic to delineate "good reasons" people might be captivated by Peterson's message (and not just because I don't think there are really any "good reasons"). I can understand (and I'm sure the author understands), that many young people, particularly men, may feel lost and displaced in modern capitalism, within a highly volatile job market, where, mostly white men, feel they are losing cultural power to minorities and women. Of course that's not a "good reason" to become a Peterson acolyte.

There's nothing wrong with these things per se. — Thorongil

Of course not. However, as the author points out, they have also been used, historically, to bolster a Fascist volkgeist.

In regards to Peterson's politically leanings, I never said he was an "outright fascist". I said he is part of a intellectual lineage, and some of whom, within said lineage (e.g. Julius Evola) were highly influential fascists, and who leveraged national myths etc. to promote their fascism. No, I certainly don't think Jordan Peterson is a fascist, or part of the white supremacist alternative-right. But if you advocate a socio-political hierarchy that's based on social Darwinism, and criticize social activism in abstract, or believe that women's inherent psychological traits mean they are unsuitable to work with men, or take positions of political power, and conduct lectures criticizing "Identity Politics and The Marxist Lie of White Privilege", etc. etc. etc. then I don't know what to call you, other than right-wing, and disturbingly far enough on the spectrum to warrant concern. Richard Spencer, by the way, while disagreeing with Peterson on a range of views, has nevertheless said that he and Peterson "share a lot of common ground and political starting points".

How is it a hit-piece?

Pankaj Mishra wrote a unique article in the New York Review of Book yesterday, placing Peterson within a line of "intellectuals" who promote national myth, religious stories, and symbolic archetypes to advance a right-wing, hyper-masculine, quasi-fascist (or just outright fascist) hierarchical-based politics.

Peterson responded with an entertaining twitter meltdown, where he threatened to slap the author, which is totally not a hyper-masculine response.

For sure. I mean my apartment is currently a mess, I guess that means I can't care about transgender rights

Here is a very curious interview (or snippet of a longer interview) with Jordan Peterson. I thought the host did a (mostly) good job of articulating his skepticism towards Peterson's views on activism, and forcing Peterson to explain his convoluted and controversial remarks (pay no attention to the hyper-partisan, moronic video title).

However, when confronting Peterson's disdain towards activism, and his belief that one should "clean up one's own room" before engaging in political activism, I thought the interviewer committed a huge misstep when bringing up Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of one who had personal issues, but was nonetheless committed to political activism. Peterson easily waves this away because while he can't say no, MLK was not right to commit himself to social justice when he should have worked out his personal problems first, he can uncontroversially admit that Martin Luther King Jr. was an exception to the rule, and no one is going to argue that run-of-the-mill activists are comparable to the venerated Martin Luther King Jr.

rather, the interviewer should have offered the example of those civil rights activists generally, who marched with, worked with, and protested alongside MLK. Martin Luther King Jr. played an important role in the Civil Rights Movement, but he didn't work in a vacuum, he had hundreds of thousands if not millions of activists who were there with him. If asked pointblank, I'm sure Peterson would argue that most of these activists had personal problems as well, but if they heeded Peterson's advice, then the Civil Rights Movement would have likely failed. In fact, the Civil Rights Movement would very much likely have been successful, one way or another, without MLK. Taking Peterson's advice would have made any activist movement a non-starter.

Anyway, it's an interesting conversation that taps into Peterson's view and exposes his limitations as a serious public intellectual. He stumbles quite dramatically near the end of the video when discussing climate change.

Peterson tweeted about the Current Events article yesterday, and hilariously, couldn't tell the difference between a legitimate ad and a parody.

I prefer this Dalek

So how can we be sure that some of our nice modern Leftists aren't nascent savage psychopaths? — gurugeorge

You're right. To be on the safe side, we should murder Leftists who write nicely. Harsh, to be sure, but we can potentially save millions of lives by being proactive.

The Fall Into Time by E.M. Cioran (Rereading)
Seibo There Below by Laszlo Krasznahorkai

Krasznahorkai is arguably one of the most important living writers.

Now there’s a rogue metaphor right there.... — Wayfarer

Is it? In the article that Saphsin provided, the author mentions a Peterson video titled, "Would I Ever Hit A Woman?" While Peterson does not condone hitting a woman in the video, top-rated comments include:

• My great grandmother once told me “Never hit a women, but you can sure as hell hit her back”
• I would never hit a lady. An aggressive bitch is another question.
• The original ethic was that a gentleman should never hit a lady. At the point that a woman threatens you or your own, she is definitely not a lady. Being a lady, like being a gentleman, requires civility, grace, respect, and a personal responsibility for one’s own behaviour.
• I believe women deserve rights…. and lefts!!!

And while Peterson has explicitly distanced himself from Richard Spencer, the latter, in a tweet, stated, "I respect your work. And we share a lot of common ground and philosophical starting points."

Excellent :up:

the fact that they like him and not some alt-right...is a good thing in my view. — Wayfarer

As the author of the above review I linked to observes, Peterson isn't as "avowedly extreme nor as daft as Milo Yiannopoulos", who is (or was) a major public figure of the "alt-right" similar (albeit, not explicitly) to Richard Spencer or Steve Bannon. While there are undeniable differences between avowed white supremacists, ethno-statists, neo-Nazis etc. and "Lobsterians", Jordan Peterson is not as innocuous as some may think. He continually promotes (bunk) biological essentialism that serves to accentuate the supposedly psychological trait differences between men and women, or between ethnicities (e.g. IQ), providing a "scientifically valid" platform with which the Alt-Right can leverage to further justify their racism, or misogyny. Peterson is a gateway thinker to more nefarious right-wing ideologies.

A Messiah-cum-Surrogate-Dad for Gormless Dimwits: On Jordan B. Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life"

So far, the best review of Peterson's book (and critique of Peterson) I've read yet.

Here and here, just two examples

Peterson says in the interview that we aren't allowed to make up new stories for "political reasons", yet , as I've seen pointed out, his top two recommended books are Brave New World and 1984....

It's also not exactly clear what political propaganda Frozen is attempting to get across. Peterson doesn't explain. he's just saying that it undermines an archetypal trope used in Sleeping Beauty.

Those evil Jews, I know

Interview from Time Magazine, during which Peterson calls Frozen propaganda :roll:

I am not a teacher by any means, much less a teacher of philosophy, so perhaps my viewpoint is myopic. I would think, however, that in a typical philosophy class, a professor would review key concepts and in conjugation with required reading, in order to clarify ideas in a structured way as to not overload the student. Perhaps my view is warped, because I first read The Philosopher's Toolkit after having already familiarized myself with many of the philosophical tools, so it wasn't a cumbersome read for me.

I think it also depends on what a novice philosopher is attempting to get out of reading introductory resources. Do they want to to understand key concepts from Hegel, or Hume, or other past philosophers? Than I would agree that this isn't a good book for that, and would suggest they skip Chapter 5. But if they want to understand important methods, basic ideas, etc. I think the book will prove valuable.

Any type of introductory book will, by necessity, be simplified in order to explain unique, new, or complex concepts and issues to a beginner. The book also provides "Further Reading" examples that further explain the tools, often from the very source of the concept. I'd be curious to know what you would consider to be a superior resource(s) for introducing philosophy.

Studies have shown that women are just as proficient in mathematics, science, and other STEM related fields, as men are. So there is no "intelligence-based" reason as to why women don't have equal, or near-equal representation in STEM industries as men. Beyond this, there are likely multi-variant explanations as to why women lack reasonable representation in STEM, ranging from overt gender discrimination and historical exclusion (e.g. "old boy's club"), subtle societal expectations including the concept of the patriarchal breadwinner, or that the woman should "manage the household" rather than pursue a long-term, meaningful career. I don't think there are any meaningful "trait differences" between men and women that adequately explain this asymmetry.

Sun Ra, Sun Ra, Lord Quas, Madlib

Well it's certainly possible that democracy will be able to continue to prevail. As I said, I'm not one for prognostications. But if I am not outright pessimistic then I am at least cautious.

As you said, many of these major events listed have either failed, are failing or fairly fragile or simple ineffective. I don't think that democracy is undergoing a "downward spiral", but, as the political scientist Larry Diamond argues, there has been a global increase in illiberal democracy, a decrease in public confidence in democracy, and other societal and economic barriers that can question its legitimacy, leaving space open for Chinese one-party authoritarianism to enter as the alternative. It's a situation that will likely become more precarious over time.

I don't think you can meaningfully compare Japan with China, given that the former makes up 1.7% of the world's population, while the latter has 18.5%. China also first surpassed Japan's GDP in 2009, and has now since more that doubled it.

This is a disservice to the many Chinese and Russian men and women who openly advocate for political change in their respective countries, and risk their lives doing so. History doesn't determine the fate of a country. That's not to say I'm optimistic that China or Russia will evolve into a liberal democracy in the near future, but there is nothing "inherent" for the Russians or the Chinese that make them unable to handle democracy.

Xi Jinping Say China's One-Party Authoritarian System Can Be A Model For The World

"At the big annual gathering of Chinese lawmakers and political advisors that kicked off March 3, Xi said that China is offering a “new type of political party system”—a Chinese solution that contributes to the development of political parties around the world, according to state media."

I'm not one for prognostications, so I can't comment on what the probable trajectory will be for democracy, but it's hard to imagine a near-future where things will be better before they get worse. An "event" can transpire that can further damage the legitimacy of Western democracy, from another recession to a second term victory for Trump, etc. However, it's hard to imagine a singular (or set of) event that would, on the other hand, benefit democracy. There are serious obstacles facing liberal democracy in the next decade, and, pessimistically, I don't think its current fragile state is prepared for a rising China (which in itself, is not fated to succeed. There will be a lot of pressure for President Xi Jingping maintain his own legitimacy, and his party's legitimacy through continued economic growth, environmental protection, and maintaining standards and expectations for an expanding middle class).

lol this is a profoundly lazy cop-out, even for you. We are not talking about future predictions. We are talking about how post-modernism became, andis presently, the cultural orthodoxy.

I have no explanation, because I don't believe that post-modernism, "Marxist Identity Politics", or however you want to label it, is "dominating" these various institutions or the "cultural zeitgeist". This is a talking point from Quillette, Peterson, Sommers, et al, and I'm asking you to explain it.

The Philosopher's Toolkit is an excellent book to start with.

The David Harvey lectures are fantastic. I watched them while reading volume 1 of Capital back in 2011.

So the US was founded on one kind of mythology - the endless frontier. China is instead a belief in an insular empire that had a bad century or two and now is getting back to how things should rightfully be. — apokrisis

Edward Luce has recently put forward an intriguing (but not very robust) theory that "the secret to any nation's diplomatic character is embedded in its popular imagination." If you were to ask someone from England, America, or China, "which historical events made them proudest", the answer you'd be given is aligned with their foreign strategy. For example, a Brit would likely mention standing against Nazi Germany alone in WW2, or their victory over Napoleon. "Britain's worst fears and deepest triumphs have always coincided with Europe's unification under one power". A typical American may say defeating the Axis powers in WW2, or triumphing over the Soviet Union, or the victory for British independence, or landing on the moon. "Each instance reflects America's deep-seated belief in its own freedoms - and spreading them to others." It's no wonder then, that we have Bush's Freedom Agenda, or the Vietnam War, etc. However, for China, Luce states that two prized historic events for modern China are "China's detonation of the Hydrogen bomb in 1964," and "Britain's transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997." Both examples, "show China's deep-rooted desire to be treated with respect and dignity." And I would add that they want to be treated as an autonomous sovereignty, and a warden of the East, which will not fly with America's current foreign policy.

This isn't an answer, though. How did an esoteric academic philosophy transform into a the prevailing "cultural zeitgeist" or the paramount "values of society"? How did it insert itself there? Why is it an "quasi-religious orthodoxy", as some have said? Offering parallels to fashion is just a poor excuse to adequately ponder the question.

I might write a full thread about this, but I was recently thinking about why Peterson, Sommers, Quillette contributors, and other members of this sort of quasi-alternative right fringe never precisely explain how political correctness, or more radically, "Post-Modern Marxist Identity Politics", has (for them) dominated college campus, private businesses (STEM-based companies), and mainstream media and other institutions, influencing all of society. I think the reason for this is that any explanation would more or less require a discussion around the power of ideology, language, and power-relations - the very discursive tools that the humanities have provided as well, and that the quasi-alternative right (or whatever the hell to call them) aim to criticize. It's self-defeating.

Here is recent research showing the growing influence of China, in both covert and overt ways, across Europe.

Meanwhile, Apple has just announced that they will abide by China's laws concerning data storage, which enable the Chinese authorities to access any data stored by any party, anywhere in China. — Wayfarer

China is leveraging the fact that they are a growing economy, whose growing middle class indicates that it is moving towards a consumption-based economy, rather than merely a producing one, in order to strong-arm, threaten, or punish private businesses. For example, Marriott hotel, an American headquartered, multinational company, fired an employee for "liking" a tweet from a pro-Tibet twitter account. Delta airlines also apologized for listing Tibet and Taiwan as an independent countries. As multinational companies continue to enter the Chinese market, how far will they go to tip-toe the line, and appeal to China, in order to avoid getting expelled from the market?

Something "existing" outside "physical reality" doesn't sound meaningful at all.

I'll have to pick up Voegelin work sometime, but I've seen a mostly welcoming response from historians regarding Israel's work. Of course, there's bound to be criticism here and there. It's curious that your philosophy teacher found Israel's use of "Radical" a pet-peeve, given that the original Greek meaning isn't much in play nowadays, whereas radical is understood to mean revolutionary. But even so, Israel dedicates a few chapters on the "Recovery of Greek Thought"; how proponents of the radical Enlightenment were influenced by ancient atomists, materialists, and atheists such as Lucretius, Epicurus, Strato, among others. So in a (stretched) sense, the Greek etymology is viable here, too.

My point is that a philosopher working during the Enlightenment could have one foot firmly in radical thought pertaining to certain issues, while the other foot is set firmly in moderate thought on others, which Israel himself acknowledges. I haven't read Revolution of The Mind, but I think, in the quote you offered, Israel is merely generalizing. I think it is very safe to say, from what I've read in his other work, that believing in a providential universe, by itself, does not necessarily entail a commitment to monarchism contra democracy. To some extent, you are right that for the radical Enlightenment philosophers, a particular metaphysics provides a consistent basis, or extension towards an egalitarian and democratic socio-political society, and I believe Israel does mention that somewhere. So, as you said, it is a "key factor", to an extent. But, as with Hume, (and Pierre Bayle, if I recall correctly), among a few other lesser names, that's not always the case.

It should also be noted that while the French Revolution had leaders influenced by the radical philosophers, other, more influential leaders, and who ultimately grabbed the reins of the revolution, such as Marat and Robespierre, were influenced by "moderate" enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, not by Diderot et al.

Jonathan Israel uses the term "Radical" (in the context of the Enlightenment, of course) to describe a set of overlapping (but not necessarily unconditional) ideas pertaining to: God (e.g. religious fundamentalism vs. atheism), political philosophy (e.g. absolute monarchy vs. democratic republic) and ethics (e.g. anti-tolerance vs. universal tolerance). He contrasts the Radical arm of the Enlightenment with the Moderate arm, and the Counter-Enlightenment arm.

Israel doesn't provide an exact, strict , or inflexible criteria for what constitutes a "radical" Enlightenment thinker, as philosophers during this time differed in the above views, sometimes inconsistently, and across a spectrum. Rather, Israel focuses on a multitude of philosophers, discusses their views within the socio-political and intellectual environment they lived and worked in, and argues where they fit within the different strains of Enlightenment thinking, while acknowledging that one can hold views from different "sections" of Enlightenment thought. For example, David Hume, while irreligious, and arguably an atheist, nevertheless believed that organized religion was necessary for society to properly function. And despite his somewhat advanced ethical views, he was nevertheless highly skeptical of democracy, preferring a mixed monarchy. Compare this with Diderot, who emphatically advocated for atheism, democracy, and universal ethics. In fact, while Diderot and Hume wrote to one another occasionally, they never really took the others' idea seriously. As such, Israel argues that Hume should be more accurately viewed as a member of the Moderate Enlightenment, rather than the Radical arm with Diderot, D'Holbach, (early) Helvetius, or, of course, Spinoza.

Israel actually devotes quite a few pages to Jefferson, who, save for Thomas Paine, is arguably the most radical of the Founding Fathers. While Jefferson was undeniably influenced by Locke (who was certainly not a Radical), much of the language of the Constitution is written in "Radical" terms (e.g. "All Men Are Created Equal" could never have been derived from Locke). In regards to Price, Priestly, and Wollstonecraft, while they did believe in a providential universe, that fact alone doesn't exclude them from holding highly radical ideas pertaining to, e.g. political philosophy, and ethics, such as women's emancipation. One can certainly be a Deist and believe in universal toleration, or democracy, both of which were certainly radical during the Enlightenment.

The Radical, Moderate, and Counter-Enlightenment placards are really just helpful guidelines in order to compare and offer resemblances, influences, etc. between philosophers and theologians during the Enlightenment. There is no rigid demarcation for who fits in where, as that would be messy and ultimately ahistorical.

Let me know how this is, it's been siting in my Amazon cart for a while.