There's nothing wrong with these things per se. — Thorongil
However, as the author points out, they have also been used, historically, to bolster a Fascist volkgeist. — Maw
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. — Maw
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. — Maw
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". — Maw
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.
You are misunderstanding entirely. — Maw
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. — Maw
seriously...have you even read Peterson's work, or watched a single video? — Maw
'Y' might overlap in several key conceptual ideas with "X", without being considered "X", outright. — Maw
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. — Maw
But I am at least comfortable (and not delusional) enough to acknowledge the fact that anti-natalism can overlap with virulent politics. — Maw
No one is "refuting" Peterson's ideas based on such casual observations, especially since Peterson's views can be easily refuted without such appeals. — Maw
Yes, and the point is that such overlap does not constitute a refutation of the view in question. You're playing the part of historian at best, not philosopher, when you harp and carp on about these alleged "overlaps." — Thorongil
It is imperative to ask why and how this obscure Canadian academic, who insists that gender and class hierarchies are ordained by nature and validated by science, has suddenly come to be hailed as the West’s most influential public intellectual....
Closer examination, however, reveals Peterson’s ageless insights as a typical, if not archetypal, product of our own times: right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations...
In all respects, Peterson’s ancient wisdom is unmistakably modern. The “tradition” he promotes stretches no further back than the late nineteenth century, when there first emerged a sinister correlation between intellectual exhortations to toughen up and strongmen politics.
I haven't ever seen such a refutation, curiously enough. — Thorongil
but if you think that the intent of Mishra's article is to "refute" Peterson's own philosophy, you have severely misread it. — Maw
Well if you position yourself on the right of Peterson, I daresay you never will. — Maw
What is special about Marx is that he doesn't accept any particular set of economic relationships as being somehow the natural state of affairs; — Londoner
Well, as long as he gets to appeal to authority, then I might as well, too. On the topic of white privilege, I would recommend the following excellent essay (written by someone center-left, no less): https://theamericanscholar.org/the-privilege-predicament/#.WrLEgegbOUk — Thorongil
The better team apparently won the privilege game and took home the trophy. The 2nd place team took home -- well -- 2nd place.
If they say the game was rigged, then my ancestors were smarter than theirs and figured out how to rig the game and theirs didn’t. If they say my ancestors were more savage than theirs then that means theirs were weaker than mine. If they say there were more of mine, then that means that mine were simply better at understanding how to use the environment and technology to sustain a greater population. If they say that my ancestors were better geographically situated that means that they were better realtors, able to find and hold superior territory. If they say my ancestors had bigger, badder, and more destructive weapons that means than their ancestors were probably stuck in a stone-age existence for 10,000 years past their time.
lol what the fuck is this shit? — Maw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.