Jordan Peterson 12 Rules for Life

[Lmarkow]

This view of sin is a re-hash of Aristotle's views on virtue.

 

[The Knize]

This view of sin is a re-hash of Aristotle's views on virtue.

Good insight. You are stretching my recollection of, I suppose, a fairly decent liberal education although arguably one short on the classics, but as I recall call Aristotle's views on virtue were tied up with his thoughts on the golden mean. The idea that the best approach to things in life is to avoid extremes. I think Aristotle and other Greeks thought of virtue--which I suppose can be understood as the avoidance of sin--as a skill in living--something that takes effort, knowledge, persistence, consistency, an ability to make sacrifices now to be better off in the future--which is very close and overlapping with what Peterson is talking about. Aristotle and the other Greeks, as I understand it, would not have thought of virtue as something imposed by a deity, with punishment for committing sin and reward for being virtuous. Peterson gets very complicated here. I think, and I do not pretend to understand all of what he is saying, that effective living techniques might as well be imposed by a deity. That we should live as if they were, and that we should strive to serve that deity, essentially for the good of ourselves and the community as a whole. (This is an important point, I think. That, although Peterson tends to talk about not sinning as benefiting the individual long term, in fact, as we have all seen, that is not necessarily so. An individual can sin greatly and as a direct result at least appear to come out very well. Not that every individual who sins comes out ahead.)

I think Peterson overall tends to conflate the individual and the community.

Peterson tends to talk about order and chaos and the importance of living on the edge between the two or with one foot in one and one in the other. I am not sure whether this corresponds to the "golden mean" or not.

I do not know whether Aristotle would consider individuals to inherently tend toward virtue. Peterson, at least sometimes, would say the opposite.

 

[Lmarkow]

Sometimes he sounds like he's re-hashing Plato's allegory re: Phaedrus. But then, sometimes Plato sounds like he's re-hashing Aristotle too. lol.

 

[The Knize]

There is nothing new under the sun! Old wine in new bottles, as they say!

Phaedrus, the allegory of the chariot. And with that, I have told you all and more than I know about it. Not that I am not interested in this type of thing.

<sometimes Plato sounds like he's re-hashing Aristotle too.>

Plato came first, right? One would expect Plato to be less rigid and Aristotle more rigid/prescriptive, I suppose.

You seem pretty learned on this stuff. Do you have as special interest and/or expertise in what Joseph Campbell might have called "mythology." I am fairly well-read on some of the psychology and, shall we say, far eastern "religion" things Peterson talks about, but I feel like I have big gaps of classic Greek philosophy and, say, Russian literature. I cannot really keep up on the existential philosophy either. I assume that lots of the folks Peterson is drawing on were well-versed in the Greeks. I am sure all would have admitted that they stood on the shoulders of giants, as I am sure Peterson would. In some ways Peterson is a popularizer of some heavy academic/intellectual stuff. I am not that deep into Maps of Meaning. I am not sure yet in my mind whether he can actually walk the academic walk on a lot of this stuff.

Of course, he talks about a massive number of subjects. He is a PhD psychologist, not a PhD theologian, historian, philosopher, or scholar of literature. No one could expect him to be an expert on everything he talks about. Of course, neither were Jung or Freud or Carl Rogers, or for that matter, Fritz Perls for heavens sake.

 

[Atinofpeas]

I've never read about the Greeks, so can't comment either way.

JP seems fascinated by the Bible and in particular Genesis. After listening to his lectures on same, i kind of had the following thoughts why that is:

It is perhaps so that he sees Genesis as defining the human condition and the consequences of that definition.
Sin, is a consequence of being human (or vice-versa) Because only humans are conscious and only a conscious being can properly contemplate an ideal (Sin is not achieving the Ideal). In the story of Cane and Abel, JP really focuses on the murder of Abel by Cane (i think) because by killing Abel, Cane kills the "ideal" and that is (should be) absolutely incompatible with being a proper "human" and which is why the act is abhorred in the Bible.
Sacrifice (1st meaning of saving for future gain) is again a consequence of being human because only conscious beings can contemplate the benefits of delayed reward. And again for the 2nd meaning (giving something up without reward ) as an appreciation and acceptance of your place in the universe.
Of course, the primary human condition is consciousness, and i rather like his exploration of Genesis and the eating of the apple in this regard.
He ties all these things together, or rather tries to show that the bible is doing this in the way of its stories in a logical (Non religious/catholic-esque) fashion, but in doing so, it is obvious that there is something missing and that try as he/you might, pure logic cannot define the universe. Much like Einstein with his cosmological constant, there is something else, an x factor at work. The insinuation is that the x factor is the universe itself, or as others would call it, "God". JP doesn't know what this X factor is. He doesn't believe in deities, there is no bearded man in the sky, but he can't quite put his finger on why the universe sometimes does what it does....
He is so fascinated with what makes us human and what that means because as a clinical psychologist, he is fighting (is that the right word to use?) with it as part of his job and academic career.

 

[Atinofpeas]

which leads to the eternal questions:

"What woke us up?"

"Why were we woke up?"

"What does that mean?"

Arthur C Clarke's answer to those questions was Aliens, but then what woke them up?

 

[Lmarkow]

There is nothing new under the sun! Old wine in new bottles, as they say!

Phaedrus, the allegory of the chariot. And with that, I have told you all and more than I know about it. Not that I am not interested in this type of thing.

<sometimes Plato sounds like he's re-hashing Aristotle too.>

Plato came first, right? One would expect Plato to be less rigid and Aristotle more rigid/prescriptive, I suppose.

You seem pretty learned on this stuff. Do you have as special interest and/or expertise in what Joseph Campbell might have called "mythology." I am fairly well-read on some of the psychology and, shall we say, far eastern "religion" things Peterson talks about, but I feel like I have big gaps of classic Greek philosophy and, say, Russian literature. I cannot really keep up on the existential philosophy either. I assume that lots of the folks Peterson is drawing on were well-versed in the Greeks. I am sure all would have admitted that they stood on the shoulders of giants, as I am sure Peterson would. In some ways Peterson is a popularizer of some heavy academic/intellectual stuff. I am not that deep into Maps of Meaning. I am not sure yet in my mind whether he can actually walk the academic walk on a lot of this stuff.

Of course, he talks about a massive number of subjects. He is a PhD psychologist, not a PhD theologian, historian, philosopher, or scholar of literature. No one could expect him to be an expert on everything he talks about. Of course, neither were Jung or Freud or Carl Rogers, or for that matter, Fritz Perls for heavens sake.

Yeah, I realized I typed them backwards. Sorry. I studied these guys decades ago, but Phaedrus and his chariot always stuck with me. He was the original James T. Kirk (winged horses named Spok and McCoy). lol. I'm not a fan of JP, but I can't blame him for studying the classics.

 

[The Knize]

Good stuff, Atinofpeas. All of that sounds about right. Peterson gets a massive amount out of Genesis, that is for sure. I do think one of his themes is that to be conscious is to be human, is to be aware of how rough and scary life can be, which provides an incentive to sacrifice, and thereby not to sin. I think Peterson is treating the story of Genesis as the symbolic story of how man evolved from a primitive state, where individuals could do relatively little to prepare for the future and had relatively little consciousness of such things as the causes and effects of things happening around them. Raised consciousness of such things made people, in his formulation, closer to an ideal, closer to a "god," but it came at the price of knowing just how bad things can be. Something like that. To gain consciousness is to have to leave the garden of Eden, and one does not become a god in any event, one only gains some additional arguably useful attributes.

But Peterson is making enormous intellectual leap after intellectual leap in this discussion. He is presenting a theory, perhaps, of why the story of Genesis and similar stories persist across human cultures, if they in fact do. A theory of why those origin stories seem important enough to mankind to so persist. But, I do not know, they may just be similar old stories that people liked. Or they may be stories of something that actually happened from a religious perspective that were clearly important to preserve. Or they may have been provided by a deity to help delivery a message to mankind. They may have have nothing to do with something of a symbolic explanation of the the evolution of human consciousness. Even if not, the story of Genesis is useful to Peterson in his explaining his theory of how human consciousness evolved, and the hows and whys of living a good life and avoiding "chaos."

There is no right or wrong to what Peterson is saying. Peterson cannot "prove" that the story of Genesis "means" any of the things he is saying it does, whatever "means" means. Welcome to "philosophy"!

There is a great Joseph Campbell quote that I cannot find that is to the effect that myths are metaphors for things that cannot be comprehended at all.

 

[Atinofpeas]

To gain consciousnessis to have to leave the garden of Eden

Ignorance is bliss eh!

If there is one thing I like about discussing stuff with those better educated than me, it is the doors they open and the breadcrumbs they leave behind for you to follow

I need to find out about this Cambell bloke and read some some of his stuff!

 

[The Knize]

The PBS series "The Power of Myth" that Bill Moyer did on/with Joseph Campbell is pretty good. Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth | Shows | BillMoyers.com It might or might not seem a bit dated, but it was great stuff when it first came out.

As usual there is also a lot of stuff on You Tube.

Campbell's own books, as I recall, as not as good/easy to get through. The book, associated with the TV series that has the same title as the series is very good. I suppose that book was probably said to the authored by Bill Moyer.

 

[Doc4]

but I feel like I have big gaps of classic Greek philosophy and, say, Russian literature. I cannot really keep up on the existential philosophy either.

He is a PhD psychologist, not a PhD theologian, historian, philosopher, or scholar of literature. No one could expect him to be an expert on everything he talks about.

Here we stumble upon one of the fundamental problems that all intellectuals (and those who aspire to those lofty heights) face in the modern world: there is far more that can be known than can ever be known.

Decades ago, I recall a history professor opine that Erasmus was "the last man who knew everything" ... in that he was the last intellectual of western civilisation who had read "everything in existence" (within western civilisation, of course. The books of China, India, &c, were beyond his reach.) The point was, that Erasmus, as a man of learning, could and did read everything available to him. After him, there was just too much written knowledge and opinion for one man to read. And of course things have gotten far, far ... better? ... worse?

Well, there is now so much written information that not only can one not read it all ... one cannot even keep up and read what is published now. So while we have more information, more knowledge, available to us than ever before, this is both a benefit and a hindrance, since anyone seeking to assess, analyze and discourse about what we know ... has to rely on the summaries and conclusions of others.

How many people fly across the globe each day in a jet airliner? Millions, I wager. But how many lifetimes would it take one person to understand how to make a 747 from scratch? I mean from scratch-scratch ... not get a job at Boeing and apprentice in their 747 division, I mean discover how to make something fly, how to get aluminum out of the ground, and how to get the copper ... conduct electricity ... internal combustion ... actually make one from scratch. Heck, if I plunked you down inside a giant airplane hangar with all the pieces for a 747 and all the tools to put it together, and a how-to book on assembling and flying ... that's still a lifetime's work right there.

Not only DO we stand on the shoulders of giants ... we have no option but to do so.

Arthur C Clarke's answer to those questions was Aliens, but then what woke them up?

Alien turtles, all the way down.

I think Peterson is treating the story of Genesis as the symbolic story of how man evolved from a primitive state

But, I do not know, they may just be similar old stories that people liked. Or they may be stories of something that actually happened from a religious perspective that were clearly important to preserve. Or they may have been provided by a deity to help delivery a message to mankind. They may have have nothing to do with something of a symbolic explanation of the the evolution of human consciousness.

I am fascinated by the question of how the Ancients viewed their holy texts. Did they all view them the same way? Did the clever people and the not-so-clever see them differently? Compare the works of Herodotus and Thucydides ... the "first two historians" ... where Herodotus's work is a seamless blend of what we would call fact and fiction ... myth, hyperbole, and so forth. Arion saved from the sea by a dolphin ... yeah, right. Then just a little while later, Thucydides writes something that we would recognise as "history" in it being an attempt to get things factually accurate. The thing is ... Genesis no doubt predates both men chronologically, and ... also intellectually? Is Genesis intended to be factually accurate? Is it intended to be read as a (modern definition) history? Did the people who wrote and read Genesis at its genisis (pun intented but the point stands) even have those categories in mind to say whether it was or wasn't this or that?

I have, in my personal life, met people who believed Genesis as history: roughly 6,000 years ago, in 24 hours shy of a calendar week, everything was created. And the first two people were named Adam and Eve. But these people have the benefit of a 20th-century education, know what science is, know what history ... scientifically factual history ... is, and have the option to view Genesis, and all the Bible, as scientifically factual history. I know a lot of other people who would make fun of that viewpoint; I don't make fun of it, but I do think it is mistaken. It's certainly an interesting question to ponder.

Did the ancient Greeks and Romans really believe that actual super-natural deities actually resided on Mt. Olympos ... like if you climbed up there you could find their palaces and knock on their doors and ask if Zeus was home? Did Greek children ever ask their parents if those stories "were really true" ... or did they "understand them differently", such that nobody would ever be foolish enough to climb Mt. Olympos to find the deities, and nobody would pay him any heed if he did and came back saying there were no godly palaces up there.

whatever "means" means. Welcome to "philosophy"!

"I got this one ... I'm good with those definition things."

 

[The Knize]

Excellent points how there is so much knowledge and writing out there that no one cane be truly an expert in very many things these days. To be a true Renaissance Man seems completely impossible. For that matter, can one imagine having the knowledge of Eramus at the time and on top of that being a great engineer, a great painter, and a great sculptor like Leonardo di Vinci? Maybe a politician, too. Someone like Thomas Jefferson managed to check a lot of the boxes. Winston Churchill, perhaps, and he had the artist thing down, too!

How did ancient man actually perceive things is a great question. I remember listening to a Great Course series on the ancient Greeks and part of that professor's points were that we simply cannot not put ourselves in the frame of mind of an actual ancient Greek. Culture is just too important and things have changed too much.

 

[Alacrity59]

I find him very though provoking and entertaining. Not mentioned, and I'm sorry if I missed it, is what he says about individualism vs. collectivism. I.e., "No collectivism period. Neither left nor right".

I've always thought it is most important to have your own personal values. Pick them. Perhaps value free speech so you can listen to arguments and adjust.

I've always been suspicious of group religion, political parties, and clubs. As Groucho said: "I don't care to be a member of a club that would have me as a member"

On the other hand . . . if you want to get things done in life you pretty much have to participate in politics at some level. I'm talking about in your own family, at work, and as a part of your state/province and country.

 

[The Knize]

I have been thinking about this one, Mike. I have no doubt that Peterson said that. I would also say that he walks north and south at the same time on a lot of things. He puts a lot of emphasis on thinking for oneself, but also on being a good citizen, a good family member, a good part of the community. To listen to other people as if they know something you do not know. To make your own house perfect before criticizing the world. I think he would say that we each have a duty to speak up against injustice, etc., although I cannot put my finger on a particular thing he talks about in that regard. He puts a big emphasis on making sure your children know how to get along with other people. He strongly warns against letting oneself become socially isolated. He himself seems to be building quite the organization(s).

I think he personally likes to be the leader. I also think he likes to be a maverick. I doubt that I would want him for an employee or a business partner.

I tend to agree with you that to get anything done as a human being, one has to work with other people, and to some extent that can be considered a political exercise. I sure do not know how one establishes a government and runs a country without some kind of cooperative effort. Or for that matter, for instance, run a shaving forum!

I am guessing that if one asked Peterson about that quote, he would say that what he said was more nuanced and that what he meant was one should not engage in Nazism or Stalinism, or something like that, which does not really help!

 

[cathdeacon]

I have been thinking about this one, Mike. I have no doubt that Peterson said that. I would also say that he walks north and south at the same time on a lot of things. He puts a lot of emphasis on thinking for oneself, but also on being a good citizen, a good family member, a good part of the community. To listen to other people as if they know something you do not know. To make your own house perfect before criticizing the world. I think he would say that we each have a duty to speak up against injustice, etc., although I cannot put my finger on a particular thing he talks about in that regard. He puts a big emphasis on making sure your children know how to get along with other people. He strongly warns against letting oneself become socially isolated. He himself seems to be building quite the organization(s).

I think he personally likes to be the leader. I also think he likes to be a maverick. I doubt that I would want him for an employee or a business partner.

I tend to agree with you that to get anything done as a human being, one has to work with other people, and to some extent that can be considered a political exercise. I sure do not know how one establishes a government and runs a country without some kind of cooperative effort. Or for that matter, for instance, run a shaving forum!

I am guessing that if one asked Peterson about that quote, he would say that what he said was more nuanced and that what he meant was one should not engage in Nazism or Stalinism, or something like that, which does not really help!

 

[August West]

I think the illusion of knowledge is far more dangerous than ignorance.

 

[Alacrity59]

On your last paragraph I think he would answer you "No way man". I don't see maverick or leader. I think he is one of those people who could lead competently but who does not seek to lead.

Perhaps we are starting to see the Alt Middle? Good lord I do hope so.

 

[cathdeacon]

Wonderful discussion....best use of e-forum awarded to you. I am reminded of a favorite of mine...Will Rogers said once "everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects".... Also, a little knowledge is dangerous, and in reading ancient texts or manuscripts it becomes always a matter of well, what did he mean by these words? For instance, if you read "I never said you stole that money", what do I mean? That I never said it, but implying someone else may have? Or that I never "said" you stole the money, implying maybe I just believed it myself, or wrote that you did. You get the point. There are any number of possible meanings to that simple statement. Hence, a hermaneutical key becomes necessary for the meaning of the author to be conveyed. Makes it tricky business.

 

[Alacrity59]

I think the illusion of knowledge is far more dangerous than ignorance.

I feign ignorance all the time. Wish I knew what feign meant. My friends and family are sarcastic . . . I grew up knowing hubris was a good thing.

 

[FarmerTan]

I think the illusion of knowledge is far more dangerous than ignorance.

This.