Sigh.

I would like to recommend you a book Napoleon the Great. The audio book edition is also really well read.

One of my personal observations from this book was regarding Napoleon's rise following the revolution.

Napoleon was Italian and his father was a minor court administrator in Corsica. At that time Italy was not yet a nation state, just a collect of city states and in order to sure up political influence, all Corsican nobility where allowed to claim admittance to the French court. Napoleon's father saw an opportunity and sent his young son to the French military school.

Fast forward a couple of years and Napoleon is now an officer in the French army. He was very well read and had written a couple of minor essays in support of the revolution. With the majority of the officers coming from French nobility, many fled (or were executed) as the revolution heated up. Napoleon was one of the few people with officer training and experience but was outside of the traditional French aristocracy and could be trusted as a revolutionary. Napoleon was a singlely talented individual, but without the circumstances of his origin, such talent may never have seen the light.

With Napoleon's personal story on your mind (as well as JP's comments about how powerful the ability to write makes you) I would like you to re-consider your stance on the Jews.

The Jews maintained their unique culture and literary traditions while literacy was lacking in the general population. Despite their high level of education they were often excluded from society due to their religious differences. Because of their education (and freedom from leading restrictions) they were often wealthy, and that wealth plus cultural exclusion would often lead to persecution.

It is easy to hypothesis that this tradition of both high education and social exclusion would put them in the perfect position if there was ever some large scale social unrest. Like Napoleon, once the educated ruling class fled (or were killed) they would be the only ones with the skills to lead. Secondly, as they had been ostracised by the ruling classes, it is only natural that they would foment revolutionary thinkers and be trusted by the masses.

There is no Jewish conspiracy. They didn't plot and they certainly didn't benefit from it. Rather, just as Napoleon was an educated individual in rare position to make use of his education, so too certain Jewish individuals, who benefited from their cultural heritage, were in a position to take advantage of the situation of large social change.

Thanks for that - I'm glad you found it interesting.


My father's argument was perhaps a little closer to something JBP might argue: he essentially asserted that we might think we have fairly unlimited freedom and self-determination, but that this is ultimately illusory. The circumstances of our existence essentially dictate a large proportion of what we do and how we do it, and therefore, a focus on freedom from such circumstances is naive, and the resentment that it inevitably generates is unnecessary. I think I agree with this to a large extent - though what I find interesting is how much some people struggle in the face of this somewhat obvious truth.


I agree with your comments re materialism, and DFW's need for certainty. I think his self awareness of this fact is probably one of the hallmarks of his writing!


I think I might have interpreted the admiration for AA a little differently to you. In Infinite Jest, AA is presented as a way of resolving the spiritual crisis of the frustrated will to addiction I described in my article, and I think it is ultimately a 'metamodern' view on the nature of faith. Gately's struggle with AA seems to be that the escape of spiritual nihilism relies on placing faith in a set of maxims that are self-evidently constructed - and yet, engaging sincerely with these maxims, despite knowing their constructed nature, still results in a more spiritually fulfilled life for those that do it.


There's a great article on DFW in this book where the authors suggest that DFW's ultimate message is that the escape of the solipsism and nihilism of postmodern thought seems to rely on allowing oneself to be vulnerable to interpersonal interaction: to place faith in the power of connectedness. I think I agree with this to some extent - I would be interested to hear your thoughts though. https://www.amazon.com/Metamodernism-Historicity-Postmodernism-Radical-Cultural/dp/1783489618

Hello, I'm a bit late to this parade (I just heard Dr. Peterson's podcast with Joe Rogan yesterday) but I wanted to weigh in here.

There are a lot of good sources from a variety of Christian viewpoints. Many of the ones already listed are very good, but I don't see anything from my own particular version of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy), so I wanted to suggest two resource for you from that perspective as well as another from C.S. Lewis whose words are held dear by most Christians.



The first is a lecture by Fr. John Behr, the current dean of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. He holds Masters of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford University. This one is on YouTube and is 1.5 hours in length. It is called Death, the Final Frontier.There are a couple of minutes of fluff at the beginning but it starts to really roll into something I think Jordan Peterson fans would enjoy at the 3-minute mark. It is ostensibly about death, but it is a great critique of modern western culture viewed through the lens of liturgical Christianity.

This second is a recording of a lecture provided by a former dean of the same seminary that I think cuts to the heart of what Christianity actually means. It is called "The Word of the Cross" by Rev. Dr. Thomas Hopko and is around two hours total and has been broken into four individual sections by an Orthodox podcast publisher:
Part 1
[Part 2] (http://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/hopko_lectures/the_word_of_the_cross_part_2)
Part 3
Part 4

Lastly, I would direct you toward the writings of C.S. Lewis. When I was a young teenage atheist, his arguments were very persuasive for me and have been very popular amongst most Christians. I know many Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics who have all found their first theological footing in Lewis' work. Mere Christianity is probably the best source to steer you toward, but I think his best ideas can be found in The Abolition of Man, The Great Divorce, and Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold. Since you've professed a preference for audio content, I will point you toward a YouTube playlist of the series of BBC radio broadcast lectures that C.S. Lewis gave during WWII that were the core of what later became Mere Christianity.

I'm tempted to also suggest that you read Thomas Merton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kirkegaard, Dostoyevsky, St. John Chrysostom, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many, many others. Enjoy your journey!

Counseling can be helpful (For both of you).
She may have an imbalance that meds could help.

For the psychological side I would recommend
You Can Be Happy No Matter What .
It really helped me a lot.

For the spiritual side I would recommend reading the Bible & praying to Jesus. I would be happy to send you a list of verses that help me, if you like. I struggled w depression & addiction for 10 years, but thankfully got past it.

Ultimately she does need to want to get better to be proactive in her own treatment.

If I were you I would decide how long you’re willing to work with her, what kind of progress you would like to see & what you’re willing to live with. Set limits.

I think you should do your best to help her, but you can’t put up with it your whole life if there’s no improvement- especially if you want children. A person with issues like that would be a terrible parent. You can support one extra human but supporting more while at the same time doing the job of 2 parents is untenable.

For anyone saying that Islam is only a political system coupled with bible verses. Political interpretations of the biography of the Prophet (pbuh) have been made in the last 100 yrs in the midst of decolonization mouvements in the middle East. Political power was not what motivated Muhammad. If it was, he would have accepted the deal the Quraich tribe came with, which was to give him any riches, any power that he wanted in exchange of stopping to proclaim that there was one God. Slaves, poor people and some youth were attracted to his message (because it was empowering) and it was causing trouble to rich and powerful members of the tribe that saw that as an assault on their honor and a challenge to their authority and customs. So to the propositions, he answered : "May you would to put the moon in one of my hand, and the sun in the other one, I would never stop to say that there is one God." Something like that. Along with reciting verses from the Quran. How about considering that he had very very few follower for 12 first years, that they were prosecuted and banned from their city only for saying that they believed in one God. I mean, what are the chances that this strategy would have been seen as the most effective and the best one to gain power over the arab tribes and form a state ? Like, seriously ? You have seen a lot of historical figures that were politically motivated that their main strategy was to proclaim that there was one God against all of people around them. Give one example of an historical figure that used that deliberate strategy to gain political power. So, read another biography that is not motivated by political ideologies applied on history. I recommend this one and a contextualized version of the Quran like this one for furthering research outside of anti-muslim or pro-islamist narratives. Peace !

I wrote this and your post disappeared but I wanted to make sure you saw it. Really, really important to repair your relationship with your parents. The key is to be able to be respectful of them while not slipping back to the parent-child dynamic. You are an adult now and your dad is just slipping into your old pattern. Find some ways of gently drawing the line. His advice is his opinion. The problem is your reaction to it. If you like audio books, try this: https://www.amazon.com/How-Think-Like-Roman-Emperor/dp/1250196620 It has been very useful to me in realizing that other people's opinions were merely suggestions and not an imperative to me. I feel you though. Parent-Adult Child can be extremely difficult at first. Your dad has a lot of experience and wants the best for you so try to make him your ally. He probably is just wanting to tell you all the things he would be worried about in your position and what decisions he would make. Ask his advice if you can -- perhaps about how he would make certain decisions -- and then listen and thank him and tell him you'll think about it. Be the man you are with him and he will see that you are an adult and will start to treat you like one. Be the one who changes the dynamic.

I'm not interested in bickering with you two, but I've read into this area quite a bit. Islam and the middle east made minuscule contributions to science outside of Western Europe, although there certainly was influence from the Islamic world, it pales in comparison. It was actually considered fashionable and myserious to read about the writings of the East for a while in Western Europe. Many scholars would boast about it, but if you follow the lines, there really wasn't much there. Particularly the writings of medicine and astronomy, the vast bulk of discovery was by Western Europeans, often monks or funded by the Catholic church.

There's an arrogant attitude of individuals living within the "enlightenment" that has lead many to view medieval history as nothing but barbaric superstitious religion. A lot of history written by Protestants and atheists has really muddied the water as It's an ample opportunity to bash the Catholics or the religious. Not to say that I'm turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Vatican or religious dogma in general. It's also unfair to mock people from the dark ages, when It's likely that if we were born in that era and location, we'd be exactly the same. Western Europe really climbed It's way out of the gutter.

Relying on online sources of information (wikipedia) has often proven a waste of time from my experience, too much bias and half truths, I recommend reading original source material. Hold on I'll get a link to a book that is a good place to start.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848311508?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-brave-uk-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1848311508

Western Europe really is responsible for huge leaps forward in humanity. The Anglican's also weren't JUST barbarians, (although I understand why you'd think so considering some of the sacrificing).

I don't think we appreciate just how weird this period in time is for humanity in the West. The level of freedom I believe is a consequence of Christian teaching along with Greek Philosophy, particularly Aristotle's writing. Aristotle was a huge thorn in the side of the Catholic church, but it lead to the constantly searching mind of Western Europe, and combined with the order enforced through the Catholic church lead to a lot of interesting human thought. It's difficult to imagine the world from the perspective of people who thought of the world with god in the center of it.

There's a bibliography in the back of that book that you can work through. The significance of Europe really is a marvel to behold. I hope you read and enjoy it guys.

Awesome! Here's the central churches website (you can get further support there, if not from me): https://newchurch.org/

Here are some amazon versions of our books on: heaven and hell, the doctrine of life and a verse by verse explanation of revelation (pretty tough at first). I'd recommend starting with the doctrine of life, as it is easier to grasp and links to well known concepts like the 10 commandments.

Heaven and hell: https://www.amazon.com/HEAVEN-HELL-PORTABLE-NEW-CENTURY/dp/0877854068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=EI7FV0RXJI2T&keywords=heaven+and+hell+emanuel+swedenborg&qid=1568746466&s=gateway&sprefix=heavne+and+hell+%2Caps%2C412&sr=8-1

Doctrine of life: https://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Life-Emanuel-Swedenborg-ebook/dp/B00D33AMV8/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=doctrine+of+life+swedenborg&qid=1568746531&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Revelation revealed: https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Revealed-Emanuel-Swedenborg-ebook/dp/B01JLWWML2/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=apocalypse+revelead+swedenborg&qid=1568746599&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spell

Further resources which may be useful:

https://swedenborg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/swedenborg_foundation_life.pdf; (free ebook)

https://www.youtube.com/user/offTheLeftEye

Please ask me any questions and ill try offer support. If you want any of the books free, not off amazon, I can share them, although some of the amazon versions are nice. I've been with the church 15 years, and feel like ive grown to be a better person, though it is not without hard times (carrying my cross).

Lack of pleasure (anhedonia) and lack of motivation (which works through the expectation of pleasure) indicate low dopamine, but the question is why your dopamine is low. Maybe you have low testosterone and/or estrogen because of undiagnosed hypogonadism, which itself might be caused by another stressor. Maybe you have undiagnosed hypothyroidism which jacks up norepinephrine levels and in the process sucks up dopamine from which it comes.

Either way, the main cofactor for the enzyme that synthesizes dopamine is vitamin B6. The active form of this is called P5P, and can be bought cheaply online. I generally recommend people to try a whole set of methylated (i.e., activated) B vitamins, like this.

Dopamine is synthesized from l-dopa, which in turn is made from the amino acid tyrosine, which you can also get through supplement form (l-tyrosine). I'd also recommend getting a basic thyroid hormone panel pulled (TSH, free T3, free T4) as well as (for males) total and free testosterone and estradiol. There are definitely other causes, but these are good places to start.

Looks like I'll be starting with Jung! I have Modern Man In Search of A Soul and The Essential Jung - picked that one up randomly so I hope it's valuable.

As much as I'd love the guide that it seems MoM gives (I'm considering going back to school for philosophy, despite the risk, and would love some extra encouragement to "aim properly"), I can put it aside for now. If tackling Jung and Hegel gives me a critical eye to MoM, all the more reason to hold off.

I respect Peterson a lot, and I'm a big fan, but I always want to be able to look at ideas critically and judge them on their full merits.

Is your knowledge of Hegel and Jung self-taught? I'm currently reading Mortimer Adler's How To Read A Book in order to prepare myself to tackle these texts.

Interesting quote you pulled from the Philosophy subreddit. My interest in Hegel stems from my Christian background. I can't help but feel that Hegel, Jung, and (by extension) Peterson, are touching on a way to bring Christianity into the 21st Century.

I personally would argue a different logic. But that isn’t to say your direction is wrong. In the end I believe we’d have the same understanding, but using different syntax. It also seems you’re really centered around duality where there’s a perfection and it’s anthesis. Where the archetypes are more of a spectrum. But again, to me, both are trying to explain the same phenomena. It all just depends on how you shape the argument.

Have you read “King Warrior Magician Loved”? Which directly dives into the spectrum of each archetype? That might help to see where your idea of forms fit in. (Amazon link at end)

Fun fact: did you know Plato’s forms might have been an inhibiting reason why it took so long for science to discover evolution?

King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062506064/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_ZeIIDbF5DA2J8

You might want to actually learn about CS Lewis.

In Mere Christianity, Lewis bluntly states, quote, that “a Christian society would be what we call Leftist.” His references to capitalism (competition, profit, the accumulation of wealth, marketing, inequality, self-interest) are always critical, often hostile. He insisted that “If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong”.

He also routinely criticized British Imperialism, the continuing effects of slavery, and critiqued glorified notions of “the family”. His buddy was crypto-commie George Macdonald, and he was surprised that the United States did not have a “socialist” English-style National Health Service, which he treated as common sense.  On more than one occasion - and in print - he called for economic equality.  When Churchill, in the reactionary 1950s, wanted to award him a “CBE”—Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Lewis turned it down, because he did not want to be associated with, quote, “anti-leftist propaganda.” He was also a friend of Edith Nesbit, the friend of Karl Marx’s daughter and repeatedly condemned fascism and the far right (especially in Spain) and detested conservatives like Evelyn Waugh. His attitude toward nationalism is especially revealing; he opposed the, quote, “fanatical Nationalist who tells me to throw away my scruples about universal justice and benevolence and adopt a system in which nothing but the wealth and power of my own country matters.”  “Universal justice and benevolence” are basic liberal values he explicitly said on more than one occasion. He even consigned two of England’s hero-sized nationalist monarchs—Henry V and Henry VIII—to Hell.  He also was buddies with the great English Marxist, William Morris, and notice how often the theme of social revolution turns up in Lewis’s books for children. 

And, though he has a reputation in America as a kind of evangelical Christian, Lewis abhorred mixing religion with politics.  “Of all bad men religious bad men are the worst”.  His language is blunt.  “Theocracy is the worst of all governments” and he openly called his beliefs “liberal” and “humanist” and expressed sympathy for the socialists hauled up before the McCarthy hearings, which he did not approve of. Up until he death, he expressed that humanity needed a new economic democracy, and his much touted "Mere Christianity" (perhaps his most popular book in the west) has surprising things to say about capitalism:  “Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest. . . . three great civilisations had agreed in condemning the very thing on which we have based our whole life under capitalism". In a Christian society, he said, “There will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. A Christian society would be what we now call Leftist”.

But of course, like Orwell (and numerous civil rights leaders), CS Lewis is whitewashed in the west.

Amazon.com:

>A wave of sexual misconduct allegations about powerful men have exploded recently in the media (e.g., the news, Twitter #MeToo, etc.). A bold social movement has begun with brave women coming forward and being applauded for speaking out and sharing their stories of abuse, discrimination, and harassment. As a result, accused men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and dozens more have been removed from power and are suffering the consequences.
>
>In How to Destroy A Man Now (DAMN), Dr. Angela Confidential (a business psychologist, consultant, and human resource professional) empowers women with a step-by-step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power.
>
>In easy to understand terms, the handbook reveals and explains the fundamental dynamics between allegations, the media, and authority as they relate to male misconduct in today’s society. It also unveils and details practical real-world methods for leveraging allegations, media, and authorities to dethrone a man from power.

​

A comment:

>I agree with JW that this book was written by a man. I have the book, it's a quick read, it is, as JW says, accurate, and having written many articles and essays on this and related topics as an MRA and MGTOW, I wish I had written this book. By presenting it as a how-to for women written by a woman, the author guaranteed that it would rouse controversy, gain attention, and possibly even make lots of money from men buying it to confirm the misandry, from misandrists wanting tips, and from the media looking for juicy headlines. In the process, as JW suggests, it will warn men of just how vulnerable they are. It's a brilliant and provocative strategy. We need to learn from this example and emulate it

I don't have a reference for you on this because I got it from an audiobook, and I don't feel like looking up details, but I've heard from a reputable source that recent double blinds seem to suggest that ECT isn't that much more effective than a placebo.

If you want more details, read: https://www.amazon.com/Suggestible-You-Curious-Science-Transform/dp/1426217897

The chapter on placebos.

The book itself is very interesting when it comes to depression, considering how much brain chemistry seems to be responsive to placebo/suggestion.

Highly recommended, fun, easy, and quick read.

Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying. Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450
   
2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014 Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg
   
3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144 Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".
   
4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093
   
5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd
   
   The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf
   
   -Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.
   
   
6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."
   
   
7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology. I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies
   
   http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

The short link in the submission resolves to the following:

> https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345816021/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_dp_YEVnzb8JDRMA2

That "ref=..." part is indeed an optional part of the URL, but as far as I know it is not part of an Amazon Affilate system (where someone is getting a few pennies if you purchase through their links). It just shows Amazon where are you coming from, like you clicked it in a promo email, or as a part of this or that ad campaign, etc.

Dr. Peterson used the link amzn.to/2senVC5 in his tweet, which resolves to the following:

> https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496793217&sr=8-1&keywords=12+Rules+for+life

That's another ref, plus it shows - among other things - that he searched for "12 Rules for life" and got it that way :)

But https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345816021 is indeed the "clean" URL to the book. But not all people are as precise with these things - or as nitpicking :) - as us.

Jordan B. Peterson is very careful about the way he speaks (writes) and the words he use. The current translation of 12 Rules for Life in germany hurts his reputation and distorts his message. And as someone who has consumed hours and hours of his wisdom, I feel obliged to speak up against it.

Please support and share. Make him aware, we need a german reprint, with a translation that does justice to the original. Thank you!

@Update: I think a more literal translation of the german version of rule 12 would be: "If a cat runs across your way, stroke/pet it."

@Update: Since some people have argued that "unsympathetic" isn't a good translation of "unsympathisch" (see rule 5) I just wanted to note, that I've tried my best to be as true to the words as possible and therefore decided to go with unsympathetic, but some might prefer "unlikeable" or "disagreeable". Plus I can't simply alter the image.

@Update: Revised image/translation based upon feedback

/u/Hermel: "Good news everyone, a revised translation will be available soon: https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Life-chaotischen-Aktualisierte-Neuausgabe-ebook/dp/B07SGM97WX"

/u/dll22: "I teach translation at a university in China and work for a translation company. Hope these points are informative. (...)"

Thank you for sharing this.

Dr. Peterson said this in abbreviated form during one of his Q&A sessions. He emphasizes setting aside the reading after encountering a significant idea and then re-synthesizing it by writing your thoughts on it and how it relates to your existing body of knowledge (i.e. adding memory "hooks" to the new information).

Also, the book How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler dispels the assumption that all reading is equal. Essentially, there are different forms of reading which are suited for different types of material and goals. The passive form of reading most people do is best suited for recreational reading (i.e. magazines or novels) where retention of information is not the primary goal. This form is less taxing, thereby promoting the relaxation/recreation goal. The deeper forms of reading where retention (and more importantly, understanding) is the goal, require a form of reading much different than the "start at the beginning and read sequentially" form to which most are familiar.

The concept of "chunking" is interrelated to all these sources: Waterloo, Dr. Peterson, Adler, et. al. - which is the concept of actively relating new information to existing information. This helps by literally increasing the number and strength of neural connections to the physical site of the new memory, as well as structuring the new memory in such a way as to assign meaning to it. Chunking is also how brains become capable of dealing with concepts of increasing complexity. The vast majority of those who are regarded as super-intelligent in some field do not process more chunks of information than the average person. As an example, Bobby Fisher didn't rely on an extraordinary short-term memory to think so many moves ahead in his chess games; instead, he had synthesized his knowledge of chess so extensively to be able to think of entire sections of the board and entire sequences of moves through time as single chunks of information, whereas a beginner would think about individual pieces during the current turn as chunks. So each are dealing with the same number of chunks, more or less, but if information were ice - one is chunking in terms of ice cubes and the other is chunking in terms of ice bergs, with corresponding "weights" of ability.

Good news everyone, a revised translation will be available soon:
https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Life-chaotischen-Aktualisierte-Neuausgabe-ebook/dp/B07SGM97WX

Also, I’m a native German speaker and OPs translation from German back to English makes the translation look worse than it is. To pick a random example, “sinnvoll” is the correct translation of “meaningful”. But if I was a German Jordan Peterson, I would have probably formulated rule 7 as “Strebe nach Sinn (und nicht nach Glück)”, which departs from the original meaning, but is much more catchy. Of course, translating a text is always a trade-off between staying true to the original meaning and finding something that sounds good.

Online Great Books is a paid community that reads and discusses the great books together. Jordan Peterson appeared as a guest on their podcast in this episode. Enrollment is currently closed but you can sign up to be notified when it opens again.

They basically follow the reading list from Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book, minus the Bible and some of the scientific and mathematical works. You can find the list on Wikipedia too.

Any Great Books reading list is going to take years to complete. Don't be intimidated and don't feel like you need to rush.

No, some books I listen to multiple times. I’m on listen 4 for this book which I recommend.
King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062506064/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_.NFGAb40RTCMQ

Yeah. Here are some of the positive aspects...

Look at this jewel on amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Destroy-Man-Now-DAMN/dp/099982032X

Janice Fiamengo has some concerning points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPWOaYX--Y

Yeah I guess you would know best right?

https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021#customerReviews

Go read the reviews this dosn't add up

Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/099982032X/

The book has aparently been out for 1 year atleast


Quote:

February 28, 2018

This book is not very long, but worth it's weight in gold. Gives a straightforward and easy to apply method to destroy any male contact while minimizing any consequences for the accuser. Is this advice evil? Of course! But if you want morality and virtue, read Jordan Peterson. If you want to get ahead, get revenge, or just break men for fun, read this!

Weird how jbp is mentioned on one of the 5 star reviews 1 year ago.

Take note of what subreddits this is being posed in and and how is book has apparenty been published for 1 year and i can seem to find a single review taking it seriously (i found one that seems to be from an active account)

Why didnt this blow up sooner? It seems like crafted rage bait.

Edit: i looked through the reviwers purchaes while their seems to be a spike in reviews in the last couple days the accounts dont seem like bots, they have purchaes dating back 1 year plus.

looks pretty real to me

The five star reviews are an interesting read.

That's right, I didn't read him. I was made aware of him by a fellow student, and then listened to a few lectures on Youtube over the last few months. But why should I read something that is obviously popular scientific after I didn't like his theses in the lectures? He is a motivation trainer, proof? Read the title for yourself:

https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021

Perhaps not in the exact same archetypal analysis that Jung, Peterson and Campbell pursue, but Mortimer Adler wrote an entire book about "active reading".

Here's my summary post of that book from a while back..

In particular, understanding certain works of literature, I would say, falls under the category of "coming to terms with the author", as per what Adler describes in his book.

Perhaps even deeper than that, if you presuppose that "people don't have ideas, ideas have people", then working and analyzing within the metaphorical and mythological frame of reference could be seen as a way of getting to terms with an idea itself, to which the author is only a harbinger of.

Try either [toward manhood] (https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Manhood-Into-Wilderness-Soul/dp/069269238X) or warrior, King, magician, lover.

Also, from Mulan:

>Be a man

>We must be swift as the coursing river

>Be a man

>With all the force of a great typhoon

>Be a man

>With all the strength of a raging fire

>Mysterious as the dark side of the moon

That's what a man is. Do all that without being Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. It's tough growing up without positive male role models and society so afraid of past masculinity it wants to castrate you but just keep at it.

Better off reading this book

https://www.amazon.com/King-Warrior-Magician-Lover-Rediscovering/dp/0062506064

Hi there! Thanks for taking the time to ask honest questions and start conversation. It benefits everyone when we’re able to discuss openly without the vitriol and condescension often found in other places online.

I want to start by stating that I don’t consider /r/JordanPeterson to be a right wing sub. I consider myself fairly left, though more of a centrist than most of my friends. Example: I voted for Hillary in the last election, have mixed thoughts on gun control, dislike the identity politics that have lately become more prevalent on the internet/campuses lately, am pro-choice, and have been openly gay for about 12 years now. I’m more interested in the message that Jordan Peterson promotes than the politics sometimes discussed here. Jordan Peterson all types, so you sometimes get that "lol leftist cucks" garbage every now and then but it's not the spirit of the sub as a whole.

That said, let me try to answer your questions as honestly as I can:

Question #1

I don’t consider universities to be dominated by radical leftists. I consider universities to be places where people can openly discuss their views, learn new ideas, and have their ideas challenged in environments that encourage growth and understanding (and based on your tone and style, I feel we agree on this). However, I disagree with your equating departments like economics, engineering, and law with social sciences like gender studies or social justice largely because the approach to the ideology is very, very different. My understanding is that the objection to social sciences doesn’t stem from the fact that they’re more liberal/left, but that they are more interested in silencing and shaming people who disagree with them than other typical college departments.

Let me give you an example. Imagine a context where a left leaning economics student disagreed with a professor’s take on financial policy, or a visiting speaker’s approach to the foreign exchange market. An objection voiced in class, office hours, or during the Q&A portion of a speaking event would likely spark meaningful conversation where multiple viewpoints are presented. Outside of people rolling their eyes at each other in class, it’s unlikely that fellow economics majors would call for professor resignations, disrupt a speaking event, or openly shame each other for disagreeing.

Generally speaking, Engineering, Business, Economics, and Law majors would not sabotage a speaking event they disagree with, or vandalize campus property in an attempt to disrupt an idea they didn’t like, or barricade a door and imply physical harm to their opponents.

My point is this: the objection is not that the social sciences are left; the objection is that generally speaking, they are more likely to shut down an opponent than listen to them, which is the start of fascism (this is not hyperbole - the forcible repression of opposition is literally one of the tenants of fascism).

Remember above when I said that universities are places where people can openly discuss their views, learn new ideas, and have their ideas challenged in environments that encourage growth and understanding? Social sciences often (not always) stand in stark contrast to this by presenting their ideas with the caveat “agree with me, or else.”

You wouldn’t see this behavior from Engineering, Business, Economics, and Law majors.

Question 2

I mostly answered this in my answer to your first question, but my main objection is that the majority of social science classes actively discourage debate. The links I provided above are a small sample, and I could easily put together a larger list.

Again, you would not see this behavior in Engineering, Business, Economics, and Law classes.


Question 3
>You always seem to be championing traditional social hierarchies/relationships and also the primacy of the individual. But traditional social arrangements placed women in a socially subservient position with greatly diminished options for individual fulfillment relative to males. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

I haven’t seen anyone in this sub champion traditional social hierarchies, nor do I remember any comments from Jordan Peterson in his recent book suggest this. JP talks a great deal about how it’s the responsibility of the individual for self-improvement, but I’ve never heard him suggest that social repression of women was women’s fault. Assuming I haven’t misunderstood your question, is it possible you’ve mis-inferred this somewhere?

>Do you really presume to tell women they'd have more individual fulfillment if they gave up their autonomy and submitted to a backwards social relationship?

God, no. I have yet to see any posts from this sub or concepts presented by JP that would imply women would be happier in a subservient social role. In fact there are plenty of places in his last book that would say otherwise (that subservience isn’t a useful trait). Where are you getting this?

>Likewise with racial minorities.

Nope. No one is suggesting this.


Question 4

>You're always advancing this notion that leftists are gonna impose totalitarian oppression on society any day.

Are we? Where?

>Do you really think that rad-fems are at the cusp of seizing absolute power?

No, but it’s disheartening to see radical feminists discourage conversation, or assume that disagreeing with them is some moral sin that makes me a monster.

Question 5


I disagree with most Evangelicals I meet, and I do consider many of the practices of the religious right to be totalitarian.


Question 6


I have a lot of concern for the group-think of churches, especially ones that tell their followers how to vote and yet don’t pay any taxes. It’s appalling.




One question for you - have you read any of Peterson’s books? I’ll totally buy you a copy of 12 Rules if you’re interested.

Yes. It's called 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Curious, where did you get the link from? Unless I'm mistaken, there's a referral in the un-shortened link. I don't mind if it was from Peterson himself, but it's otherwise a dick move of whomever is trying to cash in by using a referral link without being affiliated.


Here's one without it and also Amazon donates a portion of your purchase to a charity of your choice: https://smile.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021

As a matter of fact we have

https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Life-chaotischen-Aktualisierte-Neuausgabe-ebook/dp/B07SGM97WX

He's writing (written?) a book. Out in January.

https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1503929067&sr=8-2

Using the internet archive you see the page as it used to be. On April 23 there were over 2000 reviews.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180423031812/https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021/

The sad part is that you are boasting with someone else's accomplishments. And bringing in the "superpower" part just confirms that you need to work on yourself. I suggest you read this book.

What is your definition of "majority"?

And I know some sources I listed are garbage, I said so in my post. I was pointing out that if you want to put up trash, there's trash on both sides.

Ignoring the fact that you still don't understand how google's algorithm works, you have now shifted from "mainstream media" to "most media" to "media that is higher up in the google results" to "media that is viewed by more people, even though it's really just one video"? And yet you still try to use the words "majority" and "most"? You know those words mean "more than half" and "the majority of" (which again, means more than half) right?

So when you post 6 links (of which 1 is not even remotely saying what you're claiming, 2 are not media sources, 2 are inherently biased and 1 is the CBC video) and then I post countering links to MacLean's, Toronto Sun, Huffington Post and Post Millennial (along with other garbage links because you seem to prefer quantity over quality), all of which are actual media news sources, what do you mean by the words "majority," "media outlets," and "sources" because...I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

I'm going to sleep, but I do have to question if you actually listen to what Dr. Peterson says or just follow him because "Fuck SJWs." The fact that you assumed I was a detractor of his simply because I'm challenging your statements makes me believe it has to be the latter, because it seems like you believe everyone who is a fan of Dr. Peterson is also in the "Fuck SJWs" camp.

See if you listen to the man, you'll understand one of his major points in debates is that you can't take one person's view on one subject and paint them with a giant brush. Look at how people treat him - he makes a comment on the gender pay gap or forced language and all of a sudden he and everyone who listens to him must be a transphobic misogynistic alt-right asshole. We both know that's wrong, so why do you assume anyone who isn't "Fuck that bitch for her tweet and fuck the media for not railroading her" must be a Peterson-detracting SJW?

Your refusal to admit for a second that you were wrong, and the incredible mental and linguistic gymnastics you are partaking in, makes me think maybe you need to take a deep intrinsic look and figure things out. I know a book that could help you out, if you need a copy you can borrow mine.