I am someone who had this "the world should even be cleansed of all human presence" thought frequently in my teens, and early 20ies. And after reading Seneca's On Anger (and consuming some CBT self-help-books), my "general anger" towards people and the Cosmos, gradually melted away. My former anger did not make me a more industrious, more productive/proactive person... on the contrary... Did he reference any engineering marvel, a bridge, a building, or a great artwork which was created in anger?
Isn't each and every anger "righteous"?
Isn't the state mandated violence and cruelty is just very orderly channeled anger?
Weren't all genocide fueled by "righteous" anger?
Considering his recent fusion with the Daily Wire, and basically preaching that the only valid meaning of life is to "make children, and dominate the creation"... He basically backs up and strengthens the narrative that romantic rejection is the end of the world... He doesn't offer a different approach to life... Basically he meta-catastrophizes the most mundane experience of a human's life: being rejected by a romantic interest.
I wonder why does he fully neglect the cognitive approach. Did he learn about it and just rejected it out of hand early on, or isn't even aware of it? His infamous Benzo-Adventure suggests he wasn't aware of the non-chemical based approach to his serious anxiety problem (or he did rather choose a risky chemical-dependency than have some deep conversations about his most holiest beliefs...)
It would be interesting to have a look in his endeavors since 2019, but as far as I am aware he brain-fused with all of the far-right grifters, and basically broadcasts the same conspiracy theories...
However, there is one of those funny coincidences or paradoxes when it comes to this which I thought I'd mention and I wonder what you think of it.
Peterson is a big fan of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and has lectured on him, his work and wrote a preface or introduction in a recent release of "The Gulag Archipelago".
I have commented before on how I think Solzhenitsyn draws heavily on Stoic and ancient and Greek philosophy in his work.
Ideas like the locus of control, resilience and inner strength and concepts like eudomoneia.
There has recently been increased discussion about how much Solzhenitsyn was influenced by Stoicism.
I find it ironic that Solzhenitsyn had much of the Stoic about him yet one of his biggest fans ( Peterson ) doesn't.
I haven't read Solzhenitsyn. So I can't really comment. I think Peterson sometimes talks about authors favourably that he doesn't really seem to have taken much from, though. I mean, he clearly draws extensively on Jung and yet he really doesn't seem to do much with the idea that compulsively blaming others (e.g., "Cultural Marxists") is often mainly a projection of our own shadow side. You'd think that would be obvious to anyone who reads Jung but Peterson seems to be very selective in his use of other authors.
Books that I know of with reference to themes of resilience and internal locus of control. Also references to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy
The First Circle
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - the central character Ivan describes what I later would learn to refer to as the” Inner Citadel “
The First Circle was adapted by Solzhenitsyn himself as a TV series in the early 2000s. He narrates. Reference to eudomoneia. Available on YouTube - Solzhenitsyn Center channel in Russian with English subtitles.
While bashing the left, Peterson frequently references Orwell as well, though strangely never cites him... However even a surface level read of 1984 will show that it isn't against "socialism" or any "ideology-perse" but against the system of hierarchies which exploit and tortures the majority of society. His platforming of P Thiel, whose main business is to create a genuine orwellian AI-observation-state, clearly shows that Peterson did not take anything from Orwell.
Btw, Orwell's body of work till the end of WW2 was 90% against fascism. He even went to fight against Franco, and got shot.
But it is his MO, he has his own ideology which he "extracts" from works and authors which had well earned universal respect. Basically he steals the authority of those names. I mean, he literally wears a suit which is covered by iconography of Jesus and the Saints XD
In other words, he uses the Bible, the great literary authors as a Trojan horse, in which he could hide with his crooked ideas...
I rather admire Stoicism in which no events are good or bad, only our reaction to them counts. Also, the Dalai Lama urges that there can be no world peace unless you are at peace within. As far as I'm concerned the Stoicss and the Buddhists have the right idea, as do most of Jesus' teaching (although it's rarely practiced as Jesus wished). I didn't read the whole Donald Robertson commentary, but finding out about Jordan Peterson saddens me to think he might be able to convince people that sometimes anger is okay. It's not.
For that, Peterson should reflect and revise his very own anger towards... atheists, postmodern-neomarxists-satanists, climate-scientists, socialists... towards anyone he doesn't agree with...
And no, he won't reflect on his own anger. I guess, he would rather drag the whole world into a war, than to reflect and change his holy views.
I am someone who had this "the world should even be cleansed of all human presence" thought frequently in my teens, and early 20ies. And after reading Seneca's On Anger (and consuming some CBT self-help-books), my "general anger" towards people and the Cosmos, gradually melted away. My former anger did not make me a more industrious, more productive/proactive person... on the contrary... Did he reference any engineering marvel, a bridge, a building, or a great artwork which was created in anger?
Isn't each and every anger "righteous"?
Isn't the state mandated violence and cruelty is just very orderly channeled anger?
Weren't all genocide fueled by "righteous" anger?
Considering his recent fusion with the Daily Wire, and basically preaching that the only valid meaning of life is to "make children, and dominate the creation"... He basically backs up and strengthens the narrative that romantic rejection is the end of the world... He doesn't offer a different approach to life... Basically he meta-catastrophizes the most mundane experience of a human's life: being rejected by a romantic interest.
I wonder why does he fully neglect the cognitive approach. Did he learn about it and just rejected it out of hand early on, or isn't even aware of it? His infamous Benzo-Adventure suggests he wasn't aware of the non-chemical based approach to his serious anxiety problem (or he did rather choose a risky chemical-dependency than have some deep conversations about his most holiest beliefs...)
It would be interesting to have a look in his endeavors since 2019, but as far as I am aware he brain-fused with all of the far-right grifters, and basically broadcasts the same conspiracy theories...
Jordan Peterson isn't Stoic at all in my opinion.
However, there is one of those funny coincidences or paradoxes when it comes to this which I thought I'd mention and I wonder what you think of it.
Peterson is a big fan of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and has lectured on him, his work and wrote a preface or introduction in a recent release of "The Gulag Archipelago".
I have commented before on how I think Solzhenitsyn draws heavily on Stoic and ancient and Greek philosophy in his work.
Ideas like the locus of control, resilience and inner strength and concepts like eudomoneia.
There has recently been increased discussion about how much Solzhenitsyn was influenced by Stoicism.
I find it ironic that Solzhenitsyn had much of the Stoic about him yet one of his biggest fans ( Peterson ) doesn't.
Thoughts?
I haven't read Solzhenitsyn. So I can't really comment. I think Peterson sometimes talks about authors favourably that he doesn't really seem to have taken much from, though. I mean, he clearly draws extensively on Jung and yet he really doesn't seem to do much with the idea that compulsively blaming others (e.g., "Cultural Marxists") is often mainly a projection of our own shadow side. You'd think that would be obvious to anyone who reads Jung but Peterson seems to be very selective in his use of other authors.
Hi Donald,
Thanks for your reply.
If you're interested:
Solzhenitsyn:
Books that I know of with reference to themes of resilience and internal locus of control. Also references to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy
The First Circle
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - the central character Ivan describes what I later would learn to refer to as the” Inner Citadel “
The First Circle was adapted by Solzhenitsyn himself as a TV series in the early 2000s. He narrates. Reference to eudomoneia. Available on YouTube - Solzhenitsyn Center channel in Russian with English subtitles.
Best wishes.
While bashing the left, Peterson frequently references Orwell as well, though strangely never cites him... However even a surface level read of 1984 will show that it isn't against "socialism" or any "ideology-perse" but against the system of hierarchies which exploit and tortures the majority of society. His platforming of P Thiel, whose main business is to create a genuine orwellian AI-observation-state, clearly shows that Peterson did not take anything from Orwell.
Btw, Orwell's body of work till the end of WW2 was 90% against fascism. He even went to fight against Franco, and got shot.
But it is his MO, he has his own ideology which he "extracts" from works and authors which had well earned universal respect. Basically he steals the authority of those names. I mean, he literally wears a suit which is covered by iconography of Jesus and the Saints XD
In other words, he uses the Bible, the great literary authors as a Trojan horse, in which he could hide with his crooked ideas...
I thought he'd said several times that he wasn't a Christian. But, yes, he does seem to want to appeal to a Christian audience.
I rather admire Stoicism in which no events are good or bad, only our reaction to them counts. Also, the Dalai Lama urges that there can be no world peace unless you are at peace within. As far as I'm concerned the Stoicss and the Buddhists have the right idea, as do most of Jesus' teaching (although it's rarely practiced as Jesus wished). I didn't read the whole Donald Robertson commentary, but finding out about Jordan Peterson saddens me to think he might be able to convince people that sometimes anger is okay. It's not.
For that, Peterson should reflect and revise his very own anger towards... atheists, postmodern-neomarxists-satanists, climate-scientists, socialists... towards anyone he doesn't agree with...
And no, he won't reflect on his own anger. I guess, he would rather drag the whole world into a war, than to reflect and change his holy views.