Aphrodite becomes angry that her temples are falling to ruin, so she plots to ruin Psyche. She instructs her son, Eros, to pierce the girl with an arrow and make sure that no one loves her… EVER! And the gods say that it is Psyches destiny that she shall marry a monster.
Robinson If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method.
First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work.
Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite.
Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. It does help if you are male and Caucasian.
Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say.
This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.
But we do not live in a reasonable world. His 12 Rules for Life is the 1 most-read book on Amazon, where it has a perfect 5-star rating. And many critics of Peterson have been deeply unfair to his work, mocking it without reading it, or slinging pejoratives at him e.
He believes that by studying myths, we can see values and frameworks shared across cultures, and can therefore understand the structures that guide us.
Peterson manages to spin it out over hundreds of pages, and expand it into an elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory that encompasses everything from the direction of history, to the meaning of life, to the nature of knowledge, to the structure of human decision-making, to the foundations of ethics.
A randomly selected passage will convey the flavor of the thing: Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation.
Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced.
In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived affective incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure.
In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired or avoidance of what is feared in the future.
The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience.
This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction.
But much of the rest is language so abstract that it cannot be proved or disproved. Another passage, in which Peterson gives his theory of law: Law is a necessary precondition to salvation, so to speak; necessary, but insufficient. Law provides the borders that limit chaos, and allows for the protected maturation of the individual.
Law disciplines possibility, and allows the disciplined individual to bring his or her potentialities—those intrapsychic spirits—under voluntary control.
The law allows for the application of such potentiality to the task of creative and courageous existence—allows spiritual water controlled flow into the valley of the shadow of death. Law held as an absolute, however, puts man in the position of the eternal adolescent, dependent upon the father for every vital decision, removes the responsibility for action from the individual, and therefore prevents him or her from discovering the potential grandeur of the soul.
Life without law remains chaotic, affectively intolerable. Life that is pure law becomes sterile, equally unbearable. The domination of chaos or sterility equally breeds murderous resentment or hatred.
If you asked him to explain it, you would just get a long string of additional abstract terms. Ironically, Maps of Meaning contains neither maps nor meaning. In fact, Peterson is quite open in insisting that he has achieved revelations beyond the comprehension of ordinary persons.
Its scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensibly in writing….Patriarchy In this myth: As I read his myth to myself, I began to understand what it was saying more, and more, and I realized that one form of patriarchy in this myth Is that; The men can just choose a woman, and she has to be his wife.
Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage..
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this. About a decade ago, I happened to be talking with an eminent academic scholar who had become known for his sharp criticism of Israeli policies in the Middle East and America’s strong support for them.
Understanding Social Norms - Social norm is the understanding people can influence our behavior in day to day basis.
In social norms in society there is implicit rules which, is known as the not spoken but, you learn them when you deviate the rule by breaking the social norms in society such as, values, beliefs, attitudes, morals and behavior.
Also, “it starts to look like me and the feminists” should be “looks like I”. And “untitled” doesn’t really make sense.
And if biology is a hard science, it’s on the extreme soft edge of hard sciences. An examination of the possibilities for libertarian feminism, taking the feminist thought of the 19th century radical individualists as an example and a guide.
We find that the radical libertarian critique of statism and the radical feminist critique of patriarchy are complementary, not contradictory, and we discuss some of the confusions that lead many libertarians--including many libertarian.