ieee23 wrote: ↑
Sat May 26, 2018 9:41 pm
Modus.Ponens wrote: ↑
Sat May 26, 2018 9:14 pm
He doesn't. He is being egregiously misrepresented in the media.
The New York Times recently did a piece about him.
Who is more credible? An institution and a professional journalist whose reputations and livliehoods depend on getting the facts right and who have the time to look into things....OR anonymous fans on the Internet who suffer nothing by being wrong, who likely have not had the time to look at everything he said, and who are likely emotionally invested in his self help stuff?
There's nothing like seeing it for yourself.
Channel 4's trap interview (backfired spectacularly, I might add
Salon.com, among others misunderstood the anthropological use of the technical expression "enforced monogamy". It means monogamy through social pressure, not through government action, or infringement on people's individual rights.
This article is so bad it's actually funny.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jord ... rt-person/
As for the NYT article itself, here's how it starts
"TORONTO — Jordan Peterson fills huge lecture halls and tells his audiences there’s no shame in looking backward to a model of how the world should be arranged. Look back to the 1950s, he says — and back even further. He tells his audiences that they are smart. He is bringing them knowledge, yes, but it is knowledge that they already know and feel in their bones. He casts this as ancient wisdom, delivered through religious allegories and fairy tales which contain truth, he says, that modern society has forgotten.
"In Mr. Peterson’s world, order is masculine. Chaos is feminine. And if an overdose of femininity is our new poison, Mr. Peterson knows the cure. Hence his new book’s subtitle: “An Antidote to Chaos.”
Not true. Chaos is symbolized
by the feminine, it is not the feminine. Thus his book is not a veiled antidote to femininity. It's an open encouragement to curb destabilization. He said recently that if the side of order was too predominant or rigid, the book would have been an antidote to order. It's not men vs women. It's Rigidity (far right) vs Stability (democracy) vs Instability (far left).
Frankly, I have better things to do than read yet another hit piece against JP at 4:30 in the morning. I'll leave you with evidence he's not far right.
"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta