Jordan Peterson

L'article analyse la triple castration d'eros et poiesis (force sexuelle et créatrice) de l'homme occidental que présente Sérotonine. De nombreuses citations, lexèmes et sèmes récurrents montrent que cette castration se manifeste aux niveaux pharmaceutique (antidépresseurs qui ne soignent pas la dépression, mais causent l'impuissance sexuelle et intensifient l'isolement social de l'individu souffrant), idéologique (transformation idéologique des rapports homme-femme qui pèse lourd sur les relations intimes et familiales) et socio-politique (mesures politiques et juridiques qui sapent l'autorité de l'homme dans la famille, découragent l'esprit entrepreneur dans l'économie et afaiblissent le lien entre l'homme et le sol natal).

The short narrates about the foundational interpreteation of music as a vast cognitive link between humans and between mind and body.
The short is based on life experience and takes a personal approach to the matter through the example of one of the legendary music bands of the 80's.

On April 9, 2019, renowned cultural critic and social analyst Camille Paglia,
author of eight books - some iconic in many countries, such as Sexual Personae -
was giving a public lecture called Ambiguous Images: Sexual Duality and Sexual Multiplicity in Western Art at the University of Arts in Philadelphia. Before the lecture,
there had been a demonstration in a hallway by students who were protesting remarks,
spread by social media, that had been made by Camille in interviews several years
ago about sexual assault as well as transgenderism. Forty minutes into the lecture, a
protestor pulled a fire alarm in the hallway, causing the cancellation of the lecture, as all
17 floors of the university building had to be evacuated onto th e city streets. In this interview, Gunter Axt talked to Camille Paglia about the episode that
involved her recently at UArts, as well as the context of other campus incidents in
North America.

The freedom Mr. Peterson would like to hold eternally is the freedom to define other people unlike himself based on contexts he chooses. However, what is sad (and a Kantian contradiction) is that Mr. Peterson would never want these same set of rules and imposition of power to fall upon his own life and his social world.

Jung’s concept of the archetype resonates with Lewis’ understanding of Christianity as the true mythology. While there are undeniable differences between these two concepts, they are similar in their analysis of the same strata of human religious experience. Taken as complimentary views, they result in a deeper understanding of the world as not merely a series of material objects, but also as a series of archetypal patterns which manifest themselves in religious mythology. For both Lewis and Jung, these archetypal patterns (or, more simply, archetypes) originated in God, but the former was much clearer about what sort of God mythology is rooted in. Where the Jungian view provides a psychological foundation for the theory of archetypes, Lewis’ view provides an ontological foundation for the archetypes rooted in the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Stressing that the pronoun "I" picks out one and only one person in the world (i.e., me), I argue against Hunt (and other like-minded Rand commentators) that the supposed "hard case" of destructive people who do not care for their own lives poses no special difficulty for rational egoism. I conclude that the proper response to a terse objection like "What about suicide bombers?" is the equally terse assertion "But I don't want to get blown up."

Woke supremacy has been taking a toll on Western civilization. The casualties of wokeness are too many and sundry to track. But we should not forget that wokeness was first germinated in higher education, from whence it metastasized to the wider social body. The academy is the cathedral pulpit from which the ideological dictates of the elite flow downward to the hoi polloi.

According to David Acevedo of the National Association of Scholars, hundreds of North American academics have been subjected to cancel culture to date, including yours truly. And the number continues to grow. This is to say nothing about the curriculum, which has suffered excisions of canonical works from literature and philosophy and the denunciation of correct answers in math, among many other abominations.

Now woke ideology has led to the resignation of the most famous academic alive: the psychologist, best-selling author, and public intellectual Jordan Peterson, who announced in the National Post his decision to retire from his position as tenured full professor at the University of Toronto.

The narrative in Frozen II is a classic archetypal depiction of individuation – the process of synthesis of the self through the integration and union of consciousness with the unconscious. The new hero’s journey strives for the synthesis inherent in regaining access to our mythological roots while remaining in a conscious state.
An analysis of the film based on psychoanalysts Erich Neumann and Carl Jung.

Jordan Peterson’s books and lectures have struck a deep chord with audiences hungry for the kind of insights that Carl Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell once extracted from mythological sources. Central to Peterson's cosmology is a perceived virtue in slaying dragons—a metaphor for controlling chaos and dominating the unruly “feminine” principle of nature—which he sees exemplified in the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish. Peterson argues that the archetypal significance of this dragon-slaying hero story has roots in nothing less than our evolutionary history. But according to Peterson's own sources—as well as contemporary scholars—Enuma Elish is more correctly understood as a political work, likely created to justify changes to the Babylonian pantheon made during a period of imperial power consolidation. This paper analyzes the discrepancy between Peterson’s view and the consensus of scholars on Enuma Elish, as well as some of the the social, political, and environmental implications of that discrepancy.

Presented at
Conference: Responding to Peterson: An Intervention In Lieu of a Debate
Boise State University
October 20, 2018

Jordan Peterson has attracted a high level of attention. Controversies may bring people into contact with Peterson's work, but ideas are arguably what keep them there. Focusing on those ideas, this book explores Peterson’s answers to perennial questions.
What is common to all humans, regardless of their background? Is complete knowledge ever possible? What would constitute a meaningful life? Why have humans evolved the capacity for intelligence? Should one treat others as individuals or as members of a group? Is a single person powerless in the face of evil? What is the relation between speech, thought, and action? Why have religious myths and narratives figured so prominently in human history? Are the hierarchies we find in society good or bad?
After devoting a chapter to each of these questions, Champagne unites the different strands of Peterson’s thinking in a handy summary. Champagne then spends the remaining third of the book articulating his main critical concerns. He argues that while building on tradition is inevitable and indeed desirable, Peterson’s individualist project is hindered by the non-revisable character and self-sacrificial content of religious belief.
This engaging multidisciplinary study is ideal for those who know little about Peterson’s views, or for those who are familiar but want to see more clearly how Peterson’s views hang together. The debates spearheaded by Peterson are in full swing, so Myth, Meaning, and Antifragile Individualism should become a reference point for any serious engagement with Peterson’s ideas.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson"s ideas have been digested by millions of people around the world. He"s been described by the New York Times as "the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now." (Brooks, 2018) He covers a lot of ground, from Disney movies to Nietzsche to Biblical narratives, but connecting all of these is a golden thread: Complexity Management Theory. Complexity Management Theory is the name given to a neuropsychological framework for describing human perception and meaning in an overly complex world. While the name hasn"t stuck, the model itself has been refined and rearticulated several times since then. If it"s accurate, such a comprehensive framework has undeniable utility, if it"s inaccurate, then the most influential public intellectual in the Western world has based a great deal of his lectures on a false premise. This essay summarizes and critiques Complexity Management Theory as it stands today, contextualizing and critiquing its central tenets as they relate to their respective fields. The results of this inquiry indicate that Complexity Management Theory is both wellsubstantiated and useful, but it requires further elaboration on its views of perception.

Peterson’s  philosophy, as expounded in “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief”, departs radically from views held in depth psychology and theology but has much in common with Hegel. The world of consciousness is greatly overestimated. His exaggerated intellectualism leads to deep symbols being over-rationalized, producing meager and sterile interpretations. The article contributes to the understanding of myth and religion.

Keywords: identification, psychic integration, symbolic meaning, transcendence, evil, heroism, Magna Mater, Osiris, resurrection, alchemy, Hegel, Carl Jung, M-L von Franz, Nietzsche, St Augustine.

Jordan Peterson gave a series of lectures on the Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories. His first lecture lasted two hours. In that time, Peterson managed to cover only a single line from the Bible. This lopsided gloss-to-text ratio, I argue, entails that the rational explanations actually do all the work while the Bible is dispensable.

Controversially, psychologist and public intellectual Jordan Peterson advises “enforced monogamy” for societies with high percentages of “incels.” As Peterson’s proposal resonates in manosphere circles, this chapter reconstructs and briefly evaluates the argument for it. Premised on the moral importance of civilizational sustainability, advocates argue that both polygamous and socially monogamous but sexually liberal mating patterns result in unsustainable proportions of unattached young men. Given the premises, monogamous societies are probably justified in maintaining their anti-polygamist social and legal norms. The case for imposing stricter sexual norms on socially monogamous but sexually liberal societies is weaker, however, as male involuntary celibacy in those places isn’t as directly caused by male intrasexual competition, and since less intrusive social interventions are more likely to ameliorate “the incel problem.”

The political narrative regarding Jordan Peterson now appears set in stone-he is an ideological warrior of the right. Fans and detractors alike seem to agree on this much. The only residual dispute, still capable of generating enough friction to power a small town, is whether this political identity renders him a messiah or a Führer. This, much like knowledge of the universe, depends entirely on one's point of observation. To those on the left, Peterson is the leader of a dangerous political cult of angry, sexist, transphobic, racist young men descending, like the hordes of Genghis Khan, upon the civilized world intent on rape and pillage. To those on the right, he is a martyr in the advanced stages of beati!cation and the savior of a lost generation in a fading civilization. The truth? His political philosophy is more enigmatic than either his acolytes or despisers care to acknowledge, or perhaps can see. Peterson's actual political philosophy is rather obscure, at least to those who believe a political philosophy worth the name must consist of more than an opinion on the pronoun ze. There are three reasons for resisting the caricature of Peterson's politics in either its hagiographic or demonizing registers. First, there is his consistent reticence and circumspection regarding the contours of his political philosophy. Second, there are the distorting e"ects of his ubiquitous media appearances, which tend to re#ect the political preoccupations of interviewers who set the terms of discussion. Thirdly, there is the ideological predilections of his legion of followers who use his image, content, and words in ways which to do not necessarily re#ect his actual political thought. To be clear, I do not contend that Peterson is a misunderstood radical progressive at heart. I simply advance the modest thesis that his political philosophy, which evidence suggests does sit at some latitudinal distance to the right of the conventional, if increasingly ill-de!ned, political spectrum, is more complex than prevailing caricatures suggest. In pursuit of this thesis, I will adopt an unfashionably agnostic perspective as to the relative merits of his political ideas and their social impact. Those with a penchant for Peterson hagiography, or demonography, can consult the abundant content available in both categories. The idea that Peterson is at all reticent and circumspect with regard to his political views will strike some (perhaps many) as hopelessly naïve. This is a man, after all, who shot to public prominence on the back of his opposition to the mandated usage (as he saw it) of gender pronouns. I do not deny that his stance in relation to this particular issue situates him securely in the company of those who proudly identify themselves as conservative. Search …

This essay will seek to introduce briefly the background and idea of what I call a confrontational approach to theology. It will begin by outlining the biblical background of this often-ignored portrait and then will proceed to outline how this theological approach can breathe new life into our approaches toward God.

This paper analyses Dr. Jordan Peterson's quest for Greater meaning, especially as expressed through the lenses of psychology, philosophy and religion.  Why has Dr. Peterson appealed so greatly to millions of young adults in this current nihilistic culture?  How is Christianity functioning in the ecology of his family system?  Where may this potentially be leading?

This article builds on C. S. Peirce’s suggestive blueprint for an inclusive outlook that grants reality to his three categories. Moving away from the usual focus on (contentious) cosmological forces, I use a modal principle to partition various ontological layers: regular sign-action (like coded language) subsumes actual sign-action (like here-and-now events) which in turn subsumes possible sign-action (like qualities related to whatever would be similar to them). Once we realize that the triadic sign’s components are each answerable to this asymmetric subsumption, we obtain the means to track at which level of complexity semiosis finds itself, in a given case. Since the bulk of such a “trinitarian” metaphysics would be devoted to countenancing un-interpreted phenomena, I argue that current misgivings about sign-based ontologies are largely misplaced.

En los últimos dos años, el escritor canadiense y profesor de Psicología en la Universidad de Toronto Jordan B. Peterson (Edmonton, Canadá, 1962) ha construido un discurso firme y a contracorriente sobre cuestiones controvertidas del pensamiento actual. Además, lo ha hecho llegar a un público amplio, a través de la distribución en las redes sociales de sus clases, conferencias y publicaciones y del contacto directo con personas que discrepan de sus ideas.

Milo, the 'poster boy' of the alt right, has had a rocky few years since then, resigning from Breitbart over 'pedophilia' remarks, his book contract with Simon & Schuster cancelled, and being recently banned from the crowd funding website Patreon. Peterson's popularity, on the other hand, has continued to expand with almost two million YouTube subscribers (one million more than Milo), and his appeal has clearly spread across the social spectrum in a way the media has failed to fully acknowledge. This broad appeal is something beyond the ability of Milo, with his conceited hauteur and ruthless mockery of his opponents.

Last Friday, fans of both Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek lined up outside together in the rain to find out, shuffling their way into the Sony Centre for Performing Arts in Toronto for what some had promised would be the Debate of the Century. I saw no protesters. Fans of both men stood beside each other in the main hall, using the large screen of Zizek and Peterson hanging in the centre of the room as a backdrop for smiling selfies with friends. As they entered the theatre, Vivaldi’s Spring concerto poured over the audience as they found their seats, shook their umbrellas, and settled in for the debate.
...
Simply by virtue of the public personas they had cultivated, and their monetary attachment to their fans, no performance from either of these two was ever likely to disrupt those carefully constructed brands, and this was likely never going to be anything other than what I would deem ideological amusement.

Please read from original source: https://medium.com/@terrylnewman/happiness-capitalism-vs-marxism-a-missed-opportunity-16f06a234ed1

Published in Quadrant, October 2018, as 'Why Jordan Peterson Matters.' Canadian psychologist Dr Jordan B. Peterson is promoting a form of naturalistic morality which revives the ancient framework outlined by Roman philosopher Cicero, in Book I of De Officiis (On Obligations).

Peterson wird als einer der einflussreichsten westlichen Intellektuellen gehandelt, was - wenn es stimmen würde - ein Armutszeugnis für "den Westen" wäre. Aber es stimmt nicht. Neben triviale "Weisheiten" à la "du sollst deine Frau nicht schlecht behandeln" und "du sollst nicht töten" treten zutreffende Beobachtungen zur Winner-Takes-It-All-Mentalität unseres kulturalisierten Zeitalters, das aber nicht wirklich analysiert, sondern lediglich in seiner postmodernen Interpretation (unzutreffend als "marxistisch") denunziert wird. Dem stellt Peterson seine eigene sozialdarwinistisch- biologistische und traditionalistische (biblische Mythologie) Rechtfertigung gegenüber. Dem Psychologen bleibt im Angesicht des allgegenwärtigen "suffering" nur die Aufgabe, das wunde Subjekt zu pflegen und es wieder in ein System einzupassen, das nun mal so sei, weil unser  Reptiliengehirn nicht anders könne. Ein bisschen wenig für einen hoch gelobten, durch das Internet zum Star gewordenen Intellektuellen, der - genau besehen - außer alten Hüten wenig zu bieten hat. Das versucht der hier vorliegende Text zu zeigen.

I'll be presenting this research to the Public Philosophy  Network Conference, Philosophy from all Walks of Life, at Michigan State University, October 2019.

Part of what makes any reasonable defense of what ecofeminists rightly diagnose as a culturally constructed logic of patriarchal and speciesist domination difficult is that, as we find in for example Jordan Peterson,  there’s no obvious way to divorce its human chauvinism from its speciesism from its patriarchy; they’re a package deal. Any weakening of one of the legs of this three-legged stool and the whole stool collapses. Unfortunately, however, it's a logically and empirically rickety stool to begin with. We begin with Peterson’s red meat diet, but what we soon discover is that his diet is really just an invite (a metaphor) to his diagnosis of what he thinks has gone awry in Western civilization soup to nuts. The diet symbolizes the masculine reclamation of a social order threatened by caricature cut-outs of feminists, “postmoderns,” “Leftists,” “Marxists” and environmentalists.  Consuming "red meat" signifies everything from conquering threats posed to the patriarchal order by those who’d reject the male-privileging gender pay gap, to “Postmodernism’s” critique of gendered pronouns, to Peterson's climate change "skepticism." The all-meat diet elicits Peterson’s offer of tough love to young mostly white men he depicts as victims of an emasculated system of Western values. The only thing is: Peterson is wrong.

Jordan Peterson’s remarks on the nature of truth are voluminous. Despite this, widespread confusion persists on Peterson’s understanding of truth. One reason for this is that Peterson’s treatment of this notion is scattered and unsystematic. Another reason is that the scholarly work on Peterson’s truth is lacking. It is the goal of this paper to clarify Peterson’s views by deploying instruments of analysis from contemporary philosophical literature. After critically discussing Peterson’s views, I conclude that his truth is best understood as an anti-realist notion. Finally, I propose some developments to Peterson's views by emphasizing his remarks on the value and human-dependence of truth.

Prompted by the thesis that an organism’s umwelt possesses not just a descriptive dimension, but a normative one as well, some have sought to annex semiotics with ethics. Yet the pronouncements made in this vein have consisted mainly in rehearsing accepted moral intuitions, and have failed to concretely further our knowledge of why or how a creature comes to order objects in its environment in accordance with axiological charges of value or disvalue. For want of a more explicit account, theorists writing on the topic have relied almost exclusively on semiotic insights about perception originally designed as part of a sophisticated refutation of idealism. The end result, which has been a form of direct givenness, has thus been far from convincing. In an effort to bring substance to the right-headed suggestion that values are rooted in the biological and conform to species-specific requirements, we present a novel conception that strives to make explicit the elemental structure underlying umwelt normativity. Building and expanding on the seminal work of Ayn Rand in metaethics, we describe values as an intertwined lattice which takes a creature’s own embodied life as its ultimate standard; and endeavour to show how, from this, all subsequent valuations can in principle be determined.

This essay argues that acknowledging the existence of mind-independent facts is a matter of vital importance, in that acquiescence before the layout of the world is something demanded of knowing agents from the most elementary empirical deliverance to the most abstract construct. Building on the idea that normativity requires the presence of more than one option to choose from, the essay shows how the cessation of one's life is the disjunctive alternative of any experiential episode. This much has been missed, it argues, because of a generalized failure to appreciate how even the simplest atomic contents embroil their subjects in acts of assent. Its account thus casts a new light on relativism and skepticism, revealing them to be provisional luxuries supported only by the cognitive labor of others.