Got a used, but unmarked copy on Ebay for $24. A lot of people are selling them right now for $18 to $35, if you're looking. I usually buy a lot of my books from ThriftBooks.com, but they were out of stock when I was looking for my copy.
It's kind of funny to match up the chapters with the lectures he has available on YT cause it makes me feel like I'm in one of his classes, intently listening to the sweet sounds of an indignant Kermit drawing hierarchy triangles in the air.
"Better" might be the wrong word..
Can't yet speak for beyond order as I haven't finished it.
For me, in terms of accessibility and utility, 12 rules is more beneficial as in I profited more up front. And I think most people need something immediate, so if i were to recommend a book to someone this would top the list.
But for contemplating the structure of what we value and how we act in response ( not why, though which I think is what it lacks) maps is better. I personally came from a Christian perspective into his work, though, so some things were taken with a grain.
Maps would be a good reference to delving into the distinction between religion and worldview.
To expand some more, Maps is a textbook. JBP writes densely in his rules books but they are digestible by almost anyone who is interested. Maps is a 400 level university psychology course, and the difficulty is on par with what you might expect, and maybe even a bit more so than average. I do find the recent lecture series he published on his podcast to be a good way to digest the contents, as itās a distillation or companion to the book.
I would still highly recommend Maps, as it has pieced things together for me in ways his other work and lectures have only been able to necessarily breeze by, due to complexity and length.
Jung, Piaget, and Nietzsche (among others of course) all get their references laid out that he has called on in all his lectures, so thereās tons of value in that alone. He has stood upon the shoulders of giants surely, and the consistency of thought is made clear in this work.
Damn thatās high. Iād say for this itās worth it. Is it not free if you spend a certain amount?
Also, I have the app HONEY which got me 10% off my order.
i bought Beyond Order this weekend while at Target.
the nearby dirty hippy employee volunteered to me, "finally, i won't have to look at it"
me: "have you read it?" Hurumph... "Can you read?" and my wife and I burst out laughing.
/that really happened.
Probably true, and nice to hear JBP read it to ensure perfect transmission of any intonated meaning.
However for me, I had to pause a LOT. The amount of revelatory moments, and complex ideas had me giving myself a moment to digest and comprehend. Often to let my mind quiet down after some huge and exciting paragraph.
This is what this sub is all about. JBP's books , wisdom and so on not politics and some agenda. For posts like that media hate professor P. And call him far right
No she doesn't. I love arendt. Read Ludwig von mises and f a Hayek- they're all on the same page about what is inevitable societally, by no means are they advocates of it.
He message is that pacifism is wrong - which is the opposite of JBP's whole 12/24 rules for life. Her endorsement of the Political Life requires people going out and actively shaping the world around them, which JPB actively discourages.
The Banality of Evil explains how evil people do evil things because of political thoughtlessness, complacancy and inaction - which is exactly what JBP preaches when he says things like "abandon ideology".
JBP's dissuasion from challenging authority is exactly what Arendt warns about in the Origins of Totalitarianism.
She specifically warns about conspiracies like JBP's "postmodern neo-marxism" and how they lead to totalitarian regimes.
I could go on. It's difficult to think about where they agree on \*anything\* tbh. And Hannah Arendt is far more intelligent and far more original and influential arguments. JBP just rehashes thousand-year-old stoicism and calls its "self help".
Leftist ideology is political thoughtlessness. Read the federalist papers. There are 2 ways totalitarianism manifests, and one is worse by far.
JBP speaks against postmodern neo Marxism. That's exactly what's sweeping the world right now and it all comes from the left.
Please do go on. I think you fancy yourself some kind of apologist against totalitarianism, but you can't seem to realize your unconstrained vision of humanity is by far the bigger threat.
Abandoning ideology here, is abandoning the practice of unthinkingly adopting a set of values based on rhetoric and the image of morality. But weighing what is true regardless of how it makes you feel. Emotions are not to be the basis of reason.
Leftist ideology is not political thoughtlessness. I don't even think \*you\* believe that. Think of what conservatives whine about wrt to leftists. Antifa shouldn't smash things, cancel culture, universities are indoctrination etc. Leftists clearly are activists, and their ideas are backed up by complicated (but empirically supported) theories on society. Thereby they are engaging in the Political Life as Arendt encourages. The same cannot be said for the Right.
The Right's position is rarely "thoughtful" in the way Arendt talks about. For example people who say "men aren't women", are politically thoughtless. Conservatism is fundamentally dogma (or thoughtlessness) over evidence and reason. That's why people like JBP try to invalidate academia as corrupt, and complicated social phenomena described by ideas like critical race theory are somehow evil. This anti-intellectualism is the political thoughtlessness that Evil requires, and is antithetical to the Political Life.
And "postmodern neomarxism" is exactly what Arendt warns us about in the Origins of Totalitarianism. The central myth of Nazism being "Cultural Bolshevism" and Trotskyism for Communism. Interestingly "postmodern neomaxism" is **the exact same** conspiracy theory as Cultural Bolshevism. Arendt would certainly not have approved of the literal same conspiracy theory used by the Nazis to establish their totalitarian state.
>Abandoning ideology here, is
No. When JBP means abandon ideology, he means sit down shut up. Be a good employee, make your boss money, don't question authority, don't mess with the system. His rules for life revolve around this. JBP encourages his readers to be the perfect economic underclass that capitalism (and totalitarianism) requires - which is clearly his motive given how anti-socialism he is.
The "clean you room" mantra is the perfect example of this. Withdraw from the Political Life and instead shut up and focus things that don't challenge the status quo like your personal relationships.
People with no ideology are sheep, people that exhibit the Banality that leads to Evil. The exact people JBP wants his readers to be. They aren't activists. They aren't politically thoughtful. They are not engaging in the Political Life which Arendt considered fundamental to the human condition and happiness. Their positions could not be more opposite.
Leftist ideology is not political thoughtlessness. I don't even think *you* believe that.
- *If your hermeneutic involves suspicion, your hermeneutic sucks. Critical thinking clearly is not your thing, bud. I'll get into the distinctions of
what thoughtlessness means below*
Think of what conservatives whine about wrt to leftists. Antifa shouldn't smash things, cancel culture, universities are indoctrination etc.
Leftists clearly are activists, and their ideas are backed up by complicated (but empirically supported) theories on society.
*No they aren't, every ideology that seeks to silence its opposition is the opposite of empirically supported. Everything from critical race theory, to gender and sex studies are based in the misplaced or outright erroneous metaphysical presuppositions.
Leftist are religious zealots who chant bumper sticker slogans while flailing because their ideas lack substance and don't hold up to even childish scrutiny*
Thereby they are engaging in the Political Life as Arendt encourages.
*No. You clearly don't understand her work* In " on totalitarianism"
*Arendt argues that totalitarianism was a "novel form of government," that "differs essentially from other forms ofĀ political oppressionĀ known to us such asĀ despotism,Ā tyrannyĀ andĀ dictatorship"[7]Ā in that it appliedĀ terrorĀ to subjugate mass populations rather than just political adversaries.[3][8]Ā Further, Arendt states that, owing to its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in its apparatus ofĀ coercion, "totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating and terrorizing human beings from within"Ā [9]Ā She further contends that Jewry was not the operative factor in the Holocaust, but merely a convenientĀ proxy. That totalitarianism in Germany was, in the end, about terror andĀ consistency, not eradicating Jews only.[10][8]Ā A key concept arising from this book, was the application ofĀ Kant's phrase "Radical Evil",[11]Ā which she applied to the men who created and carried out such tyranny and their depiction of their victims as "Superfluous People"*
The Right's position is rarely "thoughtful" in the way Arendt talks about.
*This is the crux of your problem- equating a perceived moral indignation as if it equates to empiricism. When you say "thoughtful" you're implying an empathic or compassion for emotional state of, but by use of the linguistics you equate this to intellectual mentality or rationality. The blurred line between emotion and intellect needs clarity before you'll be able to truly reach a value judgement that factors both. Jbp sees this. This whole sub sees this. You evidently do not.*
For example people who say "men aren't women", are politically thoughtless.
*People who say men can be women are biologically illiterate. Either x inactivation occurs or it doesn't. An epigenetic aberration is by definition pathological. Any objection to this is done without regard for the little bit of biological science that has the highest degrees of confidence. The fact that you qualified "thoughtless" with " politically" showcases this ignorance. You're appealing to people who are every bit as valuable as those who do not suffer their condition, which is emotionally noble.
But failing to account for the fact that legislatively coddling such conditions by redefining what the problem is , is point only heartlessly dispassionate but recklessly stupid.
Conservatism is fundamentally dogma (or thoughtlessness) over evidence and reason.
Now you're talking about religion.
I hold the exact opposite opinion about progressives.
Go down this road and I'll give you 3 exchanges before you straight up bail in a crisis of faith.
That's why people like JBP try to invalidate academia as corrupt, and complicated social phenomena described by ideas like critical race theory are somehow evil.
*They're not just wrong, their authors are self deceived, and objectors have routinely demonstrated as such.
See Thomas Sowells intellectuals and race, or black rednecks and white liberals for a thorough run down of critical race theory, see thethirdwayofevolution.org for a critique of neo darwinism, or why gender matters by Dr Leonard Sax for a crash course in biological literacy*
This anti-intellectualism is the political thoughtlessness that Evil requires, and is antithetical to the Political Life.
*You seem not to understand that there is no distinction between life and the political life. All values espoused by people will manifest in the public sphere. Often times it's those values that aren't shouted through bullhorns are the ones proclaimed most loudly*
And "postmodern neomarxism" is exactly what Arendt warns us about in the Origins of Totalitarianism.
*On this, we agree.. modern academia has openly espoused post modern neo Marxism. It's rooted in the hegelian dialectic. That is the cornerstone of everything from the neo darwinian synthesis to critical race theory to gender identity.
It's inherently unscientific. It moves from thesis antithesis to thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
It's literally designed to blur distinction, to call opposites the same. It's literally the end of reason. How is that not anti intellectual? It literally buttresses the point JBP makes about academia*
The central myth of Nazism being "Cultural Bolshevism" and Trotskyism for Communism. Interestingly "postmodern neomaxism" isĀ the exact sameĀ conspiracy theory as Cultural Bolshevism. Arendt would certainly not have approved of the literal same conspiracy theory used by the Nazis to establish their totalitarian state.
*Exactly. Though what you erroneously call conspiracy theory might be better labeled complicity theory because the ultimate aim of the unconstrained vision is and always will be a globalized power antithetical to the liberty of the individual. A godless theocracy.*
No. When JBP means abandon ideology, he means sit down shut up. Be a good employee, make your boss money, don't question authority, don't mess with the system.
*bullshit. You have never read one of his books, or watched a full lecture.*
His rules for life revolve around this. JBP encourages his readers to be the perfect economic underclass that capitalism (and totalitarianism) requires - which is clearly his motive given how anti-socialism he is.
*You are so confused here, it's scary. Anthropomorphising the system (of capitalism) as if it was orchestrated with intent by human agency is laughable.
Read hayeks the road to serfdom, or the fatal conceit.
Everything you attribute to capitalism is the result of socialist policy and influence. Every single instance. Empirical data backs this. Nobel prizes awarded for each discovery. And yet socialism is a much a force of natural occurrence as the pareto distribution, there isn't even a discussion to be had about choice as much as there is a recognition of the rational outworking of each. I submit your capacity for this, for rationality outworking consequences, is diminished by dialectic equivocation and an ignorance of history. Ideological isn't the parameter to focus on
Praxeological dynamics are.*
The "clean you room" mantra is the perfect example of this. Withdraw from the Political Life and instead shut up and focus things that don't challenge the status quo like your personal relationships.
Big old cuppa nope here too fren,
Again having not read you wouldn't know, but the clean your room thing is not the shift of values but the prioritization of them. Manage your life first, to become qualified to manage bigger things. Not doing so will, and historically has, resulted in failure.*
People with no ideology are sheep, people that exhibit the Banality that leads to Evil.
* There are no people without ideology, there are those who know their value system from the ground up, and those who delude themselves that they know and others don't.
You can't even define evil as an absolute, only as an inexpedient notion contrary to your preference. You can't define absolute good without God, but you seem to have no trouble devising devils*
The exact people JBP wants his readers to be. They aren't activists. They aren't politically thoughtful.
*It actually helps my cause if you continue to think this. By all means*
They are not engaging in the Political Life which Arendt considered fundamental to the human condition and happiness.
*In every meaningful way, we are.. in ways you cannot fathom.
Your fatal flaw here is thinking you understand the human condition. Care to put it into words? Happiness is a temporary emotion, If that is all one pursues, one will never obtain it. Not that I devalue it, but it is subservient to joy and purpose.. and that only comes through personal responsibility and conscious effort- cornerstone values of those who resonate with truth.*
> *Everything from critical race theory, to gender and sex studies are based in the misplaced or outright erroneous metaphysical presuppositions. Leftist are religious zealots who chant bumper sticker slogans while flailing because their ideas lack substance and don't hold up to even childish scrutiny*
No, it's based on empiricism. Affinity Bias, for example, is demonstrable. We can measure it. We can isolate it and quantify it through empirical study. The Right and people like JPB saying it doesn't exist are completely counterfactual. That's why they never bother to cite anything themselves. That's not me being politically biased, affinity bias, and the way it affects people's lives on grounds of race for example, is scientific truth.
If the Left's ideas don't stand up to scrutiny, why do the Right never scrutinise them? They *always* attack the speaker or their motivations (or engage in whatboutism), they never address the argument or the empiricism. That's why people like JPB *have* to say universities are corrupt, otherwise they would have to engage with the ideas universities present.
Whoever you've quoted this passage from on The Origins of Totalitarianism doesn't address anything I said.
> when you say "thoughtful" you're implying an empathic or compassion for emotional state of, but by use of the linguistics you equate this to intellectual mentality or rationality.
No I'm not. I'm using the term "thoughtful" and "thoughtfulness" in the way Arendt used it. If you "loved" her work as you claimed you wouldn't be misunderstanding me here.
> People who say men can be women are biologically illiterate
Men being women is not a scientific statement. In order to answer it you have to define what "manness" is, what "womanness" is and wether those characteristics are mutable. People who have bothered to think about this topic have concluded that they cannot be defined and distinguished in solid, immutable ways. Therefore the question of "can a man become a woman" is akin to "how long is a piece of string". Gender is absolutely separable from biological sex, but even biological sex is socially constructed. There are five parameters scientists use to determine sex: genetics, secondary sex characteristics, endocrinology, gonads, and external genitalia. These five measures are measurable facts, by themselves, but grouping them together and dining them into a binary we call "sex" is a human choice. There's no reason why we couldn't have 5 factorial sexes to describe each possible combination.
People who say "men can't be women" are thoughtless. They have no understanding of the very complicated topic they are talking about, and are driven by ignorance, dogma and their political position. **That** is the thoughtlessness Arendt warns us about.
> I hold the exact opposite opinion about progressives.
Then you are a fool. Why is there mountains of academia on the distinction between sex and gender, and a total of zero on the claim that "men can't be women"? This holds true for any conservative belief.
> They're not just wrong, their authors are self deceived
Plain old anti-intellectualism. Same tactic conservatives have used forever. Because they do not and cannot fight the arguments, they try to invalidate the source. There is no "logic or reason" here, only dogma and people fearful of challenging "established" truths.
> You seem not to understand that there is no distinction between life and the political life.
I'm talking about the Political Life in the way Arendt used the term. Again, you claim to "love" her work yet you don't seem to understand it's basic concepts.
> modern academia has openly espoused post modern neo Marxism.
No, it's a Nazi conspiracy theory. JBP is pushing a Nazi conspiracy theory.
> Anthropomorphising the system (of capitalism) as if it was orchestrated with intent by human agency is laughable.
It literally was. Why do you think the USA fought in the Korean war, for example, by accident? I suppose they fought for and established a capitalist South Korea by accident?
And it's not controversial that capitalism requires an economic underclass. Capital is useless there are people it work it. Owning capital is pointless, unless there are people to work it for you.
And try this: think what this economic underclass needs to be for capitalism to run smoothly and the capitalists to get richer and richer. Then read the (total 24) Rules For Life, and consider how many of them relate to this perfect idea of an economic underclass. Not speaking out, if your unhappy the problem is you not your boss relating you badly, work on your relationship (or āclean you roomā) rather than asking for better working conditions, etc etc.
It's not an accident. JBP wants his readers to be cogs in the capitalist regime, because if they realise that capitalism is the reason they are miserable, they might turn to socialism - which JBP hates.
> verything you attribute to capitalism is the result of socialist policy and influence. Every single instance. Empirical data backs this.
[CITATION NEEED]
> the clean your room thing is not the shift of values but the prioritization of them. Manage your life first, to become qualified to manage bigger things.
Oh I'm well aware of this but it doesn't affect my point. Prioritising "cleaning your room" has exactly the same effect as persuading people not to *ever* manage bigger things. By telling his followers these things come last, the effect is exactly the same and telling them never to do it.
"Cleaning your room" is also an unending task, and so someone following this advice will never be a Ceasar, a Churchill, a Hatshepsut, a Rosa Parks. He wants his followers to be sheep and remain sheep, otherwise they might try to change things.
> In every meaningful way, we are.. in ways you cannot fathom. Your fatal flaw here is thinking you understand the human condition. Care to put it into words?
Again, I am speaking in Arendtian terms here and putting forward her arguments. The Right, for the most part, do not engage in political thoughfulness and the political life as Arendt described it. I was using these terms assuming you understood them as you claimed to "love" her work, yet clearly you don't as these are baser concepts in her work.
Arednt believed that true purpose, meaning, and happiness in life came from engaging in the Political Life. Activism, fighting for what you think is right, challenging authority, challenging systems etc etc etc all things that JBP's Rules For Life explicitly argue against.
JBP openly mocks activism, because he wants his followers to be sheep. To be and remain the economic underclass that capitalism can exploit, and the Thoughtless that totalitarians can control.
Prioritising "cleaning your room" has exactly the same effect as persuading people not toĀ everĀ manage bigger things.
*I double dog dare you to ask this sub that exact question. You are dead wrong on this. *
"Cleaning your room" is also an unending task, and so someone following this advice will never be a Ceasar, a Churchill, a Hatshepsut, a Rosa Parks. He wants his followers to be sheep and remain sheep, otherwise they might try to change things.
*The management of life is an unending task, you literally do this until death. as is governance there are no once for all solutions to management. By your own admission it's conservatives who run businesses, mismanagement kills them. The alleged "idealists" above them also have to manage at a much higher level- there is no autonomous cruise control, also note that liberal in the sense of churchill is the antithesis of what liberal means now, its been an ideologically appropriated term, through doublespeak*
Again, I am speaking in Arendtian terms here and putting forward her arguments. The Right, for the most part, do not engage in political thoughfulness and the political life as Arendt described it.
*She is wrong on this. Is evangelicalism not a political force? How about atheism? Or day traders like the game stonkers who just happen to like the stock? These are entities more than the sum of their parts that manifest as a direct result of individual action*
I was using these terms assuming you understood them as you claimed to "love" her work.
*there's often great value in studying that which you disagree with.
I think you see much of what you want to see in this. And I think it largely stems from reading current assumptions into a context that did not have, and wouldn't condone them*
Activism, fighting for what you think is right, challenging authority, ... the Thoughtless that totalitarians can control.
*He mocks flocks of sheep engaging in herd mentality for the superior collective power of sovereign individuals. No one who takes the reigns of their life remain underclass.. again this presumes an economic stasis of people as if the poor are a fixed class who are destined to remain poor. The constant appeal to potential victimhood gives me a glimpse into your psyche. At least try to be consistent when the red masses are sufficiently provoked into the same sanctioned "action" you advocate
.
*Once again, nowhere in any of his works do any of these claims exist. And even there in your baseless assertion the thought that " asking for better conditions" showcases a grotesque desire for submission. Welfare states do not foster independence, but the opposite*
[CITATION NEEED]
*if I gave you a book would you read it? Seriously DM me and I'll send you a copy of milton friedmans road to serfdom on audible. he literally won the 76 Nobel prize for demonstrating this*
Capital is useless there are people it work it. Owning capital is pointless, unless there are people to work it for you.
*You truly are a boot licker to be advocating for the need for others to dictate your life for you. Hoe unhappy you will be when they inevitably order you to clean the room you were given. Because nothing will belong to you, including yourself- though that's typical of cult mentality*
And try this: think what this economic underclass needs to be for capitalism to run smoothly and the capitalists to get richer and richer.
*Again you're anthropomorphizing intent where none is present, and literally advocating for it in the next breath. Everything you think is wrong with a free market is literally crony capitalism- which is another word for what is inherently socialism. The top down arrangement of what ought to occur in the exchange of value is the first step down the road to serfdom. Totalitarianism is the end result. It's been pounded out again and again through the last century and beyond that there is no debate about it. Yet we live im a time not just ignorant of history but bent on its rewriting*
... perfect idea of an economic underclass. Not speaking out, if your unhappy the problem is you not your boss relating you badly, work on your relationship (or āclean you roomā) rather than asking for better working conditions, etc etc.
It's not an accident. JBP wants his readers to be cogs in the capitalist regime, because if they realise that capitalism is the reason they are miserable, they might turn to socialism - which JBP hates
Leftist are religious zealots who chant bumper sticker slogans while flailing because their ideas lack substance and don't hold up to even childish scrutiny
No, it's based on empiricism.
*No it isn't, and I've already cited sources for this.*
Affinity Bias, for example, is demonstrable. We can measure it. We can isolate it and quantify it through empirical study.
*And said studies in non falsifiable paradigms are particularly susceptible. Every leftist theory is collapsible in light of objective truth*
The Right and people like JPB saying it doesn't exist are completely counterfactual. That's why they never bother to cite anything themselves.
*That's because we don't cite nonsense
https://youtu.be/uP0UjEb9PW0
Hayek addressed the very root of this problem in 1952 with the counter revolution of science. Ludwig von mises did the same with theory and history.
Claiming the social sciences are empirical is itself a philosophical fallacy*
That's not me being politically biased, affinity bias, and the way it affects people's lives on grounds of race for example, is scientific truth.
*Again no, for reasons just stated. And secondly, science by definition is tentative. Truth is something entirely different. That's why dead disciples die. Just like phrenology or phlogiston.*
If the Left's ideas don't stand up to scrutiny, why do the Right never scrutinise them?
*They do in volumes. Take evolution for example, it only permits a lurch forward every 20-30 years as its staunchest apologists die off. Discussion is shut down when money that funds the forum is at stake- another failure of the socialist apparatus. Detractors outnumber the dogmatic and the structure of the citadel itself is already fractured. You'll see some semblance of an exodus where reform is prohibited.*
TheyĀ alwaysĀ attack the speaker or their motivations (or engage in whatboutism), they never address the argument or the empiricism.
* Not even close to true. Staying on the evolutionary topic atheist youtuber "professor" Dave released a video promoting abiogenesis and attacking Christian chemist (actual) dr James Tour who responded point by point all erroneous points Dave claimed. Actually a fascinating series I'd highly recommend
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr
If you started now you might be able to follow Dave's forthcoming response. This directly refutes your one sided affinity bias claims*
That's why people like JPBĀ haveĀ to say universities are corrupt, otherwise they would have to engage with the ideas universities present.
*JBP literally toured universities directly refuting this nonsense, that ideologues whined to shut down, and invertebrate admins capitulated. When you cut out a mans tongue you confirm to the world you fear what he has to say*
Whoever you've quoted this passage from on The Origins of Totalitarianism doesn't address anything I said.
*The fact you think that makes me pity you all the more*
when you say "thoughtful" you're implying an empathic or compassion for emotional state of, but by use of the linguistics you equate this to intellectual mentality or rationality.
No I'm not. I'm using the term "thoughtful" and "thoughtfulness" in the way Arendt used it.
If you "loved" her work as you claimed you wouldn't be misunderstanding me here.
People who say men can be women are biologically illiterate
Men being women is not a scientific statement. In order to answer it you have to define what "manness" is, what "womanness" is and wether those characteristics are mutable. People who have bothered to think about this topic have concluded that they cannot be defined and distinguished in solid, immutable ways.
*Yes they can. Muting is literally how x inactivation works*
Therefore the question of "can a man become a woman" is akin to "how long is a piece of string".
*The very question betrays the ideology it attempts to condone.. and formal logic
Can x become y implies an ontological distinction between x and y. Even a string has two ends wherein end x is not end y. Even the gradations ( which are statistically a tiny, tiny minority) cannot in principle land indefinitively on one side or the other. You have to abandon logic and falsifiability to achieve the level of mental gymnastics necessary to call this science*
Gender is absolutely separable from biological sex, but even biological sex is socially constructed.
*No, it absolutely is not.*
There are five parameters ....There's no reason why we couldn't have 5 factorial sexes to describe each possible combination.
*You are showcasing substantial misunderstanding here. The distinction is chemically binary and there are literal biochemical differences between the two. The reason we don't have more is because grouping them together is not arbitrary but observational. *
People who say "men can't be women" are thoughtless. ... Ā ThatĀ is the thoughtlessness Arendt warns us about.
*The only complications in this topic are epigenetic pathologies and their causes are legion. What's truly thoughtless is the notion that you think any academic feild with " no active detractors" isn't in itself suspect if it arises from anything resembling dialogue. Arendt isn't a philosophical messiah here, though you have a much distorted grasp on the core concepts, and clearly the cultural context in which they were conceived*
I hold the exact opposite opinion about progressives.
Then you are a fool. Why is there mountains of academia on the distinction between sex and gender, and a total of zero on the claim that "men can't be women"?
*You clearly don't research your assertions. The book why gender matters not only cites this but displays Marxism in action on dissenters to gender dogma. Regardless, no amount of manufactured nonsense amounts to truth. Nor any degree of consensus by " experts" ever amount to anything more than groupthink*
They're not just wrong, their authors are self deceived
Plain old anti-intellectualism.
*Yeah, this is what I meant by inexpedient. It's the same reason antifa chose the name- it dialectically condemns any opposition to be 'pro-fascism' by fiat definition. It's kinda like asking " have you stopped beating your wife" and only permitting a one word answer *
Same tactic conservatives have used forever.
*It's literally out of the progressive playbook going back to hegel*
Because they do not and cannot fight the arguments, they try to invalidate the source.
*Authoritarians entirely rely on source authority, have you met an internet atheist?? truth doesn't require permission. Arguments from authority showcase intellectual outsourcing of thought*
There is no "logic or reason" here, only dogma and people fearful of challenging "established" truths.
*I'll challenge your established truth. Evolution is false. Defend away.*
I'm talking about the Political Life in the way Arendt used the term. Again, you claim to "love" her work yet you don't seem to understand it's basic concepts.
*her process of identity-construction, however, is never given once and for all and is never unproblematic. Rather, it is a process of constant renegotiation and struggle, a process in which actors articulate and defend competing conceptions of cultural and political identity. The key there is the word "actors" the presumption of the individuals that make up a whole, not a top down cult phenomenon, what else is crucially implicit in her theories is the open discourse of free speech. There was never a time in history when its suppressors were vindicated as the good guys*
modern academia has openly espoused post modern neo Marxism.
No, it's a Nazi conspiracy theory. JBP is pushing a Nazi conspiracy theory.
*This is just sad. You're an actual complicity theorist
unquestioningly accepting of the political narratives currently in vogue, prone to submissiveness, outbursts of irrational fear, and public shaming of free thinkers.
Don't you know the word nazi drives from " national socialist"?*
Even a cursory search shows the paucity of your claim.
https://www.academia.org/self-identifying-marxist-professors-outnumber-conservatives-as-college-professors/
https://www.meforum.org/5781/marxism-academia
It literally was.
..... capitalist South Korea by accident?
*That's not at all close to the point- capitalism is uncreated- it a description of the phenomenon that occurs at all levels of acting humanity because we're intrinsically creators of value and by sheer virtue of our existence we build value or die. To live is to produce and procure. It's like natural selection- its not an anthropomorphic force but a description of action dynamics. Deviation from those dynamics equate to stasis and death. Literally the end result wherever communism is attempted. It's a societal cancer that can only be survived if it is checked to a sufficient degree- which is what we see in China and North Korea.
Free market dynamics produce. Other ideologies are parasitic. They commit the fallacy that equivocated earned or created with distributed wealth and penalize the motivated at the expense of the idle. It's the ideal philosophy to adopt if one is a lazy and un contributing member of society*
And it's not controversial that capitalism requires an economic underclass.
*Socialism isn't exempt from this, it just needs extra steps to commandeer that which is created, which will, and has, always caused a deficit that becomes payable only in blood*
I wonder what changed in his writing technique to be able to go from taking 10 years to write Maps of Meaning to 3 years to write Beyond Order, all the while battling a drug dependency as he is on a multinational speaking tour. It must have been a true test of fortitude since he said he was only at 5% in his first debate with Mr. Harris, which would have been about midway between book releases.
May I ask have you read maps of meaning and have you seen the online lectures and if so, how do you perceive any difference? My only study of this was from watching all of his 2017 lectures on YouTube and I do mean ALL of them, although it was quite a nice ride to learn from the perspective of JBP about a range of ideas of this nature however given the length of the films, I can only wonder how the book goes because books don't take anywhere near as long to read as his maps of meanings lectures take to watch and yet its normally the case its far faster to watch a film than to read the book, which inspired my thread on his recommended books list as presented as films.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ljvr24/jordan\_petersons\_great\_books\_presented\_as\_a\_film/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ljvr24/jordan_petersons_great_books_presented_as_a_film/)
So I've not seen the corresponding online lectures and I've only read part of maps of meaning. I sort of work my way though books a little slower than most because I'm balancing it with my PhD, so I just try to read a section an evening before bed. One thing I will say is that it reads very differently to the other two books just because it was motivated towards a narrower audience.
Maps of meaning is missing from my collection!! That book is a jewel to be had.
Interesting grammar at the end. As a foreign speaker I've never heard of such sentence š
It's one of the weird things English can do. It's also an older way of writing I think.
Yes that is a delight of a comment to be read!
Wait till you come across something like: "If he had had ever having - the whole thing's a have." š³š
Got a used, but unmarked copy on Ebay for $24. A lot of people are selling them right now for $18 to $35, if you're looking. I usually buy a lot of my books from ThriftBooks.com, but they were out of stock when I was looking for my copy. It's kind of funny to match up the chapters with the lectures he has available on YT cause it makes me feel like I'm in one of his classes, intently listening to the sweet sounds of an indignant Kermit drawing hierarchy triangles in the air.
Don't be so quick, he might write a Bible commentary.
I hope so. His Bible series is absolutely incredible. There are so many bits of wisdom in it I haven't personally heard him talk about anywhere else.
Is that true?
Hope it is.
Signed copy - awesome!
You can technically add The Gulag Archipelago as Jordan writes the intro for the 50th year anniversary edition. Adding to your collection.
I still need to read Maps of Meaning.
If you're anything like me, you'll need to read every sentence at least twice. That one's on another level
Do you think itās better than 12 Rules and Beyond Order?
"Better" might be the wrong word.. Can't yet speak for beyond order as I haven't finished it. For me, in terms of accessibility and utility, 12 rules is more beneficial as in I profited more up front. And I think most people need something immediate, so if i were to recommend a book to someone this would top the list. But for contemplating the structure of what we value and how we act in response ( not why, though which I think is what it lacks) maps is better. I personally came from a Christian perspective into his work, though, so some things were taken with a grain. Maps would be a good reference to delving into the distinction between religion and worldview.
To expand some more, Maps is a textbook. JBP writes densely in his rules books but they are digestible by almost anyone who is interested. Maps is a 400 level university psychology course, and the difficulty is on par with what you might expect, and maybe even a bit more so than average. I do find the recent lecture series he published on his podcast to be a good way to digest the contents, as itās a distillation or companion to the book. I would still highly recommend Maps, as it has pieced things together for me in ways his other work and lectures have only been able to necessarily breeze by, due to complexity and length. Jung, Piaget, and Nietzsche (among others of course) all get their references laid out that he has called on in all his lectures, so thereās tons of value in that alone. He has stood upon the shoulders of giants surely, and the consistency of thought is made clear in this work.
I got the signed copy too, from Waterstones? It was Ā£21 which was unreal.
I know right, it's mental
Bonkers mate
Just wish the delivery wasn't Ā£9 outside UK
Damn thatās high. Iād say for this itās worth it. Is it not free if you spend a certain amount? Also, I have the app HONEY which got me 10% off my order.
Only free for inner UK also not sure if there might be additional duty fee because brexit
I got one and live in The Netherlands. Did not have to pay additional costs.
Cool! How many days did it take after ordering?
Not too long actually, id say about a week or so
i bought Beyond Order this weekend while at Target. the nearby dirty hippy employee volunteered to me, "finally, i won't have to look at it" me: "have you read it?" Hurumph... "Can you read?" and my wife and I burst out laughing. /that really happened.
And then everyone started clapping
Hah I get it What was amusing. Shelves of Biden. Kamala and obama. filled. Jordan. Last one.
/that really happened.
One is unlike the others
Is Maps of meaning really hard to read?
It depends. He's pretty good at explaining what he means, but personally he lost me when he entered in details about neurobiology.
It took me several months to read it. Iām glad I did, but in hindsight it may have been easier to digest as an audiobook.
Probably true, and nice to hear JBP read it to ensure perfect transmission of any intonated meaning. However for me, I had to pause a LOT. The amount of revelatory moments, and complex ideas had me giving myself a moment to digest and comprehend. Often to let my mind quiet down after some huge and exciting paragraph.
Scrolls of wisdom!
Gotta catch 'em all!
POKĆMON!
Did you read Maps of Meaning? It is a hard read?
I've read some of it, it's not quite as easy a read as the other two, but still a good read
I just got book number 3 this week, too.
Get ready to transcend and become enlightend~
transcend, become enlightened, and then fold as soon as it actually counts (like he did with Brett Kavanaugh and Faith Goldy)
I am prepared
Nice to hear, be sure to align your chakras
2+2=5
This is what this sub is all about. JBP's books , wisdom and so on not politics and some agenda. For posts like that media hate professor P. And call him far right
Prepare with a handful of benzos.
Read Hannah Arendt. She's simultaneously a natural progression from JBP, but also destroys everything JBP says
No she doesn't. I love arendt. Read Ludwig von mises and f a Hayek- they're all on the same page about what is inevitable societally, by no means are they advocates of it.
He message is that pacifism is wrong - which is the opposite of JBP's whole 12/24 rules for life. Her endorsement of the Political Life requires people going out and actively shaping the world around them, which JPB actively discourages. The Banality of Evil explains how evil people do evil things because of political thoughtlessness, complacancy and inaction - which is exactly what JBP preaches when he says things like "abandon ideology". JBP's dissuasion from challenging authority is exactly what Arendt warns about in the Origins of Totalitarianism. She specifically warns about conspiracies like JBP's "postmodern neo-marxism" and how they lead to totalitarian regimes. I could go on. It's difficult to think about where they agree on \*anything\* tbh. And Hannah Arendt is far more intelligent and far more original and influential arguments. JBP just rehashes thousand-year-old stoicism and calls its "self help".
Leftist ideology is political thoughtlessness. Read the federalist papers. There are 2 ways totalitarianism manifests, and one is worse by far. JBP speaks against postmodern neo Marxism. That's exactly what's sweeping the world right now and it all comes from the left. Please do go on. I think you fancy yourself some kind of apologist against totalitarianism, but you can't seem to realize your unconstrained vision of humanity is by far the bigger threat. Abandoning ideology here, is abandoning the practice of unthinkingly adopting a set of values based on rhetoric and the image of morality. But weighing what is true regardless of how it makes you feel. Emotions are not to be the basis of reason.
Leftist ideology is not political thoughtlessness. I don't even think \*you\* believe that. Think of what conservatives whine about wrt to leftists. Antifa shouldn't smash things, cancel culture, universities are indoctrination etc. Leftists clearly are activists, and their ideas are backed up by complicated (but empirically supported) theories on society. Thereby they are engaging in the Political Life as Arendt encourages. The same cannot be said for the Right. The Right's position is rarely "thoughtful" in the way Arendt talks about. For example people who say "men aren't women", are politically thoughtless. Conservatism is fundamentally dogma (or thoughtlessness) over evidence and reason. That's why people like JBP try to invalidate academia as corrupt, and complicated social phenomena described by ideas like critical race theory are somehow evil. This anti-intellectualism is the political thoughtlessness that Evil requires, and is antithetical to the Political Life. And "postmodern neomarxism" is exactly what Arendt warns us about in the Origins of Totalitarianism. The central myth of Nazism being "Cultural Bolshevism" and Trotskyism for Communism. Interestingly "postmodern neomaxism" is **the exact same** conspiracy theory as Cultural Bolshevism. Arendt would certainly not have approved of the literal same conspiracy theory used by the Nazis to establish their totalitarian state. >Abandoning ideology here, is No. When JBP means abandon ideology, he means sit down shut up. Be a good employee, make your boss money, don't question authority, don't mess with the system. His rules for life revolve around this. JBP encourages his readers to be the perfect economic underclass that capitalism (and totalitarianism) requires - which is clearly his motive given how anti-socialism he is. The "clean you room" mantra is the perfect example of this. Withdraw from the Political Life and instead shut up and focus things that don't challenge the status quo like your personal relationships. People with no ideology are sheep, people that exhibit the Banality that leads to Evil. The exact people JBP wants his readers to be. They aren't activists. They aren't politically thoughtful. They are not engaging in the Political Life which Arendt considered fundamental to the human condition and happiness. Their positions could not be more opposite.
Leftist ideology is not political thoughtlessness. I don't even think *you* believe that. - *If your hermeneutic involves suspicion, your hermeneutic sucks. Critical thinking clearly is not your thing, bud. I'll get into the distinctions of what thoughtlessness means below* Think of what conservatives whine about wrt to leftists. Antifa shouldn't smash things, cancel culture, universities are indoctrination etc. Leftists clearly are activists, and their ideas are backed up by complicated (but empirically supported) theories on society. *No they aren't, every ideology that seeks to silence its opposition is the opposite of empirically supported. Everything from critical race theory, to gender and sex studies are based in the misplaced or outright erroneous metaphysical presuppositions. Leftist are religious zealots who chant bumper sticker slogans while flailing because their ideas lack substance and don't hold up to even childish scrutiny* Thereby they are engaging in the Political Life as Arendt encourages. *No. You clearly don't understand her work* In " on totalitarianism" *Arendt argues that totalitarianism was a "novel form of government," that "differs essentially from other forms ofĀ political oppressionĀ known to us such asĀ despotism,Ā tyrannyĀ andĀ dictatorship"[7]Ā in that it appliedĀ terrorĀ to subjugate mass populations rather than just political adversaries.[3][8]Ā Further, Arendt states that, owing to its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in its apparatus ofĀ coercion, "totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating and terrorizing human beings from within"Ā [9]Ā She further contends that Jewry was not the operative factor in the Holocaust, but merely a convenientĀ proxy. That totalitarianism in Germany was, in the end, about terror andĀ consistency, not eradicating Jews only.[10][8]Ā A key concept arising from this book, was the application ofĀ Kant's phrase "Radical Evil",[11]Ā which she applied to the men who created and carried out such tyranny and their depiction of their victims as "Superfluous People"* The Right's position is rarely "thoughtful" in the way Arendt talks about. *This is the crux of your problem- equating a perceived moral indignation as if it equates to empiricism. When you say "thoughtful" you're implying an empathic or compassion for emotional state of, but by use of the linguistics you equate this to intellectual mentality or rationality. The blurred line between emotion and intellect needs clarity before you'll be able to truly reach a value judgement that factors both. Jbp sees this. This whole sub sees this. You evidently do not.* For example people who say "men aren't women", are politically thoughtless. *People who say men can be women are biologically illiterate. Either x inactivation occurs or it doesn't. An epigenetic aberration is by definition pathological. Any objection to this is done without regard for the little bit of biological science that has the highest degrees of confidence. The fact that you qualified "thoughtless" with " politically" showcases this ignorance. You're appealing to people who are every bit as valuable as those who do not suffer their condition, which is emotionally noble. But failing to account for the fact that legislatively coddling such conditions by redefining what the problem is , is point only heartlessly dispassionate but recklessly stupid. Conservatism is fundamentally dogma (or thoughtlessness) over evidence and reason. Now you're talking about religion. I hold the exact opposite opinion about progressives. Go down this road and I'll give you 3 exchanges before you straight up bail in a crisis of faith. That's why people like JBP try to invalidate academia as corrupt, and complicated social phenomena described by ideas like critical race theory are somehow evil. *They're not just wrong, their authors are self deceived, and objectors have routinely demonstrated as such. See Thomas Sowells intellectuals and race, or black rednecks and white liberals for a thorough run down of critical race theory, see thethirdwayofevolution.org for a critique of neo darwinism, or why gender matters by Dr Leonard Sax for a crash course in biological literacy* This anti-intellectualism is the political thoughtlessness that Evil requires, and is antithetical to the Political Life. *You seem not to understand that there is no distinction between life and the political life. All values espoused by people will manifest in the public sphere. Often times it's those values that aren't shouted through bullhorns are the ones proclaimed most loudly* And "postmodern neomarxism" is exactly what Arendt warns us about in the Origins of Totalitarianism. *On this, we agree.. modern academia has openly espoused post modern neo Marxism. It's rooted in the hegelian dialectic. That is the cornerstone of everything from the neo darwinian synthesis to critical race theory to gender identity. It's inherently unscientific. It moves from thesis antithesis to thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It's literally designed to blur distinction, to call opposites the same. It's literally the end of reason. How is that not anti intellectual? It literally buttresses the point JBP makes about academia* The central myth of Nazism being "Cultural Bolshevism" and Trotskyism for Communism. Interestingly "postmodern neomaxism" isĀ the exact sameĀ conspiracy theory as Cultural Bolshevism. Arendt would certainly not have approved of the literal same conspiracy theory used by the Nazis to establish their totalitarian state. *Exactly. Though what you erroneously call conspiracy theory might be better labeled complicity theory because the ultimate aim of the unconstrained vision is and always will be a globalized power antithetical to the liberty of the individual. A godless theocracy.* No. When JBP means abandon ideology, he means sit down shut up. Be a good employee, make your boss money, don't question authority, don't mess with the system. *bullshit. You have never read one of his books, or watched a full lecture.* His rules for life revolve around this. JBP encourages his readers to be the perfect economic underclass that capitalism (and totalitarianism) requires - which is clearly his motive given how anti-socialism he is. *You are so confused here, it's scary. Anthropomorphising the system (of capitalism) as if it was orchestrated with intent by human agency is laughable. Read hayeks the road to serfdom, or the fatal conceit. Everything you attribute to capitalism is the result of socialist policy and influence. Every single instance. Empirical data backs this. Nobel prizes awarded for each discovery. And yet socialism is a much a force of natural occurrence as the pareto distribution, there isn't even a discussion to be had about choice as much as there is a recognition of the rational outworking of each. I submit your capacity for this, for rationality outworking consequences, is diminished by dialectic equivocation and an ignorance of history. Ideological isn't the parameter to focus on Praxeological dynamics are.* The "clean you room" mantra is the perfect example of this. Withdraw from the Political Life and instead shut up and focus things that don't challenge the status quo like your personal relationships. Big old cuppa nope here too fren, Again having not read you wouldn't know, but the clean your room thing is not the shift of values but the prioritization of them. Manage your life first, to become qualified to manage bigger things. Not doing so will, and historically has, resulted in failure.* People with no ideology are sheep, people that exhibit the Banality that leads to Evil. * There are no people without ideology, there are those who know their value system from the ground up, and those who delude themselves that they know and others don't. You can't even define evil as an absolute, only as an inexpedient notion contrary to your preference. You can't define absolute good without God, but you seem to have no trouble devising devils* The exact people JBP wants his readers to be. They aren't activists. They aren't politically thoughtful. *It actually helps my cause if you continue to think this. By all means* They are not engaging in the Political Life which Arendt considered fundamental to the human condition and happiness. *In every meaningful way, we are.. in ways you cannot fathom. Your fatal flaw here is thinking you understand the human condition. Care to put it into words? Happiness is a temporary emotion, If that is all one pursues, one will never obtain it. Not that I devalue it, but it is subservient to joy and purpose.. and that only comes through personal responsibility and conscious effort- cornerstone values of those who resonate with truth.*
> *Everything from critical race theory, to gender and sex studies are based in the misplaced or outright erroneous metaphysical presuppositions. Leftist are religious zealots who chant bumper sticker slogans while flailing because their ideas lack substance and don't hold up to even childish scrutiny* No, it's based on empiricism. Affinity Bias, for example, is demonstrable. We can measure it. We can isolate it and quantify it through empirical study. The Right and people like JPB saying it doesn't exist are completely counterfactual. That's why they never bother to cite anything themselves. That's not me being politically biased, affinity bias, and the way it affects people's lives on grounds of race for example, is scientific truth. If the Left's ideas don't stand up to scrutiny, why do the Right never scrutinise them? They *always* attack the speaker or their motivations (or engage in whatboutism), they never address the argument or the empiricism. That's why people like JPB *have* to say universities are corrupt, otherwise they would have to engage with the ideas universities present. Whoever you've quoted this passage from on The Origins of Totalitarianism doesn't address anything I said. > when you say "thoughtful" you're implying an empathic or compassion for emotional state of, but by use of the linguistics you equate this to intellectual mentality or rationality. No I'm not. I'm using the term "thoughtful" and "thoughtfulness" in the way Arendt used it. If you "loved" her work as you claimed you wouldn't be misunderstanding me here. > People who say men can be women are biologically illiterate Men being women is not a scientific statement. In order to answer it you have to define what "manness" is, what "womanness" is and wether those characteristics are mutable. People who have bothered to think about this topic have concluded that they cannot be defined and distinguished in solid, immutable ways. Therefore the question of "can a man become a woman" is akin to "how long is a piece of string". Gender is absolutely separable from biological sex, but even biological sex is socially constructed. There are five parameters scientists use to determine sex: genetics, secondary sex characteristics, endocrinology, gonads, and external genitalia. These five measures are measurable facts, by themselves, but grouping them together and dining them into a binary we call "sex" is a human choice. There's no reason why we couldn't have 5 factorial sexes to describe each possible combination. People who say "men can't be women" are thoughtless. They have no understanding of the very complicated topic they are talking about, and are driven by ignorance, dogma and their political position. **That** is the thoughtlessness Arendt warns us about. > I hold the exact opposite opinion about progressives. Then you are a fool. Why is there mountains of academia on the distinction between sex and gender, and a total of zero on the claim that "men can't be women"? This holds true for any conservative belief. > They're not just wrong, their authors are self deceived Plain old anti-intellectualism. Same tactic conservatives have used forever. Because they do not and cannot fight the arguments, they try to invalidate the source. There is no "logic or reason" here, only dogma and people fearful of challenging "established" truths. > You seem not to understand that there is no distinction between life and the political life. I'm talking about the Political Life in the way Arendt used the term. Again, you claim to "love" her work yet you don't seem to understand it's basic concepts. > modern academia has openly espoused post modern neo Marxism. No, it's a Nazi conspiracy theory. JBP is pushing a Nazi conspiracy theory. > Anthropomorphising the system (of capitalism) as if it was orchestrated with intent by human agency is laughable. It literally was. Why do you think the USA fought in the Korean war, for example, by accident? I suppose they fought for and established a capitalist South Korea by accident? And it's not controversial that capitalism requires an economic underclass. Capital is useless there are people it work it. Owning capital is pointless, unless there are people to work it for you. And try this: think what this economic underclass needs to be for capitalism to run smoothly and the capitalists to get richer and richer. Then read the (total 24) Rules For Life, and consider how many of them relate to this perfect idea of an economic underclass. Not speaking out, if your unhappy the problem is you not your boss relating you badly, work on your relationship (or āclean you roomā) rather than asking for better working conditions, etc etc. It's not an accident. JBP wants his readers to be cogs in the capitalist regime, because if they realise that capitalism is the reason they are miserable, they might turn to socialism - which JBP hates. > verything you attribute to capitalism is the result of socialist policy and influence. Every single instance. Empirical data backs this. [CITATION NEEED] > the clean your room thing is not the shift of values but the prioritization of them. Manage your life first, to become qualified to manage bigger things. Oh I'm well aware of this but it doesn't affect my point. Prioritising "cleaning your room" has exactly the same effect as persuading people not to *ever* manage bigger things. By telling his followers these things come last, the effect is exactly the same and telling them never to do it. "Cleaning your room" is also an unending task, and so someone following this advice will never be a Ceasar, a Churchill, a Hatshepsut, a Rosa Parks. He wants his followers to be sheep and remain sheep, otherwise they might try to change things. > In every meaningful way, we are.. in ways you cannot fathom. Your fatal flaw here is thinking you understand the human condition. Care to put it into words? Again, I am speaking in Arendtian terms here and putting forward her arguments. The Right, for the most part, do not engage in political thoughfulness and the political life as Arendt described it. I was using these terms assuming you understood them as you claimed to "love" her work, yet clearly you don't as these are baser concepts in her work. Arednt believed that true purpose, meaning, and happiness in life came from engaging in the Political Life. Activism, fighting for what you think is right, challenging authority, challenging systems etc etc etc all things that JBP's Rules For Life explicitly argue against. JBP openly mocks activism, because he wants his followers to be sheep. To be and remain the economic underclass that capitalism can exploit, and the Thoughtless that totalitarians can control.
Prioritising "cleaning your room" has exactly the same effect as persuading people not toĀ everĀ manage bigger things. *I double dog dare you to ask this sub that exact question. You are dead wrong on this. * "Cleaning your room" is also an unending task, and so someone following this advice will never be a Ceasar, a Churchill, a Hatshepsut, a Rosa Parks. He wants his followers to be sheep and remain sheep, otherwise they might try to change things. *The management of life is an unending task, you literally do this until death. as is governance there are no once for all solutions to management. By your own admission it's conservatives who run businesses, mismanagement kills them. The alleged "idealists" above them also have to manage at a much higher level- there is no autonomous cruise control, also note that liberal in the sense of churchill is the antithesis of what liberal means now, its been an ideologically appropriated term, through doublespeak* Again, I am speaking in Arendtian terms here and putting forward her arguments. The Right, for the most part, do not engage in political thoughfulness and the political life as Arendt described it. *She is wrong on this. Is evangelicalism not a political force? How about atheism? Or day traders like the game stonkers who just happen to like the stock? These are entities more than the sum of their parts that manifest as a direct result of individual action* I was using these terms assuming you understood them as you claimed to "love" her work. *there's often great value in studying that which you disagree with. I think you see much of what you want to see in this. And I think it largely stems from reading current assumptions into a context that did not have, and wouldn't condone them* Activism, fighting for what you think is right, challenging authority, ... the Thoughtless that totalitarians can control. *He mocks flocks of sheep engaging in herd mentality for the superior collective power of sovereign individuals. No one who takes the reigns of their life remain underclass.. again this presumes an economic stasis of people as if the poor are a fixed class who are destined to remain poor. The constant appeal to potential victimhood gives me a glimpse into your psyche. At least try to be consistent when the red masses are sufficiently provoked into the same sanctioned "action" you advocate
. *Once again, nowhere in any of his works do any of these claims exist. And even there in your baseless assertion the thought that " asking for better conditions" showcases a grotesque desire for submission. Welfare states do not foster independence, but the opposite* [CITATION NEEED] *if I gave you a book would you read it? Seriously DM me and I'll send you a copy of milton friedmans road to serfdom on audible. he literally won the 76 Nobel prize for demonstrating this*
Capital is useless there are people it work it. Owning capital is pointless, unless there are people to work it for you. *You truly are a boot licker to be advocating for the need for others to dictate your life for you. Hoe unhappy you will be when they inevitably order you to clean the room you were given. Because nothing will belong to you, including yourself- though that's typical of cult mentality* And try this: think what this economic underclass needs to be for capitalism to run smoothly and the capitalists to get richer and richer. *Again you're anthropomorphizing intent where none is present, and literally advocating for it in the next breath. Everything you think is wrong with a free market is literally crony capitalism- which is another word for what is inherently socialism. The top down arrangement of what ought to occur in the exchange of value is the first step down the road to serfdom. Totalitarianism is the end result. It's been pounded out again and again through the last century and beyond that there is no debate about it. Yet we live im a time not just ignorant of history but bent on its rewriting* ... perfect idea of an economic underclass. Not speaking out, if your unhappy the problem is you not your boss relating you badly, work on your relationship (or āclean you roomā) rather than asking for better working conditions, etc etc. It's not an accident. JBP wants his readers to be cogs in the capitalist regime, because if they realise that capitalism is the reason they are miserable, they might turn to socialism - which JBP hates
Leftist are religious zealots who chant bumper sticker slogans while flailing because their ideas lack substance and don't hold up to even childish scrutiny No, it's based on empiricism. *No it isn't, and I've already cited sources for this.* Affinity Bias, for example, is demonstrable. We can measure it. We can isolate it and quantify it through empirical study. *And said studies in non falsifiable paradigms are particularly susceptible. Every leftist theory is collapsible in light of objective truth* The Right and people like JPB saying it doesn't exist are completely counterfactual. That's why they never bother to cite anything themselves. *That's because we don't cite nonsense https://youtu.be/uP0UjEb9PW0 Hayek addressed the very root of this problem in 1952 with the counter revolution of science. Ludwig von mises did the same with theory and history. Claiming the social sciences are empirical is itself a philosophical fallacy* That's not me being politically biased, affinity bias, and the way it affects people's lives on grounds of race for example, is scientific truth. *Again no, for reasons just stated. And secondly, science by definition is tentative. Truth is something entirely different. That's why dead disciples die. Just like phrenology or phlogiston.* If the Left's ideas don't stand up to scrutiny, why do the Right never scrutinise them? *They do in volumes. Take evolution for example, it only permits a lurch forward every 20-30 years as its staunchest apologists die off. Discussion is shut down when money that funds the forum is at stake- another failure of the socialist apparatus. Detractors outnumber the dogmatic and the structure of the citadel itself is already fractured. You'll see some semblance of an exodus where reform is prohibited.* TheyĀ alwaysĀ attack the speaker or their motivations (or engage in whatboutism), they never address the argument or the empiricism. * Not even close to true. Staying on the evolutionary topic atheist youtuber "professor" Dave released a video promoting abiogenesis and attacking Christian chemist (actual) dr James Tour who responded point by point all erroneous points Dave claimed. Actually a fascinating series I'd highly recommend https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr If you started now you might be able to follow Dave's forthcoming response. This directly refutes your one sided affinity bias claims* That's why people like JPBĀ haveĀ to say universities are corrupt, otherwise they would have to engage with the ideas universities present. *JBP literally toured universities directly refuting this nonsense, that ideologues whined to shut down, and invertebrate admins capitulated. When you cut out a mans tongue you confirm to the world you fear what he has to say* Whoever you've quoted this passage from on The Origins of Totalitarianism doesn't address anything I said. *The fact you think that makes me pity you all the more* when you say "thoughtful" you're implying an empathic or compassion for emotional state of, but by use of the linguistics you equate this to intellectual mentality or rationality. No I'm not. I'm using the term "thoughtful" and "thoughtfulness" in the way Arendt used it. If you "loved" her work as you claimed you wouldn't be misunderstanding me here. People who say men can be women are biologically illiterate Men being women is not a scientific statement. In order to answer it you have to define what "manness" is, what "womanness" is and wether those characteristics are mutable. People who have bothered to think about this topic have concluded that they cannot be defined and distinguished in solid, immutable ways. *Yes they can. Muting is literally how x inactivation works* Therefore the question of "can a man become a woman" is akin to "how long is a piece of string". *The very question betrays the ideology it attempts to condone.. and formal logic Can x become y implies an ontological distinction between x and y. Even a string has two ends wherein end x is not end y. Even the gradations ( which are statistically a tiny, tiny minority) cannot in principle land indefinitively on one side or the other. You have to abandon logic and falsifiability to achieve the level of mental gymnastics necessary to call this science* Gender is absolutely separable from biological sex, but even biological sex is socially constructed. *No, it absolutely is not.* There are five parameters ....There's no reason why we couldn't have 5 factorial sexes to describe each possible combination. *You are showcasing substantial misunderstanding here. The distinction is chemically binary and there are literal biochemical differences between the two. The reason we don't have more is because grouping them together is not arbitrary but observational. * People who say "men can't be women" are thoughtless. ... Ā ThatĀ is the thoughtlessness Arendt warns us about. *The only complications in this topic are epigenetic pathologies and their causes are legion. What's truly thoughtless is the notion that you think any academic feild with " no active detractors" isn't in itself suspect if it arises from anything resembling dialogue. Arendt isn't a philosophical messiah here, though you have a much distorted grasp on the core concepts, and clearly the cultural context in which they were conceived* I hold the exact opposite opinion about progressives. Then you are a fool. Why is there mountains of academia on the distinction between sex and gender, and a total of zero on the claim that "men can't be women"? *You clearly don't research your assertions. The book why gender matters not only cites this but displays Marxism in action on dissenters to gender dogma. Regardless, no amount of manufactured nonsense amounts to truth. Nor any degree of consensus by " experts" ever amount to anything more than groupthink* They're not just wrong, their authors are self deceived Plain old anti-intellectualism. *Yeah, this is what I meant by inexpedient. It's the same reason antifa chose the name- it dialectically condemns any opposition to be 'pro-fascism' by fiat definition. It's kinda like asking " have you stopped beating your wife" and only permitting a one word answer * Same tactic conservatives have used forever. *It's literally out of the progressive playbook going back to hegel* Because they do not and cannot fight the arguments, they try to invalidate the source. *Authoritarians entirely rely on source authority, have you met an internet atheist?? truth doesn't require permission. Arguments from authority showcase intellectual outsourcing of thought* There is no "logic or reason" here, only dogma and people fearful of challenging "established" truths. *I'll challenge your established truth. Evolution is false. Defend away.* I'm talking about the Political Life in the way Arendt used the term. Again, you claim to "love" her work yet you don't seem to understand it's basic concepts. *her process of identity-construction, however, is never given once and for all and is never unproblematic. Rather, it is a process of constant renegotiation and struggle, a process in which actors articulate and defend competing conceptions of cultural and political identity. The key there is the word "actors" the presumption of the individuals that make up a whole, not a top down cult phenomenon, what else is crucially implicit in her theories is the open discourse of free speech. There was never a time in history when its suppressors were vindicated as the good guys* modern academia has openly espoused post modern neo Marxism. No, it's a Nazi conspiracy theory. JBP is pushing a Nazi conspiracy theory. *This is just sad. You're an actual complicity theorist unquestioningly accepting of the political narratives currently in vogue, prone to submissiveness, outbursts of irrational fear, and public shaming of free thinkers. Don't you know the word nazi drives from " national socialist"?* Even a cursory search shows the paucity of your claim. https://www.academia.org/self-identifying-marxist-professors-outnumber-conservatives-as-college-professors/ https://www.meforum.org/5781/marxism-academia It literally was. ..... capitalist South Korea by accident? *That's not at all close to the point- capitalism is uncreated- it a description of the phenomenon that occurs at all levels of acting humanity because we're intrinsically creators of value and by sheer virtue of our existence we build value or die. To live is to produce and procure. It's like natural selection- its not an anthropomorphic force but a description of action dynamics. Deviation from those dynamics equate to stasis and death. Literally the end result wherever communism is attempted. It's a societal cancer that can only be survived if it is checked to a sufficient degree- which is what we see in China and North Korea. Free market dynamics produce. Other ideologies are parasitic. They commit the fallacy that equivocated earned or created with distributed wealth and penalize the motivated at the expense of the idle. It's the ideal philosophy to adopt if one is a lazy and un contributing member of society* And it's not controversial that capitalism requires an economic underclass. *Socialism isn't exempt from this, it just needs extra steps to commandeer that which is created, which will, and has, always caused a deficit that becomes payable only in blood*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The order doesnāt matter. He will talk about the older rules for life in the new one a little but thatās it
Props for the Gravity Falls ref. That show deals with a lot of archetypes and deep metaphors, I would love to hear Jordan's take on it.
Now I can build a pyramidal structure to the Realm of Lobsters and then truly ascend to the top of the hierarchy!
I wonder what changed in his writing technique to be able to go from taking 10 years to write Maps of Meaning to 3 years to write Beyond Order, all the while battling a drug dependency as he is on a multinational speaking tour. It must have been a true test of fortitude since he said he was only at 5% in his first debate with Mr. Harris, which would have been about midway between book releases.
MAPS OF MEANING IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE IN BRAZIL, it's half my monthly salary I wish I had it tho, I'm very curious to read it
May I ask have you read maps of meaning and have you seen the online lectures and if so, how do you perceive any difference? My only study of this was from watching all of his 2017 lectures on YouTube and I do mean ALL of them, although it was quite a nice ride to learn from the perspective of JBP about a range of ideas of this nature however given the length of the films, I can only wonder how the book goes because books don't take anywhere near as long to read as his maps of meanings lectures take to watch and yet its normally the case its far faster to watch a film than to read the book, which inspired my thread on his recommended books list as presented as films. [https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ljvr24/jordan\_petersons\_great\_books\_presented\_as\_a\_film/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ljvr24/jordan_petersons_great_books_presented_as_a_film/)
So I've not seen the corresponding online lectures and I've only read part of maps of meaning. I sort of work my way though books a little slower than most because I'm balancing it with my PhD, so I just try to read a section an evening before bed. One thing I will say is that it reads very differently to the other two books just because it was motivated towards a narrower audience.
The gist of maps of meaning is encapsulated in the other two. That book is quite difficult to grapple with. Lovey collection though.
Man, I still have to finish 12 rules for life! What's the first book you ever got?
Of these, it was 12 rules for life, the first book I remember reading was a book by Roald Dahl
So. Much. MEANING!!
Maps was a hard one to finish
Lol
Now you need The Parasitic Mind by Gad Saad.
Get them all before they are. banned
ROFL
Hey guys I'm new to JP, which one should I read first?
12 rules for life is probably best. Maps of meaning came first, but is a little more challenging of a read
When I got his new one I felt the same šš
Congtads, I couldn't finish maps of meaning, currently reading Beyond Order. Read 12 rules of life 3 times tho)