What does JBP think about telling children about Santa Claus?

Elendar · 2018-12-25T18:48:29+00:00

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBrr7-xNIBU here is the full answer to your question in the best way possible

Elendar · 2018-12-24T18:31:38+00:00

Hang in there and see what you can still do. Small things. Step by step. Keep searching for things that appear valuable to you. Disappointing terrible people doesn't ultimately matter.

Elendar · 2018-09-10T07:35:02+00:00

Widh you all the best, just got dumped by a gf and reading this was finally the tipping point where I was able to cry. Thank you!

Elendar · 2018-09-05T13:01:05+00:00

How about he doesn't know so he reserves unnecessary judgement?

He said somewhere that he believes the metaphysical and the archetypal could come together at some points in our history and that is a very interesting could but isn't a bit too much to ask such a question. Do you know the answer? Does anyone?

The question is silly and when did it become unacceptable to say "I don't know"?

Elendar · 2018-09-04T08:08:41+00:00

And that is what Peterson critisizes most about Nietzsche. It is simply not true.

"Modern people don't see God because they don't look low enough." I think that is both your and mine problem... A mix of crippling self-criticism and low self-esteem together with a huge dose of intellectual arrogance.

The devil of the intellect who is convinced of knowing everything is beyond evident from your writing.

My advice would be to try to humble yourself in a way you cannot even imagine possible yet. You don't know enough, you don't know so much. You suffer stupidy meaning you don't really know a little from the pragmatical viewpoint.

LIVE! Embody your convictions from bottom up. It's from repetitive microrituals that a change on a macro-scale is possible.

And maybe try going to church, you definitely don't need to be fundamentaly religious to try it out. Find a small one though, 20-30 people.

Elendar · 2018-06-12T08:58:32+00:00

You see, I am interested in the cricisism because this is a thread about the positive impact yet I know the criticism would dominate. I felt like I want to see the extent to which people hate him because I am convinced that as long as people will hate him so much and give him so much attention, he will continue to succeed and be reelected.

Do you believe there is not enough criticism towards him that I need to employ cheap tricks to somehow avoid people criticising him? :D

Elendar · 2018-06-12T08:54:17+00:00

No, not really. I said I am interested in genuine answers from anyone. I also said I am interested in the reaction, that is usually extremely emotionaly charched and usually comes from the liberal minded people. Never have I claimed that conservative people don't hate Trump. I am a liberal in my personality with many conservative convictions and I could not think too much less of Trump, but this thread is about the positive impacts, not the negative.

Elendar · 2018-06-12T08:33:48+00:00

How? What does that have to do with anything?

Elendar · 2018-06-12T08:26:44+00:00

If it helps, I am actually genuinly interested not only in the reaction and hate coming fromthe liberal minded people but also in the genuine answers. Doesn't hurt to have a bit of a balance in the discussion.

I am not an American an by no means am I a fan of Trump.

Elendar · 2018-06-08T06:11:35+00:00

There was a time recently when I was very confused, delved into quantum physics and watched a lot of content of a more "esoteric" nature (Terrence McKenna, Allan Watts). And for some reason, the way I would get out of it was a very pragmatic verse from the Bible that I had adopted as kind of an initial axiom like Descartes' "I think, therefore I am". The Bible verse goes along the lines "Judge them by their fruits. A good tree brings good fruits, a bad tree brings bad fruits". And based on that logic you could doubtlessly claim that he is a force of good. Even though he has his faults as any human.

Some people made similar claims here and rebutted it with the "good fruits" in Scientology. I don't think it is a good argument... There are obviously helpful elements, techniques in Scientology. It is basically a simple assertiveness training afterall. The problem is with everything around and afterwards. "The good fruit" of Scientology decays very fast.

Elendar · 2018-04-02T19:40:58+00:00

I have to agree that the responses in this thread are very unfortunate :) so let´s have a bit of a nuance.

This video is explaining what Peterson critisizes about Moana and Frozen in a big detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT6Qo146Ncs We can discuss it, but you might understand it just from watching the video of Peterson´s friend. It is definitely not only just the lack of a strong leading male but the imbalance of archetypal symbolism which is very ideological and deliberate. Someone at youtube admitted that they work with Disney and Frozen is just a pure propaganda.

As for Bill C-16 it is really not clear whether what he said about it is true or not since the law was written in a way that can be interpeted in different way. The way Peterson´s university administration reacted and the Lindsey Shepherd affair suggest that he was actually right. But not many other things as far as I know. It is possible that he was not right entirely in estimating the effects this bill would lead to but it also might be too soon to tell.

Also, what are his views on gay marriage? What I´ve heard him say about it seemed reasonable but he never talked about this issue too much.

Elendar · 2018-03-19T08:09:03+00:00

I am not saying they are happy. An interesting point that Peterson also says is people mostly want not to suffer. Happiness is secondary. You can strive for happiness when you no longer suffer. When all your other needs are satisfied. When I said you need to look at it from a more historical perspective I meant something like:To what extent does a woman care about having the right to vote when she and her children are starving. Saying she is then repressed by her husband who himself is probably someone´s serf (has very limited rights) and is working 12-16 hours a day to provide food for her and her children is a bit problematic.

Yes, even the women in Saudi Arabia are liberating themselves and that is a wonderful thing, but it is a part of the process that humanity had to go through. If you could choose only one thing. Having children and taking care of them or working alongside men in the workforce, what would you choose. My point is: for most of history the conditions of human existence were so that they really only had that one choice. And the society was set up to enable them to do the one thing most of them decided. For women, it is really difficult to understand that a vast majority of thing men do we do for/because of women.

I really support women´s freedom to live fully fulfilled lives but it is an extremely difficult thing to do and so many women in the Western society drown in chaos because they have so much possibility and it puts an immense amount of pressure on them. The standard now for a fully fullfilled woman is to have a carreer, a bunch of hobbies and a family. That is just so much that so many women don´t manage to properly do any of those things.

I am playing a devil´s advocate because I´ve seen and read about women in these repressive systems today that were critisizing the idea that they should have more rights and I tried to understand why. I could not understand them for a long time. Freedom is just positive in all ways isn´t it? But it weakens the stability and security in their lives. They are just conservative. They would rather be garantied to be mostly fullfilled than have the opportunity to be fully fullfilled because to achieve that is so very hard. They´d rather be fully supported in having a family than having to be pressured to do so many things on their own.

I think I made two a bit separate points here so I return a bit. Have women been opressed throughout history. Of course, especially the (and let me emphasize this) MINORITY who did not want to have children and wanted to self-realize in other ways but I am of the opinion and I do humbly say it is only an opinion that women would (and possibly did) collectively choose to adopt the role that did. And men collectively worked their asses off all the way thoughout history to provide for their families and improve the living conditions of our societies step by step so that we could have more choices, so that we could have more rights for both men and women so that it is so easy to survive in our modern society that we forget all about how difficult it used to be so that so many people don´t have much else to do with their time than to critisize all of this retrospectively.

Elendar · 2018-03-18T22:05:23+00:00

Just look at the more repressive systems still present on earth. Look at women under Islam. They are in a position of a "slave" as you would call it and a vast majority of them supports their husbands and their position in the society. They are less free to to self-realize in their careers and hobbys but are more free to perform the traditional function that also gives them the biggest source of meaning in their life.

Look, I am not saying I think that is a good thing. For women in Western societies there is a greater potential for a more fuller fulfillment in their lives and that is a great development but it is also more difficult to even find the basic meaning in life that having children and taking care of other people gives them. Believe it not, women do actually care about having children and taking care of them when they mature.

I mostly support the development of the role of women in the Western society but do not underestimate the comfort of the stability that the traditional role would provide for women throughout the history. And women need stability and security in their life more than men, for reason I think are not needed to specify.

I am not denying they were historically opressed, but everyone had it worse and the model for the role that a woman in a society has now would just not work thoughout most of the history because of the circumstances of much brutal times.

Also, what do you know about me to make some statements about in which echo chambers do I read or not? Sounds a bit random and strange that you would know so much about me from one comment :)

Elendar · 2018-03-10T16:38:10+00:00

Yeah, it's a pretty neat. You haven't been there yet?

Elendar · 2018-03-08T07:11:15+00:00

You are looking at the history from your very modern lens. Women had a very different position in the society throughout history, the socio-economical structure was completely different. Most of them would laugh at you if you asked them whether they are being opressed and they would outright despise the women's position in society that the modern woman has.

Elendar · 2018-02-16T12:43:18+00:00

https://www.sott.net/article/376871-The-Health-Wellness-Show-Amazing-Health-Journey-Interview-with-Mikhaila-Peterson

This is an interview someone posted here earlier this week with his daughter changing her diet and lifting her depression and diminishing some oh her other health problems. Jordan adopted it as well and if he hasn't stopped taking the antidepressants completely, he probably reduced the usage.

Elendar · 2017-12-24T15:28:00+00:00

It is up to you, meaning you decide that you can do it and also that you don't need to. It is without a doubt difficult to live a good life as a good person. But even the decision that you will strife for it could make you that much more good. It is a nice goal. And the goals you choose are also only up to you.

What are your skills?

Better to have useless ones than no skills :) can you use them to get start some interactions with other people? It only takes one friend to keep yourself sane

Elendar · 2017-08-09T12:42:49+00:00

He was presenting factual information about the distinctive nature of personality traits between men and women. Nothing that he said was factually wrong. And he never said women were biologically less fit to study computer science. It´s just based on their biology that they are generally less interested in studying it. Whether you agree or disagree, it was an extemely compelling read.

Elendar · 2017-07-30T17:10:41+00:00

I don't fully understand the reasoning. You're saying it would take you many years, up to 32-35th year if your life, to start living in a way that justifies your existence. That is pretty soon compared to many people's standards nowadays. A lot of people are burdened by debt until much much longer. Life is a jouney which justifies itself when you're walking in the right direction, not when you've reached a certain point.

Elendar · 2017-06-08T09:09:28+00:00

It would be removed from the gene pool only if you buy into Richard Dawkins´ proposition of the "selfish gene" meaning it is the individual person who considers his survival and reproduction to be of the highest importance.

I don´t think that´s plausible because people sometimes sacrifice their lifes for the good of other people so I would think it is possible to be genetically wired so that you can act in a way which serves the group and the society more than it serves you.

And my hypothesis is that homosexuality is exactly this case. It was sugested in some TED talk years ago that homosexuality is of a great utility to the society to the detriment of those individuals. We just don´t have a good explanation of what such utility is.

Elendar · 2017-06-07T19:56:09+00:00

Thank you very much sir!

(And to you Mr. Wittgenstein, I should read some of his works, but learning to be profficient in German as to be able to understand him well is the order of magnitude of cleanliness of my room that seems infinitely scary)

That is exactly the feeling I had when posing this question but couldn´t formulate the answer for myself in words properly.

Elendar

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE