Does the simple expectation of happiness exasperate the symptoms of depression? I found Dr. Jordan Peterson's commentary on this a helpful perspective.
"Life is complex and tragic and difficult, and the problem with the public portrayal of the ideal state of humanness as happiness is that it makes all of these young people feel ashamed of their own suffering. They feel that if they’re suffering and if they find their life tragic in its essence that that means there’s something wrong with them, and instantly that makes it impossible for them to communicate anything real about their own tragedy."
To be clear, Peterson's commentary is not original. M. Scott Peck, the Buddha, and literally 100s of other philosophers and psychologists have shared similar insights.
Remarkably, those thinkers managed to share this insight without offending half the population in order to drive book sales and line their pockets.
tldr; there are better sources of this idea than Mr. Peterson.
To be honest, as a socially awkward middle aged male who has made a few missteps in my life, Jordan Peterson is the only one I've heard in the last decade say that I might have something unique and good to offer the world instead of being a piece of shit who needs to shut up and let other people speak first.
This is worth quite a lot to someone like me. If you're trying to understand your enemy, you should understand just how powerful this is.
(Incidentally I've read The Road Less Traveled, didn't get much out of it, and find Peck to be much more sanctimonious than Peterson is.)
That's because he encourages you to blame your personal lack of social adjustment on women/feminism/PC-culture and not yourself. It's the same with most gateway-alt-righters like the "skeptics." There's a happy middle ground between recognizing the dumbest elements of PC/social-justice culture and swinging the other way on the pendulum because someone absolved you of agency
> That's because he encourages you to blame your personal lack of social adjustment on women/feminism/PC-culture and not yourself.
Have you ever actually read him? His main message is to sort out your own life, then, when that's in order, start improving things around you. It's the exact opposite of blaming others, it's taking responsibility for yourself. And finding meaning in this struggle, and the difference you can make, instead of through fleeting happiness.
This is a message that underperforming white men simply never hear anymore, and it's quite a startle to have it sink in, in my experience.
What message do you think he sends to women? What messages does he send men about women?
Does he argue that the dominance of men in society (in the sense that the small group of people with power are mostly men) is natural and thus acceptable?
I have not read his book; I’m asking you because it sounds like you have and you derived value from it.
> What message do you think he sends to women? What messages does he send men about women?
20% of his audience is women, and that's not a small number, so it's probably better to ask one of them. He relays a lot of science about statistical sex differences, none of which has really been controversial in 40 years (in his own professional field) until recently becoming politicized. Just coming from the point of view that this is the reality you need to navigate.
Another message he sends is to be a lot more careful and respectful about sexual relationships than current social norms suggest.
> Does he argue that the dominance of men in society (in the sense that the small group of people with power are mostly men) is natural and thus acceptable?
In his own words, no, he is not saying that at all. :) He explains his position here pretty well in the Cathy Newman interview. It's much more nuanced than the common caricatures of him are.
I've watched his youtube videos/lectures. I have nothing against his advice to sort yourself out, that's common sense. I have a hard time believing that underperforming white men never hear that anymore considering I am a white man, know many other white men, and none would tell you that all of your problems are someone else's fault. What I object to is that he's just used as a useful idiot (not really an idiot though considering how much money he makes from speaking) for people looking to spread an agenda of hate and who are rallying against "neomarxism," which is just a loaded term people use to engender dislike for things like gender rights. It's an extension of the Nazi conspiracy of "cultural Bolshevism" and later the alt-right's "cultural Marxism".
The original poster was right, you don't need to look to someone like him hear a message as basic and timeless as "happiness is fleeting and some of your problems are your own fault."
Sorry if you think he's only a useful idiot. For me, I credit him a lot with working out of long term depression. And putting me in a state to turn my life around for the better.
"That's because he encourages you to blame your personal lack of social adjustment on women/feminism/PC-culture and not yourself. It's the same with most gateway-alt-righters like the "skeptics." There's a happy middle ground between recognizing the dumbest elements of PC/social-justice culture and swinging the other way on the pendulum because someone absolved you of agency"
No you clearly did not pay attention to them at all whatsoever and no one should listen to you. Jesus christ this repulsively ignorant commentary.
> The original poster was right, you don't need to look to someone like him hear a message as basic and timeless as "happiness is fleeting and some of your problems are your own fault."
I'm not sure how you consider this professor an "idiot," useful or not. He has been spreading a similar message for decades, and continues to derive meaning from the world from a behavioral-psychological perspective. I see his desire to help people coming from his innate desire (being a clinical psychologist). I also find it hard to find flaws in the belief system he works from (not religion, but the perspective on our need for meaning).
It would be useful to give clear examples of where he is truly provoking for the sake of it and for the sake of book sales.
To say that he's saying nothing original is wholly wrong. And to lambaste someone for sourcing knowledge from a modern public source is ridiculous. How do you sort yourself out if you cannot proceed without knowing the true source of an idea?
Watch some of his lecturing that isn't about gender and see that he's passionate, engaging, knowledgable, human, visibly wants to help his students grow into better more considered people, and if "half the population" choose to take offense at one of his opinions that alone doesn't define him.
The idea may not be completely original but it is articulate of the current condition. And he provides a different context.
He is an established clinical psychologist, having counseled 1000's of patients, taught at Harvard and has thousands of citations to his published papers.
Knowing the baseline of troublesome thoughts, I find incredibly helpful. "Am I normal?" is a common thought of mine, but I have no frame of reference besides my immediate family.
The idea that insightful thoughts can't/won't be offensive is counter-productive to intellectual progression.
I don't think it was implied that Buddha is beyond reproach, but I mean... "Life is suffering" is literally the core piece of philosophy from Buddhism, a hugely popular religion/philosophy. Seems weird to quote some random psychologist like it's some new and unique insight.
> To be clear, Peterson's commentary is not original. M. Scott Peck, the Buddha, and literally 100s of other philosophers and psychologists have shared similar insights. Remarkably, those thinkers managed to share this insight without offending half the population in order to drive book sales and line their pockets.
What point are you trying to make with this snide remark?
That sources should be disregarded if their ideas “offend” 50% of the population (a claim for which you provided no evidence)?
That sources should be disregarded if they made money from book sales? This would mean disregarding almost all sources.
That a commentary is "unoriginal" if someone in the past has "shared similar insights"? This is pure nonsense.
One could argue that quoting a source who is a bit of a lightning rod for controversy makes the conversation more complicated than it needs to be if there is an alternative source available.
I don't care either way on JP and his book sales, but you have to admit that the quote boils down to "Life is suffering". Which has been the the core belief of Buddhist philosophy since it started. So yeah, that's a pretty unoriginal idea to attribute to someone else.
Not in any meaningful sense. Clearly the quote contains more than that. It's like saying "everything boils down to A = A" (Aristotle, Metaphysics), therefore anything following from that is an "unoriginal" idea.
The degree of offense-taken, doesn't necessarily reflect the validity of the thought. How a message is received by society, is obviously dependent on the society of that culture. Those philosophers you mentioned, were received in entirely different time periods and cultures. Saying Peterson's message is worse, because more people are offended today, than probably offended in 400 B.C. by Buddha's message, is completely ignoring context and not really a fair criticism.
Peterson gets a bad rap, by people sensationalizing his message and then labelling him as sexist and transphobic.
If you listen to enough of his stuff, you'll realize he is neither of those things (not sure what evidence ever existed of him being sexist), though I can understand why people would think he is transphobic. His original argument against using the non binary gender pronouns is more against legislated coerced speech for people in his position in particular (a professor at an Ontario, Canada university) as opposed to being against transgender people. That being said, he interpreted the laws incorrectly and when confronted with this point, my own impression is he doubled down on his position by saying he won't use the words as it is a neomarxist agenda to coerce people to use these words as opposed to strictly folks who truly feel they are neither male nor female wanting to be labeled appropriately. Ultimately, he did say that if an individual sincerely asked him to use a non standard pronoun, he would.
"Life is complex and tragic and difficult, and the problem with the public portrayal of the ideal state of humanness as happiness is that it makes all of these young people feel ashamed of their own suffering. They feel that if they’re suffering and if they find their life tragic in its essence that that means there’s something wrong with them, and instantly that makes it impossible for them to communicate anything real about their own tragedy."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySxVlE2gSrY