Ted Was Right, Wasn't He?

submitted by useless_aether from files.catbox.moe

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Mnemonic 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well Ted was talking about all people, the non-domesticated side of JP is just his rebel impulse.

But the/a true rebellion against the system he doesn't preach, he is preaching against changes he finds not correct to the system, but still fully endorsing the system.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the/a true rebellion against the system he doesn't preach

he is preaching against changes he finds not correct to the system, but still fully endorsing the system.

I mean... not really. He's pretty against post-modernism, and says it has taken over the culture and academia, and is openly against this.

There's various levels of changing the system, and I could agree he's on the more tame side of things, but he still is calling for deep change in a lot of ways.

Imo there is no "true rebellion against the system", it's all shades of grey. Some could make the argument that being happy within yourself for who you are is the truest rebellion in a system looking to control us with fear and conformity.

[–]Mnemonic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He's pretty against post-modernism

His own self-made weird definition of post-modernism while using post-modernism to reach that conclusion. It's post-modernist to see the flaws he sees in (for example) that gender-law in Canada or how he's treated by the academia because of his 'rebellion'. [though it depends which line of which post-modernist thinker you follow].

but he still is calling for deep change in a lot of ways.

I really fail to see that in concrete ways, he's saying micro-interventionists things that 'could' work for people to get back on track but that's not a change from going to a psychiatrist, or having a conversation with your house-doctor or even your loved one, spouse, friends or some random person in a bar. Here I kind of like him, but it's not new nor deep.

On his thoughts about myths, legends and human psychology you're better off reading Jung, get Gnostic or get more into your own local culture.

Imo there is no "true rebellion against the system", it's all shades of grey. Some could make the argument that being happy within yourself for who you are is the truest rebellion in a system looking to control us with fear and conformity.

Ah yeah, I think we are talking about a different 'system'. (because I agree on that) {Ted is more about the underlying [to put it matrix style] code}.

The Industrial revolution and the enslavement of humanity by technology, machines, factories, schools and most of all this 'new' government that it brought which is (usually) not royal but a cluster of everything and everyone willing to 'sell out' for power/money/other indulgences because that is what this system thrives on.

This system is what Peterson does not rebel against, he cherry-picked some strange outgrows and doubles down on those as parlor trick while the rest is basic psychiatry stuff taught in... the academia he 'somehow' rebels against.

Petersons crusade against the media-hyped concepts I like though his approach is the same and that I dislike.

Hmm to put the difference it more clearly: Consider a car.

Peterson is against having it mandatory painted pink, not only because it would be mandatory but also the 'reasons' brought up to why it should be painted pink. (and of course freedom)

Ted is against having a car for the sake of humanity and it's freedom in nature.

I hope this makes more clear why I say Peterson would be a false rebellion in the thoughtline of Kaczynski.