Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_REFERER in /srv/b92/sajtovi/forum/forum/index.php(1) : runtime-created function(1) : eval()'d code(1) : eval()'d code(1) : eval()'d code(1) : eval()'d code(53) : eval()'d code on line 3 Intelektualizam 21. veka Vs nacionalistickog i socijalistickog populiz - Page 5 - Politika - Forum B92

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Intelektualizam 21. veka Vs nacionalistickog i socijalistickog populiz


  • Please log in to reply
300 replies to this topic

#61 the dude

the dude
  • Members
  • 747 posts

Posted 05 November 2018 - 21:36

To su reakcionarni, rerogradni, patrijarhalno-tiranski rezultati istrazivanja koji su ishli u nepotrebne detalje samo da bi dokazali svoje mrachnjashtvo.

Danas su mladi, progresivni nauchnici dokazali da nema razlika ....... 2 ruke, 2 noge, kosa, zubi, chak i 2 sise, leva i desna. Nema razlika. Drug=drugarica.

Podseti me na nesto. Gledam na youtubu neki skup o rodnoj ravnopravnosti i slicnim temama. Neka sredovecna zena ima rec, i sledeca njena recenica je izazvala masovnu histeriju i napade glupila. "Muskarci su u proseku visi, imaju vise misicne mase... nabrojala je ocigledne fizicke razlike izmedju polova. I nije ni zavrsila recenicu, zacu se neka vika, galama...  I samo tako, libtardi u svom uobicajenom maniru masovno izlaze iz sale uz povike  - rasisti, fasisti, mizoginisti...  :lol+:  Kamera prikazuje devojku, sedi ispred sale, place kao kisa duboko uznemirena onim sto je cula.... i nekako, jecajuci istrabunja kako je ovo nedopustivo, sramota... :lol+:  


  • 0

#62 Kinik

Kinik
  • Members
  • 43,426 posts

Posted 05 November 2018 - 22:15

...

 

 

...


  • 0

#63 Denis Jasharevic

Denis Jasharevic
  • Members
  • 10,018 posts

Posted 05 November 2018 - 22:18

@ The Dude

Pogledao sam u Urban dictionary za taj poremecaj, kazu:

Acronym for a mental illness common to Democrat voters who have been exposed to toxoplasma gondii.

Crazy Cat Lady Syndrome. Full name is Leftist Indoctrinated Behavioral Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder and is presented as ranting spaz attacks of tears, rage, and butthurt at losing the presidential election to an Oompa Loompa.

"Wow girl, thats some temper tantrum, you went full libtard..."

https://www.google.c...amp=true&page=7


Edited by Denis Jasharevic, 05 November 2018 - 23:33.

  • 0

#64 vilhelmina

vilhelmina
  • Members
  • 11,937 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 07:28

@vilhelmina

 

Verujem da ima i toga sto si ti navela, ali ipak biologija ima presudnu ulogu. Zenski i muski mozak rade na totalno drugacijim frekvencijama. Delovi mozga zaduzeni za motoriku, memoriju, empatiju nisu isto razvijeni. Na primer, 

 

A woman’s high level of estrogen in her brain also makes her far more empathetic than the typical man and this why women are such great caregivers to children or the patients, the disabled or the elderly. In general it makes women better at jobs that require great interpersonal skills and detecting what people need.  

A man’s high level of testosterone in his brain makes him better at hunting, sports and combat which in order to be good requires him to be highly aggressive, competitive and un-empathetic to his prey, opponent or enemy. 

 

Prvi primer objasnjava zasto su uglavno zene medicinske sestre, Drugi primer zasto su muskarci na vodecim pozicijama u vojsci.

 

https://www.psycholo...between-genders

 

 Mislim da razlike navedene u tekstu objasnjavaju podelu na tradicionalne muske, odnosno zenske poslove. Naravno, ima izuzetaka, ovako funkcionisu prosecni zenski i muski mozgovi

 

Opet stvar tumacenja.

Po ovoj estrogensko-testosteronskoj teoriji trebalo bi da postoji bar neka oblast u kojoj zene dominiraju, pri cemu ne mislim na brojnost, vec na kvalitet. Recimo poezija i uopste knjizevnost - tu bi trebalo da vrvi od emotivnih i analizama sklonih zenskih mozgova. Takodjer i razne liderske pozicije, gde je potrebno brzo prebecivanje s aktivnosti na aktivnost i istovremeno drzanje "vise loptica u vazduhu", a gde se nefleksibilni muski mozak mnogo teze snalazi. No izgleda da i tu fizicka snaga i agresivnost igraju presudnu ulogu.

Kad se sagledaju sve razlike u gradji i funkcionisanju zenskog i muskog mozga, a koje jesu evidentne, trebao bi da zene organizuju i koordinisu, a muskarci fokusirano rade ono sto im se kaze. No tako donekle biva samo u "svoja cetiri zida", a nikada u javnom zivotu. Kako li to objasnjava bioloska estrogensko-testosteronska teorija ;) ?


  • 0

#65 Denis Jasharevic

Denis Jasharevic
  • Members
  • 10,018 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 07:36

E da ....... ova mala anonimna, komunistichka svinja koja se odaziva na Matt McManus je poznat po napadima na svakog pojedinca koji se usudi da napishe bilo shta pozitivno o zapadnoj civilizaciji, pa je tako odmah etiketirao profesora Ricarda Duchesne-a zbog njegovog bestsellera o propasti multikulturalne Kanade kao ….. pa naravno - white supremacista. Zapadna civilizacija se ne sme braniti. Naprotiv, cilj svih maloumnih postmodernista je - unishtiti je. Frankfurtska shkola koju mladi majmun McManus velicha.

 

Jednostavno je neozbiljno postovati kritiku ostrashcenog maloumnog kultur-marksiste kao kritiku Jordana Petersona jer JP upravo takve stavlja nazad u svinjac iz koga su grokcuci iskoristili priliku da izadju. Chemu rehabilitaciuja najzlochinachkije ideologije u istoriji chovechanstva na Forumu B92???

 

I naravno kao i svako mlado komunistichko prase i ovo se valja u blatu pa ne moze da se suzdrzi da svoje splachine ponudi retkim chitaocima, kao shto je Glenn Gould.

 

I onda, maloumno pokushavajuci da objasni kako je Peterson nekompetentan za politiku, ovaj mladi neushtrojeni komunistichki vepar kaze kako Jordan Peterson ima ….. partial undergraduate degree in Political Science from the University of Alberta ………. partial ????

 

Zaista? Ko bi rekao? ………………. Jordan Peterson completed his B.A. in political science in 1982.   :wicked: 

 

U pravu je delimichno ovaj mladi majmun ……. Jordan je studirao, ali nikada nije zavrshio …….. englesku knjizevnost. 

 

Ali je zato 2 godine posle zavrshenih studija politichkih nauka zavrshio i psihologiju na prestiznom kanadskom Univerzitetu McGill, potom i doktorirao Klinichku Psihologiju I posle kraceg staziranja u Univerzitetskoj bolnici McGill postao predavach na Harvardu.

 

I onda jedno josh bednije poredjenje sa nekakvim kekecom …… Kanarincem Zizekom, koji je zavrshio komunistichko fakulteto Odbrano in Zashtito …... pri fakulteto Ljubljano  :rotflmao: chisto da komunjarska svinjarija bude josh odvratnija. Pa poshto u Engleskoj nisu chuli za takvo sranje od fakulteta upisali mu sociJologijO.  :lol+:

 

------------------------------------------

 

Sumnjam da je Jordan Peterson uopshte chuo za ovog malog smrada, nema chovek vremena za te komi prdeze ……… a i da jeste, ne verujem da bi se njegova norveshka, hladna vikinshka krv zagrejala za 0.0001 C, kamoli prokljuchala 


Edited by Denis Jasharevic, 06 November 2018 - 08:01.

  • 0

#66 Denis Jasharevic

Denis Jasharevic
  • Members
  • 10,018 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 07:55

I na kraju ....... doshlo je vreme da se upoznamo sa kriticharem Jordana Petersona .......... da, to je on, nazalost nije nikakva zajebancija ......."profesor" Matt McManus ….. predaje LjuCka Prava na nekom radnichkom univerzitetu u Mekisku 

 

 

McManus.jpg?raw=1


Edited by Denis Jasharevic, 06 November 2018 - 08:13.

  • 1

#67 Kinik

Kinik
  • Members
  • 43,426 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 09:08

...

 

... 1. Naravno, ne zeli se prisustvo provokatora koji nemaju shta da kazu, ne znaju zapravo o chemu se uopshte radi, ali imaju egzibicionistichke potrebe koje su zakonski sankcionisane u javnosti pa zato zloupotrebljavaju anonimnost foruma i mlate svojim "argumentom" nekaznjeno pravo ispred nashih ochiju ... barijeru kao moguci razlog, dok su drugi mishljenja da oni sasvim solidno, skoro fluentno vladaju engleskim, pa da to nije razlog ...

 

 

A lepo si im rekao na pocetku - 'niks egzibicionizam!'

:ajme:

 

No, ne vredi.

Duboko povredjeni u svojoj anonimnosti / neutemeljenosti / nesposobnosti za razmisljanje - to osetilo potrebu da se iskaze - tj. sitno provocira, kafanski laprda i kaci svakojake 'ravnozemljaske' uradke kao sopstveno 'otkrivenje'.

 

Povrsnost, lenjost uma & poslovicni palanacki inatluk.  

:wacko:

 

...


  • 0

#68 cyberwor/L/d

cyberwor/L/d
  • Members
  • 12,762 posts

Posted 06 November 2018 - 15:43

Ovom Petersonu se bas gadno zalomilo - niti mnogi njegovi fanovi znaju da ga sa pravom merom prihvate, niti njegovi kritikanti znaju da ga (ni sa merom ni bez mere) presretnu. Signum postmodernog doba: deoba po torovima i ukopanost u ideoloskim rovovima. Ne mora da bude rov, dovoljna je ukopanost u spostvenoj neinteligenciji. Nema veze sta covek kaze, vazno je odmah ga etiketirati i ideoloski smestiti jer je vecini potpuno nepojmljiov da neko moze biti sam i svoj. 

 

Bilo bi veliko intelektualno zadovoljstvo i stimulans doziveti barem jednu intelektualno doraslu kritiku onog sto J. Peterson govori i/li jednu intelektualnu simultanku na ravnoj nozi izmedju Petersona i nekog eventualnog oponenta. U krajnjoj liniji, bilo koja dva casna, intelektualno postena oponenta sa oprecnim stavovima, dignitetom i jakim intelektom bi predstavljalo pravo ozvezenje. Tako se razvija intelektualni svet i svest, tako se slazu kockice, tako se kognitivno dishe, tako se diferencira od bonobos. Nezavisno od Petersona, mi zivimo u dobu kada je takva vrsta polemike pravi raritet, gotovo u rangu nostalgije. Umesto toga mainstream buka, buka, nesnosna buka i na sve strane, vonjavi brabonjci ispolitizovanih bezmozgovica. Po nekim oazama se jos uvek pronalaze retki preostali dostojanstveni primerci ljudske vrste. Dignity is rare. 

 

Kad god – iako sve redje – kao svetiljka zasija neki intelektualni integritet odmah se uskomesaju sve buve i muve u torovima i samoubilacki polete ka zarulji. Kad se sprze odmah naviru novi jadani. To se samo stanca en masse i kidise iz ideoloskog kalupa. 

 

Pa dobro, majkovicu, zasto mora sve da bude crno ili belo, na smrt i zivot? Zasto se cinjenice besramno ignorisu, podredjuju ispraznim intuitivnim tlapnjama? Zasto vise nije sramota glasno i agresivno u prvi plan isticati svoju funkcionalnu nepismenost (i usmeno i pisano)? Zasto umesto intelektualne radoznalosti jashe jednoumlje? Zasto profanost umislja da je uhvatila boga za onu stvar? Zasto ideolski ratoborna raja ne zna da opere ruke pre i posle jela ali zna da opere ruke od ideoloskih nepodopstina/zlocina? Zasto toliki bes da se iskaljuje na drugima zbog sopstvene inferirornosti? Zasto promisljaj i zvaki znak inteligencije izazivaju otpor, tumace se kao poziv na osvetu umesto da stimulisu?

 

Postoje neka istrazivanja o tome kako se puls kod ljudi u poslednjih par vekova ubrzavao. To je u figurativnom smislu vrlo interesantno. Ko ima sluha i afiniteta prema muzici a zna da napravi relevantne, kvalifikovane paralele i promislja, mogao bi dosta toga da uvidi i sebi objasni. Kroz muziku tokom vremena moze da isprati taj rast pulsa, takt vremena. Postoje i novija istrazivanja koja potvrdjuju postojanje tzv "zecjih mozgova"; to su posledice digitalizacije koja nam omogucava da brzinski klikovima pretrcavamo preko raznih sadrzaja. Da nekog ko odrasta iskljucivo uz to stavis da mirno sedi i fokusira na jednu stvar je gotovo nemoguce (i o tome postoje istrazivanja a praksa nedvosmisleno potvrdjuje). Testirajte sami tek primera radi, sedite i pokusajte da odgledate film Still life. Ubrzanje je postalo toliko da vecina ljudi nema vremena da zastane i promisli nego samo srlja, povrsnost se siri kao zaraza. Toliko je raznoraznih pomagala da ljudi vise uopste ne moraju da misle na mnoge stvari. Toliko je brzih digitalnih resenja da je to stvorilo nove probleme. Ne radi se samo o tome da danas svaki idiot moze da se dohvati tastature i cuda napravi. Nemam dokaze ali sve mi se cini da se kod danasnjih ljudi IQ smanjio a agresija proporcionalno povecala. Ocekivati  socijalni sluh i intelektualnu nijansiranost je skoro iluzorno. To su sve vise izuzeci koji potvrdjuju nova neotesana drustvena pravila i zakon masovnijeg/bucnijeg. Nekada se od pametnijih ucilo, danas se oni gaze. 

 

Ove bedne forumske invektive sa dna uzegle kace su samo efemerna pojava na lokalnom nivou. Prava sprdnja sta neki sebi dozvoljavaju. Primitivno trolersko dobacivanje da ne pominjem. Koliko puta treba ostaviti link za ono istrazivanje i koliko dugo moze da traje ignorisanje tog istog istrazivanja dok se u isto vreme zbog njega pljuje po Petersonu koji u tome nije ucestvovao te ne snosi nikakvu odgovornost za rezultate koje samo prenosi? To nije ni procitalo ono na sta Peterson referise (a ne tumaci!) ali odmah skocilo da zabije krnjke u ono sto je per se ucitalo i prisljamcilo coveku pa onda krenulo da razvodnjava, tumaci tu istu neprocitanu studiju, uzurpira svojim neukim teorijama i polemise sa sopstvenom kognitivnom vonjavinom i ogranicenjima. To umislilo da ce da doaka Petersonu a ne zna da procita ni uvodni post u kome se jasno apeluje na neke stvari. Drskost. Neotesanost. Komedija. Tragedija. Mozdana higijenska zapustenost.

 

Takvi ce da nas uniste pre nego ove alarmantno najavljivane klimatske promene. Ponekad pomislim da armagedonsko alarmiranje samo skrece paznju sa sustinske opasnosti - mi treba da spasavamo civilizaciju od sebe samih. Kad smo toliki neprijatelji sebi samima kako ne bismo bili neprijatelji prirode? 


  • 5

#69 angelia

angelia
  • Members
  • 15,569 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 06:56

Biti zrtva je najlakse, to ne zahteva ni zrelost, ni odgovornost, ni karakter. Za razliku od preuzimanja zivota u svoje u ruke i odgovornosti za isti.

Meni se cini da je ovo otprilike poruka JP.

 

Mislim da sam pominjala negde na emigraciji angedotu iz mog zivota gde zenska, onako menadzer in training me zamoli da joj preporucim literaturu o zenama u biznisu, kao ono znas na osnovu tvog iskustva.... i ja je pogledam bledo i kazem mame mi nemam pojma. Naravno nastupi sok, kao pa mora da si citala, i morala sam da objasnim da mogu da joj preporucim knjige o biznisu, ali da ne znam nijedan naslov o zenama u biznisu i nemam pojma sto bih to citala. Naravno devojka mi objasni kako su zene u podredjenom polozaju, a ja joj objasnim da sam ja citala stvari koje mogu da mi pomogno da profesionalno budem bolja, a ne da mi kazu sta ce da bude problem zbog mog pola. Naravno ne uzimam sebe za pravilo.

 

To naravno ne znaci da nisam naisla na budale, predrasude i sl. 

 

...

 

On je lepo rekao - bolje je za decu kad su im roditelji u braku, ali ne u nekom braku po svaku cenu.

Da se ne lazemo - razvod na decu ostavlja svoj trag, itekakav.

 

 

...

Prihvatam da sam mozda pogresno razumela njegov stav, i mozda Denis ima pravo da je on mislio da se danas veze rasturaju suvise lako usled nedostatka komunikacije. I slazem se da razvod ostavlja trag na decu. Medjutim, i dalje smatram da je to u suprotnosti sa njegovim stavom da treba da biramo individualno najbolji outcome. Nekome je uticaj na decu individualni izbor, to ne sporim, ali ako cemo da nadredimo rezultat po decu i drustvo, onda se individualni izbori smanjuju. 

 

Za Denisa, meni deluje da on izbegava raspravu o patrijarhatu i matrijarhatu, zato sto svaki put kad neko pomene da je u patrijarhatu zena imala podredjenu ulogu (najcesce britanski sagovornici jer njih to boli zbog prava zena na imovinu) on pominje tiraniju patrijarhata. Ja se slazem da nije bilo tiranije, ali ne vidim problem da razgovaramo o tome da je u 19tom veku zena bila lisena nekih gradjanskih prava, to je istorija (pricam o danas razvijenim drustvima). Kao sto je slucaj u mnogim hijerarhijskim sistemima. Potpuno suprotno, mislim da je to primer kako se drustvo menja, i mislim da je to pozitivan primer.


  • 0

#70 GlennGould

GlennGould
  • Members
  • 5,994 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 19:06

...

Ako za tenutak ostavimo po strani nesrecnu odbrane zlocinacke ideologije (a nju nikako ne bi trebalo ostaviti po strani, ako nista zbog toga sto njena pojava ovde bas daje na snazi argumentima JP-a) ono sto se moze pozitivno reci za ovaj tekst je da on, za razliku od drugih "kritika" JP ne poseze za previse misreprezentacija i ucitavanja - za razliku od gotovo svih drugih pokusaja kritike ( npr ovog , inace sjajnog filozofa Massima Pigliuccia, od kojeg sam ja ocekivao vrhunsku kritiku a dobio levicarsko-akademski "virtue signaling"). Nevolja je u tome da je to, manje-vise, sve sto moze reci o tekstu, jer je ponudjeno dosta mlaka/nedorecena kritika tipa "on to ne razume dovoljno, nije dovoljno citao***", ili "nisu svi levicari takvi". Sada, ukoliko neko zeli da se ogranici na doprinos JP-a akademskoj anti-marksistickoj ili konzervativnoj literaturi, mogli bi se cak i reci da je ovo "odmerena" i solidna kritika, ali ja mislim da takva kritika potpuno promasuje glavni smisao i znacenje "fenomena JP".

 

 

 

 

Mislim da autor teksta vrlo dobro disecira fenomen JP ukazujuci na ocigledan overreach, kada se od self-help sound clinician pokusava (najmanje njegovom zaslugom) preko noci postati politicki relevantan komentator.

 

My point is not to suggest Peterson is a bad conservative thinker. When he focuses on topics he is familiar with and trained in, like the structure of myths or the psychoanalytic thought of Carl Jung, he often says insightful and interesting things. But as a political commentator, he does not really add much to conservative discourse. Where he says something valid, it has often been said before and better. This is not a bad thing in itself. But where he tries to update these ideas, for instance by attacking post-modern intellectuals, he is often superficial and intellectually shallow. Oftentimes, he simply panders to the prejudices of his followers.

 

 

Da predjemo na filozofiju?

 

Paul Thagard Ph.D.

Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life

 

Peterson’s claims about morality, reality, and the meaning of life are dubious.
 

Jordan B. Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life is on the bestseller lists, despite the commonplace nature of his rules, which boil down to: stand up for yourself, take care of yourself, make friends, don’t compare yourself to others, mind your children, set your house in order, pursue meaning, tell the truth, listen to people, be precise, give children freedom, and enjoy pets. Part of Peterson’s appeal comes through lively stories from the Bible, fairy tales, his personal life, and his practice as a clinical psychologist.

 

But many people take Peterson to be wise, not just entertaining, with profound things to say about the nature of morality, reality, and life. These are philosophical topics, so we can ask how well Peterson’s views stand up to philosophical scrutiny.

 

MORALITY

 

Peterson’s rules for life are intended to tell people what they ought to do, not just what people actually do. They concern morality, which raises the important philosophical question of the basis of ethics.

 

Peterson’s answer looks to religion, in particular Christianity, as shown in these quotes:

“Even older and deeper than ethics, however, is religion. Religion concerns itself not with (mere) right and wrong but with good and evil themselves—with the archetypes of right and wrong. Religion concerns itself with the domain of value, ultimate value. That is not the scientific domain. It’s not the territory of empirical description.”

 

“The Bible is, for better or worse, the foundational document of Western civilization (of Western values, Western morality, and Western conceptions of good and evil). …The Bible has been thrown up, out of the deep, by the collective human imagination, which is itself a product of unimaginable forces operating over unfathomable spans of time. Its careful, respectful study can reveal things to us about what we believe and how we do and should act that can be discovered in almost no other manner.”

 

This connection of morality with religion justifies his frequent use of Bible stories such as Adam and Eve in his discussions of how to act.

 

But philosophers since Plato have recognized many problems with basing ethics on religion. First, different religions have different prescriptions, and Peterson gives no argument why Christianity is morally superior to Islam, Hinduism, or dozens of alternatives. Even within Christianity, there is much disagreement among Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons.  For morality to be based on religion, you need to be able to make a reasonable decision concerning which religion to choose.

 

Second, even if one religion could be recognized as superior, it is still legitimate to ask whether its rules are moral or simply arbitrary and odious, like the rule in the Bible’s book of Leviticus that children who curse their parents should be put to death. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) trace their origins to the horrible story of God ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham could reasonably have inferred that God is evil, or that he himself was hallucinating.

 

Peterson seems to assume that the only alternatives to religious morality are totalitarian atrocities or despondent nihilism. But secular ethics has flourished since the eighteenth century, with competing approaches such as David Hume’s appreciation of sympathy, Immanuel Kant’s emphasis on rights and duties, and Jeremy Bentham’s recommendation to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  My own preferred basis of ethics is human needs, including both biological needs (food, water, shelter, healthcare) and psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence - Ryan & Deci, 2017). Such vital needs are much more crucial to life than subjective wants, and you can be moral by acting to meet the vital needs of yourself and others. You don’t require religion to be a good person.

 

INDIVIDUALISM

 

Moral behavior in a social context demands adjudicating between the rights of individuals and the pressures of groups and organizations such as families and nations. Peterson consistently emphasizes the individual:

“It is possible to transcend slavish adherence to the group and its doctrines and, simultaneously, to avoid the pitfalls of its opposite extreme, nihilism. It is possible, instead, to find sufficient meaning in individual consciousness and experience.”

 

His second rule, “Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping”, inverts the Golden Rule in many cultures, which advocates treating others as you would like to be treated yourself.

Peterson’s individualism was evident in the actions that first brought him fame in September, 2016, when he posted a video to YouTube complaining that a new Canadian law would force him to use special pronouns for transgendered people. Bill C-16, which was passed in June, 2017, added the terms “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Code. As a result, hate speech directed at trans and gender non-binary people can be treated in the same way as hate speech concerning race, religion, and sexual orientation.

 

Legal experts reply that not using preferred pronouns does not constitute hate speech, so Peterson’s objection that his individual freedom of speech was being restricted by Bill C-16  was ill-founded. More threateningly for Peterson, the Ontario Human Rights Commission does say that refusing to refer to a trans person by a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity will likely be discriminationwhen it takes place in employment, housing and services like education. The justification is that the words people use to describe themselves can affirm identities and challenge discriminatory attitudes.

 

The deeper issue here is the general question of limitations on free speech. Since the nineteenth century, law and society have recognized that one person’s freedom ends where another’s freedom begins. You do not have the freedom to infringe someone else’s human rights by harassing, threatening, or discriminating against them. Bill C-16 acknowledges that gender identity is as wrong a basis for hateful treatment as race, religion, and sexual preference.

 

Where do human rights come from? Early views took human rights to be God-given, but the American and French revolutions tied them to human nature. Brian Orend (2002) makes the plausible connection of human rights to the vital needs that people require to function as human beings. Looking after the needs of others sometimes requires people to limit their own, individual freedoms of speech and action. Peterson’s protests about political correctness make it sound that critiques of gender-based mistreatment are artifacts of postmodernism and neo-Marxism. But expanding equal treatment to larger and larger circles has been a valuable part of philosophical and social thought since the eighteenth century.

 

Recognition that transgender people have been subject to harassment and violence justifies extension of human rights protections to them.

 

A major part of Peterson’s defense of the individual is an argument that inequality and dominance hierarchies are rooted in biological differences, from lobsters up to human men and women. But humans have much bigger brains than lobsters, with 86 billion neurons rather than 100 thousand. In recent centuries, people have been able to recognize that human rights apply across all people, not just to one’s own self, family, race, sex, or nation. Equality does not have to be across all dimensions such as talents, but should cover vital needs, so that everyone has the capability to flourish. Restrictions of individual freedoms in the form of taxation and limitations on harmful speech are then justifiable.

 

REALITY

 

Peterson’s three major metaphysical categories are Being, Order, and Chaos, all glorified with capital letters. By “Being” he does not mean existence, but rather the “lived experience” of existence. He is less interested in the objective world of things studied by science than in the subjective world of experiences and meanings that he thinks is the province of literature, religion, and mythology. Although he cites scientific studies when they support his views of gender, he draws most of his conclusions about the experience of existence from literary sources such as poetry and the Bible.

 

Peterson says he got his idea of Being as the totality of human experience from Heidegger, but Heidegger did not confuse Being with his more subjective concepts of “Being-there” and “Being-in-the world” (Dreyfus, 1991). Peterson’s use of the term “Being” for the subjective experience of existence causes much confusion, for example when he says that “cats are a manifestation of nature, of Being, in an almost pure form.”  Nature has been around for at least 13.5 billion years, since the Big Bang, but subjective experience has only been around for less than a billion, when animals with nervous systems evolved.

 

Peterson follows anti-science philosophers in assuming that subjective experience can never be explained by objective methods, but progress is being made on developing neuroscientific theories of consciousness.  Hence the gap between what exists and people’s experience of it is starting to close. 

Peterson’s subtitle is “An Antidote to Chaos”, and the point of his rules is to help people to achieve order.  “Order is where the people around you act according to well-understood social norms, and remain predictable and cooperative.”  It is “explored territory.” “Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens.” It is “all those things and situations we neither know nor understand.” Without justification, he says that order is symbolically masculine while chaos is feminine. Both chaos and order are part of Being in his subjective sense, so they belong to experience of reality rather than to reality itself.

 

Peterson’s emphasis on order might be taken as part of the traditional conservative emphasis on social order and hierarchy, but he insists he is a classic liberal. His message on order is more personal, that people can benefit by organizing their lives so they are less stressed and anxious. Use of deceptively deep categories of Order and Chaos provides only the illusion of profundity. 

 

LIFE

 

The meaning of life is another central philosophical question that Peterson addresses implausibly. He draws on religious sources to insist that “life is suffering”. Even if he were correct that this claim is a tenet of every major religion, it is still implausible. Suffering is unavoidably part of life, because we all have to deal with sickness, loss, and eventually death. But most people also have an abundance of positive experiences such as joy, lovegratitude, pride, serenity, excitement, hope, inspiration, amusement, wonder, and awe.

 

The major sources of good experiences are love, work, and play, so I would rather identify these as the meaning of life than suffering. These three activities feed directly into satisfying basic psychological needs for relatedness, competence and autonomy, as I argue in my book on The Brain and the Meaning of Life.

 

Peterson follows the existentialist philosopher Kierkegaard in insisting that the only way to make your life intelligible and avoid chaos is the “act of faith” that “Being can be corrected by becoming”. But there are much better ideas to be gained from philosophy and positive psychology about how to live a valuable life, based on evidence and good theories rather than faith.

 

Peterson’s allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrow-minded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.

 

*************************************

psychologytoday.com


  • 0

#71 Denis Jasharevic

Denis Jasharevic
  • Members
  • 10,018 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 20:27

The major sources of good experiences are love ..... WORK .... and play, so I would rather identify these as the meaning of life than suffering.

 

 

Profesionalna ljubomora. Ubi ga anonimnost pa se politichki angazovao ovaj profesor Koji ..... ochigledno nije prochitao knjigu.

Ali dobro, eto ...... Saznali smo da Peterson preporuchuje mladima da ne rade i da pate!!!

Pa naravno ...... Ovaj new age moron ne moze ni da vidi vishe od svrhe zivota nego da budemo srecni 24/7 pa i na sahrani, takva je njegova "filozofija".

Chak i kada pozelite da se odmorite malo od te i tolike bezrazlozne, retardirane srece.

A Ako vam u zivotu sve bash i ne ide kako ste zamislili ..... Tu je uvek neko drugi da svalite krivicu na njega, kolektiv ce da podrzi.

___________

Nazalost, moracu prochitati ovu naruchenu recenziju Kada budem imao vremena, da bih bolje shvatio dokle ide ljudska pakost, poshto se ovde ne pricha o istom choveku. Ovo je neki drugi Peterson.

Niti je pravi Peterson pisao ovu knjigu za one koji zavrshavaju svoj put na ovoj planeti, vec za one koji ga zapochinju, Niti je imao nameru da se uglavi izmedju Dostojevskog i Junga.

Vrlo je precizno objasnio kome je knjiga namenjena, mladom, belom choveku vaspitanom u tradiciji hrishcansko-judejske, tj. Zapadne civilizacije.

Ovaj libtardirani profesor mu upravo to I zamera, :) nije ukljuchio pakistance, sirijce I kineze.


Pa nije. On je to i rekao ko god od njih nadje u njegovoj knjigi bilo shta inspirativno i korisno je dobrodoshao, Ali on knjigu za njih nije pisao jer bi to zahtevalo duboko poznavanje njihove kulture koje on nema.

Bolja "kritika" je od onog tvog prvog klovna Koji je "profesor" na nekoj vechernjoj shkoli u Meksiku.

Ovaj filozof Koji se amaterski bavi i psihologijom samo prdi da digne prashinu. Ali Niko nece chuti za njega.


Edited by Denis Jasharevic, 07 November 2018 - 23:18.

  • 1

#72 cyberwor/L/d

cyberwor/L/d
  • Members
  • 12,762 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 21:09

J. Peterson je ovih dana u Stockholmu gde drzi dva predavanja.
 

Tom prigodom a u skladu sa nazivom topika freshly pressed news ... 

 

Svedska ministarka inostranih poslova Margot Wallström se nakon prvog predavanja uzrujala i rekla da Peterson "treba da odpuzi do kamena ispod koga je ispuzio". Bas gospodstveno diplomatski, zar ne? Ako postoji neko ko potvrdjuje sve predrasude o [opsesivnim] ženturačama, onda je to ona.

 

Doduse, priznala mu je jednu stvar - to sto uci mlade muskarce da sami namestaju svoj krevet. :ajme: Zemljo, profundaj se! Eto na kom nivou ova crvena "feministkinja" razume stvari. Eto na kom nivou zna da dâ respons. Eto koliko je tematici dorasla ministarska u prvoj feministickoj vladi na svetu. Da je jedina i da je u manjini, pa jos i nekako. Svaka ludajka u skladu sa svojim kognitivnim dometima izvuce neku perifernu mrvicu iz citavog jednog konteksta pa udari emotivno iz sve snage. Upravo takav nastup i ta vrsta neuke "kritike" u meni izazivaju otpor u rangu fizickog gadjenja. 


  • 3

#73 Denis Jasharevic

Denis Jasharevic
  • Members
  • 10,018 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 21:45

:) ....... Uzrujala se drugarica, kazesh.

Pa sa dobrim razlogom. Cela noc je bila posvecena njoj i prijateljima.

Njena "kritika", tj. zblanutost, je ujedno i najbolja preporuka za Petersona. Nema potrebe za drugim.
  • 0

#74 Kido from Junkovac

Kido from Junkovac
  • Members
  • 6,635 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 22:35

Mene i dalje najvise muci ovaj mentalni put zakljucivanja. Peterson prvo objasnjava sustinu 

naucnih radova koje koristi: 

 

 

 

"  ...u videu govori o .... radu koji se bavi razlikama u misljenjima (o nekim kljucnim pitanjima)

izmedju polova. Peterson kaze da je razlika u stavovima izmedju muskaraca i zena u Svedskoj

mnogo veca u odnosu na neku drugu zemlju, gde jednakost izmedju polova nije toliko izrazena. "

 

 

 

Medjutim, ono sto on pokusava u sledecem iskazu je nekakav kvantni skok,

koji sa naukom nema apsolutno nikakve veze. Prema nekim njegovim pristalicama

njegov prosireni stav mogao bi da glasi (izvinjenje zbog caps lock):

 

 

“  AND IF YOU MINIMIZE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES YOU MAXIMIZE BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. “

 

Ovakav jedan skok je totalno opasan I bukvalno ne moze slediti iz zakljucaka ovih radova koje je koristio.

Ozbiljni naucnici koji su radili ovaj rad nikada ne bi ni pomislili da napisu ovakvu neku parolu na osnovu svog rada.

Ovakva poruka zatim kroz sistem gluvih telefona se dalje prenosi po bazi njegovih slusalaca, a ako su 

oni iz nekog drugog govornog podrucja, npr. koriste srpski kao glavni jezik, onda to moze da zvuci I ovako:

 

"  Kao shto reche Peterson SMANJENJE KULTUROLOSHKIH RAZLIKA IZMEDJU ZENE I MUSHKARCA CE DOVESTI DO POVECANJA BIOLOSHKIH RAZLIKA IZMEDJU MUSHKARCA I ZENE. "

 

Blagi pogled na ova tri iskaza koja su citirana govori o vise stvari. 

- Peterson koristi naucne podatke da bi iznosio svoje spekulacije.

- njegovi sledbenici primaju to zdravo za gotovo I prevode kako god hoce, izgleda kao da nije ni bitno bilo sta sto on kaze.


  • 0

#75 Denis Jasharevic

Denis Jasharevic
  • Members
  • 10,018 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 23:02

Znash kako ..... ako nisi shvatio za 3 dana, nece ti pomoci ni da uzmesh godishnji odmor.

 

Btw. dzabe lupash glavu …… nema tu nikakve "opasne zaveroloshke teorije" ……. niti on "tumachi nauchne podatke" ...…. obrati paznju da su fenomen, tj. neochekivani rezultat, do kog su istrazivachi mnogih studija zajednichki doshli bash tako i nazvali …… PARADOKS !!! The Gender-Equality Paradox.

 

 U svemu tome nema apsolutno nishta loshe ……. naprotiv. Zene su zenstvene ...… kako reche Boris Bele :)

 

Ljudi su mnogo puta imali prilike da naidju na otpor prirode pokushavajuci da je birokratski urede po svojim zblanutim ideologijama, ovo je samo jedan u nizu, nikakav izuzetak. najpropaliji debilni projekat je svakako komunizam, pokushaj da "smo svi jednaki" I koshtao je 150 miliona zrtava. Opet se ide na isti "projekat". Samo zaobilaznim putem.

 

I ako idesh protiv prirode, evo shta ti se desi, posledice Trump Derangement Syndroma, ( Latin. Libtardosis) su fatalne, nastaje libtardoza hronichno stanje, iz libtarditisa akutnog ……….. niti je zena, primeti fizichko i psihichko degenerativno izoblichenje, niti je vishe chovek, samo mentalno teshko obolelo stvorenje …….. pa ti slobodno forsiraj to …… samo nemoj samnom i sa mojom decom.

 

JORDAN PETERSON, KAO STRUCHNJAK, SAMO UPOZORAVA DA OVA BOLEST PRELAZI U PANDEMIJU.

 

Shuhada (Sinead O'Connor)

I'm terribly sorry. What I'm about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that's what non-muslims are called).  Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.

 

Interesting to see if Twitter bans this when it allows people like Trump and Milbank spew the satanic filth upon even my country

 

9104674465be345c6a4440424335440_v4_big.p


Edited by Denis Jasharevic, 07 November 2018 - 23:25.

  • 0