If you were interested, you might wonder what I mean by 'social' and 'delegitimising'. — unenlightened

Nah. If this were an isolated comment maybe, but as it is it comes off the back of (and even refers to) a long and persistent effort on your part to paint the whole of modern psychology as somehow complicit in the actions of some of it's past members where nothing short of ritual suicide would satisfy you. My previous attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt lead to a four page argument in which you insisted that we should change our practices without offering a single shred of evidence that we hadn't already done so, despite me posting rule after rule from organisations like the BPS showing exactly that we had.

So no. You've got a bone you want to gnaw and it's a waste of time pretending that you've the slightest interest in what is actually the case, your only interest is gnawing that bone and woe betide anyone who tries to take it from you.

The fascist left — unenlightened

The who what now? Contradiction in terms.

And yet so accurate. Those who are intolerant of intolerance. Figure that out.

I like Peterson by and large. He captures many of the flaws I see around me rather well. Hard to fault him for being observant.

The who what now? Contradiction in terms. — Pfhorrest

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the usual suspects.It has always been obvious to me that the political spectrum is spherical such that the extremes of left and right coincide like East and West do. Is this an unusual view? I think Orwell explained it in Animal Farm.

Or if you want a more modern version, the more dictatorial tendencies of the Green movement - see here for example.

That's an interesting citation. I had thought my brand of ecological thinking was pitched solely against left wing anti-capitalist, misanthropic tree huggers, but a high energy, prosperous, sustainable future sinks the eco-Nazi battleship as well. Bonus!

Malthus was plain wrong. 200 years and 8 billion people, better fed than ever - prove him wrong. It's not a matter of how many people there are. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them.

For the past 200 years, that's been fossil fuel energy - and that's bad, because nature buries carbon to maintain a viable biosphere. We dug it up and burnt it; giving us the energy to develop land to feed 8bn people, at the cost of putting that carbon back into the atmosphere.

Carbon pollution isn't a necessary consequence of energy production. We can produce clean energy; but we need vastly more energy to secure the future, not less. In my view, wind and solar are not sufficient. The nearest large source of energy is the heat energy of the earth itself - magma power! There's a virtually limitless supply, and all we have to do is get at it!

I admire and am in awe of much of JPs ideas and the clarity of his elucidation.

But, this Christian obsession is annoying and plainly wrong - I can't believe that someone who usually is so determined to get to the bedrock of human understanding is stuck in this shallow paradigm. The Logos idea is not even Christian. It was certainly around in 5 century BC with Heraclitus and who knows how much earlier. The entire Christian creed is derivative.

He doesn't need it. I really believe it's stagnated his work.

But, this Christian obsession is annoying and plainly wrong - I can't believe that someone who usually is so determined to get to the bedrock of human understanding is stuck in this shallow paradigm. The Logos idea is not even Christian. It was certainly around in 5 century BC with Heraclitus and who knows how much earlier. The entire Christian creed is derivative. — yebiga

What exactly do you mean by Christian obsession? The Biblical series on youtube?

When you describe Christianity as a shallow paradigm, what do you mean? It is derivative, that's true. But there's also something universal going on. Read this passage about Viracocha - or Kon Tiki as he's more popularly known:

"Viracocha rose from Lake Titicaca during the time of darkness to bring forth light. He made the sun, moon, and the stars. He made mankind by breathing into stones, but his first creation were brainless giants that displeased him. So he destroyed it with a flood and made a new, better one from smaller stones.
Viracocha eventually disappeared across the Pacific Ocean by walking on the water, and never returned. He wandered the earth disguised as a beggar, teaching his new creations the basics of civilization, as well as working numerous miracles. He wept when he saw the plight of the creatures he had created. It was thought that Viracocha would re-appear in times of trouble."

This is the religious legend of the people's of South America - people who built pyramids at the same time Egyptians were building pyramids, half way around the world. There's something terribly familiar about it all. The pyramid is a symbol of hierarchy in multitribal civilisation - the eye of Ra, or God, at the top as divine authority for the laws applying to the many below. These are universal symbols that follow as a consequence of the human experience of reality - and that's logos, or Jungian archetypes to use the psychological lexicon.

Maybe you know better than I do whether Peterson is a believer or not. I'm not a believer. I'm agnostic, and to my mind all this is the consequence of evolution. But it's really there, and it's something Christianity describes. So I'd disagree with the term 'shallow' - and argue instead, that there are deeper, evolutionary mechanisms at work. If Peterson's belief prevents him digging deeper, that's a shame, because like you say - he's a brilliant speaker.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the usual suspects.It has always been obvious to me that the political spectrum is spherical such that the extremes of left and right coincide like East and West do. Is this an unusual view? I think Orwell explained it in Animal Farm — unenlightened

Fascism is a specific ideology, or set of ideologies. It's not just any authoritarianism. Different visions of society can all have a similar drive towards being enforced by absolute authority, but that doesn't make the visions the same.

No, I take no issue with the biblical series - the lectures are great - imo.

I dispute his often cited claim that our Judeo-Christian heritage plays a central role in formulating the Western World's greatest ideal: the Individual.

I agree with his conclusion, that the individual is our Cultures central and greatest ideal. But it's an ideal that predates Christianity by at least half a millennia. It's an ideal that found its greatest expression in classical Greece - or more specifically Athens.

Of course, Peterson knows all this but insists on this Christian centrality nonsense - it's intellectually dishonest.

No matter how shallow a familiarity one may have with world history, it is an undeniable fact, that the unparalleled era of advancement and progress civilisation has experienced over the last half millennia has an uncanny inverse correlation with Christian hegemony. In short, claims that Christianity plays some central role in the advancement of the Western World is to put plainly unfounded and the evidence overwhelmingly points in the opposing direction: Christianity prevented progress.

Yet, Peterson repeatedly makes this judeo-chrisitian claim and the claim is never challenged. In fact even atheists like Harris have failed to call him out on it.

Damn. Arrested by the thought police again. I spit on your so-called ideology that is behaviourally identical with its opposite.

Perhaps, instead of shallow - I should have said narrow. By insisting on the centrality of Christianity, other rich myths, religions and stories are lost or ignored. It seems to me most if not all of them shed light on the individual journey.

By elevating one religion/myhology over and above all others we embrace limitation, inviting institutional, cultural and political possession. Inevitably, it all becomes trite, losing its vitality it degrades and can no longer inspire.

This is my sole criticism of JP - but it is a fairly big one - because he must know better. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is pandering to this Christian audience to maximise readers and lecture attendees or maybe it's something more noble I can't see. Whatever the motivation - it's wrong by his own standards of truth telling.

Fascism is a specific ideology, or set of ideologies. It's not just any authoritarianism. Different visions of society can all have a similar drive towards being enforced by absolute authority, but that doesn't make the visions the same. — Echarmion

Thank you.

I think the “horseshoe theory” of political spectra can be better understood as that authority breeds hierarchy and hierarchy breeds authority, so whether you pursue equality at the cost of freedom (state socialism) or freedom at the cost of equality (anarcho capitalism) you end up losing both (state capitalism, i.e. fascism).

The problem with unenlightened’s post is that the axis of state socialism to anarcho capitalism is only “left-right” in a newer distorted sense. The original left was the direction toward freedom AND equality both, and the fascism that both state socialism and anarcho capitalism collapse to is squarely in the corner of the original right.

Something I went through - as I grew up, was a very profound disenchantment and anger with religion, as I realised that I didn't believe in God, but had been indoctrinated with this stuff as a kid. I'm wondering if you are going through something similar.

Continued philosophical reflection has got me to the point where I'm agnostic on epistemological grounds. I don't know if there's a God or not. In fact, no-one does. And I've come to realise the significance of religion to civilisation over thousands of years.

Rationally, I think religion is an expression of the innate moral sense - fostered in the human animal as a consequence of evolution in a tribal content. Moral behaviour was an advantage to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe made up of moral individuals - in competition with other tribes.

Religion occurred when hunter-gatherer tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups. They needed an objective authority for law and order, that applied equally to everyone - and didn't depend upon the alpha male hierarchy of the hunter gatherer tribe. So they invented God, and derived authority for social law and order from God. Think Moses coming down the mountain with the tablets - and uniting the tribes of Israel.

This is the inversion of values Nietzsche identified, but misunderstood. He believed the strong, amoral, self-serving individual - was fooled by the weak, and chained with a Christian morality that had inverted values, and turned virtue into vice. But there never was a strong, amoral, self serving individual - because human evolution wasn't brute competition and survival of the fittest.

Chimpanzees have morality of sorts; they defend the tribe, share food and groom each other, and remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly. Similarly, human beings couldn't have survived if they were purely violent monsters of the will. We are moral creatures - imbued with a moral sense by evolution in a tribal context. Then, this implicit moral sense was made explicit when hunter gatherer tribes joined together - and that's religion.

Thinking about it in these terms has allowed me to get past the anger I felt at being deceived, and the revulsion I felt toward anyone suggesting religion was meaningful in any way. Whether Peterson believes in the supernatural elements of religion or not I don't know. He was asked once, and his answer was longer than the age of the universe!

The original left — Pfhorrest

What was the original left? I'd suggest this rabble as setting the scene before the classification of left and right came into being. They were saved by complete failure from becoming like the bloodthirsty dictatorial fanatics of the French revolution. and the Russian revolution, and the Chinese revolution.

dispute his often cited claim that our Judeo-Christian heritage plays a central role in formulating the Western World's greatest ideal: the Individual. — yebiga

The individual is fundamental to Christianity, because without the individual, the whole prospect of the Judgment and of eternal heaven or eternal damnation fails. Christianity stands and falls with the prospect of the Judgment.

Yet, Peterson repeatedly makes this judeo-chrisitian claim and the claim is never challenged. In fact even atheists like Harris have failed to call him out on it.

Because they all need it and rely on it:
The Christians and Peterson for the purpose of judging and condemning people, and the New Atheists to claim their special status (and also for the purpose of judging and condemning people).

Whatever the motivation - it's wrong by his own standards of truth telling. — yebiga

Well, if his own actual standard of truth telling is duplicity, then he can be called neither a hypocrite nor wrong ...

The Luddites were a secret oath-based organization of English textile workers in the 19th century, a radical faction which destroyed textile machinery as a form of protest. The group are believed to have taken their name from Ned Ludd, a weaver from Anstey, near Leicester. They protested against manufacturers who used machines. Luddites feared that the time spent learning the skills of their craft would go to waste, as machines would replace their role in the industry. Over time, the term has come to mean one opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation, or new technologies in general. The Luddite movement began in Nottingham in England and culminated in a region-wide rebellion that lasted from 1811 to 1816. Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed with legal and military force.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

They protested against manufacturers who used machines — counterpunch

Indeed, the Luddites exemplify the conservative left, seeking to conserve the traditions of working practice from the tyranny of progress and mechanisation. The Diggers and Levellers though were much earlier.

The conservative nature of the working class is sadly neglected by left-wing politicians to their cost.

Not sure how to parse "the conservative left."

Do you mean Conservatives, but to the left of the Conservatives? Or do you mean lefties into conservation?

I know the Diggers and Levellers were earlier, but I like Luddites as a pejorative, because their practice of throwing sand into the machinery seems to typify a left, that likes to think itself progressive but has regressed into identity politics - to throw sand into the machinery of society.

I'm inclined to agree that the working class are conservative deep down; they have never 'cast off their chains' - which is a problem for the left. But then, Marx was always a middle class idea of the working class interest - just as political correctness is now, a champagne socialist's idea of fairness. In reality, it's a pernicious dogma that seeks to cause the divisions it purports to abhor. Luddites!

Not sure how to parse "the conservative left." — counterpunch

I'm trying to provoke a thought or two. I oppose 'conservative' to 'progressive'. Everyone (I assume) wants to conserve what is good and progress to what is better. So this kind of argument revolves around the judgement of what can be changed for the better and what should not be changed for the worse. If you are able to use machines to increase your productivity, you will probably support that change, whereas if I can do that and you cannot, and you lose your livelihood as a result, you might well think my machines a bad thing.

So working class conservatism typically seeks to maintain traditional jobs in mining and heavy industry, restrictive practices, job demarkation, union dominance, skill hierarchies, male and white dominance and so on. Whereas entrepreneurial conservatism would be more progressive about working practices.

There's been a lot of talk here in the UK about "saving the National Health System", which again is a project of conservation but a social conservation rather than an individualist one.

There's a couple of dimensions there within the single left right dimension; conservative/progressive, and individual/social. Add in the authoritarian/liberal dimension and you start to get something a bit more nuanced by which to understand the varieties of political commitment.

Everyone (I assume) wants to conserve what is good and progress to what is better. — unenlightened

Everyone (I assume) purports to want to conserve what is good and progress to what is better - but it's as you imply, better for whom?

If you are able to use machines to increase your productivity, you will probably support that change, whereas if I can do that and you cannot, and you lose your livelihood as a result, you might well think my machines a bad thing. — unenlightened

You're the one asking:

What was the original left? — unenlightened

So how can you assume "everyone wants to conserve what is good and progress to what is better" - when the left wing, politically correct agenda is so clearly contrary to the interests of those the party was established to represent, and not assume dishonesty of purpose?

So working class conservatism typically seeks to maintain traditional jobs in mining and heavy industry, restrictive practices, job demarkation, union dominance, skill hierarchies, male and white dominance — unenlightened

Racist - sexist bastards - thinking themselves deserving of political representation! Twitter mob them into bankruptcy!

Add in the authoritarian/liberal dimension and you start to get something a bit more nuanced by which to understand the varieties of political commitment. — unenlightened

Nuanced? Have you read the Communist Manifesto? They wanted the working man to rebel against his own livelihood, steal everything from those that built it, and give it to them along with absolute power! That didn't work, but now, they're really into racism!

Sorry, you seem exercised about something, but I'm not clear what.

I assume you want to conserve what is good, and progress to what needs improvement. I assume Marx did too. I assume you disagree with him and maybe with me about what to conserve and what to progress. Hurling insults about at hypothetical interest groups and power groups is rather what I want to get away from. But if you don't want to, that's your affair I suppose.

I am suggesting that everyone is conservative about some things and progressive about others, and authoritarian about some things and liberal about others, and so on with social/ individual. So it's a question of whether in matters sexual one leans to a liberal or authoritarian approach, and so on. One's attitude to economics will obviously depend on one's own and one's country's economic situation as well as education religion and so on. Try to separate out gay liberation, the abolition of slavery, and the communist manifesto. They are not one thing. One can be in favour of the public ownership of the road network without being a Maoist.

So you came to a thread entitled "How is Jordan Peterson viewed among philosophers? and posted your own question "What was the original left?" because, and I quote:

Hurling insults about at hypothetical interest groups and power groups is rather what I want to get away from. — unenlightened

Do you think you're going about that in the right way?

The Christian story asks the timeless question and answers it with a sacrificial mythical exemplar: What should my response be to the injustices of the world I confront:- hypocrisy, poverty, betrayal, power, greed, lust, deception, envy, disease, deception, violence, brutality, torture...

What is portrayed in the gospels is as valid today as it was 2,000 or 4,000 years ago - or anytime in between. So, it has failed to change the world. The kingdom of god is unrealised. The individual exemplar has not only failed to inspire or transform the world, it has in practice remained captured and vacillated between empty ritual and self-mockery.

The timeless question is not sufficiently answered. The sacrificial exemplar embodied in the saviour to transform the world is far too simplistic, self-destructive, dysfunctional, pathetic and ultimately insufficient. After 2,000 years, this much is undeniable.

The christian message is fundamentally comforting but ultimately naive. It offers a profoundly impractical appeal to self-pity, divine intervention, and not least, a sublimation of revenge to another dimension. It's enduring quality is to offer eternal comfort to the defeated.

Instead of the victory of the individual, Christians celebrates the individuals impotence and defeat.
And for all that, I still accept the gospels as profound documents because they posit the question.
It's just that the answer is BS.