The lesson we can all learn from the example of Jordan Peterson is: sure, a social hierarchy of respect, honor, and esteem exists.  But simply directly striving to get to the top of the hierarchy, without any consideration for the consequences of your actions, won't get you there.  Instead, it will make people hate you.  

Peterson has been touting his "big five" personality tests, for years, with one of the vectors being "agreeableness," and at the same time he has been railing against "agreeableness," arguing that too many people in society are too agreeable.  Peterson committed himself with reckless abandon to his daughter's all-meat diet, against all medical advice (presumably because accepting such advice would be too agreeable), with the delusional belief that an all-meat diet would transform a normal person into an unstoppable Alpha Male.  Soon after this, Peterson succumbed to a severe autoimmune reaction to his own food, combined with extreme social anxiety, and in response his doctor prescribed benzodiazepine, which can be a pretty intense drug.  He became addicted, and then tried to quit cold turkey, causing severe withdrawal, and becoming "intolerable" to his family.  What happened next is unclear, but he wound up in an 8 day coma, and woke up somehow in Russia, where he underwent rehab in a pseudo-scientific "Reanimatology Ward".  His business empire was now being run by his daughter and her husband, the mysterious and shady Russian business consultant, Andrej Korikov, who has claimed at times to be possessed by a demon named Igor.  His daughter flaunted the coronavirus restrictions and partied, and soon Peterson, his daughter, Korikov, and their son all had Covid 19.

Peterson is one of the most hated losers in the world right now.  He is jobless, in debt, universally mocked, in terrible health both physically and psychologically, and repeatedly humiliated in public debates - whether it be with Slavoj Zizek, Sam Harris, or anyone else.  He has been so completely defeated that I almost feel bad piling on.  Almost.  But he himself is the perfect living example of how bereft his megalomaniacal philosophy is.  He has lost his battle with chaos.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more