PDA

View Full Version : Jordan Peterson on Friedrich Nietzsche's 'God is Dead' and 'Der ‹bermensch'



Hammish
Wednesday, June 13th, 2018, 05:23 AM
Jordan Peterson On Friedrich Nietzsche's God Is Dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_zr_PU9iC8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgBuOQL1VYY

Terminus
Wednesday, June 13th, 2018, 06:39 AM
Peterson is a modern sophist, or to use modern terms, a hack, shill, plant, fraud, etc. Peterson has read books from a Jew (Freud), a Jewish nihilist (Ayn Rand), a Christian pessimist (Solzhenitsyn, also married to a Jewess), as well as two dystopian novels. He undoubtedly has a bleak outlook on life. He has also affirmed the Zionist cause and shies away from addressing Holocaust revisionism.

His assessment of Nietzsche leaves much room to be desired. As the comments point out, Nietzsche set himself against all Christian morality, not merely the ones pushed by the churches. Nietzsche overreacted to the rubbish that had been bundled up together with higher morality, sympathy, and altruism; in wanting to substitute morality for might makes right, he committed a biological error as Haeckel put it.

Nietzsche's merit is that he 1) called for a return to pre-Socratic Greece and it's ideals, 2) overcame Schopenhauer's pessimism by deducing from human suffering a natural demand for an elevated life, that humans exist to endure (drawing the same conclusion as Adam Weishaupt) and 3) challenged the perverse notion of suffering with others, the so-called pity ethics of Christianity.

1) Nietzsche was a philologist who started out as a professor of Greek. Therefore, he was in an unique position to assess the reliability of ancient manuscripts, certainly much more than Jordan Peterson ever could. Nietzsche's sweeping condemnation of Socrates in Twilight of the Idols is well-justified. Plato's idealized version of Socrates was merely a tool employed to protect himself from democratic critics. Socrates would have gotten along with the sophists. Like Kant and Hegel, Socrates elevated "pure" reason to the throne. They would have probably gotten along with our modern flat earthers too. Socrates would have certainly made sacrilegious statements such as "[logic] is the exposition of God as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and finite mind" or "hylozoism... is therefore the death of all natural philosophy!"

2) Whereas Schopenhauer inclined himself to the Hindus, which inevitably fosters a fatalistic, nonsensical, perverse, nihilistic outlook, Nieztsche instead emphasized the neglected Occidental teachings. He was the only one to turn towards the Western ideals in a time when people favored Christianity, the Oriental or Middle Eastern conceptions.

Fatalistic: The Kali Yuga in a nutshell does not inspire, but produces a profound apathy to our problems.

Nonsensical: Humans, animals, and plants reincarnate into each other randomly. That would imply that all life forms share the same one consciousness. If there are no differing degrees of consciousness, what is the point?

Life doesn't work like that. The fly is devoured by a bird which is in turn devoured by a beast, and the beast in it's old age is devoured by bacteria which is in turn devoured by microbes. It stands to reason that at least the fly and the bird will derive advantage from being consumed by a higher life form.

Perverse: All life is held to be precious (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/135839-What-do-you-Think-of-Hitler-and-National-Socialism?p=1231284#post1231284). It's the same lunacy as "thou shalt not kill." Small wonder why Gandhi's pacifism was able to gain ground among the Indians.

Nihilistic: According to Hinduism, the individual soul joins the universal soul and is eliminated, an ancient erroneous notion which even the Jews picked up (Eccl. 12:7). So life has no purpose, the only meaning of life is to escape from it and be annihilated.


Nietzsche is the only non-Jewish, the only pagan ethicist in Europe.
- Kalergi

To be singled out by this man Kalergi is no small feat.

3) In the book of Job, Job's friends join in his grief and worsen his condition. Only Elihu refrains from participating in Job's suffering, instead delivering a sharp rebuke to him and his friends.
In the shortest verse of the gospels, Jesus is said to have wept upon hearing of Lazarus' death. But he would have obviously known that he could and would have raised Lazarus from the dead. It was not out of sympathy for Mary and Martha as the narrative insists, although it's likely he had a sympathetic character. That would have been a sign of weakness.
A modern example of this would be a doctor who knows his patient can be resuscitated, but nonetheless is moved to tears when he is informed that the patient is dying. It's absurd!
In short, if we choose to suffer with others, we only intensify their misery and in turn, are made nervous wrecks ourselves. We would all end up in asylums!
Nietzsche was also on point when he declared that "Schopenhauer was hostile to life". By all accounts, Schopenhauer was grimly afraid of death and took measures to secure himself from disasters such as house fires.

Quite frankly, I don't know why Christians depict their lord with a gloomy demeanor and in perpetual agony. They focus more on his death than his life. This was already pointed out by the "Nazis", who wanted to pay homage to him in full justice.

I say, away with this sordid representation of a miserable Jesus! Enter the heroic Jesus.

Hammish
Wednesday, June 13th, 2018, 07:37 PM
I've only had limited exposure to Peterson, but my impression is that he's not a shill.

I'm sure his reluctance to "Name the Jew" comes from the knowledge that his ability to reach the largest audience would be curtailed if he focused on subjects like that.

Terminus
Wednesday, June 13th, 2018, 10:01 PM
I've only had limited exposure to Peterson, but my impression is that he's not a shill.

I'm sure his reluctance to "Name the Jew" comes from the knowledge that his ability to reach the largest audience would be curtailed if he focused on subjects like that.Has Peterson ever declared that truth is relative? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/6xyevt/petersons_view_on_truth_sounds_dangerous ly/
https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/8m7yh2/what_jordan_peterson_said_is_a_misinterp retation/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7zq9du/peterson_is_wrong_about_truth/

Theunissen
Wednesday, June 13th, 2018, 11:45 PM
I've only had limited exposure to Peterson, but my impression is that he's not a shill.

I'm sure his reluctance to "Name the Jew" comes from the knowledge that his ability to reach the largest audience would be curtailed if he focused on subjects like that.
That's what I was thinking as well. Always amazed how those "I-am-not-an-Antisemite"-types seem to confirm the (antisemitic?) notion that Jews have disproportionate power and influence.

He certainly knows how academia works and realizes that it is futile or at least risky to challenge more than one paradigm at a time.

Nietzsche is sometimes portrayed as a nihilist. And, while arguments could be build for that, the opposite is true as well.
I view him as a radical subjectivist or perspectivist. And while I acknowledge that human beings indeed view the world from a perspective in space, time, genealogy, biography, I'd never dispute that there is an objective reality or truth that is at least in part intelligible and knowable. My point is just that our ability has several limitations there.