In case it wasn't clear, that wasn't me speaking. That was me projecting something I think Peterson might say.

I can find you a Jordan Peterson podcast and he can expound himself if you are really interested. Or you can read his "Maps of Meaning" book if you really want to get in the weeds.

I am not a Peterson disciple. I know some of the broad strokes, but wouldn't pretend I can articulate his arguments that well myself.

If you had ~9 hours to kill you could listen to his first 3 podcasts with Rogan (that are probably on average 3 hours each) and you would definitely get more than your fill of his expounding. He isn't shy about that, and he loves the sound of his voice.

Peterson is a psychologist by trade, and FWIW the podcasts I actually find most interesting are when he talks about the psychological ideas of Freud and Jung and philosophy of Nietzsche, and talks about psychological personality types.

When he starts talking about Jungian archetypes in the context of Bible stories I find it very interesting.

He probably isn't saying anything novel here, but it is novel and interesting to me as I never studied most of the subjects myself.

First, I'm not sure what is particularly Jewish about the value of individualism. I think it is fair to say that Protestant versions of Christianity, because they emphasize an unmediated relationship with God (through doctrines like the priesthood of all believers and sola scriptura) are individualistic, and US Catholicism has in many ways become Protestantized, but otherwise I wouldn't say individualism was particularly a Christian value either.

Self-sacrifice seems more naturally a virtue of communitarian worldviews and not a characteristically American virtue, so I don't know where that comes from. Anyway, self-sacrifice is by no means a uniquely Judeo-Christian virtue, nor is it one opposed by uh social Marxists. Did you mean self-reliance?

Anyway, I'm not sure if this is a fair representation of Peterson, but insofar as these are your views you are projecting here, they seem wrong. Marxism, social or otherwise, is not nihilistic. Liberalism might be nihilistic, with its more procedurally-based understanding of justice. Anyway, the very phrase "hedonistic nihilism" betrays a certain incoherence in your thinking. Hedonism is itself an account of the good, and so opposed to nihilism.

And, most relevantly, so you're saying that Peterson is saying the same thing you can hear in most Sunday pulpits? Okay? Again, why should we consider him an important intellectual? The claim that we no longer hold true to these values because a few Twitterers are Marxists seems myopic. Religious attendance is declining (probably because we are becoming more individualistic, but whatever), but it is still quite relevant in American life.

Are you familiar with Peterson and think I am representing his positions (as wrong as they may be) accurately?

I feel like I already may have gone beyond my ability to articulate his arguments correctly. My main exposure to him is listening to Joe Rogan podcasts he was on, some of those years ago.

I never even read Maps of Meaning, which from what I understand is his magnum opus, where he lays out his worldview most concretely.

Fair enough. However, if you are interested in learning about the Bible, I would recommend scholarship from actual experts rather than cultural critics. For instance, the lecture series by Harvard Professor Shaye Cohen "The Hebrew Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity" is very good.

I am guessing Peterson would agree with this; he would just start with Bible stories (New and Old Testament) and how they really are setting the framework for Enlightenment ideas.

He did a big lecture series on Genesis where he goes through this, that is available on Youtube. I listened to a little bit, but that isn't really my thing.

He says he is currently working on another one on Exodus. That is where the Cambridge drama came from. He had an agreement with some Cambridge professors to collaborate on the Exodus lectures, but they backed out due to student activist pressure. Peterson says he is going to continue ahead and do it alone.

Ok. I commute 40 minutes each way to work, so always interested in interesting audio stuff to listen to.

It's always sad to hear this

I really liked Rogan's podcasts with Yang and Gabbard. Would definitely listen to him with any other presidential candidates.

An Intellectual Dark Web, In Three Acts

Anyway Bari Weiss tweeted in favor of deplatforming a controversial college speaker today. Can anyone guess what sort of political persuasion this speaker holds?

If this is your attempt to make an on topic post with insight, you should probably go back to trolling.

Weiss is hypersensitive to anything she perceives as anti-semitism, regardless of the politics of the source. Do you think she would be pounding the heart button if the source of Israel/Jew criticism was a right wing speaker?

(WN, Fly is a special case and I think you should let us have a little bit of good natured fun. However, if you prefer I go high when he goes low, I understand)

I think the Jewish concept that humans are made in the image of God promotes the value of individualism. (Each individual has value, possibility, integrity.)

I agree that sola scriptura (Luther) is a strong driver toward individualism.

These are all extremely mainstream, banal, center or center-left characters.

The intellectual dark web is more people like Nick Land or Mencius Moldbug.

Agreed. I am not generally one to back up Weiss, but the (seeming) inconsistency is understandable in this case. Being a fervent advocate of free speech shouldn't mean that she should tolerate antisemitism or other veiwpoints she finds sufficiently unpalatable. Likewise, Schools should be considerate to the hypersensitive perceptions of the University community. Or outside the University community, I guess.

First off, none of them are center or center left. Second, Intellectual Dark Web is a name they GAVE THEMSELVES, it's from a Bari Weiss puff piece.

Third, and this ties in with this guy getting the very basics of both political orientation and group membership wrong, Ben Shapino left the bubble of Rubin Reports and articles written by his Dad to get interviewed by Vox about his book. It went... fantastic:
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/201...ide-of-history

How do you not research this stuff before posting about it? Everything about this post is incorrect!

What is your criteria for classifying someone as center-left or centrist in this context?

This so much. Dude thinks that Bigfoot might be real. He doesn't understand science.

And I love Joe Rogan. NewsRadio is my all time favorite TV show. His standup is amazing. I think he's a good guy.

But it scares me some of the people he gives a platform to - like Alex Jones. Just being on Rogan's show exposes Jones to a massively wider audience - and basically trolls (in the more literal sense of the world) vulnerable young people who might be susceptible to the paranoid conspiracy world view.

I've seen Rogan as a gateway drug for multiple people into alt-right craziness. Peterson seems to be the cocaine to Rogan's marijuana.

And Peterson so hard. Pure sophistry. There's a reason why none of his fanboys can ever put his message into their own words and just insist that you watch a 45 minute youtube. Because it's meaningless feel good blabber undercut by a deeply misogynist paternalistic worldview.

Lol this is amazing.

The intellectual face of the conservative movement. This generation's William F Buckley Jr.

The irony is so heavy it hurts. Your post is positively riddled with paternalistic sentiments.

I suppose that depends on how you define left-right, which itself is a banal characterization of often nuanced political opinions. In the classical sense, the only one of them who could even be considered to be right of center is Shapiro. Rogan is pro drug, Rubin is gay, Harris is an atheist determinist, and Peterson's rejection of deconstructionism is self-admittedly emotionally-based.

Sure. But I wasn't referring to the name they GAVE THEMSELVES. I was referring to the shadowy undercurrents of obscure political thought driven by the thinkers I mentioned.

I mean, I described them above as having mostly centrist views myself, but being gay, an atheistic determinist, or rejecting deconstruction for emotional reasons doesn't really say much about whether or not a person is left or right of center. Sort of like saying Thomas Sowell is a liberal because he's black.

It is obviously intellectually offensive to infer the political alignment of a person based on their sexuality, race etc. The people listed largely make money off of "triggering the libs." They are not anywhere close to the center or the left. Their brand relies on them pandering to a certain type of person and trying to anger a different type. To pretend this isn't the case is just not arguing in good faith.

Our boy Benny walked off the BBC broadcast he was on when their very right wing interviewer asked him to explain his views, so he told the guy he was left wing and unpopular and that the interview was over. The IDW!

Fun interview that. Here's a link

dunno if it will work for most of you.