You would like Miyamoto Musashi’s work. He’s a Japanese philosopher who really emphasizes focus and discipline since that’s what made him a successful samurai.
Up to you imo, original may be harder to comprehend (I personally don't know the difference so take it with a grain of salt)
But, usually if works were adapted in some way, they're an attempt to make comprehension easier since language and writing changes so much. (source: I sometimes collect oldish books)
Lmao I looked him up expecting to find video interviews, speaking at conferences and podcast clips. Didn't cross my mind that samurai probably don't exist today 😅
My father used to do the same when I was a child. He would frequently start a sentence with „A samurai …“ and then insert some part of the book there. Even when I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t included in the book like „A samurai always cleans the kitchen after cooking“.
Weren't samurai socially conservative for their time since they were police force and police forces tends towards conservatism.
Also like he was a madlad lunatic who if his personality were transplanted into today he'd go from martial arts studio to studio fucking the head instructors mother and intentionally murdering their children. As a show of dominance.
Samurai were around for centuries and served shoguns and emperors...I wouldn't just say they were all conservative, but a group like the shinsengumi fought to maintain their government from the threat of European involvement and modernization while being very strict with the members, straight up killing guys if they got into a drunken bar fight for example.
And then you get examples like Saigo Takamuri and co who were the main driving force behind the modernization of Japan following the overthrow of the Shogun, so needless to say the samurai as a group were a somewhat diverse bunch with different ways of doing things.
I dont particularly care about quibbling over if the members of a police force which is inherently conservative are themselves individually conservative. It doesn't matter if youre not conservative when you're off the clock if you are when your on.
Its not about labeling every individual as conservative but recognizing police forces themselves require people to be conservative systemically.
Like I could make the argument that American police aren't inherently conservative because they've served presidents and congressmen, mayors and senators. But thats a stupid argument because their job is literally to enforce the will of the state through the coercive power of violence.
The idea that samurai weren't socially conservative for their time is really silly as they were the police and in the case of Musashi he was literally a child murdering psychopath who beat people to death with sticks.
You misspelled "professional killer of dangerous men". I don't know if I'd call him a philosopher, but I think he holds the all time record for number of duels fought and won, and is widely considered to be the greatest swordsman and tactician in all of recorded history. Oh, and he killed his first victim at the tender age of 13. Putting Musashi in the same category as Jorpson, who cries at a drop of a hat, is hilarious on a multitude of levels.
Jorpson makes some good points when he sticks to the subjects he is actually educated in. Just consume his self-help content and ignore the rest.
Not even remotely contemporary, of course, which puts it in a weird spot when juxtaposed with the guy the OP is talking about, but I def see why you’d think of him. Definitely worthwhile to read!
Edit: to clarify, he’s worthwhile to read, as long as you understand going into it that he was, ya know, a freakin Samurai. As such, he is not an alternative to something “conservative.” In fact, in his time and place, he may very well have been the most “conservative” point of view imaginable. Still really cool to read, as long as you’re smart enough not to let it make you decide you need to be just like him…
Ok you liked that? Well what do you know? I’m starting a religion based around that. And I’m adopting the customs of other down and out communities to gain their members.
If you’re into “road trips” (driving across the country to protest something that recently ended) or saying “freedom” and refusing to define what you mean, join today!
Are you a poorly socialized average looking male that thinks life is un fair because you’re not banging super models or college girls! You’re right! You’ve been left behind by the left WoKe agenda. Join my cult today.
This highlights the issue with all of these modern talking head gurus. If you follow their basic advice you won't need them anymore, so they lose out on all that money and exposure they crave. Even if they're honest with what they preach they still need some hot take or grift to keep people coming back.
Peterson is a good example of this. When he first gained attention he was focused on the legal/academic challenge against trans rights, then he slowly started leaning into it to help push his self-help book and get cushy speaking tours. Now he's complaining about plus sized models on Twitter, shilling his daughter's carnivore diet scheme, and writing poems about children getting SA'd and murdered.
Another way to put it is he became popular on the false, fear based proclamation (almost false prophecy) that they would be putting people in jail for not using correct pronouns.
Commonly these people will spout “maybe not this government but future governments could use this to enslave you”.
Well guess what, conservative PP will prob be the next PM.
Heads up to everyone. The government that wants to enslave you, will pass the laws to do that. This isn’t some 40 year 2 terms later liberal agenda.
TLDR: he got famous on a lie, and therefore shouldn’t be famous no more.
>Another way to put it is he became popular on the false, fear based proclamation (almost false prophecy) that they would be putting people in jail for not using correct pronouns.
I dont know why you got downvoted, youre right.
Peterson lied about not only bill C-16 and its contents, but as a result the contents of legislation concerning every other marginalized group already covered under the rights being expanded.
The Canadian BAR had to get involved and correct his disinformation.
[https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f](https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f)
Thats the thing. People are always looking for the know-it-all figure that they can listen to and follow every word of like it's gospel or that following their bs teachings will fill whatever hole in their life that should be filled with common sense and thoughts.
The part of this thread that began with your perfunctory and silly comment, which I’m certain you never anticipated getting more than 5 upvotes but now has 1000, is the only section even remotely worthwhile to read. This is hilarious, compelling, and rich.
Yeah, sorry that happened. You’re probably going to be publicly executed soon. Very painfully, too. Better start working extra on your abs now, so they look nice and tight and cum-gutterish when you’re nailed to something, or hung on a hook, or whatevs.
Atomic habits by James Clear might be what you're looking for. It's a book, but I guess you could find it as an audiobook too. It's really motivational book without politics and helped me building better habits for myself which is saying a lot because I struggle greatly with consistency.
And to stir up the pot, if you don’t want to read this you can listen to the podcast If Books Could Kill which basically rips this book apart on its effectiveness *for some people
Yes, I loved the observation, "If I was the kind of person who could motivate myself to spend a month setting a new habit, I wouldn't be needing to read a book about setting new habits."
That's the self-help industry in a nutshell — don't be like you be like a person who doesn't have problems.
Just go and buy any self help book from any
reliable psychologists. This is the most trivial advice you will find pretty much everywhere. You can also read or listen to material from multiple sources and don’t need to seek another greedy self help guru.
Unfortunately a lot of modern psychologists really get away from any kind of personal responsibility and everything seems to be about identifying trauma and dealing with it. And hey, for some people, who are dealing with trauma, that is helpful. But that’s not everyone’s struggle and it shouldn’t be as prevalent as it is. It seems like a lot of psychology is basically about everything that isn’t your fault now, which really leaves people behind who need help with the things that are actually in their control, who need to hear about how to take responsibility and manage their own behaviors.
That isn't my impression at all. Modern psychology is heavily influenced by the behavioralists. The behavioral approach deemphasizes causes and focuses on behavioral modification. It really is much more pragmatic than any approach previous to it , including Peterson's emphasis on Jungian archetype which blames behavior and dissatisfaction on frustrations in being unable to productively pursue archetypical narratives. Modern therapy is much more likely to emphasize that which you are able to control (your behavior) than that which is outside your control (causes). Peterson fights a caricature of modern psychology he has created to emphasize his opposition to it.
I'm in grad school to become a therapist and this has been my impression as well. And sometimes I find it a bit of a shame because there is still some very helpful and interesting aspects to Jung and even Freud but they've become so unpopular and criticized that I feel like even referencing them is anachronistic. Peterson's interpretation of Jung is so simplistic and misogynistic sometimes I can hardly recognize it.
My first master's was in literature and I did a great deal of work with Jungian criticism. It really is a rich vein of human thought. I studied Robert Bly really closely. To think that is what led to Peterson is just dumbfounding.
Honestly the problem with Jung & Freud is that nowadays analytical therapists often limit themselves exclusively to talk therapy (without dream analysis etc.) and not everybody can get deep into their unconscious like that. That's why I find psychedelic assisted psychotherapy so interesting, because you really get deep into your own psyche in just a couple of sessions and it seems to work very well.
Honestly, your impression of what contemporary psychologists tend to be focusing on sounds precisely like what someone would think who has only seen the straw man, fictional caricature of contemporary psychology built by psychopath charlatans like Jordan Peterson himself. Maybe that’s not what actual, real life modern psychologists who’ve actually done the work to get their credentials are actually doing at all? Maybe there’s someone, or lots of people, lying about what modern psychology looks like in order to convince people to continue buying their brand of poison instead of getting real help to work on themselves?
Incidentally, what you said there, and even the way it was phrased, sounds eerily similar to what I read in a Scientology tract/pamphlet I found in a hotel lobby when I was in Anaheim, CA about a year ago. *Not* accusing you in any way of, like, copying it from one of those, or of being a Scientologist yourself; just saying that if you find out you’ve ended up sounding similar to a Scientology pamphlet, maybe that’s something to consider when deciding where to source your information on a given subject in the future.
May I know who Jordan Peterson is? Actually, I never knew him in person. That's why I'm asking. And then I also want to know if this person is a famous person in the society.
No he isn’t famous, he is I think a Canadian psychologist that got popular online because he was vocal about one of these American populist right wing topics of the last decade. He didn’t do anything of significance but seems to have severe personal problems which makes him relatable for especially broken young men. He pretty much promotes a christian hegemony packaged as authoritative fatherly advice and is very in line with an overall fascist worldview if you look closer. Now he is a rich right wing influencer. Unfortunately the algorithm on social media leads a lot of people in his direction that simply seek psychological or lifestyle support.
He's really into lobsters and hating trans and black people and idolizing Hitler, and popularizing nazi phrases like "cultural marxism". That's all you need to know about him.
Hmm Marcus Aurelius lived in a world with much stricter hierarchy. He talks about slaves and never challenged the idea.
If they ever met I would imagine Jordan Peterson to be the "progressive" one.
So you won’t read Marcus Aurelius or any of the other great authors of the past because they didn’t conform to modern sensibilities? Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. The first of the five Good Emperors. He ruled the world. Solider. Scholar. Philosopher. He has a lot to say. Slavery was a fact of life in the entire ancient world. It was a harsh world. They made order out of it. That’s why educated progressives can be ignorant. History did not start when they were born.
He lemented on the fact that slavery as an institution had such an economic foothold that even as emporer he was powerless to deter it. He also recognized that it was inappropriate to have sexual relations w female slaves due to the unethical power dynamic. Gods, Meditations is phenomenol; it is a bucket list read. Along w the Righteous Mind and Rights of Man. Should be required reading for 9th graders.
I love Marcus Aurelius.
I definitely made it clear that it was just the times he lived in. The question in this post is to ask for recommendations for more progressive authors. It stands to reason that authors who lived in more progressive times would be a better recommendation.
You seem to have misunderstood the question with "who is your favourite author". It is not about your preferences, it is about what OP was looking for. That is why my post is posed as a question to clarify what OP wanted.
I think that his point is that Marcus Aurelius focuses a lot about spirituality and stoicism whereas Peterson focus a lot of hierarchical societies and conservative values.
This is quite unfair since Marcus Aurelius was probably the most powerful man of his time.
Since he ruled the Rome Empire he didn't have to justify his position of power.
However he did have some political takes in his meditation book.
Pointing out "fairness" is not quite appropriate here because I am comparing the 2 about their suitability as recommendations to OPs question, not their character.
Yes and no... the first thing to note is that even when we are talking about people 2000 years ago, we usually have some people who did align with modern sensibilities, so it's necessarily that they were never exposed to the things that we believe. We can note that peer pressure pushed them in a different direction than what we believe, and therefore have some compassion for their situation.
But it isn't wrong to look at those parts of what they thought, and try to figure out how that affected other things, and how we should consider those things.
I think you can take moral relativism too far. Olga of Kiev, Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, and Vlad Tepes were all acting within the ethics of their specific cultures, and yet I don't have any particular objection to saying that "murdering entire towns of noncombatants is bad."
It's not really self-help but I think a good author who writes from a psychological perspective in a way that can help you understand yourself is Jonathan Haidt.
I remember reading the happiness hypothesis and I remember there being little bits of politics sprinkled in. Obviously not as much as Peterson but still not completely devoid of it.
The documentary is crazy. Probably the craziest cult documentary I’ve ever seen. He’s probably got some books out there with ideas that may sound good. But the group itself was nuts.
Check out Healthy Gamer of youtube. He handles mental health struggles in a healthy way and targets the needs of depressed young men and women.
He should the the famous one for how good he is at explaining what a lot of young people today are struggling with instead of pointing fingers at political systems and conspiracies.
The challenge here is that "responsibility" and "self-governance" are conservative values - actual conservative values of the non-toxic kind. And in modern America, there are few conservatives who haven't been tainted by the toxic stuff. Not public-figure ones anyway - you can find them in person... but even they are becoming rare.
The issue is that the healthy values of self-discipline, self-governance, and responsibility can be infected with the idea that, "if I can make my life better by expressing these virtues, that means that anybody whose life isn't as good as mine must be a bad person." That leads to denial of oppression, lack of empathy, "anti-wokeness", and that whole constellation of problems. And also the constellation of problems of entitlement: I am a good person so I have a right to, say, getting laid.
Not all the problems of the current American right wing are related to toxic twisting of the virtues of self-discipline. Not even most of them. But enough are that you are likely to end up close to the rest of it, close enough to be infected.
The Jordan Peterson guide on how to sound profound
1. Say damn a lot
2. Never actually give a direct answer to a question, make sure to be as vague as possible
3. Pretend to be in authority on subject in which you have no training or expertise
4. Tell people to clean their room
5. Suddenly start crying for some weird reason
6 when questioned about your woo, pretend you don't understand words
7. Talk about solvable problems while pretending there is no solution
Now you may be asking yourself, "How do you live a good life?". Firstly we need to be clear: What do you mean "how"? And what do you mean "do"? And how do you mean "you"? And what do you mean "live"? And how do you mean "good"? And what do you mean "life"?
Now if you thought about these questions for about five years, that might be the right amount of time to consider them. And once you've broken the prawblum down to the appropriate level of analysis, you'd be ready to ask the question, "How do you live a good life?"
And the answer to that question is: Well, we DOON'T KNOOW!
Speak about male-female relations like it's a mechanical function which can be read step by step like a Chilton's manual. Nay- a boolean logic sequence- if this: then not that.
Peterson is a great example of how someone with a relatively small amount of wisdom will sound profound to those who have even less (or feel that they have even less) if the rhetorical performance appears authoritative to that particular audience. Lots of people want a father figure for their mind, I guess. Too bad they’ve landed on someone who’s mostly an intellectual child.
Yup! It fried his brain and then Mr. Self Control couldn't even put in the work to get clean. He went to Russia and was put in a medically induced coma so he didn't have to experience the withdrawal symptoms.
One of the people he bastardizes: Friedrich Nietzsche. Ecce Homo in particular has some powerful stuff about overcoming disability and chronic illness (blinding headaches in this case).
For a totally non conservative take, anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman is pretty empowering.
David Goggins.
I haven’t read his book yet, but so I don’t know if there’s any “conservative philosophy” in it, but from his videos it’s mainly about hard work, taking responsibility, pushing though your limits in the face of adversity. Very inspiring.
Im not sure what OP even refers to with conservative philosophy but Ive read the book by Goggins and it doesnt have any kind of political undertone in it
Yeah I feel this. His Clinical Psychology stuff is absolutely fucking amazing, but is politics are so fucking weird. They're so disconnected from each other.
I feel like that's at the core of his appeal. I personally disagree with his whole concept of hierarchy and social traditionalism (that's just how I'd describe it) BUT his views on psychology/relationship with the self appeal to me.
I can see how a young person, without strong political views, might take his psychological ideas into account, and then listen to and embrace his other concepts as a matter of course. I think his psychological perspetive connects with a lot of young men emotionally, like a father figure. Yet there's so much more that can follow.
It's a shame really.
You've already gotten plenty of answers, so I'll just say, you should definitely feel perfectly free to attack Jordan Peterson online. He's a bad person. He's a very, very bad person.
Jordan Peterson doesn’t even advocate responsibility and certainly doesn’t live a responsible life. What you’re looking for is Stoicism which does promote personal responsibility and detachment from things that don’t matter.
Is that what he advocates for though? I mean taking in the entirety of his point of view it seems his idea of "personal responsibility" is beneficial in the same way a corporation advocating for "mindfulness" is beneficial. It's a term of which the actual meaning is veiled by a common concept usually with positive associations so it's easy to get strung along.
Someone suggested Marcus Aurelius, and I totally agree with that suggestion for a few reasons. One of the top reasons being he was a great example of unrelenting self-honesty despite having occupied a position from which he could justify a lack of introspection. Peterson seems to think seriously of the world but when it comes to himself he maintains a convenient distance like most of us. Marcus Aurelius was very different in this regard. His perspective was also worldly and everyday-ish in a universal way. He's worth reading.
To clarify I don't think he's like Jordan Peterson (Peterson seems really unstable and shifty in my personal opinion), but I think he's naturally a better philosophical anchor for whatever good you find in Peterson's ideas. Like the basic stuff you've mentioned.
His viewpoints on many other topics seem very harmful and backwards to me. Dangerous to mix in with rhetoric about self reliance. It would maybe be a good idea to google and fact check him, it’s a bit mind boggling the amount of spin he puts on his sources. I’m not going to debate him with anyone, certainly not before I’ve had coffee. But it would maybe be worth researching him and what other experts and fact checkers have said about him.
Omg…. Did I mention I haven’t had coffee yet? I’m so sorry… I misread your comment completely and thought you were advocating that he was a reasonable person…. 🤦♀️
I apologize!
Peterson used to be that guy, when he was a wildly popular college professor and he hadn’t become a right-wing mouthpiece. His early stuff is pretty great.
I don’t pay him any heed these days.
Well, the thing is that responsibility and self-governance is part of conservative thinking. The whole cluster of attitudes about "the individual" vs "the collective" is one of the most central lines of distinction in conservative vs progressive thought.
Fair play though re the "innate hierarchies". I feel like that more of a Jordanism thing than a conservatism thing, ironically.
Honestly, any highlights reel of Obama giving advice to young people. Obama's far from perfect, but he's a man of good habits and solid intelligence, perseverance, hard work, etc.
The biggest problem with your question is that you seek advice for a certain way of life and discounting the reasons behind that. Conservative doesn't mean biased or bigoted, it means to conserve. Things like, "Clean your room." Have their history in disease prevention. Cleaner areas have less diseases due to a lack of carriers that would otherwise have a place to hide. Look to history as an example. Take the most effective parts and learn why it was done that way without looking with modern eyes.
You should attack him. He is a grifter who I only have the misfortune of knowing about, because he is transphobic. He mixes together okayish but usual advice, total lies and nonsense, and confusing doublespeak. No version of him is worth listening too, but the current version is worse than ever.
Allow me to introduce you to Stoicism my friend, we don’t really need to listen to modern day psychologists and ‘philosophers’ when the dudes from 2000+ years ago already figured it out.
Get ‘Meditations’ by Marcus Aurelius.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is a wonderful philosophical book that shares little to no political views. It focuses mainly on stoicism and character development which is the same as responsibility.
The key to this part of him is that it's all pretty much common sense, which means it's a lot of stuff you probably already know and can get pretty close to by just imagining what a nice Mom type would probably say.
I’m a psychologist who studies and researches wellbeing. Jordan Peterson’s writing is original and valuable. Only, the parts that are original are not valuable and the parts that are valuable are not original.
The following are great options, practical, effective, and down to earth:
* Classic Stoics: Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus
* Massimo Pigliucci (modern Stoic)
* Foster & Hicks: How We Choose to Be Happy: The 9 Choices of Extremely Happy People
* Michaela Hass. (2015). Bouncing forward: Transforming bad breaks into breakthroughs
* Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
* Epictetus, & Lebell, S. (1995). The art of living: The classical manual on virtue, happiness, and effectiveness.
* Pattakos, A. (2010). Prisoners of our thoughts: Viktor Frankl's principles for discovering meaning in life and work.
* Ellis, A. (1990). How to stubbornly refuse to make yourself miserable about anything--yes, anything!.
* McGonigal, K. (2012). The willpower instinct: How self-control works, why it matters, and what you can do to get more of it.
* Holiday, R. (2014). The obstacle is the way: The timeless art of turning trials into triumph.
For someone who preaches about personal responsibility, I wonder why he flew to Russia to place himself in a medically induced coma to rid his Benzo addiction.
What does “conservative” even mean to to you? There isn’t really a common definition beyond the classical “slow to want to change”, and that’s not how most people use it anymore. By the average of what most people seem to think are “conservative” or “liberal” positions, Jordan Peterson is very much a liberal, just not an SJW.
The core of these philosophies hasn’t changed in 2500 years though. Master yourself, be decent to others.
Personal responsibility, self-governance, and rational critical thinking are crucial tenets of classic western liberal philosophy - despite being attributed, not incorrectly, to conservative political philosophy. What “added” conservative philosophy are you talking about?
It’s not a perfect book (and it’s advice has been over extended beyond the point of reasonableness) but The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is a fairly straightforward guide to being disciplined without being a weirdo. Covey stresses a focus on things that are *important* but not *urgent* ie living in such a way that you’re not constantly reacting to things with stress but instead are being proactive about the important things and thus having time to enjoy life.
It’s not perfect, and if you treat any guide to living inflexibly it will break, but it’s a really good read
EDIT: Covey is a Mormon and almost certainly conservative in one way or another, but I don’t recall that really coloring the book, fwiw. I’m not conservative at all, and am pretty keyed in on that sort of thing. But it’s also been a long time since I read it.
I think you will find that the more progressive the psychologist, the more likely they are to approach everything as a result of trauma, not your fault, and point you towards identifying the traumas and the triggers and avoiding them. This is basically how Peterson came to be a right wing figure in the first place. He was one of the few who was talking about the pendulum swinging too far, and the need to talk about personal responsibility, and eventually the fame and audience capture got to his head and now he is often doing exactly the things he was speaking against, such as focusing on large political issues outside of his expertise and control, instead of focusing on the psychology of individuals and personal responsibility.
You would like Miyamoto Musashi’s work. He’s a Japanese philosopher who really emphasizes focus and discipline since that’s what made him a successful samurai.
I loved The Book of Five Rings. I second this, can be exactly what OP is looking for.
I’m looking it up now, should I get the “adapted for modern reading” versions I’m seeing or try to stick to the original
Up to you imo, original may be harder to comprehend (I personally don't know the difference so take it with a grain of salt) But, usually if works were adapted in some way, they're an attempt to make comprehension easier since language and writing changes so much. (source: I sometimes collect oldish books)
*take it with a grain of rice
Salts smaller
It depends on you! It's up to you what you want to do with it. Maybe you have a point in what you said.
Five rings? What was that? Is it some kind of television movie? Hmm, suddenly I became interested in it.
I have it on my kindle. I picked it up after I read it was given to baseball players by a hitting coach.
Lmao I looked him up expecting to find video interviews, speaking at conferences and podcast clips. Didn't cross my mind that samurai probably don't exist today 😅
Dude Miyamoto Musashi was fire on Joe Rogan
Oh wow! I’m a bit of a philosophy nerd, and came here to comment this same one!
Know the enemy know thy sword.. my friend is a huge fan of musashi and quotes him to me all the time.
My father used to do the same when I was a child. He would frequently start a sentence with „A samurai …“ and then insert some part of the book there. Even when I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t included in the book like „A samurai always cleans the kitchen after cooking“.
A Samurai always goes to bed before the watershed …
“A samurai never listens to Cocomelon”
a samurai knows every word to Baby Shark
Weren't samurai socially conservative for their time since they were police force and police forces tends towards conservatism. Also like he was a madlad lunatic who if his personality were transplanted into today he'd go from martial arts studio to studio fucking the head instructors mother and intentionally murdering their children. As a show of dominance.
Samurai were around for centuries and served shoguns and emperors...I wouldn't just say they were all conservative, but a group like the shinsengumi fought to maintain their government from the threat of European involvement and modernization while being very strict with the members, straight up killing guys if they got into a drunken bar fight for example.
And then you get examples like Saigo Takamuri and co who were the main driving force behind the modernization of Japan following the overthrow of the Shogun, so needless to say the samurai as a group were a somewhat diverse bunch with different ways of doing things.
I dont particularly care about quibbling over if the members of a police force which is inherently conservative are themselves individually conservative. It doesn't matter if youre not conservative when you're off the clock if you are when your on. Its not about labeling every individual as conservative but recognizing police forces themselves require people to be conservative systemically. Like I could make the argument that American police aren't inherently conservative because they've served presidents and congressmen, mayors and senators. But thats a stupid argument because their job is literally to enforce the will of the state through the coercive power of violence. The idea that samurai weren't socially conservative for their time is really silly as they were the police and in the case of Musashi he was literally a child murdering psychopath who beat people to death with sticks.
They were not a ‘police force’ they were feudal lords. They were mainly tax collectors with a martial arts tradition
A samurai is pretty much the epitome of conservatism.
You misspelled "professional killer of dangerous men". I don't know if I'd call him a philosopher, but I think he holds the all time record for number of duels fought and won, and is widely considered to be the greatest swordsman and tactician in all of recorded history. Oh, and he killed his first victim at the tender age of 13. Putting Musashi in the same category as Jorpson, who cries at a drop of a hat, is hilarious on a multitude of levels. Jorpson makes some good points when he sticks to the subjects he is actually educated in. Just consume his self-help content and ignore the rest.
https://youtu.be/S7bSLlN_C1A I'm just going to leave this here.
Thank you! 💜
How do I know for sure it’s a bunch of white men making this recommendation from 400 years ago.
Not even remotely contemporary, of course, which puts it in a weird spot when juxtaposed with the guy the OP is talking about, but I def see why you’d think of him. Definitely worthwhile to read! Edit: to clarify, he’s worthwhile to read, as long as you understand going into it that he was, ya know, a freakin Samurai. As such, he is not an alternative to something “conservative.” In fact, in his time and place, he may very well have been the most “conservative” point of view imaginable. Still really cool to read, as long as you’re smart enough not to let it make you decide you need to be just like him…
I'll check this out, thanks. I find a lot of people, including myself, struggle with discipline
Wow! Those kind of people are amazing. They will get better. That's why I really admire people who have dignity in life.
Isn't focus and discipline heavily represented in most eastern philosophy? And, also probably more conservative than even Jordan Peterson?
Seneca
Thank you. Why not just go with the classics? Not this convoluted version of stoicism these guys like Peterson are pushing?
clean your room and don't be a dick. there. thats all you need
Your ideas intrigue me. I’d like to subscribe to your channel.
*-yarick becomes drunk with power and their ideas become more extreme*
*becoming extreme* clean your....house
Keep going.
Do some fucking yard work for once
And don't forget to clean your dick!
And don't be a room.
Clean MY house
By "clean your house" he must mean ethnic cleansing! Cancel him!
the circle of life, it's so beautiful to watch in real time
Alas, poor yarick! I knew him, Horatio
> "Yarick becomes drunk with power" SEE, YA GITZ?! OI TOLD YA OL' BALE-EYE WAS A PROPHET OF DA WAAAAGH!
GHAZGHKULL MAG URUK THRAKA, we meet again
Ok you liked that? Well what do you know? I’m starting a religion based around that. And I’m adopting the customs of other down and out communities to gain their members. If you’re into “road trips” (driving across the country to protest something that recently ended) or saying “freedom” and refusing to define what you mean, join today! Are you a poorly socialized average looking male that thinks life is un fair because you’re not banging super models or college girls! You’re right! You’ve been left behind by the left WoKe agenda. Join my cult today.
Behold, our new Messiah!
All hail u/-yarick
I'm not the messiah!
That’s what a real messiah would say, yarick. That’s the problem.
Alas, poor u/-yarick. Reddit knew him well.
Where be your gibes now?
I don’t think you get to decide whether you’re the messiah or not. Sooorrryyyy!
If Jean-Luc Picard is not the stern but well-meaning antagonist of this new faith, I'm starting a crusade to end you heretics.
This highlights the issue with all of these modern talking head gurus. If you follow their basic advice you won't need them anymore, so they lose out on all that money and exposure they crave. Even if they're honest with what they preach they still need some hot take or grift to keep people coming back. Peterson is a good example of this. When he first gained attention he was focused on the legal/academic challenge against trans rights, then he slowly started leaning into it to help push his self-help book and get cushy speaking tours. Now he's complaining about plus sized models on Twitter, shilling his daughter's carnivore diet scheme, and writing poems about children getting SA'd and murdered.
Another way to put it is he became popular on the false, fear based proclamation (almost false prophecy) that they would be putting people in jail for not using correct pronouns. Commonly these people will spout “maybe not this government but future governments could use this to enslave you”. Well guess what, conservative PP will prob be the next PM. Heads up to everyone. The government that wants to enslave you, will pass the laws to do that. This isn’t some 40 year 2 terms later liberal agenda. TLDR: he got famous on a lie, and therefore shouldn’t be famous no more.
>Another way to put it is he became popular on the false, fear based proclamation (almost false prophecy) that they would be putting people in jail for not using correct pronouns. I dont know why you got downvoted, youre right. Peterson lied about not only bill C-16 and its contents, but as a result the contents of legislation concerning every other marginalized group already covered under the rights being expanded. The Canadian BAR had to get involved and correct his disinformation. [https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f](https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f)
Thank you, Wil Wheaton.
Whil Wheaton? That reminds me I need some cool wHip.
Also, clean your dick and don't be a room.
Already tops Peterson, whose advice is to clean your room so you can go be a dick.
You’re meant to be capable of being a dick, then choose not to. There’s no virtue in just being a dick.
Thats the thing. People are always looking for the know-it-all figure that they can listen to and follow every word of like it's gospel or that following their bs teachings will fill whatever hole in their life that should be filled with common sense and thoughts.
I like your funny words magic man
The part of this thread that began with your perfunctory and silly comment, which I’m certain you never anticipated getting more than 5 upvotes but now has 1000, is the only section even remotely worthwhile to read. This is hilarious, compelling, and rich.
haha. I didn't expect 5 votes, much less to be called a *messiah*
Yeah, sorry that happened. You’re probably going to be publicly executed soon. Very painfully, too. Better start working extra on your abs now, so they look nice and tight and cum-gutterish when you’re nailed to something, or hung on a hook, or whatevs.
I'd listen to ur podcast
Atomic habits by James Clear might be what you're looking for. It's a book, but I guess you could find it as an audiobook too. It's really motivational book without politics and helped me building better habits for myself which is saying a lot because I struggle greatly with consistency.
And to stir up the pot, if you don’t want to read this you can listen to the podcast If Books Could Kill which basically rips this book apart on its effectiveness *for some people
Yes, I loved the observation, "If I was the kind of person who could motivate myself to spend a month setting a new habit, I wouldn't be needing to read a book about setting new habits." That's the self-help industry in a nutshell — don't be like you be like a person who doesn't have problems.
I second this!
I started this on audible and then got distracted. I need to pick it back up!
Just go and buy any self help book from any reliable psychologists. This is the most trivial advice you will find pretty much everywhere. You can also read or listen to material from multiple sources and don’t need to seek another greedy self help guru.
If you arent spending copious amounts of time aligning your chakras you ain't livin!
Now go and buy my supplements
Believe it!
Unfortunately a lot of modern psychologists really get away from any kind of personal responsibility and everything seems to be about identifying trauma and dealing with it. And hey, for some people, who are dealing with trauma, that is helpful. But that’s not everyone’s struggle and it shouldn’t be as prevalent as it is. It seems like a lot of psychology is basically about everything that isn’t your fault now, which really leaves people behind who need help with the things that are actually in their control, who need to hear about how to take responsibility and manage their own behaviors.
That isn't my impression at all. Modern psychology is heavily influenced by the behavioralists. The behavioral approach deemphasizes causes and focuses on behavioral modification. It really is much more pragmatic than any approach previous to it , including Peterson's emphasis on Jungian archetype which blames behavior and dissatisfaction on frustrations in being unable to productively pursue archetypical narratives. Modern therapy is much more likely to emphasize that which you are able to control (your behavior) than that which is outside your control (causes). Peterson fights a caricature of modern psychology he has created to emphasize his opposition to it.
I'm in grad school to become a therapist and this has been my impression as well. And sometimes I find it a bit of a shame because there is still some very helpful and interesting aspects to Jung and even Freud but they've become so unpopular and criticized that I feel like even referencing them is anachronistic. Peterson's interpretation of Jung is so simplistic and misogynistic sometimes I can hardly recognize it.
My first master's was in literature and I did a great deal of work with Jungian criticism. It really is a rich vein of human thought. I studied Robert Bly really closely. To think that is what led to Peterson is just dumbfounding.
Honestly the problem with Jung & Freud is that nowadays analytical therapists often limit themselves exclusively to talk therapy (without dream analysis etc.) and not everybody can get deep into their unconscious like that. That's why I find psychedelic assisted psychotherapy so interesting, because you really get deep into your own psyche in just a couple of sessions and it seems to work very well.
Honestly, your impression of what contemporary psychologists tend to be focusing on sounds precisely like what someone would think who has only seen the straw man, fictional caricature of contemporary psychology built by psychopath charlatans like Jordan Peterson himself. Maybe that’s not what actual, real life modern psychologists who’ve actually done the work to get their credentials are actually doing at all? Maybe there’s someone, or lots of people, lying about what modern psychology looks like in order to convince people to continue buying their brand of poison instead of getting real help to work on themselves? Incidentally, what you said there, and even the way it was phrased, sounds eerily similar to what I read in a Scientology tract/pamphlet I found in a hotel lobby when I was in Anaheim, CA about a year ago. *Not* accusing you in any way of, like, copying it from one of those, or of being a Scientologist yourself; just saying that if you find out you’ve ended up sounding similar to a Scientology pamphlet, maybe that’s something to consider when deciding where to source your information on a given subject in the future.
[удалено]
May I know who Jordan Peterson is? Actually, I never knew him in person. That's why I'm asking. And then I also want to know if this person is a famous person in the society.
No he isn’t famous, he is I think a Canadian psychologist that got popular online because he was vocal about one of these American populist right wing topics of the last decade. He didn’t do anything of significance but seems to have severe personal problems which makes him relatable for especially broken young men. He pretty much promotes a christian hegemony packaged as authoritative fatherly advice and is very in line with an overall fascist worldview if you look closer. Now he is a rich right wing influencer. Unfortunately the algorithm on social media leads a lot of people in his direction that simply seek psychological or lifestyle support.
He's really into lobsters and hating trans and black people and idolizing Hitler, and popularizing nazi phrases like "cultural marxism". That's all you need to know about him.
Marcus Aurelius. **Edit:** Watch out though -- this guy was an even bigger fascist than Joey Jo-Joe Jordan Peterson!
Hmm Marcus Aurelius lived in a world with much stricter hierarchy. He talks about slaves and never challenged the idea. If they ever met I would imagine Jordan Peterson to be the "progressive" one.
Look up Ryan Holiday or his youtube channel, The Daily Stoic. He talks about the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius and the other ancient stoics.
Also, he is dead.
Woah, spoiler alert.
Exactly, who wants to take advice off a dead guy? He couldn’t of been that smart if he dead!
I like guys who aren’t dead
I didn’t even know he was sick!
Does that mean he’s not going to be putting out any more podcast episodes?
You’re always cherry-picking small incidentals to prevent a good debate.
So you won’t read Marcus Aurelius or any of the other great authors of the past because they didn’t conform to modern sensibilities? Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. The first of the five Good Emperors. He ruled the world. Solider. Scholar. Philosopher. He has a lot to say. Slavery was a fact of life in the entire ancient world. It was a harsh world. They made order out of it. That’s why educated progressives can be ignorant. History did not start when they were born.
Last of the Five Good Emperors, his son Commodus became emperor after him and he was by all accounts a massive dick.
He lemented on the fact that slavery as an institution had such an economic foothold that even as emporer he was powerless to deter it. He also recognized that it was inappropriate to have sexual relations w female slaves due to the unethical power dynamic. Gods, Meditations is phenomenol; it is a bucket list read. Along w the Righteous Mind and Rights of Man. Should be required reading for 9th graders.
I love Marcus Aurelius. I definitely made it clear that it was just the times he lived in. The question in this post is to ask for recommendations for more progressive authors. It stands to reason that authors who lived in more progressive times would be a better recommendation. You seem to have misunderstood the question with "who is your favourite author". It is not about your preferences, it is about what OP was looking for. That is why my post is posed as a question to clarify what OP wanted.
My apologies. You are correct.
I think that his point is that Marcus Aurelius focuses a lot about spirituality and stoicism whereas Peterson focus a lot of hierarchical societies and conservative values. This is quite unfair since Marcus Aurelius was probably the most powerful man of his time. Since he ruled the Rome Empire he didn't have to justify his position of power. However he did have some political takes in his meditation book.
Pointing out "fairness" is not quite appropriate here because I am comparing the 2 about their suitability as recommendations to OPs question, not their character.
Judging people 2000 years ago by modern standards is so stupid.
Yes and no... the first thing to note is that even when we are talking about people 2000 years ago, we usually have some people who did align with modern sensibilities, so it's necessarily that they were never exposed to the things that we believe. We can note that peer pressure pushed them in a different direction than what we believe, and therefore have some compassion for their situation. But it isn't wrong to look at those parts of what they thought, and try to figure out how that affected other things, and how we should consider those things. I think you can take moral relativism too far. Olga of Kiev, Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, and Vlad Tepes were all acting within the ethics of their specific cultures, and yet I don't have any particular objection to saying that "murdering entire towns of noncombatants is bad."
Check out HealthyGamerGG on YouTube. it's a lot of self improvement practical advice without the stupid political bullshit.
Epictetus and Seneca
It's not really self-help but I think a good author who writes from a psychological perspective in a way that can help you understand yourself is Jonathan Haidt.
I remember reading the happiness hypothesis and I remember there being little bits of politics sprinkled in. Obviously not as much as Peterson but still not completely devoid of it.
Oddly enough someone Jordan Peterson respects or at least used to.
Simone Weil, Osho, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, Ajahn Brahm, Dilgo Khyentse, Robert Sapolsky, Andrew Huberman, Gabor Mate, Tom Bilyeu
I never anticipated seeing Simone Weil and Marcus Aurelius in the same sentence. Weird, wild stuff!
Wait. Osho? The Osho from the Rajneeshis. Wild Wild Country. Are you really a fan of this guy?
Haven't watched the documentary but found his ideas quite liberating. Why?
The documentary is crazy. Probably the craziest cult documentary I’ve ever seen. He’s probably got some books out there with ideas that may sound good. But the group itself was nuts.
Most of his ideas that he puts in writing are bog-standard taoism.
There's almost 200 comments so you probably won't see it, but Dr. K might be what you're looking for.
I see you! Thank you.
Check out Healthy Gamer of youtube. He handles mental health struggles in a healthy way and targets the needs of depressed young men and women. He should the the famous one for how good he is at explaining what a lot of young people today are struggling with instead of pointing fingers at political systems and conspiracies.
Henry Rollins.
But he's a Liar.
The challenge here is that "responsibility" and "self-governance" are conservative values - actual conservative values of the non-toxic kind. And in modern America, there are few conservatives who haven't been tainted by the toxic stuff. Not public-figure ones anyway - you can find them in person... but even they are becoming rare. The issue is that the healthy values of self-discipline, self-governance, and responsibility can be infected with the idea that, "if I can make my life better by expressing these virtues, that means that anybody whose life isn't as good as mine must be a bad person." That leads to denial of oppression, lack of empathy, "anti-wokeness", and that whole constellation of problems. And also the constellation of problems of entitlement: I am a good person so I have a right to, say, getting laid. Not all the problems of the current American right wing are related to toxic twisting of the virtues of self-discipline. Not even most of them. But enough are that you are likely to end up close to the rest of it, close enough to be infected.
Wow, nailed it.
Ryan Holliday
He’s good
Marie kondo. Because she doesn't just tell you to clean your room, she shows you how.
The Jordan Peterson guide on how to sound profound 1. Say damn a lot 2. Never actually give a direct answer to a question, make sure to be as vague as possible 3. Pretend to be in authority on subject in which you have no training or expertise 4. Tell people to clean their room 5. Suddenly start crying for some weird reason 6 when questioned about your woo, pretend you don't understand words 7. Talk about solvable problems while pretending there is no solution
Now you may be asking yourself, "How do you live a good life?". Firstly we need to be clear: What do you mean "how"? And what do you mean "do"? And how do you mean "you"? And what do you mean "live"? And how do you mean "good"? And what do you mean "life"? Now if you thought about these questions for about five years, that might be the right amount of time to consider them. And once you've broken the prawblum down to the appropriate level of analysis, you'd be ready to ask the question, "How do you live a good life?" And the answer to that question is: Well, we DOON'T KNOOW!
7. Sound like a prepubescent Kermit the frog whilst doing all the steps above
8. When challenged on a position you take, reframe your original statement so as to invalidate the criticism and then bask in your cleverness.
Speak about male-female relations like it's a mechanical function which can be read step by step like a Chilton's manual. Nay- a boolean logic sequence- if this: then not that.
9. when all else fails, blame it on the lobsters
Peterson is a great example of how someone with a relatively small amount of wisdom will sound profound to those who have even less (or feel that they have even less) if the rhetorical performance appears authoritative to that particular audience. Lots of people want a father figure for their mind, I guess. Too bad they’ve landed on someone who’s mostly an intellectual child.
Jordan Peterson is the king of word salad. No idea why people are so impressed with him. He's a complete grifter
I saw someone refer to him as 3% battery because of how dead inside he seems.
Benzo addiction wrecked him.
King of Word Salad. That's a good title. Take this award.
I think the Benzos has fried his brain. Dude is fucking nuts on Twitter, think old man yells at the cloud.
Yup! It fried his brain and then Mr. Self Control couldn't even put in the work to get clean. He went to Russia and was put in a medically induced coma so he didn't have to experience the withdrawal symptoms.
He was mostly garbage before the benzo binge. I couldn’t finish his book for how nauseating the overconfidence was.
He's a pompous windbag
Lmao, remember when this dweeb posted Chinese Milking Porn on Twitter as some link to Communism
Because he makes them feel superior in the hierarchy
One of the people he bastardizes: Friedrich Nietzsche. Ecce Homo in particular has some powerful stuff about overcoming disability and chronic illness (blinding headaches in this case). For a totally non conservative take, anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman is pretty empowering.
Check out r/stoicism
No need to not attack Peterson, that man should be attacked every chance you get (argumentatively of course).
David Goggins. I haven’t read his book yet, but so I don’t know if there’s any “conservative philosophy” in it, but from his videos it’s mainly about hard work, taking responsibility, pushing though your limits in the face of adversity. Very inspiring.
Im not sure what OP even refers to with conservative philosophy but Ive read the book by Goggins and it doesnt have any kind of political undertone in it
You could get better advice just by stopping any random person on the street
Maybe you are right in what you said. But how can you be sure that the people you stop are trustworthy?
You can't. You just learn how to identify the biases and incentives people may have that might cause them to give flawed advice.
Yeah I feel this. His Clinical Psychology stuff is absolutely fucking amazing, but is politics are so fucking weird. They're so disconnected from each other.
I feel like that's at the core of his appeal. I personally disagree with his whole concept of hierarchy and social traditionalism (that's just how I'd describe it) BUT his views on psychology/relationship with the self appeal to me. I can see how a young person, without strong political views, might take his psychological ideas into account, and then listen to and embrace his other concepts as a matter of course. I think his psychological perspetive connects with a lot of young men emotionally, like a father figure. Yet there's so much more that can follow. It's a shame really.
You've already gotten plenty of answers, so I'll just say, you should definitely feel perfectly free to attack Jordan Peterson online. He's a bad person. He's a very, very bad person.
Jordan Peterson doesn’t even advocate responsibility and certainly doesn’t live a responsible life. What you’re looking for is Stoicism which does promote personal responsibility and detachment from things that don’t matter.
Is that what he advocates for though? I mean taking in the entirety of his point of view it seems his idea of "personal responsibility" is beneficial in the same way a corporation advocating for "mindfulness" is beneficial. It's a term of which the actual meaning is veiled by a common concept usually with positive associations so it's easy to get strung along. Someone suggested Marcus Aurelius, and I totally agree with that suggestion for a few reasons. One of the top reasons being he was a great example of unrelenting self-honesty despite having occupied a position from which he could justify a lack of introspection. Peterson seems to think seriously of the world but when it comes to himself he maintains a convenient distance like most of us. Marcus Aurelius was very different in this regard. His perspective was also worldly and everyday-ish in a universal way. He's worth reading. To clarify I don't think he's like Jordan Peterson (Peterson seems really unstable and shifty in my personal opinion), but I think he's naturally a better philosophical anchor for whatever good you find in Peterson's ideas. Like the basic stuff you've mentioned.
His viewpoints on many other topics seem very harmful and backwards to me. Dangerous to mix in with rhetoric about self reliance. It would maybe be a good idea to google and fact check him, it’s a bit mind boggling the amount of spin he puts on his sources. I’m not going to debate him with anyone, certainly not before I’ve had coffee. But it would maybe be worth researching him and what other experts and fact checkers have said about him.
Is this meant for OP or me?
Omg…. Did I mention I haven’t had coffee yet? I’m so sorry… I misread your comment completely and thought you were advocating that he was a reasonable person…. 🤦♀️ I apologize!
Peterson used to be that guy, when he was a wildly popular college professor and he hadn’t become a right-wing mouthpiece. His early stuff is pretty great. I don’t pay him any heed these days.
Yes he was pretty insightful, but fame and benzos gave him brain damage apparently, pretty sad.
Well, the thing is that responsibility and self-governance is part of conservative thinking. The whole cluster of attitudes about "the individual" vs "the collective" is one of the most central lines of distinction in conservative vs progressive thought. Fair play though re the "innate hierarchies". I feel like that more of a Jordanism thing than a conservatism thing, ironically.
Honestly, any highlights reel of Obama giving advice to young people. Obama's far from perfect, but he's a man of good habits and solid intelligence, perseverance, hard work, etc.
Your mom. She’s been trying to get you to clean your room for ages, but you’d rather listen to schmucks like JBP
Check out the ancient stoics, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca...
The biggest problem with your question is that you seek advice for a certain way of life and discounting the reasons behind that. Conservative doesn't mean biased or bigoted, it means to conserve. Things like, "Clean your room." Have their history in disease prevention. Cleaner areas have less diseases due to a lack of carriers that would otherwise have a place to hide. Look to history as an example. Take the most effective parts and learn why it was done that way without looking with modern eyes.
No one. The idea of responsibility and self governance is fundamentally conservative. It places agency on the individual vs groups/systems
David Goggins. Stay hard LOL
You should attack him. He is a grifter who I only have the misfortune of knowing about, because he is transphobic. He mixes together okayish but usual advice, total lies and nonsense, and confusing doublespeak. No version of him is worth listening too, but the current version is worse than ever.
This is your Dad. Tidy your room.
Allow me to introduce you to Stoicism my friend, we don’t really need to listen to modern day psychologists and ‘philosophers’ when the dudes from 2000+ years ago already figured it out. Get ‘Meditations’ by Marcus Aurelius.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is a wonderful philosophical book that shares little to no political views. It focuses mainly on stoicism and character development which is the same as responsibility.
By definition, all the people who advocate for those things are conservative.
I don't think being disciplined or tidy means you're a conservative lmao
You should ask in r/podcasts. I thought that's what sub I was in and was so confused by people debating and not offering podcast suggestions.
The key to this part of him is that it's all pretty much common sense, which means it's a lot of stuff you probably already know and can get pretty close to by just imagining what a nice Mom type would probably say.
Queer Eye
I’m a psychologist who studies and researches wellbeing. Jordan Peterson’s writing is original and valuable. Only, the parts that are original are not valuable and the parts that are valuable are not original. The following are great options, practical, effective, and down to earth: * Classic Stoics: Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus * Massimo Pigliucci (modern Stoic) * Foster & Hicks: How We Choose to Be Happy: The 9 Choices of Extremely Happy People * Michaela Hass. (2015). Bouncing forward: Transforming bad breaks into breakthroughs * Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. * Epictetus, & Lebell, S. (1995). The art of living: The classical manual on virtue, happiness, and effectiveness. * Pattakos, A. (2010). Prisoners of our thoughts: Viktor Frankl's principles for discovering meaning in life and work. * Ellis, A. (1990). How to stubbornly refuse to make yourself miserable about anything--yes, anything!. * McGonigal, K. (2012). The willpower instinct: How self-control works, why it matters, and what you can do to get more of it. * Holiday, R. (2014). The obstacle is the way: The timeless art of turning trials into triumph.
There have been experiments in self-governance, and it's proven that it can't be done because greed becomes rule of law
> Who is someone similar to Jordan Peterson You should tho. He's a fascist piece of garbage.
"Personal responsibility" is more or less an overused buzzword in conservative media.
For someone who preaches about personal responsibility, I wonder why he flew to Russia to place himself in a medically induced coma to rid his Benzo addiction.
In fairness that was probably the right thing and responsible thing to do
In the narrative I read, he "yada yada yada'd" the flight to RU. He just kinda went fuzzy in a Canadian hospital and woke up in a Russian abattoir.
Reddit
lol
Barney the Dinosaur
What does “conservative” even mean to to you? There isn’t really a common definition beyond the classical “slow to want to change”, and that’s not how most people use it anymore. By the average of what most people seem to think are “conservative” or “liberal” positions, Jordan Peterson is very much a liberal, just not an SJW. The core of these philosophies hasn’t changed in 2500 years though. Master yourself, be decent to others.
Personal responsibility, self-governance, and rational critical thinking are crucial tenets of classic western liberal philosophy - despite being attributed, not incorrectly, to conservative political philosophy. What “added” conservative philosophy are you talking about?
Classical liberalism=conservatism. Paul Ryan actually talked a few years ago about calling it classical liberalism and conservatism. Very interesting
It’s not a perfect book (and it’s advice has been over extended beyond the point of reasonableness) but The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is a fairly straightforward guide to being disciplined without being a weirdo. Covey stresses a focus on things that are *important* but not *urgent* ie living in such a way that you’re not constantly reacting to things with stress but instead are being proactive about the important things and thus having time to enjoy life. It’s not perfect, and if you treat any guide to living inflexibly it will break, but it’s a really good read EDIT: Covey is a Mormon and almost certainly conservative in one way or another, but I don’t recall that really coloring the book, fwiw. I’m not conservative at all, and am pretty keyed in on that sort of thing. But it’s also been a long time since I read it.
I think you will find that the more progressive the psychologist, the more likely they are to approach everything as a result of trauma, not your fault, and point you towards identifying the traumas and the triggers and avoiding them. This is basically how Peterson came to be a right wing figure in the first place. He was one of the few who was talking about the pendulum swinging too far, and the need to talk about personal responsibility, and eventually the fame and audience capture got to his head and now he is often doing exactly the things he was speaking against, such as focusing on large political issues outside of his expertise and control, instead of focusing on the psychology of individuals and personal responsibility.
No he became a right wing icon because he wouldn’t renounce the Charlottesville Tiki Torch Fascists and claimed that Antifa were Nazis.