[sridca]

I'm talking specifically about the life advice being dished out by Mr. Peterson. Given that you said "without knowing much about him" perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with what he is promulgating before continuing this discussion.

[slothtrop]

If you know, you can sum it. Should be easy if you criticize it in abstract

[sridca]

Yup I did:

> Just for starters, allowing your well-being [to be] dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.

It may be hard for some not to lump self-reliance (aka. being autonomous) and hierarchy-consciousness (to coin a word) together; which is where the third paragraph of my original comment comes into picture (something you seem to have ignored[1]).

---

[1] I can guess it because of this:

> [slothtrop]: 0 people are entirely self-reliant [in affective context] in the literal sense.

As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description.

And:

> [Mr. Peterson]: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their [hierarchical] structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".

[slothtrop]

> Yup I did:

Seems rather circular then to suggest I familiarize myself with him more if you can't even be bothered to demonstrate how you've extrapolated what you reiterated using a source. Google yields no sources parroting that. Even the negative opinions suggest something completely different : "Ultimately, Peterson’s dismissal of happiness as the purpose of life is a problem because it aligns his argument too closely with an emphasis on an introspective attempt at self-sufficiency. Insisting that meaning can be forged out of effort emphasizes a kind of self-reliance which, while certainly useful and even admirable at times, misses the mark in telling most of the human story. Suffering for the sake of suffering in order to “tolerate the weight of our own self-consciousness” is, I suppose, the best we can aim for if the material world is all that exists." -- https://humanumreview.com/articles/why-we-need-jordan-peters...

> As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description.

That can only be true if you don't appreciate the fact that outcomes which appear superficially as self-reliance don't materialize from a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks.

> I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".

Seems you drew your own ideas as to how this has anything to do with self-reliance.

How an individual leads their life has no bearing on whether there are hierarchical structures in the whole of society. You can go live in the woods, and humans will continue on without you with class structures.

[sridca]

> Seems rather circular then to suggest I familiarize myself with him more

Only because you wrote "Without knowing much about him" and you keep misunderstanding the nature of my critique.

> ... if you can't even be bothered to demonstrate how you've extrapolated what you reiterated

What I reiterated was that - allowing your well-being [to be] dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant [aka. being autonomous].

> using a source.

Both Peterson's book and his online videos are the source for that paraphrasing.

> Google yields no sources parroting that.

All you have to do, basically, is to directly read his book and watch some of his online videos; and not read reviews (be it negative or positive) of those works online.

> Even the negative opinions suggest something completely different : "Ultimately, Peterson’s dismissal of happiness as the purpose of life is a problem because it aligns his argument too closely with an emphasis on an introspective attempt at self-sufficiency. Insisting that meaning can be forged out of effort emphasizes a kind of self-reliance which, while certainly useful and even admirable at times, misses the mark in telling most of the human story. Suffering for the sake of suffering in order to “tolerate the weight of our own self-consciousness” is, I suppose, the best we can aim for if the material world is all that exists." -- https://humanumreview.com/articles/why-we-need-jordan-peters....

Of course they do, as I'm referring to the matter-of-fact self-reliance (aka. being autonomous) and not "a kind of self-reliance".

>> As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description [being entirely self-reliant [in affective context] in the literal sense].

> That can only be true if you don't appreciate the fact that outcomes which appear superficially as self-reliance don't materialize from a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks.

Given that I wrote in affective context it is beyond me how you can characterize what I wrote as to "appear superficially" and materializing from "a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks".

>> I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".

> Seems you drew your own ideas as to how this has anything to do with self-reliance.

Of course it seems that way, as to you -- especially not being familiar with Mr. Peterson's work in critical sense -- whatever you dub as self-reliance is nothing to do with being autonomous in the affective context, and that being actually so somehow automatically implies (to you) "living in the woods" or having "a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks".

> How an individual leads their life has no bearing on whether there are hierarchical structures in the whole of society.

Just so that it is clear, the hierarchical structures Mr. Peterson is alluding to is entirely affective in nature ("class structure" as you mention below belongs here), and is not specifically referring to the actual structures in the society.

> You can go live in the woods, and humans will continue on without you with class structures.

Yes, and so what? This is nothing to do with what I'm talking about.