Tag: Peterson

Slavoj Žižek Fails to Fully Understand Hierarchies

Daniel Szewc | Poland

One must understand the realities of Eastern Europe from 1945-1989 to understand Slavoj Žižek’s mentality. His embracement of the Marxist way of being is completely the result of his comparatively strong societal position in Slovenia before the fall of the Eastern Block. This was exemplified by the fact that this hierarchal position, created on the basis of being closer to the Marxist view of a perfected human than the average man, got even stronger after the acceptance of capitalism in his native country (for all intents and purposes, Slavoj Žižek is a celebrity in Slovenia). Of course, this brought to his subconscious the notion that being closer to Marx makes you a more efficient human in general, whilst in reality, it was just the manifestation of parts of the old, synthetic establishment, Žižek included, surviving into the new era, and adapting to the new circumstances.

As for his support of leftism, contrasted by his dislike of societal decay, it is comparable to liking uranium, yet disliking the particles that it emits. No matter how hard you try to keep society stable, without the philosophical absolute, you are unable to do so.

The Maintenence of the Hierarchy

Any hierarchy without an unreachable entity, whether it be a value or a being, that cannot be toppled from the bottom is doomed to fluctuate drastically, as well as to crash in a time proportionately short to the number of active members in the said structure. For example, the morally unthinkable happened in France, the regicide of the revolution, and the hierarchy’s immovable peak was shattered.

Soon after, the bloodshed flooded over to the initial instigators of the crime, causing the whole megastructure to topple. In the end, a new hierarchy arose, with Napoleon rising to its peak. He was able to justify his role sufficiently enough not to be toppled by power-hungry contestants for his position only because of his idealization and even stronger emancipation of the traditional role of emperor.

For such processes to not happen, equality, not hierarchy, would have to dominate throughout life forms- something that is mathematically ridiculous. To assume that the total sum capability of creatures as complex as us to have equal chances at maintaining our positions at a zero level hierarchy is simply improbable. Too many variables influence our lives on the daily for this to happen naturally, and for any individual even remotely knowledgeable about cybernetics, it is obvious that no circuit can encompass a circuit equally or more complicated than themselves, therefore the human mind may never manage to understand it’s own secrets (…and variables that make us so different in outcome).

Of course, #MeToo became dominated by empty media icons, because it’s the natural consequence of having a promiscuous society, something one can earn money off, and human nature. The last of the three implies inequality in intelligence and ability, whilst the first is implied by leftism. You cannot have all three and not get the result that #MeToo got.

In general, however, I personally like Žižek’s look on Buddhism, as well as I think that his views on love can be put to good use by any thoughtful person on any side of the political arena. Alas, 90%+ of what he says is based on some ridiculous imaginary plasticity of the human condition. For example, Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist, if anyone, knows the most about empirically proving the aforementioned rationalist perspective of it being improbable.

Who will win the debate between the two? Well, the better question is whether the side that in fact loses will be able to comprehend it’s fallibility, or will it stay in its shell of Marxist presumptions.

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source


Don’t Be a Jordan Peterson NPC

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

Jordan Peterson is attempting to use Jungian psychoanalysis to make your life better. His position in society is somewhat akin to that of a rockstar. His book, 12 Rules for Life, is an international bestseller. And it’s a pretty good book, too. I find it both enjoyable and helpful. It fills itself with practical steps that the reader can apply to his or her life and make it one worth living. I regard myself as a fan of Jordan Peterson because of this. But the problem comes in when one takes Peterson as the arbiter of truth. This is particularly problematic in the case of Postmodernism.

Continue reading “Don’t Be a Jordan Peterson NPC”

Bernie Sanders, You Can’t Just Give Everyone a Job

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

Bernie Sanders is back in the headlines, and he has brewed an economic wonder concoction that will supposedly solve every single one of the left’s discontents. It all takes the form of the dear old Senator’s jobs plan.

As the Washington Post reports, Sanders wishes to roll out a federal plan that would guarantee a $15/hour job, along with health-care benefits, to anyone “who wants or needs one.” The plan is expected to help the environment, infrastructure, and education, along with a reduction in racism and sexism.

It is probably the perfect program.

And its perfection is its fatal flaw.

As of now, there is not a hint of a funding plan for this program, nor is there any idea how it would be implemented. Sanders is just laying out exactly the type of socialist rhetoric his base wants to hear.

Because Sanders is not going to bother looking at the consequences of his actions, we should. This program would be immensely costly. The unemployment rate is currently 4.1%. Hypothetically, if Sanders gave each and every one of these people a $15/hour job, and they worked 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year, the total would come out to $3.69 billion per year, and this is just for the wages. This figure does not include administrative costs and any costs in implementation.

The program would be a profound burden on American taxpayers.

At the same time, it would misallocate money. The reason that not everyone is paid $15/hour in the status quo is because not everyone does work worth $15/hour. Many do not operate at a level of productivity that is worthy of such a wage, so a jobs program would give artificially high wages to people doing less-than-adequate work.

One may object that anyone can work that hard or that skillfully if the incentive is there, but that is untrue. Some people are just less skilled than others, and it is the way things are.

Jordan Peterson outlines the jobs issue very well. He explains that “no, there isn’t a job for everyone, and no, you can’t train everyone to do everything.”

He explains that because of I.Q. distributions, within our increasingly complex society, there “isn’t anything for 10% of the population to do.” He is referring in this instance to the cutoff point for joining the military, which is at an I.Q. of 83. iq_bell_curve.gif

There are not areas of the economy where such people cannot be sufficiently productive to earn $15/hour. It is a harsh reality, but it is a reality. Bernie Sanders seems to think that we can just shove everyone in a job and expect them to learn a skill, but people who are less productive would start out with a much lower wage than $15/hour in other sectors of the economy.

At the same time, Sanders’s plan would artificially boost industries that there is not necessarily demand for. As is the problem with all government production programs, the emphasis on infrastructure and education in the employment category leaves the potential for there to be overproduction in parts of the economy there is no demand for. The result would be a misallocation, and hence, and a waste of resources.

Keep in mind, all of his waste is coming out of the pockets of status quo American workers.

The fact of the matter, though, is that most of these consequences are long-term consequences, and the long-term is something the government rarely concerned with. Bernie Sanders especially.

To put it kindly, Bernie Sanders is not in his prime (assuming he ever had a “prime”). The Senator is 76 years old so he will not have to see the long-term consequences of any program he puts in place. Rather, he, like just about every politician, is primarily concerned with the short term. The short-term to them is the next election.

Politicians make moves to get themselves re-elected primarily. That is the number one goal, because without it other political goals are not going to happen. With this goal, though, comes a phenomenally high time preference. Politicians are incentivized to only look at the next election, so the lie, cheat, slander, and make promises they cannot keep.

Once they reach the age that Senator Sanders is at right now, it is a whole nother ball game. At his age, it is time to go for the big promises and ignore the long-term. Why would one look at the long-term when they will not live to see it.

Sanders has a jobs program that is good at heart; he wants to see the downtrodden reach new comforts. His method is not the proper method, though. Voters, especially young ones, need to be incredibly wary of older politicians making such grand promises.

Entrepreneurship is the best solution to our problems, not state intervention.

Featured image source.

Our Intellectuals Aren’t Ready For Jordan Peterson

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote For Chaos, clinical psychologist, and king of archetypes has been across the internet and back again. Doctor Peterson seems to be on a new podcast, interview show, or news station every single week, if not every day. The man is reportedly very busy, which is expected as you become the rock star of modern academia.

The Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto was the most recent organization to host such an event. They allowed Jordan Peterson, atheist philosopher Rebecca Goldstein, and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, to all sit-down and have a discussion on the existence of meaning, God, and the like of abstract concepts that pertain to the actions of everyone looking for truth. The but that pertains most to me is the one that follows:

Starting off, Craig discusses Peterson’s view about objective morality. This stems from the Piagetian ideas of moral development and an equilibrated state of cooperation. Craig urges Peterson to accept that there is inherently a transcendent being behind this and then repeats it a couple of more times. His argument does not have a warrant, but Dr. Peterson responds anyway.

He explains that yes, we discover morality and that it is very possible that the moral truth we discover through action has transcendent properties.

Goldstein then chimes in, explaining why she rejects Craig’s argument and posing various religious questions on him. In response to Peterson, she heavily implies that he should not bring it up, and that is the extent of her “argument” against Jordan. The viewer is now forced to sit through an atheist and a Christian rehash the exact same talking points of religious debate we have all heard time and time again. The strange new psychological view of Peterson is not much taken into account.

The moderator then decides to intrude, and thank goodness. She asks why we “struggle with the meaning of life?”

Dr. Peterson explains the same thing he is so listened-to for. We live a finite existence, and it is pretty hard. Bad things can happen to us and we are capable of doing some pretty bad things, so the option we have is to aim for a nobility.

After explaining, the Jungian moves on to respond to one of Goldstein’s comments, and with a dream. Within his dream, kings of the past fight one another, yet all end up bowing to the figure of Christ. Many times throughout the Bible Christ is referred to as “The King of Kings,” and Dr. Peterson explains what this actually means. If we took the best qualities of each of the kings and put them in one, we have Christ. Whether or not Christ is a real historical figure within the situation matters not, because this is what is above the rulers of the earth. Christ provides an ideal for them to strive to get close to and remain humble in comparison.

When tyrannical kings rule the earth, who will rule the kings?

Peterson explains that “you inevitably do [have to speak of such things at a religious level].” There is no other way for our minds to make sense of anything like this.

“It’s a psychological necessity. It’s a sociological necessity.”

Goldstein seems to realize that the atheist position will be lagging behind when it comes to this psychological argument, so she goes off for a little bit, showing her body of barely related knowledge. She makes sure to tell everyone that “as a woman, as a Jew,” she has reaped benefits from the enlightenment. After a bit of a rabbit hole, she finally comes back around to the argument and compares the idea that kings should have an ideal that keeps them in check to the Nazis wanting to genocide those who are not “perfect” in their eyes.

She thinks that just because Peterson’s idea of a Christ supersedes the individual, it will allow for another Holocaust. We should try to transcend to art in her eyes, and not get caught up in larger symbolism and going past mere humanity.

These modern intellectuals represent roughly the two most prominent views in western society: religion and no religion. We all fell into this sort of dichotomy, even if there is some grey area in the middle. A modern intellectual espousing Jungian psychology, Biblical archetypes, and its connection to cleaning your room is very far from this base societal view. The two in discussion within this video do not know how to react to Peterson’s view, which is clear because of their poor responses (or no responses, in the case of Craig who seems somewhat satisfied), and because of their focus on one another.

The Austrian economic Ludwig von Mises discussed the role of ideas in society and history. If we want to see change, we need idea creators. Something new, refreshing, and out of place, that will be so disruptive the present intellectual arena will burn to the ground. This, in Mises’ view, is what brings about revolutionary progress.

From these ashes, we may build from the ground up. It allows us to embody the Phoenix archetype, and that of dying and being born again, better and new. Modern intellectuals are not ready for Peterson’s broad worldview. In the left media Op-Eds, it is always a bad strawman. Face-to-face, the opposition will always beat around the bush. People are incapable of telling Doctor Jordan Peterson why he is wrong. That is why I believe Peterson’s views will cause a large shift in the way our society is organized. They already are.

Featured image source.