Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Peterson is very good at speaking and lecturing (practice makes perfect!) and I enjoy his work. That said, his tack is largely an updated stoic philosophy. A good idea, don't get me wrong. Still, if you liked his book, I'd go back and read more about stoicism. Here are some suggestion, but if anyone else has others, please chime in:

https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Thrift-Editions-Marcus-Au...

https://www.amazon.com/Senecas-Letters-Stoic-Thrift-Editions...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism




> updated stoic philosophy

No, it's not. Stoicism has much more depth and the Stoics would not agree with Peterson on many things. Stoicism also doesn't need to be updated.


I mean, his 12 points are pretty stock Stoicism, with a 21st century spin. By my reading, he's not entirely stoicism, true, but he sits in the adjacent seat. If he is this popular with (as I see it) his re-skinned stoicism, then the conclusion that 'stoicism needed an update' is not unreasonable, as it seems to resonate better with the re-skin than without. Caveats, obviously, apply.


I think its unreasonable. Popularity and quality are often at odds with one another.

Adam Sandler has earned people more money from movies than almost anyone. That doesn't mean Anthony Hopkins needed an update.


The way he talks about religion, I think he's way into Jungian archetypes and psychoanalysis and shit.

I originally thought his critique of postmodernism/continental philosophy and stuff was interesting, reminiscent of chomsky

His thesis on alcoholism is interesting, clearly he's atleast a decent psychologist. Reminds me of my aunt, psychologist at U. of Missouri, really interested in carl jung and religion.

IQ testing and personality tests always seemed broken to me. What is IQ measuring? Personality tests seem like arbitary categories. All of this is based on frequentist statistics (factor analysis), wonder if there's a bayesian perspective but I have no idea what i'm talking about honestly, especially compared to Peterson.

I can't stand his economic views, they're similar to Joe Rogan's "classical liberal"/market fundamentalist views. I like Kevin Carson's word: vulgar libertarianism:

"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term 'free market' in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get [a] standard boilerplate article… arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because 'that’s not how the free market works'— implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of 'free market principles.'"


Peterson is openly "way into" Jungian archetypes and psychoanalysis and shit.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: