Yeah it's obviously bullshit. Not sleeping for 25 days straight would have left him in a worse condition than his current one - assuming it's even possible. Sleep deprivation is a popular torture method and it's almost always fatal.
Like blush, that's just true though.
Kind of. I'm sure a lot of women do wear make up to look more sexually attractive. However, it's also just a societal norm at this point. Women who wear some make up to work aren't necessarily trying to signal to their co-workers that they are ready for sex.
It's like virtue signalling. It doesn't mean there is actual virtue. Or synthol muscles that signal strength without there being strength.
Gimmickposters should be shot on sight.
Excellent.
How do you know the average reader would be liable to do this? At what levels of education? Or intelligence? At best, as far as the evidence you've indicated is available to you, you may say that this is how you interpreted the text.
This is a rather classic false dichotomy (it's one thing, or the other).
I think you've misconstrued the rather pithy rule quite incorrectly. The rule is, in fact, an injunction (warning) against criticizing systems that you do not understand and have yet to master. Let's say your house is in perfect order (meaning your life, and your home, and your family are all optimally balanced around your personal pursuit of meaning and that at every level of analysis your behavior has harmonized with your own nature, the needs of your family, the demands of your culture, and the spiritual instincts dictating moral conduct), and you decide to criticize the current political system.
In the interests of being entirely certain we are on the same page regarding precisely what he said, would this be the excerpt you are referencing?
Yes, thank you. There's a lot wrong to unpack in this video re: alcohol recovery, but much of what we call addiction treatment is getting the brain to work properly and produce the correct balance of chemicals on it's own. There is a component of "the person needs to want to do this and they need to willpower to maintain themselves" but what is going on inside the brain is almost entirely chemical changes.
How could you call Peterson's coma method a success at anything but how to cause brain damage?
Well, he's no longer an obvious benzo addict. Being placed into a coma for the time he was ended his chemical dependency. That he has brain damage now is a different can of worms.
My interpretation of this text is actually a bit different. I look at it as a doorway to introspection, as intended, but can see that it's sloppily worded. The use of "perfect" should be carefully considered. After all, nothing is perfect.
What would you even call something that is both thought terminating and thought provoking at the same time? Makes you think a little? No. A maxim like this is explicitly binary in nature. It either is applicable, or is not applicable. It's wording prohibits partial applicability.
No "house" can be in perfect order. That is the nature of life, that perfection is an impossible goal. Any person criticizing the political ecology of the world around them will be fundamentally flawed, as all people are. A maxim that tells people not to criticize the world until their personal ecosystem is in perfect order will fundamentally stifle criticism.
Let me give you a piece of friendly advice: don't talk down to people that engage you honestly. You'll get farther in life by being collaborative than being combative.
Please put at least a bit more effort into your gimmickposting. Thank you kindly.
In my opinion this is missing the larger picture: you could just as easily say the same thing if you shot him between the eyes and threw him into the nearest ditch. He'd no longer crave benzos, but no sane person would prescribe this as a drug treatment strategy. Brain damage is a rather high price to pay for no longer being an addict. If anything, I'd say Peterson accidentally proved his own point, in an extremely roundabout fashion. It is not simply a matter of giving someone a magic pill or an arcane medical procedure and suddenly they are "cured" of their "disease". South Park of all people highlighted the perils of this thinking in an episode which sees Randy Marsh taking every wrong possible lesson from Alcoholics Anonymous until he realizes the key to kicking any addiction actually is willpower. All the other shit really is window dressing compared to that key ingredient.
Y...you.. you mean cleaning your room and washing your ass doesn't fix everything?
Only if by doing that you develop the willpower to kick your addiction. This is quite a separate thing from certain very real medical emergencies you can go through during detox- to use benzodiazepines as an example once more, longtime abusers should not go through detox alone because there is a risk that you will begin experiencing tachycardia and elevated blood pressure, which may in fact kill you depending on age and underlying health problems. Nothing to do with helping you to kick your habit per se.
I think both of these analyses are flawed. Just willpower is a oversimplified understanding of what it takes, and one that generally works until someone's life falls apart and then it doesn't, showing that parts of life being in good shape is part of what helps one not devolve into substance abuse.
How is that possible given that it's a thought "terminating" statement? You're either lying now, or incorrect in your assertions before.
Well, you'd have to define what you meant by "thought terminating." As far as I understand it, you're meaning to say that the sentence actually diminishes consciousness. Which is, of course, technically incorrect as a consequence of the fact that in order to read the sentence you must in some way be interacting with material reality through conscious thought itself. So, the assertion that qualia can be thought terminating is nonsensical.
No mathematical theory can perfectly describe the relationship between a particles position and its velocity but we do pretty well with the concepts we have. The precept is describing an ideal state as a form of metaphor. You should google what both an ideal and a metaphor are, it will help you better understand what a precept is.
And here we arrive at your declaration of personal metaphysics.
Your argument, so far, goes something like this, as far as I can tell ...
Uh uhh uhh! Make sure to put your house in perfect order before you criticize me!
Actually, my ostensibly well read Jungian friend, he was referencing something that Jung himself believed. Namely, that mystical or religious experiences are necessary to re-wire the brain in such a way as to radically alter the constituent elements of the personality of a person. This has been well explored by William James, someone who's work he was intimately familiar with.
Why would changing a habit that has become destructive require a change in constituent elements of a personality? It's still dumb to assert that it's the only path towards changing a smoking addiction, no matter how many thinkers the idea can be traced back to. Anyone who has managed to defeat an addiction without such an experience can attest to that. It's a large leap to say that to get rid of an addiction, one would have to alter the constituent elements of their personality.
Well, a habit is a constituent element of your personality. So, to change a habit (a constituent element of your personality) requires that you, by definition, change a constituent element of your personality.
It's not the only way, it's just the way with the highest probability of success according to clinical trials involving chemical inducement of mystical experiences. The literature on it is crystal clear.
No, it's actually a position based on clinical trials. Science, in short.
True, it's entirely subjective. But, say, in the trials I'm referencing, they saw well over an 80% cessation rate with chronic smokers after chemical induction of a mystical experience with psychedelics, and that isn't mere metaphyiscs- that's an objective fact.
That's actually a very good point, and indeed part of the reason that humans manufacture and choose to voluntarily experience complex narratives (such as, say, orthodox religious ones). Mystical experiences are manifold and complex, and you may encounter them or induce them by a near infinite means, including archetypal stories represented by animation or cinema.
I don't think you're a foolish man, but I do think you put far too much emphasis on your intelligence and pure reason as an orienting mechanism when interpreting the intention of others.
You can literally just start a new habit today. If you don't get out of bed quickly, and you think it's valuable to get out of bed quickly when you wake, you can set your alarm a minute from now, lay in bed and when it goes, you get out of bed. You repeat that ten times. The next day when your alarm goes, you'll get out of bed as soon as your alarm goes by rote repetition. You keep this up for a week, and then you don't need the 10 times practice anymore. Congrats, you're now a quick out-of-bed riser.
I take your point that there aren't these 100% certainties and that we can have clear cut "best practices" based on what's most likely to work. Most of the time though Peterson does not communicate with that uncertainty; my interpretation is that he knows he wouldn't be taken as seriously as someone who speaks as if they confidently know the truth. People don't really listen much to someone who says "Yeah that has the best chance of working, about 60%", even if it's correct and possibly the best advice anyone could give on any given thing. It invites (a necessary) criticism.
Yes, and some redefinitions are likely to blunt their use instead of sharpening them. And when you don't explain that redefinition that becomes a certainty.
I linked the video above.
