Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.38 AVERAGE
3.38 AVERAGE
Was way too wordy. Half way through the first chapter we covered 25 different things and I had already forgot what the stupid rule was. The foreword stole my patience for the rest of the book. I'm all for conversation but there is really something to be said about being short sweet and to the point. I gave up at the end of the 1st chapter.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Where to begin?
The book says "Chaos is the domain of ignorance itself" and "Chaos [is] the eternal feminine." The book is titled as an antidote to chaos. The authors contends that one should precise in their speech. How then, precisely, should I take the idea that chaos == domain of ignorance itself == eternal feminine and that we apparently need an antidote to it? Are we just letting that one slide? Anyways...
You know when people say something that you agree with, but you find their reasoning for saying that thing to be disputable? That's what this book is in a nutshell - "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today. Something something Cain and Abel. Something something Satan. Therefore, aim to improve upon who you were before." Like shit, if I wanted to hear someone proselytize, I'd head down to my neighborhood church. But the rules themselves are par for the course in terms of self-help and are generally amicable.
There's a certain danger in ascribing truth and wisdom to people like Eric Harris. An 18-year old sociopath with various run-ins with the law who hated girls who wouldn't sleep with him and thrived off the idea of lording over people isn't some sage scholar, and most definitely shouldn't be treated like one.
It takes some amount of guts to say that one should be able to rephrase another person's argument in such a way that the individual would support it and then go on to provide four (a whole four!) men who have contributed in some way to female reproductive health (such as through the invention of birth control, period products, etc.) as proof that a patriarchy doesn't exist. I, personally, am not familiar with anyone who defines a patriarchy as "a system where no man anywhere, ever, has helped a woman anywhere, ever". So, I'm not particularly sure what JBP was hoping to accomplish with that line of argument.
"Maybe your misery is your attempt to prove the world's injustice, instead of the evidence of your own sin, your own missing of the mark, your conscious refusal to strive and to live. Maybe your willingness to suffer in failure is inexhaustible, given what you use that suffering to prove."
The book says "Chaos is the domain of ignorance itself" and "Chaos [is] the eternal feminine." The book is titled as an antidote to chaos. The authors contends that one should precise in their speech. How then, precisely, should I take the idea that chaos == domain of ignorance itself == eternal feminine and that we apparently need an antidote to it? Are we just letting that one slide? Anyways...
You know when people say something that you agree with, but you find their reasoning for saying that thing to be disputable? That's what this book is in a nutshell - "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today. Something something Cain and Abel. Something something Satan. Therefore, aim to improve upon who you were before." Like shit, if I wanted to hear someone proselytize, I'd head down to my neighborhood church. But the rules themselves are par for the course in terms of self-help and are generally amicable.
There's a certain danger in ascribing truth and wisdom to people like Eric Harris. An 18-year old sociopath with various run-ins with the law who hated girls who wouldn't sleep with him and thrived off the idea of lording over people isn't some sage scholar, and most definitely shouldn't be treated like one.
It takes some amount of guts to say that one should be able to rephrase another person's argument in such a way that the individual would support it and then go on to provide four (a whole four!) men who have contributed in some way to female reproductive health (such as through the invention of birth control, period products, etc.) as proof that a patriarchy doesn't exist. I, personally, am not familiar with anyone who defines a patriarchy as "a system where no man anywhere, ever, has helped a woman anywhere, ever". So, I'm not particularly sure what JBP was hoping to accomplish with that line of argument.
"Maybe your misery is your attempt to prove the world's injustice, instead of the evidence of your own sin, your own missing of the mark, your conscious refusal to strive and to live. Maybe your willingness to suffer in failure is inexhaustible, given what you use that suffering to prove."
I really like Peterson's writing and philosophy. I think the book is a little too verbose and drawn out, but the core themes made me reconsider a few things.
informative
slow-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Whilst this book is helpful, Jordan Peterson should not make claims about God and not believe nor live in the ways of the Word of God, the Bible.
I wish I had read the other one star reviews before wasting my time and money on this garbage.
"If Da Vinci had to tweet 5 times a day,
we’d still be riding bicycles.”
― Natasha Tsakos
In his intro Peterson describes coming up with the rules for good life. An ethical framework to survive and thrive. He narrows it down to the 12, it seems to me these rules are really stand in for traditional values of integrity, authenticity and honesty.
Maybe it's experience as a clinical psychologist or as an academic, but I admired Peterson' broad perspective on living passionately. Much of his audience he identified as men, and Peterson provides a message which is both critical of toxic male masculinity and supportive of men who embrace virtue to be strong partners. Without piffle or nonsense Peterson encourages a value based approach toward building a life. Some of these ideas may be traditional or conservative, but in a culture reeling from the galvanic actions of high profile of men, it appears to me as a prudent and impassioned defense of strong male virtues. He may not be politically correct, but he is speaking from authentic experience which I find admirable.
Referencing the Bible, Tao Te Ching, Dostoyvesky, and other great writers, Peterson, builds a framework based on classical cultural ideas. It is an embrace of past thinkers, with their ideas, and who have tools for us to be more self-reflective. All and all, a solid book to help on the path toward self-growth
we’d still be riding bicycles.”
― Natasha Tsakos
In his intro Peterson describes coming up with the rules for good life. An ethical framework to survive and thrive. He narrows it down to the 12, it seems to me these rules are really stand in for traditional values of integrity, authenticity and honesty.
Maybe it's experience as a clinical psychologist or as an academic, but I admired Peterson' broad perspective on living passionately. Much of his audience he identified as men, and Peterson provides a message which is both critical of toxic male masculinity and supportive of men who embrace virtue to be strong partners. Without piffle or nonsense Peterson encourages a value based approach toward building a life. Some of these ideas may be traditional or conservative, but in a culture reeling from the galvanic actions of high profile of men, it appears to me as a prudent and impassioned defense of strong male virtues. He may not be politically correct, but he is speaking from authentic experience which I find admirable.
Referencing the Bible, Tao Te Ching, Dostoyvesky, and other great writers, Peterson, builds a framework based on classical cultural ideas. It is an embrace of past thinkers, with their ideas, and who have tools for us to be more self-reflective. All and all, a solid book to help on the path toward self-growth