Take a photo of a barcode or cover
femmecheng 's review for:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
by Jordan B. Peterson
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."