I would say that anyone interested in circumventing the pursuit of the true, the

I would say that anyone interested in circumventing the pursuit of the true, the good, the preferable, the useful, and the beautiful, should actually make an argument rather than engage in name calling and shaming. Either you can make an argument or you cant’

Truth has never been popular. In fact, falsehood is demonstrably more popular throughout all of history. Particularly comforting falsehoods.

So peterson is railing against Postmodernism because it’s bad, and less so because it’s simply false. This is because he has his own problem with conflating the true (decidable independent of good or preference) with good (reciprocally preferable) and preferable (individually preferred), and merely useful (it works for purposes intended no matter how it is stated). This conflation is one thing in Art, mythology and literature, and something far lest honest in religion, philosophy, and ‘science’.

Now I would argue that Aristocracy (Meritocracy) was and remains a system of profiting from economic eugenics, and that the monotheistic religions (abrahamic religions) evolved as underclass retaliations against the aristocratic empires of the ancient world.

And I would argue that when the enlightenment (empirical) evolved out of British Common Law (Bacon) and emerged under Locke, Hume and Smith, that the same retaliation was used by the French(Rousseau) using shaming narratives in ordinary language, and out of Kant by restating christianity in secular rationalist prose, and finally out of the ashkenazi enlightenment in Boaz/Marx-Lenin/Freud/Cantor/Mises/Rothbard-Rand/Trotsky-Strauss/theFrankfurtSchool in the form of pseudosciences if not outright fabrication.

After the Ashkenazi (Bolshevik) counter-enlightenemnt experiment failed in the USSR, and the anticipated (impossible) revolution was lost to the vast rewards of consumer capitalism, the French(Catholic) responded by converting the class criticisms of the frankfurt school to identity criticisms. And between the feminists, the postmodernists, we encounter political correctness which is simply outright “lying” to avoid the truth. The entire suite of programs was nothing more than the second attempt at advancing abrahamism(fictionalism) against the aristocracy and science in the modern world, just as was the jewish, christian, muslim attempt at advancing against aristocracy and reason in the ancient world.

Now, I am an analytic philosopher of science and law, but I read the same research papers and books that Peterson does, and while he might lack the technical knowledge or the interest to address the cycles of history as a competition between aristocratic, eugenic, deflationary truth, and underclass eugenic, conflationary fiction, it is very unlikely that he would disagree with the narrative I just proposed.

But that difference is that as a diagnostician of the individual and culture he wants to provide means of informing and healing, and as diagnostician of polities and civilizations and a judge, I seek for means of resolving difference by truth regardless of preference or consent upon the good.

Peterson is reconstructing stoicism with writing (self authoring) rather than reconstructing it through the traditional european method of vocabulary, grammar, logic, testimony, and rhetoric. He is doing this because it is literature that he understands. But whether one does such a thing in writing (self authoring) or whether one does this as testimony (speaking) the general principle of using the ability of language to self-organize the mind, and created mindfulness is simply a technique that was a ‘given’ until the marxists and socialists and postmodernists removed it by intention from our education system and lowered the standards for exit with diplomas.

Now, if you are too much of a nit-wit to follow this, then you are too much of a nit-wit to hold an opinion. But the fact of the matter is, the english and the english language are no more escapable methods of programing the mind than are the remaining germanic, the latin, the slavic, and every other. Furthermore, various civilizations and cultures relied on very different technologies to perpetuate their intergenerational knowledge. The germanic/roman west empirical, the ideal greek, the abrahamic semitic, the ideal and mythic persian and indian, the pratical east asian, and the animistic rest of the world. The only outright deceit in that collection of religions in which fundamentalism and zealotry arose, is the abrahamic, because they rely on factionalism(falsehood), conflation, monopoly and authority where others rely on wisdom. if you understand this, you will see all of history as a battle between the western market, deflationary truth, and tolerance for challenge to the dominance hierarchy (meritocracy) leading to rapid evolution and change; against eastern deflationary truth, intolerance for challenge, and family hierarchy over markets leading to stability; And against destruction of the dominance hierarchy, continuous use of falsehoods high cost of entry cults, and universal equality leading to dysgenia.

And this explains pretty much all of history from 4000 bc when the chariot created the ability to conduct maneuver warfare, to the present.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.