03-15-2020, 11:32 PM
I found the poem somewhat opaque in relation to its title (without the spoiler), but with very effective imagery.
My two coppers on Peterson: he is apparently a sensitive person (in the dictionary sense, not the modern code for a male homosexual); that probably helped him in his career as a psychologist. He writes well (and spoke well), and called them as he saw them with respect to what actually makes a man (or just a human being) happy and satisfied with life. Those who disagreed with his conclusions did their best to make his life hell and - given his sensitive nature - succeeded. A thick skin he had not.
His critics piled on further after he developed an addiction* to prescription drugs since one basis (if not the whole basis) of his doctrine is the importance of self-control. They take this as both hypocrisy, and a refutation of his doctrine since his self-control was inadequate to overcome the stress they, in part and intentionally, created. The story can be seen as a tragedy, complete with hubris and nemesis, or an instance of bullying and a fatal flaw.
Personally, I don't see his doctrine as having been refuted by his biography: at what many or most should try to achieve for their best happiness, some will fail.
*Addiction, in my view, is an ideation or ideology rather than a disease. The "addict" accepts and clings to the excuse of his addiction to do what he wants to do even though he knows it's wrong and self-destructive. Few drug addicts, if any, would actually die of withdrawal effects, but convince themselves that those effects are the worst thing in the world and justify any action (including the familiar doctor shopping, recourse to illegal sources, crime to obtain funds, etc.) to stave them off another day. It's an old meme, and - in some sense - a useful one.
My two coppers on Peterson: he is apparently a sensitive person (in the dictionary sense, not the modern code for a male homosexual); that probably helped him in his career as a psychologist. He writes well (and spoke well), and called them as he saw them with respect to what actually makes a man (or just a human being) happy and satisfied with life. Those who disagreed with his conclusions did their best to make his life hell and - given his sensitive nature - succeeded. A thick skin he had not.
His critics piled on further after he developed an addiction* to prescription drugs since one basis (if not the whole basis) of his doctrine is the importance of self-control. They take this as both hypocrisy, and a refutation of his doctrine since his self-control was inadequate to overcome the stress they, in part and intentionally, created. The story can be seen as a tragedy, complete with hubris and nemesis, or an instance of bullying and a fatal flaw.
Personally, I don't see his doctrine as having been refuted by his biography: at what many or most should try to achieve for their best happiness, some will fail.
*Addiction, in my view, is an ideation or ideology rather than a disease. The "addict" accepts and clings to the excuse of his addiction to do what he wants to do even though he knows it's wrong and self-destructive. Few drug addicts, if any, would actually die of withdrawal effects, but convince themselves that those effects are the worst thing in the world and justify any action (including the familiar doctor shopping, recourse to illegal sources, crime to obtain funds, etc.) to stave them off another day. It's an old meme, and - in some sense - a useful one.
Non-practicing atheist