Jordan Peterson loves to quote Nietzsche but what would Nietzsche have said about the ideas of Peterson and his...

What about Jordan Peterson's opinion?

dos-toh-ievskii

we couldn’t know because he is dead

Nietzsche was trait disagreeable so what he had to say would likely be negative.

Nietzsche would denounce every single one of Peterson's followers as ressentiment-driven herd people.

The poor fool. Could it be that he doesn't realize?
--- Nietzsche is dead!

kek

You don't care about the opinion of one of the greatest geniuses mankind has ever produced?

The more important question is what would Nietzsche think about Donald Trump?

>self-made billionaire
>hugely successful in three different areas (real estate, entertainment, politics)
>won the highest political prize in the world with the entire establishment against him

He's no Napoleon but he comes close to the Nietzschean Übermensch.

He isn't self-made. He piggy-backed off his dad's wealth and influence. I admit that he's achieved a lot of success but he's not self-made.

No one is "self-made" in a strict sense. You're arbitrarily limiting the term.

>self-made billionaire
Oh please this is no rags to riches story. And his success in politics is yet to be seen

Attached: 1519738271525.jpg (800x792, 36K)

he's not successful at all though; spiritually he might as well be dead. You think Nietzsche was interested in material wealth or social climbing? He revered Napoleon to a certain extent because of the sort of man he supposed him to have been.

Well, for starters it's extremely unlikely the world will see another Napoleon, maybe ever, but at least not in the next 500 years or so. This is a man who single-handedly dominated world affairs at his time, a historical titan.

But the primary quality of the Übermensch is his strong, dominating will to power, which Napoleon had in spades, and Donald Trump, ever since his presidency, as well. The second most important characteristic, I'd say, is that the Übermensch is a value-creator, in other words, going against the ethos of his times, carving his own path. I'd say Donald Trump did a great job at this.

Of course almost anyone will pale in comparison to someone of Napoleon's character. But that's not really the point.

He does seem to have a cult-like following. Do you think it's because his "followers" have clung to him due to a shortage of other "leaders" of his type?

A self-help guru would be teaching you how to live from his cheap brain ethics. Not how to your brain works from a scientific and psychological point of view.
Do you even know what self-help books are?

What dominating will to power are you talking about though? His white house is falling apart and there's an investigation against him within just year. I'm not going to argue if the investigation has merit or not but a man with as strong a will to dominate as Napolean's would definitely have not allowed that.

You do realize that a lot of the values the Trump has were also cultivated by the people that he surrounded himself with, and that at his core, his values are actually no different than a lot of the very establishment that supposedly hated him-it's just that he didn't care about the idea of decorum and political correctness and the establishment did for the sake of appearances.

Trump isn't self-made, he inherited his fortune. He was "successful" on entertainment and politics by pandering to the lowest common denominator and parroting the GOP's agenda.

Just the fact that he won is enough. The entire world was, and still is, very much against him. Who could've won with these kinds of odds? Will to power is not necessarily power in the dictatorial sense, he's of course limited by the democratic institutions. Which is also why we won't see another Napoleon any time soon.

To be fair to his argument, the fact that he is still facing opposition is not proof that Donald Trump somehow does not have a strong will to power - just that the forces working against him are still active. Even Napoleon's ambitions were eventually thwarted at the end with the combined power of several nations.

Hitler was that "other Napoleon" but he got on the wrong side of the Jews.

By that logic, the fact that Truman won over Dewey by a slim margin despite major opposition also makes him an ubermensche. I simply don't believe that a demorcacy really has room for such a concept, and feel that there are other, better descriptors for what Trump is.

At least unless Trump manages to take a load of presidential power for himself, which has already been given to him over previous successive presidencies.

What do you mean 'Those kinds of odds'? Republicans are the majority in the country and the political climate was just right for a guy like Trump. Also it's arguable if he actually won it because of the strength of his statements or because of misunderstanding and misinformation.

>by pandering to the lowest common denominator
As was Genghis Khan. Success is still success.

And think of how many people fuck up good starts in life.

Yes but I don't think Peterson offers real solutions either. Trying to tackle your problems first is good (cleaning your room) but Peterson wants people to accept the soul crushing aspects of modernity.

The paradox is that humanity "after having "killed" God" cannot move beyond nihilism. There is no meaning in humanity itself separate from how it relates to its creator. Thus the transcendental fact that remains is nihilism.

>The entire world was, and still is, very much against him.
No? He had his Republican base. This is his 2nd or 3rd time running. Call me when Johnson or Stein or Bernie won the presidency.

His asking of acceptance isn't an embracing of it though. At least it doesn't appear that way to me. It's more of an understanding of the current situation.
I do think he is offering solutions it's just that they are very simplistic and broad and don't address any specific issues.

How similar are Wittgenstein and Memerson?

In the unbearable void of nihilism, there are only two options. Worship God or worship yourself as god. Both are viable options but only by worshipping something transcendental that is not your own self can there be peace in a multitude. The history of the universe might well be the playing out of these opposite forces and the fruit they bear. Belief in God as understood by Christians would then reflect the history of universe as being educational in terms of differentiating between good and evil in its fruits and a filtering process that by free will we might choose who we want to be in communion for eternity, that is those who prefer the fruits of evil would not want to have a communion of those who prefer the fruits of good and vice versa. In eternity with material physics altered, this filtering then would take place. Nietzsche while rejecting good and evil, only proposes shaky propositions such as the eternal return etc. that seem much less coherent than the Christian counterpart.

both look similarly stupid

Attached: wat.jpg (269x187, 9K)

Does he offer anything other than embracing it? He still says you should be happy with your job and so on.

Nietzsche could use some self-help guru for sure

Is he asking to be happy or content? I don't think he's asking people to tie their happiness to their jobs but be content in your current situation and make the most of it and not always looking to move to the next thing.

>be content in your current situation
There is a time to be content and a time not to be content. He would have told Napoleon to not conquer Europe.

I'm on the last Maps of Meaning (2017) lecture and I'm so fucking bored, I'm glad I'm done with it.