Quotes from Jordan B. Peterson

And what about the idea that hitting a child merely teaches them to hit? First: No. Wrong. Too simple. For starters, "hitting" is a very unsophisticated word to describe the disciplinary act of an effective parent. If "hitting" accurately described the entire range of physical force, then there would be no difference between rain droplets and atom bombs. Magnitude matters—and so does context, if we're not being wilfully blind and naïve about the issue.

We process the unknown world from the bottom up. We encounter containers of information, so to speak, whose full import is by no means self-evident.

When you dare aspire upward, you reveal the inadequacy of the present and the promise of the future. Then you disturb others, in the depths of their souls, where they understand that their cynicism and immobility are unjustifiable. You play Abel to their Cain. You remind them that they ceased caring not because of life's horrors, which are undeniable, but because they do not want to lift the world up on to their shoulders, where it belongs.

If you are suffering—well, that's the norm. People are limited and life is tragic. If your suffering is unbearable, however, and you are starting to become corrupted, here's something to think about.

Some people degenerate into the hell of resentment and the hatred of Being, but most refuse to do so, despite their suffering and disappointments and losses and inadequacies and ugliness, and again that is a miracle for those with the eyes to see it.

this. It seems to be a reflection, in part, of the order/chaos dichotomy characterizing all of experience, with Paradise serving as habitable order and the serpent playing the role of chaos. The serpent in Eden therefore means

That's where we are simultaneously stable enough, exploring enough, transforming enough, repairing enough, and cooperating enough.

Tan solo el ser humano podía concebir el potro de torturas, la doncella de hierro y el aplastapulgares. Tan solo el ser humano hará sufrir únicamente por el gusto de hacer sufrir. Esta es la mejor definición del mal que he sido capaz de formular. Los animales son incapaces de hacer algo así, pero los humanos, con sus atroces capacidades de semidioses, sí que pueden.

And so a generation has been raised untutored in what was once called, aptly, "practical wisdom," which guided previous generations. Millennials, often told they have received the finest education available anywhere, have actually suffered a form of serious intellectual and moral neglect.

If happiness comes to you, welcome it with gratitude and open arms (but be careful, because it does make you impetuous).

They adopt a single axiom: government is bad, immigration is bad, capitalism is bad, patriarchy is bad. Then they filter and screen their experiences and insist ever more narrowly that everything can be explained by that axiom.

The ancient part of your brain specialized for assessing dominance watches how you are treated by other people. On that evidence, it renders a determination of your value and assigns you a status. If you are judged by your peers as of little worth, the counter restricts serotonin availability.

He observed that the virtues always aim for balance and avoid the extremes of the vices.

Maybe your misery is the weapon you brandish in your hatred for those who rose upward while you waited and sank. 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. Maybe it's your revenge on Being.

What might serve as a more sophisticated alternative to happiness? Imagine it is living in accordance with the sense of responsibility, because that sets things right in the future.

Meaning emerges when impulses are regulated, organized and unified. Meaning emerges from the interplay between the possibilities of the world and the value structure operating within that world. If the value structure is aimed at the betterment of Being, the meaning revealed will be life-sustaining. It will provide the antidote for chaos and suffering. It will make everything matter. It will make everything better.

They believe, narcissistically, underneath all that bad theory, that the world could be put right, if only they held the controls.

Standing up means voluntarily accepting the burden of Being. Your nervous system responds in an entirely different manner when you face the demands of life voluntarily. You respond to a challenge, instead of bracing for a catastrophe.

All she—he—they—or we—must do to ensure such an outcome is nothing: don't notice, don't react, don't attend, don't discuss, don't consider, don't work for peace, don't take responsibility. Don't confront the chaos and turn it into

Five hundred small decisions, five hundred tiny actions, compose your day, today, and every day. Could you aim one or two of these at a better result? Better, in your own private opinion, by your own individual standards? Could you compare your specific personal tomorrow with your specific personal yesterday? Could you use your own judgment, and ask yourself what that better tomorrow might be?

Solzhenitsyn's writing utterly and finally demolished the intellectual credibility of communism, as ideology or society. He took an axe to the trunk of the tree whose bitter fruits had nourished him so poorly—and whose planting he had witnessed and supported

the world, as perceived, is maya—appearance or illusion. This means, in part, that people are blinded by their desires (as well as merely incapable of seeing things as they truly are). This is true, in a sense that transcends the metaphorical. Your eyes are tools. They are there to help you get what you want. The price you pay for that utility, that specific, focused direction, is blindness to everything else.

The higher good would be the simultaneous optimization of your function and the function of the people around you, across time, as we have discussed previously.

He concluded that the tweed-wearing, armchair-philosophizing, victim-identifying, pity-and-contempt-dispensing social-reformer types frequently did not like the poor, as they claimed. Instead, they just hated the rich. They disguised their resentment and jealousy with piety, sanctimony and self-righteousness.