merge peterson2

destruction/peterson.md

@@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ He may have a funny voice, he may speak in seemingly silly terms of Big Rats and
 
 Start with his lectures on Maps of Meaning, or on his comprehensive analyses of religion, or on his 12 Rules of Life. It matters not. What matters is this: if you do not know what he believes, you cannot know if he is or isn't worth listening to, because you haven't. Any who seek to discern truth must do this. And it is my hope that you do as well.
 
----
+===
+
+I want to start with an emphasis that I respect you and that this is an intellectual pursuit. If you want to tts this to help you read it, I kinda encourage that given my own ADHD. I just want to make sure there's no pressure on you to respond in short order because to demand that would be rude considering the length. Regard this as a letter to a friend displaying my perspective and not some sort of thesis to try to destroy your way of thinking. I wish to be a friend, not a tyrant, so no pressure.
 
 Philosophy sounds exaggeratory to the uninitiated. I think his language bothers you because he uses the words in broad, abstract ways that don't fit into your understanding. In other words, the rules of his language are different than the rules of yours, and thus you may interpret his arguments differently because your definitions don't match. This is basically the definition of a miscommunication, which are intrinsically frustrating. If you understood the functions, you would realize it actually is barebones logic, and that's how philosophy works at the most basic level. If it sounds like a theory, that's because it IS. Every single interpretation of reality is a theory, because phiolosophically speaking, there is nothing that can truly ever be known. That's not to say each interpretation is equally valid, far from it. It's to say that your interpretation of reality, in the form of an argument or a case you're making, must assume premises to be true in order to be sound. Whether or not they're valid depends on if you agree to all the premises. Starting metaphysically is the most comprehensive way to make the case, and this is why the communication takes the form that it does.
 
@@ -42,4 +44,24 @@ I think your system for role models is headed in the right direction; it's based
 
 Again, I don't believe in role models in the sense that we should look up to the people for who they are, I think we should look up to the praiseworthy things people did while also being able to criticize what they didn't do well. Which I think we agree on, the issue is that the term 'Role Model' suffers from semantic overload, in that it means many things to many people, so we have to redefine the term to ensure we're both referring to the same thing. The term 'nitpick' also suffers from this. We both look up to Kanye for his creative endeavors, for his success, for his willpower and his charisma. We both are sane, so we're able to see that he's quite the antihero; quite a flawed man, to an extreme extent. We love him in spite of his flaws, we don't hate him in spite of his corruption.
 
-I, of course, respect your rationale; there's much truth supporting it. I may do a poddy on the video just so I can know with a greater degree of certainty why I disagree as I discern and carve up a greater rationalization. Perhaps you could join me on it, though that could cause us to turn a 2 hour video into a 15 hour battle of intellect, and I wish to be as respectful of your time as I am protective of mine. Which surely begs the question as to whether or not the discussion was worth it for both of us? I suppose that remains to be seen.
+I, of course, respect your rationale; there's much truth supporting it. I may do a poddy on the video just so I can know with a greater degree of certainty why I disagree as I discern and carve up a greater rationalization. Perhaps you could join me on it, though that could cause us to turn a 2 hour video into a 15 hour battle of intellect, and I wish to be as respectful of your time as I am protective of mine. Which surely begs the question as to whether or not the discussion was worth it for both of us? I suppose that remains to be seen.
+
+https://youtu.be/5_yHwzoGILk?si=izBUqfR5ILSU9cSJ&t=5918
+
+Attempting to clarify the meaning of words
+https://youtu.be/MnUfXYGtT5Q?si=a30kL7wdGnBXrLK8&t=3995
+
+the main themes 12 rules for life 2019-07-28 1:29:00 discussing the danger in people who feel the need to worship him and everything he says… humility
+“if the court jester isn’t vicious, then you’re probably not too stupid… that the satire stays lighthearted because then i haven’t made any particularly egregious mistakes”
+if i were in my 20s perhaps it would be going to my head, but being 55 gives me some humility
+pretty sensible person surrounded by sensible people, I’m not gonna lose sight
+
+Territory, Hierarchy, Security, and Fear 2019-11-08
+53:00 we have term limits in place so we can depose hierarchies, 4-8 years with this pack of idiots, then replace them with a new pack of idiots. Nothing changes, but nothing changes for worse! and we tend away from tyrannies.
+1:21:20 asked to say "this is kermit the frog reporting from sesame street" ... "go to hell"
+"what advice would you give to newlyweds?" "fight."
+"'we never fight' that's because you're cowardly."
+"i didn't say debate, because I don't mean debate. I mean fight."
+
+2019-09-01 the world is your oyster
+~1:15:00 talking about his involvement with the climate change bibgas, he really speaks on more than retards give him credit for