/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19661605]

Does Jordan Peterson deserve to be considered a prominent conservative thinker in the likes of these other men? Not bait, I'm seriously wondering what /lit/ thinks on this.

[all fields No.19661614]

Posting about JP or left vs right threads is always bait.

[Anonymous No.19661620]

more people listen to him than those other guys

[Anonymous No.19661681]

>>19661605
>Karamzin
wtf, I had to look it up
>Also, Karamzin is sometimes considered a founding father of Russian conservatism. Upon appointing him a state historian, Alexander I greatly valued Karamzin's advice on political matters. His conservative views were clearly expounded in The Memoir on Old and New Russia, written for Alexander I in 1812. This scathing attack on reforms proposed by Mikhail Speransky was to become a cornerstone of official ideology of imperial Russia for years to come.
or in Russian
>B 1811 гoдy Кapaмзин нaпиcaл «Зaпиcкy o дpeвнeй и нoвoй Poccии в eё пoлитичecкoм и гpaждaнcкoм oтнoшeниях», в кoтopoй oтpaжaлиcь взгляды кoнcepвaтивных cлoёв oбщecтвa, нeдoвoльных либepaльными peфopмaми импepaтopa. Cвoeй зaдaчeй oн cтaвил дoкaзaтeльcтвo тoгo, чтo никaких пpeoбpaзoвaний пpoвoдить в cтpaнe нe нyжнo.
that's literally all they have to say about his politics and he's included in the list?

[Anonymous No.19661693]

>>19661605
>adams
>conservative
It's just a really weird way to classify him. Like some amerishart was using mcdonalds wifi to add that

[Anonymous No.19661697]

>>19661605
>wfb jr
>thinker
Oh dear God. This is either a boomer fantasy section or some lwer weirdo who just needs enemies

[Anonymous No.19661706]

>>19661605
>Peterson in the same list as Hume and Chesterton

Is this a fucking joke?

[Anonymous No.19661715]

>>19661605
I'm just going to say rn there's no such thing as a conservative as conservative isn't informative enough to point at an ideology. It's just weird boomerspeak

[Anonymous No.19661729]

>>19661605
Slightly off topic, but it's amazing how this group of "conservative" politicians are some of the most responsible for the decline of the economic power of western nations and the siphoning off of that power to China

[Anonymous No.19661738]

He may be the single most pop-culture relevant 'conservative' public intellectual ever, discounting Kissinger. He is a sophist and a shitty thinker outside of his psychological wheelhouse, but you cannot ignore his relevance.

[Anonymous No.19661820]

>>19661693
They are saying Adams is important to conservative thought, that his writings and work was influential. ESL?

[Anonymous No.19661838]

>>19661693
Alexander Hamilton would have been more appropriate I think.
>>19661715
While conservatism does vary quite a bit, I do think it can be broadly categorized.

[Anonymous No.19661860]

>>19661820
>>19661838
Wtf is conservative thought? Aren't the dandy victorians more progressive than some appalachian mountain, no? But technically they're further back in time.
Now you can say "it's just a respect for institutions" ideology but to some degree we respect all institutions or they would be burned to the ground. The question is what institutions do you prefer? That would be decided by an actual ideology. At best I consider conservativism to be a political position inside a political philosophy/ideology.

[Anonymous No.19661876]

>>19661860
I would say it’s not just a respect for institutions, but also a respect for traditional social, cultural, and political values.

[Anonymous No.19661877]

>>19661605
>Charlie Kirk

[Anonymous No.19661883]

>>19661860
You are over thinking it.
>>19661876
Just the traditional ideas they like, not tradition as a whole.

[Anonymous No.19661884]

>>19661860
Conservatism is the upper chamber of liberalism. It gets to veto the most extreme changes proposed until those who want those changes are powerful to enact them themselves. Very boring /pol/ thread

[Anonymous No.19661889]

>>19661876
Traditional is sorta undefinable. Just a general word that means nothing.

>>19661883
You just agreed w me tho. Are you saying they shouldn't be thought about too much (political ideologies)? I mean I don't disagree. I generally say you have reactionary, conservative, moderate, progressive, revolutionary political viewpoints inside any political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19661894]

>>19661877
Sadly it’s just Russel Kirk

[Anonymous No.19661900]

>>19661889
>Just a general word that means nothing.
Maybe, but traditions themselves mean something.

[Anonymous No.19661903]

>>19661884
Agreed. I just don't understand how wiki works or how ppl say shit like this. The early 20th century was all about "undefinable words" and then we're here saying "good" or "objective" like a bunch of knobs and it's professors saying that crap too.

[Anonymous No.19661905]

>>19661729
Thatcher and Reagan are the only two on that list that fit that description.

[Anonymous No.19661909]

>>19661900
Yes, a tradition means something that is not necessarily definable in any way except that it's a tradition. It's a word that points to itself. It doesn't point to any particular tradition. It could be a tradition to hate traditions or to revolt every 5 months and replace all institutions, contradicting itself.

[Anonymous No.19661912]

>>19661905
They're just free-market economic rousseauian liberals.

[Anonymous No.19661918]

>19661889
Thought should be given to political ideology but political ideology should be personal, not collective and it ultimately is for most people but the fear of the other side can not be under estimated. Probably not going where you intended, but frankly that direction holds no interest to me and it feels like a giant hole.

[Anonymous No.19661927]

>>19661903
Wikipedia works by using published material as evidence that something is true. So basically, since liberals, dominate all publishing, they decide for wikipedia through both academic and mass media output who the conservatives are, even at the doxographical level. So it's not just that conservatism is a negating reaction to the liberal (progressive) position, but that liberals also actively create and identify conservatives over time. It is the most brilliantly stupid and futile dichotomy ever drafted, and a testament to the ongoing fine-tooling of democratic society. Every honest liberal must know he will be a conservative one day in the history books, and every conservative that he is doomed. Yet they dance as if none of this mattered, because in a sense, it doesn't alter anything really underlying power.

[Anonymous No.19661949]

>>19661927
It's a crazy way to have a narrative. Granted my issue isn't that because if these people were smart they wouldn't be saying "pro-life" or "pro-choice" or "america means freedom" etc. Anyways these ppl have no idea what they're talking about and they have created an immovable distinction (because it's a generalized word which means it can't be satisfied) which would already have been solved a century prior and it's because they're just morons. Chop up a very simple, easy solution to retards in power being retards.

[Anonymous No.19661968]

Thanks God he is separated from Scruton by Shitchens. At least some dignity is preserved.

[Anonymous No.19661972]

>>19661918
Oh noes now I'm going to have to (you) myself

>>19661889

Well politics is a giant hole for sure but imo that's why it should be generalized so we don't have to deal w it in a more complicated manner than it should be.

[Anonymous No.19661980]

>>19661681
So, Karamzin is basically usual Russian cleptocracy reeeeing at any attempt to change rotten corrupt system that will crumble under its own inefficiency anyway.

[Anonymous No.19661993]

>>19661949
Well where this gets interesting is that too much stability creates too much growth. Cancerous, explosive, unable to be safely discharged. That WWII-present period of not quite hundred years has racked up quite the surplus and our ability to consume it responsibly is starting to show its age. So there is a creeping polarization over the last twenty years, which has gotten to a point where each side just reads their own news, wants to grab the entire pot and be reckless with it, to have power over it and show they have power over it. Once the boomers are totally extinct it's going to be the biggest wealth redistribution in history. What will the polarized and spoiled children of the surplus do with it? What ideologies will they mouth off as a pretext for outconsuming their rivals? We'll have to see, but history is not over. The discourse is just enfeebled

[Anonymous No.19662000]

>>19661980
idk man, I'm studying Russian and we read his short stories - he was aesthetically pretty european-oriented and progressive within the then-current Russian context; as for the politics, I've never heard him mentioned in that context, unlike plenty of other writers we've gone over

[Anonymous No.19662011]

>>19661993
I don't disagree w anything besides the hegelian sublation concept for stability you have going on there.

[Anonymous No.19662015]

Peterson became public figure after transgender toilet debate. Yes, thats literary his genesis, his origin story as popular intellectual. From depths of tranny crappers he came.

[Anonymous No.19662028]

>>19662015
>came
jbp, answer for yourself

[Anonymous No.19662029]

>>19661972
Sure, what I was not so directly saying is that the common fears represent an ideology better than itself when it comes to the generalization. Finding conservatives or liberals at their own throats over their own beliefs is not a difficult thing to find, what ultimately keeps them from suicide is the common fear.

[Anonymous No.19662035]

>>19661605
Sure, but that's mainly because all other than Hume, Carlyle and Strauss are buffoons with no theoretical substance.

[Anonymous No.19662041]

>>19662029
I didn't connect them like I should have. I treated them separately.
Ig I'm only bitter because I was lied to w Disney movies growing up (stand up for yourself, fight for what you believe in etc) only to find out that that makes me a bad person etc but also w politics being the "mature" thing to research and what adults do to solve problems. The two biggest issues for my life and then, as you separate, you find they don't have any coherent concept of what they're talking about and we were doomed to suffer for taking these positions. I'm out of politics now but geez some of these issues are not rocket science at all.

(PR, I finally found out how to speak rw bottom. Saved a bunch of cat pics)

[Anonymous No.19662070]

>>19662000
Well, I'm Russian myself and if you don't want too see what passes today for Russian national conservatism don't google Egor Prosvirnin.

[Anonymous No.19662081]

>>19662041
There are many simple problems which the parties have common ground on but they fixate on that one difference or spin it in a way the other side will not tolerate and make ersatz gestures of compromise, it maintains the common fear.

[Anonymous No.19662098]

>>19662081
Yeah politics is dumb. Thankfully we don't need politics to have a bigger impact even in politics

[Anonymous No.19662112]

>>19662011
Well I'm not especially committed to Hegel either, I don't see the universal state coming out of this or an end to slavery. But the attempt to preserve things politically as long as possible has a "generation ship" problem, to borrow from science fiction, and this is only getting worse with age. There is the question of how to handle our surplus, but also an intense distaste for what produced it that is now emerging and would seem to guarantee we aren't keeping things as is for too much longer. Not progress, but change.

[Anonymous No.19662142]

>>19662112
Sure and I was saying the sublation mechanism where the negation (instability) is inherent in the growth (stability).
I agree and I think the issue is in handling it with sociological hands or in any political sense. Obviously there are issues w liberal axiology and redistribution is an admission of failure and even an implicit assertion of continuity (rather than fixing the system altogether).

[Anonymous No.19662302]

>>19661605
Conservative thinker = oxymoron

[Anonymous No.19662808]

>>19661605
Absolutely not. He's a retard that lies about reading books or just lacks understanding. All he is, is just an outlet for anyone that is disaffected by the current leftist cultural hegemony. He's merely a slightly more sophisticated version of Trump.

[Anonymous No.19662834]

>>19661605
He's not a conservative. Jordan's problem with modern liberals is their ideas will lead to a backlash at some point from the right.

[Anonymous No.19662838]

>>19661605
Scratch the last four for sure. Though at least two of these were good CIA men, no doubt. I'd include that dude that married that fake Somalian female refugee dissident as well, surnamed Hirsi Ali, but whose grift has now grown stale as a pool of stagnant water under the bridge.

[Anonymous No.19662878]

>>19661605
No, but neither does Hitchens, Buckley, Kirk, and half of the people on that list. Wikipedia and the 21st century are shit, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.19662895]

>>19661883
>>19661876
>>19661860
>>19661884
Kill yourselves low IQ trannies

[Anonymous No.19662905]

>>19661876
Though most contemporary Anglophone conservatives value the free market. Which may of course has its benefits, but it isn't really 'traditional' in any meaningful sense.

[Anonymous No.19662915]

>>19662905
Neocons/neolibs are not conservatives. You fell for it because you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.19662956]

I've said this here before. The left-right political binary is a concept that comes from a leftist ideological perspective. People and ideologies that have nothing to do with each other get grouped under "right-wing" based on their level of support for the global leftist revolution, and nothing else.
Also, don't fall for the linguistic trap in thinking it's the same with "left-wing ideologies". Leftism is a specific ideology rooted in the French Revolution.

[Anonymous No.19662968]

>>19661605
we will return to peterson in a few years. us contrarians, we don't know what he says but we know it is disagreeable to us because he is so popular. when he has been forgotten by the public we will return to him and see his worth.