Why Jordan Peterson Admires Nietzsche and Would Love My Object-Oriented Black Cat



Nietzsche had sex exactly one time in his life and contracted syphilis from the experience. This was before the disease was curable. His life began with much promise- he handed the professors at his college a manuscript of a book he was about to publish, they read it, and handed back to him a PhD diploma without asking him to do any coursework. He went from a youthful genius with seemingly endless potential to a raving lunatic who spent his last years hallucinating his ass off while his sister watched over him.

So, he was probably pissed off at the girl who gave him a chancre,and spent the rest of his life cursing anyone even remotely resembling her. Nietzsche was also violently antisemetic. Twilight of the Idols is a brilliant attack on Christianity, however, I found it difficult to read with all of the slurs aimed at Jewish people in it. Much like you, I had to sift through his bullshit to find the gems floating in it.

As for your cat, let’s face it, cats are awesome even when they’re mean.


I doubt either person so far understood Nietzsche though they may have read him. This is exactly the same as hearing but not really listening.


If men are so into things and women into people, how come men play team sports and women go shopping? It's time someone knocked that one over. Along with how things-oriented ,introverted people are either diseased or autistic--we aren't.
I too have been some ways into the OOO movement, reading anyway, and look forward to seeing what folks say about it here.


Charles’s cat is so cuuuuuuuute.


All this, and yet Charles still can not bring himself to quote or reference any philosophical work written by a woman.


What breed is your cat, Charles? He / she looks like a Bombay.

@5 robotslave: Sadly, I've noticed that, too.


@5 I'd be curious to know what exactly you think the thought process is here. Do you think he reaches for a book he doesn't know that's sitting on the shelf--perhaps it has an interesting title--grabs it, peruses the cover, perhaps even glances at the table of contents, then notes that the author is female, sighs heavily, and replaces it?

I have to admit that when I'm reading any sort of academic literature for research purposes, I generally don't look at the name of the author at all until I'm writing the citations and bibliography (unless I'm deliberately looking for works by a particular person because I'm already familiar with some of their other work). I would presume that's how most people conduct their research.

I'm not a philosopher, but I'm not sure I recall any women at all prior to the 20th century writing strictly philosophical works (you might make a case for someone like Hildegard of Bingen or other female Doctors of the Church, but most of their interests would more properly fall under the category of Catholic theology, a topic I take it that would be of limited interest to The Stranger's readers; likewise Hypatia is also often cited as a female philosopher, but again, if The Stranger's readership is out in the streets demanding coverage of neoplatonism, I will be very surprised).

If you know of female philosophers whose writings are germane, you could always, you know, point them out yourself in the comments. I have little doubt that it would be of greater interest than blaming Charles for the sexism that largely kept women out of academia prior to the 20th century.


This proves Peterson is a moron


I've read Beyond Good and Evil and was very surprised by Nietzsche's scathing comments about women. I'm also very familiar with Peterson's work and you blatantly misquoted him. He says, based on Big 5 personality studies, that men are more INCLINED towards STEM fields and that women are more inclined towards nursing positions because they're more agreeable than men - on average. Nowhere does he say men are BETTER than women at engineering.


My 10-month old female black cat is exactly the same way as your male black cat, except she's also pretty smart. Certainly smarter than Jordan Peterson.


People always take Peterson out of context. If you really believe Peterson does not have an utter respect for women or the jobs they decide to follow, you're misreading the message. Men are naturally better than woman at some things. Women are naturally better than men at some things. That DOESN'T mean a woman cannot do what a man does or vice versa, yet this general audience seems to believe.


Charles thinks that he's an intellectual.


Comparing humans to cats doesn't make you any less of a crank that Peterson, who, by the way, does not consider himself an intellectual, either.
Now that that's out of the way, you should understand why Peterson is connecting with people. He's actually helping huge numbers of people (yes, primarily men) to face themselves, simultaneously encouraging them to take responsibility for their actions, to see the intense benefits of personal ethics and integrity. Not once have I heard him say anything negative about women, any ethnicity or nationality, or anyone, other than Marxist philosophers, communists, Nazis or other fascists. Neither have I heard Peterson agree with everything written by Nietzsche or others he's read. All this to say
Peterson clearly doesn't hate women. He merely suggests, accurately, that there are differences between us.
Finally, I've come to understand Peterson's harshest critics haven't really listened or read him, but merely cherry pick to suit their own agenda, or foster hatred or disrespect for the man.
Good luck teaching your class. Hope you teach them to read, and think for themselves, and after having done so, question them again-even you.