A friend's student asked her about an Irish warrior princess.
Robinson If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism.
Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts.
Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite.
Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. It does help if you are male and Caucasian. Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously.
Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality.
In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train. But we Elizabeth the monster and patriarchy essay not live in a reasonable world. His 12 Rules for Life is the 1 most-read book on Amazon, where it has a perfect 5-star rating.
And many critics of Peterson have been deeply unfair to his work, mocking it without reading it, or slinging pejoratives at him e. He believes that by studying myths, we can see values and frameworks shared across cultures, and can therefore understand the structures that guide us.
Peterson manages to spin it out over hundreds of pages, and expand it into an elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory that encompasses everything from the direction of history, to the meaning of life, to the nature of knowledge, to the structure of human decision-making, to the foundations of ethics.
A randomly selected passage will convey the flavor of the thing: Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges.
When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived affective incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure.
In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired or avoidance of what is feared in the future.
The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience.
This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. But much of the rest is language so abstract that it cannot be proved or disproved.
Another passage, in which Peterson gives his theory of law: Law is a necessary precondition to salvation, so to speak; necessary, but insufficient. Law provides the borders that limit chaos, and allows for the protected maturation of the individual. Law disciplines possibility, and allows the disciplined individual to bring his or her potentialities—those intrapsychic spirits—under voluntary control.
The law allows for the application of such potentiality to the task of creative and courageous existence—allows spiritual water controlled flow into the valley of the shadow of death.
Law held as an absolute, however, puts man in the position of the eternal adolescent, dependent upon the father for every vital decision, removes the responsibility for action from the individual, and therefore prevents him or her from discovering the potential grandeur of the soul.
Life without law remains chaotic, affectively intolerable. Life that is pure law becomes sterile, equally unbearable.
The domination of chaos or sterility equally breeds murderous resentment or hatred. If you asked him to explain it, you would just get a long string of additional abstract terms.
Ironically, Maps of Meaning contains neither maps nor meaning.Welcome to Pajiba. Run, Michelle Williams, Run! Roles You Can’t Get Over, Actors You Can’t Forgive. Immurement (from Latin im-"in" and murus "wall"; literally "walling in") is a form of imprisonment, usually for life, in which a person is placed within an enclosed space with no exits.
This includes instances where people have been enclosed in extremely tight confinement, such as within a coffin. When used as a means of execution, the prisoner is simply left to die from starvation or dehydration. OK, let's say you're still writing that movie, which is Very Loosely Based on a True leslutinsduphoenix.com've chosen a period of history that involves a lot of exciting fight scenes and explosions so your audience won't fall asleep and now you need some main characters.
T E RF Position on Trans Healthcare. In the s, TERFs substantively supported the effort to bring an end to trans health care access. One TERF operative wrote a government report which led the the revocation of public and private insurance converge of trans medical care. Here are answers to some of the questions visitors have asked about Women's History.
Antony would like to respond to the article in El Pais yesterday: "I would just like to say that I suspect the translation of my interview was a bit rough, and the artistic statement I made was in reference to myself: "As a transgendered person, I am like a wild animal, beyond the realm of Christians and patriarchies.".