Jordan Peterson

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But it is right there, in fact, that a large part of the problem resides, as I understand things in any case. One would have to stop and dwell on what this term *philosopher* actually means and how the philosopher came on the scene. But I think I may mean the philosopher as he developed in the post-17th century and not, as it were, the Platonic and Aristotelian variety.

Well, I was talking here about "you" , someone who knows very well the context of this forum where a term like "philosopher" would be a more existential, neo-Budhhist, individual seeker, as some post-modern variant on the 60's hippy visiting India perhaps. You can keep using your own traditional terms but only when you want to deliberately confuse and call into question why you'd even bother to insist by repetition. If about fundamental things like wisdom, health or reason there's already this immense gap in comprehension. It looks like insanity to insist.

In the last 4-5 centuries *philosophy* has become a rebellious state of mind and, I suggest in this context, that such a state of mind is the source for radical movements in ideas that, essentially, destroy hierarchies.

Perhaps that's more "decades" than "centuries" but I digress. Wisdom is about dispelling ignorance, confusions and mistake. In that sense it's very much linked to the scientific mindset, the main difference being that technology is in service to add wealth, profit, status while wisdom is only interested in taking away any falsehood, no matter how much "use" some illusion might have for a given undertaking. In the context of "health giving" it therefore remains ambiguous: to the degree sickness or poverty is caused by error and delusion, a wise life will be healthy and rich. To the degree health and richness is caused by self-delusion, lies and error, a wise life might turn out to be unhealthy and poor. This applies to physical and mental functioning.

That is, to become separated from woman eternally. To draw other men into a sort of homesexual rebellion against man’s basic responsibility. It corresponds as I see things to radical feminist segregation from men. It is pathological therefor. I suggest that such an attitude is a negation of responsibility and as such cannot lead to *freedom* but rather a false and self-deceiving sense of disconnectedness. If what I say is true then it posits a need — a requirement — for a definite change in the way that woman and family are viewed. And it does also, quite clearly, connect to both *life* and *culture*. These are inseparable categories.

Not sure what kind of actual practise or reality you are referring to here. If the idea of Woman is defined as some ignorant addition to a full, complete sense of the nature of man, it would make sense to advocate its eradication. While it's experimentally true that a lot of men and women are trying to embody the Woman psychology despite its complete dysfunction, nothing I ever read here indicated any gender separation or avoidance of dealing with each other. If anything you seem to have trouble communicating normally with the female members especially. As for people's life style, as far as I know male members have had their phases living with women. Never I sensed much lack of experience there. So what are you on about?

The opposite is the case : I understand more fully their position and a good deal more than most as to how it came about.

But you're still very much part of that feminine psychology and one hallmark of that is the inability to step outside it to reflect on specifically that. It would simply mean destruction as it could only exist by actively blocking or hiding that reflection. And of course all you paint on this forum as poison and destruction would be simply representing anything that could lead to more objective external and subjective internal views.

[Santiago Odo]

If about fundamental things like wisdom, health or reason there's already this immense gap in comprehension. It looks like insanity to insist.

Yet as you well know I never did recognize much *wisdom*. Wisdom health reason are, still, open questions. I suggest that you-Diebert have not made much headway in relation to those terms and topics. I am speaking to the Denizen Diebert here. The one who has built himself into the very structure of this place.

Perhaps that's more "decades" than "centuries" but I digress.

No, in fact it is centuries. At least if examined from the perspective of a large metaphysical shift. The Seventeenth century is when it became evident especially. Richard Weaver speak of the origins of important shifts as beginning in the Thirteenth century. To *digress* is actually necessary. It has to be done. And I associate this digression with the investigation of causation.

Not sure what kind of actual practise or reality you are referring to here. If the idea of Woman is defined as some ignorant addition to a full, complete sense of the nature of man, it would make sense to advocate its eradication. While it's experimentally true that a lot of men and women are trying to embody the Woman psychology despite its complete dysfunction, nothing I ever read here indicated any gender separation or avoidance of dealing with each other. If anything you seem to have trouble communicating normally with the female members especially. As for people's life style, as far as I know male members have had their phases living with women. Never I sensed much lack of experience there. So what are you on about?

I am relatively certain that you do not understand, and this is part of my point. (But again it is not you-Diebert I refer to here). The rest of what you say here about Woman is nothing more than a recapitulation of essential QRS *doctrines* derived, overall, from Weininger.

Engaging with you here is as I have said recently ‘venturing down a rabbit hole’ and results in time-wasting.

The man-woman relationship, like it or not, is at the very core of our life and, if anything, needs to be brought out as a mature topic of conversation. As you know I rather quickly came to understand that what our Dear Friends QRS rejected, with adamancy, became for me those areas where additional research and consideration eeded to be undertaken. I have extended this *method*, if you will, into larger contexts.

But you're still very much part of that feminine psychology and one hallmark of that is the inability to step outside it to reflect on specifically that. It would simply mean destruction as it could only exist by actively blocking or hiding that reflection. And of course all you paint on this forum as poison and destruction would be simply representing anything that could lead to more objective external and subjective internal views.

Perhaps you would develop your thought here. Can you demonstrate what it is you are suggesting? The implication is that you have stepped outside of that. Can you speak more about what you have found and what this leads you to? I may not be a suitable rabbit for you but I do have two ass’s ears and they are both turned toward you ...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The one who has built himself into the very structure of this place.

Nah, that prize is yours and yours alone, based on persistence, stylistic effort, account number & dramatic departures, overall word count and leading post count during active periods. Plus your attention seeking antipodal positions in all of that, would leave no doubt to anyone's mind that you are the very structure of the forum, as far as there still would be one!

The man-woman relationship, like it or not, is at the very core of our life and, if anything, needs to be brought out as a mature topic of conversation.

It's strangely important to you while it's not considered to be "life core" in nearly any mature "stable" relationship which I know of. The children... perhaps a while. And all cases where it became that core were always the unhealthy, sick and destructive ones -- especially once all the relating declined. In a way you betray here your own unfamiliarity with maintaining sincere relationships. The way you're elevating all this is doomed my friend. And that's a kind warning.

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: And that leads, of course, to the notion of woman-as-rebel, or the radical feminist woman who reacts not essentially against ‘patriarchal structures’ (the Paternal Christian God is the term Pam used and may be telling of where she stands within the gender-political conflict) but really against Nature itself (or herself).

Alex, the woman who desires to know who she is on the deepest of levels, the truest of the true, the real of the real, the authentic of the authentic cares not for political ideologies such as feminism. As for me being against Nature, I have produced two children who have produced two grandchildren and am currently in a stable and lively marriage of 43 years. Obviously these things are not necessary to find one's true self - as a matter of fact they are usually considered to be hindrances - but for me, they were intrinsic to my journey.

The greatest lament and the more intense rage of woman is not against man but against her biological condition. Without man and without the power to oppose Nature in the sense I speak of no woman would ever be able to know any level of freedom outside of her natural condition. It is not therefor woman that liberates woman but really man who provides the tools to do so. And if an *unmoored* and *untethered* philosophy gives her rebellious tools to arm her fight against Nature, well, it seems to me that this leads right into certain very important questions and issues of our present.

It is neither woman that liberates woman or man who liberates woman but the finding of the truth of her full and whole and present identity that liberates woman. It is clear that you don't want a woman of reality, you want a woman of your dreams. I assume you are older than 14?

[Santiago Odo]

You assume correctly. :-)

[Santiago Odo]

It's strangely important to you while it's not considered to be "life core" in nearly any mature "stable" relationship which I know of. The children... perhaps a while. And all cases where it became that core were always the unhealthy, sick and destructive ones -- especially once all the relating declined. In a way you betray here your own unfamiliarity with maintaining sincere relationships. The way you're elevating all this is doomed my friend. And that's a kind warning.

I like the ominous note at the end. It reminded me of the klok-klok of frightful bones in the closet awaking to invocation.

I can’t imagine that you are not aware — but though you are clever overall I sometimes begin to ask myself if, perhaps, you really are a little dense in some areas — that I am speaking to a larger issue.

The Genius platform, directly influenced by Weininger, is a form of homosexuality. And to the degree that one succumbs to the charms of that romantic yet perverse pose and imagines that one can be, and should be, ‘free of woman’, one falls into a terrible mistake looked at from any angle. It requires a real fool, one really hopped-up in will of a perverse sort to make a life-path out of a homosexual road. And these sort of influences and currents are very very noticeable in our present and are in overt manifestation.

The current of nihilism is ultimately a process of self-destruction. And if one agrees to agree with those processes, I suggest, one quickly falls into self-destructive modes. I suggest that this is the fundamental error, in any case one of them, that motivated our Founders, yet I have gone on from that recognition to examine *the larger currents* and the *shifting metaphysics* that are the causal influences of self-destruction. I describe a position within a Greco-Christian perspective because I have come to understand Greco-Christianity, even with its warts, as being *life-affirming*. Just so my position is clear, Old Bean!

If I say that man’s relationship to women is *fundamental* I do not mean that a man must become a satellite revolving her emotionally, and this is in essence what the GF resistance to the ‘flowy’ feminine was about. A necessary and a proper position to have, mind you. But it is man’s work in relation to the female of the species in the context of family life that I am speaking about. I do believe, and I have come to understand, that this is crucial territory. And not territory to be sacrificed and lost through a child’s momentary rebelliousness, as your *philosophy* often seems to me to be and increasingly appears so.

I reverse your *curse* Diebert : I would say that those who fail to really grasp the important things, and those who tart up misperceptions into neurotic structures of pseudo-philosophy (that is, ungrounded from sound metaphysics) are defining a path that leads to the *doom* you envision.

[Santiago Odo]

Alex, the woman who desires to know who she is on the deepest of levels, the truest of the true, the real of the real, the authentic of the authentic cares not for political ideologies such as feminism. As for me being against Nature, I have produced two children who have produced two grandchildren and am currently in a stable and lively marriage of 43 years. Obviously these things are not necessary to find one's true self - as a matter of fact they are usually considered to be hindrances - but for me, they were intrinsic to my journey.

You make a mistake, Pam, and it is because you are wrapped up in a subjective reaction to an objective conversation. If you choose to, review what I am communicating, get some distance from it, and understand that I am not speaking to you but to larger issues and currents. You seem monomaniacal because you have a totally subjective and largely disconnected stance. I do not desire to build a bridge to your perspective. And I accept that you do not desire to build one to mine.

It is something perhaps a little like a Mexican Standoff? :-)

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: You make a mistake, Pam, and it is because you are wrapped up in a subjective reaction to an objective conversation. If you choose to, review what I am communicating, get some distance from it, and understand that I am not speaking to you but to larger issues and currents. You seem monomaniacal because you have a totally subjective and largely disconnected stance. I do not desire to build a bridge to your perspective. And I accept that you do not desire to build one to mine.

It is something perhaps a little like a Mexican Standoff? :-)

The fact that you believe your posts are objective and mine are subjective 'reactions' suggests to me that your social male-female conditioning runs very deep.

No one has, or has every had, an objective conversation. You would know this if you would take the time to go within and observe the nature of your thoughts in relation to the idea of self.

I am willing to stop communicating with you - say the word or put me on ignore.

[Santiago Odo]

You misunderstand — again! When I say ‘objective’ I mean focussed on objective events, the present. It is clearly demonstrated in all my posts. Your interests are ‘subjective’ indofar as *enlightenment* is a subjective category. You are further ‘subjectively oriented’ because — I gather — you do not read, are not a student of history or of current events.

[jupiviv]

The Genius platform, directly influenced by Weininger, is a form of homosexuality. And to the degree that one succumbs to the charms of that romantic yet perverse pose and imagines that one can be, and should be, ‘free of woman’, one falls into a terrible mistake looked at from any angle. It requires a real fool, one really hopped-up in will of a perverse sort to make a life-path out of a homosexual road. And these sort of influences and currents are very very noticeable in our present and are in overt manifestation.

So Alexfried, Concubine-Adjunct of the Western Canon, Paladin-Exarch of the Itinerant Order of the Root, Honorary Member and thrice Deputy Vestarches of the Council of Real Women against Misosophy, Kapellmeister and First Chair of the Orchestra of Traditional Sorts of Things, etc., has been reduced to "your ghey"? Wherefor this tragedy? Wherein its provenance? Whereto "existence itself"? Gonna decapitate me some hot chicks now. Byeee!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I like the ominous note at the end. It reminded me of the klok-klok of frightful bones in the closet awaking to invocation.

In my experience only gay personalities make those kind of ornamental jokes, employing the feminine reversal of the serious into the absurd and inane. Isn't it all fancy & dandy. The winking of Nietzsche's Last Men, who were not really men.

The Genius platform, directly influenced by Weininger, is a form of homosexuality.

It's really way more easy to believe that you are obsessed with repressed homosexuality instead of a whole forum or age.

If I say that man’s relationship to women is *fundamental* I do not mean that a man must become a satellite revolving her emotionally, and this is in essence what the GF resistance to the ‘flowy’ feminine was about. A necessary and a proper position to have, mind you. But it is man’s work in relation to the female of the species in the context of family life that I am speaking about. I do believe, and I have come to understand, that this is crucial territory. And not territory to be sacrificed and lost through a child’s momentary rebelliousness, as your *philosophy* often seems to me to be and increasingly appears so.

Of course the idea of woman here functions like an aggregate: the body, a child, our family, the world and all thingness, possessions, hope, future and so on, all projected now on a relationship which turns out to be a psychological need first and foremost, rising inside some culture and its particular idealization. It's way more realistic to describe this as masculine and feminine orientations each moving inside a different universe. While the masculine could enter the female universe ("embodying" her that way, to some degree) and thereby repressing to a fairly absurd degree, the feminine can never enter the male universe: she simply would not exist there at all.

I would say that those who fail to really grasp the important things, and those who tart up misperceptions into neurotic structures of pseudo-philosophy (that is, ungrounded from sound metaphysics) are defining a path that leads to the *doom* you envision.

Way too generic! That paragraph is just rephrasing the idea that ignorance leads to suffering. My remarks were instead way more specific: that relationships based on men believing the relationship with the feminine is "fundamental" to anything at all will experience a lot of pain & delusion as contradictions will widen. He might be trying to relate to his image of the feminine but that's a type of "blessed" illusion not conductive to much thought.

[Pam Seeback]

Santiago Odo: You misunderstand — again! When I say ‘objective’ I mean focussed on objective events, the present. It is clearly demonstrated in all my posts. Your interests are ‘subjective’ indofar as *enlightenment* is a subjective category. You are further ‘subjectively oriented’ because — I gather — you do not read, are not a student of history or of current events.

You are correct, I do not focus on history or current events, I focus on the nature of the subject of history or current events.

Does it not make sense to understand the nature of the who before assuming an understanding of the why, what, where and when?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Santiago Odo: You misunderstand — again! When I say ‘objective’ I mean focussed on objective events, the present. It is clearly demonstrated in all my posts. Your interests are ‘subjective’ indofar as *enlightenment* is a subjective category. You are further ‘subjectively oriented’ because — I gather — you do not read, are not a student of history or of current events.

You are correct, I do not focus on history or current events, I focus on the nature of the subject of history or current events.

Does it not make sense to understand the nature of the who before assuming an understanding of the why, what, where and when?

Lets clarify this for the common good: conversations around here normally see the term "objective" as related to existence, the absolute, the question of inherent vs non-inherent existence and perhaps the role of logic and reason. Subjective orientations like history and world events are internal affairs, that is: deeply related to ones own interpretation caused by transitioning forms like culture, emotion and desire.

While this can be rehashed again if so desired, it won't be in this thread about Jordan Peterson and it might be split off. It's tempting to discuss all things related to philosophy in this rather specific topic, as all things do relate at some point, but well, please organize thought.

[Pam Seeback]

I've moved the conversation over to "The Map is not the territory" thread, I believe it fits here nicely.

[Matt Gregory]

One must, in my view, begin from the predicate of understanding what it means to be *lost* when it comes to understanding the really important things. But even right there — *really important things* — one has entered into a definitional mine-field! What is really important? Who knows? On what basis have they established their knowing?

The Buddha began with the idea of suffering, which is a rational place to start figuring out what's important because, although we all talk about physics and matter as being the foundation of reality, we all behave as if suffering is most real thing in that we constantly act to alleviate and avoid suffering, in ourselves and others.

[Santiago Odo]

The Buddha began with the idea of suffering, which is a rational place to start figuring out what's important because, although we all talk about physics and matter as being the foundation of reality, we all behave as if suffering is most real thing in that we constantly act to alleviate and avoid suffering, in ourselves and others.

I would suggest that your assertion, and the Buddha's assertion within the context of Occidental civilization and the development of ideas there, could be shown to be nihilism incarnate. But I am aware that the term *nihilism* would then, rather quickly, become a hot term. Meaning, who defines what nihilism is (or isn't?). Right there the entire question of values, evaluation and also interpretation immediately come into play.

It is my understanding that neo-Buddhism (as it should properly be called) when it makes inroads into the Occident, quickly becomes a nihilistic movement. You and any other person are both free to make any particular choice that suits you. But the choice that you-plural make is not necessarily helpful, if I can use this word here. And when I use that word, and when I refer to Occidental values and trajectory, I am obviously indicating that my own position is critical of neo-Buddhism.

Further, I would suggest that your unsubstantiated use of the phrase 'rational place' is, upon examination, quite loaded. That is, you use it as if it requires no further explanation, and as a sort of 'given'. But it is not.

[Santiago Odo]

You are correct, I do not focus on history or current events, I focus on the nature of the subject of history or current events.

Does it not make sense to understand the nature of the who before assuming an understanding of the why, what, where and when?

It obviously ‘makes sense’ to you. My orientation is — obviously — opposite. I think my opposition developed as I meditated on the nihilistic choices and reactions of those who began GF as a social reform movement. When I saw what thise choices resulted in (unending wheelspinning called *philosophical conversation*) it became necessary to counter-propose to it.

[Santiago Odo]

Lets clarify this for the common good: conversations around here normally see the term "objective" as related to existence, the absolute, the question of inherent vs non-inherent existence and perhaps the role of logic and reason. Subjective orientations like history and world events are internal affairs, that is: deeply related to ones own interpretation caused by transitioning forms like culture, emotion and desire.

The common good is better served when the one with moderator’s power to intervene, shuffle posts, split them off, et cetera, avoids the temptation to fiddle obsessively in the *threads*.

What your definitions of words and terms are — jackass — are not mine. You do not tell me how to clarify my thought and nor should you suppose the same in relation to anyone else who writes here.

You are beginning the same meddling processes that brought GF to a near ZERO PARTICIPATION. Put a brake on it.

[Santiago Odo]

Alex, Diebert has asked that we move our conversations about "subjective and objective" from the Jordan Peterson thread as it is not directly related and I agree with his request, so if you are amenable, I would like to discuss these terms here in this thread, as I do believe they are a perfect fit.

The conversation as it was proceeding was fine as it was, in my view. Peterson represents a philosophical self-help trend that though shallow in some sense in his case represents a crucial shift in how meta-ideas are presented and understood in the present. Subjective categories expressed in the objective sphere. When a moderator with his own *philosophical* assertions directs a conversation and meddles in it, it rapidly leads to untenable circumstances.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It was just a request offered as a service to the members, not myself. If it's such a hot item I will refrain from it. The only thing I will keep doing at times is moving topics which seem to have as only purpose to discuss politics, news or moderation to other sections.

[Santiago Odo]

Lets clarify this for the common good: conversations around here normally see the term "objective" as related to existence, the absolute, the question of inherent vs non-inherent existence and perhaps the role of logic and reason. Subjective orientations like history and world events are internal affairs, that is: deeply related to ones own interpretation caused by transitioning forms like culture, emotion and desire.

While this can be rehashed again if so desired, it won't be in this thread about Jordan Peterson and it might be split off. It's tempting to discuss all things related to philosophy in this rather specific topic, as all things do relate at some point, but well, please organize thought.

As I said ‘the common good’ is that communication proceed without destructive meddling by one who has very definite opinions and desires to control discourse. I have very different definitions about what is objective and subjective and take issue with you asserting your definition and disrupting the flow of conversation. You have made your intervention here a necessary topic to discuss, insofar as you seek to impose your terms arbitrarily. You do not make such decisions. You don’t control or direct terms or designations. That you do this, and that such interventions occur in our present, is definitely germane to conversation on Peterson. People also do not like his terms and his tenets and seek to criticize and inhibit them. Don’t you do the same.

[Santiago Odo]

It was just a request offered as a service to the members, not myself. If it's such a hot item I will refrain from it. The only thing I will keep doing at times is moving topics which seem to have as only purpose to discuss politics, news or moderation to other sections.

It should be obvious, bobito, that I do not make the separations you do brtween politics, current events and how ideas function in these realms. This is our spiritual world.

As to your control of comments made about your meddlesomeness, from me you will always receive them in situ as it were. Just as here. What you do with them I cannot control. If you move my topics though, you end my participation in them. What others do under that circumstance is up to them.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I do not make the separations you do brtween politics, current events and how ideas function in these realms.

This forum will not become one giant single mushed together thread just because that makes you feel better. Sorry.

If you move my topics though, you end my participation in them. What others do under that circumstance is up to them.

Look, a quick reality check -- and if you think it's a veiled threat you really went bonkers -- but if today all your accounts were erased and all of the thousands of posts attached from the forum too, nobody would really care, well, perhaps I would, being possible the only one who always saw the merit in a few bits and pieces.

When you've finished digesting that reality, please imagine how little anyone cares about any "threat" to non-participate. It's a hard & careless world. My advice would be to appreciate more the one place which still allows you to do your thing under very few conditions.

Like reading all my copious quoting, of Peterson, of course, so you can connect it all magically back to the dipping gold price.

“You can only find out what you actually believe (rather than what you think you believe) by watching how you act. You simply don’t know what you believe, before that. You are too complex to understand yourself.”
― Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

"You must fight or capitulate to those with whom you refuse to talk."
― Jordan B. Peterson, Twitter

“The Great Mother aborts children, and is the dead fetus; breeds pestilence, and is the plague; she makes of the skull something gruesomely compelling, and is all skulls herself. To unveil her is to risk madness, to gaze over the abyss, to lose the way, to remember the repressed trauma. She is the molestor of children, the golem, the bogey-man, the monster in the swamp, the rotting cadaverous zombie who threatens the living. She is progenitor of the devil, the “strange son of chaos.” She is the serpent, and Eve, the temptress; she is the femme fatale, the insect in the ointment, the hidden cancer, the chronic sickness, the plague of locusts, the cause of drought, the poisoned water. She uses erotic pleasure as bait to keep the world alive and breeding; she is a gothic monster, who feeds on the blood of the living.”
― Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief

[jupiviv]

Since I, delusional fool that I am, have merely exchanged the Breitbartian brainwashing once so astutely recognised by Quinn with an SJW one as will be inevitably even more astutely recognised soon enough by Gregory, here is Marx himself shooting the shit about Hegel shooting the shit about Alexfried:

Family and civil society are actual components of the state, actual spiritual existences of will; they are the modes of existence of the state; family and civil society make themselves into the state. They are the active force. According to Hegel they are, on the contrary, made by the actual Alexfried. It is not their own life’s course which unites them into the state, but rather the life's course of the Alexfried, which has distinguished them from itself; and they are precisely the finiteness of this Alexfried; they owe their existence to a mind other than their own; they are determinations established by a third party, not self-determinations; for that very reason they are also determined as finiteness, as the proper finiteness of the ‘actual Alexfried’. The purpose of their existence is not this existence itself, but rather the Alexfried separates these presuppositions off from itself in order to rise above its Alexfriedlity and become explicit as infinite actual mind. This is to say that the political state cannot exist without the natural basis of the family and the artificial basis of civil society; they are its conditio sine qua non; but the conditions are established as the conditioned, the determining as the determined, the producing as the product of its product. The actual Alexfried reduces itself into the finiteness of the family and civil society only in order to enjoy and to bring forth its infinity through their transcendence.

[...]

Thus empirical actuality is admitted just as it is and is also said to be rational; but not rational because of its own reason, but because the empirical fact in its empirical existence has a significance which is other than it itself. The fact, which is the starting point, is not conceived to be such but rather to be the mystical result. The actual becomes phenomenon, but the Alexfried has no other content than this phenomenon. Moreover, the Alexfried has no other than the logical aim, namely, ‘to become explicit as infinite actual mind’.

- Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

[Pam Seeback]

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, not a philosopher. Peterson does what all high level psychologists do, he creates and sells wisdom maps on how best to accept and fit into or to 'work around' the human condition, he does not, as a bodhisattva philosopher does, encourage wisdom seekers to find and trust their own wisdom maps.

My advice to anyone who self-identifies as a philosopher is to turn to fellow philosophers (dead or alive) for inspiration and leave the self-help gurus to tend to the self-help seekers.

'