Covid 19(84) and the Crisis of Meaning

"Joker", Cruelty, and Mother's Narcissistic Personality Disorder

**Caution** Minor Spoiler Alert

Joker was indeed an Oscar-worthy performance by Joaquin Phoenix (to understate it). 

All the reviews ahead of time, both good and bad, made for greater anticipation, and I did really enjoy this very gritty/real non-superhero movie. 

To get one thing out of the way, let's be clear: There are no "good guys" in this movie. And for that reason, for being so different, I love it even more. You certainly empathize with Joker for much of the movie, but the balance it strikes, where you don't fully want him to win, but you don't entirely want him to lose either, is really well done. 

I also appreciate how Thomas Wayne (and subsequently Bruce Wayne) is juxtaposed beside his character, but you neither really admire Thomas, or totally despise him, either. 

I can appreciate now why many people on the political left have drifted away from appreciating this movie (my own ridiculous "State Broadcaster" in my country has recommended skipping it). 

I once heard someone describe our current political leftist parties as "the new church ladies", and this is quite apt. For in the same way that many fundamentalists often take a very strident/non-nuanced picture of "morality" and "culpability" for wrong-doing (and in our more recent society, "wrong-think"), so also many leftists do the same. I can see how this movie would be a red flag to such minds who want to reduce all "badness" in the world, to one thing. 

I recently heard a conservative political commentator (I tend to libertarian conservatism myself) also say that this movie is of the Social Justice left, that it sympathizes with them. To be frank, I think he's wrong, and like many religious people on the right, he missed the nuance undertones in this story. 

Whether you're a leftist "new church lady", or a classical fundamentalist, one thing is for sure: Our desire to "scapegoat" all the problems of the world onto one thing (devil, the rich, patriarchy, capitalism, feminism, marxism, etc), won't be truly satisfied/buttressed by this film. 

As many others have said, this movie just really opens dialogue, and it's one of the few gems that you could go see, and then talk with friends over beers for hours afterwards. I just love that.

There is, however, one thing I'd like to point out (minor spoiler) of this movie, that both positive and negative reviewers seem to miss:

Despite the, yes, rather ridiculous placards of "kill the rich" that the movie's equivalent of "Antifa" carry around, it's not really about them, or about their (assumed) anti-capitalism efforts (although images of them are a frequent feature). 

What is it about? In one word? ... 

Revenge. 

Or maybe more specifically... Exhaustion.

Revenge against what? What I appreciate in this film is how it's not so much about how "evil" the "rich capitalists" are per se (even though a cursory viewing may lend itself to that). What this film is really about, is the shocking discovery process of the "sins of the fathers" (or in Joker's case, the mother), by the son. 

Where your heart really breaks for Arthur/Joker (if you're paying attention) is the shocking discovery of the terrible things that were imposed upon him when he was young, and how, for so long, those things were hidden/brushed under the rug. Particularly, after how long he has dutily taken care of his mother, the real shock is in coming to terms with what happened to him when he was young, and the specific condition he learns his mother has is a part of that.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

There is one scene where Arthur (Joker) is pursuing the truth of his past. He is in a scene with the records clerk who basically reads the records and tells him that his mom suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). The clerk isn't supposed to release the records, but Arthur steals them. And that, coupled with other discoveries, leads him down a dark path, where he realizes much of what he thought of the past, is in fact, a lie. 

What is that condition? NPD is a "Cluster B" disorder that fractures the whole "personality" of the person who suffers with it, leading to levels of narcissism that are wholly crippling to a normal life. Having known people who suffer from such disorders (cluster B), this aspect really resonated with me.

To me, this is a critical point in the movie. It's not really a sort of "Antifa" ideological thing with Arthur/Joker. It just happens to be the case that those who want to "bring down the system", are rising in tandem with Arthur's journey of discovering the dark past.

It's pretty apparent to me that Arthur doesn't really care about politics per se, but rather that he is simply tired of the hand-waving away of the hard past, but more than that, coupled with the relentless/heartless cruelty of society, in general. 

Overt vs Covert Nihilism

Arthur isn't really against capitalism per se. At one point, he even states he's not political. This would no doubt be in contrast with those around him who were carrying the "anti-rich" placards. They would at least claim that their goals were political, and for the "common good". 

Our modern real-life equivalent are groups like "Antifa" (supposedly "anti-fascist"), who claim to work against actions they see as "fascist" (but most of us know they tend to communism). 

The point is that, at least in regard to what they project (which is dubious), they claim to be working towards a better world. 

What is admirable about JOKER, is that, contrary to those protesters (who co-opt his ascent), he doesn't actually even bother with putting out the pretense about creating a better world. You can see he has more (admirable) honesty than that. Life has been relentlessly cruel to him, and the desire for the end (chaos), naturally comes to be his goal. Arthur/"Joker" becomes an Overt Nihilist, in contrast with the protesters, who would not have the courage to admit their real motivations (covert nihilists).

Relentless Cruelty, and Personality Disorders

I like capitalism generally (it's better than virtually everything else on planet earth, IMO). So don't get me wrong, I'm not ideologically siding with communism/socialism or something like that. 

But let's be clear here regarding the underlying message of the movie: If "society" (particularly families, but also organizations, capitalism, etc) thinks it's possible to maintain a world where the relentless selfish pursuit of capital is the main and overarching goal, and thus cruelty/indifference to others is commonplace (and ends up being the rule, rather than the exception), you can be sure that it is not psychologically "sustainable". 

The so-called "sins of the fathers" will catch up to us, at some point or other. Eventually, personalities will "crack", and create "personality disorders", and at that point, the end will be "off to the races".

Again, to be clear, I do not advocate for "forced kindness" (socialism, etc). I'm actually not advocating for anything. 

I'm merely saying this: If society (families in particular) runs out of spontaneous/voluntary kindness, society should not expect to last long. 

As the lyric from "The Messenger" by Linkin Park goes:

"When life leaves us blind, [only voluntary] love [true kindness] keeps us kind."

Jesus, Currency, and a Reconsideration of "Render to Caesar"

What's in a word? 

Or more specifically, what's in a translated word? Well, as the reader may come to see after reading this article, sometimes, quite a bit.

There were many things that I heard regularly growing up in my church background that, although they provided a solid framework for me from which to think and act (and for that I am grateful), I have since come to evaluate ultimately as, however well-meaning, a bit off the mark. 

And "render to Caesar" is one of those verses/mantras.

In a similar vain to another article that I have written (regarding Jesus and the topic of divorce), I will present in this article also a very different view of "render to Caesar" that, because of a lack of nuance, has been missed by a large segment of Christendom and biblical scholars. 

And the first clue that takes us on this very interesting journey will boil down to a word (or two) and the different way translations have "rendered" it (no pun intended). As the reader will discover, it is my contention that only the NIV (New International Version) has gotten it right (or at least quite close).

Taxation and the Roman Imperial Cult

As they tried regularly with Christ to trap him on other topics, so also the Pharisees knew that there was one extremely controversial topic that, if there was anything that would perplex him, it must be this: The issue of Roman dominance over the Jews. Among the Jews, this issue was a lightning rod.

To understand this better, one has to understand the Roman Imperial Cult, and the polytheism of the Romans, in contrast with the Jews. Quite frankly, although tolerated to a great degree in many aspects of society, the Jews were looked at very strangely by the Romans (and vice versa). 

For the Romans, worship of deities was more a way to honor themselves and their exploits. For instance, if the Romans were engaged in war, they would worship and honor Mars, the god of war. And in so doing, they would honor their own war efforts, and seek fortune/support from that god. 

Artist's creation of Mars, the god of war.

Or if they were engaged in agriculture, they would honor Saturn, the god of agriculture, as aay to honor themselves in that pursuit, and to seek the blessings of a good harvest.

This was quite different from the Jews, who worshiped only one God in all things, and rather than seeking to honor themselves in that worship, sought to submit to this one God as far greater than themselves (as was established by the great prophets Abraham and Moses). And being a Jew himself, it was this tradition that Jesus emerged from. 

But quite interestingly, it was only a few decades before Jesus birth, that the Romans began to, instead of just honoring the gods, actually started raising Emperors themselves to an almost-god-like status (particularly Julius Caesar), and basically worship him as divine after his death. And it was this that no doubt would have been a massive affront to the Jews. 

Essentially, between the Romans and the Jews, was a major conflict of VALUES. They were fighting for very different perspectives. You can read a short summary of the Roman Imperial Cult here. 

And so, although they were able to live in relative peace for quite sometime (that is, up until the total destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD), many more devout Jews were quite antagonistic under the surface. 

And this underlying antagonism really came to the surface in the issue of taxation. For the Jews (with the exception of the more secular Jews), being forced to pay taxes to this regime which was the antithesis of their values, was a really hard thing to bear. And what made it worse, was this new development in which the Romans blasphemed all decent morality (in the Jews' eyes) by exalting their Emperor to an almost God-like status. 

It is within this context that the Pharisees came to ask Jesus: 

"Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" (Luke 20:22)

And in a sense, the Pharisees were quite right that this issue would reveal clearly not just where Jesus stood on the particular issue, but what his underlying values really were.

"Nice coin you got there... Whose face is that on there?"

Now that we have established the general context and the no doubt resentment that must have filled many Jews, in the face of the outright blasphemy of their forced subservience, we can begin to see the nuance that Jesus carefully navigated through in giving his listeners a response.

In the NIV, Luke chapter 20:20 reads like this: 

"Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they may hand him over to the power and authority of the governor."

This makes a lot of sense in light of the historical context. It must have really bothered the Jews to see someone like Jesus, who seemed quite aloof to the issue of politics. And so, having a more direct interest in their own political slavery, naturally wanted to embroil Jesus in the issue as well. But Jesus fundamentally had other concerns. 

Verses 21-22 continue: 

"So the spies questioned him: 

'Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?' 

He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 

'Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?' "

Now notice Jesus' immediate response and how he didn't answer their question directly, which he knew for which there was no "safe" answer. 

Instead of entering into the political fray about paying taxes, he brought attention to the means by which Rome demanded payment, namely, the currency,  and in this case, the Denarius.

Roman "tribute" currency.

The question should now arise: Why did Jesus do this? 

Because this was no "ordinary" coin. This was "tribute money". 

It could be read on some coins: 

“TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS,” an abbreviation of “TIBERIVS CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI FILIVS AVGVSTVS” — “Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, Augustus.” (more details can be found here)

As mentioned above, full-on Emperor worship had not yet been fully instituted. But the Romans were well on their way. And by the time of Emperor Nero, it would take on new blasphemous proportions, with him claiming to be basically God in the flesh, someone to be directly worshiped.

And so it was rather obvious to Jesus that the coinage already was in violation of the Second Commandment of the Law of Moses, that you shall not make a graven image. The coin claimed Tiberius had authority over worship, and essentially raised him to the status of a god. 

Did you notice how Jesus didn't have "tribute money" on him, but that he had to ask for it?

There's probably a good reason for that... from a Jewish point of view, he was probably disgusted by it. And by implication, he wanted to draw the Pharisees' attention to their lack of shame over their usage of it. 

He basically asked his listeners: 

"Whose idolatrous graven image is on this coin?" 

And then, having been shamed by this truth they seemed to have forgotten, they may have quite sheepishly replied:

"Caesar's."

"Render"? Or "give back"?

What is in a word, as mentioned at the beginning of this article? Well, in light of this context, a lot. 

Most translations render Christ's next words as: "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's", or just "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". And without being aware of the historical context, it can seem that Christ is just simply exhorting his listeners to pay whatever taxes are owed. And indeed, this seems to be the most common interpretation within Christendom.

But if this was the case, why did he ask about the image and inscription? It would seem then that Christ advocated direct subservience in taxation to whomever had taken power, and to pay with their coinage, no matter how blasphemous their images were. 

But this simply doesn't mesh with the context. And if we use instead the NIV, it all comes together much more clearly and has much higher explanatory power.

Verse 25:

"He said to them, 'Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.'"

It is my contention/conclusion in this article that Jesus is suggesting going far beyond just "paying taxes to Caesar". He's actually suggesting repudiating all physical currency that violates the Second Commandment of Moses, by giving it all back to Caesar and no longer using it. 

It seems to me to be bordering on subversive in a sense, but yet, because no doubt Caesar would "receive" the coins in Jesus "teaching", it would not have been a "red flag" teaching that would have gotten Jesus in immediate trouble with the authorities. 

To be clear, I don't think Jesus is saying to abandon the currency entirely, just the pieces that violate the Jewish law.

Image of Julius Caesar

It truly is a remarkable answer. Jesus was able to get to the heart of the matter the Pharisees were glossing over, and yet was able to easily evade being painted as a threat to Rome. No wonder they said in verse 26:

"They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent."

Practical Lesson/Conclusion?

Regardless though of if Christ had any subversive political motivations, there seems to be quite a significant principle here: Participating in the monetary system, no matter how difficult it may seem to get out of it, amounts (in at least some degree) to your support of the regime that has instituted it. 

The Pharisees resented Rome, and yet they carried Caesar's graven image in their pocket (in contradiction to the guidelines laid out in their own Jewish law). They carried the particular pieces of currency that violated their own lawbook.

It was of course this hypocrisy of the Pharisees that Jesus was speaking to. Although the context does more clearly paint an informative cultural perspective of Rome becoming increasingly blasphemous in Jewish eyes (and thus sets the stage for the inevitable conflict between Rome and Jerusalem), the direct principle we can extract here is a simple one: 

Make sure your own personal expedience doesn't trump your own proclaimed religious convictions (and if does, it may be time to have a re-think). 

And although one may find support in other parts of the Bible to "pay your taxes" (particularly St. Paul), this passage is not one of them.

Nietzsche, Slipknot, and the Eternal Glory of Heavy Metal (Part 1)

And it is my contention that, in the same way that the automobile engine has harnessed the fire and force of an explosion (as discussed above), no musical band has harnessed the frustration, anger, rage, and angst of our shared human condition, like Slipknot has.

They truly are the stand-out Titans of Rage-transformation, and I believe that history will show that countless people have avoided depression-linked tragedies (like suicide), because of how this band (and so many like them) have managed to connect (sympathize/mirror) with so many millions who have been (however subconsciously) seeking meaning to their own journey through the mire of dirt that life seems to so often confine us.

Heavy metal fans not only find a sympathetic mirroring of our tension, but a means to VALVE it off, and, in so doing in an appropriate way, experience a strong sense of personal POWER.

Finding Power (and Calm) Through a Contained Expression of Rage 

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome." 

-Nietzsche, "The Anti-Christ"

One of the great misunderstandings/ distortions of Nietzsche, is that he was somehow an advocate or forerunning supporter of the ideals of the Nazis who would eventually come to power a few decades after his death. Indeed, elements of the Nazi party actually appropriated some of his works, even though he himself was totally opposed to many of their key elements, like anti-semitism (and he described himself as "anti-political").

What has become much more clear is that, when Nietzsche used the word "power", he did so in a way that many tyrants who would come after him, did not mean the word. In the same way that the loud roar of an engine can simply be a display of it's power, without the vehicle trampling over others (at least consciously), so he imagined the ideal of humans learning to not condemn their "dark side", but rather learning how to harness it, and to celebrate their greatness in doing so (not that he was against conquest of others per se, but against conquest rooted in "ressentiment", ie: extreme resentment).

This is very reminiscent of a quote by the popular clinical psychologist Jordan B Peterson:

"You must learn to become a monster, and then control yourself."

It is my contention that, in speaking sentiments like this, without knowing it, Peterson is getting to the underlying healthy principle of heavy metal.

END OF PART 1 - PART 2  BLOG POST COMING SOON

Jesus, Divorce, and a Lack of Nuance

This article isn't fundamentally about divorce. Divorce is just an important topic; a segue, to something else, which the reader will see shortly. 

Jordan Peterson - Fierce Anti-Nietzschean?

I really like Dr. Jordan Peterson. I have been a fan of his for many years, long before his ascension to infamy after the notorious Bill C-16 controversy in Canada (I myself am Canadian and am very sympathetic to his brave efforts to stand against this totalitarian effort). 

I was long fascinated by his many lectures on youtube, and dove into many of his concepts, particularly his lectures based on his “Maps of Meaning” book. Long before the world knew him, I benefitted greatly from his works and poignant lectures.

Particularly as someone who grew up in a religious environment, and who struggled with my faith for many years (eventually rejecting my former fundamentalism, but keeping the door open for a more novel and profound extrapolation), I naturally gravitated towards this man (among others).

All along though, something in me was quite ambivalent about Peterson, and it was going to take me quite a long time to put a finger on it, and finally articulate just exactly what the hell it was that was bothering me.

And so here I am now, writing this. It is important to me that the reader understands that this is no knee-jerk reaction to his works (of which, generally, I am quite grateful). 

I am, however, at this point, quite critical of a central point of his entire work, and I hope this brings that (otherwise seemingly obscured) point to light.

The Dividing Line – Friedrich Nietzsche

Many years ago, I was introduced to the works of Friedrich Wilhem Nietzsche. Nietzsche (like Carl Jung) was the son of a Christian pastor, and so not only his writings, but also his past, from where he emerged (I too am the son of a pastor), and his style of writing (his often grandiose style, particularly in his “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, resonated with the religious styles I had grown up in), fascinated me.

And my interest in him was peaked even further by Dr. Peterson’s frequent reference to him and his various works/quotes.

Very rightly, I think, Peterson uses Nietzsche as not just a source of ideas or knowledge, but also a bouncing/sounding board off of which to clarify his own ideas, and I have benefitted from him doing so.

However, starting relatively early on, something bothered me about his use of Nietzsche. The more I read/listened to both of these men’s works, the more I started to notice a sharp distinction, and a radical divergence. And eventually (where I’ve come to now), a total antipathy and even outright ideological hostility.

Now someone might object… "Ok, so Nietzsche and Peterson disagree. What does it matter? Did not Peterson himself talk about how sometimes people can be 'helpfully wrong'?"

And that brings me to my fundamental objection/criticism of Peterson: He simply isn’t straight-forward/honest enough regarding the degree to which he disagrees/diverges from Nietzsche in his fundamental ideas. And contrary to what some may claim, this is really important. For someone who references Nietzsche as much as he does, this negligence is really problematic.

Nietzsche as Anti-Christ?

It is well known that one of Nietzsche's last works was "The Anti-Christ". What many people don't know, however, is that this work is, although indeed a critique of Christianity, not at all the type of critique that many modern so-called "atheists" would make.

It is not an attempt to historically prove that Jesus didn't/couldn't have physically risen from the dead, or walked on water, or turned water into wine, healed the sick, etc. 

Nietzsche himself had in fact very little interest in the metaphysical question of whether miracles ever happen, or if "God" literally existed, or the like. His criticism of Christianity (among other things) consisted mainly of an attack on it's moral presuppositions, that is, on it's value judgments.

To put it more succinctly: instead of critiquing the idea that Jesus died for your sins and literally rose again from the dead to save you from “the world”, and “worldly” things (an idea clearly established by St. Paul), he aimed his heavy guns at the very presupposition itself that "the world" was, in fact, "worldly", or "bad", or "evil". He took issue with the operating assumption/value system on which the whole "redemption narrative takes place!

As he summarized in Zarathustra:

“There is much filth in the world; that much is true. But that does not make the world itself a filthy monster.” (my own emphasis added)

This is indeed a very careful distinction. Now I am not arguing that Peterson is anywhere trying to make the case that the world is indeed a filthy monster (or that it is not). My point is to first set up the underlying point, which is that Nietzsche, although indeed a doubter of the miraculous claims of the Bible, had very little interest in debunking them. He just simply took their antithesis (that they didn’t literally happen, but, in his view, probably represented something else) for granted.

More Than Just Anti-Fundamentalism

In one of Peterson’s lectures (direct link to be added soon), he implies how, historically speaking, in the last century particularly, religious fundamentalism has been made impossible to the scientific thinker (someone thinking in the “scientific domain”), and I very much agree with this.

But he also noted that we didn’t really need to attack fundamentalism (or even debunk/rebuff it at all), because Nietzsche, in his works, had done that for us already.

This is a very important juncture in Peterson’s interaction with Nietzsche (the more important one yet to come).

As is finally clear to me now, there is, of course, a strong element of truth in what he is saying at this point. Nietzsche did spend much of his time railing against Christianity, but, as mentioned above, the manner in which he did so was not primarily anti-fundamentalism (a topic he had little interest in, and only brushed aside).

Rather, as mentioned already, Nietzsche primarily aimed his guns at the question of VALUES.

To illustrate the point, I think it is quite clear that Nietzsche would be found to say something like the following:

“You say you don’t believe in God, or the miracles in the Bible. Well, good for you. But do you still believe in the ethics of the new testament? Do you believe that we ‘ought’ to ‘love our neighbour’? Do you believe that we ‘ought’ to ‘tell the truth’? Do you believe that we ‘ought’ to try and help the ‘less fortunate’?”

It is very important to be honest here about the central critique of religion that Nietzsche lays out, and that is this:

If you still do accept all the moral judgements that lie underneath all the religious metaphysics in the Bible (particularly the New Testament), Nietzsche considers your position absolutely disastrous, and indeed, that you are a danger to the future of the human race!

Not to say though that Nietzsche wants to change religious people's minds, but that he just very presciently sees that the question/problem of “oughtness” (how humans “ought” to live their lives) has previously/historically been based in religion, with all it’s metaphysics/fundamentalism built into it. That the “will to live” has been historically based on the notion (however religious) that humans exist “on purpose”, that our existence is not “accidental”. 

And that, without this dogma, humans would collapse into despair and nihilism (hence the despair, not the jubilance of the mad man's declaration of the "death of God" in Nietzsche's infamous "Gay Science" or "Joyful Wisdom"), and instead of casting aside religion, we would indeed become MORE religious, but that we would just “switch religions”, to things like socialism and communism and fascism and “equality”, etc. (and lo and behold, that is precisely what has happened in the last century).

So, when so-called “new atheists” attack religion and then turn around and say that that we all “ought” to help one another, and “tell the truth”, and support “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”, they are, in Nietzsche’s view, being totally blind to their own subconscious internalization of their previous religion (whether their own individually, or their culture’s own internalization), and its accompanying ethics. 

To put it simply, in Nietzsche’s view, it is not at all “common sense” or “self-evident” that humans “should be kind to each other”. Because this notion has been based upon the previous religious dogma that our lives have meaning because we EXIST ON PURPOSE.

Without this previous dogma (what Nietzsche disparagingly calls “the equality of souls”, whether “true” or not), the reason for acting “ethically” (and I use scare quotes on purpose here) totally falls apart, in Nietzsche’s view. And so then, we are then at a crossroads. We need to create NEW values (create a whole new value system/way of looking at ourselves and our history), or our species will self-destruct and disintegrate.

Whether or not the reader agrees with Nietzsche is not my concern here. But rather just to make the point that this is Nietzsche’s fundamental problem/challenge that is at the core of all his writings.

And to give credit to Mr. Peterson, he sees and understands quite clearly Nietzsche’s point. And it is here where we reach the main divergence between Peterson and Nietzsche.

New Values, or Old Values?

At many points in his lectures, after very rightly recognizing Nietzsche’s fundamental point, when faced with the question of “creating new values”, Peterson responds by saying that it’s simply “not clear” how in the world we would go about doing that. And to his credit, he is very much correct that this is an extremely difficult problem. And that it seems that there is no answer.

And so Peterson seems to conclude that, in light of the extreme difficulty/impossibility of creating new values (and in light of how this task seemed to make Nietzsche go mad himself), we do not need to create new values, but rather we need to re-discover the old values, and understand them in a more scientific (less dogmatic/fundamentalist) way.

And this brings me to my main criticism of Peterson’s work. It is precisely at this crossroads that Peterson TOTALLY PARTS WAYS with Nietzsche. This point is a complete separation/divergence. It is at this point that Peterson and Nietzsche become, in fact, ideological enemies. And from my perspective, this divergence/antipathy is simply not that well articulated/admitted by Peterson.

To Peterson’s credit, he does come out and say that he thinks Nietzsche was wrong in his insistence to create new values. Instead of siding with Nietzsche, Peterson seems to more side with Dostoevsky (who still maintained his Christianity, albeit maybe not exactly ‘orthodox’, despite his similar wrestling with the crisis of nihilism).

But even still, it needs to be stated that this rejection of Nietzsche’s hope, is, in fact, a total rejection of everything Nietzsche was working towards. Just the very title alone of one of Nietzsche’s later works, “Beyond Good and Evil, a Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future" indicates quite clearly the direction he is going. And in my opinion, Peterson is not very frank about how he became an ideological enemy of Nietzsche.

And it is at this point that we ourselves need to ask a very careful question:

How much does this rejection of Nietzsche’s direction, matter? To Nietzsche? And to us?

After years of reading Nietzsche, it seems apparent to me now that this rejection matters a great deal. So much so, that it is difficult to understate just how much it matters.

IF (and this is a big “if”) Nietzsche was indeed correct in his general notion that simply adopting or just re-affirming the ethics of our previous religion (Christianity in particular), while discarding its metaphysics, was extremely dangerous, then Jordan Peterson could in fact represent one of the most dangerous people living today (no matter how much I like him, and how much good he has done for so many people). For it is quite possible that no one has embraced, articulated/extracted, and modernized the ethics and morality associated with our prior fundamentalism, like he has.

Peterson is quite insistent, for instance, that we should “never lie” to anyone, that we should always be absolutely honest (as far as we understand “honesty”). And in light of how such horrible totalitarian regimes (fascist, communist, etc) have decimated/destroyed hundreds of millions of lives through extreme deception in this last century alone, this position is understandable.

But let’s not mince words: This is totally anti-Nietzschean. Nietzsche was NOT an absolutist on “honesty” in every situation. In fact, he thought there was sometimes a sort of “good faith” behind people’s intentions to “deceive”. And if one reads Nietzsche right, it’s not so much that great tyrants come to be because they (and their people) deceive others so much (although that’s obviously a huge part), but rather that mankind is itself facing a crisis of meaning that we are running from. That our impulse to “lie” is rooted in something else much more important, that desperately needs to be addressed (and that if we addressed it, the impulse to lie would go away).

For Nietzsche, it is our moral *assumptions* (“love thy neighbour”, etc) that we have “carried over” from our previous religions, that is so incredibly dangerous. For Nietzsche, to actually “love your neighbour as you love yourself” has never actually been possible before, because humans have never been able to truly love themselves before.

As he said in “Zarathustra”:

“Love ever your neighbor as yourselves- but first be such as love themselves.”

This is really Nietzsche’s great “critique” of Christ, if he ever had one. That although Christ was quite a remarkable figure (who Nietzsche respected), he viewed some of Christ’s teachings as naïve, because they were based on premises that are dubious (do we actually love ourselves to begin with?).

Resolving/understanding your dark side.

As Peterson has very well noted many times, the phenomenon of “evil” is undoubtedly real. Nietzsche wouldn’t disagree with him on the existence of this “phenomenon”.

Nietzsche though had great hopes that someday in the future, mankind would be able to understand their “dark side” through discoveries of science (the reason for his “Gay Science”, or “Joyful Wisdom”). 

And this was one reason he disdained religion so much, because its followers seemed to always just take for granted that such a thing is totally impossible (only in the “next life” is such a thing possible, to them).

But for Nietzsche, we had to go “beyond good and evil” eventually. In this life.

Foolish and impossible?

I very much appreciate and respect the writings of both Nietzsche and Jordan Peterson. They have both been important parts of my life and thinking, and have helped me immensely. 

But I have come to the conclusion that humans do indeed have to “go beyond” our basic moral presuppositions (and their accompanying self-reflection and subsequent self-loathing), which we have (often unknowingly) borrowed from our prior religions.

And as unbelievable/crazy it may sound to the reader, I think the way may actually now been made available to us.

Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith has presented a synthesis of the human condition that is extremely powerful, accountable, and compassionate. It brings love to our dark side, but without condoning destructive acts (of which this last century in particular has been full).

His latest book, “Freedom, the End of the Human Condition”, is his magnum opus work, which unpacks this remarkable idea. I myself have had some criticisms of Mr Griffith's works over the years, but I simply cannot deny that his central explanation of the human condition (his explanation of instinct vs intellect), in it's simplicity, is extremely powerful!

Nietzsche, in his "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", often spoke of "The Ubermensch", or the Overman. 

The burning question for me now, is this: Will future generations be able to actually attain to the Overman? Is there a massive glorious potential for our human species that we have yet to begin to even fathom?

Humanity is undoubtedly at a crossroads. Things have never been so dangerous/polarized, and yet so full of potential. I think it may now indeed be time to “re-value” the past (and by so doing, possibly transform the future). Is it possible? I will let the reader decide.

-Rontimus