12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos – Part 2
How I came across the book:
Through one of my Consultants who happens to be an admirer of Jordan Peterson.
Best quote from the 2nd half of the book:
“Each human being understands, a priori, perhaps not what is good, but certainly what is not. And if there is something that is not good, then there is something that is good.”
“An aim reduces anxiety, because if you have no aim everything can mean anything or nothing, and neither of those two options makes for a tranquil spirit.”
Introduction:
As outlined in Part 1 of this book review.
Summary:
According to Peterson, the next 6 rules for life are as follows
Rule 7: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient) – Anything of value can be attained through sacrifice, or delayed gratification in other words. And this willingness to pursue a better life is what separates the successful from the rest.
Rule 8: Tell the truth, or atleast don’t lie – People live by life-lies, especially the idealogues who tend to oversimplify complex problems in the world by adopting a single axiom like that the government is bad, immigration is bad, capitalism is bad, patriarchy is bad. Living a life of truth instead will make you take individual responsibility.
Rule 9: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t – Conversations are a way to know the truth, the unknown. To listen is to let ideas permeate your being, your stability, your ideas, your perspective. It is where you let the masks come off and really connect with someone. It is when you get to know what you didn’t know. In short, you become wiser.
Rule 10: Be precise in your speech – When chaos strikes, your whole world view can collapse. It can then be impossible to separate reality from the subconscious cloud of desperation and confusion. And hence, we must be precise in our speech and actions. Specify our goals. Admit what we want. Tell people who we are. Then, we can move forward forthrightly.
Rule 11: Do not bother children when they are skateboarding – Skateboarding may be perceived as dangerous by many, but young boys are pushing the limits of safety only to get competent at it. Living life on the edge so as to say. In this rule, Peterson talks about the inherent biological differences between men and women, and that taking risks and going for adventure is part of the ‘masculine’ trait. Which is why he argues that you have a group of hypersuccessful men at the top of the dominance hierarchy, because its in their nature to do so. At the same time, feminists seeking equality must also recognise that most people in prison are men, most people doing tough physical labour are men, most people on streets are men, most people who die in wars are men. And in equality in these scenarios is not a preferable outcome for those in favour of it.
Rule 12: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street – Admist the struggles of life and sea of troubles, learn to enjoy the small things. Our vulnerabilities make us who we are. Talking, thinking, resting, rejuvenating – prepares us to face the challenges of life. Once in a while, stop and enjoy the wonders of the world.
My thoughts:
I have had contrasting thoughts about Peterson’s ideas. On the one hand, I admire how he has highlighted the importance of taking individual responsibility. How we should pursue what is meaningful and not choose to live a life of nihilism. His rules are a good way to carry yourself in life.
But on the other hand, I feel many of his ideas have a slightly narrow outlook. For eg, it is true that dominance hierarchies have always existed and that there are innate biological differences between men and women, but there have also been studies that show that in matriarchial societies, the roles of men and women are reversed.
Any biological difference doesn’t justify the artificially constructed inequalities in societies. Phrases like ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘let the market forces decide’ get thrown around a lot. We also get told that we are all like animals (or lobsters in Peterson’s case), in that we compete for dominance. Yes, we do, but that doesn’t mean we are right in a spiritual or moral sense. Competing just for the sake is meant for primitive beings, who are not evolved enough. We should think of ourselves as better.
I think once we enter an era of resource abundance, humans of the future would / should find a way connect to their human side more than to their animalistic instincts. Else, why did we ever develop the morality and the consciousness to question these hierarchies in the first place? What is the use of our consciousness?
Like with any complex problem, the answer I suppose lies somewhere in between. At the border of ‘order’ and ‘chaos’, where truth and meaning reside as Peterson says.
Conclusion:
Overall, I have enjoyed reading the book. It challenged me to question some of my own ideologies. In the end, I agree with some of his points and disagree with some. But, I have certainly learnt something of value.