I agree with the utility of Peterson’s argument, that individuals aren’t inherently good or evil and that constant vigilance is required for good to prevail.
I think there’s a kernel of truth there, but in Peterson’s case it’s an argument that humans have a fundamental unchanging nature (in this case, we’re all monsters deep down). It’s a vulgar version of that Trotsky quote, “Not every exasperated petty bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petty bourgeois.” I’m sure a historical materialist analysis could flesh out such a kernel, but I doubt a staunch anticommunist like Jorbles would use such a tool.
I agree with the utility of Peterson’s argument, that individuals aren’t inherently good or evil and that constant vigilance is required for good to prevail.
Don’t see what’s wrong with this
I think there’s a kernel of truth there, but in Peterson’s case it’s an argument that humans have a fundamental unchanging nature (in this case, we’re all monsters deep down). It’s a vulgar version of that Trotsky quote, “Not every exasperated petty bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petty bourgeois.” I’m sure a historical materialist analysis could flesh out such a kernel, but I doubt a staunch anticommunist like Jorbles would use such a tool.