"Peterson is advocating for a community where everyone contributes and everyone benefits"

This sounds so wonderful, why hasn't it been tried and proven successful?

Plato's Republic, Thomas More's Utopia, and Karl Marx's Manifesto Of The Communist Party have been suggested. Only Marx's ideas have been tried and proven to be failures.

Yet, century after century, some men keep advocating for the impossible.

Socialism, in all its forms, Sucks. In theory and in practice, the people always suffer.

He has explained in lengthy videos lately that he does believe in God, and Christianity. Though I still love the way he explains rationally what in the Bible can be explained rationally. I find it helps a lot.

It depends on your definition of sacrifice. Rand used it to mean giving away something and getting nothing. Peterson uses it as giving away something to get something even greater. Very different notions of sacrifice. With the first (getting nothing), yes, you end up with shared misery while the elites party. The second is much more like opportunity costs, however: everyone ends up better off than before by giving up something of lesser immediate value for something of greater value in the long run.

The mistake is in attributing to Peterson the definitions of Rand. Taken in the context given, Peterson is advocating for a community where everyone contributes and everyone benefits.

"JBP is religious so he's not quite accepted by objectivists."

He's not an anti-religious person like Rand was - that much is true. He does a lot of study of religious texts but he presents them as stories about human nature rather than history. And he doesn't support the Judeo-Christian ethos either even though he recognizes and lauds it for all the good it has done. He's probably closer to an agnostic than either an atheist or a theist.

Compare and contrast if you want. If you're not familiar with Peterson, he is a Canadian psychologist known the world over for rejecting the notion that he has to use someone else's pronouns (a case he eventually lost in the Canadian Supreme Court) and promoting values in young men. He's also an expert on the human condition, having studied it his whole life and spent much of it examining other people.

Personally, it's pretty hard to argue with Peterson's findings because he's at the top of the game in psychology and research. And if you examine Peterson's suggestions in context, he's not calling for the kind of self-loathing that Rand referred to as "sacrifice" but in being of value to other people - the quintessence of a market economy.

As to whether or not this is an "Ayn Rand" site, feel free to post things yourself. The biggest question should always be to check your assumptions. Rand didn't have a monopoly on good ideas. Personally, I think there's a lot to be learned out there beyond Rand as limiting myself to her works only leaves a lot on the table.

One can look at oneself and others in two basic ways: 1) Primarily as a unique individual whose psychological makeup and talents have never existed on Earth before, and, after death will never exist again. Then, you can add on country of origin, gender, occupation etc.

Or 2) You can look at yourself and others, primarily, as a member of a class having all the characteristics of that group. Then you can add on minor individual differences.

People who look at themselves and others in the first 1) way tend to have higher self-esteem and achieve more in life.

People who look at themselves and others in the second way 2) tend to be altruists who call for sacrifice to each other or for some ideal “We’re all in this together”.

Shared sacrifice can only lead to shared misery.

I prefer the first way.

Not so much an Ayn Rand site as originally intended I suppose. Take JBP in his context. I've posted some of his anti-postmodernist videos which is more like Ayn Rand's philosophy. JBP is religious so he's not quite accepted by objectivists.

Take Ayn Rand in hers. She grew up and witnessed the horrors of Communism, and that was the cauldron she forged her philosophy in. A bitter strong (over) reaction to collectivism. I don't think a Purely Exclusively objectivist person can be happy...no?

If you burn your hand on a stove, you don't want to turn around and run away through a plate glass door. I read three of her books, loved them. AS, Fountainhead, Anthem-also made into a Rush song. They had an objectivist phase in their lyrics.

"...There is no technical difference between thinking about yourself, and being miserable..." That struck me. Responsibility to others, something not taught to the young anymore, is why they are so miserable. They are taught to think about themselves only. Addicts are self-centered and they are miserable. Addicted to working, miserable. Service to others is a value being lost.

How does the following quote from the article comport with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and ethics?

“The speech covers a range of topics, including how identity is the intersection of faith and responsibility, what it means for humans to genuinely flourish at the psychological level, and the importance of sacrifice and getting outside ourselves in order to serve a higher purpose.”

She hated sacrifice. She constantly said that “if you hear someone calling for sacrifice, run like the dickens because he means for you to sacrifice and for him to collect on your sacrifice.” What, exactly, is a higher purpose? And how in hell can you get “outside ourselves”?

Who is this guy?

Ayn Rand: Man's Highest Moral Purpose Is His Own Happiness

This is the reason why I’m here. Is this still an Ayn Rand site?