…was (and still is) going to be the title of this piece when I conceived of it shortly after having bought my ticket to see him on the 15th. It would have been especially nice to write it after having met him with the VIP ticket, but I lacked the funds at the time of purchase to ensure my comfort in getting it. Alas.
Of all the tours on which I could finally see him, it would have to be the one in which he’s debuting material for a book called We Who Wrestle with God, wouldn’t it? While I am grateful to be beyond the question of God, I tend to agree with Dr. Peterson that a run-of-the-mill atheist (as if there were such a thing) does approach the question of God in inappropriate ways. It may be true in the simplest sense that these folk hold no belief in the metaphysical idea of God and accept that such is a cosmic unlikelihood–and I would agree with them–but the consequences of a lack of belief in God can be stark, just as Nietzsche saw more than a century ago.
The idea of God, once dethroned, is often merely just supplanted by worship of the State. That, argue many, is what Nietzsche foresaw: the rise of communism. Impressed as I was with Nietzsche in my high school years and enthralled as I was by him during my time in university, my commentary on such is only: I see where those who argue the case get their argument. Any assessment I might make regarding Nietzsche would have to do with the other option he offers: the much more difficult task of creating one’s own values.
One can talk, write, or argue all day about what “new values” would look like, but I do believe Nietzsche was on to something when he accused argumentation of being the tool of weak men. It is in the doing we will find the answer, and the doing here is purely creative in nature.
At this time, I am uncertain whether I have supplanted God with my own ego, supplanted God with new values, or both. Of course, the latter (new values) cannot truly and fully happen until I have a legacy with which to display those values, for what is God without creation? All the same, the tangling of those two options into the third provides interesting food for thought: can one posit new values without being God? My suspicion is that Nietzsche would answer in the affirmative and suggest that one’s ego would be subjugated to one’s will. The ego, however, according to my view, is inclusive of the will. Perhaps Nietzsche saw the ego as encompassing other drives that would hamper the will, and, if so, I can understand the trepidation. All the same, I tend to see ego and will as twins. I can see the danger and there are ways for me to avoid falling prey to it, though discussing them here would be pointless.
Dr. Peterson approaches Christianity in a way that intrigues me. His approach is at once philosophical, psychological, theological, and etymological. If one is serious about the investigation into the idea of God, that is, so far as I can tell, the only way to approach it and have any taste of success. Most atheists tackle the matter as just a matter of fact, which I (and he, when it boils right down to it) grant it is, but there are deeper, radical (meaning to-the-root) ideas attached to God that must go somewhere if, where God once was, there is now a vacuum. Once again, this is just oversimplifying and bastardizing Nietzsche.
I think it is Dr. Peterson’s “cause,” so-to-speak, to revive Christianity because he wants to remove the vacuum caused by God’s absence. Reviving Christianity per se would see him go a very different direction, I think, as I think he believes Nietzsche was at least mostly right. I think it must be the case that he believes the world at least was not and may not be for a good, long while ready for God to be out of the picture. Hence, it is his project to “save” the reigning system of values before the West sinks headlong into degeneracy the likes of which may make the faults of communism and its aftereffects (post-Marxism) look like mild inconveniences. Similarly, I think it is my “cause” to reveal new avenues by which one might pursue “new values” because I see many of the same dangers that he sees. To this end, I think the foundation is the same for both my path and Dr. Peterson’s. I think our ends are similar, but not identical, and our means are pretty much polar opposites.
Despite our differing theologies (whereas I place myself as my own final authority, I don’t actually know what Dr. Peterson’s God is), I believed there was value in my seeing him lecture on this specific topic. Rather, I believe there is value in my seeing him lecture on this topic, but, much to my chagrin, will not be attending. Here is where I admit I have yet to read any of his work, but if I’m going to treat myself the way I would treat someone who I was charged to help, I would cancel my ticket; my car has been too upset with me recently for me to rely on it for a two-hour drive to Inglewood and another two-hour drive back, and my financial situation is such that I have to accept I would be better off with the money I spent on the ticket than I would missing out on $400 of income due to taking off two days of work and very probably spending more for merchandise.
I wanted this post to be the comical ways in which a Satanist and Dr. Peterson would disagree about certain topics and perspectives and the surprising ways in which he and I would agree about some things. I wanted to return from the lecture and write with an invigorated and enthusiastic spirit about the ideas he presented to me, even as our paths diverged in the sharpest of ways. Will this be like Slayer, wherein attending their show only to walk out (with my ride) just before they took the stage led to my seeing them twice in an effort to redeem myself as a metalhead? Time will tell.
With care,
~ Grigori