/lit/ - Literature

>>10529007
Theres a video of Peterson literally crying on the internet while rrading a quote from Ayn Rand called Ode tp the individual.

I actually read all that, yeah, he's wrong. I'm just tired of hearing about Peterson. All you Petersonposters just make a thread about the utility of a Jungian analysis of Christianity and sprinkle it with Dostoevskian repentance and Nietzschian concerns of modernity instead

>>10529007
>evolution has etched archetypal characteristics and modes of behavior into humans, and we are pre-written with these archetypes instead of being born blank-slates

The thesis he puts forward in Maps of Meaning is that the archetypes are patterns of behavior that arise pretty much anywhere there are humans and that people copy these patterns. Much of religion is an attempt to understand these patterns.

People associate him with Christianity too much. He's hardly trying to "resurrect Christianity". He just wants people to become explicitly aware of the knowledge that was implicit in religion. He criticizes Nietzsche on the grounds that no one can actually create new values. Peterson takes things to be already valued based on our psychology.

And yes, he admits that the postmodern worldview is correct in that we have no real objectivity. But he's a pragmatist, so that's just not really relevant to him.

>>10529007
I think his position on objectivity is summed up by a different answer he gave to the question "Do you believe in God", to which he replied "I act as if God exists." He talks about the truth, but doesn't seem concerned with being able to establish objectivity, like you said.

Also, his brand of Christianity is very mystical and heterodox; I can't see how it's this rock-solid universal framework he presents it as. He's said that he doesn't go to church because "the preachers lie."

>>10529030
Why is this image being posted all the time? Is that fucking William Lane Craig?

>>10529121
It is. They are probably posting it because of that last debate.

>>10529131
Which was that?

>>10529030
I need to see it. jesus christ post sauce

>>10529053
>the archetypes are patterns of behavior that arise pretty much anywhere there are humans and that people copy these patterns. Much of religion is an attempt to understand these patterns.

If he were truly honest, he would use something like mathematics.

Instead of saying the universe and existence are infinitely more complicated than we can possibly conceive, and there are transcendent truths which we can't understand, but can only hint at through allegory and archetypal mythology, he could say nowhere in existence can you find a physical instance of an irrational number like pi, yet we know it's "true."

But using mathematics would put him in the same boat as the postmodernists he needs to kill.

He would be saying we each have a linguistic framework through which to process reality, and there is a second framework, on a different level of abstraction that contains these "truths" and exists independent you whether you are consciously aware of it or not.

Instead he uses his patterns of behavior that he and the great Jung could see. He tries to claim that these "truths" aren't within semantic frameworks with which to describe the world around us, as he would be siding with Derrida, so he has to claim they magically transcend them.

> He's hardly trying to "resurrect Christianity"
I think on the JRE podcast, he said his ultimate goal: “I'm trying to resurrect the dormant Logos”

Not /lit/

>>10529187
>Instead he uses his patterns of behavior that he and the great Jung could see. He tries to claim that these "truths" aren't within semantic frameworks with which to describe the world around us, as he would be siding with Derrida, so he has to claim they magically transcend them.

I don't think it's necessary for him to say that. Identifying the pattern is useful for us. He's not saying there's a deep metaphysical truth behind them.

>I think on the JRE podcast, he said his ultimate goal: “I'm trying to resurrect the dormant Logos”

Right, but he's just saying he wants people to act out the pattern of the archetypal hero, which orders the world. The pattern of activity which orders the world is Logos.

>>10529192
waah

>>10529234
>He's not saying there's a deep metaphysical truth behind them
not the anon you're replying to, but if he's using the term Logos, he does mean there's a deep metaphysical truth which underlies everything. it's what Logos is supposes to be.

>>10529251
The term is used metaphysically by Christians today, but a la Peterson, religion was not actually created as metaphysics. It's only interpreted that way by modern, metaphysical people.

>>10529187
>He tries to claim that these "truths" aren't within semantic frameworks with which to describe the world around us, as he would be siding with Derrida, so he has to claim they magically transcend them.
This what perplexes me about him. The types of people he's trying to fight aren't postmodernist nor really claiming to be, but if they were, it would be easily to annihilate their entire argument by picking any text they could cite from postmodernists. Yet, instead of arguing, This Blue Haired Crying Women has never and probably could never read Derrida, he argues that she has and would agree with Derrida, when Derrida might literally refuse to be in the same room as her despite how affable he could be.

Most of the things he claims about postmodernism seem terribly like projection/splitting. The closest I've heard a feminazi come to mentioning a postmodernist was Beauvoir, and they did not know she used Heideggerian terminology so I don't think they actually read her. I doubt they approve of her statutory rape habit either. Peterson's really the first time I've seen postmodernism blamed for the people he's fighting. During the Culture Wars of the beforetimes of the long long ago, the postmodernists usually only got blamed for the people saying "and that's why child-adult sex is natural", and Beauvoir became a "feminist" instead of postmodernist, but that was because she'd finally decided to call herself one once all the rest of postmodernism was dead or ignoring her and she no longer had to say "that's just a dumb label and principle".

>>10529272
no I mean Heraclitus, one of the first philosophers in Greek, inspiration to Nietzsche, uses the term in the same manner. If you want the ontic rather than the ontological sense, I can tell you Heidegger understands it in the same fashion.

>>10529272
I will admit the possibility though that Peterson doesn't know what Logos means and doesn't mean Logos.

>>10529331
Well you can dispute what the Logos really is, but that's what he means and how he interprets it.

>>10529353
Peterson's differences with the dictionary are hardly likely to hit common use let alone prescriptivist editions.

>>10529368
Well that's unfortunate for him?

>>10529374
Doubly so, since it's too late to name malapropisms after him.

>>10529242
You and every Peterson dicksucker should kill yourself.

>>10529383
>people aren't allowed to debate theology

>>10529307
>This what perplexes me about him. The types of people he's trying to fight aren't postmodernist nor really claiming to be
>Peterson's really the first time I've seen postmodernism blamed for the people he's fighting.
The past few years have been really strange. Watching postmodernism go from a harmless, usually positive term, to being an evil, catch-all buzzword to describe feminists who protest on campus.

It's because Peterson was hit with the pronoun controversy. He blames postmodernism and the notion that "There is no outside-text." His basis was that if there is nothing outside the text, and all we have are descriptions of the world, we can never verify the 'truth' of claim. From this he gets relativism, and says postmodernists think every theory is equally valid.

It's because the pronoun argument is linguistically based. It places male and female as two constructs that only reside within the text, and the spectrum between male and female as a concept inside the text too and, due to the implied relativism, perfectly equal to conventional biology. He also hates ethics and aesthetics treated as being exclusively within the text, and likes to treat them, especially 'evil,' as being external.

Any postmodernist worth his salt, or anyone who has read Derrida, Korzybski, Foucault, Baudrillard and others, would reject the idea that a gender spectrum is intellectually equal, and they would and have argued that you can't just invent anything and say it's equal to every other theory because we have no objective basis and no 100% truth verification.

It was just so easy for Peterson to reject the entire "within the text" concept, blame postmodernism for relativism, and use it as a ready made scapegoat to point his finger at.

>>10529007
>Nobody is able to create a value system that can replace religion and live by it.
But both religions and philosophies are value systems created by people, so this is false. Nietzsche himself created a new value system. Your post is stupid.

>>10529425
they are. just every philosopher of note and some major world religions all say peterson's wrong, including ones he cites

>>10529251
>not the anon you're replying to, but if he's using the term Logos, he does mean there's a deep metaphysical truth which underlies everything
And it's where he get's his two truths from.

"What scientific truth tells you is: what things are. Genuine religious truth tells you: how you should act. These are not the same."

"What's the enemy? It's the snake. Fair enough. That's good if you're a tree dwelling primate. But for a sophisticated human being with six million years of additional evolution, and you're really trying to solve the problem of what it is that's the great enemy of mankind, well it's the human propensity for evil...as such. Well, that's the figure of Satan. And it's no joke. That's what that bloody figure means. Just like there's a Logos that's the Truth that speaks order out of chaos at the beginning of time, there's an antithetical spirit - the hostile brother...that's Cain to Abel, man - that's doing exactly the opposite. It's motivated by absolutely nothing but malevolence and the willingness to destroy. And it has every reason for doing so. That's what's revealed in the next story in Cain and Abel. And it's bloody terrifying. In one paragraph, the first glimmerings of that - outside of the strange insistence by the Christian mystics - on the identity of the snake in the Garden of Eden and the author of all evil himself."

>>10529442
For what my opinion is worth, I think his understanding of religion is more on the mark than anyone else. I don't mean his familiarity with the modern doctrines, but with religion's origins and its true nature. Once you see Peterson's version of the story, you can't really go back.

>>10529007
His attempt is golden. How dumb do you have to be to come to these realisations about what his aims are while understanding their merit and then use your reason to detract from his noble lie? He's a fucking psychologist who wants to help people, not a philosopher trying to bring truth to people. He's Paul Coelho with a righteous edge and his rhetorical method is bloody brilliant. If I were not Canadian though I'd be bored to tears with him for sure, but you have to understand what his popularity means to a society still greatly indebted to Christian institutions. The symbols abound within our government as well as in our daily lives, and the culture that is growing from it and against it requires spokes(people) to represent that mass nostalgia. I completely understand why this is lost on a lot of people, considering how the American election was lost. But I digress....

>>10529007
>When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant.
Yes it was. What a charlatan.

>>10529030
Sauccccce now

>>10529455
4/10

While this retarded individual supremacist spreads his gospel to the deprived youths, the fucking Chinese are invading and conquering his homeland called Canada.
Bravo Peterson

>>10529192
>Not /lit/
>>10529403
>You and every Peterson dicksucker should kill yourself.

They're discussing the impact a popular author's work is having on contemporary society. You may hate him, but it's still /lit/.

You need to relax a little. /lit/ is not your safe space cuddle zone where we only discuss books you like. If you're this triggered now, you're going to cry when his new book is released next week.

>>10529464
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLTFL2W3woU

>>10529428
That's even worse. It means he got Derrida wrong in the way the protoSJWs did in order to discredit it- there being nothing outside the text means that the text is weighed against all other texts, and that nothing is excluded from that weight system, not that you can take an individual claim as worth its own weight. It's what makes postmodernism the people who say
>it's not a trap if the dick isn't a surprise
rather than
>you can't call trans people traps
or
>you can't pass as female with a dick muh biology needs sumptuary laws
You have to look like either a) a hambeast or b) a qt eurasian who doesn't yet know thigh high stockings mean trap to wear thigh high stockings for a western audience and not have them be unsurprised by penis. If a) the supporting amount of texts say the thigh high stockings are probably rainbow coloured and you're culturally and personally identified as pansexual to anyone who will listen. If b) it's a trap and please share pics.

What happened to postmodernism meaning you liked porn? How much do we have to pay Peterson to bring the meaning of postmodernism back to discussing the impact of brazillians in the replication of sex and why in a tribal society it wouldn't be so hard to get your buggery on and everyone would be much happier?

>>10529447
>>10529453
>no when he steals things from those philosophers he means that kind of logos, but he doesn't mean that kind of logos when he talks about logos
uhhuh and every pun you read intended not inferred i promise, schizo

>>10529461
I think it was and it wasn't. He thought it was liberating but he also feared it would lead to nihilism.

>>10529461
>>When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant.
>Yes it was. What a charlatan.

My understanding was that Neitzsche wasn't speaking of a literal God dying. He was talking about the death of Christian values in western society. And Neitzsche was mourning this death not celebrating. That's why he created his superman. A society of supermen who could create their own value structures to live by instead of adopting the one from Christianity. But I didn't think Nietzsche was celebrating this. His superman wasn't something he wanted everyone to aim for. It was something done out of necessity in the wake of God's death, the best viable alternative he could think of, and he was cynical about man's ability to even be able to create their own values in the first place.

>>10529505
m8 the next sentence from zarathustra is pretty much
>he died choking on his pity for mankind

nietzsche's view of the christian love another thing is that it stems from being nosy, and that being nosy only happens to the unlucky who then try to say it is pity or duty that makes them interfere in the lives of those who are lucky enough to not give a shit

read more spitball less

>>10529515
We've all read about Nietzsche faggot

>>10529516
You sound schizophrenic and I've read Nietzsche's entire oeuvre.

>>10529053
>He criticizes Nietzsche on the grounds that no one can actually create new values.

conservatives get butthurt when you inform them that the guy making bank on furry porn video games is a Nietzschean

>>10529525
Try a comma before faggot, faggot.

>>10529483
What the fuck

Jordan Peterson is the ultimate subverter. He accepts Nietzsche's message but then twists it and says we ought to return to the very thing that ended, that is, a belief in objective values bestowed by an Abrahamic God.

Doing this will only result in our ruin.

>>10529559
>says we ought to return to the very thing that ended, that is, a belief in objective values bestowed by an Abrahamic God

Confirmed for not understanding Peterson

>>10529552
My diction isn't up for debate faggot

>>10529516
Please learn punctuation. If you can figure out how to greentext, you can figure out how to punctuate. You're virtually unreadable.

>>10529530
>Neugierde. - Wenn die Neugierde nicht wäre, würde wenig für das Wohl des Nächsten gethan werden. Aber die Neugierde schleicht sich unter dem Namen der Pflicht oder des Mitleides in das Haus des Unglücklichen und Bedürftigen. - Vielleicht ist selbst an der vielberühmten Mutterliebe ein gut Stück Neugierde.
363, Human alltooHuman

I've already given you the citation for ASZ, just after God is dead, when he's quoting the former opposition.

You should probably just say that Nietzsche sounds schizophrenic to you when you're responding to quotes from him

>Doing this will only result in our ruin.

I had a dream recently where Jordan Peterson was giving his usual rant, clamped to a metal cross, as robotic tendrils meticulously replaced his innards with cybernetics and harvested his organs

>>10529574
>pls punctuate as per me
well, that's a couple of board meme books you can't read

>>10529578

Ah, you too then

>>10529578
Ha! But the individual still remains.

>>10529571
See:
>>10529552

>>10529559
>Doing this will only result in our ruin.
Y-yeah. We must obey the oligarchs instead, as equal, replaceable parts in an artificial society.

Go doubt the god known as Mammon out of existence or something.

>>10529515
>He was talking about the death of Christian values in western society.
Yes.
>And Neitzsche was mourning this death not celebrating.
No. Nietzsche was in no way mournful of the passing of Christianity. In fact he preferred pagan religion and Islam to Christianity, but more than that he valued the idea of being ubermenschen.

>>10529584
no, this was dream was in a room with other people tied to crosses as well, it all became an enormous bloom of metal and wires

>>10529483
What he is saying is completely reasonable.

>>10529575
I don't see how any of what you said ruins my point.

>>10529580
>>10529571

You can write however you want, princess, but if you want people to understand you and engage, you need to stop writing like:


So I have just read Harry Potter again and I finally understood and grasped the underlying message that JK Rowling was trying to portray to the teens who are targeted by this kind of book a message so clear that I am disgusted with myself for not observing it before but I guess you have to be submerged in that culture to pick up on it but the whole book is a metaphor for smoking cannabis even Harry POT-ter didn't give it away I can see Rowling was portraying muggles as the conservative boring types who don't indulge and will never be transported to a magical mystery realm of wizards and magic only now when I am sky as a height does it all fit in to place and seem so obvious Rowling is encouraging kids to remove the heavy shackles of our dull boring greyscale reality and take a huge bong hit or train as she likes to portray it and transport themselves into another colorful realm of strange and wonderful things and give in to enchantment and wonder I think she might listen to reggae

>>10529600
Money =/= the god known as mammon. There is a distinction, and it's in sacrifice.

>>10529590
So we are all agreed, then.

Full Communism is the only solution.

>>10529609
Alright, explain further.

>>10529121
No. You have prosopagnosia

>>10529609
money is of Mammon, when you pay someone with money rather than services and barter, you're doing so knowing that they could just as easy use that cash to buy a child prostitute as groceries

>>10529604
It's the citation in Nietzsche for the quotes you failed to recognise despite being leitmotifs throughout his oeuvre.
>>10529605
We're not the same anon you're responding to. The chances are the problem is your comprehension, not two other people's.

>>10529623
>nonexpanantion

>>10529605
>God won't be dead until grammar is
How right Nietzsche was. Fuck, you, necrophile.

>>10529633
Sorry darling, I didn't know you were too obtuse to understand, I was saying you're clearly lying about having read Nietzsche. I'm sure people will tell you if you're missing out on anything, like the origins of curiosity.

>>10529007
>When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant. Nietzsche saw that the Enlightenment would strip the values of Christianity away

Nietzsche wasn't just talking about the Christian God either, he was talking about the God of Zoroaster, the Gods of the forest, the Hindu Gods, etc etc, it was a broader sociological statement

>>10529605
What the fuck are you on about
-Those are two seperate posters
-"We've all read Nietzsche faggot," putting a comma before faggot is entirely a matter of personal diction. That was supposed to be one phrase, say it out loud, it sounds normal, adding a comma actually lessens the impact and is indicative of the stupid fucking way you communicate

>>10529644
>I'm just right. Look at these quotes. If you don't see the connection, you've just never actually read Neetch.

This isn't how you conduct an argument.

>>10529653
nobody is even an atheist in India m8

>>10529660
It's how you construct an argument against
>you sound schizophrenic and I've read all of Nietzsche
I mean, if you can demonstrate the whole post is Nietzsche quotes, you've pretty much got them, even in front of a jury of equally dull peers.

>>10529617
Money is a tool of exchange. You have to sacrifice (sell) something important for money to be on top of the value hierarchy. You have to be a money addict, a workaholic or a priest of mammon for this to come to pass. Every system where the material (ie. the replaceable, the resources and the repeatable) is not the highest value, mammon can not exist. Money can, and it will often change form. I've read that medieval German principalities used labor instead of currency as money.

Mammon is against good things, because it is for itself and itself only. You see huge corporations sacrificing quality and virtues of the products (like pragmatism) for money. Rather than out of necessity, they do so out of zealousness. What will they do with the money, since the method is Universal? All quality will be snuffed out to maximize monetary gains.

>>10529622
>Potential is actual
>Risk is in itself its realization
If I give you a (you), am I responsible for your actions?

>>10529590
>Y-yeah. We must obey the oligarchs instead, as equal, replaceable parts in an artificial society.

DUDE, THE ONLY SOLUTION TO A TRANSHUMANIST SOCIETY IS CHRISTIANITY, LMAO

Kill yourself, Christcuck. Christianity is a direct Ancestor of our modern age.

Our age is JEWISH and Christianity is a JEWISH religion.

>>10529623
>We're not the same anon you're responding to. The chances are the problem is your comprehension, not two other people's.

As I saw somebody tell the other guy to use a comma, I decided to refer to you as the same grammatically handicapped person. I'm not nitpicking or telling you to avoid ending a sentence in a preposition and write, 'to whom you're responding,' but can you see how much clearer your last post is now that you've decided to employ punctuation?

>>10529672
>Risk is in itself its realization

Yep, welcome to the 21st century.

>>10529664
whether or not who or what they believe is beside the point

>"After Buddha was dead, they still showed his shadow in a cave for centuries -- a colossal, horrible shadow. God is dead, but given the way people are, there may still be caves for millennia in which his shadow is displayed. -- And we -- we must still defeat his shadow as well!”

>>10529670
I've got what?

You know what? I'm just going to stop because you are incoherent. Have a good day, anon.

>>10529687
You realise I'm the anon quoting Nietzsche, including Nietzsche saying those who worship grammar are as underdeveloped as a medieval illiterate Christian peasant? And that I'm not writing more correct sentences, but simpler ones more suited to an idiot's understanding? Good. Glad you understand.

>>10529703
Well, it extrapolates beyond the specific, but one finds you rather unlikely to understand the English use of the indefinite singular.

>>10529686
>DUDE, THE ONLY SOLUTION TO A TRANSHUMANIST SOCIETY IS CHRISTIANITY, LMAO
I'd like to give it a try, now that people other than oligarchs have some grip on mass psychology. As Aristotle put it, monarchy is the only system for the good of all.
>Kill yourself
I don't need to, with all these lovely, fellow tribesmen of mine.
>Christianity is a direct Ancestor of our modern age.
What about your ancestors? What about you? The modernity is born out of revolution, a great sin in Christianity.
>Our age is JEWISH
Indeed, full of revolutions.
>and Christianity is a JEWISH religion.
They sold Christ.

>>10529727
Christ is a JEW.

If you believe in 'tribe' then you wouldn't support (((Christianity))) which is an internationalist religion lol.

You still have a long way to go.

>>10529656
>"We've all read Nietzsche faggot," putting a comma before faggot is entirely a matter of personal diction.
No, that sentence required a comma to separate the noun from the main clause. Correct grammar doesn't come down to whatever you feel like writing. Sure, you're free to call somebody a prescriptivist grammar Nazi and write anything you like, but you appear uneducated and reduce your chances of being understood.

>That was supposed to be one phrase, say it out loud, it sounds normal, adding a comma actually lessens the impact
The addition of a comma actually places an emphasis emphasis the noun. Consider:

Do you ever read faggot?
and
Do you ever read, faggot?

If you really cant see the clarity and emphasis provided by that comma, you should stop what you are doing and watch some Youtube grammar tutorials on the vocative case and identifiers.

>>10529738
>If you believe in 'tribe'
In the tribal scene, we are all mulattoes.
>then you wouldn't support (((Christianity)))
I don't support (((Christianity))), I support Christianity.
>which is an internationalist religion
I see, yet another intentional misunderstanding on your part. Before God we are replaceable. Hence we are equal 'before God'. The whole of humanity can be replaced by rocks if He so wishes. This is evolution from the divine perspective. However, you forgot the parts where the men and women, the slaves, the servants etc. are given guidance to act out properly and differently. You forget the praise of all nations, because they are all within God's plan. "God has determined the time and place of nations."
>lol.

>>10529769
>you appear uneducated and reduce your chances of being understood
the context is a quip on 4chan faggot did you think i was trying to communicate anything other than disdain

>>10529007
Leo Strauss’s Natural Right and History, read it, Peterson is essentially a Straussian who doesn’t ever mention Strauss.

>>10529007
You should actually read Nietzche and Jung and not Peterson dictate what these people thought.

If you are a Christian or an proponent of it you simply are not a follower of Nietzsche. You're also not really a Jungian either.

>>10529866
>If you are a Christian or an proponent of it you simply are not a follower of Nietzsche. You're also not really a Jungian either.
What if I like the heretic Nietzscheans and Jungians more?

>>10529825
>a quip on 4chan faggot did you
Ahhh, you need to post a comma both sides of faggot in this one, faggot. It's okay, faggot, baby steps. Faggot, so that we can recap all you've learned today, ive just made three separate sentences using your identifying noun of choice. x

>>10529866
>You should actually read Nietzche and Jung and not Peterson dictate what these people thought.
I thought his point was more Derrida than Nietzsche, and how Peterson is lying and misrepresenting postmodernism to push his ideology on a gullible audience he can milk for $70k a month.

>>10529945

>misrepresenting things
>pushing ideology on a gullible audience for money

Isn't this what most college professors do who don't teach the hard sciences?

>>10529483
Why is he crying like he's just read the story of pinocchio?

>>10529866
>t. never read Jung
Jung literally said that becoming an observant Catholic was the most psychologically healthy thing a person could do. It's mentioned several fucking times. God damn, now I realize what people mean when they say /lit is a bunch of pseuds.

This is the first not-garbage Peterson take I've seen here in my entire time browsing /lit/

>>10529932
have you still not realized thst since the first the post i've been purposely discarding grammar convention? And that faggot is a quintessentially 4chan way to end a post like that And (anotha one) that adding a comma would defeat the entire purpose of what was supposed to be a sudden and crass comment? how long have you been on this site?

>>10529945
Peterson is a pseud, but he's right about post-modernism. I couldn't give less of a fuck about the specific dialectic of some brainlet obscurantist philosophy like formal pomo, it's the qualitative effect of it that matters.

>>10529896
>Nietzscheans
Imo you can't be a "Nietzschean." His philosophy has to many contradictions and is to linked to his life and personality

>>10529999
Exactly, and even if you could, a heresy would be an act fitting for Ubermensch.

>>10529994
>i've been purposely discarding grammar convention?
You're using some punctuation now, so it's quite hard to tell that you're just pretending to be semi-literate.

>adding a comma would defeat the entire purpose of what was supposed to be a sudden and crass comment?
See:
>>10529769
Do you ever read faggot?
and
Do you ever read, faggot?
If you really cant see the clarity and emphasis provided by that comma, you should stop what you are doing and watch some Youtube grammar tutorials on the vocative case and identifiers.

>how long have you been on this site?
About eight years, before shrektext, but I moved abroad and stopped coming here in 2013. I've been sat at home with an injury since December and have revisited and been browsing on and off out of sheer boredom.

>>10529996
>Peterson is a pseud, but he's right about post-modernism

Given the amount of academic citations he has, Peterson is a genuine intellectual not a pseudo-intellectual. He is right about a lot of things, but his whole gimmick is founded on a purposely distorted view of postmodernism.

>>10529007
>tfw just read wiki article on Derrida
>either the person who wrote it is a retard or Derrida is the biggest brainlet I've ever heard about in philosiphy
>Dude lmao like equal and opposite reactions mean we can't go anywhere
>lololol what if, like, there are no platonic forms, what if man
>we need to destroy the (binary opposition) systems because like, I personally have a fixation on the archetype of two and feel like being a cheaper, dumber, version of Wittgenstein

What a fucking moron. Can't believe people actually shill for formal pomo here like it's something to be elitist about.

>>10529976
he prob did XD

>>10530087
>citations he has
Not one about continental philosophy, and that's what he does and should get bashed for

>>10530102

Literally none of the things posited by Nietzsche, Peterson, and the mainline philosophers would be a problem if people understood even a bit of Hegel. This is what happens when you let frogs, their kin and their sympathizers do philosophy instead of making your Geist mature through a healthy diet of cigars, alcohol and Bildungsromane.

>>10530102
>I think I'm going to walk forward
>oh shit, derrida says there is no platonic concept of forward because it's just linguistic fuckery that depends on the opposition to backward
>walk forward anyway b/c he's a flaming homo, experience qualia of moving forward
>Derrida kills himself out of anger by suffocating on his bf's dick

>>10530117
>t. chose a retard area of focus for his philosiphy degree, identifies with it completely, can't admit that it's complete retardation

>>10529978
I've never encountered him seeing that, so I'm just going to dismiss that if you don't have citiation.

Nothing in Answers to Job is remotely Catholic. If anything it's extremely heretical..

>>10530140
“Even so, as a Protestant, it is quite clear to me that, in its healing effects, no creed is as closely akin to psychoanalysis as Catholicism. The symbols of the Catholic liturgy offer the unconscious such a wealth of possibilities for expression that they act as an incomparable diet for the psyche"

>>10529007
>When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant.
Americans should be banned from reading Nietzsche

>>10530148
And you think that is saying "convert to Catholism"? LOL He's saying the massive amount of symbols for instance the assortment of angels, is much better than Protestantism.

Nietzsche also praised Catholicism when he compared to Protestantism. What's the context of this anyway, is it something you actually read or did you see the quote somewhere online?

>>10530153
>Americans should be banned from reading Nietzsche
they should just be banned from the board.

>>10530158
I read many, many similar quotes in primary sources while procrastinating in my college library years ago, just found this by googling jung/catholicism. He's not catholic, but he's certainly one of the most pro-catholic thinkers I'm familiar with.

>>10530153
He's paraphrasing Peterson.

>>10530166
Dude, there's so many from the starter kit who have written the same thing. Wilde thought they were better because they have more pomp and circumstance and ever changing robes. Keuroac used paint devotional portraits to the Pope. There's a lot more writers and people known for whole aesthetics who thought the Catholic one was the best. Hell, even Henry VIII kept the Fidei Defensor styling when setting up his own religion in protest to Catholicism.

>>10530166
>just found this by googling jung/catholicism

Well there we go. You don't read Jung which why you have such a retarded interpretation of him.

>similar quotes in primary sources while procrastinating in my college library years ago,
You skimmed a few quotes when you were bored at college LOL. I love how you add the phrase 'from primary sources' to try and make it sound less stupid.

>>10530117
Explain to me how Derrida is not just making the reductionist fallacy in the field of linguistic philosophy. His argument is 100% the same as neurologists/psychologists who say that consciousness is just nerve endings firing, just replacing a physiological substrate with a linguistic one.

>>10530195
lol

>>10530102
>>tfw just read wiki article on Derrida
You should be ashamed of skimming a wiki article and spouting nonsense when we can all see it flew straight over your head.
>>10530130
>>I think I'm going to walk forward
>>oh shit, derrida says there is no platonic concept of forward because it's just linguistic fuckery that depends on the opposition to backward

I'll try to dumb this down to your level... Derrida isn't saying you can't walk forward. He is explaining how forward is a semantic construct and your understanding of forward, backwards, left and right are concepts nested inside the text. You have no idea how little you know about movement, how much is missing from your understanding, or how well your text about walking forward relates to the action you think you are observing. Jesus, this is just like teaching algebra to kindergartners who think they get it because they can use plastic letters to spell their names.

>>10530196
>His argument is 100% the same as neurologists/psychologists who say that consciousness is just nerve endings firing, just replacing a physiological substrate with a linguistic one.

YOu have really misunderstood the little bit you read. He is saying there might be two things: 1) the possibility that there could be nerve endings firing. 2) Our description of nerve endings firing. But our descriptions include consciousness just being nerve endings, includes souls, includes qualia, includes everything we have thought of to date, but none of it is actually the possibility of nerve endings firing. All of it is descriptions. We are rowing a tiny boat in an ocean of text.

>>10530230
You can't go through life reading in depth into every perspective that exists. Sometimes you have to learn how to recognize bullshit.

>>10530230
You don't need words to describe forward, you can move your hands and any dumb non-verbal ape would understand you. Forward is qualia of control/novelty backward is fear/return

>>10530245
So what I'm getting from that is that Derrida is basically no better than a Solopsist. You cannot deny that this structure you just described is astoundingly unproductive on all levels. Saying that things are just descriptions is no better than saying that other people do not actually exist.

actually the more I think about it the more I'm starting to agree with Peterson. Derrida and his followers are evil, not because of any moral issues, but because as the fags above me have clearly pointed out through their own posts, his entire philosophy is both absurd by fact of reductio ad absurdum (hurr its all descriptions, but if so things being descriptions is just a description itself) and also in that is a willful conjuring of a reality that is unreality, which is inherently repugnant and disgusting.

>>10530394
He's saying descriptions of things are not the same as things. Someone describing a bunsen burner in your hand when they discovered the dead professor with blunt force trauma does not mean you actually battered him to death, and you should remember that and to ask for a lawyer, not a scientist to tell them they meant a retort stand not a bunsen burner. Recorded fact is just that: what has been recorded.

>>10530435
I'm not saying that linguistics can describe qualia accurately, or that one linguistic expression means the same qualia for everyone. I'm just saying that qualia exist independent of linguistics, which should be obvious since people have had them since before language developed, and animals quite likely still have them. Qualia (and by extension platonic forms) = reality, not linguistics.

>>10530394
>So what I'm getting from that is that Derrida is basically no better than a Solopsist.
The idea that no other minds exist is within the text, as is the idea that other minds do exist, as is the idea of a brain in a vat and every other idea ever put forward. YOu can attack it and say its the same as reducing consciousness to nerve endings firing, attack it by saying that it's solipsism, next time maybe relativism, nihilism, anything else you don't like, and all the while you are operating within the framework itself and pulling forward different ideas and concepts which are also in the framework, and setting up different semantic scenarios to describe what you perceive to be events. .

>You cannot deny that this structure you just described is astoundingly unproductive on all levels.
You cannot deny that this structure not only is the essential foundation for the entire field of philosophy, but underlays absolutely everything. It prevents dogmatic belief in anything, from religion to science, while allowing you to attach different micro-structures a probability value relative to other internal structures and refine the whole thing.

It's so important, there was even a parody religion set-up around it. You should really check that out. It serves as a brilliant introduction before you're ready to explore deeper. Unlike the Flying Spaghetti monster, it wasn't created out of angst or hate, but out of pure fun and intelligence. The creators explored philosophy in a lot of depth and detail. It's called 'Discordianism' after Eris, the Greek Goddess of discord and chaos:

"The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.

With our concept-making apparatus called "the brain" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.

It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will..."

>>10530457
And Derrida does not disagree with that. What his focus is how one linguistic expression can mean many different things for everyone.

Your premises and terms are slightly confused, but, what you're accusing Derrida of doing is not the case. I'm not the guy you've been talking to about solipsism, and I think you might be the one in the conversation who admitted working off wikipedia?
You need to do a lot of reading because your interpretation is idiosyncratic to the point you can't even call it wrong, it's just... confused. You're using a lot of words that have precise meanings in very broad senses that don't make sense within philosophy circles for what you're trying to precisely describe. It's like hearing someone use "a lightyear" to mean "a very long time, much more than one year".

>>10530184
Peterson fags sud be banned from this board

>>10530457
>I'm just saying that qualia exist independent of linguistics
>Qualia (and by extension platonic forms) = reality, not linguistics.
We don't know what reality is. All we have is linguistics to describe what reality appears to be to us. When you discuss qualia, platonic forms, Aristotelian essences, you discuss these linguistic concepts within linguistics, using various other structures, various other concepts. Your claim that qualia exists independent of linguistics is a claim made within linguistics, made with the help of billions of linguistic concepts that brought you to writing that claim.

Whether qualia does in fact exist outside of linguistics, you can not be certain of. All you can do is invent the concept of qualia because you believe it accurate describes reality, invent countless other concepts, make the linguistic claim that it does, verify this claim internally, relative to other concepts and frameworks, and give that claim a truth value.

>>10530515
Sounds like Kuhnian incommensurability applied further.

Used to impressed by these sorts of philosophies before I found out they have existed for literally 5000 years. Really is nothing new under the sun.

>>10529525
You may have all read about Nietzsche but few of you have read Nietzsche

>>10530515
qualia exist because I'm experiencing them right now, whether or not I am talking, writing, or even thinking in words, and to be blunt, I only give a fuck about philosophy to the extent that it can describe the nature of my personal state of being.

>>10530153
>canadians are americans
umm.... no sweetie

>>10530547
>>canadians are americans
>umm.... no sweetie
North America. To be fair to central and south Americans, they're ok on this board.

>>10530484
m8, I'm not trying to understand Derrida as interpreted by Derrida, if I was I wouldn't say I just read the wiki. this is more just me fitting him into a larger ontology.

>>10530532
> I found out they have existed for literally 5000 years

Yes. The Greeks toyed with the idea of Theseus's paradox -- If I take the ship of Theseus and replace one plank of wood, is it the same ship? You can replace a tyre on your car and ask if it's still your car. Eventually, I replace every plank of word on the ship, and after every plank, it has been confirmed that the ship is essentially the same ship. I then reveal that I saved every plank and reassembled it, and show a second ship which was constructed from the first. If this were your car, you'd be standing scratching your head and asking which car were in fact yours. It's a simple paradox, but that was the seed which the postmodernists planted to eventually grow deconstructionism, structuralism, post-structuralism. Once we had a full theory of Semiotics, we could dive into this with différance and other concepts that explore a lot deeper than the basic surface scratching we've been doing in this thread.

>>10530559
You're not fitting him into anything. You've got the position you say he holds wrong, and agreed with his actual position.
Your use of terms is approaching wordsalad at this point, tbqh. I'm going to leave it to the other guy because it's getting a bit Princess Bride. Good night and good luck

>>10530534
That was the distinction in that comment desu, it was responding to an analysis of Nietzsche that was so basic it's a waste to even post it in a thread about him.

>>10530484
>using words that have precise meanings
precise meanings within a closed impotent paradigm structure yeah, but that's useless. You're supposed to mix and match to create. A monothiestic derridan, or a heiddegerian, or a kantian, whatever isn't going to accomplish shit.

>>10530540
>qualia exist because I'm experiencing them right now,

The fact that you think you are is a nice linguistic concept. The crucial thing to remember is that you cannot verify your concept with a bayesian probability value of 100%. You're making the mistake of thinking you have a truth, a fact, but what you have is fundamentally a linguistic concept to which you've given a high bayesian value. That's just one reason this is so important, to prevent you from making that error.

>>10530579
>if I spout names they'll all mean the same thing
Is this how you convinced yourself you're as competent as any of them, or as any one who read them? Sounds Spinozan.

>>10530572
night man, enjoy being a pretentious philistine. Oh shit I can't say philistine in that context because even though you know what I mean it doesn't exactly fit. Holy fuck you're retarded.

>>10530470
Okay, so if everything is linguistics. If the only thing we have is a big linguistic description of reality and don't know exactly how accurate it is, and we can only give a probability value to things inside it, and we do not know for sure how accurate these are because we can never leave linguistics. Why does Jordan Peterson want to destroy this idea? Why would he hate it and go to so much trouble trying to attack it?

>>10530589
I don't know if you're the same guy as other anon, but just listen to yourself, to the core idea you're trying to convey here, which if i understand correctly, that you cannot have a valid understanding of philosiphy without comprehensively understanding the precise terminology and dialectic of individual philosophers. Do you realize how stupid that sounds to someone coming from a stem background?

>>10530584
K. Now apply that back onto your statement. Is it true that he does not have the truth? If it has a high probability should we act likes it's true? If we should, how do then justify this truth without begging the question?

>>10530627
>it doesn't matter if you use inches when you mean cm
YES IT FUCKING DOES. For fuck's sake stop trying to pass it off on a STEM background, /sci/ would call you dumb if you fucked up with terminology or left out the unit measure.

>>10530635
There's no such thing as measure in philosiphy, it's not a fucking metric space, lmao. What you're doing is like someone getting pissed at me for saying dynamics and controls instead of signal processing. One is a chem e branch the other is a broader term used in a few other fields, they both deal with the same concepts.

>>10530634
>>10530634
Could you just point out the bits you don't understand so we can explain them to you? It seems more like you have your fingers in your ears because you dislike the idea, and we can't do much for you if thats the case. With truth, we don't have a big capital T truth. We have lower case, appears to be the case, truths relative to other concepts.

>If it has a high probability should we act likes it's true?
Sure. I don't know if it's true that my car will start before I turn the key, but all the surrounding structures--it has a full tank, it started this morning, the battery isn't flat, etc--lead me to think, with a high degree of probability, that my car will start, so I'll get in and turn the key. If there were other parameters that made me construct a scenario whereby I thought the probability of it starting were low-- I had left my lights on and the battery were dead, there was a puddle of oil beneath, something else major, then I may act differently...

>>10530650
guy you replied to isn't me. I was just pretending to retarded honestly, but now I'm sticking with my hate b/c earlier anon pissed me off with his attacks on my versatile communication skills. Derrida is dead to me forever now

>>10530644
It looks more like someone saying "I'm an ocean doctor too" to a marine biologist when they mean "I'm a marine biologist too".

>>10530656
valid yes or no?

>>10530650
I understand fine. I just have problem with undergrads who first heard of confirmation theory misunderstanding what it is. If we have no capital T truth I will ask you this: Why should we believe Bayesian probability theory or use it for confirmation theory? Because it is true?

If it is true, do you mean that to say it has a high but not 100% Bayesian probability? If that is the case we are begging the question as we have to assume that the theory true for a high probability to mean anything.

If it is true in the sense it has 100% probability as it has been derived from deductive reason (which is in fact the case) then we do in fact have capital T truths.

Of course you probably don't know how Bayes rule even works because they don't actually teach you the math.

I'm literally just an angry math/stats major who popped in to tell you your'e spouting nonsense by using our tools without understanding them.

>>10530674
Valid for what case?

>>10530676
kek, stem hates Derrida confirmed
>t. chem e

>>10530679
Don't know what you mean by that. I just wanted to know if you think that the symbols are what matter or their relationships

>>10530689
>Don't know what you mean by that.
I know, it presupposes that you understand STEM, and that's a case already solved.

>>10530684
It's more the "you can't know nuffin" interpretations that get me. It's healthy to be critical. It's unhealthy to be uncritical of being ciritcal.

>>10530622
Peterson hates it because he wants to give the impression that he holds truth, or a form of truth. He wants to give his audience the illusion that he's flirting with objectivity... He also needs something to blame for the pronoun war he's engaged in, and blaming postmodernism for playing linguistic games is one of the easiest ways for him to create a villain. He can point at a deluded feminist bellowing about transgender victims through a megaphone and say she has been brainwashed by reading too much postmodernism and has created whatever gender theory she's shouting about inside an unrestricted linguistic kindergarten and thinks her linguistic construct is as real as anything anyone else says. He points out the lack of objectivity and truth and hides the fact that he uses this very same linguistic argument using a modified vocabulary when it suits him ... It's utter drivel, and anyone can point out that it's not a free for all where every theory is equal, but it was a highly effective inflatable enemy for him... A character like Christopher Hitchens, atheist and Trotskyist, could have used postmodernism in his own rhetoric if he wished, -pointed at the wicked postmodern, hyper-capitalist, right-wing Christians. If mullet headed, redneck, NRA teens were protesting campuses instead of loony feminists, it would have worked very well for him too. With enough cunning, you can frame any opponent's argument as being postmodern by the very fact that they have constructed their argument using language. Peterson is essentially arguing against relativism, which isn't a characteristic of postmodernism. But relativism doesn't have a large group of dead French intellectuals to lynch.

>>10530584

Thinking you are is a certainty.

>>10530694
I haven't dealt with diffeqs since junior year of undergrad m8. What I do is almost entirely programming now. I'm a shit scientist, not gonna say otherwise

>>10530694
why else would I be wasting my time on /lit

>>10530698
>He can point at a deluded feminist bellowing about transgender victims through a megaphone and say she has been brainwashed by reading too much postmodernism
kek a fleeting image of the standard tumblr whale shouting through a megaphone that votes must not be given to bicycles or men of the one legged disposition and housing needs to found itself in the rational metaphysics of deSelby's most ardent critic before she embarrassingly chirps twice before turning left and reveals her true nature and runs to hide behind a shed flashed across my mind.

>>10529053
>postmodern worldview is correct in that we have no real objectivity.

This sentence

>>10529559
>Doing this will only result in our ruin

Why does anyone still have any faith in humanity?

>>10530676
>>10530676
>If we have no capital T truth I will ask you this: Why should we believe Bayesian probability theory or use it for confirmation theory? Because it is true?

We act as if they are true because they have a high probability value. We're not talking about one small thing, but everything. Since you're riding your STEM so hard, you know that they don't hand out Nobel prizes when a scientist copies another scientist's tests and reaches the same conclusion. Every field of science operates on the same theory: that everything is potentially falsifiable. That in the future we can take a theory, say we were wrong about an aspect, then refine and improve it. We should be proud of the fact the we have no capital T truths, not run and hide and act as if someone is saying "can't know nuffin." The immense linguistic structure we have built to describe reality is impressive and we should be proud of it.

>I'm literally just an angry math/stats major
Let's look at it from within your domain then. For centuries, it was widely believed that geometry, as developed by the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid, was the most exact of all of the sciences. Based on a small number of axioms from which one could deduce multiple propositions, Euclidean geometry represented a nearly perfect system of logic. However, while most of Euclid’s axioms were seemingly indisputable, mathematicians had long experienced great difficulty in satisfactorily demonstrating the truth of one of the chief axioms on which Euclidean geometry was based. This slight uncertainty led to an even greater crisis of uncertainty when mathematicians discovered that they could reverse or negate this axiom and create alternative systems of geometry that were every bit as logical and valid as Euclidean geometry. The science of geometry was gradually replaced by the study of multiple geometries. Look at Poincare, who pointed out that the principles of geometry were not eternal capital T truths but descriptions and that the test of a system of geometry was not whether it was true but how useful it was.

So how do we judge the usefulness or goodness of our symbolic and conceptual models? You think that objectivity is the only solution to the chaos of relativism, in which nothing is absolutely true. But this hasn’t really been how science has worked. Rather, models are constructed according to the often competing values of simplicity and generalizability, as well as accuracy. Theories aren’t just about matching concepts; scientists are guided by a sense of the Good to encapsulate as much of the most important knowledge as possible into a small package. But because there is no one right way to do this, rather than converging to one true symbolic and conceptual model, science has instead developed a multiplicity of models. This has not been a problem for science, because if a particular model is useful for addressing a particular problem, that is considered good enough.

>>10530698
the guy's fighting 20-year old purple haired obese identity politics liberals, but that looks pathetic since he's a 55-year old university professor so he needs his opponent to be someone "worthy"
in comes neo-marxism, cultural marxism, postmodernism, the fall of western civilization etc.

>>10529007
>Nobody is able to create a value system that can replace religion and live by it
This is a begging the question fallacy. The circular reasoning is assuming religion is the default code of ethics, or ought to be. Neither of which is true in any sense.

Plenty of assholes are religious and plenty of a-religious people are the best of humanity. Believing in superstition, as it turns out, is not required to uplift the human race. In fact, even if you don't believe the a-religious are good or even that being kind to one another is good, one should not phrase it as "replacement for religion" as it poisons the mind to circularly assume there is a default correct modus operandi for ethics.

The religious and a-religious alike are swimming in a sea of gray, shouting, pleading for sanity in a world that seems turned against them. No religious code can obscure that truth forever.

>>10529007
Wait, im not too familar qith the "objectivity problem" why can't we simply bring back christianity?

Is just that without the word of an all knowing and superior father, humans become just another animal.

>>10530725
I remember throwing my toys out of the pram when I first faced the fact that we had no objective facts. I refused to accept it. It was particularly painful in Ethics. I believed we needed an action to be objectively right or wrong, otherwise how could we have a valid criminal system and society if something wasn't objectively good, and murder or rape or theft wasn't objectively wrong?

Don't worry, it'll pass soon as you read a bit more, understand inter-subjectivity, maybe some postmodernism, and how philosophy and science actually works.

>>10530772

Let me know when you figure how the absolutism of subjectivity is not self defeating

>>10530767
based retard

>>10530769
>Is just that without the word of an all knowing and superior father, humans become just another animal.

What's dumb is that doesn't prevent humans from being "just another animal" at all. Plenty of religions make evolution compatible. Worse, there's nothing actually wrong with being another animal.

Thanks, everybody. You have given me a lot to read.

>>10530790
what's dumb is choosing to believe in a subjective reality within a subjective reality when being in a subjective reality means that you could believe in an objective reality and that would be your vastly superior reality

>>10530838
But that's your subjective opinion

>>10530838
>what's dumb is choosing to believe in a subjective reality within a subjective reality when being in a subjective reality means that you could believe in an objective reality and that would be your vastly superior reality
Well done, mate, that is one of the most outstandingly stupid things I have ever read on this board... You don't like hip-hop. You hate it. You only like classical music. .. "what's dumb is believing hip-hop exists and not choosing to believe you live in a world where every other person is a concert pianist."

Choosing to believe? How can you go through life choosing to believe things just because you like them, 'oh, look, that guy is driving a Bentley and I'm broke..wait, I'll make myself genuinely believe I'm a billionaire and convince myself that he has borrowed my car for the day.' and even worse, deciding things you don't like are false... 'la la la, I can't hear you, mom, so it's not really bedtime. My fingers are in my ears and I'm an astronaut. Go away, I'm about to go to Mars.'

>>10530929
> being this disingenuous

That's not what that guy was talking about and you know it

>>10530980
choosing to believe in a subjective reality
>you could believe in an objective reality and that

Nah mate, she explicitly said the choosing what to believe is an easy option like believing she's catwoman.

>>10530644
Metric spaces have metrics and measure spaces have measures, it's not that difficult.

>>10530929

>How can you go through life choosing to believe things just because you like them

well this is pretty much what religion is

Oh Pee, I'll admit, I got caught up in the Peterson hype for a while too. His energy and twenty minute tangents are great to have on in the background, and some of his advice can be inspiring. I watched all of his personality lectures and half of his biblical series. It's fascinating stuff, and I love his Jungian overlay on everything... But it was his consistent smear campaign against postmodernism, his intellectually dishonest attack on everything from deconstruction to semiotic phenomenology that ultimately turned me off... If he could stick to psychology and only bring in philosophy where needed and without lying, he would be so much better... Instead, he has dragged his petty handbag fight with a fringe group of hambeast vegan feminists into his work, and it looks like knocking a cheap Starbucks latte over a watercolour painting you've spent three weeks on... It's totally unnecessary in the middle of a bit about determinism and free will and eve with her apple, to delve into a ten minute, 'bloody postmodernists don't know how terrifying the gulags were, and they support them' tirade before getting back on track. Ten years from now, people will look back on his work, and his anti-postmodernist rhetoric and silly little fight with the lesbian trans-otherkin will stick out like a volcanic nose zit because the cultural and political landscape has shifted. Still, 80% of his work is decent though.

>>10529030
He must suffer from the same Randroid autism as Mike Maloney. The guy has a 20 minute long video of him reading aloud the «Is money the root of all evil?» excerpt from The Fountainhead while sobbing.

>>10530118
>Hegel
lmao

Anyone who reads Hegel instantly loses somewhere between 15-20 IQ-points due to the sheer amount of stupidity.

How is this in any way triumphant over the death of God:

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

>>10531674
>How is this in any way triumphant over the death of God:

You have to hear the first thirty seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8u0CEvqEY

>>10531682
Watched the first minute, but doesn't he say exactly the same thing, that Nietzsche wasn't triumphant in saying that God is dead? With God dead, we have to take on the role of 'ubermensch', basically absorbing the Christian values and living them out even without God - something we have failed to do, which is what Nietzsche feared?

>>10530750
>We act as if they are true because they have a high probability value.

No one can be this stupid. You are literally begging the question by acting like it's true when it has a high probability value as this requires the truth of the system for it to be sensible to treat something as true when it has a high probability value which is exactly what is in contention.

Also you are misunderstanding what happened with the parallel postulate and it's implications.

>>10529007
>it wasn't triumphant
Someone is stuck in the camel stage of metamorphosis desu

>>10530750
>Every field of science operates on the same theory: that everything is potentially falsifiable.


Also this is just plain false. Not all philosophy of science is Popperian.

>>10529007
>become an ubermensch
Slow your roll there, buddy. The ubermensch isn't self-created, he comes onto the scene. Hence Nietzsche's hierarchy. You can't become an ubermensche, especially not by reading philosophy or subscribing to N's view (see: BGE). You're born one (like me).

>N's existentialism
In what way is his views existentialist? You're misreading the guy (as evidenced by the above).

>doesn't work
Does the idea not work, or does your bad understanding of it not work? That's on you, bro.

>No one is able to create a value system to replace religion
I think you're severally underestimating human creativity, or just the will to power in general. I'll give you a little taste from "On Truth and Lies": "One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened."
Just replace here logos with any of its corolarries (in your case, religion). It's not hard to see how your concerns are laughable. We talking LITERAL ETERNATIES YOU MOSQUITO LOL

>>10529483
Well he's not wrong lmao

>>10531724
sup icy

>>10531444
Do you have a video of that?
I don't know what these guys have with Ayn Rand

>>10531732
He is wrong in crying

>>10531754
Explain

>>10531703
Do you really not see how he, I and everyone else ITT have demonstrated with at least twenty posts why your stance is either pure stupidity or trolling? I was about to explain the utility of treating Newton's theory of Gravity as truth, but saw you only managed to get as far as the first sentence in that post and started trolling without reading his Euclid explanation.

>>10531947
Do you not understand your own position undermines itself? You're pulling yourself up by your own hair here. You still have not resolved the problem of why one should take confirmation theory as true. You have attempted to do so only by using confirmation theory, which is exactly what is in contention. MY God you actually do not understand what you are talking about.

>>10531803
Why would you cry like a woman while reading a few words about the individual?
Btw, JP hasn't lived in a communist dictatorship or something similar, his crying is ridiculous.
And that comes from a person that cannot keep from cryin' sometimes as my heart is full of sorrow and my eyes are full of tears. I just can't keep from cryin' sometimes.

>>10532104
Honey, you have had your panties pulled down and spanked so hard you wont sit down for a week. You literally have no argument.

>>10530470
>The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.
>With our concept-making apparatus called "the brain" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.
>It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.
>Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will..."

This is amazing. Peterson's new book is 'an antidote to chaos.' He rambles all the time about how bad chaos is, equating it with evil, the scary evil the hero ventures into to fight dragons. Discordianism, a pure postmodern religion that worships chaos, as chaos is all there is, and we look at chaos through individual linguistic maps. It's brilliant. It's the polar opposite of Peterson.

"We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids." This is so fucking good.

>>10532177
>feeling emotions is ridiculous
>lol he was emotionally touched by a book

Why the fuck do you even read? Have you not ever cried while reading something or felt connected to some author like he was saying something you've thought about for years but never heard outside of your head?
I cried when reading C&P several times and I haven't lived in Dostoevsky St.Petersburg nor am I a schizophrenic nihilistic russian neet but I can appreciate the beauty and the sadness of the situation

TL;DR Are you an actual autismo?

>>10532363
>in hopes of finding a perfect one that will..."
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be true. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion. The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

Reality is the original Rorschach.

>it wasn't triumphant
Fucking hell, this is the dude you retards have been shilling?

>>10532377
>>10531682
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8u0CEvqEY [Embed]

>>10529483
Awful joke at the end. Not an argument.

>>10532365
>Why the fuck do you even read? Have you not ever cried while reading something or felt connected to some author like he was saying something you've thought about for years but never heard outside of your head?
>I cried when reading C&P several times and I haven't lived in Dostoevsky St.Petersburg nor am I a schizophrenic nihilistic russian neet but I can appreciate the beauty and the sadness of the situation
I was going to use Crime e Punishment as an example, I did cry when Sonia read him the the excerpt of Lazarus.
There is however a big different between Dosto and this shit Ode to the individual he read.
If you can't comprehend that, you are very fool

>>10532319


This is unbelievable. You are unable to support your system without circular reasoning and now will not even engage. You claim victory but understand you have demonstrated nothing and are unaware from whence your principles derive.

>>10529007
>this whole thread
>Nietzsche quoted maybe twice
you know /lit/ is a pseud board because quoting, analyzing and interpreting text isn’t a part of most threads. the most basic book club behaviors absent from what is essentially an extended book club

>>10532426
The only difference is that when you cry about something is justified and logical but when someone else cries about something you deem unworthy it is laughable

>>10532409
>Not an argument.

>>10532365
Now that I think about it no, I've only cried listening to music, and not from sadness! Mozart's Kyrie

>>10532442
yeah, Crime and Punishment = muh individual
there is a great difference between an author who manages to create relatable characters,such as those in CeM, and that shit read by Peterson.

>>10532430
awww, hush now, darling. It's over. you're done. You're lying on the ground, dazed, and burbling through blood and broken teeth, "when does the fight start?" So disoriented and confused you don't even see that five people have answered your questions, humiliated you, and put you on your ass five times already. You have nothing left, "b-b-ut truth i-is, like, muh truth, you cannot have truth inside a structure.. objectivity, umm, truth." Either you're sadistic, a glutton for punishment, or so dense you can't see you've been ruined. It's okay, sweetie pie, you're done now. Go to bed... Or take a look at this Discordianism >>10532370 it's the antithesis of your position and if you faced that, it would be the 6th contender to hand truth and your ass to you.

>>10532507
This is just childish now. Do all your failed arguments end in fantasy?

>>10532526
Scroll, back, babycakes. How many times to you need to be humiliated? This is absurd now. And you still can't address The Aneristic Principle, the Eristic Principle, the Aneristic Illusion or the Eristic Illusion. wow.

>>10532532
You haven't made any arguments. Also you seem to be confusing me with another poster as well.

I made a simple request: demonstrate the truth of confirmation theory without using confirmation theory. You have not done this. You have no arguments, only assertions.

You have tried attacking our structure from many angles and failed every time. You started with random claims like "this is the same as neuroscientists denying consciousness." You got your ass handed to you. You tried, "this is solipsism," you got schooled. You hate the fact that we can have our valid structure, I get it, babygirl, it's cute, you're mad, but even your Peterson demi-God concedes our structure is valid and has been forced to verify it and use it when arguing. You tried the hyper-STEM angle twice and got utterly schooled by three different people. You still have to address those posts but you put your fingers in your ears instead. You're finally resorted to irrelevant non-questions like 'why would you act as if something is true,' seriously? not realizing you have been told multiple times already. And now Discordianism has been thrown at you for fun and you can't handle it. You have nothing left at all. Seriously, hunny bunny, go to bed. It's all over now. Really. You're well past done.

>>10529187
> he could say nowhere in existence can you find a physical instance of an irrational number like pi, yet we know it's "true."
he's literally done this multiple times. math is one of his favorite examples of something that is True but not "real" in the physically observable sense.

>>10532537
>>10532563

>>10532563
I have done none of those things. I see now why you are talking this way. You actually do not which posts are mine. Once again, how does your system justify confirmation theory without using confirmation theory?

>>10530772
No one is really denying that. The problem is the people who think that as we can only get to an approximate truth then fuck it, everything goes.

>>10532563
f-fucking post modernists
Dad do something!

>>10532563
>>10532612

Samefag.

>>10532612
he is the postmodernist

>>10532601
>The problem is the people who think that as we can only get to an approximate truth then fuck it, everything goes.
why is that a problem for you? Everything goes isn't an issue and nobody is pro-relativism, and an approximate truth is good enough.

>>10532563
t. badass

>>10532572
>>10532625
>>10532617
>>10532612
samefag

>>10532625
what is this "t." meme?

>>10532446
>'what a fag he's crying' is an argument

>>10532572
>Once again, how does your system justify confirmation theory without using confirmation theory?
Bayesian confirmation. Is this because the British guy argued for bayesian probability values? Your question is not an issue. Concepts can be weighed against each other using inductive and deductive reasoning, using pure empirical hypothesis falsification, using any other testing method you can conceive of, even bayesian confirmation theory, but I have no desire to begin calculating obscenely complex equations. I'll leave that to the mathematicians who are inter-subjectively tied to us and pouring data into our semantic web at a rate we can't ever keep up with. If everything is 'within the text' then every validation method you know of, and every method you don't know of, is inside the text at our disposal. It matters little which method of validation one uses.

The part you seem to be overlooking is that this is not something to buy into if you feel like it. It's what all of us are using. I have my own subjective framework and reasons for siding with certain principles. You have your own methods, and need to ask the question which is haunting you: within your own subjective framework for describing and exploring reality, how do you justify confirmation theory without using confirmation theory? For me, Kevin, and millions of others, it's totally irrelevant.

together we form an intersubjective framework. I'm guessing you are a white anglo male, so you have adopted many ideologies and perspectives of those around you. I'm Asian, and live in south east Asia, and have less in common with you than another random poster, although I'm heavily into western culture through media and the internet, I still have Pchum Ben the festival of Hungry ghosts, and hundreds of other cultural things I've adopted and linguistic structures I share with on a national level of which you're unaware. Just like the Discordianism mentioned about culture. We have inter-subjectivity on the cultural level, inter-subjectivity on the global level.

But look at Newton. What justification do we have for accepting his theory of Gravity? It works within the framework itself. Here we're mainly using empirical observation to confirm it's validity. When used on objects like planets we see that it's not true, and we can use Einstein for a more accurate prediction of future events. Newton was never "true" he just had the leading concept, Einstein is currently not true, he is just wrestling with QM for the leading concept. Nothing is True, it's all just grappling for a chance to be the leading concept for a short while.

>>10530166
he's a russiaboo and seems more pro-orthodox than anything.

>>10532709
The reason for me asking that question is this.
>>10530676

It cannot be applied to itself without beginning the question. It requires the validity of something before it. What is this thing then that precedes confirmation theory and what probability does it have?

My point is to show it is necessary to believe as absolutely true some statements before proceeding. Think of these as the systems axioms, which are taken on faith. What I was trying to demonstrate was that poster was unwilling to unpack his systematic assumptions.

This is important as when we explicitly examine concepts such as

>Nothing is True
or
>There are no capital T truths

Am I to take this as absolutely true? Is that not self defeating?

>>10532743
begging* the question

>>10532743
If we throttle our framework right down to one area, say aesthetics, then it's easier to look at the issue.

I'd posit that we have our purely linguistic framework with no capital T truths, yet I'll throw around the word good at a book, bad at a film, beautiful at a girl, and ugly at a deformed toothless meth addict. I see no problem with good being internal to the framework and not a property, form, or essence, of the thing at which I'm looking. I'd say it is not capital T true that lolita is a good book and the meth head is ugly, but for me and the majority of people it's conventionally true. Within the framework, I'm willing to scrutinize the book being good and set up a system to confirm the validity of this truth. Inter-subjectively, we can use pronoun variation, suntax structure, free indirect style, a focus on meter and pacing, dialogue attribution, and really dig deep at what attributes we are using to conclude that Nabokov is a good writer.

I understand you want an axiom to work from, but we can treat axioms the way Buddhists treat truth. They have absolute truths and conventional truths. They accept a premise as an absolute truth, can climb a rung of the ladder, gain more wisdom and expand the framework, and with this expansion comes something that contradicts the initial truth. The absolute truth is downgraded to a conventional truth, one that was needed to climb, and new absolute truths are set up as axioms upon which to rest the framework. Within the framework, the absolute truth is the thing which is most true at that time, but it may later be proven false. It requires an entire reworking of the system. But we can rest the system on the fact that there are no big T's, we cannot leave our text, we can never verify the accuracy of a model to 100% certainty, and other stipulations.

Any validity of our model or acceptance that something is fundamentally true, though, will always carry the small-print that this fundamental truth may be proven false at a later date.

>>10532841

Th heart of the problem is that conception of systems is self defeating. As it requires us to either take as Big T or little t the statement "There are no Big T truths". Assigning either results in a rejection of the framework.

>I understand you want an axiom to work from,

Close, my point is it is impossible to act any other way. Every system will carry such assumptions, and such assumptions will not be verifiable or falsifiable from within the system. Indeed the concept that
>this fundamental truth may be proven false at a later date.
necessitates the existence of something thing which is capable of judging it as true of false, and this thing has been carried through from before and forms a faith based article of belief..

Yungian archetypes are basically just an is deriving an ought argument, except, one has to do psychoanalysis in order to find: that is. Its a fallacy and Yung is BTFO!! Also, Nietzsche said it will take generations before the Ubermensch is able to exist, because in Thus Spake Zarathustra, he says that the combination of our herd instinct, and all the conditioning we are forced to undergo will need to be killed from consciousness. And how that murder will cause more pain, but only then will yee be free. Yung saying it is impossible to completely decondition, misses the whole point of the Ubermensch. Its supposed to be a difficult path!

>>10532872
For me, I'm happy to adopt the system without one. But what are you holding as an axiom or capital T truth? You are stuck in a framework whereby you only have descriptions of things you think are empirical events. You describe what you believe to be the reality around you, and can't verify with 100% accuracy that your description is an accurate representation of this reality. Could you not hold ‘The map is not the territory’ or 'our linguistic framework is not the reality we think it describes' as an axiom? If not, then what would you use?

>>10532898
The ubermensch sounds like those gurus who reached moksha.

>>10532902
>For me, I'm happy to adopt the system without one.

You're not actually assuming nothing which is my point. There is some unjustified believe somewhere in your system and it is being used to justify others. It is inescapable.

>what are you holding as an axiom

The law of identity, Aristotelian logic, Peano arithmetic, among others. Frankly, I don't think there is usable system which does not assume these or similar things. If you know of system that is capable of deriving the law of identity I'd love to hear it.

>>10532912
Is moshka a hindu or buddhist term? N was not a fan of the buddhists, or hindus for that matter, curious though, what are the tenets/signs of reaching moshka?

>>10529007
>His axiomatic reasoning is that evolution has etched archetypal characteristics and modes of behavior into humans, and we are pre-written with these archetypes instead of being born blank-slates
And this is Peterson's problem. His ideas are wrong because his premise is faulty. Tell anyone in academia you believe in an innate "human nature" and they will laugh at you. There's a reason why nobody takes psychologists as serious intellectuals.

>>10532946
The utter inability to do anything because you unlearned it.

>>10532952
>Tell anyone in academia you believe in an innate "human nature" and they will laugh at you.
This is merely an example of the human nature.

>>10529483
I don't really see the problem with this. Yes, it's cringey and awkward, and I don't like Rand, quite the opposite, but art is subjective and if this moves him then it means it must be good for him. Who am I to tell him otherwise?

>>10532954
no this is wrong, stop trying. stop posting, you’re a shallow thinker and a poor scholar

>>10532966
>art is subjective

>>10532942
>There is some unjustified believe somewhere in your system
It's not my system. I've just never found any internal inconsistencies. From Mahayana buddhism thousands of years ago to Derrida, it's held it's weight.

>The law of identity, Aristotelian logic, Peano arithmetic, among others.
With Aristotelian logic, semantics generally rejects Aristotelian logic and essences. The same as forms. General semantics, upon which Derrida founded deconstruction, was called, "non-Aristotelian logic" The entire field of mathematics is regarded as being internal to GS too.

I saw this image yesterday. James Franco has absolutely nothing to do with this, it was written 100 years ago. The axiom in this case is said to be "the map is not the territory."

>>10532954
While thr Ubermensch might not be capable of cooperating with, and being useful to, society--at least as we know it today, the Ubermensch would be capable of tremendously bizaare strength, both physically and emotionally. His will though, would only be put to use on his terms

>>10532942
>>10532996
Non-Aristotelianism: While Aristotle wrote that a true definition gives the essence of the thing defined (in Greek to ti ên einai, literally "the what it was to be"), general semantics denies the existence of such an 'essence'.[43] In this, general semantics purports to represent an evolution in human evaluative orientation. In general semantics, it is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that—descriptions—which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe. According to general semantics, language, natural or otherwise (including the language called 'mathematics') can be used to describe the taste of an orange, but one cannot give the taste of the orange using language alone. According to general semantics, the content of all knowledge is structure, so that language (in general) and science and mathematics (in particular) can provide people with a structural 'map' of empirical facts, but there can be no 'identity', only structural similarity, between the language (map) and the empirical facts as lived through and observed by people as humans-in-environments (including doctrinal and linguistic environments).

>>10532996
Should clarify, when I say Aristotelian logic I mean it in the sense of using classic predicate logic to arrive at sensible results, not using his metaphysics. Realized this was ambiguous.

> I've just never found any internal inconsistencies

It's not about inconsistency. It's about something taken to be true that is not being proved from within, that is to say it is assumed. For example, is A=A? If so, can you prove it? And If you can prove it, can you prove the assumptions then used to also be true? For how long is this process continued?

>the map is not the territory.

I have no problem with this. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

>>10533025
A is A*, not A=A.

>>10529030
I think it's quite fitting what happened to Ayn Rand.
Retired by benefiting from a system that looked after her altruistically and was rejected by the love of her life as he literally followed his own desire in not wanting her manky pussy and staying with his own wife.

Bitter mental cow. The eyes give it away.

Literally a philosophical and economic Miss Havisham.

>>10529007
Reminder that if you think the Ubermensch is central to Neitzsche's thought then you either haven't read his philosophy or you did and failed to understand it. He essentially repudiates and mocks the idea in Thus Spoke Zarathustra; not only was he attempting to reinvent philosophy with the book but he was also reevaluating his own ideas. The Ubermensch is an image, a likeness, a parable, in which we see Nietzsche's realization that he misunderstood the individual's task in modernity. It's not that one must rise above the herd and get lost in the lofty discourse of philosophy; really, in order to grow as a human being and to confront the nihilism that defines our age, one must "fall" as does the tightrope dancer in the Prologue. More often than not this appears as a crisis, a period of profound uncertainty in one's life in which you have to rethink everything you thought you knew. The Ubermensch posits that self-actualization and -improvement is a simple act of will, whereas the idea of the untergang shows us that it is a much more painful and demanding experience. As he says in The Birth of Tragedy, "creativity requires suffering." All of this is preparation for eternal recurrence, his most important idea, but it's better that you read the book yourself.

>>10533406
why would i read a book when i can get scrawny fags like you to do it and summarize them for me. im the true ubermensch and you are my slave

>>10533406
This, but unironically.

>>10533102
>Retired by benefiting from a system that looked after her altruistically
I don't like Rand and I think his philosophy is silly and unpractical but this is wrong. She paid taxes, even if she didn't like it, so there's nothing really altruistic about the system giving her what she paid for. If you're forced to buy something should you ditch it because you didn't want it?

>>10532966
>art is subjective

found the kike's puppet

>>10532997
Perhaps the Ubermensch overpower their desires to do things with the sheer pressure of their will, however remaining above nihilism.

>>10532966
>Art is subjective
>>>/a/way

>>10533662
But the fact is that the system had a key element of altruism built into it. Taxes are paid precisely in a non-Randian capacity.
I may never use x service but I may need provision y
Obviously capital and greedy pigs have captured the system in order to funnel money to rich donors or to establish a welfare vote-base that serves lobbyists and donors.

The core base of much neo-liberal free-market theology that wants to do away with actually looking after people using taxes, then use her philosophy to disparage the core of the post-depression consensus that said:
>Here, you pay tax, big business pays tax and here you are in return. A pension, security, schools, infrastructure and tdemocratic accountability.

They say:
>You have no responsibility to anyone but your own desires. Altruism simply isn't worth your time or effort.
And yet an a system that was designed precisely with an element of altruism is what took care of her. It;s not as if she "bought," a service.

The fact that you assume that had she even been refunded the element of tax that you say eventually paid for her retirement is a misnomer;
my point was the principle was one that looked after her. Without it she would have died quicker and in far more terrible a state. (no pun intended)

Also she was a monumentally disturbed lady. i bet her pussy tasted of turps. Alan Greenspan should know.

>>10532966
>art is subjective

>>10532912

The link is Neet > Schop > Eastern Asian philsophies

Here's a question if one doesn't start from the standpoint of Nietzsche's atheism does he really have anything to say to you?

>>10534161
Nietzsche isn't really atheist. He just thinks that people have a need to worship, and God doesn't inspire the same kind of worship that "being cultured" "being educated" "being influential" carry in modern society, and those things, like God, are kind of made up by fanciful people who might not be the best marker of what "God" or "culture" actually would say if they talked to us.

His work is about social influence and cultural influence and how that forms your world view and can fuck you up, and generally offered an external perspective on power that wasn't from the "oppressed" or the "oppressor". Nietzsche thinks those are roles and about as true as when kids say "I'm a cowboy, you have to be an indian", and mutually agreed upon, just like "priest and penitent", or "God and man" used adopt much the same roles.

He's lots of interesting points but "atheist" isn't really one of them. Most of his stuff about God being dead is about why "...and that's why I'm wiccan, Mom" happens a lot after people say they think they're atheist.

>>10532974
>>10533886
>>10534024
>>10534074
>implying that what is considered to have literary mertis isn't considered as such just because it follows some arbitrary set of rules

>>10535377
Just because you can arbitrarily declare something arbitrary doesn't actually make it so.

>>10531013
>implying you even know what the fuck you're talking about to any degree
What's an F algebra? I swear to god you lib arts majors here are insufferable. It's like getting into an argument about politics in a bar and some faggot calls you out for saying good instead of well.

>>10532563
>tfw non-platonists realize they fucked up by confusing their binary fetish with reality
You can spam you're nonsensical dialectic all day buddy. What's even more pathetic is that not only are you too cucked to accept your own thoughts and qualia as reality, you can't even create your own delusion, you have to embrace one created by a random Frenchman.

Also, stop bullying stats guy, most of the posts you're talking about were from me.

>>10535404
oh shit I said you're instead of your, my post is invalid b/c petty pseud faggotry.

>>10532436
Well, it's hard to do anything when you post the whole quote everyone is talking about yet no one responds to that post.

How is Petersons self authoring plan? I could use a sorting out.

>>10530470
->:::<-

>>10531697
>absorbing the Christian values and living them out even without God
How the FUCK did you read that into Nietzsche?

>>10532974
>>10533886
>>10534024
>>10534074
There are no facts, only interpretations. Everything we experience is colored by our perspective. Art is no exception.

The question is, whose interpretation is worth considering the most?

Then what did he mean when he said that we have to become ubermensch now that we have killed God?

>>10536733
Nietzsche hated Christian values you stupid nigger, did you get your interpretation of him from a /lit/ post instead of actually reading him? He even has an entire book, The Antichrist, where it's almost nothing but him shitting on Christianity and the values it puts forth. Christianity advances slave morality and is the entire reason why nihilism has triumphed in the first place. Christianity instructs poor people who are suffering (slaves) to detach from the world since only the after life matters, take pity on others who suffer, and love everyone, rather then instructing them to overcome the ones that make them suffer (masters) and become masters themselves. In doing so, it has completely destroyed the master morality and created a world of slaves, since most people don't want to be masters anymore and those that do are chastised.

The ubermensch is the replacement for God, since we killed him. But God in this scenario is not specifically the Christian God, but any God. Nietzsche was concerned with values and how they were created. Now historically, people couldn't just go around saying "I want you to act like x" because nobody would listen to a man. They had to say "God wants you to act like x", because how could you disagree with a god? Think of the Mormon Joseph Smith as a modern example of this. Prophets were just value-creators who preached their values through the mouth of God. But now we've killed God, nobody believes in him anymore because of Christianity, so if nobody believes in God how will value-creators instill values into the masses? Either value-creators take up the mantle of God himself as the ubermensch and preach values "because I say so" or they don't and we enter the value-less, nihilistic age of the Last Men.

>>10537676
>Christianity advances slave morality and is the entire reason why nihilism has triumphed in the first place.......since most people don't want to be masters anymore and those that do are chastised.

It's a wonder that people allow Nietzsche to get away with this heavy handed analysis of Christianity, and yet claim him to be a student of human nature. Was he saw enthralled with a brief period of the Greeks to not notice the rest of history and humanity?

>>10537707

so enthralled*

>>10537676
>people still believe in God
>but I don't
>therefore the world has to be determined through my fickle understanding of power
>and if I become a God
>the Christian project will succeed
>even though it failed
>all it takes is a little Dionysus
>and a lot of me
>but NO DRINKING
Really makes me think.

>>10537707
I don't understand what you're saying, he's addressed other religions and their values as well, specifically in The AntiChrist. Not with the depth that he's addressed Christianity, but that's because he sees Christianity as the worst of the worst as far as nihilism and slave morality. He names Buddhism as similarly nihilistic to Christianity, only he says that Buddhism is more successful than Christianity because it doesn't obfuscate its nihilism behind the Judaic bells and whistles of God, Heaven, sin, etc. In being more straightforward, Buddhism actually accomplishes its expressed goal of ending suffering whereas Christianity has to use morality and deception. He praises Islam and Classical paganism as advancing a true master morality, although he laments that the former has been irreversibly damaged by the Crusades and that the latter has obviously died out. He also pretty explicitly praises the caste system laid out by the Hindu Laws of Manu.

>>10537760
>the Christian project will succeed
I think you should work on your reading comprehension, my little pseud friend.

>>10537773
>a human becoming a God is in no way related to a God becoming a human
>in no way could someone be something if they deny it
>otherwise I'll call you a pseud
>all while making no arguments of my own
Powerful stuff, Will.

>>10537676
Alright, so would my post be more accurate if you simply removed the word 'Christianity' from it?

>>10537788
I'm not making an argument I'm explaining what he's written in his books to someone who was asking about it. Two paragraphs is obviously not going to encapsulate many books worth of thought. I'm attacking him as a pseud because he's trying to extrapolate what Nietzsche thought from my post and attacking what he thinks Nietzsche thought rather than asking a question, or better yet going to read the fucking books on his own.

>>10537808
No, because Christianity is draped in neoplatonism. Nietzsche is explicit in the idea that the ubermensch has to avoid the trappings of platonic idealism. And there's more wrong with your post than that I just went after the low hanging fruit. He addresses the fact that man people still do believe in God. The ubermensch isn't God, God is inherently transcendental and otherworldly, whereas the ubermensch is the essence of worldly.

>>10529007
Peterson couldn't argue against an anti-natalist without appealing to emotion. He's a pussy bitch.

>>10537863
There's something to be said about Peterson not handling that conversation properly, but your post is obviously just an ill-thought-out attempt at discrediting the guy. Anti-natalist-kun started that line of argument himself and peterson went along with his game to unfolded the discussion on that basis. He tried to move the conversation toward alternative ways of looking at the value of life, but the (((professor of philosophy))) he was arguing with didn't have a working definition of that at hand, so it never progressed beyond that.

>>10538043

It was pretty silly, they could have saved themselves 45 minutes of bickering if they just agreed upon some term that encompassed the pain/pleasure variants instead of the antinatalist guy falling back into I DONT JUST MEAN PAIN every 3 minutes.

>>10529455
Awful post is awful

Rare peterson lecture:
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0UtnkOIABVC

>>10539295
This is the second best Kermit impression I've heard.

>>10529593
Sounds beautiful

>>10529053
Dirty pragmatists

>>10530929
you can not use this argument if you pay taxes.