/lit/ - Literature

It's a book from one of the most important thinkers to emerge on the world stage or many years.

The post-structuralists will win, Jordan is fucked

Go skim a copy at walmart. You get the general concept in a few minutes and can then go read better things

>>11811000
trips of truth

alternately just watch this video of his
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbOeO_frzvg

>>11810991
Just because he is an important thinker and speaks well (I actually really enjoy his talks and podcasts) doesn't mean he's a decent writer.

>>11810983
>tfw I share a board with mouth breathing retards that would unironically buy this garbage
Fuck. When is /pol/ going to leave?

>>11810983

JBP only halfway understands most of what he talks about. The rest he just pretend to know anything about. Just watch his videos and jack off if you are really interested in his self-help disguised as philosophy bull.

The video version is just as helpful IMO, and a lot more concise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQAXx_ao0

>>11811023
How is it garbage? Because he is popular? Have you read it? I want some opinions. Your lack of discussion makes you the cancer killing /lit/. No wonder /pol/tards feel so welcome here.

>>11811048
Have you ever heard anything this man has ever said? He's a literal moron who actually believes "post-modernists" (a term he utilizes oh so very loosely) are "cultural marxists" trying to destroy "the West". JBP doesn't actually know anything about philosophy and you can easily find more insightful posts on this very board.
Look, I get it. You're some lonely dude in your early 20s whos a little above average in intelligence and has trouble socializing. This book is not going to solve that for you, no book is, but if you're going to read something at least read someone who has done research and actually has cohesive thoughts, not some self-help knockoff rajneesh guru.

>>11811094
That still doesn't seem to be an opinion on the book. I've read plenty of the philosophy that is discussed on here in depth, I'm not that concerned for the self-help aspects of this book, I just want some opinions on... the book.

As a side note, all of your estimations of me were totally wrong. Don't try to be a smart-ass over the internet because it just looks silly. Even on 4chan.

He starts his book by talking about his numerous amount of upvotes on quora. If that doesn't instantly put you off the book, you're helpless.

i'll save you the time:

Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Make friends with people who want the best for you
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
Be precise in your speech
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

>>11811135
Not sure if I believe this.

>>11811141
Sounds like self-helpy shit without the self-pity. I'll pass.

>>11811150
>This book has a short history and a long history. We’ll begin with the short history.
In 2012, I started contributing to a website called Quora. On Quora, anyone can ask a question, of any sort—and anyone can answer. Readers upvote those answers they like, and downvote those they don’t. In this manner, the most useful answers rise to the top, while the others sink into oblivion. I was curious about the site. I liked its free-for-all nature. The discussion was often compelling, and it was interesting to see the diverse range of opinions generated by the same question.
When I was taking a break (or avoiding work), I often turned to Quora, looking for questions to engage with. I considered, and eventually answered, such questions as “What’s the difference between being happy and being content?”, “What things get better as you age?” and “What makes life more meaningful?”
Quora tells you how many people have viewed your answer and how many upvotes you received. Thus, you can determine your reach, and see what people think of your ideas. Only a small minority of those who view an answer upvote it. As of July 2017, as I write this—and five years after I addressed “What makes life more meaningful?”—my answer to that question has received a relatively small audience (14,000 views, and 133 upvotes), while my response to the question about aging has been viewed by 7,200 people and received 36 upvotes. Not exactly home runs. However, it’s to be expected. On such sites, most answers receive very little attention, while a tiny minority become disproportionately popular.
Soon after, I answered another question: “What are the most valuable things everyone should know?” I wrote a list of rules, or maxims; some dead serious, some tongue-in-cheek—“Be grateful in spite of your suffering,” “Do not do things that you hate,” “Do not hide things in the fog,” and so on. The Quora readers appeared pleased with this list. They commented on and shared it. They said such things as “I’m definitely printing this list out and keeping it as a reference. Simply phenomenal,” and “You win Quora. We can just close the site now.” Students at the University of Toronto, where I teach, came up to me and told me how much they liked it. To date, my answer to “What are the most valuable things …” has been viewed by a hundred and twenty thousand people and been upvoted twenty-three hundred times. Only a few hundred of the roughly six hundred thousand questions on Quora have cracked the two-thousand-upvote barrier. My procrastination-induced musings hit a nerve. I had written a 99.9 percentile answer.

>>11811141
>Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
>mfw I was 90% of the way to self-actualization already and I didn't even know it

>>11811135
>He starts his book by talking about his numerous amount of upvotes on quora
I don't know why this made me laugh out loud

The guy is legitimately insane.

Jordan Peterson explained how Mikhaila’s experience had convinced him to eliminate everything but meat and leafy greens from his diet, and that in the last two months he had gone full meat and eliminated vegetables. Since he changed his diet, his laundry list of maladies has disappeared, he told Rogan. His lifelong depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation—all of it is gone, and he attributes it to the diet.

“I’m certainly intellectually at my best,” he said. “I’m stronger, I can swim better, and my gum disease is gone. It’s like, what the hell?”

“Do you take any vitamins?” asked Rogan.

“No. No, I eat beef and salt and water. That’s it. And I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit.”

“No soda, no wine?”

“I drink club soda.”

“Well, that’s still water.”

“Well, when you’re down to that level, no, it’s not, Joe. There’s club soda, which is really bubbly. There’s Perrier, which is sort of bubbly. There’s flat water, and there’s hot water. Those distinctions start to become important.”

Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice, but said that many attendees of his recent speaking tour have come up to him and said the diet is working for them. The takeaway for listeners is that it worked for Peterson, and so it may work for them. Rogan also clarified that though he is also not an expert, he is fascinated by the fact that he hasn’t heard any negative stories about people who have started the all-meat diet.

“Well, I have a negative story,” said Peterson. “Both Mikhaila and I noticed that when we restricted our diet and then ate something we weren’t supposed to, the reaction was absolutely catastrophic.” He gives the example of having had some apple cider and subsequently being incapacitated for a month by what he believes was an inflammatory response.

“You were done for a month?”

“Oh yeah, it took me out for a month. It was awful ...”

“Apple cider? What was it doing to you?”

“It produced an overwhelming sense of impending doom. I seriously mean overwhelming. There’s no way I could’ve lived like that. But see, Mikhaila knew by then that it would probably only last a month.”

“A month? From fucking cider?”

“I didn’t sleep that month for 25 days. I didn’t sleep at all for 25 days.”

“What? How is that possible?”

“I’ll tell you how it’s possible: You lay in bed frozen in something approximating terror for eight hours. And then you get up.”

The longest recorded stretch of sleeplessness in a human is 11 days, witnessed by a Stanford research team.

>>11811024
Does anyone have his definition of the Being? I feel like laughing tonight

>I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother sitting by the bank of a swimming pool, which was also a river. Her genital region was exposed dimly. It had the appearance of a thick mane of hair. She was stroking herself absentmindedly. She walked over to me with a handful of pubic hair compacted into something resembling a large artist's paintbrush. She pushed this at my face. I raised my arm several times to deflect her hand. Finally, unwilling to hurt her or interfere with her any further, I let her have her way. She stroked my face with the brush gently and said, like a child, isn't it soft?

Now that's a man who can help me in life.

>>11811223
peterson...easy on the cider

>>11811223
Hearty chuckles, jesus christ. Thank you anon, you should write a book

>>11811223
>The guy is legitimately insane.
in one of those conversations he had with sam harris he started talking about having a vision where he talked with god, and i was a bit surprised that no one asked him about it more. what kind of vision? was it a dream? something drug related? psychosis? or what?

>>11811257
That's a real transcript anon

>>11811257
I didn't make it up. He recently stopped taking his medication.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the-peterson-family-meat-cleanse/567613/

>>11811266
There is no way this was a genuine conversation

Why even ask here?
He is highly controversial and popular. This alone makes discussion in this place hardly possible because even if you get some actual intelligent responses, they will be buried under a mountain of shit that people fling around even though they've never read the book.

>>11811271
Watch the latest appearance on Joe Rogan.

>>11811135
actually he starts his book with a lengthy foreword written by his jewish friend who praises how much of a good goy he is, then he gets into the upboats in what he calls the "Overture."

>>11811135
Hold up is this the new standard of contemporary literature?

>>11811223
isn't it a known tactic of cults to get their followers on retarded diets that deprive them of the ability to function mentally?

>>11811269
>the-peterson-family-meat-cleanse

>>11811242
He's such a schizo. Eisenhower by your bootstraps conservatism and Jungian woo-woo wankery are fine on their own but make really awkward bedfellows.

>>11811223
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the-peterson-family-meat-cleanse/567613/
this article is not even bad

>>11811223
Bipolar mania phase maybe?

>>11811119

He won't say anything about the book because he hasn't fucking read it and talks from prejudice and some kinf of elitist complex.

>>11811396
*kind

>>11811223
>>11811271
starts at 10:30
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGikB-54Lwk
the way he really drives home/emphasizes the "never cheating" part really makes me think this a trick to turn people into nutrient deprived zombies. also just the way they talk seems really disingenuous and sleezy

>>11811164
I expected worse. Its just him explaining what Quora is and where the idea for 12 rules comes from. Is there something wrong with that?

>>11811301
we want the american boomer audience

>>11810991
>one of the most important thinkers to emerge on the world stage or many years.
>a psychology teacher

Pick one and only one anon. Psychology is the meme-ist of all meme degrees. Why you think anyone who's dedicated their career to it would be qualified to talk about anything else is a fucking mystery

>>11811141
>Be precise in your speech
lmao, seems like he hasn't read his own book

>>11811119
You don't have to read an entire book to determine whether it is worthy of a literary analysis.

>>11811441
LA maaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ooohhhhh XD xd

>>11811013
Read Maps of Meaning.

if this guy was known only by people on 4chan and not so popular he would be worshiped

>>11811119
https://youtu.be/n5G7JSj6YGQ

>>11810983
It is a fucking boring read and you will stop after the first chapter if you have a modicum of sense.

>>11811023
>implying /pol/ likes this pseud

>>11811571

holy shit imagine being one of these fucking guys

>>11811571
thiss is a strange variant of soi

>>11811663
>>11811675
They're right though

>>11811571
Missing tooth missing tooth missing tooth

>>11810983
I finished it the other night, it's genuinely fairly good but he lays the verbiage on very thick. About 30% of the book could have been cut without sacrificing much, if any, of the message.

>>11811677

>Two men who look like they need JBP's advice the most spend hours and hours refuting it

>>11811677

No, definitely not lol

>>11810983
https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas

>>11810983
This book is manchild-core. You will never see it on the shelf of any successful, confident, well adjusted person.

>>11810983
It’s Tony Robbins for incels.

>>11810983
>Important thinker
Oh god my sides

>>11810983
I've only read the preface and introduction so far. Great book.

t. literaturelet

>>11810983
It is a self-help book, but there's more to it than that. You should get it man.

>>11811023
>HURR I DISAGREE WITH HIM ON POLITICS SO HIS BOOK BAD DURRRR

>>11810983
ITS FOR CANADIAN HITLER

>>11811571
this video made me remember that jbp is considered a "conservative"
fucking soiboys on all sides

>>11812009
t. doesn't understand Peterson

>>11810983
The most basic self-help advice combined with poor metaphors amd allegories, cringey humor, generally poor writing, pointless meandering, obsfucation, all combined with misused Jungian and Nietszchian concepts.

>12 rules for life
>i'm s-scared of it being self-help

You want to read it. Just read it you cuckold.

Also keking at petersonfags. That guy is so pathetic.

>>11811223
kek is this a meme post? why is it that every right wing influential figure always shills some dietary supplement bullshit to their brainlet audience?

This is the only /lit/ approved self-help book and it's much more meaningful than that meme idol you want to read, OP.

>inb4 someone posts that Wittgenstein quote

>>11812009
WOAH didn't think about it that way...

>>11812160
This. Also that Plato book from Lou Marinoff it's also a good modern self-help book written by a philosopher

>>11811023
>pol
>liking juden peterstein
go back to redit you utter retard

>>11811257
I actually laughed at this my dude
though it DOES sound like a parody rather than a real exchange

He's a fucking hack who markets himself as some sort of breath air, when he's just a boring run of the mill conservative. The cult surrounding him is just full of retards who act like his word is god.

Good article for anybody outside of that fucking k-hole:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Also relevant, I don't give a fuck if you can't handle the bantz, there are actual real critiques of this idiot in here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5iFwHM-WKs&t=6s

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

>>11812705

Dude likes the smell of his own farts and spells out the obvious like he’s enlightening people. Fucking guy probably stores his farts in jars to save them foe later. He’s a pedo to and likes to finger animals at the zoo.

I had a Jordan Peterson phase in which I listened to most of his podcasts. By the time I read the book it felt like a lot of rehashing and oversimplifying what I had heard him put elsewhere better.

It's as self helpy as all of his work is, which is almost and only superficially so. A chapter that starts "Do not yell at kids when they skateboard in the street" quickly transitions into a lecture on ressentiment and the current political climate. So it's more like Jordan Peterson's ideas in an inviting self help wrapping.

The pen of light passage was pretty cringey though and reading this book actually got me over my phase of admiring the man. (maybe not a bad thing)

He's a boring hack with no new ideas who's fans are cringey as hell.

>>11812720
>reading this book actually got me over my phase of admiring the man
Well, at least one person came out smarter after reading this garbage.

>>11812705
>But, having examined Peterson’s work closely, I think the “misinterpretation” of Peterson is only partially a result of leftists reading him through an ideological prism. A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” People can have such angry arguments about Peterson, seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected.

The kind of people who say this are too retarded to read any philosophy. He's not a Rorschach test, he's a fairly conventional conservative.

>>11810983
I've read the book, and it's really not anything you can't find from listening to some of his general lectures or interviews. Even if you're looking to learn more about his philosophical ideas, I'd recommend looking elsewhere. It's overall a pretty shallow book, that posits itself as something profound simply because of where he draws his conclusions from.

>>11811223
>“Well, when you’re down to that level, no, it’s not, Joe. There’s club soda, which is really bubbly. There’s Perrier, which is sort of bubbly. There’s flat water, and there’s hot water. Those distinctions start to become important.”

As a dry alcoholic, I do agree with that part.

>>11811023
>everything I don't like is /pol
>>>/out/

>>11810983
The book revealed to me Peterson's true mission.
While less malevolent than the forces in control currently.
He is not of the order.

>>11811407
Are you kidding me? How serious would you take Nietzsche if he told you about how Reddit made him write his Zarathustra

>>11810983
>willingly spending money on a self help book written by an alt-right grifter

>>11810983
Don't waste your money. If you feel you need to read it, borrow it from the public library. That way you won't feel that you've been cheated after you read it.
It's just the modern day equivalent of a Dear Abby type self help scam. If you need this level of help, just talk to your grandma, or other old person, and ask them to give you a swift kick in the ass.

>>11812742
I think it's more about him saying things like "enforced monogamy" when asked about an answer to incels. That has obvious implications, but when people ask questions like "who is being forced to do what exactly" he walks it back to mean something much safer, just saying society should focus more on monogamy. He suggests something that seems extreme but trivializes it when questioned.

And then Andrew Anglin says enforced monogamy is great and women should be treated as cattle that you also fuck.

Not that anon.

>>11810983
I feel it is my duty as a Canadian to report that after a year of living with the bill Peterson protested, we are still not living in gulags under authoritarian rule. Weed is being legalised next month.

>>11812969
>Jordan Peterson
>alt-right
He's a grifter, I'll give you that but if you think his message of egalitarianist centrism is "alt right" then you are either choosing to complain about people you know nothing about or are a seething communist.

Lmk which if you don't mind.

>>11811565
He was worshipped back when most only knew him from that video of him talking with some sjws

>>11812636
>>11812783
If he is your retard then who keeps shilling him here?

>>11811023
>why isn't /lit/ an echo chamber? reeeeeee
kys

>>11813057
*is not your retard

>>11811714
lmao I seriously hope this true pseud didn't persuade you.

>>11812984
So he backpeddles when he says something wrong and refuses to give his critics any ground. He's closed minded and bad with engaging debate. But he's not writing some house of mirrors prose that means everything and anything. This article infuriates me because most of its critiques of his writing are critiques of philosophy and nuanced thought in general. Why can a term or a concept not be defined in multiple and seemingly contradictory ways? Is that not how we come to a greater understanding of a thing?

Bought Petersons book on a whim and thoroughly regret it. It's the biggest load of self-evident shit you can come up with. But getting a bit of confirmation of things you already knew can be a comforting read. But there's very little comforting about it. The drawings at the start of every chapter look weird and unprofessional. The book contains numerous factual errors, there are smilies in the text - :) - and appears written as if the audience consists solely of angsty 16 year olds. And that's NOT how its marketed.

Save your money for a better book.

Jordan Peterson did nothing wrong

>>11812768
As a chemist I vehemently don’t

>>11810983
its sold 1 or 2 million copies. nobody gives a fuck if you buy it

>>11811571
>2 lardos talking about how women don't want people at the top of a hierarchy and instead want muh feelings
pffftt hahah ha hahah aaha hahahhahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I don't even like Peterson but this is pottery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfdaAGZvYsA
who won

>>11813166
I found this pretty annoying and pitiful. Listened to the Dublin talk and the second part of that is actually much better as it sums up Peterson's apologetics.

he essentially views religion (ie:Christinanity) as an evolutionary heuristic by which we orient ourselves. In that we are not perfectly rational beings and our senses will always defer us from absolute epistemological certainty, so rather than placing reason (ie:making gods of ourselves) we develop heuristics by which we survive. And then he essentially claims to find the whole Christian theology to be a better poetic and ranks it at the top of the dawwwminance hierarchy of theism. And then he extrapolates and redefines truth to be a product of evolutionary success (what (action) turns out to aid our survival), rather than empirical/scientific fact, but isn't consistent with it as he appeals to scientific truth whenever convenient (ie: gender - not that I disagree with him, just saying it's not consistent)

Now this is probably on the more sophisticated side of apologetics, but at the end of the day it' still a form of fideism. Just a more dishonest. The claim that religion is an evolutionary heuristic and that renouncing it would be at our peril is a statement of faith. One could have claimed that for any virtually extinct ideology at various points in history.

This is why I find hard fideism to be the only reasonable defence of faith. Take Peter Hitchens for instance. He claims to have started to believe in god, not because of revelation, or metaphysics, but simply because carrying on not believing was not possible for him anymore. Yes, evidence tilts the scale in favour of atheism and a rejection of the hypostatic union, but rejecting them and claiming the opposite is still a matter of faith. He simply chooses to believe that god created and ordered the world and finds Christianity to be the most compelling poetic (or heuristic as Peterson would call it) that encompasses that belief. Not a strong stance, but at least it's honest.

>>11810983
You should be nervous because you just gave money to a guy who bullies 16 year old girls lol

>>11813272
>Not a strong stance, but at least it's honest.
Is any stance that is actually a stance (and not on the fence) a strong one? Peterson's, used by many to justify their belief in religion, is no more dishonest than Harris's, who dishonestly states his axioms as scientific truths (and in doing so forms the foundation of his 'ethics'). And even outside of these two pop-'philosophers', there is no argument I've heard demonstrating the superiority of any popular interpretation over another

Is there a good text on fideism?

>>11811023
U make me sad

>>11813272
Fideism is the only answer. Pure reason has limits and only after belief, independent of reason, in something is stated can reason continue.

>>11812742
I don't get how you can listen to anything JBP says and conclude that he is "vague and vacillating" and that "it's impossible to tell what he is "actually saying".

I mean, I get that some people have low IQs and really have problems understanding academic language, but seriously, JBP is literally just a milquetoast academic psychologist.

>>11812950
It's almost like they lived in different contexts.

His book is fine. Comfy to read. Gives some decent advice on how to live decently. It's not supposed to be a challenging and purely academical book like his other one.

wrong place to ask lit is insecure pseuds so they hate on anything that is popular and considered smart because they think if they do it makes them look smarter

>>11811223
I doubt it's the all meat that's doing it, I think it's the
>no junk food
>no sugar
>no fizzy drinks
>no over processed food
>low carb
>no starch

if he sticks with it it'll mess him up

>>11813292
>Good text on fideism?

I don't know. Was meant to end my long post with the same question. Any recommendations welcome.

never heard or read anything by the guy but i've dismissed him entirely as clickbait philosophy because amongst my recommended videos there's occasionally one titled something like, 'JORDAN PETERSON ABSOLUTELY OWNS SOME STUPID LIBERAL FEMINSIST CUNT.'

>>11813313
Oh Nietzsche didn't have social media so he would have had no way of talking like a buffoon about his internet good boy points.
Stop jerking this old fart off, he makes enough money off of the gullible retards who think nofap is the way to transcendetality.

>>11812720
Are you me?
Though I have to say, his psychology introduction lectures are still good.

>>11813318
>it's popular so it must be good!

lol

>>11813596
I didn't even imply that, Isaid people hate on it because it is popular tons of popular stuff is bad but no one ever gives critiques of the book just of the guy who wrote it or no reason why it's bad at all

>>11813599
It's self help drivel, there's not much else to say.

>>11813699
it isn't the advice given is valid, do you have anything that shows it's bad other than
>it's x genre so it's bad I'm not going to tell you why

>>11813721
lol wut

>>11813731
you said it's bad because it's self help drivel that isn't a critique because you can apply it to any book if you just swap out the genre of book

The irony of Peterson is that he's actually a post-modernist lol

>>11813737
It's self help drivel because the help it gives is basic shit

>>11813748
post-modernist != post-modern neo-Marxist !!

>>11813749
so any book covering the basics is bad? a basic cooking book for example? also you understand what's basic to you might not be basic to everyone?

>>11813752
that's not what I said.

A cookbook that only told you how to microwave Mac & Cheese would be bad, yes.

>>11811023
>pol
>liking him

>>11812140
>peterson
>right wing
lmao. he is a liberal capitalist
there are virtually none real right wing people in the mainstream

>>11813760
not for people who don't know how to cook mac and cheese

>>11813751
He uses Marxist, cultural Marxist (whatever the fuck that is) and post modernist interchangeably.

Another big joke is that anything you can attribute with Marx can only ever be modernist. The dude's a German materialist who had a fetish for industry and science. Culture itself to him is at the whim of linear forces of time.

This whole movement is such a cringy meme. I'm convinced these people never read a single book and unironically shitpost in response to a vague notion of Foucault and call it cultural Marxism.

>>11813772
fuck off pol

>>11813781
uh yeah actually because that would still be the worst way to do it.

It does make for a good audiobook, admittedly, especially the part where he's literally crying over his own wokeness, beautiful shit.

>>11813786
well, when he says "post modernist" he specifically means Derrida and Foucault as interpreted through Hicks

>>11813795
Foucault would be upset if you called him any form of Marxist, anon

That's not very nice of you

>>11813823
fookoh

>>11811023
>Fuck. When is /pol/ going to leave?
Smart phones and social media (synergystic aspects of the same cancer) have turned the internet into a consumerist wasteland and there's no going back. The tipping point was around 2010, the internet has gotten more and more shit ever since, including 4chan. Youtube turned to shit when it started allowing monetization, Google search results have gotten increasingly worse, Reddit destroyed traditional message boards, and Facebook shits on everything it touches. Silicon Valley sold its soul to normies for money.
The only hope now is that the normies continue to make the internet ever more stupid and shitty such that it collapses in on itself.

>>11811352
I just read this and it is a good article, has not much to do with the book then again neither does much in this shitty thread

>>11813780
>liberal capitalist
>not right wing
get with the times grandpa, the future is now

>>11813863
The right is about tradition, not "economic freedom", retard

check out my youtube channel for medellin- colombian music and help me to join, share, coments, likes..
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyxInxk2aeIdEbNoopffrPA?view_as=subscriber

>>11813874
in the 1800s but not in the 2000s

>>11812009
Is this supposed to mock the diagram in Peterson's book?

>>11810983
Its pretty good. Jordan has a very interesting theological theory regarding honesty and the book does offer pretty good advice. You won't waste your time and it never goes full /pol/

>>11811023
Never. Get used to it, chud.

>>11811135
kek

>>11811141
>Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
I.e. never criticize the world

>>11811135
based

>>11811023
This

I own it, I thought it was really good, I find self-help books very condescending and redundant. This book was more of an eye opener for my self.

>>11811023
nice trencher

>>11810983
Most of his points are old universal truths set in a language and tone that resonates with neckbeards

>>11811094
He's brilliant, you're a brainlet.

>>11815247
>Most of his points are old universal truths

That have been thrown out the window in modern day, our society is so fucked with crazy leftists lately that's why he has gained so much popularity. JP is good at putting into words and elaborating on what people are already thinking, that's what makes him the voice of an age. He doesn't have to say anything brand new, he just has to say what needs to be said at the right time.

>>11811013
literally hegel

>>11811301
>tfw not even AUSCHWITZ can stop the jews from weaseling their way through life

>>11811223

Everything stated here is possible.

>>11810983
This is better.

>>11811301
whenever I read these descriptions I start to feel very pol feelings about the holocaust

>>11813272
>>11813292

Peterson is VERY extraverted in the Jungian/MBTI sense. Meaning that, among other things, he hates his own reasoning and goes by to others'.

>>11815456

>he just has to say what needs to be said at the right time.

Got an ETA on when he's gonna start doing that, anon?

>>11811301
How come every Jew came face to face with Mengele?

>>11815612
because its grade-A bullshit that no one can EVER call them out on. seriously, how the fuck would the Nazis have a record proving the woman was jewish, but not have her age? and where the fuck did she get hair dye in a "death camp?"
also, the next line after that is pretty funny too
>oy vey! you call this a liberation, goyim?!

>>11815549
Burn in hell Dr. Marvin!

>>11813837
just socialize in real life :)

>>11815612
probably because the Nazis rounded them up in death camps?

This shmuck gets his views on philosophy from a political polemic written by an Objectivist. Howlers include claims that Kant was an anti-Enlightenment figure and that Hegel violates the law of non-contradiction.