/lit/ - Literature

>>20718639
Cumtown

ANOTHER non-literature Peterson thread.

Remember to report OP for being a giant cock-sucking faggot.

>>20718678
>non-literature Peterson thread
oxymoron

>>20718639
Rent free

>>20718639
Peterson is a dumbass who think we live in a cozy meritocratic world where if you be a good boy and work hard you'll make it to the top, that everyone will see how smart you are and reward you for it.

He is completely incapable of accepting truth that in reality most people are fucking savages with no capacity of morals or reason and will kill you just for fun if they could get away with it, and sometimes they don't even consider if they can get away with it, they'll just kill you for fun in the spur of the moment because they are savages.

>>20718814
>in reality most people are fucking savages with no capacity of morals or reason and will kill you just for fun if they could get away with it
You're drooling.

>>20718814
>Peterson is a dumbass who think we live in a cozy meritocratic world
No, he's done a slight of hand to pretend competence implies love so that people can have a rationale to follow while they're indoctrinated out of their ability to bond. Without shared identity there is no love, but by selling radical individualism while calling obviously antisocial behavior "incompetent" he provides a (psychopathic) rationale for civilized behavior that imitates love, just as he "act as though" he believes in God.

juden peterstein

>>20718639
I don't I'm gonna take seriously claims such as "What women want in men is competent generosity. The data on that are very clear."
Anyway, turned off the video after a couple of minutes.

>>20718759
Literature means any written letters (latin word littera), so no, Peterson isn't somehow fundamentally tied to literature.

>>20718639
freedom of speech sisters...... not like this

>>20718864
>Literature means any written letters (latin word littera), so no, Peterson isn't somehow fundamentally tied to literature.
The video criticizes his theory of personality and religion which he has written about in his published works. It wouldn't be off-topic to discuss the televised debates between Chomsky and Foucault.

>>20718899
Wait, he has a theory of personality and religion? Didn't know that.

>>20718814
>Peterson is a dumbass who think we live in a cozy meritocratic world where if you be a good boy and work hard you'll make it to the top, that everyone will see how smart you are and reward you for it.

This is one of the two general attitudes (the far more common one) that University faculty have. The other is probably typified by Richard Rorty's "Liberal Ironist" whose major concern is not meritocracy per se (because the schema of merit likely recapitulates a mind'/body problem, etc.) but solidarity and the cultivation of sentiment.

Peterson is a bullshitter for at least one reason, IMO, not related to anything he has said publicly, but he got his PhD in 1991. This is _exactly_ when Campus censorship was heating up, e.g. 'sexual harassment' had recently become a thing.

For some reason, Peterson, being a cuckold, etc. thinks it is absolutely OK to prohibit 'sexy talk' on campus, but absolutely not OK to require people to use pronouns.

Any legitimate "geneology of censorship" will trace the current situation to the introduction of sexual harassment policies, which basically changed the way academics (male and female but mostly male) talked about sex in the classroom, on the pretext that it was mostly about preventing guys from asking their secretaries for blowjobs.

Academic freedom used to mean that a prof could calmly explain the legal standard involved in proving rape, say "here is how you get aound that," or talk about women as "cavernous, devouring vaginas" and how you avoid getting sucked in, etc. etc.

There is no hypocrisy, the commentator is just a nominalist who can’t conceive of a thing-in-itself and projects those commitments onto Jordan Peterson. Not saying that Peterson is philosophically competent, he’s more like an unconscious poet, but he’s not being a “hypocrite.”

>>20718980
>who can’t conceive of a thing-in-itself
I don't know how that relates to the arguments made in the video but Nietzsche argued that the thing-in-itself is inconceivable, I don't suppose you have a rebuttal to that?

>>20718814
Your mother should have swallowed you.

>>20718857

>inimicus inimico amicus
He makes lefties seethe so he's ok in my book

>>20718639

Why is Jordan Peterson important to you, NPC?

>>20719009
Because he's what above-average normies consider "the guy who tells the truth" and he has millions of followers.

>>20718952
We should just ban women from the classroom

>>20718996
Nietzsche posits things but rarely argues them. He's dazzled by the sublime and aristocratic values yet destroys the foundations by which he could justify them. He laments the Last Man, praises the will to power, yet has his own guns turned against him by watching the Last Man remake the world in its own image. Look, I love Nietzsche's aphorisms, and he reminds the world of the power of the human spirit, but he's no philosopher. He's a poet. If he's right, he just happens to be right. Even Marx could debunk him over and over again with one hand tied behind his back as Nietzsche flails around in syphilic rage.
>I don't know how that relates to the arguments made in the video
Basically, Jordan Peterson and the commentator are recapitulating the debate that Socrates and Thrasymachus had at the beginning of Plato's Republic, of whether justice is worth pursuing for its own sake or whether justice is merely "might makes right." And in that dialogue Socrates wins the debate initially, given that we think in terms of eternity, sense-certainty, immortality, etc., that the good is the mightiest. This is where Jordan Peterson comes in and says women are looking for competence, probably because evolutionarily speaking the man had to be able to bring in the bread and keep a roof over the family’s head and the signs of competence is what attracts them. So, if you become competent, then you will be attractive.

But once Thrasymachus is tamed in Plato's Republic, Socrates is confronted by Glaucon and Adeimantus, who bolster Thrasymachus's assault on justice being "might makes right" by pointing out the facts of life, including the differences between appearances and reality, the fact that we (essentially) sin, the fact that there are tempting lower rewards that scaffold conventional justice yet also fundamentally undermine it on principle (just desserts), etc. The two brothers demand that Socrates argue for justice on its own grounds, even if it leads to a life without all of those material and reputational gains. And Socrates struggles. This is where the commentator rightfully points out that competence can be faked.

Unfortunately, the commentator thinks that power only has to do with appearances and not whether somebody can actually "do the thing." Power is about bending appearances, without any care to the foundation of said appearances. He denies the thing-in-itself, which is fine and a respectable philosophical position. But then he accuses Jordan Peterson of being a hypocrite because he presumes that Peterson shares the same metaphysical commitments, where he clearly doesn't. It's just another failed "gotcha" video which says more about the commentator's intellectual immaturity than anything else.

>>20718639
JUDEN PETERSTEIN

>>20718814
>they'll just kill you for fun in the spur of the moment
Why is this immoral? You can't actually answer

>>20719084
>Even Marx could debunk him over and over again with one hand tied behind his back as Nietzsche flails around in syphilic rage.
You will never be a real woman. Your testosterone increases as you age. Your shoulders will only broaden as time passes. There is no turning back.

>>20719084
>Nietzsche posits things but rarely argues them.
pleb
also Peterson supports this claim because he says all phenomena is interpreted so when you remove interpretation you eliminate anything that can said to exist.

>>20719047

>Because he's what above-average normies consider "the guy who tells the truth" and he has millions of followers

aah this old cop out. Jordan Peterson has no power or authority over you, so unless you can prove he has magically brainwashed millions of people into oppressing you specifically, I suggest you stop watching eceleb traffic and start reading legislation.

>>20719116
>demoralization shill

>>20719084
>he's no philosopher. He's a poet. If he's right, he just happens to be right
This doesn't make sense. If he's right it's because his hypothesis is right. He's not a woman that says that X is real because Y, but then it is proven that X is indeed real but because of W, not Y
That's "on accident"

>>20719108
I only can't say whether or not it's moral, that depends on what you see as authority but if people randomly killed one another we couldn't produce enough to sustain our society and the human race would go extinct.

>>20719114
I don’t get it. I’m a reactionary man who hates trannies. And I’m not a Marxist either. I’m just saying that Marx makes arguments and Nietzsche doesn’t. That’s what makes the former a philosopher and the latter a poet. Ironically, Nietzsche was a huge influence on all of the puerile French poststructuralists, whose influence helped to displace Marx with pozzed critical theory in the USA, so you should be careful who you praise and who you condemn.
>>20719123
There is no debunking except the fact that women are fallible in their ability to recognize the difference between confidence and conmen. The commentator however argues that there’s no difference between the two.

>>20718952
I think the best, and deepest critique of Peterson is that he ties his philosophy to the western tradition, but at the same time has deeply anti-enlightenment values. He defends the existence of hierarchies as self-justifying and existent in nature, the kind of argument that cuts against almost everything that the enlightenment was founded upon. He also has a real tendency to leaning upon sociological "studies" which confirm his own biases, and the nature of sociology is such that any singular study, unless repeated over and over, double-blind, is incredibly dubious. He, of course, must be aware of the fig leaf that he posits his arguments behind, so I think it's fair to say that in a lot of cases he just sort of comes off as disingenuous.
On another note, if you look at his series on the bible (very tedious), especially on his analysis of Jacob and Esau, it becomes very apparent what a bullshitter he is. He reads WAY into the text, and presents his own ideas as being a part of the actual narrative, even inventing details whole cloth. In fact, he actually misses almost entirely the point of Jacob's story, and has very little insight into the deeper, esoteric ideas being presented. Most likely, because he assumes he understands the story without actually ruminating on it. He's way too confident in his own intelligence.

>>20718639
Of course power and competence are different things. Do you think every person who held power, every king, president, leader, etc. were competent? Clearly not.
>>20718814
Do you have any evidence for this being his belief? I don't usually watch Peterson's videos, but this sounds like a strawman. In one of his older videos he talks about how you should have the job that matches your IQ, that doesn't sound like meritocracy.

>>20718639
Retards are still seething and still trying to discredit him. He must've really touched a nerve.

>>20719291
The way trannies and femoids kvetch about Kermit the junkie you would think he is the Second Coming of Adolf.

>>20719267
An incompetent person with an excess of power is only seen as incompetent to the degree that their power causes them to fail whatever standard you hold them to. You might think the King is incompetent but he obviously has that power for a reason, so perhaps incompetent is actually a projection on your part, and really what you view as "incompetence" is well refined corruption. Or, the King could be an absolute idiot with completely unearned privilege, but even then his power isn't actually his, because when he makes an uninformed decision that ignorantly affects the rest of the kingdom in a negative way, it wasn't his will that had the power to do that, it was his ignorance, therefore it was the power of his unearned privilege that caused the harm, not his own will. If it were his will that caused it, you would be mistaking evil for incompetence.

>>20719291
>Retards are still seething and still trying to discredit him. He must've really touched a nerve.
Retards are still seething every time someone tells them the emperor has no clothes. The must know that they can't see his outfit, either, and want desperately to think that he's right about everything, since they agree with his conclusions.

Remember, the more they push back against reasonable people, the more they threatened by him. Not everything Peterson says is worthwhile, but much of it is. Don't be tempted to throw out the good with the bad. That is exactly what they want.

>>20719352
That's fair. I've done a bit of Peterson bashing in this thread, but honestly, I think it's the fanboys who bother me more than he does, really. That said, I think he's intellectually dishonest, and approaches ideas without deeply examining the subject, instead trying to fit things into the worldview he already has. Maybe it's just the fact that he's put in a position where he has to be super defensive, given his involvement with politics, and how often he's attacked by bad-faith actors. I still find him grating, but I'm sure there's some solid thinking in his Jungian work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLLI1V67XRw

>>20719267
I should clarify that I meant the person I was replying to's definition of meritocracy. Obviously having a job that matches your IQ would be a meritocracy, but I don't think Peterson believes in mobility above IQ.

Jordan Memerson is a nice gateway to genuine right-wing thinkers. Leave him alone.

The fact there is two threads with almost the exact same detractors suggests there is a coordinated effort to alienate Peterson from people who may find something worthwhile in his speeches or writing.

>ONE, LITTLE, FOX!

>>20719321
>he makes an uninformed decision that ignorantly affects the rest of the kingdom in a negative way, it wasn't his will that had the power to do that, it was his ignorance
You could say that about literally anyone making a bad choice. However, we assign a moral responsibility to people's poor decisions because we assume every rational person has free will, so when they make bad decision they take the blame, we don't blame the Big Bang, and we'd call that incompetence.

>>20719469
Actually, it suggests that there are people who loathe Peterson browsing /lit/ who see two threads for bashing him, turboschizo.

>>20719469
A daring hypothesis. Might I suggest that perhaps, rather than a nefarious plot against Peterson, this could be explained by the fact that there aren't that many users on lit at any given time, and that people often start new threads to get more interaction vs posting in a thread that's already well underway? That perhaps the reason you're seeing many of the same detractors in each thread is simply going to happen because the people who show up to talk about Peterson in one thread might also, perhaps, venture into a second thread to continue talking about Peterson? That this is all to be expected, and doesn't at all justify your supposition that there's coordinated attack going on?

>>20719514
Not at all a coordinated attempt to discredit a popular voice for young people to listen to. And then influence what promises to be a very disastrous midterm election for the Democrats.

>>20719514
>>20719537
Fuck bro, we're a coordinating right now, two people are calling him a retard, the conspiracy is blown

>>20719514
>>20719537

The dozens of threads, daily, we see suggests otherwise.

>>20719543
Uh-oh. We've been made! Back to the drawing board.

>>20719539
There is such a boundless and unrelenting narcissism in conspiratorial ideas like this. Yes, government agents have sought you out on /lit/, coordinated counterintelligence to snuff out any appreciation of Peterson - they have done so because not only is /lit/ the battleground for the american midterms (lmao), but your shitposts will be the ones that turn the tide and write history.

Take your meds, unironically.

>>20719501
>However, we assign a moral responsibility to people's poor decisions because we assume every rational person has free will, so when they make bad decision they take the blame, we don't blame the Big Bang, and we'd call that incompetence.
If a person is incompetent you are implying their mistake was accidental. A "bad choice" is typically defined as when someone does something they know they shouldn't. If they didn't know, it was a mistake, not a bad choice. If the King is incompetent that means his "bad decisions" are mere accidents that are to be blamed on his lack of proficiency. If the King knows the decisions he makes ruin the Kingdom and makes them anyway, he is evil and corrupt, not incompetent, as he succeeds at obtaining his goals.

>>20719562
Is that so?

>>20719562
>>20719587
lmao shill btfo

>>20719587
>today we learned obvious bait and shitposting threads deleted before they expire

>>20719598
what makes you think this thread is bait? or are you actively trying to discourage controversial discussion?

>>20719598
Yes, do keep digging. You'll get out eventually.

>>20719577
Define incompetence.

>>20719617
A person's inability to act (or learn to act) productively towards their goals.

If someone is left to do something and they fail, they are incompetent. If they are left to do something and they neglect their responsibility, they are either evil or just not cooperating with you.

>>20719154
that's not a problem in a mixed society

>>20719650
To me if a king is bad at maintaining their kingdom, e.g. the king is socially inept and makes many enemies, declares unjustified wars, doesn't build what his people need, etc., then I'd call him an incompetent king.

>>20719670
Sure, you can call him that. The point is that competence is morally neutral and so is power. When the concept you are describing is "the ability to perform a task with proficiency" then they mean the same thing.

>>20719670
>>20719694
To add, there is also a difference between power and authority. An idiot King may have authority, but when they misuse that authority in a naïve manner (to distinguish incompetence from corruption) the power at play is not in their possession, like a toddler with a gun. The toddler with a grenade, who doesn't even know that the grenade is dangerous, is not powerful just because they are capable of causing destruction. The grenade is powerful, and if they were to accidentally set it off that would have powerful consequences, but the toddler is still just a toddler, ignorant and powerless.

>>20719670
>>20719694
To add, there is also a difference between power and authority. An idiot King may have authority, but when they misuse that authority in a naïve manner (to distinguish incompetence from corruption) the power at play is not in their possession, like a toddler with a grenade. The toddler with a grenade, who doesn't even know that the grenade is dangerous, is not powerful just because they are capable of causing destruction. The grenade is powerful, and if they were to accidentally set it off that would have powerful consequences, but the toddler is still just a toddler, ignorant and powerless.

How is it that as a culture we can take a single trait from a person and use it to disqualify them as a whole? Where does this "if he's wrong about X then he's wrong about everything else" mentality come from, and how to we

>>20719065
That would effectively halve the working force and double wages and thereby instantly emancipate the goyim so we can't have that.

>>20718857
Find another site to sully, you evil coward.

>>20719084
>Even Marx could debunk him over and over again
Why out yourself for being a shilling heeb? Marx was a bum who never worked a day in his life, never owned a business, was never trained in his subject of called expertise (economics), and cheated on his wife while being drunk all day. He was the petite bourgeois degenerate his writings lamented, and his contribution the word has been nothing the destruction of countries and cultures.
Nietzsche was on point. He correctly predicted socialism would fail and would create a totalitarian state that would reduce state socialism, Marxism, into a total absurdity as reminder as to why the centralization of power is so dangerous. Nietzsche is phenomenal because his writings have a very strong predictive power on what drives human motivation. That's why his work is very influential in the fields of behavioral psychology and economics. None of Marx's writings about capitalism have came to fruit, but Nietzsche's warning of the last man has bear to come. We have so many of these people now, like yourself as Nietzsche said, who do nothing but complain about the vanities of their merger existence. You waste peoples' time with being a rhetorician, annoying rabble rouser for equalization, You're the dead-end of humanity - a man more concerned with the material well-being of himself, self flagellation and victimization more than contributing to the cultural heritage of humanity through his own creations. . Nietzsche wanted people to find the causes behind human behavior; Marxists want to find excuses. Simple as.

>>20718639
Is it worth to analyze what he thinks when he is a miserable crying mess with a ruined family?

>>20719539
That would be the case if Juden P were an authentic figure, but he isn't. He's in bed with the establishment and has been since he started making money. Consider he a "deradicalizing" force, or controlled opposition.

The sheer volume of these anti-Peterson attack threads are getting absurd now.

>>20719836
I’m getting really sick and tired of knee jerk anti-philosophical responses from “right-wingers” who I know for a fact are less based than me. You know who debunks Marx? Rousseau and Plato. But you know who Marx debunks? Nietzsche? Why? Because of the quality of their arguments and/or willingness to argue in the first place. Pointing out relative differences in philosophical aptitude doesn’t make me a Marxist shill. Now scurry along to a serious political philosophy course so you can understand why you care about the things you care about and ascend to a level of basedness you couldn’t even comprehend in your wildest dreams.

>>20720015
Peterson is accessible, part of being accessible means that people want to test themselves against him. People tried to argue with Socrates constantly when he was actually alive. This post isn't an opinion on if he's right or wrong though, but he's the philosophical equivalent to dinner table politics.

>>20720015
Ah, yes, look at them all...
>>20719587

>>20720015
Also, JLR was a clown and probably controlled opposition. Anyone who takes him seriously is a useful idiot.

Peterson makes commies trannies and soijaks seethe so I’ll continue listening to him for that reason alone

>>20718639
>>Peterson pretends power and competence are different
Huh. He's a Canadian, competence is literally the term they use to talk about power there.

>>20720042
how does marx "debunk" nietzsche? because kapital is full of a bunch wrong economics? what does that have to do with nietzsche exactly?

>>20718639
jordan peterson is just the modern alan watts but with a less compelling voice

>>20719539
>And then influence what promises to be a very disastrous midterm election for the Democrats.

Oh no not that, burgers! Your shitty false alternative "party" that still belongs to the overarching business party may not get enough pointless votes to enact exactly zero change beyond the whims of their lobbying, corporate masters. This sudden and radical shift of capitalists controlling America in their best interests may cause the Democratic party to increase their grift of their retarded constituents and ask for yet more donations and fundraising events from the common everyman under the guise of, "this time, real change will happen if only we can get more democrats elected!"

American politics are a joke, they've been a joke, and will continue to be a joke for however long your experimental nation is on this earth. Regrettably, your shit affects nearly everything else on this planet either through influence or direct, hypocritical action. Yes, I seethe at burgers. Yes, I hate you. You deserve a nuclear holocaust.

>>20719108
I decided it's immoral.

>>20720553
I kind of already explained how in my first post. Historical materialism can sublate Nietzsche’s ideas and beat him to death with it. Nietzsche can sound the alarm, but it’s a hopeless endeavor without a way of overcoming historical processes. Every time Nietzsche asserts his primordial, aristocratic values, Marx can counter with the fact that these were nostalgic superstructure elements of an outdated mode of production. Again, if life is the will to power, then why are the Last Man so powerful that they’re re-valuing the world in their own image? Marx can explain that—it’s through “scientific” historical processes that no individual alone can overcome. And unfortunately these historical processes don’t care about morality whatsoever—it does what it does, and everybody else is carried along with it. In fact, Marx hardly even talks about ethics, aesthetics because he just takes it for granted that it’s era-dependent, which is a giant vacuum in his philosophy IMO, one that potentially undermines the reason for becoming a “‘Marxist.” If it’s all cold, calculating logic, then why get involved? Why blame the bourgeoisie for just fulfilling their historical role? To strike Marx in the jugular, you have to attack his philosophy of ethics or his philosophy of history. That’s where he’s weakest IMO. Nietzsche’s impulses want to head into that direction, but he has no system.

I might explain more when I’m back at my computer. I hate phoneposting.

>>20718814
In “12 Rules” he definitely goes into painstaking detail about just how fucking horrible people can be. You guys sure do let yourselves get easily riled up by someone whose books you haven’t even read.

>>20720667
have you read genealogy of morals? the development of morality is dependent on relative "strength" which is to say material conditions of your class. on history marx and nietzsche don't really contradict. "primordial aristocratic values" sounds like some goofy evola shit, i don't recall that from any nietzsche i've read, and while i haven't read it all, i've read decent amount. nietzsche talks about "masters" not "aristocrats".

>>20720713
>i don't recall that from any nietzsche i've read
I picked that up from the end of BG&E.

>>20720801
doesn't he use the term noble which to me is not the same as aristocratic. aristocratic is specific social class, an aristocrat could be degenerate or noble. who knows what the original german was though.

>>20720833
Where do you think we get the term aristocrat from? Lol. I personally don’t want to quibble on this. Noble, aristocrat, same intent. Nobility also carries the same anachronistic class connotations if you want to get autistic about it.

>>20720042
Nta, but it's strange to cite Plato and Rousseau on account of arguments, since Nietzsche's manner of writing is very akin to theirs, keeping certain views close to heart and using withering rhetorical sleights of hand because he (like Plato and Rousseau) doesn't believe in universal enlightenment. In any case, Marx's arguments, while plainly arguments, aren't more philosophical than Nietzsche (and Plato and Rousseau), largely because the latter three have an immense openness to what inquiry might reveal, while Marx argues with his goals already taken for granted as obviously good.

>>20720897
Rousseau tells narratives. Plato has dialogues. The argumentation process unfolds from their art of writing. Nietzsche has meandering aphorisms that wildly contradict themselves. That’s it.

>>20718639
lol, cope

>>20720713
Evola's conception of aristocracy came partially from Nietzsche and just from history, where Nietzche also got it from. Marx is idiotic for thinking everything comes from material conditions. I don't think Nietzsche believed that. Marx is a hack.

>>20719835
Stop being a self-righteous retard trying to save le 4channel

>>20719260
The enlightenment was the retardedment. Peterson is just a classical liberal. The enlightenment is not bound to any old tradition of "the west". It's a completely different one

>>20721026
Kek what a characteristically shite response.

0/10

>>20719322
What conclusions?

>>20720801
I had a lot of trouble with beyond good and evil because it seems like it really contradicts everything in the antichrist. Like, to the point where it seems like the philosophies presented in each book would be diametrically oppositional, because in antichrist he defines good and evil along with happiness.
What is good? The will to power, power itself.
What is evil? Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness? The feeling that power increases.

But that would mean that almost everything in Beyond good and evil goes out the window, doesn't it? I guess a strength of Nietzsche is his willingness to hold contradictory and seemingly irreconcilable ideas, but I don't know. Maybe he just sort of grew as a thinker by the time Antichrist came out.

>>20721047
Keep coping silly

>>20720685
>You guys sure do let yourselves get easily riled up by someone whose books you haven’t even read.

The problem is that no moderately intelligent boy needs a grown Teacher to tell him that there are abusive people: he would have figured that out within 1 week of Grade 1, unless his family were even more abusive, so school seemed like a reprieve.

Peterson is a Teacher, and Teachers often talk about how horrible OTHER PEOPLE ARE without entering into any critical criticism of education because education is their "salvation narrative" from the horror that is non-educators.

>>20720713
Social relations precede material conditions. Nietzsche was not a materialist, he'd tell you the superstructure is more vital than infrastructure. There will always be masters and servants

>>20721084
>Social relations precede material conditions.
I mean, do they? I have to admit that Marx just asserts this, really. But it’s hard to argue the other way around too.

>>20721084
strength and weakness make the social relationships. in the first humans the stronger crew where masters, and the weaker seethed and created morality to say the strength is evil. strength is material, that's why the weak create slave morality.

>>20721055
>What is evil? Whatever springs from weakness.
evil exists for the weak, for the strong there is only bad.

>>20721053
I think people are really drawn to his defense of hierarchies, because they see it as a defense of capitalism, and an antidote to post-modernism, as he defines it... But I don't think that capitalism needs JP's "sociology" to defend itself as a system. I think you can be pro-capitalist, and pro-gender-binary without buying into his pseudo-intellectual self-help garbage. Idk about you, but I don't want some self-serious canuck telling me to clean my room, or brush my teeth before beddie-bye time. I'm an adult tho, so, that's me.
Also, like I mentioned here, >>20719260
the way he uses "studies" done by soft-science sociologists to defend his ideas... I mean, that shit is just garbage, and the man is can't analyze the bible almost at all without just adding things that aren't even in the actual book, which, by the very Christian tradition that he claims to defend, would probably make him a false teacher. What does the bible say about those people? Mathew 7:23, maybe?
>>20721044
Oh, so the enlightenment isn't important to western thought and tradition, huh? Wow, big brains are at play tonight.

>>20721104
The family would be the oldest form of the state. And it was guided by belief. It has been that way as long as humans have been reproducing. Our lives are largely guided by beliefs and expectations even still.
>>20721112
You fail to account for the beliefs of ancient people. Their lives were governed by religion in a shared duty. The role of the master is still a role.

If you actually bothered to google “canada bill c-16” back when he got popular, you’d know that he was always like this.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/c-16/royal-assent

>>20721135
so you're arguing ancient civilizations were democratic? i don't think anything supports that.

>>20721117
Eh, that doesn't really clear up the problem that comes from defining terms like good and evil, though, because he scolds Platonists for doing just that, on their own terms. I see what you're saying, but the only way that I can really square the two books is just to accept that he really just was willing on a certain level to embrace his own contradictions in thinking, or maybe that he changed his mind, which, either way, I don't count it against him. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

>>20721136
The bill didn't threaten any kind of legal ramifications for refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns, yet he presented it as an attack on free speech, it just seemed like typical conservative alarmist rhetoric

>>20721123
>Oh, so the enlightenment isn't important to western thought and tradition, huh?
First, Peterson is firmly in the camp of the enlightenment regarding his liberal leaning and faith in freedom and anti-monarchism.
Second; I'm just saying that to claim tgere is some long tradition that goes from Homer and past the enlightenment uninterrupted is a poor attempt at claiming connection to the pre-enlightenment considering it's largely antithetical to that tradition. It's completely different

>>20721155
Yeah, being a lawfag is what saved me from his clutches, otherwise I was a prime target for his lies.

>>20721135
>The family would be the oldest form of the state. And it was guided by belief. It has been that way as long as humans have been reproducing. Our lives are largely guided by beliefs and expectations even still.
I don’t think you really answered my question nor Marx’s objection. For all we know it was guided by the fact that we can’t hack it alone and the man is the stronger by nature.

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s an Kantianesque antinomy. Maybe related to free will. One’s stance on the position is more of an aesthetic choice than something that can be deliberated and proven.

>>20721151
What made you get that from my post. Families had their heads

>>20721123
>Christian tradition that he claims to defend, would probably make him a false teacher. What does the bible say about those people? Mathew 7:23, maybe?

"10 Be not called [a]doctors: for one is your doctor, even Christ. " (Matt 23:10, Geneva Bible)

καθηγηταί
kathēgētai

Is the word translated "doctors," it means teachers, professors, etc.

"As touching the first: Ignorance of GODS word, is the cause of all errour, as Christ himselfe affirmed to the Saduces, saying that they erred, because they knew not the Scripture (Matthew 22.29)." (http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom01.htm))

>>20721155
He should've just said tranny ideology is completely nonsensical instead of trying to compromise

>>20721153
>What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome.

he didn't contradict himself, he did indeed use "bad" not "evil". if you didn't get nietzsche's difference between bad and evil. you should read geneology of morals because that is a key part of his thought.

>>20719114
>he refused to read any marx

You should read everyone, even if cusorily. Especially someone as important as marx

>>20721171
and if the pharoah, emperor, king doesn't fulfill his role what exactly are you going to do about it? overthrow him? if the coup is successful, then he wasn't strong and whoever replace is the strongest. the ruling caste makes the rules, the dalits in india weren't like "ok so you're going to be the priests, and we'll pick through your trash for food, sound like a deal?" it was imposed on them from above. if they had been stronger, it wouldn't.

Technology necessitates social structure which necessitates power.

This is the only thing I believe JP is correct in asserting.

>>20721169
I'm not good at explaining it anyway. I suggest reading The Ancient City. Religion served as the basis for the family and eventually the city of the ancients. Maybe it's an antinomy but even in a democratic community to do anything there must be someone to signal for elections or present something as an issue that needs solving.

>>20721207
But it isn't so much as physical strength as it is will that makes one become stronger and give one the necessary spirit to conquer.

>>20719084
Nietzsche writes for people who understand his ideas before they've read him.

>>20721180
Look, we can get down into the weeds on if JP is misrepresenting the bible out of ignorance or malice, and I'm gonna be fair and say you're probably right that he made some honest mistakes, but the fact of the matter is, he did a whole series on the bible, and I'd find it really hard to believe that he didn't know how much of his own special sauce he was adding to what he claims was going on between Jacob and Esau. The wider point I wanted to make is that you can look on that particular lecture he did and see exactly how much of his schtick is just the gift of gab. Admittedly, he is a talented speaker, but, at least in this case, not a talented thinker (I don't want to be too vicious about that, because I know he's a big Jung guy, and it would probably be punching above my weight to challenge his Jungian stuff. I have a feeling that's where a lot of his talent and study actually lies, but maybe that's just me being amiable). I don't think he managed to analyze Jacob very well at all. I don't think he put enough thought into what he had to say about the deeper meaning behind the story. He's giving you milk, because he can't wrap his mind around the strong meat in the bible (ironic, considering that weird diet he's on).

>>20721165
I don't know if that's really true at all, because his talk about hierarchies and his naturalist defense of them reads like something out of Candide, lol. He's literally the type that Voltaire would ruthlessly mock on that point. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that there's an entirely unbroken line from the very beginnings of western thought up to the enlightenment, but I also think that you don't get the enlightenment from a culture that doesn't have all of that pre-enlightenment thought as a tradition, and even though the ideas evolved, there are through-lines in thinking. None of this really has any relevance to the criticism that I have with his presentation as a classical liberal (which, even as a concept, DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE ENLIGHTENMENT, because that's where liberalism comes from) given the ideas that he uses to defend hierarchies. To me, this criticism cuts pretty deep, because it's almost indefensible to use the rational he does to defend them as a function of nature. I mean, again, look at Candide, and you'll see a perfectly barbed response to that exact line of thinking.
>>20721188
The translations I've read say that he uses the terms good and evil, but maybe he says bad instead of evil... Does he not say good, either? I mean, if he says good, the point stands. I will check out genealogy of morals, though. I appreciate the recommendation, because I have been meaning to read more of his work.

>>20721153
Identities are relational. A tool has its identity with respect to its function, and people have their identities with relationship to something exterior that provides telos, such as their job, nation, religion, ideology, race, etc. A tool is as good as it is powerful, and this logic applies to all identities. A good American citizen will act according to all the American virtues, and will thus be proficient (powerful) as such. Good is technically defined with respect to a goal, and power is the difference between being capable or incapable of attaining goals.

>>20721348
The Christian idea of being saved means you are performing as well as you should as long as you acknowledge your sins and accept forgiveness from Christ, making it so all people have eternal intrinsic value.