/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11438607]

>twists Nietzsche into a moral argument for theism.

In your path

[Anonymous No.11438634]

>>11438607
The best argument I've heard against JBP is that he is working off the assumption that the repetitive drift society experiences towards collectivism is a decay of the structure itself, not necessarily a stepping stone towards prosperity.

[Anonymous No.11438642]

The fact that so many people think that Peterson argues for anything remotely resembling theism is proof that most fedora tards and larping tradtards know fuck all about actual theology.

[Anonymous No.11438646]

[Anonymous No.11438652]

>>11438642
Peterson takes the word God and looks at it as a phenomenon of the human psyche. He is saying that a chief value one holds is god. A member of society who acts out those values is jesus.

I think he is on to something. He does not believe in God as much as he believes in having a personal God (value) that you can always defend and work towards. It is a very precise observation.

[Anonymous No.11438661]

>>11438634

the best argument against him is that his "philosophy" is completely incoherent, his criticism of actual philosophers is a total mess, and his entire career is predicated off of exploiting lost and angry young men

[Anonymous No.11438681]

>>11438607
> hates the idea of subjective reality, rails against "bloody postmodernists" day in day out
> loves nietzsche
this room is NOT clean bucko

[Anonymous No.11438703]

>>11438652
This is the equivalent of not understanding musical notion, interpreting a page of sheet-music to be some sort of morse-code poetry, transcribing the ensuing babble, and then feeling like you've accomplished some avant-garde work of art with the meaningless and wholly wrong conclusion.

Stop being so goddamn arbitrary with systems, you mentally deficient pseud. Peterson is a grade-A Charlatan who is only capable of impressing those who don't know anything about the subjects that he perverts. And that's all that it is, a perversion.

[Anonymous No.11438705]

>>11438607
well that particular thing is quite a /CHAD/ movement in (professional) theology.
there is really fucking strange dude called Hans Urs von Balthasar, he poured nietzsche HARD at his theology.

but nietzsche aside he is exactly >>11438661

[Anonymous No.11438711]

>>11438646

[Anonymous No.11438714]

>>11438661
See, that comment didn't even say anything. You failed to mention how it is incoherent at all, I believe it speaks a lot of truth about the left and about human nature in general.

I will concede that his "exploitation" of angry young men is possible, but yet again it could also be a byproduct of his idea of full blown individualism.

Overall, I think his idea is that as long as everyone tries their best to overcome the rampant suffering that is inevitable to life, then they will overall strengthen the individual molecules of society.

At least >>11438681 provided a criticism that is true. In response to >>11438681 I think that he admits subjective reality comes first, but it does not supersede empirical data and observations. We must use empirical data and observations to check our individual subjective reality.

Everything he says can be boiled down to an Aristotelian navigation between two extremes.

>>11438703
If you look at Peterson critics, they only make vague criticisms because they cannot pin him down. They'll also accuse of moving the goal posts instead of actually observing where the goal posts are "moved to".

This is literally what he said in an interview you fucking idiot. I am almost quoting word for word. You just displayed how much you lack knowledge of the person you are criticizing lmao. You fucking idiot, and I say that in a most endearing way like I would call a friend an idiot (genuinely) because I don't want you to think that I think I'm better than you. I'm just interested in the discussion of these ideas because I think there is something looming on the horizon. Something is going to happen soon.

[Anonymous No.11438718]

>>11438703

>implying esoteric Christianity like Gnosticism isn't the true path

[Anonymous No.11438719]

>>11438711
THAT ROOM IS NOT CLEAN FUCKING HYPOCRITE

[Anonymous No.11438725]

>>11438646

[Anonymous No.11438730]

>>11438719
valid argument

[Anonymous No.11438732]

>>11438646
Do you love it when Daddy Peterson calls you a fuck-up? Does it make your dick tingle when another man speaks down to you?

[Anonymous No.11438746]

>>11438661
>"Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by 'philosophy', 'incoherent', 'exploiting', 'lost' and 'men'."

[Anonymous No.11438749]

>>11438661
>his criticism of actual philosophers is a total mess

This is the most pertinent criticism of him I think. People buying in to incoherent world views is nothing new, but this whole wave of straw-men straw-manning straw-men seems to me to be the inevitable outcome of mass-education and the lowering of standards of prestigious institutions, and I include the woeful and dreaded SJW along with Peterson and his acolytes in this because it is entirely the same dynamic; giving mediocre minds access to complex works and dumbing it down for them and thus spawning weird folk-interpretations of thinkers and schools of thought that function as a kind of academic Chinese whispers. It started on the progressive side of things early this decade with social media exacerbating the spread of folk-interpretations among the young progressive left of middling intelligence (to be fair on tumblr many were really young at the time so this can be forgiven somewhat) and then guys like Peterson come along and instead of reading the supposed foundation texts of of their 'enemies' they just take what they say at face-value and seek to refute while assuming the person they are on conflict with actually has a sound understanding of what it is they are talking about.

If the university system still accepted people of academic merit only, was unafraid to fail the failures, and expected them to read and display comprehension of whole works within their field of study rather than regurgitate paragraphs and chapters then we could have avoided all of this culture wars bullshit or at least significantly reduced the relevance of it.

[Anonymous No.11438762]

I'll also admit that you're correct, I'm no genius, and I'm not trying to be. I'm probably a brainlet by your standards, but I am not trying to pretend to be some ultra-prescient intellectual. I just want some actual discussion instead of vague criticisms. I watched his debates, they cannot lock him down. One atheist guy tried to get him to state his argument in axioms, and it's so unbelievably stupid to try and call it invalid just because it isn't reduced to axioms. This isn't 1950s logical positivism, we can acknowledge that some things are mystical now...
>>11438746
I also think this is correct. He will redefine a lot of stuff, but it is not in the name of charlatanism, you definitely have to try and meet him half-way, it's just that some people get their rocks off by being able to critique someone who is more powerful than them.

>>11438749
I totally agree. I will admit that I am a racist by today's standards. So when I see things like affirmative action I cannot help but think that it contributes to the decadence of these institutions.

We need a reinstitution of a meritocracy for sure, and forget about the lack of equal representation. I think that's the only way to transcend racism.

Even if his criticisms of other philosophers is incorrect, or at the very least not knowledgeable, he makes an apt diagnosis of the current problems society is facing. The are VERY interesting problems, by historical standards.

[Anonymous No.11438775]

>>11438634
the structure of what?

[Anonymous No.11438777]

>>11438661
>his entire career is predicated off of exploiting lost and angry young men
Yes, his career as a university professor is well-known. But what about his recent work?

[Anonymous No.11438782]

Does anyone else find it really funny that Peterson brings up his supposed IQ a lot? I've seen him talk about it in multiple clips. He's clearly a very insecure man.

When I was doing my masters in maths I spent time with people who were producing world class research, and they never felt the need to try to tell me about how smart they were.

[Anonymous No.11438796]

Anyone who hangs around Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Sam Harris should be seriously questioned.

>>11438782
IQ isn't useful to most people. Measuring IQ is great and all but it's just a tool and one Peterson clearly misuses by placing a moral judgment on it.

[Anonymous No.11438801]

>>11438782
>and they never felt the need to try to tell me about how smart they were.
that's because they were actually smart. Like when people say "yeah, i'm a really creative person". I can promise you that Melville
or Wallace Stevens never once said such a thing in a conversation.

[Anonymous No.11438812]

>>11438749
Imagine being such a butthurt pseud that you have to type up this entire paragraph refuting absolutely nothing Peterson has asserted.

[Anonymous No.11438832]

>>11438782
Knowing your genetically predisposed abilities and fate can really do a lot to a mans self esteem, thats why i live by the zizek quote "I’m paranoid about IQ tests as I've a deep distrust of myself & I fear that if I took one I’d find out I’m an idiot"

[Anonymous No.11438836]

>>11438782
>Peterson brings up his supposed IQ a lot?

Name one instance where he does this. All he talks about is professions and their relationship to IQ, which is irrefutable. You can't be a programmer with an 85 IQ.

[Anonymous No.11438837]

>>11438796
... Joe Rogan is just a man who does podcast.

[Anonymous No.11438841]

>>11438782
Does he?

>>11438801
Genuinely intelligent or creative people arent beyond status signaling or a high self image.

[Anonymous No.11438846]

>>11438775
The structure of the west currently? Is that too vague? Tell me the specificity with which to define it and I will try. I think he also is talking about a nature of structures in general (hierarchies).

>>11438796
Hmm, how does he place moral judgment on it rather than acknowledging the implications of IQ being a non-metrical artifact and probing the existence of g?
Peterson is saying that these implications are there whether we want them to be or not, so we might as well face them.

From this perspective, Peterson argues that the left has placed ideology before scientific substantiation, and is also using that ideology to move evidence in the direction of the ideology, like a coup.

I'm telling you guys, he is on to something. This is a very good diagnosis, WHETHER OR NOT HIS CRITICISMS OF Derrida and Foucault ARE ACCURATE OR TRUE, he has given us an accurate picture of reality at the moment. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not married to his ideas, I just cannot refute them based on the evidence at hand. There are definitely some where I may stop short of his conclusions, but I am simply agreeing with him. I don't want to be an apologist or one of his "Acolytes", I just think that this aspect of his ideas aren't discussed and would like to see some discussion based on the breadth and depth of literature that is discussed here (if people actually read the books discussed here).

[Anonymous No.11438862]

>>11438846
>Peterson is saying that these implications are there whether we want them to be or not, so we might as well face them.
Yes, and he's saying we should be happy that our ruling class or higher IQ individuals (of which he seems to include himself) is more or less benevolent.

[Anonymous No.11438874]

>>11438862
He is not saying we should or shouldn't be a certain way. You just straw-manned him. He is not saying we should be happy that they are benevolent, he is saying that these people percolate to the top of a hierarchy and we should understand how this effects society so we are better-equipped to handle it.

Right now we are pretending that it isn't a fact and it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11438884]

>>11438862
Can't tell if deliberate strawman or total brainlet.

He doesn't place any value judgments on these facts, what is so hard to understand about this? He merely points out that there IS an asymmetry and that it's inevitable because certain jobs require certain competence levels. Also, high iq does not equate to power. There are plenty of powerful people in this world with a middling iq.

[Anonymous No.11438894]

>>11438874
>>11438884
He has definitely said this on the matter of whites vs Jews and PoC vs whites. That PoC should be happy whites are benevolent and whites should be happy Jews are benevolent.

[Anonymous No.11438898]

>>11438894
>[Citation fucking needed]

That seems extremely out of character for him. Stop putting words in his mouth and link videos or I'm going to assume you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.11438900]

>>11438862
Also, how is the fact that he includes himself, ruin his credibility. Under the framework he is talking about, OF COURSE he is included in the top performers. He is cited a lot as a researcher (10,000x is what I believe he said in an interview), and he was a Harvard professor. My God, how can you deny some sort of performance that is there? Of course you can take a typical stance against him and say that his success is a result of his "privilege", but is that the path that the argument you really want to take? Because it is grasping at straws (no pun intended).

>>11438894
I think he has been very careful to never actually address the PoC IQ Disparity. It is very tactful on his part. I will agree that he has talked about Jewish IQ, but I do not remember him saying that we should be happy that Jews are benevolent. I think he is saying that people in general should be happy that rulers are not always tyrants. Of course this is an interpretation, so that is always subjected to some sort of dispute.

[Anonymous No.11438906]

>>11438714
>accuses other poster of vagueness
>uses "full blown" as a philosophical descriptor

[Anonymous No.11438907]

>>11438900
This is me.

In response to the PoC IQ issue, I think it will be the end of him. It is way too taboo to suggest different races have different qualities. But I believe that he is trying to push the dialectic in that direction, which is great because it means we can move towards a meritocracy.

[Anonymous No.11438913]

>>11438906
Not that anon, but what the fuck are you talking about? What is wrong with the phrase "full blown individualism"?

[Anonymous No.11438917]

>>11438906

Ya, way to be a pedant. What you're saying is valid, but adds very little substance. I was speaking pretty casually there. If you have a question ask it, make me clarify, don't just resort to some weak pedantry.

[Anonymous No.11438923]

>>11438749
>If the university system still accepted people of academic merit only, was unafraid to fail the failures, and expected them to read and display comprehension of whole works within their field of study rather than regurgitate paragraphs and chapters then we could have avoided all of this culture wars bullshit or at least significantly reduced the relevance of it.
>>normie fantasy of what academia is like

[Anonymous No.11438929]

>>11438913
it doesn't fucking mean anything. i can affix "full blown" to anything, it doesn't add anything to the position. "full blown individualism" is the same as just "individualism." it's a weasel word that's supposed to add emphasis but only exposes his own uncertainty about what philosophical positions entail or imply.

>>11438917
sorry buddy, but you're in the wrong ballpark if you think pedantry is frowned upon in philosophy lol. "speaking pretty casually" is to be avoided at all cost.

[Anonymous No.11438931]

>>11438929
You're a literal sophist if you think your critique constitutes a valid rebuttal. Who gives a shit about a modifier word? Argue the point or I'm going to assume you have none.

[Anonymous No.11438935]

>>11438907
how does a middle aged professor of fading relevance making youtube videos about discredited race science do anything to dismantle ruling class dominance over state and industry? or, im sorry, do you really think that what's keeping us from "meritocracy" is lack of accepted criteria for measuring merit? lmao you're clueless

[Anonymous No.11438940]

>>11438931
>accuses me of sophistry when my point, that "full blown" is meaningless in this context, was clearly stated
>>while making an ad hom
precious

[Anonymous No.11438946]

>>11438940
>ignores what that anon wrote and simply attacks him based on his choice of wording
>accuses others of ad hom

The irony of this post

[Anonymous No.11438947]

>>11438940
Judging from his shitshow of posts in this thread, I'm pretty sure he's a high schooler who is hyped because Peterson showed him a few words that let him pretend to be more intelligent than the kids who are getting laid

[Anonymous No.11438954]

>>11438946
you understand that correctly identifying an ad hom (>>11438931 "You're a literal sophist") and "accusing" you of using one are different? the latter implies that the case is a matter for judgment, where evidence has to be weighed. here, on the contrary, we have the simple application of a definition to the rhetorical device used in your post.

[Anonymous No.11438965]

>>11438954
Not defending my own posts, pointing out how much of a pseud you are for not being able to refute a single thing both anon and Peterson have said.

That you have the temerity to accuse anyone else in this thread of committing a logical fallacy when you, yourself, have committed several in order to dodge the numerous valid points raised in this thread is proof you have nothing valuable to contribute.

[Anonymous No.11438968]

literally anyone who is convinced IQ has anything meaningful to say about real life creative or intellectual potential has never once applied themselves to a creative or intellectual endeavor whose core skills require more than surfing youtube videos and forums to comprehend. at all levels of intellectual work the mind is rent by quaking insecurity just as surely as it reaches absolute heights of fundamental insight—these moments are respectively accompanied by the alternating sense that one is "dumb" or "smart," and it's more a factor of personality than "intelligence" that determines the likelihood one expresses that feeling to others.

[Anonymous No.11438982]

>>11438965
what the fuck are you talking about, lol. all i said was that "full blown" is meaningless hahaha. but i admire your the temerity of your certainty just as much as i laugh how transparently that word betrays your shaky competence in the SAT vocabulary study list. "you, yourself." hahaha

[Anonymous No.11438988]

>>11438982
>not knowing what temerity or knowing that the "you, yourself" is a valid construction

You're either not a native English speaker or a brainlet. Choose one.

[Anonymous No.11438991]

>>11438929
I do not think it's frowned upon, but I think it is necessary only when it adds value. That is why I said it was valid, but added little value.

Look, I'm not trying to play games or debate here dude. I just want to discuss the merit of the idea.

>>11438935
Nice loaded question there. This is the exact lack of substance I'm talking about. I'm going to engage though because I know that this attitude is the culture of this site, so I expect it. I just want it to be said that it is bad for discussion which should be an ideal for this board.

>Fading relevance
Not really relevant when talking about the merit of his ideas, but I understand that you are saying that he is trying to retain relevancy.

>discredited race-science
He never talks about races explicitly. This comment displays your lack of knowledge. He does however argue for the credibility of a tool that is used to push the idea of race realism. I also already said I think races exist and have different qualities. You and I disagree on fundamental facts, which is fine, I think this dialogue is important though, we need to address the question of "is race real?" if we are going to promote mass cultural diversity.

>do you really think that what's keeping us from "meritocracy" is a lack of accepted criteria for measuring merit?
I do not think it is the sole thing, but I think it is something we do already. The issue is that we have allowed identity to become involved with merit.

>making youtube videos to dismantle ruling class dominance over state and industry
I do not think the power he is fighting against is ruling quite yet, but you fail to mention that he is on Fox, and several other non-youtube programs.

>>11438968
I agree with your sentiment. I think intelligence is much more nebulous than an IQ test would have you believe, but I think we ought to engage the feedback from the tools we have instead of saying (muh culture) - ESPECIALLY when those findings are substantiated with findings related to GMV, functional activity, and glucose metabolic rate of different brain regions.

This is why I beleive JBP advocated truth. When you tell the truth, you build the strongest foundation from which to build the rest of society and culture. You iron out the problems immediately instead of throwing them in the closet.

[Anonymous No.11439052]

>>11438991
Well, I guess I should have expected less from 4chan when trying to have a little discussion. The only person I found to actually try to discuss is >>11438749

I think it's a valid point to say that
>the average academician has fallen in quality due to the the lowering of standards of prestigious institutions. I also agree that
>the woeful and dreaded SJW along with Peterson and his acolytes in this because it is entirely the same dynamic; giving mediocre minds access to complex works and dumbing it down for them and thus spawning weird folk-interpretations of thinkers and schools of thought that function as a kind of academic Chinese whispers.

>>11438923
Clearly there have always been less studious academics. I think his point is that they are increasing in numbers.

I think that this is due to the drop in the average attention span through smart phones. If anyone has read Nicholas Carr's chapter "The Juggler's Brain", he makes a very good point saying that our brains are morphing around these technologies and in this case are ruining our attentive capabilities.

This is a very obvious claim to make, but it needs to be said.

[Anonymous No.11439066]

>>11438968
that's a very nice rant. 115 I'm guessing? any higher and surely you'd recognize that the studies proving high iq individuals have a proclivity for success is a better argument that ranting about insecurity on a mongolian basket weaving forum

[Anonymous No.11439068]

>>11438749
Imagine being so butthurt about failing your exams that you type out this wall of text. Maybe you should've spent some time studying instead of masturbating to anime.

[Anonymous No.11439070]

>>11439068
projection

[Anonymous No.11439077]

>>11439070
That's definitely part of her problem.

[Anonymous No.11439114]

bump

[Anonymous No.11439124]

>Peterson worldview are incoherent
>not a single worldview quoted beside brainlet strawman like
>>11438968

Isn't /lit/ suppoded to be the smartest board? How come you're afraid to engage with a pseud?

[Anonymous No.11439219]

>>11439124
I think /lit takes some pride in being a critic of Peterson due to his fanbase. They want to distance themselves from Peterson because he attracts people they do not approve of.

As far as Peterson's arguments, they may have not engaged themselves with the "iron-man" form of dialectics as Peterson might put it, thus haven't really addressed the issues in their own arguments. Hopefully this will generate new life in this discussion, because there is either heavy cognitive dissonance out there right now, or the real arguments have yet to show themselves. I am inclined to believe it is the latter, because I've seen much smarter people post here.

Maybe they think I'm too stupid to talk to because they can perceive some lack of knowledge - which is fine because not everyone likes explaining basic things - or they want to not promote Peterson discussion which they see as bloating this board - which sucks because I believe there are valid philosophical points that are brought up and need be discussed. Not that discussing anything on this board will change anything major, but I'd like to hear other views.

[Anonymous No.11439229]

You can literally turn anyone into a postmodernist by getting them to admit they can’t be certain or anything they think to be true. And then going from there

[Anonymous No.11439233]

>>11439229
*of

[Anonymous No.11439235]

>>11438634
This is article is a great critique of him
https://medium.com/s/story/peterson-historian-aide-mémoire-9aa3b6b3de04

[Anonymous No.11439242]

>>11439235
>https://medium.com/s/story/peterson-historian-aide-mémoire-9aa3b6b3de04

Reading it now.

[Anonymous No.11439283]

>>11438832
If anything it is the complete opposite for me, even though my IQ is at 139 I am a complete failure, the fact that according to IQ tests I have "genetically predisposed abilities" only made me miserable to the point where I just started rejecting the notion that IQ is an accurate indicator of intelligence as a whole.

[Anonymous No.11439336]

>>11439235
Total horseshit article. I've been through the lit program at UCSD, Peterson is 100% correct in pointing out how professors use deconstruction as a trojan horse for Marxist ideals.

[Anonymous No.11439346]

>>11439283

Why do you so easily discount the possibility that knowing your IQ as a child would motivate you to live up to the potential measured?

[Anonymous No.11439347]

He obviously hasn't even read Nietzsche.

>when you mix up camus and nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11439348]

>>11439336
Well, he does the exact same thing, use the deconstructionist for his political agenda, without understanding or reading them. How do you not see the hipocrosy

[Anonymous No.11439351]

>>11439336
>>11439348
Ever since I tried reading Derrida, when I see someone use the word deconstruction without further elaboration I just discard everything they have to say since they most likely don't know what it means.

[Anonymous No.11439358]

>>11439351
The article’s critique of Peterson doesn’t lose any value whether a couple of us brainlets on /lit/ don’t know anything about deconstruction though

[Anonymous No.11439379]

>>11439358
What, pray tell, is the point of the article then? It's just apologia trying to claim Derrida is not a post-modernist, ergo Peterson's claim must be wrong. The main thrust of Peterson's argument is that professors use deconstruction to seed doubt into young undergrad's minds, making them think they're actually critically analyzing the world when they're doing nothing of the sort. Then, while they can't make sense of anything, they fill the void with Marxist nonsense.

The modern day lit program is a cult and Peterson is rightfully calling it out.

[Anonymous No.11439384]

>>11439379
I can never tell who is baiting or not in /lit/

[Anonymous No.11439395]

>>11439379
A stopped clock is right two times a day

[Anonymous No.11439402]

>>11438746
as funny as this is it proves his point that postmodernism has taken meaning from so much that we literally have to define our words before the conversation starts. It's just that in 2018 we are stuck arguing about the definitions.

[Anonymous No.11439409]

I got angry when I found out there was a subreddit called /r/enoughpetersonspam because I swallowed the memerson pill and just wouldn't accept any criticism of him.

Now I post there myself because I sick of seeing this guy's mug, especially here.

[Anonymous No.11439415]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfoKwQ2Cw6A

Couldn't sleep for 25 DAYS?

Dude, you would be fucking dead by 10 days.

The longest anybody has stayed awake is 11 days.

So goddamn stupid.

And then he's trying to also use this to explain why he got fucking dunked on by Harris with his garbage "truth" definition.

What a phony ass piece of shit this man is.

[Anonymous No.11439419]

>>11438923
>normie fantasy of what academia is like
This is what it should be like, ideally, not how it is.

[Anonymous No.11439421]

>>11439068
If universities had any semblance of quality control they should have failed me, but they don't and now I have a degree for some reason.

[Anonymous No.11439422]

>>11438634
You mean that some collectivism is unavoidable and has already been counted for and brought us prosperity.

[Anonymous No.11439427]

>>11438714
>Cannot pin him down
>JP says something incoherent
>Refuses to elaborate

Is he too smart?

[Anonymous No.11439433]

>>11438642
>fedora tards
>larping tradtards
Where do you people even come from? Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8

[Anonymous No.11439508]

>>11439219
>They want to distance themselves from Peterson because he attracts people they do not approve of.

For me it's the cult of personality, no one is infallible by default.

[Anonymous No.11439517]

>>11439433
>Are you Christian
Yea
>do you believe Jesus rose form the dead
Sorry i cant answer that. Im agnostic about it, i need 6 hours to explain it.
Man it was to cringe for me.

[Anonymous No.11439520]

>>11439508
So you don't like him because he's popular?

[Anonymous No.11439540]

>>11439520
Loaded question. 'So you're saying....'
Are you saying these people immune to criticism?

[Anonymous No.11439547]

why is that when you're a socialist/liberal/anarchist/feminist/etc. and you take inspiration from nietzsche, there's no issue despite him unambiguously shitting on your beliefs in every one of his writings, but if you're like a christian or a nationalist or whatever else, you're "appropriating" or "misinterpreting" him? it's obviously possible to be influenced by someone without agreeing 100% with their ideas. in fact, pretty much no one completely with the various figures they were influenced by.

[Anonymous No.11439553]

>>11439547
>nationalist
because Nietzsche openly told these guys to go fuck themselves
>christian
because Nietzsche stated his opinion of religion, it's status and place in a modern enlightened society very clearly - it's fucking dead.

[Anonymous No.11439555]

>>11439540
No? But ost of his critics are
>hurr he's incoherent
>muh cult of personnality
>dumb memereson

Without anyt other arguments.

[Anonymous No.11439572]

>>11438749
Don't forget that any real knowledge is fractured between the literati, no one human being can fathom the world enough to actually say anything worth saying alone.

Jordan Peterson is a mediocre teacher handing out lectures that the right would go to uni for, that's all he is.

[Anonymous No.11439574]

>hurrr durrr no akzhull critiques of Peterson ITT, guess we winnin hue hue

FOR A FUCKING A YEAR OR MORE THERE HAS BEEN AN INFLUX OF REDDITORS COMING HERE EVERY DAY WITH THEIR HAVE YOU HEARD OF/WHATS WRONG WITH MUH FICTIONAL DADDY BULLSHIT, IF YOU ARE SO HELLBENT ON READING ACTUAL CRITIQUES DONE AD NAUSEAM AT THIS POINT JUST BROWSE WAROSU YOU LAZY NIGGER

[Anonymous No.11439579]

>>11439553
>having a slave morality based on Nietzsche's opinions

[Anonymous No.11439584]

>>11439553
>because Nietzsche stated his opinion of religion, it's status and place in a modern enlightened society very clearly - it's fucking dead.

Not true.

[Anonymous No.11439587]

>>11438607
>>11439553
JBP is a hack, but there is undoubtedly a strain of religious communitarianism within Nietzche's thought. Read Julian Young's Nietzsche and Religion.

[Anonymous No.11439594]

>>11438652
literally Feuerbach atheism

[Anonymous No.11439605]

>>11439574
I'm still not seeing actual arguments, my friend.

Last time someone tried to put forth some it turned out he was a /pol/tard who wanted to destroy the economic system because his dream was to LARP as a medieval peasant.

[Anonymous No.11439608]

>>11439594
It's not that far off from Luther's "every man has a god, be it God or alcohol."

[Anonymous No.11439625]

what do I read/watch to understand memerson? I want to follow what the fuck you guys are talking about itt, but I've been basically living under the rock when it comes to this guy

[Anonymous No.11439641]

>>11439579
projection much?

>>11439584
how?

[Anonymous No.11439646]

>>11439608
It's pretty far off. Luther is just expounding the standard Christian view of idolatry. He's in no way endorsing this, nor is he equivocating every "god" and God, nor is he saying, most importantly, that any of these gods, God included, is just a value system or construct of human understanding. To Luther God is a real, actual being (as was Jesus). He's no atheist.

[Anonymous No.11439661]

The whole issue with his philosophy is that it's based on texts like The Bible, Tao Te Ching, etc. And irrational philosophers like Nietszche. He shows total disregard for German philosophy or really any other serious philosophy besides Aristotle and Nietszche.
Politically he's just an average conservative only more wellread. That's why he always win debates in social issues. Economically, tho, he uses really simplistic and reductivist arguments, muh "wanting basic econonical rights is maoism" and thinking (or pretending to think) that Marxism is based on laziness and evil. His arguments for capitalism show he hasn't read Hayek and his arguments against marxism prove he hasn't read Kapital. That's why he doesnt wanna debate Zizek, he doesn't stand a chance. Once you make him debate someone that is not an illiterate SJW you'll soon see he's extremely politically ignorante.

[Anonymous No.11439697]

>>11438711
Inb4 he blames the radical leftist postmodernists for his messy room

[Anonymous No.11439701]

>>11439625
Look up the cathy newman interview. Watch some of his lectures.

OR

Don't watch him and say he's a post-modern pseud, it's not like people are going to ask for a more complex argument here.

[Anonymous No.11439707]

>>11439661
>muh wanting basic economical right os maoism

Where did he say that?

>Marxism is based on laziness and evil
That's what most neo-marxist are, yes.

>once you make him debate someone that is not an illiterate SJW
Yeah, surely then he will be defeated.

[Anonymous No.11439716]

is the zizek debate happening or what

[Anonymous No.11439727]

>>11439716
Probably not considering they're on different continents and Zizek is too stupid to use the Internet.

[Anonymous No.11439777]

>>11438730
what the fuck
has this been posted before?

[Anonymous No.11439782]

>>11439707
He says any basic oposition to capitalism is far-left
Neo-Marxism is a made up term in which the right compiles extremely different ideologies, from SJW to liberalism to postmodernism to socialdemocratism to classical marxism to hegelian post-Marxism, etc. Most of these don't have anything to do with marxism

[Anonymous No.11439783]

>>11439727
Probably not considering JP is too afraid to debate any intellectual and hasn't even responded to Zizek

[Anonymous No.11439784]

>>11439641
See my post here: >>11439587

You can grab a copy off of libgen.

[Anonymous No.11439788]

>>11439783
Harris

[Anonymous No.11439796]

>>11439782
>any basic oposition to capitalism is far-left

Where do he say that?

[Anonymous No.11439804]

>>11439716
>>11439783
Zizek said he doesn't want to debate him, he said something about Jung being beneath him or whatever.
It's in a Youtube video.

[Anonymous No.11439816]

>>11439804
So Zizek is the one afraid?

[Anonymous No.11439826]

>>11438661
>his criticism of actual philosophers is a total mess,
The philosophers he criticized were sloppy conmen. Peterson may have nothing worthwhile to say, but if he can turn the general public against the enshrinement of continental philosophy in our universities, he'll have made the world a better place.

[Anonymous No.11439834]

>>11439804
>Jung beneath him
Jung has Merit, just not in purity like JP does.

[Anonymous No.11439839]

>>11439547
Because the left has an academic hegemony of people trained to rationalize and justify anything that advances their causes.

[Anonymous No.11439844]

>>11439826
What is continental philosophy, in your view?

[Anonymous No.11439852]

>>11439844
The very broad intellectual tradition mostly coming from continental Europe whose thinkers can in one way or another be considered the intellectual descendants of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11439855]

>>11438782
Trapped in the delusion that high-IQ individuals have similar psychic experiences to normal or low IQ people. It isn't true. Youre also doing the usual faggot thing where if anyone talks about a positive trait they have it actually means theyre really insecure about that trait, which is bullshit

Peterson, unlike other high IQ individuals who enclave themselves on campus, is actually trying to communicate with regular shmucks. Have you ever tried to explain difficult ideas to someone with 100 IQ? I invite you to.

>inb4 you're bragging, you're insecure
Like hell I am, I would trade a standard deviation in intelligence for a standard deviation in lean muscle mass in a heartbeat

[Anonymous No.11439860]

>>11438607
https://drive.google.com/file/d/128Vajn73ltN9ymvD2C3kNi5x40yi2fbp/view

The JP Question pdf. He's a hack and fraud.

[Anonymous No.11439863]

>>11439804
says the fucking Lacanian, you cant make this shit up

[Anonymous No.11439867]

>>11439855
Autism

[Anonymous No.11439873]

>>11439855
>being this obsessed with IQ and intelligence
We get it, you're a nihilist. No need to hide it.

[Anonymous No.11439957]

>>11439860
hi pol

[Anonymous No.11440040]

peterson posting, in favor or against his ideas, should result in permanent ban. Its always a shitfest of /pol/ vs commies, fedora vs christfags and the only things that are never mentioned in these threads are books

[Anonymous No.11440079]

>>11440040
This. Peterson/Harris threads have no place on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11440094]

>>11439402
actually defining what youre talking about solved 90% of the philsophical problems idiots were arguing about for the last 2000 years. It's not a problem of postmodernism but a rational improvement

[Anonymous No.11440156]

>>11439782
>Neo-Marxism is a made up term in which the right compiles extremely different ideologies, from SJW to liberalism to postmodernism to socialdemocratism to classical marxism to hegelian post-Marxism, etc
It's just revenge for when the left did the opposite with their "neoliberalism" strawman.

[Anonymous No.11440181]

>>11439852
Really? So it is the link to Hegel which makes one a 'continental' thinker?
What about anti-Hegelians such as Nietzsche, Deleuze and Foucault?
What about Hegelians such as Graham Priest?
Is the latter a continental whereas the former are analytic thinkers?
>I'm not Socrates so I'll save you the time: you are an idiot, friend.

[Anonymous No.11440184]

>>11439826

i can guarantee that you have never read foucault nor derrida.

[Anonymous No.11440218]

>>11439409
Go back there, fag.