/lit/'s critique of Jordan B. Peterson

[Anonymous No.11479712]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p764TYnG32UuV8yluGPnjYkXeyGq5CHwxMkZM8ne8Ug/edit?usp=sharing

[Anonymous No.11480995]

>>11479712
Cringe and bluepilled
Clean your room.

[Anonymous No.11481138]

>>11480995
Wash your penis

[Anonymous No.11481180]

>>11479712

[Anonymous No.11481192]

>>11479712
Also chosen controlled opposition.

[Anonymous No.11481292]

>>11481180
>>11481192
Based and redpilled.

>>11480995
Cringe and bluepilled.

[Anonymous No.11481305]

>a critique of a kosher-approved Neocon stooge

wowwwwww

[Anonymous No.11481354]

>>11481180
jewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews

[Anonymous No.11481382]

>>11479712
>clean your room
>make your bed
>give firm handshakes
>stand up straight
>don't piss on your friends hands

[Anonymous No.11481399]

He's already been critiqued pretty well

[Anonymous No.11481435]

>>11481180
>Marxism is behind the mass third world immigration to the West

Why is /pol/ so dumb? It's obvious that White genocide is a result of neoliberal global capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11481574]

>>11481399
But Peterson isn't an intellectual

[Anonymous No.11481585]

>>11481435
Marxists are perfectly happy to act as propagandists and footsoliders for the capitalists in regards to this particular issue though

>>11481399
Is it just one guy who completely misunderstood that quote reposting this image again and again?

[Anonymous No.11481595]

>>11481585

>misunderstood that quote

It describes your Internet Dad perfectly, bucko

[Anonymous No.11481643]

>>11481595
Ted is talking about people who think they are revolutionaries but are really just serving the system whereas Peterson is explicitly anti-revolutionary, pro-capitalist and conservative. Call him a cuck bootlicker etc or whatever, but he's not interesting in even the illusion of rebellion against the system.

[Anonymous No.11481671]

>>11479712
I thought this was a joke but you fags are taking it serious and are going to associate /lit/'s name with this. cringe

[Anonymous No.11481674]

>>11481595
No it doesn't, Peterson is an idiot

[Anonymous No.11481677]

>>11481671
I think you mean based

[Anonymous No.11481685]

>>11479712
Jordan Memerson is a pundit hiptser so bad and pseudo-scientific that doesn't even deserve to be talked about, much less critised.
S a g e.

[Anonymous No.11481840]

Any anons here who have read Maps of Meaning and Jung that can point out how he is wrong even on his own turf?

Also how is pic related wrong?

[Anonymous No.11481848]

>>11480995
>Clean your room.

[Anonymous No.11481871]

>>11481848
Source on pic?

[Anonymous No.11481881]

I physically cringe every time someone says they agree with Jordan Peterson and then go ahead and go down the same road of moral slander as he does that is so easy and pathetic and cast out the same big nets to pretend like things like immigration, liberalism, and whatever else Christian-based western 'decay' his mongoloid followers perceive is to blame on a single entity.

Jordan Peterson ruined /lit/, /pol/ just mistook us all for Marxists, but it'sJP fans who feel lik they have the intellectual capacity to come here and talk about things when they watch this idiot's videos instead of actually reading the shit he borrows from, or the people he criticizes.

[Anonymous No.11481892]

>>11481840
Simple, Godel himself went senile trying to prove God exists, but never did.

[Anonymous No.11481907]

>>11481840
Wait, I misread that, what he actually said makes even less sense. An axiom is just a fact taken as immediately obvious, it hardly encompasses God.

His reasoning is basically just Pascal's Wager, but he presents it as some sort of truism?

[Anonymous No.11481928]

>>11481881
Peterson's a good Jungian and clinician and there's nothing wrong with agreeing with that. The biggest problem people ahve seems to go back to how his fanbase presents him.
Also quit blaming the quality of /lit/ on a single entity, you mong.

[Anonymous No.11481937]

>>11481399
>muh think outside the box
cringe

[Anonymous No.11481975]

>>11481881
ruined or made better???

[Anonymous No.11481979]

>>11481840
>Also how is pic related wrong?
Godel didn't prove that "proof is impossible without an axiom" that is what's known as foundationalism and it goes back to ancient times but has never been "proved" (how would you prove it without presupposing it?). In Godel's field, mathematics, it's just taken for granted as part of the method of doing mathematics. And of course the jump to God is ridiculous, none of this has anything to do with God. What Peterson seems to have done is mixed up Godel's incompleteness theorems, which do have something to do with axioms, and his attempt to prove the existence of God. It is a really embarrassing tweet, however I wouldn't hold it against him to strongly; if you look through any twitter account that's been active for years, you'll probably find at least one tweet as stupid as this.

[Anonymous No.11482005]

>>11481979
That's the problem, there's a fundamental issue with the way Peterson approaches logic where he seems to misunderstand the concept of what an axiom is leading them to be too broad and to shift throughout the debate to suit whatever he is trying to communicate in that sentence.

Of course braindead pseuds eat it up until they inevitably are let down.

Funny for how much Peterson "knows" the bible he seems to fail to grasp some of its simplest lessons like a foundation of sand.

[Anonymous No.11482028]

>>11482005
and he leans much to heavily on his clinical knowledge as a source of proof for his philosophical ramblings. To the layman, it sounds consistent because of the slimy way he presents it "oh I have clinical experience where I've helped people overcome issues through simple adherence to a specific structure so that proves it's naturally occurring and the only possible way to live life" repeat ad nauseam

[Anonymous No.11482029]

>>11481180
Good pasta.

[Anonymous No.11482030]

>>11482005
>he seems to fail to grasp some of its simplest lessons like a foundation of sand.
source?

[Anonymous No.11482035]

>>11482030
his career

[Anonymous No.11482040]

>>11482030
or at least how he embraced his rapid rise to fame anyway, his career as it is *now*...

[Anonymous No.11482086]

>>11481881
almost fapped to a tranny
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.11482349]

>>11481928
Incorrect

[Anonymous No.11482401]

>>11481840
I'm in bed now but I wrote several essays about it, too late to get up

[Anonymous No.11482545]

Jordan "Netflix TV shows are on the same level of complexity as great literature" Peterson

[Anonymous No.11482568]

>>11482005
>he seems to misunderstand the concept of what an axiom is leading them to be too broad and to shift throughout the debate to suit whatever he is trying to communicate in that sentence
Give an example in his actual career (this doesn't include the tweet).

[Anonymous No.11482672]

>>11482568
His entire belief system is predicated on the results he achieves in his clinic, but that doesn't imply it's the only or even best way.

[Anonymous No.11483462]

>>11482672
It's the best way so far as the ultimate aim is psychiatric wellness or survival, and his belief system from that point on comes out of the methods to achieving this aligning consistently with 'higher truths' of the mind.

[Anonymous No.11483477]

>>11483462
In MoM maybe, but that's not how his recent fans see it...

At the end of the day, his self help is trash and if you're looking for a fiction on philosophical discussions, just read Pynchon (he's Pointsman lul...)

[Anonymous No.11483483]

>>11481399
>I can't understand things so I'm going to assert they can't understand them either

great way to be left behind while the conversations move forward

[Anonymous No.11483493]

>>11483477
Who gives a fuck about his autist fans. Is this not a critique of Peterson's thought?
>fiction on philosophical discussions
I don't know why you brought that up.

[Anonymous No.11483499]

>>11483493
I have nothing to say on his clinical practice, but his philosophizing, which gave him any celebrity prominence to begin with, is based around selling proleshit to pseuds.

[Anonymous No.11483582]

>>11479712

LOOK AT THIS DUDE
>Jordan Peterson says he's a centrist or a classic liberal,
OH NO NO NO NO
AHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>but he has a very strong Christian hedgehog bias
WAIT TILL YOU SEE THE
>that came from the radical-conservatives of Tolstoy's time.
PFHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11484771]

>>11481928

>Peterson's a good Jungian

He demonstrably isn't. He constantly twists and pidgeonholes Jung's idead to fit his Tradcon LARP

[Anonymous No.11484776]

>>11481881
>le cringe maymay
opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.11484781]

>>11479712
/lit/ haven't read him so that is quite hard - /lit/ only memes about him

[Anonymous No.11484865]

>>11481881
>jordan walks up to me
>hey jordan I'm anon
>you said your name is anon right?
>say yes my name is anon
>everyone around us starts cringing because I agreed with him

[Anonymous No.11484882]

>>11479712

[Anonymous No.11484890]

>>11479712
He liked a picture of his daughter barely covered.

This guy has issues lol

[Anonymous No.11484910]

>>11484890

maybe hes not a stunted virgin with sexual hangups

[Anonymous No.11484919]

>>11484781
Yup, it's pretty hard to get anything good these guys. But i have faith in these bastards. It will work, i just have to be patient.

[Anonymous No.11484921]

>>11484910
Im sure >>11484882

[Anonymous No.11484960]

>>11479712
A lot of what he says seem to fall under two categories:
1. Common sense that has been forgotten by fringe groups.
2. Psychological claims that people outside psychology aren't really equipped to dispute intelligently (whether Peterson is right or wrong).

That's why I mostly find him uninteresting.

One thing that I think he's misguided on is the way he insists on posing a question of the left going too far. I saw someone once answer his question by saying that the left goes too far when it gets violent. Peterson didn't accept that but I've seen him claim several times, including in the aforementioned discussion, that we know when the right goes too far (Auschwitz, Charlottesville, etc.)
Agreed, but what are those other than instances of violence motivated by right-wing ideology? Since that's what they are, why is it wrong to answer that the left goes too far when they act violently (e.g. antifa assaulting people)? I suspect Peterson will accept violence on the right as going too far for the right but won't accept that as an answer for the left because he's trying to get someone to give an example that he can spin into a rant about PC censorship and free speech to show that the left contradicts itself by being PC.

[Anonymous No.11484968]

>>11484890
I did sense that they maybe had an unusual relationship just based on listening to him talk about her. I couldn't articulate it. Maybe that's right.

[Anonymous No.11484977]

>>11484960
When he cites concentration camps as examples of the right going too far I think he is just slipping up. On that subject he usually makes a point of saying that we know the right goes too far when it makes claims of racial superiority, which is ideology. He's right not to accept violence as the answer to when the left goes too far. That's a branch, not the root.

[Anonymous No.11484978]

>>11481180

[Anonymous No.11485002]

>>11484977
>the right goes too far when it makes claims of racial superiority
Fair enough but I don't see why violence shouldn't be the right answer for left and right. If someone makes claims of racial superiority, I don't think they're going too far. I think we should just not dignify their view with a response. If they get violent about it, they're going too far. Likewise, many people ignore or laugh off the far left when they make certain claims (e.g. black reparations). I don't think claiming the blacks should get reparations is going to far but I understand that some people will think it's absurd. So long as they don't get violent, let people make claims about reparations. Violence (not as self-defense) is when political activity of any sort goes too far. Ideas and speech should be free for us to have and free for others to ignore, choose to engage, laugh off, etc.

[Anonymous No.11485016]

>>11485002
>I think we should just not dignify their view with a response.
Peterson would agree with you there. His point on this subject is that we need to demarcate when the far ends of the political spectrum go too far so we know when to dismiss them. Currently we don't know when the far left goes toi far so they get to play in the game at any oevel they choose. And because of this they have been able to infiltrate high levels of academia and stuff like that. It's not enough to say that committing violence is going too far. Should the KKK be able to rally together and talk about committing acts of terrorism just because at that particular moment they are not lynching minorities but only planning to?

[Anonymous No.11485035]

>>11485016
>so we know when to dismiss them
That's something we can (and do) decide on an individual basis already. Why do we need universal agreement on this issue?
>they have been able to infiltrate high levels of academia
True but I don't see why that necessitates having the conversation about when sides "go too far." That would just lead to fairer but more censorship, not less censorship.
>talk about committing acts of terrorism
If they're serious and they're directly inciting violence, they should be held accountable but not to the same extent as the people actually committing violence.

[Anonymous No.11485073]

>>11485016
>Currently we don't know when the far left goes toi far so they get to play in the game at any oevel they choose.

um, what?

[Anonymous No.11485090]

>>11485016
>Should the KKK be able to rally together and talk about committing acts of terrorism just because at that particular moment they are not lynching minorities but only planning to?

I don't really see why not

[Anonymous No.11485092]

>>11485090
You really don't see why people shouldn't be able to plot terroristic acts?

[Anonymous No.11485099]

>>11485073

People are too stupid to understand academic leftist rhetoric so they need someone to tell them whether it's bad or not.

[Anonymous No.11485106]

>>11485092
as long as they don't carry them out

[Anonymous No.11485116]

>>11485099
what people

[Anonymous No.11485119]

>>11485106
Should I be able to hire a hitman as long as he doesn't follow through?

What if I plotted in advance to murder someone and then, when police have their guns pointed at me, I drop my gun. If I say I was joking the whole time, I shouldn't get in trouble, right? After all, I didn't pull the trigger.

[Anonymous No.11485122]

>>11485106
And when they do carry them out, you just shrug and go "nothing we could've done"

[Anonymous No.11485127]

>>11485116

The masses

[Anonymous No.11485131]

>>11485127
what masses?

[Anonymous No.11485133]

>>11485131

Those ones

[Anonymous No.11485135]

>>11485119
If there's a chance that he would actually go through with it then no, you're liable regardless. If you know there's no way he could accomplish his goal then go ahead, hire away!

>>11485122
uh no, that's what Security is for

[Anonymous No.11485136]

>>11485131
The fungus

[Anonymous No.11485138]

>>11485133
So basically you just made up some conceptual group in order to prove your point, okay.

[Anonymous No.11485146]

>>11485135
>If there's a chance
Right, so then there is a problem with plotting terrorist attacks.

[Anonymous No.11485153]

>>11485146
how does that follow? When you hire somebody you don't have control over them whereas plan is just inside your head

[Anonymous No.11485158]

>>11485138

If you want an actual answer: the concept of racial superiority is simple to understand and we can easily point to it and say "there, the right has gone too far". Peterson claims that there isn't a simple analogue on the left, perhaps because academic leftist thought is impenetrable for most people. That leads to "dangerous" leftists thriving at universities because the public isn't able to shout them down for their "dangerous" ideas.

[Anonymous No.11485163]

>>11485158
>academic leftist thought is impenetrable for most people

it is?

[Anonymous No.11485167]

>>11485158
>academic leftist thought is impenetrable for most people. That leads to "dangerous" leftists thriving at universities because the public isn't able to shout them down for their "dangerous" ideas.

uh, wait a minute...

[Anonymous No.11485174]

>>11485153
By your logic then, when my first-degree murder in progress is stopped, my actions weren't as bad as hiring a hitman willing to act on it since in the former, the plan was JUST in my head the whole time.
>>11485158
Okay, has Peterson proposed something as an analogue?

[Anonymous No.11485181]

>>11485174
>the plan was JUST in my head the whole time.
except it wasn't when you put it in motion, so

[Anonymous No.11485182]

>>11485174

For him, the idea of equity (equality of outcome) is going too far.

[Anonymous No.11485183]

>>11485181
I didn't actually kill the person though and earlier you said that the actual violence was what mattered, so

[Anonymous No.11485187]

>>11485182
That seems pretty dumb. I think it's good to show how equality of outcome might not always be what we should expect or want but that just means that we have to be more thoughtful about our claims regarding desired outcomes, it doesn't mean that claims about equality of outcome "go too far."

[Anonymous No.11485189]

>>11485183
>earlier you said that the actual violence was what mattered
where?

[Anonymous No.11485267]

Just made a video explaining everything wrong with Peterson's idea of Darwinian truth.

https://youtu.be/GhrbfudvKko

[Anonymous No.11485322]

>>11485267
can't place your accent, scot, irish or some weird yank accent?

[Anonymous No.11485330]

>>11485267
>Darwinian truth
What the fuck does that even mean
He literally said like that? did he really split the idea "truth"?
Isn't it... postmodernistic?

[Anonymous No.11485352]

>>11485322
Irish, but the Dublin accent is quite strange even within the country.

>>11485330
I think he kinda goes back and forth between post-modernism and the Darwinian stuff. It's funny the postmodernism is more defensible. But he's spent so much time shit talking it he can't been seen as sympathetic to it. But it's the closest viable position to his own.

[Anonymous No.11485408]

>>11485352
>dublin
oof lad if my parent find out I didn't clock it they'll knock me out, good video btw

[Anonymous No.11485420]

>>11481881
who is this?

[Anonymous No.11485443]

>>11485408
Mines fairly subdued at this point, in fairness. And thanks.

[Anonymous No.11485445]

>>11485420
some autist on /lit/ who hates on peterson just because he thinks hating people who are viewed as smart makes him look smarter, happens to most popular smart people, shapiro, peterson, musk - my guess is he's not a trip in disguise or anything

[Anonymous No.11485464]

>>11485445
he's right though

[Anonymous No.11485471]

>>11485445
>shapiro, peterson, musk

[Anonymous No.11485473]

>>11485464
in your opinion you mean

[Anonymous No.11485493]

>>11485473
yeah and my opinion is correct

[Anonymous No.11485502]

>>11485267
nice video. subscribed.

[Anonymous No.11485522]

>>11485493
but unfortunately what you think the word opinion means isn't

[Anonymous No.11485525]

>>11485522
gotem

[Anonymous No.11485529]

>>11485525
thanks mate

[Anonymous No.11485542]

>>11481840
>Also how is pic related wrong?

Value axioms aren't the same as mathematical axioms.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that it is impossible to prove specific axioms within a closed mathematical system. Which has nothing to do with god, and more to do with fundamental mathematical presuppositions.

It's easily stated like this: "In any formal mathematical system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system."

[Anonymous No.11485575]

Here's the problem: Peterson is not a philosopher. The philosophical spirit is that of one who questions. Peterson questions up to a point, but often relies on common sense so as not to continue his inquiry. This is not 'bad', it's just who he is.

[Anonymous No.11485596]

>>11485575
it is bad the way he's presenting it

[Anonymous No.11485621]

Can't we all just admit to the fact that Peterson is old news, which is why you guys now hate him?

You can literally peruse the /lit/ archives and find mountains of positive talk about him before he got famous/infamous.

The reality is that once something becomes mainstream, you guys start hating it for no reason.

[Anonymous No.11485626]

>>11485621
okay, pete

[Anonymous No.11485636]

>>11485621
He was pretty well talked about at the beginning of his fame too. Most of the hate just arose out of the increasingly large and obnoxious fanbase and the way he treated them.

[Anonymous No.11485664]

>>11485445
i meant the girl

[Anonymous No.11485665]

>>11479712
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p764TYnG32UuV8yluGPnjYkXeyGq5CHwxMkZM8ne8Ug/edit?usp=sharing
At last, /lit/ has done something interesting since The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra times.

[Anonymous No.11485667]

>>11485664
hue

[Anonymous No.11485836]

>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p764TYnG32UuV8yluGPnjYkXeyGq5CHwxMkZM8ne8Ug/edit?usp=sharing
Proof that /lit/ does not have a single worthy criticism of Peterson.

[Anonymous No.11485860]

>>11485836
gotem

[Anonymous No.11485913]

>>11485836
*sn

[Anonymous No.11485932]

>>11485002
>Violence (not as self-defense) is when political activity of any sort goes too far.

Politics is violence. A new party comes into power and changes the rules, enforced by the state. It's always violence. It's only vaguely considered as normalized violence because there is an agreed upon institutional process for deciding who's political violence is given the monopoly within the territory. When two sides disagree severely but also maintain that they are a part of the same polity, the institutional process begins to be questioned. The electoral system and constitution is just supposed to be an objective, impartial arbiter for this back and forth. The constituents are starting to question its impartiality because they loath each other so much, when at a certain point it's probably the case that the real "peaceful" solution is a hard split. I think the right wing is a little more amenable to that than the left, but only because their ideology is more insular by nature. They often want to have their society-as-nature-reserve, though sometimes the bounds of that nature reserve necessitate violence because they feel like their rightful clay was stolen from them or whatever. The left is more universal, and it sees people in other countries living under certain conditions to be oppressed. Though that isn't really a rule. The left also would like to just absolve themselves of the headache of dealing with the right wing in this country. But they're more likely, I think, to look over the wall and say, "those people are trapped in that hell hole. We have an obligation to do something".

[Anonymous No.11486222]

>>11481840
Jung is essential to his argument because archetypes are sufficiently elastic that they can account for whatever he wants/are "narrative". Jung is inessential for his understanding of what is at stake and his corresponding premises.

Peterson's whole shtick in maps of meaning is that the fact/value distinction is not just an artifact of interpretative sociology but is real and corresponds to the Is-ought problem.

What people have forgot in the modern era, are narrative facts which bridge the is-ought by way of carrying an implication for action by dint of narrative structure. The disenchantment of the world, moral confusion, purposelessness -these are all due to our lack of narrative facts which constitute meaning in the world.

Peterson is trying to restore that sense of meaning to our rational, modern minds. Jung plus a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory is how he proposes to do that.

Peterson doesn't think we can keep faith with our preferences as preferences and so he tries to build his argument in such a way that if you accept it his preferences become facts. He thus retreads a bunch of contemporary philosophy.

There are a bunch of tiresome diagrams and inane order-chaos stuff that I wont bother you with.

Maps of meaning sucks. If you're drawn to Peterson because you dislike Post-modernism/nihilism (however you stupidly define them) read Stanley Rosen (Nihilism, Hermeneutics as Politics, Limits of Analysis). If you're drawn to Peterson because you're a virgin loser, go to bars and learn to talk to people or read RD Laing (because if you're drawn to Peterson you aren't smart enough to realize how dumb Laing is). If you're drawn to Peterson because he gives voice to reactionary impulses you have try Paul Gottfried (After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of guilt).

[Anonymous No.11486242]

>>11486222
>narrative facts which constitute meaning in the world.
wut

[Anonymous No.11486816]

>>11486242
JP means something like tropes. Tropes allow you to think in terms of story-meaning, which by virtue of narrative structure, beginning-middle-end, guides you to what's next.

That's why he is always going on about the devouring mother or conquering hero. What you're supposed to do is *clear* in a given situation when you think in tropes. Why we should think in tropes, or more specifically why JP's tropes, are things he cannot answer except by emphasizing their "age", "deep structure", etc.

JP's exulting of the individual mostly just functions to obfuscate that for him the individual is only meaningful insofar as they reproduce external, narrative (archetypal) structures.

I'm not a fan.

[Anonymous No.11486911]

>>11481937
Are you actually implying that lateral thinking is inherently embarrassing?

[Anonymous No.11486932]

>>11485174
>Okay, has Peterson proposed something as an analogue?
My guess is that it's something to do about subjective trauma (ex. microaggression) as opposed to objective trauma (segregation)

[Anonymous No.11486934]

Has Peterson read Spinoza? Kant? Does he even know who Hegel is?