/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15477881]

So what's the consensus on him?

[Anonymous No.15478002]

I like his videos on psychology

[Anonymous No.15478012]

>>15477881
based and overpilled

[Anonymous No.15478013]

Some dude who talks about Jung and Nietzsche and shit and got super popular because Canada tried to go full retard with a law.
He's an educator who educates the uneducated and serves as a stepping stone or an introductory piece for those who want to dive into primary texts.
The rabid hate mongers are fags, the people who treat him like Jesus are also fags.
He's just some dude who wants to educate, and he's pretty bloody good at it, bucko.

[Anonymous No.15478027]

Looking for the consensus is pathetic. Determine your own opinions about him you retarded sheeple.

[Anonymous No.15478035]

>>15478013
basically this, a shame he is too attached to a specific cult to realize the real foundation of our society is underneath the religious trappings, not the trappings themselves

[Anonymous No.15478036]

He destroyed the left so the CIA took him down.

[Anonymous No.15478088]

>>15478035
True, but I think he addresses this. He talks about pre-Christian mythology a lot, isn't a Christian and I think is trying to create a synthesis from the Thesis of Christianity and the Antithesis of the "hurr religion dumb" crowd. He's very heavily influenced by Jung. You've probably seen the Drake meme of what Freud and Jung said about religion floating around that explains what his basic message about religion is.

[Anonymous No.15478091]

>>15477881
He's based. Maps of Meaning is a great book.

[Anonymous No.15478119]

>>15478036
This nigga knows

[Anonymous No.15478143]

[Anonymous No.15478257]

>>15477881

Must we have daily threads on this pseudo-intellectual nobody?

[Anonymous No.15478312]

I was listening to this guy and I realise now what the problem is.

Basically, Peterson doesn't produce any signal when he's talking, just noise. He will quote a single line from an author like Nietzsche, or a scene from a movie, or a tale from the Bible, and then spend the next hour embellishing the quote or story and trying to make it sound profound but of course all of the ideas are completely unrelated to the original thing, he's just used it as a sort of starting point - an excuse to let him waffle on for hours and hours repeating the same two or three ideas. Like for instance he talks about communism a lot but it turns out he hasn't actually read any Marx (other than the manifesto) and most of his points are just reiterating the same criticism of communism you learn in high school, except it takes him 45 minutes. And this isn't about what his views are - even if you're conservative and agree with him on his free market views it's still embarrassing how little he actually understands capitalism, again, restating simple benefits we all heard when we were 12. I do wonder what it is that makes people want to listen to him. Maybe it's because the ideas are simple enough for everybody to comprehend, but expressed in fancy enough words to make people think they're complex.

[Anonymous No.15478376]

>>15478312
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, eh?

[Anonymous No.15478384]

>>15477881
Uninspiring motivational speaker
Toxic fanbase

[Anonymous No.15478598]

>>15478312
It's weird when he lectures about Lion King and analyzes every little detail and makes up symbolisms. There's no way the writers or animators put that much symbolism and thought in it. But you can make analyzises like that about anything, even a Pepsi commercial, to state your own opinions by just making up bullshit. So it's just bullshit, following his method, you could make any movie you like, and make any conclusions you want about life. I can make a film about an Indina pooping in a basket, and somehow argue that women shouldn't have the right to vote. I don't understand why he wastes his students time on that.

[Anonymous No.15478607]

>>15478013
>Canada tried to go full retard with a law
No. It was just that Peterson decided to go full retard in discussing a staid, even boring law because he knew he could use that newfound audience to buy him a new house.

[Anonymous No.15478612]

>>15478013
>got super popular because Canada tried to go full retard with a law
You mean got super popular because he completely misrepresented a literally-nothing change to law.

[Anonymous No.15478626]

>>15478598
High-school atheist tier critique. The man is a psychologist, and a Jungain to boot. Have you not heard of the subconscious?

[Anonymous No.15478635]

>>15478312
The chapters of his books read like bad Loren Eiseley larp. He uses similar rhetorical techniques (e.g. as you say, using a particular situation to explain a general or otherwise related idea), but he does so so poorly, that by the end of a chapter, nothing feels connected to anything else. He needs a far more commanding editor. It also doesn't help that he rarely knows anything about the subjects he's riffing on, but even if he did, his terrible prose would still hold him back.

[Anonymous No.15478644]

>>15478598
>There's no way the writers or animators put that much symbolism and thought in it
>So it's just bullshit
what is intentional fallacy?
just because they didn't intend something doesn't mean it isn't there to be analysed. especially with psychoanalysis, which is related to the unconscious... cmon mate you are better than this

[Anonymous No.15478650]

>>15478626
Instead of name-dropping you can try to counterargue what I wrote.

[Anonymous No.15478653]

>>15478312
All you're really saying is that he's a good rhetorician.

[Anonymous No.15478659]

>>15478644
That means you can analyze the back of a ceral box the same way tho

[Anonymous No.15478668]

>>15478659
Sure, why not?

[Anonymous No.15478671]

>>15478659
Have you never seen Barthes' Mythologies?

[Anonymous No.15478673]

>>15478650
He did, and you'd know that if you knew anything about the subject.

[Anonymous No.15478683]

>>15478668
How much do you learn about psychology from doing that?

[Anonymous No.15478687]

>>15478650
Subconscious forces exist. They inform everything we do and can be mined and interpreted.

[Anonymous No.15478685]

>>15478659
>>15478671
Never mind Barthes. Have you never conducted a formalist ("on the text matters") analysis in a literature class? Peterson isn't doing anything out of the ordinary.

[Anonymous No.15478691]

>>15478683
Depends on the cereal box.

[Anonymous No.15478692]

>>15478687
Farting is a subconscious force

[Anonymous No.15478694]

>>15478659
Yes, no shit.

[Anonymous No.15478710]

>>15478692
My wife turns it into a conscious force.

[Anonymous No.15478712]

Peterson is a hack because what he says is not falsifiable or empirically verifiable and thus not scientific. Listen to his debate with Sam Harris where he tries to deny that scientific reality is objective reality. He's a hack.

[Anonymous No.15478718]

>>15478685
Analyzing litterature is fine, and you can find meaning that was not part of the authors intention. That's okay. But using it to say the world is like this, society is like that is absurd. Because anyone can interpret the text different. And the world can be opposing things. And you can write a story that intentionally can be interpreted some way, but it won't change how things really are objectively.
I can read the back of a cereal box and claim something about people but it doesn't make it true

[Anonymous No.15478723]

>>15478626
Too bad Jung was a total hack who purposely veiled all his theories in mysticism to avoid ever having to actually prove anything

[Anonymous No.15478728]

>>15478718
maybe psychology is even more of a bullshit science than I thought.

[Anonymous No.15478732]

>>15478718
That's nice and all but the kind of analysis you're complaining about Peterson doing is literally something you start being taught how to do in like fucking middle school. It's an incredibly common way of interacting with a text.

[Anonymous No.15478733]

>>15478718
>But using it to say the world is like this, society is like that is absurd.
Not if you're a Jungian psychologist; which he happens to be. Now you may think Jungian psychology is nonsense, but the man is being intellectually consistent.

[Anonymous No.15478742]

>>15478723
He proved a bunch of stuff. Just not with science.

[Anonymous No.15478744]

>>15478650

He did counter argue, Jungian is referencing a well known theory in a well known field, not the man behind it. If someone says Freudian you don't ask what the person means because it's understood, unless you're young and don't know.

[Anonymous No.15478751]

>>15478718
Numerous claims that get made are impossible to prove empirically. Only a strict empiricist would deem such claims unimportant (and, if you are such a person, I suspect you apply this metric unevenly).

[Anonymous No.15478755]

>>15478723
t. STEM faggot who doesn't understand the basics of empiricism

[Anonymous No.15478763]

>>15478718
>but it won't change how things really are objectively.
How can you people say that Peterson is reddit when his haters are saying garbage like this? lmao

[Anonymous No.15478769]

>>15478751
No, I agree

[Anonymous No.15478788]

>>15477881
Nobody's perfect. I like his work on psychology and Maps of Meaning.

[Anonymous No.15478791]

>>15478763
great argument

[Anonymous No.15478793]

>ITT people who are utterly clueless about psychology and philosophy, who don't even know what Jungian means, try to discredit a man in the field of psychology and philosophy
It's all so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.15478807]

>>15478769
It didn't seem like it. That said, I agree that reading a single text and trying to extrapolate its meanings, hidden or explicit, conscious or unconscious, out to a population or a whole culture isn't a sustainable venture. However, Peterson is something of a structuralist; he's not looking at single texts, but relating a given text to a host of texts whose meanings have been analyzed within the context of a particular framework to argue said text is another example of whatever. We can argue about the validity of that greater project (in fact, we should), but you didn't appear to be doing that.

[Anonymous No.15478810]

>>15478793
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn1ycjB5w-M

[Anonymous No.15478813]

>>15478793


So don't bump the thread you sensitive faggot, there's 10 pages of other things.

[Anonymous No.15478814]

>>15478793
Jungianism isn't scientific. It doesn't interact with objective reality and there's no point studying it so you can't blame us for not knowing what it means.

[Anonymous No.15478816]

>>15478793
>people
A single person.

[Anonymous No.15478820]

>>15478810
Sam Harris doesn't know what a mythological motif is apparently.

[Anonymous No.15478824]

>>15478791
Wasn't trying to argue, rather just take a shit on you (which I did, successfully).

[Anonymous No.15478828]

>>15478814
>It doesn't interact with objective reality
>there's no point studying it
Setting aside the veracity of these statements, are these clauses supposed to be coordinated? It sort've feels like you intend the latter to be subordinated to (maybe even caused by) the former, but you write so imprecisely that I can't tell.

[Anonymous No.15478835]

>>15478820
Sam Harris doesn't know much about lots of things.

[Anonymous No.15478838]

More like Choden Penisen lmao

[Anonymous No.15478841]

>>15478828
Why would I study something that isn't objective (scientific)?

[Anonymous No.15478848]

>>15478841
Because you're not an inanimate fucking object.

[Anonymous No.15478867]

>>15478848
Science is objective. Jungianism is not.

[Anonymous No.15478874]

>>15478807
I'm just saying it's absurd to be claiming truths from how you interpreted a text, perhaps just looking for conformation in what you already believe, that can be interpreted in many different and even opposing ways by other people.

Reading a book, interpreting what the author means and thinking 'hm that's interesting' and reflecting on it, I do that all the time. But just making up some crap and saying this is how the world is, that doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.15478878]

>>15478841
>Thinks the scientific method is the only method of gaining knowledge about reality
>Thinks that the scientific method is the same as objectivity
I hate psychoanalysis as much as the next guy, but you're operating on a much lower level than Mr. Peterson.

[Anonymous No.15478882]

>>15478841
>>15478867
>>15478814

Please read Kant and stop spewing ignorant shit like this. It makes me cringe beyond your imagination

[Anonymous No.15478883]

>>15478013
>likes nietzsche
>likes christianity

the absolute state of sklavenmoral

[Anonymous No.15478886]

>>15478874
The tropes that Peterson points out are universal across both time and space. He's literally not making things up with that stuff.

[Anonymous No.15478896]

>>15478841
I don't know. That's for you to answer. Not that I find you particularly forthwith about answering questions. That said, science is not wholly objective. Its subject is, and it's mode of inquiry is as objective a process as humans can make, but scientists also treat in ideas and opinions. They have to. They have to create narrative from data, and while each may wholly strive for objectivity in this task, they can merely strive.

[Anonymous No.15478900]

>>15478882
I wouldn't let an obvious troll (even by /lit/ standards) rustle you.

[Anonymous No.15478903]

>>15478874
>it's absurd to be claiming truths from how you interpreted a text
It's not if you're operating from within an epistemological framework that claims that truth can be found in stories. For Peterson this framework is Jungian psychology.

[Anonymous No.15478912]

>>15478900
He probably is, but the sad part is he's not even that unbelievable, not in skill, but the viewpoint he's putting across. It's irritatingly common.

[Anonymous No.15478914]

>>15478882
Kant is outdated. Einstein and non-euclidean geometry proved him wrong.
>>15478896
>it's mode of inquiry is as objective a process as humans can make
Exactly. That's why all other means of gaining knowledge should be subservient to it.

[Anonymous No.15478918]

>>15478903
I don't know about his framework but it sounds like bullshit to me. saying something is true ((Because)) it happened in Lion King is different from seing something happening in Lion King and then using logic to argue whether that thing is true or not.

[Anonymous No.15478926]

>>15478918
>I don't know about his framework
Maybe you should read about it, then.

[Anonymous No.15478930]

>>15478912
it's why it is annoying to argue with many people, for instance sciencefags or libtards who newly have attended university, who will just ask for sources.

[Anonymous No.15478932]

>>15478926
If the framework involves what I wrote later in that post, it's garbage

[Anonymous No.15478938]

>>15478932
No, it isn't. If you'd read about, you'd know.

[Anonymous No.15478945]

>>15478874
But any empirical data can be interpreted in different and opposing ways. Peterson takes a symbol from pop culture and argues that symbol means a particular thing, maybe even something for a culture or all cultures, and you bristle at his process. However, you look at data collected in the course of your study, and argue these data mean a particular thing, maybe even something to a general principle or population, and you don't see the people who bristle at your analysis. Maybe your data are bad. Maybe your analyses are. Maybe that's true of Peterson's work too. The solution isn't to throw the whole mode of inquiry out. I mean, we can do that too, but maybe understand what you're critiquing first.

[Anonymous No.15478958]

>>15478912
Guys like this appear in every Peterson thread. He makes the rational/atheist/scientist types seethe like nothing else.

[Anonymous No.15478964]

>>15478607
good. citizens that go out of their way to get involved in politics for ideological reasons deserve a new house.

[Anonymous No.15478967]

>>15478930
DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT?

[Anonymous No.15478980]

>>15478945
saying something is true ((Because)) it happened in Lion King is different from seing something happening in Lion King and then using logic to argue whether that thing is true or not.

When using data to make conclusions, you often use p-values and need to have awareness about internal and external validity of the test.

[Anonymous No.15478983]

>>15478914
>Exactly. That's why all other means of gaining knowledge should be subservient to it.
I wish you'd read everything I wrote. I get that you're just trolling, but still. Anyway, I persist: not all knowledge can be gained empirically. Against the vast horizon of potential knowledge, I suspect vanishingly little actually can be. Even were I wrong, the unsettling fact of observation always already embeds subjectivity into the process. That's why I phrased my thoughts on the scientific method as I did. It's not objective, but it's our best current system for pursuing objectivity, which can only ever be a promise.

There's value in striving, when it works, but its not the only tool in the chest. It's not even always the best one.

[Anonymous No.15478988]

>>15478930
Asking for sources is fine, even if the one asking won't do much with a given source.

[Anonymous No.15479008]

>>15478626
>the man is a psychologist
>the man follows a pseudoscience that for decades has been used to obfuscate away from the study of behavioural biology and neuroscience that would give a more accurate description of human behaviour than what some old Jews said
>this somehow makes his insights trustworthy
Why do Peterson-fags do nothing but appeal to authority? Is it because they cannot think for themselves so worship the first not completely awful academic they see to form their opinions around? Yes it is.

[Anonymous No.15479009]

>>15478988
not for things you can't show empirically

[Anonymous No.15479019]

>>15478983
So if you're trying to determine the truth of something, and you had to choose between science and Jungianism, what would you pick? I know what my answer would be.

[Anonymous No.15479021]

>>15478980
The longer we go on, the less certain I am that you have any particular quibble about Peterson's project outside of some vague distrust of what you think isn't scientific (and therefore not rigorous, empirical, true, etc.), and I can't be bothered to care. I don't even care about Peterson. I think he's a poor writer and thinker. If you have a substantive critique of comparative literature studies or formalism or Jungian archetypes or epistemology outside empiricism, I suppose I may entertain it, but I suspect you don't.

[Anonymous No.15479023]

>>15479008
>appeal to authority
Fallacy fallacy! Not very logical of you. And as a matter of fact, quite pseudoscientific too.

[Anonymous No.15479027]

>>15479009
don't be overly literal. asking for a source is tantamount to asking for a reason. the question can be satisfied by explaining what warrants belief in the controversial statement.

[Anonymous No.15479035]

>>15477881
He's a pseud who it idolized by incels and other losers for giving the most basic advice with an air of mysticism. "Don't look at it as 'cleaning your room', you're really fighting back the dragon of chaos by bringing order into the world, bucko!". He also just believes some genuinely retarded shit which is really funny to read about. He's an intellectual nobody and will soon be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.15479037]

>>15479008
Thinking for yourself and consulting your own mind is exactly the thing that leads to you realizing that blindly following objectivity and the words of biologists on a matter as complex as the human psyche is a fool's errand.
>what some old Jews said
I know what you're referencing, and Jungian psychology is the complete opposite of that kind of psychology. That kind of psychology, funnily enough, is the kind of psychology that the authority you're appealing to supports.

[Anonymous No.15479039]

>>15479019
It depends on the matter. If you're trying to figure out how to launch a space shuttle, science, if you're trying to figure out the deep complexities of the human psyche, Jungianism.

[Anonymous No.15479046]

>>15479027
I would be okay with that being the case. However, people, pseuds, want sources, empiri, or some authoroty figure claiming something orelse your argument is not valid.

[Anonymous No.15479051]

>>15479019
>>15479039
But, even with the space shuttle there has to be some sort of intuitive light bulb that goes off in a person's head to get to the point of figuring out the rest through 'objective' means. Same with psychoanalysis, you can use 'objective means' there too. Why gimp yourself and limit the tools at your disposal? We have inttuition for a reason.

[Anonymous No.15479053]

>>15479023
People asked petersonfags to prove his logic was sound and all he said was
>he’s a smart serious psychologist
You didn’t answer anyone’s question and doubling down on not answering is mentally retarded.
Appeal to authority is the only fallacy that matters because pretending to be smart by relying on somebody else’s worldview is the refuge of NPC bugmen like those who demand a source for literally everything

[Anonymous No.15479056]

>>15479021
He's holding lectures about Lion King for psychology students. Backing his truths with 'it happened in Lion King' is dumb.

[Anonymous No.15479057]

>>15479019
I don't think you can properly separate science from Jungian analysis. Certainly Jungian analysis isn't strictly empirical, but I suspect it does make use of observational data. This feels true regarding numerous analytical frameworks. I'm beginning to wonder if you know quite what science is.

[Anonymous No.15479062]

>>15479046
such people are not fully aware on their own doxastic practices. if you can clearly articulate their vague intuitions they will thank you.

[Anonymous No.15479067]

>>15479046
That's largely because the arguments being made ought to have empirical bases.

[Anonymous No.15479068]

>>15479053
Do anti-Peterson fags like you lack reading comprehension? >>15478626 wasn't appealing to authority, he was simply explaining why Peterson holds the epistemology he does; he believes in subconscious forces, he's quite literally psychologist.

[Anonymous No.15479076]

>>15479067
this is ex hypothesi impossible "for things you can't show empirically">>15479009

[Anonymous No.15479080]

>>15479053
>Appeal to authority is the only fallacy that matters
And did you come up with this argument all by yourself? Or did you inherit it from somewhere/someone? An authority, one might say.

[Anonymous No.15479085]

>>15479056
Oh for fuck's sake. Using a pop culture example, that follows a tale as old as time, to talk about psychology, symbolism, and mythology is completely reasonable you obtuse twit.

[Anonymous No.15479087]

>>15477881

His Biblical lectures interesting. His takes on Jung are trash. He speaks 'wisdom' that was common sense 50 years ago, but forgotten today because of comfy Western liberal capitalist democracy.

[Anonymous No.15479088]

>>15479056
You need to speak with greater granularity if you're going to keep bringing up this lecture. You've been so vague I sort've don't believe your example is an actual example.

If he justifying ideas from psychology with evidence from the Lion King? Is he merely stating what occurs in the plot? Is he discussing what various imagery may mean to our culture based on what that imagery arguably means in other cultures? Do you see how utterly incomprehensible your complaint about this Lion King lecture is?

[Anonymous No.15479090]

good psychologist, bad philosopher, simple as

[Anonymous No.15479094]

>>15479068
this is question begging, in the rhetorical sense. the obvious next question is "why be a psychologist then?". do not answer questions in a way that predictably creates a new question. answer questions to terminate the query, not multiply it. this is a rhetorical mistake.

[Anonymous No.15479107]

>>15479090
>psychologist
>good

[Anonymous No.15479114]

>>15479088
lion king fanboy detected

[Anonymous No.15479120]

>>15479094
You too, are begging the question. That being, "why is the question of "why be a psychologist then?" even relevant ?" This is a rhetorical mistake.

[Anonymous No.15479136]

>>15477881
strangest thing about him, but he's never really interested me, is whether you can really combine genetic reductionist ideas (as he does) with Jung's occult ideas. does that make any sense?

[Anonymous No.15479137]

>>15479094
This isn't begging the question, which is, rhetorically and logically, a statement whose premise requires the conclusion to be true.

[Anonymous No.15479139]

>>15479120
if/since you attempt to answer the question, then you operate as if it's relevant. if/when answering questions, there is a way of doing it badly. our posts are disanalogous for the basic reason that i said the truth.

[Anonymous No.15479140]

>>15479107
there there schizo kid

[Anonymous No.15479147]

>>15479137
i specified the exact sense of the term in order to preemptively clarify this exact ambiguity. you are now aware that my usage is common sense of the term in philosophy. consider yourself schooled.

[Anonymous No.15479170]

>>15479139
In responding to my question, you have operated as if it is relevant. As as result, our posts have achieved retroactive analogy. I therefore repeat: why is the question of "why be a psychologist then?" even relevant?

[Anonymous No.15479216]

>>15479107
i think psychology is bullshit but he makes the most of it.

[Anonymous No.15479226]

>>15479170
i fundamentally don't understand why you think our posts are analogous. either my criticism of your style of answering a question is merited on the grounds of some evaluative standard (i.e rhetoric) that we both accept, or it isn't. your objection isn't substantive, it's pure butthurt.
i don't even understand why you now wish to draw this irrelevant(by my lights) analogy between our posts. when i said >>15479137 is and >>15479094 are disanalogous, i meant specifically with respect to your attempt at parodying my post. in order to successfully parody, you need to show that my own post's logic can be applied to criticized my post. my post contains exclusively the aforementioned criticism. i have difficulty seeing your point.

>why is the question of "why be a psychologist then?" even relevant?
i answer this purely for sake of not evading a question, but i think this is irrelevant for reasons mentioned above. any question -asked honestly- is relevant to the interests of the person asking it, and it's this sense of "relevancy" that is (and should be) important for discussions of any sort, because discussions are fundamentally about satisfying our desire for clarity.

[Anonymous No.15479228]

>>15479090
not too bad at mixing philosophy into psychology, it's when he goes pure philosophy/politics that it is a bit retarded

[Anonymous No.15479242]

>>15479226
I'm going to ignore all this faffery and get to the meat of the argument because this is such a load of argument subverting trash.
Anon 1 said Peterson's lion King lecture was shit. Didn't give any details like >>15479021
this guy put so eloquently. His post was so vague there was nothing even to latch onto to criticise.
So, anon 2 said he was doing a Jungian analysis. Anon 1 proceeded to be a big dumb faggot and spout shit like "appeal to authority" "NPC bugmen" etc. etc. when, despite what you're claiming about question begging, blah, blah, his flimsy as all shit "critique" was refuted by that simple post of pointing out it was a Jungian analysis.
If you want to have an actually substantive argument instead of this logician "no you're not arguing right!" childishness then, by all means, state your case, but right now this is utter crap just like Anon 1's initial post.

[Anonymous No.15479243]

>>15479226
>i fundamentally don't understand why you think our posts are analogous.
Your cognitive deficiencies are not my responsibility.

[Anonymous No.15479246]

I hate Canada so much

[Anonymous No.15479251]

>>15479242
Thanks for cutting through the crap, anon. I think this anon >>15479226 is literally autistic.

[Anonymous No.15479255]

>>15479170
wait i think get it now. you're trying to play some retarded infinite regress argument. your next question will surely be "why is satisfying our desire for clarity relevant?"
and you think this is analogous to my criticism because you think my criticism amounts to an unreasonable expectation from you to recursively answer an infinite regress of follow-up questions or else you aren't "properly" answering the question.

[Anonymous No.15479264]

>>15479255
No, anon. You don't get it at all. See this kind anon's post >>15479242

[Anonymous No.15479272]

>>15479242
>>15479251
i'm sorry i didn't realize following rabbit holes as they arise in a conversation is subversive trash. or maybe it's ok but i shouldn't try to put in any effort because that makes me look autistic. i'll try to stick to the topic of the thread in the future and just repress my desire to engage in an argument when tertiary claims are in dispute.

[Anonymous No.15479286]

>>15479272
Putting effort in is fine; religious devotion to classical logic and rhetoric on the other hand is autistic.

[Anonymous No.15479290]

>>15479272
I addressed this.
>despite what you're claiming about question begging, blah, blah, his flimsy as all shit "critique" was refuted by that simple post of pointing out it was a Jungian analysis
If you were paying any attention you would've realized that.

>i'm sorry i didn't realize following rabbit holes as they arise in a conversation is subversive trash
you already reached the end of that very shallow rabbit hole but kept digging anyway, you can then claim, if you want, that continuing to dig should always be strived for! That's just good science! but might I point out the cliff that you're headed straight towards.

[Anonymous No.15479336]

>>15479286
just shut up with this nonsense. it was a minor point on rhetoric, and it is correct. i literally laid my hands off the "meaty argument", your precious discussion should not be threatened by my post in the slightest.

>>15479290
>"critique" was refuted by that simple post of pointing out it was a Jungian analysis
read carefully and pay the fuck attention. my post quotes >>15479068, which goes
> >>15478626 wasn't appealing to authority, he was simply explaining why Peterson holds the epistemology he does; he believes in subconscious forces, he's quite literally psychologist.
others itt have read this post as saying: because peterson is a psychologist, we should criticize his work in the way that psychology is criticized in psychology, by accepting the premises of psychology, in the way that psychologists do when they criticize each other.
and then they went and criticized it by saying it appeals to authority and what not.

i, am wise. i did not do this. instead i pointed out that: if someone is confused by why peterson believes the things he does, it is an unsatisfying answer to tell this person "he's a psychologist. this is what those people believe.". you should be able to predict ahead of time that a person who does not understand why a psychologist believes the things that psychologists believe, then he will also not understand why psychologists believe the things that psychologists believe, because this person is not well versed in psychology. this is all. the rest of the reply chain followed from this...

[Anonymous No.15479375]

>>15479336
>it is an unsatisfying answer to tell this person "he's a psychologist. this is what those people believe.". you should be able to predict ahead of time that a person who does not understand why a psychologist believes the things that psychologists believe, then he will also not understand why psychologists believe the things that psychologists believe, because this person is not well versed in psychology.
No. This is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.15479385]

>>15479375
ok. then it is fucking stupid. there you go, i deleted my post to make you happy. i'm a stupid retard. stupid retard goes sleep sleep. bye bye

[Anonymous No.15479398]

>>15479336
If a person feels qualified to critique a psychologist they should have the very reasonable expectation of knowing a little thing or two about psychology/the psychologist placed on them. If that person is ignorant in the field they should've shut the fuck up.
Later in the thread it was explained to the anon, but he persisted, but, that's beside your point.
So, is it "not 100% logically sound in the most pedantic of ways to expect someone to know about psychology" Sure, but is the same true given the context? Not really, since he felt qualified to critique a psychologist he should at least know a thing or two about the thing he is critiquing. Could people have been nicer and explained things to him? Sure, but given the context of being on 4chan and all that isn't exactly being realistic.
Your complaint with the 'logic' isn't necessarily faulty, but, only if you completely ignore both context and reality, I'll make the stretch of all stretches and give you that.
>>15479385
In a world that doesn't exist it makes sense. At least there's that.

[Anonymous No.15479410]

>>15479216
how can it be bullshit tho? we have classes of mental illnesses that fit thousands of people

[Anonymous No.15479413]

>>15479242
No man, I'm the lion king anon, there are some other anons saying those other things

[Anonymous No.15479417]

>>15479385
Lmao. I think you knew why it was stupid. Lying at the bottom of any successive chain of "Why?"s is inexorably an arbitrarily defined axiom -- an expression of pure will. There is no "gotcha" to be had there though.

[Anonymous No.15479426]

>>15479413
I'm gonna need you to elaborate here

[Anonymous No.15479670]

is he really a vegetable now?

[Anonymous No.15479782]

>>15478712

>le positivism

no.

[Anonymous No.15479884]

>>15479417
i have awoken. this post must be why i couldn't sleep and had to return. i felt a strange calling. i must cleanse myself from the disharmony contained in your post by replying. this isn't personal.

if you ask me "what is x?", and i answer "y", sometimes this is a bullshit answer.
it is not bullshit because "y" fails to solve the grounding problem, no, solving the grounding problem is trivial but karma prevents me from handing over the neat solutions. instead, it is bullshit because the explanation for "y" is the same as, or trivially different from, the explanation for "x". so if one lacks the explanation of "x" they will also lack the explanation of "y", and will not understand the answer.

"y" then, does not explain "x". if one purports to explain "x" by giving "y", one is thereby, bullshitting. if the act of giving "y" to explain "x" consists of bullshitting, and if it is also giving an explanation, then it is an of bullshitting and giving an explanation, or a bullshit explanation. a bullshit explanation given as an answer to a question is a bullshit answer.

here is an example:
black: hello, smith. what is the good?
smith: good afternoon, black. the good is that which is fine
black: what is fine then?
smith: what is fine is that which pleases us and pleases the gods
black: i know what pleases me, smith, but what pleases the gods?
smith: the gods find pleasing that which is glorious
black: what is glorious then?
smith: what glorious is that which resembles the gods
black: what is the nature of the gods then?
smith: the nature of the gods is perfection
black: what is perfection then?
smith: perfection is that which can only exist in the mind.
black: what is that which can only exist in the mind then?
smith: it cannot be described, but understood through meditation, for it only exists in the mind.
black: what is meditation then?
smith: meditation is recognition
black: what is recognition then?
smith: recognition is that which occurs when one recognizes.
black: but i recognize things all the time, smith! are you telling me i meditate all the time?
smith: indeed, black, you recognize things by understanding them in the same way you understand perfection. and the more perfect they are, the more they resemble perfection, the more clearly you understand them, and so they are easier to recognize.
black: is meditation then, seeking to understand that which is easy to recognize?
smith: just so.
black: is understanding glorious then, because it resembles the gods?
smith: so it is, black.
black: is understanding pleasing then, because it is glorious?
smith: indeed it is, black.
black: do we want that which is fine, then, because it is pleasing?
smith: you understand it well, black. and we call it good.

[Anonymous No.15479922]

>>15478013
Fag centrist fuck off. JBP was a philistine exactly like Nietzsche described Strauss in his Untimely Meditations. In the past tense because the present is a fucking drooling vegetable — and that's a good thing!
Well, not that Zizek didn't already bury him.

[Anonymous No.15479960]

>>15479417
also, i retroactively refuted you in this >>15479226
post when i grounded questions/discussions in "pure will" to borrow your vulgar term.
>discussions are fundamentally about satisfying our desire for clarity.

[Anonymous No.15480040]

>>15479884
>sometimes this is a bullshit answer.
Why?

[Anonymous No.15480050]

nigga made a lot of bread despite not knowing shit
can you salty wh*te bois do that?

[Anonymous No.15480055]

>>15480050
this

[Anonymous No.15480067]

>>15477881

Secretly dangerously based. Only hated because of his popularity.

[Anonymous No.15480071]

>>15480040
>"y"
>>sometimes this is a bullshit answer.
>Why?
>"y" [...] does not explain "x".
>if one purports to explain "x" by giving "y", one is thereby, bullshitting.
>a bullshit explanation given as an answer to a question is a bullshit answer.
> if the act of giving "y" to explain "x" consists of bullshitting, and if it is also giving an explanation, then it is an of bullshitting and giving an explanation, or a bullshit explanation.
>a bullshit explanation given as an answer to a question is a bullshit answer.

[Anonymous No.15480073]

stop using that retarded word

[Anonymous No.15480080]

>>15479884
You've trapped yourself in a labyrinth of your own autistic making.

[Anonymous No.15480103]

>>15478598
>There's no way the writers or animators put that much symbolism and thought in it.
for example? backup your statement. make an argument. give an example.
do you mean to say the animators at disney accidentally gave nala seductive facial expressions?

[Anonymous No.15480123]

>>15478612
Yeah pretty much this, lmao. It was literally just a hate crime a law. Like the most milquetoast shit.
>>15477881
JBP in the end is the most boring kind of grifter. This has been said a thousand times already, and will be said a thousand times again, but he just takes boring old christian rhetoric, packages it in Jungian terminology and feeds it to pseuds. He is a giant nothing burger, but I guess he got some morons to start reading which is nice. Though, it does suck to see what happened to him, I mean fuck him and his hate justifying politics, but still kind of sad.

[Anonymous No.15480191]

>>15478883
shut-quiet midwit-thing

[Anonymous No.15480224]

>>15479960
Stop saying fundamentally. It's clear you dont know how to use it

[Anonymous No.15480245]

>>15477881
His life is in the same shape as the ideology he´s defending.

[Anonymous No.15480282]

Charlatan but sometimes retards need a charlatan to tell them shit they should know already

[Anonymous No.15480360]

>>15477881
My personal pet peeve with him is the "clean your room" meme. I know it´s more of example rather than the particular case, but it still promotes the liberal notion of men x women dynamic.

It forgets that it´s women who clean and tell men to clean because women are more sensible about households and cleanliness. It´s not father-figure that should be telling men to clean, but their mother; and later on it should be their gf/wife which cleans for them and pesks them to clean. Only during bachelor phase is cleaning initiative of men and during which men have the right to enjoy living in mess. And yes, ufortunately this bachelor phase is becoming increasingly long and important stage in men´s lives; living long term in mess stops having the rough, masculine character and becomes sloppy and pathological.

This "clean your room, dude" attidute promotes idea of men and women as independent individuals instead of parts of a greater whole, the family, who are incomplete while living alone. It also masks the problem of atomization by moralization of those who can´t bear living like atoms.

[Anonymous No.15480369]

>>15480360
Kek. Kys anon

[Anonymous No.15480371]

>>15480360
Wash your penis.

[Anonymous No.15480377]

>>15480369
kiss my ass, faggot

[Anonymous No.15480383]

>>15480224
i am the only person in this thread, possibly this board, that knows how to use it. if x is grounded in y, then x is fundamentally y.

[Anonymous No.15480400]

>>15480071
Why is it bullshit though?

[Anonymous No.15480408]

>>15480383
Wow, thanks for proving to me you dont understand it

[Anonymous No.15480413]

>>15480400
you are not demonstrating what you think you are.
read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

[Anonymous No.15480554]

>>15480413
Yes, I actually am. Nice wiki article though lmao

[Anonymous No.15481557]

>>15478742
>>15478755
>he made my fefes happy therefore he proved things
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.15481579]

>>15478810
based, /lit/ will hate but this is true

[Anonymous No.15481638]

>>15478983
you miss the whole point of science, if you attempt to gain knowledge any other way, you are basically guaranteed to self deceive or be deceived by another, this is why there are billions of stringent adherents to different, mutually exclusive religions around the world. if you operate on "knowledge" systems without empiricism, you will build your belief systems on lies.

this is why religion is so easy to dunk on, there are currently billions of people with the most fervent belief that they have the truth, and they are categorically wrong, and the only basis they have is conviction/tradition/faith/feelings. it's actually kind of sad

[Anonymous No.15481646]

>>15478013
this.
>>15479922
>F-F-FUCK YOU CENTRIST
cringe

[Anonymous No.15481665]

>>15477881
his videos on psychology is pretty good but his videos on politics and philosophy not

[Anonymous No.15481715]

>>15480554
you're an actual retard. everything that i've said is completely orthogonal to foundations of knowledge. your conclusion that one can't question an individual "link" in a "successive chain of "Why?"" as you put it, is a massive logical leap. you are not even equipped to understand the amount of shit you leaped over.