Why does /lit/ hate Jordan Peterson? Has anyone ever actually read any of his works or has the /leftypol/ plague just taken too much root on /lit/?

File: 12 KB, 137x149, IMG_0583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun May 21 23:25:43 2017 No.9536883 [DELETED]

Why does /lit/ hate Jordan Peterson? Has anyone ever actually read any of his works or has the /leftypol/ plague just taken too much root on /lit/?

Anonymous Sun May 21 23:59:19 2017 No.9537039

Well, the leftists of /lit/ don't like to be reminded that they have built themselves an ideological raft out of hay.
Peterson is someone who, very publicly, points out the glaring holes in their Marxist doctrine.
Nobody likes to be told that their ideology (in the case of leftists, their life) is completely misguided. Both economically and socially.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 21 23:59:39 2017 No.9537043 You know bloody well right that we have read his works. The post modernist machine has ruined you into thinking we haven't. JUNG JUNG JUNG FATHER SAVE RELIGION GOOD MESSAGE DISNEY PROPAGANDA. He's ok

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 00:08:21 2017 No.9537093 >>9536883 >Why does /lit/ hate Jordan Peterson? because its full of college aged leftists

Anonymous Mon May 22 01:02:14 2017 No.9537365
File: 54 KB, 495x328, jordan_peterson_idiocy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9536883
Because the man is literally a pseud personified/edgy 14 year old redditor who just read the wikipedia page on postmodernism

His actual thought (see image) is completely incoherent to anyone trained in philosophy or logic; All he's good at is throwing big words together to sound deep while jacking off the vaguely contrarian intellectual pretensions of internet neckbeards

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 01:06:42 2017 No.9537384 We love him here. The only ones who hate him are the Redditors who come here because they realized that Reddit is shit.

Anonymous Mon May 22 01:11:59 2017 No.9537412

>>9536883
He isn't rigorous enough to take seriously, and his understanding of the thinkers he criticizes is shaky at best.

>>9537365 presents a great example of this. He doesn't address (or even consider) basic, obvious counterpoints, like "God isn't the only axiom a person can accept," or "God is within one's thought just like all other axioms," or "The 'unraveling' you describe isn't inherently bad."

I'd say it's
>not an argument
but it is, it's just a really poor one. The same problem manifests not only in his social media posts and lectures, but also his published "philosophy." No integrative complexity, and very little substance.

Better than Molymeme, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 01:16:26 2017 No.9537432 >>9536883 >>9537039 Probably because people like you have turned /lit/ into a political battlegrounds and not about a club of book-lovers you fucking faggot, kys.

Anonymous Mon May 22 01:56:48 2017 No.9537595

>>9536883
holy shit what does this braindead faggot have to do with literature? or philosophy? or anything /lit/ actually cares about? the fact that you come to here and unironically ask this just shows how far we've descended. you /pol/ fags prove your degeneracy and don't even try to contribute to the contrarian flare that has colored this board. you just earnestly assert your retarded idols and expect us to take them seriously. this man is not an intellectual. i know this may be surprising to someone who divides their time between weeb trash, vidya, and /pol/, but dont bring your shithead faggots into an arena where we discuss the likes of plato, aquinas, and our lord savior nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 01:59:06 2017 No.9537604 >>9537595 One day Peterson will be considered a great theological and political philosopher of our age. You. Just. Can't. Stand it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:02:11 2017 No.9537616 >>9536883 He's literally the Andy Six of /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:10:01 2017 No.9537646 >>9536883 fuckin boring and i don't care at all about sjws

Anonymous Mon May 22 02:12:27 2017 No.9537652

>>9536883
He's only famous for being against "muh pronouns" yet there are usually around five threads about him every time I come to this board. Anyone who's seriously interested in philosophy knows that these public intellectual types like Peterson and Harris are basically just bite sized faux philosophy for people who are two lazy to read and sit around watching YouTube videos all day instead exception: Zizek. Honestly, people like you who don't want to discuss literature need to fuck off to a different board.

>>9537365
>>9537412
>>9537432
>>9537595
This

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:14:13 2017 No.9537657 >>9537093 essentially this People don't like their precious marxism torn apart

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:19:55 2017 No.9537675 >>9537657 go back to your individualistic, libertarian paradise at /pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:25:40 2017 No.9537685 >>9537657 I'd be willing to bet all NEET bucks that he has never read a word of Marx. >inb4 muh manifesto

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:32:21 2017 No.9537706 >>9537365 >taught at Harvard Dur I know better

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:35:35 2017 No.9537716 >>9537675 Holy shit, you understand nothing about /pol/.

Anonymous Mon May 22 02:36:32 2017 No.9537719

>>9536883

>lit is r9k for people who don't like video games
>a small slow shitty board with some of the sites worst posters
>lots of disillusioned people who hide from reality in fantasy worlds or by pretending to read about these fantasy worlds
>Jordan Peterson overtly attacks this escapism with well thought out explanations and tested hypothesis
>it makes people uncomfortable to have their shortcomings pointed out, especially those deeply invested in escapism
>radicalized liberals try over and over to peg him as some kind of bigot despite all his thoughts and opinions clearly laid out to the contrary
>lazy unintelligent people do not like having their delusions challenged (similar to schizophrenics) and act out against him, they thoughtlessly align themselves with the false narrative against him because speaking out against that mean bigot guy gives them a cheap meaningless source of self worth and purpose

Anonymous Mon May 22 02:37:54 2017 No.9537723

It's because he's popular with middlebrow people and reactionary /pol/ users. His lectures aren't bad, and he is intelligent, but he lacks specificity and reflexivity in his philosophy and seems deeply emotional to the point of parody. I admire the attempt to revive interest in Jung, he is too easily dismissed by pretentious undergraduates and his arguments aren't examined properly. But other than that, no real use for him.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:39:36 2017 No.9537731 >>9537706 >taught at harvard >invited to harvard by student organization to talk about pronouns http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/11/peterson-talk-draws-criticism/

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:40:53 2017 No.9537738 >>9537716 yeah, /pol/ is mostly a hivemind, nothing individualistic or libertarian about it

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 02:44:27 2017 No.9537747 >>9537719 There are half a dozen well-thought-out posts itt outlining exactly what is wrong with him as a philosopher. Not everyone who disagrees with you is doing it because muh blind libruhls crying libruhl tears calling people rayciss

Anonymous Mon May 22 02:49:29 2017 No.9537757

>>9537595

i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.

Anonymous Mon May 22 02:53:50 2017 No.9537767

>>9537719
>/lit/ is a board for the discussion of literature
>threads about Jordan B. Peterson's YouTube videos regarding gender pronouns on a daily basis
>anyone who has a problem with this lives in a "fantasy world"
You somehow managed to reply to OP's incredibly stupid question with an even more stupid response. Congrats on being the stupidest person in this thread.

Anonymous Mon May 22 02:55:04 2017 No.9537771
File: 619 KB, 620x620, 1462076618808.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9536883

Like most traditionalists, he falls victim to the approach of appealing to emotion and conflating his intellect with his senses, ending up sounding too dramatic and far too out of touch with everyone else around him Ironically, in a sea of schizo's, he and other "classical" conservatives are now the odd ones out, in the sense that others can understand them, yet they fail to understand postmodernism and that it has come to stay. Easy prey for the (((leftists))) he claims to destroy, because postmodernism does not even take itself seriously enough to even acknowledge him as a threat. He fights a losing battle, whereas some of his lectures are still mildly interesting.

It is not a matter of hating him, it's just that he's simply not capable of activating anyone's almonds, and it is almost as if he only exists in order to balance out some of the sjw crowd.

The Left/Right axis of the political spectrum have stagnated for years now, and everyone is numb from all the repetition of conflict; no revolutions are going to happen anymore, and people like him are just as much of a marketing asset than people over the other side.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 03:31:31 2017 No.9537879 >>9536883 His patreon is upto $37,000 a month now. $50 of that is me.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 03:33:25 2017 No.9537891 >>9537675 >Anyone who isn't Marxist is a libertarian.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 03:36:08 2017 No.9537896 >>9536883 He wrote one book nearly 20 years ago. Does he have anything new to say?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 03:42:24 2017 No.9537922 >>9537896 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2 >117 research items Hmm. Also he wrote another one this year. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to chaos http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30257963-12-rules-for-life

Anonymous Mon May 22 03:47:09 2017 No.9537933
File: 816 KB, 1366x768, Bible HyperLinked.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Petersons new lecture on the psychological significance of the biblical stories.
He barely gets into the first few sentences of Genesis by the time he's done with the lecture and he moves on to questions 2 hours later.
Really heavy on myth, how we pass down stories, and dreams/jung.
The bible is the first hyper-linked text, with 63,000 cross references inside of it.
I didn't know about that.
pic related

Beginning he says, when he lectures he's not trying to tell people what he already knows, he views it as a learning exercise IIRC.
And he tries to have an application with his ideas, that people can use them in real life and not just abstract for the sake of abstraction

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 04:27:43 2017 No.9538017 >>9537675 >>9537716 Why are you both so fucking gay?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 04:37:35 2017 No.9538041 Because "Darwinian" epistemology isn't clever, true, or useful.

Anonymous Mon May 22 04:57:54 2017 No.9538089

>>9537731
that anon was talking about when he used to teach classes regularily in the 90's i think. it's what saddens me about these threads, in my view he is an experienced and decent academic, the things he says seem very interesting and nobody has challenged in a debate or anything to call him out on his supposed bullshit. i see some ok criticism of him itt but i wished more people here took him seriously and just discussed his ideas, without fixating the lgbt drama.

also that link you posted is bullshit, i only skimmed a couple paragraphs and it's already full of cherrypicked quotes and mislabels, fuck off

>>	sagesagesagesagesagesagesage Mon May 22 05:05:11 2017 No.9538101 GGGGGGGG WHY MUST YOU MAKE THIS THREAD JUST AFTER THE LAST ONE DIED DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GENERAL OR SOMETHING YOU COCKSUCKING FAGGOT

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 06:35:53 2017 No.9538245 STOP FUCKING POSTING ABOUT THIS CUNT NOBODY CARES

Anonymous Mon May 22 07:11:09 2017 No.9538333

>>9537595
>this man is not an intellectual.
>>9537652
>He's only famous for being against "muh pronouns
Wrong, anons.
>>9537652
>exception: Zizek. (AND PETERSON) Peterson BTFOs Zizek anyday. You can just tell Zizek is putting on an air of smelly rotten-clothing intelligentsia.

>>9538245
>NOBODY CARES
You seem to care, anon. (So do I).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 08:28:03 2017 No.9538477 >>9538041 ... But it's literally how our mind works, as he well supports in his lectures and general body of work/production.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 08:34:41 2017 No.9538487 >/leftypol/ plague there's like 4 people who post on leftypol....two of them are fascists trying to infiltrate left-wing organizations. get the fuck out. >muh jung neck yourself

Anonymous Mon May 22 08:36:23 2017 No.9538494

>>9538089
>discussed his ideas
What's to discuss? If you find his ideas profound, log off and go to church. He makes an argument that it's Bad that "God is Dead." It's not new or noteworthy. These threads garner backlash because the idiots who post about Peterson are poorly read yet arrogant.

Anonymous Mon May 22 09:06:58 2017 No.9538558

>>9537933
>bible is the first hyper-linked text

this is a retarded point because the bible is not one coherent text, it's a collection of books written over a thousand years and compiled later.

it doesn't cross reference itself, it's a bunch of different books, some of which reference earlier ones, that have been collected together centuries later.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 09:10:54 2017 No.9538565 >>9536883 Because this board is filled with trannies and Marxists. Seriously though; what's up with the disproportionate number of trannies and Marxists on /lit/? Can someone please explain?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 09:33:45 2017 No.9538627 >>9537771 he's not a conservative at all you fucking nigger

Anonymous Mon May 22 09:40:10 2017 No.9538645

>>9538494
>What's to discuss? If you find his ideas profound, log off and go to church.
you're obviously not familiar with his ideas. he does not advocate going to church and he's said himself that he does not attend. poorly informed yet arrogant indeed.

>>9538558
>it's a collection of books written over a thousand years and compiled later
why don't you actually watch what you're going to critique. he literally says that multiple times. and the bible wasn't just "compiled." it was edited, that's the point of the hyperlinking you fucking simpleton.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 09:50:00 2017 No.9538668 >>9537412 >"God isn't the only axiom a person can accept," or "God is within one's thought just like all other axioms," or "The 'unraveling' you describe isn't inherently bad." This is satire, right? Please tell me it's satire.

Anonymous Mon May 22 09:50:09 2017 No.9538669

>>9538565
board is full of humanities students and the humanities are overwhelmingly leftist.

4chan is also full of cloistered nerd faggots who prioritize systematizing over actually doing anything. it lets them feel accomplished while being useless sacks of shit that will never acquire wisdom by acting in the world. marx of course was Nerd Systematizer Prime and they all want to be like him unconsciously or consciously.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 09:52:40 2017 No.9538675 Because anything mainstream is going to be unpopular here People on this board are SMART, they know a lot of long words and obscure authors that they like to casually namedrop

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 09:55:47 2017 No.9538683 >>9538645 He's not a serious intellectual. You latch onto him because you can't afford college

Anonymous Mon May 22 09:56:08 2017 No.9538686

>>9537365
>anyone trained in philosophy or logic
you mean an "intellectual?" one of those perverse, diminutive creatures with one overgrown organ that have never done anyone any good?

why don't you actually be forthright and say what you think is wrong with what he said instead of saying "pfft anyone smart like me can tell he's wrong, don't ask me to explain why though haha."

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 09:57:47 2017 No.9538690 >>9538669 >leftist Kill yourself faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 09:58:54 2017 No.9538693 >>9538683 >serious intellectual oxymoron if there ever was one. intellectual = professional wanker. >afford kek, dummy who couldn't get a scholarship detected

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:07:17 2017 No.9538713 >>9538693 >anti-intellectual >implying he went to school If you hate intellectuals and still went to school you were probably studied STEM and didn't make friends

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:10:33 2017 No.9538727 >>9538713 >you were probably studied ha, i'm actually taking a roadtrip with some college buddies this weekend. nice projection though, mr. no friends!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:24:11 2017 No.9538758 >>9537723 >Because out of all the mothafuckin' rational animals ever to have recorded anything this asshole is somehow worth analyzing Still on the greeks ty

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:25:56 2017 No.9538765 >>9537757 tips fedora

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:28:37 2017 No.9538772 >>9538565 Have you ever been to /b/? And maybe you can find Marxists on a /lit/ board because people here read Marx before they engaged in muh-political-wing heresay.

Anonymous Mon May 22 10:29:11 2017 No.9538774

>>9538668
Axioms other than God:
>Sanctity of life
>Rational self-interest
>Honor/family/some meme like that
>Maximizing utility
>Kant's Deontology

I can't list examples of God being a thought, because there's only one, and that's
>Belief in God is a thought. This is true whether or not God actually exists.

Examples of good unraveling:
>abolition of slavery
>separation of church & state
>secular music
>stronger penalties for rape
>pedophilia is now unconditionally bad
Or do you wish you could marry & force yourself on a 13-year-old before heading off to mandatory mass?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:29:45 2017 No.9538776 >>9538669 /pol/ stemfag logic 101

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:36:01 2017 No.9538800 >>9538776 >muh /pol/ actually i was a humanities major myself, that's partially why i can say that. do you think it's untrue that most of /lit/ are or were humanities majors? and do you deny that humanities departments are left-leaning?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:40:31 2017 No.9538808 >>9538774 Jeez, this is some really high school tier reasoning. Take a philosophy 101 course or at least watch that meme Žižek. He's a hack, but he can at least tell you something insightful about god/belief. So will Peterson, actually.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 10:49:13 2017 No.9538838 >>9538800 I disagree with your logic >humanities = left = Marx

Anonymous Mon May 22 10:52:17 2017 No.9538847

>>9538808
>Show that all Peterson's points are wrong
>"This is some really high school tier reasoning"

Sniffle man's thoughts on god are basically
>religion is ebbin undialectic
>le Lacanian big other
>pure ideology ecks dee

Peterson goes to God as a solution to the grounding problem, I understand that, but there's plenty of other answers too. He'd be better off with Kant, since that'd enable him to reach all the same conclusions while still being taken semi-seriously as an intellectual.

Anonymous Mon May 22 11:01:24 2017 No.9538871

>>9538847
Sorry pal, but when you make statements like
>>Belief in God is a thought. This is true whether or not God actually exists.
It's clear that
A) you didn't watch Peterson's lectures, let alone read his books
and
B) your philosophy (and psychology) skills don't go past high school level

If you'd rather listen to Žiž you can check this out, it's an easy watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3g2zS6Tuk

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:03:51 2017 No.9538878 I read everything he's ever written and listened to all his lectures, even many that were never published on youtube. He's a fucking imbecile

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:19:37 2017 No.9538907 >>9538878 lol

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:23:40 2017 No.9538916 >>9538878 I read everything you've ever written and listened to all your conversations, even the ones you've had with yourself in your head. You're a fucking imbecile

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:32:30 2017 No.9538928 >>9538878 best answer.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:33:20 2017 No.9538929 Notice how /pol/ claims to hate intellectuals and higher education in general, until some minoe credentialed academic justifiers theyre petty bigotry, then of course he's jesus of nazareth

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:38:23 2017 No.9538941 >disagreeing with someone is now hating them Why are /pol/fags so dramatic?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:38:58 2017 No.9538943 >>9538929 TBF the vast majority of humanities are leftists.

Anonymous Mon May 22 11:42:49 2017 No.9538956

>>9536883
I'm sympathetic to his cause -- free speech in academia, etc. but he's very quick to turn postmodernism into some sort of boogeyman for all of the West's ills.

The postmodern ethos creates circumstances and a prevailing mood for the sort of cultural degeneration he's railing against, but the ideological framework for most of this was laid by the Enlightenment, so his petty critiques of low hanging fruit (all of 20th century feminism, Chomsky et al) ignores what most other more versed cultural critics have subscribed to increasingly -- that the general thrust of Western individualism has created a sort of decayed monoculture of consumption and inoffensiveness that renders us open to intellectual assaults from globalist identerianism, etc.

He also fundamentally misinterprets Marxism economic theory as something other than a desperate reaction against the cultural cesspool we find ourselves. He's essentially refused to see the increasing psychological instability is caused by late stage capital's creation of an underclass of emotionally and intellectually stunted petit bourgeoisie who offer zero resistance to the ideological state apparatus because of consumer good satiation.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:44:37 2017 No.9538958 >>9538941 Why are demagogues so dramatic, you mean.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:45:47 2017 No.9538962 >>9538929 >Peterson >justifier of bigotry Come on /leftypol/, even your better than this.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:45:48 2017 No.9538963 >>9538956 finally some decent critique

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:47:24 2017 No.9538968 >>9538943 I can't imagine someone who has studied World History not to be a Leftist.

Anonymous Mon May 22 11:49:04 2017 No.9538973

/leftypol/ here. it's because he's a fucking bigot. he refuses to show trans individuals an iota of respect and has incredibly conservative/traditionalist views when it comes to women, relationships etc. HE"S A FUCKING BIGOT. no wonder why pol likes him so much. any pol fuckers in this thread can fuck off back to their safespace now

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:49:39 2017 No.9538975 >>9538968 Why? Historians (and philosophers) actually tend to be the least leftist.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:50:03 2017 No.9538977 File: 402 KB, 599x391, tt_glasses.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9537652 > two lazy /lit/ in a nutshell

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:50:18 2017 No.9538978 >>9536883 This guy is an embarrassment for the faculty of the university where he teaches.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:51:37 2017 No.9538979 >>9538975 this better be bait.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:51:47 2017 No.9538980 >>9538973 sorry i sperged out there. but you guys get my point

Anonymous Mon May 22 11:54:49 2017 No.9538986

>>9538975
>philosophers
>tend to be the least leftist
The validity of this statement depends on If your solely talking about alive philosophers, or your including dead philosophers in that statement and what level of famous.

Because like 99% of Philosophers are literally no-name Marxists teaching at their local community college for $13k/yr.

Anonymous Mon May 22 11:54:57 2017 No.9538988

>>9538871
>using psychology as a basis for philosophy
This is the fundamental point of disagreement in the first place. Peterson thinks the point of a belief system is to satisfy our psychological needs (thereby making us "productive" in a broad, societal sense), and that a society that doesn't offer a belief system of this kind is somehow ill. This thought process is not only anti-rigor and anti-intellectual, it's anti-thought. According to Peterson, once we have some stable, widely-held, societally-useful belief, philosophy ends (excluding, perhaps, defending said belief).

The truth is precisely the opposite: the job of philosophy is to take these beliefs to task. Zizek himself does this, and the fact that you recommend him alongside Peterson is astounding. If the two met, they'd agree on what religion/philosophy does, but not much else.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:55:34 2017 No.9538994 >>9538975 Maybe in certain parts of the US, its the opposite elsewhere

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 11:59:09 2017 No.9539007 >>9536883 To put it plainly; it's because he's (wrongly) critical of Marxist thought. It's people like Jordan PEPEson that stand in the way of Marxist ideas ever being implemented in society in any serious manner. Fuck him.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:00:44 2017 No.9539013 >>9538994 The US actually produces more philosophy and humanities than the rest of the world combined, so he would be technically correct if most were "least leftist", but he isn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:01:35 2017 No.9539015 ITT: Undergrads shitting on a tenured PhD. How many of you even knew who Jung was before he namedropped him on JRE? I hope the mods ban you leftist retards. >HURR HE DONT GET MARX ONLY I DO HURR DURR Children.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:03:14 2017 No.9539018 >>9538988 I always smirk a bit when Zizek gets called "our guy" over there because apart from his points on the nature of religion and his stance on the refugee crisis, /pol/ got baited into putting an out-and-out Leninist into their pantheon.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:03:24 2017 No.9539019 >>9539013 >The US actually produces more philosophy and humanities than the rest of the world combined Thats quite a claim to make, whats your source?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:03:54 2017 No.9539021 >>9539015 Funnily enough I've heard people on /lit/ claim Peterson is solely responsible for renewed interest in Jung, he's the new fraud "Wrong about everything! disproven!"

Anonymous Mon May 22 12:04:11 2017 No.9539024 [DELETED]

File: 16 KB, 396x396, 1495324306315.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9538973

>can fuck off back to their safespace

The irony of a "lefty" anything saying this. You emotional reasoners are literally the worst. I'm not even white and I lurk /pol/ all the time. I do so because your ilk are so ludicrous with your nonsense emotional reasoning that it's unbearable to try and have are serious discussions without you about social and geopolitical situations without you freaking out and tossing scarlet letters around.

Anonymous Mon May 22 12:06:00 2017 No.9539033

>>9539015
Zizek and psychoanalysis are universally loved here for the most part. Most everyone here was familiar with the likes of Lacan, Jung, Erich Fromm, etc. through readings and lectures by Zizek. Any cursory reading of Freud also inevitably leads you to Jung because of their correspondence and pollination of concepts & ideas. All roads lead to Vienna.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:07:24 2017 No.9539036 >>9539019 http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=1200&category=1211 Stop believing shit /lit/ spews about France, continental philosophy and European universities.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:08:08 2017 No.9539038 >>9539033 Except Zizek is a fraud and literally talks about nothing. Link me an original idea by

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:09:01 2017 No.9539041 >>9538988 >>using psychology as a basis for philosophy What? >you recommend him alongside Peterson I only recommended him because you/he clearly showed a naive (almost r/atheism-tier) view of what god and/or belief in god about.

Anonymous Mon May 22 12:11:34 2017 No.9539052

>>9539038
The point I was making was that he synthesizes a lot of psychoanalytical thought so the level of exposure to the early 20th century founders of the school is going to be more significant. It also goes to show how /new/ you are here because this place at peak discussion 5/6 years ago was consumed with a tripfag's thesis that committed to a psychoanalytic analysis of Infinite Jest for a good month or two. We even published it in one of the short lived zine projects back then.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:12:40 2017 No.9539056 >>9537432 t.Butthurt lefty

Anonymous Mon May 22 12:15:56 2017 No.9539066

>>9538988
>According to Peterson, once we have some stable, widely-held, societally-useful belief, philosophy ends (excluding, perhaps, defending said belief).
that's not true at all, one of the points he is always on about is the save the good from the past and transform what is needed and that its a neverending process. and
>that a society that doesn't offer a belief system of this kind is somehow ill
this you also pulled out of your ass, i never got that from what the videos i saw of him at all

Anonymous Mon May 22 12:28:40 2017 No.9539096
File: 1.44 MB, 2000x2000, BibleNetworkmediumOrig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9538558
>it's a collection of books written over a thousand years and compiled later.

>it doesn't cross reference itself, it's a bunch of different books, some of which reference earlier ones, that have been collected together centuries later.
http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualization/BibleViz
It's crazy how casually you type that, I don't think you understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:35:45 2017 No.9539127 >>9538988 >the job of philosophy is to take these beliefs to task. Thats literally what Peterson says in his most recent lecture Introduction to the idea of God.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:38:43 2017 No.9539140 Daily reminder that jung was freud BITCH

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:42:48 2017 No.9539149 >>9539015 >Jung as eldritch knowledge lol

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:43:11 2017 No.9539151 >>9539018 That would be because /pol/ in the collective sense doesn't actually understand what it believes or talks about. They unironically priase Adorno quotes when they're unattributed.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:54:17 2017 No.9539182 >>9537365 >draws on Nietzsche to refer to anyone to his left as nihilistic >is the personification of the priestly sensibility Nietzsche despised

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 12:55:23 2017 No.9539185 >>9539182 >priestly sensibility Nietzsche despised Why does this matter at all? Are you we bound to the feelings of long dead thinkers?

Anonymous Mon May 22 12:59:13 2017 No.9539202

>>9539185
If you'd bothered to read any Nietzsche, he places the source of ressentiment, will to revenge, and will to nothingness in the self-debasement peddled by priests and Peterson types who attempt to turn will to power inwards.

"Sort yourself out" is basically just self-flagellation for impotent 19 year olds.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:02:44 2017 No.9539205 >>9536883 because there are too many college libshits around here

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:04:37 2017 No.9539211 File: 71 KB, 955x659, 1494090479218.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT:

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:06:23 2017 No.9539213 >>9538683 like any serious thinkers could gain anything from college. are you the type of person that wants to get an english phd so you can write novels lol?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:09:47 2017 No.9539221 >>9538968 because of the industrial brainwashing? or do you think all the evil in the world comes from the right.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:30:41 2017 No.9539286 >>9539015 Are you seriously suggesting Jung is some abyssal writer?

Anonymous Mon May 22 13:30:42 2017 No.9539287

>>9539211
Isn't that true though? Feminism gives women more sexual choice and lowers their financial need for a male partner. There are now many useless and unattractive males who 100 years ago probably would have found love, or some approximation of it, more easily

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:31:21 2017 No.9539292 >>9539202 yeah, well what if you're wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:32:02 2017 No.9539299 >>9539287 capitalism is sure a BITCH when is not in your FAVOR huh?

Anonymous Mon May 22 13:34:24 2017 No.9539310

>>9539287
Lonely people have always existed. If anything, sexual liberty and the multitude of ways to find someone as autistic as yourself provided by the internet made it easier to find love, but look at that guy and tell me you'd be down to it if you were a girl.
I'm not good looking at all and a lot of my friends aren't either, but almost everyone has girlfriends, because we realize that being a traditionalist retard who treats their gfs as their property is not the better way to stay in a relationship (and even then, a lot of guys I know have pretty traditional stances to marriage and relationships, they just don't go full retarded with it)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:35:18 2017 No.9539313 >>9539299 The only way i see it being capitalism, is because the cause is over population and under your system there would be another mass genocide

Anonymous Mon May 22 13:37:02 2017 No.9539324

The guy just gives advice to people sine he sees a lot of confusion on today's youth, I don't remember him ever claming to be a philosopher. You can agree with him or not. He basically tells the same stuff a therapist would tell you (see: clean your room)
He is also articulate and I agree on him on his views on the pronouns shit but thats old history
I really don't get why he is so discussed here, or even hated
Mods should delete his threads or at least let there be just 1 active
who cares desu

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:39:29 2017 No.9539341 >>9539299 When you CAPITALIZE random words, you come across as EMOTIONALLY DISTRESSED and perhaps even MENTALLY CHALLENGED

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:43:00 2017 No.9539353 >>9539324 the reason he's discussed often, and the reason he's getting headlines and this pronoun issue is blowing up, is because there's a lot more under the surface of these issues thats going on.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:47:15 2017 No.9539363 >>9539353 >is because there's a lot more under the surface of these issues thats going on. like what? >inb4 muh jews

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:48:47 2017 No.9539367 >>9536883 There are a few vocal triggerhappy wannabe trannies here is my guess.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:50:29 2017 No.9539373 >>9539292 Guess I'd have to sort myself out ;)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:51:12 2017 No.9539375 >>9539182 Nietzsche did not believe in waking up God, although he lamented His death. Neither did he witness these ideologies in action. He is not perfect, and his thought is not the spiritual manifestation of gold.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:52:53 2017 No.9539382 >>9539373 Well, that depends on what you mean by "sort" It's no bloody joke, diving into the belly of the beast to save your father.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 13:53:12 2017 No.9539384 >>9537432 200 years together is my favorite banned book in the 'free west'.

Anonymous Mon May 22 13:55:48 2017 No.9539401

>>9539363
Not him, but he does more than just help an individual deal with his issues. He's diagnosing and treating society in general, because he thinks that the society as it is right now isn't that great (and/or that it's at danger of turning into something bad).
He's more engaged, opinionated and moralizing than your average academic.

Anonymous Mon May 22 14:06:00 2017 No.9539431

>>9539310
>sexual liberty and the multitude of ways to find someone as autistic as yourself provided by the internet made it easier to find love
I think that sounds good in theory but in practice it results in people embracing hyper-individualism and fragmenting into unequal castes of sexual activity. Some people are having more sex than just about any point in human history; others are doing precisely the opposite and marrying their body pillows. Millennials are more sexually liberated and interconnected than any generation in modern history; they are also twice as many virgins as there were in Gen X. 40% of Japanese millennials are still virgins, a figure which has risen 6% since 2010. I am not saying that the answer to this is to deny modernity and embrace the delusion of a traditional wife who raises your six kids while you till the fields, I am not saying that there even is a solution for extraneous males, I'm simply stating that extraneous males (and to a lesser extent, females) exist, and their existence is tied to modern society

Anonymous Mon May 22 14:09:53 2017 No.9539445

>>9539401
>He's diagnosing and treating society in general, because he thinks that the society as it is right now isn't that great (and/or that it's at danger of turning into something bad).
He is free to do and say whatever he wants and should be that way, in not like he is forcing anyone to agree with him
I would like to see more academics being this engaged and opinioated as him, also, everytime someone gives their opinion is somehow moralizing, unless you are 100% neutral, which is almost impossible and pointless
Are people really getting literally mad at someone for speaking his mind? lol

Anonymous Mon May 22 14:20:20 2017 No.9539477

>>9539445
Apparently academics nowadays want to treat everything, including humanities, as hard science. Since that is impossible, the biases become somewhat implicit and spread through snarky remarks (think of John Oliver, for example) and other tactics.
So when someone explicitly states his moral views (bonus points if they're somewhat conservative) he either gets fired or becomes an internet celebrity.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 14:31:21 2017 No.9539520 >>9539341 And that TRIGGERS you? SWEETIE

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 15:34:11 2017 No.9539727 >>9539151 That's because until /lit/ /pol/ is undogmatic, they've unknowingly embraced postmodernism to the fullest.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 15:37:21 2017 No.9539745 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

Anonymous Mon May 22 16:19:03 2017 No.9539922

>>9537365
?? that pic is coherent enough. its not like its exactly rigorous, but it looks like its a social media post for christ's sake

i dont see anything necessarily wrong with it. neither do you, apparently, if the only criticism you can come up with appeals to what it "sounds like" and not actually what it is in content

Anonymous Mon May 22 16:19:47 2017 No.9539925

>>9539431
Capitalism is more to blame than anything for this, I highly doubt making men fall in love with their 2D waifus was anywhere on feminism plan. The atomization we're seeing has much more to do with the possibilities of living inside a bubble provided by late capitalism than anything else, and I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I doubt you will.

Anonymous Mon May 22 16:22:29 2017 No.9539937

>>9538774
this post is awful

>axioms other than God
All of those derive from God. No, Peterson does not get credit for saying so in a social media post, but the implication is there that without the God axiom you can not have things like sanctity of life and self-interest

>examples of good unraveling
None of those are elements of unraveling. Breaking a tradition is not automatically unraveling, as all traditions are relative. the point is to approximate as best we can the moral rightness, which ought to be the spine of actual Tradition above all tradition. Those things are the righting of mistakes and the further approximation of what is right in social life. It might be unraveling of certain traditions, but it approaches nearer the real goalposts for tradition.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 16:47:06 2017 No.9540041 >>9536883 He said Logan is a good movie and I just wasted 2 hours watching this shit.

Anonymous Mon May 22 19:00:16 2017 No.9540539

>>9539925
You're trying to pick a fight where there isn't one, really. Capitalism, specifically liberalism, is the primary cause of this transformation of sexual behavior, but feminism is one of the social and political tools that liberalism uses to accomplish this. Liberalism promotes feminism, creating massive new consumer and labor markets along with various identity industries as a byproduct. Liberal feminism then fosters sexual competition as it removes sexually protectionist traditions from society and minimizes the risk of casual sex

There is no "feminist plan," feminism is just an emphasis on female power coupled with resentment toward perceived male dominance.

Anonymous Mon May 22 19:32:23 2017 No.9540631

>>9539018
>/pol/ got baited into putting an out-and-out Leninist into their pantheon.

tbf Leninism is more of a tactic than an actual system, Steve Bannon calls himself a Leninist. And Zizek is a very thinly-veiled accelerationist, it's easy to view what he says as a strategy to bring about some form of radical change, regardless of what that change might be (which in Zizek's case, I assume, is some global left-wing revolution).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 21:21:14 2017 No.9540983 File: 41 KB, 560x846, 1495448705828.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] CLEAN YOUR ROOM L E A N Y O U R R O O M

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 21:26:02 2017 No.9540995 >>9536883 I think he's interesting and I'm glad he exists.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 21:31:41 2017 No.9541017 >>9536883 >/leftypol/ plague The people you mistake for /leftypol/ users are what remains of old /lit/. Sadly, /pol/ has taken over and now there's nary an intelligent discussion to be found.

Anonymous Mon May 22 21:49:29 2017 No.9541066

He's a bit odd and I'm not sure if his reasoning or rhetoric is always smart but I like his videos. I haven't been able to get a good read on him but he strikes me as someone who used to be a complete autismo sperglord and managed to unfuck their shit (in one of his videos he said he used to wear a cape as an undergrad or graduate student). This on it's own is pretty interesting and respectable and in my opinion is partially why he attracts the following he does.

I'm not articulate enough to meaningfully elaborate as to how his videos have changed my life but I'm sorting myself out real nicely.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 21:57:05 2017 No.9541089 >>9541017 >If I keep repeating this it'll make it true

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 22:00:33 2017 No.9541099 >>9541089 That's what nationalists did in the 19th century. It's called meme magic

Anonymous Mon May 22 22:04:12 2017 No.9541118
File: 53 KB, 853x543, jbp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>be an agnostic atheist, political centrist, and social liberal
>both right-wing /pol/ and left-wing /lit/ think you're a theist, right-winger, and social conservative

JUST

Anyways, I do think he has the best naturalistic approach to religion, along with Jung. Other secular accounts of religion don't stand up to it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 22:47:59 2017 No.9541243 >>9537595 Peterson is all over Nietzsche. You seriously think he's got nothing of substance to say about Fred N.?

Anonymous Mon May 22 22:56:05 2017 No.9541268

>>9541243
But that's all he has. Jung, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky. He holds on to god too much because of his upbringing. In all honesty his beliefs on transcendent morality is limited to only "western" culture and even then he fails to account for wars. At least Harris, Chomsky, and the rest of the people who believe in only biological morality seeks to explain natural phenomena. All Peterson does is cherry pick bible stories to justify 50 plus years of being a christian.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 22 23:09:14 2017 No.9541300 >>9537384 lurk moar

Anonymous Tue May 23 00:24:29 2017 No.9541472

>>9541268
If you honestly think that peterson pitches religious morality against naturalist explanations for behaviour then you have not paid enough attention. He asserts the usefulness and presence of both frameworks.

It is the realists who have not (until recently) given enough credit to memes (and archetypes) as functional patterns in the human experience. They dismissed the functionality of religion and claimed that it was a detrimental by-product of biological factors. Peterson is correcting THEIR omission, not making an omission of his own.

Anonymous Tue May 23 00:33:04 2017 No.9541497

>>9541472
I don't have problem in him saying that religion is a medium for storing patterns human learn through evolutionary experiences. But he cherry picks too much and is always tied down to biblical stories. He doesn't even account for eastern religion. Hell, any of Aesop's fables would serve the same purpose.

Anonymous Tue May 23 00:42:08 2017 No.9541522

>>9536883

Ok, you know what, you faggots? You win this one. I'll give his videos an honest watch, and give an honest critique. What is the quintessential Jordan Peterson? Seriously, if I want to give this guy's ideas a thorough analysis I need to know what he has to say. Lay it on me.

Anonymous Tue May 23 00:45:06 2017 No.9541529

>>9541497
>He cherry picks too much and is always tied down to biblical stories
What do you mean by cherry picks?
Also what do you mean hes "tied" down to biblical stories?
If Aesops fables would serve the same purpose, than the only thing you have a problem with is BECAUSE it's the bible?
Doesn't it make sense that a teacher from the west, teaching in the west, uses western religion?
He's already said people are cultural creatures, and having an understanding of the biblical stories is necessary for psychological health.

I've heard him reference other stories besides biblical.
I think he was talking about Murdoc in his introduction to the Idea of God. It's not just biblical stories, it's the IDEA of GOD. He talks about the phenomena of passing down stories, and when tribes met with eachother, they had different Gods, so you see something like Murdoc who has many names, and that's why.
Because as the tribe met, you have God A, and God B, well they took the good things out of both and made a God C, and Murdoc is an amalgamation of all these different tribal gods merged together

Anonymous Tue May 23 00:46:45 2017 No.9541537

>>9541522
i think for someone new to peterson

the joe rogan interview is a good starting off point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE [Embed]

and this interview gives a really good overview of his thoughts and the interviewer does a great job at asking the right questions to move jordan along and explain things more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis [Embed]

after those two you could start watching the lectures for one of his two courses (personality or maps of meaning)

and just go through the back catalog of his assorted talks and interviews at your leisure (quite a few of them are on other channels, some of which you can find on his youtube playlists page but some which you cannot).

i liked this little "debate" (they largely agree, but achieve some meaningful synthesis after wrestling with each others' ideas as well) he had with a fellow professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RCtSsxhb2Q [Embed]

>my new to peterson pasta

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 00:47:40 2017 No.9541540 He's alright. He's only popular because he ended up being the personality at the center of a controversy, and then people started looking in to what he wrote. No one would have heard of Maps of Meaning otherwise.

Anonymous Tue May 23 01:44:33 2017 No.9541675

>>9541497
Well he also points to those archetypal patterns from ancient Greek and biblical stories being present in pop culture like harry Potter and capeshit so I don't think he's wed exclusively to the bible. He just seems to have the same attitude as many /lit users, that the bible is a major bedrock for the expression of those stories in Western culture. That fact that he doesn't go into eastern stuff as much says more of his integrity than anything else, because he shouldn't speak for disciplines he doesn't know as well. That being said, some of the interviews he's done have involved the other party linking the archetypes to eastern mythologies as well.

Anonymous Tue May 23 01:44:56 2017 No.9541677

>>9541529
>What do you mean by cherry picks?
The point is that the bible is a book of metaphors. It's all a matter of picking the right story to provide your "evidence" for why the story is useful. Take any real world situation, you can trace a solution to a story in the bible if you take all the stories in the bible metaphorically because according to Peterson, the bible is a fucking book of metaphors. Its like Aesop's fables, you take the scorpion and the frog tale and you apply it to the Jews and Palestinians and say look at the lessons people have learn from ancient times.
>If Aesops fables would serve the same purpose, than the only thing you have a problem with is BECAUSE it's the bible?
No, I'm saying he only picks from the bible and anything related to religion and excludes all else. Aesop's Fables is a prime example of a book containing truths. So is Ovid's Metamorphose, The Illiad, the Oddesey, and so on.
If anything his arguments only means that human beings like pattern recognition instead of actual religion.
>Doesn't it make sense that a teacher from the west, teaching in the west, uses western religion?
It doesn't make sense because Western Civilization came from the Greeks. And the Greeks were pagan. They also dived heavily into Mathematics and Science. Western civilization didn't progress until the Renaissance and the invention of the printing press allow vernacular versions of the bible to foster dissent against, guess what, RELIGION. If he wants to argue about Western culture he has base it on this primal fact that western culture is due to the conflict of individual reasoning against collective religion.

Anonymous Tue May 23 01:50:50 2017 No.9541687

>>9541677
>The point is that the bible is a book of metaphors.
Not an argument.

>No, I'm saying he only picks from the bible and anything related to religion and excludes all else.
Wrong.

>Doesn't it make sense that a teacher from the west, teaching in the west, uses western religion?
>It doesn't make sense because Western Civilization came from the Greeks.
Are you saying the Bible has no influence whatsoever over Western civilization?

Anonymous Tue May 23 01:53:19 2017 No.9541695

>>9541687
>Are you saying the Bible has no influence whatsoever over Western civilization?
Of course not it's very important. As the fucking the villain. Why don't you go back to the 800 and crusades with the fucking knights if you think that is the height of western civilization.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 01:55:22 2017 No.9541699 >>9541695 I don't know why you vilify Christianity like that, or why you're bringing up things happening in 800, OR why you say i think it's the height of western civilization. Do you hate God or something, Anon?

Anonymous Tue May 23 02:02:22 2017 No.9541712

>>9541699
No. I don't hate god. I have taken too much acid and shrooms to understand that there is oneness to this universe. That the atheist's oblivion is impossible. Like the Hindu say, we came from the infinite. We return to the infinite. And we will emerge from the infinite again and again.
All I want to say is that Peterson's transcendent morality is a load of bullshit to explain why he's still a christian.

Anonymous Tue May 23 02:22:38 2017 No.9541749

>>9541712
You're putting the cart before the horse. He's a Christian because he acts out the moral framework imposed by Christianity. If he saw an atheist acting out the Christian ethos, he would say they are being Christian. Just like if you don't know what the word hedonism means but you live like a hedonist, someone else could still call you one because that's how you're living, and you would be acting out a longstanding evolutionary history of hedonism without needing to identify that way.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 02:30:08 2017 No.9541763 >>9541677 >The point is that the bible is a book of metaphors False. You don't understand the Bible. >civilization is purely technological This is what atheists actually think

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 02:32:01 2017 No.9541769 >>9537595 >weeb trash Fuck off you absolute pseud

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 02:34:01 2017 No.9541773 >>9541677 >The point is that the bible is a book of metaphors. >according to Peterson, the bible is a fucking book of metaphors. Source? >>9541497 >>9541675

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 02:43:48 2017 No.9541791 >>9537365 muh lawwwjik His writing is perfectly coherent, you pseud. You're worse than him.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 02:44:19 2017 No.9541795 >>9539922 muh rigger

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 02:45:40 2017 No.9541802 >>9539015 What does him being tenured or a PhD matter? Jung has been popular here for a while. Maybe you're just new.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 02:56:24 2017 No.9541843 >>9537412 How stupid are you? >He doesn't address there could be other Axioms other than God >Post he's literally replying to and quoting SAYS in 20th century europe we experimented with an alternate axiom to God and it failed Fucking pseud.

Anonymous Tue May 23 03:14:46 2017 No.9541887

>>9537365
First half, alright. Second half, preachy but understandable. The problem is the line joining the two. There's a massive leap to justify the unraveling effect as a consequence of disbelief in God. It seems analogous to mathematicians losing their faith in the system merely because there is no grand unifier instead of ZFC set theory.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:19:25 2017 No.9541896 >>9537771 >he and other "classical" conservatives Why do you think he is a conservative?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:20:30 2017 No.9541897 >>9537879 >His patreon is upto $37,000 a month now That's fucking nuts. I guess he is on to something that people find worthwhile, which speaks for itself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:20:40 2017 No.9541898 >>9541887 Well that was four years ago, he's probably updated this. For how many people like to argue against Petersons ideas, i don't know why they don't just schedule a debate with him over skype or on youtube livestream or something.

Anonymous Tue May 23 03:21:54 2017 No.9541900

>>9541897
>I guess he is on to something
I feel this way about the pronoun/bill c16 issue.
He's said it as well, he thinks he's onto something because of the giant backlash he got from his original youtube videos on c16 and all the static from the left, trying to shut his debates/events down

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:22:30 2017 No.9541903 >>9536883 Because people keep bringing him up

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:23:46 2017 No.9541904 >>9538669 >marx of course was Nerd Systematizer Prime fucking lost it

Anonymous Tue May 23 03:25:26 2017 No.9541907

Because he's popular.

Because they fail to grasp the underlying struggle behind the pronoun debate, E.G. how the Ontario Human Rights Commission is now saying that you will probably be found to be discriminating if you don't use compelled speech, something which has NEVER been the case before in Canada. There's an underlying battle between Liberal ideas and Marxist ideas pushed by critical theorists who are cited by the Human Rights Commissions.

Because they can't see his lectures as the philosophy/religion/psychology 101 lectures that they are, which are buttressed by his reading recommendations where you can learn from thinkers much greater than Peterson.

Because they drunk the left wing kool-aid and somehow think Peterson is a bigot because they are retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:25:29 2017 No.9541909 >>9538683 >He's not a serious intellectual Neither was Marx, but Marx still had some interesting ideas.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:25:51 2017 No.9541910 >>9541903 >how to hide threads Fuck off, cunt. Like, just shut your eyes.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:29:50 2017 No.9541922 >>9541843 >He doesn't address there could be other Axioms other than God I am.

Anonymous Tue May 23 03:31:24 2017 No.9541927

>>9541922
>>>9537365 presents a great example of this. He doesn't address (or even consider) basic, obvious counterpoints, like "God isn't the only axiom a person can accept," or "God is within one's thought just like all other axioms," or "The 'unraveling' you describe isn't inherently bad."

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:31:52 2017 No.9541928 >>9538956 First exceptional response, almost halfway fucking down the thread. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:33:07 2017 No.9541930 >>9541927 >God,State, and self unraveling isn't inherently bad >20th century europe wew lad.

Anonymous Tue May 23 03:33:43 2017 No.9541933

>>9541695
>>9541712
Christianity owned and held the entire Mediterranean, until 7th century when the Islamists started conquering, enslaving, raping and what became 'the usual'.
Islamic slave trade of Europeans ended in 18th century.

People do not live in a vacuum. They are not immune to their surroundings or their biology, or even their politics. You see Christianity as evil because you were not born as a slave to Islam. If you were, you'd see Christianity as evil.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:35:30 2017 No.9541938 >>9541927 >if you choose to see me raping you as good - that's an orgasm right - it would be good. There is nothing inherently wrong with rape. >I mean, I see it as good. That's proof that it can't be inherently bad, as our viewpoints are equal.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:36:34 2017 No.9541940 >>9539015 >How many of you even knew who Jung was before he namedropped him on JRE? You can't be serious.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:37:00 2017 No.9541942 >>9541938 Why are you talking about rape you fucking psychopath

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:37:20 2017 No.9541943 >>9541942 All points are equal.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:38:15 2017 No.9541946 >>9539036 Dude holy fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:38:24 2017 No.9541947 >>9541943 Oh I see, you're connecting the unraveling is bad to the rape idea. I understand now.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:41:40 2017 No.9541950 >>9541947 Indeed. Social constructs are constructs like any other. Monuments, palaces, cathedrals... Who are you to destroy them, you aberration?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:44:02 2017 No.9541956 >>9539341 >WHEN you capitalize random WORDS, YOU come across AS emotionally distressed AND PERHAPS EVEN mentally CHALLENGED FTFY

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 03:45:15 2017 No.9541958 >>9541956 Neither posts were typed with randomly capitalized words though. Only yours is, which makes it seem like you are mentally challenged and not the others you're insulting.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:01:20 2017 No.9541980 >>9541712 >there is oneness to this universe delusion >we came from the infinite. We return to the infinite delusion

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:02:34 2017 No.9541984 >>9541980 You are not really arguing against him.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:03:43 2017 No.9541987 >>9541980 >delusion delusion< What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:04:23 2017 No.9541988 >>9541987 It's presumably the infinite oneness.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:09:35 2017 No.9541999 >>9538776 STEMfags are systematizers too you fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:11:56 2017 No.9542007 >>9538838 The connection has a book on it, Jewish revolutionary spirit.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:16:16 2017 No.9542012 >>9541958 >insulTING THE MentaLLy Ill AbsoLUTEly DISGUsting Seriously though, wasn't insulting anyone you sensitive fuck, I was actually capitalizing random words.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:16:58 2017 No.9542014 >>9542012 Fugg

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:18:26 2017 No.9542017 >>9541984 >>9541987 >>9541988 delusion

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:31:39 2017 No.9542036 >Maps of Meaning literally starts with >I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 13:35) Wew lads

Anonymous Tue May 23 04:33:21 2017 No.9542044

>>9541712
>I have taken too much acid and shrooms to understand that there is oneness to this universe.

>I took drugs and saw Thor shoving his hammer up his own ass while being jerked off by singing aliens made of rainbows. Therefore these are things are real features of the universe.

>Like the Reptoids say, we came from Thor's ass. We return to Thor's ass. And we will emerge from Thor's ass again and again.

>All I want to say is that Peterson's transcendent morality is a load of bullshit to explain why he's still a christian.

Seems legit.

Anonymous Tue May 23 04:43:20 2017 No.9542054

>>9541907
>Because they can't see his lectures as the philosophy/religion/psychology 101 lectures that they are
They're not. They're a mix of concepts and ideas from those fields mixed and glued together by his often less than perfectly coherent and logical thought spiced up by relentless namedropping of the same 5 people. Reading the aforementioned 101 lecture slides from some shitty online university would do much more good for your personal development than consuming endless hours of Peterson's quasi-intellectual sludge. But then again, you'd have to be actually interested in the subjects and not just looking for a collection of academic quips and quotes custom tailored to give your presupposed positions some faint veneer of congruence and well-foundedness.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:50:22 2017 No.9542068 >>9542044 >t. has never taken a drug before. Show me something unreal, and I will believe in your ability to cut it out of reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 04:52:36 2017 No.9542070 >>9542068 t. redditor

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 05:12:51 2017 No.9542098 >>9541537 >The christianity that Dawkins criticizes is the christianity that a smart 13 year old boy objects to. >Well how can you reconcile christianity with evolutionary theory? Well, that's not the problem Blown the fuck out

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 05:20:20 2017 No.9542107 >a bunch of angsty young kids who clearly haven't read enough screaming at one another about theology Easily the worst part of 4chan.

Anonymous Tue May 23 05:25:08 2017 No.9542120

I had attended several left-wing party congresses, as a student politician and active party-worker. I hoped to emulate the socialist leaders. The left wing had a long and honorable history in Canada, and
attracted some truly competent and caring people. However, I could not generate much respect for the numerous low-level party activists I encountered at these meetings. They seemed to live to complain: had no career, frequently; no family, no completed education – nothing but ideology. They were peevish, irritable, and little, in every sense of the word. I was faced, in consequence, with the mirror image of the problem I encountered on the college board: I could not admire many of the individuals who believed the
same things I did. This additional complication furthered my existential confusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 05:29:17 2017 No.9542125 >>9541537 I very much liked his new lecture on the idea of God.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 05:49:37 2017 No.9542160 >>9542068 >this is how far the quality of /lit/ posts have fallen Wow I hate the new normal now

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 05:56:14 2017 No.9542173 >>9542160 I love this effect. Memespeak about drugs is somehow valid, but not the speak about drugs. >Hurr durr pink elephants You don't like it so you make it absurd, because nothing absurd can be true, right?

Anonymous Tue May 23 06:04:05 2017 No.9542187

>>9542173
>Memespeak about drugs is somehow valid, but not the speak about drugs.

Neither are valid

>because nothing absurd can be true, right?

absurd things don't magically become true just because you witnessed some sign of them, drug fueled hysteria or not

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:05:28 2017 No.9542189 >>9542187 >absurd things don't magically become true just because you witnessed some sign of them, drug fueled hysteria or not Yeah, like existence. Read a book about psychedelics.

Anonymous Tue May 23 06:05:39 2017 No.9542190

>>9541497
>But he cherry picks too much and is always tied down to biblical stories. He doesn't even account for eastern religion. Hell, any of Aesop's fables would serve the same purpose.
Check out the 2nd interview here.
>>9541537
He talks a bit about ancient egyption mythology, dominance hierarchies and osiris/horus around 45 minute mark.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:06:58 2017 No.9542193 >>9542187 Subjective is just as true as objective.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:08:01 2017 No.9542199 >>9542187 >true Go to bed, Sam.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:10:44 2017 No.9542203 File: 752 KB, 411x845, logos.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:18:27 2017 No.9542214 >>9537365 holy shit what a fucking hack

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:22:18 2017 No.9542226 >>9542214 >No argument >Calling others hacks >basing it off of one 4 year old facebook post What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:24:43 2017 No.9542234 >>9537365 I wonder if he will ever realise how postmodern he sounds.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:31:34 2017 No.9542253 >>9542234 Explain. To me your accusation does not make any sense, as he is basically saying that self as a concept cannot exist without an external, ultimate orientating perspective (I.e., gods eye view as metanarrative).

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:32:45 2017 No.9542255 >>9536883 I like him.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:33:35 2017 No.9542258 >>9542234 Well he knows that he is postmodern. He's said several times that the postmodern frame of reference problem in literature is a legitimate problem, it's just that his solutions are different.

Anonymous Tue May 23 06:42:41 2017 No.9542279

>>9541497
You just need to watch more of his stuff if you want to understand him better.
He might cherry pick biblical stories in your perspective because you haven't seen him talk about others. He does, he just views Christianity with the most thoroughly developed idea of evil, that could be why he references it so many times, and because he was raised a christian living in a christian society

Anonymous Tue May 23 06:45:54 2017 No.9542287

>>9542253
Well he's arguing against the modernist conception of reality, that all knowledge of everything is attainable by rational investigation. The result, that there is no evidence for God, leads some to the conclusion that there is no God.

The postmodern conception is that some things are unknowable, or only knowable through the lens of cultural constructions. Acting on the idea that things are knowable is that false certainty Peterson mentions and of course results in totalitarianism -- exactly what the postmodernists were themselves reacting to like Peterson. And the idea that there is no value outside the reconciliation of abstract rationalisations by the conscious is nihilistic. This is why things like environmentalism and indigenous rights pop up in the 80s and 90s after postmodernists lost faith in that destructive modernist drive.

Anonymous Tue May 23 06:46:10 2017 No.9542288

>>9542279
Well he does consider the Buddha and Buddhism as very closely related to the same underlying mythological principles as Christianity, and he has said continuously that the concept of the Logos being the highest value is not exclusively Christian and was instantiated by Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythology.

I don't think he cherrypicks at all tbqh.

Anonymous Tue May 23 06:49:48 2017 No.9542296
File: 1.37 MB, 2000x1200, BibleVizArc7mediumOrig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9542288
Yeah, I don't think he does either. I like the story of Marduk and the way Peterson breaks it down.
>>9542125
Same. The way these stories and archetypes come to be is fascinating.

Anonymous Tue May 23 06:52:40 2017 No.9542307
File: 48 KB, 542x441, adorno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>the origin of totalitarianism can be found in philosophy
t. peepeeson and adorno
>muh cultural hegemony
t. peepeeson and gramsci

he's literally saying nothing new, and he's basically paraphrasing the same ''cultural marxists'' that right-wingers get so autistic about

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:55:22 2017 No.9542317 >>9542307 Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:56:05 2017 No.9542319 >>9542317 Me. Don't worry man it's fine.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 06:58:52 2017 No.9542327 I just enjoy his psychological work. If his philosophical views aren't to your liking just read the authors he quotes and move on.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 07:37:26 2017 No.9542401 >>9536883 /lit/ is bunch of pseuds and marxists. they hate anybody who brings up personal responsibility and religion in a positive manner

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 07:49:17 2017 No.9542419 >>9542401 Proper religious discussion happens quite often here. Fuck off back to your shithole for retarded teenagers, please.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 07:54:48 2017 No.9542430 >>9542193 >>9542199 muh samefagging all-is-relative meme >muh subjective apprehension of a hydrogen atom with 10 protons is the same as all your guys objective apprehension of hydrogen atoms with 1 proton fuck. right. off. you. dumb. cunt.

Anonymous Tue May 23 07:56:30 2017 No.9542437

>>9541066
>he said he used to wear a cape as an undergrad or graduate student
wait what? also i notice when he talks about catholicism it sounds a bit like the OG capelord himself, chesterton, (and a certain brand of modern conservatives in general) and a hierarchical, ordered West.

that's one nice thing about peterson. when you listen to him and talk about his content you start seeing all sorts of strange connections.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 07:58:10 2017 No.9542444 >>9542419 >quite often here It happens, but quite often is a stretch desu

Anonymous Tue May 23 08:07:43 2017 No.9542458
File: 200 KB, 592x595, 1486527628438.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9541537
>>9542098
>>9542125
>>9542190
>tfw someone saved your pasta

btw there's a new transliminal interview : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC1pvjyKYr4

also his appearance on duncan trussell's podcast was very interesting. trussell is a bit DUDE WEED but peterson ends up talking about some things (like shamanism and psychedelics) that he doesn't talk about too much elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgOSb5rGYg4

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 08:15:58 2017 No.9542474 >>9542307 yeah and paul gottfried studied under horkheimer. some of the cultural marxists were right, or wrong in interesting ways, about some things. what exactly is your point?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 08:35:01 2017 No.9542526 >>9537365 There's literally nothing "incoherent" in that, I for one understand exactly what he means. Maybe you're just really really stupid?

Anonymous Tue May 23 08:37:11 2017 No.9542532

>>9537652

Peterson is very /lit/ related since he gives lectures on psychology that lean heavily on philosophy and literature?

Do you even know anything about Peterson? Did you know that /lit/ is used to discuss literature and philosophy?

I don't understand your post.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 08:38:34 2017 No.9542535 >>9542532 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Tue May 23 08:44:50 2017 No.9542544

>/pol/ doesn't understand peterson's a youtuber
>/pol/ doesn't understand how /lit/ flirts with youtubers
>/pol/ still thinks we hated katie
>/pol/ doesn't understand the importance of poetry or showing your loved ones your piss bottles
>/pol/ doesn't understand jung either
it's like they want to be unloved, poor dears

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 09:02:38 2017 No.9542568 >>9542544 >/pol/ doesn't understand how /lit/ flirts with youtubers When I flirt with women, they don't go out of the Internet.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 09:10:00 2017 No.9542574 >>9542568 >he doesn't understand the destructive nature of the sublime worse than byron tbph

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 09:17:13 2017 No.9542584 >>9542535 Is this the knee-jerk reaction of every left wing looney on this board when confronted with an argument they can't refute?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 09:20:11 2017 No.9542592 >>9542584 Yes. Peterson was right, lefties are not here to be right. They only care about power. If the truth is that they lie or that they are wrong, it damages their power. That's also why they hate Peterson.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 09:21:40 2017 No.9542594 >>9538683 Does someone have to be a "serious intellectual" to have interesting opinions? He doesn't claim to be an intellectual, he's a very well read psychology professor who has some interesting opinions.

Anonymous Tue May 23 09:23:19 2017 No.9542601

>>9541896

Anyone who opposes the current extreme left wing ideology that is mainstream in the current American campuses is a right winger or a conservative.

For example if you think free speech is more important than people's feelings you're close to being a nazi who advocates for genocide in their eyes.

>>	抗養蚕(ἀντιπολιτισμός) !RnKG69rrpM Tue May 23 09:38:01 2017 No.9542633 >>9537365 >that shitbook entry Peterson autobanned when?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 09:44:35 2017 No.9542643 >>9542594 >very well read >keeps quoting same 5 authors in relation to absolutely everything Must be hiding it rather well.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 10:08:36 2017 No.9542701 File: 186 KB, 1920x1080, jesuspillars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] He sells personal responsibility, a meaningful life, and greatness. He is what every resentful loser fears.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 10:14:51 2017 No.9542716 >>9542701 >jesuspillars but that's samson

>>	抗養蚕(ἀντιπολιτισμός) !RnKG69rrpM Tue May 23 10:17:10 2017 No.9542718 >>9542716 You don't actually expect these idiots to actually read or know what they're talking about, do you?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 10:20:12 2017 No.9542731 >>9542716 Indeed, he is also committing suicide and mass murder.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 11:34:29 2017 No.9542918 ITT: commies congratulating each other

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 11:53:28 2017 No.9542964 >>9536883 Because /lit/ are a bunch of bloody neo-marxists.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 12:17:49 2017 No.9543019 >>9542430 That's not what I mean. Subjective experiences that happen to people, is just as true as objective empirical science if that makes sense.

Anonymous Tue May 23 12:23:39 2017 No.9543035

>>9542437
I returned to university and began to study psychology. I visited a maximum security prison on the outskirts of Edmonton, under the supervision of an eccentric adjunct professor at the University of Alberta. His primary job was the psychological care of convicts. The prison was full of murderers, rapists, and armed robbers. I ended up in the gym, near the weight room, on my first reconnaissance. I was wearing a long wool cape,
circa 1890, which I had bought in Portugal, and a pair of tall leather boots. The psychologist who was accompanying me disappeared, unexpectedly, and left me alone. Soon I was surrounded by shoddy men, some of whom were extremely large and tough-looking. One in particular stands out in my memory. He was exceptionally muscular, and tattooed over his bare chest. He had a vicious scar running down the middle of his body, from his collarbone to his midsection. Maybe he had survived open-heart surgery. Or maybe it was an ax wound. The injury
would have killed a lesser man, anyway – someone like me. Some of the prisoners, who weren’t dressed particularly well, offered to trade their clothes for mine. This did not strike me as a great bargain, but I wasn’t sure how to refuse. Fate rescued me, in the form of a short, skinny, bearded man. He came up to me – said that the psychologist had sent him – and asked me to accompany him. He was only one person, and many others (much larger) currently surrounded me and my cape. So I took him at his word. He led me outside the gym doors, and out into the prison yard, talking quietly but reasonably about something innocuous (I don’t recall what) all the while. I kept glancing back hopefully at the open doors behind us as we got further and further away. Finally my supervisor appeared, and motioned me back. We left the bearded prisoner, and went to a private office. The psychologist told me that the harmless-appearing little man who had escorted me out of the gym had murdered two policemen, in cold blood, after he had forced them to dig their own graves. One of the policemen had little children, and had begged for his life, on their behalf, while he was digging – at least according to the murderer’s own testimony.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 12:26:00 2017 No.9543043 >>9542643 Which 5? He referenced Heidegger, Kierksgaard, Nietzsche, Jung, and Freud in one of the video interviews i just watched.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 12:28:26 2017 No.9543056 >>9543043 Also Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn

Anonymous Tue May 23 12:29:49 2017 No.9543062

>>9542643
Maybe Petersons framework draws heavily on those 5 authors. He's extremely interested in belief systems and especially group belief systems and how Nazi Germany came to be.
Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche were highly prophetic of 20th century europe.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 12:29:57 2017 No.9543063 >>9542643 That's because they relate closest to his field of work you moron.

Anonymous Tue May 23 12:46:58 2017 No.9543111

>>9542430
In Petersons new lecture, Introduction to the Idea of God. He talks about his indian tribe friend who made his pepe mask. The guy is illiterate, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. His whole culture is oral, tradition passed down through stories not written texts. He can remember a vast amount more than we can because he has to. He also carves wooden totem animals and other things, he gets his ideas from dreams. He dreams as animals, and when he has problems with a carving he talks to his grand parents in his dreams.
That's what i mean subjective is just as true as objective.
Who are you to say that isn't real?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:02:53 2017 No.9543154 >>9543043 >>9543056 >Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Jung, Nietzsche Yeah, that is the five he knows about on top of Orwell. And his superficial references to thinkers like Heidegger and Kierkegaard is laughable.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:03:56 2017 No.9543157 >>9543063 >literal novel writers are relevant to a person claiming to be a "scientist" Uhuh ya think

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:09:01 2017 No.9543176 >>9543157 >he thinks just because it's fiction, means it isn't true. lmao

Anonymous Tue May 23 13:09:29 2017 No.9543177 [DELETED]

>>9542054
>5 authors meme
First, realise that again, Peterson is making fairly entry level lectures and citing a whole shitton of authors is counter-productive when just getting through the works of somebody like Jung is gonna take a ton of time.

Second, he cites

>Freud
>Jung
>Neumann
>Rogers
>Piaget
>Dostoevsky
>Solzhenitsyn
>Neitzche
>Kierkegaard
>Orwell
>Huxley
>Christopher Browning
>Various authors who made psychology texts for his personality lectures
>Christian, Buddhist, Egyptian, and Greek religious texts among others.
>Northrop Frye

He pro

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:10:27 2017 No.9543179 >>9543176 It isn't true or false, its whatever way he feels like interpreting it like a twobit Baptist

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:11:39 2017 No.9543185 >>9543177 Oh wow he quotes Huxley AND Orwell? What a heavy weight intellectual

Anonymous Tue May 23 13:15:51 2017 No.9543200

>>9543177
>5 authors meme

First, realise that again, Peterson is making fairly entry level lectures and citing a whole shitton of authors is counter-productive when just getting through the works of somebody like Jung is gonna take a ton of time.

Second, he cites

>Freud
>Jung
>Rogers
>Piaget
>Dostoevsky
>Solzhenitsyn
>Neitzche
>Kierkegaard
>Orwell
>Huxley
>Christopher Browning
>Various academic authors who made psychology texts for his personality lectures
>Christian, Buddhist, Egyptian, and Greek religious texts among others.

With quite a few he mentions more incidentally like Neumann and Northrop Frye and a few he doesn't bring up in his lectures explicitly.

I mean I can understand not liking the guy but you morons who think he references 5 books must be clinically fucking retarded because you're obviously and flatly wrong and not even close. I seriously question your intellect if you can watch his lectures and only pick out 5 authors he referenced.

>>9543185
reposted because I hit submit by accident before I finished writing out post.

Yeah he does quote Huxley and Orwell and is quite obsessed with a less known Orwell work "Road to Wigan Pier". Because his lectures are entry level.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:18:58 2017 No.9543208 >>9543200 Isn't his self authoring program heavily influenced by Piaget?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:21:06 2017 No.9543213 >>9543200 >Because his lectures are entry level. The man's entire mind is entry level, and he took the wrong entry

>>	抗養蚕(ἀντιπολιτισμός) !RnKG69rrpM Tue May 23 13:33:00 2017 No.9543246 >>9543200 >all those fiction writers in his citation list

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:46:40 2017 No.9543289 >>9543157 >>9543246 Triggered. How about some criticism instead of muh fiction

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:48:45 2017 No.9543297 File: 2.71 MB, 5096x3452, 1464499605450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Just a quick reminder.

Anonymous Tue May 23 13:49:25 2017 No.9543299
File: 186 KB, 800x1067, IMG_1768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9536883
I'm Black, non educated and a Democrat and I love this guy because he's the total opposite of what my ideologies are.

He's definitely a knowledgeable debater and awesome author.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:51:15 2017 No.9543300 >>9543299 >being a slave to ideology Clean your room

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:51:38 2017 No.9543302 File: 334 KB, 2048x1290, 1491249253195.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] updated

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:55:25 2017 No.9543312 >>9543302 >>9543297 Detected the undergraduate pseudo intellectuals. It's funny how /lit/ pseuds think they get to criticize people like Chomsky and not get laughed at.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:56:53 2017 No.9543316 >>9541118 >agnostic atheist Ah shit fucking kill me if this isn't the stupidest thing I've heard of in my life.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 13:59:19 2017 No.9543335 >>9543312 Do you know what the word "criticize" means? it says to ignore.

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:06:31 2017 No.9543370

>>9537719
>>lit is r9k for people who don't like video games
>>a small slow shitty board with some of the sites worst posters
>>lots of disillusioned people who hide from reality in fantasy worlds or by pretending to read about these fantasy worlds
i agree with this part

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:13:28 2017 No.9543400

It's interesting to me that conservatives seem to consider Peterson an ally and liberals/marxists paint him as an enemy, when to me he seems to be more of a moderate than anything. Mostly that the right considers him an ally simply because he gives them a narrative that they can use to excuse their ignorance. It's confusing to me, it's almost as if people don't actually give a shit about what he has to say but rather what the other side's idea of him is.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 14:14:26 2017 No.9543403 >>9543400 >Mostly that the right considers him an ally simply because he gives them a narrative that they can use to excuse their ignorance. Explain what you mean

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 14:17:49 2017 No.9543419 >>9537093 Marxism is entry level chickenshit for undergrads who want to be edgy, the ironic post-left is where the super heavy theory is

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 14:19:00 2017 No.9543424 >>9543419 This guy knows where its at

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:25:21 2017 No.9543444

>>9543403
It enables the lazy /pol/ caricature to equipt themselves with an arguement against the things they're already half-assedly arguing against, except without having to put forth any of their own effort into coming up with one that's reasonable (or one that appears reasonable, at the least).
And because they're able to use him they consider him an ally. Just because he's parallel by coincidence they think he's on the same plane. It's just funny to me that many of these caricatures think the man is on their side, when the only side he's really on is the side he considers "truth", not the side of anybody's extreme ideology.

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:32:43 2017 No.9543477

>>9543444
Can you give me an example? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you've just made a strawman or a caricature of /pol/ or people.
I'm sure other groups do this, there's useful idiots on either side.
Peterson says a lot of people on the so called alt right or on the fringe right, have emailed Peterson saying his videos have kept them from going all the way.
I'm just trying to understand you better. What do you mean by caricature? And what are some examples of these arguments that these "caricatures" are using from Peterson if i understand what you said correctly

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 14:32:51 2017 No.9543478 >>9543444 Nearly everybody thinks they're on the side of truth

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 14:34:33 2017 No.9543485 >>9539015 >Jung is obscure

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:43:07 2017 No.9543507

>>9543477
I mean exactly what I said, the /pol/ caricature that people have created. The people that would identify with the general idea of someone who actively browses, or would actively browse, /pol/ or a place *like* /pol/, or at least browse a place like the caricature of /pol/.

>>9543478
I don't mean truth as in what he believes is right, I mean truth as in what one believes is right. He argues that one should act in a way that allows oneself to speak honestly about themselves, so that you don't have to lie to yourself and others about why you're doing something. Don't do things that you hate. And that's where his issue with "SJWs" as he calls them is born, he believes they're not acting honestly. Same thing with the opposite end of the spectrum, they'd be acting dishonestly due to some other motive, whether they're conscious of this motive or not. It's basically the ultimate middle, be truthful. He has some ideas about honesty as some sort of pinnacle, obviously borrowed from the philosophers he talks about all the time.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 14:46:28 2017 No.9543513 File: 6 KB, 231x231, bob.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9539015 >muh tenure >muh PhD in basket weaving >respect my authority

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:50:52 2017 No.9543526

Peterson isn't telling you what to think, or how to think. He's saying this is his best ideas that he can come up with, and he tries to articulate these ideas best he can, constantly updating his ideas from the feedback he gets. His lecture style is him processing these ideas not giving people a pre packaged idea he's written down. It's a learning experience. Maybe things don't make sense if you're not thinking with his framework. What if he's right? What if he's wrong?

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:53:52 2017 No.9543536

>>9543200
Calm your tits, Jordan. The 5 authors meme is there is because he actually quotes around 5 authors with some degree of consistency. Everything else is just clumsy and often unwarranted namedropping. Also arguing that 'citing a few is to give people time to read' is idiotic. Those videos cater to people 90% of whom will never even touch a non-comic book, let alone meticulously study someone's work. I mean there's a person ITT who thinks Jung is obscure and only known to world through Memerson.

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:54:42 2017 No.9543538
File: 91 KB, 900x720, fellowkids.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ok /lit/ Im a bit of a newfag here

what should I read upon in order to be better prepared to see the flaws on his positions? he already has a list of books he considers worthwile reading on his website.

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:56:58 2017 No.9543545

>>9543538
>see the flaws in his positions
Don't go into it trying to debunk what he says. Just listen to his lectures/interviews, read his book.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf
It's free on his website.

Anonymous Tue May 23 14:59:19 2017 No.9543554

>>9543507
>I don't mean truth as in what he believes is right, I mean truth as in what one believes is right. He argues that one should act in a way that allows oneself to speak honestly about themselves, so that you don't have to lie to yourself and others about why you're doing something. Don't do things that you hate. And that's where his issue with "SJWs" as he calls them is born, he believes they're not acting honestly. Same thing with the opposite end of the spectrum, they'd be acting dishonestly due to some other motive, whether they're conscious of this motive or not. It's basically the ultimate middle, be truthful. He has some ideas about honesty as some sort of pinnacle, obviously borrowed from the philosophers he talks about all the time.
That's all cool as long as you don't believe that false consciousness is actually a thing. I don't believe that you can know yourself and you're situation by creatively interpreting fairy tales as a therapeutic process of self-construction or whatever you just end up deluding yourself.
It all comes back to the whole Freudian notion that something is wrong with you, not society, so learn to behave differently and everything will work out and society will reward you.

>>9543526
The problem is when you're entering that process with extremely flawed epistemological foundations

>>9543538
Try reading "Ideology and Utopia" by Karl Mannheim

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:01:24 2017 No.9543563 >>9543554 >try reading... Marx Look at this fag boy

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:01:51 2017 No.9543565 >>9543545 I wasnt looking to "debunk" him, I just want to read up on alternative takes on what he is saying without all the signal to noise ratio that comes from anons getting carried away by memery

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:03:22 2017 No.9543572 >>9543565 Is there an alternate take on what he says? I'm pretty new to all this shit.

Anonymous Tue May 23 15:07:57 2017 No.9543590

>>9543554
Well, that's the thing with post-modernism and ultimately all philosophy at the end of the day. There has to be a point at which a realized-man says "I think" or "I believe" followed by something. You base your ideas about other people's beliefs on your beliefs, no matter who you are or what those beliefs are. You can posit that one is simply deluding oneself by interpreting mythology as self-construction or societal-construction as Peterson often does, but at the end of the day you're prefacing that with "I don't believe...". The other person can say, "Well I believe". And it keeps on going.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:12:05 2017 No.9543600 >>9543572 I dunno. I suspect Im in the dark as much as you are anon My pool of knoledge regarding psychology and phillosophy is rather limited

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:13:35 2017 No.9543602 Finally this shit thread is going to start sinking.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:17:12 2017 No.9543608 >>9543602 yeah good thing you bumped it to prove how happy you are that it's happening, right? that's not honest, anon. are you an SJW?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:18:37 2017 No.9543612 >>9536883 because /lit/ is autism incarnate

Anonymous Tue May 23 15:24:34 2017 No.9543625

>>9543600
>My pool of knoledge regarding psychology and phillosophy is rather limited
Same. Tbh Peterson memed me into reading literature and his ideas are incredibly interesting.
One example that I like his idea or thoughts on, he was talking about someone who says our value systems came from when we originated in Africa, but chimps didn't and we share a lot of things with chimps. So there's something deeper and ancient that formed these systems that we rely on, I think he says lobsters. We share how we traverse dominant hierarchies with lobsters, and humans are ancient as life itself. we're as old as trees IIRC. We're two parts. An individual, the you. And also the human being which is several million years old. It's just fascinating to think about all of this.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:25:10 2017 No.9543627 >>9543590 I am claiming you can believe something and it can be false. There's always a materalist explanation for why someone believes what they believe and if it corresponds to reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:29:29 2017 No.9543638 >>9543627 Well that depends on what you mean by "false" It can be true but that also depends on what you mean by "true"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:33:44 2017 No.9543646 >he hasn't written porn >/pol/ expects us to be interested he seems like the sort that might try stopping us from bejewelling our tortoise too and introduce some awful form of plot to the narrative. no true jungian at all

Anonymous Tue May 23 15:36:35 2017 No.9543656

>>9543111
Depends on what you mean by real. It's literally true that a schizophrenic experiences hallucinations and strange thoughts.
They're not just making it up. Whether those experiences correspond to reality outside of human imagination is not so likely.

I also find it ironic that this line of thinking is incredibly subjective and focused on personal emotions. The same criticisms Peterson and his followers levy against the post-modernists and SJWs.

Anonymous Tue May 23 15:38:50 2017 No.9543662

>>9543656
I find it funny that a Jungian is against postmodernism. Next they'll all be against psychic powers and children's colouring books for adults or paying other people's coke bills. Jung really was a saint, and he doesn't deserve this Peterson claptrap trailing his well tailored coat tails.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:41:46 2017 No.9543670 >>9543612 Good thing he has that covered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wNEy_Zffpc

>>	Anonymous Tue May 23 15:44:42 2017 No.9543679 >>9543662 >>Thank God I'm Jung and not a Jungian >Carl Jung on a Jungian conference speaker Jung's far more based than Peterson can hope for

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature