Why do people like Jordan Peterson? >Marxism lead to the

>>9141619
All those things are literally true, though. Also he created a video about Pepe which is fucking awesome

Try the redpill

How are those claims wrong?

You misrepresented his claims and they still sound respectable

You still mad about Peterson not wanting to use tranny pronouns to address you?

A lot of people sincerely believe all that stuff, and I assume those people are his fanbase. Not /lit/ btw

He makes wacky vids about pepe the aryan frog

We'll be seeing this guy for some time, is it not so?

What bothers me about him is that he puts up a fight against postmodernistic nonsense but his own philosophy is a kind of nonsense too

On his twitter he showed analytic babble (feminist and queer and so on), while he was babbling about Pepe the frog...

OP is right, people's shit readings of thinkers shouldn't mean we condemn those thinkers.


It's sort of like the people who rejected democracy because of Robespierre.

>>9141624
>>9141641
>triggered over a cartoon frog

>>9141624
I'd reconsider going too hard against the postmodernists. If you've ever spent time with actual commies you'll know there's nothing they hate more than postmodernists, which they see as 'liberals' rather than leftists. To problematise them, they put them in an equivalent category with classical liberals (the good kind, as redpillers read it). A lot of the most free-thinking, openly rightwing literature I've seen reach acceptance on campuses is postmodern literature. Claiming there are no truths isn't the worst thing when the primary social threat is forced adherence to untruths: on campus, postmodernists alone can get away with not being anti-racist etc. Playing games like, 'They're racist and they're not racists.'

It's meant to just be about art and aesthetic attitudes, anyway, which is a pretty rightwing stance to begin with (the stance that anything can be 'just art' and ergo can absent itself from politics).

File: tips.jpg (596KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1000x750px

>OP

>>9141677
postmodernists, liberals, and communists are all the same = useful Satanic idiots

>>9141677
I'm dumbfounded by this comment.

How the fuck is the deconstruction of art right-wing?

File: GD30.jpg (13KB, 641x347px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 641x347px

I was excited to hear an academic intellectual talk against SJW, not necessarily because I anticipated agreeing with the guy but because you never hear refined criticism toward SJWs. I used to consider myself a liberal, but ever since Trump won I began distancing myself from both parties and putting liberalism under an unclouded microscope.

But this guy really doesn't know what he's talking about, building his claims off of shit like what OP mentioned. The more I listened the more he betrayed a vast ignorance of western philosophy. I wish there was somebody who can deconstruct how "safe spaces" and the echo-chamber of liberalism are bunk and only estranges people from one another. Sam Harris is damn good at it, maybe I'll hear what he has to say instead of this chump.

>>9141705
>But this guy really doesn't know what he's talking about

Several people keep saying this over and over again, and yet they never supply a single argument.

Just like SJWs.

>>9141700
It can or cannot be right wing. Consider Heidegger.

No post-modernist, or post-structuralist, however, has ever argued that everything is relative in the radical sense we often claim. None.

Marxism is ruining my country, fuck that german fag

>>9141619
>Why do people like Jordan Peterson?
>>Marxism lead to the atrocities of the Soviet Union!
>>Derrida poisoned current society!
>>Post-modernists say there are no such thing as facts!
>The guy is a fucking idiot.

OP is a fucking idiot.

>>9141718
>has ever argued

No, of course not, because post-modernists don't "argue" for anything. Argumentation and logic is obviously phallogocentric, and only exists to further the power structure of Western civilization.

You don't have to be relativistic to be an idiot.

>>9141687
Communists aren't useful idiots. You're not going to win the the West if you only focus on American politics.

>>9141725
Wow! You really turned the tables on him!

>>9141737
>Argumentation and logic is obviously phallogocentric, and only exists to further the power structure of Western civilization
This level of hyperbole is beyond the boundaries of civilised conversation. I'm not going to embarrass myself by having this dialogue.

he brings up the same handful of books/thinkers in every interview/lecture leading me to believe they're the only ones he's ever read. i feel like he just read the gulag archipelago once and ran with it desu

>>9141753
It's not even hyperbole. It's literally Jacques Derrida's claim you fucking moron.

>>9141759
Derrida still believed in objectuve truth, therefore he doesn't fit your pomo definition.

>>9141786
>Derrida still believed in objectuve truth

>"Postmodern philosophy is a philosophical direction which is critical of certain foundational assumptions of Western philosophy and especially of the 18th-century Enlightenment. It emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. Postmodernists deny that an objective reality exists, and deny that there are objective moral values.[1]"

>>9141791
What does that even mean?
Post-modernists are anti-realist idealists?

>>9141791
Nice job supporting what >>9141786 said.

>>9141799
It means they're critical of the notion of truth, as it is often constructed to preserve power.

>>9141807
No, it says right there they deny the existence of objective truths.
That's a contradiction if the statement "there are no objective truths" cannot be objective itself.

>>9141810
Name an objective truth and I guarantee that some pomo philosopher will have figured out a way that it is reducible to the power relationship between humans.

>>9141619
>>9141791
wow it's almost as if lumping a disparate group of radical thinkers under a single banner of 'postmodernist philosophy' makes it impossible to discuss any definable features of the group

>>9141822
You can deduct the reality of objective truths by attacking every notion of anti-realism.
The statement "everything is subjective" can be proven wrong quite easily.
Assuming one cannot produce a third option, the existence of objective truths becomes obvious.

>>9141759
Well it's time for you to actually read a book by him, rather than echoing what you saw on internet

>>9141833
>implying any postmodernist believes in the subject-object dichotomy

back to the cogito with you

>>9141834
This isn't an argument you faggot. If you can't deal with arguments simply because they aren't produced through a manner that you find acceptable, you should fuck off.

>>9141845
By definition an object is something that can be objectified, which means it can be registered by some form of subject.

If something cannot be objectified it's nothing and nothing can be said about it.

Plato already addressed this in the Parmenides.
Something that withdraws from all determinations is nothing.

>>9141866
saying that an object exists because it can be observed is no better than saying an object exists because god made it. giving the onus of ontotheology to man's perception is circular reasoning, anon

>>9141866
This is pure trash. Please stop posting.

>>9141895
That's not what's being said, an object by definition can be objectified IE it can be addressed in one way or another.
There are many objects that will never ever be addressed in any sense, this isn't an anti-realist idealist position, it's realist to the core.

Addressed doesn't imply epistemic practices btw.

>>9141902
I'm mostly posting what Plato has said and modern realists believe to be true.
Address their positions coherently please.

i think jordan peterson reads these threads

i don't know why i just feel it

i feel like he's reading this right now...

>real communism hasn't been tried!
k

>>9141908
you're just saying that an object exists because it has the potential to be addressed, meaning that human activity is still prized as the determining factor of what does and does not exist.

your references to plato do nothing to help your cause. plato diverted the pure ontologies of the presocratics into the sad metaphysical quibbling over beings instead of Being that ruined western philosophy for 2000 years!

>>9141940
>you're just saying that an object exists because it has the potential to be addressed
No I'm precisely not, I'm saying that when an object exists, it can be registered potentially.
If something is absolute and for that reason wholly transcendental, then we have a contradiction here because I can at least make the claim it is wholly transcendental, again pulling up a determination IE the thing is no longer absolutely withdrawn from my perception.

You are confusing correlation with causation here.
You know little about philosophy suggesting from the rest of your post.

>>9141928
>suggesting communism is the only way marxism can be actualized into a political system
lol

>>9141953
if you dont recognize my posts as literally just parroting heidegger, you have no business posting anything about postmodernism, anon

>>9141954
Marxism is literally just resentment at not being at the top of the hierarchy.

>>9141978
It's not fucking Heidegger, just because you bring up Being it doesn't mean you have reproduced Heidegger.
Heidegger himself delivers a counter-argument to anti-realism with the notions of Vorhandenheit und Zuhandenheit.
Hell all forms Being itself is something that exists objectively regardless of registration, but they all can be addressed potentially.

>>9141992
being against anti-realism does not mean you believe in objective truth.

your reference to Vorhandenheit and Zuhandenheit has it backwards: these dispositions toward Being does not prove that the beings themselves exist, but instead open a world unto which Dasein has a relationship with Being. there is no inherent Vorhandenheit in an object--i can use a hammer any which way i want and a different world is projected by it. same goes for Zuhandenheit. the "object" taken up in these dispositions does not objectively exist, but is projected by the world in which a composite is taken up. Why is a hammer considered as one thing and not instead a head attached to a handle? because the equipmental totality with which Dasein has a relationship has projected "hammer" as a single "object" in its Being-in-the-world.

saying that there is an "objective truth" means that Truth itself has to become an object, which, since Truth exists outside the subject and object, cannot be the case.

sounds like u only read Being & Time and skipped out on the harder and more profound stuff after it anon.

>>9142071
Yes it is.

>In analytic philosophy, anti-realism encompasses any position involving either the denial of an objective reality or the denial that verification-transcendent statements are either true or false. This latter construal is sometimes expressed by saying "there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not P".

Zuhandenheit is a Seinszustand, Sein is according to Heidegger an inherent quality of objective reality.
>since Truth exists outside the subject and object, cannot be the case.
Again you are confusing correlation with causality.
Being able to be determined in any sense by a subject does not mean something is not objective, objective does not mean unrelated to the subject, objective merely means a subject cannot change the texture of whatever it is you're describing.
Existence can be part of that texture.

Sometimes I wonder whether these threads are made by Harris and Peterson's marketing teams, 4chan is the ideal demographic, young, kind of stupid, sexually frustrated men who need somebody to hate in order to consitute their stunted, oedipal, teenager phase ego.

>>9142096
>analytic philosophy
>Heidegger
No. Also please refrain from referring to wikipedia in anything regarding philosophy

>objective does not mean unrelated to the subject
yes, thats the problem. you cannot have an object without a subject so therefore "objective reality" can only exist by reference to an observing subject

all in all i dont think you're that wrong about heidegger but he's pretty clear that the distinction between "object" and "subject" is untenable given that a subject is really just there-being that is inseparable from the "objects" that it perceives. Being-in-the-world is one thing. there are "objective" aspects of Being but the world "objective" misleads us into confusing beings for Being

>>9142145
Woah dude... You just redpilled me. Enlightening.

>>9141915
I think he's got students that read this shit for him, and then present him the relevant things.

He's pretty good tho, might even expand on some Jungian concepts once he stops caring what people think of him.

>>9142145
Why the fuck are you bringing any of this up, none of this is related.
I never claimed Heidegger was an analytical and it doesn't even fucking matter.

You said anti-realists don't deny objective truth when that is -exactly- what defines an anti-realist.
And who else would I quote to bring you a satisfying understanding of anti-realism?
You're really just arguing for the sake of arguing, this is dishonest.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/#7

>you cannot have an object without a subject so therefore "objective reality" can only exist by reference to an observing subject

For the last time, this is wrong and not what I'm saying.
When someone says a thing can be objectified it doesn't pre-suppose the existence of something that objectifies it, merely that all objects happen to be things that can be objectified, hence the fucking word object.

Stop confusing correlation with causation, I'm not even making a correlationist point but you're pinning me down to a correlationist argument (which is already a faulty reading of what I'm saying) and then you make logical mistakes building on top of that premise.

Things do not exist because they can be addressed.
Things that exist can be addressed.

>>9142143
What do you actually think you gain by making comments like this?

Do you think you appear smart by using armchair psychology, or reducing every other person's motivations to primal urges and principles?

>>9142145
>he's pretty clear that the distinction between "object" and "subject" is untenable given that a subject is really just there-being that is inseparable from the "objects" that it perceives. Being-in-the-world is one thing. there are "objective" aspects of Being but the world "objective" misleads us into confusing beings for Being


You have just convinced me that Heidegger is either a mong or a massive fraud, which he is often convinced of being. Thanks for saving me the time friend.

>>9141619
I like his ideas when he's not pandering to memers by making Pepe videos. I hope he writes a book on history and religion.

>>9142166
I'm not entirely with him so far, but his talk of attributes like "openness" is really interesting to me. Seems like a more refined version of Jungian psychology.

>>9141619
At least he doesn't blame the Frankfurt School for everything under the sun. I guess that's a sign of improvement for these popular, redpilled social critic types.

>>9142235
Well, he talks all the time about how both sides of the political spectrum can become corrupt and totalitarian, they just manifest themselves in different ways.

Someone who thinks Peterson is some right-wing pundit who is only after the radical Left obviously has never watched any of his lectures.

>>9142182
>For the last time, this is wrong and not what I'm saying
you dont think it be like it is but it do

>When someone says a thing can be objectified it doesn't pre-suppose the existence of something that objectifies it, merely that all objects happen to be things that can be objectified, hence the fucking word object.
it does, however, presuppose the concept of Object that in your rendering is only justified by circular reasoning. this concept does not come from nowhere--it began as a grammatical construct that was raised to an ontological category in the translation from greek to latin. you may not -think- that an object doesn't presuppose a subject, but it does. it's written into the very concept of "object" and exacerbated when science adapts the subject-object divide and then becomes the ontological standard by which everything "real" is decided.

im not saying objects dont exist, im saying that reality is not an object and therefore cannot be objective. Being can be modeled by "objects" but it's ultimately an unsatisfying construction that puts discrete objects above deeper truths about the world. maybe all truths can be objectified, but im disagreeing that this should be the STANDARD by which things gain their truth

apologies if you think im memeing but the point im trying to make is a subtle one

>>9142204
have fun staying locked in the poisonous ontotheology of modernity, friend

>>9141678
A D H O M I N E M

>>9142266
I've watched a few, and he adheres to the ideological framework of our day pretty relentlessly. He seems to be acting with his solemn monologues and crying episodes. He just seems like the most recent of these """"prophets"""" of degeneracy. I even agree on some points, but I have to question his motives and whether anyone is behind him or hes just an opportunist.

>>9142276
thanks, friend :^)

>>9142276

>>9142143
>somebody to hate

if anything he teaches to learn to blame yourself and look at your own faults.

>>9142320
>and he adheres to the ideological framework of our day pretty relentlessly

Well, anything else would be incoherent to most people.

Derrida is objectively garbage. Only pseuds disagree.

>>9142320
>""""prophets"""" of degenerac
How can you take yourself seriously.

>>9141740
Ikr, I'm good at this sort of things

File: 3afd0y56tw7y.png (438KB, 1431x1041px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1431x1041px

>>9141619
He has the potential to get people out of the nihilism, depression, and suffering.

He can give a person's life meaning and make them truly happy for years upon years, making them feel accomplished as they lay on their deathbed.

Maybe listening to him will benefit you .

>>9141645
>but his own philosophy is a kind of nonsense too
Psychology is a science.

File: 1485402515062.jpg (60KB, 510x437px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 510x437px

>>9143095
I've listened to him. He deliberately misunderstands and misrepresents determinism and Darwinism for the core of his argument, he won't save anyone with an iota of discernment. And is it really salvation if you're being duped? I think not.

>>9143117
Full force in mouth pussy and asshole

>>9142294
>implying it's not true

File: 681576.jpg (36KB, 540x470px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 540x470px

>>9143117

It appears your words are either meaningless or purposefully negative/harmful.

"Listen" more and you might fix that.

>>9141619
I always find it strange when critics of the left like Peterson claim that subjects such as gender or queer studies are a kind of rampant post-modernist disease burning through academia. The majority of these courses have nothing to do with post-modernist thought - in fact, I've found that most progressive academics believe post-modernism has reached a kind of terminal dead end point. If its still possible to define a thinker as 'post-modernist', they'd almost certainly disagree with the notion of inventing gender pronouns. The act of categorisation is still an expression of fidelity to a system which proceeds by division and domination, so its absurd that those who consider themselves oppressed by heteronormative cultures want to label themselves. its almost a kind of self-repression. "Society, friends and family can't dictate who I am! Only my own spooky and fallible judgement can do that!".

>>9143280
But it's true. Peterson clearly props up ideas no-one believes, even Peterson, because they are convenient. For example, he takes the Standford Prison experiment seriously as a proof of evil. Isn't this guy a trained clinical psychologist? A bunch of college kids taking every liberty to fuck with so informal a study does not a conclusion on the human race make. I mean, it lasted like a fucking week.

>>9141849
>deflecting

>>9143301
>the institutionalization of anti-institutionalism
>not post modern
ok anon

it's the taking of subjectivity to a perverse extreme, promulgating it like a new virtue, I'd say it more than qualifies.

>>9141619
>The guy is a fucking idiot.
He defines truth where it clearly needs defining.

>>9141954
How can Marxism be implemented outside of the model of Marxism-Leninism of some flavor? Not a gotcha question, I've been looking for an answer to this from Marxists for a while.

>>9141619
Are you the student from this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDLIR71Pe0A

>>9145017
I mean, outside the manifsto, which is more of a historical document than anything, Marx gave very little actual instruction on how to establish some kind of post-capitalist society. So if you take marxism as a critique of capitalism first and foremost, you have a lot of room on what to actually do. And if you look at the history of the workers rights movement, it wasn't some monolithic marxist-leninist block from the beginning, there were a LOT of different ideas and discussions going on, a lot of people disagreed with Lenin's approach and there were specific historic circumstances in which marxist-leninism eventually become the "standard" approach, it could have all gone quite differently.

>>9143117
You keep talking about groups or movements he's misinterpreted instead of specific issues. Fucking no one is pointing out any idea or point he's made that's wrong or fallicious. Why not talk about a specific argument he's made that you disagree with and why?
Comments which are nothing but generalizations are almost always bullshit. I feel like i'm being baited when I respond to faggots like you.

>>9141619
Postmodernism was a reaction against the muh eternal values that are totally not a fad.

Re: Estheteics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKHH-vXxSzo

>>9141624
>implying there is such a thing as facts

>>9141953
>platonists
>knowing anything about philosophy

File: shrike ref movement and water.gif (153KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 500x500px

I got to a faaaaar left art school (one of the actual legitimate ones, unlike the daycare centers like Rutgers) and I don't care what people want their pronouns to be. The way I see it, it belongs to them just as much as their actual name. It doesn't complicate or lessen my life to call people what they wanna be called. The only time I see it being an issue is when the person with a nonbinary pronoun or whatever are SUPER self-involved, only wanting to talk about themself and having an almost Objectivist kind of mentality.

But those people are sparse, and even then their use of nonbinary pronouns seems to be symptomatic of some deeper issue or mental illness. But some people don't identify with either of the binary genders and just wanna be called "they." I don't see any reason to have a problem with it and Peterson sure hasn't illuminated any reason either.

he updated his reading list; added some stuff.
but he also removed Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment, I'm curious as to why.
someone make a thread about it, I'm too lazy

jungians are pretty interesting and peterson is also pretty interesting
i don't agree with everything he says but he has ideas worthy of consideration

>>9146541
The issue isn't people being allowed to use incorrect pronouns, the issue is people being disallowed from using the correct ones.

You want someone to pretend you're another sex and create a false more comfortable reality? Fine. But it's my decision whether or not I take part in that. I call the sky blue because that's what it is. If I want to address the reality that you're not a girl, or a wolf inside a humans body I should be allowed to without being accused of discrimination and kicked out of a college. Why do I have to pretend the sky is red because someone else can handle a basic reality?

File: serveimage.jpg (214KB, 2133x1200px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 2133x1200px

>>9146679
Why is "don't be a dick" so hard for some people?

>>9146684
Why is "be honest" so hard for some people?

For a movement that preaches being yourself there sure is a lot of roleplaying.

File: 1485381534684.gif (2MB, 466x256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 466x256px

>look him up
>his videos average 30,000 views apiece
>largest fluke video is 200,000

You told me this guy was a big deal, /lit/.

>>9141677
meaningless drivel you've invented yourself you fucking idiot

>>9146684
>>9146705
Pretty transexual: She
Ugly trans: He

Someone had to say it, that's how it works in the real world.

>>9146715
The part about old-school communists who've actually read their Marx hating postmoderns is legit, though.

>>9146705
What "movement"? I'm just saying you don't need to be a dick. It matters to them, it doesn't hurt you.

>>9146541
>one of the actual legitimate ones

I don't think there are any legitimate art schools.

>>9143301
It makes no sense, but that is still how these people think of themselves, as post-modern, rejecting power structures, seeing the world as constructed of ideas that must be examined. They are fighting almost for people's freedom to be deluded by their own imaginary world.

I dont now why postmodernists don't see their ideology as self-defeating, but here we are still talking about it.

>>9141833
>"everything is subjective" can be proven wrong quite easily
Do it then. Prove it wrong.

>>9146684
what it means to "be a dick" isn't some universally accessible idea

Peterson would say that jailing someone at the level of a human rights offense for refusing to respect someone else's pronoun is "being a dick"

>>9146712
check out his patreon, he gets like 10k a month minimum

>>9146739
Basically nothing

>>9146735
Peterson is right, but refusing to respect someone else's pronoun is also being a dick so that balances out. The only reasons anyone can give for not respecting other's pronouns require the same sort of mental gymnastics that mean racism is something only white people can do. It doesn't hurt you to do it in any meaningful way but they will be hurt if you don't. It's not difficult.

>>9146541
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAQlleqDgbI

>>9146742
Peterson does respects peoples pronouns, the issue he has (which he is personally guilty of not emphasizing enough) is that other people shouldn't have legal control of what you can or can't say. That's what rustles his Jimmies. A game like language should be entered into out of mutual agreement ("Could you call me she?") instead of something forced.

>>9146769
I can agree with that. I'm still going to respect other people's choices of pronouns however.

>>9146679
>The issue isn't people being allowed to use incorrect pronouns, the issue is people being disallowed from using the correct ones.
Yes, if you presuppose certain facts, you can pretend your opponents MUST have absurd meta-level beliefs instead of engaging them on the object level.

Oh look, that's what ALL Peterson's "arguments" reduce to.

File: 1486770780372.jpg (32KB, 480x482px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x482px

we need more people talking shit about marxism

>>9141619
I'd love to see /lit/'s pseuds actually debate him and get completely anally demolished.

Calling someone an idiot is easy, but do you actually have an argument flemwad?

>>9147160
>arguments are good
t. reddit

I hear about him for the first time now.

Are there some standard clips you talk about or what? There's a few things out there.

>>9146684
>Why is "don't be a dick" so hard for some people?
Conceptions of politeness are a method of social control. It can, as you just have, be used to dismiss any disagreement as mere rudeness.

>>9147332
He covers all of what OP mentions in his Joe Rogan interview/appearance. Probably better to listen to him talk there instead of responding to people on the street or in a classroom.

>>9147336
Sure, but I think what >>9146541 mentioned alludes to how the response to being asked to use different pronouns is disproportionate to the request.

>>9147354
I don't think it is all. I think someone does have to sacrifice something of themselves in affirming something that fundamentally violates their convictions. We just don't realize it because dominant modes of thought privilege the feelings of whoever is deemed "oppressed" at the time, and politeness is a major part of reinforcing these modes of thought.

File: Glen_Coe,_Scotland_27_Dec.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9147349

Thank you.

I take it you mean this long clip
https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE
and I see there are also cuts, down to 50 minutes.

Was the man discussed on /lit/ also before the end of 2016?

>>9147406
>I think someone does have to sacrifice something of themselves in affirming something that fundamentally violates their convictions.
welcome to real life

>>9146684
I don't get why some people are so selfless as to infringe upon others' liberties simply out of vanity either.

>>9147428
>real life exists
mein gott...

>>9147428
I can't think of any other "real-life" example of this magnitude.

guys truth aint true it's just what i define as true yo

>>9141619

Well, the first one is true; the other ones I didn't hear from him (also, can't judge Derrida, since I didn't read him). And I watched one of talks where he criticizes pomo.

I'm watching his Maps of Meaning lectures and his analysis of Pinocchio is fascinanting. Also I love how he mixes up Freud, Jung, Campbell, Game Theory and Evolutionary Psychology. I like all these things, so it'd be hard for me not to like his psychoanalytic theory that is pretty much a synthesis of all these fields.

Also, everyone says dumb shit. And talks about things they don't like they don't know them. You have to be able to sift what is interesting from what is just sensational.

>>9147638
>they don't like they don't know them

*they don't know like they know them

brainfart

I think Maps of Meanings has a lot of cool ideas (even if it rambles a lot). As someone who already leans towards thinkers like Jung, Joseph Campbell, Nietzsche, Eliade, etc. it was nice to see a synthesis of history/neurobiology/comparative mythology/psychology in a way that makes a lot of sense. I think that further study in the direction Peterson describes in MoM would be very fruitful and intellectually valuable.

With that being said, I think he's really lost the thread in recent years. He doesn't have a whole lot of room in his thought for nuance and realizing that we're not just repeating the patterns of the past. Yes, totalitarianism is bad, but it's laughable to compare the modern trends found in "social justice movements" (whatever that means) to fascism, marxism, etc. Any thinker who doesn't situate an intellectual/ideological trend within its historical context (past and present) has ultimately failed to give a convincing account of how things really work. Here especially the lack of engagement with philosophy is crippling, especially to an interdisciplinary approach much like he attempts. Peterson mentions such figures as Wittgenstein a few times in MoM but fails to integrate greater trends and modes of thought within the philosophical tradition in a meaningful way. (Ontology, a serious discussion of language, epistemology, etc.)

Top this off with Mr. Peterson himself having a bizarre Messiah complex and his most vocal followers being the "lol muh skeleton warriors" redpilled types and I can't say I really align with him at all. It's the typical case of a talented STEM-type thinker whose ego becomes inflated and thus believes himself to be an authority on fields far removed from his own.

>>9141619

I never see Peterson get to the meat of his main work "maps of meaning".
Everyone just fucking shits out of their mouth over his hardly controversial statements about communism.

He's right tho.
Post-structuralism is the cancer killing western society.

>>9147425
Yeah, his lectures would get posted every once in a while before he got popular. Watch the full length video.

>>9145023
based.

>>9145017
You let trannies use different bathrooms and Starbucks hires immigrants. What else do you need anon ? Abandon your utopian dreams

>>9147768
>Yes, totalitarianism is bad, but it's laughable to compare the modern trends found in "social justice movements" (whatever that means) to fascism, marxism, etc.

I think this is true, but I think the Canadian law which basically forces people to align with a rather radical ideologie (gender and sex vary independedly and everyone can choose any made up identity and are all equally valid).

the problem with that is that the identities multiply indefinetely. as Peterson pointed out, New York already recognizes 33 or so.

should the full force of the law really be imposed on peole who dont subscribe to such an ideologie?

>>9141677
I never understood why people hate postmodernists.

>>9146712

that's a ton for someone who doesn't make clickbait. are you stupid?

File: Ghost Dance.jpg-large.jpg (25KB, 500x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x386px

>>9148707
Bitches love it.

>>9148707
Maybe I'm dumb but I feel like a lot of the tenets of POMO about meaning construction are just patently false and whole the thing ludicrous. I'm reading JP's book at the moment and the proposition that we freely ascribe meaning seems literally something an only madman would say. If it were true, we'd all be in our own little paradises.

>>9148846
I'm happy you wrote this

>>9147451
Do you honestly think that people want to, say, spend half of their day with work? Or that smokers wanna quit their habit because of cancer? Almost every facet of life is about compromising, about being x instead of y and so on.

File: whatsittoyoubucko.png (494KB, 750x618px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 750x618px

Lit, post your rare petersons and remember the gulag

>>9146880
>presuppose certain facts
What like assuming having XY chromosomes makes you a guy? You say shit lime "certain facts" because you don't have any incorrect fact to actually point out. This thread STILL hasn't debunked any specific argument made by this guy.

>>9147354
If it's not a big deal for me to change my terminology per individual then why can't someone else just accept the biologically accurate terminology as is? If having the right to pronouns is something others care about then being allowed to say what speak openly without condemnation is what I care about. It's only an overreaction if you don't care about the other sides argument.

Real minority groups have fought for generations to receive equal treatement and equal terminology, not special treatment and individual safewords.

>>9142320
>>9142384
He is even more ridiculous than you think for he did not type the pairs of three quotation marks that you see at first glance, but 12 separate apostrophes!

>>9141619
>op with no arguments in sight
>no wonder he he's a leftist

>>9143356
read more about the stanford prison experiment, i think you won't think they were fucking around. the issue is that it mirrored real world breakdown and cruelty repeated time and time again, it wasn't the crux of his argument by any means, he used it as part of an argument that ordinary humans have the capacity for great evil, not as a "proof of evil" itself

>>9146657
his reading list probably looked too much the list of someone who only read through the essential works of psychology and some of the most well known works of Russian literature, it was almost entirely Dostoyevsky, Bulgakov, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn. It didn't look the list of a well read person. Even if those are his favorite books he wants it to look better.

>>9147332
>>9147349
I recommend either downloading his podcast and listening to the first two episodes or even better listening to his complete interview with Transliminal. The Joe Rogan thing is really good but excessively focused on the pronouns thing.

File: u7KEjzS.jpg (473KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 2000x1500px

Why do people keep shilling this Peterson fellow?

>>9149490
he's good for getting people out of the nihilistic swamp of misery that a lot of people on 4chan get stuck in. he get's a bunch of idiots on /pol interested in actual intellectual worthwhile things.

he's no messiah or anything but he's a great influence on some people and they are very loyal because of that

File: 1446524323472.png (176KB, 438x420px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 438x420px

>>9141866
>By definition an object is something that can be objectified

What he says about spirituality and hero mythology especially is very interesting, I think he's spot on in that regard.

>>9149171
“A symbol is not a disguise, but rather a display; the best expression of something that cannot otherwise be expressed." -- Chesterton

File: IMG_0111.png (1MB, 1173x700px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1173x700px

>>9150003
thanks for that quote, have a prof petey

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-24 at 13.22.38.png (393KB, 681x594px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 681x594px

>>9149487
I'm the guy who asked for a link above.

I've listened to the 3 hour interview now and like it for what it is: Someone expressing his problem with PC culture who is also well read or practiced enough to express himself. I.e. not alt-right anons.

He's a Christian (and, in the youtube circles, necessarily in the role of an apologetic) and shills a little for his moral ideas. Okay, I'd probably do the same if I happened to have strong opinions like that.

The fact that he made that Pepe video is clearly just because he wants to reach a bigger audience and he has fun wrapping his knowledge of mythology and classical symbolism on a topic that's been mostly untouched. As someone who does youtube videos himself (though on programming and math), I can fully understand the incentive to jump on hot topics like that.

But okay, now I also watched most of the 2h discussion with Sam Harris. The interesting part is after 53mins.
https://youtu.be/B9eKURpdFM8
I often find Harris's straight forward determinism boring, and his ideas that his rationality "clearly" supports his morals exhausting. Still, at least this POV leads Harris to use a clear language. Peterson, who demands to reserve "True" for expressions giving moral guidelines. He literally in this video says things can be "correct", but not "true". This reinterpreting and reusing of words is exactly what makes the French psychologists not to be understood except for the academics who read them in depth. I rather have a Chomsky Harris discussion that can be followed, as opposed to some academic fight over words

>>9150627
summary and discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZnLTkCfrU

>>9141645
I don't have a problem with him pointing out patterns in stories, but he does get into some retarded territory. I was just watching an actual college lecture where he was analyzing his dreams using psychoanalysis. Getting kinda pseud there.

>>9149283
Because gender is not the same thing as sex. Sex is objective, observable, its as plain as the color of hair you're born with, and it has no influence on what someone's gender is. This si why someone can have male genitalia but still have the gender of female. Gender is something abstract, as subjective as someone's name. That etherealness is part of why I don't think it's a big deal at all to call someone what they want to be called.

There are some people who say sex is as abstract as gender, which is dumb and only muddies things up. And there are people who are fervent and hostile about being mis-gendered. But those people are the loud minority, with most times I've misgendered someone going down like:
"And then he said..."
"She."
"My bad. So she said..."

It's really not that hard. I think people on either side who blow it up as a big issue really need something better to do.

>>9149453
ad hominem.

>>9149500
Derrida did the same for me, though I wouldn't say he saved me from nihilism. The world is the same as it is, just brighter and myself all-the-more happy to be a part of it.

>>9143301
>"Western society is PHALLOGOCENTRIC" - Jacques Derrida
>"This has nothing to do with the post-modernist disease running through academia"

Yeah sure. The claim that the West is phallogocentric, is literally how you get feminists using the word "mansplaining" unironically.

File: JD.jpg (192KB, 1200x914px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1200x914px

>>9151182

But he's not wrong.

>>9147354
>to how the response to being asked to use different pronouns is disproportionate to the request.

Are you fucking stupid?

The request is LITERALLY "Use these pronouns or go to court. And if you still refuse, pay a fine, and if you still refuse, you'll be held in contempt of court and will go to jail."

The request is literally totalitarian.

>>9151197
He is wrong. Western society doesn't privilege anything other than money and social status. Both of which you can get without having a phallus, or using logic.

>>9149171
I think this quote is kind of dumb.

Artist can write down what their painting means (or use paintings to represent what they would write), which is to say, they can write down their interpretations of their own work (as can their critics for their own interpretations). He could say that we couldn't nail down a universal interpretation nor can aesthetics be perfectly explained, but this has little to do with "moral truths". For that matter, everything is effectively propaganda, and what that propaganda says is ultimately depended on who is viewing it.

>>9149232
>What like assuming having XY chromosomes makes you a guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

>This thread STILL hasn't debunked any specific argument made by this guy.
Name one. I'm not watching another 2 hours of him babbling about 40 incoherent topics without making a single point. If you don't HAVE any scientific arguments, you can't expect people to disprove them