Peterson, Sam Harris, pt. 2

>>9234037
Why would anyone listen to these hacks

>>9234037
You lost me at Sam Harris

>>9234049
Yo seriously. Philosophy is so gay. Come up with your own sheeeesh.

>>9234049
>hacks
>most intelligent and relevant philosophers of our time

>>9234057
>Sam Harris and Memerson
>philosophers

Nice try

>>9234049
perhaps to enjoy the metaphysical combat involved in the negative emotions filled void of this existence that plagues us all?

>>9234070
speak for yourself, virgin

Peterson is laughably stupid and if I weren't so pathetic myself I might even pity him.

File: reason_able.jpg (84KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 900x900px

>18:30
>Peterson basically explains Chads to Harris
kek

>>9234091
>because I stuck my dick in a mentally retarded girl now I can talk down to people online!
step back everyone, I think we're dealing with a master here.

>>9234126
>t. unloved loser

File: 1470235446090.png (2MB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1600px

>>9234037
Anyone else feel like Peterson's chimp troop analogy near the start is very similar to r9k dogma?

Basically Peterson claims morality has evolved to stop chad from dominating us and stealing all the females. Selfless values are beneficial in a Darwinian sense. Peterson then goes on to say that human women exclusively date across or above themselves in the "dominance heirarchy", but he doesn't expand on that point.

What exactly does Peterson find wrong with the current female/male relation ship dynamic? I actually do remember finding some anon on wizchan posting his videos before he got efamous. I know the dude's married with children now, but I'm detecting this theme of women being promiscuous floozies and needing to buck up their ideas.

>>9234049
it's not as boring as reading

>>9234134
try the redpill we simply hate women and nonwhites here

harris da goat

File: XE2PmOy.jpg (87KB, 488x572px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 488x572px

>>9234131
You think women date beneath themselves the way men do? It's common sense that they don't.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 00.19.53.png (317KB, 860x901px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 860x901px

>>9234131
I don't know what he things of sexual morality and current developments.
Petersons research is a lot about reducing linguistic concepts to archetypes and grounding them in evolution.
The second part is stuff like "we evolved from animals that don't see color to humans that do to find and pick the right fruit", and stuff like this also for habits/instinct/sub-personalities (e.g. that babies are automatically afraid of heights, even if they don't understand anything, or psychological theories of evolution)
The first part is the basic psychology tests of asking the same question a few times ("are you happy when X happens", "when X happens, do you smile?", "when X happen, are you euphoric?") and cross correlating them, breaking them down to half a dozen personality trades.
To express the underlying principles, language with it's non-fitting and overlapping words are a baggage, and stories encapsulate and express motivations better than any property. Actions speak louder than words? Of course this means it gets mystic.

>>9234174
Do you think the guy fucked that retard?

There has to be some sort of law against this.

>>9234186
The examples I gave with the X's we are little bit too close.
Consider e.g. how someone votes, what bugs them and how they play games. Those are different things and they ought to be correlated with just a few psychological featues (as in the pic related above) and you're put on a spectrum. And depending one who you are in this regard (different people are different), you set goals different and motivations, but just as there are a few trades that capture personality, there are a few archetypical stories caturing moviations.

Okay, and that's just my explanation of what I heard from him so far - I'm happy for corrections

>>9234174
>You think women date beneath themselves the way men do?

I don't think I've ever seen a man date a woman with downs syndrome, but I think the classification of someone being "beneath" you is very subjective. Does he relate to a superior physical constitution(genetics) or material wealth?

>>9234207
desu it seems like a fake image, I doubt people with downs have the capability to write a post on facebook as well articulated as that.

unless she doesn't have downs and is unfortunately ugly.

>>9234241
https://youtu.be/-cA3t1HW1Ow

>>9234255
Damn, pretty eye opening.

The only people with downs sydrome I've known are like 40+, so they probably got shafted by my countries education system and disregarded as invalids.

>>9234131
>What exactly does Peterson find wrong with the current female/male relation ship dynamic?
Does he ever actually condemn this behavior? If it's evolutionarily superior it might be totally acceptable. Genuine question, I haven't watched a lot of his lectures or read anything he wrote.
>>9234140
>try the redpill we simply hate women and are all nonwhites here
FTFY

>>9234332
I only watched 4 of his 1.5h lectures and he never judges anyone but the WWII and death cap people etc., and btw. you get to know stuff like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
but regarding sexuality, he's only ever flirting with the female students about how cunning and rather complicated they are made to be

0:52
I don't get Harris view of /lit/ at all?!

This is mind numbingly boring. I was so excited for this too

>>9234562
Is there a point where you disagree with both of them?

File: johnson treatment.jpg (179KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 500x643px

>>9234131
That's not what Peterson is saying. He's saying that Chad is able to get to the top of the dominance hierarchy, but he can't stay there for long because a couple of more pro-social chimps can tear him apart, and when they rule no one wants to tear them apart.

It's why limited governments aren't as often overthrown as dictatorships.

>>9234174
She could in theory have a normal IQ, and possibly have a better personality than some bimbos. I am mostly worried about her looks.

>>9234728
Was LBJ a homo?

>>9234774
He was just alpha af

>>9234777
Why's he leaning in for a kiss? Looks like a fag to me.

>>9234774
No, that was J. Edgar Hoover.

>>9234777
Obviously, he was a president, but it looks more like insecure behaviour.

>>9234795
Wasn't he just a transvestite like Michelle Obama?

>>9234060
>most intelligent and relevant philosophers of our time

lol... just lol

>>9234140
speak for urself idiot

>>9234824
A philosopher is a man that writes a book length essay on religion or psychology or has a youtube account.

>>9234118
i would unironically suck his dick no homo

I like Peterson he is one of the good guys and is able to speak his mind clearly, he is not a genius or whatever but he is good
But I'm not going to listen to that boring shit

>>9234037
>god isnt real
Dostoevsky and Tostoy wrote great works of fiction, even though the story isnt true they still contain more truth than most peoples lives. Religion works in this way.
>god isnt real
Sam are you even listening?

>>9235053
it was pretty good. I do think he is a genius as far as IQ is concerned.

>>9235002
>almost certain the surprise box will be no homo
>scroll over it
>it is
What an awful feeling. This website is so rarely something other than garbage.

>>9234037
I really disliked this podcast. I like JP and am going to see him talk this weekend at my university but conversations like these just leave me flabbergasted. He gives the overwhelming of being both smart, and a moron.

>>9234037
Does Jordan Peterson still work at UoT?

>>9235337
I agree. I don't know what to make of him.

>>9234037
I don't think they disagree on a whole lot, Harris just sees everything through a political lens so all he can think about is political consequences of the things Peterson is saying. I think Peterson is talking purely on a philosophical level

File: images (4).jpg (24KB, 500x223px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x223px

>>9234728
>>9234774
>>9234777
>>9234785
>>9234805

Alpha

>>9234332
>If it's evolutionarily superior it might be totally acceptable.
It's not. It's why Islamic societies are so violent.

1. Islam allows men to have many wives. Therefore, there are more single men than women. Single men are more violent than married men.

2. To fix this problem Islam allows conquest and the taking of slaves as wives.

3. Islam acts in the same way as a bureaucracy or a cancer in that it grows to contain itself.

>>9235367
Means Of Ascent by Robert Caro is a rad as fuck LBJ bio, I hate political bios (unless they are communist dictators) but this shit went hard, plus it was at a key time in american history, def. check it out, LBJ was like some undereducated (but supposedly high iq) dude who played american politics like stalin playing the bolshevik central committee, JFK and Nixon seemed to be much more vividly remembered from that era, probably due to the sensational ends to their presidential careers, but LBJ was p interesting, i was surprised how much i enjoyed it

(This review is of the audiobook version of the product)

>>9235369
>Therefore, there are more single men than women. Single men are more violent than married men.

that's also why if a woman walks unescorted through places like cairo a mob of horny dudes will come down and grope her

>>9235385
caro's over 80, do you think he'll be able to finish the final volume in time?

>>9234332
if you can't understand why that might generate an immense sense of alienation and resentment on a large portion of men, just on the ground that you deem it "evolutionary superior"(in what way? are individual women all skillful appraisers of what constitutes an evolutionary superior decision? did nature equip them with a foolproof hardware for genetic selection? protip the answers are all no) , which is an extremely arbitrary judgment of value, you are probably autistic.

Do I have to pay for this one?

>>9234049

How are they hacks?

>>9234037
Can someone post the audio with all the Harris parts edited out? Peterson is an interesting guy, but Harris has literally never said anything worth hearing.

File: you're fucking dead pinnochio.jpg (123KB, 713x705px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 713x705px

>>9234037
Interesting discussion.

>>9235295
You know what isn't an awful feeling?
Gay sex

File: 1487979185552.jpg (109KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 540x960px

>>9234064
>not calling Sam Harris ''Scam Harrtist''

Also Memerson is pretty bad, I'd rather stick to Kermit.

>>9236061
i always thought sam harris was like just an honest atheist like hitchens, i don't give a shit about atheism one way or the other so i never really payed attention to his shit until it was pointed out that he's a jew who has dedicated his entire career to undermining christianity, then i saw this:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

and now i'm like ok FUCK this dude

>>9235099
Sam isn't symaphetic, but he's mostly, bitterly, saying that cults are dangerous

>>9236077
I think Sam is correct in saying that religion causes more harm than it causes good, and the reason is because they view their religion true as scientific theories.

But I do think he should've admitted that Peterson's approach to religion is a vast improvement.

>>9236077
>cult leader says that cults are dangerous

eh eh

>>9236129
how fucking new are you

>>9236129
>>>/reddit/

>>9234131
he seems to use evolutionary psychology related to sexual dymanics to describe the development of the distribution of power and the organisation in society, government and religion.

I see some similarity in Nietzsche's idea of master-slave dynamic creating modern morals to counteract the power of the master. (So he's probably again mixing different ideas from different disciplines to tell a new story).

I'm probably wrong though. Not familiar with Peterson

>>9236233
He does use his own form of evolutionary psychology, but he also criticizes evolutionary psychology for being too narrow.

He imagines that a great deal of our morality is way more ancient than when early Homo sapiens lived on the African savannah, which presumably it is, given that the life form that is now called human is vastly older than a couple of hundreds of thousands of years.

>>9236129
Yeah I wasn't really insulting the guy for being beta. More inquiring about his world view

Relax faggot

>>9236470
Not him, but I mean, he was giving a descriptive explanation of animal hierarchy, and giving an argument for how this can be said to be true for humans as well.(E.g men are more aggressive, and women are naturally hypergamous).

It doesn't take a lot of research to find out that there is considerable overlap between base animal behavior and human behavior.

>>9236264
>He imagines that a great deal of our morality is way more ancient than when early Homo sapiens lived on the African savannah, which presumably it is, given that the life form that is now called human is vastly older than a couple of hundreds of thousands of years.
How is that new? Primatologists, such as Frans de Waal, already have done research on fairness and primates. Or are you talking of more specific morality?

>>9234052
We live in a cynical world.

>>9236116
What's wrong with that?

>>9234037
love watching two pseud manchildren argue.
as much as i dislike harris i like that he's making peterson look like the new-age nutjob he is.

>it's easy to look smart to pseuds when you argue against sincerely held beliefs when you believe in nothing

>>9236748
Peterson believes in a sort of platonic Evil and Harris believes logic is god

>>9236073
The way you write makes me think you're an angsty teenager

>>9234761

Her spelling and grammar seems to be above the average of most people nowadays, at least.

>>9234761

It's also possible that the normal looking dude has some kind of intellectual disability that doesn't present as obviously.

>>9236594
It's not new at all, and he uses Frans de Waal's research in his own ideas.

>>9236073
tl;dr
On the Israel podcast

>>9237547
>Israel isn't perfect
>but Muslims are worse than Jews
>so Israel is ok
In other words a kike being a kike

I'm about halfway through this podcast. I didn't bother listening to the first one. This is complete nonsense. Sam Harris is the model pseudo-intellectual. All of his ideas are based on supposed 'logic' and 'science' but does not think deeply about anything at all.

jordan peterson seems pretty full of shit, so much so that it's not even interesting to listen to him

https://youtu.be/CwcVLETRBjg

>>9238222
That's the best critique you could muster?

>>9238222
He's an entry level philosopher but it's still a bit of a leap understanding the lexicon
Nothing he's saying is that radical or bizarre

>>9234037
seinfeld?

>>9234037
Don't really enjoy Harris or even Peterson that much but I like what they're doing with these podcasts. I just wish more academic philosophers would have discussions about these broad topics and great unknowns rather than only jerk each other off about super esoteric topics. If anything I'd just like to hear what they have to say and for them to get their ideas challenged publicly and have to defend them. I know philosophy was never really for the common person, but it's nice to see these two bringing it into a more public light.

>>9235601
>you deem it
It's not a subjective thing, though. It's either beneficial from an evolutionary stance or it's not. I think you misunderstood the question you fucking autist

>>9235345

Yup

>>9236114
>But I do think he should've admitted that Peterson's approach to religion is a vast improvement.

Why would he not admit that? It's true

File: Chomsky_fuzzy.jpg (123KB, 685x1050px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 685x1050px

>>9242002
Harris is against fixed rules of behaviour layed out in old books.
Peterson proposes some sort of natural story (e.g. bible) guided existentialism. A very soft form of what Harris is afraid from.
I think they are at the end of their interactions. They don't seriously cross each other, but they also won't turn closer to the others opinion.

I agree with the anon above, tho, it's great to hear people talk. There's no point in some people here complain about the one or the other, attacking their views without engaging in the conversation and so on. As long as they don't provide podcasts or videos with equally civilized compelling discussions, this is the second best thing to books that we have.

>>9236116
>Says the dude who probably takes time tested and widely influencial thinkers seirously

Holy... I want more

>>9242115
Lenin is a widely influencial thinker too

I turned it off after 10 minutes because Peterson seemed to be talking about nothing at all and it probably would have taken another 3 hours to get to the point. Should I bother with the rest?

>>9242126
well, if his manner of talking annoys you, then don't
Harris asks direct questions, trying to pin peterson down and Peterson responds with long metaphors and descriptions of stuff, that seem more mystical than anything

>>9242231
Peterson is no mystic.

>>9242298
>our value systems and ideals are a product of billions of years of biological evolution
>that's why all cultures share basically the same ideas/archetypes in principle, like the hero story
>cultures may differ, but they have the same notions and goals as a foundation (altough some are "mislead"
>christianity is a religion that holds truth above else (which according to him lead to the rise of science and it displacing religion in the west btw.)
>therefore christianity is the best religion to follow, because it includes all important archetypes/fundamental ideas you need to have a rich fullfilling live (like Christ as the classical hero and THE perfect human being (as archetype; he's not saying he was)), as well a yearning to find and speak the truth, thus allowing christianity itself to filter the good from the bad in it's own belief/doctrine/dogma

he's some kind of weird darvinian- jungian mystic

>>9242370
None of that is mystical.

>>9242231
Harris doesn't understand deeper meanings.

File: 1475695881513.jpg (17KB, 402x412px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 402x412px

>so jordan let me ask y-
>ok sam let me tell you a story

>>9244395
So the question is if anybody believes that there is something "evolvedly right" in the biblical stories.

I honestly can't judge

>>9244406
Of course, Christians believe that. I think Peterson is conflating Christianity with Western civilization.

File: rarepeterson.png (143KB, 511x615px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 511x615px

>>9234131
Peterson is /r9k/ incarnate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeL-Fn0V8iU&list=PL22J3VaeABQDIQXJiFTohq5Wup0fXrqjp&index=3

>>9235337
that's psychologists for you

they have the knowledge of poets, but they acquired it secondhand

>>9236799
>Peterson believes in a sort of platonic Evil

Peterson's pessimism is understated. He thinks that suffering is the only thing that's real.

>>9236817
probably with Wittgenstein's remarks on religion

Paraphrasing...

>If I see someone writing on a chalkboard and they say 2 + 2 = 17, I would not believe it was a mistake. For an error, this is too large.

>>9238222
He's a psychologist more than a philosopher.

That is to say, he's interested in making life endurable more than discovering radical new truths about the world.

Both kinds of people are necessary, desu.

>>9244415
Christianity and Western civilization are bound together.

>>9244443
is this a David Byrne sketch?

>>9242370
>Christ as the classical hero and THE perfect human being

It's stuff like this that makes me maintain that Peterson is fundamentally pagan, not Christian.

Zizek I believe made a remarkable comment on Christ, that the deepest meaning of the gospels is that they have no deeper meaning. No kaballistic intepretation or crypto-kabalistic/crypto-Platonic interpretation a-la Freud or Jung will suffice to do anything but to obscure the reality. This is the genius of Christianity, that the primary meaning is the exoteric one, not the one that has to be read within the lines, that is accessible only to the adepts (which is an elitist idea in accord with most other systems of thought). To Christians, Christ isn't primarily great because he represents the perfect man or the classical hero, the text stresses that he is great because:

1. He is God incarnated in human form.
2. He sacrificed himself to atone for our sins, thus saving/liberating all humankind.

It's not that Christianity has no Kabbalism or Sufism because the Catholic Church was repressive/evil and prosecuted all heretics, it's the straightforwardness of the message itself that made the Catholic Church so harsh to elitists who (mistakenly) thought they had found the deeper message, the deeper message which isn't there, or at least isn't more important than the superficial one.

The reason Jung liked the gnostics is that they failed to understand the story of Christ in the same way he did; both thinkers missed the point. Gnostic thought (as far as I can tell) may include Christ as a great spirit or something (Preceded only by Pleroma and Barbelo!), but he is never depicted in the way that is crucial to Christianity, that is, as the unequivocal son of God (who is consubstantial with God) and the redeemer of mankind's sins.

Not to say that Gnostic thought or Jungian thought doesn't have many important insights. I'm not a Christian, but I do think that Christian thought is yet greater than Pagan thought, and all interpretations of Christ as a mere "hero" or "the perfect man," while asserted by the gospels, fundamentally fail to grasp the main point. I don't think there is anything blameworthy in this, however. I think it's the consequence of "thinking too well," or something. Academics and very intelligent people are used to reading between the lines (unlike the naive masses), so it's no surprise that they'd try to bore into Christianity to uncover the deeper message (which, while it exists... it would be wrong to think of as more important).

>>9244602
Good post

File: 114139.jpg (72KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x480px

>>9234064

>>9234049
first post best post

>>9234049
agreed, i'm now going to listen to zizek lectures and read baudrillard, right wingers are so stupid and undeducated lmao

>>9236073
t. muhammad

Why do people call Peterson a cult leader here? Serious question, I just listened to a lecture of his for the first time

>>9244522
he's also been suffering from crippling clinical depression and is on ssris

he should get into ligotti and benatar

>>9245084
probably because of how many fans he has... it's unusual for an academic.

Also, he has a kind of totalizing philosophy of life, which is more than can be said of most psychologists or philosphers... any system which totally explains everything can't fail to strike most people as religious...

I just hope it doesn't go to his head.

>>9245101
>he's also been suffering from crippling clinical depression
I've seen this meme going around...

Fake news

>>9244602
good stuff anon

File: 4a1.jpg (94KB, 1155x1155px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1155x1155px

>>9234052
naw but listen man i train and do mma so yea i totally understand where you're coming from on someone aggressively opposing me mister SWAT man

sam harris is a huge hack.

i have a great deal of respect for peterson, but his conversation with harris was excruciatingly pedantic. he comes to the issue of free speech (muh pronouns, etc) without bias, i feel.

see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY

>>9244602
There is some deeper meaning to Christianity but it's something that the people of the late Roman period would have understood. Such as the inherent debt being paid by Christ vs the debt and payment in the form of sacrifices demanded by Pagan gods and the Hebrew god prior to Christ.

>>9247127
That's not a deeper meaning. That's the surface of the story

>>9244602
Very good account. Its why I always felt Hegel was the first thinker to truly *get* Christianity. His account is so innate to the text itself

>>9244602
Catholic here and I agree with you fully.

Gnosticism is one of the first and greatest corruptions of Christianity. There is an allegorical and mystical interpretation of the gospel, but not to such an extent that the whole thing becomes a symbol and the fact Christ that came in the flesh, died, and rose again becomes irrelevant. Origen was an example of an early Christian writer who was not necessarily Gnostic but had these Platonising tendencies.

I can't watch Peterson for long precisely because he is soaked in Jungian neo-Gnostic though. Gnosticism is Satanic. It's the idea that you can become divine through secret knowledge, which is precisely what Satan promises to Eve in the garden. Christianity relies foremost on faith, not knowledge. The reason is that faith puts you in a position of intellectual humility (faith is a crucifixion of the intellect), whereas knowledge leads to intellectual pride. We need to undergo this intellectual humiliation to repay for the sin of intellectual pride (Adam's eating of the tree of knowledge). Gnostics utterly despise this and say that the God of the Old Testament is a foolish demiurge, and the serpent was a divine being trying to liberate humanity. The Gnostic interpretation of the Gospel is one of the most subtle and devious corruptions of it; the early centuries of Christianity saw dozens of fake Gnostic-writtern gospels published.

You are right the genius of the gospel is that it is exoteric. You have to understand that religion at that time was a very esoteric thing. Sure you had the folk superstitions / practices, and the state cult; but the ancient world was full of secret mystery religions that generally accepted only an elect few initiates (often from high places in society). The elites had their own religion(s). The Gospel is the divine mysteries revealed to the whole world, free of charge, to every single person no matter how poor, stupid, etc. It puts the lowest members of society on the same spiritual standing as the highest, which totally undoes the caste system of the mystery schools and ancient religions like Hinduism.

>>9247348
Nah, Hegel was another Gnostic.

St. John and St. Paul were the first "thinkers" to get Christianity, then the Church fathers.

>>9247405
I don't see what a good motivation would be, for going full leap of faith mode.
Basically, you'd only do it if you're on the brink of suicide and thing "well, now nothing to lose, so even if it's bullshit the decision to give up rational can't make my path in life worse than it already is"

>>9234836
>A philosopher is a man
Thanks for making it plausible

>>9247416
>Nah, Hegel was another Gnostic

God no, you don't understand Hegel at all if you think this. He wasn't fundamentally antithetical to gnosticism, I really can't emphasise that enough

>>9247469
*was fundamentally

>>9247416
Zizek has a massive mancrush on Paul for a reason, him and Hegel were practically brothers

>>9247440
Catholic faith is not Kierkegaardian fideism. I say that faith is like a crucifixion of the intellect, but that should only be taken as meaning that reason must be still and cannot possibly arrive at the truths taught by faith, not that the truths taught by faith are irrational.

The truths of the Catholic faith are quite reasonable in the sense of credible: Almighty God made the world, men fell away from God, God elected a man of faith to bring forth a Saviour, that Saviour was born in accordance with prophecy, and bridged the divided between God and man through sacrifice. This isn't made up bullshit like Scientology. It's the fulfilment of centuries of prophecy, and the lives of the saints and martyrs bear witness to the truth of the faith, as well as the miracles, as well as the Church's place in world-history as one of three great claimants to the inheritance of Abraham, the scope and greatness of which making it credible that it indeed is the Church of God.

The bare existence of God (an infinite, perfect, omnipotent being) can be known by reason alone. In fact, denying the existence of God makes you a fool.

>>9247336
It's not how most people view Jesus.

>>9244443
>>>
> Anonymous 03/14/17(Tue)13:39:23 No.9236748▶>>9236799
>>it's easy to look smart to pseuds when you argue against sincerely held beliefs when you believe in nothing
>>>
> Anonymous 03/14/17(Tue)13:53:44 No.9236799▶>>9244522
>>>9236748
>Peterson believes in a sort of platonic Evil and Harris believes logic is god
>>>
> Anonymous 03/14/17(Tue)13:57:37 No.9236810▶
>>>9236073
>The way you write makes me think you're an angsty teenager

File: elastic.jpg (331KB, 1280x694px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1280x694px

This Q & A is the most entertaining thing of him I've seen so far

https://youtu.be/_UL-SdOhwek

>>9249291
he made titty jokes and then called us AND the alt-right degenerates

fuckin wew

>>9234131
I think Peterson once stated that nothing indicates necessity for personal healing and introspection more than dogmatic hatred of the opposite sex, so he's not as /r9k/ as you'd think.

>>9236073
after reading the article, you are clearly either baiting or are a fucking retard.

>>9234174
We had a guy who did this over and over in hs. Fucked every retard of legal age and rubbed it in the sped teachers faces.

Saw his name in the newspaper, turned out he was molesting his step kids. Was not surprised

>>9247526
how do you deal with jews not accepting jesus as the messiah, jews still being around today and actually being extremely relevant in the world, and the whole "end times are coming guys, jews will surely come around" thing?

>>9250046
Synagogue of Satan.

>>9247469

Could you provide a synopsis of his philosophy?

he just uploaded another 2 hour video on his channel. my life practically revolves around him at this point.

>>9247440
>>9247526
Reminder that Kierkegaard wasn't a fideist and never used the term "leap of faith" in his writings.

>>9245217
Apologize. Right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqXZY3B-cGo

>that part Harris read from his book

What was even the point?
What good would worshiping a sandwich recipe do?

The same thing about that voodoo tribe he brought up. That proved more that if you miss a lot of the archetypes Peterson likes to mumble on and on about you end up in total chaos, like their magic voodoo shit society. Instead of only showing how believing in magic is bad.

>>9235337
https://youtu.be/_UL-SdOhwek is this you at 37:30?

>>9250517
No, in fact that would be to go against the point of his philosophy

>>9250524
god damn you, i was supposed to start studying now

this thread has been up for 4 days lol o__O

>>9244602
How does this fit into the idea of Christ's 'two natures' though? GOD in HUMAN form. What about his necessary weaknesses? I think of globally recognisable reoccurring stories of virgin birth or redemptive heroes like all tribesmen smiling. There is nothing meagre about being the perfect man.

>>9252075
>I think of globally recognisable reoccurring stories of virgin birth

Except nowhere in the bible did it actually say Mary was a virgin, this was mistake based on a bad translation of a term which simply meant young woman.
Philosophers were aware of this discrepency since the middle ages

>>9252075
>I think of globally recognisable reoccurring stories

Stop intellectually crippling yourself

>>9252084
sauce this immediately or be forever labelled shitposter extraordinaire

>>9252098
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/was-there-really-a-virgin-birth-in-the-bible

This is the best I can find for an explanation, I learned it about in a Medieval Philosophy lecture

>>9252128
Although to be clear I was mistaken, there is actually a virgin conception in the Bible, just it was derived from a mistranslation in its compilling from the original story

>>9234037
Everything I find on Peterson is anti-social justice shit. I really like the way he reasons but I don't find the subject matter compelling.

>>9250618
Shit.

My apologies

>>9234174
Women date beneath them all the time, retard. If you think otherwise, you're probably just raising all women up in your mind.

>>9253958
The trick is "beneath" you is totally fucking subjective and hard to determine even by your own standards. Another reason why Kermit is a hack

File: hqdefault.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

Our boy gave a talk today at McMaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5_Pv0A-xjE

>>9253986
I like the guy's style (although I kind of agree with >>9253009) but it gets old trying to listen to lectures with people chanting in the background.

File: ABC_Mochizuki_Beckert.jpg (146KB, 996x560px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 996x560px

>>9253986
it's sad to think that this guy

https://youtu.be/59p7ASzfVVw

would find himself surrounded by protesting students two decades later

>>9253986
What's up with these protestors anyway? From what I've looked into Peterson is the farthest thing from a fascist or a bigot. Is it really all because he doesn't like the idea of forced pronouns?

File: ascetic_planet.jpg (123KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x800px

>>9254093
I do too. I was just talking to a relative of mine about this who used to be a prof, and he was saying that he actually *missed* the kind of engagement that students have today, that there was this huge malaise in universities, students felt nothing, couldn't be roused for anything. I thought that was interesting.

>>9254410
It's amazing to think how much things have changed. Peterson is a lightning rod today because the culture seems to have changed so much. Back then he was just another scholar talking about how to live a meaningful existence. Today he's an accidental culture warrior who seems determined to die with his boots on.

I'm sure the notoriety is good for him, in some ways. He's a celebrity academic now, and props to him for getting there the hard way. He seems to thrive in the controversy. Showing up at these speeches only to have himself shouted off stage people get to see how hysterical things have become. That kind of buzz comes with an upside, since the more obnoxious those crowds get the more attractive he looks by comparison.

The other thing about Peterson is that he's not *trolling* anyone. There's no irony in that man, no fakery, no disaffection. And not even a lot of ideology. No political solutions, no reformation of the state, no mass action, none of that. And surprisingly little Overman stuff either.

Jordan Peterson, fascinating guy.

>>9254474
Basically, from what I can tell. It's fucking retarded. What a non-issue, this man is anodyne. Manufactured outrage.

>>9254474

I don't really understand what they're so upset about either. As it is they're fully allowed to be degenerates, I don't get why we have to call them by their made up pronouns.

It's sort of like how black people think that supporting forced busing, welfare, and affirmative action are an integral part of "not being a racist."

I will refrain from calling black people niggers and burning crosses on their lawns, but don't ask me to give up part of my paycheck on their behalf.

>>9254530
>And not even a lot of ideology.

*sniff*

>>9254474
It's not even that he said he *won't* use the pronouns, I think what he's objecting to is being told that he *has* to use them or risk allegations of hate speech. I think that's where he draws the line. I don't know the man, but that's my intuition, that he sees himself as resisting the encroachment of a totalitarian state, while the students see him as an obstacle to social progress. I think he takes political correctness really seriously, like the social coercion in it becomes an almost existential threat that he feels morally obligated to resist. And of course the more that he feels threatened, is called before tribunals, has to give interviews with snarky critics, the more he digs his heels in.

As for the protestors, have you ever seen Andrew Breitbart dealing with mobs of people with signs? They're kind of similar guys in that way (lamenting the cultural Marxist brainwashing among students, etc). People get in crowds and can't even explain why they're carrying the signs that they bring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlqiv-YL7c

It will be interesting to see if Peterson just becomes a complete pain in the ass for society, that the more they surround him and call him names, the more fucking intractable and crusty and animated he becomes. I think they should leave that guy alone and find an easier target before he starts to look like a martyr. He could spend the rest of his life doing this stuff at this point, waging a crusade against political correctness.

File: TCotAM.jpg (21KB, 220x355px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 220x355px

>>9254583

He reminds me a lot of Allan Bloom. A mild mannered but respected professor who became (in)famous for his political opinions almost by accident.

Neither Bloom nor Peterson are particularly conservative either, but for whatever reason they really rub people the wrong way.

>>9254583
> I think what he's objecting to is being told that he *has* to use them or risk allegations of hate speech

My biggest problem with this argument is that I think it would be highly insulting for a person to refer to a cis born man as she for instance. Its part of our code of decency to refer to people by their gender.

Taking trannies out of the picture altogether is that not already a form of forced language use that exists in our society? And rightfully so I should think

>>9254583
I don't believe he's all that wrong about it. When the people that push these ideas shit all over your reputation, and drown out your speech in the most disgusting and zealously vague manner for believing something so disproportionately inoffensive.

>>9254631

Male and female pronouns refer to a biological reality, so it wouldn't be offensive to use the wrong ones, just stupid. There's no such thing as a "demigirl" or a "neutrois." It would be like buying a cat and demanding that your friends called it a "zepeord." In any case it's not illegal to call a man "she."

>>9254663
It would be offensive as it would imply I'm calling you a girl and in turn questioning your masculinity or vice versa.
And no it doesn't refer to biological reality, it just refers to appearances, if it looks like a girl we call it a girl, if it looks like a boy we call it a boy.

>>9254699

I'm objectively not a girl though. It's far from proven that gender really is a social construct, and it's completely farcical to imagine that there's more than two.

I'm not calling a man in pigtails female pronouns, it's ridiculous.

>>9254663
>In any case it's not illegal to call a man "she."

No but it would get you fired from a teaching position if you refused to stop doing so

>>9254728
I'm not talking about any third genders or whatever. Just the simple fact that it is genuinely right to find it insulting to be called a different gender than your own consistently. I think that is clear putting aside whether we include trannies here.

And what if you don't know that man in pigtails is not just a manly looking woman which I can attest from experience do exist. Should it be your right to just refuse their declaration otherwise even if you could be wrong?

>>9254583
His basic argument for pronouns is being forced to use them and conveying meaning through language. Not knowing what someone's pronouns is not somehow rude or hateful, just as accidentally calling a man with long hair she from behind isn't. Calling a tranny she is easier if the ruse is convincing but no one would call Arnold Schwarzenegger in drag a she because he is clearly a man.

>>9254755
>Not knowing what someone's pronouns is not somehow rude or hateful, just as accidentally calling a man with long hair she from behind isn't

What is rude though is that the guy says he's a dude and you continue to call him she because he has long hair

>>9254772
Correct, but there do not need to be laws on how polite you need to be with people.

>>9254730

That's not exactly the same thing is it? In Canada you don't even need a reason to fire someone as long as you pay severance. For what it's worth I'd call someone their preferred pronouns to avoid getting fired, but thankfully I don't work with any trannies and I doubt I ever will.

>>9254753

Trannies don't get to decide what gender they are.

>>9254790
Debateable, harassment laws seem perfectly reasonable to me at the extreme level at least.

>>9254798
They very easily do though if they're convincing enough for you to not know any different

>>9254807
We're not talking about an extreme level where you're showing up to someone's house at 3 AM to call them a woman. We're talking about day to day interactions with the general public.

File: daniel-j-boorstin-quote-i-have-observed-that-the-world-has-suffered.jpg (25KB, 289x361px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 289x361px

>>9254616
Yep. That's a good comparison.

I wonder sometimes if this climate won't produce a new counter-movement in academia back towards the old-school Western Canon and the classics. Not from within the departments themselves, but out of a response from people who might want to read, study and discuss Great Literature unironically, without so much of the critical theory. You would need a good prof, that's for sure, someone who would be able to deliver this stuff without it becoming a pointless meme exercise.

>and probably an underground missile silo in kansas decked out in patrician style and offering the course via distance ed
>still tho
>would be very patrician

>>9254631
It's no secret that Peterson can be hysterical about this too. When he worries, for example, that a person can change their gender from one hour to the next and that you are subsequently required to keep up with their moods and alter your language accordingly or risk being punished by the university, he's being hyperbolic. He has a gift for hyperbole, which he sometimes uses to make some really powerful points (like this clip). This is one of his skills, finding the breaking points of things and homing in on that. It's possible that this is part of what students react to, because he comes off as a reactionary when what he's really doing is a kind of a thought experiment designed to make you see the slippery slope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY

>>9254649
I don't think he's wrong either, but we're in a brave new world these days. We live in a time where if people get upset, or triggered, that's wrong enough, that's oppression, and you will reap the social whirlwind for it. I think it's perverse as all hell, unbelievably sad, and eventually people will get tired of it. Or maybe just cultural secession.

Tact is just such a good look.

>>9254755
It's not knowing *and* having to be vigilant that he doesn't like (at least, I think that's the interpretation). He doesn't want a time where you have to ask for someone's name and pronouns at the same time with the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, especially when those pronouns could potentially change. I can see why, it would be profoundly destabilizing, you'd be walking on eggshells. Is that situation likely to happen? Probably not. But he's read the Gulag Archipelago and I guess these things give him nightmares now, the bureaucratization of manner and the encroachment of state power over private life (combined with his Jungian archetypal stuff, which I think is recommends as a kind of polar opposite of that). Don't quote me though, I haven't read MoM yet.

>>9254817
I know but where we draw the line is clearly contextual and hard to define. Another extreme context is when you speak to a student in front of a lecture theatre of hundreds of fellow students

>>9254821
>He has a gift for hyperbole, which he sometimes uses to make some really powerful points

I disagree, I find they just simplify debates by reducing them down to a specific framing that is preordained to suggest his narrative and is intellectually weak even if it has a value to sophists.

>>9254821
Do you really just totally discard the possibility he just finds the idea of the deconstruction of gender threatening and scary and merely wants to reinforce the traditional gender binary and is only using "freedom of speech" and the fucking threat of gulags as a convenient rhetorical framing for what is in reality simply an emotive reactionary motivation.

File: ieDSma8.png (85KB, 248x344px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 248x344px

>>9254831
Well, that's a good point too!

He does do a lot of handwaving about the nihilism of postmodernity. I think he's correct in that, although nihilism of course isn't necessarily bad; it can be a rich speculative opportunity.

One thing you don't seem to hear Peterson talk about, for instance, is *capitalism.* Capitalism and the state are huge aspects of Marxist and late-Marxist thought, and to me I think that well has run dry. I could be wrong, of course. It's my own sentiment. Zizek, for instance, is always going to talk about the failure of the left (*sniff* and so on). But Peterson does not do Marx, and he does not do Freud.

We can always do new and exciting things to our subjectivity, construe ourselves in new ways as political subjects or beings in some way produced or re-produced by capital and ideology. Peterson seems to be engaged a kind of public existential therapy, perhaps not unlike Zizek is. Like Zizek, he's carrying on his own depth-psychological torments in public. Unlike Zizek, however, he's not arguing for any kind of social action. It's entirely personal for him, it's all about Suffering and not social reform. As far as I can tell.

I don't think, ultimately, that Peterson is in the same class as the guys he's opposed to: Foucault, Lacan, Derrida (and interestingly I don't know if he's ever mentioned Heidegger). And it would behoove him to understand their legacies more charitably than he does. But maybe that's not so important to him. What he's doing, or one of the things that he is doing, is offering himself up as this canary in the coal mine to be shredded by what he perceives to be the fallout of postmodern philosophy, and proposing solutions (which is...something, if you're used to reading disaffected French and German authors for whom poetry has no meaning after Auschwitz).

>>9254842
That's about as good a summation as I've read anywhere. I think my answer would have to be...yes?

I don't know about reinforcing the traditional gender binary. Not sure about this. Is Sort Yourself Out a gender-specific thing? I don't think so. I'm fairly sure

>based on absolutely, 100% nothing but a guess

that he's not specifically addressing men or women in his work. But he writes things like, Resist Chaos, Slay the Dragon. Stuff like this. I think fragmentation and fragilization are for him things to be resisted, so that you can leave a meaningful and purposeful Pinocchio-life. It may have a strong whiff of what they used to call "the mythopoetic men's movement" in the 90s, which was also a reaction of its kind to cultural circumstances perhaps like the present. I'm not sure if Peterson actually likes Joseph Campbell or not, but there are similarities in their work. And so here we are today, with third-wave feminism (or xenofeminism!) and another reactionary-type author raising red flags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men's_movement

Anyways, that's a fair criticism, and entirely possible.

>>9254821
Yes, that's more in line with what I was trying to say.

>>9254822
It's not hard to define. Everyone knows where the line is. It's just hard to get a straight answer out of them like children playing a game.

>>9237743
t. Mohamed

>>9254938
>I don't think, ultimately, that Peterson is in the same class as the guys he's opposed to: Foucault, Lacan, Derrida (and interestingly I don't know if he's ever mentioned Heidegger). And it would behoove him to understand their legacies more charitably than he does.

I'm not sure Peterson is reacting to Foucault, Derrida, etc., so much as he is reacting to the mass of third-rate professors, some at prestigious institutions, who have picked up their ideas and essentially vulgarized them, more than occasionally in the name of political advocacy. It's hard to say, then, whether Peterson is opposed to these philosophers on the basis of their philosophy, or on the empirical results their philosophy has had on academic and social discourse, what you describe as

>the fallout of postmodern philosophy

Agree that it would be more constructive for him to engage Foucault, Lacan and others to perhaps show students how other academics might be distorting their ideas.

For the people who dislike Harris and Peterson:

What modern intellectuals do you read or listen to? I'm kind of on the fence with Harris and Peterson as well.

>>9254807

>convincing enough for you to not know any different

This is a meme. Most trannnies don't pass. If a tranny passed well enough to fool me then it would never occur to me to call them by their real pronoun, so there wouldn't even be an issue.

If they demanded I call them "xer" the jig would be up, because no sane person affects those bizarre tumblr pronouns.

>>9255432
>Most trannnies don't pass.

Do they not? Like you're a teacher of a large class and a person with long hair dressed like a girl puts asks a question is it actually going to be often you'd instantly register "Yeah that's definitely a Tranny".
I mean its one thing to be totally indistinguishable under long and close scrutiny and another to be merely functionally well within the grounds of significant doubt in daily interactions.

>>9234049
because Season 3 of Mr. Robot doesn't begin until October

>>9235345
yes

>>9253986
Why is no one throwing them out?

File: hugh_mungus.jpg (20KB, 353x348px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 353x348px

>my mane is hugh mungus

What did he mean by that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Ez4n9xBGY

>>9255477
If there's enough of them you'd straight up need a small riot squad to clear them

>>9254616
I think the facts that Peterson is good-looking and male and white are a catalyst for those who yearn to be triggered.

>>9255477
Peterson explains why that would be a fail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPXydes6adg

>>9255493
>do you think they integrated their shadow

This is why I can never take Jungians seriously