Why do you hate him?

>>9234390
Because negan made him look like a bitch.

Because he is a meemee on a weeb image posting site which has dubious taste/standards at the best of times

>>9234390
I love him

>>9234390
His lectures are pretty decent. Disagree with him on some points because I reject his premises or because he omits aspects of a subject which I consider important, but he usually makes a good amount of intelligent points that are connected in a way that forms a coherent whole, and that's more than can be said about a lot of modern intellectuals.

The only thing I take sort of personally is the fact that he blames Romanticism for the postmodern "but muh feelings"-brand sjw-ism.
REEEEEEEEEE

>>9234489
But he is right

>>9234511
So, which of the romantics have you read, and how does this reading apply to their work :^)

>>9234489
>he blames Romanticism

you mean Rousseau?

>>9234519
The whole "omg I love this country so much non mycountrysians will never understand my novel" meme comes from romanticism and is pretty much the same logic found in the "omg we gelosabetransgtbqty-kin are so opressed normal people will never understand our pain" meme
Then the logical conclussion to both memes is the "lets start making laws and shit and force our ideas on other people because we are so right about everything everyone else is bad" meme

>>9234390
can you please check whether your thread already exists before you make it?

>>9234037

>>9234390

i think he's great.

>>9235105
Is not the same thread, my friend

>>9235084
>The whole "omg I love this country so much non mycountrysians will never understand my novel" meme comes from romanticism and is pretty much the same logic found in the "omg we gelosabetransgtbqty-kin are so opressed normal people will never understand our pain"

Wrong. You are a retarded Anglo.

>>9235084
>The whole "omg I love this country so much non mycountrysians will never understand my novel" meme comes from romanticism and is pretty much the same logic found in the "omg we gelosabetransgtbqty-kin are so opressed normal people will never understand our pain" meme
>Then the logical conclussion to both memes is the "lets start making laws and shit and force our ideas on other people because we are so right about everything everyone else is bad" meme
And you guys call "postmodernists" indecipherable

never read him but I only ever see him recommended by people who are also trying to convince me that Jews run the world, so no, but I probably would if I knew more about him

>>9235586
He's literally nothing like that. He's a leftist in most regards but is concerned with post modern academia and radical destabilisation in the west. Nothing suggests racism at all, you have been misled by your own dogma.

>>9235743
a seriously doubt your definition of leftism and mine align

>>9234390
He's an intellectual lightweight thats appealing to pseuds as a pastor and not an intellectual, he formulates the world to them in a digestible and non-disturbing way. Anyone with even basic philosophic literacy are able to see how flimsy and totally unjustified his propositions are, to the point in which he is laughably pre-Kantian in scope yet has the pretension to focus on systems of philosophy organized two centuries later.

An embarrassing pseudointellectual of the purest sort who only encourages even lower tier lightweights to come here and to be corrected on basic precepts.

>>9235759
Because you're a Marxist I assume, in which case you should avoid him.

>>9235778
>Because you're a Marxist I assume

>this is the level of discourse this man encourages

>>9235760
I agree with you on account of him being very accessible for newcomers to academia but I wouldn't say that his views are necessairly pseudo intellectual. What specific points would you disagree with?

>>9235778
no, I'm not, but straw-manning everybody who includes materialist critiques of society with 'gommunism' is as intellectually dishonest as saying all conservatism is fascistic

>>9235792
the one where is whole theory was pulled out of his ass after losing his mind and formulating some rickety structure of ideology that he can yell at feminists at his uni about

>>9235782
Well are you? I'm legitimately asking, I didn't mean to accuse.

>>9235808
this is me
>>9235804

now it's my turn to ask a question - do you browse /pol/?

>>9235792
The fact you immediately come to speak of "specific points" already highlights the fundamental inadequacy with him as a thinker. Thats all he is, just a loose network of specific points that for arbitrary reasons seems to resonate with him on some simplistic emotional level rather than actually having the philosophic literacy and integrity to work through an actual transcendental framework and not just chatter within a self assuming interior discourse.

>>9235808
I'm not him and I find the question both reductionist and irrelevant. For one I have no idea what you even think a "Marxist" is in order for me to identify with your conception of one.

>>9235804
I see a lot of condemnation about the framing of his ideology but no specific criticisms as to their validity. Peterson is very much a materialist, he believes in a structure and that structure should be maintained and not dissolved, the source of dissolution is radicalism on both sides. You strawman as being a proponent of right-wing ideology when you couldn't be more incorrect.

>>9235827
>Peterson is very much a materialist,
holy fuck your stupid

File: 1838047.jpg (56KB, 380x411px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 380x411px

>>9235827
>radicalism on both sides

You're such a retard out of your depth

>>9235816
This is reductionist analysis, I could critique anything as a "loose connection of specific points".

>>9235830
Materialismis a form ofphilosophical monismwhich holds thatmatteris the fundamental substanceinnature, and that all phenomena, includingmental phenomenaandconsciousness, are results of material interactions.

Peterson's psych work is based on the idea procedural memory and how the manifests is religion and science. I don't see how I'm stupid.

>>9235840
Bad formatting on my part apologies.

>>9235840
>I don't see how I'm stupid.

Thats normal for stupid people

>>9235840
did you literally just copy paste that from fucking wikipedia

my god do you think everybody is as retarded as you it stripped the line breaks for fucks sake

>>9235850
Very clever.

>>9235851
Yes? Is it incorrect?

My parents lived in a standard ranch-style house, in a middle-class
neighborhood, in a small town in northern Alberta. I was sitting in the
darkened basement of this house, in the family room, watching TV, with
my cousin Diane, who was in truth—in waking life—the most beautiful
woman I had ever seen. A newscaster suddenly interrupted the program.
The television picture and sound distorted, and static filled the screen. My
cousin stood up and went behind the TV to check the electrical cord. She
touched it, and started convulsing and frothing at the mouth, frozen
upright by intense current.
A brilliant flash of light from a small window flooded the basement. I
rushed upstairs. There was nothing left of the ground floor of the house. It
had been completely and cleanly sheared away, leaving only the floor,
which now served the basement as a roof. Red and orange flames filled
the sky, from horizon to horizon. Nothing was left as far as I could see,
except skeletal black ruins sticking up here and there: no houses, no trees,
no signs of other human beings or of any life whatsoever. The entire town
and everything that surrounded it on the flat prairie had been completely
obliterated.
It started to rain mud, heavily. The mud blotted out everything, and left
the earth brown, wet, flat and dull, and the sky leaden, even gray. A few
distraught and shell-shocked people started to gather together. They were
carrying unlabeled and dented cans of food, which contained nothing but
mush and vegetables. They stood in the mud looking exhausted and disheveled. Some dogs emerged, out from under the basement stairs,
where they had inexplicably taken residence. They were standing upright,
on their hind legs. They were thin, like greyhounds, and had pointed
noses. They looked like creatures of ritual—like Anubis, from the
Egyptian tombs. They were carrying plates in front of them, which
contained pieces of seared meat. They wanted to trade the meat for the
cans. I took a plate. In the center of it was a circular slab of flesh four
inches in diameter and one inch thick, foully cooked, oily, with a marrow
bone in the center of it. Where did it come from?
I had a terrible thought. I rushed downstairs to my cousin. The dogs
had butchered her, and were offering the meat to the survivors of the
disaster.

- Jordan Peterson, Maps of Meaning

>>9235840
>This is reductionist analysis

Thats not what reductionist means dipshit.
Listening to him for over a minute brings you to a constant slurry of disconcerted and incongruent assertions and presuppositions. The fact a meme like Sam Harris was able to bring him to a collapsing point on his bizarre and untested ontology was enough to dismiss him as anything resembling a serious intellectual.

>>9235857
>Yes? Is it incorrect?
yes you raging moron

File: giphy.gif (487KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 500x341px

>>9235840
this is you

>>9235864
There are different definitions of it, I'm speaking in terms of the basic philosophical principle of there existing a material world of matter that we react and act upon and that structures occur out of that. The disagreement between people is what we do with that information, it comes out of the same basic principle foundation.

I dunno apparently I'm just out of my depth.

>>9235889
>I'm just out of my depth.
now you're getting it

>>9235889
Are you literally reading Wikipedia articles between in reply just trying to hold a conversation with someone? Maybe that says something about what you're trying to argue.

>>9235893
Thanks pal

>>9235903
yeah while I'm at it
>>>/pol/

>>9235903
>I dunno apparently I'm just out of my depth.
Start with the Greeks

>>9235904
I'm not going there but nice strawman.

>>9235897
I was just double checking I assumed one definition. An error on my part.

>>9235911
>I'm not going there but nice strawman.
this isn't your high school debate society you fucking faggot. go away

>>9235919
This

>>9235911
>I was just double checking
Are you literally in middle school?

>>9235919
Very nice of you, thanks. If a little hypocritical.

>>9235923
> fact checking is middle school tier

>>9235929
>acting like a child with his hand stuck in a cookie jar when you're found to literally not be able to hold a coherent discussion with someone
>fact checking

why don't you go back to your containment board and jerk off to memes and do whatever the fuck you do over there

>>9235938
>> fact checking
What is your implication?

File: 1488142575701.jpg (9KB, 237x239px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 237x239px

>>9235929
>> fact checking

>>9235946
you know it must be nice to be so blissfully ignorant that a) you're dumb enough for it to seem pathological b) you're too smooth-brained to understand that nobody is going to attempt to engage in a good-faith argument with you after you've demonstrated ad nauseum that it would be an completely quixotic affair

Alright, let me clarify something. Clearly I started getting criticised strongly when I brought up materialism. Disregard that then, as a concession for my lack of intelligence or whathaveyou. That's fine.

I just don't understand what people mean by Peterson being a hack when they bring up no specific ideas that they disagree with. The biggest criticism is that his arguments are emotional, is emotion not a valid form of understanding? Isn't that why we have certain higher moralities and stories?

>>9235977
>I just don't understand
how about you take that with you and get off this fucking board

File: hinese.jpg (32KB, 425x483px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 425x483px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TDbXO6dkk

New episode with the Samuel, boys.

>>9235977
you never did answer me as to whether you browse /pol/ or not. how about we start with that?

>>9235979
it's the thread topic, I'm basically rephrasing it.

>>9235968
I had to double check quixotic, I hope you don't mind. I get it, you're very smart I'm very dumb. Thank you.

>>9235985
Yes I did, perhaps you should
>check your facts.

>>9235977
>Isn't that why we have certain higher moralities
please name these numerous moralities you're referring to.

>>9235992
how the fuck did you even find this board

File: 1396726757482.png (119KB, 372x357px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 372x357px

>>9235977
>is emotion not a valid form of understanding?

>>9235994
Well the example that I like is fiction. We understand that has an emotional aspect of it that we derive as wisdom.

>>9235977
Have you even read Peterson? Do you honestly think that even if you did anyone would believe that you have an capacity to internalize his theories and be amenable to critique?

It sound like you're less interested interested in his actual thought than what is allows you to do.

File: leopold bloom.png (30KB, 280x341px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 280x341px

>>9235977
>Isn't that why we have certain higher moralities and stories?

I'd say read Kant but you'll need to start with the Greeks first

>>9235999
Ok great reaction image. Is it not correct to say, that when you see a person for example, that when you notice that the person is sad you're showing to understand them better?

>>9236001
Stop saying 'we' like a fucking agitator.

> ****I****understand that has an emotional aspect of it that ****I**** derive as wisdom.

Please explain how ****you**** derive "knowledge from "emotion" in as explicit detail as you can muster. I'm sure it's riveting.

File: wewlad2.gif (189KB, 336x468px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 336x468px

>>9235977
>>9235985
>>9235992
>>9235994
>>9235996
>>9235999
>>9236001
>>9236006
>>9236007
This is getting hilarious to the point of absurdity. Somebody screencap this shit

>>9235586
he was a professor at harvard which demonstrates that youre a fucking retard for thinking everything /pol/ likes is bad

>>9236020
>LibertyOrDeath !!L9JqUeNpR3I
I'd do an archive search to see how new you are but I'm currently engaged in leading a horse to water.

File: 4fc.jpg (26KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x610px

>>9236020
>he was a professor at harvard

In psychology

>>9236014
What you did there is called a non sequitur. Please explain how empathy relates to wisdom and knowledge.

>>9235992
>Yes I did, perhaps you should
Hmm, I searched the thread but you didn't respond to the post where I asked. Perhaps you could remind me by replying to this post.

this fucking lummox is frantically reading wikipedia right now I know it

>>9236018
I didn't mean to agitate, I apologise if I've overstepped. But that's the story of this entire thread isn't it?

I guess how we gain knowledge through rationalising it in the mind. I shouldn't have said that we acquire knowledge through emotion, that was stupid of me. But emotion can be used to interpret knowledge and that interpretation is valuable. Does that makes sense? I'm really trying here.

>>9236035
>But that's the story of this entire thread isn't it?
That you're trying (poorly) to convince everybody that Peterson is... no actually I have no idea what you're doing.

>>9236035
>that was stupid of me.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

>>9236020
>LibertyOrDeath !!L9JqUeNpR3I
>first post March 10th
jesus

>>9236035
>I guess
>Does that makes sense?
> I'm really trying here.
Have you even read Peterson? Have you ever even voluntarily read a book?

File: 1466948836086.jpg (1MB, 3672x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3672x3024px

>>9236035
>I'm really trying here
If this is truly your best effort than I'd suggest spending less time on 4chan and more time actually reading. Here's a good starting place.

Alright, I concede. Forget it, I was trying to add and I got lost. I tried to get back on track and I don't clearly grasp things enough to argue properly. You guys win, so I'll read Kant as someone suggested here. Maybe this hostility is needed, and I need to challenge myself. Sorry for the blog post. I get the sense that I'm really hated as of now.

>>9236059
If you try to read Kant you'll have a seizure, go back and read that post again

btw this has been me samefagging you almost this entire thread to overwhelm you :^)

>>9235999
the irony of your post

>>9236063
Well you succeeded, take that to heart. I've read some of the Greeks already (Theatatus, Euthyphro and The Republic), but maybe I'll revisit or expand.

File: 1448546862602.jpg (32KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 460x276px

>>9236059
Victory for the Left! Marxism prevails again

>>9236070
Nice to see you admit it. Protip though, Peterson is legitimately a moron.

>>9236071
I wasn't lying when I said I wasn't a Marxist.

>>9234390
He is a dogmatic pseud

File: gulagmemep1.jpg (169KB, 650x630px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 650x630px

He is absolutely correct on mythology

>>9234390
no idea how anyone takes this guy seriously. he spews intellectual new-age garbage mixed in with some obvious truths and people think he's a genius. actually people are stupid so that makes sense.

>>9236636
What makes you say the content of his lectures is "new-age garbage"?. Personally I don't think he's a genius, but you'd have to be being willingly obtuse to deny that he is inteligent.

>>9236676
>intellectual new-age garbage
peterson's culties can't read.
he's above average in intelligence, perfect level of intelligence to fool people who are average but think they are above average.
also love that your defence was that "BUT HES INTELLIGENT" as if bullshitting doesn't require a certain level of intelligence.

>>9236700
I am not a "cultie", why are you assuming that?.

You're being hostile and making assumptions about my views. Yet you still haven't outlined why you think it's all "new age garbage" in response to a simple inquiry?.

>>9236744
it's obvious what your view is stop pretending to be on the fence it's sad.
the fact that you need me to explain why it's new-age garbage is pretty indicative of where you stand. you're like a religious zealot who asks for proof of no god.

>>9236783
Don't conflate my two sentence reply as equalling me being a Jordan Peterson cultist. That's an absurd jump for someone who fancies themselves an intellectual heavyweight.

I don't "need" you to, I will be able to get through the day just fine. I'm simply interested, given that this is a board for discussion I don't see the problem to be honest.

>>9234534
He was talking about "the Romantics" in general.
Petersons claim is that they're responsible for the split between reason and feeling, when in reality the enlightenment project brought that about all by itself. Scientific and industrial progress created a belief in the power of cold, objective reason and the irrationality of emotion, and an almost mechanistic worldview where people abandoned themselves to necessity and almost gave up on the individual as a entity which transcends the circumstances of its being.

Romanticism attempts to re-contextualize rationality to disspell the illusion that the objectivity of scientific discovery is an absolute one (which is something you can observe every time there is a kopernican turn. Newton was "right", but Einstein completely transformed the meaning of what he had discovered by re-contextualizing it. And the Einsteinian model isn't the be-all end-all either. In fact, no such "uppermost level of understanding" exists. Truth, as we are capable of understanding it, is always just an abstract simplification of an infinitely more complex structure).

Romanticism shows the limits of "pure" reason and the unattainability of true knowlege and stresses the importance of feeling and intuition as a part of rational being - which is completely different from the postmodern post-truth relativism that claims that both realism and idealism, both knowledge and belief are totalitarian in nature. Postmodernism is a negative image, a deconstruction of the enlightenment (which makes sense considering the enlightenment project is its sworn enemy), whereas Romantics wanted to build upon it.

>>9235442
>>9235469
Not an argument, not a single argument in two posts! Sad!

>>9236828
>>>/@realDonaldTrump/

>>9236792
there's nothing to discuss you just want someone to educate you on charlatan behavior. perhaps go buy a timeshare or some crystals.

>>9236858
You made a strong case, "new age garbage", about the entire work of a man whom it would be fair to say has SOME credibility by most standards. I asked you to explain why you characterised it that way; I've seen plenty of people call his work shit but I've never seen it described as "new age".

All you've done is wriggle, try to put me in a nice little box and refuse to even begin to answer the question. It's almost like you don't have one and expect to just shout me down. The reeking irony of you accusing anyone of charlatan behaviour.

Why's he still replying?

>It's another /lit/ dismisses someone as a pseud to maintain their contrarian identity episode

Never change.

>>9236872
you're basing your entire defense of him around what other people might think of him don't you think that's rather pathetic? unsurprising seeing as you are obviously a peterson cultie pretending not to be one.
if you're able to take his neo-christian archetype LARPing cosplay bullshit seriously then God help you

File: hmm.jpg (23KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 620x349px

>>9234390
mhm

>>9236947
How could I even defend him when you haven't even made any points that pertain to the content of his work beyond "it's garbage"?.

Keep using buzzwords to sharpen your katana you little faggot you have nothing of substance to say.

>>9236841
Not an argument

>>9237012
Gave an argument two posts above. No replies as of yet. Disgraceful.

File: mhm.jpg (4KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 275x183px

>>9236825
hmm

>>9236979
you did try to defend him by saying "B-BUT OTHER PEOPLE THINK HE'S SMART", it's fucking laughable and pathetic but i guess that's pretty consistent with his teachings. also glad you finally stopped being a pussy ass bitch and came out as one of his culties.

>>9236965
Why does he look like a Mass Effect character here

God isn't real
Existence is ultimately arbitrary
Shit sucks

File: tipfaggotry.png (161KB, 265x281px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 265x281px

>>9237024
>believes science should provide answer to moral questions
>atheist consequentialist

>>9237026
> some average intelligence people think he's smart
> haha clearly I, someone who is slightly above the average intelligence think that this so called smart person is dumb. Why else would all these people respect him? Plebs.

>>9237051
>slightly above the average intelligence

I'm a certified genius friend

>>9237061
Wew lad

>>9237061
post genius certificate or gtfo

File: ^0BBA44FCDC571FFE5114AACB4AD2CF72A018549BC5004872C7^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg (91KB, 675x517px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 675x517px

>>9237067

>>9237051
where did i call him dumb?
you're definitely dumb as shit though, learn to read cultie.

File: rmmt.png (81KB, 865x292px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 865x292px

>>9237078
>really mad me think

File: 16011601.jpg (24KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 231x218px

>>9237111

>>9237061
>>9237078
Kek

Because he literally ripped off and repackaged Wittgenstein and should be shot for doing so.

>>9237111
oh you're german that makes sense.

>>9237133
What are you talking about, I'm very familiar with Wittgenstien and I seen nothing this goober said relate to him

>>9237139
Yes, nothing he has said relates to him or in any correct manner but he is essentially making the argument for religion in the sense of a form of life.

Peterson is rehashing century old ideas made by better thinkers than himself.

This just proves once again that books will always be a more stimulating and worthwhile medium than shitty internet podcasts.

>>9234390

Because I have no idea what he's talking about

I can't follow his sentences because he leaps from on conclusion to the next until the original point of discussion is lost completely

>>9237146
>the argument for religion in the sense of a form of life.
That sounds intersting actually. Which books on that would you recommend?

>>9237146
>Yes, nothing he has said relates to him or in any correct manner but he is essentially making the argument for religion in the sense of a form of life.
>>9237133
>Because he literally ripped off and repackaged Wittgenstein and should be shot for doing so.
You're coming across as stupid, anon. Put more effort in it.

>>9237146
I don't think Peterson ever claimed to be bringing anything new to the table though.

>>>>9237146
>This just proves once again that books will always be a more stimulating and worthwhile medium than shitty internet podcasts.

I agree with this, but most people aren't reading those books and many people listen to podcasts. If these ideas aren't translated into current media and restated, or, if you prefer, rehashed, by current thinkers, very few people will learn about them.

Peterson is a torch-bearer for some older ideas in a time where reductionist materialism from the likes of Harris is the norm. It's just that JP isn't that great at arguing for these ideas (or clearly stating that very smart people before him have held them and made the same arguments), particularly when a few of his ideas resemble Esalen-tier ones and are bound to alienate Harris's audience.

>>9237178
Read Philosophical Investigations and be reborn.

>>9237196
Sure but he is deifying himself like these other public figures.

He charges us to write a diary on the internet

He should release his seld-authoring prompt for free

I never managed to stand this dipshit for more than 20 minutes. His retarded lectures always begin and end with him talking about some retarded myth from billion years ago thats supposed to teach more something really important, spoiler: become christian

>>9236901
>/lit/ the board who constantly praises the cannon while mocking arrivist authors
>/lit/, the board who ALWAYS had a hateboner for Jung

This post says more about you than /lit/.


Also, how the fuck do you people not realize Peterson is new age? It is extremely new age to gobble up such retarded concepts as "archetypes" and his prevalence on "human instincts" or "nature" or whatever buzzword evopsych (literally a pseudoscience) uses these days who sort of fit to your particular narrative of how some parts of the West probably developped while ignoring the vast majority of humankind. He's Blavatsky tier with a nice coat of humanities department so it doesn't get too outrageous.

They hate him because he's the popular intellectual making big thoughts accessible to normies and /pol/. Peterson is the big other intruding their safe space. Their deep readings of meme philosophers will never be the same. For Shame.

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

>>9237264

>the cannon

File: helper meme.png (199KB, 941x887px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 941x887px

>tfw jordo and sam are friends again

>>9237291
Thats not what big other refers to retard. Keep your thoughts to simple words and memes

I've yet to see anyone in this thread give a specific example of any point Peterson has made that is wrong and why. Is anyone in this thread even familiar with his work at all? I was hoping to find some legitimate criticism of the guy but /lit/ as usual seems content to just shout pseudoscience and bullycide that poor dumb anon who tried to at least engage in a good faith discussion.

>>9234390
I like watching his lectures, he's a good talker

>>9237809
If you want me to give yet another long description why the entire Jungian concept of archtypes and collective subconscious is a pile of steaming horseshit I can but I think the very notion he still subscribes to that blabbering geriophile speaks for itself.

He brilliant. I hate the fact hes become some sort of "red pilled" icon. His lectures on psychology and existentialism are brilliant

File: quote-whether-the-gods-are-inside-or-outside-makes-very-little-difference-to-whether-there-jordan-peterson-126-89-70.jpg (47KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 850x400px

>>9237907
Forgot pic

>>9235084
I don't think anyone knows what the fuck this post means.

>>9237867
I would actually really like to hear even a quick rundown on why Jungian archetypes are shit if you wouldn't mind.

>>9237152
This

The reason it's hard to argue with him is because he's not making any arguments, it's just a lot of emotional stuff that sounds nice

>>9237965
To further my point, I will now post random quotes of his I have just googled very simply.

>“What is your friend: the things you know, or the things you don't know. First of all, there's a lot more things you don't know. And second, the things you don't know is the birthplace of all your new knowledge! So if you make the things you don't know your friend, rather than the things you know, well then you're always on a quest in a sense. You're always looking for new information in the off chance that somebody who doesn't agree with you will tell you something you couldn't have figured out on your own! It's a completely different way of looking at the world. It's the antithesis of opinionated.”

>"“If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences.
>For example if someone is making everyone around them miserable and you'd like to know why, their motive may simply be to make everyone around them miserable including themselves.”

>"“Women select men. That makes them nature, because nature is what selects. And you can say "Well it's only symbolic that women are nature", it's like no, it's not just symbolic. The woman is the gatekeeper to reproductive success. And you can't get more like nature than that, in fact it's the very definition of nature.”

>“If you have a comprehensive explanation for everything then it decreases uncertainty and anxiety and reduces your cognitive load. And if you can use that simplifying algorithm to put yourself on the side of moral virtue then you’re constantly a good person with a minimum of effort.”

>>9237965
>it's just a lot of emotional stuff that sounds nice

well, he's (primarily) a psychologist, isn't he?

File: 1468412979075.jpg (24KB, 382x384px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 382x384px

>that one nihilistic wicked anon who types in blasé lowercase and tries to shut other people down and simultaneously prove his intellectual superiority with — gasp! — crude and dismissive language

EEEEYYYYYYYY PSEUD CITY IN HERE

>>9237809
uh, right wingers like him , which is just SO gross.... like ugh

>>9237980

>“What is your friend: the things you know, or the things you don't know. First of all, there's a lot more things you don't know. And second, the things you don't know is the birthplace of all your new knowledge! So if you make the things you don't know your friend, rather than the things you know, well then you're always on a quest in a sense. You're always looking for new information in the off chance that somebody who doesn't agree with you will tell you something you couldn't have figured out on your own! It's a completely different way of looking at the world. It's the antithesis of opinionated.”
Argument for the need for openness/dialogue, and venturing beyond one's comfort zone. This is a restatement of one of his common themes that the primary quality of the heroic individual is the willingness to engage with the unknown to aquire new knowledge that benefits his society. This is why he always is going on about the symbology of dragon slaying myths and whatnot.

>"“If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences.
>For example if someone is making everyone around them miserable and you'd like to know why, their motive may simply be to make everyone around them miserable including themselves.”
People reveal their beliefs through their actions, what people profess to believe can often be a screen to hide base motives/ill intent.

>"“Women select men. That makes them nature, because nature is what selects. And you can say "Well it's only symbolic that women are nature", it's like no, it's not just symbolic. The woman is the gatekeeper to reproductive success. And you can't get more like nature than that, in fact it's the very definition of nature.”
>Women as the gatekeepers to reproduction are literally a selection pressure for the human species, just as the environment is a selection pressure.

>“If you have a comprehensive explanation for everything then it decreases uncertainty and anxiety and reduces your cognitive load. And if you can use that simplifying algorithm to put yourself on the side of moral virtue then you’re constantly a good person with a minimum of effort.”
The appeal of ideology and an explanation for why so many people become attached to ideologies.

>>9237980
first quote: The unknown is potential knowledge, the known is already in place. Seek out the unknown or stagnate.
second: don't overcomplicate peoples motivations. More often than not the result of those actions is exactly what they are trying to achieve.
third refers to the whole arechtypical "women are associated with nature, and nature when personified is usualyl depicted as a woman" and tries to justify that through the role women play in the biological selective process. seems like a load of nonsense desu.
fourth is pure ideology. "Seek shelter in totality my friend.,You'll be less anxious and you'll get to feel like a good person!"

>>9237980
How stupid do you have to be to not understand any of what is being said here? It is all incredibly straightforward.

To answer your question OP, /lit/ is full of edgy teenagers who derive their self worth from being different and intellectual. Most people here are of average intelligence, yet want to appear smarter to bolster their ego. How do they do that? By jumping into some obscure philosopher (Stirner) and reading a bunch of obscure books. They will use non arguments and sophistry when discussing things, learn to spot this shit and call them out. Don't take people too seriously here. There are some smart people here to be sure, like really smart, smarter than me, but they are not common. Most of the edgy kids here are barely 18 and are pursuing degrees in retarded bullshit like English, Feminist studies, anthropology, etc. They will be working at a fast food restaurant their entire lives.

Peterson is popular, so you will have people like the above shit all over him just because of that. It also doesn't help that he rails against Communism and SJWism.

>>9238460
Woah you're so different and above the intelligence of people here. Your bravery to be so contrary to everyone around you must require some mind

>>9238487
Yes I am, thank you. I don't agree with the second sentence though, I'm not being contrary to everyone around me. I'm being contrary (some of the time) to the purposefully contrary 18 year old children who regularly post on this board.

>>9234390
I don't though.

>>9237950
They operate on a pure ass backwards logic where figures are noticed that hold similar traits in their respective narrative and rather than taking the time to interpret the fundamental drives and semiotic discourse that contingently and respectively resulted in the same nominal outcome the exact opposite is naively executed where they are instead abstracted into totally ideal and most often arbitrary categories that serve absolutely zero interpretive utility other than to play with in a language game or at the very best serve as a gross reductive account that describes what are in reality nuanced and particular instances into preconceived and restricted framings that are specifically ordained in order to exactly allow retroactive manipulation of experiences to serve a fictitious profound relevancing to an entirely constructed grand narrative.
Archtypes are the equivalent of putting on red sunglasses and announcing to the world they allow you to the see the truth of how the world is actually tinted red.

>>9238502
You sound like someone who is old and mediocre enough that this is all too important to your life. No wonder you're so frustrated that your comforting guru is being disrespected at this scary time in your empty and fleeting lifespan.
Thank God I'm young enough that I can face scary realities without shitting myself from death tapping on my window and can have hope I won't be this much of a loser by your age.

>>9238571
I'm 23.

>>9238583
Lmao and you're already needing to turn your nose up at 23 year olds. You've some trip ahead of you mate

>>9238591
*18 year olds

Why do right-wingers always argue that post-modernist cultural Marxism is the cause of the destructive and overly sensitive leftist cancer or whatever you (they) want to call it? What I want to know is, why do they think Marxism and post-modernist nihilism and shit are the same? Aren't they mutually exclusive?

>>9238591
Five years is a lot of time to develop as a person. If you are just fresh out of high school and entering college, you are (presumably) put into a college with people that have similar intellectual capabilities as yourself. So now that you can't be the smartest kid in your high school English class any more, you need something else to give you an identity.

>>9238599
Peterson's assertion seems to be that nihilism drives people into becoming ideologues, both on the right and the left.

>>9238620
What excepts him from being an ideologue?

>>9238143
>third refers to the whole arechtypical "women are associated with nature, and nature when personified is usualyl depicted as a woman" and tries to justify that through the role women play in the biological selective process. seems like a load of nonsense desu.

How is that nonsense exactly?

I mean, most people aren't violent rapists, which means they have to be a specific kind of man in order to get laid/have children.

I mean, even in my country 25% of men aged 40 don't have children, which means that there's a significant part of the male population that literally don't reach women's standards.

>>9238606
This ad hoc theory says way more about you than anyone else

>>9238599
>Why do right-wingers always argue that post-modernist cultural Marxism
stopped reading there
we don't you nigger
its all french revolution fault (or the reformation)

>>9238640
How is that?

>>9238646
A lot of the high profile right wingers say something in those lines...

>>9238620
Not just talking about Peterson but thank you.

>>9238599
>post-modernist cultural Marxism is the cause of the destructive and overly sensitive leftist cancer or whatever you (they) want to call it?

Because 99% of the exponents of that idpol shit self-identify as Communists or Anarchists?

>>9238629
Nothing, but from his point of view it would likely be adherence to cultural values passed down in old stories, the value of which can be seen through the success of western society.

>>9238638
Because relationships in modern post industrial society is more complicated than pseudo evolutionary psychology.
Who are you to say none of those men deemed the women available to them as not good enough for their standards, or that women are solely selective when men have plenty of specific desires in women they would want to be in a close enough relationship with to share children? Or that the issue is not in how communities have to operate on alienating hyper real structures of organization where the very question of encounter between individuals has become radically altered from animal nature. Or that human sexual desire in a post-linguistic cultural setting can be spoken of in purely reproductive terms, and in turn relationships in purely sexual terms?
Its pathetically reductive for someone declaring himself a psychologist to harp the same flimsy framework as /r9k/

>>9238672
Not even remotely close to true

>>9238691
>Because relationships in modern post industrial society is more complicated than pseudo evolutionary psychology.

I don't think it is. I just think you have some kind of ideological bias.

I don't think you're being serious if you say that what humans have constructed socially, is more complicated than nature itself.

>>9238753
>I don't think you're being serious if you say that what humans have constructed socially, is more complicated than nature itself.

It is by definition if its built ON TOP OF nature you dumb fuck

>>9238761
So what do you actually think is the markers by which people procreate or create romantic relationship then, if isn't natural and primal urges of physical attractiveness and social status(which are extremely primordial categories)?

I mean, I when I was characterizing how human beings form relationships earlier, I was generalizing deliberately. That doesn't mean exceptions don't exist.

It doesn't mean that a man doesn't deny a woman's advances. It just means that it is less typical.

>>9238691
I think you're missing the point. Yes there are a myriad of varying factors that come into play regarding mate selection, but it has always boiled down to women being the limiting factor in reproduction, hence acting as a selection pressure on the species. The fact that different cultures have developed complex systems and controls around sexual behavior is an organic consiquence of this, but it has always been the case that a man is an evolutionary dead end unless he can somehow meet whatever standards are required to find a mate.

>>9238779
Because those primal urges are redirected just as much in society towards buying Lamborghini's as they are towards actually fucking. Its not about whether the drives are still at the foundation of the psyche its about how these drives can be radically sublimated and repressed to result in tremendously different relationships to consider before we can speak of any potential questions of reproductive selectivity

>>9238790
> but it has always been the case that a man is an evolutionary dead end unless he can somehow meet whatever standards are required to find a mate.

The same goes for women.
And no it has never been women that were the limiting factor for a long fucking time. For most of recent history it was in fact the fathers of the girls who were the true limiting factor, another social innovation

>>9238830
You're being deliberately pedantic.

Look. If men don't conform to specific societal standards which increases their social status and resources, chances are they will never have children.

This fact does not apply anywhere near the same level for women, because men don't care that much about women's social status.

>>9238536
Seeing red is all most people want. They want a better life. Spending years studying philosophy with no improvement on overall life quality is something that just does not resonate with about 90% of the population

>>9238865
The question is whether its horseshit, not whether the horseshit is a relief to the misery of existence for imbeciles

>>9238859
Men do however have their own desires and they're not so simple in the real world as whether a woman has a functioning fuck hole.
And this is to say its one thing to want to have sex with a woman and quite another to actually go through the effort of approaching her, dating her, committing to her, managing a relationship with her, keeping that relationship for a significant time to be comfortable having (or not aborting) children together.
There is no justifiable reason to orientate your framework around but one limiting factor in all of this which is women's agency to designate sexual adequacy unless its really your obsessive fixation the whole time and the rest is mere pretense to ascribe it world shaking ramifications.

>>9238884
It's horeshit to people that study philosophy and it is medicine to everyone else.

I see value in that.

>>9238929
That's cute, but this is not a forum concerned with the merits of crystal healing and homoeopathy

>>9238925
But women's agency to designate sexual adequacy is literally the only thing that matters where procreation is concerned.

Of course, a Tinder date where a one-night stand is the objective quite clearly isn't the same thing as a woman trying to find an actual long-term partner, and I'm not saying it is.

But it's still true to say that women have all the power in the sexual domain, and men are the ones who have to prove themselves.

Historically, men have tried to control women's sexuality for this exact reason.

>>9238955
What are you on about? Again men have just as much power in deciding whether the cock should go in the hole as women do
If he thinks she's an ugly cow she's as liable not to get it as he might if he had a microdick.

Your talk in absolutes here is entirely unjustified on any level

>>9238536
See I think thats a misunderstanding of the actualization of archetypes to the archetypes as such. The way I understand it is the archetypes are instinctual drives that are universal based on the reality of human existence, but are actualized in a multitude of forms based on a variety of vactors such as culture, environment, etc. Every human necessarily has a mother or father, grows older, becomes part of their society, deals with death, etc.

Regardless of how these are manifested culturally, the significance is that each of these fundamental aspects to human nature are ingrained evolutionarily and humans have a psychological need to actualize them, which is why every culture develops rituals and social norms around them. The fact that these manifest in widely different ways accross time and culture is irrelevant, the point is that there is an inherent need to actualize the fundamental aspects to our being, which is why things like funeral rites, initiation ceremonies, etc. are ubiquitous accross every society.

The other side of this is recognizing that people develop intense psychological stress when they are unable to actualize these things, a contemporary example could be argued that young people today experience much confusion and distress, or feel "lost" as modern society no longer has clearly defined initiation rituals into adulthood aside from sexual activity, which I've heard argued is a cause for the huge amount of /r9k/
>tfw no gf
anxiety among young men.

>>9238970
>Again men have just as much power in deciding whether the cock should go in the hole as women do

No they don't, unless you're including rape here.

>>9238982
That's just the exact same thing I said but adding an even stupider unfounded assertion of genetic imprinting that needs a big fat [citation needed] before you're in Scientologist tier cult territory

>>9239002
I don't see why this is so hard to understand in a mere two person dynamic. Anyway yes excluding the possibility of rape, you put a man and a woman together and you have four possible scenarios:

Man desires, woman desires
Sex occurs
Man desires, woman doesn't
No sex occurs
Woman desires, man doesn't
No sex occurs
Man doesn't, woman doesn't
No sex occurs

Notice the only way sex happens is when BOTH partners desire it to occur, given them both ultimately total agency. Women can not be ever said to have more power than men in this dynamic, we can only speak of eagerness for which it is never an absolute or simple matter for either side.

>>9239072
For someone criticizing the evolutionary psychology of sexual selection for being simplistic and reductive, you sure found a great way of illustrating simplicity and reduction yourself.

I'm well aware that sex requires 2 consenting individuals, but it's not like the entire body of males are acceptable for women to consent to sex with.

A lot of social rapport, language games and social status markers have to be approved of by the female party before it even reaches the point you're talking about.

>>9238830
>>9238925
>>9238970
Again, the quote in question is regarding why women are often symbolically equated with nature. This is because they have consistently been the selectors for which men get to breed.

The fact that high status men may not want to mate/marry/breed with a lower status women does not change the fundamental nature of human mating, that high status male still must meet the standards required to find a suitable mate, he is just higher up on the status heirarchy and has more options for willing partners.

Cultural practices like the father choosing the husband, arranged marriages, etc. are all still built around this fundamental premise, as the heads/elder members of the family take part in the selection process to ensure their daughter has the best chance of finding the highest quality mate.

The fact that cultural tastes and norms regarding mate selection don't change the fact that ultimately it is the female sex who has the final decision (whether made individually or communally) on which qualities a man must have to be a disirable partner and thus have the opportunity to mate.

This does not discount that there is a distinct female status heirarchy in which women compete for the highest status men, but this does not supersede the above.

>>9239107
>but it's not like the entire body of males are acceptable for women to consent to sex with.

And neither is the entire body of women Christ, I for one am not rushing out the door to fuck a three hundred pound spinster.
And yeah women are likely more picky, at least in terms or who they will have sex with. I'll even grant who they will form a relationship to have children with but that is not so clear. Even with that given, it does not in any sense give them more "power", merely the illusion of it as the traditional final say in what is always a mutually dependent decision

>>9239040
The citation is every culture that has ever existed. That's the point. There are fundamental aspects of human existence that are consistenly expressed via culture through ritual and social behaviors. The fact that every culture has a need to develop these cultural norms suggest that it is inherently biological.

It's like when wolves fight for dominance in a pack, the loser rolls over and exposes his neck to the dominant wolf and submits, while the dominant wolf doesn't tear out the losers throat because he's signalled submission. Do you think wolves had a fucking conference and worked out the ground rules for that? Otherwise, it suggests that complex social behavior can be imprinted instinctually.

Jung is trying to show that humans have a similar thing, but because we have a much larger capability for abstraction and complex social behavior it manifests differently and in a multitude of archetypes, but it's the same shit as the wolves when you boil it down.

>>9239142
>And neither is the entire body of women Christ, I for one am not rushing out the door to fuck a three hundred pound spinster.

No, you're not, but even if you did, they could just say no to you.

I don't get why it's so hard for you to imagine that you have to reach women's standard in order for them to say yes to sex or procreation.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

I mean, are you surrounded by a harem of women or something, and have never dealt with constant rejection? Because constant rejection really is what it's like to be a man.

>>9235862
read it in his kermit voice

>>9239107

Nor is that of women, because after a certain age sex with women fulfills no purpose other than pleasure, by which we are programmed biologically to be attracted to healthy, young females.

In all feminism I can see is the writings and rantings of middle-aged women who either failed their biological imperitive, or made poor choices. I don't fault the men for wanting to mate with younger, healthier women, because if they didn't society would cease to exist.

>>9239122
>This is because they have consistently been the selectors for which men get to breed.

When? You admit that patriarchal mechanisms disabled this dynamic if it ever did exist. Mechanisms which stretch back so far into our anthropologic knowledge that we are left with inference from related primates to form mere conjecture on what was the sexual dynamic of proto-hominids.

I for one find the feminist reading of women as nature as founded in the desire to dominate and control a passive fertile element a far more compelling reading of such an association as rooting it in some actually existing threatening female agency.

>>9239184
>Because constant rejection really is what it's like to be a man.
Projection lol

>>9239194
Zero arguments lol

>>9239184
>Because constant rejection really is what it's like to be a man.

The experience of constant rejection doesn't imply any lack of power as painful as it may feel for you.
Men in their own agency choose to be less picky and women in their own agency choose to be more so. That's all the matter is, eagerness. There is no power over one or the other involved here. Just a mutually dependent agreement

>>9239142
Different anon. I'll grant you that the man generally plays the more active role in trying to get the females attention, but that isn't relevant since women are thrown out of the gene pool if they don't meet certain criteria as well. Sure, you could make the visual metaphor of the man having to penetrate the virtual gatehouse of the woman and tie that into all kinds of mythological figures if you want. But the fact is that at the end of the day, statistically speaking for every man who doesn't pass on his genes there is also a woman. Women have different conditions for "winning" in an evolutionary sense and having children, but the power you might asign to them is really just an illusion created by them being the more passive sex.

>>9239205
Men and women both have requirements for each other, both require cooperation to reproduce.

The "gatekeepers of sex" meme is a retarded meme propogaded by male losers in an attempt to normalize sexual inadequacy or maternal rejection

>>9239228
>Men in their own agency choose to be less picky and women in their own agency choose to be more so.

Which is pure sexual selection bias.

Which is what we were originally talking about, but you imagined culture had destroyed it.

But I'm glad you can admit when you're wrong.

>>9239193
That's fucking dumb. The patriarchal custom of families selecting their daughters husband is essentially subrogating the woman's choice to those in her family who through age and experience, along with emotional distance from the suitors would be better qualified to judge the factors necessary for best ensuring the prosperity and security of the woman and her future children. Yes it can been seen as cold or oppressive in certain perspectives, but do you honestly think fathers in the past didn't care for their daughters or grandchildren?

I think it's a lot like when your dad tells you he's not going to pay for you to go to art school because he doesn't want you to grow up to be a bum. It might be shitty and mean, but usually it's because your dad cares about your long term future

File: 1335218647063.jpg (61KB, 1205x881px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1205x881px

>>9239236
>the gatekeepers of sex meme isn't real
>but male losers who have been sexually rejected propagate it

>>9239271
The existence of male losers who have been sexualy rejected isn't a problem so long as there are also female losers who aren't sexually aproached. Let's be honest here, we all know girls like that.

>>9239271
By "gatekeepers of sex meme" I mean the idea that because women are more selective in sexual intercourse that means that they have more power in the overall sexual/reproductive "market" which isnt true at all.

Obviously women are picky about men they fuck, just like men are picky about women they invest in.

>>9239284
I really don't know any girls like that. I mean, I can probably imagine some 500 pound landwhale who will never be married, or have children, but for some reason I think it's vastly more likely that men die alone than women.

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

12KB, 480x360px

>>9239072
Nice one anon, you really boiled the whole man-woman thing down to 4 autistic syllogisms. Well done.

I would offer you a fresh de-greased pizza as reward if I could.

>>9239296
That's because there are more male losers and more male rulers.

More male hobos, more male CEOs

More male geniuses, more male retards

This is so obvious it hurts to type!


Male losers normalize their own low standing by projecting it on men as a whole. Sad...

>>9239258
Christ were you born with an extra chromosome or something?

>>9239308
Do you have anything substantial to say, or do you want to just shitpost?

>>9239296
>but for some reason I think it's vastly more likely that men die alone than women.

That's impossible given women live longer on average than men
Seriously do you fuckers think men out number women four to one or some shit?

>>9239318
Die ALONE you sperglord, not longevity on average as a group.

>>9239318
>being this autistic

He didnt mean literally dying alone, he meant tfw no gf

>>9239307
Trump posting is becoming a meme right before our eyes. It's a beautiful thing folks!

>>9239318
Holy moly these posts

>>9239295
>just like men are picky about women they invest in.

But that's the point though. It doesn't really matter if you're picky as a man, because you're still at the mercy of a woman's pickyness.

>>9239325
>>9239327
Are you actually struggling to grasp with the fact that for in order for heterosexual women to be in a relationship a man has to be in a relationship

1 + 1 = 2

Stop me if I'm going too fast for you

>>9239338
and it doesn't matter if you're willing to be picky as a woman because you're at the mercy as mens pickyness to even get to the point where you get to act on that pickyness.

>>9239338
The same can be said about women:

> It doesn't really matter if you're picky as a woman, because you're still at the mercy of a man's pickyness.

Its really obvious, the fact you cant see this tells us alot about you, Anon.

File: lead_960.jpg (50KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x640px

>>9239072

Man desires, woman desires
>sex occurs, fuck yeah
Man desires, woman doesn't
>our boy cracks one out in the shower. sex occurs fy
Woman desires, man doesn't
>man puts on vinyl recording of baker street, watches woman crack one out in the shower, goes back to sleep. so/fy
Man doesn't, woman doesn't
>they do it anyways b/c game of thrones won't be on for another couple of months anyways so what else is there to do you guys bought a house in minneapolis ffs

>>9239338
Except if they happen to be more picky than the woman. Which can and does happen all the time in the real world
It might not be AS likely, but its not an absolute dynamic and far FAR from a fringe occurance

>>9239346
>>9239347
pickmind

>>9239347
No the same can't be said about women, because women choose men, not the other way around.

I mean, have you guys ever dated women in your life?

>>9239352
>Except if they happen to be more picky than the woman.

Literally never happens. Stop talking out of your asshole.

>>9239361
I'm going to assume this is satire for the sake of avoiding an aneurysm

>>9239355
Have you never had a woman desire you that you didn't desire back, is that unfathomable for you?

>>9239355
You aren't playing the social game correctly then. You have to make your potential partner believe that you could have anyone else if you wanted to and they have to convince you that they're the one for you. If she is interested in you you have successfully turned the power dynamic around.

>>9239352
Autists think that sex is the end all be all of romantic relationships...

Wrong! For example I would be willing to fuck most non-obese young women, child support and STDs not withstanding, but would I be willing to actually raise these children? Or be the companion of these medocre women? No!

Sexual market losers cant get past the sexual intercourse because... in more ways than one. There are many such cases, MGTOW and MRA, etc.

>>9239369
>Have you never had a woman desire you that you didn't desire back

Nope.

>>9239379
Shocking

>>9239355
>I mean, have you guys ever dated women in your life?

Yes, have you ever had women you barely know hit on you? Obviously not.

Have you ever asked your gf for $500 for "rent" and gotten it without question nor complaint? Without even a promise to pay back the money? Obviously not.

Have you ever fucked a girl you met the same day? Obviously not.

Like I said, sexual market losers project and normalize their status in life! Sad!

>>9239122
>This is because they have consistently been the selectors for which men get to breed.
This is statist historical revisionism.

Are you familiar with e.g. "Rape of the Sabine Women"? Men have abducted and reproduced with whatever women they chose throughout prehistory, antiquity, and even some of the early modern era. Women became the "final sexual selectors" at the same time centralized states and professional armies became the indisputable power on the world stage (19th and 20th centuries). Women only ever have the power of sexual selection when they can defend themselves, or when their "womanhood" is defended. In prehistory, it was incredibly difficult for women to defend themselves because they are simply not as physically strong as men and projectile weaponry was in its infancy (i.e. required a great deal of physical strength to employ effectively).

The modern state more or less acts as the omnipresent alpha-male; women (ostensibly existing for the state's reproductive force) and beta-males (ostensibly existing for state's labor force) "reproduce" only insofar as they are able to sneak behind the back of the alpha, much like lesser bull walruses. In other words, all children are considered property of the state, given as fief to their parents, who themselves are only recognized inasmuch as they offer their best qualities likewise as state property.

>>9239381
>"Look at me, I pretend to be desirable for women to win an argument on the internet!"

Kill yourself faggot.

File: 1313110074.jpg (3KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 275x183px

>>9235760

>>9239384
>implying you've done any of these things yourself

Projecting is one thing m8, delusion is another.

>>9239396
Saying at some point in my life a woman wanted to have sex with me who I didn't want to have sex with is not exactly claiming to be Don Juan friend

>>9239402
>M-men with active sex lives who are attractive to women d-don't exist!

Nothing I said was even remotely rare or far fetched

>>9239413
No, but I'm pretty sure one could make a strong case for it being evidence of you actually being a closet homo.

>>9239413
Well, it is on /lit/

>>9239432
I'd prefer to be gay than be with a few of them ngl

>>9239435
>>9239432
>E-Everybody is a loser like me!

S A D !
A
D
!

>>9239442
Fuck off back to /pol/ Drumpf-tard.

>>9237980
Why is everyone so god damn autistic they can't understand analogies and metaphors? He's perfectly clear, have you never read a book in your life that wasn't Sam Harris?

>>9239444
nice

>>9239444
>the low test, low status LOSER is also a trump hater

Many such cases!

>>9239390
Yes, but clearly rape by a conquering force is an exception to the norm. In a typical societal context the rule holds. If anything this is just a great case for the necessity of patriarchy. Even in prehistoric societies though you couldn't just rape at will as women still had fathers and brothers to protect them.

>>9239455
>>9239442
I actually would have believed you until the /r/the_donald memes came out.

>>9239490
Dude what, making sure your sister doesn't get raped isn't ruling over her

Jordan Peterson is great!

Everyone in this thread is great too! :)

Love u guys.

>>9239510
Protecting =/= ruling

>>9239490
>Yes, but clearly rape by a conquering force is an exception to the norm.
In the prehistoric instance of rapists against father, brother, and victim, rape by a conquering force is as likely to happen as not.

can i get a quick rundown on this thread?

>>9237061
and there it is, pack your bags everyone

File: IMG_2023.jpg (94KB, 409x640px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 409x640px

>>9239781
/lit/ doesn't like pop-intellectuals like Peterson because they simplifiy what they spend so much time trying to understand into easy digestible memes.

>but he doesn't even begin to explain the nuances of existence!

No one cares faggots

/v/ hates popular games
/mu/ hates popular music
/fa/ hates themselves
Hating what's popular does not mean it's bad

/lit/ is just a bunch pretentious college kids that are so disconnected from reality they don't see the good that this man is trying to do

>>9238460
>How stupid do you have to be to not understand any of what is being said here? It is all incredibly straightforward.
Are you a dumbass? That's my point, he's just saying incredibly obvious stuff that doesn't even merit an argument against it.

Get fucked, retard.

>>9239979
>popular ideas are not necessarily bad
>therefore Peterson's (popular) ideas are good

t. false equivocator

>>9239979
what is the endgame of that pic

>>9239991
>obvious stuff
what are you even doing here?

>>9240012
What do you mean what am I doing here?

I have a book full of "funny" and inspirational bumper stickers. It contains more depth than Mister Professor Doctor Peterson's quotes.

I admire that he pisses off SJWs though, I'll give Mr. Peterson that.

Protip: if you think he's very deep and try to argue with me you are a retard

>>9239999
Quads confirm

>>9239999
Do you think his ideas are bad?

The message that most people get out of watching him is to "Sort Yourself Out"
To get your shit together, stop being a NEET and contribute to society

The other part is keeping SJWs in check

Nice numbers

>>9240026
I dont think he is very deep, I dont think he has to be "very deep" to do a good thing
the stuff he talks about may be obvious for you, me or most people here, but not for everyone

he is the hero we need but not the one we deserve
god may keep him safe

You lot are incredibly unlikeable and autistic

>>9240046
>To get your shit together, stop being a NEET and contribute to society

I'm not a NEET, but I find the idea that I have some kind of obligation to "contribute to society" ludicrous and repugnant, like somebody left their shit to molder in the public toilet and it's got to the level of stink that you guffaw when you pinch your nose. Usually the arguments in obligation's favor are as sound as that simile.

>>9235105
op's thread was made before the one you linked

>>9240641
You've convinced me to remain neet and leech off government handouts for a bit longer

>>9240641
And when the next person has to use the toilet after?

You just leave the shit stained walls for someone else to clean?

I was taught to always try to leave a place a bit better than how you found it

>>9240725
Eh, if that's all you can amount to, continue on that course.

>>9240746
The "obligation to society" is the festering shit in the simile. Now that you say that, though, I think of the other dimension; that people only flush toilets in public because they "have been taught it's polite," so leave their crap as a nefarious desert at the first opportunity, like children, instead of using their empathy and recalling a circumstance wherein they were confronted with the latent, just reward of all toilets.

Also, how the fuck are you going to leave a public toilet better than you found it? Are you going to scrub the sinks and latrines?

>>9240769
Try flushing the urinal you used unlike the guy who came before you for a start.

>>9240769
If you don't see the value in leaving the world a better place for the generation that comes next then I have nothing left to say but that one day when you have children you re-evaluate your beliefs.