So one of you fuckers went to a Peterson talk and actually talked about 4chan. Who was it? @37:35
https://youtu.be/_UL-SdOhwek
obviously someone from /pol/ because he mentions you can see what countries people are from. not surprised /pol/ fags are autists who break the first rule
>>9250766
link to the peterson reddit ama?
>>9250766
Nobody like Peterson here, only smelly illiterate crossboarders shill him
>>9250846
I find him entertaining
>>9250846
t board admin
>>9250766
who ever it was stereotypically couldn't put a sentence together
>>9250846
Found the smelly illiterate crossboarders shill.
>>9250766
>all the retarded laughs when he mentions 4chan
/pol/ are so cringey
>>9250766
Seems like a bad question just to get him to know or acknowledge that he knows about 4chan.
> dude 4chan ever heard of it?? lol what are you?
>>9250943
They're basically kids and see him as their daddy, of course they want acknowledgement
>>9250943
True. Better question to ask is when the narwhal bacoms
>>9250946
He makes a better daddy than Donald Trump who would probably beat you ro Milo who would molest you
>>9250954
No, you go back there, bloody neo-Marxist postmodernist social justice warrior
>>9250960
/lit/ is a neo-Marxist postmodernist social justice warrior board, get used to it friend
>>9250960
Epic post, Really got me to think!
>>9250962
Wrong.
>>9250967
Define wrong
>>9250980
Check the dictionary, numbnuts
>>9250960
>says the ama shill
>>9250987
>wrong
>adjective
>1. Not correct or true
Define truth
Wonder what kind of questions he'll get on reddit. There are plenty of people who hate him there
>>9251010
95% will just be atheists telling him there's no God and pointing out fallacies in replies he gives them
anyone else noticed he laughs like kermit the frog?
>>9250844
There are other boards with that function, /pol/ only got it recently.
>>9251056
The only other two are /int/ and /sp/ neither of which are liable to be discussing him
>>9250766
It was me.
>>9251039
Nah, you are the first one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ftiL4c_CA
>>9250844
Obvious pol poster. Hope someone doxxed him and sent him pizzas
>>9250987
>dictionary
Please kill yourself, STEMfag
Lmao, this is how /pol/tards speak in real life.
>What are you?
Embarrassing.
>>9250766
peterson is such a good lad
i hate when faggots here bully him
>>9251137
Maybe if he didn't bully the mentally ill we wouldn't
>>9251143
Trans people are not mentally ill, bigot.
>>9251155
I'm talking about anyone who believes in the gender spook
>/pol/
>>9250943
This. If they wanted to talk about the value and dangers of an anonymous space for discussion and self-improvement they should have phrased it in an abstract way. What they were really hoping for was for Peterson to acknowledge their existence. Weak.
>>9251162
>/pol/ for ants?
>>9250766
Ahm frahm faww chain
>WHAT ARE YOU
This shit is so cringey
>>9251143
He doesn't bully them you dramaqueen
treat yourself
>>9251003
Words are defined by their context in a language and the relation of those contexts to our experience of the world. Right and wrong can be observed when you try to cross the street and get run the fuck over because you refuse to acknowledge that the abstract concept of "being run over" has any reality.
>>9251173
He is though, he's making a big deal about just calling girls (male) she while literally every other intellectual just humours them and stick to considering actually important matters.
His issue is he's too full of spooks himself and thinks shit like "freedom of speech" and gender mean anything
>>9251182
So the implication of what you are saying is our ability to know truth is limited by the capability of language to represent reality
>>9251240
Yes. Which is why language systems need to evolve over time to become more capable of accurately representing it.
>>9251254
>Which is why language systems need to evolve over time to become more capable of accurately representing it.
This is deconstructionism
>>9251287
>this is a Peterson cultist's best attempt at joining in
Start with the Greeks
>>9251297
I'm not a Peterson fan, I was just trying to understand his post.
>>9251266
Deconstructionism is the act of forming an antithesis to a construction of the world. For the most part it merely points out the ways in which language seems to be inadequate on a fractural level. That is to say it does not acknowledge the whole of the system, and the ways in which the different parts justify eachother. Instead it observes that everything is justified by something else and infers that it is a mere thoughtbubble, unable to see the transcendental quality such a system has.
Which is why Derridas has given us such gems as "the industrialization of art is no loss because art was always just a means of keeping people complacant by constructing a world for them." and that it should not be the role of the artist to "supply reality". He's completely olivious to the fact that 1) every construction is also a deconstruction of any incompatible construction, which means that stories not only have the power to construct peoples worlds for them, but that people take an active role in transforming their own systems of thought through story as well and 2) it is through the process of construction that deconstruction becomes meaningful in the first place, and demands that the role of art be reduced to tearing things down.
>>9251316
Well I presumed so because it sounds exactly like the nonsense he was raving about to Sam Harris.
The correspondency notion of truth of statements has been the standard way the concept has been understand from Aristotle all the way through Kant
>>9251339
>1) every construction is also a deconstruction of any incompatible construction
I don't see how you assume Derrida was oblivious to this whatsoever.
Likewise deconstructionism absolutely acknowledges the whole of the system, its inherent in his conception of the act that every construction of reality will be inadequate and as a result run into interior contradictions. This is only possible when considered as a whole as most individual statements are not inherently contradictory but only become so on a significant didactic scale
>>9251359
*disjunctive scale
>>9251341
You misunderstood my post. I said that it seemed like his implication was morality through consequence, not that that reflected my personal beliefs.
>>9251359
Explain his broken relationship to art and his obsession with the anvantgard then.
>>9251374
I'm afraid I'm not qualified to, its area of his thought that goes outside my study of him which was specific to his hermeneutics
Derrida contributed absolutely nothing novel or valuable to human thought, and his acolytes merely embarrass themselves by propagating his ideology
>>9251383
Its gotten you pretty mad, thats valuable to me
>>9251377
Fair enough. I'll confess it's the other way around for me. There are plenty of thinkers who have very sensible ideas on an abstract level and yet come to questionable conclusions when they attempt to translate that approach into a social theory. I'll give his hermeneutic writings a shot.