Name a flaw. PROTIP: you can't.

>>9281452
liberal, zionist

>>9281452
giant phoney

I still can't understand how a guy who does respectable psychological research clings onto Jung and Freud

>>9281452
>White
>Male
That 2, suck em up whitey

Kermit voice.

>taking psychological advice from a man with clinical depression

>>9281452
Lol wtf you guys know this nut job? He teaches at my school. I thought they weren't going to allow him back this semester. You should read the toronto news papers. They make him out to seem like a Nazi. It's pretty funny.

>>9281679
S P I R I T U A L I T Y
-----------------------------
M
A
N
G

>>9281720
He's got some notoriety on the internet because of the fuss that got kicked up about him.

Some /pol/tards think he's a revelatory philosopher. I think /lit/ just likes him for the meme potential.

>>9281732
ARCHETYPES

>>9281738
That's hilarious. Apparently his classes are packed with people that don't go to school here hahaha. I just thought he hated faggots.

>>9281679
Freud was never wrong, Jung is a retarded idealist though

>>9281709
Peterson is depressed?

He can't ever explain any of his theories. Worse than Derrida.

>>9281848
didn't you see the video where he breaks down into tears over the "divine individual"?

>>9281848
Yes, he went on TV and talked about his history of depression its on youtube

He just connects everything to myths. You can connect anything to Nostradamus predictions too. It's all cognitive bias.

>>9281971
Thats the point though, everything can be made to fit the hero's journey

>>9281982
he got btfo by sam harris on this when sam described the deep symbolism of a random cookbook recipe.

File: 1418861046060.jpg (60KB, 498x668px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 498x668px

>>9281982
>my theory literally covers everything
>also it can't be falsified, sorry
into le garbage can, how bout you read karl popper kid and grow up

File: images.jpg (17KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 470x313px

>>9281452
His head looks like a pouch of Pepe eggs, I'm sure the tad/pol/es will escape soon.

>>9281452
Such a boring looking dude lol, clearly takes no joy in his gender presentation. He should just transition already.

he's a pagan

>>9281775
From what I can tell, all he said was that he refused to use gender-neutral pronouns. So that made him literally Hitler of course.

He's just a self-help guru faggot masquerading as a philosopher

>>9281961
Was that the Ressurection of Logos talk? His voice was all shaky in that one. Thanks in advance
>>9281969
Oh I had no idea. I'll have to check it out thanks anon

>>9281780
How do you reconcile that there is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, for what Freud propounded?

My curiosity got the best of me and I am listening to a lecture
Peterson clearly knows a lot, but he still somehow comes up with a fantasy

Thought /lit/ would like him, he is the Zizek archetype

>>9282156
I ask whatever idiot would ask such a question to specify what propositions he thinks requires evidence rather than responding to a nonsensical blanket statement

Freud propounded he lived in Vienna, would you like evidence to support that?

>>9282173
Because Zizek doesn't believe in bullshit like archtypes

>>9282178
Somehow you think that Lacan is ok but Jung not. I suppose there is a way to make that work, but why not disown psychoanalysis as a whole like it should?

He's a meme on a weeb image posting board and fawned over by virgin neets.

>>9282175
If you need to vent, that is quite fine, but my question was not with hostile intent. I am not well read when it comes to Freud, of which I have only read a few seperate pieces, and it thusly made me wonder how those who seem to take Freud his expounded theories as fact reconcile the seeming lack of evidence.
To name something very mundane; the piece where he writes about forgetting foreign words.
(http://www.bartleby.com/284/2.html)

>>9282216
So he's Dostoevsky?

>>9281996
Sam Harris can't even defeat his made up version of Christianity.

>>9282221
No.
Dostoevsky had a presence before 4chan/the internet.

>>9282220
If you're not familiar with Freud then why would you ask a question with the presupposition that his claims are made without any justification? Of course I'd react as if it was intended with hostility though the sheer ignorance and absurdity of it I found more aggrevating

In either case Freud didn't expound theories as fact, he theorized based on concepts he arrived on through rational analysis and interpretation, inductive reasoning in other words, then them through their application in clinical practice.

A necessary method given at the time and up to the present day we have no means to epistemologically ground our experience of the psyche outside the crude and ultimately in my view naive misapprehensions of cognitive-behaviouralism.
This however does not divide it accountability to empirical evidence as propositions developed through induction are still falsifiable.