Sadler VS. Peterson

>>9315678
They aren't even in the same field...

>>9315678
Definitely Gregory B. Sadler. I don't think it's even debatable. He is /ourguy/.

>>9315702
why do you think they are better?

>>9315721
Sadler constantly refers literature, clearly has an indepth knowledge of many works, even in their native language and doesn't just talk out of his ass. Peterson is just a pseud who appeals to vague motifs in mythology to justify his own ideology.

Are we still talking about Fagetson after Sam "The Man" Harris B him TFO in a debate?

>>9315740
>tips approvingly

>>9315734
this desu

I like both professors but they have experiences im different fields. If anything Sadler is better as he has a much better understanding of philisophy than Peterson (especially in the case of Nietzsche)

>>9315678
Sadler is like a poor man's philosophy professor
Peterson is like this obsessed opinionated intellectual who was hired by a university that doesn't realize he uses his lectures to evangelize for his entire rambling philosophical worldview under the guise of teaching the specific subject he was hired to teach

>>9316207
This is why Peterson is better

>>9315678
I've never been able to stay interested in a lecture by Sadler, even at double speed.

>>9316207
imo it can be much more useful to learn about a single construction of the world than to be taught a specific subject from a presumed neutral point of view. Peterson is interesting to listen to, and when I disagree with the guy I can usually backtrack that disagreement to some disagreement on a more fundamental question. When you're taught disconnected history you don't get that kind of depth of reflection.

>>9316220
>>9316300
Definitely makes Peterson the more exciting person to listen to, but it also makes him more like Sam Harris than Sadler, more likely to bloviate and be an ultracrepidarian.

>>9315678
You can see in Peterson's eyes he is dead inside
How do we save him?

Sadler is to boring, Peterson is a neurotic, Rick Roderick is dank from beyond the grave

>>9316207
>Sadler is like a poor man's philosophy professor
Explain yourself.

>>9316255
>>9316399
Plebs detected.

>>9316207
just because his students are plebs doesn't mean that he is a poor man's professor. It takes great skill to be able to describe such difficult concepts to people who have never thought abstractly about their existence once in their life.

>>9317566
they are plebs indeed. If you can't finish a video about philosophy I suspect that you couldn't read a philosophy book for that long either, therefore rendering their opinion void.

>>9317578
The best feeling is when you finish a book, make your own notes, then watch the 2 hour Sadler lecture about the book. Then it makes you want to read it again. Plebs will never know the satisfaction of this feel.

I like pete, gonna look into sadler now, thanks for the thread.
Peterson seems to know all the things i know, and much more (of course), and he seems to think the same way i do, but unlike me he can put it into words.

>>9315734
>Sadler constantly refers literature, clearly has an indepth knowledge of many works

So does J.P

Does Peterson read in Greek, Latin and German? Didn't think so.

>>9317713
Peterson has read like three books. One by Nietzsche, Campbell and Solzhenitsyn. And he cites the same concepts from them ad nauseam. The only people impressed by his "analysis" are pseudo-intellectual frog posters who never even laid their hands on a philosophy book.

>>9317742

>Peterson has read like three books.

No he hasn't, he has read all of the books you could name by those authors and hundreds more. You'll probably never read as much as J.P has in your life.

>>9317742
>Peterson has read like three books. One by Nietzsche, Campbell and Solzhenitsyn.
This needs to be a meme. Peterson apologists categorically blown the fuck out.

File: 1464499605450.jpg (3MB, 5096x3452px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5096x3452px

What can i get from peterson that i can't get from any of these guys?

Hint: nothing.

>>9317844
This picture fucking triggers me. I hate almost all of them but you put some really smart goys in there too.

>>9317860
You should see the updated version that has Aquinas and Hegel.

>>9318241
10/10

>>9318241
Kek

File: 6ijiWH5M.jpg (84KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 512x512px

>>9317844
WHAT is Peter Hitchens doing on that list?

>>9318350
What are you on about? Peter Hitchens is probably the biggest pseud on there. For one thing, he doesn't believe in GOD.

>>9317844
My boy Zizek doesn't belong in there
He may be delibaretly obscure and sometimes he may ramble and say a bunch of meaningless or trirte stuff, but he's not pseudo-intellectual

>>9318524
Zizek is the worst. A pop philosopher if there ever was one. I'm almost embarassed that I ever liked him. *sniff*