rate how pseudo this guy is on post-modernism

On a scale of 1 to you
0

damn misconceptions about it spread even onto here
sux for you boi

>>9654706
“Postmodernism is a complete assault on two things: One, it’s an assault on the metaphysical substrate of our culture, and I would say that the metaphysical substrate looks something like a religious substrate, so it’s a direct assault on that; and the second thing it’s an assault on is everything that’s been established since the enlightenment; rationality, empiricism, science.. everything; clarity of mind, dialogue, the idea of the individual, all of that. You see, it’s not that it’s just up for grabs, that’s not the thing: It’s to be destroyed. It’s the goal, just like the communists wanted the revolution to destroy the capitalist system.”

thats not pseudo?

>>9654798
why does he say it's an attack on the metaphysical substrate of our culture AS IF that was a calamitous thing, or AS IF the idea of the 'individual' was fucking sacrosanct. This is some weak minded bullshit - he's arguing from his ideology rather than to it, and exposing himself his own weakness.

>>9654884
>why does he say it's an attack on the metaphysical substrate of our culture AS IF that was a calamitous thing
Because ISIS does the same thing to physical structures.

>>9654884
Cathedrals need to be converted to parking lots! The economy needs it for two weeks in theory!

>>9654906
I love cathedrals, my favourite buildings, I visit them whenever I can, they definitely shouldn't be malappropriated or levelled.
Still don't think people should worship in them of course.

>>9654899
What does that even fucking mean? As if someone pointing out how flawed your philosophical system is is analogous to people blowing up buildings - is that what you're trying to say?

>>9654922
>flawed
Every building is flawed.

>>9654932
but we're supposed to celebrate those flaws because it's the motivation to try that gets my dick hard.

He's wrong about the post-modern, and right about the -ism

>>9654943
explain

>>9654884
Because they don't offer any solutions other than those that have failed and led to the unprecedented bloodshed of the 20th century.

>>9654798
Explain yourself bucko

>>9654946
There is an -ism that misuses certain ideas of late 20th century French philosophy, more here:

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

>>9654936
>but we're supposed to celebrate those flaws
Build a better one, don't bulldoze the old ones.

>>9654798
Why does Peterson claim to be a follower of Nietzsche? Nietzsche aimed to destroy metaphysics and take rationality and empiricism down a peg or two.

The post-modernists are his fucking successors.

>>9654961
iirc he talks about the frech postmodernists being different from the postmodernists of today on joe rogans 2nd podcast with him

>>9654884
His problem is that theyre tearing down these structures in order to replace them with communism, which he believes is murderous and will only lead to greater suffering. I dont think his problem is with postmodernism, rather the communists who walk hand in hand with it

>>9655234
>theyre tearing down these structures in order to replace them with communism,

They're doing a piss poor job at it.

>>9655234
Does this guy even read any of the guys he criticizes?

>>9654798
How can he say postmodernism is an assault on everything when nodoby can define postmodernism?

>>9655234
>Tearing down these structures....in order to replace them....
That's not what pomo is about I'm afraid

The way he talks about postmodernism as if it's a clear, agreed upon ideology meant to subvert and construct its own agenda is a good clue he has no clue what he's talking about, and is yet another example of a right winger creating a boogeyman scapegoat. Substitute "postmodernism" with "Judaism" and the argument is exactly the same. Because fearmongering is all capitalist brainlets are good at doing

>>9655205

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_zr_PU9iC8

He doesn't agree with the ubermensch meme and he has mentioned that Nietzsche kind of gave the first push for the development of post-modernism

>>9655553
He doesnt mean pomo is the obsessed with tearing down social structures. He meant more along the lines that commies have adapted tenets of pomo in order to justify their actions iirc.

Im not entirely sure if im getting his argument right, i havent listend to him speak in a while but i vaguely remember this being his point

>>9654695
>>9654798

I agree with the sentiment someone else expressed about him confronting an "-ism" that isn't exclusively post-modernism; he's confronting an ideology of anti-rationalism (kind of akin to what people might consider SJW) which he conflates with post-modernism. I don't think it's justified to explain away the rise of far left "liberalism" as post-modern development, and I think equating the two would be a big injustice in attempting to understand just what it is to be "post-modern."

In short I think Peterson is trying to bridge the gap between two buzzwords.

Oh boy another thinly veiled political thread on /lit/. Just what we needed! Remember to sage and report all offtopic philosophy threads like this.

>>9655592
So is this guy a perspectivist or not? Post-modernism is just the next logical step in the philosophy that teaches man is the measure of all things.

It seems like Peterson isn't interested in the actual ramification of Nietzsche. Either he doesn't understand what he is reading or rejects it on an emotional level. Rejecting the successors of Nietzsche, having a nostalgia for Christianity. He also seems like he didn't learn a damn thing from Jung except how to play spot-the-archtype.

>>9654992
Modern commies are people who have never built anything with their hands and it shows

>>9654798
>and I would say that the metaphysical substrate looks something like a religious substrate, so it’s a direct assault on that

that sounds pseudo af

i haven't listened to the guy much, is he more of an ambitious modernist or a classic conservative?

>>9655638
Unlike I, a redpilled working class NEET who posts on anime imageboards. Damn those workers!!

>>9655648
I browse /po/, that counts

>>9654695
>..
I fucking hate that so much.

>>9655625

Why are you saying he didn't learn anything from Jung? And what is wrong with defending christian ideals? If you want to know of his views you can simply watch his videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naWWzn2fxWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCOw0eJ84d8

>>9655625
In regard to your Jung comment, I also get that impression. Jung can be so profound on many levels, and there is so much to learn from his Collected Works. Jung is most likely one of Peterson's biggest influences, but during the conversations with Sam Harris the only thing that he brought up was the "dominance hierarchy" and its relation to archetypes, something like that, not actually Jung on his own. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, but he never sees the clinical in Jung, which there is an abundance of.

>>9655642
>i haven't listened to the guy much, is he more of an ambitious modernist or a classic conservative?
Definitely the former.

>>9655889
You cannot be a follower of Nietzsche and be Christian. Christianity is pretty much the definition of slave morality and represents everything Nietzsche fights against. You do know in Nietzsche's Antichrist he calls it "worst than any vice" and says that there is not a single word of wisdom or kindness in the New Testament other than one line by Pilate?

From what I have seen he seems to have completly neglected Jung's theory of the inner universe. I have never seen him talk about the Anima, dream analysis, how the collective unconscious can be accessed directly, the meaning of day dreams or sudden urges/instincts. Nothing about cultivating inner strength. Anything to do with power from inside one's self. He seems to suggest all power comes from outside yourself. Which is how helpless losers think: incidentally this is a very Christian thing. Christians are helpless losers that need a savior figure. This is why Jung saw Gnostics as the good guys, they taught people to be their own savior. The myth analysis he talks about is Jungian, it's the type of power that comes from outside yourself.

>>9655899

The clinical side of Jung is very personal. All problems tend to get contextualized as an imbalance in your inner mind. Usually by overburdening one part of your mind with too much responsibility or by having other parts of your mind undeveloped and thus unable to take up their own responsibility. it's not the environments fault but how you are reacting to it.

His argument with Harrison seemed to be about epistemology of which Jung had very little to say.

>>9654695
0

he isn't a pseud on post-modernism, he's a pseud on psychology

>>9654916
>Still don't think people should worship in them of course.
What a faggot.

>>9654798
>it’s an assault on is everything that’s been established since the enlightenment; rationality, empiricism, science

Why does a Jungian existential psychologist have such a hard-on for the Enlightenment?

>>9654695
>>9654798
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naWWzn2fxWc

He explains himself way better in this video.

File: Figure1.gif (11KB, 825x557px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 825x557px

>>9656511
It's because he cherrypicks the arguments of various meme philosophers in order to sound sage-like or profound. A better question would also be "why is such an ardent anti-postmodernist so attracted to Nietzsche?" It's because Nietzsche is where he gets his "pull yourself out of the gutter" talk, and Jung is where he gets his existentialist talk, and Wittgenstein is where he gets his language stuff, and somehow he's able to wrap it up neatly in a shitty diagram like pic related and pseuds slurp it up like chicken soup because they genuinely believe he is some kind of a genius connecting all the dots for them

The better question is why /lit/ has such a hard-on for picking on this nobody.

>>9654798
Sounds good to me.
Based Peterson

He's pseudo when he tries to say anything else though. Post some of his stream of consciousness on religion. It takes some laughably broad steps

>>9656529

He always makes that Shakespeare argument, and I find it to be a really disingenuous logic that leaps from "interpretation is limited in that it cannot offer interpretations that kill the interpreter" to "the role of interpretation is to produce a reading that helps you live in some vaguely defined humanistic sense." He then goes even further and says you have to "extract useful tools from the literature."

So we go from

>You cannot interpret yourself to death.
>You must interpret in a way that keeps you alive.
>Interpretation must be useful in a pragmatic/utilitarian sense.

It's a pretty dramatic jump from is to ought, to say the least, but not even in a coherent direction. To go from self-preservation to utility totally excludes the fact that literature, interpretation, and philosophy only exist because self-preservation had already been met in more primitive social formations. This is important because neglecting that order of determination also neglects the fact that postmodernism is never an "endorsement" of the collapse of meaning, but very precisely is a reaction to an "philosophication" thereof. Derrida is not saying, woo hoo, read whatever you like into Shakespeare. He's saying that context has drifted so dramatically since Shakespeare wrote, that the very language we are reading him in is no longer the same, and even if historicist readings could perfectly reconstruct "what Shakespeare meant," that intention to mean is ontologically vanished from the writing: Shakespeare is dead, he doesn't "want to say" (vouloir dire) anything. It's honestly a weird kind of spiritualism that assumes intention can be hermeneutically recovered. This is probably why Derrida is so interested in ghosts later in life.

Now, why has context drifted in this way? Not simply because of semantic drift of which context is a reflection, but more because of social drift that becomes possible once necessity has been met. A society that no longer needs to bind itself together through a shared mythology, or, in a more modern sense, that no longer needs to actively pursue the means to overmaster natural necessity, can no longer agree as to what the world means. Its members no longer have any shared interest in it because their needs are met by other people quite independent of them. This results in the broad destabilization of context, which Derrida, Baudrillard, and Foucault are only symptoms of at worse and self-conscious reflections of at best.

File: 1497513384293.jpg (70KB, 620x637px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x637px

>>9657126
>disingenuous logic

Dude what?

>>9657130

it has the appearance of logic, but i am trying to keep peterson's image of being intellectual intact by assuming he is being rhetorically persuasive and not stating his premises, rather than illogical and not having premises.

>>9656128
>You cannot be a follower of Nietzsche and be Christian. Christianity is pretty much the definition of slave morality and represents everything Nietzsche fights against.
You don't understand Nietzsche. He wasn't fighting against slave morality. He just questioned its legitimacy and argued that it is mentally unhealthy to believe in slave morality. A Christian can question the foundations of their moral system and also question whether its unhealthy just like Peterson does.

>>9655625
Listen to his lectures on Dostoyevsky, he's clearly just a mediocre mind. Passionate and (because of his accent) honestly adorable, but mediocre

>>9657136
So what are you even saying? On one hand you acknowledge Nietzche thinks slave morality is unhealthy than you say he isn't fighting it. He makes it pretty damn clear the Christians and slave moralists are his sworn enemy.

>Christian can question the foundations of their moral system and also question whether its unhealthy just like Peterson does

You seem to be dodging the question. I'll ask directly. Does Peterson support slave morality? If he does than it's settled. He is not a follower of Nietzche.

If he does not think Christianity is slave morality he would need to seriously explain that (mostly by addressing Nietzche's historical and psychological critic of the religion's foundation). It's like saying your a Marxist and you support the bourgeoisie.

>>9654798
This is embarrassing

>>9657219
>On one hand you acknowledge Nietzsche thinks slave morality is unhealthy than you say he isn't fighting it.
I'm saying although he thinks its unhealthy for people he's not saying that the values of slave morality are incorrect. He just didn't think any of the justifications for Christian values were justified. In Peterson's case he found other justifications for the values of Christianity which had not been questioned by Nietzsche.

>Does Peterson support slave morality? If he does than it's settled. He is not a follower of Nietzsche.
Again you're trying to argue that Nietzsche thinks the values of slave morality are wrong when all he's saying is that it's unhealthy and he sees no justification for the values. Peterson is a follower of Nietzsche because he agrees that all of the older justifications for Christian values that Nietzsche was aware of are wrong. Peterson did what Nietzsche advised and sought out justification for Christian values and the justifications that Peterson found led him to the conclusion that it isn't actually unhealthy.

>It's like saying your a Marxist and you support the bourgeoisie.
No. What I'm saying is more like saying you're a Marxist but disagree with Marx on how socialism will be achieved. Plenty of Marxists disagree with him on that point.

>>9655578
Postmodernism doesn't argue 'for' anything, but it does clearly argue against many of the bases of Western culture, and it can be critiqued as destructive because of this.

>>9657280
>Make a whole book about being anti-christian and hating christianity
>Psueds 150 years later say you're views are compatible with christianity

>>9657126
good post

File: umm.png (62KB, 496x343px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 496x343px

about two hundo leafbucks

>>9657286
if person A attacks thing B for reasons C and person D agrees with person A's attacks on B but defends thing B for reasons E then that means person A's views are compatible with thing B.

Nietzsche attacked Christian values and Peterson agreed with his attacks but then found other justification for it that were entirely unrelated to Nietzsche's attacks.

>>9657302
>being so autistic that you reply with bizarre algebraic bullshit

lol

>but then found other justification for it that were entirely unrelated to Nietzsche's attacks.
His "justification" is called being a fucking pussy

>>9657285
It fulfills many of the bases of Western culture. What is "anything can be art" if not objectivity taken to its logical conclusion? -- i.e. everything has an involved process in its creation, so what makes something more legitimate than the other? How can you claim that Western though is humanist when it privileges certain humans over others? etc. Postmodernism dispels any mystical shit and duplicity from the European tradition so the fields can go fallow, so to say. What we choose to build now will be more rational and fair than trying to reconcile fanciful religious thinking with material reality. No one is ever their ideals.

>>9657309
stop posting any time.

File: niet btfo christcuck kant.jpg (39KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 720x540px

>>9657320
triggered?

replace kant with peterson

>>9657329
you're the one that through civility out the window and resorted to memes. I'm still just waiting here for someone to argue against what I said because all I've gotten so far have been emotional outbursts from people like you.

>>9657342
>civility
A modern and bourgeois value

Everything I said was correct, I dont treat you with respect because you do not deserve it. An honest insult is better than a polite lie

>>9657350
you're arguing against your own hallucination of what I said. I didn't demand respect or complain about your incivility

>>9657365
If you think nietszche and christianity is compatible you are retarded

>>9657372
I don't but peterson does. seems like you're hallucinating again

>>9657391
Now you're the one using memes

>>9657394
what meme is in that post?

>>9657397
muh hallucinating

>>9657407
it isn't a meme. I first said it above to say how you are arguing against something I never said. I said it again because you were doing that again

>>9657414
It is a meme, you are lying again

>>9657285
'Western Culture' self immolated 1939-45. Whatever was left has little connection to 'The West' ie. Christian, European civilisation. Many in the right as well as on the left(3rd worldists) conflate capital with 'western civilisation'. But capital is a phenomenon that transcends any notion of 'Western Civilisation'.

>>9657436
>The West
>Christian

>>9657280
>He just didn't think any of the justifications for Christian values were justified

Have you read ANY Nietzsche? The Anti-Christ is the single greatest attack on the religion ever produced. Like you think those youtube atheists or Sam Harris clones had some negative things to say about Christianity. They are practically Christians themself as far as Nietzsche is concerned. This man literally believes that every single Christian value is a war on life itself and a declration of hate for the universe itself. Let me repeat. There is no human being in history with worst things to say about Christianity than Friedrick Nietzsche. If you are a Christian you are his enemy and he really doesn't give a shit if it's because you misunderstand or his work. If he could he would personally nail every Christian to a cross and give them their own crown of thorns. He would have Saint Paul be raped in the ass by goats in the name of Dionysus.

>Peterson did what Nietzsche advised and sought out justification for Christian values and the justifications that Peterson found led him to the conclusion that it isn't actually unhealthy.

Nietzsche didn't ask his followers to justify Christianity. He asked them to destroy it and build the Overman on the ruins of the churches.

>>9657442
There's a fundamental discontinuity between classical Antiquity and the later medieval west, though. Something you don't see with Chinese civilisation for example.'The West' deliberately attempted to fashion itself after a half remembered antiquity, an antiquity that remained fundamentally alien to it.

>>9657460
>There's a fundamental discontinuity between classical Antiquity and the later medieval west, though.

Exactly, the "west" became less western as it became more christian. This is true both racially and spiritually.

>>9657467
Fact: Pajeets are the only pure aryans

>>9657470
Fact: You have no idea what aryan means

Pajeet is like 5% aryan and 95% who knows what

Persians are more aryan though...

>>9657470
*iranians

>>9657454
>If he could he would personally nail every Christian to a cross and give them their own crown of thorns. He would have Saint Paul be raped in the ass by goats in the name of Dionysus.
Nietzsche may have been bombastic but he wasn't a literal sociopath.

"I do not even want to nay-say the nay-sayers." Famous quote by Nietzsche.

In fact, Nietzsche saw slave morality and Christians as necessary to make a certain intellectual elite more deeper by setting themselves off against them, arguing against them. Nietzsche saw everything as necessary. Ironically enough, he really "loved his enemies" because of the stimulus they provided him to make his thought.

>>9657454
>If he could he would personally nail every Christian to a cross and give them their own crown of thorns. He would have Saint Paul be raped in the ass by goats in the name of Dionysus.
I'll just go ahead and assume you're being hyperbolic because he wouldn't do that at all.

> This man literally believes that every single Christian value is a war on life itself and a declration of hate for the universe itself. Let me repeat. There is no human being in history with worst things to say about Christianity than Friedrick Nietzsche
Yes and Peterson agrees with what he had to say. It's just htat there is stuff that can be used to justify christian values outside of what Nietzsche attacked.

>Nietzsche didn't ask his followers to justify Christianity. He asked them to destroy it and build the Overman on the ruins of the churches.
I should have said that Nietzsche thought it good for people seek justifications for any values before believing in them. Peterson did that with the christian values in a way that was compatible with Nietzsche. As I said above Peterson's justification for those values lead him to disagree with Nietzsche on whether or not it's unhealthy for people to believe in.

>>9657477
Yes Christians are nessiary to distinguish lower life forms and higher ones. The thing is his "love your enemy" isn't the pacifist kind. It's the type where you sit in the coliseum and watch Christians being tortured for fun. Whether or not he actually intended

>>9657479
The thing is that unless you are being downright decepetive and marketing non-Christian values as Christian (as Jung did). You would need to really fucking rework Nietzche to make Christianity NOT be the worst thing ever. Like a counter attack against Anti-Christ would be needed at the very minimum. Or you could just be a hack and cherry pick out the Nietzsche you like and ignore the rest. I have only some exposure to Peterson so I can't say which he did but my money is on the second one.

>>9657312
All of this nonsense dissipates once you realize that most of our behavior is subconsciously motivated and most of our preferences are inherent. A person's preference for Wagner over random white noise isn't culturally instantiated, it's a byproduct of their own biologically evolved preferences.

File: 1490590320486.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>9654695
Postmodernism is Cultural Marxism

>>9657548

Another pseud

>>9657557
>In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." [26]

It's real, though

>>9657518
This post doesn't really deal with what I was saying.

>>9657548
Marxism is modernism, postmodernism is post-Marxism.

>>9657563

Got nothing to do with postmodernism though

>>9654695
Doesn't trust individual genius and its power to have supreme influence on cultural processes, and therefore considers the critique of popular modalities as worthwhile.

>>9657548
Didn't Foucault say Marxism was a dead ideology?
You might just have to accept that there are some people who really are just gross and degenerate

>>9657567
All of the cultural traditions postmodernism attempts to dismantle are the result of evolved processes rather than arbitrary dogmas, so you can use Western rationality to dismiss them

>>9657625
Still nothing to do with my post.

>>9657634
Postmodernism uses contradictions in Wesern rhetoric to critique Western culture, which is what you said. My point is that despite whatever Western rhetoric says Western culture did not form by rational means, but used rational language post hoc in order of justify itself. So even if Western rhetoric contradicted itself, that wouldn't say much about Western culture per se.

>>9657669
It critiques the ad hoc rational language i.e. modernism.

>>9657669
Communism is the Dialectical culmination to 4000 years of European culture. All of Western philosophical thought converges in communism. The omega point. If you want to truly 'fight for the west' you will fight for communism.

>>9657679
Naw, I'm good. Hierarchies are perfectly natural and need to exist.

>>9657688

In the landscape of spring, there is neither better nor worse. The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some short.

>>9657725
The only way a short branch can compete with a long branch is by striving to be longer, and using its wit to compete with the long branch. And the reason it would want to be a longer branch is in order to fulfill its biological imperative to find a mate, especially in a world where monogamy isn't enforced and short branches are forced to sexually compete with longer branches.

>>9657679
Marxist teleology is just the secular version of Christian eschatology.

You just GOT hit with a fucking
POST
O
S
T

MODERN
O
D
E
R
N

CRITIC
R
I
T
I
C

>>9657740
all aboard the scientific materialist nihilist train!

Next stop: Albuquerque!

>>9657620
>You might just have to accept there are some people who really are just gross and degenerate

And What if I don't? maybe the most reasonable course of action involves making those people go away somehow.

>>9657745
All other things being equal, how would disadvantaged men compete with gifted men? Beauty isn't equally distributed. If an ugly man had no material advantage over another man that man would oppress him biologically rather than economically.

>>9657760
biological oppression meaning .. ? Less likely to get laid?

There are a few programs to recognize (that ought to go without saying but alas) that the culture we are inculcated with prescribe en masse.

One is that certain external conditions concerning specific modes of relation with at least one or two given human individuals must be met in order for you to allow yourself a measure of self-worth or trust.

The blatant ones go by the name of sexual attractiveness, monetary wealth either in possession or bank account, and number of persons who consider themselves your "friend".

If you fail to meet these programmed standards, then by god you better not dare to esteem yourself more worthy than an ant! Forget the rich inner life you live! Forget the cry of the soul, the artistic drive within you, the fire of the eternal spirit, NAY!

HOW MANY TIMES U GOT LAID BRO?

>>9657772
The problem with this perception of the world is that it ignores inherent human psychology. A person's need for sex, love, and companionship isn't culturally instantiated, it's biologically evolved. A straight boy doesn't have to be taught that girls are attractive, and an ugly man doesn't have to be taught that being a genetic dead-end is highly undesirable.

File: 9930afe09a54af712a960914c0e320870fc4c646dbca520a2ce70edc368d49b9.jpg (181KB, 1200x1019px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1200x1019px

>>9657740
Read Fourier. Everyone Gets to Fuck in Communism.

>>9657781
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

>>9657750
Maybe the most reasonable course of action is making the people who want to make those people go away go away.

Shrug!

>>9657760
>If an ugly man had no material advantage over another man that man would oppress him biologically rather than economically.

A nice, accurate use of the word 'oppress'

>>9657786
That's bullshit. In systems where all other forms of status are dismantled looks became more, not less important, and because men are more biologically expendable due to our lower cost of procreation, we'll bear the brunt of the damage

>>9657781
And you're ignoring ugly women. Love isn't rational.

File: 6a00d834515ae969e2014e897056eb970d-500wi.jpg (22KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x282px

>>9657791
COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM

>>9657792
> looks became more, not less important

Unsubstantiated claim.

>>9657792
It must be exhausting to think so unpoetically.

Did you run your future potentials through an algorithm to choose your vocation?

File: imnMPjT.jpg (140KB, 640x861px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 640x861px

>>9657792
>tfw handsome

>>9657794
I'm not. Studies show that woman is far more likely to date up than a man is, and that men are far more likely to have sex with mates who are well below their standards than women are. It's an inherent psychological difference. A man's role in the reproductive process costs him 10 minutes, so he can afford to spread his genes around, while a woman's role in the reproductive process costs her at least 9 months (but often years), which means that she has to be much choosier than a man does. This is true of all mammals.

>>9657808
>Studies show that woman is far more likely to date up than a man is, and that men are far more likely to have sex with mates who are well below their standards than women are.

So... find an uglier woman than you? What's the issue?

>>9657799
What a ridiculous thing to say. Poetic interpretation doesn't alter your reality.

File: jy3wW21mHt4kB8MWdo9ztzl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVvK0kTmF0xjctABnaLJIm9.jpg (17KB, 467x350px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 467x350px

>>9657815
>he doesn't use chaos magick to alter his reality

>>9657815
Poetics is the life-blood of reality. The veritable Prāṇāyāma. Science has an important reality, but it is the servant to beauty.

>>9657791
Not a more liberal use of the term than how Marxists label anyone who makes slightly more money than they do as belonging to an oppressor class

>>9657825
Uhhh

>>9657825
Either you stand for the abolition of the existing order of things or you don't. Even the bourgeoisie are unfree and ultimately tied to their roles.

>>9657813
It's more complicated than that. In a non-monogamous society a single man can have as many women as he wants. So an ugly man has to compete for the scraps, and gamble with an even uglier woman and assume that the child she has is his. In this sort of society, the only way a biologically lacking man can compete is through status.

>>9657842
Or personality.

>Scraps

There's your answer. Problem solved.

>>9657837
Changing the order of society will not change human psychology to a substantial degree

File: schopes.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>9657842
>not being an anti-natalist

>>9657846
>personality
Nice fucking meme. Life isn't s Disney movie.

>>9657857
People prefer the company of others they can actually get along with. They're not going to hang out with people who they find physically attractive.

>>9657852
Anti-Natalists still have an inherent need for sex and affection

>>9657842
even if you manage to succeed within this late capitalist, as a high earning STEM engineer of some sort and manage to attract a fertile 9/10 female, you are definitely getting KEKED and will end up giving an arm and a leg as alimony /child support.

>>9657861
>They're not going to hang out with people who they find physically attractive.
True, men normally interview women before becoming attracted to them.

This personality drivel is propagated by women. The "personality" they like is socially dominant leader of the pack, of which there is only one per pack. How profound and poetic of them.

>>9657868
If I lose everything but get to fuck and breed with a 9/10, that's still better than masturbating into a sock

>>9657868
*even if you manage to succeed within this late capitalist hellscape society as a high earning STEM engineer of some sort

>>9657861
It's not about hanging out with, it's about tucking

>>9657877
hookers are cheaper, tho

>>9654916
Cathedrals are places of worship are you fucking retarded

>>9657868
Strictly speaking, you should be able to funnel STEM earnings into a legally separate corporation, which is not subject to alimony.

This is the real reason the upper classes do not care about the divorce epidemic and do not have a big problem with feminism.

Does Donald Trump look like someone whose income has been carved in half twice?
His "big league" money is legally separate from him, but under his control.

>>9657876
You're talking about like Tinder culture (primarily city-based and youth-orientated) or whatever, which isn't representative of how people find partners. People don't necessarily breed when they date, so matching preferences as studies for 'dating' don't reveal how people select for breeding. You're doing some crazy mental gymnastics here, conflating terms and dismissing arguments with some lazy thinking ('blah blah Disney, women').

>of which there is only one per pack.

Nah. There are preferences. There are a lot more normies than you give credit for, and normies aren't really Chad and Stacey even if that it the aspect of society you focus more on from the outsider position (it looks homogeneous from the outside).

>>9657852
Schope had a hell of a face.
Look at that mug. That's got a good ten thousand years of Character written in those wrinkles, those muscles, that subtle recognition of the absurdity of things etched along the edges of the mouth.

>>9657885
Which people do after they hang out. Tinder doesn't determine how people meet in all situations, and it doesn't determine how people form relationships.

>>9657889
Christianity made hookers illegal in my country, and feminists want to keep it that

>>9657903
It determines how people fuck, and not being able to participate in that cultural Bacchanal is far more alienating to me than being less wealthy then Bill Gates. If rather be poor and romantically and sexually satisfied than be rich and alone.

>>9657917
*I'd rather

>>9657917
>It determines how people fuck

No it doesn't. It determines how people use Tinder. Not everyone who fucks someone else met them on Tinder.

>not being able to participate in that cultural Bacchanal

Because it doesn't exist.

>>9655592
>Nazis were bad
Respect lost

>>9657927
Women who use tinder use it to find men to fuck, and millions of women use tinder. I saw responses to a handsome friend of mine's account that are so sexually depraved that they'd make your hair go white. The rise of STDs among young women had been directly linked to tinder, and men like me don't get to participate in that because if privileges looks over everything else. It's a sort of inequality that makes all forms of economic disparity seem meaningless.

File: scientific proof that women want jerkbabies.png (146KB, 1179x553px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1179x553px

>>9657898
Scientific proof that women want to receive the semen of socially dominant jerks on the most fertile days of their menstrual cycle, and play good girl on other days.

https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/roney/james/other%20pdf%20readings/Gangestad%25202004%2520womens%2520preferences%2520change%2520across%2520cycle.pdf

Just google ovulation and attraction/attractiveness, this keeps being proven over and over again in different forms.

City based and youth oriented... unconscious influence of ovulation cycles. Huh. You sure it wasn't that hippity hop music that made these girls want jerk babies on their fertile days? Like in that rap song, "Bone Jerks Erry Fertile Day, Like You All Up and Motherfuckin Cray"? Youth culture, man. It's ruining your wife.

>>9657953
>Scientific proof
>based on statistics
you're embarrassing yourself right now

>>9657944
Again, not everyone who fucks has used Tinder to find someone to fuck. 50 million Tinder users, 20 million in the US. Let's say the male/female ratio is evenly split (probably more men though), so that's 10 million women in the US using Tinder. 10 million women out of 157 million total. Is it just these 10 million women fucking like 2 million men?

>>9657953
Preference isn't actual fucking. None-the-less this runs counter to the point about communist society making looks more important when social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness seemingly have nothing to do with status.

File: 543143_3621928085736_831815643_n.jpg (29KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x640px

>>9657971
Tinder could have saved his life

>>9657971
Your number of total women include women who are far too young and too old to use tinder. 10 million unmarried women between the ages of 18 and 30 are a large section of that particulate population. And yes, far more women than men who use tinder get laid. Study after study shows this. My own anecdotal experience using the site is evidence of this.

>>9657953
>composure, presentation as athletic, eye contact, lack of self-depreciation, lack of downward gaze, lack of nice-guy self-presentation

What a surprise women prefer functional human beings.

>>9657971
>Lets diregard all children
>All ugly
>All old
>The fact that tinder is pretty useless outside large cities

>>9657988
>10 million unmarried women between the ages of 18 and 30 are a large section of that particulate population.

Millennials are something like 60 million people and 80% of Tinder users are millennials. 'Large section' doesn't mean shit. Not all matches turn to dates, not all dates turn to fucking, not all fucking turns to breeding. And that's just Tinder, it doesn't account for all the meeting and fucking that occurs outside of the app.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1600px

>tfw Jungian-Nietzscheian psychologist is a conservative christian metaphysician

>tfw Peterson is namedropping them just because he wants to say "ressentment" and "shadow self"

>>9657620

>>9657988
http://elitedaily.com/dating/use-tinder-for-same-reason-not-dating/1839174/

>>9658008
wew

>>9658008
>tfw this is true
I can finally see it.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 2.15.08 AM.png (272KB, 493x277px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 493x277px

>>9657620
>implying we should tolerate ritual child abuse

File: badiou.png (422KB, 600x765px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 600x765px

people who post and reply to peterson threads should be banned

>>9657892
I'm interested in Cathedrals as a problem to solve - obviously they're not places of worship anymore, since no one of integrity professes christian belief. So it's an open question currently how to approach them. Of course if you're a christian you can't see beyond your own weakness, and this means nothing to you. Don't make the mistake of thinking these buildings 'belong' to christians in any way - posterity won't accord your desires any weight when it decides how to deal with these relics.

Is Peterson a graduated flunkey of fideism?

ITT: motte and bailey + no true scotsman.

Further evidence that postmodernism is a joke and you're all a bunch of pseuds projecting yourselves onto Peterson.

>>9657679
This is not even wrong.
Kill yourself commie.

File: really.jpg (66KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 601x601px

>>9657959

>>9658195
Not even close.

>Another case of
>Guy says 9 good things
>Then 1 wrong thing
>Everything this guy says is now wrong

>>9657578
>Queer theory is derived largely from post-structuralist theory, and deconstruction in particular. Starting in the 1970s, a range of authors brought deconstructionist critical approaches to bear on issues of sexual identity, and especially on the construction of a normative "straight" ideology. Queer theorists challenged the validity and consistency of the discourse regarding heteronormativity, i.e. the normalizing practices and institutions that privilege heterosexuality as fundamental in society and in turn discriminates those outside this system of power,[3] and focused to a large degree on non-heteronormative sexualities and sexual practices.


poststructuralism and deconstruction are both postmodernism though

>>9657548
>random ugly Hasidic Jew representative of social decay
hmmmm

>>9658170
>obviously they're not places of worship anymore
umm

Post-modernism is pretty gay because they take deconstruction and abstraction as truth while never really questioning why.

and we can see the shitshow it leads to in a modern society.

>>9655205

>The post-modernists are his fucking successors.

in the same way that your child is your successor even though they disappoint you at every turn

>>9655614
you are just poorly justifying his wrongs

>>9654960
holy shit i got fucking wasted yesterday and this thread exploded

DESU man i dont know much about post modern/ism or whatevs
post was just meant to provoke and at the same time give me some material to study
I noticed people here are allergic to request of explaining stuff or properly debating stuff.
If I were to ask reddit you get help but not every good one.
and here you tend to be more insightful but not very helpful
wanted to play around that
ill read it once my hungover is gone
thanks u tits

>>9658515
>>9658515
slept ur a nigger

File: 1489443023688.png (97KB, 274x263px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 274x263px

>>9654798
>our culture
>our

look at this beta

File: 589.gif (67KB, 300x259px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 300x259px

>>9658528

>There are people on this board who will call a tenured professor and active researcher in clinical psychology a pseud when they don't even have a bachelor's degree
>There are people on this board who will call this man a pseud who has published over 100 research papers (5000+ citations), 600 hours of lectures on video, a proven effective online self-improvement program, and one book (soon to be two) when they haven't written literally anything other than homework assignments

>>9658616
its sjws just virtue signaling, its what they do.

>jungian
>against postmodernism
isn't that a freudian?

>>9657796
>I can be rich or good looking to get laid
*communism intensifies*
>I can only be good looking to get laid
what about this doesn't make any sense? I mean if you obviously leave out all other areas in which you can succeed

>>9657743
>Marxist teleology is just the secular version of Christian eschatology.
Sounds like a description of satanism

>>9654922
The idea is that conservatism and rationality are right wing, post modernism and liberalism and communism are left wing.

Peterson's issue is that because the left wing can't argue against the physical, rational nature of the world, they must make their arguments more abstract and convoluted to tie up people with lots of definitions and emotional appeals. Because they know that making everyone equal is irrational and impossible, they use abstract, emotive arguments to try to spread that point of view. A good example for this is how social justice/socialology and communism both have the same goal, of making everyone equal, with privilege and wealth being the parameters. However, communism/socialism always fails and doesn't spread and since we aren't in a post-scarcity society, this is impossible. This is why rather then recognising it can't be done, they try to argue why we should attempt it anyway.

>>9658629
I just want to say that Jung doesn't fall in the rational spectrum however long we might stretch it.

>>9658616
lol it the truth supposed to offend me

and of course he can be a pseudo outside his area of expertise
wtf man e.g some of Chomskys political view went to one of his pubic event and this man should really stay with linguistics

>>9657944
>It's a sort of inequality that makes all forms of economic disparity seem meaningless.
>me not being able to bully 8/10s into fucking me is worse than starvation, homelessness, lack of education etc

fucking /r9k/ I swear to god

>>9658621
Postmodernists critique all forms of hierarchical disparities. They don't like it when a particular group succeeds over any other.

>>9658677
I wonder if the next generation will be feudal.

>>9655553
Pomo is a tool used to make the rational abd irrational seem equally likely and useful. Pomo is a smokescreen, a way of making evidence seem useless and untrust worthy so it can be discarded to level the playing field.

>>9655592

Peterson doesn't understand Nietzsche but he constantly uses his name to back up his shallow insights. It gets really annoying after a while especially considering the fact that he eats up all of modern psychology mumbo jumbo without doubt.

>>9658616
>if he publishes things that means he's right
You really don't understand scholarship, do you

>>9658723
>shallow
After Bernays these words are dangerous.

>>9658323
The shitshow precedes the people talking about how shit it is. You don't blame the doctor for pointing out the big black spot on the x-ray.

>>9658323
>assuming teleology this hard

>>9658616
He's an active researcher in clinical psychology so that makes him not a pseud when it comes to postmodernism? What's your bachelor's in?

>>9658616
you /pol/ guys dont want to know the number of Chomsky academic citations, it will make you shed manly tears:(

>>9658702
Yeah when the Enlightenment rationalist project didn't quite work out as well as people thought I think postmodernists were pretty secure in calling it out.

>>9658616
>argument from authority
Step it up, nigger
>>9658779
>someone likes or agrees with someone I don't like
>"I know, I'll accuse them of being from /pol/, that'll show them!"

>>9658837
That doesn't really mean you're not /pol/

Also how the fuck new are you if you think that response is any good when people still get called Reddit for disagreeing wtf

>>9658857

That doesn't really mean you're not or not reddit

Jesus you're a real meme.

>>9659219
Solidified your reputation as the thread's resident idiot in a thread full of idiots

>>9658629
>rationality is right wing
Who says the right wing have a fucking monopoly on reason? Every serious intellectual that has engaged with these problems has tried to be as rigorous as possible with their reasoning. Don't straw man entire fucking philosophical traditions - with that attitude you will spend your entire life in a fucking echo-chamber of your own ignorance.

>>9659234

omg so deep i'm torn

>>9658702
>to make the something and something equally Likely and Useful.
I think this is the origin of your mistake here - the idea that pomo techniques are prescriptive, that they have a secret left wing political agenda embedded in them. They don't of course - the methodology originates with Nietzsche who despised arbitrary equality and considered the majority of human life dross to be washed away by time.
What is useful is to question the assumptions behind scientific techniques, for example; or to describe the various societal functions individuals fulfill and are conditioned by; or to understand people's motivations for privilegeing certain discourses over others, certain societal roles over others, certain scientific enquiries over others.
Reason is still largely king, though thanks to the intellectual tradition of people like the postmodernists we have a far more sophisticated understanding of how we use it.
Honestly I don't think I'm gonna change your mind, but please consider that you might be misrepresenting something you really don't understand, and that for your own benefit it would be worthwhile to investigate for yourself.

>>9656128
He talks about the anima and dream analysis a lot in his book. I'm not sure what the point about inner strength is, Petersons main point is 'sort yourself out before trying to change the outside world.'

He draws on a lot of people, Jung is just the main influence. The epistemology comes from the pragmatists and is used in tandem with the Jungian mythology to call it 'real.'

>>9657286
>guy writes about a billion things and makes very complex points
>Psueds 150 years later strawman them down to 'jesus is gay'

>>9657578
>calls literally everybody in this thread a pseud
>posts this thinking hes not a pseud himself

>>9658629
>the left wing can't argue against the physical, rational nature of the world
The Left is typically characterized specifically by materialism, which the Right is typically characterized as ANTI-Materialist. The Right is defined by religion and metaphysics, the Left is not. If that wasn't enough to expose yourself:

>making everyone equal

Read up.

>>9659357
This is the package Jordan Peterson sells post-modernism in. I think he says interesting things here and there about religion, and he'd probably make a good philosophy 101 teacher (also, sure, I'll side with him on his indictment for not using 42 gendered pronouns. Seems reasonable), but almost every recorded conversation with him, he at some point reiterates what the poster you replied to believes.

>>9659608
>>9659357
POL BTFO!!!

>>9658625
Not unless you invert it, which is exactly what Nick Land did.

>>9657058
Peterson isn't a "follower" of Nietzsche. He's read Nietzsche and he references Nietzsche but he is not a follower of him. In fact I believe in one of his videos Peterson said people cannot create their own values.

I know he actually read, so that puts him ahead of about 90% here.

>>9659659
He's a follower of Jung who he says tried to answer the problems imposed by Nietzsche.

>>9654695
I always though of postmodernism as an art movement more than a philosophy movement.
I dont understand why the fuck he insists on using this word... to describe the social justice movement.

>>9659724
Maybe, because they love to use the word deconstruct. Is always deconstruct this and that; man, you're not suficiently deconstructed and so on. I barely know wtf pomo stands for, but the kind of aesthetical relativism they seem to hold really turns me off as an wannabe artist.
I DO now some things have more value than others, though I don't have a philosofical basis.

postmodernism delenda est

all of peterson's arguments against POMO can be substantiated, he just doesn't do it in much detail

that doesn't mean its the lord's truth about it, it's a polemical interpretation

also a lot of people ITT not getting the extent to which peterson's ideas are based on psychology, neuroscience and primatology literature, not philosophers

>>9654798
>thats not pseudo?
not really
he's just conflating a bunch of things under the umbrella term "postmodern"

>>9657299
it's also completely free on his website

>>9659234
>reputation

lmao

>>9661199
>Aesthetical relativism
Again - not what any pomo thinker has argued for. No-one has claimed that you can 'make any text mean anything.' That's just a very crude misunderstanding.
As you said, you don't know what pomo is, so have some decency and self respect and don't pronounce foolish judgements.
As an aspiring artist it's in your interest tp understand the critical tradition as well as you possibly can.

well, he's a jungian, who is against post-modernism. which is basically impossible. it's like being a catholic and not being a christian. or claiming its glandular while drinking 2L of mountain dew.

>>9661910
he acknowledges that pomo is right about some things but disagrees with where they take the line of reasoning.

File: 1388457293588.png (325KB, 382x417px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 382x417px

>>9658170
>since no one of integrity professes christian belief
Is that so?

How pseudo? It's contextual.

>>9658616
I don't need to have my books publish to say Rupee Kaur is shit.

>>9661947
i think you'll find the "they" you're talking about are not post-modernists. and most of the people he agrees with are in fact modernists.

that a jungian thinks they are is a sign his degree is shit, because i know art students who got a better education.

for a jungian it's also a special kind of retarded. even if jung wasn't post-modern, jung was fucking cray. he believed you could change the physical world through your thought emanations. he thinks psychics have some valid points and deep down we're all two genders, sometimes growing at different ages to their opposing gender.

this guy is a professor and he's failing in his own subject at a basic level, and in a whole other set of disciplines he doesn't specialize in once you get past the jung thing and on to the post modernism issue. he's literally a retard and he's not only guaranteed to "educate" college students to have the same attitude about their preferences as SJWs have about a different set of preferences, and the same lack of basic understanding of what their words mean that they never bothered to look in the dictionary to see if he was right. he just as bad as professors who insist there must be religious education in their own religion with things like consent classes and mental health seminars which are mandator. he's not got a different structure to his ideology than a cult leader like the people he's supposedly against, all it takes is slightly different memes and the same emotionality and half the population are set to assume youtube will make them smart.

he's cancer, and whatever your reasons for trying to justify that, he doesn't need it to keep his job. where, again, he'll be "teaching" people useless jargon he does not understand himself.

>>9662324
sorry phone typing.
>tl;dr- get a dictionary to start fact checking him. he's wrong on that basic a level. no college level books required but they really push the BTFO home

>>9654950
Unprecedented bloodshed?

You and Peterson share a pretty short historical memory anon.

the point is he is infinitely smarter and more hard-working than you fat neet losers so you can't just disregard him as a pseud, which is what this board usually does

this thread, which is full of shitposts, actually had a good relation of constructive criticism/whining compared to the usual which is fucking sad

>>9661993
Yes.

>>9662867
Be less BTFO

File: 3495222.jpg (28KB, 300x284px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x284px

Can we stop having these threads.
Here are his big mistakes:
>post-modernism is a political ideology
>post-modernism is necessarily anti-capitalist
>post-modernism aims at "destroying" culture, science, and rationality
>sjws are post-modernists, me and my gang are not post-modernists
>"Sort yourself out" is essentially Camus, but don't read Sartre and Camus, they're post-modernists
>post-modernism is not a historical term for post-war era, it's all these things because Foucault was a gay commie right?

>>9662922

>post-modernism is a political ideology
>post-modernism is necessarily anti-capitalist
>post-modernism aims at "destroying" culture, science, and rationality
>sjws are post-modernists, me and my gang are not post-modernists

True.

File: ben-affleck-plays-an-accidental-salad-delivery-man-in-this-1989-burger-king-commercial-H1I.jpg (30KB, 579x326px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 579x326px

>>9662981
It's really none of those things. I don't think /pol/ has much in common politically with /leftypol/, and they're both post-modern.

It's not even anti-logic, it just claims that logic can't explain the whole thing. Heidegger wasn't against science persay, but he was against the idea that science is reality, instead of a way to articulate certain parts of it.

You can certainly have post-modern capitalism, we've been living in it for decades now. Irony, deconstruction, and sarcasm are societal norms at this point. Do you even A Pervert's Guide to Ideology?

>>9661897
>As an aspiring artist it's in your interest to understand the critical tradition as well as you possibly can.
Any book recomendations on this? Spoonfeed me.

>>9663121
Not the same guy, but basically go find your local major university's art history/art theory syllabus.

And if it doesn't have Wölffin, Panofsky, Foucault, Vasari, or Barthes, it's shit.

>>9663121
What the other guy said yeah
Something else you could do is find a copy of something like The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism and dive into that as much as possible, filling in your reading with full texts of the theorists who interest you.
T.S. Elliot: Tradition and the Individual Talent and Barthes: Death of the Author are good places to start as single essays.
Good luck.

>>9662922
I think what he's going for is a convenient, professional-sounding word to sum up SJW anti-capitalist anti-western anti-free-speech etc ideology. "Regressive liberalism" and "SJW ideology" don't sound very sophisticated compared to something like "postmodernism."

While his use of the word "postmodernism" isn't robustly accurate to previously agreed definitions, it's acceptable enough for now because his audience understands what that word signifies in his arguments.

>>9663488
aren't sjws counter-revolutionary in essence?
how could they be anti-capital?

>>9663547
The SJW's argument is as follows
>Capitalism is a system which has an unequal distribution of outcome
>That is, capitalism is a contest which has winners and losers
>All humans are exactly equally competent in every way and in a fair society would produce equality of outcome
>Therefore, the losers must only be losing because of the corruption inherent in capitalism and the oppression of the winners
>Therefore the entire system of the patriarchy/capitalism/western civilization is corrupt and ought to be totally dismantled

Also note the frequency of SJWs carrying hammer-and-sickle flags.

>>9657567
the 'lgbt community' definitely has a huge child raping problem, we are just not allowed to talk about it because of political correctness.

>>9663778
not him but
>middle class kids LARPing pretend to be communist
>get pushed out of government by the working class enraged at their LARPing about social justice when their biggest problem is the local coffee shop ran out of their favorite type of nut milk
see that process i just described? it's what marxists believe is the dying stages of capitalism, where a dictatorship of the proletariat would oust the dictatorship pseudocommies from the bourgeois classes which claimed to be for communism who claimed to be revolutionaries, but clearly aren't.


they aren't aware of this because they haven't read Capital, even when coLARPing as a marxist. that's why they're LARPing in marxist understanding too because they missed the point that any one who works can see through their bullshit. that's not why they think the last step is they get rid of everything and then the coffee shop will have all the nut milk flavors again, though, which is an earlier bit of the book they didn't get as far as either.

I get a sense you're not a marxist, but yeah, what you described is why marxists consider them counterrevolutionaries. the national socialism rises around the world are because of those LARPers, but so far it seems to just be a continuation of the LARPing bourgeois dictator by opponents within their class, rather than a total proletarian revolution. I don't suppose it's much consolation to either side or those that have to listen to them to point out this means we're two stages away from the end of history, not the one they both claim, and so we'll have to sit it out a long time yet.

>>9654884
>AS IF the idea of the 'individual' was fucking sacrosanct.
The recognition of the individual as a free and autonomous being is the most important thing in life.

>>9657302
>then that means person A's views are compatible with thing B.

I apologise if I misunderstood your argument, but do you mean "*person D's* views are *still* compatible with thing B" instead of "person A's views are compatible with thing B"? How the conclusion presently reads makes little sense: Person A's views cannot be compatible with thing B, for in the argument's very premise you say only that A *attacks* B. I'm sure this is but a typo, or my own misreading, but I wish nonetheless to clarify.

>>9664456
I'm saying that its possible to agree with all of the attacks that person A made on thing B and still have your views be compatible with thing B if you introduce reasons E. I think person D (Peterson) agreed with all of the attacks that person A (Nietzsche) made on thing B (Christian values). Peterson was able to make these views compatible with Christian values by introducing reasons E, which Nietzsche never disputed.

So yes although person A's views by themselves are against thing B that doesn't mean that someone who agrees with their views can't be in favor of thing B for other reasons. In that sense they are compatible. I didn't mean to suggest that Nietzsche's views are by themselves in favor of Christian values, just that someone in favor of Christian values can also agree with Nietzsche's attacks.

>>9664510

>I'm saying that its possible to agree with all of the attacks that person A made on thing B and still have your views be compatible with thing B if you introduce reasons E.

Yes, I gleaned this from your first post; though I still think the final bit (of >>9657302) should be reworded thus: "Person A's views are compatible with thing B*, but only by way of reasons E (some of which disagree with reasons C)*." That is to say, reasons E rectify or displace some reasons C. Your original statement implies that B is the union of C and E, whereas you meant, I think, that B is actually the relative complement of E in C. The argument itself is not at fault here, but the way you presented it. I'm being petty (and perhaps unintelligible), but that's probably because I have autism. Your present post makes your argument exceedingly clear.

>>9659357
It's not really a mistake. it's that Jordan Peterson is more concerned with what the people who are touting and using pomo are doing instead of the idea itself. It's like having more of a problem with the fact that lots of people who call themselves muslim explode things, rather than having a problem with with the actual texts and tenets of Islam specifically.
he is a social and cultural actor and im sure he loves the attention and monies but he's ok to me because the byproduct is that he basically is fighting for more dialogue while people are using pomo to justify censorship.

>>9664908
'instead of" should be "and less concerned with*"

>>9657286
>not taking the paradoxical approach to truth
>not understanding that similar grounding oppositions in logic ultimately refer to one another
>a thinker's entire thought must be either accepted or rejected as a whole
Why are you so religiously tied up to your idea of philosophical truth? You've just replaced Christian gospel with a secular one.

>>9664908
Sorry bud but I've watched him talk about reading 'french philosopher of the 60's' and the things they wrote, and it's just obvious he doesn't have a clue. Why is it so hard to accept for all of you that he's a charlatan? That you're not gonna get profound truth spoonfed to you via convenient youtube vids; that really all you're gonna get is satisfaction for your own ideological biases from someone similarly stunted.
And anyway, to use your analogy, I don't believe that anyone who is ignorant of Islam (in all its cultural/historical/theological/global manifestations) could possible help us deal with islamic extremism in the long run.

>>9664183
That doesn't sound like the sort of claim you're gonna be able to support with a convincing argument.
Am I wrong?

>>9665586
What point are you rebutting? Nobody (especially Petetson) is suggesting that Peterson's youtubes should be the only source of information. In fact he is always encouraging people to read and learn as much as they can about the ideas and topics they are at odds with. Just because he has disdain for the "French philosophers of the 60s" doesn't mean he is keeping any info from anybody or trying to keep people away from pomo thinkers. His disdain from them comes from the effects of their philosophy being used to justify communism and censorship and the dismantling of certain institutions. I'm reading Frederick Jameson right now (although he's not exactly a French Philospher from the 60s) and I never would even be interested in it if it wasn't for Jordan.
How can someone who encourages people to read as much as they can and ask as much as they can and promotes the values of research, dialogue, communitcation, and debate as a way of moving forward as an individual and as a society or civilization be a charlatan? he doesnt claim to have all the answers at all It doesn't add up.
He has also said he agrees with pomo up until the conclusion that all value systems are arbitrary. which may or may not be a straw man but hey no one is perfect, everyone straw mans that's why it's important to read for yourself, which he encourages, again I feel like I came full circle here and am sounding redundant.

And the Muslim/Islam analogy is just that, an analogy. If you want to rebuttal it the way you did all I can say is that even if you know all about Islamic History and its different cultures you still cannot do anything about extremism without acknowledging the the fundemental basis and foundations of the arguments they use to justify the extremism.
The Muslim (who presumably knows islamic history) can either say "those suicide bombers have nothing to do with Islam" which is what I think you guys defending pomo ITT are doing, or he can be "wait, our religion needs a reformation, what about our religion is so attractive to violent criminals?" and try to figure it out from there.
anyway it's just an analogy I'm sure it is still very incomplete.

>>9666564
There is little hope. I don't think I can help you unless we're talking face to face, sorry.

>>9659396
this is the western tradition - if you consider yourself conservative please do yourself the favour of just reading about these topics and learning for yourself. Don't watch a video of this canadian chap, he really isn;t very well informed.

>>9666607
help me?
is the irony of your statement lost on you?
You are the one behaving like a charlatan.

>>9666628
If you don't have eyes for this sort of work, how could you see?
I don't know what you expect from me - I'm not going to exploit you like Peterson does. Is that not enough?

>>9666648
oh so that's it. I just don't have eyes for it?
the irony is completely lost on you, you are the charlatan who wont share his secret knowledge.
If you don't want to talk then stop replying friendo, stop trying to grandstand on the last word.

>>9654695
So inspirational in a way. Like I really think I could start a cult or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_4UFMp19tE

>>9654695
>whether something is true depends on it fitting my purposes

He's a full blown post-modernist himself and doesn't even realise it.

Bretty ironic desu desu

>>9666759
He's ultimately just Tai Lopez with a "dignified" aesthetic. Pay me to give you a list of tips, you can unlock your true potential, etc.

>>9654695
Since he can admit that its a bunch of self-indulgent bullshit, I'd say about a 2

>>9665592
Not the guy you're answering to. But this is basically all JP ever talks about. The argument starts with utopia.

>>9655234

But they're not. Post-modernism doesn't aim to do anything, its a lens through which to view the world, not an informer. Communism is a modernist ideology, its exactly what pomo was invented to deconstruct.

This is the problem with the right wing. The only reason its associated with communists is because communists were the first-adopters of it, anyone can utilize pomo and if right wingers had a pair of brain cells they'd rightly use it to deconstruct communism.

>>9657548

Progressiveness is as far from pomo as you can possibly get. Having an overarching narrative of "progress" is exactly what led to horrors such as eugenics.

This is what post-modernists mean when they call things "oppressive" - the oppression of there being a one-dimensional defined meaning of "progress" that all human societies *must* follow.

>>9658723
>Peterson doesn't understand Nietzsche but he constantly uses his name to back up his shallow insights.

Elaborate, please.

>>9666648
Pretentious.
Share your hidden knowledge oh wise one! I am but a common man, please enlighten me with your wisdom

>>9662867
His 'insights' into Dostoyevsky are surface level

>>9668624
True.

>>9662981
So it's pretty well established that /pol/ doesn't actually know what postmodernism is and its just another buzzword that's gone off the rails

File: sartreandcastro.jpg (421KB, 1266x1600px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1266x1600px

>>9654695
Postmodern philosophy is a product of soviet subversion. It was a way to help erode the modernist, Enlightenment ideals that drives the west. Murder truth, institute cultural marxism, deny human nature is real to give the individual the idea that they cannot me manipulated or primed by propaganda. Sartre was arguably a postmodernist and hugely influential of Foucault, he was also buddy buddy with Castro and Che

>>9669438
Postmodernism is not a philosophy you fucking birth defect.

>>9657058
you can cite other peoples works without being a "follower" you ape brain

>>9669457
This anon is quite literally a fucking retard.

This thread just makes 100% more sense when I cross my eyes and read "pomo" as "porno".

That is all please continue.

>>9669457
>>9669505
>>9669514
>tfw the discourse is too good

>>9669540
Like porn, I know it when I see it is a pretty good rule for pomo shit

>>9669372
The point is I'm not hiding any special knowledge from you. It's all there, ready for you. But there's a lot of work involved, and you're not gonna actually go and study the large amount of informatiom available. You're not gonna spend years critically analysing texts from hundreds of theorists to try and understand the complex nuances of these problems.
But why would you, when some conceited psychologist on youtube can satisfy directly the need for intellectual comfort you have? This is speculative, but I imagine, like most people, your interest in people like peterson is just the interest in feeling safe - safe in a parcelled up coherent worldview someone else has manufactured for you.
When I say you don't have eyes for this work, I mean that I suspect that as a person you lack intellectual decency: an appropriate modesty and shame.
And before you go all: 'ha irony ha you're a charlatan,' again, there's nothing in my posts to suggest I lack the skills i'm trying to tell you about. Nietzsche makes a nice point about this:~ methodology is ten times over the most important thing.

>>9669372
And no, peterson doesn't genuinely encourage free thinking and enquiry, whether he claims to or not. You can clearly see his dishonesty in the twitching of his postures, and see that he's a slave to himself and his own pain rather than truth and knowledge. If his psyche was a visible shadow, it would follow him around slapping it's temple and groaning in pain.
And this isn't a secret, its exactly the sort of real information he conveys with his carriage.

>>9654695
Peterson is pseudo on multiple things. His complaint about that Canadian bill C-16 was completely wrong. There was nothing in that bill that suggested people would be fined or arrested for misgendering or using the wrong pronouns. If he actually read it he would know it's just an addition to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include trans people too. All it does is give trans people the same human rights protections that, say, a black person would receive. Someone who is trans could not be denied employment solely for being trans, for example.

The only thing that comes even remotely close to what he's implying is the "hate propaganda" portion of the bill. But in Canadian law hate propaganda has a very specific definition; it counts if you're advocating for the genocide of a specific group. There is nothing in the bill defining misgendering or pronoun use as hate propaganda- there is nothing in the bill even mentioning those terms, period.

Peterson was completely full of shit when it came to that and was probably just looking for something to stir shit up and cause controversy to get him media attention.

File: when you grow a beard but your wife is still more masculine than you.jpg (34KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 650x488px

>>9670047
Yeah I always thought this too. A guy with depressoin and a very tense body (just listen to his voice) is giving psychological advice to people?

And people pay him for this? what a joke

>>9654695
no-fap tier psychology

>>9654695
Not at all. He is right and speaks what everyone is thinking. You cunts are just trying to pull the same thing everyone into modern art pulls and claim it's something deep and subversive while it's actually shit pushed by French pseuds.

>>9670555
>Your shit isn't deep, HIS shit is deep!

Can't wait for he said she said debate to finally be put to rest for good.

>>9670566
Nowhere did he say that his shit is deep, you retarded dipshit

>>9670206
>lmao just read the bill xD
peterson agrees with you that there is "nothing in that bill that suggests" what he says. what you are doing is looking at the bill and nothing else. it's a dishonest thing to do because its the context surrounding it that he is objecting to.

what you're doing is like how people who are anti-gun in america say that there is nothing in the 2nd amendment which says X. it's true that the 2nd amendment itself doesn't say certain things but the court rulings on how it should be interpreted and so on do say those other things.

so for you to base your judgement on the bill itself rather than viewing the bill in its proper context is a big mistake

>>9670599
The bill is designed to extend existing civil rights legislation to trans people. Courts in the Anglo-American tradition tend to rule lightly in these sorts of things

>>9670613
>Giving "rights" to a made up group

>>9670613
>Courts in the Anglo-American tradition tend to rule lightly in these sorts of things
what a naive fucking claim to justify putting something into law that will stay there forever because it will stay there forever because it grants rights to supposedly marginalised groups, there's no going back and even if there's no one in power to use this against its purpose, there very well might be someone sometime in the future and that is the real problem, because it's not the law that matters it's the lawyers and the judges who decide how to interpret the laws which essentially makes it a tool for the generations to come

>>9670572
I wonder why you even try reading books

>>9670627
Agreed, let's just scrap the law altogether

>>9670619
People who call themselves trans undeniably exist, even if you don't recognize it
>>9670627
> it grants rights to supposedly marginalised groups, there's no going back
Nice Whig history fag
> even if there's no one in power to use this against its purpose, there very well might be someone sometime in the future and that is the real problem
That's a huge what if and applies to all civil rights legislation

>>9670627
to clarify this, the real danger is the possibility to generate case law as precedent for compelled speech, there's actually already case law which requires you to use a gender fluid persons name AND pronoun, even though this is not the norm at the moment, 2 or 3 more of these decisions and you have grounds for a regular ruling in this favor, making it essentially impossible NOT to use pronouns without judicial consequences
once this is established other supposedly marginalised groups will want to be included as well with all of their bloated up and made up language
I know this is the worst case scenario and will probably take years but it's a tiny step again and again etc. the real danger is not that these people want to feel secure, I get that and I wish that society makes that possible without needing judicial intervention.

>>9670675
>That's a huge what if and applies to all civil rights legislation
of course it's a huge what if but there's a lot of fucking time to come
also it doesn't apply to all civil rights legislations because the people they try to protect don't rely on the use of non existent words, I don't give a fuck about the bill preventing me from insulting trans people, I agree with that, it's the requirement to use words that they defined themselves, which sets a precedent for other people to impose required speech which can then also be implemented in the law, because if the trans people got it, why not some other group and that's the real problem, it's the self defining site and the imposing of this definition on other people

>>9670705
>of course it's a huge what if but there's a lot of fucking time to come
and its a fucking retarded argument then
there is so much that could change during that time that trying to point to an unimportant law is ridiculous

>>9670675
>People who call themselves trans undeniably exist, even if you don't recognize it
And? Its a made up identity. Its like giving "rights" to people who call themselves "cat people" or train enthusiasts.

Its actually worse because trannies are disgusting but whatever

>>9670717
>And? Its a made up identity. Its like giving "rights" to people who call themselves "cat people" or train enthusiasts.
trans people have managed to make it a mainstream problem that the government feels it should deal with

>>9670720
Yeah im sure it was the trannies themselves...

In the 90s people would laugh at you if you told them about tranny rights

>>9670739
>In the 90s people would laugh at you if you told them about tranny rights
and?

>>9670566
Never said his shit is deep. He posts introductory psych lectures that anyone can grasp.

>>9670748
and soon it will all go back to normal, to the good old days

>>9670761
ok?
i fail to see your point

>>9670763
>asking for how the story ends
>gets the ending

>>9670781
I didn't ask for "how the story ends"

>>9657058
You literally didn’t make a single argument about the content of his work. If you think what he is talking about is pesud, then write a critique of at least ONE aspect you disagree with and you will quickly realize that you are a faggot weasel.

>>9669973
you're right, that is speculative

>>9670548
he has achieved way more that you and your friends combined will ever achieve in your lives. I think that is sufficient for giving the type of advice he is giving.

>>9670757
you can grasp it on different levels depending on your background. Im sure not everyone can understand what he's saying to the fullest.