Why do anti-Peterson posters always scurry away with their tail

Why do prostate smugglers jam fat unwashed pricks into their face and mouth?

We need a /you/ board for Youtube threads.

This is not literature.

>>9699098
i only hate him for supporting zionism

>>9699107
>his entire body of work is disregarded because he made some YouTube videos
How old are you?

>>9699098
>Redpilled, Jews, SJW, cuck, leftism, Mein Kampf, libcuck, white genocide, Pepe, Praise Kek, Deus Vult, normie, Chad, feminazi, Schopenhauer's On Women, masculinity, cultural marxism, Hegelian dialectic

Put your bets on which word will be used the most by the Peterson-brigade. I'm going for 'cuck'

>>9699107
No, we need bookniggers to get fat and die in space.

>>9699122
it's not like anyone in these threads talks about books

>>9699124
We have our first Jew reference >>9699112
Jews with an early 1-0 lead, will they be able to hold on?

>>9699132
You are the one that brought up YouTube, philistine

>>9699133
go back to /r/(((the_donald))) you fascist

File: JPbullshitting.png (226KB, 822x551px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 822x551px

>>9699112
>look for your own faults
>unless you're jewish, in which case it's always somebody else's fault and they're all jealous

>>9699154
>reference to 'le evil leftism' in the image
>reference to Jews

2 for Jew
1 for muh leftists

>>9699098
Why does Peterson talk so much about ideology without knowing what it is?

>>9699154
>implying JBP has ever endorsed Catholicism or the Catholic Church fucking ever

>>9699165
How does he not know what it is?

File: jordanpetersonbullshitting.png (42KB, 917x535px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 917x535px

>>9699164
shut the fuck up.

>>9699168
He's really amorphous when it comes to religion, he avoids saying whether he believes in a literal god or not for instance. Look at this shit.

I know nothing about any of his"ideas".
I just assume that because he's getting shilled so hard by reprobates that he must be full of shit.

>>9699194
He's a prophet of Lord Kek

>>9699192
I have read and listened to him quite a bit, and it is plain to me that he does not believe in a literal God, though he entertains the possibility. He believes in God insofar as he believes in the existence of a mythical image who represents consciousness, logos, the moral ideal, and or reality itself, especially the moral structure of reality.

File: IMG_0536.jpg (132KB, 1024x1018px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x1018px

>>9699192
>Peterson trolls atheists
>reeeee why won't he just answer me!!!!!!
Try reading him instead of reading Reddit. Speaking of reddit, fuck off back there.

2 - Jews
1 - Reddit
1 - Lord KEK
1 - muh leftism

>>9699220
>He believes in God insofar as he believes in the existence of a mythical image who represents consciousness, logos, the moral ideal, and or reality itself, especially the moral structure of reality.

So beneath all this word salad he's a fucking atheist. I really don't like that he's trying to 'monopolize' religion but that's for another day.

>>9699238
>So beneath all this word salad he's a fucking atheist.

Yes, if you want to put it that way.

>>9699172
He has really bad definitions at least. When asked to define it he usually spouts some vague bullshit about how ideology is modeled on religion but is a distortion of religious truth, or something or other about "low resolution images". There's very little analysis on his part as to how ideology actually functions or what it actually does, usually he is just listing off symptoms of it ("it makes people talk like a tape recorder" or "it distorts your image of reality"). But why is this "high-resolution image" considered the antithesis of ideology? Ideology is always calling us to "see things for what they really are" or to "examine the whole picture", because this very same density of resolution obstructs the social reality. Someone who "sees the whole picture" in this way is limited to acting on ideological assumptions about reality

>>9699241
>so behind all that word salad Nietzsche is a fucking athiest!?!?

>>9699242
It helps to read his book. You're never going to understand him fully if you don't read Maps.

Basically, Peterson thinks that myths portray the human reality as a whole, with all of its constituent elements (it's a sort of phenomenological view reality). When speaking of how ideology misrepresents reality, he is speaking of the constitute elements of reality at the level of individual - culture - nature. Each of these elements has a positive aspect and a negative aspect, and to suggest otherwise is to be an ideologue. For example, conservatives will tell you that culture and its institutions are wonderful and should be preserved while progressives will tell you that culture and its institutions (at this time) are oppressive and should be changed. The conservatives ignore the fact that culture is often oppressive and corrupt and the progressives ignore the fact that our culture is quite beneficial (and should be tampered with at our own risk).

>>9699098
Can you stop making this stupid fucking thread?

>>9699105
wew

>>9699291
Not until you and your bookcuck friends burn every copy of the paper Jew you possess and 4chan stockholders delete the bookshit board.

>>9699286
>conservative : Western Culture is good except for those products I don't like
>liberals: same

Everyone is discontented by something. Peterson is an idealogue.

>>9699303
what exactly are you trying to convey? im kinda getting the sense that you're critically retarded

>>9699098
dont' know him much
is he right or left wing?

>>9699318
both wing

>>9699321
how so ?

>>9699323
gnosticism > politics

>anarcho-masochist

his dreams are haunted with puppets frogs & gulags

>>9699323
He thinks both wings are necessary for a properly functioning society.

>>9699333
sounds almost Ligottian to me

>>9699308
Both left and right wing share the established cultural milieu and each find some fundamental aspects of it displeasing. The conservative argument is a little more elusive since it seems to support Western culture without question, but this is not true of course since all the conservative does with those aspects of his culture he finds distasteful is to label them as degeneracy (meaning they are only present when culture is not approached dogmatically enough) or, he attributes it to some alien "other" e.g. Jews, communists or Satan. Both sides of the spectrum of ideology are functionally the same, they codify the ineffable discontent which an individual experiences as a result of his base wants and urges being repressed by his reason in order to obtain the benefits of a civil society.

>>9699303
That is a strawman and you know it.

>>9699344
>left and right both dislike thing
>therefore left and right are identical
look at how many big words you used to convey an idea so simple and retarded. good job buddy. top-pseud

>>9699411
Hey retard reductio ad absurdum is not a refutation but nice try nothing personell

File: cringe.png (177KB, 292x426px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 292x426px

>>9699436
>reductio ad absurdum
that's not even close to anything anyone has said in this thread

do a quick wikipedia search before you use big latin phrases that are above your IQ bracket

>>9699411
Also I didn't say they were identical but suggested that they serve the same need in their respective adherents. Have fun being mollified by ideology while the powerful simply devise strategies to serve their own ends.

>>9699447
He was employing reductio ad absurdum when he reduced my argument to an absurdity, ignoring almost all of what I said. Fuck off with your meme pic too I'm sick of seeing his autistic face.

File: PYdlf_Ki.png (233KB, 472x472px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 472x472px

>>9699450
>dude if you value things you're the exact same as literally anybody who values anything. don't be a puppet bro

>>9699463
>He was employing reductio ad absurdum when he reduced my argument to an absurdity
That's not what reductio ad absurdum is even though that's what it sounds like it would be to your sloped little pseud head. The term you're looking for is strawman, but it's not appropriate because I didn't misinterpret your retarded argument.

>ignoring almost all of what I said
wrong

>>9699468
Well at least you stopped stealth samefagging. However you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is, that much is clear, it is obvious you immediately googled it and read the first two or three sentences of the Wikipedia entry. Definitions have nuance, and I know that is hard for an opinion junky like yourself to comprehend but it is true, sugarbutt. Also I didn't address values whatsoever I was commenting on ideology i.e. "Left-Right" ; Ideology is irrelevant to actually functioning power. Ideology is what happens to values when they are used as a means to an end. If you subscribe to an ideology you are being taken in by forces greater than yourself, by people smarter than yourself in order to turn you into a malleable, zealous fool. What values do you actually value? Anyway you are ignoring my argument entirely, and to put it simply, mass politics and ideology are merely a spectacle which mollifies by giving one the sense that his unhappiness is well founded and that it is the result of others, and is not because he is simply frustrated. And I said this frustration comes from the repression of desires, desires which are not cohesive with the reasonable functioning of an individual in society. Society has benefits and those benefits can only be obtained if one is willing to repress parts of himself; that is reasonable. But desire is unreasonable, and in repressing our desires we become frustrated and discontented with society. The left and right each offer compelling explanations for this our frustration but they are not the real explaination. The reality of our frustration is irreconcilable and this creates among other things, violence and self-destructive violence as well.

File: SORT.png (18KB, 89x91px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 89x91px

>>9699510
>Well at least you stopped stealth samefagging.
boy you really are unironically retarded arent you

>bro dude don't value things. politics doesn't matter dude. this totally isn't my argument though dude stop reductio ada absurdumining my ideas bro
you should sue whoever you learned all of that unnecessarily wordy pseud babble from. sort yourself out.

you have been defeated

>Not a single person has actually given a serious critique of JP
Hmmm

>>9699531
Why do you insist on that silly ass green text mimicry? Are you just too much of a pussy to argue?

>>9699568
He doesn't warrant serious attention.
>>9699531
It's true what that other anon says, in our society you are free to do what you want but not to want what you want.

I love how jordan peterson threads are slowly turning into bait threads.

I absolutely love it!

>>9699623
>REEEE I HATE PETERSON
>Can you expound on that?
>Well... ummm.... He doesn't warrant serious attention
Hmmm

>>9699655
I never said I hated him. I have never read or watched anything he created. I only came into the thread to say that he isn't worth paying attention to.

I have a neutral opinion on him. But I wonder how many who have a negative opinion of him have actually entertained what he has to say instead of relying on hearsay.

>>9699667
Why would anybody care about what you have to say?

>>9699761
Y-you too

>>9699768
I'm not being snarky, you literally say you have no idea what he's about yet declare he's of no use.

>>9699778
I am judging him based on the fact that his greatest achievement is becoming a YouTube celebrity. I have gathered that he memes about archetypes, postmodernity and the like and I know for a fact that there are several more serious writers who have written on those subjects so if I wanted to know I would just read them.

>>9699098
Be careful OP, the last Peterson thread got deleted once people started asking dangerous questions like that.
To be fair the thread wasn't about literature ,except in the sense that the subjects of discussion happened to be authors.

>>9699804
The guy taught at Harvard you fucking imbecile.

I've been subscribed to his channel since he had 8k subscribes and was just uploading his lectures recorded in an awkward angle. I'm glad he's getting more popular.

>>9699877
So should I slavishly follow all the Harvard professors now? I don't fucking care the only reason he is known is because he outwardly resents transgender acceptance.

>>9699154
kek. peterson got meme'd hard by solzhenitsyn.

hah these babbies are still butthurt and crying because their boyfriend doesn't know what postmodernism is. why is /pol/ such a bunch of fucking girls?

>>9699154
literally never said the latter. shithead

>get BFTO by /lit/ every time he posts this
>hopes if he keeps posting it /lit/ will get bored of pointing out how he's wrong
kekekeke

So how does he reconcile his hate of the post-modern with the fact that Jungians are post-modern? Is he resigning or just a lying paid whore?

>>9699889
>So should I slavishly follow all the Harvard professors now?

The fuck even is this? You said being a Youtube celebrity was his highest achievement, I said he taught at Harvard which seems like a pretty big fucking deal.

Why does it matter why he's known? How does it change his ideas?

>resents transgender acceptance.

I see. You're a tranny or leftist or what?

>>9699942
>i haven't read jung

Every time I ask them to critique, clarify, counter-argument way Peterson uses po-mo in his arguments I get no replies.

>be Jungian
>ask for pls delete postmodernism
>doesn't not delet self
that's like the retards who call for human extinction and never delete themselves or anyone else. lazy lazy people with no real convictions

>>9699947
>HE THINKS JUNG ISN'T POSTMODERN
>HE THINKS THAT JUNGIANS AND JUNG HAVE THE SAME INTERPRETATION
>HE DOESN'T KNOW EVEN JUNG WANTED TO DELETE JUNGIANS FOR BEING POSTMODERN
>HE THINKS ANYONE BELIEVES HE READ JUNG
there aren't enough laughing /lit/ girls in the world to laugh at your retarded virgin-on-Jung dumbass

>>9699957
stop embarrassing yourself please

>>9699947
I have actually, it's pretty clear you don't see how a reaction against modernism, which is present in alllllll Jung's work once he's out from under Freud, is plainly postmodernism. If you don't know what postmodernism is on this board, it's the equivalent of not knowing Star Wars has wookies on /tv/ or whatever shithole you crawled out of.

That's how dumb you are.

>>9699961
nobody else feels your embarrassment at being poorly read and laughed at by girls. get that autism checked out, schizo. you not reading your hero and his sources doesn't mean the /lit/ board doesn't.

>>9699969
such awkward projection, please read jung

>/pol/ hates postmodernism because big words have to be bad right
>doesn't bother to check if Jungians are postmodern
hah, it's like watching 14 y/o's trying to bullshit their Shakespeare homework in class while their gf tries to hide her association with a retard

>>9699975
>he doesn't understand Jung describes his condition as such
If you read Jung you could diagnose your own autism

>>9699977
it is funnier than having to correct them on the rest of the shit they don't read.

>>9699944
Neither in fact I'm pretty apolitical and I don't even see the point of being transgendered but that doesn't change the fact that Peterson is most known as a YouTube guy who rustles es jay dubbleyous.

>>9699989
>es jay dubbleyous.
you mean there's two sides to this retard fight? I thought it was just /pol/ who were trying to shill Jung, who they wouldn't shill if they read, against their own interests, but what are the bluehaired fatties saying?

>>9699948
I have similar experiences. I'm starting to consider the possibility that maybe /lit/ actually likes Peterson and this kind of thread is what they use as a pleb filter:
>construct Peterson threads not about literature
>immediately break into conflicts mostly targeting Peterson's fanbase's overlap with reddit and /pol/
>start arguments with no intention to elaborate on them
>brainlets see the numerous objections to Peterson and think "wow fuck that guy"
>everyone capable of independent thought goes about their business as usual

>>9699994
I don't know like I said I never even watched one video by the Xr. Peterson

>>9700005
>maybe /lit/ actually likes Peterson
not really, he's a pseud. he goes with the rest of the booktubers.

>>9700011
Here's your chance kiddo. No one has managed to do it in all these threads but surely you are the one; explain why you think he is a pseud.

>>9700009
i doubt they were the ones to point out Jung thought everyone was bigendered and bisexual because bluehaired fatties don't read good books either.

it's even funnier if they're talking about something else, but that would be my best guess- someone pointed out what Jung said and got called SJW for pointing out Jung thinks some craycray shit

>>9699989
>I'm pretty apolitical

Bullshit.

>Peterson is most known as a YouTube guy who rustles es jay dubbleyous.

I ask again: So what? His ideas haven't changed.

>>9700014
He thinks Jungians aren't postmodern. He doesn't understand the definition of postmodernism. It's pretty simple. It's like saying Derrida is the best structuralist. You have to be beyond retarded to be that wrong.

Peterson not even right-wing. Is claim to fame is supporting free speech.

Are you really ceding that position to the right?

>>9700019
Is Jung worth reading? Or is it just self help bullshit?

>>9700023
who is this strawman even addressed to?

>>9700020
>bullshit
Why? I actually think politics are a waste of time

>so what?
Anyone who spends time creating A video blog and isn't Varg (who I've liked since I was 13) is a loser, in my humble opinion.

File: 1486538913458.png (160KB, 375x736px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 375x736px

>>9700022
How is his use of po-mo wrong

>>9700025
He's crazy fun. He's worth reading because of his influence (peter pan syndrome, psychic nutjobs, Campbell and Star Wars etc) and because he's a good writer. It would probably not work as self-help, and he'll never tell you to clean your room. He might tell you to make more mess for your warhammer figurines

>>9700036
Well, if he wants to resign his position and give up being a Jungian and decry Jungians, then he would be closer to not supporting post-modernism, but as it is, his degree and job and pay relies on him being a post-modern psychologist.

>>9700022
Do you believe that when Peterson uses the word "postmodern," he's referring to something real, but just using an inaccurate word? If so, what would you recommend he use instead?
Or, if you think he's making an overgeneralization of postmodernism, what claims has he made that are inaccurate?

For example, in this clip he gives a quick rundown on his opinion on what he calls "postmodernists."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UtgY0N6Wcw
What would you say is wrong with his claims here?

>>9700037
The thing is that I really like Freud. I don't actually believe that Freud thought there was a cure or even an explanation for neuroses; neuroses was simply the figure which caused his soul to rhapsodize.

>>9700032
Well, your opinion is trash. He's trying to do educate people on the internet because he thinks the universities have become corrupt.

>>9700044
I think he doesn't understand that his views are post-modern too. He's trying to claim the solidity of meaning that modernism has, but a Jungian that turns modernist is just another Freudian.

I think he doesn't know what it means and relies on a group that doesn't know what it means to give his definition an idiosyncratic meaning- which is post-modern in itself, claiming that words should have niche definitions like that which ignore all other interpretations for their own internal values.

>>9700050
>he thinks the universities have become corrupt.
Berkeley didn't even allow free speech for right wingers.

>>9700050
yes universities are corrupt because they are run by pedagogical dicks who want to be your daddy like this Peterson clown.

>>9700045
You might like Jung. I like Freud, but I read shit like Anti-Oedipus by D&G laughing because they give a very funny (and valid) critique of Freud.

Jung has a lot more mystical shit, and a lot less definitive statements compared to Freud. It can make him seem more wishy-washy but I think it's avoiding being prescriptive where he was unsure of how right he was.

I'd say he's an easy read if you got through Freud.

File: 1496668614604.png (123KB, 577x603px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 577x603px

>>9700059
Why do you feel so strongly about him despite proudly claiming you've never watched or read him?

>>9700066
>post shit on /lit/ without reading book
>expect a low level of vitriol
anon, I'm not him, but he probably cares because you shit up the board.

>>9700069
Yeah, mods shouldn't allow this. Must be banned.

>>9700061
Reading Freud to me is like having a chat in some kind of Tolstoyan after-dinner room just gives me all the Bourgeois cozy type feelings but the chat is about sticking rats in your ass. I liked Anti-Oedipus and I also like Reich and Zizek and what I know of Lacan from listening to Radiohead and reading Zizek. I don't think Jung has inspired much. But I might check him out I've got to finish War and Peace and then perhaps Dante's Human Comedy first.

>>9700070
>applying physical modernist systems to Jungian thought
are you saying you're the brainlet nonwhite, or did you think that Jung wasn't the guy who left Freudianism because he thought he had psychic powers Freud was unfairly denying

>>9700077
>implying we don't bully the mods
it's allowed because we can criticize his books and books he claims are his inspiration alongside him. just because harry potter is shit doesn't mean we've banned it.

>>9700088
Implying his books have even been mentioned once in this thread. What are some titles of his books without ask Jeevesing it?

File: ru8gh93qg.png (51KB, 162x171px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 162x171px

>>9700081
>physical modernist systems
you're gettin real retarded there, bucko

>>9700078
Jung and Campbell would probably be up your street. Jung's influenced a lot, and he was upset about his influence (MBTI tests are from Jungians, but go against most of what Jung thought the purpose of psychology was). Campbell is fucking huge (Lucas literally says he ripped off the hero's journey for Star Wars and it's taught in most English classes) and he's probably the most commonly recognised Jungian influence on our culture.

I've watched a few of this meme's videos. He seems to have a certain amount of wisdom but some of the stuff he has to say doesn't seem well-meaning. Or, maybe, it seems as though he's planting bad seeds in the minds of his following. Evolutionary psychology makes for funny "guidance". It just isn't right. I can't even put it into words. The way you get to see people from that vantage is so reductionist that whenever someone's behavior can't be quickly simplified and intellectualized, the explanation is that their behavior is defined by their neurosis or whatever. But both people and animals do things that can't be explained in such a glib way from time to time. Maybe not all the time. But the point is that his followers don't seem like people who can acknowledge that mystery, though I saw say as much in some the videos I saw

>>9700092
isn't he the maps of meaning dude?
>>9700093
>he doesn't know what modernism is either
jesus it's like you've missed everything since Kant. does your tribe still have witch hunts and believe brains aren't more than tasty head meats?

>>9700104
kekek, jungians are always so terrible at being jungians when they're not raving lunatics talking about psychic powers. it's like the one discipline where the person hearing angels is more informed than you.

>>9700101
Maybe I should check out Campbell I am humbly compiling notes for a Gnostic/Mecha retelling of Revelations that I hope to write when I get a chance.

File: sm2.png (74KB, 211x237px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 211x237px

>>9700106
>race is a modernist system
>i'm n-n-not retarded t-though!

>>9700127
It's true. My ancestors from Briton would not have viewed Teutons or Francs as their kin and hell they would not have even felt kinship with lowland clans but somehow in the twentieth century all white skinned people are supposed to hold hands and sing.

>>9700052
>relies on a group that doesn't know what it means to give his definition an idiosyncratic meaning
This is true, whether he knows the word's proper definition or not. But the context he's using the word in matters - these are Youtube vlogs and undergraduate lectures, not scientific publications.
His audience is entry-level in the world of philosophy. Entry-level math students have to learn naive set theory before learning formal logic. I don't think it's pseudo-intellectual to teach concepts in simpler (but less accurate) terms before teaching them in more complex (and more accurate) terms.

>>9700127
>he doesn't know who the bulldog huxley, galton or darwin are
>he doesn't know who coined the term eugenics
>he doesn't realize most human breeding programs are modernist
>his reach of history doesn't extend as far as 1880
>he doesn't know when the modernist period was or what its tenets were
you know there's entire wikipedia pages you could look up to explain to you why you're wrong and what modernism is, but you decided to keep on being wrong. i don't have faith you'd read any of their books or even a basic history of the modern world. maybe you'll become a postmodernist who maintains that history doesn't matter.

Ay yo I'm gonna hit you with that real shit:

Peterson isn't a great scientist. He likes to speculate on incomplete information. He follows Jungian psychology. He generalises situations to fit to "archetypal ideas", etc.

None of this stuff is scientific. It's just speculative. This kind of thing does not seem terribly uncommon in psychology, and the more of it I see, the more I understand why it receives as much criticism as it does from those within the core sciences, regarding stuff like issues with experimental replication.

>>9700134
>But the context he's using the word in matters
can't you hear the rest of postmodernism laughing at you? postmodernism isn't relegated to science. it's across science and humanities subjects and not knowing what the word means when you're a professor in any of those disciplines and using the word incorrectly is a sign you're either an ideologue or an idiot, or potentially both.

>>9700150
what we're laughing at is all that shit is postmodern and he thinks he's not being a postmodernist.

>>9700152
Way to completely miss the point of my post. I was just using "scientific publications" as an example of a context where strict technical accuracy is important.

The point is, you haven't convinced me that he is either an idiot or an ideologue. In my opinion, he seems to be using oversimplified terms (which wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in a strict professional setting, I agree) to explain complex concepts to amateurs.
That's not idiocy or ideology. That's teaching.

>>9700180
he's using oversimplified terms the same way that scientologists use terms like "suppressive" to have idiosyncratic group meanings which do not translate to the outside world and never apply to their own actions. he might as well be a "teacher" for them, because he's actually making people unlearn the real definition.

File: sm3.png (32KB, 129x156px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 129x156px

>>9700139
>genetics and race only began existing when 19th century thinkers pointed it out
>you can't believe that race exists and take some of jung's ideas seriously simultaneously because of these arbitrary rules and classifications of what modernism is I've laid out

>>9700191
>he thinks he can erase the modernist concept of race with greentext
>he thinks he can erase the concept of modernism with greentext
>he thinks he can erase history with greentext
>he thinks he can erase his own obvious to everyone now ignorance with greentext
>he thinks he's good at constructing aunt sallies even though any anon could follow the quote chain
good luck with those magical powers buddy

File: self-cring2.png (147KB, 322x329px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 322x329px

>>9700200
>he thinks niggers can understand jung because if someone understands jung then niggers don't exist

>>9700212
>going full retard
>keeping going
damn that's some insecurity issues, you even post dave

>>9700212
wew lad that anon broke your brain

>>9700221
>going full retard
just breaking your argument down and simplifying it. it is real retarded isnt it

hehehe i dont like your words
lets negate everything
life is terrible

File: 1475409212677.jpg (1MB, 4030x4096px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4030x4096px

>>9700212

>>9700235
>my brain malfunctioned so i assumed your argument was about niggers because i use that circuit a lot so you must have been talking about what those voices in my head were saying
those magical powers not working out for you, bobby?

File: sort.jpg (29KB, 144x216px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 144x216px

>>9700250
>assumed your argument was about niggers

>>9700070

>even though any anon could follow the quote chain
pretty ironic, bucko

>>9700257
>he still think no anon will see that there's a difference between modern and pre-modern appreciation of race
>on a board that regularly divides ancient greeks into macedon, attica, sparta, ionia
>on a board that knows what modernism is
>he thinks anyone is buying he's not the retard
anon was right about you

>>9700265
>if you understand jung then you can't believe that race exists and niggers are real
see, you're being retarded again

>>9700257
>my argument was about niggers
>therefore the anon who responded to me must be making the same argument as me, not using my argument against me
why are you trying to out yourself as an illiterate nonwhite? we buy the illiterate part, but you're just a wigger, bobby.

>>9700274
i'm not even him, bro, i'm just pointing out he's right about you thinking if you put it in greentext it magically becomes a historic quote. kek. i hope it's an act because i can't imagine someone with a brain as broken as yours operating in society.

>guys, niggers are dumb and can't understand jung

>dude niggers can't be real if you know anything about jung because I've determined that jung falls into the category of modernism and if you understand jung then you subscribe to all of jung's ideas and also must be a modernist and niggers didn't exist before the modern era

>>9700300
>i can't think about anything other than niggers
we know bobby. you're still a wigger who doesn't read. pick up iceberg slim's trickbaby, it might help you

Honestly I blame lit for these threads. They fall for the bait every time. It's just pol shitposting.

>>9700307
i like how they all devolve into jungians kicking peterson out for not liking their postmodernism

>>9700188
>do not translate to the outside world
The ideology that Peterson calls "postmodernism" is a real thing that exists in the actual world. It describes actual opinions that actual people have and act out. Are you seriously proposing no such thing exists?
>never apply to his own actions
What exactly are you proposing Peterson has been doing which is contrary to his own criticism of the ideology that he calls "postmodernism"?

You're grasping at straws here.

>>9700300
he clearly told you that jung is postmodern, and that reducing humans to brain structures is a modern idea that jung reacted against. jfc how is /pol/ so dumb it doesn't understand arguments it *starts*

it's hot as fuck today, and it's friday, so i wanted to come here and shitpost for a few hours this evening, but the first fucking thread is an ad for some alt-right pseuds youtube channel.

nope.

>>9700312
/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

>>9700322
>real thing that exists in the actual world
it does not exist as postmodernism either. if he was using the term "apples" it would as inaccurate as using the term "postmodernism". that is not to say apples don't exist, but they're not a good label for what he seeks to describe, and neither is postmodernism
he doesn't apply it to his own actions, because jung is postmodern and so are many of his definitions relying on postmodern ideas. he's not calling out actual postmodernists, like himself, he's just pointing at a group of people who aren't even postmodernists and saying they are because he says so.

most of the people he hates are actually modernists who demand grand narratives and believe in things like being "born this way" or other modernist ideas. he doesn't hate postmodernists, he is one, and the people he does hate are not postmodern at all.

>>9700331
are you saying the jungians should fuck off? p sure they do read the books they rec, but peterson doesn't.

File: 1493333032675.jpg (33KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 620x349px

>>9700323
>having a small brain doesn't impact the complexity of ideas one can grasp because I've defined jung as a modernist and brain size has miraculously become irrelevant in modern times and also niggers stopped existing

>>9699098
Jordan Peterson is a glorified self-helpfag. His rise to popularity was based off of lies. He whined about a Canadian bill, C-16, claiming that it would lead to fines or jailtime for misgendering or wrong pronoun use, when there is not a single sentence in that bill that even hints at doing that. People thought he was going to get fired from the university, when that was never going to be the case. He is a meme.

>>9700257
You're really embarrassing yourself in this thread

>>9700348
having a small brain is a modernist idea. jung believes in the collective unconscious, which means that intelligence has nothing to do with brain size, but comes from being psychic. literally read jung or anything about modernism.

File: nigger baboons getting struck by vehicle.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>9700361
>if you understand jung you subscribe to every single one of jung's ideas
you're wrong here

>having a small brain is a modernist idea
you're wrong here

>jung believes in the collective unconscious, which means that intelligence has nothing to do with brain size
you're wrong here

>but comes from being psychic
christ you're retarded

>literally read jung or anything about modernism
there's no way i'm not being rused at this point

>dude brains didn't exist before the modern era, we were all psychic and understood everything regardless of if we had a brain or not and also niggers didn't exist
anti-JBP fags are THIS retarded

>>9700377
>being this wrong
>hoping postmodernism will save you because it claims every interpretation is as valid as another
kek, you're retarded bobby, and losing the fight with reality. pity a lot of books keep hardcopy because you can't even edit out of reality by graffiti-ing wikipedia the proof of how retarded you are. you're a delicious mix of arrogance and stupidity

File: 1485379082060.jpg (20KB, 225x257px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 225x257px

>>9700390
>niggers can't be real because we live in the modern era and jung (a modernist) didn't believe in niggers
that's literally the argument you've been clinging to for the past hour. think about that for a minute.

>>9700040
He's not Jungian.
Like how Jung wasn't Nietzschean

>>9700390
i'm beginning to suspect he's a falseflagger who hates peterson, because the purplehaired faggots peterson hates are that retarded. peterson isn't smart, but this guy is retarded on a level you only see in landwhales usually.

>>9700403
>he still thinks he can make up arguments for anon
>he still thinks he can make up history
it's like watching that video where the literal autist taught himself japanese

>>9700028
Just a general vibe I pick up from all these fucking threads. You'd think Peterson was a neocon by the way people talk about him.

>>9700408
>make up arguments for anon
that's been his exact argument since the first reply.

>>9700405
He is Jungian, as much as the other Jungians

Jung literally thanked god he wasn't a Jungian during a conference of Jungians. Still hasn't stopped more people like Peterson claiming they're Jungians, any more than Catholics have stopped Protestants calling themselves Christian.

>>9700413
Usual leftist slander. Charges of racism and sexism didn't stick so they're going for something else now.

>>9700415
are you lost in the quote chain? it's the other guy who is obsessed with niggers. that's why the anon you're replying to keeps calling him a wigger.

>>9700417
He doesn't call himself Jungian.

>>9700413
>>9700423
/lit/'s very conservative. that's why they hate Peterson, because they believe you should read classics/phil before talking about them, and Peterson obvs hasn't read shit even in his own discipline.

>>9700432
>and Peterson obvs hasn't read shit even in his own discipline
what makes you think this

>>9700431
maybe he should stop applying Jungian theory to everything then? i guess you could call yourself not a Christian but when you show up to every service and talk to people about Jesus saving you all the time, they might doubt that you aren't.

So this...is the calibre of pro-peterson posters...woah...

>>9700440
because he'd be calling his opponents modernists if he had, and have better ground for his arguments against them.

>>9700338
>What Peterson is complaining about, which he calls "postmodernism," isn't actual postmodernism
>His use of the word is completely irrelevant to the actual definition
>Therefore he's an idiot/ideologue

>What Peterson is complaining about is actual postmodernism
>Peterson isn't complaining about actual postmodernists like Jung and himself
>Therefore he's a hypocrite

Which is it?

>>9699447
>>9699468
>>9699531
>he uses a reaction image on every single post
how old are you?

>>9700456
it's both. it's not like being an ideologue or idiot is a get out of jail card for being a hypocrite. they often go hand in hand.

File: 1489855834313.jpg (26KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x480px

>>9700457
This is an image board.

>>9700443
>Everything is either A or B

>>9700471
p sure nobody's going to stop calling the second guy a Christian, and you're only offended by the analogy because it applies to your idol

File: 1394685964066.jpg (43KB, 433x378px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 433x378px

>>9700457
Found the r/book user

>>9699098
The pro Peterson posters get BTFO every thread. What does Jung say about masochism? Because I sense a bit of that going on here.

>>9700481
Even if that "christian" starts spouting ideas that are completely against christian doctrine?
I'm not even sure what you're arguing.

>maybe he should stop applying Jungian theory to everything then?
This is like fucking cultural appropriation.

>>9700496
I'd still call the Mormons Christian, so yeah. Even if they're retarded and add on books of their own, if the broad stretch of your ideology comes from a recognised system, you shouldn't be so butthurt about people pointing it out.

>>9699154
This is more-so what Peter Hitchens (in The Rage Against God) says, not JBP afaik.

>>9699098
I'm almost convinced that this is actually JBP himself making all these threads, the egomaniac that he is.

>>9700506
wasn't reddit enough for him?

>>9700501
Well with such a broad inclusion, then yes he's a Jungian and a Nihilist, and a socialist and an anarchist... He'd be every Ist and Ism there is. >Except post-modernist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3m0tt5KcE

>if the broad stretch of your ideology comes from a recognised system, you shouldn't be so butthurt about people pointing it out.
Nobody has denied this.
That's what I meant with Jung not being "Nietzschean."
Jung explored so many areas it's impossible for a modern philosopher to not have at least 1/3 of their ideas to be similar.

Most of JP's psychology is based on Jung, but Peterson is mostly an "agnostic christian". While Jung was neck deep into hedonism.

File: dude lets have 12 kids lmao.jpg (32KB, 474x304px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 474x304px

>all of this erroneous label-slapping with 0(ZERO) actual argument-refuting
pseuds, all of you

>>9700540
I doubt he or you know what a nihilist is, but yeah, he'd definitely count, and Nietzsche would probably say he's as dangerous as the rest of the new gods for nihilists after Christianity.
>Jung was neck deep into hedonism
I think you're mischaracterizing Jung. He's into spirtiualism, but he'd find an agnostic Christian as appealing as an agnostic Hindu, because it doesn't matter to him which system of spirituality you subscribe to, but that spirituality of some sort is necessary to being human. Peterson argues the same thing, probably because he is a Jungian and believes in a lot of Jung's principles. Even if his approach to spirituality wasn't Jungian also, he would still be a Jungian psychologist. It strengthens the argument he's a Jungian when he speaks about spirituality, whether he does that for psychological benefits he sees in spirituality, or because of Christianity that predates his exposure to Jung.

>it's impossible for a modern philosopher to not have at least 1/3 of their ideas to be similar
It's not, and you probably mean current. People who believe in a hard material individualism for instance, like all the Stirner guys, would have nothing in common. As would modernist approaches of other kinds to psychology (Skinnerism springs to mind). You're trying to blur the boundaries so everyone would be as postmodern as Peterson, but it's just not the case.

>>9700557

A point to be brought up:

He complains that pseuds like Fucko and Derriding obscure their actual messages behind walls of text because they have no actual points to make, or that they're bullshit.

At the same time, he does the exact same. He fails to explain his points all the time, and crumbles under pressure and reaches for straws.

>>9700540
If anything.
JP is a "Kierkegaardian".
Arguing that math and empirical fact is not the only truth. And possibly less true than abstract ideas.

>>9700567
>At the same time, he does the exact same. He fails to explain his points all the time, and crumbles under pressure and reaches for straws
ok, now find an example

>>9700570
>Arguing that math and empirical fact is not the only truth. And possibly less true than abstract ideas.
That's more likely from Jung in his case.

>>9700575

One of the two appearances on Waking Up with Ben Stiller. His whole cop-out by going for the 'those are micro/macro examples'. Aka he can't explain himself sufficiently because his theories crumble. I think that those debates were eye openers for him.

>>9700564
Peterson has claimed many times that postmodernism and existelism are the "actual" truths. As in that's what is true if humans disappeared, nature doesn't care.

But they are empty facts, there's no purpose or value. 2+2=4. So?

That's the main thing JP argue.

>>9700586
>Peterson has claimed many times that postmodernism and existelism a
I highly doubt this because of his common use of postmodern as a pejorative.

>>9700576
No, Jung clearly said "I do not believe in anything I can't prove." But same time saying there must be something after death. Cause of what he has experienced.

>>9700601
are you retarded? he thought he proved he was psychic to Freud, which is why Freud kicked him out.

>>9700583
>His whole cop-out by going for the 'those are micro/macro examples'. Aka he can't explain himself sufficiently because his theories crumble.
I remember him explaining himself just fine with those examples. Harris autisticly refused to consider that there might be anything other than objective truth, even hypothetically for the sake of the discussion. Perhaps you should find a quote.

>>9700592
No. You miss the point.
Put it like this. "Postmodernism" is a very appealing argument, it appeals to logic. But also removing yourself from responsibility. And at the bottom meaninglessness.

>>9700604
Synchronicity doesn't automatically include the supernatural/magical.

>>9700616
No, you're misrepresenting Peterson. He's an idiot without needed to resort to misrepresentation, but you're making him look like a bigger idiot by making up things which would make him a clear hypocrite rather than an obfuscating hypocrite.

I don't believe you or anyone else ever heard Peterson say that post-modernism was actual truth. He uses the word too often as an insult and an example of denying reality for you to have a credible claim. You're talking out of your ass.

I'm not really anti-Peterson, but I found his stance on "facts not necessarily being true" to be sort of disappointing.

>“Well then I would say that I don’t think that facts are necessarily true. So I don’t think that scientific facts – even if they are correct from within the domain that they were generated – I don’t think that that necessarily makes them true…”

He then claims:
>"“No, but that’s the thing I don’t agree with because I think that’s the kind of conception of what constitutes a fact that does in fact present a moral danger to people; a mortal danger to people; and I also think that that’s partly why the scientific endeavour – as it’s demolished the traditional underpinnings of our moral systems – has produced an emergent nihilism and hopelessness among people that makes them more susceptible to ideological possession. I think it’s a fundamental problem. And I do believe that the highest truths – let’s put it that way – the highest truths are moral truths. I’m thinking about that from a Darwinian perspective.”

By Peterson's logic, Christians would be justified in viewing evolution as both false and pernicious on the grounds that it undermines our moral tradition, which makes invoking the Darwinian perspective rather amusing.

With that said he seems to be an effective self-help figure for frogmen so he isn't all bad.

>>9700621
Jung does include the supernatural and magical as necessary and real. You're lying and hope you won't be caught out, which is sad.

>>9700625
>>9700626

Peterson doesn't oppose science.
He opposes "ultimate reason" or whatever you wish to call it.

Yes X is more true than Y. But Y is "actually" more true than X, be cause it produces pragmatic meaning/real value, it doesn't send you into nihilsm.

File: 1476197873510.png (105KB, 635x493px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 635x493px

>>9700643
>Yes X is more true than Y. But Y is "actually" more true than X

eugh

He really needs to coin a new word for this thing he's pushing.

>>9700643
>He opposes "ultimate reason" or whatever you wish to call it.
I know. That's why I'm saying his claims against what he calls postmodernists are hilarious, because that's the basic definition of a postmodernist: someone who rejects grand narratives of truth.
I still don't believe he's come out with postmodernism is truth, because he uses it as an insult too often (often against modernists who do believe in grand narratives of truth and that their "objective" view of reality is the one)

>>9700648
if he hadn't made postmodernism such a big thing, he could just call them modernists and have greater success in tackling what he views as the problem. now that he has, he can't call them what they actually are because it would underline his previous ignorance. he's not going to risk his tenuous credibility to idiots who like him to actually damage the tenuous credibility of the idiots he hates. he trapped himself.

>ctrl + f
>'pragmatism'
>none found

Wow.

>>9700648
Commie blocks are fantastic right?
Aesthetics are just relative.
Everybody should just eat tasteless liquid with all nutrients.
Lets just all kill ourselves cause life doesn't actually matter. Pain is just an illusion. Morality is relative.
Hey why aren't you acting like this? Why are you pretending cutting yourself hurts??

>>9700615
How did he explain himself then? Give me his explanation, other than those examples being micro/macro.

>>9700670
>ctrl + f
>'nigger'
>16 results

The alt-right, ladies and gentlemen

>>9700643
How is the assertion of moral truths being more true than, say, scientific truths, not a form of ultimate reason? In Peterson's framework, truths are judged based on their moral value. Something might be scientifically true, but a scientific truth should be subordinate to a moral truth. How is moral value assessed? Presumably within the framework of atheist pseudo-Christianity.

>>9700652
I think he opposes so-called left postmodernism, which is really just minority group nationalism. For instance, critical race theorists are generally essentialist, emphasize the centrality of white oppression, reject liberal theories of justice as failing to pay sufficient attention to race, advocate for "other forms of knowing" typically tied to ethnicity, view white skin as a form of property, sometimes explicitly support ethnic nationalism for browns, etc.
Peterson himself is basically a weak right-postmodernist, according to his own use of "postmodern".

>>9700688
the nigger guy isn't alt-right, he's just a fucking idiot. sure alt-right also has idiots, but you're being as bad at categorizing as he is, not winning points for the other side.

When he says postmodernist he means postmodernist inspired neo-Marxism.

Truth is based in power and the struggle for power is played out between different races, sexes, genders, cultures, etc; as opppsed to the traditional capitalist-proletariat struggle.

That whole thing.

>>9700626
Darwinian theory won't destroy civilization like smallpox crossed with ebola or cultural marxism would, and the creationist view of human origins has nothing to do with Christian morality.

File: 1498605358528.gif (3MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x225px

>>9700672
Wat

>>9700666
The reason why he hates them is cause they deconstruct ALL values.
Saying everything is relative.

Peterson argues things are not relative cause we don't ACT as if "pain" is relative.
Pain is more real than the fact that it is an illusion.

Sure let's call sort yourself oot an "post-postmodernist."

File: images (19).jpg (47KB, 357x411px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 357x411px

>>9699222
>suggests to not read plebbit
>tells to go back to plebbit
Aaaugh, the double bind!!

>>9700691
>I think he opposes so-called left postmodernism, which is really just minority group nationalism
They're so-called by him. He doesn't understand what he's against isn't postmodern at all.
>right left postmodernism
You don't understand what postmodernism is either. You're trying to force views you hold about the political landscape under the banner of postmodernism, when they're modernist distinctions (arising as they do from the start of the modern period and the fall of the sun king).
His own use of postmodernism seems to exclude himself, despite his obvious postmodern tendencies.

He just doesn't know what the word means and figured it was up for grabs, just like you did by trying to apply left-right to postmodernism.

>>9700697
You could argue that the idea of evolution so devastated Christianity in the long run that descent into relativism was inevitable. Wouldn't this be precisely the kind of scenario where moral truth trumps scientific truth that Peterson talks about?

File: sm.png (234KB, 383x479px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 383x479px

>>9700688
not an argument

Nobody here seems to be trying to understand each other.

There's a massive communication problem here.

I'm disappointed in all of you.

>>9700691
Now we're aeguing semantics.
The point remains.
And yes.

That's what his whole book amd all his lectures are about.
How do we find meaning in spite of the truth of relativism/nihilsm/existentialism.

>>9700696
I know you think that if you use the word Marx it makes it seem like you know what you're talking about, but Reich and Jung are two very different things, and I don't think he's against Reich so much as tumblrwhales. tumblrwhales don't sound as intelligent as dropping the word postmodern or Marx, though, so he's basically misusing words so he doesn't have to take the ego blow of realising he's not ranting about postmodernism or Marxism of any form (in or out of psychology) but is just ranting about dyed hair tumblrbitches.

File: Solzhenitsyn200YearsTogether.jpg (520KB, 700x674px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 700x674px

>>9700719
>You could argue that the idea of evolution so devastated Christianity in the long run
Yeah, you could argue that but you'd be wrong. What destroyed Christianity and Christian morality in the west is the subversive jewish elemental in society prying away at it for centuries now.

>>9700696
how is it marxist if it's not about class (i.e. material relations) but identity (ideas)?

>>9700734
That's a whole other thread man.

>>9700708
They don't deconstruct all values- they think their values are more important than other values, which is what Peterson does too. Neither of them deconstruct their own values well, he's just mad they chose a different set of values and postmodernism says they're both as good. They are both as good, by which I mean, they're both basically retards who don't know what postmodernism actually does and who both argue for their own form of modernist grand structure (whether that's transtrenders are real or not and who's being oppressed by whom).

>>9700743
It's because 'neoliberal identity politics' doesn't sound as evil as 'cultural marxism', right?

>>9700734
Marxism isn't exclusive to any particular hierarchy. What characterizes Marxism is that it sets out to equitize a significant hierarchy in society. It could be economic hierarchy, identitarian hierarchy, or any other hierarchy, it's all Marxism.

>>9700754
No but that's wrong faggot.

>>9700734
because people think that marxism and postmodernism don't really mean anything in literature because they can't define them. they just assume everyone knows it means people i don't like whose behaviours i'm grouping under this buzzword.

>>9700730

>I know you think that if you use the word Marx it makes it seem like you know what you're talking about

This makes you sound like an idiot.

Ok, so your point is that the sea of multicoloured hair and septum piercings that he has risen up against, is not comprised of intellectually sophisticated enough individuals, to warrant the term 'postmodernist' or 'Marxist'?

>>9700754
No. Please go back to where you came from.

>>9700746
I mean the divinity of the individual is a pretty convincing "moral" argument.

File: sm.jpg (47KB, 1159x736px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1159x736px

>>9700766
>>9700758
>No but that's wrong faggot.
it's literally not. try formulating an argument next time.

>>9700754
is this what people who read brietbart actually believe?

>>9700762
i should point out that the pro- marx/postmodernism side also do this, but it's like being proChristian and thinking that means being pro setting up secular football clubs as the entirety of being proChristian. both sides have idiots who are talking out of their ass and labelling themselves or others as marxists/postmodernists without checking a dictionary.

>>9700748

>*110 million people die under communism*
>'Why's everyone so anti-Marxism!?'

You.

>>9700773
Here is an argument; you must read Marx's texts before assigning his name to ideas.

>>9700764
>Ok, so your point is that the sea of multicoloured hair and septum piercings that he has risen up against, is not comprised of intellectually sophisticated enough individuals, to warrant the term 'postmodernist' or 'Marxist'?
I think believing their self identification as marxist or postmodernist is about as sound as believing their self identification as a half wolf demisexual nongendered whatever.

File: 1498229725712.jpg (152KB, 723x1024px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 723x1024px

>>9700155
>>9700052
ok faggots, why don't you finally define post-modernism for us, because by his own definition, Peterson is definitely not a post-modernist.

""peterson meme picture""

READ THE GULAG FUCKING ARCHIPELAGO

>>9700774

What's both not an argument and the object I am replying to?

>>9700780
No argument then?

>>9700776
>Stalinism is Marxism
>Leninism is Marxism
>Maoism is Marxism
>Khmer nationalism is Marxism
>Juche is Marxism
I guess mormons are Jewish.

>>9700790
That was an argument retard. Lrn2read

>>9700786
a rejection of grand narratives and universal truths in favour of a multiplicity of interpretations which have no regard for truth or falsity of any interpretation.

>>9700791

My post was in jest, but you make a good point.

Although...

>if it went wrong; it wasn't Marxism

>>9700791
>I haven't read and compared leninism with the words of marx himself.
>Holodomar didn' happen
>Marx dindu nuffin

>>9700797

>a rejection of grand narratives and universal truths in favour of a multiplicity of interpretations which have no regard for objective* truth or falsity of any interpretation

Then Peterson's pragmatism is postmodernist.

I'm just chiming in here.

>>9700809
both side do that. if you look at russia in 1991 when the US neo-liberal free market crowd planned shock therapy, their argument for why it wasn't really "a free market" which wound up with oligarchs and abject poverty and rising inflation, is that the free market they designed wasn't really a free market, even though they got an economy at zero hour to introduce their ideas of market freedom to. it's a human thing, not limited to marxists.

File: jon.png (9KB, 94x44px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 94x44px

>>9700796
looks like I win the debate. better luck next time buddy.

>>9700814
that's why /lit/ has been laughing at his threads every time they come by. he doesn't know what his words mean.
sometimes i think /pol/ is trying to gift him to us because they know he'll make us laugh like confederacy of dunces did, but then i remember it's /pol/ and they give shitty gifts so they probably don't know what it is either.

>>9700797
>which have no regard for truth or falsity of any interpretation.

therefore all interpretations are equal?

if so, Peterson is not a post-modernist.

>>9700821

Yeah man, I know.

I have no ideological ties.

>>9700809
I don't even think it went wrong in all those cases, it depends on if you judge policy from the perspective of how effective it is for the policy-makers or if you just judge it on some nebulous idea that power should only exist to make everyone happy and never hurt anyone. >>9700812
I've read Marx and Lenin (to a lesser extent) but it's funny you can't really base a government on a few books; Leninism was not Marxism by virtue of necessity. Marx really dindu nuffin, like most public intellectuals. Men of action sometimes kill, so what is wrong with that?

File: communism.jpg (345KB, 962x1308px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 962x1308px

>>9700821
>both side do that
When did capitalism kill hundreds of millions of its own citizens in gulags and force people to cannibalize their own children en masse to avoid starvation?

>>9700827

Objective truth.

Truth is decided by what remains/is in power/lives.

So, he's a postmodernist.

>>9700835
>Fails to comprehend what was said
>posts a fake image

File: THE_RIDE_NEVER_ENDS.jpg (231KB, 863x752px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 863x752px

>>9700826EVEN if it is the case, that Peterson has a wrong definition of post-modernism, which it isn't. That has zero effect on everything else he says, which is the most of it. If you want, you can replace post-modernism in his speech by another word. What’s important is not the word.

>>9700834

>Men of action sometimes kill, so what is wrong with that?

Alright calm down, Nietzsche.

>>9700827
the parts where he's a modernist are of the same form as the parts where the people he criticizes what he calls "postmodernism". he thinks it's postmodern because it's about being a cat person or tranny, when the arguments they use are modernist arguments (I have a cat brain, I have a girl brain).
Peterson does reject a lot of "scientific" proofs like that as less true than interpretations which aren't based in modernist paradigms. You can look up in the thread to see him criticizing scientific "truths", which is the postmodern position par excellence. So yeah, still a postmodernist, but just not a very good one who occasionally tries to rely on the modernism he simultaneously tries to disavow.

He's a confused man. Much like tumblr.

>>9700835
well, the idea of slavery is a bit capitalistic, you gotta admit. that went on a long while longer than marxism too. it's not like either side is clean.

>>9700849
No I'm really asking you what is wrong with it? Can you tell me why it is wrong for Stalin to institute mass starvation if it is necessary to strengthen the military/industrial state?

>>9700844
the words you use are very important on a literatue board. of course if you use malapropism's lit is going to laugh at you like you're mrs. malaprop, have you never been to a comedy?

File: cruz.png (43KB, 191x153px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 191x153px

>>9700843
>fake image
anti-JBP fags are literally communists in THIS degree of denial

>Fails to comprehend what was said
I comprehend what was said just fine. You're an unironic communist so you're most likely a 80IQ nonwhite who's in way over his head discussing anything more complex that bashing rocks together. Right-wingers never have to apologize for our right-wing system in the west because it's the most prosperous system ever devised in all of human history and it DOESN'T put hundreds of millions of its own citizens into gulags because they committed the crime of publicly admitting they were hungry.

Sort yourself out, bucko.

>>9700855
>well, the idea of slavery is a bit capitalistic
this is real retarded but you're incapable of understanding why

>>9700826

From what I've read of his work, he seems to know what postmodernism is and how it contributes to his pragmatist epistemology.

Are you sure his retarded fans aren't misrepresenting him?

(Genuine question)

>>9700860
aren't the communists the ones known for fake images? i thought it was stalin who was all about taking the dead people he'd sent to gulags out of official photos.
>he believes there's commies on 4chan
lol, i bet you believe traps when they say their tits are natural.

>>9700864
do you have trouble understanding that owning another human being makes them part of your capital, my property?

>>9700839

what does the word objective even mean here?

are you saying that Peterson believes that:

>Truth is decided by what remains/is in power/lives.

(which also means that all interpretations can potentially be in power/lives are equal)

that's simply not the case.

>>9700874
dude, you should read some marx before you make a bigger clown of yourself

>>9700860
Oh I get it you think that governments are best that provide people with prosperity and never hurts anyone how beta do you have to be to base your beliefs entirely on your fear of power of alpha chads like Stalin and Lenin who have fucked more women than you will ever personally see in your entire life and made entire nations bow to their whims and starved them and beat them into submission and even cucked your boyfriend Hitler into killing himself what a huge pussy faggot

>>9700856

>Can you tell me why it is wrong for Stalin to institute mass starvation if it is necessary to strengthen the military/industrial state?

Can I tell you why fascism is wrong?

Well, that depends on what system of ethics we adopt.

Let's use pragmatist epistemology, as it's relevant to the thread and has an ethic worked into it.

If we wish to create habitable order out of the chaos around us, then plunging millions into said chaos is probably not an ideal move.

If you continue to do it, you perish, as did all such states.

Maybe something like that?

>>9700874
Do you understand that Marxist philosophy produces labor camps that enslave the majority of the host nation's population wherever it's been applied?

>from each according to their ability comrade
>no comrade, you don't need more than a slice of bread a day
>keep working and stop complaining that you're hungry or we'll send you to the gulag comrade
sounds like liberty and prosperity to me.

>>9700871
I've seen him give interviews where he disavows scientific truth (not well, but he still does it) so when he decries people are postmodern because they believe science will prove them to have ladybrains after estrogen it does look rather like he can't tell the difference between a modernist and a postmodernist. It's that he's not smart, and his fans can't see he's not smart and so perpetuate arguments he has made. Any of the people who I think have been putting dumb arguments in his mouth ITT have been told he has enough dumb arguments coming out of his mouth there's no need to make up new ones, and they're not all fans.

Not that guy, but yeah, his fans are pretty representative, and he's deluding himself that he's not just playing to their prejudices and offering them a buzzword for their prejudices. He could at least offer them the correct buzzword, but he's really not that invested in his fans well being as he pretends to be. By now his colleagues have probably pointed out the problem with going after postmodernism and he's persisting because he cares about his persistence as a self help guru more than teaching people more practical things that have likely come into his sphere of awareness since if not before he became internet famous.

>>9700887
>chaos

I wouldn't call an intentional policy of genocide, carried out to completion, necessitating an immense effort logistically and requiring an incredible amount of strategy to bring about chaos. I would call it order, most definitely.

>>9700879
dude, you should recognise that guy just stirner memed you which is a sign that he has read marx and probably likes trolling marxists about the sometimes missing chapter on stirner. i.e. he's probably read more marx than marxists

>>9700878

>which also means that all interpretations can potentially be in power/lives are equal

No, because not all interpretations can live/stay in power.

The pool of potential truths is constrained by the nature of being/the universe.

It isn't infinite, unlike our imagination, with which we create candidate truths.

But of the ones that can survive and even thrive in the world, in the words of the man himself: "They're true enough".

>>9700851

>he thinks it's postmodern because it's about being a cat person or tranny, when the arguments they use are modernist arguments (I have a cat brain, I have a girl brain).

Faggot, this is simply not true. The whole point was that they claim that their gender is self-defined. That their identity is subjectively defined the way they want, which is why Peterson calls them post-modern. Anyone opposing Peterson on this issue is a faggot


>criticizing scientific "truths", which is the postmodern position par excellence

There is nothing post-modern in stating such well known things. All that he is saying is that when the Newtonian worldview was created, it was considered objectively true. But then the Einsteinian worldview came that explained all the phenomena from the Newtonian view as well as new, previously unexplained ones. Therefore the Einsteinian view is more true than the Newtonian view, but there will be a new view that will encapsulate the Einsteinian view and explain more. And this cycle will hypothetically repeat forever. As simple as that.

>>9700888
this guy gets me >>9700895
i'm not pro marxist, i'm just anti you because you're a simplistic idiot who thinks avoiding marxism will stop humans being shit on a massive scale. nothing would stop that and marxism doesn't start it any more than jesus started the crusades. you won't be safer with all the reds dead, because whoever was killing them was probably using reds as an excuse for killing.

>>9700893

It's chaos for the starving.

Also, it doesn't work; hence, the states failed.

File: 148537908206000.jpg (9KB, 225x257px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x257px

>>9700903
>i'm just anti you because you're a simplistic idiot who thinks avoiding marxism will stop humans being shit on a massive scale. nothing would stop that and marxism doesn't start it any more than jesus started the crusades. you won't be safer with all the reds dead, because whoever was killing them was probably using reds as an excuse for killing.
anti-JBP fags are THIS retarded

>>9700899
Stupid faggot, who are you explaining the basics of Peterson to. Im on the side of Peterson.
I was meant to say:
>(which also means that all interpretations THAT can potentially be in power/lives are equal)

which implies everything you just said

>>9700891

I've been watching his lectures on clinical psychology and theology.

From what I've seen he's a very well educated and intelligent man, with great insight.

I haven't seen these interviews, so I am a little confused.

Could you drop a link?

>>9700902
>Faggot, this is simply not true. The whole point was that they claim that their gender is self-defined. That their identity is subjectively defined the way they want, which is why Peterson calls them post-modern. Anyone opposing Peterson on this issue is a faggot
No his beef with them is that he claims they would make everyone else subject to their self definition. Which doesn't make it self defined but in his view would elevate their self definition to objective legal fact. That's how he got famous, trying to fight that. (Course, the law didn't mean that) SJWs don't want a postmodern definition, because if they were defined by postmodern standards, everyone calling them mentally ill would be just as correct as everyone calling them ma'am.
>>9700902
>There is nothing post-modern in stating such well known things
It's literally the definition of post-modern to reject modernist understandings of truth and progress. Which Peterson explicitly has done. If you want him to not criticize scientific truth, take it up with him. Get him to take down the videos and posts where he does criticize modernist perspectives instead of trying to tell me he doesn't because you're uncomfortable with the fact he has.

>>9700909
>cultists love their acronyms
just like commie russia :3

>>9700917
it's quoted ITT >>9700626
lots of idiots can sound intelligent.

>>9699192
>>9699220
>>9699222
He brings that dream up in the most recent biblical series lecture iirc

>>9699098
because they are unsorted individuals with unclean rooms

>>9700912

>who are you explaining the basics of Peterson to.

I think you mean 'pragmatism'.

>I'm on the side of Peterson.

Oh, is that the red team or the blue team?

>which also means that all interpretations THAT can potentially be in power/lives are equal

>that's simply not the case

Choose one.

>>9700929

No, I mean that he's a very good clinical psychologist.

Ok I'll have a look.

>>9700950
I have higher standards for a clinical psychologist, but most of them fail to make grade for me, so that's not saying much. It trolls me that he refuses to point out Jung is postmodern because it would affect his fame, but it's hard for any doctor in any discipline to say "I was wrong" so that's not the biggest factor.

>>9700945
Chose one out of what?

File: 1488762413327.png (570KB, 494x1018px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 494x1018px

So let me get this straight, you guys adore this dude just because he is like the father that you never had?

>>9700970
>you guys adore this dude
I think you're misreading the board's temperature on him...

>>9700923

An IDENTITY implies that it's a definition of oneself co-created by the self and the society in which the self is embedded. All Peterson is saying is that you can't subjectively chose an identity because (CONTRARY to what post-modernists believe) and identity has a functional role and cannot be defined arbitrarily.

the only one that is confused here is (you). What you wrote is fucking nonsense.


>because you're uncomfortable with the fact he has.

Honestly, I don't care about the post-modernist/modernist definition nit-picking /lit/ is obsessed with. Peterson's ideas are huge and he has insights in many different fields which have nothing to do with this whole shit /lit/ and you are obsessed with.

>>9700968

>>9700878

>are you saying that Peterson believes that:

>Truth is decided by what remains/is in power/lives.

>(which also means that all interpretations THAT* can potentially be in power/lives are equal)

>that's simply not the case.

How is it not the case?

>>9700992
>An IDENTITY implies that it's a definition of oneself co-created by the self and the society in which the self is embedded
not to everyone. Some maintain identity is solely behaviorist and externalized. Heraclitus would be the earliest exponent of that view (ethos anthropos daimon). Peterson's view of identity obviously doesn't belong to that school of thought, but resides more closely to the postmodern idea that you should be able to call them ma'am or mad without legal intervention and with equal social validity. Just because you don't understand that the concept of identity has many different interpretations and want to shill one you poorly understand doesn't mean the rest of the world listens to the same stream of consciousness as you.
>Honestly, I don't care about the post-modernist/modernist definition nit-picking /lit/ is obsessed with.
Well, I guess you came to the wrong board if you're ignorant of pre-modern philosophy and literature, and modern philosophy and literature, and post-modern philosophy and literature, and to the wrong thread if you're not concerned with Peterson's (mis)interpretations of those things.
>Peterson's ideas are huge and he has insights
Scientologists tell me this about Hubbard too. Just sayin.

>>9701010

because there isn't a single solution to the "problem" that being presents to you.

by "solution", I don't mean an ultimate objective solution. I mean a worldview that will keep you going. There is also an infinite number of worldviews like that.

If a worldview keeps you going, (therefore it is in power/lives), it doesn't mean that it is the best possible way you can "solve the problem". Some ways are simply more efficient than others.

Therefore, the proposition that all interpretations:
>THAT* can potentially be in power/lives are equal
IS NOT TRUE

faggot pseud

>>9701046

They're all true enough.

And:

>Some ways are simply more efficient than others.

Define 'efficient'.

>>9701046

>best way to solve the problem

What's the problem?

To stay alive?

What's the best way to stay alive?

Whatever keeps you alive longest?

There won't be one answer to that either.

>>9701033
you don't know what you're talking about. Really can't be fucked to continue this.
gonna sleep, 3:23 am :)

at least you have some arguments which most faggots here don't bother making.

>>9701068

Therefore... Peterson is a postmodernist and you are a droopy-eyed armless child.

>>9701073

Not that guy, but you're missing the point.

P.S. Europe is gay.

>>9701033
I mean even if identity is 100% externalized, why would that even matter.

>>9701078
at least we are not as retarded.

P.S. English is not my native lang and I speak 4 more.

>>9701081
Have you seen what Skinnerists do to kids in reform camps? There's probably more to being human than being your actions should be given due consideration too, as should other perspectives.
>>9701073
If you're in the French time zone you should know what I'm talking about because they're the centre of the world for Freudian Lacanians.
>>9701078
We also have cooties, please keep away America. Oh and muslims too if that will keep you out.

>>9700860
I read through all of these posts just to be 100% sure, and I sincerely hope you're trolling, because if not you should just neck yourself. You're the type of miser-ish cuckold that lauds systems of predatory fraud because it benefits him without seeing the underlying hypocrisy, and I say this as somebody who is bordering on near-fascism. If I could find you in person, I would fucking strangle you.

more like peturdson i am rite

I didn't even read this thread, because discussing Peterson on /lit/ is like trying to red pill a male feminist who voluntarily cut off his dick and balls (in the literal sense) to impress a girl he beta orbits. Sure, through extreme effort you could probably get through to them, but then you're just left with a slightly more aware eunuch.

daddy fucked me and I loved it

>>9701637
i tried to watch peterson, but he just seems out of his depth when talking about literary criticism or post-structuralism

the only "red pillish" person i could watch that wasn't a pseud was camille paglia, but then she's an actual lit theory academic, not some domain jumping youtube e-celeb, so that might have something to do with it

>>9700567

Is no one able to give a legit argument to this technique? No?

Then stop making these faggot threads

>>9701663
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nL8eRuGMmc

>asked about Jordan Peterson
>literally "who?"

god, paglia is such a beast, and peterson is such a lightweight, i think only a pseud could find him insightful

>>9701689
...OK?

ok

OK

oK

OK

>>9701637
>/pol/'s really upset /lit/ can't unread Jung
You know Jung claims we're all two gendered trannies right? Course not, you faggot.

>>9699220
I agree with this. Anyone who is a convinced Christian, if someone puts them on the spot, they're not going to deny Christ - because Matthew 10:33, inter alia - or even beat around the bush and obfuscate, which amounts to the same thing.

>>9701689

OK.