Every single word that comes out of Jordan Peterson's mouth

i always felt the same way about zizek except zizek isn't a retard

>>9709655
actually i don't, but i just wanted to point out peterson sucks

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>9709655
10/10

File: 6_S1618.jpg (13KB, 352x272px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 352x272px

>>9709655
>except zizek isn't a retard
brainlet detected
>yesshhh eye no dat *leftist position*
>but yu know vut about *easy paradox*
>hehehe u know vut eye meen? *endorses bourgeois position*

>>9709645
Peterson has so much shit online I don't even where to start to apply his ideas appropriately. I don't want to just blindly use his ideas even though he's basically proven himself as smart and genuinely interested in peoples' well-being. I've been treating it like a Bible, where you have some principles, understand the basic reasoning behind them, and when you have the time to return to it you can continue to include and understand more ad infinitum.

That said, do you know his stance on free will? As a psychologist he clearly understands the idea of circumstance - that we are, for better or worse, limited in some fundamental capacities like general intelligence. However, I wouldn't want to be a slave to whatever some psychometric analysis would make of me. How does he reconcile the idea of agency and taking responsibility despite this? Unless he's mentioned this in his personality+transformation talks, which I haven't gotten to in full yet.

File: A1BQzrU.jpg (47KB, 960x830px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x830px

>>9709645
He's a pseud. I propose a modification of the Peter Principle aptly named the Peterson Principle:

Anybody in academia that can grind their way up to a tenure track in their respective field can then leverage their position to gain credibility among the masses to talk about topics outside of the wheelhouses, and the masses won't notice the individual's lack of credentials as long as what they say corresponds to their reactionary beliefs. Even if this individual was an expert in their respective field, the further they stray from it, the more their opinions will consist of utter bullshit, which their fans will eat right up.

>>9709667
lmao yeah i just shitpost zizek real fast without thinking, i just mean zizek is a peterson tier goomba with a following of ppl who just watch his youtubes

and i agree zizek is very calculating in that he spends ten minutes name dropping a bunch of radical edgy thinkers and then at the end comes out with a position bland enough to get published in the nytimes, we need better public intellectuals, all the ones out there right now suck, but maybe that's by design, nothing too radical

>>9709645
the Milo of philosophy

>>9709645
OP, this feels like genuine admiration, and I respect that.

>>9709688
that "better angels of our nature" canadian jew at yale was pulling the same stuff when he was peddling his last general audience non-academic book, he's like "i tried to read a recently published psychology paper and i couldn't understand it because it was a bunch of bad writing and not because i've grown soft as a rockstar professor doing enrollment bait 101 classes and writing pop books instead of real work" i was like kys my man

>>9709688
>8000+ citations on peer-reviewed research
>on clinical psychology to improve peoples' mental well-being
>provides lectures in said topics, addressing observations and common problems across patients
>"pseud"

>>9709715
This. He does not often speak outside his area of expertise. And when he does, he mentions that he is doing that.

>>9709715
and yet he still can't figure out that gender is a social construct

>>9709715
Cool. Does that mean he's an expert in philosophy, theology, mathematics, etc too?

I thought the more you learn, the more you're meant to realise how little you know. Isn't that how most professors think?

>>9709688
I'm banking on this actually. none of you faggots will notice when I use my atmos science PHD to become the next peterson. Qualia space theory will be the next postmodernism

>>9709722
dude, if you have a phd in anything and want to cash out just start a youtube channel on climate science denial and you'll get a million followers, shoutouts on foxnews, speaking engagement sponsored by exxon etc. doesnt matter if ur phd is in nietzsche studies or number theory or something, the plebs will eat that shit uuuuup

>>9709720
BAIT
A
I
T

>>9709721
>phd
>literally DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
>philosophy is the study of fundamental problems of values, knowledge, existence, mind, and reason
Fuck off you jealous Judas.

>>9709730
>implying many many many people have not tried what peterson is doing and not succeeded

>>9709720
there is a difference between sex and gender identity
peterson is obviously more informed on the subject than you are

>>9709736
>there is a difference between sex and gender identity

tell that to your hero peterson since he doesn't seem to get it

>>9709732
>phd
>literally DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
lmao

>>9709739
>confirmed never read or listened to his opinion
He does get it, anon. He really does. All he's saying is that they are not completely distinct. They influence each other.

>>9709722
Make a channel then go on Joe Rogan. Say big words and he'll eat it up with, "Shiiiit" or "Damn, that's what I've thought when I've been using my monkey barbells [he hasn't]". You'll have a legion of fans, albeit retarded.

File: images (67).jpg (21KB, 511x288px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 511x288px

>>9709740
Not an argument.

>>9709740
You do know that many PhD programs do not provide students with a primer on philosophy. In many fields, such as STEM ones, the best you will get is possibly one Philosophy of Science course or a lecture include in your introduction to Graduate Studies course. There are many PhD holders that deride philosophy and say that it's a waste of time. PhD is a fairly antiquated term, and obfuscates the fact that many PhD holders don't know jack shit about Philosophy. This isn't to say that all PhD holders should know more about philosophy. There are a lot of fields where it isn't necessary.

>>9709752
Finally we get peterson who upholds the true purpose of a PhD.

>>9709756
U wot m8? He doesn't really do a good job talking about philosophy. His critique of postmodernism suggests that he doesn't fully grasp what it is, and apart from that, he talks about Jung. That isn't exactly somebody demonstrating a strong grasp of philosophy. Peterson rather belongs to a long line of pop-intellectuals who make names for themselves spouting reactionary opinions about topics well outside of their realm of expertise.

How does Peterson define "Postmodernism"?

The only reason Peterson exploded in popularity was because he was in the right place at the right time.
I'm not calling him a pseud, I like him, but he didn't become notorious because of his ideas. He became notorious because he made a few videos saying he didn't approve of a bill and some leftists started calling him a transphobe. Soon more leftists joined in and people started taking note. So people started checking out his videos and thought "Hey, look, this guy has some cool ideas".
He won't be remembered as one of the most important philosophers of this century, like I've seen some claiming. Far from it. He doesn't propose anything new. He's an educator (a pretty damn good one), not an innovative thinker.

>>9709768
He does a fantastic job of blending psychological theory, neuroscience, theology, and philosophy.

Perhaps you consider this approach haphazard, but I'll tell you there are MANY people within academia crying our for the kind of multidisciplinary integration that peterson is capable of, and seemingly off the top of his head.

You really do seem jealous, to be honest. Like, what's a specific thing he's said that you've disagreed with (i.e., not just something you want him to not talk about, because this is the difference all critics of him seem to confuse).

File: images (70).jpg (11KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 384x384px

>>9709790
See all points made in
>>9709790

>>9709752
all those words to say what I already said in "lmao"

>>9709795
I meant see
>>9709791
>>9709798
Yeah read the fucking sticky. We want discussion here you lazy shit.

>>9709795
hmmmm

>>9709663
How has this image not been spammed

>>9709801
yeah man why don't you serve up a few paragraphs on how "bachelor" means unmarried male next

>>9709790
this is a classic viral marketing tactic, if you ever read "trust me i'm lying" you'll see getting sjw flustered is one of the best ways to market something

>>9709768
>Peterson rather belongs to a long line of pop-intellectuals who make names for themselves spouting reactionary opinions about topics well outside of their realm of expertise

You can't be serious. He's spent decades researching and has published 100+ scientific papers. Just because you oppose social justice doctrine doesn't make you a conservative.

>>9709812
You can just lurk lit, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

>>9709823
It's ridiculous that you think "PhD =/= doctorate in philosophy" needs a laborious explanation. Everyone who knows what a PhD is knows that. The post using the etymology of PhD to suggest that a PhD has fuckall to do with philosophy propery was obviously a joke, and now you're that guy who autistically picks apart the fallacies in a joke as if it were a serious argument and not a joke specifically using those fallacies for humorous effect.

>>9709771
>You can interpret the world in infinite number of ways and there's no right way to do it, so you can do it in anyway you want it.
He uses Jacques Derrida as the villain who corrupted this idea, by introducing Marxism in it.
>People then interpret the world in such way, that it's easier for them to acquire power.

>>9709645
you can tell by the amount of product he puts in his hair that he is a vainglorious fool selfconscious of the fact that he is aging

sorry JP death comes for us all

>>9709688
anybody in academia WHO

WHO, not THAT

you fucking pseud

>>9709842
The fact that PhD does NOT generally include a background in the philosophical underpinnings of that given area of research is a serious failing of the current age, and peterson is a refreshing antidote who represents someone actually living up to the title.

>>9709645
I'm so pissed off I came across peterson's videos last week organically and now they're the meme of the week.

>>9709858
>peterson lives up the title doctor of philosophy

he can't seem to understand continental philosophy so i don't see how u figure that

>>9709861
He's been a meme for nearly 6 months, dude.

>>9709720
t b h i haven't gone beyond a cursory introduction to his material (his lectures are so goddamn cringe that i click out of every one of his videos before the 5 minute point, and his self authoring or whatever is written for retards by design) but ya it seems like this is his silver bullet

of course he would claim that your thesis is evidence of your indoctrination but that is specious as fuck bc obviously gender =/= sex and he is being obstinate by not recognizing that fact

he found his niche, he found his way to make a million canadian dollars, i just hate him for his role in radicalizing lonely sad white NEETs

come the revolution he should be among the first against the wall ngl

>>9709861
They were the meme of many weeks ago, anon. I am in the same boat. Actually studying in similar areas to him, and have been for years now. It's furstating to see it all dragged through the mud, and want to just get on with my learning, but being so easily baited because I love the field.

>>9709869
Again, his critics just bleat "shouldn't talk about this" or "doesn't understand that", so I'll ask:

Give. A. Specific. Example.

>>9709874
do you even watch the shitty videos you spam? where he was talking to joe rogan about derrida? lolll to fucking death

File: 1485923841590.jpg (270KB, 750x728px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 750x728px

>herp derp I will retroactively ascribe jungian positions to the totality of historical theists who very explicitly have been making absolute ontic bc it gives me a rhetorical edge against the postmodernist^TM

>>9709878
But what does he not understand? What did he get wrong? Honestly, it seems like you just stick your head in the sand and go "DOES NOT UNDERSTAND" to avoid dealing with the underlying approach and endgame of postmodernists. My guess is that you have for a long time identified with the shitbags and you can't stand it.

>>9709887
what's the endgame of postmodernists again? i forgot

>>9709892
destroying western civilization and reconsolidating positions of power

>>9709892
Beckett's Fin de partie

>>9709892
Again, completely avoiding the charge, anon. Sad! At least I can admit I am still learning in all of this.

I'll ask again: you said peterson got it wrong. What exactly did he get wrong?

>>9709817
Do people who worship him here care about his well received and peer-reviewed psychology work, or do they flock to his rant about free speech at UToronto and his complaints about postmodernism?

>>9709892
Gravity's Rainbow. Can't be topped desu

>>9709871
>adolescent-on-twitter writing style
>unironic use of "cringe" as adjective
>reddit spacing
>admits to not going beyond a cursory glance
>"refutes" stace via appeal to the "obvious" (i.e., dogma)
>unironic usage of terrorism rhetoric for online alt-right
>semi-ironic revolution joke
I don't like JP, but jesus fucking christ anon you're a walking talking vapid young lefist stereotype.

>>9709904
What do you care about the fucking crowd and their reasons? This anon is telling you he's qualified, because he is.

>>9709904
Just because most people who watch the Simpsons mainly enjoy the fart jokes doesn't mean it doesn't contain genius level social commentary.

what are some resources for dealing with internet addiction, this site has become too fucking stupid too continue on like this, i can't waste my days on an alt-right forum

>>9709927
Just literally find something better to do.

>>9709937
i have a lot of better shit to do, but i just come here because it's so easy to see a dumb alt-right kid posting dumb shit and blast off a shitpost reply, you get a hit of oxytocin so easily

>>9709937
maybe if i put on computer science lectures in the background at least it will slowly pull my attention away from this shitty place

>>9709927
This. I miss the days of feminister
Oh, wait, I'm just a partisan dummy who sanctions one sort of stupidity and hated another

>>9709943
And what's wrong with that?

>>9709946
Never whistle while you're pissing. (I'm a hypocrite.)

>>9709946
>computer science lectures
falling for the memes, left and right

>>9709957
fuck off nerd, i'm a programmer

>>9709871
congratulations! you're completely insufferable
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS BOARD

>>9709946
>computer science
yikes

>>9709960
if i hear people talking about my work it'll pull me away from arguing with alt-right farmboys

>>9709964
Would certainly save you a lot of humiliation

>>9709964
I know how you feel

Oh come on. There's nothing Peterson talks about you didn't figure out when you were 11. He's not wrong, he's just not very smart. Refreshing, but terribly narcissistic. That's it.

>>9710178
Just because certain things occurred to you at 11 doesn't mean they did for everyone. You post seems narcassistic desu
>well I already figured it out, he's not as smart as ME

Would you consider yourself narcassistic if you agreed to be paid to talk about things you're passionate about?

Jordan Peterson is great, and you're all fags.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItRHw57UAW0

File: Capture.png (390KB, 1241x603px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1241x603px

ITT: salty leftists

>>9709663
I don't like this guy's overall view (even if he says specific things that are okay), but he really does come off as very kind in some of these images.

>>9710295
That is kind of insane though

>>9710295
>The sky's the limit. I am now starting to formalize my plans to bring accredited online humanities education to as many people as possible around the world. My colleagues and I (who include excellent engineers, programmers, financiers and educators) want to take the humanities back from the corrupt postmodernists, and offer education of the highest possible quality everywhere at 1/10 the price or less. >We'll solve the accreditation problem as well, offering degree-equivalents with real psychometric value: best student in 10000; best in 1000; best in 100; best in 10; best in 5 (and no certification granted below that). We want to automate and crowdsource the problem of teaching people to write. We want to set up the courses so that (1) the content itself is constantly graded and improved and (2) the same goes for the accreditation process. We'll start with the humanities, including history, generating something approximately a four year liberal arts college degree, teaching people how to be responsible, literate, effective, powerful, confident citizens. We want to conduct real research into how people learn (and how they learn fast) and use the results of that research to make education better. It's high time for the humanities of the new millenium.


hmm that's quite a goal

>>9710317
Fuck yeah!

>>9709720
Girls have vaginas.
Boys have penises.

>>9710326
Amen

>>9709892

It's literally communism

>>9710326
Wrong. Females have vaginas and males have penises. There's a difference between gender and sex.

>>9710326
Yes, and the brain is not solely male or female.

Refusing to use people's preferred pronouns on the grounds that it's some sort of breach of freedom of speech doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you consider it's also polite not to call black people niggers, or your mother a stupid bitch.

>>9710377
The difference is that the state isn't demanding that everyone must call a black man African-American, but the Canadian law that just passed can be construed as people being legally liable for refusing to use someone's preferred pronoun.

>>9710419
> the state isn't demanding that everyone must call a black man African-American
Arresting people for hate speech is a thing.

>>9710419
Have you actually read Bill C-16? No? Neither has Jordan Peterson.

>>9710431
There's a difference between the state punishing people for saying derogatory things about ethnic groups or races, and the state demanding that you use must use specific language.

>>9710467
Yes, I have. And he's not wrong.

>>9709702
Please.

>>9709908
>Vapid young leftist stereotype
I have two good friends who have now fallen for this irritating meme. Only one of them has actually read anything. A moment of silence.

>>9710467
>hurr durr look at me I'm high on chromosomes!
Peterson was/is worried about it being used as a slippery slope because of the utter subjective nonsense that is preventing """"""""""discrimination""""""""" against """"""transgendered individuals""""""""". Largely because it's completely meaningless and can be interpreted and enforced in any fucking way you choose, especially because of the Left's habit of redefining words on the fly to fit arbitrarily emotional swings.

For example, a spa in Toronto is getting shut down because of its """discriminatory""" policy. The spa is women only, meaning that it has to accept men who say they're women and is facing legal action for not allowing """"""""""""women"""""""""""" with penises to come in. Even if said women are forty year old bearded men. Under Canadian law it is acceptable to bar individuals with penises from entering an establishment if they're not mentally ill, but illegal if they are.

From a legal standpoint this law is completely fucking stupid for obvious reasons and if you'd ever actually listened to Peterson or any of his sperg fanboys instead of just being a mindless contrarian hating on him because people like him then you'd know it has always been about the slippery slope that is interpreting a completely subjective law like this.

And before you throw a hissy fit, no, the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy it is a rhetorical device.

>>9710557
It's not even that specific. It's about not discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

Which are retarded categories to have in a legal system, because gender identity is literally what subjective bullshit people have in their head, and gender expression is people's fashion choices.

I mean, the law basically says you can discriminate on a hippie with 500 piercings in her face interviewing for a job in a Fortune 500 company.

It's absolutely retarded.

>>9710584
the law basically says you can't*

>>9710178
So what is one of his ideas you think is primitive?
come on...

>>9710178
the irony in this post

File: 19192f0ee06cd6de3007fd545cebdd9bcec39a77dddfb0fbf351ec5667561558-1.png (174KB, 587x316px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 587x316px

>>9710295
in this post: brainlet

>>9710317
Can you imagine how annihilated /lit/'s anus would be if the mad man actually pulled it off?

>>9710751
Can you imagined being such a faggot?

>>9710754
I don't have to imagine.

>>9710470
I don't see how it's functionally or ethically different in any meaningful sense.

>>9710767
You don't think there's a difference between the state saying "This isn't acceptable to say" and the state saying "This you must say" ?

I think it is. The former can be argued is the proper function of government, e.g negative sanction.

The latter sounds like the state being used as a tool for ideology.

>>9710789
You don't have to say it though. You can say nothing. You needn't speak to that person.
The state is saying it is unacceptable to say 'he' to someone [who identifies as] female, in the same manner that it is unacceptable to say 'nigger' to someone black.

I think.
I don't know, I feel like that law is stupid but he shouldn't be misgendering them in the first place either.

>>9710795
>You don't have to say it though. You can say nothing

And how would you figure that would actually work out in a supposed civilized society?

If a random individual demands that everyone refer to that person with the pronoun "xir" by the threat of legal action, people are going to start to resent those people.

>>9710795
>You can say nothing. You needn't speak to that person.
Not if you own a business.

If you simply refuse to serve or interact with them they'll come after you for discrimination.

>>9710317
But he's not qualified to teach humanities.

>>9709645
Watch the logos video. Analyse how he looks at the building and what he does with his ring finger. Note the manner in which he addresses the other people speaking that day. Check out some of his other videos and take note of some of the off hand comments. His subconscious slip ups paired with his focus on Jung make for a lovely imagined backstory, don't you think? One ring to rule them all....

File: hand.jpg (207KB, 900x516px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 900x516px

i admit im pro peterson because im anti leftest

i thought philosophy and psychology were the equivalent of modern art, but after watching some of is videos i can see there is some interesting stuff in those fields.

Peterson threads should be a bannable offense

>>9710925
>i thought everything was dumb until I learned what things were

>>9709645

I don't pretend to know much about him, but I'm qualified to provide my own impressions. Everyone is.

This is my sense of Peterson in broad strokes:

>broadly appealing because he synthesizes the feel good self-help dimensions of (well researched and surely significant) psychological theories with the hygienic concision of an seasoned academic + he looks like daddy.

>dismisses a caricature of the "postmodern", and as such provides the the same tempting simplification of the evangelical preacher in an age of ever more imposing complexities (both imagined and real)

>clever, but limited, like most people I suppose. However, his burp of internet presence and influence makes him an interesting case study.

>attacks real targets, but mischaractarizes them historically.

>adept sincerity at the cost of ironic sensibilities that would allow him to deal more reasonably with what he doesn't know much about. The Sam Harris of psychology.

How did I do?

>>9710950
I don't think a person with 8000+ academic citations can be legitimately called "The Sam Harris of psychology".

Unlike Harris, Peterson is actually a real academic, Harris is just a pop culture critic.

>>9710957

Okay fair enough. I just felt like format of their blind spots were similar. Notice that I never said he wasn't a scholar. In fact, I suggested the opposite. Are you putting forward an argument from authority?

>>9709690
>not realising Peterson's and Zizek's position as public educators is valuable for redpilling the normies
You fools

today i will once again remind them that pragmatism is indefensible garbage. i will dare and double dare them to take up the pragmatist position and defend it, yet no matter how smugly i challenge them nobody would undertake it

>>9710950
I think he is appealing because people are eager to hear a different view of society. The current one sided narrative gets drilled into young people through the current western school system and media.

Peterson's work hard and become something vs everyone is special.
Peterson's men and women have different roles vs there is no gender and everyone is gay.
Peterson's there is good and evil in all of us vs if you do/say X then you are racist and if you do/say Y then you are morally superior.

He is not some kind of brilliant prophet or anything, but he is the only voice out there.

>>9710980
>pragmatism is indefensible garbage
What do you mean by this? Thinking something isn't the same as doing it.

>>9710362
>There's a difference between gender and sex.
wrong

>>9710987
i mean this intellectually bankrupt epistemological belief system which provides people like peterson a safe shelter for their beliefs because lmao nothing is true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

>>9709645
>my father dont love me: the post

>>9710979
yup

Lotta /leftypol/ butthurt ITT

>>9710993
>lmao nothing is true

Sounds like a horseshit strawman of what pragmatism is though.

>>9711006
how about you define your own position and then defend it instead of accusing me of strawmanning like the weak bitch that you are

Fuck's sake, at least Zizek has SOME substantial thoughts.

>>9711009
>it's an undergraduate critiquing Peterson without having read him episode
Sigh

>>9711009
Or how about you link where it says "lmao nothing is true" in the wiki article you posted about pragmatism, fagtron.

>>9710983
Thanks for a substantial answer.

While I can understand the binaries you've outlined, I can't help but feel that the degree to which they characterize society is distorted (to look larger than it is) by the interwebz.

There are other means by which to reject the "everyone is special", etc., etc., dimensions of modern society. I'll provide examples if you like, but I'd be really surprised if you couldn't think of a single one on your own. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is why specifically Peterson as one out of myriad ways to reject those ideas? That's what makes him interesting to me.

Prophets or not, he fits comfortably into a societal gap. There must be something to learn from that.

And just to tie what you're saying back into my original comment, I said "real targets...historically mischaracterized". I stand by that. Baby, bathwater. To chuck out the entirety of "postmodern" thought in order to take down SJWs is like using a tank to run over a blue bottle.

>>9711009
I don't even understand what YOUR position is. Obviously one of us has a misunderstanding of pragmatism. From what I can see it is just valuing ideas on their productiveness and application, which makes sense to me.

File: 1465176722579.jpg (76KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 594x395px

daily reminder that peterson is a spooked bitch

>>9711016
>it's a pseud with no dialectical capacity pretending to defend a position without actually defending it episode
you're worse than even a parrot, at least they'd provide me with a link to an article
you don't even know what the fuck you think

>>9711017
or how about you define your own position instead of expecting me to do it for you which then leaves me open to accusations of strawmanning because surprise surprise i can't read the minds of every person that identifies as a pragmatist
OR don't get triggered by insults not directed at you if you're not pragmatist what are you some kind of philosophy white knight

>>9710950
ok now, here's what I think and I watched his map of meaning lectures and half of his personality course
he may ramble on about post-modernism but I think most of his theory is very post modern and he's constantly criticising science for not being able to generate meaning of its own. It's not the post-modernism per se which he doesn't like but rather the political movement in the "regressive left" which uses these arguments for their borderline totalitarian language and generation of social classes, therefore trying to further split a civilization which is already struggling with finding some common ground. it's not that he denies transgender people the freedom of their choice or that they shouldn't be guarded from hate speech, it's the implementation of the possibility of compelled speech in law which he's afraid of.
he tries to ground his existential beliefs, the subject being able to define his own meaning in life, in psychology, theology, biology and philosophy and makes a very convincing case for this. he also argues that there in fact are some limits to the interpretations a subject can have in order to navigate through the world and in his life, natural and cultural ones and he agrees that the cultural limits may be altered, the naturaly or rather biological ones on the other hand aren't so easily influenced and must therefore be considered "true" in the definition that "that which has been constant the longest time can be considered the truest". this is, as far as i am concerned, another very post modern thought, because it implies the general changability of nature but justifies some limits of interpretation.
saying this i haven't really read a lot about post-modernism but as an existentialist i gotta give him credit for making a strong case for it, existentialism that is.

>>9711019
>There are other means by which to reject the "everyone is special"
Most of those ways WILL get you ostracized. If you let people know you have the wrong opinion you can even get fired and blacklisted professionally. The redpill community is an example of this, the first rule is not to show your power level or you'll get fucked. I think people feel relieved that a respectable (father) figure is kind of standing up for them.

>I said "real targets...historically mischaracterized"
I didn't comment on that because I havn't read about postmodern philosophers or heard what he has to say about them.

File: IMG_0008.jpg (75KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 560x560px

>>9711032
>claim to have read Peterson
>ask what his beliefs are
>strawman a Wikipedia article in desperation
Brainlet. Are you even an undergraduate? Even teenagers should be able to read Peterson.

>>9711023
my general proclivity is that any position which doesn't define truth as being "reflects reality" or some other equivalent, orthodox, kosher definition of truth, will necessarily lead to internal contradictions because if truth is defined subjectively RATHER than in reference to something consistent and external then something can be true for me and another thing true for you and they can be mutually exclusive and the word loses all meaning at this point. pragmatism as i understand it to be is the general position that the effects of believing in something have any bearing on whether or not it's true, that is you have to be pragmatic about what you call 'true', hence the term pragmatism. of course this is a general definition and because i want to abide by philosophical etiquette i want to refrain from telling people what they think instead ask them and allow my opponents, but this apparently triggers the fuck out of several people itt because it puts them on the spot and requires them to actually phrase an idea in the own words, which they probably don't have the slightest clue about

File: 20160409_201858.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

I don't know if this is the best thread to ask this, but is there a word in philosophy for the part in us that processes and "fires" our actions (or tendencies for certain actions, be it determinist or not, be it from phisiology or from our mind)?

This may be a stupid question but I'm on medication right now (not recreational).

>>9711044
are you peterson? did i successfully summon the man himself? why should you defend his beliefs? i had low expectations coming into this thread i want to see if anyone that calls themselves pragmatist can defend their position and make it sound reasonable, to me. it doesn't have to be peterson's pragmatism and in the first place the term has an extremely broad range of meanings and i don't know all of them. if you were capable of doing that i would be already seeing it by now, but you can't, because you're a fanboy parrot with no mind of their own. i don't think i would get a single reply of your if it wasn't for the fact that i'm implicitly attacking your lord peterson, you haven't the slightest fucking idea what pragmatism is or any interest in learning

>>9711037
Right. He doesn't just ramble on about it though, he dismisses it wholesale. If it's true that his theories are actually postmodern themselves, this would be a rather damning inconsistency. There are marxist-postmodern-whatevers that condemn exactly the "regressive left" that you're trying to triangulate as Peterson's only target. I don't think that's true. His aim is far more broad and/or his inability to understand the left substantially causes him to conflate things haphazardly.

Just to be clear, I have no issue with a) someone admiring his scholarly contributions to psychology and b) anyone finding his texts/lectures illuminating in useful ways.

I'm trying to characterize him as a phenomenon, not undermine what he gets right. Most people get some things right. Peterson probably gets a lot right. He also seems to get a lot appallingly wrong, in the sense that he talks with authority to those already committed to him about topics that he doesn't know all that much about with the same authority as he talks about the topics he does know about. That's irresponsible at best, arrogant and misleading at worst.

>>9711043
I dunno man, are you capable of being on good terms with people who have different opinions to you? This seems to play a huge role in whether or not people get "ostracized", as you say. I mean, I have some SJWish friends, and I get along fairly well them for the most part. When it becomes a problem either it's resolved and we move on, or its not and we don't hang out as much.

As for a professional setting, this has always been the case. There are institutions that will align more with your beliefs, and ones that won't. If the worry is that the ones where you won't fit in are on the rise, welcome to the nature of history. Perhaps Peterson can be an figure for some feeling on the wrong side of this historical equation. If that's the case, it's exactly why his ideological leanings must be thoroughly critiqued. I think he provides the correct remedies for the symptoms, but I don't think he has solved the much more difficult task of the correct remedies to the underlying problem.

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

20KB, 225x257px

>>9711066
this is one of the most retarded, projection-laden, pseudointellectual posts on /lit/ i've ever seen.

congrats

>>9711094
you resort to canned insults because you have no other options.

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

43KB, 191x153px

>>9711098
>more projection

>>9711102
demonstrate that i projected

File: watch out nazis.jpg (87KB, 860x555px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 860x555px

>>9711103
you've already demonstrated it enough fuckboi

>>9711094
>>9711098
>>9711102
>>9711103
>>9711110
Stop

>>9711117
i was about to reply to him but then i saw your post and stopped

>>9709846
>He uses Jacques Derrida as the villain who corrupted this idea, by introducing Marxism in it.
derrida ended up acknowledging that he was a marxist after years of playing dumb, doe

we all know deconstruction is a very fancy way to play dumb, but it's pretty transparent what most of them actually believe, let's not kid ourselves

>>9711066
Okay. Of course when you are dealing with physical reality you can't be subjective. Gravity will pull on you no matter what your opinion is.

>something can be true for me and another thing true for you and they can be mutually exclusive

I don't see how this is invalid. We are two different organisms with different goals. There are so many variables at play I don't see how you can practically compare objective truths.

>>9711129
Can you even tell me what deconstruction is?

>>9711117
you missed your opportunity for varg-posting

>>9709645
His thing is a rehash of Nietzsche and Jung for undergrads from what I've seen.

It's deep but you'll grow out of it and move on to deeper depths trust me.

>>9711139
>Can you even tell me what deconstruction is?
it's mostly based around playing dumb, just as you are doing now

>>9710317
>take the humanities back from the corrupt postmodernists

Jesus he's delusional.

>>9711134
>I don't see how this is invalid.
it is relativistic (therefore "lmao nothing is true"). when i read something like "the most useful belief is the true answer" i don't get the sense that there's any distinction made between the physical reality and feels reality, that's an abstract statement, applicable to everything. it seems that pragmatists necessarily reject the idea that reality exists.

>>9711139
>Can you even tell me what deconstruction is?

I can if you want.

>>9711153
>meme
>opportunity

pick one

>>9711160
Well what is deeper then?

>>9711188
>anon's diary desu

File: ABSOLUTELY.png (446KB, 840x824px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 840x824px

Can /lit/ just read Maps of Meaning so we can stop having these inane threads agonizing over whether Peterson is a pseud?

It's right up /lit/'s fucking alley anyway:
>exploration of the human condition
>phenomenological analysis
>the structure of stories and myth
>psychoanalysis
>nihilism
>totalitarianism
>society, culture

>>9711212
He also gives it away for free so there's literally no excuse.

>>9711110
I bet this guy is a pedo

>>9711216
https://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf

>>9711212
i don't like the way he treats myths as some kind of secret manual for understanding the secret truths of the universe. from his videos he seems to operate this hidden and unquestioned assumption that if a real world situation is analogous to a myth, then the myth has this magical predictive power and now the real world situation has to unfold in accordance to how it went down in the myth.

>>9711232
(and when reality doesn't confirm to the myth it's ok because see there's that one story where things turn out differently so basically he was right all along and his shit is unfalsifiable and doesn't predict anything)

>>9711129
He wrote one shitty book on Marx after years of leftists hating him, he was not much of a Marxist

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

18KB, 89x91px

>>9711212
lefty/pol/ has chosen /lit/ as one of the boards to attempt 'converting', so there's a handful of 80IQ nonwhites that unironically think that moneyless communism is a great idea, and they'll desperately critique any popular right-wing intellectual with their nonsensical arguments and misunderstandings about how the world works

File: 4.jpg (44KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x800px

>tfw in a few months or years Jordan Peterson will become as shacky as a pseudo-intellectual as Sam Harris
>tfw another Sam Harris/Jordan Peterson is going to be spammed on 4chan

Are you ready for the next generation of pseudo-intellectuals? What will be their theme? At this point skepticism and pragmatic traditionalism are taken at this point.

>inb4 a new youtube talking head pops in and turn 2 millions American kids into actual monarchists

>>9711232
The myths describe things that are universal. The basic archetypes of chaos, order, and individual are present in any situation you can even be in; the hostile brothers are everywhere and in everyone. The strength of the myths is that they are relevant at all times and to everyone - that's why every society on earth masturbates to them and why they are all fundamentally the same in structure.

>>9709871
>misinterprets one of his most basic positions
>le silver bullet, that was a close one! Duh ebil conservative monster is slain
Lel

Hi I'm wondering is Peterson redpilled? Thanks I'm from reddit :)

>>9710295
>50k a month
Jesus why aren't we getting in on this business?

>>9711176
Relativistic doesn't mean that nothing is true, it is understanding that there can be multiple truths through different perspectives. Both sides can be in the right in an argument. How an outcome can be good for one individual vs bad for another. How an outcome could be bad for an individual but good for a group, and therefore could be good for that individual. It is all how you look at it.

Feels reality is a manifestation of physical reality. The human brain may physically use neurons while a computer may physically use magnets to create the same abstract logic structure to conclude that 2 + 2 = 4.

>>9711258
>The strength of the myths is that they are relevant at all times and to everyone
"relevant" is a very weak position to take, the stronger position "The strength of the myths is that they can predict the future.", because if you hear me say shit like "well of course wtc got bombed the dragon always kills the sacrifice" and i pretend to have predicted it all along that's when you have to start calling my bullshit, and it's that sort of strong position that i don't see anyone seriously defending

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

234KB, 383x479px

>>9711264
nice argument

>>9711232
Human brains created the myths therefore you can reverse engineer the myths to understand something about the human brain.

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

74KB, 211x237px

>>9711232
>i don't like the way he
that doesn't sound like an argument to me

>giving two shits about yet another e-celebrity
really, /lit/? really?

>>9711271
That's not Peterson's point. Learning about the elements of myths can point you to what elements the future will contain, but obviously, you can't predict in what ways those elements will exist or change - you can't predict the future in any specifics. You can make statements like "chaos will emerge" or "order will be established", but that doesn't tell you much of anything. The myths help you understand human life. Peterson doesn't use them in precise predictions, nor does he claim to have predicted things. You're going after a strawman.

>>9711280
human beings created harry potter therefore you can reverse engineer harry potter to understand something about rowling's sexuality. like i said to the previous poster this is a very weak position to take, it doesn't strongly commit you to an idea and is easy to defend, yet it seems to me that peterson and his ilk take myth much more seriously than it has any right of being taken. i understand that if a story or idea survives for a very long time then it's a really robust meme, but that doesn't justify placing such high expectations on myths, i may be reading between the lines too much but it's almost as if there's this underlying assumption that if you were able to correctly interpret them and see the hidden meanings you would find insights on human nature comparable to understanding the human genome, it's almost like hearing a theist talk about their holy book.

maybe it's just his style of speaking and he likes being all poety with allegories, but if it isn't then it's stupid.

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

32KB, 129x156px

>>9711298
>e-celebrity
lefties are THIS argument-deficient

>>9711276
Hi same poster from above. Who is that? Is he redpilled?

File: 74336.jpg (9KB, 210x210px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 210x210px

>>9711301
>yet it seems to me that peterson and his ilk take myth much more seriously than it has any right of being taken

>>9711299
>Learning about the elements of myths can point you to what elements the future will contain, but obviously, you can't predict in what ways those elements will exist or change - you can't predict the future in any specifics.
this is word for word what freud would've said about his psychoanalytic theory. a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis that has an answer to every outcome of every experiment has exactly 0 predictive power. it's not a strawman, it's a shit theory that deserves to die.

>>9711301
>Harry Potter
That's a pretty stupid comparison to make. Harry Potter is pop culture, myths are old and there's a pretty good reason why they're old and not forgotten.

>>9711304
>he thinks this is a left-right issue
>he thinks this is a political issue in general
kys

>>9711301
>harry potter
funnily enough, peterson praised rowlings imagination many times, pointing out archetypes throughout the whole books

>>9711310
>myths are old and there's a pretty good reason why they're old and not forgotten.
the good old "there's a reason why x" argument. there's no cosmic karmic force that guarantees there's a reason for anything. this argument is comparable to saying "well since humans are doing it then it must be a good idea", it's just blind trust.

File: jbp.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>9711313
>lefties aren't trying to tear down a relatively right-wing public intellect with their impotent assmaddery
>this isn't an issue to do with politics

>>9711313
>he takes the bait

>>9711319
>there's no cosmic karmic force that guarantees there's a reason for anything. this argument is comparable to saying "well since humans are doing it then it must be a good idea"
how does one get to be this retarded? how often do you smoke meth?

>>9711309
The archetypes are present in myths and human experience, and that observation helps us understand what these myths are about. It's not a "predictive theory".

>>9711327
do you realize that lots of shit genes survive simply due to luck? natural selection is not some kind of heavenly executioner that culls 100% of maladaptive genes, look up genetic drift

>>9711319
>no cosmic karmic force that guarantees there's a reason for anything
Next, you're going to tell me that there is absolutely no reason for Newton's Principia to be more successful than his other writings on religion and alchemy and that it's all completely arbitrary.

>>9711322
He's apolitical.

>>9711330
the oral, anal, and phallic stages of development are present in every person and affect the subconscious mind in various ways, and that observation helps us understand why people act in certain ways. it's not a predictive theory
so what is it? a pragmatic heuristic? lmao

>>9711301
You absolutely can learn about the author from reading fiction they have written. How they believe characters would act and react says a lot about them. You can pretty much always tell the gender of the author solely from their work.

The thing about myths is that they are a collection of ideas from multiple people in that society. Kind of like how the memes a board produces speaks volumes about the regulars of that board.

>>9711333
it is strictly untrue that something surviving necessitates it being fit to have survived. the "people do it for a reason" is always a retarded, naive argument.

File: kakapo.jpg (35KB, 250x327px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 250x327px

>>9711331
>shit genes
>maladaptive
It's not you who gets to judge what is and what isn't.
The only genes that are shit are the ones that make you die in a given environment. If a certain set of genes makes a certain species fat and slow but there are no predators to run from, then species is completely fine as far as the environment is concerned.

>>9711331
where did I suggest anything like that? you are literally a retard with aspergers, bringing dumb shit up inappropriately. definition of a pseud trying to bat way out his league.

here buddy, I started a brand new general on /lit/ just for you
>>9711350
>>9711350
>>9711350

>>9711344
Surviving means you were fit enough for that particular environment, and that's that.

>>9711347
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
you could have ubermensch genes and still die from a stray bullet before reaching reproductive age and all that glory would be lost forever
conversely, you having survived is no guarantee that you were good for your environment.

>>9711355
you suggested it when you made the eternally shitty argument "there's a pretty good reason why they're old and not forgotten."

>>9709663
Based

>>9711358
>when you made the eternally shitty argument "there's a pretty good reason why they're old and not forgotten."
That wasn't me dummy. Christ your brain is fried. Head on back to lefty/pol/ to talk about sucking dick for pills and why money is stupid.

1. JBP grounds his ideas in evolutionary psychology. The stories and myths that lasted throughout history have a certain distilled truth to them since the people to which it appealed were able to propagate them throughout time, thus the stories might have an evolutionary component.
His interpolation of chaos/order which lies at the basis of all stories kinda of functions very well in evolutionary psychological thinking. Find a behaviour -> Generalize the idea till you hit bedrock.

2. The interpretation of that distilled truth might have been problematic throughout the ages, but a grounding in evolutionary biology is probably a better way to explain those truths.

3. Every science functions within it's own epistemology, which is nonfalsifiable. You don't seek to disprove e=mc2 every time you do physics, you take it for granted. go home pooper

>>9711341
Those are not the same. Peterson took the common structures between myths and found that the structures were present at multiple levels of intellectual analysis. That helps us understand what the myths are getting at and what their origin is. If you actually read his work you would know this, but instead, you are making a complete ass of yourself.

>>9711358
>no guarantee that you were good for your environment
So how did I survive?

>>9710317
so it was all along for the money, huh

File: 71125.jpg (19KB, 307x475px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 307x475px

>>9711301
Read this

>>9711363
whoever it was i was replying to made the implication that memes that survive necessarily have a reason for surviving, i'm sorry for erroneously assuming you were smart enough to make the connection between memes and genes, i see how my comment seemed a bit off topic to a total retard
why the did you even reply?

>>9711358
You seem to be arguing for a very black and white position, m8. Just because genetic drift exists doesn't mean that the existence of all genes are completely arbitrary.

>>9711372
>all genes are completely arbitrary.
that's your strawman though. the idea that there necessarily (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necessarily) had to have been a reason just because a meme survived is a stupid argument. you're the only one thinking in black and white here lad

>>9711369
>whoever it was i was replying to made the implication that memes that survive necessarily have a reason for surviving
they literally do, what do you think 'surviving' in this context is and why do you think memes survive?

>i see how my comment seemed a bit off topic to a total retard
ironic

>why the did you even reply?
your post was so retarded that I have to make my objection known

>>9709812
But it doesn't

>>9710362
>>9710370
Prove it. The existence of transgenders doesn't prove it either

>>9711378
>they literally do
literally wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
"luck" doesn't count as a reason unless you're trolling the shit out of me

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

9KB, 225x257px

>>9711384
I literally said memes, and here you are bringing up genetic drift like an autistic retard, yet again. This is the power of the average anti-JBP poster. Really sad.

>>9711387
YOU AGAIN
HOW THE FUCK DO I KEEP FALLING FOR BAIT

>>9711375
I dunno, man. You seem to be pretty intent on dismissing every single possibility that a reason exists for something to survive and just brushing everything off into the realm of "it's just arbitrary, bro".

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

233KB, 472x472px

>>9711388
>BAIT
yet another non-argument, im shocked

>>9711384
And genetic drift doesn't disprove the fact that there still exists genes that have a reason to be there. Same goes for cultural artifacts like folk tales and mythos.

>>9711391
no you don't get what i'm saying, inductively, it's good to look for reason why things survived, i appreciate evopsych as much as the next pseud, but deductively it's 100% wrong to claim that because something survived, as a logical consequence there had to have been a reason

File: giant-duck.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x729.jpg (73KB, 1086x729px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1086x729px

>>9711375
what? nobody is suggesting that just because a myth survived it is the perfect myth, just a pretty good one. a myth is formed of many different moving parts not just 1 big indivisible blob, those parts are changed and dropped through time, and only the best ones are remembered

maybe in the original St George story he fought a giant duck, but it was bound to end up being a serpent / dragon or at least very likely with the cross-cultural knowledge we possess today

File: you.png (1MB, 1184x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1184x720px

>meme gets used
>by a person
>who has a reason to use said meme
>but sometimes memes survive for no reason
remember folks, lefties literally believe that logic isn't real

I propose that none of the viewpoints and opinions presented in this thread are honest.

Why don't you tell me how you really feel about Jordan Peterson?

>>9711396
>And genetic drift doesn't disprove the fact that there still exists genes that have a reason to be there
>when you want to disagree with someone so bad but don't know how so you straman the fuck out of your opponent until they want to kys so you win the argument by default when they cease replying

>>9711408
so, how am I wrong this time around?

File: gtnvdfg.png (232KB, 379x377px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 379x377px

>>9711408
>straman
He didn't strawman shit, and you're so flustered that you're mispelling the fuck out of everything and leaving letters out and shit lmfao

>inb4 y-y-you're just pointing out spelling/grammatical errors! l-logical fallacy!

>>9711401
>because a myth survived it is the perfect myth
>if a meme survived it's just arbitrary

>>9711413
anon
please help me
what did i do wrong
i never said that memes survive for arbitrary reasons
i just said that you can't deduce that there has to be a reason if something survived because sometimes there are accidents
what can i do in the future to prevent my shit from getting misrepresented this bad
is it my awful personality

>>9711406
one of the best things to come from the internet in the last few years. im really happy that such a man is in the public spotlight because we need it. i can not understand the butthurt contrarianism in this case

>>9711417
>muh grammur
>muh if i proactively state my i'm retarded in the same post as the retardation maybe my opponent will hesatite to point out i'm retarded because i stole their thunder tactic
inb4 you say why i'm wrong using green text

Can you guys actually read the book before criticizing it? The memes are becoming real.

>>9711425
i do not read
i engage in memetic dialect

File: sclhhhhhhhhhhh.png (5KB, 38x49px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 38x49px

>>9711423
>muh grammur
like clockwork

>>9711431
i prefer it when you post tom cruise

>>>9711401
So you are arguing that there isn't a logical reason for why some genes survive? People think that you are saying myths don't have merit because the survival of genes is for some part pure luck. Seems to be a misunderstanding.

>>9711441
what? I am arguing that there IS a reason why some parts of the myths survive, even though other parts may be arbitrary.

I am not sure if (you) (you)ed the right person

>>9711444
this
>>9711441

was meant for this
>>9711418

>>9711441
>So you are arguing that there isn't a logical reason for why some genes survive?
not all genes, yes. luck is a factor, but much less so than natural selection, i'm not saying we have statistical anomalies all over
i am saying that "people do it for a reason" is and always has been a really stupid argument. people do all manner of retarded shit, even really old memes don't necessarily have to be good ideas. in general i'd rather have people directly state the reason why something survived/ why a certain course of action is worthwhile rather than just have blind faith and say "welp people use wheels for a reason", it's just a lazy way of thinking, i'm not saying wheels are shit but if you're unable to explain why they're useful for transportation you need to kys

>>9710370
the brain has mental illness

>>9711473
can you define mental illness

>>9711464
I think myths also show the stupid shit about humans. The Cain and Abel story shows how resentment comes to be and what it makes people do. I don't see any logical reason for it's existence, and it still seems to be a human universal. I don't know for sure if this is the case, but my point is that myths also show aspects about humans that have no reason to exist from an evolutionary perspective

>>9710301

what views exactly?

File: 1485993531314.png (831KB, 796x682px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 796x682px

>>9711513
>but my point is that myths also show aspects about humans that have no reason to exist from an evolutionary perspective
this is top-tier retarded. idk how anyone so stupid can feel right weighing in on topics like these, like deep down you know you don't know shit. you must have zero self-awareness or something.

>>9711513
i think books in general are good at showing human nature, and good books are much better at it than myths are, and that you can't really give me concrete ways in which studying myths gives any special insights other than making statements as vague as "myth shows human folly"

Why does Jordan trigger /lit/ so hard

File: we wuz meds n sheet.jpg (61KB, 855x508px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 855x508px

>>9711557
nonwhites who lack the pre-frontal cortex capacity to understand genuine human emotion and jungian archetypes are enraged by the fact that they're subhuman

>>9711557
It's not Jordan really its the spergs who like him. Jordan by himself is just another academic that no one here reads

>>9711607
He has only one book, hard to read more of him. I like his self-help stuff

>>9710317
>teaching people how to be responsible, literate, effective, powerful, confident citizens. We want to conduct real research into how people learn (and how they learn fast) and use the results of that research to make education better.

This is literally what the humanities do already.

I too pay Jordan 10 dollars a month to be my father figure because I had a poor relationship with my real father.

>>9711624
why, he has the stuff free in Youtube mate

>>9711624
Just watch the Muppet show, you get the same effect

>>9711620
>implying

>>9711643
I'm explicitly stating, actually. If you had a humanities degree maybe you'd be able to tell the difference.

>>9711624
>armchair psychoanalysis

/lit/ in a nutshell.

Meanwhile 99% of the Left sperglords on this board does exactly the same with Zizek as fanboys of Peterson do.

>>9711620
>This is literally what the humanities do already.
except it's current year and we all know what non-stem degrees actually do

>>9711648
You're explicitly stating what it is set out to do. You're implicitly stating that it is currently doing what you say it's supposed to be doing.

>>9711665
Judging from opinionated undergrads? No.

>>9711668
Nope I said it's what they 'do'.

>>9711694
You claim that it's what they're doing now. I say different.

>>9711694
>undergrads
post doctorate

>>9711702
You get out of the degree what you put in. They are set up to allow the people who take it seriously to better themselves (as well as learn specialist information), and they revise in response to feedback given and new theories of education. Maybe NA is different but they don't supply us with hair dye and a tattoo gun.

File: 1498843220752.png (250KB, 526x572px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 526x572px

>>9711025
THIS
>it's dangerous
>oh that's chaos
>but violence
>the core of my position is good taste
>it's the rules
>it's a miracle that things work considering all the scary things
>you have to be superduper special to change anything important
>DA LOWGOES
>Neechor was trying to do this same thing I'm doing
>it's the best system we have eh
Peterson constantly dupes himself by the fact that his order/chaos is tragic out of ignorance (oh no I need to get out of my imagined safe space whatwillido) and his advocacy for honest hierarchy breeds the very individuals he thinks are the most dangerous. Every time he talks about life being like a game it's obvious he doesn't believe it and has bought into his own personal narrative.

He's a sucker.

>>9711748
what is a spook

File: screen_shot_2017-01-25_at_6.00.48_pm.png (679KB, 790x510px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 790x510px

Anyone who has something against Peterson, join the Discord server and try me cunts
-> https://discord.gg/kCrNTEW

>>9709663
>you'll never take a photo with Papa Peterson
Feels bad man.

>>9710733
What's actually wrong with that? It's talking about God not a god.

>>9711025
Stirner is God's gift to the Christians. The Islam of the atheists.

File: 1467242137790.png (163KB, 1881x569px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1881x569px

>>9711806
Something that is above myself, which I am to give my egoism for, while it pursues its purely egoistic goals. Humanity, God, the good, nation and so on are often used in this way (used, because nothing is a spook in and of itself).

Admittedly Peterson is less bad in these regard than many others, but a lot of the time his position is based on his disbelief or amazement at something. And funnily enough he never mentions Max Stirner even though he's #1 when fighting the ideologically possessed --his writings are the absolute opposite of the ideologue robots as he endorses none of his positions due to having no affair other than himself-- and he's consistently made commies have accidental bowel movements beginning with Karl Marx himself.

>>9711998
i don't think axioms are just "propositions i feel like being true" you can't just call all your political ideas axioms and expect them to be safe from criticism because lol everyone needs axioms. axioms should be
1:self evident
2:inexplicable
3:accepted without controversy

if you can explain an axiom using even simpler concepts it's too complex, axioms should be the elementary building blocks of your ability to think, without them your brain should explode

i have 0 education in philosophy so i may be just making shit up

>>9710733
>>9711998
It's mainly the parenthetical clause, which is incredibly embarrassing as a reading of Godel.

>>9709667
can you give a concrete example or is this thinly veiled shitposting?

>>9712125
>i don't think axioms are just "propositions i feel like being true
You'd be wrong

>>9712172
the wikipedia page for axiom says

"The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]" so my guess wasn't entirely wrong

>>9712111
The issue is that Stirner refutes literally any discussion that people can have surrounding ideas and social notions. Bringing him to the debate is wanting people to have no debate at all.
What do we do then? I mean, even in your image Kolakowski and Hanz Holz (whom I know nothing about) say that he is dangerous and an end point in itself.

We can bring spooks and Stirner in any conversation, and well, end it right there.

>>9712247
>We can bring spooks and Stirner in any conversation, and well, end it right there.
are you saying that the spook meme has you stumped
sad

>>9712269
why do you twist my words and respond with shitposts?

Spooks are real, but we can't reject them as long as we want to live in a society or have a functioning one. We can bring Stirner into any discussion that surrounds *ideas*, but there is no point since it dies right there, unless the other person can argue soundly against him. You can't refute Stirner without trying to make up a moral argument and that's quite unsatisfactory.

You see in that image how a lot of brilliant minds just try to ignore Stirner because they can't formulate a good way to refute The Ego and It's Own, and that's what most people should do. That's also why I tell him there is no point in bringing Stirner to the table since since it kills the whole point of debating.

>>9712291
>You can't refute Stirner without trying to make up a moral argument and that's quite unsatisfactory.
that's because you have no good moral arguments you bad philosopher you

File: 1385958377174.jpg (39KB, 500x311px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x311px

>>9712247
>What do we do then?
Don't take philosophy so seriously so much. The reason you don't want to put down the argument is because you have stakes in it--this has all along been your doing so it's been in your power to stop it. If you don't you'll end up in a feedback loop. So treat ideas like you treat anything else.

There's no reason for you not to die anyway. The main reason people desperately look for a meaning to life is that they're afraid to admit they live voluntarily; and so in the process of escaping what they don't know people make their lives into the hell they expect.

>>9712136

>which is incredibly embarrassing as a reading of Godel.

Please elaborate...

>>9710733

The problem with this is that by ‘God’ he very likely means something along the lines of 'the nature of being', which may be described in a number of ways, in relation to the broad pragmatist approach he adopts.

However, he understands that ‘God’ means something very different to, let's say 'unsophisticated theologians’/plebs, but also understands that scripture is pitched at audiences of varying levels of sophistication and popular ones manage this task very well.

Additionally, religion can be ‘true enough’, providing that it functions well as a tool; morally, socio-politically, existentially, etc.

At least, that would be the case with pragmatist approach to this issue.

People like Dawkins attack this use of the term ‘God’, labelling it misleading and obscurantist in nature, but I don’t really see a problem with it, as plebeian interpretations of religion aren’t going anywhere soon and Hume already settled the issue of tolerance, as far as I’m concerned.

>>9712375
>Additionally, religion can be ‘true enough’
no, you will never be able to justify your belief in a god
you have to give up the identity of being a "reasonable person" if you want to be religious without an actual intellectual defense for your position

believing in something for no good reason is never going to be nor retarded, you have to justify beliefs

File: 1441005892794.png (120KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x509px

>>9712247
>>9712335
Oh, and another thing to notice is that Stirner and Peterson are not as in disagreement as it might seem, because ultimately to Peterson the fact that you believe something is the case is not as important as the fact that you will act upon it, while Stirner doesn't mind you being spooked outside of his fancy.

>>9712423
the fuck is going on lad

>>9712390

1) I'm not religious.

2) I'm not into identity politics (ayy).

>believing in something for no good reason is never going to be not retarded

3) Do you believe in the objective validity of inductive generalisations, the existence of an external reality and the causal nature of said reality?

If so, what’s your reason for doing so?

>you have to justify beliefs

4) I'm assuming that you are not familiar with pragmatist epistemology; would that be correct?

>>9712440

Yeah, sorry about that; some formating issues, to say the least.

>>9712340
Godel didn't prove that proof is impossible without an axiom. I assume he's talking about the incompleteness proofs, which I roughly outlined here >>9709672 and don't really feel like doing again. Godel proved (1) that a formal system that can handle arithmetic contains sentences which are neither provable nor refutable within that system (i.e., the system is incomplete) and (2) that the formalization of the same system's consistency (i.e., the property that a sentence is not both provable and refutable) is not provable within that system. Nowhere do you get "proof is impossible without axioms" or any of the other exotic implications that not-mathematicians will suggest the theorems have. Godels proofs assume consistency (and so are more accurately stated "If system F is consistent, (1) / (2)"), but to do a proof with an assumption is not the same thing as to prove that proof is impossible without an axiom.

Also, it's ironic that he would say Godel "proved" that actual proof is impossible. And that's not touching the rest of the content of the tweet.

>>9712452

Yeah, I don't really understand why everybody talks about Godel, other than mathematicians and logicians.

When I read about it, I thought it was funny and rather brilliant, but since then I've seen it used in attempts to justify ridiculous arguments.

Why do you think it is so misunderstood?

>>9712441
i'm not sure what you mean by objective validity or by inductive generalizations, if you're asking how i reconcile the fact of having to use inductive reasoning in daily life with the problem of induction, the fact that i can't use deductive reasoning to prove that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west or if the laws of physics will continue to work tomorrow etc then i don't think that being open to being wrong makes a belief unjustified, it just has to be that given what you know and what you can deduce, it's reasonable for you to hold that belief. i don't have a way of knowing that my sensory experiences correspond to "real objects" or an "external reality", and i think that the terms in quotation marks are metaphysical concepts, talking about what's outside the simulation is the same as talking about where god's disembodied mind lived before time existed. i believe that reality is consistent, so even if i'm in the matrix right now, as long mr anderson doesn't show up and hack reality the rules are going to be the same which is why everything feels real. i axiomatically accept empiricism but only because it's hard wired into my brain and anyone that claims otherwise is a lying hypocrite. i don't think it's very honest to just call everything you don't want to argue about an axiom, it's not a safe space for ideas.

i'm not familiar with pragmatist epistemology

>>9711173
I don't buy his delusion. I think he has consciously constructed a persecution complex and system of thought that makes a clean US and THEM in accordance to his conservative political beliefs and what he sees as a vulnerable/ripe consumer base in the "alt right".

>>9712471
I think it's really easy to misconstrue how he uses self-reference (I usually insist that it's not literal self-reference and is actually a syntactical trick merely derived from the liar paradox) and I think it's really easy to overestimate the import of incompleteness and the improvability of consistency. There's something about the nature of Godel's proofs that forces popularizers who want to teach people who lack the technical background about it to overblow its scope or implications (e.g., conflating the Godel sentence with its numerical encoding, speaking in terms of truth and reference, talking about math or language as a whole instead of specific formal systems, etc.). I don't think you can really know what's going on in the proof without working through it yourself.

I figure it's in the aether because it was historically important as the death-blow to the inheritance of the logicist tradition (esp. Hilbert's program) and as a surprising result in its own right, so I guess people outside of mathematics/logic heard about it on that account, but what they heard was from popularizers who couldn't help but mischaracterize what Godel actually did. And then you get a runaway effect once the popular milieu latches onto the theorems. I suspect it's something about the obscurity of the proof's technical machinery and the nature of popularization. Self-reference and the limits of human understand are 'sexy' topics, and when a popularization of Godel makes use of them people notice. What's really going on, though, is a neat syntactical trick only derived from a semantic paradox and restrictions for very specific formal systems.

>>9712515

>i'm not familiar with pragmatist epistemology

>i axiomatically accept empiricism but only because it's hard wired into my brain and anyone that claims otherwise is a lying hypocrite

Well, you seem on board with parts of it already.

This is strange, as from what you've written, I'd say that you and Peterson would agree on most things.

The part about a religion being 'true' enough, is related to truth being defined as that which permits us to achieve our goals or 'to bring about a desired or expected sensible phenomenon' so to speak.

But before we get into that, or if we even get into that should I say, let me ask you something:

How would you define truth?

>>9712531
i would say a true statement describes something, either idea relations (1+1=2, it's impossible for something to be or not be simultaneously) or matters of fact (i'm feeling cold)
i think your definition of truth requires that you don't believe in reality outside your own mind, otherwise two people can have mutually contradictory truths depending on what they desire, or else you have to be fine with contradictions

File: amidisabled.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>9712375

>>9712556

Ok, I understand your stance.

Let’s take a look at scientific truth, to expand on the alternate definition I have been hinting at; I’m based in the sciences, as opposed to the humanities, so it’s easier for me to explain it this way.

In the language of physics, organisms are complex self-organised physical systems that respond to stochastic driving signals and, by means of their dynamics, compute implicit models of environmental variables, thereafter retaining information regarding previous environmental fluctuations, a fraction of which is predictive of future fluctuations, thereby minimising the thermodynamic cost of computation, maximising the consumption of 'negative entropy' and, subsequently, permitting the avoidance of thermodynamic equilibrium.

The term 'signal', as used here, refers to a physical event that conveys meaning, with meaningful information being defined as physical correlations between the internal and external variables of a system; in relation to evolutionary biology, meaning may be defined as correlations which affect survival/stability/replication, either directly or potentially-indirectly.

Scientific truth may be viewed as meaningful information, in that it is based on perceived correlations between internal and external variables.

From what we understand, the grand mediator of that which is ‘true’ is the nature of being/the universe/perceivable reality, in that a lack of correlations between internal and external variables leads to death/annihilation.

One can never be certain of the truth value of any theory/hypothesis/worldview, as all of our knowledge is ultimately conjectural; however, you can be certain that something is false, due to a lack of correlation and the ultimate lack of correlation is death.

Therefore, if an idea/thought leads to actions that permit survival, either directly or potentially-indirectly, by bringing about sufficient correlations between the aforementioned variables, then it can be considered ‘true enough’.

As for contradictions, it would really only be the case that one theory is more true than the other, but the less favourable theory could still be seen as ‘true enough’.

That’s the rough idea, anyway.

I might not have explained that very well, as I am very tired and should have slept a long time ago.

>>9712567

Epic macro, bro!

>>9712649
i'm tired too but i kept myself up waiting for your post goodnight m8 i'm going to bed now

>>9712670

Ok cool, goodnight mate.

>>9709645
This meme is still guilty of what he hates about Fucko and Derriding. He still hasn't addressed this issue (for obvious reasons).

>>9711883
we have several boards for the homosexually inclined, friend

>>9709817
That anon is being quite patient with you, but I have to say - read what you're replying to. That person is listening to Peterson evaluatively, you are making an appeal to authority - and the willingness of people like you, who would be incapable of reading their real work, to let academics become public assertion-makers on unrelated subjects by implicit appeal to authority is why phenomena like Jordan Peterson: the e-celeb happen.

>>9709688
This has been the case for years. Roger Scruton's entire career is basically this.

>>9709732
>>implying many many many people have not tried what peterson is doing and not succeeded

No, funnily enough, people who become academics with the eventual aim of becoming right-wing pundits are relatively few.

>>9709871
>radicalizing
This is a meaningless word. You mean you don't like the fact that some people are less likely to kill themselves because they heard him.

>>9709904
Let's be honest, he's only being discussed here because of the latter. If you asked these people "Which are your favorite ten peer-reviewed psychology papers by Jordan Peterson?", the thread would drop to page 10 oblivion at the speed of light.

>>9709919
No, the fact that it doesn't contain genius level social commentary means that it doesn't.

>>9710317
Now that he's being open about this, there's no reason for anyone serious to continue to pay him any attention. What he's proposing is no different from what you'd get in an evangelical Christian university in the deep South, like Oral Roberts University - great providing you want to spend your life within its cultural bubble, but try getting anywhere in the real world with it and you'll discover it's pretty much useless. It's odd for someone as relatively candid as he is about the pragmatic bases of social orthodoxies to seek to deceive his audience about the nature of hierarchy - but of course, pragmatism begins at home, and his audience is a cow that begs to be milked.

>>9710950
Bingo.

>>9710961
Of course he is. Argument from authority is the basis of all pop guru phenomena.

File: 1498358051963.png (185KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 409x409px

>>9709908
t b h sweetie just bc im just waiting for luxury gay s̷͈͍̦̟̝̜p͙̩a̯̼̮͙̟ć̫e̩͚̬̻̥͝ ̟̮̰̠͓̦̼c̤̘͚̞̣̮̫͡o̻̭͕̙ͅm͟m̪̳u͍̝n͈̗̜̩i̴͉͈̱͙sm͘xDDDDD<@rjioq34hgia[orjgdkfc

>>9711078
will?

>>9712986
This is a very nice pepe

File: download.jpg (6KB, 161x144px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 161x144px

>>9712931

File: thank kek.png (1MB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x800px

>>9710317
>tfw Peterson hands out 4 year humanities degrees for free over the internet forcing the University system to adapt or die

>>9711066
FORMATTING CUNT CAN YOU DO IT?!

>>9712649
so if a bird that lives in a volcanic region detects a small earthquake and it evolved to instinctively want to run away because it's an indicator that a eruption and the smoke is dangerous to it, that's it being signaled meaningful information even though it has no concept of what volcanoes or earthquakes are and the bird is somehow acting in accordance to truth? what if a group of tribals have a meme where quakes are what happens when the earth god stomps his feet in anger and is about to breath fire at them so they run away and survive so even though their theory was wrong it was 'true enough' because it helped them model the world well enough to survive?

don't you still have to know, independently of whether or not a theory/worldview confers meaningful information, the truth value of statements like "x is pragmatic" which are independent of whether or not it's pragmatic to believe "x is pragmatic", you have to discard your bias towards wanting to stay alive when making that determination.

>>9713804
Anything to bring down the absolute kikery known as private unis