>Peterson on /lit/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3f y0RYpU8Q

File: Peterson.jpg (122KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x800px

>PhilisophyInsights
>Almost no videos on philosophy and even fewer by philosophers
What did they mean by this?

there is not a bigger hack in the world than jordan peterson. he's surpassed sam harris

>>9751724
Why do all the youtube clippers only post videos of Peterson's self-help book advices?

I don't like Peterson at all, but I do hope his work gets more people to Jung. Last time I bought some Jung on amazon I saw Maps of Meaning was the first book in the 'customers also bought' section and it made me smile :D

What part of the quasi philosophical eintopf he cooked led him to get hair transplants?

>>9751822
Because you can take them out of context.

>>9752210
>>9751822
because his misunderstandings of postmodernism are too embarrassing to even warrant discussing

File: 1499726419100[2].gif (341KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 200x200px

He's the mot disappointing intellectual figurehead of a political/social zeitgeist ever.

I don't get it. His "body of thought" is shallow. He has virtually no charisma....... is it really based on him riling up a handful of trannies?

What sort of retard goes into formal academia spouting nonsense about jungian archetypes?

Why do academic institutions tolerate his fuckery?


We will look back at him and laugh......... or we are doomed.


at least zizek was entertaining, even if he was a charlatan.

File: 1481577106621.jpg (164KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1280x720px

>tfw you realise half of the negative posts on /lit/ about Peterson are just troll posts

>>9752216
Currently this is the best we got.
Be happy: you have a chance to impact the world with this weak competition.

Same for politicians: there aren't extremely strong statesmen around lately.

I dont know, to me he seems like a highly intellectual professor that doesn't go out of his way to appear intellectual.

Which is pretty much the opposite of /lit/ who isn't academa or intellectual but goes out of their way to appear so.

>>9752216
>What sort of retard goes into formal academia spouting nonsense about jungian archetypes?
That's anglo academia for you, anglos have a near instinctive fear of Freud, who they claim has been "disproved", "a charlatan" and so on while they suppress their inner trauma through pills, mindless consumerism and utilitarianism.

>>9751789
>>9751789
second post best post

peterson, knowingly or unknowingly, is making all free speech and anti-postmodernists look bad

he's ironically the most pomo public intellectual there is.

>>9752216
I'm mad I'm not old and fatherly enough to capitalize on the massive amount of young men raised without father figures, Peterson really hit the jackpot and I'm jelly as fuck.

>>9751789
How is Sam Harris a hack?

>>9752266
Not anglo but he has been disproved and is largely a charlatan. He admits in his letters to friends that he sneaks in naps while his patients are talking. He charged what would be $500 euros a session and recommended people go 5x a week. And then he says he can't cure you but make you cope better...because no one recovers from the Oedipus complex, amirite?

Literally just rich people paying to make themselves feel better that they igonore how they walk all over poor people.

Both Jung and Freud were hacks. Joyce knew this.

sage

>>9752300
good one lad

>>9752304
>e admits in his letters to friends that he sneaks in naps while his patients are talking

Source

>>9752318
Why even waste time typing that if you can't answer the simple question

>>9752304
>he sneaks in naps while his patients are talking
Can't blame the guy, shit must have been boring as hell.

>>9752304
Such an ad hominem. Freud contributed a literature of his own to the world; like Shakespeare, who cares that he rused a few people, he cured the rat man anyway.

>>9752323
thought you were joking, aren't you?

>>9752330
> Freud contributed a literature of his own to the world

Not a single follower of Freud is 1/8th as good as he was as a writer and thinker. And there have been many, many solid and diverse critiques of Freud's thought.

Don't you dare compare him to Shakespeare.

sage

>>9751789
Peterson is no hack.

I wouldn't call Sam a hack either. It's more like he's naive and lacks depth.

>>9752346
Freud was as seminal to literature and art as Shakespeare was. I cannot exhaustively list who he influenced here but it would be a fucking long list. The reason people get him wrong is because they don't understand his psychoanalysis was an artistic pursuit and not a scientific one.

>>9752337
I'm not joking. I'm just interested in your opinion and want to hear why you think Sam Harris is hack

>/lit/ dislikes Peterson
Yeah, to be expected, a board full of pseudo-intellectuals would feel insecure by a man such as Peterson

>>9752356
Hahahahaha. Your entire statement reads like a performance art piece by some lesbian schizophrenia.

>>9752356
>Freud was as seminal to literature and art as Shakespeare was.


Yeah, I'm in a Peterson thread alright.

sage

>>9752374
He's a Christian via Jung. Dude is too dumb to realize Jung implicitly denies the after-life and only has an aesthetic stance (at best) towards the existence of God.

Jung = "I'm not religious but I want others to be religious, it's cute."

If you kids think he's good, you're putting your eggs into a retard basket that will collapse sooner or later. Hence why he's given so much media attention. His critiques of po-mo are embarrassing to those who were already critiquing post-modernism. He's a hack.

>>9752387
2/10 try harder.

>>9752387
The sad thing is that /pol/ tards will think you're one of them and agree with you.

4chan was a mistake.

>>9752374
What a poor straw man seeing as lesbians dislike Freud so much. Why do people dislike Freud without the least idea what he was about ?

>>9752392
/pol/ tards hate what reddit has done with this kek bullshit. Reddit ruins every thing it touches.

>>9752389
Peterson has the same sort of beliefs about Christianity as Jung. He's not a traditional Christian. You could at least be informed before you start mouthing off.

>>9752390
>>9752392
>anyone who isn't a brainwashed bluepilled normie cuck is a 'troll' xD
Feminists, I take it?

>>9752400
I get that he's memeing impressionable 19 year olds. I'm not disagreeing with you.

>>9752405
>memeing impressionable 19 year olds
What are you getting at?

>>9752398
/pol/ did it to itself

The stupid lay there waiting.

Peterson is to accessible for these threads to not be absolute shit. The nonintellectual crossboarders made sure of that.

However, I find that this might be remedied somewhat is the original post is too complex and intimidating for the avarage brainlet to comment on. If the OP carries the thread it just might some merit.

>>9752405
Cool non sequitur

>>9752413
7/10 made me chuckle

>>9752413
Eh, wasn't trying to make some profound statement. But I think in a sense that parts of 4chan in it's origin was that intellectual oasis for the misfit hyper creative and hyper intellectual. It's is just that 4chan never bothered becoming wise. And now reality and the hyper space has merged into some weird fucking hyper reality. I can't keep my sanity in check anymore.

File: Anger.png (2KB, 111x94px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 111x94px

>>9751718
He's right

>>9752429
You wanna get drunk and suck each other off and cuddle afterwards?

>>9751718
When will the Peterson meme stop? A couple of months I suspect.

File: 1494665332453.jpg (54KB, 960x622px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 960x622px

>>9752413
i guess i shouldn't be surprised that no one has commented on the actual video itself. Peterson detractors and lovers alike. Disappointing, bros.

Peterson has a great message that can be learned from the classics. Intelligence does not equal wisdom, and so someone who thinks he should be successful just because he is intelligent is wrong. He mentions the allegory of Jesus as a carpenter to paint the picture that intelligence does not equal superior morality, but I would go on further to say that (along the lines of Delillo, Steinbeck, or even Thoreau among many others), a great man should be better with his hands than not.

File: johngreen.jpg (140KB, 1063x799px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1063x799px

>>9752437
When a new meme comes to take his place.

>>9752403
Deus vult my white brother. My right hand contains the touch, the power of white masculinity; my left holds the scepter of divine Western Truth. Our brotherhood holds the strength to resurrect Lady Evropa from her death and push her beyond the stars. Shadilay! Praise KEK!

>>9752387
yes it is, this place in reality is a total shithole but its aight when a thread is dedicated to one specific book

>>9752453
A new dawn is fast approaching, my logico-rational supreme being of shared white ancestry and moral development.
The rise of Kekistan will signal the extirpation of degenerate liberalism and we will once again reclaim our natural-born position as leaders and conquerors in a white world of abundance, plenitude, and virtue. We will wash away the stains of the human skidmarks that are women and ethnic minorities and erect in its stead a community of white brethren who will carry out the Will of Lord Kek. Praise be upon Lord Kek!

File: 1454452771991.png (434KB, 491x659px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 491x659px

>>9752446
This

>no one even discusses the video

blacks do lack the capability of abstract thought

their is no black kurt godel, grothendieck etc.

>>9752446
>a great man should be better with his hands than not.
Why? Hands are pretty irrelevant these days.

>>9752215
>misunderstandings of postmodernism
This is impossible.

>>9752389
>Jung implicitly denies the after-life
How many leftists are carbon copies of Marx?

>>9752593
It brings us closer to nature. It reminds us that we're human. Recommended readings to check out this idea and to have it better explained.

White Noise, Delillo
Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck
Infinite Jest, Wallace (careful)
Nietzsche
Epictetus
Starting Strength, Rippetoe

>>9752624
>It brings us closer to nature. It reminds us that we're human.
I don't see why these are necessarily admirable without presupposing some sort of sappy romanticism

>>9752564
and there is no Anonymous No.9752564 kurt godel, grothendick etc. either and there never will be

>>9752635
fair enough. Do you believe in God?

>>9752635
>>9752639
stop discussing things retards, it's awful to read

>>9752356
Harold pls...

>>9752639
No.

File: Capture.png (209KB, 485x324px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 485x324px

>>9752671
well then without getting into it, that's an integral part. Maybe, for you, like it was for me, reading these books and others, thinking about it, suffering, getting close to nature, working with hands (working out if that's the most one can do), will tend you toward that viewpoint.

Keep in mind that that is barely touching upon arguing for God from a logical standpoint, which is another ordeal.

>>9752643

>>9751718
/lit/ hates Peterson because they don't want to be associated with the illiterate riffraff who watch his videos. It has little to do with the validity of his claims.

>>9751718
what a pseud

>>9752720
takes one to know one, buddy

>>9752764
I have similar views on Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and the Bible, and I have also never read any of them, so you are right.

>>9752693
It has. He's so mediocre.

>>9752825
You obviously haven't read Maps of Meaning.

>>9752828
You obviously haven't read much besides Maps of Meaning, and I even doubt you even finished that.

>>9752844
You're wrong on both counts. Go read the damn book if you want to have a legitimate opinion on it.

>>9752862
I remain unconvinced of your reliability, sorry.

>>9752866
I guess the fact that I can only give my word is a very convenient excuse for you to keep your head in the sand.

i'd rather everyone that wasn't compatible with me died, even a if it were a painful, slow, and tortured death, than adapt and readjust myself at their convenience.

>>9751789
What makes him a hack? I get the feeling you're only throwing that out because he's a popular meme on the internet. His lectures can't be anymore in depth than what they already are. He's smart, erudite and has top tier credentials.

>>9753336
He isn't adding to the body of knowledge, only rehashing and disseminating old ideas while wearing the badge of scholar.

>>9751718
I want mods to ban any peterson thread as soon as they come up

>>9753453
>muh safe space

>>>tumbler

>>9753453
I want mods to ban you.

>>9752216
You obviously have not looked at anything but his joe rogan videos. Try to get into his actual substance before you claim there isn't any you superficial cynical sheep!

>>9752389
Lol you need to read more jung bucko! Jung has said that part of the reason for living was so that we could retrieve information and resolve questions for people in the afterlife. He said multiple times how he felt connected to his parents even after their death. Please don't apply your own rationalizations to jungs framework. You are obviously not intelligent enough to do so.

>>9752605
Good one, m8t.

>>9753413
B8? I mean, have you ever heard of "on the shoulders of giants?" you think piecing together enormous chunks of literary history and theology with modern clinical psychology is useless? You think people are cheering at him because he's making their lives worse?

He is one of the clearest bastions of anti-nihilism for modern youth. He's doing a good thing, whether you like popular people or not. Get over it.

>>9752878
Zing!!

>>9752375
>writes sage at the bottom of every post
>clearly keeps coming back for more discusssion
The funny thing is, peterson literally talks about the kind of people who only explicitly value discourse if everybody already agrees with them. The fact that you imply this thread is worthless with every post, while still being drawn back to the discussion, says to me you fucking need a bit of Petersons perspective.

>>9751718
Is this guy just Jung for teens?

>>9752258
This. He is an affront to pseuds everywhere.

>bheu! No! Not speaking academic enough! No! Enough metaphors! Euck! Don't refer to pop culture and academic works simultaneously! Euck! Speak dignified! Don't tell more stories! Aaaugh! THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING ME RESPECT MYSELF MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE.

>>9753644
Jung for millenials. Thank goodness.

>>9753522
>>9753554
>shilling for le pronouns man
He's saying what you want to hear for money. Look at his patreon. He's not only a pseud, he's also an asshole. If he wanted to earn that money he would do something besides being wrong

>>9753632
>>9753645
My only gripe with Peterson are his fanboys who think everything that comes out of Petersons mouth is his.

As a hardcore Dostoevsky fan, it kinda annoys me to see the true anti-nihilist get so discredited.

>>9753673

Gen Z, the people who came of age around the late 90s are nothing like the people who are coming of age now

Name one meaningful thing this guy has said

No, 'leftists are stupid' doesn't count.

>>9753879
Stop being envious of him you spineless leftist.

Peterson is a cringe worthy idiot and further proof that Academia has a leftist slant because all the right wing academics are morons or hold positions in the economics department because they prop up the economic theories of the current right wing consensus.

>>9753907
He doesn't say this. To sum up his message about leftists I would say is this: political ideology is based largely on personality, and so political diversity reflects personality diversity which is a good thing. Therefore, we should not attempt to make leftists right OR VICE VERCA, but encourage open communication (i.e., without strawman or ad hominim) between people who disagree.

>>9753893
No generation has the same kind of consciousness as the last. The messages need constant revision and update so they don't get lost.

>>9753879
>He's saying what you want to hear for money.
Which is ultimately not different from the average professor in the humanities

>>9753908
How can anyone be envious of a man resentful that the leftist cult is more successful and widespread than his own

>>9753913
So when he calls leftists sick or whatever he's encouraging open dialogue?

>>9753923
For example, someone envious of him might sperg out about him having a patreon and receiving money for what he says.
>>9753926
The average leftists is far more likely to suffer from mental illness than the average person so when he calls them sick (which I doubt he does in a general way) he's not that wrong.

>>9753907
>ERRRRR ERRRRRRRR wanting me to be respectful to the pronoun somebody would prefer me refer to them as is literally Totalitarianism
>The assertion that it would be better if I not act like an insufferable dickhead is a violation of my free speech
>Even though you're Anti-Stalinist you clearly want gulags on account of you being a leftist. What's that? You don't want gulags? Wow, that's incredibly arrogant of you, in fact that's the most arrogant statement like ever to say you're a leftist but think mass murder is wrong.

>>9753926
He calls the alt right crowd some pretty harsh descriptive as well. I think to some extent the leftists need it worse because there has been a wall erected against their criticism from academia and politicians and he's breaking it down a bit.

>>9753913
This is peak liberal cancer.

>Politics isn't when various groups with serious conflicting interests vie for political, economic, and social power
>Politics is just people disagreeing with each other things
This is the cancer of liberalism. A poor person's next meal is political, an industrialist not wanting to have his pollution capped is political. It's not just people "disagreeing" with each other.

>>9753923
>resentful

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>>9751718
Does this guy actually offer any good advice on sorting yourself out?

>>9753908
>being jealous of dishonesty
If that's the case any aspiring writer should be jealous of Stephen King or some other genre fiction hack but they're not. They legitimately hate them for being hacks

>>9753940
What do you mean he's a hack?

Peterson is a retarded moron idiot. Who gives a damn?

Lasso the retardedmoronidiot, bring him home, and let him face the bulls!
>>9751879
Jung is also for retarded moron idiots. Gnostics belong on a pyre.

>>9753937
And so peoples attitudes don't influence voting and therefore public policy?

So theorists have no influence over political movements that shape the way society deals with welfare and industry?

Alright, let's just leave it all to the politicians then and not give a shit.

>>9753937
How sad is it that your ideology isn't successful or popular anywhere in the world?

>>9753932
It would be much more welcome if he was honest about it instead of fabricating postmodernist claims. That Zizek thread is an example of good critique against leftists. Basing your criticism on your misinterpretation of a philosophical/artistic position and calling it 'contradictory' because you didn't get it right is an example of bad criticism. But it seems to me that people saying he's wrong is read as some SJW defense of degenerate postmodernism when it's people who know a thing or two about it trying to clarify that he's got it wrong.

>>9753951
Yeah they do, but it's not just people "disagreeing" with each other.

Do historians just conclude "well the troubles happened because the catholic population disagreed with the protestant population over whether Ireland should be united or within the UK?" or do they say "the civil war happened in the United States because the North disagreed with the South over slavery?"

Politics isn't some high school debate where people just disagree on what to do. Nobody would give a shit about politics if it was just "well I think x and you think y"

Peterson's position is the elitist one. It's how amerifat politicians talk about politics.

>>9753957
No it's because I've seen countless posts in /lit declaring that he gets post-modernism wrong, probably around 100, and I've NEVER seen a single anon actually explain how or in what way, using an actual thing that Jordan says and demonstrating how this misunderstands postmodernism.

>>9752356
I'm not gonna invest too deeply into this b/c I've never gone in depth into Freud, but from what I've seen his model of the pysche is just woefully inadequate and overly focused on sexuality compared to the structures proposed by Jung.

>>9753645
ah, he's merely pretending to speak like a pandering salesman

>>9753977
I've seen it a lot. Some person even made a video

>>9753972
To me, you're saying a lot here without saying much at all. Politics IS largely about voters aligning with certain attitudes of representatives and their disagreements about what to do with certain areas of policy.

>>9753985
Well at the moment we are living in different worlds.

>>9753984
boy I sure hope he doesn't make more money than me

>>9753986
politics is based on internalized philosophy. Actual issues are just side-notes that depend on which values get prioritized by competing ideologies.

>>9753949
He often doesn't know what he's talking about, especially with Post-Modernism. The way he tries to criticize Foucault when most of what he accuses him of saying (e.g. absolute relativism) is found in the Californian types he inspired, but he himself didn't like. Foucault tends to shit on post-modernism more than anything, which is another reason I don't like /pol/ because they refuse to agree with them on account of their being gay (or Jewish in Adorno's case since that's also a /pol/ circlejerk that doesn't make sense). That and the way he argues is dishonest and usually looks like this >>9753929

>>9753992
Then ideological discussions such as Petersons would make even MORE of a difference. You seem to be reacting to ideas instead of having a stable core position.

>>9753997
why do you think that identity is independent of philosophical substance? I'd argue that an intellectual being gay or jewish or white or whatever is very important to understanding their ideas.

>>9752300
Sam - america invades other countries to bring democracy(for real guys!) - Harris

>>9753986
That's a superficial result of underlying causes.

Is the Syrian Civil War just about people "disagreeing" about how to run the country? Was the French Revolution about a "disagreement"?

Also consider the observation that war is politics by other means.

>>9754001
I'm not the anon you responded too m8

>>9754006
Sorry m8, seemed pitched as a counterpoint to my post even though it was in line with my thoughts.

Everytime /lit/ shits on this guy, I watch another video of his and like him a little bit more. So, if that's your point in shilling him, good job: I like Jordan Peterson.

>>9754003
I was more ranting about /pol/ in general since they make these Peterson threads in the first place. One of the things I hate about /pol/ is that nobody escapes from identity in their view. Mahler is a great symphonist but if you said that on /pol/ everyone would shit on him because he was a Jew (whether they say it or not). My problem is that refuse to read on the basis of identity alone, and since Peterson can lie about what Foucault says, then they feel like they don't have to read anything by him and their prejudices are confirmed. Think of that shitty "cultural marxism" meme with fake adorno quotes on ms paint images, and how they also emphasize his being Jewish. The combination of this disinformation with their prejudices strengthens their hatred towards them, to the point that they don't want to read them or if they did they would taint any understanding of it with their preconceptions.

>>9754043
This is probably /pol/'s most egregious fault.
>WTF why would I read leo strauss, nice try schlomo...
>I dont care the Nazis banned Kafka he was a Jew
>Interesting how most of this testimony for the Holocaust comes from Jews... suspicious

>>9752216
Zizek is a blessing upon the modern world

>>9754067
at least Zizek is sometimes right, that and he can write pretty well in spite of his meme dialect

>>9752216
Sensitive new age redditor detected.

File: 1488575089890.png (973KB, 927x907px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 927x907px

>>9753907
>>9753929
>>9753997
>b8ing this hard

>>9754163

Ideologue detected

>>9754173
>no u

Watching Peterson vids of him lecturing in some shitty classroom.

It seems like everything he says is just related to himself. He's telling us about what it's like inside of him and he's assuming that's also what it's like inside of us. He seems like one of those guys that literally went insane in their 20s but also have a high IQ so they have that peculiar type of insanity where they convince themselves that they are sane and behave exactly as though they are sane, but in reality are stuck in their little insane feedback loop and have been for 40 years.

>>9754451
>>9754451
That's not even an argument, you are just projecting what you think is true?

>>9754465

I'm not arguing or trying to tear him down I'm just giving my immediate perception.
I literally never heard of him until now I have nothing against him and I'm totally uninterested in the tranny debate.

Of course I have suspected myself of the same behavior that I just diagnosed in him. So have I just projected? Or do we just share that similarity? Is it true or is it false? Maybe that's just how all people are? Maybe we can only identify what we have first seen in ourselves.

>>9752693
Unironically this. One time I saw him come up in the recommended videos in the youtube sidebar on a non-reading friend's computer and knew I dodged a bullet. If people who didn't start with the Greeks are interested in what he has to say I can't listen to him on principle.

Hey /lit/, how does it feel to have /pol/ shit all over your face?

>>9754493

We're used to it desu

>>9751718
What a fucking hack.
/lit/ needs to bring Zizek back. We need a intelligent person to meme about again

>>9754574
>What a fucking hack.
Based on the youtube clip. Can you explain why you think he is a hack? What is your argument behind this though. I'm curious.

>>9754579
I've seen a couple of lectures from his side about now and i'm also a psychology student. From the perspective of an european psychologist student i think his use of trait psychology is unintelligent. Trait psychology is nothing but a dictionary coupled with statistics in order to compare large groups of people on constructs which harshly makes sense. You can even disprove it statistically: In order to have statiscally significant difference between the traits the question in the questionnaires have to equally specific. Therefore the questions are designed to match the expected output and the whole idea with personality being determined largely by 5 or 6 constructs is plainly stupid and oversimplifying when it comes to anything other than comparing large groups of people. Second of all, the fact that he supports his use of trait psychology with jungian archetypes is even more lame. I've read alot about Jung and from a scientific standpoint, although he was a wise and clever man, his study about universal symbols are the best thing he contributed with. The ideas of archetypes from an ancient time, the doctor flying on a hieroglyph, and such, and his baffelings with alchemy isn't of much use scientifically. Third, and perhaps most importantly, his argument that the post-structuralist, including Derrida and Foucault, as destroying the values western democrazy is built on, is IMO wrong. Focault questionned the processes of society in which subjects become subjects. He was a critical thinker. But the main point was to map the discursive terrain to see which mechanisms subjectivized individuals badly. And i think that's a VERY good idea to do. Quiet along Zizeks project: To reveal the bad ideology to say it lightly. All of this is done with the marxist theoretical notion that the baseline of human subjectivity is to be found in the societal structures (According to marx largely the economy, according to modern marxist and the frankfurter school capitalism with all its ideological produce). And this is exactly where i think his opposition to his (and now lots of people on /lit/s idea about what neo-marxism is) fails harshly. I do agree with his point about gender, but Zizek makes the same work just drawing on a much deeper and profound theoretical framework. This is quite a rant and english isn't my first language but i hope you get the idea mate.

>>9752320
I think he is talking about Michel Onfray book

>>9752287
wrong, wrong, wrong.

>>9754632
stopped reading at
>i'm also a psychology student

>>9754667
Haha me too. I work at a university and I'd hesitate to listen to a psychology student explaining statistics. Still he makes some valid points, quite far from Peterson being a hack though. His jungian archetypes are more allegories if anything. Yeah but whatever, i mean most of the statistics that he drops are from studies that can be easily looked up on internet.

>>9754667
Not that guy, but this /pol/ attitude needs to go. You can laugh at him for being a psych student, but don't be the kind of coward that refuses to engage with someone you disagree with. What does it mean to refuse to even read the words of someone you mock? What is there to be scared of?

>>9754689
>Not that guy, but this /pol/ attitude needs to go. You can laugh at him for being a psych student, but don't be the kind of coward that refuses to engage with someone you disagree with. What does it mean to refuse to even read the words of someone you mock? What is there to be scared of?

Haha, how new are you to the 4chan experience? I think you should go back to whatever shitpile website you came from.

>>9754689
This.

>>9754632
Your description of trait theory is unfair, and dismisses the work towards validating and invalidating the constructs in terms of predicting outcomes. Also, yes maybe the number is arbitrary but it is about choosing a level of discourse that is helpful. You could zoom in or out to different levels of detail but at some point you need to define some concepts mutually in order to have a discussion and run some tests. Anyway, he IS using it to compare large groups of people so by your own definition it's useful in that regard. Second, he doesn't support his use of trait theory with Jungian archetypes. At all. He incorporates both pools of information into his perspective of social issues, but one does not support the other. Plus he never says Jungian archetypes are useful scientifically, he is moralising and not afraid to say so. Third, Petersons discussion about pomo are taken so far out of context here. He is obviously not criticising critical thinking. Be is criticising a specific endpoint of postmodern thought, of which I was subject to in my own education, and also in conversations with MANY people, which is that nothing matters ultimately because there is no objective Truth to stand on. He is warning us of the conveniences of taking this line of thought for granted and assuming it is a comprehensive attitude. Fair enough to criticise society because of its tendency to oppress some people (and peterson admits this is a worthy cause), but be careful with the direction that a framework based on pure subjectivity will take you, thats all. His ideas sound more extreme than they are because he is a very emphatic speaker.

>>9754697
Go fuck yourself up the ass, that'd be more engaging than whatever you are trying to do here. You dont get to tell me what 4chan culture is buddy. It's an amalgamation that includes me fucking hating your kind of thoughtless fuckitude.

>>9754713
Hah, jokes you on. I was already fucking myself up my as. Seriously though, just get with the fucking program. This is 4chan culture and /lit/ has always been like this. It was go back to /mu/ for a short while before /pol/. And something else before that. You will not improve anything by calling it out. Neither reality or 4chan works like that.

>>9753413
There's nothing wrong with that though. I think you could argue that he's not even doing a great job of disseminating the old ideas, as his platform is entirely dependent on rhetoric that serves the current political and cultural battlefield in the west. It's fine if wading into that discussion is what got him famous in the first place--I think he deserved some positive attention for standing up to the Canadian speech laws--but so far he has not moved much beyond repeating the same thing in different venues. If he's really spend the last three decades mulling over this stuff as he claims, he should be putting out more niche material in addition to his social advocacy. If he's not prepared to get in the philosophical weeds, he should just shut up about Jung, because normies don't give a shit about that stuff. His whole message boils down to "religion is a literary conduit for the transmission of the aggregate experiential wisdom of the species." Maybe he should start doing book reviews or something instead of just trying to rehabilitate Christianity.

>>9753893
Gen Z is the people born in the late 90s/early 00s?

>>9753893
>>9754730
Gen Z is coming of age now and a started a few years ago. Gen Y (aka Millenials) came of age at the turn of the Millennium--so, late 90's/early 00's.

>>9754726
>religion is a literary conduit for the transmission of the aggregate experiential wisdom of the species.

Well, kinda. I've read it more as a Man needs a purpose. Religion filled that function. Now it's gone. So mankind first dived headfirst into nationalism and the two first world wars. Now we are lost again, and the next experience seems to be racial wars and identity politics.

So basically he sees the dangers of the 20th century in whatever is coming and saying that religion can work as a cushion for these kind of things precisely because it is the "the aggregate experiential wisdom of the species".

>>9754735
Good point.

>>9754716
I just like swearing at you, tbpqfhwyfam.

>>9754735
I've ready dozens of comments from people saying that Peterson's framing of the literary nature of religious archetypes reset their previous reflexive disdain at traditional religious discourse. And yes, Peterson discussed the social and psychological utility of religion, but it was his ability to remind people that morality is most effectively communicated through stories, and that's what religions generally do, that seems to have struck a chord with people. After all, most people like stories, and Jesus seems less stupid when one is invited to simply examine the narrative according to the internal logic of the story, rather than getting hung up on the literalness of the metaphysics.

Young people especially today are conditioned to roll their eyes at anything spiritual that isn't neutered to the point of trivality and perched in the New Age literature section of their local bookstore. If there's any hope of "saving" the Christian inheritance of the west, or at least making a soft landing as we slowly fall away from it, I think it's only going to come from a acquaintance with the old forms new viewed through a literary lens the way we view the Homeric epics. Otherwise the west will ultimately be bifurcated by fundamentalists, and nihilists doing battle with no hope of cultural synthesis.

>>9754757
Thanks man, great post.

>>9754757
>that isn't neutered to the point of trivality and perched in the New Age literature section of their local bookstore
Anon pretty much everyone rolls their eyes at those. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

This guy makes over 55k a month on patreon alone.

>>9754827
I didn't mean to suggest that people take that stuff serious. Most people are disinterested. It is however the only socially acceptable form of spirituality in west--you get polite nods when you saying things like "I'm spiritual but not religious", or spout platitudes about the unity of religious traditions, the universal brotherhood of mankind, or claim to be a pantheist, or whatever, like at least you're wrestling with deep stuff, even if you're kind of full of it. Whereas you're overtly painted as crazy, or at the least dimwitted, if you claim to be a believing Christian, and certainly not given any credit that might actually be wrestling with deep ideas. Muslims currently get a pass because their minority status trumps whatever negative social points they would accrue commonality with Evangelicals as metaphysical absolutists, but generally genuine religious belief is seen as a sign of ignorance or mental illness. Dabbling in esoterics, and espousing meditation, is seen as eccentric at worst, and probably nevertheless aligned with "right think" and harmless to the major social currents of the post-Christian west.

File: images (71).jpg (21KB, 465x316px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 465x316px

>>9754891
Accurate.

>>9754757
Peterson merely provides functionalist apologia for old dogma. Neither does he challenge the readings of these narratives, nor does he attempt to re-contextualize them and show their relevance, he merely reads them through a mystical functionalist lens, precisely "neutering it to the point of triviality". If Christianity isn't a living, breathing praxis, but rather something internet-funded mediocre talking heads expound on, then it's nothing.

>>9752216
>.....

Jesus Christ you have to be over 18 to post here.

>>9754709
It's a good defense. I would say he does a bit more than "warning us of the conveniences" of moral relativity. I saw a public lecture where he directly advocates to cut public funding to courses that teach post structuralism. Thanks for a good reply mate.

>>9754911
>nor does he attempt to re-contextualize them and show their relevance
He's done that a bit. He's contextualized the maternal archetype of Mary and related its unbalanced, hyper-protective form, to the current feminist phenomenons. He also talks about snakes and dragons, all pre-Christian and Christian literary devices. However, I don't think he's done enough beyond mostly apologetics, as you said; especially not for someone who claims to have spend half of his life contemplating this stuff.

>If Christianity isn't a living, breathing praxis, but rather something internet-funded mediocre talking heads expound on, then it's nothing.
This is true from an Orthodox perspective, and if one cares to maintain the internal consistency of the belief system. However, I don't think Christianity, or any religion for that matter, ultimately gets to decide what it is and isn't in the long arc of time. I'm sure there were Greco-Roman pagans who would have said the same thing about people who decided to keep Metamorphoses, but to forgo animal sacrifice, or other orthodox rites. Ultimately they didn't get to decide how the ages received the mythos devoid of praxis. Maybe Christianity is making a similar transition into mythology. The only problem is that after 2000 years of Abrahamic wheel-spinning, we still don't actually KNOW jack shit about the big questions, yet so much of the logic of our civilization is based on pretending that we did. There's not intellectually consistent way to drop the praxis keep the mythology without ADMITTING it's mythology and thus compromising pretty much every axiom that underpins classical western political though. And I think it's clear that most people have already decided that the praxis of Christianity isn't tenable either.

Maybe we're just fucked.

peturdson lol

>>9755056
iKeK

>it's another let's bash Jordan Peterson even though we know nothing of his work thread

ugh....

>>9751718
The guy who asked the question was really cringy

>>9754747
Both of these two are mine. I think that was my point about 4chan. You never really know who you are responding to :) hugs
>>9754735
>>9754716

>>9754757
Nicely put anon.

>>9754911
>Undergraduate meme-spouting

God, it is almost too easy to spot you guys.

File: rundll32_2017-05-28_08-30-08.png (151KB, 614x451px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 614x451px

Had Irigaray or someone like that said this, /lit/ would have threads about this daily filled with retards chanting SOKAL PAPER SOKAL PAPER. I would ask where are those retards now, but it's painfully obvious they are too busy hanging on every word balding Kermit says.

>>9754735
Religion and nationalism do not serve the same 'function' and nationalism is not a 20th century concept.

>>9752356
Shakespeare was an artist and poet of the highest magnitude who invented the human.

Freud was a cokehead who made up a load of bullshit that suckers bent over backwards for fall for.

>>9755181
I think you need to learn how to read.

One thing I dont get about Peterson and his vehemently opposition toward post-modernism is that he never mentions modernity and modernism.

Modernism literally destroyed religion and all the religious symbols.

I'd think he'd be opposed to that as well.

File: 1495711177797.png (599KB, 600x542px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 600x542px

>>9755555
what the fuck are these numbers

>>9755181
they serve the exact same function you fucking retard

>>9752564
That is *literally* racism.

>>9755555
He is not religious for the sake of it. He is exploring the functions of religion from an evolutionary perspective, and even argues that it was the religious discipline that generated the modern minds capacity to critique and reject religions. He does not promote blind faith but functionalism.

>>9755555
Modernism destroyed religion yes, but not voluntarily. After World War 1, Christianity lost a lot of it's social standing.

The problem is that certain poststructuralist philosophers go deeper than simply critiquing symbolism and religion writ large, it tries to find the grounding for the entirety of Western civilization and critiques it.

>>9752637
>how to tell that someone is from reddit, the post

>>9755815
You are *literally* a faggot.

>>9751879
jung is a pseudoscientific hack...literally modern astrology

File: mph-photo.jpg (27KB, 245x307px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 245x307px

>>9758194
>implying astrology is illegitimate

File: DBl24eYUwAAt0ts.jpg (44KB, 596x598px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 596x598px

Peterson is a false-flag attack by the Cathedral
his arguments serve to destroy the credibility of the alt-right and solidify the establishment
pic unrelated

>announce talk about controversial but politically correct subject
>collude with ivory tower liberals
>stage a (((protest)))
>liberal media covers an obscure academic fake protest
>welcome to your new masters just like your old masters

>>9758274
>This is Running on Empty... food review!

>>9754716
/lit/ was never this overtly political 5-7 years ago. Mostly discussed aesthetics. I think what happened is that millennials and late stage gen Xers got extremely politically active this cycle infecting this board in particular plus the neo-pol-ers posing as /new/ tier oldfags. Ironically all the polacking has driven off the user base that used to make aesthetics-oriented lit journals and the paleocon folks who were trying to develop parallel institutions in favor of adolescent politicsfagging. It's unfortunate

>>9754891
you communicate well

fuck u

>>9752266
Peterson likes Freud, he just likes Jung more.

>peterson will never be your dad

why live

>>9753879
>Look at his patreon
holy shit 50k per month
he is going to end up being rich from one minor clash with a bunch of transsexual students

>>9758540
>"Normally if you're a decent cult leader you can at least figure out a way to pick the pockets of your victims in a manner that enriches you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4c-jOdPTN8

17:37

>>9754757
>>9754891
This sort of 'religiosity' is not so much post-Christian as it is post-God. When a society mandates that God is dead, religion continues in His absence. It becomes, among others, 'Religion-without-God' (Peterson and the like's sort of Christianity -- stripped clean of any ontology that may be offensive to the state or its interests;) and 'Spirit-without-Religion' (yoga-loving, kombucha-sipping, Trump-slamming mysiticism -- 'white-washed' perfectly describes it, especially considering that is it is dominated by white women who are so set in their Tower than they cannot imagine a world where they must be sincere.) In a word, mysticism without any faith or dedication or honesty.
>>9754971
Of course we are fucked. Only a God can save us.

>>9754632
Gee, who am I going to trust:

A tenured professor at the best university in Canada who's also taught at one of the best universities in the US with an extensive academic research history dating 20+ years with hundreds of other colleagues in similar positions of respectability, not to mention with similar experience in clinical practice...

Or an anonymous nobody who has at most, what, a BA in psychology, who's only seen "a couple of lectures" and missed at least half of the point of Peterson's body of work AND his position as an introduction-course lecturer, who postures as a pseudointellectual with that senseless verbiage, with an IQ apparently high enough to discredit decades of an entire area of psychology research in a single shitpost?

And I don't even give a shit about Maps of Meaning. Neck yourself.

>>9758666
Nice try Satan

>>9758628
>a God can save us
A? You are missing the point.

>>9752304
> He admits in his letters to friends that he sneaks in naps while his patients are talking.

Can you blame him? Would you want to listen to some creep going on about how he wants to fuck his mom?

>>9758628
There's nothing post-God about ascendant Islam. What's more you can already find westerners making apologetics for Sufi mysticism. They may hate God, but most western secularists hate Christianity even more. Familiarity breeds contempt, as Chesterton said. Funny enough, I think you could argue that Russians on the other hand hate God more than they hate Christianity.

>>9754005
Yes, at the very root of it those were disagreements.

>>9752392
the sad thing is that you're still breathing

>>9751718
i dont really feel any type of way about jordan peterson but im so tired of these /pol/ false flags (>>9752387) etc.

File: cy5sllt1xsky.jpg (196KB, 1200x1195px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1200x1195px

>>9752411
This, you /pol/tards were fucking with the establishment and having a good time doing it, now that you're in control the cloak of anonymity has been lifted and everyone realises you're just a bunch of white beta dweebs

>>9758564
based
a
s
e
d

>>9758347
I don't get it. where does reviewbrah enter into it?

thread

>>9758744
They aren't apologizing for the theism, they are apologizing for political reasons, in addition to adopted reasons.

They are absolutely post-God. Listen to one of their spiels on Islam, and they reduce it the same way they reduce Christianity or whatever else. With Sufism, they reduce it the same way they reduce Buddhism.

>>9751718
God this guy is such a moron. Either that or a charlatan who tells his pseudo-intellectual, youtube addicted armchair philosopher audience what they want to hear to stack that ca$h.

File: unnamed (5).gif (1MB, 542x271px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 542x271px

>>9762110
Yes, thread.

>>9753886
>My only gripe with Peterson are his fanboys who think everything that comes out of Petersons mouth is his.
You're literally fabricating shit out of your asshole to be upset over.

>>9763075
Just like Peterson.

>>9763077
>say the pronouns or we'll throw you in a cage, goy!

>>9753939
Self Authoring program is actually pretty good.

Guys got a better understanding of Jung than most people today. Judge him by maps of meaning, not by the 5 minute clips people with YouTube accounts make of his lectures and reupload.

>>9763136
You're literally fabricating shit out of your asshole to be upset over.

>>9763222
I quit halfway through

If Peterson is my new dad how come he won't respond to any of my emails just like my old dad?

>>9752369
shame you don't understand grammar

File: PopeGregoryIX.jpg (123KB, 412x456px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 412x456px

I feel sorry for Peterson since he has good points, but he believes too thoroughly in WASP dogmatism. Even simple things like "Jesus was a carpenter." He's only a carpenter in KJV because it was an easy translation for the English audience of the time, but doesn't actually refer to carpentry in the original texts.

>>9762936
What's wrong about that?
>just
Nothing is less than itself, even if you were to use magic words.

>>9764063

>Having to be this petty just to "score a point" against one of the greatest minds of our time

Wow you really got him anon

>>9764087

It's not petty when part of his argument is based in error. "i think this is why he was a carpenter to show carpenters blah blah" but actually, the bible never says that, so the whole point is meaningless!

advice to you anon, stop worshiping celebrities

>>9764103

Your criticism literally couldn't be more superficial. It does absolutely nothing to take away from his actual point. It doesn't even address it. I think I'll pass on advice coming from you.

File: 1466380147503.jpg (12KB, 289x303px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 289x303px

We should just stop having these threads. I haven't seen a single critique of Peterson that wasn't a strawman cobbled together from watching a 2 minute clip of him out of context.

>>9764103
Peterson isn't really so much concerned with what the Bible itself actually says but with the Bible and the mythos surrounding it.

>>9764111

How many factual errors are you willing to accept in a thesis before you discard it?

>>9764127
Maybe because you're an idiot.

>>9764130
>Peterson isn't really so much concerned with what the Bible itself actually says
Hmm.
>but with the Bible and the mythos surrounding it
When does the Bible speak of something else?

>>9764138
Obviously you are an idiot instead.
>This is the level of debate here

>>9764135

Please summarize the thesis and then demonstrate how this "error" alters it.

>>9764135
Correct answer: All of them.

>>9764130
>isn't really so much concerned with what the Bible itself actually says but with the Bible and the mythos surrounding it.

textbook pseud

>>9752300
Sam 'slaughtering children and destroying a nation is less morally decrepit depending on original intentions' Harris.

Sam 'Christianity can be just as dangerous as Islam even when looking just at the New Testament because Jesus Christ ordered people to kill others' Harris.

Sam 'the scientific method can be used to create a more robust form of morality than what religions have provided us' Harris.


He is a relatively level-headed interviewer, though.

>>9764145
Gotcha.

>>9764147
This is /pol/'s mind at work -- there's no use in thinking if someone else isn't doing it for you.

>>9758666
That is a really bad post.

"I hate it because its popular

>>9764171

Not really exclusive to /pol/ but rather the entire generation growing up online. The internet has become an intellectual crutch--why think on your own when you can google and copy paste?

>>9764171

So I guess you're just trolling then? Or did you really expect me to argue both your side and my own? Do you know what a discussion is?

My guess is that you attempted to formulate a response and in the process of doing so realized that you were already in check before you realized what happened.

>>9764183
Of course it didn't occur to you that I might be someone else entirely. Go /pol/ go

File: 1486848921952.jpg (585KB, 882x880px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 882x880px

>>9764127
>>9763909
>>9754757
>>9751789

I'm sure 90% of the people shitting on Peterson are only familiar with his edgy anti SJW content and have never even made the effort to understand Maps of Meaning. Anyone who claims that Peterson is right wing or a conservative has no idea about this central thesis.

>>9764142
>>9764154
There are obviosuly ideas in the Christian mythos that are not in the Bible, such as Satan being equivocated with the snake in the Garden of Eden.

Peterson sees religious ideas as evolving over time in a messy way. He doesn't view Christianity like dogmatic Christians where there is dogma and heresy divided by a clear line.

>>9764181
The Internet is still better than TV/Radio. Interactivity makes errors painful.

>>9752216
>We will look back at him and laugh......... or we are doomed.


yeah his ideas like "don't be a worthless murderous nihilistic communist" and "go out and do good in the world" are really dangerous

>>9764201
>>9764150
>Peterson sees religious ideas as evolving over time in a messy way. He doesn't view Christianity like dogmatic Christians where there is dogma and heresy divided by a clear line.

Protestants are the ones to thank for that.

>>9764192

What's the point of differentiating yourself when like him you also have absolutely nothing to say? So, voila, it's someone else without a point, what a cutting stroke.

>>9764198
Maps of Meaning is crazy voodoo shit that belongs comfortably on newrealpeerreview

>>9764212
I bet you felt smart when you submitted that post too. Save it, come back to it in a month, and see if you still think it was adequate

>>9764210
As far as the Catholic Church goes, Peterson is so heretical that he's basically satan.

>>9764217
So you didn't read the book.

>>9764231
Why would I want to? The blurb was enough for me to see it's meaningless horseshit. I don't need to join the cult to see it's a cult

>>9764063
Yeah, Jesus worked as an engineer how ironic is that for the common atheist STEM nerd

>>9764233
So you're just trolling I see

File: maps of meaning 1.png (78KB, 752x581px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 752x581px

>>9764217
>>9764233
It isn't. Everything Peterson claims is rooted in biology, neurophysiology, psychology and ultimately art and literature. The only leap of faith is the existentialist claim of free will and the rejection of vulgar material reductionism. If that's "crazy voodoo shit" for you you are fucking lost. Why don't you off yourself, you third rate Richard Dawkins edge-lord?

>>9764226

Actually I'm feeling quite comfortable. I'm not sure from where you're getting this idea that you have me on the ropes. I mean we get it, you aren't even trying. So what? It's just not impressive.

>>9764245
His acceptance of free will and skepticism of materialism aren't even necessary to his theory anyways.

>>9764236

>Jesus was a STEM autist who thinks he better than everyone else

explains a lot

>>9764256
When we stand in the light it is not we who illumine the light and cause it to shine but we are illuminated and made shining by the light... God grants his blessings on those who serve him because they are serving him and on those who follow him because they are following him, but he receives no blessing from them because he is perfect and without need

>>9764254
Yes they are. His notion of meaning and meta-truth only makes sense if you accept that your actions aren't predetermined and that you need to take control of your own destiny, by becoming the archetypal hero, the divine individual who mediates between chaos and order. All of that is pretty meaningless if you're just a machine, because if everything is material, hedonism becomes the highest virtue, which is the polar opposite of his thesis.

>>9764262
But I don't want to be in the light I don't want to be seen by anyone because the world has taught me that I am ugly and absurd.

>>9764262

any more irrelevant comments to make?

>>9764268
>>9764270
"For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man."

>>9764270
It's not irrelevant it is a legitimate objection to your ideology.

>>9764245
Wow it's even worse than I thought. How can you take any of that seriously?

>>9764278

i was just amused by the idea of Jesus being a STEM student, a group of people who tend to ascribe messianic levels of self importance to themselves. Thats not an ideology.

>>9764266
I'm gonna disagree with both of those statements but it would be way too long of an argument to be worth having.

But I will say that Peterson only seem to promotes free will as an additional quality that increases the "divinity of consciousness" that myths insist upon.

I will also say that the polar opposite of Peterson's ideal (or thesis) is the adversarial mode of being, though he is not in favor of hedonism.

>>9764285
0/10 lame troll

/lit/ can do better than this

>>9764289

>the adversarial mode of being

Well exemplified in this thread tbqh
What is it about Peterson that triggers pseuds so hard? Is it because his philosophy of actually doing something is an indirect challenge to hipsters content with their magical omnipotence?

>>9764292
>can't argue
>your just trolling!!!

How does /pol/ deal with being the laughingstock of 4chan?

>>9764306

They seem to be getting along quite fine.
Why don't you go argue with them you seem to have a fixation.

>>9764295
What is it about Peterson that excites pseuds so hard? Is it because his philosophy of actually doing something is an indirect challenge to hipsters content with their magical omnipotence?

>>9764295
I think it's because /lit/ is too lazy to read books and especially too lazy to read books of people with different worldviews than the typical ones on /lit/: nihilism, marxism, post-structuralism, post-modernism, Lacanian (not Jungian) psychoanalysis, anarchism, etc etc.

>>9764295

Maybe its because hes just some youtube self help guy that is entirely off-topic and belongs on /his/ more than /lit/

>>9755153
oh my lawd that tweet..

>>9764313
>They seem to be getting along quite fine.

You would know. You have to go back.

>>9764306
>associating me with /pol/

Ok, you're getting a bit better at this thing.

>>9752350
That's what a hack is: a naive and depthless person who nevertheless gets to portray him or herself as somehow wise or deep.

>>9764285
Please refute his actual points instead of saying "it's wrong because I said so". What in particular is wrong with his claim?

>I will also say that the polar opposite of Peterson's ideal (or thesis) is the adversarial mode of being, though he is not in favor of hedonism.
The point is that hedonism makes you weak and dependent and will lead you straight into the mode of being in which you wish for the eradication of existence itself. If I understand him correctly, there is nothing wrong with indulgence as long as it doesn't undermine your perception of what is and what should be. Taking stimulants for instance subverts this structure of meaning by signaling your brain that your moving towards to future you want, while in reality that is not the case. Happiness and good feelings are just a means to measure if you're on the right path but not an end or intrinsic virtue by itself. In short: Taking Speed to study: Okay. Taking Speed to feel better about yourself: Path to self destruction.

>>9764306
We've made our arguments, all you do is shit on them without even providing a counter claim.

>>9764315
Because the idea of taking control of their own destiny scares them, since they have already bought into the idea that the reason their lives are shit are beyond their control and some sort of capitalist conspiracy. Ironically enough, even the poster boy of the far left, Noam Chomsky, pretty much agrees with Peterson when it comes to post-modernism and Foucault.

>>9764245
>The only leap of faith is the existentialist claim of free will and the rejection of vulgar material reductionism. If that's "crazy voodoo shit" for you you are fucking lost. Why don't you off yourself, you third rate Richard Dawkins edge-lord?
Well, that IS crazy voodoo shit, unless your alternative to decadent materialism is Catholicism. Which I don't think Peterson advocates--he just doesn't like SJWs.

>>9764346
There are positions between nihilist materialism and dogmatic religion, you know?

>>9764336

That's not what a hack is. A hack is an insincere person who plays an otherwise legitimate role for ulterior motives, usually monetary gain or social status. The poster you're replying to is saying that Harris isn't a hack because despite his otherwise bad qualities he is at least sincere in his belief.

>>9764344
Meant to reply to you in >>9764344

JBP is the ultimate post-modernist. He goes so far as to negate post-modernism itself.

>>9764289
Meant to reply to you with this: >>9764344

>>9764344
>The point is that hedonism makes you weak and dependent and will lead you straight into the mode of being in which you wish for the eradication of existence itself. If I understand him correctly, there is nothing wrong with indulgence as long as it doesn't undermine your perception of what is and what should be. Taking stimulants for instance subverts this structure of meaning by signaling your brain that your moving towards to future you want, while in reality that is not the case. Happiness and good feelings are just a means to measure if you're on the right path but not an end or intrinsic virtue by itself. In short: Taking Speed to study: Okay. Taking Speed to feel better about yourself: Path to self destruction.

True enough - he does think there's a hedonistic path to becoming the adversary

>>9764363

What's wrong with any of this if the eradication of existence is inevitable?

>>9764369
How do you know? Because your meme pop sci hacks told you so?

>>9764363
>he does think there's a hedonistic path to becoming the adversary
Has he ever stated that?

>>9764245
This is pretty bad honestly. How is the way he has construed the world 'valid'? He doesn't qualify it, and it doesn't look like he knows what 'valid' even means in the context of formal logic. And what does it mean, that the arts are the expression of the world as forum for action? Does painting not depict a world of things? Are the methods of science not action? If meaning is shaped as a consequence of social interaction, can't it be 'validly construed' that social interaction can shape the idea that there is no meaning? This is very clumsy writing with no real adherence to the reality it attempts to disclose.

>>9764376

All the evidence suggests that is the case.

>>9764369
You exist right now

>>9764397
Fuck off /pol/

>>9764381
I haven't read Maps in a while, but he says something along those lines when he talks about Pleasure Island in Pinocchio.

>>9753413
I agree in a sense, but he's important regardless. People who aren't going to read or study this stuff themselves need someone who can boil down old ideas and make them easy to digest. I don't enjoy him, but he's good at speaking to the lowest common denominator about philosophies they'll never learn themselves, and it seems to have people thinking.

>>9764385
Anon, it's a fucking vignette. You have to read the book to answer questions like that.

File: 1473908509099.jpg (72KB, 1127x1015px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1127x1015px

>>9764397

>>9764416
Generally the start of the book is supposed to get people reading the rest of it. From this vignette he doesn't approach the typical standard of academia that I've read, but maybe art history is more rigorous than psychology...

>>9753413
> only rehashing and disseminating old ideas while wearing the badge of scholar.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF LITERATURE, PHILOSOPHY AND ART, YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>9764351
>The poster you're replying to is saying that Harris isn't a hack because despite his otherwise bad qualities he is at least sincere in his belief.
I've never heard anyone say anything about sincerity when describing hacks before.
>>9764348
I don't think I used the word "dogmatic" anywhere. All of those positions you mentioned are wrong, by the way. Only Christ is true.

File: 1474492896102.png (99KB, 258x330px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 258x330px

>mfw none of you have cleaned your room

File: maps of meaning 2.png (60KB, 765x621px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 765x621px

>>9764385
Because it's a rough low resolution summary of an entire chapter. His book is structured that way. First, he breaks down his claim into its central message and then goes into detail.

>And what does it mean, that the arts are the expression of the world as forum for action?
He means that a story is a unit of information that tells us how we should act in the world in order to get the future we want for ourselves. That's what you are feeling when ever a piece of art, writing or music touches you deeply. Your emotional response means that your nervous system has registered a unit of "meta true" information that gives you an insight into the realm of human action. That's what the hero's journey is all about, it tells us how to act in the world. In contrast, a Greek tragedy tells us how NOT to act, by pointing out the fatal flaw of the tragic hero. The reason we like stories, music and art in general is because we long for answers on how to act in a world that is too complex for us to ever fully comprehend. To make this case he falls back on Joseph Chambell and Carl Jung, by claiming that this mode of operation as well as the units of information themselves are instances of archetypes of the collective unconscious.

>>9764388
lol

Do you have the understanding of physics and maths to validate that by yourself, or did you simply accept that because someone with a degree in physics told you so? Math can't even prove itself right (gödels second incompleteness theorem) and physics is predicated on maths. Your view of the world is a dogmatic house of cards.

>>9764416
> You have to read the book to answer questions like that.
So someone suggesting that the book is worth reading should be able to justify the reading of it, right?
>>9764415
>People who aren't going to read or study this stuff themselves need someone who can boil down old ideas and make them easy to digest.
They really don't. They need something more distracting to keep them from trying to think. Not everyone is capable of deep thought and most people shouldn't attempt it. Popularizers of philosophy and science are cancers.

>>9764432
You're not supposed to spend time qualifying your terms in a summary. You do that in the rest of the book. I think you're being a bit difficult.

>>9764445

>physics is predicated on maths
What did he mean by this? Numbers and operations are ontologically prior to things that are governed by the laws of physic and to the laws of physics themselves? Is this some sort of idiot Platonism?

>>9764445
>To make this case he falls back on Joseph Chambell and Carl Jung, by claiming that this mode of operation as well as the units of information themselves are instances of archetypes of the collective unconscious.
Why can't I just read Jung or Campbell instead? I already have Campbell's books about mythology.

>it's Peterson fan tackling Godel episode

https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/6gfle2/a_jordan_peterson_fan_explains_godels_theorems/

this is gonna be at least as good as Peterson himself trying to understand Godel, isn't it?

>>9751718
>picr elated
Peterson looks THICC

File: I WOULD PREFER NOT TO.png (257KB, 415x476px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 415x476px

>>9764454
>So someone suggesting that the book is worth reading should be able to justify the reading of it, right?

It significantly altered the way I look at mythology, religion, and culture. I think it's an excellent book.

Also, now that they are not so fresh out of the oven, go back and look at the retarded, weasley questions you typed. It's pathetic.

File: maps of meaning 3.png (205KB, 791x605px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 791x605px

>>9764385
>Are the methods of science not action? If meaning is shaped as a consequence of social interaction, can't it be 'validly construed' that social interaction can shape the idea that there is no meaning?

Peterson argues that, despite its achievements, hard science (the objective description of the world of things) is unable to give you even basic advice on how to live your life and how to get the future you want. The world is too complex to comprehend and therefore you can not derive a moral good from scientific fact. You cant derive an "ought" form an "is".

>>9764466
Currently doing so, but I never understood the value of the heroes journey before Peterson slapped it across my face. They are just the foundation for his reasoning.

>>9764459
>laws of physics
Those are a mathematical construction. An observation. Not an actual provable law. You need some mathematic axioms for them to even work and nobody known if those axioms are even correct. Math is not an objective description of reality. It's just good enough and we need to keep updating it, but it is my no means complete. In fact, Gödel proves that if it were complete it would no longer be free of paradoxes. Basically, a "theory of everything" based on mathematics is impossible, proven my mathematics itself.

>>9764468
>reddit
>/r/badX
Literally nothing but an elitist circle jerk for arrogant first year college students. I actually had hoped that understanding mathematics could be the solution, but when I took meta logic in college and came across Gödel I realized that I was mistaken. If math can't prove itself right it's not as powerful as I thought. Also if you look at the profile of anyone who bashes Peterson in these type of reddit threads, you will almost always find out that they are SJWs or socialists. Really makes me think. They also never try to refute him directly, instead they just act smug and condescending without actually making any point what so ever. Much like the shitposters in this thread actually.

>>9764445
He doesn't seem to be a very careful academic then if his claim for all art and stories is teaching us human action. Cosmogonies and theogonies don't tell us how to act, they tell us how things came to be and provide justification for how things are. The Enuma Elish tells us that humans have to work because the gods want to work less, and in fact there is order because the gods already dealt with the chaos. A still life doesn't tell me how to act, neither does a portrait. Simple enculturation tells us how to act and that is only marginally based on either side of his dichotomy. Literature is for the literate, or for the special occasions when it is recited. This is just not convincing for me, and I don't think I will miss out on anything valuable by putting the book down after the introduction to the chapter.

>>9764457
I quickly looked up 'psychology abstract' and this was the first result:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-8582-6_2

Does this not seem like it has more weight to it? Referring to definite things. It doesn't rely on metaphysical concepts, it presents them in context.

>>9764511
If you read the book, Peterson explains how cosmogonies are representations of human action, or at least representations of things which have significance for action. He shows how the interpretation you just gave is nothing more than the prejudice of someone from a scientific culture.

>>9764528
Maps isn't merely a psychological book. It deals with cultural artifacts and ancient modes of the representation. It's going to be a bit "metaphysical".

File: maps of meaning 4.png (153KB, 753x1110px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 753x1110px

>>9764511
>The Enuma Elish tells us that humans have to work because the gods want to work less
He literally talks about the Mesopotamian creation myth as an example. These stories don't literally say "do X to get Y". It's a little more sophisticated than that. Do you even know what a metaphor is? He applies the same interpretive framework the to bible itself. See pic related.

>and in fact there is order because the gods already dealt with the chaos.
Order and chaos and what to do about them are the central themes of his work, you genius. Thanks for making my point for me.

>>9764541
This.

File: maxresdefault[2].jpg (109KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1920x1080px

>>9764555
>>9764541
>>9764511
To be honest, I though he was full of shit when I first heard his claims on Joe Rogan, but after watching his lectures and thinking about it, it makes complete sense. Even when you apply it to stuff like Anime. For instance: Madoka Magica. Kyubey's energy source is literally what Peterson calls "disintegration descent" in these slides: >>9764509 >>9764445
The archetypal decent into the underworld. An encounter with the dragon of chaos and ultimately the wish of self destruction as a consequence of being unable to deal with the great unknown. It makes perfect sense. It's almost scary how accurately it fits. I know that this is close to affirming the consequent and pseudo science, but even then it shouldn't make as much sense as it does. It maps perfectly. At least for all pieces of art and media that ever spoke to me in a meaningful way. From Goethe's Faust to video games.

>>9764555
There's nothing really sophisticated about the idea that 'people were created to work hence why they work'. Reading the myth in isolation of its context just isn't convincing academic work to me. These myths weren't available on the internet for your average Mesopotamian to read and interpret and understand as a sort of sophisticated map for individualist action. Nor were they produced at a time when there was a art/science split, as I suggested before.

>Thanks for making my point for me.

Poor reading. The point is that chaos has already been overcome. Fighting the destructive chaos or whatever doesn't seem to be pertinent human action in a world that was literally created from the slain beast of chaos.

>>9764641
>The point is that chaos has already been overcome.
Do you live with your parents? No one but a sheltered man-child could possibly believe that this is true. Chaos is lurking around every corner and if you're not prepared it will destroy you.

>These myths weren't available on the internet for your average Mesopotamian to read and interpret and understand as a sort of sophisticated map for individualist action.
And yet they were passed along as oral tradition and ultimately written down. Why? Just as a hamfisted explanation of why anything exists at all? If that's the case, why did different cultures also come up with stories that fit this pattern independently of one another? Also just because people don't realize that they are acting in such a pattern doesn't mean they are not acting it out. You can do things you are not fully aware of. There is a reason Jung called it the collective UNCONSCIOUS. Your reasoning is that of a 15 year old fedora tipper.

>Fighting the destructive chaos or whatever doesn't seem to be pertinent human action in a world that was literally created from the slain beast of chaos.
The beast of chaos can never be defeated. It needs to be slain constantly, all over again, in order to make the world, again and again. Your culture always needs to be updated, by you, the divine individual, the archetypal hero that creates order from chaos, by facing your challenges, overcoming them and thus reducing the amount of suffering in the world and in your life. Look around you. Look at the state of our society and all the political chaos and tell me I'm wrong.

>>9764696
>Do you live with your parents? No one but a sheltered man-child could possibly believe that this is true. Chaos is lurking around every corner and if you're not prepared it will destroy you.

I'm saying that is what the creation myth suggests. Chaos is slain and her body parts make up the universe. She no longer creates or destroys. I could possibly accept that the myth establishes the emperor's role in preserving order but to say that chaos being defeated is a metaphor for chaos not being defeated is not at all convincing, and it shouldn't be.

>And yet they were passed along as oral tradition and ultimately written down.

Yes but they weren't recited at will, and the parts that have the most repetition (i.e. memorability) don't have much to do with human action.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with the rest of the paragraph since it doesn't logically follow the point of the argument and it's you just being mad.

>The beast of chaos can never be defeated.

Well that contradicts the myth then doesn't it.

>>9764696
I think this Max Planck quote is more convincing when it comes to updating culture:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph
by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

>>9764746
>I'm saying that is what the creation myth suggests
This is about so much more than the fucking Enuma Elish, you literal brainlet. It's just one story among many. It is in fact the oldest story known to man. Why would the first iteration of such a concept be complete?

>Yes but they weren't recited at will, and the parts that have the most repetition (i.e. memorability) don't have much to do with human action.
Humans = Gods, in the metaphorical sense. God is what creates order from chaos. Men are made in gods image. You see where I'm going with this, right? Gods are metaphors, for fucks sake.

>Well that contradicts the myth then doesn't it.
Why even tell the story if the problem no longer exists? Why tell anyone that chaos has been defeated and that that's a good thing if it has no chance of chaos ever returning? Also how can chaos be considered to be defeated if it makes up the building blocks of our world? We've tamed nature and built our world on top of her, but that doesn't mean that she no longer exists or wont come back and claim what's hers. Like I said, the Enuma Elish isn't the final conclusion, but rather a first attempt at conceptualizing that our world was made by defeating chaos. You seem to be incapable of thinking in more abstract or metaphorical terms. Tiamat isn't real, she is just an archetypal representation of the dragon of chaos, as are so many other things. Even if you assume that the Enuma Elish is a literal historical document, the concept of the hero defeating chaos STILL works as a metaphorical guide to life. Even IF Tiamat herself can't come back, chaos obviously still exists, because chaos is anything that happens to you that you didn't expect and that you never thought could happen to you. Again, METAPHORS!

>>9764799
>This is about so much more than the fucking Enuma Elish, you literal brainlet.

You're the one who decided to reduce my argument to just the Enuma Elish and not address it holistically. Japanese mythology doesn't follow the same formula, as an example.

>Humans = Gods, in the metaphorical sense.

In a bullshit sense. In the Enuma Elish, again, humans are created from the blood of a slain god. They're not gods, they work for gods. No point picking and choosing from mythologies to make a point that is otherwise unsupported by the mythologies in isolation. That's lazy academic work.

>Why even tell the story if the problem no longer exists?

Yes why does the emperor recite the story of the god who he is supposed to represent? A real head-scratcher.

>the concept of the hero defeating chaos STILL works as a metaphorical guide to life

There you go. Sure, it works as 'a' metaphorical guide but it is not 'the' metaphorical guide. You know it.

>>9764828
>humans are created from the blood of a slain god
That's close enough.

>No point picking and choosing from mythologies to make a point that is otherwise unsupported by the mythologies in isolation.
Cheery-picking makes sense if you are looking for common themes. It's about those common themes, not the stories themselves. It's about the meta story, the story about how the story itself transforms.

>Yes why does the emperor recite the story of the god who he is supposed to represent? A real head-scratcher.
So it's just about power to you? Just a way to keep the subjects obedient? Just the opiate of the masses? Top kek. Real original thought there, Karl Marx. Also you just claimed that humans are not gods and yet the emperor is a representative of the gods. That's incompatible. The emperor IS the representation of the archetypal hero, because he is literally the authority on which the current order is built upon.

>Sure, it works as 'a' metaphorical guide but it is not 'the' metaphorical guide. You know it.
Because there is more to this concept then just some dusty creation myths written down by literal sand-people, you dolt. All 400+ pages of Maps of Meaning are dedicated to it. Do you want me to spoonfeed the entire fucking book to you? Read it, or stop discussing it.

>>9764860
>That's close enough.

Not if they work for gods. Being created to serve gods is not a metaphor for humans being gods.

>not the stories themselves.

Yes I can see why elements should be excluded if they contradict the 'common themes'. What a poor scholar.

>So it's just about power to you?

No.

>Also you just claimed that humans are not gods and yet the emperor is a representative of the gods.

The emperor is a representation of A god. Is the emperor 'human' if he represents a god? Were Chinese emperors just human?

>Because there is more to this concept then just some dusty creation myths written down by literal sand-people, you dolt.

Yeah you'll keep moving those goalposts further and further until my critique addresses the whole theory. I'm not wasting my time on some second-rate ahistorical scholarship that took 13 years to misinterpret some mythology and lazily apply it to some vague psychological concepts. Maybe once you read more than one book in your life you will realise this too.

>>9764860
>>9764828
>>9764885
I never claimed that Maps of Meaning was the end all, be all of philosophy. Peterson's theory is not all encompassing nor complete, but it is pretty damn solid and covers a large range. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt, obviously. What is even your point? That Peterson isn't an all knowing second coming of Christ and that Maps of Meaning is not the final conclusion of the meaning of life? No fucking shit, dude. How could I have ever figured that one out without your help? How could I have realized that that the answers to the worlds problems could be found in a single book, if it wasn't for you?

>Yeah you'll keep moving those goalposts further and further until my critique addresses the whole theory.
Because you don't seem to understand the theory. Personally, I've seen the things Peterson talks about in many pieces of art that touched me on some emotional level, and even then I understood why and what they meant for me personally. Peterson has just put these experiences I had in a broader context that makes more sense then my own explanations for the things I've experienced and felt. Personally, I don't give a shit about creation stories. I like Maps of Meaning because it fits perfectly to explain why the things that I found to be meaningful to me personally, are meaningful. Why I feel the things that I feel. It connects all the things I already care about in a somewhat coherent manner. And that's beautiful. Looking back on how certain works of art and media affected me, plenty of Peterson's claims seem self evident to me.

>>9764909
>I never claimed that Maps of Meaning was the end all, be all of philosophy.
Seems like Peterson does. My point is that MoM is fine if you just want a nice story that has no bearing on the actual world, its art, its history, etc. My point is that JBP is a terrible, dishonest scholar with no rigor or integrity and his claim of validity is false. Your sarcasm makes you sound underage, by the way.

>>9764936
>Seems like Peterson does.
Nope. He calls it a theory, but he never made the claim that it's the only valid way of looking at the world, but rather a step towards it.

>My point is that JBP is a terrible, dishonest scholar with no rigor or integrity and his claim of validity is false.
You can't make that claim if all you know about him is from 20 minutes out of context youtube clips posted by edgy teenagers and MRAs. I can't explain it as well as he does, so what you're attacking is not even Maps of Meaning, but your interpretation of my shitty explanation. I am currently reading the book and I have watched his lectures and therefore I am by definition more informed on his theory than you are, which makes your assertion that it is "dishonest" completely worthless. You can't really critique something without first diving in with an open mind to see what you may find. It generally seems like to me that when I see people bash Peterson they bring up his politics and then extend their contempt to his other work, simply because it was created by a person they happen to dislike for political reasons (muh "alt-right" boogeyman). I care about his work, independently of who he is as a person. All you can do is throw out buzzwords. How is the dishonest and without integrity if you simply disagree with his positions?

>Your sarcasm makes you sound underage, by the way.
I'm 22. Also more buzzwords. How does me being underage or not have to do with anything? Maturity and age are not directly proportional. You come across like the type of person who thinks that anyone who has a different opinion must be either be evil or stupid. You're close minded. All you've done is to convince me that Maps of Meaning isn't perfect and that Peterson has his flaws. Which is something I already believed in the first place. Great work.

>>9764997
https://youtu.be/RudKmwzDpNY?t=55m51s
Look how the tone of his voice changes as he talks talking about the bible

>>9764997
>20 minutes out of context youtube clips posted by edgy teenagers and MRAs.
Useless buzzwords
> I can't explain it as well as he does
Why try to then? My critique was of how vague and nonsensical his opening paragraph was compared to actual academia. Signs of a weak thinker
>which makes your assertion that it is "dishonest" completely worthless
Does not logically follow
>You can't really critique something without first diving in with an open mind to see what you may find
False and irrelevant
> It generally seems like to me that when I see people bash Peterson they bring up his politics and then extend their contempt to his other work, simply because it was created by a person they happen to dislike for political reason
Pointless addition
>I care about his work, independently of who he is as a person.
Doubtful
>All you can do is throw out buzzwords
False. I've attempted a critique and ended on buzzwords because you set precedent
>How is the dishonest and without integrity if you simply disagree with his positions?
Not the reason
>How does me being underage or not have to do with anything?
Just letting you know
>You're close minded.
Nah
>All you've done is to convince me that Maps of Meaning isn't perfect and that Peterson has his flaws.
Because you don't know how to hold a conversation so it was just reduced to minutiae, then complained that it was just about minutiae.

Poor comprehension. See you on another Peterson thread.

File: 1486935788872.jpg (82KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 900x900px

>>9765038
Are you just going through the lectures to cherrypick something you can then extrapolate into some sort of strawman? Because that's what you're doing. What are you implying? That he is just a christian shill who want's to indoctrinate people with conservative ideology? He isn't even a real Christian. Nothing about his claims requires theology to work. Do you think Jung and Chambell we're also nothing but religious charlatans? Seems you're just a fedora tipper.

>>9765066
>Why try to then? My critique was of how vague and nonsensical his opening paragraph was compared to actual academia
These are not opening paragraphs, but a really rough summery of an entire chapter. The chapter itself is where he goes into detail and starts providing footnotes and sources. The point of these short paragraphs are not meant to convince anybody, but are merely a pointer to show people roughly where he is going with this. You're complaining that something which isn't supposed to be an academic text in the first place is a poor academic text. Genius.

>Does not logically follow
>False and irrelevant
>Doubtful
Your 4 word maximum sentences are not arguments. Why did you even bother to type that horseshit? Petty.

>Poor comprehension. See you on another Peterson thread.
Unlikely. I'm just a crossboarder from /g/, /his/, /v/ and /pol/

Holy shit he revealed his IQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZV8Juna40

>>9764496
>It's pathetic.
You failed to answer my questions adequately.
>>9764509
>Currently doing so, but I never understood the value of the heroes journey before Peterson slapped it across my face. They are just the foundation for his reasoning.
Then you're a fucking idiot. Goddamn it. You shouldn't be allowed near books.
>Those are a mathematical construction. An observation. Not an actual provable law. You need some mathematic axioms for them to even work
I don't think you understood my question, you faggot. You can namedrop Godel all you want, but what you're doing doesn't qualify as logic--your premises and conclusions are thrown together willy-nilly to support the claim "This book is worth your time," rather than being organized around demonstrating the truth of a conclusion or the soundness of an argument.