Sort Yourself Out

I literally just listened to the recent Joe Rogan podcast he did.
I knew he was a smart guy and that he was right about a lot but..

After listening for 3 hours straight, Im absolutely mindblown. The things he said were so believable namely because a LOT of it I had thought of briefly, namrly social issues and SJW phenomena and WHY it happens. Its like he took a bunch of abstract thoughts and half-formed observations I had floating around in my head and perfectly put them together while expanding upon them, and explaining the entire thing with pretty much infinite ease.

I honestly feel like my views werent challenged OR validated.. its like they were completely restructured, and my level of clarity skyrocketed.

This is fucking crazy, dude. I know im sucking the guy off for such a small bit of time with his opinions and viewpoints, but I cant shake this feeling now. Its fucking weird.

File: 6vScT.jpg (137KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 717x880px

>>128700973

>I literally just listened to the recent Joe Rogan podcast

bye

>>128701209
i could argue your point but
>leaf

>>128700973
Wait til you get 100h into his lectures

>>128700973
he's so under-appreciated too. I wish more lefties knew of him, it would help them understand what all this autism is about.

>>128700973
>>128702458
>>128702615
He doesn't even know what the hell he's talking about when he starts getting into philosophy though, that's the issue. I think he's fighting the good fight, so to say, but he should really stick to the basics of free speech, thought crime, etc. rather than trying to "explain" post-modernism to people when even he doesn't have a firm grasp on it. It's just cringey hearing him talk on actual philosophy.

Sorry, I'll go back to cleaning my room now.

>>128700973
He's brilliant. /pol/will disregard this, for some kike with a "nazi" haircut, but Peterson is spot on.

>>128703007
Could you specify what it is exactly about him thats wrong about philosophy? I am not saying you are wrong, im genuinely curious about what you mean. I cannot say either way because im rather new to philospohy and am admittedly not intelligent enough to innovate any ideas of my own in the many dialogues about philosophy, so i would be interested to see how you think he's wrong/misinterpereting/whatever it is he is wrong about.

>>128700296
why does this guy looking unsettling in every one of his photos

>>128703007
t. Post modernist jew

>>128703352
>Could you specify what it is exactly about him thats wrong about philosophy?
Yea, sure thing, anon. I think it's cool that you're actually interested instead of just supporting everything he says like it's a comment straight from god himself.

My biggest issue with him is just how quick he is to put everything into little boxes and make blanket statements about movements, ideologies, etc. and attribute positions to them. Most concerning was when he was talking about post modernism in some video he has up on his YT channel. For example, if you call the screaming SJWs from Toronto or Evergreen "post modern," then is shows a fundamental misunderstanding of literally everything the post modern school of thought stood for, even loosely based. The things he attributes to them are tenets of some individuals who consider themselves to be post modern, but are not requirements.

Take for example. 1) Being an "anarchist" is a necessary/required prerequisite to being a communist.
>But the Soviets!!!!
The Soviets did not even remotely look like communists by ANY stretch of the imagination other than in name, only as a PR move to gain support of the working class.

Then trying to say that "communism leads to a strong central government!!!!" when, by default, if there is a governing body, then it is not "communism."

Now this particular example is not one from Peterson, but rather a more common one found with posts on /pol/ more broadly. Peterson does that, but with post modernism. If people are screaming at you and not letting you say your side of the argument, then - again, by default - they are not acting in a "post modern" way.

Now it's fair to say that a large chunk of the mess of higher education can be linked back to a lot of post modern thinkers and troubling interpretations of "away with the old, in with the new," but I just think he doesn't really understand what it is he's trying to critique, or at the bare minimum, is going about itin [cont]

File: 1462830881277.jpg (514KB, 2058x2990px)

514KB, 2058x2990px

>>128700296
What's the song in the background again?

>>128703999
[cont.]

...going about it in an intellectually dishonest manner.

I think he's a good guy, I applaud the stance he's taking, I just think he needs to read up a bit more before pontificating to others in a field he is not familiar with. He's a psychologist, after all, not a philosopher.

>>128703370
Haha, not quite. Post modernists, and even modernists, would not be huge fans of my preferred school of thought: enlightenment. Post modernism doesn't put an emphasis on logic and reason, and would claim that my justifications are SPOOKS.

>>128704231
Thats fair. I still am not fully clear on postmodernism and the sort of struggle society has with it today, but I still agree with a lot of what peterson said. After knowing more about his backround it doesnt surprise me that most of what resonated with me was psychology and the history of heros and whatnot, seeing as thats his true field. I guess the only true way is to read every book I can lmao, I wish I cared this much in high school.

>>128704892
To be fair, "society" doesn't really struggle with post modernism too much today. There aren't any actual consistent post modernists because it's impractical and useless. It's an interesting concept to talk about/think about/try to impress that girl in the short tight dress at the cocktail party, but not anything you need to concern yourself with.

Post modernism was a ridiculous fad and even in most serious academic circles it's not relevant anymore (that's why you see young undergrads who like it so much).

>>128703243
Side note: what the hell is this anon talking about? /pol/ and Reddit absolutely love this guy.

>>128703999
>ake for example. 1) Being an "anarchist" is a necessary/required prerequisite to being a communist.
>But the Soviets!!!!
>The Soviets did not even remotely look like communists by ANY stretch of the imagination other than in name, only as a PR move to gain support of the working class.
>Then trying to say that "communism leads to a strong central government!!!!" when, by default, if there is a governing body, then it is not "communism."

This is a disingenuous statement, given that communism first advocates the fostering of socialism upon a nation, which in its most common form advocates for the means of production to be seized by a party or social institution on behalf of the proletariat. Therefore, the party or institution becomes the state.

>>128705515
>first advocates the fostering of socialism upon a nation
Yes. That's why it's called "socialism," anon. But I'm referencing people calling it "communism" at that point, which it is not, and then thinking that is what discredits the whole political philosophy behind it.

>>128705668
What is the next step after socialism is achieved? Is it not the fact that socialism doesn't work that discredits communism?

>>128705668
>>128705166

I think he attributes post modern deconstruction to post modernism, which is abused by people to devalue and trivialize anything: values, art religion, science.

When he refers to screeching SJWS as touting a "post modernist" view i take it as him referring to the justification for their nihilism and their arbitrary value systems based only on feelings.

>>128700973
>Im absolutely mindblown
That pretty much convinces me that this place has become filled with newfag retards. Everything he says should already be apparent to you, if you've spent any amount of time on here.

>>128706840
Anon, he does a much better job of explaining his ideas than 99% of /pol/ does and actually gives logical reasoning behind a lot of what human nature is. He also doesnt screech KIKES REEEEEE with 900 trump memes a second. The majority of overlap /pol/ even HAS with him in my experience is the values of traditionalism that /pol/ has, such as being anti-degeneracy. And that barely scrapes the surface. Your argument is bullshit and you're being a faggot, anon.

>>128707234
If you think that's all /pol/ is, then it only proves that you haven't been here for very long, and you have an unbelievably poor understanding of imageboards in general. You most likely don't even know the most basic and fundamental shit, like effects of gynocentrism and hypergamy, or the realities of the Holocaust. You're an unread normie who needs to lurk moar.