/lit/ - Literature

>>18368014
Why has the quality of public intellectuals gone down the shitter over the decades? Canada went from Marshall McLuhan and George Grant to this

>>18369112
That is what all public intellectuals are for. They are there to gatekeep.

>this wimpy effeminate little faggot who can't go five minutes without crying thinks he can teach zoomers how to be real men
https://youtu.be/5ty7WOrIgSQ
https://youtu.be/WXYuqrO8LLo

What do you think of these sorts of "Christians" like Jordan Peterson who like the philosophy and morality of the story of Jesus and so on but they don't actually believe in God in a literal sense? I think that it is heresy. It is a small minded way of looking at the Bible and a failure to see how the mystical and metaphorical are reflections of each other. It devalues the Bible to the level of some vapid self-help book. That is the way I see it at least but I would be interested in reading your thoughts on this.

Why do people like Jordan Peterson say that identity politics are postmodernism? Aren't identity politics the opposite of postmodernism? All these PC fags with their narratives of the evil white man, institutional racism and sexism, that's all a grand narrative. Postmodernism is a rejection of such narratives.
Does JP simply not know what he is talking about, or is he deliberately lying for some reason?

>the postmodern neomarxists put him on trial, with execution on the table
>the charges: corrupting the youth (white men), and not believing in the gods of the city (diversity, equity, and inclusion).

What would the Apology of Jordan Peterson’s look like?

op needs a personality and to clean his room

No! Do not come to me with science when I am looking for the natural
antagonist to the ascetic ideal, when I ask: ‘Where is the opposing will in
which its opposing ideal expresses itself ?’ Science is not nearly independent
enough for that, in every respect it first needs a value-ideal, a valuecreating
power, in whose service it can believe in itself, – science itself never
creates values. Its relationship to the ascetic ideal is certainly not yet
inherently antagonistic; indeed, it is much more the case, in general, that
it still represents the driving force in the inner evolution of that ideal. Its
repugnance and pugnacity are, on closer inspection, directed not at the
ideal itself but at its outworks, its apparel and disguise, at the way the ideal
temporarily hardens, solidifies, becomes dogmatic – science liberates
what life is in it by denying what is exoteric in this ideal. Both of them,
science and the ascetic ideal, are still on the same foundation – I have
already explained –; that is to say, both overestimate truth (more
correctly: they share the same faith that truth cannot be assessed or
criticized), and this makes them both necessarily allies, – so that, if they must be fought, they can only be fought and called into question together.
A depreciation of the value of the ascetic ideal inevitably brings about a
depreciation of the value of science: one must keep one’s eyes open and
prick up one’s ears for this in time! (Art, let me say at the outset, since I
shall deal with this at length some day, – art, in which lying sanctifies itself
and the will to deception has good conscience on its side, is much more fundamentally
opposed to the ascetic ideal than science is: this was sensed
instinctively by Plato, the greatest enemy of art Europe has yet produced.
Plato versus Homer. No! – open your eyes! – this ‘modern science’ is, for the time
being, the best ally for the ascetic ideal, for the simple reason that it is the
most unconscious, involuntary, secret and subterranean! The ‘poor in
spirit and the scientific opponents of this ideal have up till now played
the same game (by the way, beware of thinking that they are its opposite,
i.e. the rich in spirit: – they are not that, I called them the hectics of the
spirit). These famous victories of the latter: undoubtedly they are victories
– but over what? The ascetic ideal was decidedly not conquered, it
was, on the contrary, made stronger, I mean more elusive, more spiritual

i've started accepting it and so should you. petersonfags didn't ruin this board, they're just hard proof that it's been dead for a long time. so where do you hang out now anon? the web feels dead but sometimes i want to come back.

>*conflates standpoint epistemology, marxism and postmodernism and argues against a bad strawman of all of them*
heh.. nothin personnel ked

I think beterson is a fucking pseud but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Where should I start?

>>9917394
OP here, I personally believe in God though...

I also like the Bible because biblical stories are excellent ways to conceptualise God. The only point I tried to make that religious interpretations of it are contradictory in this sense (the OP). The stories in the Bible, literally speaking, aren't completely true or scientifically accurate. But the ideas, morals and lessons underpinning the Bible are quite universally true and many interpretations of it either individually or through religion violate the premises that God is perfect, omnipotent etc.

how come my life isn't good?

i have always been weary of petersonfags... but holy shit /b/ros... this guy is a total fucking psued... hes stepping WAAAAAAAAAY out of his area of expertise and it's showing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0O8Jw6grro

Dear Memerson retards,
In your own words, what is postmodernism and why is it bad?

if any of you are brave enough to reply without looking up on wikipedia, we might actually be able to see how little le cult lads actually know. Perhaps even less than the man himself

Is Jordan Peterson a post-modernist?
He states that he acts as if God exists, arguing that identifying the religious sentiment as a mere made-up narrative is perfectly reasonable, and that in fact one should choose this path in pragmatical manner, for this lifestyle is apparently beneficial for most human beings.

Now, although his prescriptive statements are conservative, his epistemological framework is both nihilist and postmodernist. Not only Peterson is aware of what narratives actually are, but he also factors in phisiological factors such mental health, how balanced lifestyle actually is and so on. This is an extremely cynic and nihilist viewpoint on discourse and humanity at large, which overcoming is still motivated by inherently egoistic reasons, based on benefits and life improvements.

So... is he actually a postmodernist?

>>9813319
Wow, that is pathological. You're too crazy and not well-adjusted enough for me to take seriously your ideas.
*sciences his way out*

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554?lang=en
Truly the greatest intellectual of our generation.

>Peterson on /lit/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3fy0RYpU8Q

Wew, people actually fell for this botnet?

t. (((Jordan Peterson)))

Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant ideological agenda is fucking bullshit?

Hey /fitlit/

sort yourselves out.