/lit/ - Literature

>>10323219
Even his face annoys me. He's straining it to appear more intelligent.

>>10323224
Sort yourself out.

>>10323219

What’s the deal with the Jung/Nietzsche thing? Out of morbid curiosity I was browsing some of the texts of Esoteric Hitlerism going around /pol/ and everything is always Jung this and Nietzsche that, why those two?

>>10323269
Because Jung revolutionized the new ""reading"" of Nietzsche wherein you can pay lipservice to some of his more profound quotes without taking the time to understand his philosophy

>>10323224
he´s the uglier version of jeremy irons

>>10323302
Any examples? Probably not.

To be clear, I'm saying you're a phony & talking out your ass.

This guy plays word games so as not to alienate his religious audience.
>Interviewer: Do you believe in God?
>JP: What do you mean by "believe" and what do you mean by "God"?
The man can't answer a simple fucking question.

>>10323932
His god is better and deeper and realer than your god, stupid.

You must have been away, meta-mythological narratives are pretty childish compared to the new philosophy of Daddy

>>10323937
>implying I have a God

>>10323932
No, he's just read a lot of Jung

>>10323938
SCIENCE MOTHERFUCKER
*BRAP* Y-Y-YOU PROBABLY CANT EVEN DONT EVEN W-WATCH RICK AND M-M-M-MORTY

>>10323942
>thinking that was directed at you
wew

>>10323944
What does that lead to? What's Jung like? Is it good?

>>10323932
You would have liked this board circa four years ago, when 50% of all posts were "define x".

>>10323950
God is a psychological experience to be had or not.

>>10323956
What the fuck does 'circa' mean?

>>10323964
So you never read a book by Jung. How do you have an opinion? Or is it an opinion on other opinions? What's your game here?

>>10323965
It means you should read a book.

>>10323975
Circa on how to write plainly, fuckface.

>>10323969
Go right ahead and explain how you came to that conclusion.

>>10323219
>the King of nu-lit
Pynch will always be king

>>10323965
like the brand you should have paid attention or else youd be out there skating for god or sorting out your kick flips by now probsbly

>>10323988
I'm usually happy to explain something, especially if I'm familiar with it. In your case, I'd expect your neural network to be cast wide enough to know that deism is older than Jung & quite popular, especially in the early US.

Tying it to a Jung quote is fucking insane. You're failing the Turing test of 'intelligent guy on the internet'.

>>10323219
Why is everyone suddenly talking about this guy?

>>10323986
Circa is a very common word, but look it up if you have to.

>>10323965
"roughly", but rarely used outside the context of date/time

Daily reminder to report all non-literature related threads

>>10324007
He was fighting against gender pronoun proliferation, so people started listening, and it turned out he had interesting stuff to say about Disney movies and the Bible.

>>10324007
Has become the father figure of the current culture war of traditionalists vs. post-modernists.

>>10324005
If you don't explain, or can't provide anything that shows how Jung does not interpret God as a symbol in the psyche, then there is no moving forward here.

>>10324007
Soyboys need an internet dad

>>10324007

He's an asshole with dipshit traditionalist philosophies like demanding that women be stay-at-home moms and be nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust and the caretaker of his children.

Of course, he's also charismatic to a degree so /pol/mutts have taken a liking to him because he's their best stand-in for their absentee fathers.

>>10324016
Well fuck me circa. I got a lot to learn from /lit/.

>>10323945
>SCIENCE MOTHERFUCKER
kek way to associate the complete opposite school of thought to the foremost continental philosopher

>>10324018
I like what he says about mythology and archetypes. What are good sources on this stuff, aside from Jung himself?

>>10324026
>He's an asshole with dipshit traditionalist philosophies like demanding that women be stay-at-home moms and be nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust and the caretaker of his children.
The guy is a milquetoast moderate, he just doesn't like ess-jay-double-ews and le dumb pronouns, which of course is more than enough to fall into /pol/'s good graces.

>>10324007
/lit/ would rather watch youtube videos about literature than read books. Booktubers and pop philosophy videos have generally been looked down on, but since this guy is a professor people feel they can substitute his videos for reading without losing self-respect.

>>10324022
Where did you pick up that rhetorical flail: "then there is no moving forward here."

I have nothing to explain, I'm asking you to elaborate, you phony cocksucker. You haven't. You posted an instagram quote. One that doesn't have anything to do with God as a symbol in the psyche. I get that that's your pet theory. Has Jung written something expressing that as well?

(Asking for a friend)

>>10324035
It's interesting, but a lot of it is surfacey. Read a Bible passage and come up with an interpretation. It'll probably be similar to what he'd say.

I gleefully await the day some undergrad comes forward and accuses this man of sexual assault.

>>10324026
What's this based on?

>>10324067
Yeah, but I think it's a good entry point. At least in my case I'm not creative or intelligent enough to gather good interpretations from such stuff, or at least I never took the job to think it properly.

>>10324056
not him but here

>>10324081
>>10324067
Also, the bonus of Peterson is that he relates the topic of archetypes with the scientific knowledge he has on human behavior due to being a clinical psychologist.

>>10324084
Not relevant. Also

>quoting quoted quotes

smdh desu senpai evolve

>>10324087
“”””””””””””clinical”””””””””””””””

>>10324056
It sounds like you need to read him. Or better yet, read Nietzsche, since Jung learned a good deal from him. The Jungian interpretation of the psyche is quite different from the Freudian.

The "mystics" and "sages" have always known the fluid nature of things. Read the Tao Te Ching, it's basically the introduction to mystical thought. "Do you believe in God?" is a loaded question. Jung was closer to being a mystic than a scientist, and treated psychological effectors as symbols, otherwise he would not have laid out ideas like the archetypes or the anima / animus.

>>10324099
What's the meaning of the meme commas?

>>10324097
>crucifixion is an inner necessity of individuation
>the soul is by nature Christian
>we all have to be crucified with Christ
>God is incarnated in oneself
"God as a symbol in the psyche" there you go

>>10324026
>He's an asshole with dipshit traditionalist philosophies like demanding that women be stay-at-home moms and be nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust and the caretaker of his children.
The the only thing even vaguely resembling what your slander is when he suggested that women are denying themselves an evolutionary incentive for affection and child rearing leading to their unhappiness. And he's not wrong.

>>10324087
Well sure it has one of those runny, leaky neural networks like Pynchon has, so yeah he draws connections... but you toss guys like that a tennis ball and they'll give you a philippic and a spinning transmuting encomium...

>>10323988
A single quote doesn't highlight the depth of thinking Jung does in his books, especially not with his idea of God.

>tfw want to sort myself out
>tfw don't because it's too hard and unpleasant
>tfw made peace with it as being part of the lost boys is aesthetic as fuck and gives me something to write about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebr9R_TlPoI
Who else here manchild?

>>10323219
Peterson is just what everyone on /lit/ wants to become.

>>10323932
I don't have a problem with that. If he had said "Yes, but here's how I define God and belief..." I'd be totally ok with his answer.
But that wasn't his (entire) answer.
He said "I act as if God is real". Now THAT is some real bullshit answer that makes him come off as completely dishonest when he calls himself a theist.

>>10324070
You sound resentful.

>>10324106
All this tells me is that you haven't read Jung.

I've read all of Nietzsche. Recommending him as relevant to anything you've said tells me you haven't read him either.

Stop being a shithead fraud.

Your surface level, university-freshman insights give you away.

>>10324143
maybe, maybe not, you never know the answer

>>10324070
Me too, because Peterson is one of the few people with the power of personality and reason that can actually stop this witchhunt mentality in its tracks and save us all from some very deadly groupthink. A lesser person would be destroyed by such defamation, but Peterson? He will come out on top and show the world that it is defamation and reify the need evidence.

>>10324099
Clinical psychologist means he actually helps real people, he puts theory into practice.

>>10324141
This post sad

>>10324159
>can actually stop this witchhunt mentality in its tracks and save us all from some very deadly groupthink

his actually fanbase just thinks what he thinks, they´re also brainless morons and fanboys

>>10324167
is*

Jesus, I'm in Toronto and I know two people who went to his rally (including the blue-haired girl from the thumbnail in that famous video). It's surreal to see him making the news like this.

Please answer me - why do you all hate Peterson SO much? Is it because he's wrongfully praised as being the thinker of a generation? Is it just because of his cancerous fanbase? Sure, he's not a 21st Century Nietzsche or w/e, but he's not THAT bad.

>>10324044

Fuck you. I'm watching his videos and have begun reading Jung.

>>10324156
What kind of trolling is this? The entire thread so far you haven't said anything of substance, you've just said "you're wrong" to people. Either put something on the table or fuck off.

>>10324171
That's funny, since he tries to teach about ideology, its flaws, and how to become immune to it, or at least not completely controlled by it. The "fanbase" you're talking about isn't representative of people who are interested and listen to what he says

>>10324183
>Is it just because of his cancerous fanbase?

because of that

>>10323932
>simple answers
For a complex reality. It's like you hate thinking and want excuses to not have to do it.

>>10324141
How can people take this guy seriously?

>>10324183
Why do people still ask that question? Must be for the easy (You)s, since it has been answered hundreds of times: his obnoxious cult followers are the annoyance. Most people on /lit/ have no problem with the man himself.

>>10324171
>his actually fanbase just thinks what he thinks, they´re also brainless morons and fanboys
When has this not been the case with anyone in history? The vocal majority are never what you judge things by, never. You'll live your whole life utterly confused and with upside down ideas of things if you do.

>>10324026
>He's an asshole
No.
>with dipshit traditionalist philosophies
No.
>like demanding that women be stay-at-home moms
No.
>and be nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust
No.
>and the caretaker of his children.
No.

Zero out of Five, would you like to play again Y/N?

>>10324026
>demanding that women be stay-at-home moms and be nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust and the caretaker of his children.
find one flaw.

>>10324202
Calm down manchild

>>10324189
Lad, I asked for elaboration on:

"Because Jung revolutionized the new ""reading"" of Nietzsche wherein you can pay lipservice to some of his more profound quotes without taking the time to understand his philosophy"

From there, we see topics changing, corners being backed into, putting the request back onto the inquirer, flailing & fantastic phoniness.

Shithead pseud was asked something and went full mudpuddle to try to save his stupid anonymous face.

>>10324202
>implying he's wrong

>>10324202
He speaks to the lost, if you allow me to be poetic; his lectures on purpose and drive seem to resonate with individuals who wander around not knowing what they want and how to attain it. Castasized by rabid political correctness and bitter politics, the manchildren in question retreat into themselves and a world of comfort and safety

He's like a shitty modern Thomas Carlyle

>>10324026
Take your test blockers princess, you're getting a little aggressive.

>>10324171
And how do you claim to know this? Ultimately Peterson's message is to think for yourself, so forgive me for doubting you insisting on the polar opposite.

>>10324214
>>He's an asshole
>No.
He sounds like Kermit. QED.
>>with dipshit traditionalist philosophies
>No.
He's afraid of Communism, but never mentions that Capitalism kills more people.
>>like demanding that women be stay-at-home moms
>No.
He may as well. QED (Again).
>>and be nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust
>No.
It's heavily implied when he says that 'women are naturally there for men to fuck like dolls or worse'
>>and the caretaker of his children.
>No.
He's notorious for asking female students to babysit his grandkids. I'm sure he did the same with his own kids. Did you know his wife is a former student?

>>10324221
This poster >>10323944 is not this poster >>10323302

The latter is an idiot. The Jung/Nietzsche "thing" stems from Jung's known reading of Nietzsche, and while Jung didn't have half the mind that Nietzsche did, he did to some extent inherit Nietzsche's understanding of truth, which is far more akin to a Greek sage than an Enlightenment thinker. If you don't know what that means then I suggest you read some more.

>>10324242
just go to his subreddit or read his youtube video comments and see for yourself

>>10324251
They're a minority.

>>10324265
prove it

>>10324245
>He's notorious for asking female students to babysit his grandkids. I'm sure he did the same with his own kids. Did you know his wife is a former student?
Living the dream.

>>10324245
hes not afraid of communism, he just doesn't like this new breed of people who glorify it while ignoring the violent history of Communist states.

>>10324251
>what people say on the internet is completely sincere and totally indicative of both themselves and everyone else associated with whatever they associate with
That's some SERIOUS fucking resssentiment. You're not a tranny, are you

>>10324245
>Did you know his wife is a former student?
former student of what? of his? they've know each other since they were young. he has told the story of how he met his wife many times.

>It's heavily implied when he says that 'women are naturally there for men to fuck like dolls or worse'
did he literally said that? source me

>>10324245
Dude is an actual alpha.

>>10324245
>that Capitalism kills more people.
How so?

>>10324249
>>The Jung/Nietzsche "thing" stems from Jung's known reading of Nietzsche
You're parroting, not saying this from your experience.

>>Jung didn't have half the mind that Nietzsche did
If you haven't read Jung beyond some quotes, how do you know?

>>he did to some extent inherit Nietzsche's understanding of truth
Nice hedging, undergrad. Interesting that you don't spell out Freddy's understanding, something that would show you understand him—you can do it in half a sentence.

>>a Greek sage than an Enlightenment thinker
Not touching that pile of shit.

>>If you don't know what that means then I suggest you read some more
Yet another rhetorical flail. I mean, holy fucking shit, you have it backwards :^(

And surprise! being a fucking fraud makes people hostile.

Or maybe you're just thinking you know anything because you've done some shower-thinking on some Peterson lectures & Jung quotes. I guess that's fine, but stop pretending, you fake.

>>10324288
you're telling me that the his fans praise him ironically? every member of his subreddit is just shitposting? nigga listen to youself

>>10324245

>>10323996

Why does Pinecone look like a literal retard in every photograph?

>>10324267
https://youtu.be/PfH8IG7Awk0
Here's a link to a video he made on White Privilege / Post-modernism, straight from his channel. There are over 400k views and only 2k comments. You're making judgements about his listeners from probably less than 0.5% of viewers of his content. I don't know how many people on reddit listen to him because I don't go on reddit, but I suspect it's something similar to Youtube.

>>10324300
>actually fucking arguing for the legitimacy of youtube comments in describing anything
>claiming some kind of self-awareness highground

>>10324299
Jealousy makes people hostile. Someone being a fraud would most likely only make you hostile if you were one of his victims.

>>10324303
HE LOOKS LIKE A GENIUS THATS THE FACE OF GENIUS BUT HOW WOULD U KNOW HUH??

>>10324307
>anon asks for evidence
>show him evidence
>"I disagree with this evidence"
well sweetie, there's not much I can do for you then

>>10324299
Not him, but have you read much of Jung? I'm halfway through Man and His Symbols and it's my first of his books. What should I read next?

>>10324206
ok cool faggot. i don't usually look at peterson threads and im so sorry for asking a HECKING question lol

>>10324300
I just made an account on reddit and posted on his subreddit, praising Peterson while insinuating an association with Nazis and his work to create a Fourth Reich. I've no idea what his views are, never watched a single minute of a single video, but I know him by reputation. Are you suggesting my post is a good litmus test for either Peterson or the views of his audience? Is this your first day on the internet or something?

>>10324315
>youtube comments are what passes for evidence in the mind of these people
no-wonder everyone is a 'rapist' these days

>>10324330
ABSOLUTELY RESENTFUL

>>10324320
No. None. That's why I'm asking about him.

>>10324312
>>Jealousy
These are the hackiest responses to get away from the fact that you're talking about something you don't really know anything about... It's cringey.

What you should be doing is grabbing your Jung off the bookshelf, flipping to your notes and dogeared quotes and telling me something that lines up with anything you've said. But there is no Jung on the shelf.

>>10324330
>original claim is that JP fans are brainless morons
>anon does a brainless, moronic thing to try and disprove it

>>10324345
I'm not getting away from anything, that was my first post in this thread. You assume too much, I guess anonymous communication is easier for you this way.

>>10324206
Nigger

>>10324315
You appear to be confusing the claim that you have no evidence, because what you suggest can't be proven in any way, with someone asking for proof. You see one person's words are not proof of the views of an entire group, that's like claiming one prejudiced post on reddit is proof all whites are racist.

This is all ignoring the fact that your idea of proof at all is anonymous comments on the internet the majority of which are either malicious or humorous or both.

If nothing else Peterson is shown to be a worthwhile figure in today's time because people have forgotten how to reason and argue and debate. He takes that seriously, and confronts all this fallacious noise that is now so dominant, at the very least he's a force for good in that respect.

>>10324348
>the anon in question isn't a fan of JP and specified as much
>le epic strawman faece

>>10324223
What's the point of using that cringy Peter Pan analogy? He tries to sound profound but what is he really saying other than everyone has to grow up and have a career. The people who don't have careers past a certain age are children. Also Universities are babying people and fuck hippies. What point is he trying to make?

>>10324353
>>I'm a third guy
What's left? The 'posters' counter hasn't ticked upward, you FUCKING DOUBLING DOWN FRAUD :')

>>10324368
It connected to archetypes, like many old disney movies

>>10324368
>What's the point of using that cringy Peter Pan analogy
Jungian archetypes.

>>10324368
>What point is he trying to make?
That certain behavior is unhealthy and to describe the nature of the problem people face who engage in such behavior that they may make better decisions. You know, psychiatry?

>>10324369
You are right, I forgot I posted >>10324143 while I read your conversation, you shouldn't be too happy about that.

>>10323965
>>10324016
>>10324029

To be more specific, circa means literally 'around'. It's the same circ- as in circumference or circus or circle.

In this sense, 'fuck me circa' is less like what you get in a BDSM club and more like what happens to me at the DMV.

>>10324378
Your tiny teenage brain thinks that responding this way means anything besides I got it right. I'm actually surprised at how stupid you're turning out to be.

>>10324007
soyboys who came in with the election and think it is profound when someone other than their mother tells them not to pee in bottles

>>10324330
And now I've made a post in the opposite vein, condemning him for enabling racial violence. But both comments are legitimate evidence, right?

>>10324379
I was circaed at first b/c I misread what you wrote as 'astound'. But it's good to have smart boys circa to put me straight on stuff like this.

>>10324401
Is believing to have outed a poster as another one without one of them trying to defend the other in any way now more important to you than the thread subject? Do you think people interjecting in other conversations never happens? I got what I said to you right (>>10324312), I won't deny you the online debate victory over a previous poster.

>>10324007
Fascism, transphobia and white supremacy are becoming normalised at an ever faster rate.

>>10324373
>Freud thinking our lives are implicitly coded through symbols is wrong
>But archetypes based of Disney movies are profound let me dig up Jung so I can suck his cock
really makes me think

>>10324418
YAWN. Looks like we both win then. Where to get more scalps?

>>10324376
>That certain behavior is unhealthy and to describe the nature of the problem people face who engage in such behavior that they may make better decisions. You know, psychiatry?
What behavior is this? He says Universities are this pleasure island where people remain children. But Jordan Peterson was student as well. Was he manchild? Whats the difference between the university of his time and the university of today?

>>10324427
>But archetypes based of Disney movies
More like the Disney movies are based on archetypes. Read Jung then talk, until then don't pretend to have an educated opinion when you clearly don't.

>>10324435
wow, then I guess disney movies are profound!
grow up and take the cock out of your ass, soyboy

>>10324444
>don't know anything
>but I do know buzzwords!

>>10324458
look in the mirror, petersonpleb

>>10324458
He's aiming 'soyboy' in the wrong direction & worse, thinks TRS is worth listening to.

>>10323219
Is Cliff the Prince of /lit/?

>>10324458
t. Jungian

>>10324514
*virgin Jungian

>>10323965
>on /lit/
>What the fuck does 'circa' mean?

>>10324500
Who's this soy boy nu-male?

>>10324523
Just the coolest guy you will ever know.

>>10323932
That's cause he worships anime girls like all great modern thinkers.

do the future authoring program

rescue your father

>>10324528
T. Cliff

>>10324521
Look at this fucking big shot. As if you know what every word means.

>>10324026

>He's an asshole with dipshit traditionalist philosophies like demanding that women be stay-at-home moms and be nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust and the caretaker of his children.

>nothing but a tool for a man's sexual lust

You do know that the majority of stay at home moms take pride in their lives and see it as a fulfilling pursuit, right? Not an easy one, sure, but not worthless. These women also - shock horror! - actually enjoy having sex and don't think of themselves as some perfunctory "tool" to merely be used when it happens. They happen to enjoy it too. Crazy, I know.

>>10324245

>It's heavily implied when he says that 'women are naturally there for men to fuck like dolls or worse'

You're either baiting or you've become so polemic and alarmist that you're breaking with reality. Truly you seem like the inverse iteration of these nu-/pol/ edgelords: you're all a bunch of hysterical dunces.

>>10324557
>breaking with reality
Adamsfag detected weewoo pleb police we got a live one!

>>10324521
>on a board used internationally
>can't believe that someone might not know a word
wew it's literally nothing

>>10324434
The same thinking that has brought forth safe spaces and want for trigger warnings. Over-protective parents which has resulted in weak minded adult children.

>>10324562

>Adamsfag detected

I don't know what this means.

>>10324565
I'm American though

>>10324573
Oh, that guy is a big Gay Dilbert Man fan.

>>10324299
>not saying this from your experience
Wrong. I've been studying philosophy for about 10 years now, stemming from my father's interest in it who had an entire library, some Jung in it. Peterson's had absolutely fuck all to do with my interests, and I don't take him to be anything more than a pop psychologist, though he is a *bit* more with it than some others and I personally attribute his depression to that (suffering can be a catalyst for deeper thinking). All you have to do is look up "Jung on Nietzsche" and you will find some sources where Jung directly engages with Nietzsche.

>If you haven't read Jung beyond some quotes, how do you know?
I have, and I've also read Nietzsche more extensively than him. Not only Jung but almost no other philosopher (Jung is not a philosopher) reaches Nietzsche's caliber. But I have nothing to prove to you as you've given me no reason to respect you any higher than a troll.

>Not touching that pile of shit.
Good, you wouldn't know where to start with it since you have no clue what I'm really talking about. I'm just shooting the breeze here, it's an anonymous image board. I am using caricatures of thought for the sake of brief discussion. But it is fairly accurate. For we know how acquainted Nietzsche was to the mentality of the sage:

>At the bottom of Christianity there are several subtleties that belong to the Orient. In the first place, it knows that it is of very little consequence whether a thing be true or not, so long as it is believed to be true. Truth and faith: here we have two wholly distinct worlds of ideas, almost two diametrically opposite worlds—the road to the one and the road to the other lie miles apart. To understand that fact thoroughly—this is almost enough, in the Orient, to make one a sage. The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows it.

>Everything goes, everything comes back; eternally rolls the wheel of being. Everything dies, everything blossoms again; eternally runs the year of being. Everything breaks, everything is joined anew; eternally the same House of Being is built. Everything parts, everything greets every other thing again; eternally the ring of being remains faithful to itself. In every Now, being begins; round every Here rolls the sphere There. The center is everywhere. Bent is the path of eternity.

>Peterson takes every chance he gets to shit talk the post modernists
>Currently 101 threads on /lit/ circlejerking the post modernists
hmmm

>>10324655
In the spirit of Pinecone:

>Nietzsche mentions Plato and mysticism therefore is closer to a Greek sage than an enlightenment thinker

Clearly you're trolling, b/c Nietzsche says himself that he builds off Hume and thinks the Greeks were a misstep.

Pile sifted.

You have nothing to prove or contribute. You're defending your idiocy. Again. This could have been solved with a relevant Jung quote...

Asking questions isn't trolling.

Your 10 years has left you unable to argue or even present examples. Ridiculous.

>>10324572
In what way does this even connect to what he was previously saying? He states a basic fact of life known to everyone, that people grow up. He states that those who don't choose a career path are children. Then he starts talking about how people can go to university to not be something and some shit about how they're not kicked out because they pay tuition.
Again what is the connection here? What does not be something mean?
You say its sjw's. He says these Sjw's pretend to have an identity. What does this mean? It can't mean they're children because they are on a career path. Do their careers not count just because Jordan Peterson doesn't like them?
I've got a friend who listens to this dude and now I'm really disappointed he fell for this.

>>10324700
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathology
Just because something is obvious doesn't mean people act accordingly. In fact the simplicity of truth is precisely what makes it so elusive.

Anyway, your critique is pretty retarded. It's not about getting a job fundamentally. It's about defining who you are.

>>10324700
https://youtu.be/wwi9Q9apHGI?t=3m

skip to 3 minutes
people are not rational

>>10324245
>He's afraid of Communism, but never mentions that Capitalism kills more people.
hahaha oh wow

>>10324792

Some ppl just dont read everything. They rely on memes and meme books and build a personality around it.

>>10324245
>He's afraid of Communism, but never mentions that Capitalism kills more people.
Name 1 state in history was actually capitalist? The U.S. is not real capitalism.

>>10324745
>It's not about getting a job fundamentally. It's about defining who you are.
I asked about jobs because he thats what he talked about in the video. What does he mean by people going to university to not be something and pretend to have an identity? How is it not fundamentally related to jobs when he talks about how technological development has erased the jobs that hippies complained about?

>>10324745
>the simplicity of truth is precisely what makes it so elusive

t. r/im14andthisisdeep

>>10324803
>not real capitalism meme
>admitting it's a form of capitalism
>name one
>admitting this form is the real form
So anyway, you're a pleb. See: >>10324801

>>10324818
Nice reddit spacing you have there.

>>10323950
>What's Jung like?
New age garbage.

>>10324803
>>10324820
Tfw when your meme blows up in your face

>>10323932
I agree this is bullshit. He knows EXACTLY what is meant when someone asks him this question, so why can't he straight up say "I don't/do believe that God literally exists and created us BUT" and then go on to the rest of it. Theres another time where he's asked if he really believes Jesus existed and rose from the dead and he can't answer that for some reason when its really quite straightforward.

>>10324820
By extension one argue the U.S is a form of communism, or fascism, or anything else. So anyway, you're a retard.

>>10324813
>How is it not fundamentally related to jobs
He literally explains it in the video. How much of a brainlet do you need to be to have this little grasp of context and to mistake your own overly literal misunderstanding as refutation?

>>10324837
No they can't, stupid.

>>10324818
>he thinks people are rational agents
>he doesn't realize that his little reddit joke would apply to most of the greatest thinkers throughout history who all said something to similar effect
I'm in the company of Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci. You are in the company of reddit.

>>10324853
>implying the US isn't a form of fascism
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/the-f-word/
Yes they can, stupidest.

>>10324868
HURRRR ANYONE CAN ARGUE ANYTHING

Fucking deep, brah. Really makes you think.

>>10324847
Okay, so he says that children are full of low resolution potential and that utilizing that potential into something, which uses plumbing as an example, allows someone to become something.Again, what does he mean by people go to university to not be something and pretend to have an identity? How are they not utilizing their potential?

>>10324857

This guy is right desu. I mean just look at Pythagoras or Euclid.

Creativity is divergent and affirmative : needed : but truth itself always falls along the lines of the most simplex harmonies.

I actually broke-down and listened to a podcast of him for the first time, because I thought perhaps my views of him were false and I should give him a chance. It only confirmed my views; he really his a sham with very little understanding of postmodernism (even ironically formulating views that could be considered postmodernist) or any form of organized ideology, let alone the very laws in which he is criticizing. Some of his points are reasonable, but only to the extent that the average joe had reasonable points. Saying that anything that advances a conception of gender beyond the 1920s is some sinister agenda by "post-modernist neo-marxists" is unsubstantiated and downright silly for anyone but mouth breathers. He even gets the position of his SJW boogeymen wrong constantly, like when he says it is illegal to say gender is impacted by biology; modern theory says biology and sex have a lot of impact in gender, but societal considerations also constructed it, which I think is fairly reasonable compared to Peterson's vague definition of truth and hackneyed understanding of biology. I think everyone but the slim few agree with him that it can be taken too far, but when he tries to formulate why or where the line should be drawn he reveals his absolute ignorance on every topic he touches.
He strikes me as a dull, slightly narcissistic normie on whom basement dwellers have latched onto mistaking him for some profound thinker.
kys OP

>>10324872
You're the moron who said it, not me. I'm applying YOUR argument.

>>10324949
>effectively says nothing about what Peterson talks about
>focuses on gender despite it not being even 1% of what Peterson's talks about and even then totally misrepresents his views
bravo

Well I didn't vote for him

>>10323944
Fuck off faggot. Jung was asked that question and replied that he know God existed

>>10324224
Like selling snake oil to the terminally ill

>>10324699
>Nietzsche says himself that he builds off Hume and thinks the Greeks were a misstep
This does not negate what I said and meant, it just means you didn't understand what I meant. But you've irritated me enough to have to respond again.

I liken Nietzsche to a Greek sage over an Enlightenment thinker due to his treatment of truth — he is not exactly a sage either, hence why I said "more akin to." But his grappling with matters of truth, his will to power, world as mirror and eternal recurrence rely on his insight from being exposed to and living on the precipice of Dionysian madness, and which place him distinctly away from the Enlightenment thinkers (even if he expands on Hume, preferring him over Kant, and refers to him at times).

Am I saying he was a complete madman who didn't properly read anything? No, but I am saying he SOLVED the problems of truth that the Enlightenment thinkers were struggling with. He went beyond them.

>Will to truth is a making firm, a making true and durable, an abolition of the false character of things, a reinterpretation of it into beings. "Truth" is therefore not something there, that might be found or discovered— but something that must be created and that gives a name to a process, or rather to a will to overcome that has in itself no end— introducing truth, as a processus in infinitum, an active determining— not a becoming conscious of something that is in itself firm and determined. It is a word for the "will to power."

>Qualities are insurmountable barriers for us; we cannot help feeling that mere quantitative differences are something fundamentally distinct from quantity, namely that they are qualities which can no longer be reduced to one another. But everything for which the word "knowledge" makes any sense refers to the domain of reckoning, weighing, measuring, to the domain of quantity; while, on the other hand, all our sensations of value (i.e., simply our sensations) adhere precisely to qualities, i.e., to our perspective "truths" which belong to us alone and can by no means be "known"! It is obvious that every creature different from us senses different qualities and consequently lives in a different world from that in which we live. Qualities are an idiosyncrasy peculiar to man; to demand that our human interpretations and values should be universal and perhaps constitutive values is one of the hereditary madnesses of human pride.

>>10323920
You want me to give you an example of something that isn't there?

>>10325071
>and replied that he know God existed
Do you know what he meant by "God"? Saying that doesn't mean Peterson's understanding of God is different, or not inspired by Jung.

I don't see what Peterson said as a word game. It's more like he just wasn't good at articulating himself there. I would know, because I've answered similarly to the question in the past. It's a kind of pussyfooting around the question, but with good intention, because he is attempting to expose and adhere to the unlimited interpretations that all symbols have. The error is in thinking we can actually adhere to such.

>>10324424
>Fascism, transphobia and white supremacy
He represents literally none of these but ok you black commie tranny fuck

>>10323219
His recent tweets show him to despise nazis and "proud of muh culture and race"...

Literally the dad we need.

>>10325145
It's really quite amusing how people have latched on to this idea that Peterson supports Neo Nazis somehow, when he constantly brings up Nazi Germany as proof of evil to serve as a foundation from which to begin constructing morality. He constantly represents Hitler and Nazis in the worst light possible, yet to the left he's a big fan.

>>10325169
>>10325166
>tfw not even samefag

>>10325060
it is what got him famous and what that particular podcast was about.
without him chimping out on youtube no one would give a shit about peterson

>>10325169
Well, us leftists follow a very generalised notion idealogically of who is with us and against us. And when we do that, we forget the inter-group differences.

Peterson is a bit off on some issues, but the fact that he wants to conservatively progress and emphasise the individual primarily as the mode to revolution makes him one my favorite speakers online.

>>10325200
>it is what got him famous
But it's not what he is famous for.

>>10325236
yes, it is.
His room-cleaning tips and general self help are still vastly overshadowed by his "postmodern SJW smasher" credit.

>>10325236
What did you think of the book if you read it (maps of Meaning of course)??

>>10325241
I've never watched a single video of his about trannies or whatever. I did watch a lot of his lectures and psychological videos because he was memed by people because of the tranny thing. I think most people are like me. People with an agenda are probably like you.

>>10325241
Wrong, his "self help" is exactly what he is famous for and has a huge patreon following for. Any dimwit can articulate a boogeyman, Peterson goes well beyond that.

>>10325251
have you emptied out your piss bottles yet or are you not that far yet?
>>10325255
>Any dimwit can articulate a boogeyman, Peterson goes well beyond that.
He doesn't, and any attempt for him to do so is a laughable disgrace to his profession.

>>10325261
t. Watched one of his video and dismissing him outright without knowing what his arguments ate

>>10325266
tell me then, what his arguments are. Because I mainly got a lot of dumb circumvention and dressing up of parental practical advice.

>>10325261
>have you emptied out your piss bottles yet or are you not that far yet?
What does that have to do with anything? Or do you have an actual argument somewhere behind that strawman?

You'd have to be fucking deluded to think most people care about some law in Canada about trannies. Most people don't even care about trannies.

>>10323219
I find it hilarious how butthurt all the teenage lolberals here get over him

>have you emptied out your piss bottles yet or are you not that far yet?
What does that have to do with anything? Or do you have an actual argument somewhere behind that strawman?

You'd have to be fucking deluded to think most people care about some law in Canada about trannies. Most people don't even care about Canada. Even fewer people care about trannies. The overlap is almost nonexistent.

People come to Peterson because he's been memed to hell and back. They stay because of his valuable lectures and insight. They really offer something if you go into it with an open mind and enough of a philosophical/psychological background (it doesn't take much but it does take something).

Why is he the king of /lit/? Philosophers aside, he only talks about plebs like Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn. He's hardly familiar with capital-L Literature.

>>10325279
no one outside of reddit and /pol/ give a shit about peterson's self help series. If he has any publicity at all he is the anti-law guy. You even agreed yourself that it is what made him famous. He isn't famous for his self-help, that is simply how he profits off of his fame.

>>10325284
>*teleports behind you
>*spends an hour on 1 paragraph of Nietzsche

>>10325283
>They stay because of his valuable lectures and insight. They really offer something if you go into it with an open mind and enough of a philosophical/psychological background (it doesn't take much but it does take something).
they only provide anything if you have absolutely no background in philosophy or psychology and take everything he is saying for granted

>>10325271
1. Postmodernism, or the strain of which Peterson argues against, seeks to de-individualise any person that comes in contact with it through an idealogical bias of either progress for the sake of it, or undermining current institutions in a very reckless manner, in other words, it creates a hive-mind out of people and cultish brooding groups who have an elitist arrogance.
2. We humans aren't perfect and shouldn't be treated in a manner that will force us towards it prematurely, something neo-marxists do often Is that they critique the current society, but go far and wide so as to say what their utopian society looks like and how we can achieve it. Hell even early Marx said any localised event at any kind of revolution would end up in a disaster (The German Idealogy, First chapter). The neo-marxists type (note, not a single person, but a hive-mind collective) are ideologically biased. Peterson is a postmodernist himself, but he isn't reckless and actually values the struggle people went through to set up current institutions, slow and steady, a meta modernist.

>>10324147
>"I act as if God is real".
That phrase & attitude goes back to Confucius, you pleb.

>>10325293
How many people do have that background anon? What's wrong with having him as an introductory guide to Philosophy and psychology?

You're allowed to "grow" out of it, but the reason Peterson remains so prominent is because of his resolution to make the individual feel less alienated and more stable, having newer perspective on things is never a bad thing.

>>10325293
I disagree troll-kun. Peterson has done tremendous work, he's offered the best solution to the problem of nihilism around.

>>10324245
b8: 2/110.
try harder next time, plonker.

>>10324424
>Lovin' it.
You a Downer too, perchance?

>>10325301
>1. Postmodernism, or the strain of which Peterson argues against
I have never seen him fully define what he considers postmodernism, and his understanding of post-modernists is laughable (see his grasp of Foucault). If he truly is concerned with ideological bias, then he is a hypocrite in define an ideology that is dependent on its opposition. It is an irony neither him or his fanboys can see. He should accurately read post-modernist literature and see how many authors are overtly value the individual. The institutions that he sees are being destroyed are under no threat whatsoever, and serving them ironically de-values the individual much more than his boogeymen.
2. This is a facet of ideology, not one ideology. It is always Utopian in nature, identifying some element that is a cause of the trauma of society and once excised, there will be a harmonious society. Peterson's ideology is "neo-marxists" and "post-modernists". Again, keep in mind that this is one element that post-modernists saw and sought against.
Peterson is a walking irony

>>10324444
They are profound tho

>>10325309
>What's wrong with having him as an introductory guide to Philosophy and psychology?
Because he has an overarching ideology and cult of personality that not only taints a fair introduction to both fields, but leads his follows to a fairly closed exploration. It would be much more productive to read materials first-hand, or find another non biased source.
>Peterson remains so prominent
Again, I say he is only prominent within his circle of followers on reddit and a certain board on this website, and I do not mean those sincerely. It is no insult, it is the truth.
at the end of the day I do not care if someone likes peterson or not, but if they stick to their own forums for discussion, instead of trying to meme him and having a million of shitty threads about him outside of their circles, that would be ideal. If people treat him as an introductory figure, there should be no discussion of him on a board for post-introductory literature, and there certainty shouldn't be people treating him as a true philosopher. It is shameful.

>>10325339
I do* mean those sincerely

>>10325322
1. Same hogwash argument, also he said he doesn't have a problem with Foucault, primarily Derrida, and the irony you speak of is only present to those who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to Peterson and his take on Pomo. He is a consequentialist for he doesn't like illegitimate and reckless speculations derived from post modernist literature. I already said it's a hive mind and Peterson is strongly against it. He opposes it for what it produced, a plethora of irresponsible and immature adults. Watch his videos more in order to understand where he is coming from.

2. And that is why he is critical of both far right and far left. Atleast you understand that much.

>>10324171
>he hasn't sorted himself

>>10324836
Except I don't think it is that simple or straightforward at all actually.

>>10325339
What ideology would that be? Individualism? Anti-authoritarianism? The cult like following doesn't in any way reduce his worth, and if anything, he is very much against group think of any kind.

And how far are you into Maps of Meaning to say this? Have you even actually read his work?

>>10324877
There are a lot of people in Universities that get dumb degrees and can't get a job or go with their parents and have no motivation, so they go for longer than they should/switch majors, etc. The Humanities especially is corroded with a certain ideology that doesn't help people with any real world issues and may even hurt their chances of getting a good job.

>>10324949
Gender, gender expression, sexual preference all corelate to sex in the 0.9s area, which is extreme. And what does he get wrong about post-modernists?

>>10325347
>I already said it's a hive mind and Peterson is strongly against it
This is why I have a hard time taking peterson or his proponents seriously. Please read your sentence again if you claim to have any understanding of postmodernism.
>He opposes it for what it produced, a plethora of irresponsible and immature adults
This is exactly what I am talking about. He identifies a problem, a trauma in society that once solved will lead to a successful or idealized society. Think of the post-modernist as the Communist of the mccarthy era. It is a part of his ideology. If you truly believe human beings did not act this way prior to the postmodern you should read The Clouds.
>>10325361
>And that is why he is critical of both far right and far left. Atleast you understand that much.
>What ideology would that be?
please google ideology. I am not talking about american politics.

>>10325216
Peterson is against ideologies and group identities, so what do you mean by revolution? Do you mean it symbolically, are you a communist or are you trolling?

>>10325379
Not an argument.

He doesn't promise utopia dumb dumb, he only asks for you to sort yourself out before criticising the world around. Vastly different from communists who seek to change the very system and world according to their beliefs.

And irrelevant, never said that Dialectics is what Peterson is against or that he wants to bring utopia. Again watch the videos.

>>10325322
Peterson is against ideologies and group think. He identifies post-modernism as an ideology and he discusses why in one of his videos

>>10325379
ideology
ˌʌJdJˈɒlədʒi/Submit
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"
synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, doctrine, creed, credo, teaching, dogma, theory, thesis, tenets, canon(s); More
2.
archaic
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.


Really made me think. Now elaborate on what you meant.

>>10325130
>Do you know what he meant by "God"?
Unironically the Gnostic concept of God since he was one

>but with good intention
No it is done to create a roshrach respond, where his audience can get whatever message they wanted to get from him.

But that doesn't go against my point that whatever Peterson is going for when responding to that question, it is by far NOT inspired from Jung. My biggest personal gripe is how this idiot butchered Jung for his own ends

>>10324138
The left can’t meme.

>taking seriously a spooked faggot that talks like a puppet from

>>10325414
he doesn't expound utopia in the commonist sense, dingus. Please try to think critically. He expounds an ideal state of living, how one should act and how to achieve this state. He does this for profit and continued patronage at the expense of the quality of thought his followers develop.
>>10325419
>>10325415
Like I said and what I am trying to get you to understand, in his misunderstanding and creation of the "post-modernist" and "neo-Marxists" he is outlining the problem of his own ideology, or the subject against which his ideology is based. These are not active groups in real life. The are not interconnected forces lurking underneath society and trying to dilute the truth. They are his heretics, for lack of a better comparison. His cathars.

>>10325467
He doesn't have an ideology tho. He is against ideologies and tries to teach people how to identify them and be free of them

>>10325472
>he doesn't have an ideology
Hahaha

>>10325467
>Tfw says nothing original and can't contribute anything to the conversation other than whining

Why post modernist literature have you yourself read

>>10325467
His "ideal state" isn't perfect. He blatantly states that you won't achieve it completely and things will still go wrong for you, sometimes horribly. Instead of "ideal state" he would describe it as "the best option you've got" which isn't the same thing.

>>10325472

>>10325476
I don't think you can call it an ideology since it isn't a comprehensive system. He just says to speak the truth essentially, with some clinical advice thrown in from experience.

>>10325472
>He doesn't have an ideology tho
Now this is pure ideology

>>10325485
His beliefs don't comprise an actual system of thought, so it isn't an ideology.

>>10325477
aside from fiction
Foucault's birth of the clinic, discipline and punishment, history of sexuality, although he didn't consider himself post-modernist
The Postmodern Condition by Lyotard
Capitalism and schizophrenia
what have you read, yourself

>>10325484
>. Instead of "ideal state" he would describe it as "the best option you've got" which isn't the same thing.
why is "the best option you've got" functionally any different from an "ideal"?

>>10325472
>>10325488
>>10325491
>>>10325485
https://youtu.be/Pk8ibrfXvpQ

>>10325494
The ideal is perfect, whereas the "best option" isn't.

>>10325497
working towards the "best" is no different from working towards the "perfect", that is why I included "functionally".

Sokal's Fashionable Nonsense is in desperate need for an expanded edition.

>>10325495
Has nothing to do with what I said. Peterson doesn't promote an ideology because he isn't promoting a system of beliefs. He may promote a few beliefs, but to call that a system is pretty weak.

>>10325501
Aiming for perfection and thinking you'll get there is different from taking the best you can and living with what happens. Functionally, they are both ways of living, but one isn't utopian. You won't become perfectly happy with the "best you've got" whereas the other one says you can.

>>10325103
It just means you don't know what you're talking about. You wouldn't have said it if you actually were familiar with the subject matter.

You keep changing your footing and conclusions like a phony. If I'm this appalled and can see right through your nonsense, do you think your patter will cut it in the real world?

You're babbling incorrectly about Nietzsche instead of enlightening /lit/ about Jung (whom you have an opinion on & is on your dad's bookshelf (probably bullshit)). Oy vey. Such meshugas.

>>10325502
These were the ones Plato threw himself at.
Fucking hacks

>>10323219
>>10323219
>The king of /lit/
Maybe, but only because he was dethroned on pol.

>>>/pol/151182575

Still gets accused of being a Nazi though

>>10323908
their voices couldn't be more different though.

irons literally has the best voice

>>10325844
Peterson has a horrible manlet kermit voice.

>>10325494
because best option = attainable; ideal = unattainable. Let's be realistic here. Stop putting words in his mouth.

>>10325844
>>10325866
Yes, agreed. I was sort of wondering about that since many people, whether they love JBP or hate him, bang on about this charismatic thing. Well, I reckon he has the charisma of a wet towel, though he is well-spoken and impassioned. But his voice just ruined it for me. I prefer to read his book actually. That kermit voice is a little too much for me. He ought to get elocution lessons or something, it would help him significantly I reckon.

It's interesting how far we've "progressed" in thinking that a man paraphrasing thousand year ideas is championed as a new thinker.
Not saying he's wrong, but it's interesting how we've come back full circle back into traditionalism.

>>10325866
>>10325909
maybe it helps bridge the gap to the losers that he is internet daddy to?

someone like jeremy irons would never have overlapping experience which such an audience because he's too naturally cool. he doesn't need to clean his room.

>>10325938
>implying Jeremy Irons cleans his pink castle himself

But yeah, you might have a point. The lack of testicular descent might create a bond with some.

>>10325948
had a quick google, that cunt is living the literary lifestyle

>>10325983
Big time.

>>10323219
Which books does Peterson recommend?

Dostoesvsky
Tolstoy
Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago)
Orwell
Huxley
Nietzsche
Jung

The only one I could figure out based on what he was talking about was Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

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

>>10326008
https://jordanbpeterson.com/category/reading-list/

>>10326022
Thanks a bunch.

Why doesn't Peterson target capitalism in his critique?

>>10326044
because he get 60k/month by being internet daddy

>post pick of Jordan B. Memerson
>get 300+ replies
every time

>>10326044
he's a liberal

>>10326044
because he never does anything to challenge the status-quo
he's a proponent of the status quo

>>10326076
he's trying to change the system from within

>>10326044
muh hierarchy of competence

>>10325502
I always suspected I was smarter than Jordan Peterson. It was that tweet that confirmed the suspicion.

>>10325347
>also he said he doesn't have a problem with Foucault
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMy_BWD3CI&t=29m35s

>>10325555
>You wouldn't have said it if you actually were familiar with the subject matter.
Nietzsche brought the subject-object dilemma to its end conclusion after having discarded the thing-in-itself. The end result was affirmation of all things — a sentiment not unlike the Vedas which Nietzsche regarded as a precursor of sorts. Nietzsche distances himself from the Enlightenment quite fervently in the preface and part 1 of BGE, and if you had read Will to Power you would see very clearly in what direction that took him and how he does not share the Enlightenment's notion of truth.

>You keep changing your footing and conclusions
I never changed them. You can't follow.

>You're babbling incorrectly about Nietzsche instead of enlightening /lit/ about Jung
I've read Nietzsche more so I'm inclined to discuss him more, and until you explain how Nietzsche's notion of truth resembles the Enlightenment thinkers' then your statement is hollow. I don't rescind my original statement though. Whether Peterson has actually grasped the material and is just putting on a show is debatable, but whether he has read a lot of it is not. And there is more than enough about Jung to derive the conclusion that God is a psychological experience.

>>10326044
>Why doesn't Peterson target capitalism in his critique?
gee I wonder

>>10326044
Not capable. He mostly just talks about failed systems because those are understood already.

>>10326383
Why is this guy sperging / trolling Nietzsche non-facts? Is this a new meme

>>10326480
What is non-fact there?

>>10326487
You've clearly read enough to say it exactly wrong but why not make a dedicated bait thread? I laughed 6/10

>>10326504
Avoiding to answer because you can't, or just here to shit on someone you don't like?

>>10325147
I wish I was a part of the Peterson family.

Not all heroes wear capes

>>10326519
>ethos
>logos
>sender
>message
>literature board
>thinks anyone is actually addressing the sender
wat

>>10325555
>>10324699
>>10324299
>accuses someone of being a fraud
>just utters unsubstantiated critique and adhoms

If you're criticizing another persons argument, how about trying to substantiate your claims of the other person being wrong?
I guess that would mean articulating your own position and we surely can't have that right? you might get unmasked for being a fucking pseud yourself...

>>10323219
this but unironically

>>10323988
Nice meta-jungian analysis

>>10326820
Why would someone asking for first level references need a "position"? Asking about Jung lead to hand waving, drooling, and changing over to Nietszche...

And then misrepresenting him...

Yeah I got baited, so sue me

>>10327337
>start conversation with accusations
>assume role of "innocent inquirer of more information"
>deflect any requests of substantiating evidence of claims
>????
>PROFIT

Your first level Jung reference is Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche.

>>10323224
Agreed. I can't fucking stand his face.

>>10323269
>>10327337

If you are that guy asking especially about the "jung/Nietzsche" thing it's pretty moronic to complain about answers involving Jungs understanding of Nietzsche
Not sure if I'm being trolled here

>>10327542
No relevant evidence or insight was posted(?) Just weird misinterpretations and handwaving and the equivalents of "many people believe..."

>>10323219
>Subject your ideas to adult level scrutiny
>Scientific truth is separate from religious truth

>>10327575
>misinterpretations
Unsubstantiated claim, if you have the right Interpretation just share it but that probably will make you out to be the hack you so vehemently call everyone else

>>10327599
>Nietszche is closer to a Greek sage than an Enlightenment thinker
Desu

Unsupported unsupportable

>>10327617
How do retards like you even exist? He elaborated in a later post what he meant, if you don't agree then bring your own arguments as to why bis Interpretation is wrong and how yours is better
Have you ever had a Diskussion in real life?
Here's a reading suggestion for you

John Green

>>10323965
Comon anon even i got it from the context

>>10327575
If you read their work, you can see how Jung was inspired by Nietzsche, particularly in his development of the concept of the shadow, integrating it as part of self realization, and more importantly his emphasis of such an investigation and pursuit. Not to mention Jung's actual words about Nietzsche.

>>10327669
You're not helping bro, if you want a discussion post some excerpts and don't just point to the whole body of Jungs and Nietzsches work, that's exactly who no one takes these threads seriously, it mostly is just parroting

>philosophised boomer posting
pull yourself up by your bootstraps and give the manager I firm handshake..
..I mean...
clean your room

>>10323224
fpbp

>>10323224
this

>>10327659
OH WOW MR HOT STUFF

>>10327594
He really needs to coin a new word and stop with dude there are multiple forms of truth.