/lit/ - Literature

>>10509605
We are sworn enemies to all that is good and decent. If you asked me that question on the street I would pull an 85lb/53inch military grade M134D-H Minigun concealed under Uniqlo windbreaker and I would unload it at 100 bullets per second for 15 entire seconds.

>>10509605
He tries to be an authority on philosophy without understanding it, has shit taste in lit and drew a bunch of newfags here

>>10509605
He doesn't like government enforced speech but people pretend he hates trannies. My main problem with him is >>10509659

>>10509659
When did he try to be an authority on philosophy?

I don't like the idea of a guru/life coach, as if one person has got the goods and the package, as if seminars, audiobook interviews, and an esoteric lingo somehow net truth.

Moreover I'm not so ignorant that literacy dazzles me, nor am I so small minded as to follow charisma.

>>10509605
>h-hey bucko
>yeah, come over here

>>10509659
Which one of these books are bad? https://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/11/book-list/

>>10509672
So you're saying you're too good to have someone give you life advice?

For fuck sake isn't posting about this guy just going to feed into the number of shit threads about him?

>>10509605
At first he was hyped up for his "strong" and "brave" views on not using pronouns that trannies and traps wanted him to use. Then he realized that he was tapping into a large swathe of males coming out of broken families. He became THE internet daddy providing morals to the male computer addict. All the while milking people for ""donations"". Even though he spent his time telling people to speak out and tell the truth, he goes on infringing on other people's freedom of speech, such as not allowing certain people to talk/debate him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFi4p4QC44

>>10509665
Fair enough

>>10509713
So there's a list of people that tried to debate him that he refused?
Whats wrong with people giving their own money for something they want more of?

>>10509605
>Is there any real reason for it?
Alt-right faggots launched a hate campaign that succesfully shamed anons into pretending to hate Peterson. They now hate the fact that he makes a lot of money on patreon so much that they practically turned into the marxists they pretend to despise. All this because Peterson is an individualist who doesn't agree on the JQ.

>>10509688
umm hurr like pretty much all of them tbqhwyf

Because I've been trying to tell my friends about how insane modernity is for like 10 years, but everyone just looks at me and says "you're just a hater dude, you just need to like stop thinking so much."

And then fucking JP comes along, and now all of sudden everyone is talking about Carl Jung, and complaining about "postmodernists."

And they don't even get Peterson most of them. They're just plugging him into an existing framework of anti-liberalism/anti-leftism. In the end most people who follow him come to see the world like so:

"God isn't real obviously, but tradition is probably a good thing we need as a balance to the excesses of liberalism"

This is an extremely superficial adjustment of position! You're still stuck in the progress narrative, you're still trying to "find a decent job", you're still trying to "improve personally" etc.

It's classic Americana, now tempered with some big history perspective courtesy of Peterson, but also brimming with self-righteous rage at "Them" (the postmodernists, the liberals, the primitive ones, the fundamentalists), and bursting with pride about "Us" (the West, the rational ones, the heirs of great Civilization).

It's a trick. You're not becoming spiritual. You're not changing.

You're decorating your political, material existence with sentimentality. You still expect to stop existing at death, to return to a great blackness like pre-birth. You still think your life has value only if you can "make it" in this world. You still think some people are more entitled to things than others, and you still have a share in Caesar's son.

>>10509713
oh nooo Faith J. Goldy

>>10509659
Care to explain the difference between trying to be an authority on philosophy and just philosophising?
He hasn't tried to become the head of the philosophy department. He hasn't gone for any position of authority or prestige in the world of philosophy.
So where are you getting this from?

>>10509697

Just because I don't want to become a devotee of Richard Simmons, doesn't mean I'm too arrogant to follow generally.

What a stupid fucking reading of that post, gathering an extreme position that's obviously retarded by generalizing the specific case of Jordan Peterson to people in general. Fuck you.

>>10509748
>Dostoevsky
>Bad
Pick one

>>10509734
There's a VERY, VERY fine line between asking for financial support to keep video's/ power running tobecoming a televangilist who is constantly asking for gibs to support your already decadent lifestyle. after the 66k mark, and you're still asking for gibs, you're reaching that point.

The person JBP didn't debate was faith goldy, thought debating her was "too hot", as in the topics brought up would ruin the amount of shekels he was receiving.

>>10509605
I used love him but I just kind of grew tired of him. Seems like he has ran out of things to talk about and goes on and on about the same things, repeating himself on everyone's podcasts. Also, I've come to be annoyed with "individualists" in general.

>>10509773
It was a genuine question because I thought that when you said you're against the idea of a guru/life coachy kind of person that it was a bit pompous. You always need someone at some point to help unless you're some kind of ubermensch that can withstand anything.
Don't take it so personally.

>>10509781
Jesus fucking Christ, that's Peterson's Patreon?

>>10509781
Why does it matter how much people want to give him?

>>10509605
he is a psychologist and people get mad because he speaks about books and philosophers without having studied literature or philosophy, which means that he will say retarded stuff often, but this doesn't really subtract from his other points

>>10509688
>1984
>Brave New World
>Dostoe
>Nietzsche
>Jung
That's edgy Freshman core

>>10509713
Why is he not allowed to turn down a debate with someone?

>>10509675

>>10509770
>Care to explain the difference between trying to be an authority on philosophy and just philosophising?
Posting videos about it to hundreds of thousands

>>10509605
I don't hate him; in fact, his practical advice is often really solid in my experience. But his understanding of the philosophers he talks about is pretty surface level, especially the philosophers he dislikes, like Foucault and Lacan (can't speak for Derrida, have never read him).

I can't help but cringe whenever he uses the phrase "postmodern neo-marxists", since it betrays a lack of knowledge about what post-structuralism and post-marxism actually are.

It's especially disingenuous that he explicitly tells people not to read these writers, rather than telling them to make their minds up about them individually. Which is a shame because almost all the people he rails against can provide great insights if you read them carefully and don't just parrot the most popular interpretations of their work performed by halfwit academics who haven't read them either. I'm socially conservative, and I get a hell of a lot out of post-structuralist thought.

It's amazing to go back to his old lectures where he isn't playing a character and note the contrast with the way he acts now. You could say he's self-consciously playing into the internet daddy "clean your room" thing, but I think it's more likely that he's using it to his advantage to gain more followers, which is the kind of ideologically-driven process that someone who has studied totalitarianism should at least be a little wary of.

Sidenote: has Peterson ever said anything about The Last Psychiatrist, because that would be someone I'd legitimately want to hear his thoughts on (especially since I think the whole Jungian-heroic worldview can very easily slip into a kind of narcissistic fantasy-play)?

>>10509713
>Even though he spent his time telling people to speak out and tell the truth, he goes on infringing on other people's freedom of speech, such as not allowing certain people to talk/debate him.
what

>>10509794
Yep, here's JBP's shekel mine, he stopped giving us the exact amount.

>>10509802
>>10509807
Fuck off Socrates, I can cherrypick as much as I like.

>>10509781
>The person JBP didn't debate was faith goldy, thought debating her was "too hot", as in the topics brought up would ruin the amount of shekels he was receiving.
it wasn't a debate, it was a panel where the panelists agreed to drop faith goldy and go ahead with the panel without her

>>10509748
so you've read them all

>>10509838
I would furthermore point out that this also implies that he's read all the books on the list to come to an informed decision on whether or not they're good or not

>>10509827

i just think people would be better served by engaging with Aristotle, and it disappoints me peterson finds more popularity due to being slightly controversial

>>10509814
So I should research the philosophy he gets wrong?
Is his general sentiment towards the real-life implications of the authors reliable at least?

>>10509806

>>10509605
Not everyone on /lit/ hates them; I think when he first started to blow up most here liked him. As his fanbase got bigger he's declined in reputation.

>>10509849
You wouldn't know this because you're an illiterate newfaggot, but this isn't /pol/, and that list is intro lit. I've read all of them except 9, 13-15, and I'd say the same is true for a lot of other people here.

>>10509835
So the people saying he doesn't talk to certain people are being dishonest?

>>10509806

>if lots of people are familiar with it, it must be bad

>I got out of my nietzsche phase so now everyone reading nietzsche is an uninitiated edgy teenager

come on dude, stop

>>10509896
Then his taste in the list isn't shit but rather it's elementary. You know you could always say what you actually mean instead of lying

>>10509903
If a professor claims Dostoevsky is the greatest writer ever, which Peterson has, I am going to think less of his taste in lit. Combine that with Nietzsche and Jung and it's hard to take him seriously outside of his actual profession.

>>10509605
I like him but not love him. He got me to read The Brothers Karamazov which I loved (and was gonna read anyway), which got me to almost believe in God.

>>10509688
I've only read 1 through 11, and the only one I didn't at least like was Ordinary Men, which was still at least interesting

>>10509900
i am sure he doesn't talk to many people like everybody else, but the thing that turned the alt-right against him was this one with faith goldy being un-invited to an event, and people getting mad that the other participants didn't boycott the event to white knight her

>>10509605
Isn't it just the "he's a meme" meme?

I really like the guy, but I wish he would debate with people with different ideas. Though to be fair he has said many times that he wants to do so, yet feminists and others do not want to engage him.

>>10509933
desu spoken debates usually suck and mostly just prove who's most charismatic or smug

>>10509933
>>10509942
Both are true

>>10509942
Well yeah, but I guess it's better than someone stating their opinion and at most having others agreeing with them.

>>10509933
>>10509948
>>10509954
the old leftist fuck from the Zero books podcast said that he would like to interview Peterson in a confrontational way, so hopefully that happens

the guy that does that podcast is a marxist, but he is too old and autistic to play by the current left's rules, so he doesn't give a fuck, he recently interviewed that girl that got "social justiced" in canada and secretly recorded the social justice professors that tried to shut her up causing a national scandal

>>10509974
Is this a lit approved podcast?

>>10510004
it's about marxism more that it's about books, and the guy is a bit rambling, but i find it decent. i'm not a marxist myself but the guy seems honest

>>10510009
You sell it well

>>10509870
It's not even that he gets them wrong. It's just that he's giving a version of them that doesn't include the whole truth of what they're about. The kinds of thinkers he's referencing (like Nietzsche) have many many interpretations, and you're honestly better off reading them yourself, and reading different interpreters. A good rule is just to be skeptical of any second hand account of what a philosopher thinks. There's no substitute for reading them yourself

Also being scared of any author is bullshit; don't avoid anyone. There's nothing wrong with following your interests but avoiding an entire school of philosophy is just intellectual laziness I think. Everyone should read Foucault at some point and they should remember that he once said that "Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else." (something most of his interpreters like to forget.)

But yeah Peterson's real life advice is generally fucking great, even if it is geared towards a specific kind of person (introverted neurotic agreeable etc.) and I wish he'd branch out a little more often.

I actually really do need to clean my room at some point.

>>10509811
>Posting videos on the internet is trying to be an authority.

Yeah, right.

>>10509649
>83 lbs
Is that including ammunition and the power supply?

>>10509659
He has decent taste in literature, fuck you.

>>10510019
Don’t forget to give him $10 as well like all the other certified individuals. This guy is a classic case of establishing a brand and selling out hard as fuck. Can’t blame him really. I’d say all kinds of shit for $60k a month and rocking the boat would be the last thing on my mind.

>>10510031
That's more influence than any scholar could have ever

>>10510045
Mind your fucking language

>>10510059
So your problem with him is that he has a lot of influence and not authority. Why not just say what you actually mean?

>>10510054
these people don't have to give him money to get his content. You can get it all for free on youtube.

>>10510086
Yeah maybe if you’re a collectivist. Individuals pay bucko.

>>10510092
what are you trying to say?

>>10509916
Peterson doesn't read lit for prose of plot.
That's why he thinks Dusty is the best writer.
>Psychological!
/lit/ should love him tbhfamalam

>>10510108
He’s leveraging his long and successful career into a mad cash grab before people realize he’s not at all controversial or interesting.

>>10510066
Mind my balls in your mouth fuccboi

>>10510118
well if he really wasn't interesting then why is it that hundreds of thousands of people around the world still listen to him if what he was saying wasn't significant in some way?

And he shills Stephen Hicks who had been a running joke among actual philosophers long before anyone cared about this canuck.

>>10510130

>>10510132
Stephen Hicks book is pretty tame if you actually read it, i mean he is an autist ayn rander and he has some unconventional views like that Kant was the first step in the wrong way away from the enlightenment, but he doesn't let that ruin the rest of the book

>>10510077
What are you on about. Influence brings authority when there isn't mediation from something above both parties. Unless you mean authority among other scholars, oh yes he might be disreputed in those circles, but that doesn't affect his sway at large to any greater extent than the influence of the latter scholars might bear

>>10510148

>>10509807
He said once something like "if you're afraid to debate someone they're probably right."

>>10510110
Dostoe builds static characters soley to be the vehicle for some position and pits them against eachother around the protagonist's progression. There's a place for that, but he isn't a Tolstoy, he isn't even a Turgenev or Chekhov!

>>10510176
That's a fair point
What was it they were going to debate?

>>10509827
66k a month?!!!! is this fucking real?

I hate him because the stink he causes everywhere is 10 times worse in Canada. To some he's a national treasure bringing prestige to U of T and to others ( probly most where I Iive) he's a transphobic bigot. I watched him "debate" on CBC and God Damn is he not worth the fuss either way.

>>10509605
Because he acts like this guy that understood everything. You know in school those retarded kids that were skinny/fat and had like nothing they could brag with, so they just acted like they were fucking clever all the time and everybody hated them because of it? That's Jordan Peterson. Weird guy, not because of his standpoints, but of how he's that 70yo edgy guy who thinks he's "dangerous" as he would call it. I would beat the living shit out of that guy in the ring, spit him in the face and tell him to say again that he's fucking dangerous.

>>10510218
NEETbucks are a great inversion in current year

>>10509806
>actually thinking like this
Never gonna make it

I'm completely fine with him as a guru/life coach for NEET internet kids, I wonder how many rooms got cleaned because of this great man.

>>10510245
you could have written that entire post without the last sentence. It makes you look bad.

>>10510290
my room is sparkling and my tranny roommate is bleeding, thanks jordan peterson

>>10510215
Goldie is a Western racialist. Peterson is a Boomer individualist.

>>10510215
>>10510322
It also wasn't a debate Goldie was uninvited from a free speech chat by Peterson post-Charlottesville

>>10509669

When he started saying things like ‘postmodern neomarxist philosophy has infected all of the humanities, Foucault and Derrida are destroying western civilization, oh also I’ve never actually read a single book by either of them’

And then he tries to start up some sort of list to collect the names of all the professors who teach courses which are ‘anti western, postmodern neomarxism’.

>>10509665
People don’t pretend, read his work. He believes that male and female are metaphysical truths which are fundamental to understanding humanity, that at its very core it’s split into two essential spirits. This idea is reinforced by his Christianity. He cannot cope with the notion of trans or non-binary people because they fundementally defy his understanding of humanity.


>>10509688
It’s not bad, it’s just pretty entry level shit. Like when I was in high school I thought 1984 was the deepest shit, but today I think it’s kind of overblown and silly.

Also it frustrates me that he holds himself as an expert on the psychology of “Totalitarianism” but it sounds like his entire understanding of the Soviet Union is largely based on fictional works, rather than historical research. He presents The Gulag Archipelago as being a historical work, when it’s not, it’s fiction meant to ‘evoke’ real experiences, but because of the standpoint of the author it necessarily doesn’t give a realistic understanding of the situation. It sounds like Lacan using Poe, Joyce and Shakespeare as the source of his psychology.

>>10509785
yeah same here, he repeats himself way too much, it's borderline unwatchable now because it really doesn't seem like he has that much to say.

>>10510379
>It sounds like Lacan using Poe, Joyce and Shakespeare as the source of his psychology.
Why is Poe held in such esteem by non-anglos, been seeing this a lot lately

>>10510384
this

>>10510379
>He believes that male and female are metaphysical truths which are fundamental to understanding humanity, that at its very core it’s split into two essential spirits.

>>10510398
Problems?

>>10510131
That isn’t actually the bar that needs to be cleared to be considered interesting. Clever ads clear that bar.

The fact this thread has 100+ replies within a few hours should explain why many on this board don't like him
Not to mention the people who defend him
>>10509770
>>10509920
>>10510398
are embarassements

>>10510054
>>10510092
>>10510118
Why are you so salty? All his videos are free and all the money he gets come from donations. How is setting up a patreon account cash-grabbing when he almost never mentions anything about his patreon?

>>10509605
you mean aside from the fact that /lit/ hates anyone who's accomplished and successful?

>>10510490
>uhhhh haterz are just jealous

He's good, he helps people out. I don't hate him, anyway

>>10509605
simply put, he's not /lit/

>>10509713
pic related is the archetypal[1] petersonfag

[1]: (petersonfags will understand what this term means)

>>10510553
that meme is trying and projecting so hard that reading the details is making me uneasy

>>10510553
>Kafka
>In the Court of the Crimson King
>f.lux
I'm somewhat triggered

>>10510553
>things a lot of people like, the image

captures how wide Peterson's net is though.
>are you sad?
>are you aimless?
>Well, bucko, buy my book

>>10510486
I’m not salty I just recognize a con when I see one. His Patreon is not funded by people who think JP is just a swell guy. He’s made mention plenty of what he plans to do with the money but he’s been planning for months now. Luckily he’s only got to plan for like 6-12 more fat paychecks and he can retire.

>>10510775
If you were a psychologist making videos on youtube and people started suddenly donating 66k to your patreon every month, wouldn't you feel the need to tell your audience that you're doing something with the money? He was a professor before he became an internet father figure for college kids so he didn't have that much free time to begin with, let alone now. You're definitely salty.

>>10510842
>It happened in that order
You’re a rube my dude. It’s fine that he’s turned into a grifter I really couldn’t care less. If you watch his series on Pinocchio he’s obviously been plying his craft for a long time since he’s got no business being a teacher either.

>>10509759
ya this. can't deny he helps people though

>>10510379
spotted the leftie here

>>10509759
I don’t understand what your problem is with his position. He is essentially tweaking the ideological balance and it’s probably superficial because at some level it doesn’t need to be any deeper. What kind of deeper understanding are you suggesting? It sounds nda like there is an alternative you want to propose but I guess I’m just too plugged in to see it.

>>10510879
>implying it didn't happen in that order

What was the correct order then? Your saltiness is getting worse and you can't hide your passive-aggressiveness even though you're trying. All Peterson's videos are free to watch. How is he scamming anyone? Nobody is forcing the patreons to give money to him. I haven't watched his videos for a while and I dislike the fanbase but I don't understand why you are so vehemently against him.

>he’s obviously been plying his craft for a long time since he’s got no business being a teacher either.
he's still a professor at the university of Toronto, what are you on about?

>>10509605
Maps of Meaning is easily one of the best books on religion and the human condition out there. He has some cool lectures and gives excellent advice, in part because he approaches the question of how to live in a very literal and specific manner.

His crusade against "post-modernism" is, however, rather uninformed. He does not understand the post-structuralist philosophers in great detail. But there does seem to be a deep opposition if you actually know about both them and Peterson.

Peterson looks at the world through his categories of chaos and order. (Chaos and order are sort of like phenomenological "places", and possibly metaphysical categories, but he's unsure of going that far.) Peterson explicitly agrees with these philosophers in that the world is "slippery" and chaotic with no rational order. But Peterson, being a pragmatist, sees the practical solution as imposing order onto this chaos (which is basically the process of categorization), whereas the post-structuralists tend to question and may even want to destroy what they see as oppressive and arbitrary orders. However, Peterson does make great emphasis in Maps of Meaning on the necessity for both chaos and order, but chaos is only necessary insofar as it helps "update" order.

He got me intrested into learning and educating myself again. I actually started reading. But as he says so himself, I want to read everything myself and make up my own mind, and not just parrot his interpretation. With that said, I use him as a guideline for books and all. He's like Youtube's recommended videos feature. And when I've read everything he recommends hopefully I will have more ideas what to read next.
I don't know if he's gotten abit over his head with all the stuff that's going on, though the only thing I can say is that 4chan is not alt-right and him vs. alt-right triggering everyone on here is the weirdest psy ops ever. Take /pol/ for example, on some days you'd think there are more alt right people on there than nazi-larpers, and sometimes they seem to overlap. I'm mostly lurking though, maybe 3 posts a week, so what do I know.

>>10510575
t. trying and projecting way too hard: the post

>>10510982
Don’t know why you keep projecting this fantasy on to me. I think he does good work in a narrow band of expertise and he’s done a good job marketing himself as more than what he is. He blew up as a free speech warrior (which he isn’t) and now a whole bunch of people are thinking they’re going to get more of him when in reality they’re just getting the same lectures over and over and over. Maybe that’s valuable but it’s not how he markets himself.

Ultimately this guy is going to pocket a few million and retire or fade into obscurity. Many people do this and it’s not a big deal. Just don’t want you to get your heart broken when your savior figure isn’t hanging around telling you to clean your room or ranting about marxists at an undergrad level.

>>10510245

>>10509605
I think he's a cool guy because he's helping a lot of youngsters get their life back on track but he attracts a lot of dumb newfags.

>>10509659
Here's his mucho smart IQ 160 but I've never taken a test haha also IQ tests are valid and not random bullshit thoughts on postmodernism: https://youtu.be/fTN3e8j0VMQ

Then here are some tears :'( very sad. I've read atlas shrugged and I can't believe a man was put on trial for being better than everyone: https://youtu.be/jLTFL2W3woU

>>10509785
>>10510384

True, though it sees like he has a sort of core anti-postmodernist point to make and repeats it to every microphone he sees as a way of just pointing a greater audience in the direction of some shit he thinks is fucked, and telling em to think about it.

>>10511676
You haven't provided any evidence that peterson is wrong.

>>10509916
Fuck off, Nietzsche is pseud shit but Jung is god tier. Not Peterson bastardized Jung, real Jung. Even Stemfags like Wolfgang Pauli agreed.

>>10509759

so your beef with him is that hes preaching the importance of the individual within this life?

is it that you find issue with the progress narrative and an insistence on making the most of your life and who you can be (decent job, improve personally, "make it" in this world?

>You're not becoming spiritual. Your not changing

is your concern that:
A) JP's lectures aren't making people spiritual?
or
B) people are seeing the points me makes as spiritual?

there seems to be an underlying belief in an afterlife that justifies not trying in life that permeates what you've said.

>>10511895
>Nietzsche is pseud shit
You really must do better in your criticisms. Folks on this board are going to laugh at you for being ignorant.

>>10510118

but its free

>>10511908
>muh self appointed authority
Jung's understanding of human nature >>> Nietzche. I don't know about you but what concept did Nietzsche come up with that trumps archetypes (most importantly anima/animus), and acausual Synchronicity in terms of practical application? Master/slave morality is a bullshit concept.

>>10511921
Don't use facts or logic when arguing with lefty/pol/. They are soley concerned with character assassination of anyone who challenged their preconceived notions.

No one here is interested in a thoughtful discussion.

>>10511926
>Master/slave morality is a bullshit concept.
You really oughta articulate your reasoning there bud
Dismissing Nietzsche offhand isn't impressing or convincing anyone

>>10509605
The way he argues is poor. Hell make many assertions without bothering to back them up. Most of the time this is fine because he is talking about a subject that is practically mysticism, where hell assert this person did x because they are acting on a Jungian shadow or something like that

I dont care about that. The problem is that he argues like this on topics that necessitate more. His argument with Sam Harris over what is truth was very enlightening. For all his talk about personality and self-growth, he was completely shut down by someone like Harris, with Harris just repeating to Peterson, what is your definition for truth

He dodged over and over something that simple. I dont know why I have this reaction, but when someone lectures about morality, responsibility, self-growth, personality, etc, and then fails in practicing what they preach in such an obvious manner, it becomes difficult for me to take them seriously anymore.

Once that happens, his self-confidence just becomes grating

>>10511948
Not defending Peterson at all, but It's hard to define truth in a public debate because 98% of your audience are going to be midwit physicalists who don't understand that there's truth within a physicalist paradigm, and then there's truth (ie a flowing consistency) within a higher order system.

>>10511986
>truth within a physicalist paradigm, and then there's truth (ie a flowing consistency) within a higher order system.

Are you referring to correspondence and correctness?

>>10511948
He wasn't shut down. Peterson and Harris just have irreconcilable viewpoints about truth because Peterson approaches the world from the viewpoint of action whereas Harris approaches the world from the viewpoint of inquiry.

Also, why do people keep thinking Peterson is self-confident? He's very neurotic and always doubting himself. He displays his doubt more than any intellectual I've ever seen speak.

>>10512069
God bless you, anon
You can always tell in these threads who has and has not studied Peterson.
I suppose people have already made up their mind before they post but you have the good grace not to lie about what you have seen.

>>10512069
>Peterson and Harris just have irreconcilable viewpoints

He was asked what is your definition of truth on a podcast about truth

>because Peterson approaches the world from the viewpoint of action whereas Harris approaches the world from the viewpoint of inquiry.

If I ask you to define a "viewpoint of action" are you just going to evade the question multiple times and then say that we just have irreconcilable viewpoints?

>Also, why do people keep thinking Peterson is self-confident?

From the number of assertions he makes

Let me make this very simple. There is nothing special about defining terms, and if you think you are such a situation where you have something to say that is worthwhile but that it is actually impossible to define your terms, you better make a case for that

If not, there is no reason to believe you. Thats like disregarding the law of identity and not making a case for why.

He knows everyone operates on that level. If he really did find that truth, he has no reason to not try and show what he is saying

He didnt. He just evaded the question.

>>10510379
>He cannot cope with the notion of trans or non-binary people because they fundementally defy his understanding of humanity.

fucking dropped (I think Petereson is a pseud lots of the time, doesn't mean he's wrong about the contradictions of social-constructivist gender ideology)

pic unrelated

>>10512092
>And the Pragmatists claimed that the truth of a statement or process can only be adjudicated with regards to its efficiency in attaining its aim. So their idea was that truths are always bounded because we’re ignorant. And every action that you undertake that is goal directed has an internal ethic embedded in it, and the ethic is the claim that if what you do works, then it's true enough. And that's all you can ever do, and so what Darwin did, as far as the Pragmatists were concerned, was to put forth the following proposition, which was that it was impossible for a finite organism to keep up with a multi dimensionally transforming landscape, environmental landscape let's say, and so the best that can be done was to generate random variance, kill most of them because they were wrong, and let the others that were correct enough live long enough to propagate, whereby the same process occurs again, so it's not like the organism is a solution to the problem of the environment, the organism is a very bad partial solution to an impossible problem...And that there is no truth claim whatsoever that can surpass that.


https://www.scribd.com/document/337709796/Sam-Harris-Jordan-B-Peterson-What-is-Truth-Transcript

>>10510379
>He cannot cope with the notion of trans or non-binary people because they fundamentally defy his understanding of humanity.


Male and female have existed biologically since pond scum was around and there are inbuilt narratives in each one's psychology that are synergistic and antagonistic with each other, its what makes on masculine or feminine. Non-binary is a concept without a cause no one adheres to every gender norm it's stupid to make it into some sort of identity. Feminists argue that there is no psychological difference between men and women only physical and transpeople argue that physical differences don't matter and that the only thing that matters is the psychological differences between men and women, which one of these are right? Female and male have always been biological classifications when a female acts like a man we don't call her male, we say she acts like a man, she's still a woman. Wanting to be called something you are fundamentally not is some kind of leftist obsession lately with things like all bodies are beautiful movement, colorblindness, and transsexualism. They will never be women no matter how hard they try, this isn't 1984 where we'll be forced to love big brother, we'll simply be polite to these disturbed people and agree with their delusion and move on.

>>10510245
You're a loser.

>>10510379
>He believes that male and female are metaphysical truths which are fundamental to understanding humanity, that at its very core it’s split into two essential spirits. This idea is reinforced by his Christianity.

He never, ever said this and he hardly qualifies as a Christian

The blood post-modern neo-marxists in this thread can't string together a coherent argument much less clean their rooms

>>10509605
just another cult of personality.
i don't really care about the guy but what bugs me is how easy youth get caught up in idolizing guys like him. i had a similar experience with hitchens that people had with him. a lot of people just never wake the fuck up and realize that they have to make their own minds up, and that you can't pass off philosophical and moral responsibility off onto celebrities.

>>10511884
Ah, no "muh evidence" therefore lalala you're wrong and I'm right. Are you expecting me to be a fucking Sargon of Akkad? Read the damn thread. There's plenty of "muh evidence" to show you that he doesn't know shit about postmodernism. There's currently a thread about Atlas Shrugged made by some 15 year old on the board too, so make sure you also read that one. It's blindingly obvious that Kermit became popular because of his reactionaresque views and because kids saw him on h3h3 and other podcasts for very smart individuals. Do we really need to deconstruct arguments made by every popular moron that comes around?

Hmm, I've just written this without realising that I didn't even make an argument against the dude and just posted videos and some ad hominems. I guess what you just posted was probably bait. Well, good job. It worked.

Just in case you were not just baiting, here are a few more videos:

Peterson on his very mucho smart iq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZV8Juna40

You can practice for IQ tests. There's a dude in mensa that does nothing but practice for them. They're really pathetic, but the fact that he's assuming that he's intelligent is even more pathetic.

Kermit on "I've lived off of Social Security, but social care is bad, ok" philosopher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9aHYj93xJY

>I don't believe philosophy is a higher calling than fiction
I wonder where his evidence for the shit he spews is

>>10512144
>Jordan Peterson, the centrist liberal who says "someone's got to look out for the working class" and is troubled by wealth inequality is "reactionaresque"

I'm pretty sure your post is just bait but whatever

i think the blokes got good intentions

you can come chat with us about literature and philosophy if you like here
https://discord gg/c37NwyB

>>10509605
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQA0e0UYzI

Even Chomsky think postmodernism was embarrassing and wrong.

You have to question people who think that any attempt to find the truth is some pernicious attempt to gain power over others and oppress them.

>>10512109
I kept reading the transcript up to 1:10:00 and Peterson still is not following Harris in nailing down his definition of truth. If I remember correctly this goes throughout the entire podcast. He never understands that Harris is asking for a simple defintion and that what he is offering is broken

> Harris: I need to break in here Jordan I just think youre not noticing the price youre paying for redefining a word like truth and you know, ironically its probably even a steeper price then what these gender pronoun maniacs are attempting to pay for asking that everyone use their favorite word to describe their identity. Truth is a bedrock conception, its not just a scientific one, its a journalistic one, its a interpersonal one, and its a...

I believe the podcast ends with Harris pointing out that substituting the word truth for beauty or something else does nothing but rob a given language of one important conception and confuse everyone

But to refer to the section you quoted, Peterson makes this case but the problems it has are apparent and Harris points them out, which he just doesnt grapple with. He evades them, thats what I was referring to, I forgot he gave this quasi-definition

>>10512144
>Do we really need to deconstruct arguments made by every popular moron that comes around?
Yes, we do. Why should I take your opinion as fact?

I don't know what problem you have with equating the tested 'intelligence quotient' some semblance of quantifying human intelligence but I hope it wasn't because your score was in the double digits. ;^)

>>10512185
I don't buy that he "evades" Harris. The reason it may appear that he "evades" Harris is because they begin from totally different axioms and can't directly argue at each other.

>>10511938
>if you criticise something it just means you're weak and want to justify that weakness
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>there could never be a deep or true reason for the critique, it's just will-to-power from a point of weakness
>everyone wants the feeling of will-to-power
>no exceptions
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>meanwhile Dionysus is rotting in his bed asking over and over, 'but what if Socrates really was corrupting the youth?'
>in no way could this eternal recurrence of a shitty question be ressentiment replacing Plato with irrational modernity
>because MUH FEELINZ OF POWWA!
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>it's okay when I do it
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>but what if he really was corrupting the youth tho?
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>and, just a coincidence surely, every follower asks himself eternally 'what if gommunism/fascism really is gorrupting tha youthz?'
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
>MUH OVERMAN FEELZ
>!!!BOOM DIONYSUS EXPLODES!!! gEt WrEkT nUbZ
Powerful stuff.
>>10499966

>>10512169
Are you serious? He is against Marxism and shits all over it. And his opinion on sexual difference, Christianity and "muh Nietzsche" attracts reactionaries like crazy. I'm not saying that he has a nazi flag in his apartment, I just think that his views are very close to what reactionaries like. That's what I mean by "reactionaresque" anyways.

>>10512226
>I just think that his views are very close to what reactionaries like

That's a misrepresentation of the situation. I think you're obscuring or distorting this too much.

For one, Nazis were not reactionaries at all, but perhaps you do understand this and I see what you're trying to get at. What you're referring to is how he attracts some Alt-Rightists. But that's not surprising. Virtually anybody who speaks out against the New Left is hailed by the Alt-Right, even if they're a lame moderate liberal like Peterson or Jonathan Haidt.

He might say some things that attract these people, but he's fundamentally opposed to that sort of ideology.

>>10512266
How were nazis not reactionaries?

>>10512226
Afaik he's pro-trans, he just doesn't like made-up pronouns and the idea of non-binary folks. You really can't call him a reactionary, he's just a milquetoast moderate.

>>10512277
They wanted to totally overturn the existing order for a new one, not an old one.

>>10512226
>I just think that his views are very close to what reactionaries like
Who are these reactionaries? You should define this class of person and articulate how they align with Dr. Peterson. What you have done instead is project a poor argument onto a political straw-man.

>>10512285
You might be confused. They were reacting against the new order, and all of their ideals/aesthetics were of past societies, generally a step or more beyond conservatism. That is literally the definition of reaction. The volksgemeinschaft was traditional simple community within the new order, and the new order could be nothing without it.
They wanted to preserve the old Germany at any cost, hence the aesthetics of death.

>>10512200
Alright sure. Ill just this before I show it, by evade Im being nice. It could be he is just incompetent and cant stay on the subject, doesnt understand how to justify his position, or simply isnt aware of what Harris is getting at. Id like to think he is just evading and is trying to get to a separate point that he holds more important

So Peterson makes his point, and Harris responds by saying that Peterson is using two different definitions of truth but acting/believing he is using just one, which makes the illusion of a contradiction. Mainly its this talk of "true enough", or the moral/power weight that is supposed to bear so much on the conception of truth that it is in fact truth. Truth becomes human relative, roughly speaking. Harris sees this as putting two things next to each other and pretending they are one, when they arent.

Ill just say here that this is not starting off from two different axioms, so far apart that they cant come to disagree. They are in disagreement, clear as day, and it seems apparent what they disagree about. Its the classic point Frege made about how "belief that x is true" is different from "x is true". You use the later to evaluate the former. You will always want to ask, given a series of relative truths, which is the most true or which is the one which is actually true.

Harris then goes over some pragmatism history.

Peterson brings up pomo and it goes on a tangent. A few back and forths later, Harris brings the conversation back to understanding what Peterson means by truth.

Harris decides to setup a contradiction and show Peterson his error, by showing how equating Darwinian success with truth will lead to contradiction.

Peterson interjects stating we shouldnt assume that science isnt flawed. This seems to come out of left field and is probably trying to guess where the argument is going. But Harris goes along and agrees that yes, humans are flawed and so our science is less than perfect. But here Harris makes a sharp move

He points out to Peterson, how is it that Peterson is able to say that this is the case? How is it that we can show that it is true that, what is true is what is biologically successful, ? The point here is that you must have some meta sense of truth in order to derive this truth within the Darwinian sense.

Peterson says that you cant just do this, Harris then interjects (this is around 43:09), and we get into many back and forths with Peterson derailing the conversation into other topics before finishing what they have started with (52:28)

Ill just cut to the chase with Harris point of smallpox. Harris says, it is true that this is smallpox, and that truth is completely separate from whatever truth is related to our survival of smallpox. The podcast goes on for a while with Peterson not getting this point (55:47)

Thats what I meant by evasion

>>10512192
Nah we had to take it in uni. It's around 140. I gotta say that it makes me cringe that you even brought my IQ up.

Anyways, my problem with it is how psychology uses a fuckton of random tests made by random morons that just assume that the tests are good enough. They're trying too hard to be like some hard science, while their entire discipline is very susceptible to bias. A lot of their work boils down to "how to make good tests" and even with that work they're really bad. Hell, psychiatrists in Europe don't even take psychology seriously because of that. It's common knowledge that shit like DSM5 was highly influenced by American insurance companies and lawyers in the 60s which made it 2000 pages long (It was around 90 pages at first). Insurance companies didn't want to pay for costly and lenghty treatments and lawyers wanted an easy way to sue doctors. And now a fuckton of their work has to be classified somehow. If you go to a psychiatrist today, you'll be diagnosed with at least one thing because they can't continue working with you if you're not sick. That shit is absurd since you're most likely not sick, but even tho a psychiatrist can't diagnose you on the spot, he has to because he can't continue without it. And that's how you get to modern psychology and its testing. It's an easy way to classify everything in random categories because of someone wanted to save money.

>>10512317
But the political and economic order they wanted was totally new, and that put them in tension with the actual reactionaries in Germany. The new Germany they wanted really did not resemble the old Germany except in some cultural elements.

I guess it's complicated, but I'm not very committed to my thesis here and it's hardly essential to my argument.

>>10512335
> fuckton of random tests made by random morons that just assume that the tests are good enough
dude IQ is the most thoroughly researched means of measuring intelligence, and by far the most widely used in practical settings.
i think ur just mad because someone called you a retard on your test score

>>10512293
see
>>10512266

Also, >>10512266 I agree with what you said. I know he's opposed to it. Maybe I'm just blinded by my own ideology and see him as such since he doesn't really go to great lenghts to get rid of his alt-right followers. I mean, why does he go to podcasts that are visited by alt-rightists?

>>10512373
>doesn't really go to great lenghts to get rid of his alt-right followers
you're empirically wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oJBJc9Ou2A

>why does he go to podcasts that are visited by alt-rightists
Peterson doesn't control which podcasts "the alt-right" visits.

>>10512432
That's a completely new statement, not just a rephrasing of the first one.

>>10512432
Don't worry, I saw the video and the tweet.

>Peterson doesn't control which podcasts "the alt-right" visits
But he does control which podcasts he visits. He can easily check if a podcast is visited by them and choose not to go. I mean... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE&t

>>10509697
He's saying he's too good for peterson. And you're saying that you're not.

>>10512445
seems pretty much the same to me, what's new about it?

>>10512455
Would you kindly explain how Peterson is supposed to divine that JRE is, in fact, visited by the "alt-right?"
I can not logically make that association at all. I think you are just set on the character assassination of Peterson at this point.

>>10510379
>He cannot cope with the notion of trans or non-binary people

Wow. I don't have any problem with people just being themselves, but the people who tend to identify as 'non-binary' are just cringe inducing. Typically it's stupid women trying to be different or who are just unattractive and never felt feminine.

Feeding into that is pathetic

>>10512432
>>10512455
Are you fucking serious?

So anything racists do is now racist by association? And not all of the right is racist, nor are all of the beliefs held by racists wrong.

>>10512490
Yes.
This is what /leftpol/ actually believes. Why do you think Peterson threads instantly go to shit? His haters haven't got a bloody clue. They just parrot whatever slander they read on motherjones.

>>10512490
He's not racist by association. I'm trying to show how he's not doing a good job of getting rid of his alt-right following.

>>10512476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxqpq0wM3Ms
He obviously knew who he was dealing with

>>10512373

>Maybe I'm just blinded by my own ideology

yo, I see you, checkin yourself, keepin it real

>>10512502
are you gaslighting us?
you haven't shown jack squat!

your statements are incongruous with reality

>>10510411
Yes. That's a very reasonable philosophy. Maybe not at the spiritual level, but at a level beyond the realm of conventional psychology.
Sex and gender aren't options and I'm confused as to why there's a movement to pretend otherwise.

>>10512540
What have I failed to show? At the start of this video they laugh about it because they know that his podcast is all about that controversial crap.

Everyone says that he's very self reflective which he does show in his talks and lectures. My problem with this is that he then also probably realises how easy it is for people to associate him with alt-right and doesn't do anything more than say that it's not true. He can say that he's not a right winger all he wants, but if he appears on podcasts which are easily associated with the right wing, he's not trying hard enough. Just reading the comments on podcasts, looking at related videos or Googleing about them can make you realise which agenda they have.

I wonder if you're gaslighting me. I can't understand how a person doesn't get that the guy obviously knows that he's associated with them, says he doesn't want to be, and then still keeps visiting places where the audience is undoubtedly right wing.

>>10512497
Im on the left and no one has tried to refute what I said about the way he argues

>>10512321

>>10512578
YouTube comments warrants a proper indictment for character assassination? That's a pathetic line of reasoning.
JRE is not a right wing podcast for fucks sake.

>>10510379
Jesus Christ, go lift some weights and get off leftypol. You absolutely disgust me.

>>10512335
>140

>>10512578
>how easy it is for people to associate him with alt-right and doesn't do anything more than say that it's not true
>if he appears on podcasts which are easily associated with the right wing, he's not trying hard enough
>Just reading the comments on podcasts, looking at related videos or Googleing

Great, don't judge someone on the merit of their ideas but rather judge them by who seems to associate with them on youtube. It's like you don't even think about what he says, just what other people say and who you think those people are (even worse, they are just retards in youtube comments).

>>10512335
>140
Why would you tell us this? The post (and the IQ part) you're replying to was just banter. There was no need to bring this up, you could have written your entire angry post without mentioning your score. Now you look bad.

>>10510553

>broke
>I lift
>no gaming
>use f.lux
>4chan
>no gf
>no fap
>cold showers

Should I just kill myself?

>>10512321
Peterson at multiple instances tried to get the conversation go to morality, which in his framework is more fundamental. Harris wouldn't help him do that, and stubbornly repeated the same arguments over and over again. Peterson did sperg out a little during that debate, but he won pretty handily. Sam Harris is a charlatan and the whole issue went over his head because he's stuck in a bunch of materialistic assumptions.

There's no contradiction in what Sam pointed out. "True enough" implies a gradient. There are many levels of analysis that something can be true at, so it's not a contradiction to use different defenitons at different times. The pragmatic defeniton encompasses them all.

Harris never actually shows any contradiction within the pragmatic framework. All he shows is that Petersons defeniton will contract Harris's defeniton. He made up scenarios that sounded absurd because he has a deep intuition for his own idea of truth. That's not an argument, or if it is its not a very good one. They're two different defenitons, so obviously they'll contradiction eachother at some point. He needs to show an internal contradiction, which never actually happened because it's an internally consistent framework. The idea of different levels of analysis that I outlined at the start of the post pretty much lets you weasel out of all of Harris' arguments.

>>10512665
I'm a masochist.

>>10512672
> which in his framework is more fundamental.

No it isnt. That case needs to be made

Again, consider

x is more fundemental

How do I determine that this is...true? This sense of truth you cant get rid of. That is what Peterson was trying to get away from but couldnt.

What is biologically successful is what is true. Okay, what about smallpox? How do you talk about that?

You can have a conversation about that. Im not saying he is just wrong and Harris is just right, but Harris isnt saying nonsense. Peterson needs to engage with that, give a case for why it isnt the case, anything really.

>Harris wouldn't help him do that, and stubbornly repeated the same arguments over and over again.

As he should. Peterson was evading/not engaging with/changing subjects, etc.

>but he won pretty handily.

He couldnt even get started. Harris had him the entire time just trying to explain his claim, and he never got through it if I remember it correctly. Even if he did at the end, which im fairly certain he didnt, he spent an entire podcast just trying to explain himself. That isnt winning in any sense besides stalling, which he obviously wasnt there just to do.

>Sam Harris is a charlatan and the whole issue went over his head because he's stuck in a bunch of materialistic assumptions.

This has nothing to do with materialism. We are at the very basic point of just asking for an explanation about Peterson's theory of truth.

>The pragmatic defeniton encompasses them all.

Peterson was not arguing for just general pragmatism. He had particular takes on the argument, with truth being "true enough" biologically speaking with "success", or later, being just beauty.

>"True enough" implies a gradient

More importantly it implies Peterson's own theory, which is about Darwinian success

>Harris never actually shows any contradiction within the pragmatic framework.

I will show you again where he does it perfectly

There is a lab of good people who are working on smallpox. They find something true.

To Peterson, this must be "true enough", by some gradient, which to him means biologically successful if were going with his Darwinian take

Then there is another lab, a lab of bad people, who also working on small pox. What they find is also something true.

What do these two labs find? Smallpox. X is smallpox, true or false? For both labs true, intuitively. This is not Peterson's take on things

Peterson's take on things is that this cannot be the case, because the good people and the bad people are doing two different things biologically speaking with the success of the human species in mind. What is "true enough" here must be different, in a gradient.

This is just wrong. They are clearly doing the same thing. People can and do discover things at the same time as a historical accident. Their intentions in hindsight on what they do with this truth has nothing to do with the truth of their statement, "x is smallpox".

>>10512711
Ran out of space

So then you have these two parties who to Peterson are doing two different things

So here is the contradiction

Now we imagine that the first lab, the good people, "fail" (Peterson cant talk about them this way so its in quotations). They accidentally discovered smallpox, and dont actually understand what smallpox is or how it comes to be

These are good people. To Peterson, this scenario is impossible. Why?

How is it possible for good people to be incorrect in Peterson's theory? By his theory, these good people, what they do, is "good enough". They cant be wrong, after all, by what standard are they wrong if Peterson's standard dictates they what they believe, understand, argue, is true/true enough/good for the human species

The very fact that his theory cant explain by what standard these good people made a mistake reveals the contradiction, which is the scenario that cant happen. Good people making a mistake to Peterson translates to, People spoke a truth which was false (Good scientists did something with good intentions which was not good).

Truth here needs to do more than Peterson is allowing it to, because his theory is incorrect.

>>10512669
No, fix the things that you want to make better in your life.

>>10510379
real talk, are you a commie

he's a liberal and that's enough for me to dislike him

>>10512950
stop killing arabs

>>10513085
no

>>10509605
he's just a regular, conceited shmuck who 100,000s of people think is a genius. the issue isn't him its his renown

>>10512711
Maybe you're reading this. 2 Comments I would have. That "true enough" thing will alawys be the case because you will never know if you what you have is the actual truth if you want to define truth as something completely objective.
So that lab finding Smallpox, did they find out a truth? We don't know, but we belive it to be. Would be nice if we could be 100% certain, but we won't know it until we do.
And about the good and bad people. I think Peterson would define good/bad depending on their actions. So a lap randomly finding smallpox by accident and handling it with improper care would be a bad lab. And a lab searching for a killer disease and finding it but then deciding to not publish it would be a good one. If you set those in specific time periods and social enviroments. Maybe having a killer disease is "good" in some situation, just have to look at a bigger picture sometimes. That's why peterson can't use the word "fail" there as you described it, he approaches good and bad differently I would say. To him, good people wouldnt do bad things, they would be called bad people then. Or rather, he would questions you what you mean by good people.
It's like saying, this dump person did an IQ test. It shows that he is smart. Why did we call that person dumb in the first place, is it true? Can we belive the IQ test result to be the truth? Is the result more true than our initial assumptitive truth about him being dumb?

>>10512277
Because they were shot at by the red front and reactionaries in the streets, back in the SA days.

>>10509605

I don't really have a problem with JBP as much as I have a problem with the general idea that his cult following promotes. After much consideration, I have concluded that this ultra metalogic/nihilist based approach to the world is unproductive at its core and therefore not really worth pursuing.

The question he asks is no different from the same question that millions of people, societies, civilizations, and cultures have already asked: why are we here?

>Life is suffering
>Therefore, why live?
>Because MEANING
>What is meaning?
>We dont know, but its real

It's an interesting thought experiment at best but I really hope some poor depressed sap doesn't take that shit to heart and actually offs themselves.

>>10513426
He has an interresting take on meaning actually. He hopes that meaning is an actual physiological phenomenon like pain. It happens when your life is in order on every possible level your brain can think of, then it feels meaningfull. So you feel in the right spot with yourself, your family, your friends, your local community, your state, now, tomorrow, next year etc. . He describes it as an orientational reflex of those aspects in your life, and if you are standing in the right spot, or going the right direction, you feel meaningfull.
He describes it here at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7E_4c_s9y8

>>10509605
>buy my personality tests
>clean your room
>you need me to tell you how to achieve self actualization
>leaf
his opinions arent wrong, bad, or even detestable, but he fucking rambles on and on to anyone who will listen about how one can make decisions for themselves, by telling people how to decide for themselves. the fact that he went from earnest critique to money hungry patreon e-begger also makes him pretty detestable too.

>>10512724
You're presupposing a morality based on intentions instead of Petersons morality, and then using that to find a contradiction. First off even if you did do that, it's not a contradiction because both cases are at different levels of analysis under your moral framework (good/bad), send this just proves why Harris fucked this up so badly. He wouldn't let Peterson talk about morality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

You always need to take something as an axiom or use circular or inconsistent reasoning to define truth. This page explains it better than I can. Harris just takes his defeniton as an axiom, Peterson defines it circularly through morality as a starting point. Both have the same pitfalls, your epistemological objection is just standard stuff for defining truth, it's more of an aesthetic concern than something that can be fixed.

Anywho, Peterson thinks of actions as fundamental to belief, and that every time you act you are implicitly codifying a morality because by choosing to act you're preferring one state over another. This creates a value heigherarchy. This is usually not concious, and applies to any action, including thinking.

When you choose to belive something, you do so because of some psychological motivation. Remember, he's a psychologist not a philosopher. Because of this, some moral system always precludes your beliefs. He's also a phenomeonlogist and thinks reality is your conciousness, your will, and then your beliefs which literally create reality as it appears to you. He's not a materialist. Using a notion of truth grounded in "what's out there, objectively" is completely untenable in this framework because you never have access to it. What's fundamental is morality because it's implicit in all actions, and thus precludes any epistemology. You only think of truth the way Harris does because you have a reason to, and you want to cling to that reason because of some underlying psychological motivation, which is in Petersons term a morality. Gun to your head, belive this or I'll kill you, you don't care how true it is because survival outweighs mapping to objective reality (which is impossible anyways). That's why Peterson says "I can't see a way out of it," because there isn't one under his presuppositions. That's why Harris is squarely in the wrong, you need to talk about morality for this all to make any sense. Which isn't any kind of logical absurdity like you're trying to claim because of the trillema linked above, all defeniton have issues. Peterson just doesn't take his by fiat, he takes something else by fiat and works from there to get truth which then backs up the initial assumption. This sounds absurd, but Harris does the same thing, he just assumes his own defeniton because it's intuitive. Peterson could do the same thing and just assume his own defeniton like Harris does, but because his is less intuitive he wouldn't be able to justify the debate without morality.

Buy his new book. It's groundbreaking.

>>10514195
ha
animals are cute
shitposting is not

>>10513543
Thanks, haven’t seen this yet

The major criticism I personally would have against Peterson is he's not very original or mind-blowing. He's an intelligent, dedicated, hard-working person, who's well-read and has a lot of interesting views and would probably be fun to talk to in real life, but if you've read Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Jung, Freud, Campbell, whatever -- his major influences -- Peterson doesn't completely strike you as a ground-breaking figure. Mostly, if you've read Dostoevsky, Jung, and Nietzsche, Peterson is not that surprising and everything he says is mostly anticipated by them/can be referred to some part of their thoughts and work.

>>10510019
pretty much this, overall i think Peterson is a net plus in as much as he's trying to save hopeless neets from themselves. also his reading list points people in the right direction in terms of self education.
that being said his absolute butchery of Nietzsche(amoungst others) is glaring obvious nearly to the point of disingenuity.

He is to philosophy and humanities what Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson are to the natural sciences.

lol fucking moron

>>10509809
kekd

Quick, let me google "properly understanding Nietzsche" so that I can fit in with the fedora libcucks in this thread. lol. Thank god I went for STEM instead of having to be around you pseudo-intellectuals.

>>10512793
> the virign reply
> being this new

alright kid who of your reddit friends taught you how to log onto four chan dot org

>>10512502
Why should he have to make an effort to distance himself from the alt-right instead of simply put the focus on spreading his ideas.

Joe Rogan definitely isn't alt-right btw. Brett Weinstein is in fact a Jew as well - not sure what your point is with showing a Jew talk objectively about Hitler.

You're a symptom of the left's very real tendency to eat its own

>>10512373
>>10512502
And, yes, you are claiming racism by association

I apparently watch podcasts that the alt right watches. I'm clearly not making enough of an effort to distance myself from racists. Seeing as how I try to see things clearly, there will be some overlap with the right in what I think is true (ditto with left leaning views obviously).

By the same standard you're judging Peterson, I would be judged negatively. And it centers around being racist by association.

You're a moron. What a group that you don't belong to does or doesn't do should have no impact on you or how you view these things.

Do you see the bigotry in your beliefs? Do you see how this bigotry is hypocritical?

>>10512455
>>Peterson doesn't control which podcasts "the alt-right" visits
>But he does control which podcasts he visits. He can easily check if a podcast is visited by them and choose not to go. I mean...
You don't have any idea how idiotic this sounds, do you?

>>10510379
Any attempt at understanding the human race that hyper-focuses on the sexually deformed exists for it's own PR and not to understand the human race

>>10512645
/leftypol/ is Nazbol. Don't associate us with these degenerates

>>10517373
Because his ideas are problematic, so obviously he is only allowed to spend his entire time distancing from a group he himself doesn't associate with. He is also not allowed to do newspaper interviews if they at one point also platformed alt-right, nor TV shows or anything like that.

Even implying that JRE is somehow an alt-right platform is hilarious.

>>10512432
The alt-right doesn't like Peterson, that is the alt-lite.

>>10509781
>>10509827
>>10510218
>>10510256
answer this? >>10509802

I mean, I disagree with a lot of shit he says, but I see no reason why he shouldn't have a patreon. There's a difference between "PWEASE SUPPORT MY INDEPENDENCE" and "here's a way to donate if you want to"

He's obviously doing well enough between his career, his patreon, and his products. If people want to pay him for HIS content then who gives a shit?

>>10518893
there's no need to be upset, memerson is an outspoken capitalist so it's fine that he milks as many NEETbux as he wants

>>10514195
the election cancer itt will defend this

>>10509605
>I see a lot of posts on here about this guy on here and you guys seem to really hate him.
I don't.

>Is there any real reason for it? Has he done or said something that made him detestable?
Frankly the peterson spam is unbearable. One thread a month is all we really need.

>All I really know about him is that He's a psychologist and he puts personality lectures online. How is he lit related?
He writes and recommends books and is a "public intellectual" (as much as such a thing exists any more).

>>10509974
Peterson is confirmed for the Zero Books podcast, it's happening.

>>10518992
Holy...

>>10518992
that's sounds great, where did you see it? i'm not the biggest fan of memerson nor of the zero books podcast guy, but it seems like this could be a productive conversation if they actually listen to each other instead of just an echo-chamber conversation that those 2 guys have in their respective echo-chambers

>>10510110
Yeah but /lit/ is mostly edgy contrarians who must hate anything that the people they look down on like, so they have to pre-hipster the backlash against anything that becomes known.

>>10518998
>>10519001
In this video description:
https://youtu.be/RwadKXYm7v4
it states: " The program featured professor Jordan Peterson, who is scheduled to be a guest on this podcast next month,".

Personally I enjoy the Zero Books podcast even though I disagree with most of it and I wish Douglas Lain would finally give up on his archaic Marxism.

>>10519042
ah that's great, i saw the interview you linked where he said he would like to interview Peterson in a confrontational way but didn't read the description where it was confirmed he'll be on

>>10519056
I'm unreasonably hyped for the whole thing desu.

>>10519067
too bad memerson speaks really slow and the podcast is usually kind of short if you subtract the songs, intros and everything

>>10510553
The meme is the absolut triger

>>10518893
* This is a post by anon, don't forget to donate to my patreon @ JBP/Patron.com*

Great post Anon! You sure showed those other guys on how Jordan B. Peterson is a fine, upstanding individual. His advice on how to wipe your ass sure is great for all those millennial's with broken families. You go girl!

* This post was brought to you by anon, make sure to donate to my patreon @ jordanbpeterson/patreon*

MAKE SURE YOU DONATE TO MY PATREON

>>10519579
>making money is ebil guise

>>10509802
because /lit/ can whine why people give him money instead to them for their shitty novella.