/lit/ - Literature

>>10591115
The Prince ending up a retard is a metaphor for him going to heaven, please re-read The Idiot so you can understand this.

I wish daddy Peterson would cum in mouth so bad, do you think he would be offended if I e-mailed him regarding this?

>>10591115

Because he has become a salesman.

>>10591121
How did he go to heaven?
He failed to master his social environment despite hyper-genuine efforts and finally his waifu was lust murdered by his shadow self. Sounds more like hell to me.

>destructive effects of nihilism

Just shut the hell up already

>>10591130
No need. I'm right here. Open wide, anon.

>>10591115
>kermit, the uh, pseud here

>progressives think we're moving forward, but really we're just moving to the side
>like crabs
why did peterson call that feminist woman a crab? was it because he thought she was crabby because of his innate sexism? genuine question here

does anybody know how this translation compares to the Garnett one?

>>10591174
The cover is horrible.
And yes I'm aware that the painting makes is mentioned in the novel.

>>10591115
I'm not sure Myshkin actually implements Peterson's thinking, consider the "don't be harmless" aspect

>>10591115
Myshkin is a coward. He is weak and passive. Peterson's reflection on the concept of "meek" is basically someone who walks softly but carries a big stick or someone who knows how to use his sword but chooses to keep it sheathed. Myshkin may walk softly, but he doesnt not have the means to defend himself and that is precisely why the things that happen to him do happen. He is half formed, still a child.

Rate this NYT cuck-take

>>10592117
well none of it is true, especially not "vague" and "joyless".

>>10592117
PETERSON literally doesn’t stop going on about how having children can improve your life, how is that self centered ?

>>10592117
literally the whole article is positive towards him except for that one paragraph. why did you even post that? Oh I know why, so you can fuel your persecution complex

>>10592117
>neech's philosophy and take on the world lacks attachment and beauty
what the fuck

>>10592631
Look up Sigmund and Anna Freud's relationship, and then look up the "Jungian" and his daughter's relationshit. He's a Freudian false flagging, and so having children is the sacrifice, the creation of your own death in the form of a son (or a daughter if you're the kind of man who always has a cigar FOR NO REASON AT ALL I PROMISE A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR)

>>10591174
I am reading this translation right now. I compared it with the version from Penguin by McDuff and concluded that I like it more. The cross-check with the original in Russian also seemed to favour Myers. As for Garnett, not having read her rendition, she is considered a great stylist, and her translation is sure to be enjoyable, but some mistakes are also expected to occur more certainly than not and probably to a higher degree than with newer translations like your pic related.

Snake oil salesman peddling an ideology that died in a gutter on the side of a road in Fallujah, stop posting his brainlet trash for sad young men without dads

>>10592731
Please elaborate, I'm dumb

>50+ comments on a negative Amazon article in a day

IS this a cult?

>>10592887
Worse than that - it's a cult at siege. He successfully manipulated his subjects into believing that they (understood as >we, the western civilization) are being encircled by postmodernist Marxists aiming to dismantle the very essence of what constitutes >us to Petersonites. Thus, the siege mentality that leads the review gangbanging and youtube comment wars.

>>10592962
hmm sounds like you're just jealous and possibly a neo-marxist?

>>10592666

It seemed to me to be the heart of the article.

>>10593592
We all know that Amazon reviews are heavily scammed and manipulated by bots and fake reviews. Largely useless as a metric for anything.

>>10592850
schizoid, don't bother

>>10592117
literally confirmed for never reading Nietzsche

this pisses me off

Can someone give me a serious explanation about why there is all this backlash towards Peterson and why it seems like a growing minority of people are starting to hate him and meme him now?

I'm not very familiar with him, his writing, or his talks, but I got the impression that most people respected him (at least when he first started popping up). Is it just contrarianism now that he's gained more popularity, or are there legitimate reasons for the dislike? I watched a few of his lectures and discussions this week and nothing stood out to me.

>>10594619
Its because hes being spammed

Thats it

>>10594629
Delete this post. Don't let them know we're accelerating it

>>10594619
You are learning a valuable lesson in memestream swimteam gymnastics. You are experiencing the memestream but instead of going with the flow you are asking why and whither it flows. Some day soon you will be able to pluck a thing out of the stream and evaluate it for yourself without connecting your estimation of its value to how the memestream values it or how it is developing.

You may be surprised to know that it is possible for a thing to be good, become popular for all the wrong reasons among people who don't even understand why it's actually good, then become hated by all kinds of people simply because it became popular, all without more than a handful of people actually evaluating the thing itself for its real qualities.

>>10594619
i like peterson and posted his lecture videos a couple times before he blew up from the bill c-16 thing. but his fanbase is extremely annoying (gullible and dogmatic) and it's become clear that he is not nearly as well versed in what he criticizes as he portrays. desu i think the whole "postmodern neomarxist" thing alone is enough to warrant calling him a pseud. but he's still worth paying attention to and is a fun speaker when he says something new (which is getting rarer) or is challenged by someone who isn't a retard. his self-help stuff is fine but you can kind of understand why people would sneer at it.

Can someone make a "kill me Pete" meme but with Peterson and a few lobsters here and there? I'd make it myself but I'm not a meme artist

>>10594619
I don't really mind that he is a pseud and wrong, but people are sucking his dick for it and spamming him in /lit/.

>>10593697
schizoid and schizotypal aren't the same thing you fucking pseud

>>10594741
This. If there was one Peterson thread a week, it would be one thing, but it seems like there are multiple threads a day. We hate him because he gets spammed, and that's nearly the only reason. At this point I'd love to burn all his books just to see his fanbase whimper and cry, because fuck them, get the fuck off my /lit/ you absolute faggots.

>>10594768
I'm spamming Peterson so that people can get mad about it. We all have a role in this awful meme. Isn't that wonderful?

>>10592117
>nietzsche
>no beauty

>>10592717
>>10594806
I think what's written there is that Nietzsche's world is a one without beauty and attachment, not Nietzsche's. This makes the statement no less retarded than otherwise.

>>10594958
>not Nietzsche's writing*

>>10594768
>>10594741
But 90% of Peterson threads are made by his detractors.

>make a thread by posing a specific question for conversation
>thread discussion almost immediately becomes dominated by shitposts and vaguely related metameme discussion
wow it's almost like this board is full of autistic people who don't read

>>10594619
The biggest problem I have with him is that instead of just being what he is, a family centered neocon who read and likes Nietzsche, he started gaining traction with "Alt-Right" fuckers and all of the sudden he's doing interviews with Ben Shapiro.

Like, I don't like either version of him but there is just something more honest about him before he became an figurehead of "enlightened" young white dudes

>>10592117

Do you have the webarchive of this article, por favor?

>>10594619
He struck a nerve with a lot of adultchildren by ruining their fun by telling them to cut the bullshit and grow up.

>>10595535
Don't forget how he enabled the bullshit of a whole other demographic of adult children

>>10592117
REEEEEEEEEEEE
Has literally never read Nietzsche, ugh! Peterson is all those things they said he wasn't and more, gosh! NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE. Why do they keep attacking him, sheeze! It's just not fair; he's a good guy, honest! You're a bad person for posting this, and not a word of it is true. You misunderstand him and his good boy heart.

>>10595543
t. asshurt manchild

>>10595525

> neocon

Why would you use that term on him, and why do you think neocon is an insult.

>>10594629
He's also a pseud

>>10595584
I mean, maybe he's closer to a paleocon but I don't really care.

This social restriction crap is standard "I'm real scared about nothing" moral panic that happens every 10 to 15 years. He read Nietzsche, good for him. He probably understands it better than most people that misread Nietzsche like that NYT guy but Peterson is far from providing any fresh insight and he's far too moralistic to say anything truly interesting.

The dude is basically a conservative DFW.

>>10595589
>He's also a pseud
He makes a living and a career using nothing but words. He's quite literally an intellectual.

>>10595602
an intellectual amongst pseuds

>>10595601
>he's concerned about morality so he's crap
Don't you have some anal prolapse videos to go masturbate to? The adults are trying to have a discussion.

>>10595602
Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh also make a career using nothing but words. Are they intellectuals?

>>10595610
irony

>>10591174
Avoid Garnett like plague

>>10595601

> maybe he isnt a neocon
> maybe he is a paleocon

What is it with everyone getting fed the current doxa, using empty mashed up words that means nothing.

>>10595610
Being concerned with morality doesn't make you crap. Nietzsche was concerned with morality and he's the most influential thinker of the 19th century.

Peterson however is overly concerned not with morality, but with the things he views as immoral. Very little distinguishes him from a didactic non-denominational preacher.

>>10595618
Nothing means anything anymore. You're literally stewing in one of the most postmodern facets of modern culture.

>>10595624
okay

>>10595624

Please go in a cave to wither and die. We don't want your atavistic, prostrated inaction hete

>>10595628
>atavistic, prostrated inaction
Haha, wow dude. I think you're projecting a bit too hard.

>>10591115
ive heard him mention the idiot about 2 times,i may be wrong,but i am certain it was at least once

>it's another "everyone insults each other in increasingly meta ways and failing to provide a shred of substance" thread

>>10595612
Words about intellectual subjects was the implication anon

Why were these never released

>>10594760
I know

>>10592117
I think he misses a large point that Peterson seems to make. Peterson constantly talks about the idea that the self and identity is not subjective. Part of your identity is "determined" by interaction with society and other individuals. Also an argument he has for free speech is that by talking ot other people you improve the way you speak and thus the way you think. So it is vitally important to interact with others. It is not the case that he thinks people should be solitary and avoid "loving attachment" but rather learn to conduct yourself in such a way that people will want to have a loving attachment with you.

>>10596114
People generally take his individualism out of proportion. Or extrapolate from some hearsaying. Not that that is anything new on the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylI0uBIsq4Y
how should he have handled this

>>10596125
implication arrow implication arrow implication arrow slash pol slash

>>10596125
I think he did fine. He tried to really think of a way to disentangle what the guy said, realized that he didn't have the time to give a proper answer, maybe he was unfamiliar with the subject the guy was talking about, and so he simply he said he was not in s position to make a judgement on the situation or to give a proper answer to the question. I think it is better to say that you are unable to answer the question right now than to throw something random out that could later be seen as completely wrong but some people take as right because you said it.

>>10596125
Solzhenitsyn said the Holodomor WASN'T a genocide though, although millions died in it

>Solzhenitsyn opined on 2 April 2008 in Izvestia that the 1930s famine in the Ukraine was no different from the Russian famine of 1921 as both were caused by the ruthless robbery of peasants by Bolshevik grain procurements.[97] He claimed that the "provocatory shriek about a 'genocide' was started in the minds of Ukrainian chauvinists decades later, who are also viciously opposed to 'Moskals.'" The writer cautioned that the genocidal claim has its chances to be accepted by the West due to the general western ignorance of Russian and Ukrainian history.[97]

>>10596125
This falls apart, because the anti-communists of the Cold War (who are still alive) are still opposing Russia today.

>>10591145
Only retards are pure you retard. Haven't you seen young pope?

Who makes this embarrassing fanart?

>>10595305
History revisionism

>>10591130
Im sure he recived many messeges like this.

>>10594643
Very good post.

>>10597278
he has a cult following and they all substitute him for a preacher/father so its unsurprising

>My politics are very different from Jordan Peterson’s, but like many people I was engrossed by his recent interview with Channel 4’s Cathy Newman (the interview can also be found here). In my case, at least, it was less because of what was said than because of the nature of the encounter.

>If comments under the interview suggest anything, the video went viral chiefly because the right believe it shows their man – Peterson – intellectually crushing a so-called “hard-left feminist” like Newman. In fact, it proves nothing of the sort – more the misogyny of some of Peterson’s fans.

>Here is an ideological duel between a sophisticated brand of the libertarian right and a corporate – aka faux – left-liberalism, represented by Newman. The pair, in their commitment to an aggressive individualism within a neoliberal system, have far more in common with each other than they do with a real left. I suspect Peterson would have struggled considerably more to justify his positions had he come up against someone like Noam Chomsky rather than Newman.

>Nonetheless, the interview revealed something deeply troubling about what passes today for a news interview, and about the role of journalists. Here were two people talking at each other. This was mostly shadow play, rarely moving beyond shallow ideological posturing.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-01-24/jordan-peterson-tv-interview/

>>10591130
milo pls go

>>10593592

>5 star self-help book

The fact that people don't find this ridiculous is all the proof needed for the accusation of idol-worship and cult behavior.

>>10591115
>promotes freedom of speech
>shills patrician-tier authors such as Nietzsche, Eliade, Jung, Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn
>dumbs down from their superior level to the average intellect of the american
>makes astonishing psychological analyses of novels of said authors, of biblical stories, existentialist works and even simple tales such as pinocchio which hide a deep psychological baggage packed inside of them
>overcomes the great plague of our times: nihilism and atheism through MEANING, GOD, AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY
>is a great motivational speaker, superb in debates with the SJWs, skillful rhetorician etc.
>master of logic: understands that logic>emotion and isn't afraid of stating this in arguments with SJWs
>fights against the degradation of the culture and its foremost threats, namely marxism and postmodernism
>oh and islamism too, i forgot about that
So why is /lit/ hating on him after all? Is this place full of liberals, postmodern marxists, SJWs, neoatheists or what?

>>10592631
how the hell is bringing other consciousnesses into being just to affirm and validate yourself NOT the epitome of narcissism?

This guy is an ideologue, he has nothing of interest to say and his chief goal is selling his personality and lifestyle to a select group of people who already agree with him. His work has the exact same merit as the leftists who do shit like critical theory and his main work that got him a clinical psychology phd amounts to a statement of belief. It is irrelevant to psychology and empty as a work of philosophy. I think maybe some of the more shameless ideologues in the theology department might pretend like it is a good contribution to knowledge, but besides that this guy has nothing to say. Even his other psychology research is largely ignored lol.

>>10598145
>Islamism is bad

t. Brainlet

>>10591174
that book is about you anon lol

>>10598306
t.sandnigger

>>10598145
Given the level of Peterson-spam I'd say that /lit/ is divided fairly evenly between detractors and supporters of JBP.

>absolutely btfo in a reddit post

How will peterson fags recover from this

>>10592117
>the lives of young men can be improved more through loving attachment
Yes my mummy loves me very much I will stay with mummy forever and ever

>>10595941
gay

>>10598145

>not one of his analyses has been presented on /lit/ for discussion
>has written a self-help book with facile advice such as "lol don't forget 2 smell da flowers"
>is the subject of 10-20 threads on /lit/ at any given time, killing threads with actual discussion
>completely misconstrues the thinkers he associates with postmodernism, clearly has no idea what they're trying to do or saying
>has the most juvenile reading of Heidegger of all time
>engages in the most amateurish dialogue with philosophical tradition conceivable, miseducating hordes of his followers
>is clearly just a vessel for young men to express their ressentiment, exactly the same as Dawkins, Hitchens and the ideology of internet atheism was a decade ago, his followers being too young and too much of a bunch of newfags to realize that this is history repeating itself

That's why I hate Petersonthreads. They have pretty much nothing to do with his ideas and are totally killing the board.

The self doesn't exist

>>10594619
He's a neoliberal at heart.

>>10597472
>Making art means you're a cultist
Wanna know how I know you're a pleb?

>>10600517
You're wrong about Peterson threads somehow "killing" /lit./
I'll but it bluntly - /lit/ is fucking retarded. I've been here for years, and the percentage of intelligent, hell, even thoughtful, posts I've seen is hovering at around 1% of the total.

>>10598145
Where to begin with this
>>promotes freedom of speech
Only libertarians have a religious reverence towards freeze peaches. Sure its nice but supporting it doesn't make him a god.
>>shills patrician-tier authors such as Nietzsche, Eliade, Jung, Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn
So he knows the names of very famous authors, maybe has read some of their works, and recommends them. Isn't that what everyone on /lit/ does?
>>dumbs down from their superior level to the average intellect of the american
This is not a good thing. Who wants dumbass burgers walking around espousing misinterpretations of great works of literature? Basically "Nietzsche was a nihilist who wanted me to clean my room" ad infinitum.
>>makes astonishing psychological analyses of novels of said authors, of biblical stories, existentialist works and even simple tales such as pinocchio which hide a deep psychological baggage packed inside of them
...and uses his misinterpretations to loosely justify his self help bs.
>>overcomes the great plague of our times: nihilism and atheism through MEANING, GOD, AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY
Yeah, I too read Nietzsche, you don't see my trying to make a career off of it. He didn't overcome nihilism alone through his own philosophy, if that's what you're implying.
>>is a great motivational speaker, superb in debates with the SJWs, skillful rhetorician etc.
This is not a good thing. Do you really want to share a figurehead with people who watch "Top Ten Feminist Triggered Rekt Compilations"? Being skeptical about the modern American left is fine if you can justify yourself, which to his credit I'm sure he can, but creaming your pants every time Kermit says "trannies r dumb lol like u have a peenis!!" is pretty childish.
>>master of logic: understands that logic>emotion and isn't afraid of stating this in arguments with SJWs
Again, muh SJWs, and again, he's not special for reflecting on things rationally.
>>fights against the degradation of the culture and its foremost threats, namely marxism and postmodernism
If by "fights against" you mean "vaguely alludes to a boogeyman to scare people into buying his books," then sure.
>>oh and islamism too, i forgot about that
Low hanging fruit.
>So why is /lit/ hating on him after all? Is this place full of liberals, postmodern marxists, SJWs, neoatheists or what?
The fact that someone disagrees with your idol worship and you immediately rack your brain about which of the boogeymen they must be should tell you something about why /lit/ hates him, or moreso hates his followers, so much.

>>10601213
>freeze peaches
Stopped reading there. Please leave this website.

>>10601213
>Nietzsche was a nihilist
That's literally the oppsite of what Peterson is saying. Confirmed for not reading or listening to a single thing he was put out. No, out of context youtube clips from his lectures don't count.

>>10601213
>freeze peaches
>"trannies r dumb lol like u have a peenis!!"
>Yeah, I too read Nietzsche, you don't see my trying to make a career off of it

Salty leftist that is mad that other people make more money then him detected. You people are so fucking transparent it hurts. Also if you deny that SJWs are a problem, you are either ignorant or you deliberately try to muddy the waters because it suits your agenda.

>>10601648
>>10601656
>>10601692
Notice how none of you have responded to the actual substance of my post. Maybe if you're trying to pick someone to project your daddy issues onto, you should choose someone whose claims you can actually defend.

>>10592117
why do we let journalists live?

Peterson mentions Jung a whole lot, but is Jung really worth reading?

>>10601213
>supporting [free speech] doesn't make him a god.
Who said it did? You argue with phantoms anon

>>10601692
Yeah but don't you think the anti SJWs are as bad if not even worse?

>>10601692

Yes but Peterson is just the DLC for the Politics MMORPG launched with the last US election, together with Milo, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern and all the other e-celebs. So now you can all play together in your Lord of the Rings virtual reality where there is a faction of EVIL people (for the left: "bigots", "racists", "white supremacists"; for the right: "SJW", "marxists", "postmodernists") ruining the world! Who will win? It depends on you!

It will sure give you a rush of dopamine to know you can identify yourself with a character, a flag, a political idea resurrected from the past, a gender you invented last week.
It makes up for all the systems of meaning that crumbled in the last centuries, such as religion, the state, family, etc.
But "the meaning of life is what you make it to be". :DDDD
So I'll be a transgender alien.
So I'll be a nazi LARPer.

>meanwhile, in the real world, things were getting more and more complex, everything was difficult to understand, but there was no adult left with the ability of not reducing the political debate to a Marvel movie where heroes fight the bad guys and crack jokes

>>10596125
It was such a loaded question.
>If we assume this, and this, and this, then is white genocide possibly happening?????

>>10601969
You're implying that Peterson is just another new right partisan and not trying to actively solve this issue.

>>10602102
wait, you're saying he's not that?

>>10602770
He appears to be that on the surface. This is the impression you might get if you watch 5 minute out of context clips, uploaded by brainlet youtube channels which pretentious names like "intellectual awakening" or "philosophy insights", but that's doing him a disservice. He is less of a right wing reactionary like Evola and more of a radical centrist with traditionalist and classical liberal flavoring. Maps of Meaning is not a right wing agenda, unless you consider Jungian psychology to be right wing. Peterson believes that people who want to radically change the world like SJWs or neo-nazis, should instead take a good look at themselves and fix their lives first before they even attempt to tinker with society, because if they can't even organize their own lives properly, how can they even think they are qualified to tell anyone how society is run?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr9bVe68OZM

He is lumped in with the new right because they were the only ones willing to give him a platform after he was being accused of being an alt right neo nazi just because he didn't want people to legislate what pronouns they should use when speaking to people. If you want to call Peterson right wing, he is a moderate conservative at best.

Seriously, Peterson is much better than his fanbase or public image might suggest. You should watch his Maps of Meaning lectures an just ignore all the other noise surrounding him if you want a clear picture of who is guy is. Or just read his book. Maps of Meaning that is, not this shitty self help book which is targeted at brainlet normies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI&list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h

>>10602845
I've seen some of his debates, lessons and listened to what he had to say about current social issues. He isn't stupid, but he isn't particularly insightful, either.

>>10602845
Also, Jesus Christ

>>10602845
Epic counter-pastas in this thread.

>>10592962
We've been under attack by Marxists for over a century, why wouldn't people feel besieged when they find out what the Marxists ended up doing in the modern day with their subversive sneaky stabs at Western society?

>>10603464
>We've been under attack by Marxists for over a century
No we haven't you reactionary fuck

>>10603478
I consider them trying to spread their ideology, foster revolution and engage in gradualism to be an attack....so ya.

>>10603504
yeah, and you're a backwards idiot, congratulations

>>10598145
>understands that logic>emotion
t. brainlet HS dropout who learned the word "logic" from star trek

>>10603610
What's the matter?

>>10603628
That's your problem

>>10591115
Read Demons and sort yourself out

>>10591115
unironically autoban this shit, it's spam

>>10603684
Well, to be completely honest, IS there a universal acceptance of what actually constitutes so called spam per se?

>>10603641
You seem a bit.....nihilist.

test

Long live bill C-16.

>>10597913
Peterson isn't black, so that's not Milo

>Hehe let's pretend to refute continental philosophy by conflating marxism and postmodernism
Absolutely genius 10/10 the best thing since kant

>>10604193
> conflating a very obvious historical thread that can be traced with relative ease in France, the US and the UK.
What did you mean by this?

>>10604198
>a very obvious historical thread
none of these guys talked to eachother, Derrida acted like Foucault didn't exist, there are fascist/neoreactionary thinkers who use Foucault, the world isn't black and white you brainlet

>>10604205
I would say it's similar to what happened with the facist intellectuals, they weren't all necessarily interacting with one another but have common roots and influences.

It would be inaccurate to say that the western and french intellectuals were all part of some group together which they weren't but much like the Facist intellectuals despite being seperate in many ways, it is the followers underneath which are influenced and linked.

Their works helped morph mainstream marxism I would argue. It's more about the cultural shifts that have clear influences and changes of direction as these thinkers pop up over the years.

>>10604205
It's a standard piece of reactionary rhetoric to assign the social effects of atomization in late capitalism to a degenerative outside force such as Marxism. Presumably without french communist intellectuals, we would all be living in a great holistic western civilization without insecurity and depression or something.

>>10604228
>facist

>>10604237
I beg your pardon?

>>10604238
When prominent self-described marxists influence society and the economy deliberately causing flow on effects, it's not disingenuous to lay blame at their feet rather than just assuming this is all a natural progression. Personally I think the issues around depression, lost life meaning and many other areas are more complex than just one influence being culpable. It can be from deliberate subversion, it can be genetic, environmental and a whole group of influences, why would it just be "late stage capitalism"?

>>10592831
>Snake oil salesman peddling an ideology that died in a gutter on the side of a road in Fallujah, stop posting his brainlet trash for sad young men without dads
You're trying too hard.
But at least you tried.

>>10592887
>>10592962
lel

>>10594619
>Can someone give me a serious explanation about why there is all this backlash towards Peterson and why it seems like a growing minority of people are starting to hate him and meme him now?
Anything that 20-something males adore and repeat is going to be annoying, because 20-somethings are annoying.
Thos applies to everything from Monty Python to Led Zeppelin. But when it comes to socio-political shit their wide-eyed wonder and alarm at the world they've just discovered becomes part of the equation, and they believe they're speaking with "a truth" that is unassailable, so they become acolytes, even to someone, like Peterson, who isn't seeking acolytes.
Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Peterson, though.

>>10604228
>Their works helped morph mainstream marxism I would argue
no they didn't the historical power-relations studies of Marxism (Marx was talking about this from the beginning) predate Foucault, who was mostly a historical/sociological chronologist, and the dialectics and hermeneutic aspect of Derrida can be found in Hegel or Lenin or Marx, Foucault and Derrida are not taught more by Marxists than any other high culture european philosophical traditions

jesus fucking chris why are JBP threads such a magnet for pseuds, stop watching youtube videos and actually read this shit

>>10604258
Derrida and Foucault quit marxism in their youth you fucking idiot, and yes Walmart has more to do with the current issues in society than some fucking dead French philosophers

>>10604258
>When prominent self-described marxists influence society

There hasn't been a living marxist with serious influence in the west in 50+ years. Most you clowns think Hillary Clinton is a fucking marxist.

>>10604272
>There hasn't been a living marxist with serious influence in the west in 50+ years.
And those who were influenced 50 years ago, where do you think they went?

>>10598173
this^

>>10604282
>>10598173

You're misunderstanding the story of Narcissus.

>>10604281
>And those who were influenced 50 years ago, where do you think they went?

they became hippies or radical domestic terrorists in the 60s and 70s and never accomplished anything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

after the failure of the 60s revolutions no one could take Marxism seriously anymore, philosophy after that point was looking back on the things Marx, among MANY OTHER PHILOSOPHERS, got wrong and got right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wetwETy4u0

>>10595622

>Peterson however is overly concerned not with morality, but with the things he views as immoral.


Beinc concerned with and being concerned of are two completely different claims.

>>10604281
Name some western politicians with power that you think are marxists.

>>10604265
> historical power-relations studies of Marxism predate Foucault
That's not what I was saying, I was saying that the broader movement was influenced by these guys in their change of aesthetic and their change in rhetoric, of course the underpinnings were always there and it was always touched on.

> Derrida and Foucault quit marxism in their youth you fucking idiot
You need to take a step back and calm down because you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Derrida and Foucault were prominent marxists who got into positions of power, I've always been saying they were influencing factors on the broader movement but that comment was specifically talking about the link between marxism and certain social ills due to prominent marxists gainging influencing positions in western countries.
> Walmart has more to do with the current issues in society than some fucking dead French philosophers
You're downplaying and ignoring the influence ideas have on our culture and the way that culture then shapes the future.

>>10604272
The influencing was done over a long period of time, started well before WW1 and was already embedded after WW2, that doesn't mean in the 70's/80's's there were a bunch of blatant marxists pulling strings because they had already shifted by that point, the marxists had already influenced many areas of society and the generations that came after them have that carry on effect.

Just look at the work the Fabians did in UK/Australia with the Labor parties, Unions, literature/culture/debate etc.....well not the best example of this shift because Fabians still make up large numbers of influential people in Australia such as Prime ministers, heads of departments, Universities and so on down the line.

Why are you trying to simplify everything as a yes/no and not catching the pretty clear "somewhat"s and very probable "mostly"s?

>>10604338
>You're downplaying and ignoring the influence ideas have on our culture and the way that culture then shapes the future.

my point was that they weren't NEW IDEAS introduced by Foucault and Derrida, and my other point is that you, and Peterson, are vastly overblowing their significance, I have friends in the DSA, they've never read Foucault or Derrida and they don't plan on it, many of them never even attended college

>>10604338
autism?

>>10604281
They turned into neocons or centrist liberals.

>>10604349
> my point was that they weren't NEW IDEAS introduced by Foucault and Derrida
Who had the ideas first doesn't determine when/where/how those ideas become influential. It's like the traditionalists influencing the alt-right these days, they may not have been the first, but they are having an influence in 2015-2018 just as an example.

> I have friends in the DSA, they've never read Foucault or Derrida
You might be surprised here but Peterson addreses this and I tend to agree with him here, people aren't walking around with The Communist Manifesto in their heads/bags going to work consciously pushing those ideas necessarily. It's like the Unions, they're marxists but they aren't going around talking about marxist books they've read that influenced the culture to lean that way. Same with Foucault and Derrida, same with Evola and Carlyle. How many people preaching liberty and rights have read the enlightenment intellectuals? When the Fabians gave targetted presentations and circulated book boxes, then in one instance areas of society were being influenced by marxism without it being too blatant and in the second yes people were walking around reading the books and spreading their ideas.

I don't think it's that simple and that it's so simple to dismiss.

>>10604409
>Who had the ideas first doesn't determine when/where/how those ideas become influential.

it really does actually

>>10604409
question, how many philosophers/historians of philosophy have you read?

>>10604422
I just gave a number of examples. Here's another one; Lao Tzu having certain ideas first doesn't determine when they would become popular in the west until figures like Alan Watts come along.

Ideas permeate and influence in weird ways, why can't you see this through all of the historical examples?

>>10604429
You want me to count every one I've read a book of? Why would I count that instead of...you know...reading a subject that takes my fancy at the time and then moving on or going back to others? Um a fair few? Not as many historians of philosophy as I would like.

>>10604165
Amazing graphic, comrade.

>Lao Tzu having certain ideas first doesn't determine when they would become popular in the west until figures like Alan Watts come along.

this is an exact example of how the originators of ideas, and their geography/time affect how their ideas proliferate

>>10604475
>Um a fair few? Not as many historians of philosophy as I would like.

let me guess, you haven't read Foucault or Derrida and you are pulling your historical assertions OUT OF YOUR ASS

>>10604429
Just Peterson. He's the only one with interesting ideas.

>>10604504
> this is an exact example of how the originators of ideas, and their geography/time affect how their ideas proliferate
Except with Foucault and Derrida you are ignoring their role and the role of every person to ever popularize ideas? Strange.
> you are pulling your historical assertions OUT OF YOUR ASS
> OUT OF YOUR ASS
lol, I bow to your fucking wisdom.
>>10604505
I've never read Peterson, I've heard him speak, agree with a lot of what he says but why would I read him? Most of the people alive today writting don't interest me that much. I would rather read Mises/Plato than Molyneux, Marx than Bernie and Evola over Spencer even though I'm sure there's a bunch of great modern books that aren't meme authors I should give a go as well. You're an odd one, if you don't want to talk and share your view form what you've read/thought that's fine.

>>10604537
You haven't read the book of Peterson?

>>10591174
get the Avsey translation. Hard to find but he's the best

>>10604602
No brother.

>>10591174
Don't worry about translations. I bought 4 versions of Anna Karenina because of the part where Levin is working out and "he starts swinging two 36 lb dumbells". As a /fit/izen I knew what he was really doing were kettlebell exercises. First of all dumbbells are never 36lbs. Second of all, 36lbs = 16kg = 1 pood which is the weight of a standard kettlebell.

Sure enough none of the translations used the term kettlebell. I don't speak Russian but I would bet my squat rack that the word used in that sentence is "girya" (ги́pя) or the plural of it.

>>10594643
upvoted

>>10591115
>Talks about authors he hasn't red and doesn't have a clue about (to cite some: Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche).
>"Practices" some kind of watered down evolutionary psicology (which is already a retarded mess of speculation and unfounded claims taken as "axioms") turned self-improvement garbage.
>Talks about postmoden theory from an ethical standpoint which makes wathever he babbles stupid and devoid of intellectual value .
Pseud, the guy.

>>10591115
Joe Rogan, the idiot's intellectual 2.0

>Soon the man himself will arrive and deliver an often dazzling, sometimes puzzling, rarely dull two-hour lecture on the symbolic and psychological underpinnings of the book of Genesis. Afterward he will field knotty questions from the audience on whether originality is really possible, the tension between honor and happiness, and the evolutionary upside of solitude. These questions seem designed to be difficult, as if the audience were engaged in a giant game of Stump the Guru. It’s during such sessions that Peterson is at his improvisational best, sprinkling in ideas from philosophy, fiction, religion, neuroscience, and a disturbing dream his 5-year-old nephew had one time. It’s a hearty intellectual stew ladled up by an intense 55-year-old psychology professor who gives the impression that he’s on the cusp of unraveling the deep secrets of human behavior — and maybe the mystery of God, too, while he’s at it.

It saddens me a little when I consider that these questions are designed to impress the master.

So much grandstanding.

>>10600353
good post

>>10591115
It's the Christian idealogue that you're SUPPOSED to continually fail. This perpetual failure, and belief in currently not failing, is the process of learning and a Christian view of innocence. To have truth within us and learn are irreconcilable possibilities, but the belief thereof might be, pragmatically, better

>One undergraduate told the newspaper that Peterson was "teaching beyond the level of anyone else," and that even "philosophy students go to him for advice." A graduate student from back then, Shelley Carson, who now teaches at Harvard and writes about creativity, recalled that Peterson had "something akin to a cult following" in his Harvard days. "Taking a course from him was like taking psychedelic drugs without the drugs," Carson says. "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn’t get to hear him anymore."

Holy moly. He is like Socrates!

>Paglia regards Peterson as a long-lost scholarly brother and sees a link between Maps of Meaning and the provocative 1990 book that made her reputation, Sexual Personae. "It is truly stunning to me how Prof. Peterson pursued his own totally independent path of scholarship in another discipline and yet how our intellectual paths would eventually converge!" she wrote in an email. Paglia blurbed Peterson’s new book, calling him the most important Canadian intellectual since Marshall McLuhan.

>>10592117
>Agape is loveless
Peterson, Nietzsche and all others like them have a better place for empathy. Real use with real people.

>>10606016
Why do the alt right and the alt right who don't call themselves alt right because it's too definitive a political attitude to encompass their desire avoids anything else to be ideologically elusive but have very much in common with the at right constantly dump on Rogan?

No one is celebrating him as a figure of the left and yet they get a jab in whenever possible. He's a bro with a show, that's it. Is it because he won't cow tow to whatever some of his guests have to say on the program without questioning them a bit? Seriously. I think he's an ok guy, I'm not a rabid fan, but I'd just like to understand why he triggers them so much.

>>10592117
wow that was surprisingly even more pseud than peterson, didnt think that was possible

>>10594619
>I don't understand the subject matter but I want to understand the reactions first
How about you kill yourself

What’s the harm in watching “feminists rekt” videos anyway?

>>10598145
>master of logic: understands that logic>emotion and isn't afraid of stating this in arguments with SJWs
who let the underages in

i heard /lit/ has become one weird peterson place of worship, I haven't been in years, so I come here and see this shit. What is wrong with you idiots, go back to romanticizing nietzsche, dostoyevski, and sartre, not pop-psychology ideologues

>>10606838
>nietzsche
>sartre
>not pop-psychology ideologues

>>10606822
it's masturbatory confirmation bias.
you'd be better off playing video games honestly

>>10606886
thanks for laying out the joke

>>10606822
it shows you're either a child or a manchild

>>10604505
cool let's hear em

>>10606896
>he doesnt watch the Trump winning videos and the assblasted leftists losing their minds on TV
you should acknowledge thats some real, uplifting, fun. are you the type of person that rejects chocolate because its just "masturbatory enjoyment"?

>>10607006
grow up.

Does anyone else really like the first video on his channel?

https://youtu.be/A5216ZJVbVs

Peterson can't be too bad, irritating fanboys or not.
The people i've seen get pissy about him on chats are all "le gender is a spectrum you cishet white male" faggots.

>>10607137
>It can't be too bad, look at the people who hate it
2010s logic in a nutshell

>>10607137
>confirmation bias

>>10606494

That is a weirdly Popperian view of Christianity.

I just realized Peterson got a hair transplant

>>10606750
The amount of unfounded assumptions in this post is too much even for a Roganite.

>>10607105
no

>>10598145
the only good answer in this thread

>>10604688
Um, you know there is this cool thing called the Internet that can answer those kinds of questions without buying four bad versions of the same book.
http://www.learningrussian.net/anna_karenina.php
Side by side Russian English versions.

>>10599538
there's nothing worse than a recent starting strength convert.

>>10592117
That's not what Peterson says and it's certainly not what Hobbes or Nietzsche said. : /

>>10607137
Nah he’s pretty bad. Guy should be woke on the JQ and instead just plays dumb. Wouldn’t even be that hard for him to deflect but instead he just plays dumb. Sad.

Can someone tell me if Peterson has actually criticised postmodernism and marxism by direct engagement with ideas from various thinkers instead of his usual bs?

>>10610476
>ideas from various thinkers
Like Marx?
Well, this question gets posted in nearly every Peterson thread, so I suppose you know the answer to it already.

>>10607137
Consider the general tone of those criticizing him in these threads. They always reek of passive aggressive estrogen

>>10610476
Nope. In 12 rules for lifes he actually mistakes Derrida for Foucault (he also repated the same thing in an interview, so it isn't just a mistake). He clearly hasn't even tried reading the author he babbles about.
>>10610493
Quite the contrary, petersonfags are the ones unable to form any kind of response to critics that isn't "you must be a soyboy/postmodern neomarxist/tranny/whatever".

>>10610493
He gets 65k patreon bucks a month for saying shit like Foucaults philosophy is a soul sucking force that turns people into sjws to groups of college students that think they're hot shit for putting down pubg for a week and reading Dostoevsky.

He's worse than a fortune teller and I'm sure he knows it.

>>10601213
>hating the Top 10 Feminist REKT SJW Compilation videos
What an illogical retard. Trannies are dumb and delusional too, you have a penis so you're a male, thinking otherwise is pure delusion. I will not let my country support this lack of logic and reasoning. You dumbshet SJW postmarxist neobolshevik.
>he makes misinterpretations
Wrong. You would not be able to refute one interpretation of Peterson's work. His work on Heidegger in particular, from his latest book is brilliant. Don't even bother. It's way over your level.
>overcomes the great plague of our times: nihilism and atheism through MEANING, GOD, AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY
>Yeah, I too read Nietzsche
This is how i know you haven't read Nietzsche at all, you fucking postmodernist. Read a book and maybe you will stop being illogical and unreasonable person, you dummy. Facts over feels!
>boogeyman
Postmodernism is as real as me and you. Why do you think the society is full of postmodern neomarxists neolibtards like you instead of rational people? Peterson is a beacon of enlightenment in a gloomy society plagued by neonihilists and such degenerates
Read a book, you uneducated marxist!

>>10604165
>This is what a commie meme looks like

LMAOing@urLyfe

>>10610625
he called Foucault uninspired, obvious and boring. It's Derrida the one he likes to call malefic for some reason, look at his face, he seems an ok guy to me

>>10601751
because we don't kill them

>>10604165
> has solidarity with entire working class
That's why the working class killed each other by the millions during the first world war.

>>10611910
Jordan Peterson, a writer, is talking about his new book with a bald manlet live right now! [this post is totally literature-related]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI

>>10612869
didn't mean to quote

He's the poor mans Micheal e. Jones and the even poorer mans Jonathan Bowden

>>10612869
>hate JP poster
>hate Joe Rogan
>still happy about this
am i pseud

>>10611298
ikr, how could you hate this guy

I don't see how citing a bunch of authors who happen to agree with your perspective adds any weight to your argument.

>the sky is blue
>see, dostoevsky, jung, and tolstoy all say the sky is blue

>>10612985
appeal to authority
it surely adds to the weight even though it doesn't add to the structure of the argument

>>10596114
>learn to conduct yourself in such a way that people will want to have a loving attachment with you
This is bullshit. It's just a fancy way to say it's ok to shame people for not adhering to society norms. Peterson is doing something evil. He's telling unloved people that being unloved is their fault for not being "better", not realizing that what he considers better is not something objective but a social construct.
You deserve to be loved regardless of anything.

>>10607449
>I just realized Peterson got a hair transplant
You only now noticed? I wish people asked him about it in chats and shit, it looks ridiculous.

>>10591155

>>10613355
>He's telling unloved people that being unloved is their fault for not being "better"
But it literally is. If you're not attractive, have no money, and no power, you will never be loved. Change that and love will come. Are you going to stay a loser forever?

>>10613355
I agree with the sentiment, but there are people who don't deserve to be loved, like the alt right scum that supports Peterson. If you aren't fighting for love and inclusion then you don't deserve to be included.

>>10614151
Just because you consider someone a loser by your arbitrary standards doesn't mean there's something wrong with them. What means to be a "winner" is different from culture to culture. Thousands of years ago "fat" girls were admired for their beauty. If today you say that fat girls are ugly is because society has told you so. This whole idea of "improving" yourself is society forcing its norms and standards unto people. It's a form of fascism and we should fight against it.

>>10614151
Lol, I bet you still believe in free will and the american dream, kid. xD

>>10614151
you have to be at least 18 years old to use 4chan. Please leave.

>>10612937
>>10611298
Rick Roderick's impression of Derrida

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvAwoUvXNzU&t=4m35s

>>10613370
Especially because it was so far receded and incredibly thin like 5-10 years ago and now it's some how reversed course

>>10613355
>>10614200
So much this. We shouldn't adapt to society's standards, society's standards should adapt to us. That's its whole purpose. We should be society's masters, not its slaves.
>>10614151
I feel pity for you. The system's coercion has broken your spirit and convinced you to work within its framework. What you see as your success is the success of a slave.
>>10614159
I agree with this too. It's not even that we shouldn't love them, but we can't and we won't tolerate anyone trying to impose their arbitrary standards unto us. We can't allow fascism to take roots in America and we should fight it even with violence if it's necessary.

>>10614200
>Fat girls
If identity (and therefore beauty) is constructed, then considering that we are social animals that live lifes conditioned by contingency and scarcity, and that following the above we need to have at least some semblance of ethics, then identity is to be constructed in such a way that it allows human flourishing. Being a fat is harmful in a million different ways, and most importantly, it's a choice. One could make the argument that is unethical (in this little framework I have set up), to make people feel like there's something wrong with them for something they can't change: like having an ugly face. THAT is a positive-removal of micro fascisms, not the crass exaltation of people who willingly choose to harm themselves . The fact (but I should say assumption) that every identity is constructed is not an argument in favor of fat acceptance, it's an argument against it. For example:
do you think that since "society tells us that wasting your days doing coke" is wrong, then junkies who are wasting their life away should not only be tolerated, but respected? That's how absurd the idea of fat acceptance sounds.
Obviously I'm not saying that bullying is a good thing, in fact I think more often than not it exacerbates the problem, but fat fucks should be helped, not glorified.

>>10606750
"The right" and "the left" are spurious concepts and nobody of worth will ever take you seriously if you use them.

>>10614393
>Being a fat is harmful in a million different ways, and most importantly, it's a choice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Neuronal_prediction_of_free_will

>>10594619
Because he's a conservative shill who makes money from the alt right by telling them that all the progress the left has made in the last few decades is bad, but his arguments are suspect at best. Fuck him.

>>10614426
Determinism, in which I strongly believe, is irrelevant to this discussion. If it's all just predetermined dude bbbbbro implies that there is no choice, thus making every search for an "ought" pointless, then fat fucks should shut the fuck as up well since people who bully and harass them are justified since they are just predetermined to do so.
Anyway what i was doing in the other post is starting from the presuppositions of the person I replied to (identity, beauty, etc are socially constructed) and showing the conclusions wrong by following the assumptions to their end.

>>10614458
>killing the black family and producing thousands of fatherless part-time drug dealers depending on welfare is progress

>>10594619
>why there is all this backlash towards Peterson

explained by group

>why actual /lit/erati hate Peterson
because almost completely mischaracterizes Foucault and Derrida, Foucault and Derrida were hermeneutic historians, inserted very little politics into their work, disliked marxists, and were not evil scheming sociopaths setting out to destroy life on earth through linguistic

people like Peterson and Chomsky is just another case of anglozone Analytic philosophers misunderstanding the aims of Continental philosophy, which is to provide a discussion, not assert eternal truths about reality

>why right-wing /pol/lacks hate Peterson
claimed to be pro-free speech, then dropped Faith Goldy from a free speech panel because she was "too hot a property"

>why traditionalist /pol/lacks hate Peterson
promotes individualism above all else, which is one of the reasons the West is in its current shitty state of hyperatomization

>why lefty /pol/lacks hate Peterson
similar reason to above, also because Peterson has not actually read much of Marx or Hegel, for example, Marx advocated free trade on the grounds that it would accelerate the revolution due to international instability created by markets

Peterson also doesn't seem to understand some of the basic tenants of sociology, because anything involving societal influences is either granted and dropped or "social constructionist"

>why free market libertarians hate Peterson
because for claiming to be such an individualist, Peterson still advocates for the state and law as the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between agents

>>10601751
We’re a dying society.

>>10601213
>freeze peaches
Stopped reading right there.

https://my.mixtape.moe/taqygg.webm

>>10614533
Peterson is the wortst kind of ideologist there is. He's the kind of person who tries to hide his fascism by being moderate. He attacks, calling them "radical", the ideologies that subverts the status quo he defends, as if there was something bad about an ideology being radical. Radical measures are necessaty to destroy the neo-liberal system that he defends so much because of how much he benefits from it. He's not even a mercenary. He's worst than that. He's an oligarch defending a system that has failed billions of human beings.
I honestly don't know how anyone can fall for his bullshit.

>>10615087
Spot on. Sadly he's getting more and more popular among the normies. I think the best thing we can do is to keep ridiculizing him so people feel dumb for being associated with him. We need to laugh and humiliate people who spout his ideas as if they were talking about conspiracy theories, which is what they are anyway. We need to make Peterson unfashionable.

>>10591121
That’s a pretty retarded metaphor.

>>10615168
>we need to lower his fitness by lying about him
why not just point out he doesn’t understand Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky and that Jung’s theories are demented idealism?

>>10615180
To be fair I don't think he doesn't understand them. He just reinterprets them giving them and evil turn, but there's nothing intrinsically bad about reinterpreting a philosopher. It would be silly to say, for example, that Marx didn't understand Hegel for giving a turn to his philosophy. In fact no one has ever understood Hegel as well as Marx. Sadly Peterson is not Marx though.

>>10611910
...Yeah, I'm sure it was the working class who started WWI.

>>10615180
Most Peterson fans haven't read Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky or Jung and to them they're whatever Peterson says they are. You can show them that he misinterprets Nietzsche and most of them won't even care.

>>10611298
Peterson is, well, not necessarily a brainlet but he's pretty ignorant when it comes to postmodernism, yet he isn't completely wrong about Derrida's influence being detrimental to western philosophy. He did a lot of good work, but his system is in its core incoherent and lends itself to silly interpretations. And his ideas weren't original anyway. He was a poor's man Wittgenstein/Heidegger. Hadn't he existed, deconstruction would still be a thing, but it would be teached using Wittgenstein and Heidegger and the humanities would be all the better because of that.

>>10615250
A few threads ago some guy was telling me Nietzsche WASN'T about transvaluating values and that the Ubermensch isn't antitethical to christian morality. There is no point in even trying to argue, these people just needed some form of expert to justify their insane belifes and now they have one, one who revels in being said expert btw while constantly sounding like a complete retard who never opened a philosophy book in his life.

>>10615205
How can you say that Marx understood Hegel when their philosophies are incompatible? Marx was a brainlet. If Hegel could come back to life he would say that Marx didn't understood anything of what he was trying to say, just as Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky would say the same about Peterson, even a bigger brainlet than Marx.

>>10615168
That's exactly what I'm doing whenever I see someone mention Peterson on facebook. Sometimes it works but most of the time it doesn't. Peterson fans are too stupid to feel stupid. When I try to mock them they think I'm an elitist or a snob or whatever and it just reinforce their ideas. I still mock them tho. I can't resist it. Laughing at their stupidity is too good not to do it.

>>10610493
True, something about him brings out the petty babby in the eternal adolescent pseuds here.

>>10615417
Fuck off, you dumb bitch. Peterson fans are the babies who want a father figure.

>>10615443
You sound like a baby who needs one. He seems like he's there to help, so try embracing him instead of being all angsty.

>>10615370
Yeah, I've experienced the same. You can't win against his hardcore fans. When I realize they will stay put on their ideas I just tell them I won't keep wasting my time with them and leave. I think what works the best is to ridicule him with people who don't know him very well or don't know him at all so that way when they watch one of his videos they will have a bias against him. You need to talk about him in such a way that people who don't know him think he's considered a joke by most people.

>>10615087
>>10615168
>>10615370
>>10615822
well isnt this just precious?

>>10601213
Top Ten Beta Triggered Rekt Compilation

>>10591137
>For just four easy payments of $29.99, you too can become a hero who will pass on his genes.

>>10592887
The review genuinely sounds like it was written by one of those mentally ill weirdos who obsess over Memerson and post 30+ posts a day about how much he sucks on /lit/.

It was you, wasn't it?

>>10600517
What do you mean by "this is history repeating itself"?

>>10597295
Maybe originally it wasn't so, but at least for the past year, literally 90% of all threads and posts on /lit/ about Peterson have been made by people crying about him.

>>10614489
>Determinism, in which I strongly believe
Lmao. If you don't believe in free will you might as well commit suicide.

>>10615087
>He's the kind of person who tries to hide his fascism by being moderate.

>>10614331
>We shouldn't adapt to society's standards, society's standards should adapt to us. That's its whole purpose. We should be society's masters, not its slaves.

Holy shit, why is this board infested with hardcore leftists? Is this really all Peterson's detractors have to offer, butthurt leftists that are afraid that he is reminding millions of nomries that people should be held to some sort of standard?

>>10615168
>>10615087
>>10615370

I relish in the fact how afraid you are of him. You deserve to suffer.

>>10616371
>people should be held to some sort of standard
which one, brainlet, there have been thousands

>>10616402
If you have to ask, you are never going to make it. The standards which have been observed to yield positive results when followed, you massive retard. Jesus.

>>10615822
You are doing good work, anon. This country is going through difficult times and we can't let the conservative scum win the cultural war. We must avoid at all cost people like Peterson being seen under a positive light by the normal people. As silly and dramatical as it may sounds, the fate of America will be decided in the coming years.

>>10616468
It's quite easy to see you're falseflagging, no leftist uses the term "culture war" you retarded mongrel

>>10616468
Your disingenuous deflection and well poisoning will be your downfall, leftists. The more you slander Peterson the more powerful his message becomes. Are you afraid? Desperate to cling onto your believes as everything you ever thought was true disintegrates? We will not let you win this.

>>10616485
>I was merely pretending

>>10616360
>implying I have a choice in the matter

>>10616496
Exactly, so you should just end it right here. Determinists shoudln't breed.

Jordan Peterson is a crypto-postmodernist.

>attempt to read Maps of Meaning
>it is inscrutable logorrhea

Was Peterson's writing made possible by post-structuralism and critical theory?

>>10616500
>implying I have the choice to not breed
fate demands that I have kids, sorry

>>10616478
>MUH NO REAL LEFTIST
Fuck off. Honestly I used to laugh at alt-righters when they used terms like "culture war" too, but I can't do it anymore because they are starting to make a space for themselves in the mainstream. We must react and if we have to play their game then so be it.

>>10616508
You're a pathetic defeatist. There is no mathematical proof that hard determinism is real, in fact, they're multiple hints at the possibility that determinism is horseshit. To name a few:

1. If everything is just a newtonian chain of cause an effect, how come anything exists at all? There has to be some sort of unmoved mover which sets this chain in motion, but the unmoved mover is by definition outside of the laws of cause and effect, which makes the whole thing a paradox in the first place.

2. Quantum mechanics open up the possibility for true randomness (not 100% sure on that one, after all, pilot wave theory is a thing)

3. There is no complete mathematical model of the human brain. We literally don't have a clue what the fuck consciousness even is.

4. Gödels incompleteness theorem takes a huge dump on your reliance on positivist mathematics. After all, if mathematics can not be all encompassing without being self contradiction, it will never unearth the objective truth of the universe, but rather only make practical observations. As such, even if you had a mathematical model of consciousness, there is still a possibility it would still just be an imperfect approximation and leave room for free will.

5. Even if everything I said is false, you should still act as if free will is real, because not doing so will be to your detriment and make you less determined to reach your goals.

Checkmate.

>>10616526
You have already lost. 2 years ago I used to be a leftist, now I'm a fucking tradcon.

>>10616526
>peterson
>alt right

>>10616536
>your reliance on positivist mathematics
It's funny because you're the only autist here rattling off mathematical/physical facts as if they have any relevance. It's okay, I don't blame you though since you didn't have a choice in the matter.

>>10616543
>math and physicis is irrelevant
>but free will doesn't real, lmao

Excuse me, but what? How come you think everything is deterministic then? I don't understand your line of reasoning desu.

is there anything else on youtube

>>10616541
Peterson and the alt-right may not be the same, but they only differ in a matter of grades. At the end of the day right now there are two sides and Peterson most certainly isn't in ours. He's not only the door to more radical ideas but his own ideas are even more dangerous than those because he makes them seem reasonable.

>>10616556
The absolute state of the left. Why are you so afraid of tradition, beauty, family and individualism?

>>10616557
because they have none

>>10616566
I hate my parents too, that's no excuse for wanting to demolish family values.

>>10616526
Lad, your whole rhetoric and posturing are those of a /pol/lack trying to act like how he thinks leftists act. We might be a bit ridiculous but only the right can produce actual charicatures like yourself.

>>10616557
I'm a leftist and I'm not afraid of any of those things, I'm just not mindlessly in love with them either, specially considering how fucking loaded all of those terms are.
Maybe if you read a little Derrida you'd understand.
>>10616568
Capitalism has been the main force on the destabilization of the nuclear family (a concept which only exists because capitalism eroded the extended family first).

>>10616597
>Maybe if you read a little Derrida you'd understand.
Le "age is a social construct let me fuck little kids" man
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/jonhenley

>>10616612
See, this is why you should read Derrida and not some other authors talking about what they think about Derrida, you'll end up sounding like a dunce.

>>10616597
>I'm just not mindlessly in love with them either
But you should be. How could you not?

>Derrida
Haven't read him, but on the surface it looks like some Algerian jew got angry for being the ultimate outcast which lead him to believe that categories and value judgements only exist to exclude other people, which is a really shallow reading of the world if you ask me.


>Capitalism
Capitalism simply means the right to ownership of private property to dunce. The means of production also fall under this category. I'll take all the ills of modern big corporations if the alternative means giving my property into the hands of the state or some anarchist collective. Everyone who isn't a homeless bum as a mutual beneficial relationship with modern capitalism. If you want to fix all the problems with capitalism, simply remove neo liberalism by banning any sort of lobbying and stop people from worshiping the GDP.

>>10616617
No one should read Derrida. Derrida is the Heidegger of the brainlets.

>>10616626
As I've told you before, Heidegger himself thought Derrida was worth reading
>>10616623
wikipedia scholars going out at full fucking force

>>10616597
>I'm just not mindlessly in love with them either
But you should be. How could you not?

>Derrida
Haven't read him, but on the surface it looks like some Algerian jew got angry for being the ultimate outcast which lead him to believe that categories and value judgements only exist to exclude other people, which is a really shallow reading of the world if you ask me.

>Capitalism
Capitalism simply means the right to ownership of private property, you dunce. The means of production also fall under this category. I'll take all the ills of modern big corporations if the alternative means giving my property into the hands of the state or some anarchist collective. Everyone who isn't a homeless bum has a mutual beneficial relationship with modern capitalism, like it or not. If you want to fix all the problems with capitalism, simply remove neo liberalism by banning any sort of lobbying and stop people from worshiping the GDP.

>>10616594
While you try to fight me, the right is getting more and more influential. Say what you want about /pol/tards but at least they know who is their enemy. You're the worst kind of leftist, the leftist who doesn't want to get his hands dirty to fight for what he believes in. You're a contrarevolucionario.

>>10616651
Nah lad, I'm united and organized against my country's right wing alright, and they're a bigger issue than /pol/lacks, but you really shouldn't think a bunch of fat cunts in fedoras and fingerless gloves are anything to worry about, it'll end up being worse for you.
Also, contrarevolucionário has a ´

>>10616634
>As I've told you before
No. You haven't. I haven't read this whole thread. And in any case, so what? Pynchon loves Ready Player One. That doesn't mean it isn't shit. Not that Derrida is shit, though. But he's hardly some intellectual authority.

>>10595601
the fact he actively avoids critiqueing capitalism would indicate his position towards liberalism

>>10616660
If you aren't American then don't talk shit about me not being a real leftist because you don't have a clue what is going around here. Fuck you. And revolucionario doesn't has a `. My mom is latina so I know my spanish and there's literally a rule that says that a word can't have a ` in the second to last syllable if the word ends in a vowel. So fuck you again.

>>10616671
Sorry, these threads are getting extremely repetitive and a new pattern that seems to be emerging is trying to "separate" Heidegger from postmodernism, though I don't really know why (maybe memerson complimented him? maybe some people are willing to give him a blank check because he was a nazi? idc).
That being said, Derrida was very much a intellectual authority, he even managed to sell deconstruction to anglophones.
>>10616707
Calm down lad. I got scared because I am brazilian and we do have a ´ in revolucionário / contra-revolucionário. That being said, your spanish ain't this much on point if you're still confusing ´ and `. Also, shut the fuck up, you don't know what's going on in MY country, but I can tell you what it was: your "leftist" government backed a soft coup trying to secure our unexplored oil reserves to foreign interest and injecting money to create a boom in neorreactionary and neoliberal movements all over the country. All you people are getting now is a taste of what the US has given the rest of the Americas for the past 200 years, but everyone turns a blind eye to that, of course.

>>10601969
I enjoyed reading your post

>>10601969
Good post. Politics in the US has the connotations of a team sport.

>>10616767
Isn't that what Peterson says to begin with tho?

>>10616783
He knew that if he had actually listened to him.

>>10616617
It's an article highlighting that Derrida literally signed a petition calling for the decriminalisation of all """consensual""" relations between minors

>>10616802
Yeah and Heidegger was a fucking Nazi. So what?

>>10616802
wtf, I love post-modernism now

>>10616818
Fuck off pedo

>>10616826
Nice argument

>>10616802
Him being in favor of consensual sex between adults and minors has literally no influence on his work, and he never dealt with any similar question in any of his works i've read.
If you want to list people's degenerations and fetishes to dismiss their work, i very much doubt anyone prasied by /lit/ would remain. DFW is one of the most milquetoast ones and the man stalked his students and killed himself.

>>10616818
It's not the same thing and you know it. Heidegger nazism is a very complicated and nuanced topic.

>>10595525
t. non-white person that doesn't like white people fighting for their interests

>>10616839
It's exactly the same thing lad. The fact that he had a complicated relationship with nazism doesn't change the fact that he willingly choose to join nsdap. Heidegger was just one of the countless examples I could have made anyway.

>>10615168
>>10615087
Wait, you're telling me he's secretly a fascist?
I'm in, I like him now.

>>10616846
Ben Shapiro is a civic nationalist and has spoken often against ethnonationalism.

>>10616855
Ben Shapiro is a jew, and has the interests of the jews in mind, first and foremost.

>>10616888
Yeah, I'm sure Ben Shapiro has the interests of Ben Meierowitzberg, math teacher who makes 15 thousand bucks a year in his mind.

>>10616888
racist fuck

>>10617143
>racism is bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI
>at 02:03:38 he literally says "i figured out how to monetize social justice warriors"
what did he mean by this?

postmodernism is shit

>>10617175
yeah

>>10594725

indeed. it's unfortunate he decided to make it his life cause to battle that windmill , so ignorant. watching his videos now is like eating a good soup with a big roach in it... sure you can be careful and eat around the roach and you will be fine but... you might as well eat another soup right? plenty of bug-free great soups out there if you bother to do a minimal research.

You have 30 seconds to prove how Peterson is wrong about postmodernism. Hardmode: no wikipedia

>>10618136
can I play the easymode instead?

>>10618169
whatever my man

>>10618208
he said that science has shown why a single interpretation is correct
checkm8 petersonfags

>>10618223
>he said that science has shown why a single interpretation is correct

where did he say this and what interpretation are you talking about?

>>10618240
watch his rant on postmodernism