/lit/ - Literature

>>10740834
Are you watching his full lectures on HIS channel or the few minutes at a time that other people pull out of them?

>>10740834
Fuck Peterson followers, I’d like to actually talk to Pete himself and ask him what the fuck he’s on about

>>10740834
How many times do we have to do this thread? If you think he's got Postmodernism the wrong way around, stop asking us to defend it and instead provide an actual rebuttal.

>>10740842
All on his channel.

I watched the opening lecture on the dragon of chaos and the final lecture in the series in their entirety and then jumped around through the other lectures in the series until I the general gist of where he was going with stuff.

>>10740834
We've only had this thread a hundred times

The thing is I find his influence as an overall good in today's political climate. I agree that he has no personal insight or philosophy to expound but his "self help" portion isn't half bad for teens/early 20 somethings to pull away from group identity and hold themselves to a higher personal standard. It just becomes a pain in the ass when people meme him here like he is some great mind of our time.

say what you will about Peterson but his philosophy, regardless of how good it actually is, is quite cohesive and in line with his advice as well. That’s part of what drew me too him, it’s interesting to listen to people with a very thorough and reliable way of approaching the world. If he could get his act together in his conversations about postmodernism (which he is getting better at but he’s going to need to spell out the mistakes he’s made at some point) there’d be very few good logical arguments against him
I can’t fucking stand his fan base though

>no YOU define postmodernism first
no YOU define postmodernism first
>no YOU define postmodernism first
no YOU define postmodernism first
>no YOU define postmodernism first
no YOU define postmodernism first
>no YOU define postmodernism first
no YOU define postmodernism first
>no YOU define postmodernism first
no YOU define postmodernism first

>ok, I define it as-
WWWWRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGG LOLOLOLOLOL XXDDDDDDD SO DUMB AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WEEEWW LAD I SHIGGY DIGGY DOO DAH U FUCKIGN IDOIT JUST STFU
>IMPLYING
>IMPLYING
>IMPLYING
>IMPLYING
OH NONONONONONOOOO AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

>>10740834
He is still a good role model that our lost millenial youth desperately needs.

>>10740834
>Watching 8 hours of his lectures
Dear God, how can you do this to yourself? He rambles and rambles and rambles, an hour of his stuff is enough to practically put me to sleep!

>>10740856
Sure.

So what I think he gets wrong is that he uses far too many of the "triggering" examples of dumb people that take equality to ridiculous extremes rather than engaging with the actual body of postmodern thought and the concerns it has about the nature of human rationality, motivated reasoning, and internal biases.

>>10740866
Probably, but I'm not going to abandon it and hope to give it more structure.

>>10740869
He may be a positive influence in the same way that religion is (and I believe it is), but ultimately I also think he's perhaps unintentionally perpetuating a tendency toward ideological stubbornness that doesn't overall help the already fractured common discourse.

>>10740877
autism

>>10740877
I will define postmodernism for you but first we need to talk about modernism.

Modernism is a rejection of the traditions of classicism but with a reverence for the goals of classicism. It attempts to take those core themes which were primarily explored only by and for members of the upper class (because they were the only ones with the time to enjoy art, read philosophy, etc.) and repackage them for the general public. This involves stripping away anything that played to effete sensibilities of the upper class and focused on developing new techniques that more accurately reflect the common person's experience with the modern world. Overall, I'd say modernism's defining characteristic is a belief in the power of human rationality and ingenuity. When I think of Modernism, I think of the type of 1950s sci-fi optimism about the future.

Postmodernism is a reaction to that optimism. Its proponents look at WWI and WWII ( along with the incomprehensibly complex, accelerating, fluctuating world where there is no longer a church everybody goes to or a democracy that anybody really believes in) and they question that belief in human rationality because of the abuses and horrors that they view as being caused by that modernist belief in the power and innate good of rationality. The line of thinking is, if a panel of the most well informed and technically proficient scientists in history willingly got together to work on a bomb capable of killing millions of people in minutes, then what good is their contribution anyway? The postmodernists essentially say that the modernists were wrong to keep even the goals of the classicists and that there is something inherently wrong in those goals and worldviews if the abuses we see daily are still possible in modernism. The defining characteristic of postmodernism in my mind is a pessimism about the ability of humans to overcome their animalistic nature, it questions the very assumptions and goals that people say they have using as proof for their skepticism the long list of abuses in the modern world.


>>10740885
The problem is that he isn't all that good. I do agree though that he has this effect on people because they are so lost.

>>10740894
That's not a rebuttal. That's a mischaracterization. The brunt of his work as a research psychologist has been trying to untangle postmodernist thinking from an individual/analytical perspective. He quite bluntly states, many times over, that postmodernism is a heap of jargon clouding an intense nihilism that is plaguing, in particular, the minds of men across our culture. He refutes the culture of critque and rejects pluralism. He even does so by directly calling out the founding philosophers and central tenets of the most popular and influential houses of post-modernist thought. The use of anecdotes is not meant to demonstrate that he's right, but rather that the problem is already worse than most people recognize. The "ridiculous extreme" is not the fringe, they are the fanatical. If you can't recognize that, than you're deeply ideological.

>>10740924
there seems to be a kind of contradiction in postmodernism where it builds its pessimism off of the failure of modernism to live up to a certain ethical standard but also violently rejects any attempt to clarify this standard
put another way, postmodernism doubts the efforts of the modernists, but those same arguments cut the branch out from under the postmodernists and they send themselves plummeting to the earth.
Granted, I'm not well-read on the subject or anything, but I'd like some clarification on this point.

>>10740924
But wait, we can't talk about modernism until we talk about classicism. And we can't talk about classicism until we talk about Christianity. And we can't talk about Christianity until we talk about the Jews. And we can't talk about the Jews until we talk about the ancients. And we can't talk about the ancients until we talk about primordial man. And we can't talk about primordial man until we talk about the nature of being. And we can't talk about the nature of being until we talk about the nature of perspective. And, but, now, uh oh--we're back to post-modernism.

>>10740982
shitty post
>Hegel is postmodern
stop it

>>10741000
You're right. No one else ever talks about perspective. The dialectic has nothing to do with framing. Foucalt doesn't matter. Derrida doesn't matter. Eco doesn't matter. How silly of me.

>>10740871
I don't think it's incredibly cohesive and certainly less so than actual philosophers.

Mostly I think that people that watch don't actually understand (or critically think about) most of what he's saying in the philosophical parts so they just nod along and then the part they really like and engage with is when he just tells them the self-help advice.

>>10740890
I just committed to it. I wanted to make sure I gave him a fair shake before writing him off. It definitely was a slog at certain parts.

>>10740958
>He quite bluntly states, many times over, that postmodernism is a heap of jargon clouding an intense nihilism that is plaguing, in particular, the minds of men across our culture.
I think that characterization of postmodernism is fundamentally incorrect. Postmodernism is concerned with truth and what to do in an increasingly abstract and alienating world in precisely the same way as Peterson. The problem I think is that Peterson lacks the perspective to see this and instead truly believes in his mischaracterization of it as just dumb jargon.

>>10740966
Postmodernism is about the crisis of truth. The problem is that it doesn't build anything out of it. This is precisely the problem that Nietzsche thought would happen after the death of God and the reign of nihilism. Nietzsche was more optimistic about the ability of man to overcome this though than postmodernists.

This is why people like Peterson, he gives them hope in a hopeless world but I think his hope is a false hope because he falls into the same traps as previous schemes. I don't think Peterson's return to classicism is the answer though.

You know, I don't like Post Modernism that much because it makes me feel bad, and I want to feel that optimistic spirit from modernism but when you look at the state of the world right now, I find it very difficult not to agree with that pessimism of the postmodern.

>>10740982
The time it took you to write this you could have actually made an attempt to think critically about what we're discussing.

>>10741029
>You're right.
thanks
>No one else ever talks about perspective.
no one important
>The dialectic has nothing to do with framing.
"the" dialectic frames itself, and exists independent of human thought
>Foucalt doesn't matter. Derrida doesn't matter. Eco doesn't matter.
yes, and?
>How silly of me.
we all make mistakes

>>10741038
>lacks the perspective
Ad hominem.

Demonstrate. All you're giving is exposition. Where is the action? Stop describing your thoughts, and provide an argument. Give premises, show evidence. Stop with the summary. You have no authority.

>>10741038
In what universe is a Jungian exegeses of the Bible considered classicism?

>>10740856
he just got it wrong, doesn't matter how

>>10741038
>you could have actually made an attempt to think critically
no u

>>10741096
If you can't prove it, why am I to believe that you have it right?

>>10741062
easy there drax.

>>10740869
yes, he just has "common sense" advice, but "common sense" is good enough for the current degenerate state we live in

Too bad he is not reactionary enough and he is just a meme liberal that wants everyone to go back living like the baby boomers, which will never happen and things will get way more "interesting" than that, now that the left has opened the can of worms of defining equality as 50/50 outcomes, they have singlehandedly dynamited the concept of equality, so that's not going to work anymore as a principle to symbolically structure society

>>10740877
based hyperbole poster

>>10740834
>Peterson is 80% self-help and 20% philosopher
He's a psychologist wat u expect

i dont give a shit about how he mischaracterizes the french postmodernists or whoever it only matters how he characterizes the present day left.
He has more naunced ideas than most pop conservaties.

>>10741103
believe me man, i know exactly what postmodernism is, i'm an expert, but that's not the point, he got it wrong

>>10741145
what nuanced ideas might those be

>>10741165
doesn't matter what they are, just that they are nuanced

>>10740834
I like him because his self-help advice is specific and useful, and he does a good job explaining why you should follow it. And he's been a clinical psychologist for most of his life, so it's not just empty Tony Robbins platitudes. I see it as free counseling. I don't listen to his philosophical arguments.

>>10741170
i would dearly appreciate an example or two

>>10741175
you wouldn't understand

>>10741078
An argument about what? I've explained what postmodernism means to me, how I think Peterson misconstrues it and that I think they both are actually approaching the same problem.

Tell me where you want me to elaborate.

>>10741093
I don't know too much about Jung. I would image it would be modernist though.

>>10741126
Once again, I think this is a mischaracterization of what postmodernism is actually concerned with. The "left" isn't synonymous with postmodernism and in general is not thinking critically about the value of truth any less than the modern rightists are.

>>10741145
>He has more nuanced ideas than most pop conservatives.
That isn't saying much.

>>10741172
Well, at least your honest about it. I wish more people were willing to admit that he's mainly a self-help person. The real problem comes when people start talking about Cultural Marxism and how Peterson is a defender of western thought, which is just plainly ridiculous.

>>10741259
>Once again, I think this is a mischaracterization of what postmodernism is actually concerned with. The "left" isn't synonymous with postmodernism and in general is not thinking critically about the value of truth any less than the modern rightists are.
my post said nothing about postmodernism, so not sure what kind of response is this

>>10741300
Do you subscribe to any "cultural marxism" conspiracy theories?

>>10741336
do you subscribe to any 'capitalism' conspiracy theories

>>10741341
I think capitalism is a criminally underrated system that has done some immensely good things for the world, I also think that there are many people that like to ignore the more negative and coercive elements of capitalism because this duality makes them uncomfortable.

>>10741336
i don't think there's any conspiracy, a conspiracy requires secrecy, there are plenty of leftist teachers and degrees on the university and leftist authors that will openly claim to be subversive

whether you want to take them seriously on their own word or not, is your choice

>>10741341

>>10741336

>>10741428
Look, I think the problem with this assumption is that you think they are actively and maliciously doing things without actually considering the arguments thy put forward for their belief system.

This is something I believe Peterson is guilty of too. There is a claim that the only thing wanted is to "protect free speech" from censoring liberals but this too I believe is a mischaracterization since I don't think you are actually willing to engage in any kind of discourse with a liberal and to actually attempt to see things from their perspective.

If you think you are, why don't we try? What is something, anything really, that you think liberals do or believe that you hate?

>>10741463
You know the argument in the Authoritarian personality? That antisemitism, for example, is the result of derangement on the part of the antisemite and has nothing to do with Jews.

That is exactly the same argument being made about the guy who wrote the book. That his hatred of Western culture is due to him, not the culture.

'but he doesn't say he hates western culture'. Most antisemities don't just say they hate Jews either

Also most of us used to be liberals, so it's ridiculous to say that we don't understand the perspective

>>10741486
Do you think that liberals hate western culture?

>>10741501
Depends how you define Western culture obviously. I think liberals refuse to coherently define Western culture.

There is an element of it that they absolutely despise though, I mean seething contempt and hatred. It is the poor, Christian, white, patriarchal family.

>>10741510
Yeah, I definitely disagree with this characterization.

The contempt is not for the White Christian Patriarchial Family, it is that the so many people in positions of power are White Christian Men and that they collectively do not consider the ways in which their being White Christian Men may in many ways negatively affect the lives of people that aren't White Christian Men.

Now, I will not deny that there are people that do actually "hate" western culture for this reason but I do think that it is far less common than you and Peterson would imply from your readings of clickbait articles about how a kindergarten in California said that the kids weren't allowed to have best friends or whatever nonsense stories come up.

>>10741555
I don't know anything about Peterson, he doesn't have much to do with the actual extreme right.
But this is not based on clickbait articles about kindergartens. It,s based on academia, journalism, and the actual laws of western countries.

Many people in power are Jewish men, but I somehow think you wouldn't want to consider the ways in which they negatively impact the lives of people that aren't Jewish men. Might I be right about that particular assumption?

In any case I am not some championer of Western culture, but as I see it, the Leftist project in general is defined by antipathy to Western tradition. I don't think I have ever seen a leftist praise the traditions of the West except in some Orwellian 'diversity is our tradition' sense

Not /lit/. People on this board need to stop discussing public speakers and start actually reading. If you want to know what a philosophy entails or what a proper assault on one is like, you have to read.

>>10741149
weak

>>10741463
>censoring liberals

makes about as much sense as anarcho-fascist. what a time to be alive.

>>10741604
>Many people in power are Jewish men
Many fewer than people on the right think, especially in western countries. Overwhelmingly the people in positions of power here are White Christian Men.

>I somehow think you wouldn't want to consider the ways in which they negatively impact the lives of people that aren't Jewish men
I think you're implying something altogether different here than you think you are. No one has a problem with criticizing abuses of power for any reason. Liberals are extremely critical of Israel because it constantly abuses the power it has over Muslim minorities and the Palestinian state. This conflict and criticisms are explicitly tied to their religions, yet we are still able as a society to parse the difference between an anti-semite and someone that dislikes the overreach of the Israeli state.

Similarly, you seem to have a problem distinguishing between the people that hate all white people and the people that hate the ways in which a state run almost entirely by White Christian Men might, even just through carelessness, negatively impact the lives of people in that country that aren't White Christian Men.

>>10741666
the media is run by jews to a surprisingly disproportionate degree. that should give one pause.

>>10741616
I've been reading JR lately, want to talk about a book?

>>10741673
People on the left and right constantly criticize the media. It seems like what you want is for them to criticize them because they are jewish and not based on any merits (or lack thereof) in their reporting.

>>10740834
It worked guys, we actually got him

>>10741666
I agree that White Christian men have more power than Jews do in the West. On the other hand academia spends inordinate amounts of time criticizing white christian men, whereas criticizing Jews as a group is just not even allowed. I don't mean Israel, I mean criticizing American Jews as a group, for example. You're not even supposed to notice that they're so successful.

Also the numbers are not really that debatable, Jewish overrepresentation is just kind of a fact.

Btw this is not leading into me saying the Jew control the world, I dont think that. Im just illustrating the discrepancy in how Jews and Christians are treated. This treatment comes from academia, journalism, the civil service, etc. and it is entirely from Leftists.

The conclusion I draw is that this is not a dispassionate neutral criticism of power, it is specifically targeted against white Christians. For another example of this double standard, patriarchy in Islam is rarely denigrated, but the merest hint of it in the West is the subject of unendign witch hunts.

Peterson is perhaps the biggest joke in history.

>>10741678
Make a thread for it.

>>10741687
>ecause they are jewish and not based on any merits (or lack thereof
Well then why focus on white christian men being white christian men? WHy not focus on their merits or lack thereof?

You don't see the double standard?

>>10741704
We also don't criticize Asian Americans even though they have the highest average incomes. Why? Because like you stated, White Christian men have more power in the west. Same with patriarchy in Islam. It is simply not generally their fault in western countries if things are fucked up. Usually it is generally the fault of White Christian Men.

In Saudi Arabia? It's generally the fault of Arab Muslim Men.
In China? It's the fault of Chinese (Atheist?) Men.

White Christian Men also face the most criticism internationally because of the benefits the west received during colonialism as well as the tendency for both the US and the USSR to intervene in other countries around the world since the end of WWII. China of course also gets a huge amount of international criticism for doing the same thing today in much of southeast asia.

I think the difference is, We (And I'm talking about myself and you) are White Christian Men and so we notice more when it is us that is criticized. It is our choice wether we take that criticism as a personal attack. And I'm not saying it always isn't, I'm just saying that it would be good to deploy a little discretion every now and then about this issue rather than assuming that it is only you and the people like you receiving criticism.

>>10741771
>We also don't criticize Asian Americans even though they have the highest average incomes
Asians are discriminated against in university applications and various quotas. Nothing comparable exists for Jews evne though they are even more overrepresented(it did exist in the early 20th century).

I take your point about it being mostly the fault of white Christian men in western countries. But it is reductionist to say that it is just white men against everyone. If jewish men control 20% of teh positions of power why is that not relevant?
Colonialism is a different discussion that you and I would probably find pointless to engage each other with.

Finally though, I disagree that we are just being sensitive. White christian men are the only ones subjected to constant overt criticism. You can argue that this is fair because we,re in power, which you have done, but you can't seriously pretend any other demographic gets anything like the public criticism we do.

I am not saying we have it worse than other demographics, obviously we don't. I am purely talking about public discourse here

>>10741808
Turthfully, I don't think that discussing it in terms of the White Chrisitan Maleness of those in power is very useful outside of cases where it does actually manifest in some ways that disadvantage others as the result of those people in power being White Christian Men.

Right now, I think society is going through catharsis and really reckoning with our past and the ways that power has been abused or disproportionately administered. The are some exaggerations by the people doing the criticizing, the rhetoric has reached a fever pitch for sure but there is always backlash when appropriate. We are working out, as a society the new limits and that process can be painful especially for the group that benefitted the most from the previous status quo.

Overall, I think things will calm down after Trump leaves office, not simply because he's in office and such a polarizing figure but also because these changes take time.

>>10741873
I don't see it that way honestly. I have a much more pessimistic view of history. You could probably sum it up as 'oppressive power is conserved'. There is always a little minority, or several in uneasy alliance, just exploiting everyone else. Up until the society just collapses for whatever reason of course.

If white men are losing power(elite white men that is, WASP aristocracy in the US), then some other group or groups are gaining it.

We could go on discussing who these are, but I think fundamentally we disagree here on how history progresses. That is you think it progresses, in the sense of injustices being lessened over time by the distribution of power, and I don't.

>>10741604
>as I see it, the Leftist project in general is defined by antipathy to Western tradition
I would say any tradition, really.

>>10741929
>but I think fundamentally we disagree here on how history progresses. That is you think it progresses, in the sense of injustices being lessened over time by the distribution of power, and I don't.

Actually, I'm very pessimistic about human nature. I think the The History of the Peloponnesian War is the greatest book ever written precisely because it depicts man's inhumanity to man but I am optimistic about the United States as a project and I don't believe that we need to perpetrate injustices in order to keep some minority in check. Besides, White people in the US are too entrenched to actually loose their power in the US. At most I think you'll see tokenism which people will probably accept as grand and progressive.

waaaah leftists are satanists postmoderism is marxism and whatever else people tell me not to like I just got here from /pol/ let's have the 208th peterson thread of the week to keep drawing other brainwashed teenage cultists to this board

>>10742006
>I don't believe that we need to perpetrate injustices in order to keep some minority in check.
I don't believe that either. I think you might be surprised by what happens when whites become a minority though.

Only time will tell of course, so that's just an opinion with no weight.

>>10741259
Why is your understanding of postmodernism better than his. Why should I believe you?

And if Jung is modernist, and Peterson is following after him, how is he "reviving classicism"?

>>10740834
>Peterson styles himself as a maestro of introducing to uneducated into higher learning
>Wait a minute, I read his books and they are all intro level more centered around encouraging people to learn more than giving his own thoughts
WHY does this guy trigger people so much? Holy shit I'm so tired of seeing his face everywhere where the same people make the same obvious conclusions

>>10742033
>leftists are satanists postmoderism is marxism
>This is what liberals believe /pol/ believes
Worse than /pol/

You've been Peterspun!

>>10741463
We are trying. We've been trying for decades. But then we get censored, called racist, called fascist, and so on and so on. Your language gives you away: "There is a claim that the only thing wanted". Why do you depersonalize it so much. It is you who are actively avoiding conversation right now. This claim does not exist out there in the void. That is our argument. You deny us our argument, because if you actually heard it, you could no longer justify your treatment of us.

>>10741555
>the contempt is not for White Christian Patriarchial Family
>It is that they collectively do not consider the ways in which their being White Christian Men is a bad thing
This is a great example of what people are talking about when they bring up the indoctrination of cultural marxism. You used obfuscicating language to make it seem like your position was something other than what it is. You are only comfortable with white men in any position of wealth or power so long as they are so deferential to other people on the basis of gender and race that they effectively no longer have power even over themselves. You directly attribute the harm these people cause in society to their race and gender, but phrase it in a way that makes it seem like it is erased simply by their awareness of it. But for you to consider them truly aware of it, they would need to vacate themselves from any position of real authority and live their life according to the rules of other people who only have power on the basis of their historically "under-privelaged" race or gender. This new heirarchy, though, is just as baseless and inhumane as all the old systems were. No new injustice can bring justice to the past. You are trying to correct something that cannot be changed.

>>10741771
>We also don't criticize Asian Americans even though they have the highest average incomes. Why? Because like you stated, White Christian men have more power in the west.
I always thought the reason that Asians are never mentioned is that they tend to ruin the oppressed minority narrative. It's impossible to reconcile the way Asians manage to be the highest performing ethnic group while also suffering from the same "non-white" discrimination and structural racism that Latinos and Blacks are exposed to without conceding that race itself plays only a minor role in success. Moreover, Asians are discriminated against in universities and some companies/fields, while other minorities receive positive discrimination in the form of affirmative action and diversity quotas.

Fortunately, ignoring Asians is actually surprisingly easy. Asians are quite small population-wise, tend to be quite insular and associate only with other Asians, and are very underrepresented in politics and activism.

>>10740834
The general consensus is that Peterson's view of postmodernism is terrible and inaccurate. This should hardly be a surprise. He is a psychologist, not a philosopher, and only spends perhaps ~5% of the book talking about postmodernism and Neo-Marxism (and he frequently conflates the two together). Nonetheless, Peterson is always attacked on these points because it is the lowest hanging fruit.

Dismissing the "self-help" in the book because of his view of postmodernism is absolutely idiotic. If you actually bothered to read the book rather than skimming it to reaffirm your preexisting biases, you would realize that almost of all of his arguments are based not on philosophy but rather either on modern psychology, personal anecdotes and clinical experience, or his interpretations of the Bible, the latter of which is as much philosophy as your average literary analysis is. But indeed, keep pointing to his interpretation of postmodernism as if it actually matters.

>>10742108
>We've been trying for decades
This is how I know you're full of shit, man. You haven't been around for decades. You're probably like 24 at most.

What do you think your argument is?

>>10742135
This is decidedly not what I am saying. I am making a point about how when you are a White Christian Male and the only people you talk to are other White Christian Males, You aren't going to be very aware when policies that you implement negatively affect people outside of your socioeconomic-ethnic-racial-religious group.

I do not want a Justin Trudeau who goes around correcting women that instead of "Mankind" they should say "Peoplekind" but I do think that people having more awareness of the experiences of others (and I mean this as the sociological "other") would only positively benefit society.

>>10742364
>Asians
You are missing the more important point which is that most Asians that come to the United States have money/education because the barrier to entry from say China or Vietnam is a literal ocean that requires all immigrants to have at least the means to get a trip here. Latino countries, however, share a land border with the US so anyone with the means to walk can make an attempt to enter the US.

Take India for instance. Currently the highest income by ancestry in the US are Indians, but India is an extremely poor country. If the US shared a land border with India, I would expect that we would see extremely disproportionately poorer indians in a similar way to Latinos.

>Peterson
If you want to contend that Peterson pretty good at self-help but not at much of anything else, I can't disagree but I just wish someone would tell some of his more rabid followers.

>>10740834
Peterson's not so bad. He's honestly the only voice in the corner of young men that seems to be genuinely individualistic. It's true he is lacking in solid grounding but he's excellent for fanning out the herd mentalities of 'male oppression' or 'patriarchy' that has spiraled into nonsense. Personally I don't like his ideas as much as the methods he uses to convey them. He talks rationally, confidently, and usually has decent practical advice.

Study Postmodernism, Feminism, Marxism and so on on your own. These terms don't have clear correspondences whatsoever and the most relevant of these will take years to clarify, plus they'll be codified into the philosophical movements of the future.

What do ya thinks after the Information Era? Authoritative-military states? Postmodern mass depression and cultist shenanigans? Philosophical/Transcendental enlightenment? Nuked to the stone age? Emu sovereignty of all civilization?

>>10742632
What do ya thinks after the Information Era?
Probably the second dark ages at the behest of folks like Trump.

>>10740834
I get the feeling that you felt dismissive towards him even before you started watching his lectures.

>it's a memerson thread episode

>>10740834
Join the FB group: Jordan Peterson Party Boat

>>10742692

>It's one of those episodes where you can turn it off and read a book instead

>>10742108

>actively engages in conversation
>"It is you who are actively avoiding conversation right now."

He literally asked you for your argument in >>10741463:

>I believe is a mischaracterization since I don't think you are actually willing to engage in any kind of discourse with a liberal and to actually attempt to see things from their perspective.
If you think you are, why don't we try? What is something, anything really, that you think liberals do or believe that you hate?

And you start rambling about how he wont hear it. Present it. He asked you. I'm interested. Go for it. No one is censoring you.

>>10740834
I read through about half of his post and I feel I can finally pronounce the following.

OP is 80% homo lust and 20% shitposter.

>>10741038
>You know, I don't like Post Modernism that much because it makes me feel bad, and I want to feel that optimistic spirit from modernism but when you look at the state of the world right now, I find it very difficult not to agree with that pessimism of the postmodern.

I feel similarly. I admire Peterson for being able to explain and articulate the causes of this hopelessness in ways that make sense to lots of young males in Western society. But the more I try to understand his philosophy the less I see any unique answer to the pessimism and hopelessness.

>>10742686
I certainly did, but I'll admit he has more substance than I thought. I thought he was literally just a huckster. He's definitely read and understood Nietzsche though which is more than can be said for 90% of people that refer to Nietzsche.

>>10743754
Yeah, I mean truthfully there isn't an absolute answer and that scares many people.

Nietzsche's point, I believe, is that the real solution comes from within and can only be obtained on a individual scale as the result of deep personal contemplation.

That's my reading at least.

>>10742047
Oh shit, I missed this one.

I think Peterson's view of postmodernists is cartoon version of them. He doesn't really ascribe to them any sort of coherent motivation, he just talks about them as adherents to jargon or people acting maliciously to undermine social structures.

This is a dead giveaway that someone hasn't put much time into understanding an opponent. There is almost no one that acts actively maliciously and if your operating understanding of someone relies on that sort of reading it is almost certainly wrong.

Jung never makes the kinds of assertions that Peterson does about the I'll of society or the pathways to meaning. Peterson also never says that he does, he just uses Jung's work on personality types as an example of the type of organizing mental constructions that he believes are successful in describing reality which he is attempting to apply to the creation of a coherent moral philosophy.

The reason why I say he's a classicist is that he literally attempts to get the examples for his moral system from the classic myths and stories of Western Civilization. The fundamental problem that I would point out with this methodology is that it is hopelessly tautological since it seeks to validate the values of the past by looking at stories which exhibit the values of the past.

>>10740834
fixed. Couldn't even make out who it was supposed to be.

>>10740834
Instead of reading his self-help book, and realizing it was/labeling it as a self-help book, why didn't you read his magnum opus, Maps of Meaning? It's far more representative of what he says in his interviews which is naturally piecemeal and disallows for fuller articulation given the limited nature of the interviewing platform. I mean, let's say an audio version of the book was 80 hours long. Who is going to do an 80 hour interview? And never ask any questions? You're only getting a piece of his pie when you base your interpretation of him on such fragmentary slivers of stop-pause ruminations without proper contextual pretense or supplementary elucidation.

>>10742530
>This is decidedly not what I am saying. I am making a point about how when you are a White Christian Male and the only people you talk to are other White Christian Males, You aren't going to be very aware when policies that you implement negatively affect people outside of your socioeconomic-ethnic-racial-religious group.
Help me understand your view by pointing out any current or recent policies that did this?

>>10744219
>This is a dead giveaway that someone hasn't put much time into understanding an opponent. There is almost no one that acts actively maliciously and if your operating understanding of someone relies on that sort of reading it is almost certainly wrong.
It's almost like there is no such thing as foreign interests that could benefit from domestic problems or any kind of interest benefitting from someone's misfortune.
>The fundamental problem that I would point out with this methodology is that it is hopelessly tautological since it seeks to validate the values of the past by looking at stories which exhibit the values of the past.
He's a psychologist, he looks to why the stories and myths were created in the first place. He believes the reason to why is a glimpse into the human psyche.
>phone posting
>

>>10744853
>postmodern thinkers are russian bots!!!!

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

>>10744858
>!!!!
>reddit spacing
>first reaction being russia and not jewish strawman
My spider senses are tingling.

>>10741771
you're trying to reason with a person who unironically thinks the ebil jews control the world. What the fuck are you doing nigga

>>10744868
atleast this anon >>10744870 has seemingly been in a thread before

>>10744868
It's pretty pathetic to see someone stave off a solid argument with accusations of "phone posting" and "reddit spacing"

>>10744895
>>postmodern thinkers are russian bots!!!!

>Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?
solid argument you got there
>so you're saying all postmodern thinkers are russian bots?

a bad thing I can say about Peterson is that he makes false statements. A good thing I can say is that he is not a nazi.

There is a left v right ongoing culture war.

The left finds a general in the likes of Hillary Clinton, narcissistic, hypocritical, man-hating...but ultimately benign. The alt right finds a general in trump, the same as Hillary + a little naziesque.

Both sides are vying for a feeling of superiority, dignity, anything to snuff out the feelings of insecurity, inferiority, loss, loserishness etc. Ideally, we could have a mental health awakening, address the underlying pathologies of left and right, and dispense with their respective hostile ideologies and tribalism...but that's just not in the cards. In lieu of that, the best we can hope for is that each side finds relatively benign leaders, that is, not nazis.

So do not begrudge them their Peterson, he is not a nazi, and those are pretty much your options at this point.

>>10744916
>a bad thing I can say about Peterson is that he makes false statements.
Examine the intricate exposition, the deep knowledge and flawless rhetoric of this sentence.

>>10744934

>>10740877
/thread

>>10744934
Would you rather I say the entire foundation of all his claims are rooted in a non-correspondence notion of truth that is an epistemic abomination that would make Nietzsche sick? Because it means the same thing, but I think you know that. I think you might be one of the pathological tribalists, or maybe just an aesthetically challenged brainlet, unloved, and compensating with big fancy words and using that pathology to dismiss a cogent point that unravels your itty bitty ego...? I'm sorry friend, I hope things get better for you :/

>>10744956
>MLUUURGF
>blugh.............. fluh... brrrrr RRRRRRgh.
>Ahau... Mmmmh mmmmmmEAGHAHAGHao

>>10744956
>compensating with big fancy words
How ironic.

>>10745000
You don't need an argument, you need a hug. Imagine I'm your mother and your father on the other side of your screen, I love you son.

>>10740982
>And we can't talk about the Jews

>>10745017
>the absolute state of postmodernist thought

>>10745026
Don't resist son, just accept our love, you're a good kid and we're proud of you. I know we've had our differences and we were a bit to hard on you, but we're sorry, and we really love you.

>>10745026
hugs are premodern, not postmodern. hugs are triggering, use jazz hands to display approval instead

>>10745042
>projecting this much

>>10745045
You need that physical touch tho

>>10745062
>deflecting that much

Why do you make it so hard to love you anon?

>>10745072
Fuck off faggot go be a cuck somewhere else.

>>10745075
I can feel your hurt, the sadness seeping through the mask of angry bravado, and I can tell you it's okey to be exactly who you are, you are lovable, you are beautiful, remind yourself of that everyday.

>>10745089
It is nothing but the reflection of yourself you feel ESL-kun. You should take the advice of the other effeminate lost young men and watch a couple of memerson videos to clean yourself up.

>>10745105
>effeminate
'Strength' is so often a lie to deny our need for love. Until you learn to give and receive love, there will be a hollowness, no matter how manly you are.

When I say, I love you, and you feel that tension, disgust, annoyance, anger, >cuck, just watch that feeling inside you and let it pass, then say "yes he does love me, and I him." And tell me how you feel afterwards.

Uhm, why're we not using water engines? If rockets can use them then so can cars. Global warming is just a shill move to inflate the price. Also, fossil fuels are made naturally by the earth. Saying that they're running out and that dinosaurs made them is just shilling to inflate the price. Temperature always fluctuated. They're just spreading mass hysteria.

>>10740856
This fucking faggot, to put it simply, doesn't even know whose postmodernism he's actually talking about. Deluze's postmodernism is different than Lyotard's whose is different than Derrida's. Peterson instead speaks in memes which are first year literary student's understanding of postmodernism.
Then this faggot goes on about muh cultural marxism, which weren't even the ideas of postmodernists, rather just diluted ideas of Gramsci, Adorno and Frankfurtians. No citation was ever provided.
There's lots to criticize when it comes to ideas hypothesized under the postmodernism banner, but this guy literally has zero credibility to do it.

>>10745126
thus spoke the sodomite

What does Memerson mean when he says he's classical British liberal? That term is so fucking broad? There were "classical British liberals" who worked hard to undermine democracy in their own nation and supported state's atrocities of colonialism. I don't think those are the people Memerson wants to name as his inspiration but then again this guy likes to retweet false claims about American wages and global poverty, so who the fuck knows.

>>10745130
I can't believe some people unironically think this is true.

>>10745146
>sodomite
Some think that if during a devils threesome, the two guys dicks touch, even for a second, they're instantly made gay. When a critic suggested Hemingway was gay, he found him and broke his jaw. I don't think you're worried that little excercise will turn you into a homosexual, but I do think you're afraid of something...do you know what haunts you here? It's you. It's your feelings. You're afraid of the man behind the image, and until you learn to love and accept that person, there will be the pain you feel and sublimate and force out of awareness everyday.

I love you anon, take my and your love, and stop the hurt.

>>10745182
Anon this is getting embarrassing, accept that not all people are in your circumstances and seek love and acceptance so desperately that he even goes online on a japanese rice farming board still in his search for that which ever eludes him.

>>10745156
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/08/11/psycho-politics/

>>10745210
>embarrassing
Embarrassed is good, it means the anger and compulsion to attack is subsiding. No matter what your life circumstances are, you are human, and you can never love too much, only too little. Now you're in a state to try the little excercise I proposed. Confront the feelings of embarrassment, include it in the excercise and let me know how you feel afterwards, if you want.

>>10740877
This is a horrible post and you should feel bad but I literally can't stop laughing.

>>10740877
checked

>>10740834
At first I thought the pic was Stephen Hawking.

>>10740877
lmao

>>10740877
Accurate

>>10745293
Ah, at last. How blind I was. You are but a babby, ignorant of the world. He who yet only knows of the quest for love, he who doesn't yet understand the wicked part of man. Thus he does not understand the need for an argument, he believes that love overcomes all. Love, he hopes, will help him overcome the disparity of his underdeveloped intellect compared to even the lowest rungs of /v/.

>>10744808
So for instance, on healthcare, some of the Republican plans to change the ACA included provisions to revise downward the percentage of end medical costs a health care plan would have to offer to be considered "health insurance". Now, the stated reason for this is that they want to offer a lower cost option to people that don't think they need as comprehensive coverage.

So the big problem with this policy change is that it would end up segmenting the market and creating separate risk pools. Basically, because of the nature of insurance, if you allow people to select how comprehensive a medical plan they want, you'll end up with young healthy people in plans that cover very little, and you'll have the only people that get comprehensive coverage being people that are already sick. That means that actuarially, the comprehensive plans are very likely to become unsustainable because they'll likely be paying out more than people pay. This policy change would dispropotionately affect people with terminal illnesses or ongoing medical problems but when the people in the room aren't aware of the mechanics of policy or what externalities might appear as a result, they make bad suggestions.

And I'll give you one more. Back in the 90s Republicans and Democrats eliminated a program that allowed Mexican citizens to come across the border and work for a few weeks at a time and then to return to their communities in Mexico. The elimination of this program, I'd argue, started the sort of large scale illegal immigration we see from Latin American counties today because it was no longer possible to really get a temporary work visa but still maintain a family in Mexico so what you see instead is that people who relied on those jobs started taking their families and attempting to cross the (pretty dangerous) border with them. This created a demand for guides and formed a kind of cottage industry for these guides. Eventually, searching for more demand, these guides started helping to sneak people into Mexico from other countries to the point where now, most illegal immigrants aren't Mexican, they're from other places in central America.

This is simply to say that both parties in the 1990s were attempting to do one thing that they thought would have a minor affect, but what they actually did was create an industry that created a whole new problem that they were completely unaware was possible.

>>10744916
I do think it's funny that people think that most people on the American left like Hillary Clinton. In many circles on the left, Hillary is seen as essentially a republican in almost all policies. It is common belief that she exaggerated he rhetoric on minorities, feminism, and cultural issues in a way that Obama never did so that she could attempt to pursue standard boring policies that the two party system has agreed upon for decades.

Trump is a moron with no strategies at all, that literally needs to be corralled into doing things by his white house staff. He's narcissistic and hypocritical, but very dissimilar to Clinton. Not sure he's as bad as W yet though. At least he hasn't blundered us into a war... yet.

>>10745292
>Nick Land
(You)
Also not what I asked.

>>10740834
He's the philosopher in the sense that he continually asks "but how do we know?" without actually putting forward his own views.

>>10745601
the point of the article is that liberalism is a meme that's breaking down at this point, yes, Peterson is a classical liberal, which basically means he is a conservative, in the sense that he believes that the only legitimate political project should involve protecting the individual (free speech, free trade, maybe some small sort of social security, but no big social engineering, ...)

but liberalism is an untenable position at this point and that's why he sounds inconsistent

I think stoicism was a better life goal meme than Memerson. Stoicism focuses a lot on your own perceptions and actions, and it doesn't end up 'atomising' individuals, in fact duty towards others is very important. Meanwhile Memerson accidentally defends capitalism and "personal responsibility".

He wants people to behave in an idealised, cushioned conservative, middle class, daydream. American love this because it refers back to the 1950, when america was at the peak as a world power and economic force. However, his advice doesn't function in the world we live in. Many young people who follow his advice will be very disapointed or plagued by depression after they exhausted themselves through their efforts to fit petersons ideals

>Peterson is a hack. Pet a cat when you see one? Stand up straight with your shoulders back? Why would any of this help anyone? Only a retard would believe anything he says

Peterson fucked up my shoulders, he told everyone to stand up straight and with "the shoulders back" and nowadays I can't relax, I always worry about my posture and especially my shoulders feel weird on a near constant basis and I always try to pull them back.

>>10740877
This is an accurate definition of postmodernism

>>10746247

>>10745000
no u

>>10745135
Ah, of course. We must only discuss the idea(s) of post-modernity in the siloed criticism of thinkers who have already begun the conversation. There are certainly no common threads linking these thinkers together that would justify their all being denoted in the same manner. It is not as though Modernity is a (relatively) clearly defined set of thoughts that share certain core characteristics despite also being propounded by an incredibly diverse group of writers and artists who all held their own personal view different from any others. Yes, the individual differentiation between any philosopher prevents any number from being discussed as a group within a shared school of thought. If you haven't read all the extended universe promotional posters, then who are you to talk about star wars?

>>10745021
>any mention of the jews is antisemitic
Christianity cannot be fully understood without understanding the character and history of ancient Jewish culture, just as the renaissance can't be fully understood without understanding the Romans and Greeks.

>>10746811
this is fucking retarded and leaves me to believe that you're retarded

if anything he needs to be doing overhead squats, or simply snatches

>>10747280
You're clearly a braindead Redditor. He should curl up in a ball, hug his knees, and cry while wishing to die.

>>10747280

>>10747280
>>10747316

>>10744219
Of course Jung never talks about the pathways to meaning--it's Peterson's own research.

>ascribe to them any sort of coherent motivation
Stop watching clips. He frames the development of postmodernism quite clearly. You may disagree with his reading, but you can't say he doesn't give one. He begins by outlining how the modernists came to their views, then how their views led to the horrors and failures of the 20th century, and then how those events combined with advancements in physics and psychology intermingled with the descendant thoughts of Marxism to create a general mixture of relativism, pluralism, absence of truth, and rejection of tradition, that ultimately amounts to a perverse nihilism.

>he literally attempts to get the examples for his moral system from the classic myths and stories of Western Civilization
Is your attention and understanding really so poor? The starting premise of his entire branch of psychoanalysis is that our cognitive structures are evolutionary--our emotions and instincts are not superfluous side effects but rather central mechanism that allowed us to survive in a world beyond intellectual comprehension. He primarily talks about the western mythos because his audience is western, but he discuss and draws upon for his research mythos from around the world. For example, he spends whole lectures on the Babylonians and Egyptians which are decidedly not western. He also discusses Native American mythology at times. He's not seeking to validate the values of the past, but rather trying to excavate/traingulate some sense of universal mechanisms and principles based on the shared instincts of Man across time and culture. If multiple cultures share a value, that is an important thing to understand and recognize. If a value is unique to a culture, it is critical to analyze what relationship it has to other shared values and also to see what differences this causes in individuals and peoples.

The essence of his research and philosophy draw upon many of the same premises as the post-modernists he speaks against, and he largely speaks against them because by using the same premises he has arrived at a staggeringly different and more hopeful conclusion. Your rejections seems to be one of pride, not reason.

>>10742761
>There is a claim
>This is a mischaracterisation, since you are unwilling to engage in discourse
I literally just said the argument we are putting forward is the argument we have been putting forward for 20-30 years, which he just said is not an honest argument. I was not saying I was being censored, I was pointing out, correctly, that he (and now you) are using underhanded debate techniques to discuss everything except the issue itself--free speech is a human right. The political control of speech is tyrannical. Not being offended is not a human right.

>>10745567
I do think it's funny that people think that most people on the American right think people on the American left like Hillary Clinton. In many circles of the right, Hillary is seen as one of the most corrupt politicians in American history who hijacked the Democratic party for greed. It is common belief that she doesn't believe a word she says and only animates the radical left as leverage against centrist Republicans so that they cannot take any measures against arrogant and blatant abuses of power. It's understood that the two parties have not cared about policy at all for the past several decades, and they are at this point nearly undifferentiated machines competing over the same resources.

If Trump is a moron, how dumb must everyone else be? If true, how solitary your genius existence must be?

>>10741336
>>10741259
>>10745135

>cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory
Why does the left insist on repeating this strawman ad nauseam instead of actually confronting it? Who said anything about conspiracy theories? Why cant you realize its just another school of thought?

>>10740966
>>10740924
Modernism relies on the myth of progress. The idea that basically there is a causal link between scientific advancement and a positive effect on the 'human condition'

Postmodernism basically says 'well whats actually happening?'; it is a great reevaluation of how existence is framed, regardless of the many commenting for consequential analyses' such as 'its all the same thing' 'everything is equal' 'narratives aren't real' etc.

>>10741126
does /int/ really think /pol/ would be disturbed by their board

>>10748219
/his/ here. We bully /pol/ constantly when they make their holohoax threads.

Ive been watching his Bible series lectures and really enjoying them. A lot of what he touches upon is new to me because Im a gigantic brainlet. His emphasis on how important the lessons learned from Bible are, and how they maintain complete relevance over thousands of years and into the present day, really tickle my heart.

People like to make fun of his voice, but he's completely articulate, and more importantly passionate.

Also for whats its worth, I'm Canadian so I've heard the news articles about him for a couple years now, but I've never run into the caricature of a fanbase /lit/ likes to make fun of.

>>10748111
>this big list of books of obscure books I've never read proves that my pathological neuroses are correct

>>10741616
But the guy just wrote a best selling book?

>>10741873
>The are some exaggerations by the people doing the criticizing

I'd go as far to say that their criticisms are made unbelievably weak by the fact that critical race theory and other theories around criticising power structures whole epistemology is based on power and oppression exclusively. Humanity is far too complicated to define in such simplistic terms and makes their criticisms of the current system not really shape up to reality.

>>10748228
what is the his consensus on the Holodomor?

"I'm a very good at aggregating other peoples ideas, and some of my post-humorous critics rightfully point this out." t. Jordan Peterson.

>>10748560
>books written by leftist that call itself "cultural marxism"
Are you too stupid to realize what is going on here anon? try reading that again and doing so slowly.

>>10748594
Soviet genocide. Leftypol faggots who deny it or downplay it are bullied just like stormfags are when they do the same with the holocaust.

>>10748609
do you guys consider yourself 'unbiased' or are you more left or right in some way

>>10747332
As someone who likes but often disagrees with Peterson on a number of things this is a really good summation of his beliefs.

>>10748615
Radical Centrist for the most part, but I would say most are slightly right leaning. The main thing is that we hate anyone that deliberate lies about history in order to further a political agenda. We wuzers on all sides are just something we laugh at though.

>>10748615
Not unbiased I'd go as far as saying I'm a progressive liberal and not to be that guy but would go as far as saying those who call themselves progressives today are a bunch of middle-class socialist/marxist cunts who have ruined the meaning of the word.

>>10748619
sounds refreshing. What happens if somebody posts Mencius Moldbug

>>10742364

>Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism isn't the same
>Postmodernists posits that everything is relative to one another
>Neo-marxism is just a rebranding of Marxism but now under the guise of postmodernism
>Neo-marxists now indoctrinates people through universities and has taken control of the 'left' (or what is considered to still be 'left')
>Now Neo-marxists are just the same as the Communists and right-wing totalitarian fascists
>Meanwhile the 'postmodernism' philosophy dictates that neo-marxism is good because it's time to take the power away from the authority

So how is postmodernism and neo-marxism different? They operate under the same ideological principle of power structures and how it's central to everything. It's either the oppressed or the oppressor for them but they're being hypocrites for they also bred SJWs that tries to censor free speech hence they're being the oppressors themselves. Tell me anon, what's the difference and how is that difference valid?

>>10741038
>Postmodernism is about the crisis of truth. The problem is that it doesn't build anything out of it.
It's a common criticism of post-modernism on the left, though, so it's not like Peterson invented this approach.

>>10740877

>>10749838
not the guy that you're replying to but if you(and peterson) actually read a post-structuralist(thats post-modernist!) book like anti-oedipus you would see that deleuze and guittari say there should be no forms of hierarchy between groups which is in direct opposition to SJWism

>>10750231
Also quite ironic how both Deleuze and Guattari are branded "crypto-fascist" by some groups on the left, which would explain their popularity on this board, along with Berardi.

>>10750258
you know why

>>10747332
best peterson post I've seen yet, good recollection of his thoughts

>>10740982
>And we can't talk about primordial man until we talk about the nature of being. And we can't talk about the nature of being without first talking about lobster biology.

wasted potential: the post

>>10748160
The "scientific progress = utopia of objectivity" crap is just a strawman relativists use to make their position seem less absurd though.
In reality it's
>there's no link between understanding and the ability to orient yourself in the world
vs
>if I figure this out, not just scientifically but philosophically, I'll be better at not being a piece of shit, though it's by its nature an incomplete-able project

>>10750962
>lobster biology
G. Bateson is smiling in his grave

>>10750962
fugg
didn't mean to tripcode. I just wanted to #fortune on /lit/ as a meme

>mythologies everywhere and everywhen developed according to Jungian axioms
Damn shame if a Grand Theory like this wasn't backed up by solid evidence and amounted only to pseudoscientific conjectures.

>>10748609
fake. /lit/ would be cooped up in the caravan working on their shitty novel

>>10747269
>common threads linking these thinkers together that would justify their all being denoted in the same manner.
Guess how I know you are awful at philosophy?

>>10741145

>he has more nuanced ideas than most pop conservatives

Jung + Lobsters - Nietzsche = Bible ?

>DEY ARENT REAL POSTMODERNISTS

come on fellas

>>10752747
the postmodern that can be spoken of is not the real postmodern

>>10740877
This needs to be pasta.

>>10740877
based NNOO poster

>>10740834

Peterson is the ultimate snowflake pomo.
Is there anything less scientific than jung?

>>10747332
quality

>>10750984
>if I figure this out, not just scientifically but philosophically, I'll be better at not being a piece of shit

Regardless of whether it draws on science or philosophy it appears as yet another crystalline structure of problematic rationalism.This only works if the individual has decided there is not a pure ideal man, when the rational sets up an ultimate end which isn't based off Freedom but rather a CONTRACT, the 'moral' man which is always 'problematic'; whereas the polar opposite would be the 'Natural' which is always 'actual', when there ought to be sought a synthesis in which the operations of both motives for natural 'force' and physicality match that of the rational and moral through every variation of its form, for the sake of a universal legislation.

>there's no link between understanding and the ability to orient yourself in the world

Understanding is a small part of the personal faculties available to the individual for orienting oneself. Postmodernism has attempted to prioritize the 'phenomenological' and express skepticism at any attempt to know it, when Postmodernism, in my opinion, has rather limited itself to try outside of the parameters it laments, as the irony is such that it places these parameters by virtue of its own denial that anything of the sort could exist in the first place.

>>10753909
>ought to be sought

oh shit he's takin the lobster and pony show on the road, who attending? do u think antifa will protest him? beacon theater march 25

>>10754010
$200 bucks a ticket holy shit

i'm watching one of his videos and he keeps fiddling with his wedding ring, shouldn't a master psychologist know that looks bad, annoying

>>10754050
He believes that exposing people to the things they want to avoid makes them stronger, in this case he's eliminating your autism. Embrace it, anon.

>>10741712
>those people over there do it too, SO THERE!
literally the reasoning of a child

>>10740877
That was good but never post again

>>10754066
idiot

>>10752490
Peterson isn't even a Christian. You are a slanderous ideologue, leave.

>>10740924
>I will define Post-Modernism

Why do people do this?

Po-Mo didn't wish to become anything, it didn't want to achieve any sort of constructed meaning from the start, but on the opposite, ergo deconstruction, skepticism, irony, it was literally just stopping in your collective imagination and no longer viewing history as a linear thing that simply keeps going, and you have to go along with it. As has been pointed out already, it stops and meditates on the whole premise of Occidental Civilization, which is the idea of progress

The biggest mistake people make when talking about post-modernism, including Peterson, is that they define the world that we live in today, but what they're completely oblivious to, is the fact that what they're trying to define is no longer a Post-Modern world, but a world (today's world) that operates on the post-structural mechanics that were born after it, which is, post-post-modernism. This coincides with the rise of the internet, of man vs his own perception of interacting with reality which brings about a whole new set of philosophical questions that resulted in the observation of PoMo writers. "This world is not objective" has become "What is the objective world?". "There can be no absolute truths" became "What is an absolute truth?"

And even post-post-modernism has ended the moment Donald Trump was elected president, because we live in an AlterModern age with multiple continuously changing set of realities, which in themselves are a consequence between the interaction of the Subjective vs the Objective.

>>10740834
hey OP if you r soo smrt then tell me
whats the difference between philosophy and "self-help"?

>>10755505
>Po-Mo didn't wish to become anything
>describes it destroying the west
lol ok

>>10755510
>The WEST
How very eurocentric of you.

But the most suitable word for describing what happened between the 50s-80s is "Deconstruction" not "Destruction". Ironically bringing us back to the fundamental questions that constitute our reality.

>>10755522

>>10741038
>You know, I don't like Post Modernism that much because it makes me feel bad, and I want to feel that optimistic spirit from modernism but when you look at the state of the world right now, I find it very difficult not to agree with that pessimism of the postmodern.

I feel that Neitzche, Petersen, and even all the postmodernists solve "the crisis of truth" by telling you that everything is a personal journey.
Petersen I think borrows some tenets of the classic/modern era by focusing on
SOLIDARITY.

I mean after world wars we had psychiatry take off which was all very personal. This tried to solve the crisis. But then we have all the special snowflakes and people with egos as dense as a black hole.

Postmodernism was a start to break down societies walls.
Postmordernism, like the American democracy was only ment to be a stepping stone to something else.
It is unfortunate that the founders of both philosophies didn't really tell us what those alternative would be or look like.

Nope

they left that up to us.

>>10755525

Whenever you feel bad that the Occident is decaying and that you feel helpless for not creating something new for it's perpetual existence, just remember that any PIE civilization had a period when it started, flourished and ultimately, died. It's the highly individualized and highly atomized dialectics of the indo-iranian-european reality that shapes our world in a perpetual, historic motion.

>>10744219
>I think Peterson's view of postmodernists is cartoon version of them.

Every time I hear a criticism of post-modernist critics, this is pulled up. "You don't understand them" or "You're arguing against a misunderstanding."

Is it a misunderstanding to say that, for example, D&G were attempting to deterritorialise language, i.e. to break down traditional ways we view knowledge? to make our understandings rhizomatic rather than arborescent (or hierarchical)? to conceive the universe as purely materialistic, as a system of interconnected machines where production is the highest good? (This itself - to me - seems like a shallow reading of Spinoza's concepts of conaatus and joy)

These are universally accepted interpretatons of AO. Maybe even the only universally accepted interpretations since their work is so purposefully obscure that a dozen interpretations can be wrought out of each paragraph.

If you are conservative by nature, and opposed to the detteritorialisation of knowledge, why should you not oppose it? Why must you have misunderstood it to oppose it? "You have misunderstood" is a cop out of an argument

>>10744219
>There is almost no one that acts actively maliciously
And this right here tells me you know next to nothing about the real world.
I bet you went straight from college to high school didn't you?

>>10740834
you can discuss it with him directly, he answers to random mails he receives if it thinks they are intersting in his montly qa videos

>>10755540

Conservatives tend to be extremely dualistic. For them everything is a matter of 'this or that'.

>>10755539
Except we're living at the end of history. There is no growth or rebirth awaiting civilization, only a precipitous fall.

What do the Pertersonites have against Buddhism...not masculine enough?

>>10755554
Of course. In a social sense that's basically a good way to distinguish conservatives from the new left. To say that there is an objective truth (or God) and that the truth is X Y or Z is to be conservative (in a sense).

Even old Leftists and Socialists are "conservative" in this sense. Deterritorialising (or "subjectivising") the truth only stifles political action because you lose the parameters you might have worked with. You're just floating in space.

Peterson thread. ok cool quick test.
IGNROE

>>10755555
>tfw the meek inherit the earth
>the last-men are all the same shade of burnt-orange

>>10755555
>Except we're living at the end of history

You do know that people have been saying we live the End of History, ever since the 19th century yes?

>There is no growth or rebirth awaiting civilization, only a precipitous fall.

Not the Occidental world, taken as a collective form of civilization. The idea behind "The West" has long been dead, if you imply a feeling that nothing can come after it. But ever since 9/11 happened, it looks like there's still room for development, but not progress mind you.

There is more to reality than you feeble ego manifested in material trinkets.

back

>>10755559

Lobsters don't meditate?

>>10755573
>>10755573
Never before has truth been held in the kind of disdain it is now. The development of ideas itself is ingrown now, I see it all too clearly the progressive return to barbarism in the name of progress. And it's not just the idea of the west that is dead mind you, the people of the west will be too soon enough. Never before in history have the conquerors actually destroyed themselves with concern for the conquered, from revulsion at their own success. This is a testament to how perverse our western values are today, the fundamental functionality of a human beings is upended, we are become unnatural. And who will succeed us? The inhuman creatures of the east and of Africa. That is the end of civilization.
>O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
>And men have lost their reason. Bear with me.
>My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar.

>>10755599

/pol/

>>10755600

>>10755596
>And who will succeed us? The inhuman creatures of the X and of Y. That is the end of civilization.


Hate to break it to you, but everything around you today is a result of the people who succeeded the Romans, themselves a successors of Alexander, himself a successor of the Greeks, themselves a successor of Zoroaster, himself a successor of the Vedas, themselves a fusion with Harrapan civilization.

We live in an Indo-European-Iranian world. Nothing ever ceases to exist, but merely changes it's shape and form.

>>10755607
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

>>10755601

>Duty

cuck

>>10755607
This is like saying the single celled amoeba we evolved from isn't meaningfully distinct from us. It's pretty retarded.

>>10755560
There's an inherent weakness to ambiguity that macho conservatives can't abide. They need the certitude of fact not the uncertainty of skepticism...too scary.

>>10755625

Your mistake is assuming i was talking about the western concept of evolutionary/biological determinism.

It's very hard, if not impossible for anyone to define the Larger System (Subjective reality) in terms of the Sub-System (Objective reality)

Both are correlated and influence each other, but it's the Larger System that ultimately gives the impulse for the Sub-System to develop in any meaningful way.

>>10755559
Unironically he has the same critique of eastern religion like Zizek. It is not western and thus not modern, although Zizek also adds in that eastern religion is reactionary.

>>10755607

>Waiting for the glorious day in which Anglo culture meaningfully takes on facets and features of Chinese master race

>>10755601
if you believe your own dumb image then the phenomenon you're arguing for began to reverse sharply since the turn of the century. the worst point of human civilization was actually 1999 and it's been improving ever since. do you think that's accurate?

>>10755635
The person you're responding to is very clearly referring to biological concepts. So...I don't know what the fuck you're on about.

>>10755638
Considering that greater increases counter to the trend occurred before in the general decline than in the 90's point you describe, no

It's a blip, the overall direction is down

>>10755635
>Your mistake is assuming i was talking about the western concept of evolutionary/biological determinism.
Science isn't western, it's fucking science.

>>10755650
BLOODY POST MODERNISTS
https://youtu.be/jGe5SDgsHtU

>>10755636
I don't see why he needs his "Darwinian" conception of truth, why not a trial and error approach.

>>10755646
>greater increases counter to the trend occurred
not in the second half of the 20th century they didn't. according to your image in the last 20 years we have enjoyed the greatest resurgence of duty over right since, uh, the interbellum. how do you explain this?

>>10755637
Which is why it's important to note that the Buddha himself built his philosophical teachings as an opposition to what he saw as the Hindu way to reach enlightenment.

Everything resulted as a contradiction to something. And the purpose for all of these historic contradictions is a continuous race to reach a state of collective, planetary spiritual and civilizational oneness. That is why the Chinese and Occidental clash will predict our future for the next 100 years. They are the only remaining spiritual heirs of planet earth's oldest and original human civilizations, granted, in a very specifically molded way.

>>10755650
What you mean by "Science" is the "Scientific method", which as a method of interacting and understanding reality, is entirely western.

>>10755540
yes, it's funny when leftists argue that criticism about anything they do is a conspiracy theory.

Of course it's not a conspiracy, for a conspiracy to exist you have to hide what you are doing. Leftists are openly subversive. The only issue is that when they are confronted about the consequences of what they are openly doing they just sperg out and try to find some unrelated cause for it. I think the main feature of leftism is an inability to take responsibility for anything.

>>10755683
>Which is why it's important to note that the Buddha himself built his philosophical teachings as an opposition to what he saw as the Hindu way to reach enlightenment.
wasn't buddhism a rebellion of the warrior caste against the priestly caste?

>>10755678
I explain it with your inability to read graphs.

>>10755683
>What you mean by "Science" is the "Scientific method", which as a method of interacting and understanding reality, is entirely western.
This is why no-one takes post modernist thought seriously, you're just a bunch of gibbering idiots.

>>10755656
>completely make shit up
>taken seriously as a valid expression of post modernism right up to the moment you reveal you were just making shit up
can't make this shit up

>>10740834
The way I see it is he's just a communicator. A good one at that. Sort of comparable to Carl Sagan or some of the other meme personalities who talk about science and shit to the plebs who then feel enlightened by the snippets of new knowledge they've just absorbed.

>>10755752
why should i care about your "general trend" if you can't meaningfully address or even acknowledge the specific features of your graph? why did everyone start caring about rights so much under reagan? why did the interest falter after the millenium? if you cannot connect this shit to reality then it's worthless, an abstract statistical curiosity, but you refuse to talk about it at all. it's almost as if you care about this data only to the extent that it legitimizes your fantasy of civilizational collapse and you're not willing to engage with it beyond that.

>>10755710
The Buddha took all the various concepts of Hinduism and completely reshaped their meaning and purpose. For example denying the existence of the Atman, or denying the concept of Karma and so on. Both Oriental and Occidental civilization are heavily rooted in the ideas developed first by the Harrapan civilization and later by Hindu culture.

>>10755755

The problem is that materialists, who view reality through a materialistic lense as the only reality that can exist, are completely oblivious to the actuality of the fact that what they define as "Science", is in fact not a pre-packed set of things that gives you a well-rounded result to explain a thing, but rather a methodology to understand both objective AND subjective reality, ergo is a multitude of things.

You don't get to understand reality with "Science", whatever that vague term might mean to someone, but with the Scientific Method. It's a big difference when you try to define the world around you, which one is real and why, and which one isn't real, and why.

>>10755798
I did address them, you're reading of the graph is incorrect. What you say is not what the data/graph reflects, it's that simple.

>>10755799
>>The problem is that materialists, who view reality through a materialistic lense as the only reality that can exist, are completely oblivious to the actuality of the fact that what they define as "Science", is in fact not a pre-packed set of things that gives you a well-rounded result to explain a thing, but rather a methodology to understand both objective AND subjective reality, ergo is a multitude of things.
>
>You don't get to understand reality with "Science", whatever that vague term might mean to someone, but with the Scientific Method. It's a big difference when you try to define the world around you, which one is real and why, and which one isn't real, and why.
He says while using a computer and with perfect confidence the many things in his life that are wholly dependent on the truth of science will continue to function (they will). If you had a brain you'd understand that your argument is self-defeating, if there's a greater whole we don't understand there is an objectivity and by necessity subsets of that reflect it.

>>10755824
>He says while using a computer and with perfect confidence the many things in his life that are wholly dependent on the truth of science will continue to function (they will).

Again, you fail to define what "Science" is because you take it for granted. Also because it is such a relatively new method of measuring and understanding reality, in comparison to other methods that were around long before European civilization created it.

> If you had a brain you'd understand that your argument is self-defeating, if there's a greater whole we don't understand there is an objectivity and by necessity subsets of that reflect it.

On the contrary, if anyone thinks of reality as being a subset of something greater, i.e non-physical, then how do you prove it?

And if you use the term "Science" to answer to this question, you will realize that only the materialist viewpoint is by it's own's nature, a self-defeating argument

>>10755809
no, you said that the ups and downs are not important in the context of the general trend but my problem is that you refuse to defend your claim that this general trend has any connection to reality. you want to use the graph of something as abstract as relative change in the usage of words to prove a vast societal change but if you can't show any correspondence between the specific features and reality then how can you claim the general shape reflects reality?

i remind you that you posted this image in defense of statements like "the progressive return to barbarism" so i would like you to walk me through how your image shows this. please show me that you are a serious person trying to make a serious point and not another underage memer that will keep posting "u just don't get it" until people give up talking to you.

what does your graph mean to you?

>>10748111
>strawman ad nauseam
Have another scarecrow, you /polreddit/ pseud

>>10752957
>Is there anything less scientific than jung?

Freud and Freudianism, because it pretends to be scientific.

>>10752957
Lacan, which is basically jung without the magical realism and boring names for things.

>>10756056
>Freud and Freudianism, because it pretends to be scientific.
you misspelled "modern psychology"

>>10756090
lacan was a chad, not a scientist

>>10756143
Kek

>>10755656
Sure. Completely destroyed.

>>10756494
>implying they weren't

>>10748228
It's another episode of everyone wants to be cooler than /pol/

>>10756629
that's not a very high standard, /pol/ is just the current form of trendy internet nihilist, it will suffer the same fate as atheists and anti-sjw did before them