/lit/ - Literature

>>11206713

/pol/ does because he made some comment about not calling some student by that person's assumed gender and that made him a hero to them. After that they fist themselves to the sound of his Kermit the Frog voice

>>11206714
I don't know any NS people who read beterson, they all hate him

>>11206713
No but i do listen to him. I don't care upset he makes you.

>>11206723
how upset*
egg on my face desu.

>>11206713

>>11206713
I get that /lit/ hates him and all but isn't that picture him crying because he was talking about someone killing themselves and he had to comfort their family? Can we stop posting it with a "he looks silly here" attitude?

>>11206719
Forgive my illiteracy, but what does NS mean?

>>11206714
I think that /pol/ has gone off Peterson because he doesn't endorse Neo-Nazism. Unironic Reddit crossboarders are his biggest fans.

>>11206714
Yeah wtf is up with canada. They seriously tried to make that shit illegal? This world was going to the gutter desu senpai and i for one am glad peterson was around to push back against these gone wild liberal governments of the west.

Lit only hates him now that he's mainstream. It's the nature of 4chan to hate all things popular. Go to any board. They love something and hold it dear until the rest of the world can share in their joy.

>>11206729
actual National Socialism, stuff like what /pol/ was around 2014-15

>>11206729
No that is a picture of him talking about Pinocchio

>>11206745
Thanks.
>>11206748
Was this while he was in bad health? I could be wrong, but it looked like he was also crying in the pic.
>>11206730
>>11206740
I don't think /lit/ really disagrees with him on anything as a whole, it is just because he is popular, liked by Reddit, and is a non-philosopher into philosophy. Because /lit/ is so exclusive, these are like the unholy Trinity of this board.

I don't read him, but I do listen to him.

He's a better orator than writer.

>>11206776
Yeah that's a more apt assessment. Also Peterson does suffer from depression and is on two anti-depressants according to an interview he did. He's cried a couple of times. Once when a person told him a family member killed herself and another time while discussing the plight of young men with the former prime minister of Australia.

>>11206798
Which Prime Minister was that?

>>11206719
I've yet to see Peterson come out strongly in favor of gnosticism (he certainly has sympathies), but I've seen him strongly denounce National Socialism, which, if genuine, I found initially somewhat odd given his intellectual tradition, following in the footsteps of Campbell and Jung (both clearly sympathized with the romantic and mythic national socialists). He's an individualist, civic nationalist, and wants to preserve Western Civilization, and yet he also greatly feels that people need meaning in their life, otherwise they'll do CHAOTIC shit. It's like he wants group coherence and order, but doesn't want the consequences of that (totalitarianism). I can kinda see where he's coming from, but I don't understand it too, perhaps someone who knows more about him than youtube lectures can tell me more about what he believes

>>11206802
John Anderson. Sorry it was Deputy Prime Minister.

I honestly can't keep track of whether I'm supposed to hate him, love him, or be apathetic.
Stop making these threads, I want to get off this wild ride.

>>11206804
First, on the Campbell and Jun point, I have seen him criticize and disagree with every person he studies, the least of which but still prevalent is Jung. I cannot recall him ever explicitly mentioning Campbell, though. Regardless, it is clear his opinions are his own and not pasted from anyone one person he idolizes, so any disagreement is not all that telling.

From what I have seen he believes National Socialism as too authoritarian, but I think his main problem with it is the same as his problem with socialism: it was tried and left too many people dead to try it again.

Someone having meaning and order in their life does not mean GROUP coherence and order in its extreme. As you said, he is individualistic. The belief of someone like that, as far as I know, is something like "It sure would be great if everyone got along, but that is not going to happen". Which is why he does not advicate for anything totalitarian. Instead he believes it should be up to you to learn how to live and to live your life. He tries to help people see what he thinks are the best ways, but does not believe the governments should mandate anything in this regard.

I am not Peterson, but that is my best assessment of his beliefs in relation to your questions. Hope that helped.

>>11206804
>totalitarianism
>consequence of order against chaos

what do you fucking mean by totalitarianism ?

>>11206804
>wants national socialism
>doesn't want totalitarianism

lol

>>11206865
I don't think that anon was advocating for either, he was just asking about Peterson.

I remember once hearing a couple of his nonsensical remarks on Derrida and decided to never pay any attention to him. I've still never read a word of him and intend to keep it that way.

>>11206872
ik, I was talking about Peterson

Peterson is articulate and does seems well educated, however, I have to agree that the majority of topics he addresses is a nothing burger with void fries. He's really a "intellectual" for the stupid masses

>>11206740
why are we like this?

>>11206732
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/

He's a wild exaggerator who has no idea or legal training, so naturally he fell off the slippery slope and made up shit about a law he barely understood. All it did was elevate gender identities to a level of discrimination on par with race and religion, but there's no precedent or judge who would argue that not calling someone a "Xir" when they want it would classify as hate speech. It's just him being a bullshitter who doesn't understand law who managed to attract a fanbase who are equally incompetent in the law like you, but want anyone willing to push back against the SJWs or left.

>>11206893
But Peterson doesn't advocate for either of those.

>>11206864
>what do you fucking mean by totalitarianism?
the dominance of a worldview or narrative over others (usually to the complete exclusion of others, though there are "softer" ways of achieving the same outcome)
in the way I'm putting it (referencing Peterson), a map of meaning gives a group coherence and order; a totalitarian group is one where that map of meaning is THE map which is considered optimal by that group
chaos would be allowing ANY maps of meaning, ones that are helpful for civilization, ones that are destructive, etc
>>11206865
>>11206893
not sure what you mean
I'm saying that Peterson doesn't want National Socialism or totalitarianism

>>11206897
I think most people on 4chan have a cynical world view and tends to disagree with the world to feel superior.

>>11206897
Because most people are braindead plebs.

>>11206906
His issue with the law was not that he was afraid of imprisonment over these issues explicitly, but that it was too vague and allowed for it if deemed necessary by a judge. I have read the law, and he is correct in that there is too much room left open for interpretation.

>>11206879
All remarks on Derrida are nonsensical. There's no way to respond to work of such intense charlatanism without it being total nonsense.

>>11206909
>>11206916

I misread

>>11206897
because were all counter culture reactionaries. Basically hipsters but hipsters are too popular

>>11206936
It's also pretty dangerous to have any legislation enforcing something as nebulous as the left's current conception of gender.

>>11206936
>>11206955

You guys are fagolios if you think someone's going to court over something that ridiculous

>>11206973
I don't, I just think it's a bad law. You know people write laws a job, right? You should be able to demand good work from them.

>>11206973
Probably not anytime soon, but I think those in the intersectional camp do want more restrictive speech codes. They want legal power in the same way they have obtained social power through the creation of highly restrictive forms of etiquette.

>>11206849
>I cannot recall him ever explicitly mentioning Campbell, though.
That's a bit odd, I would have expected him to talk more about his ideas. Several images from Maps of Meaning are reminiscent of Hero's Journey archetypes.
>Someone having meaning and order in their life does not mean GROUP coherence and order in its extreme.
If two people have similar understandings of what the problems in this world are, they generally benefit from grouping up and trying to get other people to group up with them. That's what I mean by a meaning leading to group coherence. It doesn't necessarily happen, but the largest and most powerful groups (governments) have it in their interest to maintain such coherence that lead to them coming to power and undermine any competing meanings.
>"It sure would be great if everyone got along, but that is not going to happen"
Seems pessimistic at the outset, any reason for that?
>Instead he believes it should be up to you to learn how to live and to live your life.
But if I individually decide to join a group, and that is where I derive meaning, would he oppose that? If he does, I would ask why and I would want to see whether that contradicts any of his other points. If he doesn't, I would then start to wonder why he opposes totalitarianism. It would seem that his only recourse would be epistemological pessimism regarding a map of meaning that leads to extreme group cohesion, in which case, why is he even bothering with trying to give them in the first place?
(side note: wouldn't one EXPECT that the best maps of meaning would lead to totalitarianism/large scale organization of people as people gravitate towards it?)
>He tries to help people see what he thinks are the best ways, but does not believe the governments should mandate anything in this regard.
If there is a "best way" (or set of best ways) then it would be prudent for a government to oppose any suboptimal ways.

Thanks for the response.

>>11207054
>you should live your own life
>"why are you against totalitarianism??"

comeon boi

>>11207073
If "living my own life" entails trying to actualize my values, why would I not want dominance of my worldview? What I'm asking is why he opposes the actualization of any value system (implicitly or explicitly).

>>11207054
>If two people have similar understandings of what the problems in this world are, they generally benefit from grouping up and trying to get other people to group up with them. That's what I mean by a meaning leading to group coherence. It doesn't necessarily happen, but the largest and most powerful groups (governments) have it in their interest to maintain such coherence that lead to them coming to power and undermine any competing meanings.

I don't think anybody is against people getting along or seeing eye-to-eye, but the extreme I am talking about is them putting aside individual opinions or critiques so as to better fit into the group. A group moving in the right direction should be prioritized over moving quickly.

>Seems pessimistic at the outset, any reason for that?

It's not really entirely pessimistic if you think of it as the logical conclusion of nobody being perfect. If there are natural disagreements in any capacity, then there is not perfect unity. You cannot then ever make a system that enforces unity, but should instead form a system that allows disagreement to be maximally productive and minimally divisive.

>But if I individually decide to join a group, and that is where I derive meaning, would he oppose that? If he does, I would ask why and I would want to see whether that contradicts any of his other points. If he doesn't, I would then start to wonder why he opposes totalitarianism. It would seem that his only recourse would be epistemological pessimism regarding a map of meaning that leads to extreme group cohesion, in which case, why is he even bothering with trying to give them in the first place?
(side note: wouldn't one EXPECT that the best maps of meaning would lead to totalitarianism/large scale organization of people as people gravitate towards it?)

Again, large scale organization and productivity, or group cohesion are not inhereitly totalitarian. They are not dangerous either. The danger is when the group prioritizes itself over the members that make it up. Even that does not really address the disagreement, though. The disagreement of Auth/Lib would be if people should be able to be forced into the group. Voluntary additions of members is not objected to by either side.

>If there is a "best way" (or set of best ways) then it would be prudent for a government to oppose any suboptimal ways.

I agree with you, but how much faith have you in your government to be able to come up with a better way for you to live your life than you could think up on your own or with help from loved ones? The problem is that the government is not any better at this than is the people.

>>11207087
Lol, because "living your own life" implies you have the CHOICE to join different groups where you find meaning. A totalitarian state removes the choices and creates a single "group". Just because the majority are brainwashed into thinking their life has meaning, there will always be exceptions who realize their lack of free will

>also anyone who wants free will wants anything except dominance of their worldview

>>11207098
>If there are natural disagreements in any capacity, then there is not perfect unity.
It is the idea of "natural disagreements" that I think is unwarrantably pessimistic. If I can agree with one conscious entity to a sufficient degree to work with them, to fight with them, to die for them, I do not see what necessarily hinders the possibility of working with any of them in an abstract sense.
>You cannot then ever make a system that enforces unity, but should instead form a system that allows disagreement to be maximally productive and minimally divisive.
The goal of being "minimally divisive" is one that I do not share; if I oppose something like slavery, why should I compromise on that moral issue? Why should I compromise on any moral issue, other than for the "peace of pacifism" (pic related)?
>The danger is when the group prioritizes itself over the members that make it up.
What nation does not prioritize its existence over the individuals that make it up? We would not send soldiers into battle if we prioritized them over the goals of the nation.
>how much faith have you in your government to be able to come up with a better way for you to live your life than you could think up on your own or with help from loved ones?
little faith in the current one, but that does not mean I would have faith in none of them
>>11207135
>"living your own life" implies you have the CHOICE to join different groups where you find meaning.
and yet in every society there is still a set of meanings which are considered "out of bounds"; to a large extent a culture is defined by what it does not tolerate. In the modern West, it is the actualization of a value system, the assertion of any optimum.
>A totalitarian state removes the choices and creates a single "group".
See the previous pic I posted; relativism has lead to the dominance of a single group as is.
>Just because the majority are brainwashed into thinking their life has meaning,
Meaning is self-created and asserted. If one recognizes this, are they "brainwashed," or is it a choice?
>>also anyone who wants free will wants anything except dominance of their worldview
They want to prevent the dominance of any worldview, which in itself is a worldview.

>>11207216
>out of bounds
Yes, because they are, in general, universally wrong. "Live your own life" doesn't mean serial killers get legalized
>relativism has lead to the dominance of a single group
Ok? I'm not arguing for an idealogy
>Meaning is self-created and asserted. If one recognizes this, are they "brainwashed," or is it a choice?
If someone recognizes they have been brainwashed they are realizing their life has been decided for them
>They want to prevent the dominance of any worldview, which in itself is a worldview
Right, which translates to anti-totalitarianism

>>11207216
>It is the idea of "natural disagreements" that I think is unwarrantably pessimistic. If I can agree with one conscious entity to a sufficient degree to work with them, to fight with them, to die for them, I do not see what necessarily hinders the possibility of working with any of them in an abstract sense.

By natural disagreements I do not mean unreconcilable differences, but that there are any differences in opinion at all is inevitable. The natural conclusion of this is that absolute or perfect unity is impossible, and therefore cannot rightly be enforced.

>The goal of being "minimally divisive" is one that I do not share; if I oppose something like slavery, why should I compromise on that moral issue? Why should I compromise on any moral issue, other than for the "peace of pacifism" (pic related)?

Minimally divisive does not mean compromise, but the contrary: you should have the ability to disagree, and formulate debate that allows the issue to be settled without violence or a splitting of the union.

>What nation does not prioritize its existence over the individuals that make it up? We would not send soldiers into battle if we prioritized them over the goals of the nation.

Two answers: (1) Let the nation prioritize the nation, and the people the people. (2) The people dying in war are dying for other people, as such this idea exists in different ways but is fairly regularly categorized as a necassary evil across the Auth/Lib spectrum.

>little faith in the current one, but that does not mean I would have faith in none of them

The reason this would never be ideal is because it does not allow for much room for improvement. If there is strict guidelines for living your life, then you cannot argue outside of that because no one has any experience outside of it. If there are no guidelines, you can gain experience in any area outside of the norm and advise people in areas you understand, and seek wisdom in areas you don't.

>>11206713
its not gay if the penis is feminine, though.

>>11206776
>I don't think /lit/ really disagrees with him on anything as a whole
Mate you're in for a shock. Even the self-didacts at /lit/ can smell his shit from afar. It's very difficult to agree with the man if you've read anything outside of whatever shit he peddles. I mean, even the shit he peddles, anyone who gets into Nietzsche through him will end up having to pick either one.

>>11206916
>the dominance of a worldview or narrative over others (usually to the complete exclusion of others, though there are "softer" ways of achieving the same outcome)
>in the way I'm putting it (referencing Peterson), a map of meaning gives a group coherence and order; a totalitarian group is one where that map of meaning is THE map which is considered optimal by that group
How isn't neoliberalism totalitarian by that definition? I mean, how isn't LIBERALISM totalitarian, considering the amount of liberalist coups engendered by the US during the 20th century?
>chaos would be allowing ANY maps of meaning, ones that are helpful for civilization, ones that are destructive, etc
Who the fuck gets to pick? Peterson's own choice (classical english liberalism, lel) has been extremely destructive to peoples all around the world, so we should get rid of it as well?

>>11207273
I didn't say they thought he was accurate or even smart, but most of the stuff he actually suggests seems to be fine by /lit/ standards. Anyone here against any of the twelve rules in the book? Let me know which one you disagree with. Perhaps you are against young men getting their lives on track more generally?

>>11207298
I haven't read the book, I don't read self-help shit and I surely as fuck won't read JUNGIAN self-help shit, but his definition of "getting your life on track" steers very close to "just keep being a WASPite and hope everything works out brah", which is probably the worse advice you can give to anyone living under current capitalism. I love how you put his project it in the mildest and most non-incendiary terms hoping everyone here doesn't know he's just a more "cryptical" (in the sense that he has to weave these bizarre campbellian tapestries that point to weirdly analyzed patterns in his narrow definition of human mythology) cul-de-sac apologist. Protestant pragmatism is what drove us here, and this dolt has the gall to think it will somehow drive us anywhere else. Young men need guidance because their parents had to spend absurd amounts of time devoted to their shit, alienating jobs, and now this cunt comes up and tells said aimless young men they should do the same thing, this is dangerous, to say the least, and downright evil if you want my opinion.

>>11206940
Read Rorty you fucking dunce

>>11207321
>I haven't read the book
no one wants the opinion of a pseud

>the guy who hasn't read a self help book is the pseud
I won't give you a (You) but heres a :^)

>>11207273
>t. seething commie.

>>11207321
Point to the one you disagree with, as that was my point which you never addressed, except for saying you never read the book.

>Stand up straight with your shoulders back
>Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
>Make friends with people who want the best for you
>Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
>Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
>Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
>Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
>Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
>Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
>Be precise in your speech
>Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
>Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

>>11207347
>I know what Peterson stands for except I don't because I don't read
classic /lit/ discussion

>>11207366
>Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
based

>>11207366
>Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
>Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't

he really BTFO the anon who doesn't read lol

>>11207366
Mate, as I've said in my post, trying to sanitize his project won't change it from "Neoliberalism: it just werks".
>>11207368
Nigger if this is not what he stands for PLEASE prove me wrong. This is a man who somehow thought Nietzsche LAMENTED the end of christianity and wanted it to come back, there is no way to approach this with any honesty. Also, I love how you aggots complain about me never reading this faggots useless work but are A-Ok with ADMITTING he has never engaged with the "bloody postmodernists" (lel) work himself.

>>11207321
lol this. he's eckhart tolle for edgy teens and reactionary incels instead of suburban moms. just another chain in the long line of protestant delusion.

>>11207366
Seriously? Jesus wept.

>Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Fuck off
>Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Whatever
>Make friends with people who want the best for you
Nobody "wants the best for you." Your friends are people who enjoy your company, not your life-guides.
>Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Holy fuck
>Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Terrible advice.
>Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Impossible, so fuck off. Nobody's house is in "perfect order," and the world needs plenty of criticism in the meantime.
>Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Meaningful how? Who decides? How?
>Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Terrible advice.
>Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
Obviously they do.
>Be precise in your speech
Fine.
This is pretty weak stuff, J.P.
>Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
The fuck?
>Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
Obviously.

>>11207385
lmao
you haven't got a fucking clue
he talks about the problems of inequality in western society often but you're obviously not familiar with him at all so what the fuck do you know?

>>11207321
no no! it was a couple of french authors that like no one has actually read that ruined this country!

>>11207415
What the fuck is even your point, you still haven't refuted my claim that his work is just protestant ethics for edgy teens. All of you faggots could have had the same shit he tells you for free if you just listened to your parents instead of playing animu tiddy games and whatever else it is that you spent your youth on.
>he talks about inequality
So fucking what, Jeff Bezos does too, is he somehow not a fucking neoliberalism peddler too?

>>11207385
>This is a man who somehow thought Nietzsche LAMENTED the end of christianity and wanted it to come back
No, he doesn't believe that, mainly because Christianity did not end so that is a stupid argument. Nietzsche however does paint it as if the death of God were a tragedy, leaving the lives of those born after to be stripped of what was previously thought to be the meaning of life. That is what he was lamenting over. Frame his opinions accurately if you want us to address them.

>if this is not what he stands for PLEASE prove me wrong

How do you prove what somebody else believes except pointing to where he talks about it? By the way, you did not reference any of his material when bringing up his opinions.

>>11207412
Whoa... so this the power of being entirely dismissive and reductive.

>>11207415
>he talks about the problems of inequality in western society often

and his solutions for said problems are what exactly?

>>11207431
That's the appropriate response to shallow bullshit self-help lectures, anon. Peterson is not worth my time. If you feel you need that guy to help you in some way, great. He has nothing I want.

>>11207431
laughed harder than I should have at this response

>>11207440
>>11207439
But he's right overall. Peterson is absolute pleb-tier shit.

>>11207430
>Nietzsche was lamenting over the end of meaning to life
>Nietzsche lamented human tragedy
Nigger his whole project is precisely the opposite of that, build your own values, embrace fate and tragedy, live your life to your fullest and accept no lesser men constraints, fuck everyone's shit up and become your own god.
How does this tie to "Pascal's wager, only even more cucked and meek"?

>>11207426
guffaw
you don't know a damn thing about me or where I come from
but I know you're the kind of person that claims to understand someone's viewpoint without reading their works
you don't even know if I like peterson
you're a pseud and you'll always be a pseud

>>11207445
I swear you have the reading comprehension of a fucking avocado. Are you an edgy fourteen-year-old, by chance?

>>11207430
Also
>you did not reference any of his material when bringing up his opinions.
neither does he when he talks about "postmodernists" but you don't seem to mind.

>>11207290
>How isn't neoliberalism totalitarian by that definition?
which is the point I'm making in another part of the thread
>Who the fuck gets to pick?
good question
should you trust someone with an authoritative background? For me, I evaluate ideas and try to not judge anything as negative from any source before understanding the ideas, weigh them (usually against my current values, or compare the values themselves), and then attempt to advance my values. If I see someone who aligns partially or largely with me, I support them more than other people.
>so we should get rid of it as well?
I'm not explicitly saying we should do anything, virtually everyone is trying to get you on their side, even me, and even the people who say that there should be no narratives/meanings.
>>11207253
>By natural disagreements I do not mean unreconcilable differences, but that there are any differences in opinion at all is inevitable.
On some topics, sure. On others, isn't it the case that essentially every society puts people in mental institutions if they aren't capable of adapting to the society? If people don't agree with "consensus reality" (i.e. the dominant worldview) that's usually what's done with them. Is there a society which hasn't excluded some individuals? And what's the exact distinction between a gulag, a mental institution, and a work camp?
You claim that this "cannot be rightly enforced" and yet I can't think of a society which hasn't enforced this.
>you should have the ability to disagree, and formulate debate that allows the issue to be settled without violence or a splitting of the union.
and if an agreement cannot be reached, if peaceful discussion leads nowhere, at what point do you say, fuck it, I'm going to enforce what I believe on you? Is it okay to allow people who enslave others to peacefully segregate themselves?
>Let the nation prioritize the nation, and the people the people.
Could you elaborate on this? Is the nation not composed of the people?
>The people dying in war are dying for other people, as such this idea exists in different ways but is fairly regularly categorized as a necassary evil across the Auth/Lib spectrum.
seems like a copout "it's a necessary evil to prioritize the group over *these* people," which only shows the hypocrisy of the position that totalitarianism is bad because it prioritizes the group over the individual.
>The reason this would never be ideal is because it does not allow for much room for improvement
if something optimal (or nearly optimal) exists and has been found, then why shouldn't it be asserted anyway?
>If there is strict guidelines for living your life, then you cannot argue outside of that because no one has any experience outside of it.
I see that perspective, but that would be a debate on how strict something should be, not whether there should be no guidelines at all.
>If there are no guidelines
you get chaos, and only a small group of people will be able to keep themselves afloat :^)

>>11207445
>fuck everyone's shit up and become your own god.
Exactly. No meaning of life.

So very harmful for society unless God is involved.

>>11207451
>I know you're the kind of person that claims to understand someone's viewpoint without reading their works
I guess I better go and start a patreon in which I tell frustrated virgins that they're actually right because lol the dragon
>>11207455
> For me, I evaluate ideas and try to not judge anything as negative from any source before understanding the ideas
If you did you wouldn't be defending Peterson, considering how he just rambles about a insane amount of authors he has never read.
>>11207464
Except Nietzsche didn't think this was harmful at all, you dolt, it's exactly what he wanted.

>Doesn't read Peterson
>Doesn't read Nietzsche
>Complains about Peterson misinterpreting Nietzsche.

It's bait, everybody. You can go.

>>11207480
Where's your proof I don't read Nietzsche? He actually WANTED everyone to pretend god is alive and only you and Peterson know this? Seriously?
Also, why the fuck do you mind me not reading Peterson while criticizing his work but him criticizing Derrida while not reading his work is OK? I'm not the one ripping off people on Patreon, so by any accounts, i'm much more inoffensive than him.

>>11207439
>shallow bullshit self-help lectures
his book has cool charts

>>11207495
I never said that was fine. You have attributed all of his beliefs onto me, while my sole argument was that the vast majority of /lit/ would not disagree directly with the vast majority of his advice. I was careful actually to not include his interpretations of philosophers as things not objectionable.

>>11207495
calm down
it's not good for your blood pressure to be this mad
maybe one day you'll be rich and successful but shouting at strangers on the internet is not a good start, buddy

>>11207507
Is that nonsense really from his book?

>>11207469
>If you did you wouldn't be defending Peterson, considering how he just rambles about a insane amount of authors he has never read.
what made you think I was defending him? I've been criticizing his inconsistency throughout the thread.
>>11207251
>Yes, because they are, in general, universally wrong.
I'm glad you accept some absolute standards for judging people as good or bad, though it seems inconsistent with some of your other comments.
>If someone recognizes they have been brainwashed they are realizing their life has been decided for them
I don't think you understood what I meant. It's not that someone is recognizing that they are brainwashed (though you may see it that way), it's that someone is choosing to follow a specific group that offers a certain meaning. If someone makes a choice to follow a group, why does that entail brainwashing? Is it that parts of my life are decided by someone else, or I'm aligning myself with other people who have similar lifestyles already?
It seems to me you have an epistemological pessimism regarding joining any group (if you join them, you're brainwashed because they will decide things for you, even if you agree with what they are deciding for you)
>Right, which translates to anti-totalitarianism
Yes, which can also be seen as the totalitarianism of anti-totalitarianism, as it creates a narrative to the exclusion of others. Do you see why?

>>11207539
why don't you look at PDF online
you might learn something

>>11207366
>Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Sure, it's good for your back. But he suggests doing this to project strength and power. Something only a weak nerved simp would feel the need to do.

>Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Many of the minority groups that he detests already follow this rule.

>Make friends with people who want the best for you
Not a very Christian message. Make friends with people whom you want the best for.

>Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Incoherent.

>Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Low key advocacy of corporal punishment here, which is a surefire way to make your children act out even more so, particularly later in life.

>Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Sophistry.

>Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Says the guy that purposely distorts the meaning of postmodernism, Marxism, BIll C-16, etc.

>Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
It's a shame that this is the rule that Peterson's fans follow the least.

>Be precise in your speech
This coming from the guy who has made an entire career out of being just opaque enough so he can respond to any criticism with "you didn't understand me" or "you're taking me out of context."

>Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
The only people that do this are cops and I bet Jordan loves cops.

>Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
Yeah because there are so many people out there that yell at and shoo away stray friendly cats when they come up to them. Clearly this needed to be a rule for living.

>>11207539
>Does not understand something
>"Nonsense"

Please, just stop taking this guy seriously. He already said he though Jung was a fraud, not understanding Jung he is not going to be able to move onto the specification of the archetypes within myth.

>>11207495
"You didn't read his self help book!!" is the rhetorical sleight of hand his cultists play when they're backed into a corner. You can watch his interviews or his lectures and clearly see he's a fraud. No need to read the book.

>>11207552
Not from that horseshit, no. As I said, he has nothing I want. If I feel like some unintelligible soup of occult philosophy and psychology I'll reread old Crowley or Yeats ideas. Even Kenneth Grant would be more amusing.

>>11207532
That is because you're being fascetious. The list o 12 arguments barely says anything at all, pure common sense, "keep your shoulders straight", lmao.
Now, just go on warosu and look for Campbell threads, for example. /lit/ was never too keen on this sort of jungian mumbo jumbo the man expouses. I very much doubt even the most larping christian on /lit/ would agree with "just assume god is real and keep on keepin on brah x)" is a vailid project.
>>11207538
Once again, your only defense of Kermit is accusing me of doing shit he does all the time. I'm not mad, I don't break down in tears talking about Pinocchio.

>>11207353
This is really what it boils down to.

>>11207559
Which guy? Peterson? I don't.
Me? I said nothing about Jung at all. But most attempts to conflate mythological figures into common archetypes end up as reductionist bullshit that horribly warps and abuses the original characters and mythology to fit modern sensibilities and personal agendas. That was true of Frazer, Campbell, and Graves, and it's true of lesser copycats.

>>11207567
ok but you're missing out

>>11207571
>That is because you're being fascetious. The list o 12 arguments barely says anything at all, pure common sense

I am going to take that as you agreeing with them, so my point stands. Speak about the rest of his opinions as you like, so long as they are not his recommendations. I am not Peterson, so I cannot speak for him.

>>11207571
i'm not defending peterson; i'm attacking you cuz ur resentful and misguided

>>11207583
Lacan's charts are cooler

>>11207588
None of those things are direct or consequential to improving one's life, and they're such a void of actual meaning that agreeing or disagreeing with them is moot.
What the fuck is even the point of discussing how you should arch your back?
>>11207596
Why am I resented? I'm just sick of seeing this asshole's face all the fucking time. When it was only on /lit/ it was already kinda unbearable, but now he's leaking everywhere else and it's becoming actually painful to have to deal with common places that everyone already knows mean shit and having to pretend it's revolutionary. Whenever I tried to engage in actual meaningful discourse with these people it became a quasi-archeological effort, because these people only tell you what's not there, never what is, and whenever they happen to let you glimpse what's there and you refute it, they simply ignore you (much like you're doing in avoiding telling me why I'm wrong for criticizing the man without reading him while he does the same for monetary gain and I only do it for shitposting purposes)

>>11207604
Nice dude
Nice
but as Xzybit once said:
Yo dawg, I herd you like charts , so I put an chart in your diagram so you can map while you meaning

>>11207613
>I only do it for shitposting purposes
Aye the truth comes out
there's a good lad

>>11207628
Peterson isn't a hack
He's a fucking hawk
He must have 20/10 vision

>>11207636
At least i'm not profiteering off people who were too dumb to listen to their parents for free.

>>11207729
Not everyone has parents you miserable cunt

>>11207740
Schoolteachers, older relatives, your friendly neighrbouhood mailman, literally anyone who grew up and "is ok" with western society could have told you all this shit and it would have made the same difference as JBP telling you have (pretty much none), but you refused to listen because you were an edgy cunt.

>>11207729
The leap you are making is that because you know how to keep your life together at a basic level (presumably) everyone else does as well. Some people have absent parents, and some people have parents that cannot give any good advice because their lives are equally as messed up. Is it not noble to try to help those that cannot help themselves?

>>11207751
While I won't discuss a self help book's capacity to help someone or not (they have just about the same capacity as anything else, I got out of a pretty barren and depressing period in my life by getting back into MtG), my issue here is that he starts claiming he will help people and in the end just tell them to do exactly everything that put us in this shit situation in the first place, while also blaming writers he has no idea about and selling easy solutions to difficult problems to people who don't know better.

>>11207746
>everyone older than me is a clinical psychologist, published researcher, professor who taught at harvard and is freely dispensing jungian psychoanalysis
thanks bruv guess i'll grow up now

Peterson sells sex to virgins. It's easy to buy into his mundane bullshit if you've been a loser your entire life. It's insane that this dude sold the idea of good posture to young men. It's insane. I don't give a shit about him as a guy because he cashed in on other people's social discomfort which is admirable in some gross capitalistic way, but you are seriously a brainlet virgin if you think he is doing anything but selling vitamins to the morbidly obese.

>>11207758
>I got out of a pretty barren and depressing period in my life by getting back into MtG
I bet you don't even play eternal

>>11207746
yes I remember talking to the fucking mailman about the values of hierarchies.

Fuck off faggot, you just are unable to admit that Peterson does help people and has valuable things to say.

>>11207765
Actually this is exactly what I do and what helped me, managing to actually execute weird janky combos that would never see the light of the day in a limited format helped me get in the mindset to take control over some stuff in my lie.
>>11207768
Are you literally telling me you never had absolutely any figure of authority passing these values to you? Are you fucking Mogli the boy-wolf?
>>11207761
Mate the fact that his all these credentials and still gives the same life advice as at the time my borderline senile grandpa should give you a clue about how much of a hack this man is.

>>11207781
>Mate the fact that his all these credentials and still gives the same life advice as at the time my borderline senile grandpa should give you a clue about how much of a hack this man is

Except this advice is for those at the very bottom. You cannot really help someone unless you start from where they are.

>>11206713

>>11207789
Well, he sure is bottom of the barrel literature. Now, how someone at the very bottom of society could benefit from "pet some cats and keep ur back str8 brah" while also being complacent with the very same society that drove them to the bottom in the frist place.

>>11206897
It's a good immune system unironically

>>11207781
>janky combos
>get in the mindset to take control over some stuff in my lie
good on you lad
but be careful with what you wish for or you might suffer like this player who had to manually resolve the spell for 2 minutes (without being able to open the menu to concede)

>>11206713
Maps of Meaning is pretty fr*ckin good

>>11207819
I've seen you post this same print anywhere else, many keks.
Arena has already kinda gone to shit though, the metagame manages to somehow be even more restrained and unforgiving than actual standard. I'm willing to come back if they add in a Brawl mode because I'm kinda curious with the format and I don't think there are enough pirates to make an actually good Beckett Brass deck (I know she's kinda shit but I fucking love rum and piracy so I feel an obligation there).
Also, I fucking HATE Torment of Hailfire, but well, this is exactly what the card is supposed to do and I won't judge you for using it, I use a lot of cards people hate too.

>>11206804
>Peterson come out strongly in favor of gnosticism (he certainly has sympathies)
Goddamn if he is, he is the titular new age charlatan Christians always mocked current gnostics for. He is not even a good Jungian

>>11206729
im not sure but he certainly cried over INDIVIDUALISM, so...

>>11206864
In the sense that the only way you can impose perfect order to the extinction of chaos is at the cost of freedom. See all utopian visions that ended up requiring absolute control.

>late capitalist boomer society is alienating children from their parents and parents from their children
>jbp steps in to exacerbate that alienation by imposing boomer values on those children

yikes

How does such a boring man anger so many lefties in /lit/, only view he has is 'old fashioned' and that makes every lefty go feral on him

>>11207366
>mfw americans need people to tell them this shit
Truly a neoliberal wasteland.

>>11206804
Coherence and order doesn't always have to entail totalitarianism. Peterson is addressing his audience as individuals instead of as a group.

>>11207866
the manchildren who need to be told this were failed by their parents; spitting on their face for having to learn to be a real human bean isn't going to work or improve their condition

really its just self-help for failed people, why does it anger lefties so much?

>>11207859
If he didn't strawman Marxism and postmodernism and conflate the two literally not one leftist would pay attention to him

>>11207836
Playing cards for flavor reasons in a singleton format is one of the purest forms of self-expression you can share in the game.
DOM really fucked up the meta with borderline oppressive cards line Goblin Chainwhirler and Teferi. Not to mention Karn is everywhere.
You're not missing out anything decent
Hope your life skills of self-control have outgrown the trading card jew
I think three Ravnica return sets are part of conspiracy to entice enfranchised players back to standard

>>11207859
Mate, what angers us are people like you, who would rather talk by yourself about a imagined angry leftist instead of addressing all of the points raised against him itt.
>>11207874
This shit only makes sense if you even accept his weirdly arbitrary axioms for "order" and "chaos". How can a man be pro-order and against totalitarianism will forever escape me, since order, by it's own definition, is something that is imposed.
You might come up with some bullshit about "individual order" but order can't be individual, it has to rely on an outside source of what order should be, therefore creating a standard every individual must follow and becoming ontological totalitarianism;.

>>11207882
>imaginary angry leftist
you wouldn't believe that from the amount of rage hard on threads he gets here and the amount of feral articles written against him lmao

>>11207874
Why is groupthink so prevalent among his fans then? Not one of them ever approaches his work critically.

>>11207877
Here comes the 'he only helping retards' defense. Nobody cares if he is just another self-help person profiting off idiots, because they are already thousands of them. But he is talking about other things that he is absolutely brainlet in, creating more misconceptions in the people following him. You can shill this idiot in /r9k/, but please don't pretend he is some genius and saviour of the right on /lit/

>>11207882
>How can a man be pro-order and against totalitarianism
because forcing yourself doesn't mean forcing others against their will? hello?

The whole order/chaos thing is so transparently undialectical, like holy fuck. Someone get this man some Hegel.

>>11207894
>if it doesn't conform to my Academic narrative it's bayed
?

>>11207889
That image is heretical and postmodern as fuck. The irony is absurd.

>>11207897
Jung and Nietzsche are spinning in their graves

>>11207874
I addressed that here >>11207054 (as well as subsequent replies), but I see your perspective. Individuals that are able to discover meaning for themselves and yet for some reason do not feel compelled to organize with others who share their meaning, to actualize any values, or to convince others of them could, in principle, exist, but, as I mentioned, it will generally be to a person's advantage to work with others who share the meaning you have, and to convince others of the correctness of that meaning.
>>11207882
thanks for explaining senpai

>>11207893
"Order" isn an innate concept, it's something that comes from outside and in it's own signification implies a determined way of being. If the individual is free to create his own order, it cannot possibly be order. Let's say someone is a schizophrenic but he never gets treatment or gets his dellusions challenged, is that person in order?

>>11206713
OBSESSED

>>11207908
forcing yourself doesn't mean forcing others, hello????

>>11207896
>dialectics
>"academic narrative"

holy fuck get off this board right now

>>11207914
found the soft spot didn't i, commie?

>>11207912
If you are forcing yourself to fit to some outside ideal of "order", that ideal is totalitarian, not you.
Jesus Christ this shouldn't be very difficult in a board which memes the term "spooks" 24/7.

So which timezone is /leftypol/ on now? I doubt it's a European one as it's much too early for them and the million dollar homes they've vandalised with graffiti of hammers and sickles and urinated next to their sleeping bags while they're squatting, are soundproof enough to not be disturbed by the traffic of people heading to work.

>>11207917
>because you are putting your life in order it means you are being totalitarian dictator who is forcing entire country to do x
jesus whats wrong with you

>>11207918
>all these red-baiting from petersonfags

i have figured this out

according to leftypol

i need to sleep in a ditch with a bear dick in my ass so i dont have any social evil capitalist constructs making me do things because that'd be evil, capitalistic and negative in every sense

>>11207923
My point is that there is no sure and certified way to put your life in order. His notion of "order" only works if you agree with his precepts and very clearly can only generate a very limited range of individuals (namely, 24 year old boomers)

>>11207923
>means you are being totalitarian dictator who is forcing entire country to do x
jesus wjats wrong with your reading comprehension?

>>11207917
>Jesus Christ this shouldn't be very difficult in a board which memes the term "spooks" 24/7.

He actually thinks /lit/ agrees with Stirner.

guys if you clean your teeth the capitalist wins because the doctor imposed evil capitalist dichotomy on you

don't clean your teeth
let them rot

that way you show the evil old white men

/leftypol/ seething ITT

Development in all systems is spiral-like, never circular; it is ‘imperceptible’ micro-spiral change (order, partial, quantitative) in the old order, which suddenly becomes transformative macro-spiral change (chaos, wholesome, qualitative) towards the new order. Chaos plays games inside the dominance of order, whilst order expectantly dances inside the ascendancy of chaos. This undialectical drive to excise all chaos and to remain in the mode of "order" leads to disaster. Jordan, who seemingly thinks he understands the horrors of the 20th century better than anyone, should know this but he doesn't because he's just another dimestore fascist.

wiping your ass is totalitarian because you got the idea from tv

don't wipe your ass

show the evil white men what's up

>not wiping your ass to own the capitalists
>not brushing your teeth to own the capitalists
>killing your family to own the capitalists
if you can't do these you are totalitarian hitler and evil white men win

dont be like that

>not killing yourself to own the capitalist
this way you get rid of the property in your body, as long as you remember to explode so nothings left of you to harvest

>>11207933
/lit/ is a board buddy, people here agree with all sorts of things, but if we were to try and make an ethnography of it, I'm sure it woul align much more with Stirner than with Kermit.
>>11207937
/regularpol/ not responding any criticism as usual

>>11207933
>He actually thinks /lit/ agrees with Stirner
Get out of my board newfag

>>11207915
>hegel was a commie

get off the board right now, you peter joseph watson tier dum-dum

>>11207366
What if.. wait for it.. I don't like my children skateboarding?
Well?

>>11207948
potatoe potato

>>11207941
See my dude, I get that you're trying to do the reductio ad absurdum thing but what you're doing is precisely showing how Peterson sneaks in a bunch of neoliberal ideology behind his common sense bullshit.
No one thinks wiping their asses or brushing their teeth is wrong, but then again, no one is using wiping their ass or brushing their teeth as anglo-retardation apologetics.

>>11207955
>No one thinks wiping their asses or brushing their teeth is wrong
it is, you got this totalitarian idea of paper having control over your shit from capitalistic doctor and evil talmudvision infomercial

you are ideologically constructed robot who is too weak to be critical of himself by blowing himself up to own the capitalists.

>>11207954
one spelling is incorrect, one spelling is correct - way to completely own yourself you fucking mongoloid.

>>11207942
you don't have to be associated with /pol/ to laugh at /leftypol/
loads of people on /pol/ hate peterson because he speaks out against identity politics on the right as well
just see how they received his blog on the jewish question

>>11207942
Are you just entirely incapable of understanding that I meant the consensus of /lit/?
>>11207955
Not him, but it sounds like you don't understand reducto ad absurdum. The point is not that he takes one of your actual arguments and reiterates it, but that he takes it to the extreme and shows you the fundamental flaw. I.e. something it would call for at the extreme, but that clearly should not be called for, like dismissing tooth brushes.

>>11207960
right and wrong spellings are social constructs thus
1. evil
2. totalitarian
2. capitalistic
3. must be eradicated

>>11207961
Alright, /kermitpol/ once again not responding to literally any of the criticisms raised against JPB, save for shit like >>11207959 in which they purposefully ignore the rest of the post and focus on whatever's interesting for them.
>>11207969
Once again, the consensus of /lit/ is much more stirnerian than you're thinking, and much less kermitian as well.

>>11207974
you need more typos in your post because now you are projecting the totalitarian capitalistic school teaching that made you learn to spell 'correctly' which itself is a evil capitalistic product of evil capitalistic society of evil capitalistic schooling and a social construct so its not even real.

you are ideologically guided bot until you can kill yourself.

>>11207961
>Ran out of arguments
>better ignore all the reply chains and just keep shitposting

>>11207974
>Once again, the consensus of /lit/ is much more stirnerian than you're thinking, and much less kermitian as well.

No, it's really not. Peterson's way of thinking is build on a lot of the same precursors of the majority /lit/ views. Stirner dismisses nearly everything, making him entirely unaligned with those who do not align themselves entirely. You can half agree with Peterson, but not with Stirner.

>>11207974
>Consensus of /lit/
this is totalitarian idea where you impose your view on the entire group of /lit/izens please take this hitlerian behavior away

He refuses to answer the Jewish question so no.

>>11207982
>Stirner dismisses nearly everything, making him entirely unaligned with those who do not align themselves entirely.
Where do you think all these memes come from?

>stirnerian
>kermitian
>totalitarian
>hitlerian

i just came outside
do you know why

i decided to shit on the street

i REJECT the totalitarian space-time control of a WC toilet,the product of evil capitalistic society; that it can command me to go to bathroom when the urge comes

NO MORE

>not shitting on the street to own the white men

>>11207994
>tfw no stirnerian totalitarian gf who cosplays as kermit and HEILS HITLER

>>11207991
he did his best
https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/

>>11208009
Kevin MacDonald already tore this to shreds.

>>11207955
>how Peterson sneaks in a bunch of neoliberal ideology
What's wrong with disagreeing with you exactly?

>>11206713
Yup.

>>11207087
How does 1 lead to 2 in your nazi tumblr post?

>>11208037
1 assumes you haven't moved beyond the relativist's paradox: that if subjectivity is supreme, then relativism too is a subjective conclusion, so why should you believe in relativism absolutely? The relativist’s own conviction in relativism shows that he himself does not consider subjectivity to be a barrier to his conclusion. In which case, non-relativists don't need to consider subjectivity a barrier to their conclusions either.

If value judgments are subjective and are considered to not be absolute, then why is it that one subjective conclusion is better than another? If you assert that one is better than another, you're denying the value judgments of some other individuals; on what basis do you claim superiority of your viewpoint? Why could the other individual not claim the superiority of their own viewpoint?
If there are no ways of determining if one side has the "superior viewpoint," then why should they be treated differently?

>>11206780
honestly writes the same as he speaks. at least i felt the way with 12 rules for life

>>11208089
That's 12 year old logic.
There's usually tons of ways to determine if a side is right or not.

>>11208175
O rly? give some examples
also, reminder that logic is a patriarchal oppressive system rooted in Eurocentric values, so you can't use it to justify oppressing me people actually believe this

BASED POLYMATH and SJW DESTROYER Jordan Peterson actually inspire creative endeavours in people, checkmate antifa commies
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8kcqsa/inspired_by_the_work_of_jordan_peterson_i_wrote_a/

>>11207321
You had to give out that you're a commie didn't you?

Peterson is a retard, but the absolute state of the left is not much better

>>11208238
Are they actually debating, then? I thought that wasn't going to happen?

>>11208221
>this isn't actually satire

>>11208238
I thought Zizek couldn't plan events in advance anymore because of his Kidney Cancer?

>>11206729
He cries all the time in his videos. Really don't know how he did his job if he breaks down when someone mentions something a little upsetting.

>>11206729
>Can we stop posting it with a "he looks silly here" attitude?
Where do you think we are?

>>11208261
>Commie gets a kidney cancer from huffing asbestos.

getting cancer to own the capitalists

>>11208266
Retard.
Give this some more consideration and introspection and you might somedy get it. Peterson was not only confrontes with terrible depression and despair in individual lives through his proffession but even more so in his own family. His daughter was very ill on many levels since very early childhood. He had several close friends that ended their life out of despair. He himself has to deal with depression that has been part of his whole life.
He cries when talking about these things because he knows exactly what the places look like that people go to when they are willing to kill themselfs. He knows the unimaginable depth of the all consuming hole of depression all to well. He also knows the pain that resides in the family of people who an hero.
He cries because he feels as if/ he believes the pain of every single individual on planet earth is his personal businesse.

Show some respect for people and try to understand them instead of projecting your destructive attitude onto the world.

Just because you feel numb doesn't mean everybody else does anon.

>>11208316
Wait hold up. So he has all these problems and yet says "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world"? Physician, heal thyself.

>>11208284
A cess pool for degenerates that are so full of themselfs that they describe everyone but themselfs as total retards but never explain why.

Peterson is so hated on 4chan and elsewhere because his narrative lays the degeneration of ones character directly at their feet. Some decide to look at it but can't stand the pain and effort that would lead to change. Others shy away from even acknowledging that JP knows something they don't. That's why there are so many 4channers that denounce him as a dimwit. The thing you yourself fear the most to be is the thing you hate the most in others. Sometimes you even project this repressed part of yourself onto your sourroundings.

I find it fascinating that /lit/ is so illiterate and non reflective when it comes to psychology. I thought about making weekly threads about psychology but they wouldn't gain any traction i think. Or just be flooded with retards

>>11208347
>resorting one cliche with another

>>11208347
psychology is psuedo science

>>11206804
The irony is, of course, that the individualism he supports has its basis in a group, the Anglos. It does not come out of a vacuum, no one in the past had the thought "ah ha! Wouldn't it be great if we all adopted individualism". It came about organically as part of the culture of a specific group of people building a civilization under certain circumstances and breeding under both cultural and environmental conditions that encouraged this to come about. Individualism is culturally and ethnically linked to a specific group and attempts to implement it as a universal value have had mixed to negative effects which Peterson refuses to address. The reason he refuses to address the distress individualism produces in more group oriented cultures and ethnicities is that these failures of it to produce universally identical results is that either individualism is not a universal or, even more dangerously, that different groups display different levels of aptitude at living up to this universal. The first option would be admitting limitations on the concept, which Peterson does not want to do, the second sneaks the concept of racial hierarchy in via the back door.

>>11208356
Not really a lot of problem in other civilization is because of corruption and tribalism, i.e the congo

>>11208364
How is it a problem? China has a very realistic chance to dethrone United States as the world economical superpower and they're like fucking insects.

Seems to work for them.

>>11208334
LOL he takes anti depressants and those have made him totally stable. Also changing his diet has helped alot

He is by a far margin not a very flawed individual. You don't seem to understand what mental health really means if you think peterson has a lack thereof.

Although I think there is some room to discuss JP in a reichian context. He never talked about Reich even once wether that's because of keeping face in the public or because he doesn't know/approve of his work is unclear but the discussion would be about the lack of enphasis on the physical body.

Reich discovered that body and mind, although contradictory entities are a functional unit. That means a healthy body is a healthy mind with an exceptional focus on orgasmic potency i.e. sexual(emotional) health.

People that follow peterson are either to pretentious or to ignorant or dumb to lead a real discussion about and around the man.

>>11208353
Well if you say so.
I'm sure you have done everything within your posibillities to be skeptical of your own beliefes.
Have you read even one significant psychologist mister shitposter?

>>11208379
I read abt some dude who thought cigars are dicks and we must fuck our mothers to kill our ego

it's pseudo scienc made by academics trying to justify their retarded tax free salary, fucking state enabled welfare queens

>>11208370
Chinese fuck each other over at every opportunity. muh famiry but fuck everyone else. This is what you get after living in psychotic societies where caring about other people means risking your life.

>>11208383
I believe you are refereing to freud.
Read up on Willhelm Reich if you want to understand where Freud went wrong and how psschology took a vast turn that, to this day, has not been recognized by mainstream academia because it was too radical.

Keep and open mind and keep questioning your beliefs. It will be worth it if you start to see light at the end of this tunnel anon

>>11208387
Mass neurosis is the biggest problem we have around the world. It is the root of fascism.
This is a bioenergetic illness that manifests itself in destructive societal outbreaks

>>11208364
This does not really address what I wrote. I agree that corruption and tribalism are sub-optimal social arrangements. My point is that people who want to universalize individualism often have a kind of crypto-blankslatism and refuse to acknowledge any genetic component as to why these values or behaviors only developed on one small island and have being alien to most every other race and civilization through history.

>>11208399
Lmao anglo get over yourself. Are you saying france and Germs never developped anything like that ?

Hell most succesful anglo are from french families.

>>11208399
That's just not true tho. It doesn't matter where it originated. Individualism is the healthy core of every human being. The problem is that our society has gone wrong about 6000 years ago(James Demeo). Violence started to spread and resulted in societal constructions that pushed neurosis onto every citizen.(Wilhelm Reich)
Saying that individualism is flawed because it can't be inplemented in a fundamentally flawed society is circular reasoning.
The society is flawed in such a way that every step towrds emotional freedom is met with tighter clenching of the collective flow of the emotional energy because most humans are scared of freedom.
If you say thats wrong read 'Masspsycholgy of fascism' by Wilhelm reich and compare it to history.
I really urge anyone thats reading my comment to look into Reich's work. You will come across many defamations of his personality and work but just read the books and encounter him first hand.

>>11208414
What about mass psychology of communism

thoughts?

>>11206740
just you wait til Blood Meridian is a netflix HBO series and you will know

>>11208408
No, not to the extent that it occurred in England. Continental Europeans have commented on the individualism of the English throughout history, and it is evidenced by the family structures. You are right insofar as if you compared Germany, France, England with an African or Asian nation, you would find the Europeans all scoring very highly on both Individualism tracking nearly 1 to 1 with less generations living under one roof. How ever within Europe England is the most extreme case of both Indervidualism as a value and of the nuclear family being dominate. On the world scale yes, you can kind of blob England and Central Europe together.

>>11208414
>Saying that individualism is flawed because it can't be implemented in a fundamentally flawed society is circular reasoning.

Good thing I didn't argue that then.

>>11208454
Oh you suggested that because of genetic reasons for exanple niggers or other shitskins can't grasp the nature of individualism?
Besides the point that this is extremly racist it is just not true. There is no evidence AT ALL that genetics or IQ or any sort of intelligence measurement effects the capability of people to be moral.
I work with intellecutally disabled people and many of them are very moral people even more so than "normal" humans.

If you really want to discuss this go ahead and lay out the point you want to make. I'll read it with an open mind and maybe we can both get something out of this

>>11208447
I don't know what you mean by individualism but i think you have a wrong vision of the ideas this concept encomoasses

>>11207558
>>11207412
as if i needed confirmation that this board was filled with resentful leftists

>>11208468
>Oh you suggested that because of genetic reasons for exanple niggers or other shitskins can't grasp the nature of individualism?

A genetic component was indeed part of my argument. I would assume some can not grasp sure, but more so many evidently do not value it, and the reason they do not value or or display behaviors counter will no doubt have a large genetic component. Belief otherwise assumes a leveling, an interchangeability of humanity that rests on a fundamental assumption of the blank slate.

>>11208432
Willhelm Reich poses a psycholgy of fascism as a whole that includes left and right wing

>>11208521
No it doesn't it is based on the assumption that humans are living individual entities that can evolve in a lifetime and especially over generations.
Also as clearly stated above: Read 'Masspsychology of fascism' by Willhelm Reich and you will know exactly why people are against individualism.

It is because individualism is synonymous for the free flow of 'libido' or natural impulses (which are not inherently destructive as freud posed). People that are neurotic( basically everyone in modern society) are scared of the flow of this energy in themselfs. They reoress it because society punished them for letting it flow in the past. So when they come across these things that make tge energy flow they clamp down even more on themselfs and others. It's kinda like cain and able. You see others that are happy and you know you yourself can never be happy so you deny the happiness of the other amd ultimately want to destroy it

>>11207558
>fuck good posture!

>race baiting

>durr petersons a christian

>cant understand simple sentence

>corporal punishment

>so?

>durr distorts postmodernism rather then critiques it

>please let this be bait

>he is precise with his speech

>what?

>fuck you

>>11208545
>blasts you with my orgone beam

Gene-culture coevolution and behavioral heritability are pretty interesting topics that you may want to do some reading on. Reich is new ager garbage, I am sorry.

There’s literally nothing wrong with anything he says. Reddit and /leftypol/ just hate him because they hate the idea of young white men bettering themselves and a non-leftist being influential.

>>11207321
I love how everyone is shitting on some random anon in an image board for giving his opinion while not having read Peterson's self-help book, yet Peterson himself talks about actual philosophers without having read them

>>11208585
So healing cancer with a supposedly non-existent form of energy is new age garbage?
As I said. Try to be skeptical of yourself and the paradigms of academia.

>>11208680
>this claim again

>>11208615
reddit loves him so your point does not hold

>>11208504
As if I needed confirmation that is board is filled with reactionary teens that are incapable of forming arguments and coherent thoughts.

>>11208581
>fuck good posture!
Wasn't my argument. In fact, I literally started my sentence with "Sure, it's good for your back."

>race baiting
Not an argument.

>durr petersons a christian
He's a Gnostic.

>cant understand simple sentence
Incoherent in that it lacks any sort of internal logic when placed within the context of the rest of Peterson's philosophy. Being at war with the person you were yesterday only makes sense if you are ruthlessly committed to dialectics, and Peterson is quite undialectical.

>corporal punishment
Not an argument.

>so?
You admit he employs sophistry then? At least we can meet on common ground here. Good.

>durr distorts postmodernism rather then critiques it
Yes, he distorts the meaning of it and tilts at windmills in the process.

>please let this be bait
Not an argument.

>he is precise with his speech
No, he is not. See: "the ancient Chinese discovered the DNA helix but I can't explain why" or his hilarious answer to the question of whether or not he believes in the literal birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

>what?
Not an argument.

>fuck you
Not an argument.

Is this the power of Petersonian thinking? Yikes. Can't say I expected any better, though.

>>11208585
Reich was right, you know

>>11207412
Nice assessment, would have been great if peterson's work was literally this list and not exploration of the idea of
>Meaningful how? Who decides? How?

Which is the biggest part of his work. I mean he has an entire book about mapping out the meaning in person's life.

>>11208760
It's not a "claim" when Peterson himself said he never read the philosophers he blames the fall of western society on.

>>11208793
He's only read Stephen Hicks' book on postmodernism, which explains a lot.

>>11208797
>an american with Hick on his name fails to understand actual academics

p o t t e r y

>>11208790
>MUH DICK

https://www.quora.com/What-does-Jordan-Peterson-mean-when-he-talks-about-enforced-monogamy/answer/Shern-Ren-Tee?share=6293275a&srid=hVg9

absolutely btfo, holy fuck

>>11208837
>trilemma, a liar or a lunatic.
umm.

>>11208884
>one wonders if he is, to truncate CS Lewis’s famous trilemma, a liar or a lunatic.
>only reading the end of sentences for maximum speed

>>11208615
>reddit likes him
>boiling reddit down to a single ideology
????????????????????????????????????

being this braindead, the average JP fan ladies and gentleman

>>11208922
Hello, reddit.

Just another celebrity-god in the final days.

>>11206729
The photo is shopped though. The hair is from that meme dude with the shit haircut. I think the redness of his eyes and his skin has been exagerated too

>>11208981
>that photo is shopped
oh my god really you think so pham senpai dong ding dang

>>11206713

yeah

>>11208981
the hair is from the meme, the redness of his eyes and skin is all him

Most people that hate Peterson are discord trannies, communists or furries.

>>11209072
None of the above here.

I just get annoyed by his pseudo-christian wishy washiness, and connection with Monsanto. He's a dweeb who hit the big time by reciting the work of better men.

>>11209072
I relay started having problems with him, when he said he cant answer if he beloved in God. But pretends to be Christian anyway.

>>11209100
I don't believe in God, but now that I have to choose Muslim culture and Arabs or Christians and whites the answer is really easy to make

>>11209103
Mhm, choose English first, nigga

>>11207412
You clearly aren't familiar with his work..

>>11207412
Wow. Thanks Anon for debunking this pseudointelectual's book that you didn't even read

>>11209113
you really proved him wrong there

t. typical jp fan response

>>11207412
This is why Donald Trump won in 2016, you realize that?

>>11209072
Or almost any kind of academic or professor. He makes the whole community look bad.

>>11209072
This.

>>11209113
I thought I made that pretty clear. I spent a few hours on J.P.'s nonsense, and that was enough.
However, I can say three things with confidence:
1. Peterson's website opens with the most self-aggrandizing blurb I have ever seen in my life. It's Trump-worthy, and it's not hard to judge his ego size from it, from "raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta" all the way to "one of three truly life-changing teachers." (http://jordanbpeterson.com/))
2. Dr. Jordan B. Peterson will probably earn $7,000,000 this year. He's now getting over a million dollars a year just from Patreon donations (to "creat[e] lectures about profound psychological ideas"!) as well as his ongoing $165,0000/year U. Toronto salary, and the royalties from his books ( 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, is now Amazon’s most read (and most sold) nonfiction book, and tearing up most other charts). Given the current sales and assuming a modest 10% royalty, Peterson will probably earn over two million in 2018 from book sales. Then we add in his biggest earner: speaking fees (in the $35,000 - 50,000 range per talk). He gave up his clinical practice a year or two ago, but will probably speak at roughly a hundred events this year. based on his site's calendar (so perhaps another four million). Overall, Peterson's 2018 gross earnings should top seven million dollars. Looking at the comments his Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook pages garner, I'm sure most of his patrons are a bumper crop of enlightened individuals and not at all the kind of assclowns who call strangers "feminazi cunts" at rallies.
3. Nobody asked him. Nobody asked Peterson to use specific pronouns, or if he "recognized" genderless pronouns (he does: he uses the singular they in his lecture videos). Nobody at his job tried to make him do anything at all until he started this media circus and pretended he understood law, biology, and transgender identity better than the experts on those topics.
(Oh, bonus one: you can use most of his arguments about how "trans people can't tell ME what words to use!" to defend using racial slurs with almost no change of wording in his answers).
So, overall, the evidence really compels me to believe that Peterson is a Grade-A asshole with a massive ego and more intellect than compassion or ethics. That's just a working theory, of course, but It's also almost the end of my mild interest in him.

>>11207366
this sounds like it's from a tv sitcom. this is advice mr feeny would give.

>>11209240
Wtf? How? He is at best exposing academia for the spineless garbage can of people it is

>>11209252
>he's at his best when he's validating my preconceived notions
of course, that's where the money is

>>11209248
You underestimate the danger of radical collectivist ideology. Look at incidents like lindsey shepard or simply the indoctrination in canada or the us.
There is mental health crisis and i think peterson doesnt adress it from the rigjt perspective but his way of thibking and speaking is a very good role model for young intellectual males

I decided to stay away from Peterson when I figured out that he was the professor who refused to use appropriate gender pronouns in the viral video from 2015. Anyone associated with that sort of thing can only be a big ass psued magnet for people who speak in phrases they learned online, and I am not falling for their tricks. From what I've heard that he is just affirming the importance of conservatism and western tradition I am not interested anyway. If Peterson dms me or meets me in real life and gives $700 I will shill for him and for the beauty of the west on /lit/.

>>11209263
>Look at incidents like lindsey shepard
the chick who didn't lose her job and is now an international celebrity to retards

>>11209252
Yes, but the difference is that I actually know what Canadian academia is like, and most of Peterson's fans don't, so they take his word for it. For the most part, that's horseshit peddled by people like Peterson and Janice Fiamengo. I've been teaching at Canadian universities for many years now, and I have never had anything remotely resembling the "snowflake/safe space" garbage they insist is so rampant. I've specifically taught courses on banned and challenged material. I've made 120 undergrads read American Psycho, Lolita, Fear and Loathing, and many other controversial books. Their "cultural Marxist" narrative is a fantasy, propped up by the occasional dumb student or prof making headlines over nothing. My thousands of students never complained I was making a hostile environment, never whined about being triggered, and either did the work or failed. Peterson is talking out of his ass because it's making him rich.

>most people that criticise him actually didn't read MAPS OF MEANING
12 rules is mostly life advice. His intelectual work is Maps of Meaning. Read it if you want to understand his ideas.
The funny thing is that some anons in this thread didn't even read 12 rules and are attacking him, while admitting being commies. It's obvious that they attack him because he is a political opponent, they have no interest whatsoever in his ideas beyond politics...

>>11209263
No, I don't. People wildly overestimate the degree to which this is an actual problem, and willfully ignore all the other forms of unjust and idiotic bureaucracy that go on in institutions. The few real Marxist profs who have always been around haven't managed to do much of anything in the past half-century. I'm a Canadian professor, and the son of one. I grew up with this environment and know it very well.

>>11209288
What course?

>>11209305
The books I mentioned were part of a third-year American Literature course (special topic), focused on 20th-century banned and challenged works. However, I've also taught American Psycho (and various other unpleasant texts) in horror classes, and other risky material from time to time in other courses. Good Canadian students, overall, are ready to tackle anything.

>>11209271
Because she recorded and was brave enough to release it. Most people remain silent

>>11209262
If you truly believe that our current established western education system is anything but childabused and indoctrination into a pathological society you are brainwashed beyond saving my friend

>>11209265
>appropriate gender pronouns
If you think this degerate bullshit is appropriate, you're delusional

>>11209295
I agree that education and state institutions have bigger problems than marxism but the pathological egaletarian ideology taught at most schools even as early as kindergarden is a concrete symptom of an underlying societal pathology.
And I'll say it again Peterson doesn't adress the issue as frank as he could and should BUT he is (I hope) working really hard and spending that huge budget he now has on a education reform cornerstone. Which makes him in effect a Reichian if he wants to or not.

>>11209348
You like the word "pathological" too much, anon. I've spent 40+ years in Canadian schools and universities. I have four degrees from four different ones, and have taught at several for years. I utterly disagree with your perspective, so let's leave it there. There's no common ground to be had.

>>11208440
WIFE MATERIAL

>>11209248
>he is sucesfull
>his students regard him as a life changing professor
>he doesn't like the bill C-16
I don't think any of these things are bad

>>11209400
didn't his Patreon at one point make like 40,000 USD a month?

>>11209364
Lel, not him, but larping is strong with you. My credentials are dwarfed by your illustrious academic career, I'm a mere PhDless humanities lecturer in the UK, but I can certainly confirm that most of my colleagues are champagne Marxists who weaponise postmodernism and use its anti-essentialist core to smuggle in the Marxist oppressor-oppressed power struggle metanarrative. This is mostly true for Mickey Mouse humanities courses, but the truth of the matter is that those comprise the majority of humanities courses.

>>11209416
Resentment is the nucleus of the triggered /leftypol/ invader.

>>11209416
Probably. I don't see the problem with that, what's your point exactly?

>>11207412
this has to be bait

>>11207412
ahahahahahahah. Imagine typing all this to communicate nothing. How is day to day life when a youtube celebrity fills you with so much rage, to the point of losing all impulse control?

>>11209460
apparently writing more than 2 lines is "rage"

>>11208545
>>11208414
>Mass Psychology of Fascism
"Fascism is not, as is generally believed, a purely reactionary movement; rather, it is a mixture of rebellious emotions and reactionary social ideas."
I somewhat agree with this, however in the next part:
"If, by being revolutionary, one means rational rebellion against intolerable social conditions, if, by being radical,
one means "going to the root of things," the rational will to improve them, then fascism is
never revolutionary."
So when, according to him, is rebellion/will "rational" or "irrational"? When it aligns with his specific conception of what should be rational, when it goes to "the root of things" that he agrees with? He goes on to describe fascism as the "sum total of all irrational reactions" for having "racial hatred" and yet mentions that he believes human nature can be improved within the same preface. Which is it, that human nature can be improved, and thus a hierarchy can be defined (which would justify the different treatment by one group toward another), or that actualizing this improvement is irrational? He can't have it both ways, unless his position is that the only way man can be "improved" is by becoming more tolerant of other ideas i.e. to stop making any value judgments.
"Fascist mentality is the mentality of the subjugated "little man" who craves authority and rebels against it at the same time."
Did he ever consider that someone could want to rebel against something, and support actualizing that rebellion through any means, even allowing someone who shares their values to fight for them? He presupposes that people long for authority to guide them when people could just want to group up with similar people to actualize their values.
I see no reason to read more than the preface of this book if he's engaging with these ideas disingenuously. If you can convince me that there's something of value in his work I'll look into it further.

He also equates National Socialism with Fascism, which I would consider erroneous (pic related).

>>11209444
No problem to me.
Just surprised about his success considering his message in 2018 is very old timey.

>>11209491
That quote in your picture.

It actually fits 100% to this book.
And this book is fucking wild.

>>11209498
Here is review from Star Tribune, Minnesota paper and I agree with its summary.

>Stolfi is no apologist for Hitler in the sense of minimizing his culpability for the Holocaust and the war, but the biographer wants to understand, even empathize, with the man. He portrays Hitler's great personal courage during World War I as an intrepid combat soldier, and afterward as a man who personally waged war in the streets of Germany against Marxist street gangs. Stolfi quotes Thomas Mann's reluctant admission that Hitler was an artist, and shows, in detail, Hitler's consummate understanding of opera and architecture and how those arts shaped his view of history and modern Germany. Stolfi analyzes Hitler as a world leader of astonishing capability, a leader unlike any other politician of his time. Hitler was a messiah, wishing to create a new Germany unencumbered by the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty that crippled German politics and the country's economy. Over and over, Hitler made decisions alone, drawing on an inner inspiration -- which Stolfi likens to Muhammad's impetus -- and commanding not only a loyal band of followers but the allegiance of millions.
>"The Allies did not win the war; Hitler lost it," Stolfi claims in this rousing book, which is sure to provoke outrage but also admiration for its author's attempt to offer a new and more comprehensive understanding of Hitler's psyche.
> “The great biographers take excessive liberties in denigrating his person, and, in doing so, they make it difficult to comprehend him." - Stolfi

>>11209502

>>11209544
>if I shame the virgins I win
what did the roastie mean by this?

fucking captchas collecting data for musk's robot carsd LET ME POST

>>11209561
calm down incelman

>>11206740
>lit only hates him now
/lit/ never liked him.

>>11209565
I'm not incel, I use escort(s) once a month :3

If you shame people for being virgins you make your roastie being nothing but an object; a hole.

pretty low of you
sort yourself out..

>>11209572
lol get a hold of yourself pussy

>>11209570
No one except brainwashed leftists and contrarians can hate the truths that Dr. Peterson tells, and it's known that /lit/ is being invaded by leftypol.

>>11206713
Ive audiobooked his 12 rules. It was one long blogpost where he can't stay on topic for more than a minute. He should stick with his lectures.

>>11206713

the bill c16 shit has been around in various provinces for ages, it was just made federal, if it was so fuckin dangerous
why hasn't there been 1 singular case of someone getting charged yet? you know if there was he'd be dying to shout that shit from the mountain tops

>>11207882
Yeah, I see what you mean. After an individual's mind is "ordered," the only logical step afterwards is to impose that order on others, leading to totalitarianism. That's exactly what his fans are doing too.

>>11207940
I see what you mean, but can you provide an example?

>>11206729
Nope. He's crying over individualism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvBm0ZUfe7I

>>11211187
my fucking sides

>>11211187
That's embarrassing to watch.

>>11206745
>actual National Socialism, stuff like what /pol/ was around 2014-15
And it's telling that both the nazis and the feminists are on a crusade against him...

>>11206804
>Miguel Serrano

>>11211203
>>11211207
lol too bad the vid where he starts blubbering while retelling pinocchio is too big for 4chan

>>11209491
Look.
To understand Reich you have to understand hos concept of body armour and the physiological effects of emotional surpression.
If your emotions get surpressed by society they get unconcious. The freudian 'libido' is now stuck and will eventually lead to a desteuctive ventilation of said energy. The 'little man' cravea for authority because he has emotionally be conditioned to do so. He has become afraid of being responsible for his own freedom because he can't even understand his own emotions. He has become cut off from his vegetative vitality, it has been locked up in his unconcious were it produces desteuctive behaviour. Every invoking of movement in this locked and tightened up energy system is painful for the little man since the aroused affectice energy is not being released properly (orgastic potency).

Look i'm super stoned and it's really late. I really hope you can be skeptical of your believes and just read reichs book : The function of the orgasm the first part of it is essential to understand his work imo

>>11206973
No one's going to go to court for not calling someone a preferred pronoun, will someone go jail for not obeying court orders grown out of protracted legal battles over stupid shit tolerated by the law. Well it's only a matter of time, the academic that scolded like Lindsay Shepard said himself she contravened Canadian human rights law.