/lit/ - Literature

>>11255212
Peterson doesn't read primary sources
>What about Peterson’s sources? The Derrida quote that identifies deconstruction with a “certain spirit of Marxism”—elsewhere, he identifies it with America—is to be found at the start of Stephen Hick’s Explaining Postmodernism, suggesting that Peterson never read Spectres de Marx (1993) directly. Explaining Postmodernism is indeed the only synoptic work on the relevant intellectual history that Peterson ever cites in 12 Rules. The rest of Peterson’s take on Derrida in 12 Rules improves, ever so slightly, in its honesty, but conflates the hierarchies that Derrida was actually interested in interrogating—metaphysical ones from the history of philosophy—with Peterson’s famed dominance hierarchies, and appears to be derived from a summary of a summary of a summary of Derrida’s late 1960s or early 1970s work.

all knowledge is revelational and therefor incommunicable. The best you can do is ape symbols at one another, and as formal logic shows, any degree of formal rigidity corresponds with an exponential loss the ability to express anything meaningful.

>>11255248
>all knowledge is revelational and therefor incommunicable
i don't understand this

>>11255257
he's spouting post-modern drivel.
>you can't know anything
don't do anything then, just rot away so we can continue society's upkeep without your entropy.

>>11255212
There's no way he said that.

What about first-order logic

>>11255263
can you repeat this? i don't understand what you're saying

>>11255263
>you can't know anything
Don't strawman, the first words in the sentence is "all knowledge is revelation" which very much implies we can know things. That being said, it's a very weak challenge to anything unless you define what revelation is/how it comes about through language.

>>11255281
lmao http://archive.is/khKVm

>>11255212
>muh axioms
Pseud.

Tell me the difference between jordan peterson and this guy except peterson doesnt care about abortion and reads about marduk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwLDP8pocwo

>>11255281
oh yes he deed

every single person i know who likes him suffers from dunning kreuger its truly remarkable how much of a pseud honeypot he is

>>11255248
based. we need more mathematician autists and fewer humanities faggots to discover the truth.

I am graduated in math and I see nothing wrong with his statement. Godel indeed proved that some axioms are necessary in order to stablish high-order proofs, like complex fractions operations

>>11255257
That’s fine, >>11255257 doesn’t either.

>>11255295
It’s as big of a challenge to modern ideas of knowledge as there can be. It’s also meaningless babble.

>>11255343
>pseud honeypot
lol

fuck you

>>11255212
Because it is hard. Reading a book by a pseud who assumes things on the other hand is not hard.

>>11255379
>That’s fine, >>11255257 doesn’t either
eh?

>>11255248
based

>>11255257
formalized knowledge is always an abstraction from immediacy

>>11255506
>formalized knowledge is always an abstraction from immediacy
what?

>>11255263
this is the purpose of faith. it is true that you cant know anything. thus you elect to have faith so that you CAN know things (or at least pretend to).

>>11255257
It's just the Socratic method.

>>11255489
meant for >>11255263

But take, by way of analogy since those are often the clearest way of expressing inexpressible truths, a mathematical formula.
Perhaps you know all the axioms to a mathematical system, perhaps you can follow every step rationally, but if you're reading a mathematical text it will usually take a second or third reading to REALLY get it. When you do, it's not simply a rational understanding of what's being stated, rather its a beam of light emanating from within and illuminating your brain. Mathematics are a useful heuristic, but only insofar as they aid towards the goal of deeper understanding, which is experienced rather than expressed.

Same principle with focused meditation. Sit and concentrate on a given object for a half hour. It will start to unveil certain concepts and principles which had previously been hidden from sight. Pic related for example, to someone correctly primed Yang Hui's triangle will reveal all sorts of ideas. To someone not correctly primed, meditation on it will reveal the same. On the other hand, there are many people who take whole classes on Pascals triangle and come away having learned very little.

Or look at love. Love is a truth which acts on the world and is capable of incredible things. Whats more, the sensations of the heart often perceive clearly what's unperceptive to reason and sensation. But without experiencing it, and acting on that experience, these words mean nothing and sound absurd.

>>11256065
I don't understand, can you repeat what you're saying?

>>11255232
This is so painful and obvious. Peterson is like a half-smart who's never got past the penguin classics introduction, but its still one step ahead of his buddies.

>>11255257
Hey look at that I just read a relevant explanation this morning.
Here you go.
> taxonomic characters. As Kendrick expressed well: “Although a man can visually appreciate a very complex concept almost instantaneously, his much more limited capacity for verbal communication forces him to describe what he sees in a series of words, some of which convey more information than others. The taxonomist often nds himself in an analogous position. He may be able to assimilate the ‘facies’ of an organism at a glance, but in order to interpret to others what he sees, he must mentally dissect the organism and describe it as a series of characters, some of which may have greater signi cance than others” (1

>>11256154
I'm not sure I'm understanding

>>11256157
just think about it

>>11255257
The replies to this post are really disheartening

>This result, like the late paintings of Claude Monet, is easy to perceive, but
from a certain distance. A close look reveals only fastidious details that one
perhaps does not want to know.

>Neither is there a need to know, since this theorem is a scientific cul-de-sac:
in fact it exposes a way in with no way out. Since it is without exit, there is
nothing to seek and it is of no use to be expert in Gödel’s theorem.

OP btfo'd, peterson did nothing wrong

>>11256348
pls explain.

as someone who has no background in philosophy, i took it to mean our abilities to communicate what is in our head to others is limited by linguistics - both its imprecision and the difference in understanding of words between speaker and listener.

so i understand why it's incommunicable, but not necessarily why the fact that its revelatory makes it incommunicable. Isn't it incommunicable simply because we exist in separate bodies, with separate brains?

>>11256154
Why does it matter that some words convey more information than others? How does this make it difficult for one to verbalize?

>>11256531
each participant in the conversation brings a unique conception of any word. if you say 'cat' to me, we may generally picture the same form, yet our previous experiences plus individual cognition will mean what exactly 'cat' conjures up is going to be different for both of us

>>11256348
eh? I'm not really understanding what you're saying there

>>11255212
>be jew loving scam artist
>your favorite author explains the world in simple terms
>don't say shit

>>11256467
Unimportant details like the actual statements of the theorems?

>>11256559
Thank you.

The original statement was knowledge is incommunicable because it is revelational. Why does knowledge being revelational make it incommunicable? Is this because revelational knowledge can only be acquired through ones own perceptions of the world, and not through someone else's perceptions in the form of language?

>>11256467
I googled the quotation you've posted and found the book it's from. If gödel missummarizers like Peterson even understood that summary explanation i would expect to hear a lot less stupidity

Why those conservatives need the existence of a god with such feverish obsession?

>>11256636
because it's the easiest solution to the post-modern dilemma of negating metanarratives

>>11255248
>any degree of formal rigidity corresponds with an exponential loss the ability to express anything meaningful.

Quite the contrary. You literally cannot say anything meaningful without attending to at least some basic foundational formal principles. You shouldn't have skipped Aristotle

>>11256733
I think he meant abstract formalisms.

>>11256599
Yes, you can only communicate meaning abstractly through signs, there is no way to communicate the actual revelation.

>>11255232
So Peterson didn't read Derrida, who gives a fuck? Neither did anyone else.

>>11255232
What's the point of reading any French philosophers? They're all garbage and it's objectively true.

>>11256810
The closest thing would be to literally take someone else with you and experience it together. Sure, the experience is still slightly different. But, it's for sure, better than aping symbols towards each other and misunderstanding each other endlessly.

I'm so sick of seeing these threads. Peterson is a fucking hack who actively holds intellectualism in contempt. Who knew, who cares

>>11256810
Hypnosis says otherwise

>>11256810
what?

>>11255212
I fucking winced at that tweet

>>11255525
Yep, the one antidote to all of this shit desu

>>>11255248
nobody interprets semiotic abstractions the same? can you prove that people don't have identical thoughts?
and I mean, at what point do the differences in interpretation of words or symbols become so negligible that their differences themselves are incommunicable?

>>11255212
I'm either too smart or too stupid for this tweet. Can someone explain what Peterson is trying to say?
It seems to be the second sentence is a giant leap from the first and doesn't follow.

>>11256813
>>11256832
Why would you even attempt to speak in an academic fashion about work you have never read? If it's all garbage, then don't talk about it. If it's all garbage and you still find it worth while talking about, then fucking read the work.

>>11257031
semiotics is a meme. there's no such thing as meaning in the reality.

>>11255372
>I am graduated in math and I see nothing wrong with his statement
then you'd better return your degree to whatever cereal box you got it from, bucko

>>11255257
First reply best reply and it’s a shame nobody gets it.

meme peterson can fuck off. dont be in a collective white goy. oh dear the rest of the World is part of collective groups. derp.

>>11257249
WHY CAN'T I UNDERSTAND ANYTHING IN THIS FUCKING THREAD

>>11257270
wow you came up with the worst possible reason to dislike peterson

>>11255257
Kek

>>11255263
it's not post-modern it's gnostic u fuggn brinlette

>>11255379
>It’s as big of a challenge to modern ideas of knowledge as there can be
allow me to make a bigger one
everything is a hallucination which presents a phantom of a reasonable past - in actuality everything is a chaos of psychedelic madness.
boom - urdumb

>>11255525
you can know things in relation to other things - searching however for an absolute bottom to reason results in theology.

>>11257044
Godel showed that any closed system of logic must include statements that cannot be objectively proven by the laws of that system. What Peterson means by God is a Logos that stands outside of the logical worldview that we consciously recognise as illogical irregularity that is nonetheless necessary in order to provide a closed system that functions properly.

Hey OP, I feel your pain. I'm in humanities, but I know people just say whatever about whatever. That doesn't mean no one knows what they are talking about, some of them do, but it's true that it is not necessary to know in order to say it, so a lot of them don't. But in all honesty, that's just how it is about anything. People don't know what they don't experience it, and we don't have time to be scientists philosophers artists and a sports fan and have a political opinion all of the same time, so we get by if what we have. We watch some news, we view some memes, we scroll, we read titles of articles, top comments from who knows who that is and we form opinions, worldviews and perceptions of what art, science, is all about. That is the same that happends with intelectuals namedropping what they've read in some big book, even if it's not the primary source big book, because nevertheless that made an impression on them. Consider also that this happends in reverse too, when scientists usually talk of philosophy or psychoanalysis they don't have a clue of what they are talking about and sometimes even call them occultists or whatever. The issue, the way I see it, is that a page of hard level math is indecipherable to the humanities guy, but the hard level humanities page, in spite of also being indecipherable to the stem guy, appears to be somewhat decipherable since you are familiar with the words, you are just not used to seeing them be used in that way, particularly when you are not familiar with what was previously written about them, and upon which the author in question is building his thinking from.

>>11255212
>>11255212
If you read Jordan Peterson's book, he speaks of god as the concept of delayed gratification, not so much as a specific dogma.

>>11256507
It means that no truth uses a pure medium.

>>11255302
Wow, you can believe any stupid shit but as long as you at some point made it to the conclusion that retarded college women taking gender theory course are full of shit, people will apparently agree with whatever else you have to say.

>>11258463
If you can make people feel simultaneously oppressed and superior, they are putty in your hands. Manipulation 101 bro.

>>11255212
I liked Twitter's square design so much better. What the fuck is it with circles in web design? Circles everywhere. Thank God it can't be done to 4chan. OR CAN IT?

>>11255212
Obviously Peterson has no clue about what Gödel did in mathematics, these humanities people rely on other people interpreting the hard stuff for them.

The first sentence is nearly true, except that Gödel has any relation to proving(??) that axioms are required to prove something, he is just name dropped in, as an argument from authority.

And the second one is also, nearly true, just not in the way Peterson thinks. Modern mathematics requires faith that ZFC is consistent, which is something that *maybe* could be called God.

>>start from propositional logic and work up to godels completeness theorem and then first and second incompleteness theorems
He is called Gödel, at least be man enough to spell his name correctly.


>>11256467
>Since it is without exit, there is nothing to seek and it is of no use to be expert in Gödel’s theorem.
Yes, but if you have no clue about something you better shut up.
Nothing else in the tweet has much relation to Gödel´, so why bring him up?

>>11257782
What you're saying is true but Peterson is not referencing Godel's incompleteness theorems, he's just name-dropping him.

>>11257044
>It seems to be the second sentence is a giant leap from the first and doesn't follow.
This is correct. You'd be surprised by the amount of supposedly intelligent people who don't have a basic grasp of mathematical logic (or even just logic for that matter).

>>11255372
>Godel indeed proved that some axioms are necessary in order to establish high-order proofs
In which theorem?

>>11255372
>I see nothing wrong with his statement
You don't see anything wrong with jumping from "Godel indeed proved that some axioms are necessary in order to establish high-order proofs, like complex fractions operations", to "God exists"?

Also fucking spell his name correctly, the guy is called Gödel.

>>11258676
>Also fucking spell his name correctly, the guy is called Gödel
Please do stop sperging out over people not copy-pasting a fucking letter that's not on anyone's keyboard, is almost indistinguishable from 'o' to most people, and makes no difference in this language anyway. Godel

>>11258703
>Please do stop sperging out over people not copy-pasting a fucking letter that's not on anyone's keyboard
If you don't want to write an ö, just write an oe, that is at least acceptable (although still not correct, unless the ö isn't possible to write).

> is almost indistinguishable from 'o' to most people, and makes no difference in this language anyway
It significantly changes the way his name sounds.

>>11258663
>You'd be surprised by the amount of supposedly intelligent people who don't have a basic grasp of mathematical logic

The perquisite for understanding mathematical proof is long. You don't really learn it until you start discrete where they show you how to do basic proofs and set theory. Most people don't reach that level, they stop at calculus and only use applied mathematics and not theory.

>>11258667
That statement itself is redundant. Basically it says that fundamental components are necessary in order to break a given statement into those component.

To be exact. Godel says that no system can be both complete and consistent. In that any statement made can be determined as either true or false and will be consistent in that manner no matter how the statement is processed. To be even more precise Godel simply says that any system that allows recursions in processing statements will be incomplete.

>>11255372
>like complex fractions operations
dude what the fuck?
>>11258766
>To be exact. Godel says that no system can be both complete and consistent. In that any statement made can be determined as either true or false and will be consistent in that manner no matter how the statement is processed. To be even more precise Godel simply says that any system that allows recursions in processing statements will be incomplete.
And what does any of this have to do what Memerson said?

>>11258663
>What you're saying is true but Peterson is not referencing Godel's incompleteness theorems, he's just name-dropping him.
Except that I got that interpretation from his initi post. Honestly, if he speaks to the lowest common denominator people call him a pleb, if he appeals to people who can read between the lines people think he's obtuse or posteuring. He can't win in the eyes of cynics.

>>11255212
They do this shit with physics, too. I cringe every time quantum mechanics is mentioned, as I know they're about say something retarded. Even those educated in what they're saying fall into the trap of spewing dribble that's nearly quite reasonable, but is actually wholly illogical and false. Very deceitful. It's like mere tentative relation is taken to be the basis for huge and arbitrary assumption. Completely devoid of context and specifics, just vague hand-waving to arrive a preheld view/point. Mere fuel for ideology. A child's reasoning. It appears much of humanities is like this to the very core, even just considering its well-established self, no external fuel. There are no standards or critical thinking (despite claiming to have a monopoly on this), if something sounds cool and affirms the agreed-upon, then it's valid and truthful. It seems like you can't call out bullshit, not that this basic stuff needs to be called out as its nature should be immediately obvious, simply by the way it's worded. But beyond that, there's a lack of 'going deeper', and reviewing your own thinking and language usage. Despite humanities apparently being a centre for this, it only ever spews a pretense.

>>11259368
He's doing neither, he's incorrectly referencing a mathematician for pseud points.

>>11259579
>pseud
That's what I meant by posturing, you retard. You just fell into the second category, clearly, and didn't even realise it. You might be both too stupid AND too cynical to understand his points.

>>11256348
this is nu-chan and has been since 2016 what do you expect. It's the attracting idiots conundrum.

>>11259586
>hurr he's referencing godel correctly you're just not smart enough
You haven't done much maths have you?

>>11257031
Mirror neurons, "Mandela Effect" - similar failing of brains, biases like groupthink, all prove people have identical or similar thoughts. Soon neurology and machine learning will converge and pseudo-intellectuals will be btfo.

>>11257031
If you and I were interpreting the same tree, and did not differ in our perception of it markedly different way, we would still interpreted the signs in a fundementally different fashion due to the fact that we have interpreted it from a different place in relational spacetime.
It's easy to reason from this, and even prove that no two interpetations can be the same. Even moment to moment the interpetation of the same "tree"(sign) changes with the moment.

>>11257075

>>11259688
Yes but that doesn't mean a majority of signs in the same context aren't interpreted similarly. What proof would you require that too people interpreted a perception similarly or the same?

>>11259718
Similarity is not the same as idenity.
Anyways I get what you mean, you can communicate signs from your revelation and hope the interperter arrives at a similar revelation, which requires a great deal of cleverness on both parts for some ideas at least and a high level of abstraction and convention (language and knowledge), even if successful you are never going to share your revelation, only send out the correct "bits" for the interperter to interpert and come to their own revelation that strikes the same truth.

>>11258608
>And the second one is also, nearly true, just not in the way Peterson thinks. Modern mathematics requires faith that ZFC is consistent, which is something that *maybe* could be called God.

You need faith in ZFC if you have an emotional dependence on the consistency of ZFC and nothing more.

Apart from there being early proofs of the consistency of PA only assuming "small" large numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentzen%27s_consistency_proof 90% of mathematicians couldn't tell you 3 axioms of the nine ZFC axioms anyway and if tomorrow you'd find an inconsistency in that framework, it wouldn't affect anything because most math is modest and many even rather constructive and whatever the bad apple among ZF would be, it would be easy to path, given the bazillion other set theories. And that being said, there isn't even the necessity to follow the 1900's moral of wanting to have one encompassing framework in which you model all of math. You could well separate the theories.

>Gödel proved that you can't prove the consistency of a strong enough theory
To add another autistic comment to this discussion, I want to correct this. If the theory is inconsistent, then of course you can indeed proof that it's consistent (it's just not valuable). Indeed, because of this, even before Gödel, it was clear that if one finds a proof of consistency, then this only has restricted value: Because it might well be that the theory is inconsistent that was merely the reason you were able to find the consistency proof (the "fake one", so to speak). With this, from Gödels theorem the following nice thing follows: If you can use a theory to proof that it's consistent, then you know it's not.

>>11259760
>You need faith in ZFC if you have an emotional dependence on the consistency of ZFC and nothing more.
Yes, of course.
If you are willing to abandon it, then you obviously don't need any faith in it.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentzen%27s_consistency_proof 90% of mathematicians couldn't tell you 3 axioms of the nine ZFC axioms anyway and if tomorrow you'd find an inconsistency in that framework, it wouldn't affect anything because most math is modest and many even rather constructive and whatever the bad apple among ZF would be, it would be easy to path, given the bazillion other set theories. And that being said, there isn't even the necessity to follow the 1900's moral of wanting to have one encompassing framework in which you model all of math. You could well separate the theories.
You are absolutely right, that is why I talked about "modern mathematics".
There are some points where ZFC nearly directly comes into play, some proofs in Functional Analysis are based on Zorn's Lemma (and from my vague memory there are no constructive variants for some of them, but not sure about that), so all of "modern math" isn't "safe".

>>11259818
> some proofs in Functional Analysis are based on Zorn's Lemma
>and from my vague memory there are no constructive variants for some of them

because they are false :^)

Sure, there are some statement's such as
>for this vector space, if it had a basis, then we can still, provably, never state a single one of it's basis elements. But btw., by the axiom of choice, the basis exists
>"exists"

It's like all the real numbers that you can't specify (as there are uncountably many reals but only countably many possible books or statements in general). With the axiom of choice you force existence of some things for the sake of keeping on working with them.

As for constructive, let's draw a line between the law of excluded lemma and choice here. For each theorem whos proof involves constructive rules + the law of excluded middle (i.e. non-constructive theorems), there's a theorem that can be proven constructively, which, if you read this theorem in a classical logic, is the same as as the non-constructive one.
For example, while
A ∨ ¬A
>either A holds or A is absurd
can't be proven constructively, the following can
¬(¬A∧¬¬A)
>If it's the case that 'A leads to an absurdity' and also that 'A leads to an absurdity' leads to an absurdity, then this leads to an absurdity.
And classically interpreted, those two are equivalent.
That is to say, constructive logic is as strong as classical logic (as far as classically interpreted sentences go), only the proofs are more convoluted.

But if you adopt LEM, or Choice, then you kill off theories, be collapsing constructively different sentences. There are geometries without LEM that describe differential geometry, but if you add LEM, the theories become inconsistent.

>>11259610
Follow the thread, moron.

>>11255212
OH MY JORDAN PETERSON WHAT THE

>>11255372
This is so wrong.

He proved that any axiom system which can formalize arithmetic must either be inconsistent or incomplete. So there is no single axiom system which can be used to reach all true theorems.

Less powerful axiom systems can be both consistent and complete.

>>11255372
>I see nothing wrong with his statement
>there's literally "faith in God" in his statement

>>11260549
Well, to be fair, Gödel worked a great deal on continuing the tradition of ancient-greek kind of
>reduce "god exist claims" to a bunch of hard to argue against statements
apologetics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

Why does this man trigger you people so much? Is it his influence? I first thought that these threads are either /pol/, or /leftypol/ false flags as he has them seething over the fact that he's not 'red pilled' or 'woke' enough, but it seems that there's a third factor that attracts hate, namely his forceful conflation of all things postmodernism with identitarian Marxist post-structuralists.

It's not even that people here are of that pomo variety (although they do have a general affinity towards postmodernism), so I ask you, aside from the pol and leftypol types, why does this man trigger you to no end?

>>11260584
I think, like with things like Rick & Morty, the annoying thing is less the thing itself but the fanbase who defends it as something quasi unfailable

>>11260596
But there's very few of that reddit variety here. I see more circle-jerking between /leftypol/ and /pol/ types and secondarily grievance over his (mis)understanding of postmodernism, yet an inability to agree on one even amongst the people who criticise him here.

But I get it. It's probably another 'fedora' phenomenon, just like the one that stemmed from the new atheists. More to do with that, than the actual content of their speech.

>>11260630
you’re from reddit, and second of all Peterson is a fucking retard, who lies about knowing things and makes shit up that others never said but that he attributes to them, simplifies reality into a barbaric dichotomy and then teaches basically losers to be beta wageslaves. He’s an insipid faggot and so are his fans, he pays people to spam threads and he appeals to the dumbest section of the rw online

>>11260646
Well, didn't take much to raise your cortisol levels and get those estrogen milkers pumping. Stay mad, battyboi.

>>11260646
You're just proving his point, fellow resetera user.

I see much more post like yours than people mindlessly praising Peterson

>>11260584
uniformed, doesn't know what he's talking about, his fanbase is one of the most annoying group of people on the planet, pollutes discourse with his redbaiting retardation, attracts all sorts of newfriends to the 4channels. Honestly he doesn't even trigger me, he's just another retarded na sophist and I'd gladly ignore him if his fans and detractors didn't constantly shit up this board with his squirrel face.

>>11260710
So is he wrong when, for exemple he is talking about gender difference ?

>>11260710
Right, but what specifically is it that gives you ptsd to the point where you engage with these threads that you claim to not want on /lit/?

>>11260750
I have no idea about gender differences, what gets me butthurt is that he needs to redbait when he could say the things he says without it. This stuff just furthers our current political tribalization.

>>11260559
well, I dont want to continue this conversation.
the reason is different from anon and (you), you know.
I just focused on how much anon's comment has flawed at it.

BUT let's do some double-dumbass strategy.
the ontological proof is quite flawed (considering that proof formalized by THAT godel).

> using S5. although it is euclidean and generally not that ontroversial, a number of system designed, exist, and favoritized by others. (Kripke, Lewis...) S5 is not idolized to logicians or intuitionists by some property e.g. any necessity/possiblity symbol just determined by last of it, and they choose something like S4, M... or even S3, which even cannot call modal at that point.

> it can be flawed by modal collapse, based on 'large' number of axioms has it. I mentioned it because someone DID findd that. these are for this logic's sake.

>It can interpret as Ideological argument. imagine some old man questioning after listen this argument, "so where's the god?". we can criticize by empiricism comes in. ideological world and physical world can be not fitted and separated, as George Berkeley told.

>we can bring kant. according to kan't epistemological philsophy, we cannot touch god, feel god, and cognize god. the argument of existence of god is just meaningless, by kant's viewpoint. so as godel's proof.

>based on how symbolic, analytic, most importantly (classic) logical it is, we can critisize about how monad-ic viewpoint this proof is, just like how Wittgenstein'ㄴ Tractatus can be crticized. many poststructuralismic argument can applied. idk just bring deleuze and that gonna be work whatever

> nah fuck this you can make ultimate evil by just changing positivity to negativity

>>11260758
I don't honestly know, I guess I just want to discuss stuff like Gravity's Rainbow without a thousand retards shitting up the threads with their "muh bosdmodernism is gancer, the king haz no clothes" nonsense.

>>11260766
what a waste of time

>>11260765
But the 'sjw' groups that you claim he redbaits, would happily concede to his description of them. So would your average mickey mouse course humanities student who took his intro to pomo in a class that taught it to him as weaponized anti-essentialism that advocates for MArxism. This is how many lecturers actually teach it, so he's not the first to be confused about it. It is wrong, but it's certainly not redbaiting. I'd really advise you to pop your head into any Media/Women's/Gender/General/Communication Studies course that has pomo as part of its curriculum and observe how it's taught. You'll find that there's confusion on both sides of what you see as the barricade.

>>11259741
Evolution of cooperation makes this "concurrent revelation" possible and probable. Where does the terminology of "revelation" in this context come from? Is it post-modernist?

>>11260584
Jordan is a pseudo-intellectual given more credit than is due. Yes that triggers insecure people but it also is a sign that people aren't being critical of social sciences and just support people who reaffirm their beliefs.

>>11260803
>Yes that triggers insecure people but it also is a sign that people aren't being critical of social sciences and just support people who reaffirm their beliefs.
I don't know about the pseud part, or what to count as valid measures of that branding, but your point about confirmation bias doesn't really stand out for him, more than it does for his other celebrity academic peers. Quite the contrary, I would say that the majority of his supporters/readers/listeners seem to reformed left-leaning types, either disenfranchised by the identitarian turn, or with latent centre-right classical liberal convictions who didn't have a circle in which letting those opinions out wouldn't come at a social cost. They might be plebs, but the accusation of huckstering confirmation bias stand less true for him than most celeb youtube 'intellectuals'.

>>11255212
Beats me. The incompleteness theorem is just a special case of a fixed-point theorem on Cartesian closed categories, dunno why that inspires people to come up with so much philosophical woo.

>>11260800
>But the 'sjw' groups that you claim he redbaits, would happily concede to his description of them.
Would them though? I've seen a lot of them claim that he conflates a lot of different things. Anyway, with "redbait" I was referring more to how he strawmans the thinkers he doesn't like and claim they are the source of all evil much like the red scare.

>>11260861
you are the exact reason why category theory treated as meme.

>>11260858
>either disenfranchised by the identitarian turn, or with latent centre-right classical liberal convictions

But isn't that group looking for social sciences that aren't identitarian? Jordan Peterson isn't primarily known for his studies but his arguments with coo-coos on campus and news. I'm not saying he's less qualified than he says he is, just that people perceive him to be more qualified than he actually is.

>>11260885
Yes, they would. They take pride in both the Marxist and pomo labels and manifest them exactly in the way Peterson describes and much of /lit/ is frustrated with. I take your point about pomo, not being merely Marxist post-structuralists, but you have to understands that that's how it's taught and perceive by a very large cohort of humanities students. As far as the 'red scare' goes, can one not be concerned with Marxist thought in general, to the point that they view it as a threat and something to be scared of?

>>11255372
this is 7/10 bait, the "complex fractions operations" makes it a bit too obvious, although it was really good up until that point. Proves you can fool all of the people some of the time since all of the humanities kids responding took you seriously

>>11260910
And I take your point, but why get triggered by those that align themselves to him and constantly reflect their image into the content of his speech and character. Conversely, the 16yr old fedora atheist was a real phenomenon, but I'm sure in retrospect /lit/ would have been a better place without Harris hate threads and circle jerking amongst both sides of the theistic barricade. It's gotten to a point where fedora Christians are an actual thing now. Discuss Peterson all you want if you find him that worthy of discussion, but why do most posts seem to dripping with rage and resentment? They can't be all /pol/ an /leftypol/ who hate him for not being a Nazi, or respectively, being one. Most people here happily entertain these threads even if they are bait.

>>11260936
For example, Mr. Metokur criticized Peterson and it triggered a lot of his fans, as real as le fedora atheists.

There are multiple reasons for people being angry, one is the insecurity, as i mentioned, another is to trigger threads like this.

>>11260974
>Mr. Metokur
What is this?

>>11260765
>i have no idea about one of his main point but he MUST be wrong

Ok then commie tranny. His argument is that we need to aknowledge that people are differents and that forcing an absolute equality isn't going to fix anything since the cause behind some inequality (like the gender pay gape) aren't because of some nebulous oppression but because of biological difference.

Basically current feminism is at best trying to fix a broken porcelein plate with a jakehammer.

>>11261004
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFi4p4QC44
Here is the video I'm referencing.
>>11261051
See another example of Peterson shill.

>>11261062
At least answer me Marxa

>>11261093
What? You wanted a example of how the fans were obnoxious like atheists were.

>>11261113
I'm >>11261051

Nice try Joseph Foucault but I'm on to you.

>>11261138
Nice try, i'm actually OP and I did this to destroy Peterson.

>>11261062
So you're surprised that a cartoon character youtuber that deals in pop so-shull commentary attracts viewers (both critics and supporters) that you deem worthy of fedoras?
I mean, you should have said you were retarded from the beginning. The only valid conclusion I can come to is that the people Peterson triggers are the exact caricatures of /leftypol/ and /pol/ and these threads are nothing but the foamy drools of screeching autists who believe they are part-taking in important activism, whether it be towards the destruction of the elites and wagecuckery and redistribution of their power, or the destruction of the elites in the form of "globalists" and le jooz.

Go back to wherever you came from. This is a literature board. The Youtube comment section for "Mr. Metokur" is more than welcoming for your type as well.

>>11261051
>>i have no idea about one of his main point
I have already stated that I don't care about what he says about wemen and the like, can you fucking read? My problem with him is that he attracks a legion of retards and strawmans thinkers that he doesn't understand, both when he wants to praise them or attack them and this makes his legion of braindead robots do the same everywhere on the fucking internet which is incredibly annoying you fucking retarded clown.

>>11261558
I've seen much more misunderstanding whining coming from people like you than his cult.

>>11261529
your cartoonish arrogance is either a joke, in which case I tip my fedora to you, or real, which kinda makes any argument pointless.

>Go back to wherever you came from.
lo siento senor i will go back to mexico

>>11255212
Why does he say that when he himself doesn't even have faith in God?

>>11261745
He doesn't agree with the majority understanding of the word God and so he avoids the question. It does not seem to be an element of his belief that he is willing to have caricatured.

>>11261745
>>11262093

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn7QvnhJgeA

I had a professor named James "Duke" Pesta who really annoyed me by preaching his catholic faith to the class - but the part of it that annoyed me - was that he never said he believed in God, only the implications of what believing in God or the existence of God would entail. He would rave on about judeo christian values all class.