/lit/ - Literature

>>11453671
who did u hear that from?

Mostly from online reviews

>>11453671
>Is Jordan Peterson's Maps of Meaning worth the read and time investment
It depends: what are you planning to take from it?

>reading Jordan Peterson

>>11453729
How do you know whether or not he's worth reading until you've read him?

>Out of chaos emerges this first form, it’s the feminine form, it’s partly the form that represents novelty as such, and on the one hand it’s promise and on the other hand it’s threat…. Well, here’s the decomposition of the fundamental archetype. The dragon of chaos differentiates on the one hand into the feminine, that’s the unknown, and the feminine differentiates further into the negative feminine and the positive feminine. The negative feminine is the reason for witch hunts.

>>11453737
>female form is the first idea of beauty
greeks
>female form is the only standard for beauty
greeks
>women are the root of problems
greeks + christians + literally every other thinker in history
explain please why this guy is popular?
is he just recycling shit to sell books?
well i guess i'm pretty jealous, i wish i could get rich for selling horse shit

>>11453747
Nope, he wrote it when he was 26. The only other book he has written since then is 12 Rules for Life.

>>11453752
please explain why he is popular

>>11453747
>female form is the first idea of beauty
>>female form is the only standard for beauty
>>women are the root of problems
How are you getting these claims from that text? What he's basically saying is that the female has the selection advantage in almost every species of mammal, so men tend to symbolically associate them with the chaotic capriciousness of nature

>>11453756
Have you ever heard the term "self-help"? What about the term "guru"?

>>11453757
i hate summer so much
>>11453762
yes i understand
i keep having faith that people aren't retarded but i guess most people are
good for Jordan, I guess. guess he's the Joel Osteen of Philosophy

>>11453757
>How are you getting these claims from that text? What he's basically saying is that the female has the selection advantage in almost every species of mammal, so men tend to symbolically associate them with the chaotic capriciousness of nature
Isn't it weird that he is using his own experience, and only that, as a foundation for archetypes? How could a woman accept this interpretation of the feminine without entirely subjecting herself to Jordan's personal worldview? What about an homosexual man? Ultimately, why are literally none of this claims justified?
Maps of Meanings is nothing more than a collection of Peterson's own neurosis.

>>11453770
>i hate summer so much
Please explain how what I said is wrong. 17 women reproduced for every 1 man at the start of the agricultural revolution. Men carry the burden of selection in ways that women don't, hence the animosity they feel towards them.

>>11453773
I don't think that Peterson would claim that archetypes aren't dependent on the subjectivity of the dominant group at any given time. A woman doesn't have to accept the feminine as being synonymous with chaos for the archetype to speak to something real when it comes to men

— Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he hasn't got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.
But O, Wreneagle Almighty, wouldn't un be a sky of a lark
To see that old buzzard whooping about for uns shirt in the dark
And he hunting round for uns speckled trousers around by Palmer-
stown Park?
Hohohoho, moulty Mark!
You're the rummest old rooster ever flopped out of a Noah's ark
And you think you're cock of the wark.
Fowls, up! Tristy's the spry young spark
That'll tread her and wed her and bed her and red her
Without ever winking the tail of a feather
And that's how that chap's going to make his money and mark!

>>11453786
>A woman doesn't have to accept the feminine as being synonymous with chaos for the archetype to speak to something real when it comes to men
I've made an example related to sexuality: a gay man won't fit these archetypes, which are meant to be universal. My critique still stands. how is this anything more than published self-analysis?

>>11453792
Gay men are a minority. Their subjectivity was only culturally dominant in ancient Greece. The universals apply to one type of person universally, but not to all types of people equally.

>how is this anything more than published self-analysis?
Not really that harsh of a criticism. There are enough Jordan Petersons out there for that to be a worthwhile thing to publish

>>11453690
Why are you looking for reasons to discourage yourself from reading something?


Also Betrootson is pleb-tier so don't worry

book's are for fags

>>11453801
>The universals apply to one type of person universally, but not to all types of people equally.
That's my point: this archetype does not apply to certain prople AT ALL. As such it is not universal by definition, therefore we're not even in the realm of Jungian archetypes.
>Not really that harsh of a criticism. There are enough Jordan Petersons out there for that to be a worthwhile thing to publish
Since we are not in the realm of universality, which is necessary when it comes to Jungian archetypes, I don't see the usefulness in it, unless you are treating it as a mere self-help book (keep in mind that this is supposed to be a psychological/philosophical academic work).

>>11453830
Isn't the Jungian notion of a collective unconscious specifically about the images the dominant culture produces as it's moulding itself? I don't think it's about every single individual subjectivity. Keep in mind that i've only ever read Man and His Symbols, and it was a long time ago. I could very well be wrong.
>unless you are treating it as a mere self-help book
It sort of is, but in the way that a lot of virtue ethics can be seen as self-help. The ethic he lays out in the book does seem like it has a fairly universal application, even if his archetypes don't.

>>11453806
based post

>>11453806
True

>>11453857
>Isn't the Jungian notion of a collective unconscious specifically about the images the dominant culture produces as it's moulding itself?
On the contrary, archetypes are a-historical, although culture might inform to a certain extent your first interpretation of them. To be clear, a "snake" has a similar meaning for us, for Christians and for cavemen, and so do "heroes".

>I don't think it's about every single individual subjectivity.
Every single individial contains ALL archetypes, which are the constituents of our psyche. A man has both the feminine and the masculine archetype in himself, although the balance betweem the two changes from person to person (in this case Peterson gives a non-universal definition of the feminine archetype, making it a non-archetype).
>It sort of is, but in the way that a lot of virtue ethics can be seen as self-help.
Maybe. I think the distinction should made on the basis of rigor. A self-serving encouraging platitude is self-help, a coherent argument on virtue ethics is not. The substance matters.
>The ethic he lays out in the book does seem like it has a fairly universal application, even if his archetypes don't.
If this is true, then his entire academic project is a failure, which means that he literally has no leg to stand on to claim what he claims.

>>11453893
You're attached to a particular notion of rigor that that's impossible to achieve in any ethical framework that takes all of the complexities of human psychology into consideration. When you're working that big (or that general) logic and empiricism can't be the only tools you're working with, there has to be an element of subjective intuition. I'd recommend reading the book yourself. I think he has a free PDF version up on his website.

>>11453922
>You're attached to a particular notion of rigor that that's impossible to achieve in any ethical framework that takes all of the complexities of human psychology into consideration.
Read Aristotle to get an idea of wjat rigor applied in Ethics might look like.
>When you're working that big (or that general) logic and empiricism can't be the only tools you're working with, there has to be an element of subjective intuition.
I've pointed out that it's ALL intuition, which is basef on notion that you have rejectef yourself in previous posts.
>I think he has a free PDF version up on his website.
I've actually followed one of his courses in 2008

>>11453936
>Read Aristotle to get an idea of wjat rigor applied in Ethics might look like.
Syllogisms with faulty axioms isn't necessarily rigor in my eyes, and blaming Peterson not being Aristotle is like blaming an average classical pianist for not being Liszt.
>I've pointed out that it's ALL intuition
It's really not. It has a lot of good citations. The mystical and Jungian elements of the book aren't vital to its theses.

>>11453961
>Syllogisms with faulty axioms isn't necessarily rigor in my eyes
It is rigor, and its logical underpinning makes it a) intelleggible and b) opinable (you can contest a stance that Aristotle takes, and you can do so in context, since he gives one).
>and blaming Peterson not being Aristotle is like blaming an average classical pianist for not being Liszt.
Rigor in argumentation is required from undergrads: what I have pointed out here is a complete rejection of any sort of justification for the claims that are being made. Note that there is no internal justification either.
>The mystical and Jungian elements of the book aren't vital to its theses.
I have not mentioned mystical elements and no, Jung is ABSOLUTELY vital to Peterson's theory. Jung is literally the only reason for which Peterson can talk about archetypes, and virtually every operative definition is shared with old Carl.
You're basically saying that the entire theoretical foundation of Peterson's ideas (or the lack of it) does not matter.

>>11453671
sure if you're studying to be a clinical psychologist maybe.

>>11453978
"Rigor" isn't determined by any objective standard in fields that don't rely on either pure mathematics or empirical research. I'm not doing Peterson's epistemology any credit by trying to talk about it because i'm very bad at communicating these sorts of things, but the internal consistency of the book can only be determined after one has actually read it, and by one who understands (and isn't too lazy to look up) the numerous citations. I basically skimmed Maps of Meaning in 2016, but I plan on coming back to again later this year. I'm certain that there was something there; it wasn't just a glorified self-help book. Again, i'd recommend you read it yourself.

>>11453830
it's mostly universal

>>11454006
yeah it was also an overpriced textbook

>>11454006
>Again, i'd recommend you read it yourself.
Ah, that's the difference: you haven't read it. As I've already said, I've studied it with Peterson himself in 2008.
>>11454009
"Mostly universal" is an oxymoron

>>11454014
you met THE Peterson? In person?

What did he smell like?

>>11454014
>As I've already said, I've studied it with Peterson himself in 2008.
Do you think that students treat assigned works with the seriousness they deserve?

>>11454037
What other students do does not concern me
>>11454027
Cologne, always. Generally speaking he was always on point

>>11454063

>>11453747
>>11453770
feminine =/= female in this context.. that's why you don't read quotes out of context
he talks about symbolic associations and not about actual group behavior how can someone be so dense and "critique" his thinking if he doesn't even get this distinction right

>>11453770
>I hate summer
>doesn’t understand the difference between ‘female’ and ‘the feminine archetype’

I want people who have used /lit/ for 6 months to fuck off.

>>11453757
EVOPSYCH FAG GET OUT

>>11453776
Some would say we’re pretty far from the agricultural revolution. And that all this talk about selection is justification for insecurities towards oneself.

>>11453788
You forgot the quarks

>>11454063
Did you ever accidentally call him “father” during class?

>>11454612
If these psychological structures are partially evolved it wouldn't matter that we're this far from the agricultural revolution

>>11453736
I know because I am not the son of a single mother or divorced mother.

I'm listening to the audio book narrated by him at the moment and I feel like most of it is just common sense?