/lit/ - Literature

you knew this was going to be a garbage fire, so I must conclude you enjoy garbage fires... or you just wanted to share your shemale stash with unwilling strangers

>>11467156
You are most likely right. But it would be interesting to see if we actually could pull together and write a response that could actually challange his ideas.

we're totes gonna btfo this nazi

>>11467189
someone needs to do a bullet-point list of his ideas with sources

>>11467205
Maps Of Meming
Or; The Twelwe Responses to Jordan Peterson
Response 1
On the Post-Modernists


>What should the topics of the other eleven responses be?

>never should of come here...

>>11467137

charlatan gay boi

>>11467137
WHY? WHY MUST YOU TORMENT ME WITH THESE JEZEBELS? Every day I come to /lit/ and every day it's the same thing: incredibly attractive cuties posing coquettishly for the camera, as if to seduce the reader. As a celibate person, I must protest these puerile distractions. They have nothing to do with the subject of literature and only celebrate the lowest of low culture. Please, go with God.

>>11467375
OP here. Hopefully if we make a good critique of Pererson we may pull him out of the public eye. IF anons take the project seriously.

>>11467230
He's good, but he really needs a response to pynchon

>>11467137
I’ll contribute but I’m gonna nap first!!!

>>11467253
>of

>>11467375
Oh anon, why waste the time?

>>11467428
This but unironically

>>11467253
based of instead of have poster

>>11467137
>hey buttnuts
That'd destroy him right there.

>>11467137
yep sounds really good love to argue endlessly with pop writer pedants and their 17 year old fans
>>11467399
>OP here. Hopefully if we make a good critique of Pererson we may pull him out of the public eye. IF anons take the project seriously.
yep you might even say EPICALLY DESTROY peterson with FACTS and LAWJIK

>>11467137
Why do I speak as if I'm eternally returning to that battle with the toddler-dragon on the monkeybars?
Because I am scared to death that deep down my criticisms may eventually arrive at their own liberalist hypocrisy. Slay the toddler-dragons, bucko. And that is by no means obvious, bucko; and it's mindbogglingly brilliant stuff, bucko.

I want Peterson to go through and read the entire thing on camera, like he's done on a few occasions for articles that were written against him. I want nothing more than this.

>>11467137
Haha comprehensive from /lit/

>>11467137
Now, I’m not an idiot; I knew *how* to wash my penis. But I was lacking a *why*. Why, when god is dead, should I wash my penis? Why when the world is spiralling towards destruction should I wash my penis? Why when my children will live to see unimaginable horrors should I wash my penis?

I was lost. But Professor Peterson provided me with a why. He told me, young men like you have been told all your lives not to wash your penis, just to let it be, that to scrub out one’s manhood was “heteronormative” and “phallocentric”. I think I really needed someone to acknowledge that, to say “it’s okay to wash your penis, white man. You deserve it.” Peterson told me, “look at your penis now, it’s overflowing with smegma, it’s as phimotic as any penis I’ve ever seen. That’s chaos! And chaos is no joke! Because however bad the condition your penis is in now, you can’t keep putting off washing it, because that little thing is a portal that lets chaos straight into your life.” I had never thought about my penis as a portal letting chaos into my life before. But something about it made sense.

He put an arm on my shoulder, gave it a squeeze, and said “You know what to do, bucko!”

So I started. Teasing back the foreskin, Peterson standing over my shoulder encouraging me. Blood, tears, my face a grotesque portrait of pain. “C’mon Bucko, it’s better to do it fast. Like taking off a band-aid” “I can’t professer” “You can, bucko! This is an archetypal moment in the hero’s life, and you must persevere, or be swallowed by the whale of chaos, the dragon of femininity!”

So I braced myself. Three deep breaths. Then I pulled my foreskin down over my glans, a sickening Velcro-like sound ringing in my ears. Nausea sets in, world spinning. But Dad’s hand on my shoulder told me it was alright, and steadied me. “Good job, bucko, but it’s not over yet.” So I set about chipping at the outer layers of smeg, eagerly awaiting the sight of the skin underneath my glans, which I had never seen. After what seemed like years, I saw the glorious red of that promised penile tissue. So I buckled down, doubled my efforts, scrubbing and scraping and laving till I had before me, for the first time, a sparkling pecker, gleaming in the sunlight, proud to make it’s appearance on the world-stage. I looked up at Professor Peterson, and saw a warm smile. “I didn’t know if I was going to manage it, Professor” “I knew, bucko, I knew!”
And I stretched out my hand, coated in blood, smegma, flakes of dried foreskin, for Him to shake, and He took it proudly, and firmly.

So, to conclude, the cynics are welcome to criticize Professor Peterson to their heart’s content. But, if I may make my slight interjection, whatever Peterson says or does, I will always support Him and be eternally gratefully, for if it were not for the good professor, I shudder to think what state my poor penis might be in today.

And of course some asshole always has to crash the document.

>>11467632

washing your bepis? nice

>>11467632
10/10

>>11467632

Someone who knows JBP (wife, child, friend) send this to him!

>>11467649
if you're the bastard who kept changing that in the google doc im gonma fucking beatthe shit out of you

>>11467632
lmao

oh no someone just deleted the whole paper epic style :O

Can't we restore the older version?

>>11467195
>criticizing bucko mcbucko means we think he's a nazi
Get a load of this tard.

>>11467632
this is why i love /lit/

>>11467775
Yes you can look through the revisions. And I made a copy of how it was the second before it was deleted.

holy shit you faggots utterly broke this doc.

>>11467809
i can restore revisions dont worry

>>11467847
Is there any way to get rid of the faggots who keep fucking with it?

>this faggot white knighting poor helpless peterson
What poetic self-evisceration.

>>11467137
great document

can someone tell me what his ideas are?
I'll refute them easily.

If I was a NEET and had all kinds of time on my hands, I would go through all of the archived Peterson deb8 threads and just compile something from that.
Just a suggestion if anyone wants to do that.

>>11468014
nah

Who keeps putting child porn in the document?

>>11468085
No one, unless you mean those nwo paintings.

>>11467992
cLEAN ur Dik

some really great work is happening on that document

what happened to the doc?

There's no sense in weeding now that the roots have taken hold.

>>11467872
is there?

>>11467137
Does anyone find it odd how experimental literature prefigured the Internet? Get a bunch of people to collaborate on something on the Internet and they re-create aspects of Dadaist art and Robert Anton Wilson and Burroughs and Joyce and Wallace so on and so forth.

it's back

>>11468879
No. We're just imitators, aping in the shadows of greater men.

>>11467632

Bump

deleted it lol

If you give me a second I'll post my response to JP.

>>11469202
In Berlin's essay about Tolstoy, Berlin states that thinkers can either be a hedgehog or a fox. A hedgehog is someone who defines everything by one single core principle or idea, a fox is someone who can draw from a variety of principles, ideas, and experiences. Peterson is by definition a hedgehog, but convinced he's a fox, and believes in being one. He is willing to defend himself by showing fox behavior reluctantly when his hedgehogginess is questioned. It's kind of funny Jordan Peterson loves A Confession by Tolstoy, and feels a profound connection to that book, because it's Tolstoy accepting religion in a metaphysical sense at the end of his life. Tolstoy was a fox desperately trying to be a hedgehog, believing one should be a hedgehog. He reluctantly accepted that systems of belonging do not exist, and was only pushed towards a Christian metaphysical system at the end of his life, the exact opposite of Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson is only Tolstoy at the end, trying to push everyone into a system of natural forces and Christianity that they're not even aware of, a neat little package that can't be questioned to cloud the chaos from others.
Jordan Peterson reads the bible not from the accepted theologians, but as a Nietzschean search for individualist prosperity, rather than the communal charity of the Bible. He argues that Jesus and the beatitudes argue for bracing ourselves for the capacity of violence, when early Matthew and the beatitudes clearly argue for the rejection of retaliatory violence.

>>11469218
His bastardization of Jung's archetypal and symbolic into an innate psycho-biological measuring-rod is the definition of a hedgehog. He creates non-existent entities to explain events that he desperately wants explained, and then gives free reign to his metaphysical bias. He for example uses this Jungian monster to create a system of order, justified by his fear of chaos of which the heightened version he sees as war. Jordan Peterson conceptualizes a system of natural forces that move everything, and to gain control of things you just need to tap into these natural forces, and accept them as a universal part of life. Under Jordan Peterson's order however, structures shouldn't be questioned, or at least a lot less, we should improve ourselves endlessly without knowledge when to fix our communities, and accept common principles about ourselves as natural and unquestionable, or more favorable.

>>11469221
Jordan Peterson says he's a centrist or a classic liberal, but he has a very strong Christian hedgehog bias that came from the radical-conservatives of Tolstoy's time.
Classical liberalism opposed the power of the aristocracy, questioned the structures of society, but Peterson defends the structures and the aristocracy.
He has a very strong post-revolution Roman Catholic edge, alongside a French radical-conservative philosophy that he caught from Tolstoy and other Russian intellectuals who loved Maistre and other European conservative refugees. Maistre saw history as perpetual act of murder since the fall of established structures, and human beings as being ruled by an inherent nature, believed that divine characteristics are often being used to justify murderous mass movements pretending to be like Christianity, in a natural desire for self-immolation, that natural forces trump all intellect, in a necessity to circumvent people from becoming violent before it explodes, and a disdain for the intellectuals as a sect of questioners undermining the structures of western civilization. This last idea is an idea invented by the Roman Catholic intellectuals after the French revolution, who believed that the revolution had been a divine punishment for abandoning Christian values. Intellectuals were deliberately trying to destroy Christian civilization according to these Catholics, and launched an idea of a western world in rapid decay that needed to be saved. Maistre was also obsessed with the nature of war, and believed that war had no gain except for human beings to let out their primal instincts, this is how Jordan Peterson for example sees Nazi Germany, but his views on this dictatorship are downright dangerous.

>>11469195
The Chad delete.
>>11469243
The Virgin "critique".

>>11469243
He paints Hitler as a man who tried to introduce his own existential chaos into the world, despite the massive setbacks to his own demands. It's dangerous because it dissociates Hitler with Nazism, and Nazism from being a coherent ideology with tangible goals. But this was never the case, the Holocaust was an incredibly profitable venture, so much even that Germans were the second-best fed population in the entire world, not just from the Jewish assets, but the reduction in the European population, and the deliberate famines and economic crises in European nations. The destruction of the Jews WAS the net benefit in itself according to National-Socialism, who targeted Judeo-Bolshevism, the idea that Bolshevism was the absolute state of what the Nazis called Jewry. The invasion of the Benelux for example, was justified by the idea that eventually the Jewish-Bolshevists would come down to western-Europe, and Russia was directly targeting Europe when it was sucking up countries in Eastern-Europe.needed to be stopped by the Nazis. When Hitler attacked Russia, considered the beginning of the end, it was an attempt to destroy the Jewish-Bolshevist state, but also to obtain gasoline that Germany was running out of and would make them lose the war. Russia had recently purged its generals, and the Russian economy was in shambles, so the US and UK had to fund the Russian war effort to the point of practically funding the entire participation of Russia in the war against Germany.

>>11469262
lol

>>11469289
Just like these radical-conservatives, Jordan Peterson is overly reliant on animal nature.
Animal nature cannot be changed but is largely circumvented by human rationality.
Human beings have in the past changed themselves beyond recognition, especially between different periods in time.
Patterns of human behavior change human beings to a certain extent, and the brain alters neutral synapses.
Peterson's comment about lipstick for example is then wrong, because it argues that it mimics sexual arousal as a means to promote sex appeal, but this is ignoring everything else including personal choice or the human ability to circumvent animal nature.

>>11469262
>>11469292
Cringe

>>11469297
Jordan Peterson similarly to both Tolstoy and Maistre attacks postmodernism not from what it is, but create an intellectual quarantine, attacking core intellectuals, even lumping them together with Northern-Amercan progressiveness, rather than seeing these as separate.
He rejects the scale of postmodernism, even in his own direction, such as their openness to the idea of religion, existentialism, libertarianism. He never mentions the idea of a right-wing and left-wing postmodernism either.
To give strength to his anti-intellectual bias, Peterson states that postmodernism started with Foucault and Derrida, when it started with Lyotard in 1979.
He then doesn't make postmodernism the result of unease, but the cause of it, and puts himself and others at a position of higher thinking ,while other intellectuals are merely trying to speed up a western decay.
Peterson for example paints Derrida as someone who was hellbent on destroying western civilization, when Derrida was focused on repeated dialogue within western civilization, and believed his deconstruction was releasing the full potential of western structuralism. Derrida taught western philosophy for most of his life as his largest occupation, and one needs extensive knowledge of this philosophy to be able to understand his works without a secondary source.
Derrida also was the most notable critic of deconstruction as well as its biggest advocate, and he was already criticizing it in '66, around the time Jordan Peterson frames him as a Marxist who's intentionally targeting the western paradigm.

>>11469310
He then accuses the postmodernists of Marxist elements to create another quarantine, together this only leaves a small group of intellectuals to be attacked from a limited understanding, rather than the full scale of participation. He never targets the subsequent usage of these works such as Edith Butler, who used Foucault to create a postmodernist view on gender, and is one of the leading figures in the activist side of the rejection of the Darwininan-Bateman paradigm.
To tie these intellectuals to Marxism, Peterson accuses both Derrida and Foucault of being Marxists, when both denied being Marxists, never let politics bleed into their works, and simply moved around the Marxist intellectual milieu of their time. Derrida wrote books against Marxism and his dislike for totalizing phenomena according to a single originary essence, Foucault had a libertarian streak and similar analytical aesthetics to Marx, but no one would describe him as a Marxist. But this French-Marxian milieu is simply enough for Peterson to morally condemn these intellectuals.
Both Derrida and Foucault never called themselves postmodernists, the term was applied backwards to explain the era of pomo. Foucault had to be told what postmodernism actually was during a talk a year before he died.

>>11469316
Peterson almost never condemn postmodernism or Marxism methodically, but always morally which is far easier to do. When he talks about Marxism, he never talks about Western-European Marxism, but always Eastern-European Marxim, and then speaks about things such as the working camps and famines in the USSR. When talking about posmodernism, it's never about the methods, but what he comprehends as the faulty morals of Foucault who he paints as a bitter and depresed man trying to destroy the world around him out of his own chaos.
When talking about the postmodernism literature, Peterson attacks the literature for their perceived ideological inclination instead of methodically, but then creates this perception of ideological inclination by reading and agreeing with books that do agree with his ideological inclinations. Peterson, for example, draws his beliefs on postmodernism from Hicks, who refuses to argue against postmodernism by analyzing it on its own terms, and calls postmodernism a socialist ploy for immigration, this is a secondary source, and an incredibly colored one at that.

>>11469319
If you can't argue against something methodically, it's easy to tell that someone doesn't understand something, and it becomes abundantly clear that he doesn't.
Petersons talks about posmodernism rejecting truth he creates the idea that pomo rejects basic reality or objects that we can clearly see with our eyes, but a tree is still a tree under postmodernism.
Structuralism creates secondariness, impurity, difference, and distortion which then constructs our thought. The tree as a concept is then a social construct, but it's still what you see, a tree, the difference is that a second source is feeding you information which you're fed through social interaction, how we interact and receive information.
When he talks about postmodernism he also talks about how postmodernism rejects meaning, but postmodernism argues that meaning isn't fixed, nor does it argue that meaning isn't important.
His idea that Marxism and postmodernism go hand in hand is faulty to say the least, and based on secondary sources.
Postmodernism argues against grand narratives, models, methods, or ideologies as a way to sufficiently explain the world to us, It is not an ideology, it's a lack of ideology. Marxism is a very clear and systematic, materialist theory of inevitable development, it makes claims, has a moral agenda, and constructs conceptual systems. Marx was deeply concerned with the science and analysis of his works, he was a true modernist of his time. Pomo also exhibits a very playful and nihilistic tendency that can for example be seen in the works of Vonnegut, Marxism has neither of those. Peterson argues that there is overlap in the form of their similar skeptic approach to metanarratives, and their belief in the near-total social construct of human nature, and while I would agree, it is simply not enough to blend the two together.

>>11469321
End

ah ffs who ruined the document

>>11469319
By and large interesting, your thesis is solid but some of your examples are a bit off. Your point about lipstick is a very poor example and saying Foucault didn't understand what "postmodernism" is is wrong - he was very much aware of what the poststructualist movement was and describing him as a libertarian rather than a libertine is inaccurate.

>>11469361
Any more criticisms? I'll fix things up a bit.

lmao @ peterson still living in your head rent free

is it hard to sleep knowing hes right?

>>11469371
Seems solid otherwise, I'd cite essays/sources where possible

>>11469371
For some clarity on the lipstick bit - next time you bash one out, unless you're one of those post-wank guilt types, look at your skin in the mirror. It will be rosier, healthier colour, and more blood will have gone to your lips. This effect is what lipstick was conceptualised to provide as a cosmetic, as the post-orgasm face is your body at its best.

How did his dollar store self help get any traction?
>DONT BE A VICTIM
>TAKE RESPONSIBILITY

This kind of garbage should not be allowed on here.

>>11467632
kek

>>11469397
Thanks, but wasn't Foucault unaware of postmodernism as a movement?

Alterations:
Peterson almost never condemn postmodernism or Marxism methodically, but always morally, which is of course far easier to do. When he talks about Marxism, he never talks about Western-European Marxism, but always Eastern-European Marxim, and then speaks about things such as the Zorking camps and famines in the USSR. When talking about posmodernism, it's never about the methods, but what he comprehends as their faulty morals.
He rejects Foucault based on the fact that he was a libertine, and paints him as a bitter and depresed man trying to destroy the world around him out of spite.

Both Derrida and Foucault never called themselves postmodernists, but poststructuralists, the term was applied backwards to explain the era of postmodernism. Foucault had to be told what postmodernism actually was during a talk just a year before he died, because he had always seen the movement as poststructuralist.

>>11469516
>Zorking camps
Whoops, fixed

>>11469516
Postmodernism is a pretty vacuous term that has had various meanings. The general sense of scepticism towards narrative etc in Lyotard writes about or Jameson's more holistic idea of postmodernism basically being the logic of finance capitalism both capture a kind of critique that Foucault undertook in his work.
Foucault challenged the hegemonic definition of pretty much everything - his querying of postmodernism was principally Socratic but secondarily to show that it is a fairly nebulous term. Worth mentioning he would probably respond to "poststructualism" as a term in a similar way, even though he was certainly in the engine room of that movement.

>>11467137
BUCKO!

>>11469516
I think the real point is that presenting "postmodernism" as singular or canonical in any way. shape or form is tremendously ironic and shows a complete lack of understanding of what various strands of postmodern theory attempt to critique or assert

>>11467632

>>11469195
gotem

>>11469218
Classic hedgehogs delimma

Is "jews and the left" ours or did we steal it?

>>11469576
>>11469593
Thanks, great writings, I almost fell for the same trap by trying to tie postmodernism down to a holistic entity.

>>11469655
ours

>>11469653
No a hedgehog dilemma is something else, this is something Berlin wrote in his essay The Hedgehog and the Fox.

>>11469407
I'm going to do this now and I swear, if you're lying I'm coming for you.

>>11469679
cringe

Can we do it lads?

> So I started. Teasing back the foreskin, a sour and putrid-warm stink started to rise and fill the room, strong enough to lift an air balloon
> I pulled my foreskin down over my glans, a sickening Velcro-like sound ringing in my ears.

This is art

>>11467137
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p764TYnG32UuV8yluGPnjYkXeyGq5CHwxMkZM8ne8Ug/edit?usp=sharing

WHERE ARE THE VANITY TITLES AT?!

Would be nice to see a (d)evolution of the document at the conclusion of this all.

>>11469334
you can load revisions

>>11469831
I like the new serious direction though. Not just pure chaos and memes.

>>11469831
Under file, right? But it's greyed out for me.

>>11469834
>likes the new serious direction
>foreword is a PSA about washing your penis

>>11469845
In presentation and style. Not just whacky colours and fonts. It needs to look presentable when we send it to academic publications.

>>11467137
someone stop that /pol/ sperg from shitting everything up

>>11469870
the edit it.

>>11469877
this is how it feels to fight the Dragon of Chaos, I suppose.

>>11468879
Haha it's just like Dan Harmon said!