/lit/ - Literature

his dogwhistling

also not lit

>>11631739
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFi4p4QC44

>>11631746
What is he really preaching?
Also, totally /lit/.

>>11631739
He is basic bitch dad tier in terms of his political views. Classical liberals are cringe anymore.

>>11631756
classical liberal conservatism is THE most hypocritical and cringiest worldview someone can hold
thats why everyone abandoned it

>>11631746
>dogwhistling
Hello rationalwiki

>>11631756
The problem isn't so much what he's preaching as it is how certain elements pick up on it.

And the deleted threads say otherwise :)

>>11631750
I've never watched a video by this guy before, but does he only talk in memes?

>>11631773
Because mods never delete any threads that shouldn't but deleted and still fall within the confines of literature :3

>>11631778
okay, but still not lit :3

>>11631773
If there can be Jung threads there certainly should be Peterson ones.

>>11631774
he's a face from old school /pol/ before they degenerated into utter garbage they are today
always has this "coolest kid on the block" and "above it all" attitude and picks on low hanging fruit, this video is pretty much on point tho

>>11631746
>dogwhistling
This is such a dishonest term, but I suppose its the logical conclusion of a certain half of the political spectrum doing everything they can to dominate all discursive space.

>>11631765
Millions of Alex Jones listeners would disagree. What are you, a fascist (I am asking this unironically)?

>>11631739
He's only impressive if you haven't read much philosophy or psychology (and if you're not familiar with common conservative arguments). He's annoying for the same reason any pop intellectual is, he vastly oversimplifies things for the general audience, is outright wrong about things he hasn't studied in depth, and generally peddles misconceptions and half-truths to people who don't have the training to tell the difference.

>>11631780
I'm guessing you haven't read Maps of Meaning or 12 Rules for Life yet bucko? Sad!

>>11631791
>Millions of Alex Jones listeners
yea yea, alex jones, sargon of akkad, ben shapiro, its all out of touch pseud ideology relevant only as protest agaisnt perceived excessive progressivism

well i dont really know what to call myself these days, i pretty much abandoned ideology as a point of reference - if i had to say something between pre 60s conservatism and christian anarchism
why?

>>11631819
>anarchism

>>11631797
>and if you're not familiar with common conservative arguments

This is true of most American undergrads though, which explains some of his popularity.

>>11631739
I like his talks with Jocko Willink. They just talk about getting things done in your life for the most part

>>11631825
please return to the ignorant frogposter hellhole you came from
>>>/pol/

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/224723751504326658?s=20

>>11631783
lol

>>11631841
>This is true of most American undergrads though, which explains some of his popularity.
I could at the very least see this. When you live in an environment in which Butlerism is the chosen gospel and is taken to its logical authoritarian conclusion, someone as unremarkable and hacky as Peterson might just seem like a breath of fresh air.

>>11631798
MoM is a classroom textbook and 12 Rules is self-help for housewives.

In the middle of both, but really there are many better options to read

>>11631739
People hate him because
>>11601396

>>11631873
butthurt: the post

>>11631879
You just hate it because other people liked it. Thanks for proving it right.

wash your penis. also all collectivism is marxism and iran needs to be regime changed. hail individualism

>>11631739
Everyone I know who has a background in philosophy who has either tried to read his book or has watched his lectures have basically all said the same things. A) some of what he says is okay but all of that stuff is unoriginal, better argued for and fleshed out by the thinkers he takes them from, B) his philosophy is a mess and the good elements aren't very well integrated and that C) a lot of his ideas are bad. Also based Gregory Saddler doesn't think anything of him.

>>11631880
okay

more like jordan penis in butt

>>11631860

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-tlZY9NEMk

>muh post-modern neomarxists
on top of that he is a presuppositionalist and he doesn't understand Bill C-16

>>11631919
twitter was a mistake

>>11631926
Ultimately, I suspect that verbal language was the original mistake.

Resentment at being told that while the burden of life and the pain and suffering implicit within it are not your fault, they are your responsibility.

Zoomers can't handle responsibility.

>>11632010
Only because you're gay.

I dont understand his fanatics. How can they pay to go see his talks? Why do they so cheer so loudly when he walks in the room?

This is the west without religion / tradition.

>>11632030
>tripfag

>>11631919

Doesn't understand C-16?https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/kristi-hanna-human-rights-complaint-transgender-woman-toronto-shelter

This article describes a women who complained about being forced to share a room with a man at a *women's shelter*
She was told her complaint was "transphobic" and "potentially lawbreaking" by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

>>11632050
Poor Canada. They brought it on themselves.

>>11632035
Art and technology are pretty nice consolations, I freely admit. But I suspect that my dog lives a life of greater happiness and contentment than I do.

>>11632050
nobody's perfect :)

He trying to mix self help shit with literal brainlet worldview for max profit and conservative good boi points

>>11632050
>potentially lawbreaking
>potentially
Call me when someone actually get convicted

I dunno I just don't like the way he talks, never really listened to him. I got the impression he is an unapologetic neoliberal that likes mythology is this true?

So, let me get this straight, you criticize people and their opinions without READING their books?

That's very embarrassing.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable having you people on my board.

>>11632084
nobody's criticizing his prose

>>11632084
I prefer to criticise everything from a position of ignorance desu. What you gonna do about it bitch?

>>11631739
>4chan hates him despite popularising him

Did we actually popularize him, or are you just saying that because some of us are the type of loser he wants to read his books?

I noticed that the further a person is from babbling aesthete (Nietzsche, Joyce, Nick Land, etc.) the more /lit/ hates him.

>>11631739
Does he even belong on /lit/ in the first place?

>>11632102
Respond with condescending critique; in so far as one might apply, justifiably, Hitchens razor to the claims of the ignorant, known by their ignorance, of their ignorance, in service of the dismissal of their ignorance, I will now do so.

>>11632108
/lit/ likes principles and sound theories rather than self-help dollar schmoozers whose entire work is one big mental gymnastics, but liked by kids with issues whom he gives purpose

>>11632120
I take it you've read Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, then? What did you think of it.

To make such a claim about a textbook like that must mean you're a Nobel prize winner in multiple dimensions.

>>11631739
He rarely if ever mentions the authors he takes ideas or inspiration from (Rene Girard for example). That's kind of lame.

>>11632073

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea4mEnsTv6Q

This is more intellectually vigorous in a few minutes than all of /lit/ is in a whole week.

>>11632084
He posts his opinions on twitter and interviews too you know? Hell most of his controversial and brainlet opinions come from there

>>11632130
im afraid im not talking about his book, im not familiar at all with his writing and i dont discuss it

>>11632135
Wtf is this

God has surely abandoned us

>>11632138
Everything he says in his interviews and in his live lectures is almost always some form of paraphrasing or direct quotation from Maps of Meaning.

A Harvard level psychological textbook which is highly revered and highly respected in the field and is considered quite difficult, even by the high standards for which it must be judged.

So, maybe you should actually read, instead of coming here and pretending that you've read.

>>11632120

You're troglodytes. You'd guzzle his books, and his cock, if he dressed them up with the shitty purple prose you jerk each other off over every day. Take ANY excerpt from ANYTHING he's ever wrote, dilute it with shitty tripe - hey your very own personal problems methinks be naught but rambunctious-most little naughty ajsybda kuydgskasbda dsblaisd - and you'll eat it up.

>>11632151
>highly revered and highly respected

lol okay

>>11632157
Go back to cleaning your room

>>11632165
fuck you dad I'll do what I want!

>>11632160
Go and read.

Clean your room.

Get your act together.

Speak the truth.

Lying on 4chan is still lying.

>>11632151
>Everything he says in his interviews and in his live lectures is almost always some form of paraphrasing or direct quotation from Maps of Meaning.
wouldn't know since as i said, i dont know him by his writing
>A Harvard level psychological textbook which is highly revered and highly respected in the field and is considered quite difficult, even by the high standards for which it must be judged.
again, im sure it, but as i said, i couldnt care less about his writing and his psychological career, which im sure is brilliant or he wouldnt be in this position of authority
>So, maybe you should actually read, instead of coming here and pretending that you've read.
i never pretended to read his stuff, im not interested in it in the slightest, i dont know what its about, i dont discuss it and frankly i dont know where did you get the idea that i do
>>11632157
i dont know about others, but my interests are very far from what you perceive them to be

>>11632170
okay

i like his self improvement stuff but whenever he talks about anything else it's clear he has no idea what he is talking about. case in point being his rants on postmodernism where he shows a complete lack of will to even understand the basic concepts of it

The only people who criticize the Lobster King are fat neckbeard pseuds will do whatever it takes to fight common sense and avoid taking responsibility for their lives as long as they possibly can. He is just too reasonable and practical for their schizoid minds to accept. They need turgid mysticism that will take them years to study without ever fully understanding it because there was never anything there to understand to begin with because it was a mental trap all along. Memerson is doing good in this world, helping a lot of lost young men find their path to success, and I have nothing but respect for that.

>>11631746
>this guy is against my brand of fascist political correctness but also says he is against white nationalism, fascism and the alt-right, But no one can not be a liberal without being a fascist, therefore he is secretly appealing to a fascist fan base!

Eat shit and die you soulless puppet, you mechanical follower.

.>post modern neo marxists
Buzzwords so he doesn't have to engage in actual debate. And now everyone is blaming post modernism for all the problems in the world because peterson was too lazy to google it. He should've just stayed in his lane.

>>11632191
oh, i'm the fascist, alright...

>>11632189
except this is board about art, philosophy and stuff like that, not a self help centre for obese fatherless americans
you have your board on pol, why do you pester us here

>>11632172
Then get off 4chan and go and read.

You have no business discussing any of these topics if you've not read anything he's written.

>>11632186
>>11632194
Except his critique on postmodernism is spot on. Postmodernism is a plague against reason, the last bastion of autists shielding their fragile selves from reality

>>11632205
why would i read a bunch of stuff thats totally irrelevant to me and that i dont find interesting or innovative a single bit
if i wanted a psychology class id go study it
>You have no business discussing any of these topics if you've not read anything he's written.
please get off your high horse, nobody is discussing his written opus except you who use it as a weird strawman

>>11632203
Memerson is a man of philosophy and a living work of art, and you must acknowledge this and stop being such a pseud

>>11632157
if?

>>11632213
he can't even define it, yet you think he can critique it? He just wanted a boogeyman so he chose post modernism.

>>11632073
>lol it’s not like they actually have concentration camps, they just have built them and say they’ll POTENTIALLY put people in them.. psh what are you a fascist? call me when they actually put people in the camps you stupid cis white male

>>11631739
clean my penis

>>11632213
no it's not retard
give some reasons why first

>>11632213
he's not even against post modernism, just cultural marxism and what little he learned from Bill Hicks

>>11632205
Ironic given he's made his platform off of pseuds who have little understanding of the things he critiques

>>11632073
>pragerU
OH NO NO NO NO

>>11632227
yes mom

>>11632223
One organization;s dumb opinion does not a law make

self-help, pseudo-academic, charlatan supported by the type of people I tend to avoid irl

my gripe with peterson is the same as it's always been. he has absolutely no understanding of derrida and foucault and, at the time, was just another "conservative" voice spamming the internet with pieces blaming post-structuralism for trump. anyone with an undergraduate level of derrida knows that peterson's criticism of french ps is a massive joke. not to mention that he is completely ignorant on derrida's books on the rogue state, animal rights, and even the fucking death penalty. to anyone who says that derrida hollowed out language or absurdified it, why did derrida call justice "the undeniable?" makes absolutely no sense but gives people a whipping boy for something they don't understand.

cultural marxism is such an absolute farce it's laughable. the left has a problem with puritainism, but peterson's diagnosis is merely a case of a stopped clock being wrong twice a day rather than being prescient. people act like he's the first person to bring criticisms to the left. it's absurd

his reactionary garbage is only enthralling to people who have never thought for themselves. i am completely over the hero mythos and jordan peterson is someone who breathes and eats this radical form of self-overcoming in a completely reversed way, namely, only by appealing to this ad hoc vision of the "modern male". i don't need another dad. the invocation of myth and some form of male/female ancient dynamic only adds gloss but not substance. it's really unsurprising that, of course, the modern male aligns completely and entirely with the cultural icons or mythology that he chooses to fit the narrative. in reality, as even people like de beauvoir shows, mythology is all over the place when it comes to gender archetypes. there is no perennial philosophy that will actually display these vaulted archetypes because they have never existed in any set and streamlined way, even between neighboring cultures. he wants his readers to look forwards, but only by looking backwards.

boring boring boring baseball dad with sloppy scholarship and lame, uninspiring ideas for neckbeards and people who think either that philosophy is a joke or that philosophy is supposed to solve the mysteries of being.

>>11632221
>he can't even define it
Funny cuz neither can lit or anybody else for that matter

>>11632280

philosophically speaking, "post-modernism" is a loose collection of continental philosophers that drew inspiration from everything from de bord to heidegger to the frankfurt school to husserl. there is no way to define post-modernism because post-modernism isn't a school, it's a post-hoc label.

>>11631739

I think Individualism is bad and unhealthy. He also has let the spotlight get to his head and spends his time doing over the top attacks of "SJWs" on twitter. I think his self-improvement message is good mind.

He's not nazbol.

Man, Peterson triggers the pseuds on this board like nobody else. It's incredible how one many can be so clearly divisive, evincing equal amounts of fervor from both his advocates and his critics.

>>11632286
well to be honest you could kinda define it as a social and cultural movement in its dialectical relation to modernism
or you could use it as a boogeyman for stuff you don't like

>>11631883
what a boring post, make your own opinions lol

>>11631919
Existence is certainly acausal. He's not entirely wrong.

>>11632105
Yes, /pol/ did, before the book

>>11631739
I think much of the complaining against him is that he takes somewhat complex philosophical ideas and dumbs them down into self help BS.

>>11632249

People don't care what Derrida is saying because he's the typical French-Jewy obscurantist who hides behind pointless volume of pointlessly baroque language and blames you for not deciphering otherwise banal ideas. The point is he himself has relegated himself to hostility and the true meaning and purpose of his work is inciting reciprocal hostility in order to smear others as evil and stupid - a tenet of Marxism.

>>11632349

why even respond when it's clear that you've never read derrida. derrida's point is to incite hostility? you're a fucking moron.

>>11632249
>cultural marxism is such an absolute farce it's laughable
Cultural Marxism is the application of Marxist critical theory to culture. It happens in every class. They don't even hide it.

>>11632349
>I don't understand! It therefore must be more obscurant jewery

>>11632339
Bro, distilling a complex idea into its essence isn't turning it into BS, it's making it stronger and more easily digestible, and even if it did become BS in its distillation, then that means it was BS to begin with.

>>11632337
/pol/ hates Peterson and consider him a useful idiot at best. Jordan was initially popularized by the filmed/unfilmed outrages by far-left activists on campus due to his opinions. This got him notoriety with the various alternative media outlets and the pro free-speech channels on Youtube, and he went on to market himself as a paragon of calm, soft-spoken center-left politics, with a touch of conservative elements (especially in regards to religion) which got him more in the spotlight. He dud a few debates with some ridiculous Canadian lefties on television which made him look better, and, of course, that one interview with the blonde nutcase is where he really soared into popularity.

/pol/ has pretty much consistently hated the guy, though. I think they mostly see him as a snakeoil salesman and an opportunist. Practically every /pol/ thread on Peterson I've seen has been a circlejerk of hate, or, at best, soft praise.

>>11632370
If the behavior of Derridians is any indication, it's to justify soft forms of authoritarianism.

>>11632397
Not in the beginning.

>>11632370
>>11632381

There is nothing to Derrida as far as ideas. It barely qualifies as writing.

>>11631739
He brings nothing new to the table, nothing remotely intelligent. His entire shtick is just saying other people want to hear. "Liberal are bad" wow dude, you really fucking got them there.

>>11632401
Mate, I'm a /pol/ regular. In the beginning he was at best lauded as a worthwhile free speech cause as to highlight the ever-increasing hysteria of far-left polirics. Not because they liked him personally but because he was convenient. He was never /pol/'s guy, or anything.

>>11632412
Peterson is a liberal.

>>11632414
He absolutely was. It wasn't until he was drawn out on the question of individualism vs collectivism that /pol/ turned on him.

>>11632421
Clearly the threads you and I have seen are in complete opposition to one another.

>>11632419
muh classical liberalism

>>11631739
Unironically nothing. I think he's actually in some sense a force for good. A necessary counterbalancing agent against radical leftist ideologies.

He's not extreme, but the way he combines science and reasoned argument with the occasional politicized remark makes me shake my head.

He, like everybody else, would be better off not on twitter. Or just tweeting links to his latest blog posts or videos. Many a dumbass has been sucked into twitter and ruined their career over a few damned sentences.

Twitter just isn't a good medium for intellectual discussion. 4chan is practically better for christ sakes, since at least you can write multiple paragraphs.

>>11632429
He wore the frog mask. He ran a promo saying "seek your 4chan"...why? Because he was popular there.

>>11632132

I like how no one is even replying. Never mind what he's saying, the length and conversational aspect alone makes it inaccessible for most of /lit/. Morons.

>>11632412
>He brings nothing new to the table,
I don't think that's entirely true, his practice seems to be doing well enough and his methods are laid out in MoM

>>11631739
The problem is he only spouts either New or true information. The new stuff is wrong, and the true stuff is old territory.

>>11632434
Well, yes. Twitter is for short "gotchyas" and other boring drivel. Peterson's biggest issue is that he talks too much on subjects that he knows little about, especially things like post-modernism which I don't think he even understands. Other than that, he's fine. An opportunist for sure, but a worthwhile centrist voice in a polarizing era.

>>11632414
>I'm a /pol/ regular
Leave

He was pols guy until he got confronted with the JQ and couldn't do it

>>11632406

there is a zero percent chance that you have read anything from derrida cover to cover.

>>11632464
So, 2 years ago? Because he had spit on the JQ numerous times in his old lectures.

Wow, guess he wasn't "/pol/'s guy" for very long, then!

>>11631739
Peterson is really talknig to kids who have never had real fathers to instruct them in the basics of penis washing. He's like "Growing Up 101". He's a place to start.

>>11631797
he's also a hypocrite (e.g. Faith Goldy) and is disingenuous at times

>>11632473
Wow, he's human. Pretty amazing stuff.

>>11632471
No I'm pretty sure the video I'm thinking of happened after he blew up and pol were never the brightest bunch at any rate

>>11631739
>What's your real gripe with Peterson?
that he doesn't understand the things he pretends to be criticising (marxism, post-modernism) at all. his grasp of those subjects would honestly be better if he just would've stuck to wikipedia articles.

>>11632481
Marxist postmodernism is neither Marxist nor postmodernism

>>11632470
Sure, but I've read enough of his writing, and I genuinely believe that he intended for it to be as close to meaningless as it could while still expressing something for people to latch onto.

>>11632151
>A Harvard level psychological textbook which is highly revered and highly respected in the field and is considered quite difficult, even by the high standards for which it must be judged.
no

>>11632508
Wait are you talking about Derrida or Peterson?

>>11632434
>JBP
>science
>reasoned argument
lol

of course he's a climate change skeptic
god damn what a shitty public "intellectual"

>>11632508

>read this philosopher's work without reading any philosophy, and i don't understand it, so he must be an obscurantist

derrida is one of the most important commentators of all time for phenomenology and semiotics. derrida remained, until the day he died, a heideggerian. his works on husserl (see: his graduate thesis) are impeccable and his early lectures on heidegger literally steered heidegger studies for at least a half-century. that's not even getting into work on language. or any of the other things he wrote about.

i'm willing to allow that not many people are interested in or have read any of the philosophy that derrida is responding to, but why the fuck do you think that your opinion means anything if you can't make heads or tails out of derrida because you didn't do your homework?

just go read the death penalty lectures. they are accessible.

>In terms of what question are we to accept and read this apparently so portentous distinction? Before proposing this purely "phenomenological" distinction between the two senses of the word "sign," or rather, even before recognizing it, before setting it off in what purports to be a simple description, Husserl proceeds to what is in effect a phenomenological reduction: he puts out of play all constituted knowledge, he insists on the necessary absence of presuppositions (Voraussetzungslosigkeit), whether they come from metaphysics, psychology, or the natural sciences. The point of departure in the "Faktum" of language is not a presupposition, provided that one is attentive to the contingency of the example. Analyses thus directed keep their "sense" and their "epistemological value"—their import for the theory of knowledge (erkenntnistheoretischen Wert)—whether or not there exist any languages; whether beings such as men use them effectively or not; whether men or nature really exist, or exist only "in the imagination and according to the mode of possibility." We have thus a prescription for the most general form of our question: do not phenomenological necessity, the rigor and subtlety of Husserl's analysis, the exigencies to which it responds and which we must first recognize, nonetheless conceal a metaphysical presupposition? Do they not harbor a dogmatic or speculative commitment which, to be sure, would not keep the phenomenological critique from being realized, would not be a residue of unperceived naivety, but would constitute phenomenology from within, in its project of criticism and in the instructive value of its own premises?

>Look, having nuclear—my uncle was....

>>11632568

What do you respond to someone who might come to you, at dawn, and say:
“You know, the death penalty is what is proper to man”?
(Long silence)
As for me, I would fi rst be tempted to answer him, too quickly: yes,
you are right. Unless it is what is proper to God — or unless that comes
down to the same thing. Then, resisting the temptation by virtue of another
temptation — or in virtue of a counter- temptation — I would be tempted,
upon refl ection, not to respond too quickly and to let him wait — for many
days and many nights. Until dawn.
(Long silence)
It is dawn, now, we are at dawn. In the fi rst light of dawn. In the white-
ness of dawn (
alba
). Before beginning, let us begin. We would begin.
We would begin by pretending to begin before the beginning.

Practically Trump.

>>11632556
>In the top 1% of cited scientists.

>>11632731
In his field of psychology, perhaps

What is an exception?
More than once, last year, we insisted on the character of absolute
exception
that pardon must maintain, a pardon worthy of the name, a pardon that
is always unforeseeable and irreducible to statement as well as to contract,
to determinative judgment, to the law, therefore, a pardon always outside
the law, always heterogeneous to order, to norm, to rule, or to calculation,
to the rule of calculation, to economic as well as juridical calculation. Every
pardon worthy of that name, if there ever is any, must be
exceptional
, should
be exceptional, that is in short the law of the pardon: it must be lawless and
exceptional, above the laws or outside the laws.
The question then remains: what is an exception? Can one pose this
question? Is there an essence of exception, an adequate concept of this sup-
posed essence?
One may have one’s doubts, and yet we commonly use this word, as if it
had an assured semantic unity. We regularly act as if we know what an exception is or, likewise, what an exception is not, as if we had a valid criterion
with which to identify an exception or the exceptionality of an exception,
the rule, in short, of the exception, the rule for discerning between the exceptional <and> the non- exceptional — which seems, however, absurd or a
contradiction in terms. And yet, people commonly speak of the exception,
the exception to the rule, the exception that confirms the rule; there is even
a law or laws of exception, exceptional tribunals, and so forth.

>>11632568
Heidegger and Husserl have a few fascinating insight, but they're mostly just diversions from serious philosophy. The fact that he crammed the already outdated Saussurean linguistic paradigm into doesn't help his case.
>but why the fuck do you think that your opinion means anything if you can't make heads or tails out of derrida because you didn't do your homework?
Because his work directly impacts my life whether I read it or not. The people who have done "their homework" use his work to justify all sorts of unpleasant social policing. then his defenders tell me that it doesn't have anything to do with his work. From my reading and witnessing it in practice, I really do believe that he strove to express a near-meaninglessness in the most impressive way possible, and by-and-large, he succeeded.

>>11632741
>h-index of 50
>9000 citations prior to 2013
I am laffin

>>11632325
A human life span isn't infinite. I'm not going to read Twilight to form my own opinion on it, I trust enough what I understand about it to conclude what reading it will be like. Ditto for Peterson.

>>11632761
Right, related to his psychology work, not his piss poor understanding of philosophers

>>11632772
Are you putting psychology below philosophy on the spectrum of relation to pure science?

Are you retarded? Psychology requires comprehensive knowledge of philosophy and science of philosophy. To say that jordan is a world respected scientist in his field, but is not any more knowledgeable than YOU on the topic of philosophy, is literally naught but a joke you've made yourself out to be.

>>11631739
textbook controlled opposition

>>11632132
>>11632438
>so simple
>dumbed down
>for plebs
>for children
>still no replies

>>11632810
>Psychology requires comprehensive knowledge of philosophy and science of philosophy
It really doesn't. I've meet more than enough pysch grads to know that unless they also did philosophy or a science degree they knew fuck all about it.

>>11632810
>Are you putting psychology below philosophy on the spectrum of relation to pure science?

Nope

MORONS

>>11633126
Care to elaborate?

>>11631746
zionist dogwhistling?

>>11632810
The average iq of a psychology major is 115. The average iq of a philosophy major is 130. Id go on to say that the vast majority of psychology majors have an elementary understanding of philosophy and proportionately the analytical reasoning skills held. Neuroscience is the only true psychology and even the logical inferences derived from studies tend to be heavily propagandized by jews who want to support the derailing of western culture.

>>11631783
thread reported for that

>>11632438
It is clear you are baiting for views since your post wasn't even in direct conflict with mine

>>11632761
you can't greentext. you're him, aren't you.

>>11632810

>To say that jordan is a world respected scientist in his field, but is not any more knowledgeable than YOU on the topic of philosophy, is literally naught but a joke you've made yourself out to be.

His misconstrual of Heideggerian Being is reason enough to outright dismiss pretty much any of his lame attempts at reading the thoughts of other people. The man is functionally dyslexic. Completely incapable of reading. This goes for Jung, Orwell, Heidegger and Rousseau - and this I know merely because these are the authors that I myself know that I've heard him mention in those mercifully few times I've heard him speak. Jung never wrote that ideas have people. His reading of the bible is so plebby it hurts. How does he get away with it? Because his fans are complete, utter and total retards themselves, illiterate ADD-tards who've never read a book or produced a single independent thought. How does Peterson get away with claiming that Nietzsche is a genius for claiming that truth is utility while simultaneously chastising the "postmodern neo-marxists" (oxymoron to anyone who actually knows what the terms mean) for relativizing truth? Because his followers are mouthbreathers with crackbaby attention spans. He is an intellectual travesty and it is a profound fucking embarrassment that grown-ass men consider it deep advice to be told to clean up the jizz-rags from their floors. I hate the man for what he has shown about this board. He is the absolute and ultimate pseud.