/lit/ - Literature

>>11682562
/lit/ is a fickle and capricious mob.

>>11682562
He became a meme that's all.

>>11682562
19 year olds with no inner resources go through phases with the authority figures they worship.

>>11682562
that never happened, go back

He got spammed here and that caused us to hate him. Anybody who gets spammed here is someone we will eventually despise.

I was just thinking about taking the Peterson-pill. I've been aware of him since he first popped up on 4chan, but never bothered looking into him.
What's a good place to begin?
That 12 rules book?

We're a Deleuze board now

He wrote a book that was [shit]

>>11682562
has peterson read the philosophy king?
>>11682585
based

>>11682580

he's not worth reading, just watch that "Modern Times" video on YouTube he did with Camille Paglia

also Paglia is far more based than Peterson

>>11682580
Just read Maps Of Meaning. It's actually really good if you're into compartive myth and the sort.

>>11682562
I love Jordan S Peterson because he's based and redpilled and I don't care what any commie cuck has to say against him

>>11682604
what the FUCK is that cat

People used to like him simply because of the "Man BTFO of SJW" video and "sjw" are a pretty easy scapegoat that most of 4chan hates

contrarianism

He's a fascist and a chud and a symptom of trump's America. FUCK HIM!

>>11682637
>"sjw" are a pretty easy scapegoat that most of 4chan hates

They're not a scapegoat, they're a genuine cancer thats ruining the West

>>11682562
I can say with 100% certainty that /lit/ never loved Peterson. The reaction ranged from indifference to the contemporary slight annoyance.

>>11682654
Well you're wrong, we actually all unironically loved him and still do. You're the exception Lefty cuck

>>11682637
Nothing good has come from the SJWs. They're a hate group cloaked in righteousness

>>11682661
The term we use here is a cult of resentiment, they're too pathetic and reliant to even call hateful

>>11682654
I literally started coming to this board because of Peterson threads being banned on /pol/.

I never bothered with him and for the longest time I had no opinion but his cult followers are losers and I can't stand them. They're not very smart.

>>11682654
This right here. We always have a always will hate him because /lit/ is a left wing board that is against hierarchy and difference between the sexes

Peterson's alright with me, but with only two mediocre books under his belt he's not particularly /lit/ related. I do like him as a speaker, as long as he doesn't get too political. I'll gladly listen to him ramble on about Pinocchio for an hour or two.

>>11682611
Sexual Personae is one hell of a read... Paglia makes passages about spores and rotting fruit sound more depraved than 99% of the things on pornhub.

I remember when people would spam his bible commentary in various bible threads, it turns out the cunt never even read the bible before givings lectures on it. I can't imagine what value anyone was finding in them.

>>11682571
It did in early 2017. That was the worst I’ve ever seen /lit/, not entirely because of the dozens of Peterson threads, but that was definitely a contributing factor.

>>11682660
>>11682672
>>11682675
Like I said, besides the /pol/ution nobody here gave a fuck. People did not hate him either. He's a psychologist pretending to be a philosopher who got popular by talking about the SJW fad and writing a self-help book. Read Jung instead, that's where all of his interesting stuff comes from anyway.

Ben Shapiro threads get deleted but there's always at least two or three Peterson threads. The mods are pricks.

>>11682686
>it turns out the cunt never even read the bible

I refuse to believe this

>>11682696
Ben Shapiro is as stupid and pointless as Peterson.

>>11682693
No read Freud, skip Jung, go straight to Lacan

>>11682698
I heard it in that Voxiversity video. I didn't believe it until I saw Peterson fanboys defending it in the comment section, saying "why does he need to have read the whole bible before talking about it? You can't talk about one episode in a box set before the entire season is finished?"

>>11682712
This is only acceptable once he only hadn't read the lesser books

>>11682716
I would be that generous because I've read the entire bible times along with countless commentaries and I still don't feel qualified to put myself out there as an authority.

>>11682737
I wouldn't be that generous, I mean.

>>11682562

No. Peterson was always pretty stupid and seriously sounds like Kermit the Frog trying to lecture on retarded bullshit.

>>11682737
Thats a bad attitude though. You don't have to be a prophet to give your reading on the Bible, otherwise nobody will be able to talk about it
You can give a lecture and help people understand some of it more where you're insightful and where you're ever egregiously wrong the higher authorities are available to correct you

>>11682562
there were more underage /pol/tards crossboarding then

>>11682562
As a majority-Communist board, we were always against Peterson.

>>11682755
I don't disagree with you but it's one thing to discuss the bible or correct somebodies mistakes and it's an entirely different thing to stand in front of an audience and tell people what to think despite not being in any way qualified to do so. It makes the job of real educators more difficult because they have to deal with the inevitable nonsense that shows up in the minds of his listeners who do treat him as an authority that knows what he's talking about. If he was up front about his lack of knowledge this would be a different story, but you were probably as shocked as me that he hasn't read the bible.

>>11682562
*snap* *sip* I remember back in 2010 when I was just a young buck tryin to make a name for myself on this ol board. We'd all post petersons. petersons all day. he was a hero here. But not anymore I guess. Really don't make these threads like they used to ya know

>>11682790
He is qualified though, he's a professor of psychology. Not a qualification I exactly respect myself but it seems like enough of a license to me to at least give his take
I'm a big believer in the notion that truth sticks, bullshit washes off. If he's contributing to understanding in any way, more power to him as far as I'm concerned

>>11682785
I unironically don't like him because he isn't anti-semetic and reactionary enough. Thanks for the help though I guess.

>>11682814
You might prefer /pol/, this is a overwhelmingly a Communist board.

>>11682826
>this is a overwhelmingly a Communist board.

Maybe back in 2015. Ever since I arrived and started dishing out major redpills its a big R Reactionary board in the French tradition

>>11682811
He's qualified to be a psychologist but not to teach others on the bible. Even if he approached the bible with a purely psychological lens--which he didn't--he's still not qualified because he hasn't read it.

>>11682833
Are you sure you aren't just projecting? You probably just aren't clever enough to understand Marx, spew your idealist, reactionary nonsense on here, and convince yourself that people are listening.

>>11682826
I'm not a big fan of that board, but considering (assuming you aren't trolling) that you're stupid enough to actually invest a large part of your life in a materialist ideology, maybe you would

Idk if we ever loved him, we just found him vaguely entertaining and then annoying and then cringeworthy and then entertaining again

>>11682846
>not being a materialist
I think you're the brainlet.

>>11682846
>assuming you aren't trolling
Lit was for a long time left leaning. It only started to change when pol exploded in popularity that the amount of new people who came in managed to change the culture here. Tbh I'm not even sure I would call it left leaning. It just felt relatively neutral politically which I guess seems very left right to the alt right.

>>11682646

>>11682814
>>11682835
>>11682704
retard
>>11682811
>>11682622
>>11682677
based

>>11682917
cringe and blue-pilled compilation poster

>>11682562
First, do you believe in god? But not your definition of god, (something between the lines of a: Being above all beings), we are talking about Petersons' TM, new and improved definition of god. Because if you don't believe in him, you cannot speak truth, but don't worry: Even if you don't believe in him: You do believe in him !,as Dostoyevsky showed us: Either you believe in god, or you become a nihilist, like Nietszche (who is this Stirner, again?), you just can't have a happy life if you don't believe in god (who is that Kierkegaard you keep talking about?) and your goals are not: Being married, 2.1 kids, a hose/mortgage, a 9 to 5 work, etc. Also fuck postmodernism, all postmodernists are marxists, you don't need to read anything written after WWII, except Harry Potter, that shit is a Jungiang master piece (next to Pinocchio)

No but seriously, the guy is not a philosopher and that's okay, the problem is that he has some really dogmatic opinions on realms that are out of his expertise: sociology and philosophy mainly, you could say he's seriously spooked. Also his raise to fame seems really sketchy in retrospective: Fighting a law that has already been passed at a local level and not doing anything back then.
t. someone that enjoyed him at first but then heard too much of his actual opinions/ideas

get it while it's hot buckos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D7VB_t0uLE

>>11682692

That must have been when I got here. I saw a post on the 4chan reddit about /fitlit/ thing and thought I should pay this place a visit. I got quite sucked in by the Peterson thing. I remember one very specific reply:

The thread started with something like

> How the fuck do we get this asshat canook to crawl back under his rock?

but the reply that hooked me was

> You are all recieving a world class education in psychology - completely for free! You should all quit your bitching and be grateful.

His Personality and its Transformations lectures are quite the thing. Highly recomended (especially the 2014 ones).

>>11682562
he ended up sounding like your dad and its annoying

>>11682983
>the average boomer father not being a despicable post-patriarchal liberal

>>11682971
I can tell you spent a while on getting this bait perfect.

>>11682580
He has at least four sides, anon.

1. His lectures on personality are top-notch and probably the best of his content. He's well-respected and this is his actual field of expertise, so this is where you know you'll get good stuff.
2. His self-help is good as far as self-help goes, and whether its good depends on whether it works for you. He bases it around what he knows as a psychologist, but I don't know how it compares with other self-help. If you had overly coddling parents it'll probably work for you.
3. His jungian myth stuff is dense and interesting, but it's just his perspective so take it with a grain of salt. "Maps of Meaning" is written in this annoyingly deliberately obscurantist way that reminds me of reading social theory. There's content there but it seems padded. If you're interested in jung and mythology, skip the book and watch the lectures instead, because he's fun to listen to.
4. His political stuff is oversimplified and repetitive. The boogeymanning of postmodernism is particularly bad. You'll learn all kinds of wrong things about postmodernism if you listen to Peterson. I'd avoid this if you can.

>>11682580

Depends on what you're into. I'm deep into the Memeson, so I'll share what I know as best I can to suit your desires.

If you're more of a Sam Harris-like atheist type then watching his course Personality and its Transformations might be fitting. I would recomend starting with the last 20 minutes of his 2017 lecture on Piaget. So much wisdom in that small little clip.

If you're interested in how myths come about and want to know about comparative religion then you might want to read/listen to Maps of Meaning. The audio book version is 31 hours (longer than Crime & Punishment!) so it's quite the thing. As an intro to that, listen to/watch his first interview with Transliminal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

If you want to know more about his philosophical views then there are a few lectures that might be interesting.
Here's a good lecture on phenomenology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=539UQF6eT6I
This is the best I've heard him ever lay out his idea on what's true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO9LUWs5M60
That phenomenology lecture is #9 in that course. Lecture 7 and 8 are also very good. Maybe the 2014 Rogers lecture is better, but whatever.

>>11683052

To add to point 4: If you want to learn more about that, read Explaining Postmodernism by Hicks. There's also a relatively recent (dated 2017) lecture by Hicks on this if you want a condenced version.
The audio book is available for free online.

Point 3: I don't exactly know what you mean by

> annoyingly deliberately obscurantist way

but I can guess. Peterson prides himself of rewriting everything he does until he's no longer capable of making it any clearer. I've never read any social theory, so I don't know what you're refering to. Would you mind giving an example? Or point to a passage in Maps of Meaning that you think is unnecessarily difficult?

>>11683014

Well, I might have exaggerated the first quote, but the second one is, as far as I can remember, what was said.

I'm just telling you how I got baited. If it's also a perfect bait for you then thank the original anon who wrote it sometime in April of 2017 - not me.

>>11683113
Granted, that may be what he was doing. When someone writes the same thing ten different ways in a row, it begins to seem padded, or even patronizing, but that has its uses.

I just mean that my BS detector was going off. Lemme give an example from the first page: "Science allows for increasingly precise determination of the consensually validatable properties of things, and for efficient
utilization of precisely determined things as tools..."

He's saying something pretty simple in a complicated way. Unless I'm wrong, he's saying Science lets us precisely measure the properties of things, at least those properties that can be measured and verified by others, and also then put them to use as tools. And if it were a lecture, I think that's what he'd say.

I'm really not so much complaining about Peterson himself as a writer, as I'm complaining more generally about the formal writing that exists entrenched in academia, but it is what it is.

>>11682701
But Peterson isn't related to Khazar milkers.

>>11682677

>>11683113
>If you want to learn more about that, read Explaining Postmodernism by Hicks.
since the weepy professor is getting all his postmodernism shit from hicks, his book can be safely discarded

>>11682562
>Remember when /lit/ loved Peterson?
Nope. He was always a pseud saying BS to extract money from dumb frogposters and 2016 election tourists.