/lit/ - Literature

It'll be every day until you respond, /lit/.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

>>11690168
Oh I'm definitely going to be saving this guy for a good hearty laugh.

Let's read your article.

>>11690168
"f you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. "

We're off to a pretty terrible start here, buddy. Would you mind explaining exactly what this "journalist" is attempting to convey? Because this seems like inarticulate rambling, so far.

>>11690168
>"How does one even address material like this? It can’t be “refuted.” Are we ruled by a dragon of chaos? Is the dragon feminine? Does “the ‘state’ of preconscious paradise” have a “voluntary encounter with the unknown”? Is the episodic really more explicit than the procedural? These are not questions with answers, because they are not questions with meanings."

Oh that is just fucking embarrassing.

You just wind up proving Robinson's point here, December. If something is so convoluted and esoteric that only the most worthy transcendent minds can even begin to comprehend, it's not even worth "refuting".

>>11690192
>inarticulate rambling
Robinson is one of the most clear and lucid political writers of our time. Are you sure you're not mistaking him for Peterson?
A good chunk of that essay is just a long transcript of one of JP's lectures, so don't get confused.

>>11690196
How is this embarrassing? It looks like a perfectly cogent critique to me.

>>11690225
What an embarrassing post.

>>11690214
You need a pretty comprehensive understanding of Mythology and Psychology to grasp the references and analogies and metaphors being used in Maps of Meaning.

I've nearly finished the article. I'll proceed to laugh at it when I'm done.

>>11690232
laughable and embarrassingpilled

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/08/voxiversity-20.html?m=1

Not that I'm a fan of Vox Day, but whatever, enjoy

>>11690232
>What an embarrassing post.
What frightens me is that you may be serious. It'd be easy to accuse you of blindly meming, but if you are not a provocateur then you are, what, a faithful religious believer? If you can't explain a man's ideas then you don't really understand them, and your reliance on ad hominem etc. implies that you can't explain Peterson's ideas.
>>11690232
>You need a pretty comprehensive understanding of Mythology and Psychology to grasp the references and analogies and metaphors being used in Maps of Meaning.
Explain the points that are so confusing to Robinson, then, namefag.

>>11690125
The contrapoints video was right on the money

Juden "Taoism is about *conflict* of order and chaos because it fits into my grand theory of everything" Peterstein

>>11690260
>muh tranny youtoob videos
get me a cis heterosexual omnivore male rebuttal in written form, else it doesn't count

>>11690271
What does Peterson mean by chaos, tho? He's referring to a specific category of perception. Do you know what that category is?

You'd fail psych 101 if you didn't.

>>11690298
And you'd fail phil 101 if you defined Being as retardedly as he did in 12 Rules.

>>11690303
And you would fail psych 101 if you tried to base your definition of Being on 12 rules for life; a contemporary pop-psych book written for a psychometrically ignorant audience.

Which you just admitted to doing, because you're a virgin.

>>11690168
>Here is where Jordan Peterson’s self-help routine connects with his politics. Peterson seemingly discourages all serious political involvement. He says cultivating the self and reading great books is “more important than any possible political action.” Don’t focus on changing the world, focus on tidying up your life. After all, “the meaning of life is to be found in the adoption of individual responsibility” and “when you win everything, everyone around you wins too” because “it means you shine a light on the whole world…” 12 Rules For Life makes it explicit: stop questioning the social order, stop assigning blame for problems to political actors, stop trying to reorganize things.
Absolutely scathing. Peterson is working with the Jews to ideologically disarm the youth.

So far we have posted ...

1. An opinion piece full of ad hominems and profound misunderstanding by a socialist who voted Hillary Clinton and thinks The View is a credible source of information.

2. ...

3 ...

you guys realize this tripfag is peterson, right?

>>11690318
Address this please: >>11690253
Oh, and this: >>11690315

>>11690315
You know, I get what this guy's driving at, but the people who totally buy into Peterson's whole schtick probably do need to sort their own lives out before attempting to work on broader social problems

>>11690326
The plot thickens

>"Well, It's a complicated question. You know, I've never read a critic of Jung who actually understood what Jung was talking about."

"Well, yes, that's always it. They say that I don't understand what Jung was talking about - that his cosmology was just a metaphor for psychological reality and not that he's actually talking about gods. But if you really read Jung, he is. He certainly did believe in gods communicating with humans, spirits and the spirit world, reincarnation and all of that stuff. Of course, it is primarily those Jungian analysts who are trying to present the ideas as respectable and scientific who get upset when you point this out. Everyday Jungians – they know what he is talking about – and it's the cultish beliefs that they are attracted to. For them he was talking about some other reality.

So, getting back to the cult issue, you have a charismatic leader who claims to be in contact with a transcendic reality and, by being in contact with him, you can also, potentially, be in contact with that transcendent reality. Moreover, you can only do it through Jung's form of analysis, which he reframes during World War I as a kind of religious initiation.

Jung saw psychoanalysis as path of redemption, of revitalization, of rebirth. Indeed, he wrote of psychoanalysis becoming a totalising world-view saying: “great is the power of the psychoanalytic truth, and it will prevail”. For him, psychoanalysis was the new salvation of the world, with Jung as the prophet who understood its religious nature. Religion, he believed, could only be replaced by another religion."

>>11690315

>Absolutely scathing. Peterson is working with the Jews to ideologically disarm the youth.

Yeah he's been talking about "Postmodern Neo-Marxists" for three straight years now without mentioning the Frankfurt School even once, it's pretty obvious (((who's))) horn he's tooting

>>11690343
The author has clearly either not read Peterson, or not undertaken an education in the psychological sciences. An obvious prerequisite for full comprehension of the nuances of the subject.

I certainly wouldn't claim to understand the deficiencies in mathematical theorems for which I have no training or comprehension. The human psyche, the human neurology, is far more complex than anything else in the known universe by orders of magnitude. So, being ignorant in that domain is a grave intellectual sin if you are to dictate whether something is good, or bad, or evil, or immoral.

>12 Rules For Life makes it explicit: stop questioning the social order, stop assigning blame for problems to political actors, stop trying to reorganize things.
Good advice for the young and uneducated.

You yourself are attempting just this while being patently ignorant of the most simple facts of the matter in this subject.

>>11690141
It's a pity you're on a mission, but i think the problem is not with Maps of Meanings but rather with the character he impersonates in his videos in order to denigrate a school of thought which he does not seem to have an honest grasp on it.

>>11690356
The discoverer of the Big Bang was himself a Catholic and practicing believer. Guess that taints his scientific discoveries.

Oh wait, no It doesn't.

>>11690366
Who does he impersonate?

>>11690377
a basic polemist. it is a disgrace. his videos before his incident with his univerisities were very fine. after that, well ..

>>11690364
>The author has clearly either not read Peterson, or not undertaken an education in the psychological sciences. An obvious prerequisite for full comprehension of the nuances of the subject.
Well, I have a psychology and a neuroscience degree and I heavily read philosophy of mind independently. I haven't read Peterson, but it sounds like I have a sufficient background to at least somewhat grok at what he's getting at. So how about you actually discuss his ideas with me instead of repeatedly redirecting and dodging the question? Unless, that is, you don't actually understand his ideas well enough to articulate them.

>>11690214
>mathematics/physics is not worth refuting

>>11690385
A fellow educated individual, then. Very impressive you've double majored in two very different degrees.

You should have no trouble then answering this basic question; The orientating reflex, at the psychonuerological level, is an automatic, reflexive reaction to _____________

Take your time.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/jordan-peterson-doesnt-go-nearly-far-enough/

It's not scathing but it's a pretty fair account

>>11690396
stimuli

>>11690396
The unknown. That was easy.

>>11690404
Incorrect, shooby.

(That's surfer slang for "poser")

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning?amp

https://amp.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8inkcl/maps_of_meaning_a_critique/

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/07/maps-of-meaning.html

https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/the-detraction-of-jordan-peterson-49a6b64a2bdf

>>11690409
Incorrect.

Boy tripping up shooby's is easy.

btw i found a picture of the author lmao

>>11690418
"So here, in deepest sincerity, is a personal plea to Meghan McCain: Please, just stop. You don’t need to do this. Come and join the left. We’re more fun, we’ve got better plans, we’ll make people’s lives better, and we’re not scary. There’s no need to find us “dangerous” or “terrifying.” Just stop worrying. Socialism will win, and it’ll all be okay."

Holy fuck this kid is amazing.

>>11690396
>You should have no trouble then answering this basic question; The orientating reflex, at the psychonuerological level, is an automatic, reflexive reaction to _____________
A change in environment i.e. disorientation although "psychoneurological" is unclear gibberish in that you are conflating the phenomenological dimension of psychology (or feeling/minding/apprehendimg) and the material dimension of neurophysiological mechanism without actually asking what you want. Was talking about the external stimulus enough, or were you trying to get me walk through Gibsonian epistemology, or were you trying to get me to talk about mechanism at the neuronal level?

Also, you're still redirecting. How about you stop redirecting, you shameless namefag?

>>11690418
that dude never stops posting

>>11690418
still less embarrassing than this

>>11690428
I was trying to get you to demonstrate you understand the current canon (psychological) explanation for the reflex. Which you clearly don't.

Wikipedia won't save you.

>>11690439
You always was a silly ho shieeet

>>11690396
This entire thread and this post in particular is one of the most pathetic things I've seen on this board. Don't you see that nobody gives as much shit about impressing some anons as you do? Literally kill yourself tripfag.

>>11690445
Hey retard why are you ignoring >>11690412

>>11690418

>>11690445
There is no established canon in psychology. If you had a psychological education you would understand this. It's just as much a case of academics arguing definitions and minutiae as any other field. You are still redirecting, so at this point it is clear that you are either a troll or an advertisement. Why don't you waddle over to the Deleuze ad threads which call out the Peterson ad threads for never addressing Deleuze.

Also, on that note, what has /lit/ come to? Was it always this obviously and sickeningly commercial and I just wasn't oldfag enough to notice it? /lit/ needs a new Stirner wave as a kind of purification. Too many spooks nowadays.

>>11690462
I'll look at Psychology today, because at least the author is accredited with a Philosophy degree. Not exactly something which impresses me, but hey, let's give him a shot.

>Nevertheless, I think there is a central line of argument that can be extracted from the book, along the following lines:

>1. Myths are culturally universal.
Genius observation there, buddy.

>2. Myths are the psychological origin of morality.
That's a completely incorrect interpretation of the text. Myths, particularly involving archetypal narratives, are the result of the attempts of a collective unconscious of a people to represent, explicitly, through narrative and the symbolic language of the unconscious, the experiential facts of Being.

>3. Myths are the philosophical basis for morality.
Again, see above. He's confusing causation with representation. Something Philosophy students do so often it makes them insufferable.

>4. Myth-based morality grounds political judgments about totalitarian states.
That's an incorrect reading of the diametric extremes of the interpretive schema used by humans to assess the intrinsic state of society based on the rigidity of the hierarchical structure used to scaffold civilization through attributing authority in exchange for competency and the potential for each individual to be dispossessed through corruption by said structure.

This is the best guy you've got? Embarrassing.

>>11690474
>>11690507
This is now a Stirner thread

>>11690513
Spooks are spooky.

>>11690542

>>11690474
You're still not answering the question lmao.

Where did you get your degrees, out of a box of fruit loops?

>tfw ywn be as autistic as December

>>11690561

>>11690561
Where did Peterson get his philosophy degree again?

>>11690577
Your mother.

>>11690580
Yowza!

>>11690580

This chick does a pretty good send up of Peterson's lack of rigor, and it's only the first chapter and the (((overture))) lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX7Vxkev4VA

>>11690591
"And he's also one of these, kind of, like, professional intellectuals who goes around and ... you know ... tells people smart thing"

Oh boy, I might make some tea and actually watch this. I need a good laugh.

I still got that google drive if you guys want to try to write a serious crtique/response to Dr. Peterson.

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

>>11690309
should i read this book to get laid then?

>>11690605

>>11690616
So far, we have in defense of /lit/ ...

1. A PhD. in Philosophy holder who doesn't understand the morality is an emergent faculty of the play circuit.

2. A baby-faced socialist who believes The View is a serious forum for political discussion.

3. A roastie.

Good lord, /lit/, I'm genuinely embarrassed.

For you.

>>11690616
oh btw I didn't mean to link that to you, Stirner poster. Please continue.

>>11690507
Wow what a complete BTFO! Only you forgot the three other links I gave. What's wrong? A bit too much for you, December?

>>11690625
Lets not forget about Steve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGDVTUB_GrY&t=

>>11690625
>>11690632
My name is "based Stirner poster" thank you very much

>>11690642
Psychology today is the only one of those I am willing to entertain you with. And even that was me debasing my usually high standards to illustrate how pathetically weak and anemic your choice of champion authors was.

Perhaps you should become accustom with scientific journals before conversing with me, so this doesn't happen again. I don't enjoy sending narcissistic idiots deeper down into themselves in order to deflect feelings of inadequacy which I force upon them.

>>11690625
big if true

>>11690655
>Asks for critiques of maps of meaning
>Gives 4 critiques of maps of meaning
>Replies to 1
>Complains how he's not getting critiques to maps of meaning
>"Well what about the other three I posted"
>You reply that you are above them, and call me a narcissistic idiot
The only narcissistic idiot here is you, bud.

>>11690609
Show a chick the Gravity's Rainbow audiobook and she's putty in your arms works every time

>>11690679
They fact you're placing yourself beneath them should be a cause of great shame for you. The fact you take pride in considering PsychologyToday to be above reproach by the scientific literature on the subject, which Maps of Meaning absolutely is considered to be a definitive example of exhortation of the current psychological canon even by institutes such as Harvard University, is, matter of fact, embarrassing.

For you.

>>11690679
How do I block namefags again? Not you, you seem alright, but December.

>>11690694
Bully them until they go away.

>>11690245
Isn't that Mr. Triracial?

>lit btfo by obnoxious tripfag
lol.

>>11690692
>They fact you're placing yourself beneath them should be a cause of great shame for you. The fact you take pride in considering
I'm not placing them above me faggot, you asked for links on critiques to maps of meaning, so I Google searches "critiques of maps of meaning" and chose four relevant links. Took me 30 seconds at most. Literally no one gives a fuck about you as much as you think they do.

>>11690125
>You know, I've never read a critic of Jung who actually understood what Jung was talking about.
That motherfucker himself doesn't understand Jung. He is a Campbellian at the very best

>>11690710
Is your gimmick that you're supposed to be retarded, or pretend to be retarded?

If so, I apologize, I didn't realize. I'll filter you from now on.

>>11690694
1. Click Settings (bottom/top of page)

2. Click Filters & Post Hiding

3. Toggle and Edit "Filter and highlight specific threads/posts"

4. Toggle "On", "Auto", and "Hide". Leave "Boards" empty. Then enter a pattern:

For namefags, like Killy for example, add this (as type "Name"):

Killy

For tripfags utilizing ordinary tripcodes, like Eliza !METS.GNIWQ for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!METS.GNIWQ

For tripfags utilizing secure tripcodes, like STHLM !!6Gk3cvqPqbL for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!!6Gk3cvqPqbL

You can also filter tripfags on a name-basis. This will allow your filter to persist even though they switch username passwords.

5. Click "Save" and "Save Settings".

>>11690713
Lol keep on ignoring those other links that are "so below you". It took 30 seconds for me to BTFO you and make you start throwing petty insults and shitty excuses.

>>11690716
Thank you

>>11690168

>>11687010

>>11690727
Nice Nuh uh and whataboutism I guess?

>>11690125
Jordan, aren't you bored?

Alright, I'm chalking the winner of the "Who can critique Peterson" contest to the roastie.

From now on, the roastie is /lit/'s most credible source of anti-peterson rhetoric.

>>11690742
Too bad you ignored three participants

>expecting critiques for an irrelevant work of psychology that only reached the limelight because Peterson didn't want to be nice about trannies

>>11690692
Don't forget Peterson chose UofT over Harvard to teach because he felt he wasn't rigorous enough ;)

>>11690751
It's Jordan. He's worldfamous on the internets.

>>11690742
Why do women hate other women so much, that's just sad

>>11690738

What whataboutism? The guy's other idiotic articles are incidental to him being an illiterate idiot. He thinks NO ONE can understand Peterson speaking in plain English and is either so stupid or thinks so little of his sycophants (you) that he proudly says it. Horrible.

>>11690787
Lol just because you think his article's title are stupid doesn't make his opinion on Peterson wrong. Insulting him and me is not an arguement

>>11690125
I hope you bury your cunt-bitch mother before the week ends, spastic.

>>11690125
Fine, I'll do it. Give me, like, a month. Or five months.

>>11690787
Peterson speaks in English so plain he doesn't even say anything

>>11690795
>>Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work.

HE THINKS A MAN SPEAKING IN PLAIN ENGLISH IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS AS STUPID AS HE IS.

>>11690816
In fairness Maps of Meaning uses pretty technically difficult language.

12 rules for life is written primarily with elderly boomers and millennials in mind. So, calling that technically difficult language is just ... how uneducated do you have to be. Good god.

>>11690816
Cruise control and appeal to absurdism is not an argument either

>>11690822
Maps of meaning is literally a technical book as in its only worth reading if you're taking his class and need vocational training. It's not something you just read

I agree 12 rules is shit though, en entire chapter just to say spare the rod spoil the child I mean has Peterson even heard of brevity?

>>11690845
>It's not something you just read.
If you're stupid I suppose so.

>>11690838

This thread certainly makes me think you're as dim as Nathan, so there might be some truth to that second part. My God.

>>11690848
No, it's a waste of time to read on its own unless you're looking to open your own practice and even then it's not some major seminal work

>>11690845
>a technical book
is this an actual category in your mind? you realize there are just ideas about things, which use language conventions. There is no fundamental difference

>>11690309
t. hole

>>11690864
Go be a brainlet elsewhere, lol

>>11690326
No. it's a right wing thot

>>11690874
i just brought up a pdf of that book because i was curious what you meant, and he is literally just talking about stuff I discuss with my friends while we drink

What is a 'technical book'?

>>11690125
>Meaning

I really don't get why people hate Peterson so much. Like is it solely because they think he is a demagogue of the right? silly

>>11690877
>I skimmed a couple of pages

wow

>>11690326
No not even Peterson is this full of himself

Either that or he's drunk

For fuck's sake. People who weren't even writers, like Glenn Gould, regularly wrote far more GRAMMATICALLY complex sentences, never mind the content.

>>11690880
He is though, he just hides from that because he's a pussy

>>11690882
you are not really engaging with anything i say

i suspect you are not very intelligent and anxious about that fact and therefore projecting, while not actually entering into debate because it scares you, but remaining in the more comfortable zone of ambiguous social posturing

i am so tired of people like you

>>11690895
You're not saying anything

>>11690903
I was asking you to define what a technical book is which you have refused to do. I don't see a difference between using academic jargon or normal language to discuss ideas, and was asking you to clarify

You are a useless poster in this thread, i hope you arent always like this

>>11690880
My personal observation is that the people most vehemently opposed to his character have these things in common ...

1. They're militant atheists, of the stock which comprise the viewership of people like the amazing atheist and those tiny cult followings amassed by YouTube skeptics.

2. They have some critical personal failing for which they have constructed a narrative to explain away the responsibility they have for fixing it.

3. They have zero academic experience with science.

4. They believe that life is fundamentally unfair and unjust and wish to see others who are above them suffer.

Because as we've seen in this thread, absolutely no one has presented credible refutation of even his most simple statements.

>mom says she likes Jordan Petersen and I should watch his videos
>mfw I have to explain to her how he's a kike shill promoting individualism to White people without actually making meaningful criticism of the (((left)))
>she says okay and asks me to trim the tree in the backyard
parents just don't understand man

>>11690890
Grammar isn't a chief function of the author; grammar is a practice that is learned through inoculation. Most mathematicians have great grammar, and fail to write complex sentences with stylized clauses or prosaic illustrations.

>>11690742
did you see the tranny?

>>11690935
No.

>>11690911
>2. They have some critical personal failing for which they have constructed a narrative to explain away the responsibility they have for fixing it.
>3. They have zero academic experience with science.
>4. They believe that life is fundamentally unfair and unjust and wish to see others who are above them suffer.
These are all apt descriptions of Petersonfags

>>11690125

kys faggot

>>11690911
There has been plenty of refutation, but you refuse to accept it for reasons which are completely arbitrary.

>>11690940
That is untrue, in my observation.

>>11690944
An education is an arbitrary reason? How convenient for you, the uneducated.

It's like work and effort and intelligence don't matter at all, now. You and me? We are on equal terms.

>>11690880
They talk about Petersen because he's not actually right-wing and his ideas are not threatening to the narratives the global power structure is dependent on (atomization, individualism, consumer culture, etc.) but he also makes extremely milquetoast criticism of the wackiest parts of the left (e.g. not using the ridiculous pronouns mentally ill attention whores want him to use). They attack Petersen because he pushes back ever so slightly they don't want to bring any attention to people who make actual criticisms of the modern zeitgeist. Petersen makes a good punching bag because he soaks up attention and prevents more threatening authors and propagandists from getting media time.

>>11690939
damn, too bad

>>11690852
Said the one with no arguments and just insults after insults. Someone is seething pretty hard when his idol is revealed to be a charlatan

>>11690880
>I really don't get why people hate Peterson so much.
He would not care if hs isn't shilled on here all year and makes his stupid tweets.

>>11690989
>He would not care
I would not care

>>11690644
Holy shit, what a godawful critique of Peterson. It’s almost like he’s willfully ignorant when it comes to the actual points behind the “rules for life”. I think it would have been a better critique if he had just called it banal or tired, but every single “refutation” of the rules is easily countered if you’ve watched more than a couple hours of Peterson’s lectures. I did like when he called Christopher Hitchens an opportunist, though.

>>11690948
>You and me? We are on equal terms
Nah, I'm much better than you

>>11690390
They are not psuedo sciences which are backed by unfalsifiable theories, my dear Petersonfag.

>>11690945
are u blind?

>>11690995
>if you’ve watched more than a couple hours of Peterson’s lectures
Why would anyone subject themselves to such torture?

>>11690995
>It’s almost like he’s willfully ignorant when it comes to the actual points behind the “rules for life”

To make bank off of suckers?

the thing about jung is that you can't criticize a myth. if you say a thing is meaningful, it is. a myth is a structure, a pattern. you can *dislike* it for any number of reasons, but you can't *disprove* it because it doesn't make a rational appeal, it makes an aesthetic appeal. this cuts both ways. i may not *like* the meaning, but i can't say that it isn't there. and if a million people agree with me and only seven agree with you, that's your problem and not mine.

suppose i borrow the structure of the archetypal hero's journey to make a film that has conclusions you disagree with, but i follow all the steps along the way. my protagonist does everything a hero does, but you, as the audience, have the distinct feeling that you - people very much like you - are being painted as representations of the dragon of chaos, as servants of the enemy, and so on. you don't *like* these characterizations, for whatever reason. you can't deny that they aren't meaningful. they aren't. that's why you don't like them.

but what do you want to do? write a film review that makes an appeal to identity politics? or just personal taste? what makes your brand more valid than any other? nothing, and that's the point. myth is the proverbial sword with no handle, and that's why it should be handled with caution. myth is the formal structure of the sacred. it *is* the way we talk about meaning. it's where we derive the power of ideology from, and there is no critique of its basic psychological substrate that lies outside of Bloody Neo-Marxist Nihilist Postmodernity, with all its attendant faults.

there's no final choosing between freud and jung. they're both right (and wrong). peterson is trying to get people off a pathological bent for ressentiment-fuelled critique that turns them into activists. that's a noble and profoundly good thing to do. but mythology and mythological structure is fully beyond good and evil. it has been with mankind since the beginning of time. and both wings of a political spectrum can engage in comparative mythology.

granted, peterson isn't talking exclusively about filmmaking. he wants you to be the star of the film of your own life, a self-authored self. *that is a good thing.* but even then we derive order from mythic narrative patterns. we read stories and we watch stories to figure out how to orient ourselves properly. he's right about that. but what do you do when somebody else is doing the same thing, but coming up with different conclusions? if we write off the critique of ideology - which is a useful component of postmodern thought - we lose the capacity for dialogue or hermeneutics.

this is a compromised argument. the west has lost its own way in the desire for a perfect, ecumenical decentering. much confusion subsequently reigns. JBP has gone back to the primordial well for an antidote and he's found the pharmakon. heidegger found it too. the pharmakon is cursed.

>>11690911
holy shit, get a load of this horse's ass. lmao

>>11691027

>>11690945
Then you can't observe.

>>11691032
I mean, technically, he's not wrong

>>11690967
this actually makes sense

>>11691040
Personally I think it gives Peterson a bit too much credit, he's more like The Dude just kinda stumbling into shit

>>11690125
Anti-Oedipus directly attacks the idea of architypes of the subconscious. It's a bad attack imo, and it seems that there are layers of archetypes, but hey, I'm just Anon. Also stop posting with a consistent username and drink bleach, this board is for anonymous users not for your ego-shilling

>>11691032
You can take any old thing as axiomatic

>>11690967
yeah the people that are genuinely dangerous just get cut out of any mainstream coverage

I saw they did that to Alex Jones recently which kind of confused me, because i always saw him more as a clown than an actually subversive perosn

>>11691065
okay?

>be a classical liberal larper when in fact you are just a neo-con shill
>dude I love Liberal things so much lmao like free market and freedom of speech and shit
>dude enlightenment values are the greatest achievement of modern western civilization
>anyways fuck monogamy, state needs to totally intervene before the collapse of the youth of western civilization haha
>fuck freedom of choice because I want to pander to my my retarded incel fanbase
Defend this, you retarded tripfaggot.
Reminder that Peterson literally went full Sam Harris during this debacle with his "nuh uh my position isn't stupid and contradictory, you stop misrepresenting me".

>>11691022
>a myth is a structure, a pattern. you can *dislike* it for any number of reasons, but you can't *disprove* it because it doesn't make a rational appeal, it makes an aesthetic appeal. this cuts both ways. i may not *like* the meaning, but i can't say that it isn't there.
Only if you are using the term meaning to signify a general/potential understanding rather than a correct/actual understanding. Your post smacks of the contemporary "personal meaning" meme, which is not that bad if taken to denote a personal view of the world (in accordance with the information available to the individual) which implies the necessity of certain modes of action and living, but that is not the manner in which people really use the term: people use the term as though "personal meaning" is a thing out-there-in-the-world that is found and taken into oneself, e.g. there being many "authentic" (implicitly, then, "true") teleologies and each individual finding the purposiveness which best suits them.

In the latter, incoherent sense of meaning, as you use it, it is true that you cannot disprove anything but you also cannot prove it and never prove it but behave as though you have proven it, that it is a "real thing" that is out-there-in-the-world. The former coherent sense of meaning, which is really apprehending and organizing information provisionally without any claim about external purposiveness, stands in direct opposition to the manner in which you use the term meaning, insofar as the revelation of new information can always discount an old perspective.

>>11691071
no, Alex Jones is just a fucking idiot

>>11691080
that is what i said, he's a clown

But he got totally censored off the internet recently and i am wondering why google and etc. felt they needed to do that

>>11691071
also disinfo agent retiring because it destroyed his marriage :(

>>11690948
How about you start refuting the arguments though. Since they are all uneducated, an enlightened and sophisticated tripfag such as yourself can easily engage with them and point out where exactly and how they're all totally wrong.

>>11691090
you are a pedophile

>>11691095
Yes, and you are a child.

...

Whatcha doin this weekend? ;)

>>11691109
just going to the beach

>>11691071
The water made him gay

>>11691022
These theories are all just incoherent ramblings without much empirical data to prove or disprove them. This is the thing with philosophy and psuedo sciences like phycology, it asks faith. The science of minds will be advanced enough one day and we'll be able to sort out facts from bullshit.

>>11691074
So faith in God isn't a requisite for proof

>>11691133
prove it

>>11691065
Sure that may be so but that doesn't flow from Godel's incompleteness theorem.

How much amphetamines did he take to come up with this?

>>11690125
>jordan pee beterson
ah bloo bloo

>>11690909

Here's the thing, Peterson works very well within the set of ideas he has set up and studied. But the thing many of his rabid fans fail to grasp is that Philosophy overall is an entire class of ideas.

>>11690396
Jesus christ this is some next level reddit shit, without a doubt this post has uncovered a new low in the sphere of 4chan discussion.

>December baiting /lit/ into wasting time to criticize post-Jungian psychological myths book from a Canadian youtube personality

>>11691269
>m-merely pretending!

>>11691252
It's just a tripfag. When you decide to wear a tripcode like a hat, you become a reddit-tier individual and brand yourself and your opinions as being useless. Just ignore him.

The orientating reflex, at the psychonuerological level, is December's automatic, reflexive reaction to: the flash of my camera as my cringe compilation expands.

>>11690125
Haven't read maps of meaning, but I've read several of his papers and he seems to be a typical Neumann style post-Jungian, so if you wanna see criticisms of that, check out the depth psychology literature from the 80s to the present.

>the tripfag's so lonely he has to bait with Peterson to get replies
Know what's an excellent of critique of Peterson? Reading Jung.

>>11690605
i want to smell her butt

>>11691079
the lines between general/potential and correct/actual get very blurry with both peterson and his critics. he seems to focus on the former more than the latter, because that's his primary goal: to challenge the premises of postmodern relativism. i don't even disagree with peterson's objective: if everything is interpretation, which interpretation should you choose? rather than descend into a relativistic wilderness (or, worse, a ressentiment-fueled pathology), you should select that interpretation which is most in alignment with your highest principles, those that bring order into the world. this is his jungian approach to nietzsche, and it's an interesting one.

>The former coherent sense of meaning, which is really apprehending and organizing information provisionally without any claim about external purposiveness, stands in direct opposition to the manner in which you use the term meaning, insofar as the revelation of new information can always discount an old perspective.

what i'm saying, and it is something that i think peterson would agree with, is that there is no neat and easy way to separate these. in the existential sense, all meaning is personal - so personal, in fact, that for peterson you must take it to the level of the mythic unconscious to understand. i'm fine with all of that.

i don't think it's uncharitable to say that peterson is trying to out-relativize his critics. he's trying to establish a framework for interpretation, re-centering postmodernism within an alchemical, quasi-theological framework. JBP is nothing if not a true believer in carl jung. as i've indicated, it's a noble goal. it may even be the kryptonite to his detractors. and it would be unfair for me to demand mythology and critique of ideology at the same time.

but it's why he can't get anywhere with somebody like sam harris, for example. demanding that *everything* have an interpretation will be as impossible a task as infinite criticism. the truth lies somewhere in the middle. saying to harris that, basically, he believes in gods he doesn't even know about is a tactic, but it's not useful.

it's also because peterson can back up some of his claims with science, or from clinical practice, that he gets the attention that he does. in a sense, all ideology is common sense, but there's no need ultimately for people to react the way they do to someone telling them what really is non-ideological common sense: clean your room. sort yourself out. and to attack him for this is completely stupid. 'meaning' is reducible to neither fact nor interpretation, and any attempt to do so will lead to spirals. things are way more complicated but we like to make the 3D into the 2D.

there's truth in what peterson is saying, it's just the way that he says it puts people off. but that's not his fault. everybody's triggered af these days.

>it's other people who haven't read Jung!!!
>they're the ones misinterpreting Jung
"Thank God, I am not a Jungian!" - Carl Jung during a Jungian's conference speech

so, does Peterson have the dignity to an hero when his cult find out Jung is the start of postmodernism? will he ever address the fact that Jung was criticized by Freud because Jung thought that trannies were real and treating them as whatever pronouns they liked was kindest? or will he try to convince people he's read Freud then?

it's kind of great watching all these N American professors who clearly have never been educated squirm and beg for other people to be given the same opinions as them.

>>11691356
>does Peterson have the dignity to an hero when his cult find out Jung is the start of postmodernism
He still hasn't killed himself over that retarded Heideggerean Being definition he went out of his way to footnote, so he's probably not going to kill himself over that. He seems the type to killself only if he was scared of cancer, or if he was really angry at some one like emo chicks do when their boyfriend leaves them.

>>11691356
>will he ever address the fact that Jung was criticized by Freud because Jung thought that trannies were real and treating them as whatever pronouns they liked was kindest
Wait for real? I need a source on this definitely.

>>11690125
>Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see isculture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure of culture is disrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything—anything—to defend ourselves against that return.

— Jordan Peterson, Descensus ad Inferos

> 'Ideological' is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence - that is, social effectivity, the very reproduction of which implies that the individuals 'do not know what they are doing.' >This is probably the fundamental dimension of 'ideology': ideology is not simply a 'false consciousness', an illusory representation of reality, it is rather this reality itself which is already to be conceived as 'ideological' - 'ideological' is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence -that is, the social effectivity, the very reproduction of which implies that the individuals 'do not know what they are doing'. 'Ideological is not the false consciousness of a (social) being but this being itself in so far as it is supported by "false consciousness"'. Thus we have finally reached the dimension of the symptom, because one of its possible definitions would also be 'a formation whose very consistency implies a certain non-knowledge on the part of the subject': the subject can 'enjoy his symptom' only in so far as its logic escapes him - the measure of the success of its interpretation is precisely its dissolution. The source of totalitarianism is a dogmatic attachment to the official word: the lack of laughter, of ironic detachment. An excessive commitment toGoodmay in itself become the greatestEvil: real Evil is any kind of fanatical dogmatism, especially exerted in the name of supreme Good... Consider onlyMozart'sDon Giovanniat the end of the opera, when he is confronted with the following choice: if he confesses his sins, he can still achieve salvation; if he persists, he will be damned forever. From this viewpoint of the pleasure principle, the proper thing to do would be to renounce his past, but he does not, he persists in his Evil, although he knows that by persisting he will be damned forever. >Paradoxically, with his final choice of Evil, he acquires the status of an ethical hero - that is, of someone who is guided by fundamental principlesbeyond thepleasure principleand not just by the search for pleasure or material gain.

-- Slavoj Zizek, The Sublime Object of Ideology

We're all always already eating out of the trashcan, whose name is Ideology. The material force of Ideology keeps me from seeing that I am eating trash.

Jordan Peterson's argument is that we should stop worrying and love the inability to see the trash because otherwise we'd know we're eating trash

>>11691397
look up anything about Jungian bisexuality. Freud had originally claimed the idea of "we all have male and female sides", but he thought that is was too political to emphasize. Jung thought it was a great idea and started to go down the anima/animus route. Freud still hadn't kicked him out yet, and criticized him. Jung was still somewhat influenced by Gross, and thought that it wasn't the uncritical listener's role to tell trannies they're not she's or shouldn't wear the skirt. It's one of the first major rifts between Freud and Jung. It's also key to understanding why Jung is always on about anima and animus- because he thinks we're all trannies to some extent. Freud on the other hand was keen to keep psychology legit by saying that you have to assess physical causes first, and to see homosexuality and other ideas of spectra between the sexes as deviations which needed to be realigned.

People who follow on from Jung tend to deal with bisexuality even in the lifestages and complexes of a single gender (Peter Pan complex is the primary example of this, especially as Peter was invariably played by a female in the stage production). Meanwhile, those following on from Freud, such as his daughter, became famous for trying to deny any natural bisexuality or homosexuality as misplaced fantasy.

>>11690940
don't miss number 1, they're the reason why he starts screaming "YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT ME INTO A BOX!" when someone asks him if he believes in God

>>11691084
maybe because the parents of dead children had to move because they were tired of receiving phone calls accusing them and their killed children of being crisis actors

>>11691626
Freedom ain't free

>>11690125
This guy's such a sophist

>>11690813
this

>>11691002
>this looks too complex and mystifying for me to look deeply into it, therefore it’s bullshit
>LOL but of course advanced math and physics are right because they’re empirical I don’t need to apply this standard to it

You are the shit of the earth.

>>11691680
Cringe and bluepilled

>>11691132
You are subhuman irrational scum with not enough brain capacity to understand, quit speaking.

>>11690309
t. smelly hole

>>11691051
It's not supposed to give Petersen any credit, I'm saying he was chosen as a target because he's an easy punching bag that doesn't offer anything threatening to anyone. Both sides of the controversy about Petersen are paid for by the same (((people))).

>>11691071
Alex Jones used to be really hard core. He trespassed at the Bohemian Grove a long time ago to record the Cremation of Cares ceremony. He was started to touch on racial issues recently too. He was a gateway drug to more subversive figures and ideas. Petersen does not serve as this type of gateway. Hardcore Petersen fans are content to remain fedora tipping radical centrists.

>>11690940
>3. They have zero academic experience with science.
This is most people who argue about science in the mainstream. Research science is pretty much a big crock of shit to siphon as much tax payer grant money as possible.

>>11690125
No one has offered a "credible" critique of Maps of Meaning because until recently Peterson was a nonentity in the world of psychology.

>>11691022
>peterson is trying to get people off a pathological bent for ressentiment-fuelled critique
lol no Peterson is trying to make bank off of retards who pay for personality tests. He's a coward who won't even touch the Frankfurt school because he knows who will get caught in the crossfire and he is too scared to go there. He's a fucking grifter. He's made plenty of money, if he had any balls he would start saying some really subversive shit. But he's just a depressed faggot on anti-depressants that is willing to spout platitudes in stylish ways and rake in the cash

>>11691970
>>11691973


Check here
>>11691450
Where Zizek pre-emptively wrecks JBP

December has left the building!

>>11690125
>>11690141
>>11690168
>>11690183
>>11690196
>>11690192
fuck petrson

>>11692230
gOOd

>>11692253
GET OUT

>>11692230
if only

if you think im december respond desperito if you think im not decemer respond despacito

>>11692253
Hey december, what about the other three links buddy?
They are right here if you want them
>>11690412

>>11691450
That's interesting

>>11691692
You are a slave who, instead of investigating things for himself, automatically decides whether something is right or wrong due to the prevailing cultural notions of “falsifiability” and whatnot. I don’t know what other way to put it, you are pretty much semiconscious, a poor excuse for a “””””””thinking human being””””””””. You don’t think, you just make automatic snap judgments. When someone points out your hypocrisy, you have another readymade quip to mechanically recite, since you’ve conditioned yourself to not see your flaws and intellectual shallowness.

Guys should I stick with one x or two, I think two x's look a bit gay. Maybe I'll try three, I don't know.

>>11690507
>Semanticize your way around critiquing his critique
>Ignore the other links
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH now I remember why you're filtered on my laptop

>>11691356
>>11691478
Except you’re wrong you stupid fucking bisexual tranny. Jung explicitly talked about how masculine women could be pathological and effeminate men pathological. He called them animus- and anima-possessed respectively. This judgment isn’t in accord at all with modern disgusting liberal androgynification, cutting the dicks off of weak emasculated men and artificially sewing them onto women, making them bitchy cunts and harpies.

Man accepting and integrating their feminine side =/= being an annoying fucking pussy and weak and emasculated
Woman accepting and integrating their masculine side =/= being a godawfully unbearable noxious and toxic cunt

Friendly reminder for people who don't like me and want to stay in their echo chamber
1. Click Settings (bottom/top of page)

2. Click Filters & Post Hiding

3. Toggle and Edit "Filter and highlight specific threads/posts"

4. Toggle "On", "Auto", and "Hide". Leave "Boards" empty. Then enter a pattern:

For namefags, like Killy for example, add this (as type "Name"):

Killy

For tripfags utilizing ordinary tripcodes, like Eliza !METS.GNIWQ for example, (this is reccomended against me in case I change my name, as I will always use the same password, and will block out all of my posts with this) add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!METS.GNIWQ

For tripfags utilizing secure tripcodes, like STHLM !!6Gk3cvqPqbL for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!!6Gk3cvqPqbL

You can also filter tripfags on a name-basis. This will allow your filter to persist even though they switch username passwords.

5. Click "Save" and "Save Settings"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwNFgxr2274

>>11692346
This guy gets it

>>11691032
define "faith"
define "god"
define "proof"
define "axiom"
define "is"

>>11692407
Define "define".

>>11691133
instead of presupposing god, just presuppose a godless universe with consistent rules

gets you a prerequisite for proof without god

>>11692414
How do you know the rules are consistant. They don't appear to be.

>>11692412
define "Define "define""

>>11692433
they don't need to, it's a presupposition

>>11692443
You don’t get to wave away a contradiction because it’s a presupposition.

>>11690196
If someone doesn't know that the dragon (or snake) eating its own tail is called the uroboros they have already lost

>>11692448
the religious do it all the time

>>11692435
Define "Define" "Define" "define".

>>11692458
" "
"D e f i n e"
e n
f i
i f
n e
"e n i f e d"
" "

>>11692323
t. moefag

>>11691032
Yeah, I mean, remember when Aristotle put forward his account of how demonstration and proof work in the Organon which culminated in the needfulness for faith in God for any of it to work? Totally.

>>11692482
You have a point, honestly.

December, I think you have potential but you're far from your peak yet. You're very early on the road to being a legendary tripfag like Quentin but you'll have to become more creative and start diversifying your subjects of discussion. Quentin became a legend because of his persistence, his absolutely unshakable confidence, his original comics as delivery of his ideas, and his ability to read the board. He didn't just feel about memes and talking points to hit, he created them through careful crafting and unrelenting posting of them. Basically, Quentin put in the effort, and you just haven't yet. But I'm looking forward to seeing you progress as a memer.

>>11692549
By golly I think you're right. I have to double down and come up with an interesting gimmick, and create my own tripfag brand.

>>11692579
Not just one gimmick, but many. You've gotta be adaptable but also dedicated and persistent. On top of all that, you've gotta have that magic touch. Quentin comics are still triggering people to this day; he knew the topics to pick and how best to portray the discussion. His aesthetic was also brilliantly crafted. He even threatened to shoot up a school when he got bored of it all. It was the ultimate finale.

jordan finklestein
>>11692549
>>11692579
I agree with this

>>11692587
Yeah, but, I honestly want to contribute my expertise to the board in the hope of bettering the quality of discussion and dialogue.

So, I can't really justify shitting up the board like a sociopath for personal fame. Sorry, man. I'll fade away once I get bored.

>>11692616
See that's a good start. You're crafting your image. But you can't just SAY that, man, you gotta show it. Your mind is too poisoned by deconstructionism. You can't just describe explicitly how you want to be perceived, you gotta act like it.

>>11690326
its a retarded nigger female who is ugly and attached to his work because he marries psychometrics and rudimentary psychoanalysis together without really saying much that woukd offend a stupid person’s intuitions about their own mind. Unintelligent people narrativize constantly and Peterson encourages this

why bother critiquing pop-psychology?
it's like taking guns, germs and steel seriously

>>11690845

From what I gather it made an impact in the field of comparative religion.

>>11692728
EdGY

AcCeSsibLe PhILOsoPhY SUcKs, right?

Why give narratives different from the traditionally academic philosophical standpoint? surely all philosophy must be written at great lengths in a book! Why try to offer some interesting comparative mythology and biblical analysis to a bunch of DUMBASS PSEUDS on the internet? LOL fuckin morons, can't they see JP is actually a bit post-modernist himself? Can't they see he doesn't have a perfect grasp on what Derrida is ACKSHUALLY trying to say?

Why should "philosophers" tailor their modus operandi to the times? EVERYONE KNOWS PHILSOOPHERS MUST WRITE TURGID PROSE! SIMPLICITY IS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL!

RAAGHHHGHHH TIME TO GO WATCH MORE SLAVOJ ZIZEK VIDEOS AND RAGE AT THEM! FUCK THAT GUY IS SUCH AA PSEUD

>>11693267
Dude stop.

>>11693267

>>11692616
>expertise

lol

>>11692323
lol seething

>>11693267
ooh that's going in the compilation

holy fuck are trip niggers full of themselves

>>11692346
>Except you’re wrong you stupid fucking bisexual tranny. Jung explicitly talked about how masculine women could be pathological and effeminate men pathological. He called them animus- and anima-possessed respectively. This judgment isn’t in accord at all with modern disgusting liberal androgynification, cutting the dicks off of weak emasculated men and artificially sewing them onto women, making them bitchy cunts and harpies.
Except I'm not wrong, and Jung did not say these were more pathological at all, especially compared to identifying yourself as a Jungian, but rather the natural karma of families, which was intrinsic to personalities. You can read Jung if you like, but he'll tell you that identifying him with your ideas is the kind of family romance that suggests more about you than it could him.

He didn't consider them to be possessed, unless they wanted to be a specific female. But, again, wanting to be a Jungian to him was a more insidious and pathological form of crazy. He called such identification with collective identities the kind of thing the timid use as a shield, the lazy use as a bed, and the irresponsible need as a nursery. Thinking you want to be the little girl compared to that was just natural, while a grown man claiming to be a Jungian is aberrant and dangerous and probably incapable of morality.

Freud is the one who thought that modern disgusting liberal androgynification was a result of individual repression, and physiologically impossible. Jung doesn't believe you are so contained.

Why do you think Freud and Jung were writing for Hirschfield's journals? (Hirschfield, since you've probably never heard of him, was the tranny expert of Germany up until the Nazis burnt him out of doing conversion surgeries). Why do you think everyone who published from Freud's group in Hirschfield's journals left after Jung did? Because Freud's plan to bring Hirschfield closer to the group completely backfired, and ironically because of Freud's initial acceptance of these ideas and Jung's initial political wariness around homosexuals, we wind up with Jung being the one to popularize Freud's initial argument.

Literally read Freud, Jung, and a history of the 20th Century, you retard who hopes whining will change history's version of events. Trannies aren't new, and Jung was a big part of what made them take off. His and Freud's reversal of their original positions is a major part of understand their work and legacies.

If you want to LARP as something which thought cutting off your dick was a bad idea, become a Freudian.

>>11690125
wow what a great answer. equivocates a little and then pivots to jung and panksepp, subjects he feels comfortable about which aren't actually related to the question. he's really got it down to a science!

>>11692616
You can start by dropping the trip you fucking faggot

>>11692323
based and redpilled
>>11691692
Cringe and bluepilled, SAD

>>11690125
>>11690318
>>11690625


https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/book-review-jordan-petersons-12-rules-for-life-78542

I believe anyone who thinks of his own time as something to be cared for (since it is very limited) wouldn't even try to critique that mess of a book. It's repetitive, unclear, vague and obnoxious in the way it is written. The core ideas might be wonderful, but the way it is written is to me despicable.

>>11692323
>automatically decides whether something is right or wrong due to the prevailing cultural notions of “falsifiability” and whatnot.
Literally the scientific method.

Jordan Peterson is good.

>>11695361
FOR ME TO POOP ON!!! :D :D

>>11695428
How did you feel when you made this post?

>>11695598
pretty great

>>11695108
>"I don't see any other person using x in y way, so, Peterson is obviously not justified in using x in y way, even if he defines x as y beforehand."

Where do you guys find these articles, lmao.

>>11690465
LOOOOOOLLL

>>11690125
https://youtu.be/IvBm0ZUfe7I

this is the "man" you shill for everyday on this board, tripfag.

>>11690364
>The human psyche, the human neurology, is far more complex than anything else in the known universe by orders of magnitude.
yea, no

>>11690364
>>12 Rules For Life makes it explicit: stop questioning the social order, stop assigning blame for problems to political actors, stop trying to reorganize things.
>Good advice for the young and uneducated.
so wait until you are profiting from the social order, and then you want even want to fix it
or never profit from it but at that point you are too tired and too marginal to do anything

it literally means dont change to social order in any radical way, which is excellent for someone who is a rich white prof

>>11695758
Give me an example of something more complex than the human brain.

>>11695773
2 human brains

>>11690692
>of exhortation of the current psychological canon even by institutes such as Harvard University
you an actual retard

>>11690253
Calvin's mom is kind of a milf

>>11691269
FALLING FOR HIS RUSE !!!!


you shit

>>11695773
you do realise complex doesnt mean shit?

>>11695758
What things are more complex?

>>11695644
Imagine being a tripfag posting about Peterson, a guy who doesn't even cite or engage with any robust philosophy.
Might as well be autistically posting about Radiohead albums on /mu/

buy my book

also russel “giles” brand, hollywood goat-boy, btfo Peterson ages ago

>>11695773
ecology

>>11695773
>than anything else known

>>11695719
>maybe the true meanings were the ones we mapped along the way

jesus, REALLY Peterson?

Alright /lit/
If I think JP is kind of a fag but enjoyed his Bible lectures, will 12 Rules be of any appeal to me?
The only criticism I see of it is REEE DRUMPF screeching, so I have zero idea if it's actually good for someone who doesn't give a shit about that.

>>11696587
i dunno, how much beef do you want?

>>11696587
no, it's GARBAGE writing

>>11696587
also very straightforward basic advice, the trick is JP has found a way to convey it to a set of people who normally wouldn't listen to their parents

>>11696587
It's targeted at normies who just jumped on the train- if you can follow his early lecture material you probably wouldn't get anything from it

>>11696587
I'm not going to read any of his shit, I feel like I'm overexposed to him already.

>>11690214
>Robinson is one of the most clear and lucid political writers of our time.
https://youtu.be/8mpUrE0uOYc

memerson is a scam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE
https://notesonliberty.com/2018/05/27/jordan-petersons-ignorance-of-postmodern-philosophy/
https://www.mironline.ca/in-defence-of-post-modernism-a-reply-to-jordan-peterson/

>>11690655
t. low t

This is the only good criticism of Peterson that is not made by a buttblasted American liberal

https://medium.com/s/story/peterson-historian-aide-m%C3%A9moire-9aa3b6b3de04

MM still hasnt admitted hes schizophrenic its ok, takes one to know one etc, the marxist-postmodern conspiracy? Cmon bud thats high school level juju, anyone with a half a brain can see your ultra right wing paranoia, back on the meds Memerson Man.

Dark rings around the eyes? Gaunt pasty ghouls of the north? Creature of the night, ive seen them all.

My mother once pointed some hooligans at a fourth of july concert, it being 10pm she said at night is when the freaks come out. We promptly left and went home.

MM its 11pm and once again you are “slaying the dragon” for the third time this week, stay on the meds.

>>11690214
>If something is so convoluted and esoteric that only the most worthy transcendent minds can even begin to comprehend, it's not even worth "refuting".
Examples?

>>11697746
Pic related

>>11691012
It’s no doubt that idiots and sycophants bought that book, but that doesn’t eliminate the arguments behind the 12 rules. It would have been better to just call them cliche or trite.

>>11691011
That probably amounts to 1-2 lectures total. What’s the point of commenting on him if you don’t actuallh get what he’s saying?

>>11699362
Yeah but it's all common knowledge wrapped up in pseudo religious bullshit to sound smart. Avoid.

>>11690723
>Lol keep on ignoring those other links that are "so below you". It took 30 seconds for me to BTFO you and make you start throwing petty insults and shitty excuses.


MUHHHHHH KEEP READING MY LINKS WHEN I WON'T EVER READ PETERSON MYSELF

Fucking mouthbreathing retard

>>11701100
>asks for links
>doesn't read them
>complains that there are no links for him to read

>>11690507
>Collective unconscious as anything other than an extremely hypothetical representation of the general mindset of human beings.

Opinion summarily discarded. The collective unconscious was a terrible term coined by a schizophrenic hack who held many extremely flawed beliefs turned into dogma for people like Peterson to """understand""" on a fundamentally """ascended""" level in order to spin their own beliefs into pop psychology.

No firm conclusions can be drawn from the collective conscious or unconscious. The term could be replaced with "implicit/explicit culturally mediated thought" and the world would be better off.

>>11690125
to refute peterson, we'd need something of substance to refute. give us some statements of substance to work with.

>>11697465
>posted anonymously
>not made by a buttblasted American liberal
Does not follow.

>>11690253
>If you can't teach it well then you don't understand it
While effectively reciprocating information in a more easily digestible form to someone else certainly demonstrates understanding, a lack of being able to do so does not imply a lack of understanding. There are many people who have in depth understanding within their field who make crap teachers/tutors.

>>11691176
>Philosphy overall is an entire class of ideas
1. What do you even mean by this?
2. How does accepting philosphy under a certain sub-taxonomy of ideas become anything close to a refutation of Peterson?

>>11690125
>December !!TY0+NRMplWe

>>11698618
Under this context, your argument sounds very similar to normies in school refusing to do their readings because they claim to not be able to understand it

>>11690125
https://youtu.be/n5G7JSj6YGQ
These guys have a pretty good series going through 12 Rules

he's right tho
no one has read maps of meaning

>>11695361
He's alright.

>>11695719
Wow that's pretty endearing.

>>11696587
It's self-help (psychiatry) disguised as social criticism and academic discourse. He's a hit because a) his work is supposedly less arcane than what you're used to on campus, b) he goes against the grain of SJW culture, and c) his 'lectures' are available online so that contemporary students aren't forced to read anything.
If you want complacency, just read Stirner, the superior meme.

>>117091715
forgot d) he's popular on 4chan for the above reasons and because he lends himself well to shitposting, peterposters are basically the christposters of yore except the former will flatly amid that their conservative Christian values are ironic where the latter had to pretend to be genuinely Christian.

The roastie is still the winner so far.

>>11701244

sorry, I should have said proper class.

>>11701244
and it's a refutation of the thought that Peterson actually offers a refutation of Derrida or Foucalt and postmodernism in general that his followers attribute to him

>>11702221
It's funny that you attribute "follower" status to anyone who considers current and reputable psychological science as such.

>>11702247
That's not what I said

>>11692323
And what would you replace science or logical (Aristotelian or otherwise) reasoning with? Fucking Neoplatonism?