/lit/ - Literature

>>11702113
>play circuit
Memes over memes. Begone shitposter!

December, why do you dedicate so much time to defending Peterson on 4chan? This is the average person you’re arguing against
https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/8fwcsp/peterson_is_like_a_parasite_first_kanye_west_now/

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/05/14/book-review-jordan-petersons-12-rules-for-life/
Where were you when the spanish inquisition btfod the based lobsterman?

>>11702264
I've figured it out. It's clearly Petersons daughter, who, let's not forget, he feeds nothing but beef.

>>11702264
I have a lot of free time and really enjoy making non-westeners feel self conscious about their inferiority to us superior Americans.

>>11702283
>spends a paragraph whining that Peterson doesn't explain what "being" is as if it's not a basic philosophical concept that the brainlet journalist couldn't open a dictionary for if he really needed.

>>11702283
Has this journalist even read the pre-Socratics? He's deeply upset that Peterson doesn't engage with Aristotle but has no awareness that the ideas of apeiron (unlimitedness) and peras (limit) are more fundamental than Aristotelianism.

>>11702312
>being
>basic philosophical concept
You don't know what "being" is.

https://youtu.be/IvBm0ZUfe7I

this guy's case is pretty damning

>>11702414
>to be
It really isn't hard. You can build elaborate ontologies and systems of chains of being and becoming, it doesn't change that it's a fundamentally ordinary and simple concept even toddlers understand and use.

>>11702414

Catholics and Atheists really are one and the same. All their minds' contents are dead. Arousing their intellectual vigor is like waking a zombie, it lashes out at that which makes it realize the harrowing of being dead.

>>11702440
You are a brainlet. Read Heidegger.

>he writes "being" with a capital B
Into the trash it goes

>>11702113
>forgetting that Zizek's Trashcan metaphor blasts JBPs MoM asshole completely out in ragged chunks

>>11702440
t. never taken a philosophy class in his life

>>11702113
>who didn't know that morality is an emergent faculty of the play circuit in mammals
so many layers of cringe. is this /lit/s best troll account or are they literally handicapped?

>>11702283
I already linked that last thread, that's what he's retardedly attempting to discredit with number 1

>>11702113
The man himself has solid thought. /lit/ doesn't understand or read Peterson, just get mad at his fans and the alt-right gossip that ended up surrounding him.

>>11702113
>morality is an emergent faculty of the play circuit in mammals.

I'll wait a few more months for the Minotaur to put the final nail in Peterson's coffin

>>11703074
>solid thought

>>11702113
>>11702292
Remove your trip. Trips degrade a unique, valuable environment

>>11702113
At this point, Peterson is swallowed by the retarded american entertainment culture. Doesn't matter how hard he tried to paint longform podcast à la Joe Rogan as something new and progressive and how hard he tried to emphasize the point that television underestimated the attention span of people, it didn't save him from the hordes of idiots swarming into his discussions and laughing every time he says "those damn postmodernists" or some other shit that isn't even funny. In his recent video he even had to calm the audience saying "let's not forget that this is a serious remark" because the light that signals the audience to "laugh now" had a defect.

It's truly a shame that he ended up being just another pop figure, especially since he's really fucking smart. Damn you America, Why do you have to ruin everything?

>>11703211
>ended up

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

it was no accident, this is what he wanted his whole life.

>>11703281
Interesting perspective and article, except for
>I have a trans daughter
and
>The misogynistic attacks on the British broadcaster Cathy Newman, after she was humiliated and left speechless by Jordan in the infamous “gotcha moment” of their TV interview

The roastie is still the most credible critic.

Ad hominems aren't an argument.

>>11703449
you've already proved that you're not worth engaging with.

>Ad hominems aren't an argument
You started the thread with an ad hominem, you deluded tripfag, and you still haven't responded meaningfully to the catholicnews article

sage

The problem isn't with maps of meaning, it's with his piss poor understanding of politics and philosophy

>>11703471
I didn't realise that providing a short list of the only sources which were presented in the thread I made with 300+ responses asking for reputable critics of Peterson and his work was somehow an attack on your character.

Perhaps if you had a sense of shame and embarrassment you could consider it such, but the fact you're wasting your life being this incompetent a logician is self evident proof to the contrary.

>>11703281
nice read, I remember watching a peterson lecture where he talked about crime and punishment, he tried to fit the book into his point of view disregarding important details that could slightly discredit it, I mean, he wasn't far off, but he was enough off that it didn't hit the bullseye but a tree right besides the target that he was actually starring at, I don't remember clearly what is was, but I think it was disregarding raskolnikovs article about napoleon,

same happened with borther's karamazov, but I don't remember the details, I already talk bullshit about these works myself, you can't bullshit a bullshitter Jordan

>>11703211
He's not that smart

>>11703513
>I remember very vividly; Peterson was doing something with an interpretation of Crime and Punishment. I vividly recall that I don't remember exactly what he said but it was something something.

>>11703504
he lost a debate against a SJW from my point of you, it was against an older black guy, I commented on it to a friend and he said "what are you talking about, Jordan blew him away", he didn't, you can't argue that shit with older black dudes and win, they have seen some shit in the past century

>>11703512
are you baiting or retarded? Nice word salad, but I was referring to
>2. A baby faced socialist who voted for Hillary and thinks The View is a serious forum for political discussion.
Not that I disagree, but your 'epic owns' in defense of Peterson don't seem to have much substance behind them

sage

>>11703540
who are you quoting?

>>11703569
sure

don't make fun of my e-daddy!!!

>>11703504
Oh no, he doesn't have a poor understanding of politics (not gonna even bother to argue about philosophy because that's so self-evident that only an idiot would think he's well-read in that regard). That would imply that he's honest, if a bit dumb. I think that he knows very well how politics works, and he's intentionally shilling for the status quo under the guise of common sense psychology. "Oh, you mad because nowadays you gotta go to college for a couple of years, get into gigantic debt, and pray to God you're gonna get a job in your field, while property prices have gone through the roof making it almost impossible for young people to buy their own houses? NONSENSE BUCKO, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR OWN LIFE, GO WASH THAT STINKY PENIS OF YOURS AND STAY AWAY FROM POLITICS."

>>11703613
I don't wanna wash my peanis

>>11703613
Does anyone asides from you share these opinions? Maybe a reputable academic authority on the subject of philosophy or psychology?

I can wait.

>>11702113
unironically pewdiepie

>>11703637
does any reputable academic share Peterson's opinions? lul

>>11703637
How would I know? I make my own judgements and I'm not particularly interested in Peterson, and I certainly wouldn't take the time and effort to find out what "academic authorities on the subject of philosophy or psychology" think about him.

>>11702881
Do you mean the trashcan I am allready eating out of?

>>11703637
you didn't read this piece, obviously
>>11703281

>>11703629
I can wash your penis, cutie :3

>>11703658
I'll take things people will never say to me for $500, alex

>>11703637
>what do reputable authorities on the subject of philosophy or psychology think about a self-help book author

"he's a self-help book author" there you go

>>11702113
>Attacks the arguers, not the arguments
Awfully becoming of the defender of the man that does exactly the same thing to his critics.

>>11703674
Fascinating. Please link.

>>11702113
Anti-Oedipus is literally based on the criticism of Peterson's type of thoughts. Pls into being literate

>Peterson just says anyone who criticizes him doesn't understand him or Jung
Hahahhahahhahaha it's like a dogmatic religion with these people on so many levels

>>11703693
And then he goes around talking about things he doesn't understand, like how he kept referencing some "multi-variate equation" in that Newman interview as if the man had an inch of mathematical rigor in his brain

Is December Peterson's daughter?

>>11703686
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrz8rYOkaeA

>>11703449
>>11703512
December, you lying bitch:
>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

>>11703738
So, your second quote was, to my trained eye, fundamentally nonsense. You would need to choose a sentence you feel conveys appropriate sentiment and translate it for me into a form resembling some semblance of sanity.

He seems to be playing with the definition of the term ideaology at will, and with wanton disregard for the fact his inanity does not constitute profundity.

>>11703764
yeah and everything Peterson says is nonsense, too

>>11703764
>He seems to be playing with the definition of the term ideaology at will, and with wanton disregard for the fact his inanity does not constitute profundity.
this is literally all Petersen does
>I believe in God, if what you mean by "God" is the principle by which a man positions himself in the world towards authentic action which leads to flourishing of the human subject
>don't even get me started on what the resurrection of Jesus really means! that question will take all day to answer!

>>11703764
>I don't get it so it doesn't count

seriously, bud?

>>11703777
did he take the day to answer it? seems like an important question

>>11703764
I did that in the final two paragraphs you brainlet.
Zizek is saying that all MoM does (as exemplified in the JBP quote at top) is pretend that we aren't in chaos, because we use ideology to hide that chaos.

JBP is the Salesman in Ren and Stimpy:
>Why WASH DIRT the old fashioned WAY? When you can HIDE IT, THE ALL-NEW SALVE WAY!

You saying that this is "nonsense" that "is intelligible" is you sticking your fingers in your ears going LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUU

>>11703794
*is unintelligible

>>11703793
He literally didn't answer because he said it would have taken too long.

>>11703801
I can answer any questions like that, ask me something

>>11703794
That's not what "chaos" is representing in Maps of Meaning.

Like, at all.

>>11703809
then what is it representing?

>>11703794
I'm pretty sure there's a razor about choosing stupidity over malice; although considering it's December we are talking about, I don't even think we need the razor to choose stupidity in this case.
>>11703809
nothing in that post was dissecting the meaning of chaos. are you trying to be obtuse or is this really you trying your hardest?

>>11703107
Point in case. Anon's can't be assed to try to understand it.

>>11702113
Can you please link me to the roastie-video? I need it for research purposes.
Thanks

>>11703822
oh I understand it, it's just really stupid

>>11703819
A metaphysical category of existence and its instantiation into the physiological structure of the human brain as an interpretive schema of reality.

No wonder you idiots have 24/7 women hate threads.

The inferiority complex is real.

I'm a girl btw.

>>11703809
direct us to a clear definition of chaos in MoM

>>11703830
So, your first sentence was, to my trained eye, fundamentally nonsense. You would need to choose a sentence you feel conveys appropriate sentiment and translate it for me into a form resembling some semblance of sanity.

She seems to be playing with the definition of the term Choas at will, and with wanton disregard for the fact her inanity does not constitute profundity.

>>11703830
metaphysics is humbug though

>>11703830
But that is what Zizek is talking about. How does this mean I hate women?

>>11703830
plato had his fair share of doubts

>>11703836
It's in the first chapter of the book. Don't argue over ideas you've not read.

That's absolutely embarrassing

>>11703830
Interpretive how? How is any of that axiomatic to the state of human existence and not just how some confused incels interact with the world? huh?

>>11703850
how ironic

>>11703850
>ideas you've not read

since when is Jordan groundbreaking?

>>11703850
I have read it, and I don't see any kind of definition or anything that would justify your assertion that Zizek and JBP aren't taking about the same thing. I know you want to slither away from serious discussion--something you learned from JBP--but I'm asking you to point to your evidence yourself.

>>11703889
I didnt say they weren't talking about the same thing.

I said zizek was inane and incomprehensible.

>>11703920
>"That [what Zizek is saying] [is] not what 'chaos' is representing in Maps of Meaning."

try again

>>11703920
that's subjective

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

>>11703920
and Peterson isn't? lol

>>11703889
Zizek is using ideology where JBP is using culture. Culture is ideological. Culture is not an antidote to chaos, it is a distraction from chaos.

If culture, ideology, actually cured fucking anything, there would be no psychotherapy and JBP wouldn't have a job

>>11703920
>it doesn't agree with my bias so it isn't coherent

BEHOLD, HE IS EATING FROM THE TRASHCAN

>>11703920
>hah smart people can't criticize petersen he's too smart
>hah im too retarded to understand this smart persons criticism of petersen, so it must be nonsense

>>11702113
Based namefag. I've gotten so tired of defending Peterson from these pseuds. You're doing God's work.

Reputable intellectuals don't give a fuck about Peterson

>>11703973
Sorry bud but if you're defending Peterson, then you're the pseid

>>11703920
HE'S ON THE ROPES
LOOKIN ABOUT AS GOOD AS HE MUST BE FEELIN'

>>11702113
https://rhizzone.net/articles/chuuni-sensei-dragon-chaos/

I'm sad there are people on /lit/ who take this bland derivative grifter seriously. Just read kierkegaard or nietzche or something.

I'm a girl too btw.

>>11703940
this is excellent

>>11703764
You're just playing stupid now and baiting too hard. Guess what, I hate Peterson because I don't understand his dum dum book, heck, English isn't even my first language, so I don't even have a full grasp on his big boy words. Can you translate for me, and make it more easy less big words ok? It hard, but if u write, I can unterstan. Burden of knawledg is on petersen bcuz he start talking things, and he have to prove then. Make simple pls

- Septembar

>>11704002
those fucking cider producers man, they are the crucial part of this!

>>11703942
>Culture is ideological.
I fundamentally disagree with that. Culture, at the substructure level of analysis, is the unconscious and collective instantiated representation, through shared interpretive schema, of implicit facets of experiential reality.

Almost all species which interact and compete with one another for resources develop distinct cultural behaviors.


I would like to take the opportunity to declare myself queen of this board.

>

>>11704075
Right but that schema is ideological

>>11704075
>Culture, at the substructure level of analysis, is the unconscious and collective instantiated representation, through shared interpretive schema, of implicit facets of experiential reality.
That's what ideology is though

>>11704087
It's a little bit more complicated than a simple system of ideas and ideals. It's a meta-system of principle schemas which are used to construct the ideas and ideals.

The bundling of those products is the ideological faculty.

>>11704110
So, a system of competing forces?

>>11704132
No, it is a rather complex thing to grasp but a good way to visualize it may be imagining that culture is to the individual as the operating system is to an Artificial Intelligence.

>>11704158
Hey babe I can take it, you don't have to hide behind crude analogies for my sake

>>11704061
>tfw I just finished a nice cold apple-jew

>blocks your path

“In truth, the crossing from nature to culture and vice versa has always stood wide open. It leads across an easily accessible bridge: the practising life. People have committed themselves to its construction since they came into existence - or rather, people only came into existence by applying themselves to the building of said bridge. The human being is the pontifical creature that, from its earliest evolutionary stages, has created tradition-compatible connections between the bridgeheads in the bodily realm and those in cultural programes. From the start, nature and culture are linked by a broad middle ground of embodied practices - containing languages, rituals and technical skills, in so far as these factors constitute the universal forms of automatized artificialities. This intermediate zone forms a morphologically rich, variable and stable region that can, for the time being, be referred to sufficiently clearly with such conventional categories as education, etiquette, custom, habit formation, training and exercise - without needing to wait for the purveyors of the 'human sciences', who, with all their bluster about culture, create the confusion for whose resolution they subsequently offer their services.”

― Peter Sloterdijk, Du mußt dein Leben ändern

>>11704158
>culture is to the individual as the operating system is to an Artificial Intelligence
lmao, and how does this culture / operating system come into existence?

all of jbp's concepts are arbitrary bifurcations handwaved into his politics

>>11704201
It basically is exactly what Foucault says lol though I suppose if you deride a philosopher that leaves you open to poach his ideas lul

>>11704231
Fucking what

The whole point of Foucault's project is to scrutinize ideas in their genealogical context, JBP's "philosophy" wouldn't stand a chance under that spotlight

>>11702881
>zizek says our minds are like trash cans, because there's stuff in there we didn't put there.
>peterson says just because we didn't put it there doesn't mean it's worthless.
Zizek does the same thing Peterson does, except he psychoanalyzes culture in order to denigrate it, and Peterson does it to try and understand it. Maybe Peterson is wrong, but Zizek certainly isn't right.

>>11704252
Exactly a piece of what he said

>>11704158
Artificial intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with operating systems inherently, and vice versa
What are you on about?

>>11703107
A breakdown:
Circle One--The Prima Materia
--This is the metaphysical environment we are surrounded by, as it is without interpretation.
Ellipses One--The King of Order
--This is the metaphysical landscape we see when we are at peace with our surroundings and feel that we understand where we are. The orienting concept is here represented by a divinely good authority. All order is established in relationship to that metaphysical point
Ellipses Two--The Dragon of Chaos
--This is the inverse of Ellipses One, but is best understood as an entirely different location. As much as these modes are conceptual relationships with our surroundings, in a metaphysical sense we move between them. This is the landscape we find ourselves in when we are in disagreement with our metaphysical surroundings, when we do not have a good sense of where we stand. This is embodied here in The Dragon of Chaos, which stands in as the archetypal force which causes the discord of our understanding.

In moving between The King of Order and The Dragon of Chaos, we are also making another metaphysical movement. That is why the shape of The State of Gold is an ellipses like The King of Order and The Dragon of Chaos. The State of Gold is the metaphysical ideal which motivates our movement. It is the Garden of Eden, the Utopia, the conceptual place we feel that we are both coming from, and trying to move back to. Tradition represents a parallel reflection of our journey, that serves both as a historical reference, and a projection of our final destination.

This is simply an attempt to diagram the hero's journey in a phenomenological perspective rather than a narrative one.

>>11703571
>describing a person in a humorous way
>an argument
OP wasn't saying why they failed, retard, just who they were.

>>11703584
>there's too much for me to comment on
>but he clearly doesn't understand it
If you ever read some variation of that combo, realize that you're reading a charlatan. If this author understood postmodernism, they wouldn't have to criticize the structure, or hand wave all the things Peterson got wrong. Instead they would see by whatever mistakes Peterson was making the precise origin of his misunderstanding. That they think in terms of some platonic checklist demonstrates they haven't yet moved beyond the sophomoric conception of knowledge as an index into actual insight.

Maybe Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism, but thanks to this author, I'll never know.

>>11703674
>wrote Maps of Meaning decades ago
>No one cared because his ideas were unfashionable
>wrote a simplified version of it as a self-help book
>everyone cared because it was unfashionable
These days, the academy is nothing more than cultural aesthetics.

>>11703708
>I don't understand fables

Where'd December go guys?

>>11704395
washing her vaj, probably

>>11704331
He gives it away when he says it's a feeling of orientation and order.
Feeling is the operative.
As a psychoanalyst his job is to keep you from seeing that Chaos is always already there, and that order is only ever relative.
He does that to keep you going to work and paying bills and having kids and paying taxes and so on. That's all any psychotherapy is supposed to do: shut up and do as you are told and don't rock the boat.
Which is fair enough, but not conducive to the improvement of life right now, only replication of the known self-damaging alienation of the past and current relative order.
It's simply saying "Just do what is expected and don't look at anything too closely"

>>11704261
Zizek is not saying that, he's saying that ideology keeps us from looking to closely at the situation which is a bad one.
An example: Peterson admits this is all fucked up, but the terror of the failure to imagine a better way added to the cowardly avoidance of risk, is why he feels he has to distract himself from the shit he's eating.
Since it "works" for him, he "helps" you by teaching you how to eat shit and like it.
Hence "clean your room" style advice

>>11702264
Bahahaha the absolute state of Peterson haters

Maps of Meaning has nothing to do with the bullshit Peterson is pushing these days. Jung's doctrine of the integration of anima and animus in a single hermaphrodite Self directly contradicts his transphobic paranoia. Peterson's description of the mentality of a fascist demagogue is the spitting image of himself. 1999 Peterson would shit on 2018 Peterson.

>>11704331
It's always amusung when they post his diagrams thinking their obscurity is some sort of slight. They're very easy to understand if you've actually read the book

>>11704419
Jung would probably diagnose transgenderism as over-identification with the anima. Don't disagree about Petetson though: Maps Of Meaning Peterson is based.

>>11704426
It's not about obscurity, they're just hilariously redundant and clumsy in comparison to anything else

>>11704467
I disagree. I think they're quite clear and their additive nature is useful.

>>11704472
Fair enough.

>>11704500

>>11704404
>gives it away
He's not hiding anything. The very foundation of anything phenomenological is in the concession that our experience is limited to our perception. However, in as much as our sense of order is only ever relative, so too is our sense of chaos. Chaos is not some quality that exists without us; rather, chaos is simply what we feel when we are overwhelmed by our experience in a negative way. Furthermore, whether we ever know the true order, order is a necessary corollary of existence. When we accept the necessary conclusion that we exist in relationship to some external thing or things, then it follows that there are relationships we can have with what is not us that are positive, and ones that are negative. When we accept that we have some trait we recognize as materiality, and we accept that we acquired this trait by some process which passed it on to us through the successive reproduction of being by trial and error, we must also except that our notion (our feeling) of positive and negative must correlate at least somewhat with what is actually positive and negative for us.

Consider some blind animal. Although it cannot see exactly where it is going, by it's other senses it can move in a direction purposefully. Of course the analgy breaks down a little, because none of our senses actually different in their fundamental structure, which is as a response mechanism to whatever might exist beyond our metaphysical self. Our primary issue as humans is that our sight is so dominant, we struggle to conceive of reality in any other sense. Because we see objects, and not metaphysical structures, many people refuse to believe those metaphysical structures exist. And yet, as Peterson tries to describe, albeit in a very laborious way, we still feel them. We sense them. We react to and act upon conceptual structures which in turn react to and act upon us. When we are depressed, that is a feeling no different than physical pain. So, when you don't know that fire is hot, you burn yourself. When you don't see that certain ideas are destructive, you repeatedly hurt yourself with them. And because you refuse to recognize them, you will place the blame elsewhere.

It doesn't matter that we can only know of the outside world in a relative sense. Consider that that is how our ancestors lived in all ways. They did not understand the material world like we do, but they still survived. They survived because they treated things as true which they could not prove to be true.

And that's not what Zizek is saying about the trashcan. It's not even a real metaphor, not in any explicative sense. He works hard to demonstrate the blindness we have to ideologies, but doesn't actually do the work to prove why this invisible content in our mind is shit. Instead he relies upon you being self-aware enough of some of your bad ideas to cast the same disgust over all your ideas, which you have not yet examined. After all, why a trashcan, vs any other container?

>>11704426
>>11704457
>>11704472
Diagrams sure is cool

Loves me them dang ol' drawrins

Has anybody mentioned Nathan J. Robinson's critique in Current Affairs? I liked it quite a lot.

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

>>11704525
Immediately discarded when I saw this pic of him.

>>11704515
You should perhaps read Lacan.
You're claiming that what we are doing isn't harmful when it absolutely is, otherwise we wouldn't need these psychoanalytic therapies to attempt to manage it.
Psychoanalysis is built backwards that way, it's about beating yourself into submission to a sick system, because it defines sickness as inability to function within those systems.

We know the fire is hot, we burn ourselves anyway.
It's easier to invest in aloe than to stop burning ourselves.

Jouissance n shiiiiet

>>11704419
You need to re-read your Jung, because that's not what integration means at all.

Integration of the anima doesn't mean incorporating the femenine into the masculine in a hermaphroditic form. It's when you recognize that the anima is a conception that belongs to you, that you can control. As in, your psyche's projection of the ideal woman is within your control, because the projection is not an external thing, but rather a psychological limb. Integrating the anima doesn't result in a less masculine man; instead it results in a truly masculine man.

The anima is a complex. Complexes are subordinate to the self. It begins in unconscious. Integration means bringing into the conscious. Gender dismorphia is a submission of the conscious to the unconscious anima. Notice how every single transgender person transforms themselves into a stereotype. It is even how the "therapy" process works. (You can't call something therapeutic if it consistently makes the problem worse.) The therapist gets the patient to start conceptualizing this alter ego, and asks them to fashion this personality out of unconscious relationships. By the end of the process, a whole new persona has been created. The problem is that the persona lacks the most essential elements of personality. All the other complexes are pushed into the unconscious. The persona never goes through any kind of development. If you have any doubt of its fragility, consider the lengths people are going to to protect these mental constructions--even using the wrong pronouns on accident is considered violence. It's absolutely absurd. If a mental structure cannot withstand ordinary life, it is already broken.

>>11702842
>his justification is that Heidegger (a german) did it
Laughable

>>11704576
Guess again, bucko.

>>11704561
>what we are doing
And what is it exactly that we are doing? You seem to be under the impression that there is one singular collective action, or that the multitude of all our actions, though distinct, cannot be separated from another. You are stuck in black and white thinking. Either society is wholly good or wholly bad.

What is "the" system? Is it inherently Evil? Or is it just broken? And if everything is chaos, how can anything be said to be sick? How can it matter which insanity we choose to indulge in?

What makes me really sad, though, is, despite his faults, Jordan Peterson is actually giving you very good advice on how to stop burning yourself.

What is the sickness? Do you have any sense? Or can you only name it in the borrowed vagueries of post-modern nihilists?

>>11704525
In all seriousness though, it's a weak critique. Their central claim, their knockdown argument is that Peterson is an obscurintist, and that lying beneath this obscurity is nothing of substance or novelty:
>verbosity to cover for a lack of profundity, pointed out that people respond positively to this kind of writing because they see it as “a wondrous maze, fascinating precisely because of its often splendid lack of intelligibility.” But, Mills said, such writers are “so rigidly confined to such high levels of abstraction that the ‘typologies’ they make up—and the work they do to make them up—seem more often an arid game of Concepts than an effort to define systematically—which is to say, in a clear and orderly way, the problems at hand, and to guide our efforts to solve them.”
MoM is written in plain academic English, in the vein of a scientific paper. If they sincerely believe that Peterson is "obscure", I would love for them to read something truly obscure; Hegel, Deleuze, anything.

>>11704576
>Notice how every single transgender person transforms themselves into a stereotype. [...]
Notice how it's obvious you have no actual contact with trans people, their self-conceptualisation and/or the therapeutic process they go through.

>>11704604
>In which we pretend to not notice "it defines sickness as inability to function within those systems." (plural) and insist that the very black-and-white Order and Chaos is nuanced

>>11704610
>MoM is written in plain academic English, in the vein of a scientific paper

>>11704649
This is from the preface of the book anon. It's a personal and intimate address from Peterson to the reader explaining his motivations for writing the book.

>>11704680
>Beta fantasy of maiming an alpha toddler that had humiliated him in a book about becoming a functional adult

Haha OK kid

>>11704592
>also homosexuality, which is characterized by identity with the anima
You were saying?

But, to help you, Jung is describing how, given its frequency and psychological structure, it cannot be lumped in with perversions, because it occurs at too fundamental a level. He goes on to describe how it is not necessarily negative in and of itself if the more adolescent and innocent archetypes are still intact.

That said, I take it you don't actually believe in this quote, because it's a very strong implicit rejection of transgenderism. If homosexuality is tolerable, it is only to the extent that it maintains some primal sexuality, which means the rest of psyche remains whole and complete. However, a transgenered person, in this interpretation, would not only identify with the anima, but also undergo complete detachment from the hermaphroditic archetype. That can only be seen as a destructive and harmful psychological act, since it breaks a fundamental archetype to detrimental effect, and at the cost of the rest of the psyche.

>>11704649
>For the rest, at a time when the universal nature of spiritual life has become so very much emphasised and strengthened, and the mere individual aspect has become, as it should be, correspondingly a matter of indifference, when, too, that universal aspect holds, by the entire range of its substance, the full measure of the wealth it has built up, and lays claim to it all, the share in the total work of mind that falls to the activity of any particular individual can only be very small. Because this is so, the individual must all the more forget himself, as in fact the very nature of science implies and requires that he should; and he must, moreover, become and do what he can. But all the less must be demanded of him, just as he can expect the less from himself, and may ask the less for himself.
Lol look at this shit. Peterson is such a hack

>>11704620
I like how not only do you assume you know my life, you assume you know my thoughts as well. You don't know how I've come to these conclusions. You think it's by conjecture, and not experience. I've faced those demons, and I'm here talking to you because I beat them.

>>11704690
Woah! He provided a funny and sensationalised anecdote! I guess he's wrong about everything!

>>11702828
>>11703042
Both insecure children who used the concept of being as toddlers and now want to show the Laotian go karting forum they're big boys.

ha ha more like boredom pooterson, rite?

>>11704636
I didn't say order and chaos are not black and white. I asked you if you really knew where the line was. And I didn't say you were sick. I said you were weak. And it's not because you are unable to act within the "system" but because you know how to use the system well, and you use it to harm yourself. You say I am unwilling to look at the garbage I am eating, but how do you know which of us is eating the garbage?

>>11704690
Have you ever read any self-analysis in psycho-analytic work?
Does someone who was once broken lack the standing to discuss how they changed?

Stalin. He fought his way to the top of the dominance hierarchy yet peterson whinges and moans about him 24/7/

>>11702828
Plato and his followers, especially Iamblichus and Proclus, wrote authoritatively on Being within a coherent system. Heidegger is slap and tickle on the edges only read because of novelty fetish.

>>11702881
>tfw you are already eating out of the dumpster all the time

>>11702113
https://merionwest.com/2018/08/24/what-i-learned-from-corresponding-with-jordan-petersons-supporters/

>>11703569
>Idol worship of Blacks
The one true faith of the Left.

>>11704766
The dominance hierarchy shit is so trite. He describes it and says it's natural so we should follow it, then also implicitly says it's unfair and we should fight it by instilling cultural norms that defy this natural hierarchy. I think Zizek had an article about this that specifically mentioned peterson.
It's like Peterson can't decide whether to advocate libertarian ideas or the very authoritarianism he vilifies so offers a rehashed neo-liberal order that is somehow packaged as revolutionary in some sense.
My stance thus far: reactionaries are paper tigers, and peterson will eventually be an even more forgotten blip on the proverbial political radar.

>>11703738
How can Slavoj get so many things wrong in so few paragraphs?

Is this credible?

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/12-rules-for-life-catholic-review.html

>>11704822
He doesn't say "it's natural, so we should follow it." He says "it exists, and not by accident, so we can't simply ignore it." He then goes on to show how it is effected by conceptualizations and culture, so if we do not like the hierarchy, we can change the hierarchy. But, because we evolved out of it, it cannot simply be torn down and replaced, it can only be altered. He also never argues that we should simply follow authority. Rather his explanation of dominance hierarchies serves to explain how some people have power over other people, and that if you pretend those mechanisms don't exist, you will be a victim to them.

>>11704774
Archaism is just as lazy, indulgent, and dangerous as Futurism, boy-o.

>>11704830
Do you just have a vague dislike of Zizek or did it fly over your head? Saying "b-b-ut he's wrong" does nothing without attaching to that valid criticisms.
But enjoy your stay in /lit/, crossposter.

>>11704888
Unfortunately Zizek is wrong. He himself was eating from the "trashcan" when he decided to name the "trashcan" a trashcan.

>>11704919
he called it a trashcan because it was a segway from a movie quote, dumb ass.

>>11704861
and, as with most things, he doesn't know what he's talking about:

https://youtu.be/A4UMyTnlaMY

>>11704925
No shit. And why did he pick that movie quote in particular? Retard.

>>11704934
because he actually fucking eats of the trash you imbecile. Oscar the grouch is based off zizek because he sleeps with homeless people and eats literal garbage whenever they fly him into new york.
Lurk more before you talk shit, bitch

>>11704557
That's the socialist kid who think The View is a serious political forum. The roastie ranks higher than him though.

>>11704947
Holy fucking shit you're retarded; you must be from /pol/. WHY is ideology the "trashcan". Why the trashcan in particular? I like Zizek, but he's just one guy and he's not right about everything unfortunately.

>>11704983
they just told you, I live in ljubljana and see zizek regularly sleeping on the benches or drinking with other hobos in the park

>>11704995
Hello /pol/. Enjoy your stay.

>>11704983
Ideology is the trash can because he selected the film They Live to discuss, and the film centers very highly on ideology. In the particular scene he jumps off from, Zizek notes how silly it is that the man is so vehemently opposed to even just trying the glasses on. The main character says "put on these glasses, or start eating out of that trash-can!" or something to that effect, it is a simply segue that the trash-can becomes the metaphor. Zizek says he is already eating out of the trash can, the unfortunate Thing, under the guise of ideology. We cannot help it.The man is so reluctant to wear the glasses because he is, on a subconscious level, accustomed to living under the demand of the Big Other, so to speak, and rejects the possibility that ideology even exists in his world. It is the very framing itself that is ideology, everything that categorizes and orients our experience. In the movie it is very straightforward; even mundane symbols like advertisements become revealed to be hidden demands by the Big Other (have lots of sex and child, ect.)

>>11703738
Well, I don't know everything Jordan has said on the subject, but literally all Jordan is saying in that quote is
>human psychology compels us to eat out of the trashcan as a defense mechanism
which you probably could have understood if you bothered to read anything other than the semi-coherent ramblings of people who can't finish a thought in less than 100,000 words.
I don't know how the fuck you transformed that into the bullshit you transformed it into, but maybe I just don't have the entire context you're associating with that particular quote.

Using ideologically motivated linguistic philosophy to dictate the definition of 'ideological' as something encompassing positive connotations through deceptive and incorrect attributation of an idea which zizek holds in his head as canonical seems a little disingenuous on his part.

But that's just me.

>>11705018
Yep. And why did he pick "They Live" to be the substrate for the metaphor? Why not "Lawrence of Arabia"; or any other movie for that matter?

>>11705043
Why do anything at all? Just cut to the point if you have one.

>>11705038
>>11705043

>>11705044
>>11705050
Seems like you two have had a little too much to eat from the "trashcan".
>>11705038
This guy is right.

>>11704930
One of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. Is it better to know pain and stress and conflict and be alive, or better to die? If it is better to die, then why don't you?

Whether or not hierarchies are optimal is, at this stage, somewhat irrelevant. We inherited them, so deep in our psychological construction that they cannot be removed. We inherited them because that is how our ancestors, dating all the way back to time immemorial. They may not be ideal, but they cannot be removed. The question then is not how do we get rid of them, but how do we make the best of it. The other alternative is to die. Of course, dying won't get rid of it, instead it will mean that someone else who does believe in dominance hierarchies will survive. The only way it gets better is if good people win. That is an unavoidable fact of life. Instead of trying to get rid of dominance hierarchies then, you should spend more time figure out what it means to be good. If your only sense of good and bad is that dominance hierarchies are bad, you're shit out of luck, because the only way you'll perpetuate that notion is by winning the dominance hierarchy.

>>11702113
>>11702145
>>11702264
>>11702283
>>11702289
>>11702292
>>11702312
>>11702395
>>11702414
>>11702440
>>11702819
>>11702828
>>11702842
>>11702881
>>11703042
>>11703055
>>11703077
>>11703107
>>11703112
>>11703211
>>11703281
>>11703471
>>11703504
>>11703512
>>11703513
>>11703515
>>11703540
>>11703569
>>11703571
>>11703573
>>11703579
>>11703584
>>11703613
>>11703629
>>11703637
>>11705063
>>11705050
>>11705044
>>11705043
fuck you december and this shit thread maps of meaning isn't even relevant to the politics of jordna petrograd ok? so FUCK off this board bitch cunt fucker
people of /lit/ do you want to stand for this AWFUl (s)dEGENERATION of your board??????? resurrect it!

>>11705078
There's probably been more meaningful discussion of Zizek in this thread than any actual Zizek threads.

There is no we.

>>11705086
CHOOSE people of /lit/ anonymous no.mber11705086 ZIZEK is discussed seriously JORDAN plongerkstons isn't?

>>11705071
>“There are no hierarchies in nature other than those imposed by hierarchical modes of human thought, but rather differences merely in function between and within living things.”
―Murray Bookchin

Which any competent biologist will tell you.
An ant colony is Eusocial. The queen doesn't know she's a queen, and isn't one in any functional way. An ant colony is one body, there is No hierarchy.

The idea that what currently exists is the only possible way is a failure of your imagination and has no bearing on reality.

>>11705018
I don't know much about Zizek. Does he claim that the idea of the trashcan transcends ideology, or does he acknowledge that it itself is a product of ideology. If a product, where does it derive its explanatory power? Please teach me anon

>>11705086
yeah too bad Zizek in inscrutable garbage

>>11705131
*is lmao

battle of the mid-wits

>>11705131
~t. Hasn't Read Any Zizek At All

>>11705112
Well chimps are kinda hierarchical. And our modes of thought evolved from their modes of thought. It seems like a bit of a constraint.

>>11705135
you don't know me

>>11702113
zizek.

>>11705136
Chimps are not our ancestors, they evolved alongside us.
Similarly, why use Chimps as a comparison instead of Bonobos?

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLMC4NIKGyo

>>11705128
I have only watched a few lectures and read Puppet and the Dwarf, with intent to read more. The trash can is not a thing or even a concept. He just uses it as a quick segue to discussing ideology in one of his movies.
People just like repeating that part because it's funny to say.
I don't think in his philosophy anything permanent transcends ideology, if my limited knowledge and reading is correct. In the lacanian/badiou sense, something can penetrate and dismantle an ideology when it lacks the capacity to contain this something, but another ideology will inevitably form around (from?) this new something. This is Badiou's concept of a break or truth-event.
The point is that you cannot escape from ideology.

>>11705161
We share a common ancestor with chimps and evolution is conservative process (there's no "unevolving"); thus if chimps exhibit hierarchy, our common ancestor did too.

We use chimps instead of Bonobos becuase they're more exemplary of primates as a whole. Bonobos are outliers in their "matriarchial" troupe structure.

>>11705112
>When one ape submits to the will of another ape, it's not a dominance heirarchy because they don't have the ability to linguistically describe the nature of their relationship, despite the fact that their understanding of the relationship is implicit in their behavior

If the queen didn't know she was queen, she would behave like every other ant. It is not the absence of hierarchy, but rather a complete and total hierarchy.

Words are compressed air. Action is belief.

>>11705176
>>11705161
And matriarchies are still hierarchies.

>>11705164
>>11705128
Here is an anthology of essays by others about Ideology, edited by Zizek.

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=64BC371728C6DDF8D5228826D98E2251

Here is a very accessible book written by Zizek.

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=281C258C89CA7E99B2E8F3AA950FE327

Learn things.

>>11705187
>>11705182
>>11705176
>>11705164
>>11705161
cringe

>>11705189
sorry lad only read in physical

>>11705189
Zizek doesn't have anything valuable to say

>>11705200
he says, in a JBP thread

>>11705200
t. chomsky

>>11705189
>>11705208
>>11705209
What's Zizek's Big Idea?

>>11705187
>>11705182
Jesus Christ.

Chimps are Hierarchical. So are wolves.
That's not even my point.

Ant queens are not rulers the way that a human Queen is.
They don't enforce policy through violence and have ant-jail and so on.
T
She's like a brain and genitals in one organ. Is your hand part of your body, or subject to the dominance of your cerebellum?
Does it know your gray matter is it's king?
Has your cerebellum told your medulla oblongata that autonomic functioning is OVER DUE TO CEREBELLUM SUPREMACY?

Stop being so fucking superficial.

>>11705208
yes and?

>>11705200
~t. Afraid to venture outside of ideological hugbox
>>11705198
So borrow them from library or buy them, that's not even an argument

>>11705236
no, just afraid to mess around in ideological bullshit

>>11705216
I mainly see him as a continental commentator and lacania custodian but I find his concept and application of dialectic "mobius strip" pretty astute. It is like a logical machine; insert poor system and they get torn to shreds.

>>11705220
>They don't enforce policy through violence and have ant-jail and so on.
Many animals including our close evolutionary relatives do. The evolution of their thought processess are continuous with our own. We're just a bit more conscious about them

>>11705257
And why do you think we can't escape that? We escaped freezing to death in winter, we escaped gravity in flight, the sound barrier, dying of Parasites and bacterial infection, we learned to read and write, and so much.
Why would it be unreasonable to think we can make a conscious effort to make modest adjustments to socioeconomic policy?
Even if you insist on a biological excuse, there's CRISPR/cas9

>>11705270
We can; we just won't be humans anymore (or at least less human than we are now). Also escaping something that evolutionarily conserved is very difficult; a lot like escaping having two arms or a heart. Possible, but difficult. Desirable however? Who knows?