/lit/ - Literature

>>12403798
Hmm. Cringe but I like it

>>12403933
You can't say his zizek isn't accurate

>>12403798
i like peterson

>>12403798
I'm crackin' up

this is so retarded it's funny

>>12403798
This was bloody brilliant, thank you

>>12403982
So do I. People seem to shit on him here but I've never read an explicit reason why other than for being accessible which I don't really see as valid.

Love the shots of the guy being like Ruben. I hate that jewish fuck he contributes absolutely nothing of substance to any conversations he's wedged himself into via his "platform" which is literally just a collection of chairs on a cement slab. Also why is his name a fucking sandwich?

Possibly happening in april, someone posted a Peterson clip.

this is reddit-tier but i love it. help

this is the most hilarious type of cringe

>>12403982
>>12404031
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIfLTQAKKfg

this is hilarious

>>12404031
Gets spooked by post-modernism and doesn't seem to know what it is, only that he hates it

bump

>>12404169

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MLp7vWB0TeY?autoplay=0&enablejsapi=1&wmode=opaque

>>12404169
Subscribed.

>>12404169
Noice

>>12404169
based

>>12403798
Stop shiling your video

>>12403798
This is funny. The voices of Peterson and Rubin aren't that good but the mannerisms are perfect so I forgot. Good shit.

>>12404031
What? He's complaining about "Neo-marxist post-modernism", when the effects he's talking about are actually the result of the liberalism he's trying to defend.

>>12404169
>literally a fedora
But he's right on that case

>>12404528
How so? I'm pretty unfamiliar with both of them so I'm legitimately curious

>>12404240

This

>>12404675
It's some common pedantic critique of Peterson to say "He doesn't understand what post-modernist philosophers are really talking about" which is never a supported statement, but is asserted in a way such that the critic will allude to his own vast well of secret knowledge that they jealously guard but can draw upon to make the rare exception JUST THIS ONCE to really school some dum dums with a surface-level nitpick that never penetrates past the layer of semantics.

Peterson is the modern equivalent of Jung and is extremely well-read. Try watching >>12404275 fully and judge for yourself if some dickhead saying "durrrr the definition of post-modern is actually this other vague bird's nest of ideas" is a substantive, valid argument. Even DFW said that post-modernism is this odd term that every says and we all soberly nod and agree as though we all have this shared knowledge of its meaning, but I think it uniquely takes on different attributes for different people. It's a very subjective term and, for this reason, I guess unsurprisingly, its been weaponized to criticize Peterson.

>>12404031
On here the criticism is he doesn't say much of substance and there are better people to read. You're on lit, so why would you expect people to love some self help book author?

>>12404528
Neither are alone in a vacuum.

>>12404675
Sorry, but what are you doing posting on /lit/ if you don't even know what fucking post-modernism is?

>>12404838
>/lit/ is a secret club of intellectuals
nice LARP

>>12404031
I'm sure he's a fine psychologist but he doesn't understand philosophy. He regularly uses terms in a manner contradictory to how they are normally used and he regularly cites authors to support his claims that don't actually say what he says they say

>>12404852
It's not secret club shit at all. This is like going to /mu/ and then saying "I don't know what hip hop is".

>>12404765
>It's some common pedantic critique of Peterson to say "He doesn't understand what post-modernist philosophers are really talking about" which is never a supported statement, but is asserted in a way such that the critic will allude to his own vast well of secret knowledge that they jealously guard but can draw upon to make the rare exception to really school some dum dums with a surface-level nitpick that never penetrates past the layer of semantics.
lmao see:
>>12404838
>>12404528
>>12404240
>>12404861

these posters might as well be bots.

>>12404765
blah blah 'people argue against peterson NEVER support what they're saying' ... you're saying the same shit. check the archive fag

Debates are just theatre for pseudo-llectuals. Like boxing or whatever fake sport it was that people watched. Whenever people challenge me to debates, I tell them to write down their view on whatever they disagree with me on. They can take their time, and I will take my time constructing my rebuttal. The notion that you must assemble your arguments at the speed a conversation occurs at, and that anything substantive can result from such a charade is the dumbest ducking thing.

>>12404765
Post-modernism is somewhat vague, sure, but one of its defining elements is fundamentally opposed to Communism.

>>12404275
Holy fuck this idiot sounds like Kermit

"nuclear destruction"

>>12404875
If you can't demonstrate and defend your ideas in a conversational environment then you either don't understand your ideas or your ideas are shit.

>>12404866
>people who disagree with me are paid shills/robots
shame they don't put poison in the koolaid anymore

>>12404169
Haha

>>12404875
this desu
>>12404885
Why is the spoken word more meaningful than a written argument? do arguments become stronger when you play to an audience or something. Taking a moment to contemplate a coherent response isn't a sign of weakness

>>12404853
>doesn't understand philosophy
A child understands philosophy. All you have to do is ask yourself a question and then try to answer it. Often in doing so, you discover that answers reveals more layers of questions.
His comprehension of philosophy and the conclusions he draws from his understandings are novel and interesting and to anybody who isn't a contrarian, fudge-packing teacher's pet will be able to grasp the depth of his philosophical rigor. You are NOT required to always attribute quotes and ideas to their source perfectly in order to have a sound argument.

>>12404885
True insight comes from reflection, which does take time. The truth will stay where it is, you needn't rush towards it. In fact, it is faster to take your time.

>>12404899

>>12404898
Typical petersonfag doesn't address the whole post, just like peterson is just too intellectually lazy to grapple with the whole philosophical tradition and use it properly. is THAT what is being taught to white men these days? lying to others for their money, instead of reading the canon? he himself is the dragon

>>12404903
Fuck off back to /b/, cretin.

>>12404885
How many times have you come up with the perfect retort, only to have it rendered useless because the conversation is now concluded? Would it not be better to take your time and speak intelligently?

>>12404906
>posting an image macro on an image macro website makes you /b/tard

>>12404898
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8

>>12404911
True

People like Peterson, but I've never seen anyone give an actual reason why he has anything important to say

>>12404875
You definitely have autism if you can't grasp the concept of ordinary discourse.

>>12404899
>True insight comes from reflection, which does take time.
Agreed but you should make mistakes in conversation and have the balls to admit you're wrong if you are. It's not a big deal. You'll never learn shit if you're so caught up in trying to be correct always that you literally monk yourself

>>12404898
Petrson's philosophical depth is less than this reply.

>>12404919
the written form is a far better means of discourse than live 90 minute debates where both speakers talk past each other the whole time playing to their crowd and nothing gets accomplished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T47opnLyFw

>>12404925
I was imagining you also meant discussion, rather than just debate specifically. My mistake.

>>12404937
wow isn't that something. His replies got smarter, the more time he took to think about it. how is that even possible. damnit'salmostlikeinsighttakestime

>>12405002
That would have been a lot faster in verbal discourse lol. Just had to see he was still stuck on the word debate and described only debate

>debates are for brutes. the written word is so much better!

Name a single profound thing Peterson has said.

>>12405009
there's no rush mister. what's your hurry?

>>12405031
Calling someone a climate change denier is similar to calling them a holocaust denier and should be seen as offensive.

>>12405031
Something is only true if it promotes survival.

>>12403798
ah, zizek and peterson. two idiot savants in positions of power where they can just talk and talk

>>12405043
Did he say that?

>>12405075
More or less yeah

>>12405099
Oh for some reason I thought you meant he was defending people calling others climate change deniers.

This is just terrible.

>>12405099
That's a mischaracterisation of what he said. He is saying that the "_____ denier" thing is being used deliberately because the term has really odious associations. It's a bit far-fetched and not the best move when people get their ears up at any potentially irreverent mention of the holocaust, as proved by your overreaction and stretching of its context. But it's not "similar to calling them a holocaust denier" except in that one specific respect he means: that the term "denier" is being used (instead of sceptic or something) because in our culture it has associations of backwardness and bigotry.

>>12405099
is jordan peterson retarded or what?

>>12405157
We take to calling them deniers because we want to imply the position isn't based on reason. Otherwise, if they had fair reasons for doubt, we'd call them skeptics. No one thinks people who deny climate science are bigots and I doubt most people who use it have made the association Peterson has. Especially to the point where we should question their ethics.

>>12405191
That's exactly his point though. The obverse of that is me calling you a climate "dogmatist." What is accomplished by doing that? You're just smearing your opponent before the argument even begins, instead of engaging with him.

I'm not a climate change sceptic myself (though I shouldn't even have to say this to ensure you don't get distracted). I just think Peterson's point, however clumsily made, is kind of proved by what you're doing here: using "denier" is a specific move because it has specific associations. You're saying your opponent has ulterior, probably shitty, motives for holding their position, instead of engaging with the position itself.

And yes, obviously most climate change deniers are fucking morons who don't even have any real opinions about it and are just following Facebook video trends or shill pundits. But so are most of the climate change faggots.

>>12405204
His point was specifically that calling someone a climate change denier is a tactical move to associate them with holocaust denial. You're making a better point than Peterson did.

And generally, people who doubt climate change call themselves climate change skeptics as a tactical move to imply that their position has rigor behind it. Any short version of describing someone as a person who doubts the science of climate change will have a connotation behind it. But I'm not about to call every climate change denier that guy who doesn't accept that climate change is real.

>>12405220
>people who doubt climate change call themselves climate change skeptics as a tactical move to imply that their position has rigor behind it.

Mainly I just think it's inherently nonsensical to say this, except maybe at the end of an engagement where you're giving an assessment of how the other person acted. It's a Hegelian/pragmatist point that almost by definition or by necessity, when you enter into dialogue with someone, you are implicitly positing that they are reasonable (so, rigorous, logically consistent) and trying to be reasonable.

If you want to say, "turns out that guy was bad at thinking," or "turns out, that guy would resort to personal attacks every time he realized his own position wasn't tenable," that's fine. But saying, "The difference between my position and yours is that mine has reason and rigor behind it" is borderline epistemically meaningless. And that's just in the abstract. Concretely and empirically, too, in any given situation the other guy will simply say, "No, YOU are lacking rigor and reason, not me." OK, lots accomplished by doing that.

I had a girlfriend once who would say "You know you're wrong and I'm right, and you're just pretending otherwise." Same problem.

>>12405235
>Mainly I just think it's inherently nonsensical to say this, except maybe at the end of an engagement where you're giving an assessment of how the other person acted.
My experience with its use is that it's an after the fact thing. Something you say once the person has made their views on the issue public. If there were an interview where someone's ideas were being explored, and when their name came on screen underneath, it said "Climate Change Denier" then I'd agree it's probably unfair. Perhaps, arguably, you could say that by calling someone a denier in the public sphere, you're dissuading people who are ignorant of the person's views from giving it a fair shake, but the kind of people who would do that probably wouldn't care if you instead said "they don't believe in global warming." Using different words doesn't suddenly solve that people have confirmation biases.

Regardless, I'm still arguing against a point that Peterson didn't make. At best he may have been wanting to make the point you're making but did so clumsily when he insinuated that "climate change denier" is meant to imply bigotry. As far as I'm aware, no one thinks people who doubt climate change are bigoted. Just either ignorant or an idiot.

>>12404031
He loves to point out that jews are smarter than europeans but never points out that europeans are smarter than others, blacks for example. Because you know, you can talk all the shit you want about whites but dont you dare say a bad word about dindus. Hes a pussy who wants to play it safe

>>12405293
>why doesn't this public intellectual making millions of dollars at the center of the limelight who probably has a few private beliefs and some cognitive dissonance about race realism come out swinging as the prophesied nigger-destroyer and end the kali yuga

>>12405303
Yeah that what im saying, hes a pussy

>>12405293
>>12405310
>He loves to point out that jews are smarter than europeans but never points out that europeans are smarter than others, blacks for example.
Its actually a subtle redpill that's intended to encourage people to look into IQ distributions themselves while still distancing himself from it.

>>12405303
Where do people get the idea that peterson is crypto-racist from? Granted i haven't seen all of his work, but from what I can tell he strikes me as a reactionary and possibly sexist, but not a racist.

>>12405157
sceptic implies rational questioning and healthy debate
"denier" implies the facts are 100% settled and to say otherwise is blasphemy

>>12405316
its an effective smear tactic that if enough people repeat it becomes true.

>>12404765
Because Peterson himself never critiqued post-modernism in any substantial way. He takes up a basic notion of what it means and what he incorrectly assumes what it is about, coining results directly to his idea of evil postmodernism, yet never directly to the thoughts that make up postmodernism. In one interview he said that Derrida rejects history of logic or objectivism, and he makes an arguments based on that. What a coincidence then that Derrida's Of Grammatology first pages start with this rejection which he explains the meaning of thorough the book. Peterson doesn't attack postmodern thought, he attacks whatever shallow notion he has of ism as a whole.

>>12403798
His Zizek impression is spot-on

>>12404169
>This is Fuck Sea and Noo Ah
Dumb fuck didn't even bother checking pinyin pronunciations.

>>12404031
Psychoanalysis always leads to stupid positions.

First rule of film making, kiddies.

DON'T. CROSS. THE. LINE.

>>12403982
Yeah, me too. Yes, yes, he has at least a handful of positions that are dumb. That's not a dealbreaker for me. I find a lot of his lectures thought-provoking, and he seems like he makes a real attempt to live by his own principles; that's enough for me.

>>12404031
He should stick to psychology rather than philosophy. Also he seems so full of himself that I find it difficult to like him.

Zizek is The Room of scholarship.
Peterson is the Rick and Morty.

>>12404911
Yes.

Here is how the debate will go
>Peterson will talk about the Peano distribution, personal responsibility, primate behavior, and the Soviet gulags
>Zizek will tell some old Soviet jokes and sniff incessantly, and also talk about the Soviet gulags
>the two will civilly compare and contrast their conceptions of ideology, though each will avoid offending the other in any way
>Peterson fans will insist that he destroyed Zizek
>Zizek fans will insist that he destroyed Peterson

>>12405541
Screenshot this for when this actually happens.

>>12404765
Literally the very phrase "postmodern neomarxism" is what they take issue with. Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCWdA5XhGmY

>>12403798
>peterson starts crying
>zizek starts sniffing and snorting loudly
>can't understand shit

so leftypol is mad at peterson because he says postmodern marxism? what a petty excuse to dislike the guy

>>12406020
What profound thing has he written that makes it so we shouldn't shit on him?

>>12406035
you´re asking the wrong question, he isn´t a profound person to begin with, he´s a clinical psychologist

>>12405557
what anon say is so obvious It doesn't have a value to screenshot that

>>12405281
>>12405235
>>12405220
>>12405204
lol what the water is rising man. only in north america you'd rather beleive there is a megaconspiracy than to accept the UN agencies' arguments.

climate change denial is an appropriate term gramatically, and if someone is very deeply hurt to the core by it, i'm sorry it wasn't the intention ;^)
(the intention was just to call them stupid)

>>12405031
wring your willy.

>>12403798
>Rubin report in the background
Top Bantz.

>>12404765
I agree with you anon. I'm surprised no one sees the irony of criticizing Peterson for not having a """true""" definition of post-modernism. It's almost like there's a an actual hierarchy of truth underpinning the correct definition of things. Who would've thought?

I will say though that Peterson would benefit from integrating aspects of post-modernism, specifically that materialism has limitations. At that point though, we start to just re-enter Platonic thinking and Western Civilization is saved

>>12404765
>Peterson is the modern equivalent of Jung and is extremely well-read

Jordan Peterson is not a philosopher and he is not a scientist in the humanities or social science. Most of the things he says which sound "philosophical" are in the field of analytical psychology (Jungian psychology).
But then, he would be uncovered as a quacksalver, too.
1. Jungian psychology is highly criticized. (Personally, I study Jungian psychology and support Jung's theories.)
2. Which brings me to the second point: Peterson doesn't apply Jungian psychology orderly. He uses Jungs theory to justify most of what he says but he ignores the part of Jungian psychology that wouldn't fit in his world view. For example, in Jungian psychology the political right and left are the representation of equal forces in the collective unconscious. Fighting against the SJW is illogical according to Jungian psychology. Now, you could argue that he developed Jungian psychology but he didn't. He doesn't explain the significant meanderings.
3.He himself said that he is captured by an archetype. In Jungian psychology, it means that he doesn't make an inner conflict conscious and projects it onto something in the outer world. (Obviously, it's his work.) He plays the archetype of the father and hero and attracts people, who unconsciously need to compensate this archetype.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/615e3z/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dfby6as/
Jordan Peterson about the hero archetype:
> My wife keeps me from identifying too much with the archetype :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7ttg88/the_archetypal_father_signed_my_atlas/
He signed as the "archetypal father".

Also: Even though, Jungian psychology is the foundation of his work, he never went through a Jungian therapy or has an education in Jungian psychology.

>>12407382
Holy this. I have been saying for months now that Peterson isn't a proper Jungian. He literally cannot get anything right.

>>12407379
>Who would've thought?
a lot of the so called "postmodern neomarxists" for a start. both Derrida and Foucault, for all their disagreements, said that not all interpretation is equal.

>>12407382
>a random pseud on /lit/ who cites Plebbit as references knows more about Jung than a guy who has spent 30 years studying/teaching Jung at Harvard and Univ of Toronto
are we at peak superiority complex of this dump?

>>12406020
>being mad at someone whose criticisms are directed at made-up buzzwords or tautologies
I’m not mad, just disappointed he lacks the respect to represent his opponent’s views in any coherent shape. Let’s face it, true moral relativism and the idea that there are “immoral” or wrong attitudes to gender do not work together as an ideology, yet Peterson is more than happy to claim that they’re cut from the same cloth.

>>12407418
not that anon but heres a good academic rundown of what Peterson gets wrong about Jung
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMxHTkAiMME

>>12407397
Not equal in terms of the power drafted from it, not because some are "truer" than others. Foucault talked about this at length in The Order of Things. You just use hierarchy to shift the consciousness of others. What I'm saying is if you deconstruct that statement, it reveals that there's an underlying hierachy or pattern that manifests truth itself so that certain intepretations produce more relevance or substance in the physical world. Deconstructing post-modernism (as we should) starts taking us back to the beginning.

>>12407418
(Not OP)
>>a random pseud on /lit/ who cites Plebbit as references
Have you even checked those links? The first link is the source for the comment Jordan Peterson himself made, and the second link is the source for the claim that OP made.
>are we at peak superiority complex of this dump?
Yes, people here frequently use Ad hominem.

>>12407418
(Not OP)
>>a random pseud on /lit/ who cites Plebbit as references
Have you even checked those links? The first link is the source for the comment Jordan Peterson himself made, and the second link is the source for the claim that OP made about JBP.
>are we at peak superiority complex of this dump?
Yes, people here frequently use Ad hominem.

>>12407418
(Not OP)
>>a random pseud on /lit/ who cites Plebbit as references
Have you even checked those links? The first link is the source for the comment Jordan Peterson himself made, and the second link is the source for the claim that OP made about JBP.

Stop the Ad hominem.

>>12407485
a-are you arguing JP is a postmodernist? because his conception of truth is based on a heirarchy of utility

>>12405541
And sure enought...

>>12407625
No and that shows you really haven't dug into his philosophy of consciousness. He literally references a "spirit of masculinity" which underpins the physical world and brings order to it's surroudings. Why do you think he gets hung up on the concept of logos so much? He's saying the truth structure is apriori to humanity. Post modernists identified hierarchy but have no idea where it comes from.

>>12407418
Fuck. You petersonfags are disgusting. He's citing Peterson himself posting on reddit. Kill yourself.

>>12407608
Did you literally just delete and repost on 4chan?

>>12407659
So much resentment. You must be a post-modern neomarxist

>>12404031
He gets BTFOd by fucking Jim Jeffries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

>>12407653
>He's saying the truth structure is apriori to humanity
no, he's literally not. he's trying to say that conceptions of truth are infinite therefore we need to restrict our view to favour those truths which allow us to survive in the best possible way. that's why he "acts as if God exists", because the a priori truth of God's existence isn't as important as the moral role that God plays on a social level. watch the first Harris debate where he tells his nuclear physics isn't true if it gets us all killed.

>>12404853
>I'm sure he's a fine psychologist
No he's not lol

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/after-misconduct-complaint-jordan-peterson-agrees-to-plan-for-clinical-improvement

>>12407653
>Post modernists identified hierarchy but have no idea where it comes from

t. Someone who doesn't know shit about pomo. Have you even read Derrida or Foucault? This is literally all they discuss.

>>12407703
You are referencing a video from almost 2 years ago now and he's evolving from that perspective

Watch the following at around 52 minutes:
https://youtu.be/1opHWsHr798

>>12407774
Not the other guy but he was retarded for having a hilariously flawed view that most phil first years could debunk easily. It never made sense and yet he thought he was the next Nietzsche for his fucktarded definition of truth. Thinking that sophists like Peterson are offering actual philosophy is wasting time and ill-preparing you for dealing with actual worthwhile philosophers.

>>12407721
I've only read Foucault. He says hierarchy comes from man-made manifestation of power: this free-wheeling force that's all around us. He doesn't explain why those hierarchies exist outside of utility. What is hierarchy itself a reflection of? Why does man even want to create hierarchy? There has to be a force which manifests human desire to create hierarchy and then structures truth hierachies themselves. I'm starting to think you actually haven't read Foucault because this is obvious from his philosophy

>>12407694
I like how "Peterson" sounds like "Penis Sin" in his accent

>>12406020
Most intellectuals and academics don't like Peterson either because when he extends himself beyond psychology, he says things that just aren't true according experts in various fields.

>>12407819
I've literally written journal articles about Foucault, so be careful about the assumptions you make. He clearly explains that power is produced at the micro-level, in the everyday interactions between people.

>What is hierarchy itself a reflection of?
The hierarchy stems from power strategies i.e. the desire to control the behaviours of others.

>There has to be a force which manifests human desire to create hierarchy and then structures truth hierachies themselves.

“People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does.”

You're completely misunderstanding Foucault and making a HUGE assumption by presuming that there is a desire to create hierarchy, as opposed to the fact that hierarchy is a consequence of power strategies. Start by analysing power strategies at the micro-level before making the assumption that they link up to larger structures, as Foucault would suggest.

>>12407774
>le edgy anti-postmodernist changes his definition of truth every 48 months

>>12407881
Does power exist outside of humans? How is it structured without human intervention?

>>12407817
well, why don't you debunk him then?

>>12407926
>power
Assuming you're talking about social power. No, by definition.

>How is it structured without human intervention?
One cannot predict the outcome of power strategies though many try. See: Hitler. There is no assurance that power strategies will result in stable structures. You're thinking about power all wrong. You talk about as a "force" but its a consequence of actions and strategies.

>>12407774
>peterson getting btfo on christian theology by a jew
what was I supposed to take from that

>>12408028
imagine being this willfully stupid
imagine thinking this sounds intelligent

>>12405163
He is jew-mecenased

>>12408063
imagine being this willfully stupid
imagine thinking this sounds intelligent

>>12407960
(Not that Anon )
I don't know much about philosophy, but I know science . And he has consciously peddled pseudo-science several times, which makes me skeptic of his other statements.

>>12407694
>guy who joked about raping pornstars to thier face on O&A sucking mainstream "its the current year" cock
thats gonna backfire on him in this current climate anytime soon eh

>>12408138
Jordan "ancient egyptian/chinese snake art is actually based on the double helix" peterson

>>12404925
>>12404875
the line is that you can hide in the written word by mystification and obscurantism, debate is more down to earth and sincere.

you might as well just write books. I agree though that debates are theatrics

>>12408028
>social power doesn't exist outside of man
>social power is a consequence of strategy and actions
Ok so then does that mean certain actions are better at garnering power than others?

>>12408203
>hide in the written word by mystification and obscurantism
sell me the shit that got you that high my nig

>>12408203
>>12404875
also you can be, and people are affectatious with their writing as much as speech. the point of debate is that we gain more truth about the communicator by watching his behavior compared to what he communicates.

imo people who are good writers and good speakers are best; some good writers who hate public speaking (one of the must-have classical virtues) usually have a bad voice, weak behavior, poor posture...

>>12408203
>the line is that you can hide in the written word by mystification and obscurantism, debate is more down to earth and sincere.
??????????????????

>>12405031
Cleanse thine scrotum.

>>12408243
>people have never been intentionally or unintentionally vague in writing

fuck off /lit/ please brainlet

>>12408259
>>12408265

peterstein retards as usual

>>12404169
When someone addresses tons of issues and topics in their discussions they are bound to make a mistake on something.
Making a 12 minute video about how someone mis spoke about somthing they werent fully educated about is super cringe. I bet if you analyzed everything this youtuber did in his life you could absolutely ruin him.
People make mistakes, and to be honest this is a pretty minor one. People go to such great lengths to discredit someone who they don't agree with even if they make plenty of good points.

>WRITING IS ENLIGHTENED UNLIKE SPEECH!

>I HAVE STYLE WITH MY FEDORA, UNLIKE YOU. GREETINGS MY LADY

peterstein crew from r/reddit rolling up the neighborhood

>>12404169
Hellfire is needed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/afd2ad/how_sam_harris_beats_quacks_every_time_the_harris/

>>12408259

read this you brainlet
>>12408256

>>12408265
>being an opaque cunt works on anyone who isnt mouthbreathing papermill chaser

>>12404906
Watch Idiocracy

>>12408324
nigger even students and lawyers have to defend their papers in interviews

>>12408324
tl;dr if you can't fucking speak worth a damn you are subhuman

fucking cicero, fucking the greco romans, fucking the buddha, fucking all the prophets could speak well

>>12408362
Joel Oelsteen makes the communication skills of every paperback slinging peckerwood and kike posted in this thread look like a mumbling teenager who broke into his parents liqour cabinet to gain enough courage to ask his crush out on a date

>>12408406
joel osteen writes books as well

>>12408188
this is the only instance he ever made a somewhat mysticistic consideration. he did state nothing. he thought aloud, and made that clear afterwards.

>>12405389
https://youtu.be/ih4avuHRUUc
https://youtu.be/s4c-jOdPTN8

>>12407703
>he's trying to say that conceptions of truth are infinite therefore we need to restrict our view to favour those truths which allow us to survive in the best possible way.
No, he's saying that there is a "super ordinate principle" of ethical behavior that exists before we act it out. Human beings act out and discover across time in a Darwinian manner what the superordinate principle is. The bible is a dramatization of the superodinate principle that jesus personified. Peterson has argued that same fundamental pattern has been manifested in the animal kingdom to various degrees, which is certainly a priori to humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyYdGiJpyXk

>>12407382
>Peterson doesn't apply Jungian psychology orderly. He uses Jungs theory to justify most of what he says but he ignores the part of Jungian psychology that wouldn't fit in his world view. For example, in Jungian psychology the political right and left are the representation of equal forces in the collective unconscious. Fighting against the SJW is illogical according to Jungian psychology.

The SJW's are radical, there's absolutely nothing about them that represents a healthy political balance unless you think polarization is a good thing. Peterson has made cases for why the left and right are both necessary so I don't see where you're coming from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_tHZKPJ7VA

>>12409276
I don't think you know what the term "a priori" means

>>12409300

> a priori only means it’s Kantian meaning

Are you awetistic anon?

>>12405657
I want them to settle their differences and actually act this out for 15 minutes as an April Fools' joke on all the people who wanted them to debate

>>12409300
A priori knowledge is knowledge independent of experience. Jordan Peterson argues that the human brain has evolved to recognize and be attracted to certain patterns of behavior that naturally move people up social dominance hierarchies. The pattern of behavior exists on different levels of abstraction, from the behaviour, to the dramatization, to the verbal articulation, which human have done accross thousands of years with different religions evolving into one another trying to figure out what the most optimal principle is. The fact that your brain has a hierarchical value structure to detect an ideal or something that points in the direction of it is a priori.

>>12409381
that’s wrong and retarded

>>12409386
provide a better explaination

>>12409388
read a book on neuroscience you fucking nigger

>>12409397
theres nothing about what i said that conflicts with neroscience.

>>12408279
yes
I'm surprised how 4chan reacts to this video. It really is cringe. Some reddit-tier 115 iq comments on that one.
Does people here don't know about theology?
Almost every scientific facts were already thought out way before their discovery.
Everything is innate. You are part of this everything and all its rule forged you.
People in here could learn much from Peterson if they would not purposefully close themselves from learning only for the sake of being a contrarian.

>>12409381
>The fact that your brain has a hierarchical value structure to detect an ideal or something that points in the direction of it is a priori
how so?

>>12409423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VVifB1TRxI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrESyuVUVO0
ill just drop these here

>>12409408
that japanese skank that I didnt know existed 6 weeks does a perfect job telling idiots to clean their room while reinforcing western cultural hegemony and commodity fetishism and the dumb cunt doesnt even speak english

>>12409497
you can't reduce the Kantian a priori synthetic judgement to simple cognitive biology without killing the whole project from the inside out. This is a very shallow reading of Kant. If the structures of biological cognition become the categories of understanding there is no more logic, it's literally gone by Kant's standard, and if you can't see why that's true read the First Critique. I could only make it through the first video; now I know why people are throwing around the term so incorrectly.

>>12409588
you can't make real arguments

>>12409600
Kant wasn't trying to justify cognition retard, it was the exact opposite, he was trying to justify science. It's such basic misreading you deal with in like freshman philosophy classes, I don't know why I would have to even argue against it. 2+2=4 is synthetic a priori, the physical workings of the brain are not.

>>12409643
Just because he referenced Kant as somebody who began thinking about what he's describing early on doesn't mean everything he describes has to be 1:1 with what Kant wrote you fucking headass