/lit/ - Literature

Peterson obviously

>>12413128
>obviously

why

>DUDE, IDEOLOGY IS STUPID LMAO
>I'm marxist btw
How anyone can take this sniffing retard seriously even for a minute is beyond me.

>>12413149
Speaks of things outside of his methodology, conflates all his ideological opponents together as one amorphous population without properly understanding the straw man he creates, and uses a variety of rhetorical techniques and sophistry in order to stop himself veering into critiques of Marxism that border on the anti-Semitic (see how he uses “post-modern neomarxism” instead of the fascist dog whistle “cultural Marxism”, despite them being effectively the same criticism).

Zizek is a pseud and sophist but he would probably acknowledge that, given all his philosophical ideas are communicated through jokes, allegories and so on. At the very least he doesn’t take himself as seriously as Peterson and is able to address fundamental things that his “leftist” outlook would otherwise obscure (which is why people often accuse him of being a crypto fascist)

Peterson. Philosophy doesnt pretend to be science.

Besides Zizek is funny whilst Peterson cries crocodile tears when interviewing

Such abstract/obscurantist thinkers seem like schizos to me.

>>12413154
zizek says everything is ideology. Dont mis-characterise to defend your surrogate father Peterson.

>>12413154
Zizek criticizes Marx all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFti1SbC3pg

>>12413204
I can see that your opinion of Zizek is based on YouTube videos and his more commercial books.

He's got that side and it's pretty pseud. But he's done serious scholar work also and it's pretty good and moderately relevant.

>>12413230
>I can see that your opinion of Zizek is based

>>12413230
I’m speaking about his debating/public speaking style, as opposed to his writings. I’ve read absolute recoil and desert of the real and both are far more academically rigorous than his jovial attitude on stage. My point was more about the fact that he finds elements in his opponent’s thought that he agrees with, or opens himself up to self-critique a lot more than most would in a public forum, which makes him pretty impenetrable and difficult to “win” against.

>>12413268
What's wrong with that? That's a smart strategy, not just for winning arguments but also learning new things.

>>12413262
Nice

>>12413268
that's actually because of his commitment to dialectics. he's always been willing to examine his own positions from ones that are normally verboten for critical theory. like frank discussions of christian theology as a means of critiquing historical materialism (which is something a paleoconservative could also do but not without escaping the reactionary baggage of his position)

>>12413321
When did I say it wasn’t? My original point was that Peterson is the pseud precisely because he lacks that dimension of self-awareness and self-scrutiny.

>>12413375
based and fistpilled

>>12413377
Zizek’s position on theology (or rather what he calls the “postmodern theological turn”) is endlessly fascinating to me and has done more to convince me of the value of Christianity in contemporary society than any other religious philosopher living today. You’re totally right to suggest he doesn’t carry any baggage, simply by being an atheist who argues in favour of Christian virtues he’s totally exempt from accusations of indoctrination

let's be real its peterson. he's a psychologist who got big off sjw ownage videos. It's crazy how big he got.

>>12413421
What's wrong with sjw ownage?

>>12413114
Peterson's entire shtick is based on convincing uneducated retards that postmodernism, marxism, cultural relativism, liberalism, and nihilism are all the same thing. So Peterson.
At this point I really doubt he believes his own bullshit. He seems like a fairly educated person but he's so contradictory - criticizing people who deny objective knowledge, and the next second supporting instrumentalism over scientific realism - especially when it comes to his sacred cow of being a cultural christian. There's no way that a psychologist doesn't see the hypocrisy there. It's Thomas Sowell tier "academics r bad but I'm totally not like the other academics, guys".

>>12413437
"SJW" isn't even a real ideology. It's just a stereotype that sweeps criticism of conservatism under the rug because some progressives have dyed hair and get angry in YouTube, like that's a valid argument against anything.
I even agree with critiques of certain aspects of social justice. But the "anti-SJW" subculture, if it can be called that, is just the New Atheism of the late 2010s. A way for not-that-educated zoomers to feel smart because they call themselves smart without actually having to study the history and literature of what they're critiquing.

>>12413410
Can you please direct me towards some material of his I could read on that subject? I'm very interested

>>12413204
Accusing the literal zionist, "judeo-christian civilisation" spouting Peterson of being anywhere near >anti-Semitic is just plain idiocy.

>>12413498
>"SJW" isn't even a real ideology
Neither is "crypto-fascism", which serves the same purpose you described but directed towards rightwing ideologues, and with an even looser definition. And that doesn't stop people from constantly shouting it towards neo-cons, libertarians or even leftwing centrists (that have nothing but contempt towards fascist ideas) for having any socio-political opinions that differ from what the current corporatist mainstream is pushing.

>>12413631
WEW

>>12413498
I like how left leaning people try talking about how SJW cuture, or political correctness doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't exist from your point of view, because you perceive them as normal, nothing out of the ordinary, things

>>12413114
OP, for making this thread

>>12413515
I never said he was “anti-Semitic”, I said his criticism of modern Marxist thought is only a degree or two of separation from the same claim that fascists have constantly tried to assert about the Frankfurt school, IE. That it’s entire purpose is nothing less than the destruction/degradation of western culture. The only thing that separates him from them is that he never actually names the Jew, but all of his attacks and misrepresentations of the radical left are observably the same.

>>12413510
The puppet and the dwarf is probably his best book on christianity, but he has plenty of lectures and clips online that discusses the secularisation of faith. Also in Absolute Recoil his radical reinterpretation of the crucifixion is genuinely breathtaking

>>12413437
It’s easy. It’s a shtick that everybody does, including Zizek. Though Zizek isn’t famous for that specifically. Being able to own sjws isn’t the sign of a particularly deep thinker

>>12413685
You are misinterpreting him

Peterson's discursive mode is therauptic rather than scientific (reflecting his chosen discipline). I don't think this is understood by most of his opponents who demand more directness and precision from his rhetoric. But his goals are to get listeners to solve their problems by reevaluating the points of view that anchor them to their difficulties. The philosopher that he most closely resembles is Wittgenstein, only Wittgenstein was a philosophical therapist and Peterson is a run of the mill psychological therapist.

>>12413727
Thank you very much.

>>12413685
I never said it doesn't exist. I said it's a stereotype rather than an ideology. The answers that a liberal, a TERF, a classical Marxist, a left-anarchist, a Christian socialist, a deep ecologist and a black nationalist will give to the same question will be completely different in many cases. I don't base my dismissal of arguments on popularity or normality, that's completely irrelevant to whether someone is correct about a specific topic.

>>12413631
I didn't use the term cryptofascist so your entire argument is a strawman anyway. But at least "fascist" is an ideology you can actually accuse somebody of, just like cryptostalinism in the case of Zizek. What exactly are "SJWs" being accused of? Being really dumb and not fun and unattractive? That's not the basis for any sort of coherent political critique, so I think you're making false equivalence here. A more accurate comparison would be writing off the entire Right with homogeneous stereotypes of white trash - something I actually do oppose.
>corporatist mainstream
You realize fascism is economically corporatist, right?

>>12413716
Cultural Bolshevism is literally a term invented in Nazi Germany. Marx tried to make his theories as strictly material as possible while considering culture largely a byproduct of such conditions. The qualities ascribed to cultural Marxism are literally just humanism, which originated before Marx.

>>12413498
>real ideology

yikes. of course, if something is capable of criticism, it must first be officially classified as "real ideology™" where do i even start with this? i don't think i will. you'll get a resounding YIKES and OOF from me fella, and that's it.

How to deal with unproductive gadflies like followers of Stephen Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson?

Studying philosophy as an undergrad, I have collected a couple acquaintances who always come to me in hopes bouncing their terrible ideology off of me in debate. God knows why. I'm faaaar from qualified; let alone the most qualified.

This gets especially annoying because they are all of the Stephen Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson brand of sophists who smugly parrot their terrible arguments and claim to be doing philosophy. Most of the time, they're simply so lost in their own rhetoric, there is no ground on which to stand for either of us. They treat debate as some kind of contest, and through sleight of hand (whether purposeful or a byproduct of their own ignorance), they just make a mess of the argument.

I don't know how to handle this. On one hand, I show compassion to them, treat them as friends (as much as I can). Closing them off or antagonizing them will only further their martyr complex. I also want to engage in this misinformation as I fear how quickly it speads on the Internet and whatnot. On the other hand, it is almost never productive.

Sorry this is a hybrid rant and question. What do you all do when people come at you like this?

>>12413262
reded and basedpilled

>>12413204
You're mentally dead. You're reasoning is like a copy-paste of some Jewish professor rumblings. If you think Peterson is anti-jewish, you're a phase where you can no longer distinguish someone true opinion and a strawman. You're a sjw NPC incarcerate.

>>12413786
1/2
Card carrying Sophist here (a rhetorican who teaches philosophy). There is no sure fire way to deal with these folks, but there are a few things worth suggesting.

As a preface, no one enjoys yelling about how Peterson is wrong more than I do, but it's a futile exercise in certain cases. Peterson succeeds in a lot of his various rhetorical enterprises because he tends to attack (1) bogeymen and (2) people who aren't good at defending themselves. In particular, his favorite targets are the theoretical chimera-ghost named "post modernism" and impassioned but often inarticulate leftist college students. This drives me nuts since, in theory, he's supposed to be a professor and picking on students is generally poor form. So, understand that when you engage with these people they are armed with bad arguments, and they're armed with bad arguments designed to (1) make people like you feel stupid and (2) make the people wielding them feel empowered.

So, what to do? I think in cases like this the savvy arguer should accept that some arguments are not only not worth having, but better off not being had at all. These people crave your aggression - their whole platform grows off the "intolerant," feels-before-reals left.

So, take this tip from one of the "post-modernist" lefties - Richard Rorty: my advisor had dinner with Rorty once at some academic function and saw someone lay into him. Rorty took it all in and responded only with this - "I don't quite see why we should talk that way?" Rorty seems to imply that he was entertaining the position as one for "us", but he had no interest to refute it. The other person was deflated entirely.

The rhetorical lesson here from the arch-bro-pragmatist is the power of ambivalence. Being antagonistic - even agonistic - will get you nowhere in these situations. Neither will being totally dismissive. But the middle ground is very hard to contend with if you're an argumentative person. They see arguments as battles to be won or lost, and it's hard to beat a person who doesn't recognize there's a fight happening.

When you find yourself in one of these situations, if you want to engage at all (and, remember, you don't have to) do only two things: (1) listen very carefully and (2) ask a lot of questions. Importantly, don't be a devil's advocate and don't try to do fancy Socratic tricks where you lead them into a contradiction. Just listen as hard as you can and be sincerely interested and utterly confused. Ask as often as you can "Interesting - why should we think that's true?" Or "Wow, what kind of evidence do we have for that?" or "Wait, can you redo that part? How do we get from [x] to [y]?" Or "What follows from this?" Or "But doesn't that commit us to [x]?" Etc.

>>12413786
2/2
I can't say this enough - don't try to win. Don't look for "gotcha" moments. If they seem to contradict themselves, point it out in the softest terms possible, "So how do we reconcile that with what you said before?" Or "Oh, I think I got lost somewhere as I understood you to have formerly said [x]." If they sense you're trying to play them, they'll ramp up or accuse you of "bad faith" or whatever. So, the best bet is to honestly not try to play them.

Be honestly and sincerely confused. It won't be hard! It's totally exhausting to talk to a person who does this and even people who love to hear themselves talk can't do it for very long. Honestly one of the few ways to really move people like this is to get them to externalize some implication that they hadn't realized they were committed to. But if you force it, they'll feel persuaded and will recoil.

This method the basic model of what any philosophy professor would do when confronted with a ranty and ultimately unsound student. You can't argue with them - they already "know" you're wrong. So, get around that problem by not having any position to be wrong about.

Some arguers will try to pin you down and get you committed to some position, and sometimes there is no way out. If pressed, you can always say what you think and preclude the follow up by saying, "but honestly I'm not quite sure what led me to that view." Or "Honesly I'm not sure what to think about that."

If they're the type that will only play through a bad Socrates impression, then look for ways to respond to their questions with questions. Usually a Socratic question is an argument in disguise and you can ask why a particular dilemma emerges (if suggested) or why an implication follows (if implied). But, again, if you lean into this too hard you'll get found out. You have to be sincere and sometimes you just have to disengage.

You don't owe these people an argument.

>>12413757

Not the guy you're arguing with. But really your argument is irrelevant because most people are not learned academics, even college graduates, even the members of the liberal cognitive elite who work at Google, Facebook, CNN, NYT, Vogue, etc. or are in the public eyes as famous actors or athletes. The influencers in our culture are all becoming wed to a loose ideology based of anti-western, anti-male, and even anti-white ideology that might be called by the non-technical name of cultural Marxism or postmodern neo-marxism because none of these people are philosophers and few are attuned to the fine and artful (meaning artificial) distinctions drawn up in ivory towers.

>>12413421
It’s sad that it’s kinda close, but this is the correct evaluation

>>12413811
>if you think Peterson is anti-Jewish
Why are there so many faggots on lit today who don’t know how to read? I’ve already shown why you’ve misread me in an earlier post, never said he was anti-Semitic, just that his criticism of the contemporary left uses the same claims that the nazis made about the Frankfurt school. You’re accusing me of being an NPC yet you’re unable to hear one bad thing about lord Kermit the unquestionable, even if it’s not as bad an attack as you’ve hysterically made it out to be.

>>12413865
>just that his criticism of the contemporary left uses the same claims that the nazis made about the Frankfurt school
Literally argument ad hitlerum
Please post number of sex partners, bodyweight, age.
I don't even like Peterstein btw

>>12413879
>I don’t even like Peterson
>starts backtracking only after his buzzword-ridden meltdown
I don’t see why you’re struggling so much with this, all I’m saying is that his argument against the left relies on claims about the left that are misrepresentations which have been made countless times over (and by people much worse than him). Why are you so desperate for a fight?

>>12413899
You must be Post-Modern Neo-Marxist
Watch this and you will be rekt....hahaha

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

>>12413827
>even the members of the liberal cognitive elite who work at Google, Facebook, CNN, NYT, Vogue, etc.
Of course if you're selective with your examples the evidence will reinforce your views. But higher income voters in the US on average lean conservative, as do the largest lobbies in the US, most royalty and old money in Europe, most police, most militaries, and the most influential voices in New Media. /pol/ and alt right youtubers are more influential than some random liberal from MSNBC dude, this isn't 2005. The right literally voted in a billionaire CEO with a cabinet of fossil fuel and banking lobbyists and executives in America and you guys are still bleating about "muh elite". Alex Jones' net worth is easily in the millions and he literally had Trump on his show talking about how great he is.
>The influencers in our culture are all becoming wed to a loose ideology based of anti-western, anti-male, and even anti-white ideology
Who died and made you the spokesperson for white people? You don't represent me, you represent reactionaries with a victim complex.
It's true that your average white person is oppressed. They're oppressed because they're working class and income inequality is increasing while wages fall and the cost of living rises. These issues are far more tangible to my life than some random feminist making a joke that upsets you on the internet. Yet the right continue to make excuses for capitalism because at heart, the fascists are the vanguard of the capitalist class. Just look at how much industrialists loved Hitler and how much investors love Bolsonaro.

>>12413757
>I didn't use the term cryptofascist so your entire argument is a strawman anyway
I never said that you used the term, so it's not a strawman... I think the word you're looking for is 'whataboutism'. Get your "logical_fallacies.jpg" straight.
>at least "fascist" is an ideology you can actually accuse somebody of, just like cryptostalinism in the case of Zizek
Same shit, >cryptoism it's just a smear tactic to try and relate people or ideas with some sort "extreme" form of these ideas by degrees of association instead of what it's actually believed.
>What exactly are "SJWs" being accused of? Being really dumb and not fun and unattractive? That's not the basis for any sort of coherent political critique
No, they're being made fun of by these metrics, what they're being criticised are "their" ideas. If this wasn't the case, you'd see these anti-sjws types making fun of the kekistani types everyday, but this isn't the case because what they're actually concerned with were never being ugly, unfunny or dumb in the first place.
>so I think you're making false equivalence here
Now that I think about it, you're actually right. At least some whoevers 7 years ago used to describe themselves as "SJW", while noone adheres to some form of cryptofascism or cryptostalinism.
>You realize fascism is economically corporatist, right?
Yes? When was it said it wasn't?

>>12413865
Lol, I'm actual National Socialist so I don't give a fuck about Peterson. But saying
>his criticism of X sounds like something a nazi would say
Is a good way to avoid considering and replying to the actual arguments.

>>12413211
> criticizing Peterson for showing emotions
Stop trying to enforce your toxic masculinity.

>>12413750
Underrated point. Though Peterson himself doesn’t do a great job of making this transparent.

Both Zizek and Peterson have systems of thought based on a notion of praxis. They both are trying to understand the world as means towards an end, rather than an end in itself.

The difference is that Peterson’s thought is in service to personal (individual) psychotherapy, while Zizek’s thought is in service to emancipatory political.

In Zizek this is explicit, his early work is explicitly reviving a theory of ideology and subjectivity for the radical democracy movement, and his later work sees a return to communism as the goal.

>>12413988
He spends a lot of time talking about masculine order and feminine chaos

>>12413774
Marxism, fascism and liberalism are all traditions immanent from humanism. Cultural marxism simply studies the reversal of base and superstructure in the materialist dialectic.

>>12413879
Heidegger's philosophy is grandiose though he was a nazi. Saying that someone uses the same words as a bad person from 80 years ago is a fallacy.

>>12414006
Which are mythical representations and historical semiotics. Peterson never said chaos is fully bad, or that order is fully good. But there must be balance.

>>12413899
So I guess your count is 0?

>>12413786
>>12413817
>>12413821
why would you repost a reddit thread here

>>12413930
Not him, but "selective with your examples" is quite a stretch. When the biggest names of american corporations are complicit in the same narrative, you can't exactly dismiss these cases with "lmao cherrypicking".
Plus, you mentioning individual millionaires or Trump is irrelevant, since those are either private individuals, or a democratically elect president that will most likely be replaced in 2 years. While corporations are faceless beings just searching to satisfy whatever the mediatic class believes, as to not result in a smear campaign against it.
Also, you disagreeing with him about "anti-white politicies" is not an argument, you are just mentioning your own opinion, plus trying to dismiss what he's saying with "you don't speak for every white person", when he never even claimed to be doing so. But if I had to guessn you probably wouldn't dismiss progressive views of "anti-black politicies" with "you don't speak for every black person".
And your rant of "lmao white people are only opressed by their class" isn't very effective when you can google any variation of "why white people ruin everything" and get thousands of results coming from opinions pieces out of a great branch of major american media corporations.
>bolsonaro is a fascist
This is what fucking killed it, jesus fucking christ, did you even look at his policies?? The guys is the perfect example of a neo-con in current political trends. Are you just talking out of your ass, or do you actually consider Bush and Reagan to be fascists aswell?

>>12413930

I use those examples because those are the voices which shape the culture, the newspapers, popular magazines, and media providers. No one knows or cares about the politics of the CEO of Exxon, but they do care about the politics of LeBron James or Don Lemon. You can't compare Alex Jones to popular media because most of his (casual) audience listens ironically and even so his audience in miniscule by comparison. I know you will bring up Fox News as the cable news provider with the largest audience, but Fox News exists because the conservative audience was not being served by the mainstream media. Further conservatives are older and more likely to stay glued to a television set further skewing the ratings.

You speak of a wealth gap between Republicans and Democrats, but the bigger gap between the Republicans and Democrats is in educational attainment at the postgraduate level and in acceptance into elite institutions, both prerequisites for entry into elite society. Employers like Facebook and Google have begun to pander to the SJW left because so many of their young engineers, hailing from the elite, left-biased institutions, demand it as a condition of employment.

Lastly, I'm not white and I don't claim to be the voice for white people. I observe rather than theorize and would like to describe how things are. A hell of a lot of people feel abandoned by the culture, for reasons relating to economic change, demographic change, but also due to an elite culture that treats them with such disregard and derision, as people who are too stupid to know their real interests, as deluded religious fogies, as racists. The reason we got Trump is partly because the left treated the people to whom Trump designed his appeal with disregard or contempt.

>>12413962
His “actual argument”, as I have been saying time and time again, is based on a total misrepresentation of the left and can be discarded simply by virtue of the fact that his knowledge of leftist theory is either shallow at best, or at worst, he is guilty of namedropping Derrida or Foucault without any interrogation of their ideas because he simply hasn’t read them. The “thinking like a nazi” aspect is simply to show him for what he is, a hypocrite who uses the tools and arguments of a group he proclaims so very loudly to despise.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/615e3z/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dfbz5p4/

>>12414111

Almost no one reads them. You academic types have stuffed your head so full of books that you no longer can understand that life isn't about reproducing the arguments of your darlings with absolute fidelity. He hasn't read them? So what? The influence of the philosophers extends beyond the academy and it can be addressed in it's cultural mode.

>>12414111
Again, ad hitlerum.
What you're doing is in par with someone saying "communism == nazism" bacause hitler also used to criticize capitalism in his speeches "just like them commies".
It's retarded and amounts to literal garbage.

>>12414218
>You academic types have stuffed your head so full of books that you no longer can understand
kek

>>12414296
but he's right. "this point is civilization" isn't a problem in someone's life, it's a universal one, and it's been much more caused by Marx, Derrida and people who have been affecting the civilization in the past 150 years than some random dude born in 1990.

>>12414218
>He hasn’t read them? So what?
So it’s dishonest to reference them if you haven’t engaged with them, and attribute to them ideas or beliefs that they never expressed. For someone who perpetually attacks the left for social constructivism, it’s ironic that he spends so much time inventing group identities to attack.

Also, the fundamental mistake that people like Peterson make is the conflation of those who critique or analyse post-modernity with the condition of the postmodern itself. Those you call “postmodernists” actually spend most of their time talking about postmodernity as a condition or logic of late capitalism, and not as the guiding principle of their own thought.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544

>>12414358
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XIpTqbLR5Y

You cunts literally made /lit/ into a twitter screencapping, unironically reddit linking board.
What an absolute fucking disgrace.

>>12414228
>what you’re doing
Judging by that false equivalency you really have no idea what I’m doing, do you? Not once have I said he’s as bad as hitler, nor that he’s even anti-Semitic - you keep gunning for me with the same redundant point when I’m not saying anything particularly controversial. It’s almost like you’re being intentionally deaf to a point I’ve made countless times over.

>>12414377

Jordan "Meat Man" Peterson
Jordan "Meme Dad" Peterson
Jordan "3 Piece Patreon" Peterson

>>12413930
>They're oppressed because they're working class and income inequality is increasing while wages fall and the cost of living rises.

See, this is what you bugpeople don't understand. It's not just about money at all.

Fukuyama, one of the smarter guys in the neolib camp, made some good points in his last book. You should read it.

>>12414304
>Marxism is an atheist doctrine
This is just wilful ignorance on his part, there have been plenty of examples of Marxist Christian organisations throughout history

I like Zizek a lot more but being a student of Lacan makes him more pseud by definition even if he is right.

>>12414304
Wheres the lie though?

>>12414403
now that's a shitty meme based on false assumptions and ignorance.

>>12414399
>wilful ignorance on his part
ok lol

>>12414424

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8mou6l/to_what_extent_was_nazism_an_antireligious/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5nr9nf/how_did_nazi_or_any_antisemetic_christians_view/dce2ipg/

>>12414425
watch JP's talk with Paglia when he talks about how much he struggles to understand how someone could be postmodernist and marxist at the same time since marxism is a classic example of a grand narrative. he almost has a breakthrough about the absurdity of the position, you can see it in his face.

>>12414424
Jesus the absolute state of this board

>>12414304
>>12414438
you need to go back you niggerfaggot

>>12414444
He'll just weasel out of it by saying "PoMoists are dishonest, they subvert the good grand narratives, but support the bad ones"

>>12413154
Zizek is only relevant because he's the only pop-intellectual who calls himself a Communist.

>>12414456
Ad hominem

Did they eventually have that debate scheduled in November or was it cancelled?

I don't remember the last time catching up with the drama between the two, but who pussied out?

>>12414472
exactly. your kind is not welcome here.

>>12414468
He unironically doesn’t though, he’s totally accepting of the fact that there is no real “communist” alternative to the social democratic values we have today, it comprises a huge part of how his analysis functions, IE that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism

>>12414478
I would unironically prefer to watch them wrestle rather than debate

Peterson would get BODIED by Zizek

>>12414488

Me too based anon.

>>12413114
not /lit/

>>12413114
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvhFA3hPWA

>>12414380
I only replied to you once, you schizo.
>you really have no idea what I’m doing, do you?
Are you actually claiming the >tfw2smart defense? Damn, with this level of commitment to such an idiotic and pointless "claim", I'd say that what you're doing is just fishing for replies.

>>12414459

This is my view. They destroy and leave nothing in their wake.

Foucault writes that power arbitrarily constrained sexual norms, then he has a lot of random sex and dies of it. That's postmodernism in a nutshell. It's the belief that Nature and God are destroyed, but in the end as it has always been, They will have Their revenge.

Maybe power wasn't exercised arbitrarily. Maybe human nature and the natural world constrain appropriate uses of power.

>>12414480
Are you getting triggered by facts? You can have a hug from me. It is OK, I too like you used to follow a self-help guru cum philosopher, then someone pointed me out his pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-science, false history, and luckily I got myself out of it. Don't worry we are always there for you, we will pull you out of the abyss.

>>12414509
I hate to agree with the butterfly tripfag, but
This.
It's gotten to such a ridiculous point, that when you criticize this ridiculous amount of focused shitposting, they just say you're on the other side of their internet celeb holy war >>12414389

>>12413114
It's just posturing.

>>12414550
>when you criticize this ridiculous amount of focused shitposting, they just say you're on the other side of their internet celeb holy war
Who said so?

>Zizek is just obscurantism + meaningless word salad
>Peterson is completetly ignorant about philosophy

everyone loses

>>12414558
Jesus isn’t he dead yet? His skin is starting to look like pork scratchings

>>12414390

>>12413114
That's a really tough call but at least Zizek has a modicum of weight to it. Its not just "Wash your penis" obscured by pseudomystical mythology and excessive qualifiers like "roughly speaking" "more or less" "In a manner of speaking" etc... You know someone has worthless ideas when he is always backing off from a firm stance with these weasel words. Also Peterson just pisses me off because of his profile as an eceleb. They are both memes for sure but I feel like only Peterson has the eceleb status. And he uses it to sell his rugs and yarmulkes (that I will not cal postmodern), not to mention his (((Self-Authoring Course))) and all the Patreon donations. From Meme Rappers to Professional Athletes to Pop Philosophers, I simply hate it when people become rich doing things that are fundamentally worthless. I think Zizek would agree that Peterson is a prime example of the failings of Capitalism.

>>12414676
>sniff

This guy passes you on the street and deconstructs your girlfriend, what do you do?

>>12414791
silly goose... having my penis freshly washed and my dragon slain, I have the archetypal strength blessing me and my gf, which means she can't be deconstructed by marxists.

>>12413865
>uses the same claims that the nazis made about the Frankfurt school
you are free to refute those claims at anytime

>>12414830
you are free to prove them first :)

>>12413114
Zizek at least knows how to read

>>12414870
At least Peterson knows how to wash his penis

>>12414826
It is of no use, this guy hasn't washed his penis in eons and it starts to show...

>>12414900
Zizek's dick is probably filthy, I'll grant that. hasn't stopped him from climbing the dominance hierarchy, though. checkmate JBP.

>>12414377
You're right. This place is completely fucked. The redditors have taken over.

>>12414488
A man who only eats meat and drinks blood vs. a guy who eats Kinder Egg and drinks coke

>>12414438
you lost nigger?

>>12413114
Peterson easily
States the most basic bitch normie opinions as if they are profound revelations

>>12414304
>>12414424
>>12414438
https://www.davnet.org/kevin/articles/table.html
National Socialism promoted "Positive Christianity" because Germany was 99% Christian
Hitler however did not consider himself a Christian and only considered it necessary because some form of faith is better than none
Nobody knows what he was, but he wasnt an atheist and he wasn't a christian
He valued germanic paganism but didnt think it was realistic to try and revive it knowing that so little of it has survived
His views on religion strike me as very Nietzschian

>>12415280
Peterson is a genius, in fact. I can not over emphasize the significant impact standing with my shoulders back had, since I read 12 rules last week. It's like I'm a completely different person, several steps UP the dominance hierarchy. Moreover, my mother has been very satisfied with the cleanliness of my room. But post-modern neo-marxists don't want our room to be clean. They are lazy obsucrantists who don't clean their own room, so they apply the marxian class struggle of working class versus ruling class to the dynamic between mothers and their sons, rejecting the idea of cleaning rooms altogether, This is RELATIVISM. Not all rooms are equally clean, this is NOT arbitrary.
But I can't blame your for bashing Peterson, you are probably not on the required IQ level to understand his lectures as well as his books. I am sitting here, reading the Goulash archipelago and sipping my coca cola, smirking while reading your ludicrous remark. Did you even watch pinnocchio? It's like you don't even appreciate the symolism on our own CULTURE that you try to subvert.

>>12415316
>only considered it necessary because some form of faith is better than none

No, because he never would have made it into office without paying lip service to the church. But they were planning on turning state worship into the only religion eventually. Fools.

>>12415390
Read the link brainlet

>>12413940
>I never said that you used the term, so it's not a strawman...
So you just like to randomly flip out over being called a cryptofascist, even if your opponent doesn't even mention the word? That's pretty defensive m8. Sounds like this is something you get accused of frequently for your response to be this reflexive.
>I think the word you're looking for is 'whataboutism'. Get your "logical_fallacies.jpg" straight.
Whataboutism is an informal name for ad hominem tu qoque involving red herrings, which are often strawmen. In your case it was pretty implicit.
>No, they're being made fun of by these metrics, what they're being criticised are "their" ideas.
The various groups the term describes do not have unified ideas, that's the point. The radfem and libfem ideas about prostitution, pornography and transgenderism are entirely opposed.
>If this wasn't the case, you'd see these anti-sjws types making fun of the kekistani types everyday
You use the internet too much.
>noone adheres to some form of cryptofascism or cryptostalinism.
No shit. The entire point of those terms is that people can disingenuously downplay their actual beliefs to seem sanitary to the public.

>>12415379
I'm stealing this pasta

>>12414538
C-can i have a hug too?...

>>12413940
>>12415438
both of you go back to r*ddit NOW

>>12413757
>"fascism" is an ideology you can accuse someone of
I dont understand this "accuse"
Barely anybody knows what Fascism actually was
All they know is what became of it, and what they've heard from movies and their unqualified teachers
People throw the word "Fascist" around like the word "Bully"
It has no meaning
If people would actually read fascist literature they'd discover its not at all what they think it is, its a very real and very sound theory, not of just politics but of life in general
Personally I find it really sad that those ideas have been locked away out of sight because of what they're associated with

:SHNIFF: Zizek is the categorical form of the god-void-machineshs becomingnessh dishasshembled from the treadmill of Gilgameshsh in a vivisshection treatment fascility :CROAK: Petershon runsh the gauntlet of the Hero'sh Journey but in represshed time as a perplexing REALLY DARK PLACE of Erashmus Mahakala on a tilt-a-whirl become eranean concubescence :SHNIFF: For Zizek and Peterson Nietzschean post-godform ontologishm asshembles itsh own Jungean shpaceship earth within the endogadget nano-individual :CROAK: The clean room with a twisht is the absholute recoil of Freud weathered cryogenically and impaled by materialishm's own two-hot-dogsh-in-one-hand-and-doshtoevsky-in-the-other ketogenic Bakashurean fasct-feasht :SHNIFF: REALLY DARK STUFF that would make Shtalin blush like the posht-shtructuralisht neo-marxisht he really was before retroactive ratcheting wash made posshible by shpyrophoric Chronosh/Kali distilled in a Google Home Mini :CROAK: Burgertime meets Fortnite now in the Oval Office with Freud ashking of the Void if Lacan might have reacted differently to a water attack if he were shimply a head in a vat :SHNIFF: The Carteshian shpectacle of one hundred million dead is the vasht shea of life-shushtaining-plascebo-liquid not achieving its oneness in Hegel'ssh sceleshtial coshmology of a negational audienche :CROAK: And which we all really are, as Cheshterton'sh poodle imagined of the ChyberShinto aeshtheticsh :SHNIFF: Chrisht as Atheisht becomesh the archetype of archetypical becoming, with a twishted Sholzhenitshyn on trial before Bane and the algorithmsh of an iRobot which can never clean enough :CROAK: The archangel of cleanlinessh meets the vacuum-bag Manjushriean-Unhcegilaeanism of Hygieia :SHNIFF: For Harrish and Shapiro the shpectacle is the fibre-optic onenessh of a lobster and dekulakishation become One :CROAK: For the esceleb god fascism is no jokeman, but neither ish communishm, and sho on and sho on :SHNIFF:

>>12415561
yawn
*sniff*

>>12413114
my trips confirm peterson is a pseud

>>12413375
actually cant tell if peterson or zizek? peterson has written shit like this in maps of meaning

>>12415561
>tfw zizek and Peterson will be the final pact in the synthesis of Gnod

>>12413114
Neither obviously.

>>12416097
Holy shit ... that's really deep

>>12413262
>>I can see that your opinion of Zizek is based
What is this horrid concatenation of the English language?

>>12413114
Zizek is a pseud and Peterson is a pleb, they're different creatures

>>12413114
Peterson obviously

>>12413631
I must have missed all those cryptofascist cringe compliations on Youtube

>>12416097
>I don't get it so it's dumb

>>12413988
Peterson knows emotion is a tool. Hes been trained to do so. I know hes read aristotles rhetoric

>>12413865
>lord Kermit the unquestionable
lol nice

>>12413962
>I'm actual National Socialist
*tips*

>ITT: a bunch of self proclaimed nazis who claim to hate peterson all show up and defend him
rly meks 1 ponder

>>12416591
i don't get it and it's dumb

>>12416725
>i have nothing of value to say but i'll post anyway

unironically kys

>>12416725
Peterson says 60% truth 40% bullshit
And all of it is obvious nonsense that anyone with an education already knows
Zizek is marginally better but he's still a dumb grotty fat fuck

>>12413114
/lit/ for buying into this shekel grab and jerking off to the /pol/, /leftypol/, plebbit, YouTube superbowl. The Radical Centrist in me says Zizek and Peterson are good and bad for different reasons.
>Zizek is great for arguing against consumerism. Zizek also thinks China (bretty much fascist at this point) is a shining exemplar of what modern marxism should be.
>Peterson is great for arguing for natural theology and has interesting ideas on consciousness. He also discusses individualism yet subscribes to neoliberalism including working for the UN
hate /lit/ more and more every day

>>12416809
>Zizek also thinks China (bretty much fascist at this point) is a shining exemplar of what modern marxism should be
citation needed

They're both retarded meme men saying nothing that's worth anyone's time.

>LE IDEOLOGY XDDDD BRAISE STALIN :DD
>POSTMODERNISM SO BAAAAAD XXXXXXDDD LE LOBSTER

Too bad this board is full of redditors and /leftypol/tards nowadays so dealing with their low IQ followers becomes routine.

Time to read real books, kids, not this pop philosophy meme bullshit.

>>12416816
During q&a of this talk:
https://youtu.be/JCUQS7TgkEs

>>12416829
This.

>>12413217
>abstract/obscurantist
i can see zizek, but peterson?

>>12416829
Zizek isn’t Alain de Bottom. It makes perfect sense that a philosopher who spends much of his time interpreting film and literature would be popular here.

If you want to read deeper, here is a journal volume totally about Zizek and literature
http://theoryleaks.org/text/books/russell-sbriglia/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-literature-but-were-afraid-to-ask-zizek/

>>12416829
I disagree but that is your own opinion and you are free to hold it.

>>12413437
Nothing. But the way I see it, the ownage of some low iq, brainless, uneducated, sensitive children that are incapable of presenting a legitimate argument is nothing to brag about, or even anything worth caring about. Peterson isn't smart because he can make them look stupid. He got popular because he stated the obvious and it came as a shock to manchildren that were neglected as a child, or completely ignored the advice their parents gave them as a child, and they act like he's dropping some unheard of holy truths by telling them to look after themselves. Most his lectures are incoherent babbling with little substance. Stop liking him and stop defending him.

>>12415464
*ruins Europe*

>>12416831
what does he say there that makes you think that? he just published this a couple months ago and it's very critical of Chinese socialism
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/441873-china-socialism-capitalism-zizek/

>>12416968
no one mentioned jews

>>12416979
He spends 5 min of that talk discussing how China is the most successful form of Marxism we've ever seen and that it should be the template for future governments. Watch the video.

>>12416994
I did, I didn't hear him say that

>>12413930
>Bolsonaro
>fascism

>>12413229
there is not a single lefty since the 50's that does not critisize marx that is not an argument

>>12416816
>China
>fascist
How can one person be this completely retarded

>>12414403
they couldnt fucking meme if their life depended on it

>>12415316
Hitler might be an atheist, but the National Socialist movement was not formally atheist, and allowed religious observance [1]. Once in office however, Hitler then pursued a policy of suppression of denominational schools and church youth organizations[2]. Richard Overy wrote that Christianity was ultimately as incompatible with National Socialism as it was with Soviet Communism and that "Hitler expected the end of the disease of Christianity to come about by itself once the falsehoods were self-evident. During the war he reflected that in the long run 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together'."[3].
[1]Richard Overy; The Dictators Hitler's Germany Stalin's Russia; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004.p278
[2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1753469.stm
[3]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1753469.stm

Hitler was irreligious and anti-clerical, and developed Nazism maybe incompatible with religion. If Jordan eterson would have just said that , I would have agreed with him on that. But that is not only what he says, he often claims that the atrocities of Nazi Germany came out of a loss of belief in God. Which simply isn't true.

In Hitler's early political statements, he attempted to express himself to the German public as a Christian.[4] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, he described himself as a Christian.[5][6]. Hitler viewed the church as an important politically conservative influence on society,[7] and he adopted a strategic relationship with it that "suited his immediate political purposes".[8]

[4] - John S. Conway. Review of Steigmann-Gall, Richard, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945. H-German, H-Net Reviews. June, 2003
[5] - Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19–20, Oxford University Press, 1942
[6] - Hitler, Adolf (1999). Mein Kampf. Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, pp. 65, 119, 152, 161, 214, 375, 383, 403, 436, 562, 565, 622, 632–633.
[7] - Speer, Albert (1971) [1969]. Inside the Third Reich. New York: Avon. ISBN 978-0-380-00071-5. p.141
[8] - Conway, John S. (1968). The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933–45. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-76315-4. p.3

So, Jordan Peterson's claims that Nazism was a result of Atheism is stupidly wrong.

>>12417229
Also, Germany before Nazi takeover and after it was highly religious.

In 1933, 5 years prior to the annexation of Austria into Germany, the population of Germany was approximately 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic, while the Jewish population was less than 1%.[1][2] A census in May 1939, six years into the Nazi era[3] and after the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria and mostly Catholic Czechoslovakia[4] into Germany, indicates[5] that 54% considered themselves Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% self-identified as gottgläubig[6] (lit. "believing in God", often described as predominately creationist and deistic),[7] and 1.5% as "atheist".[6]

[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20151127212337/http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206
[2] - The Third Reich In Power, 1933–1939, New York: Penguin, 2005, p. 222
[3] - Johnson, Eric (2000). Nazi terror: the Gestapo, Jews, and ordinary Germans New York: Basic Books, p. 10
[4] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170117194829/https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/32846217/130055160118.xlsx/8da2b875-fd8c-4a7a-b697-4735cdeaf7f5?version=1.0
[5] - Ericksen & Heschel 1999, p. 10
[6] - Richard J. Evans; The Third Reich at War; Penguin Press; New York 2009, p. 546
[7] - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TIZSO31iSO4C&pg=PA48&dq=gottglaubig&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sltlU7HVO8-u7AbuxYDgBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gottglaubig&f=false

>>12417229
>>12417284
Hitler was preaching to a Christian population, so of course he had to come at them from a religious angle. Realpolitik

However, Nazism really is antithetical to organized religion: like some other anon said, the Reich becomes the only entity being worshipped.

>>12417229
Erratum

[3] - Richard Overy; The Dictators Hitler's Germany Stalin's Russia; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004. p. 286

>>12413114
zizek
at least peterSON knows what he’s talking about

>>12417290
>Nazism really is antithetical to organized religion
100% true, but the backlash on the Jordan Peterson is not because of that. It is because he claims that atheism resulted in Nazi Germany, which is completely untrue.

>>12417317
He just want to group Nazism with Marxism, by using atheism, so that he can easily paint Marxism as evil.

Note:I am not communist

>>12413114
Sometimes I read Zizek and think... "that's fucking dumb", but later read something that makes me reflect on our culture and Zizek might come to mind like, "that guy might've had a bit of a point".
Peterson just keeps talking...

Peterson often says that Hundreds of Millions of people died due to Marxism, is that True?

>>12417514
Peterson may be a pseud but yes, that's true

>>12413786
>>12413817
>>12413821
>>12414081
>it actually is a reddit copypasta
wow fuck off nigger

>>12417229
Thanks, for the long and thoughtful answer

>>12417304
Hahahaha retard

>>12417304
Jordan Peterson made claims that ancient peoples in Egypt, China, and India used snake imagery to represent the double helix of DNA.

>>12413114
Zizek isn't really a pseud he's just a sniffling weirdo who says a lot of words but never actually says anything at all.

Peterson says common sense stuff but expands on it in a way where you feel smart hearing it. People are pretty retarded today so it's news to many people

>>12413498
>"SJW" isn't even a real ideology
It's a caricature that anyone who is unfortunate enough to leave their house in the current year sees regularly.

>Progressives have any criticism of conservatism that makes any sense at all
Conservatism is a meme at this point, but progressives have tiny little bird brains. Progressivism generally appeals to women or feminized men with literal mental issues, which makes up a large portion of the population now

>>12417160
>commie so desperate for success he overlooks the openly state capitalist country who has now even instituted a literal social score and says that isn't fascism
arguing with commies is like arguing with a computer. they think words are power structures yet subscribe to the most autistic technical language

>>12417612
The mere fact that peterson has caused so much butthurt to the seething leftists makes him ok.
Back to leftypol comrades!
The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge written by a canadian anthropologist is where he got the idea.its about shamans' knowledge of botanics and biology through the use of entheogens across many cultures

>>12417679
>commies think words are power structures
what are you talking about

>>12417687
>The mere fact that peterson has caused so much butthurt to the seething leftists makes him ok.

I've never understood why leftists focus on Peterson so much and find him so frustrating. Peterson never actually says anything that isn't already common sense or kind of floating around in the air already. I honestly think people just like the sound of his voice or something.

Is it because he bashes marxism to a very large audience? I've never even heard his criticisms of Marx that were too convincing. In fact, hearing him talk about Marx and the soviet union made me skim some of Marx's work out of curiosity and made me research leftism more.

>>12417679
I'm not a communist lol?
China is not fascist
If you say it is then you don't know anything about fascism

>>12413114
pseudonym?
I'm not a communist, but I believe in progress and productivity. I don't subscribe to ideology because that requires influence to be productive.

>>12417000
Earlier in the talk
https://youtu.be/JCUQS7TgkEs?t=2179

>>12417700
how is China not a fascist country Adolf?

>>12417687
>>12417697
No, I am not leftist. I just don't like pseuds.

>>12417721
>i just don't like pseuds
this is nu/lit/

>>12417720
The accuser needs to provide evidence bud thats how arguments work
Explain how it is and I will tell you why you're wrong

>>12417700
Leave him alone, he is either retard>>12417679
or baiting.

>>12417697
At least in canada and some european countries common sense varies greatly especially in academia and intellectual circles.Peterson was the the first one in the latest years.And he was an academic too not some fringe paranoid youtuber.The main reason that he gets so much attention is because he went public.Stephen Hicks is another academic with more or less the same rhetoric but nobody cares because he doesnt have much publicity.

>>12417713
this is his standard talking points of "Captialism with Asian Values", he isn't pro-China, he's saying that capitalism and democracy are destined to split up and China's socialism is the proof; he doesn't think this is a good thing.

>>12417730
uhem....
>state capitalist with government owning 51% of every business
>president has endless term
>there is only one elected party
>social score kept on it's citizens
>incredibly nationalistic
>practicing state-sponsored capitalist colonialism in Africa
I can go on and on. This is my point, just because communism and fascism approach their political philosophy from different perspectives, the end results are nearly the same.

>>12417746
you forgot the organ harvesting(investigated and proved by the UN)

>>12417737
>he was an academic too not some fringe paranoid youtuber
He has an academic authority only in psychology , not in genetics, physics, philosophy, history, linguistic, et cetera. But he still comments on them and make a complete fool of himself.

>>12417757
>genetics,philosophy,linguistics
>not related to psychology
stop embarrasing yourself

>>12417746
1. Fascism is opposed to capitalism.
2. Dictatorship has no more to do with fascism than it does with Socialism or any other social theory.
3. There was only one political party in Russia too, pseud. Were they fascist?
4. Completely irrelevant to what Fascism is, and again not exclusive to Fascist nations.
5. China is not Nationalist, you're a retard who doesnt know the definition. If they were Nationalist they wouldn't treat their people and their land like shit.
6. Again, Capitalism is the opposite of Fascism. You cannot have a free market in a Fascist country, it runs counter to the whole idea. Fascism is inherently socialist. And yes there are more versions of socialism than Marxism.
Colonialism also has literally nothing to do with Fascism.
Quote from The Doctrine of Fascism: "Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical. An imperial nation, that is to say a nation a which directly or indirectly is a leader of others, can exist without the need of conquering a single square mile of territory."

>This is my point
You have no point. You havent read The Communist Manifesto or The Doctrine of Fascism yet you pretend to know what either of these things are.
Fuck off back to /pol/ the political pseud board. This board is for people who actually educate themselves.

>>12417782
Oh look once again gets hung up on the use of technical precision in language, like talking to a computer which only understands a certain syntax. Your argument is also ridden with fallacies and cognitive dissonance: ad-hominem, no true scotsman, the literal fallacy fallacy, composition.

You're embarrassing yourself.

>>12417798
Nothing I said is a fallacy, its backed up by facts and I can happily provide sources.
Please, quote me on what I said that you have an issue with pseud. I'll blow you the fuck out a second time.

>>12417767
Just because psychology intersect with Genetics, it does not mean you can go off spouting non-sense like Egyptian knew about double helix.

>>12417803
Your very first point:
>Fascism is opposed to capitalism.
That is absolutely not true. You know Germany privatized lots of industries once the Nazi's came to power right? You were allowed to run a private business so long as it functioned in line with the overarching principles of the nation. Hmmm who does that sound like? Many fascist states utilize capitalism to build bigger bridges between the government and the people.

>>12417818
Nazism was opposed to communism

>>12417807
are you retaded?
i gave you the source of his claims and its about amazonian shamans written from an anthropologist who lived with them
why you keep being dense?
at least try to find some good arguments its not so tough

>>12417612
He didn't make a claim. He clearly stated it was a far-reaching speculation.

>>12417737
On postmodernism, apparently Peterson is getting his account of it from Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism. For a sentiment like those already expressed here, but in the literature, here's Lorkovic's assessment of Hicks' thesis in Philosophy in Review 25(4):
> Stephen R.C. Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism is a polemic in primer's clothing. What opens innocently enough as an intellectual history of postmodernism and its rise to academic respectability quickly uncovers its true intentions as a bitter condemnation...
>I have two reservations about this text. First, whereas Hicks' rejection of postmodernism is [meant to be] supported by summaries of its key figures, the book is surprisingly 'light' on exposition... [and such] cursory summaries do the history of thought and its students a serious injustice. Whether Hicks' interpretations are right or wrong is only a secondary concern (although I believe too many of his interpretations are more wrong than right). The problem is that a reader has no basis in Hicks' text itself to assess those interpretations. After all, interpretations need as much defense as arguments in order to be convincing. What's more, since the results of Hicks' interpretations serve as the basic premises of his subsequent critical argument, a thorough hermeneutics is indispensable. Second, although it accuses (rightly I think) postmodernism of being too polemical, Hicks' text is itself an extended polemic. Instead of disproving postmodernism, Hicks dismisses it; instead of taking postmodernism seriously and analyzing it carefully on its terms, Hicks oversimplifies and trivializes it, seemingly in order to justify his own prejudice against postmodernism. If postmodernism is in fact untenable, which it very well might be, Stephen Hicks has unfortunately not demonstrated that.


The Hicks-Peterson account of the relevant philosophical developments is that (i) postmodernism starts with Rousseau and Kant, (ii) who are irrationalists, and (iii) it becomes popular among socialists, (iv) because socialism is inconsistent with being reasonable and so socialists are obliged to reject reason. Every single one of these claims is astonishing, and at odds with mainstream scholarship. But there's no attempt to engage the mainstream scholarship to show where it errs, nor are these positions developed through a sustained engagement with the primary sources. So there's not really much scholarly work to do here, beyond objecting to the quality of this kind of scholarship and pointing people to mainstream scholarship on these issues--as Lorkovic says, the crucial problem is that there isn't the kind of scholarly work backing up these theses, that is needed for a sustained and critical appraisal of them.

>>12417827
It is his mistakes that he makes retarded claims, if he is dumb enough to believe that , he should not be taken seriously. Also, this https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544

>>12417818
>You know Germany privatized lots of industries once the Nazi's came to power right?
What does this have to do with Fascism? Are we talking about National Socialism or Italian Fascism? If we're using all groups around the world that are now considered Fascist as examples, then should we also count the British Union of Fascists who were pro-Suffragette and pro-Democracy?
Anyway back to your statement. What industries did the Nazi's privatize and what does private industry have to do with Capitalism?
>You were allowed to run a private business so long as it functioned in line with the overarching principles of the nation.
This is true of small businesses in some cases. However large industry was almost completely nationalized. The Nazi economy was most effective because it adapted to each situation, sometimes central planning, sometimes not. They mainly centralized in raw materials.
You seem to think anything that isnt Marxism is Capitalism, as Commies so often do because it makes it easier to argue against, but unfortunately that's wrong.
Capitalism is defined as: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
What you're not mentioning is that Hitler also had a set minimum wage and a set maximum wage. He penalized the rich to give opportunity to the poor. He nationalized industry, notably the housing, radio, and automotive industries purely to provide affordable alternatives for the poor. He also repeatedly lambasted Capitalism and referred to himself as a Socialist.
As for Fascism; Mussolini was first a Marxist, then a Syndicalist, and finally he implemented Corporatism, which is essentially Syndicalism with state oversight (state acting as a union). It's a socialist theory, not a capitalist theory.
Finally, no Fascist nation in Europe was Capitalist.
Here's a fantastic resource for you; https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Corporate-State-Alexander-Thomson/dp/1908476745

>>12417839
No he made the claim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIfLTQAKKfg

>>12417908
>Peterson hasn't read the stuff he's criticizing.
Holy shit this.
I watched one of his classes where he talks about WW2 and I'm fully convinced he read one book maybe 10 years ago and has been repeating the same crap he read in that book ever since.

>>12417737
Peterson hasn't read the stuff he's criticizing. His training is not in philosophy, though he might well have taken a class here or there. But when he talks about Marxism or post-modernism, it's readily apparent he simply hasn't read original sources. Instead, he's parroting common-place dismissals, and he's managed to trick of bunch of people who've read even less that he knows what he's talking about.
The only thing interesting about the Jordan Peterson phenomenon is that is shows that bubbling beneath the anti-intellectualism of the far right, there's a craving to have academics they can call their own. But what they want from their academics is not actual instruction. They just want to be validated in their intellectual indolence.

>>12417908
>Peterson hasn't read the stuff he's criticizing. His training is not in philosophy, though he might well have taken a class here or there. But when he talks about Marxism or post-modernism, it's readily apparent he simply hasn't read original sources. Instead, he's parroting common-place dismissals, and he's managed to trick of bunch of people who've read even less that he knows what he's talking about.
With you 100%

>The only thing interesting about the Jordan Peterson phenomenon is that is shows that bubbling beneath the anti-intellectualism of the far right, there's a craving to have academics they can call their own. But what they want from their academics is not actual instruction. They just want to be validated in their intellectual indolence.
Lmao way to do exactly what you criticized him for, dumbass.
The only reason you dont think right wing intellectuals exist is because you haven't read any. If we're talking classically right wing, then there are more of them than there are leftist writers. Embarrassing post my dude.

>>12417912
Deleted my reply, because I replied to wrong anon.

>>12417915
Can you please suggest me some, genuinely interested

>>12417932
Nietzsche? Lol
Julius Evola
Rene Guenon
Those are probably the most accessible for you.

>>12417915
Yeah, I mean, I guess the right is vast and complex and it's hard to attend to all the nuances in a sentence or two. Nevertheless, there's a long line of thought arguing that anti-intellectualism has a privileged place within the discourse of the political right, at least in North America. This scholarship goes back to Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1964) up to the NRA's recent declaration[1] that
> It’s up to us to speak up against the three most dangerous voices in America: academic elites, political elites, and media elites

I mean, there absolutely are conservative philosophers, but when is the last time you saw a whole bunch of people get jacked up about the latest video from Roger Scruton?
The point I was getting at is that Jordan Peterson is obviously not a philosopher, but he keeps popping up on this sub, and it's easy to find a lot of love for him in the blogosphere. None of that seems to be based on his expertise in clinical psychology. Rather, it's the sense that he's got the credentials to justifiably voice the sentiments of a strong portion of the populist right. It looks to me like the attraction to Peterson is largely that he has academic credentials--doesn't matter what those credentials are specifically, but he has some kind of credentials.

[1] - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/28/lapierre-political-media-greatest-domestic-threat/

>>12417949
Silence is the best propaganda. If the media doesn't talk about it, then most people think it must not be real or must not be important. Then if someone tries to make a big deal about it they must just be some kook, because if it was a big deal the media would have covered it.

>>12417941
Thank you.

>>12417949
>The point I was getting at is that Jordan Peterson is obviously not a philosopher, but he keeps popping up on this sub, and it's easy to find a lot of love for him in the blogosphere. None of that seems to be based on his expertise in clinical psychology. Rather, it's the sense that he's got the credentials to justifiably voice the sentiments of a strong portion of the populist right. It looks to me like the attraction to Peterson is largely that he has academic credentials--doesn't matter what those credentials are specifically, but he has some kind of credentials.

Then we agree. JP sounds smart to dumb people. But he is probably only above average intelligence at best. He states pretty mundane and obvious things as if they are profound revelations and dumbasses eat it up. They see a middle aged man in a sport suit with a concerned face and they immediately assume he must have 400 IQ. Its quite embarrassing.
I used to think he was on to something when I listened to one of his lectures where he was basically critiquing what he called the "modern world".
Then I went and read Julius Evola's "Revolt Against The Modern World" and realised JP isn't even close to being on the same level.

>>12417961
Ezra Pound and Yukio Mishima are some interesting right wing writers too if you're interested. Mishima is a personal fav.

Peterson is just channeling the common sense outrage regarding (social and personal) degeneracy.

And autists from reddit, with the mental depth of a fruit fly, are picking apart his words thinking they're smart, while the point flies over their head.

>>12417995
It just angers me that an old pseud gets all the attention while a truly great mind like Jonathan Bowden goes mostly unnoticed and dies in obscurity.

>>12418005
pseud?

>>12418012
Jordan Pseudointellectual

>>12418018
ah okay.

peterson is just a rare right-wing version of pop academics which are a dime-a-dozen on the left, so he scoops up a lot of fame which would be spread out among other people

he's not so much a psued because he does have some interesting things to say (those who claim he has NOTHING interest to say are just projecting their own intellectual insecurities onto him) but just simply lacking an excellence proportionate with his popularity

>>12418042
>peterson
>right wing
You must be joking.

>>12418044
Not him, but Memerson does defend hierarchies, meritocracy, boundaries/borders to some extent. That's at least somewhat right wing. (I don't like the left/right terminology, though, because it's very muddied, especially nowadays when everyone interprets it a bit differently.)

>>12417868
ok the tweet is retarded but why are you changing subjects?
You are doing it all the time stop with the ad hominems ffs
If you want to defend your leftist paranoia you are not going to go very far like this

>>12417913
you just described the leftist academia m8

>>12418058
right i forgot meritocracy is bad now

>>12418150
>stop with the ad hominems ffs
> your leftist paranoia
Irony

>>12418042
It's the same everywhere, the rare "right wing intellectuals" gather all the attention and they enjoy some kind of a monopoly. In France for instance we have Eric Zemmour. You'll never see that with left wingers because they are so numerous and quite frankly there aren't many that have some kind of original thought, cookie cutters most of them

>>12418044
>Denies climate change
>Tries to justify the existence of God with pseudo-science
>Says Atheists Scientists are as bad as religious fundamentalists
>claims disbelief in God resulted in the rise of Nazism in Germany
> Tries to group Marxism with Nazism, by using atheism
>claims white men are in danger
>says that the post-modern Neo-marxist are coming for the western world
>Appears in PragerU video
>says post-modern Neo-marxist have already come here, and are teaching us dangerous things
>his fans will call you paranoid leftist if you criticize him

>>12418218
Most of what you posted has nothing to do with being "right wing". Go read a book.

>>12418044
He calls himself neither so that he can have a bigger audience. By not associating himself with right-wing, he is able to make himself appear as unbiased. Right-wing and left-wing people are more likely to hear and agree arguments of people who they consider to be centrist rather than the people on the opposite end of the spectrum.

>>12418253
> Go read a book.
Classical Peterson fanboy reply.

>>12418266
No, listen, you just don't grasp the underlying metaphorical, archetypal truth behind what Peterson is saying. What he says isn't necessarily true in the Newtonian sense, but there are nested layers of truth behind the basic ideas. Your religious bias is preventing you from understanding Jordan's enlightened brilliance.

>>12418253
I am not claiming that they are true right-wing agendas. But these ideas are the appealing to a majority of right-wingers in US of A.

>>12418218
>says that the post-modern Neo-marxist are coming for the western world
I mean, are they not?

>>12418218
I love how Jordan Peterson, a complete and total leftist, has trolled the entire internet by standing up for basic human decency. It's incredibly sad that having a consistent moral framework automatically makes you a right wing Nazi huwhitemale bigot in this day and age.

>>12418342
>right wing Nazi huwhitemale bigot
I never claimed that, stop making things up.

>>12418342
>standing up for basic human decency
What basic human decency? Except from arguing SJW idiots , what good has he done?
Smh. such delusions

>>12418254
You know someone can not like faggy left wing shit and simply not be right wing. I do believe Peterson is right wing but it’s literally inconsequential because he never talks about politics beyond the speech bill that already passed. Get over it you fucking sperm.

>>12418218
>claims white men are in danger

He's never said this.

>Says that the post-modern neo-marxist are coming for the western world

There's nothing called "post-modern neo-marxists" even if he uses that stupid moniker.

What really is happening is that standpoint theoretical intersectionalists are destroying the Western world by infiltrating state run institutions and the private sector through HR departments.

Their latest triumph is turning Visa and Patreon into mouthpieces for their vile ideology.

>>12418390
This

>>12418390
(not that anon)

>There's nothing called "post-modern neo-marxists"
Tell that to him, he is obsessed with that term

>theoretical intersectionalists are destroying the Western world by infiltrating state run institutions and the private sector through HR departments
What led you to this conclusion? Is Meritocracy not being considered while taking students in European countries?

Do you agree with all the other points in >>12418218 ?

Denouncing Frozen as "propaganda" because he believes Post-Modernist Neo-Marxist uses it to say that women don't need men - even though a male ally is vital to the plot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Lk7gcLP8Q

>>12418504
>male ally
kys

Denouncing Frozen as "propaganda" because he believes Post-Modernist Neo-Marxist uses it to say that women don't need men

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Lk7gcLP8Q

>>12418253
The idea that cultural marxists are out to destroy western civilization is central to his beliefs. How is that anything but right?

>>12418519
>>12418504
>male ally
You outed yourself cuck

>thinks he can delete away the shame
4chanX :^)

>>12413149
>lobster
>clean room
>nazis bad
>commies bad
repeat til the end of time

Has JP actually read Foucault and Derrida? Does he willingly misinform the public about them for capital gain?

>>12417706
>I don’t subscribe to ideology
Zizek would argue that your disavowal of an ideological framework is itself a function of your engrained ideology. Belief functions irrespective of whether you believe in it or not.

>>12414304
>Peterson on history
man's an absolute retard desu, didn't even know about forced labour and other basic shit

>>12418716
If he has, his reading comprehension skills a shit since the majority of the arguments he attributes to them are usually fabrictions. Anyways he spends more time regurgitating the opinions of Stephen Hicks than engaging the postmodernists directly, see >>12417841

>>12414403

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvhFA3hPWA

>>12417782
>propaganda explaining theory is the same as the policy enacted by that ideology
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, i can't find the Workers paradise of the USSR on my map nor Greater Germany, can someone help?

>>12413230
Anon, if you're still there, would you please recommend some good works by Zizek?

>>12413149
Because he doesnt understand what he is talking about. This is a problem of idiots without a holistic study of philosophy, history, sociology etc.
Psychologists need to know their place. They should treat idiots by prescribing them pills and do cognitive-behavioral therapy by algorithms.
Like any normal worker in this country.
This idiot read a couple of books by Nietzsche and Jung, a couple of articles on postmodernism on Wikipedia and thinks that now he has the right to engage in psychoanalysis, philosophy, sociology and other disciplines.

>>12418921
take it easy baby, there´s no reason to get mad, zizek is as dumb as peterson desu

>>12418461
>What led you to this conclusion?

That is the ideology that young people in humanities' faculties around the West are educated in, namely the anti-Enlightenment ideologies of intersectionality, kyriarchy, critical race studies and so on.

The problem I have with this group of ideologies is that it is reactionary and a repudiation of the last 50 years of social progress, which is incidentally why I think the state and private corporations love it and embrace it wholeheartedly.

>>12414535
>That's postmodernism in a nutshell. It's the belief that Nature and God are destroyed
that's modernity

>>12418819
not him but if you want academic Zizek:
Sublime Object of Ideology
The Parallax View
Less Than Nothing

>>12418812
>manifesto is propaganda
You're a fucking retard.

>>12420757
triggered?

why do these threads stay up but I get banned for making taleb threads? jannie such a hoe

>>12420768
Just stating that you are a retard
No emotion really came into factor here

>>12417583
Hahahaha
ur idol still a brainlet bud

>>12418680
you forgot chaos

>>12413114
oh god Zizek is going to MURDER Peterson during the debate.

why do you guys think it's cool to do wimpy ass take downs of these intellectuals public personas? i see so much peterson bashing and the guy seems like a standard college professor. tearing them down is pure performance on your part.

>>12417841
oh yeah, Hicks described 'anti-enlightenment thinkers, starting with Kant'. It was tough to hear.

https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4?t=1136

>>12413437

SJWs are a spook.

I'm saying this with zero irony.

>>12413930

>Believing CNN is left wing
>Believing Facebook is left wing

I don't have a suitable meme to show how much of a brainlet you are.

>>12414012

Fascism care more about the state than people, so no it isn't humanist.

>>12413154
>>12413221
>>12414468
If you weren't a pseud you'd know Zizek means "ideology" in an Althusserian sense.

>>12413204
I don't like Zizek but to his defense, he likes taking the piss out of journalists because he's an actual misanthropist. He's even admitted that he hasn't even watched almost all of the modern movies he's talked about.

>>12414089
>When the biggest names of american corporations are complicit in (...)
>Plus, you mentioning individual millionaires or Trump is irrelevant
Huh?

>>bolsonaro is a fascist
>This is what fucking killed it, jesus fucking christ, did you even look at his policies??
Uh, you mean the ex-military nationalist guy who openly hates women, gays and immigrants and shamelessly defends the military dictatorships of his country, who also wants to make being a leftist literally illegal? He might not be a fascist like the ones 100 years ago, but he's the closest thing we've got to it after Duterte.

>The guys is the perfect example of a neo-con in current political trends
Nah, that'd be people like Trump, who is very tame, especially when compared to Bolsonaro.

>>12414398
>Fukuyama, one of the smarter guys in the neolib camp
Francis "Oops, looks like it wasn't the end of history and social democracy is good now actually" Fukuyama

>>12423304
>Uh, you mean the ex-military nationalist guy who openly hates women, gays and immigrants and shamelessly defends the military dictatorships of his country, who also wants to make being a leftist literally illegal?
wow
do you form your opinions based on whatever you read on your twitter feed or what?

Why can't Peterson keep his room clean? I bet he doesn't even wash his benis.

>>12423335
Great rebuttal, retard. All of those things are stuff he's said in the past and while the "anti-leftist law" hasn't passed (yet), it's there.

>>12423335
>defends the military dictatorships of his country
http://www.ebc.com.br/noticias/politica/2013/02/jair-bolsonaro-defende-golpe-militar-de-1964-em-recepcao-a-yoani-sanchez

>hates gays
http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Revista/Epoca/0,,EMI245890-15223,00.html

>hates women
http://www.osul.com.br/bolsonaro-em-porto-alegre-confirma-ser-contra-o-aborto-e-a-favor-da-reducao-da-maioridade-penal/

Bonus tracks:
>defending torture as legitimate
https://web.archive.org/web/20130531142150/http://www.terra.com.br/istoegente/28/reportagens/entrev_jair.htm

>says the military dictatorship should've killed more people
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/05/bolsonaros-model-its-goebbels-fascism-nazism-brazil-latin-america-populism-argentina-venezuela/

This is the same guy that is loved by almost all fascist nerds on the Internet, only to say "wow you sure like calling everything you don't like fascist!" when getting called out on this.

>>12423352
>rebuttal

You made no arguments at all, you simply retweeted all the lies you've been fed. Bolsonaro is a neocon

>openly hates women
He wants harsher punishment for rapists and to extend women's health programs

>gays
Wants harsher punishments for homophobic crimes

>immigrants
Defending national borders means you hate immigrants?

>also wants to make being a leftist literally illegal
He wants to tipify actions such as those of Landless Workers' Movement as terrorism. What do you think about pic related? Threatening to disrupt power for over 20k people if land owners don't concede to your demands sure sound like terror to me


>>12423377
>http://www.osul.com.br/bolsonaro-em-porto-alegre-confirma-ser-contra-o-aborto-e-a-favor-da-reducao-da-maioridade-penal/
>Being pro-life means you hate women

Oh, I get it now. You're just retarded

>>12417673
>>"SJW" isn't even a real ideology
>It's a caricature that anyone who is unfortunate enough to leave their house in the current year sees regularly.
Never in my 29 years on this plant have I encountered the elusive SJW from the internet irl. It's probably an USA only thing, but it's no wonder since it's a shithole made from the worst criminal scum that was banished from Europe. There are no SJW in the rest of the world.

>>12414296
>>12414358
>>12417229
>>12417612
>>12417841
>>12417868
>>12417883
>>12417949
>>12418018
>>12418218
>>12423338
GTFO NiggerFaggots

>>12423236
retard

>>12413114
Neither of them are pseuds. A pseud would be someone like Stefan Molyneux.

>>12417876
>what does private industry have to do with Capitalism?
nigger did you seriously ask that
you nigger

>>12423895
baka. such delusion

>>12423895
baka. such delusions

>>12423895
Such delusions

>>12417975
I'd be very surprised if he has lower IQ than 130

>>12417818
Low IQ post

>>12424166
You are in for a surprise

does petersons "serious face" annoy the shit out of anyone else? i cant take him seriously when he does it

>>12424285
I understand what you're talking about, but I deem the reaction superficial instead of a roadblock.

>>12413149
Is monolingual

>>12423229

You're talking to an American who believes anything even slightly to the left of their disgustingly far right party (singular) is communist. Nuke the country. Start fresh. Save the world.

>>12424540
>their disgustingly far right party (singular
Yikes

>>12413114
It's a toss up, but Peterson because he presents himself as honest and draws more or his money through grifting more desperate people

>>12423377
>>defends the military dictatorships of his country
As opposed to say that letting the commies that tried to make a commie dictatorship trough terrorism would have been a good thing?

>>>hates gays
Pushing homosexuality as normal should be of no concern of the Estate.

>>>hates women
If he thinking abortion is bad and should not be done is to hate women then you got that one.

>>defending torture as legitimate
Old interview (pre-2010), he himself said he evolved as a person and changed many of his views, but anyway:
>E a tortura praticada pela ditadura militar?
Admito que houve alguns abusos do regime militar, mas a tortura não foi em cima de um simples preso político. Aquelas pessoas estavam armadas e matavam. Só na Guerrilha do Araguaia perdemos 16 militares.
He's not wrong here. See commie terrorism (that also involved torture and assassination) in Brazil.

>>says the military dictatorship should've killed more people.
He's wrong if he's talking about commies: they are not people.

>This is the same guy that is loved by almost all fascist nerds on the Internet, only to say "wow you sure like calling everything you don't like fascist!" when getting called out on this.
You don't even know what fascism is, but most people don't know either; it's just an umbrella-term for "evil", calling someone a fascist can nowadays can means the same saying "you're not a lefty".

>>12426055
cringe

>>12424548

What an excellent response. Tell me, what are the two parties? The capitalist party that doesn't care about anything but themselves with a smattering of bombing brown people for defence company paychecks or the party of capitalists who do the same but pretend to care about minorities so they'll vote for them?

I mean, they're very distinct. This isn't even a "nazis and commies r deh same!!!"

zizek is scared to talk to peterson so