/lit/ - Literature

>>14659900
he took Jung literally

he has a point. i dont know how worthwhile it is entertaining as a psychologist or moral philosopher but he has a point.

should have been a literary critic. (of course then he wouldnt have made his millions or fed his grandiose ego)

>>14659900
What the fuck? If I saw a predator, I wouldn't blink. If I saw a dragon I'd freak out. I can contextualize a movie. If I left a movie about witches and then saw one for real on the way to my car I'd freak out. I can fall into believing in witches because of the context of a movie.

Am I missing something? This shit sounds retarded.

>>14661063
nope you got it

>>14661063
JP is unironically a brainlet

>>14661089
>>14661063
Sorry, midwit*

>>14659900
>mfw I see a bloody postmodern neo-marxist

>>14661094
Were you hoping I'd dismiss a stupid quote because it was ackshually a description of a superordinate category?

>>14661063
You missed the word category.

>>14659900
He never makes much fucking sense and creates absurd abstractions that have no meaning and no basis in reality.

>>14661089
>>14661403
don't bully JP.
his work "maps of meaning" is his way of maintaining his own sanity after his mind split at some point in his life.
just a mad man who figured out a way to keep himself sane with literature. /lit/ could learn from him despite his content being useless

>What exists is not awevious

>>14660002
This, Op's Peterson's greentext here isn't completely wrong but it misses the point.

>>14661063
He is talking about instinctive reactions and character culturally and naturally programmed.

It's just metaphorical psychology, what exists in your brain is the world that you actually inhabit. Your brain anthropomorphizes, mythologises and ideologsises everything, otherwise you'd see my words as just a set of symbols, pixels arranged on a screen. Instead, you see a hostile poster, one you have to verbally attack because he threatens you intellectually.

Having said that, that guy is a charlatan and a fraud.

>>14659900
>What is his problem?

He's massively out of his depth.

>>14661870
Woah you must be the deepest intellectual... that one sentence reply really said so much!

>>14661876
What do you expect me to say? I didn't even waste my time reading the greentext in the OP's post.

>>14661870
>>14661890
t. red diaper baby

>>14661890
Same thing I expect from all phoneposters, and no-attention span retards - to get off my fucking board.

>>14661063
I can assure you that if you saw a crocodille in your house you would have the same reaction as if you saw a dragon.

>>14659900
hes literally correct; I don't know why you autists need to sperg out at every little thing lobster-boy says.

>>14662305
>coming to the defense of replacement daddy with a category sword

>>14661908
post2016 newfag

>>14659900
>>You may say, 'Well, dragons don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do
redpilled as fuck

>>14662292
Seriously?

>>14659900
Well, it doesn't make sense without his views on chaoskampf and his understanding of dragon as an amalgamation of parts of various predators (same with other mythical monsters) + his understanding of human co-evolution with snakes + general jungean understanding of symbol

You are basically filtered brainlet

>>14662324
notice that the only people who ever refer to Peterson as "daddy" are people who hate him
really makes you think

>>14659900
Incel philosophy

>>14662292
yep, turn 360 degrees and walk the fuck away

>>14659900
Welcome to Semiotics 101. Does he think this is profound? I figured this shit out in high school and I was a brainlet who thought Heinlein was a good writer. I hadn’t even looked at literary criticism. Wow. Peterson is basic.

>>14662324
Not an argument. Try again, autist.

>>14659900
>>14660002
>>14661063
>>14661403
>>14661870
>>14662873
What the fuck? This is just the central argument of idealism, isn’t it? The category of “dragon” and “dragon-ness” exists in our minds and presupposes an ‘actual’ dragon. Am I insane? The fuck has happened to this board

>>14661403
>no basis in reality

why should we care about what has basis in reality, you dont experience reality in any direct way, is your experience an absurd abstraction as well?

>>14659900
>>14660002
>>14661018
>>14661063
>>14661074
>>14661089
>>14661094
>>14661096
>>14661104
>>14661112
>>14661403
>>14661802
>>14661814
>>14661842
>>14661850
>>14661855
>>14661870
>>14661876
>>14661890
>>14661902
>>14661908
>>14662292
>>14662305
>>14662324
>>14662346
>>14662359
>>14662399
>>14662424
>>14662471
>>14662484
>>14662604
>>14662873
>>14662887
>>14662913
>>14662923
im gonna be dragon my balls across your face

>>14662913
no that's much closer to rationalism than idealism

>>14662471
Almonds Activated
>almonds look wrinkly
>balls look wrinkly
>we call balls nuts
>there's a pattern here that your brain knows is true even if you don't

>>14659900
>as long as i delude myself to think something exists, it exists in my mind
And this is why Peterson falls flat, he stands for yet another brand of subjectivism, trying to emulate Jung but missing entirely the point. By doing that he's never going to break the molds of the current academia, and that's why he feels like more of the same.
Then again, he's a psychologist and this point of view it's understandable taking into consideration the dogmas of his field. Though i don't agree at all with what he says, i've never had an academic discussion with a psychologist that didn't said something on those lines, so these types of arguments should be expected.
Now, the real question is: do we need yet another Peterson thread to remind us that he's an entry level intellectual, at best? I'm starting to suspect that there is one guy, or small group of guys, that are dedicated to do these threads every day, though i don't really see the point.
I don't care about what Peterson says and neither should anyone on this board.

>>14659900
What a fucking pseud

>Dude if I get emotional and equate something belonging to a category with its empirical existence you're wrong, bucko!

>>14661063
go back to lesswrong you evil coward

>>14663047
he gets it

>>14663051
if those delusions affect the way you act, then absolutely. goal oriented beliefs mother fucker

>>14663074
>if those delusions affect the way you act, then absolutely
Those ideas resonate badly in this board, and with good reason. Most people here is interested in philosophy, which is the seeking of the truth itself and the love of knowledge.
With that in mind, when Peterson says that we should act according to our delusions because it helps us, he resembles the archetype of the sophist, who deals only in the apparent, and is infamous for his capacity to influence dumb masses.

This man has become a walking disaster.

>>14663137
nietzsche was like almost 300 years ago bro. get with it,

>>14663137
also, what do you think ideology is dumb ass

Imagine being too stupid to understand what Memerson is saying.

I'm sure some posters ITT are just pretending, though. Believing otherwise would be too painful for me.

>>14662913
this, but unironically

>>14663316

>>14662913
Election year has emboldened a certain board to engage in a sitewide campaign to smear ideological diarrhea all over the other boards, probably in the hopes of fighting a made up reddit colonization.

>>14663344
go back to less wrong

>>14663424
If you're not baiting, elaborate a little then. What's your argument?

>>14663480
>Not exactly. The Dark Arts involve memeing others, and wear an unsubtle /r/iamverysmart attitude about them: “Heh, plebs can’t resist my rational. Nothing personnel.” More dangerous than its misanthropy (which, admittedly, is useful enough to keep) is its assumption that the agent is himself immune from his and others’ memetics. We’ve tread this ground before. The failure of Yudkowskian rationality was not its thoroughness, but its hubristic dogmatism that bias is bad. Lizards seek heat, wolves follow the alpha, and humans screw for fun. There are simply too many layers of inevitable influence acting on your mind to try and control every avenue of input. Your cat meows at the frequency of a child’s voice: do you force yourself to manually ignore it every time it catches your attention? Or do you never purchase it in the first place? You’re at work, facing a ground-floor window. A constant stream of pedestrians waltz by at all hours, and you can’t help but steal a glance at the occasional entree. This interrupts your train of thought and it costs a good deal of time to get back into flow. You could try to master flow-entry and meditate every time you get distracted, or you could turn your chair away from the window. Only some of these solutions require mental maintenance. Try to list how often you’re exposed to bias you can’t control on a daily basis. Imagine believing that you can somehow maintain enough mental checks and balances even to perform a 51% attack on your neural network’s hidden associative-bias layer every time this happens. No: Until the silicon neuron, bias is here to stay. (Maybe not even then.) Consider form and function as disciplines of design. Rationality’s function is clear and effective: Bayes is a powerful tool. Its form, on the other hand, is hideous. Rationality is the Java of philosophy: leaky, unmaintainable, and incredibly memory-expensive.
This, of course, should be obvious. Telling your kid to update their priors before they go to the forest is completely retarded. You tell them about Little Red Riding Hood.
>what does this have to do with philosophy?
Everything. Look at how the question of competency was tied in with the question of the good at a fundamental level. Theory and praxis are tied. Have to be tied. A friend of wisdom, not a friend of truth. Think upon the difference.

>>14661063
You're missing the point idiot. The Dragon is a conceptual ideal of a predator. Everything that makes a dragon scary is what makes predators in general scary. It's big, it's inhuman, you don't want it near you, it's beautiful but in a terrible way, it has teeth, there's also fire involved somehow.

Like, yes retard, if you opened the door to your bathroom and there was a tiger inside you absolutely would fucking blink, you'd shit yourself and die because there's a tiger in your bathroom. That is what a Dragon is, it's a terrifying monster made more terrifying by its incoherence.

>>14659900
the dragon is the chaos jew - carl jung

>>14663736
>dragons are real because I'm afraid of cats
okay

>>14663008
>>14663051
>>14663060
>>14663061
>>14663074
>>14663137
>>14663306
>>14663316
>>14663328
>>14663331
>>14663341
>>14663344
>>14663351
>>14663424
>>14663480
>>14663623
>>14663736
>>14663739
>>14663745
im gonna be dragon my balls across your face

Is anyone going to try and disprove him? I've never watched any Peterson content other than the Zizek debate, he is correct here. This thread is a circle jerk until someone can tell me what about this is "having a problem"

>>14663859
im gonna be dragon my balls across your face

>>14662471
>notice how people who use a pejorative with a guy are people who dislike him
really makes you think

>>14663869
so that's a no from this new guy, I wonder if anyone else has anything to say

>>14663880
>new guy
have you even read the thread retard? also i never said i disagreed with you. i am telling you im gonna be dragon my balls across your face. deal with it idiot.

>>14663859
he's turned Jungianism into some sort of crypto-deleuzian where dragons exist so long as that category produces some (positive) effect. he unironically slipped into postmodernism but since he hasn't read them he doesn't even notice

>>14663885
Yeah it's all materialist reductionism and personal bitterness

>>14663895
if by
>materialist reductionist
>personal bitterness
you mean you are gonna reduce your actions to sniffing my material nutsuck and not be bitter about it either, then yes. i fall into that category.

>>14663008
I mean partly but rationalism doesn’t deal with categories nearly as much
>>14663888
Huh? What does this have to do with Jung or Deleuze? It’s just very basic idealism

>>14663924
no it's much closer to rationalism than it is idealism, and the whole "superordinate category" thing is straight out of Jung (i.e. dragon is an archetype). have you read much philosophy anon?

>>14663888
good answer, makes me want to read deleuze.

>>14659900
You might think he's crazy.
You might think he's stupid.
You might think he's just phrasing idealism strangely.

But no. Peterson is legitimately trying to warn you about the omnipresent threat of dragons. Watch the fuck out for dragons, because they'll fucking eat you. Nowhere is safe.

>>14663994
im gonna be dragon my balls across your face

>>14663994
>>14663924
someone please explain to me why they think this is idealism

>>14664010
because in an ideal world im gonna be dragon my balls across your face

>>14664024
nno cap this is funny as shit my ngigga

>>14663623
It's pretty obvious that this shit is outdated. The forest and red-riding hood for example. Consider a modern danger, being hit by a car. You don't tell kids fables so they can avoid this danger, you just instill the habit of looking both ways before crossing the street. Same with hand-washing instead of teaching kids about germ theory via tall tales, etc.

>>14659900
Based Peterson has derived the platonic forms.

>>14664150
what do you think ideologies are

>>14662923
Blah Blah Blah

>>14660002
More like he didn’t understand him and made a mass opium out of the distorted notions he had of Jung.

>>14659900
Witches, dragons,.. then what, goblins , vampires?
You can say it Jordan , JEWS!

>>14661063
>>14661074
>>14661089
>>14661094
t. midwits

>heh... dragons don't really exist... I'M the smartest one in the room.... *smug anime smile*

>>14662972
Based mass reply retard

>>14663623
Same anon as before here, i think we had some bad miscommunication, because i agree, to some extent, to what you're saying.

If you thought i was making an extreme rationalist, analytical or nitzschean argument, you're wrong. In fact, i do agree that metaphors and metaphoric stories can be true when they refer to some archetypal universal truth. Most complex types of truth usually have to be expressed in such metaphors because it's impossible to express them with regular language. I don't think those are delusions though, since i find some of them more real than reality. If you take a non-archetypal truth and set it as something that will affect heavily on the way you act, then yes, you are following a delusion. Nevertheless, that's not what i was trying to say.

The point I was trying to make is that when Peterson tries to emulate Jung, he ends up presenting a kind of shallow and subjective perspective of reality, because he's missing the point Jung tried to make. I said that this is understandable, since his field usually implies such a view (maybe i should have mentioned that this is because psychology is deeply tied with late modern idealism, but i didn't thought it was necessary). I said also that there's a lot of people on this board that don't agree with modernity and idealism, and even more that resent late modernity, so they usually stick to more ancient conceptions of the role of philosophy, and that's why Peterson has usually a bad reception here.
That's it, i wasn't expressing my opinion there, i was just stating some things i found as facts. The only opinion i expressed is that we should stop giving Peterson to this much attention because he's neither that good or that bad, he's just another shallow academic. Maybe i expressed myself poorly, since English is not my first language, or maybe i'm still not getting your point.

>>14659900
>You may say, 'Well, more than two genders don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do. the category sex and the category gender are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as bitches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a professor about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them"

>>14665095
I think you give Peterson too little credit, while he is sort-of shallow, he is quote unquote one of the good guys. He is a net positive force in the world. If he is an entry point into more interesting things, so be it. I also think that he is sincere in what he is peddling. Hence not a sophist
>I don't think those are delusions though, since i find some of them more real than reality.
These "more than real" things have to be evoked. Think how the eternal return is first a cope, then an ontological principle. What enables the leap to the second is a willful ignorance of it's use in the first case.
The second case against is that these more-than-truths seem to very heavily depend on their environment. These lies or above-truths are metic in nature.

>>14659900
>You may say, "Dragons are not (i.e. they don't exist)." Parmenides would reply: either there are dragons out there, in which case you are uttering a lie, or there are not, in which case your word "dragon" (and your thought) are about nothing. But a thought or a word cannot be about nothing, words and thoughts are like arrows, or like wasp stings: they must hit a target. If you say, "But my word `dragon' hits an idea of dragon I have in my mind," he would reply, "Then you're changing the subject: your word means an idea, not an object out there, and in that case, when you say that dragons are not, you're uttering a lie, for you say that the idea is in your mind." Similarly, if you tell Parmenides that elephants are not flying animals, he will reply the following: "You're saying that flying elephants are not, but as I told you before..." In summary, we cannot say that something is not, nor can we say that A is not B. Remember that Aristotle's principle of contradiction states that you cannot say at once that A is B AND A is not B; but Parmenides was far stricter: he stated that we cannot say that A is not B, period. The consequences of this strict logic are stunning. Change and becoming are stopped in their tracks, and differences between things are erased, for saying A is different from B is tantamount to saying A is not B. For Parmenides the truth about our universe is that it is timeless, eternal, motionless, perfectly uniform, the same all throughout. Being no fool, he knew that's not the way we experience it with our senses, so he allowed for the way of opinion (dóxa). The word dóxa meant not only opinion but appearance, prestige, fame, and many other things. What Parmenides was after, then, is the truth behind appearances, and what he was saying is that becoming and change are merely appearances; true being is changeless.

>>14665394
>I think you give Peterson too little credit, while he is sort-of shallow, he is quote unquote one of the good guys. He is a net positive force in the world.
I don't agree with that. I do recognize he can, from time to time, give some useful insight. For example, i found his Bible lectures quite interesting, but only to the extent that they are a secular/psychological reading of the sacred texts, and the fact that he exposes his secular audience to the fact that those texts have an intrinsic value into our culture. Nevertheless, if i wanted a more, let's say, "serious" reading of the Bible, i would definitely look somewhere else, as i am not his secular audience and the secular takes he makes about the texts have little value to me.
So this is the thing with Peterson, he can be useful to help a nihilistic reddit tier audience of fedora tippers to realize that there may be something more to life than simple materialism; he talks about Jungian archetypes, he quotes christian literature, he recognizes the importance of spirituality in our culture. That's sounds perfect until you actually meet his audience, and believe me, they don't get past him. They literally stop with Peterson and do not delve into many of the texts he mentions. Instead, they take his interpretations of the texts he talks about as an objective truth, and they resign themselves with pleasure to repeat obnoxious self help slogans like "clean up your room".
I do not want to delve into the political part of this, but i will also say that his political opinions are way "softer" than what his fans believe. I'm not American, but i do believe that he resembles some of the aspects that i perceive of the republican party: just a little more pro capitalist and individualism than his opponents, and a little bit less supporting of what i think you call "social justice". In the absence of a real opposition, he appears like this really reactionary kind of thinker, but he actually is little more than a conservative, at best. Others "thinkers", like Ben Schapiro and Sam Harris (both acquaintances of Mr. Peterson, btw) have profited from this same phenomenon.

So no, i don't think he's a net positive force in the world. He's just way less harmful than the average academic, and that's why i don't care about him, nor should anyone on this board.

>>14659900
>You may say, 'Well, AI don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do — the category capitalism and the category AI are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a trancendental category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as a technocapital singularity.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see the Terminator. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them"

I love dragons :)

>>14662913
Nobody here reads.

>>14662972
why did I laugh at this

>>14659900
Dragons exist and I am one

>>14665600
based

>>14659900
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcz67m4ks_E
>What is his problem?
People take him out of context.

>>14662972
incredibly, irresistibly based

>>14662972

I have the book this image is from. I Saw You That Night!, by RL Stine.

It's pretty good.

That is all

>>14662972
So fucking based
Ow my dick hurts I think I got the clap

>>14662913
You're correct