/lit/ - Literature

>>16194211
No.

>>16194214
Sort yourself out

>>16194211
Roughly speaking

>>16194211
Yes if you like Jung

>>16194211
It's very much worth reading. A real fucking shame that 99% of the people who hopped on the Peterson wagon and 100% of his critics will never actually bother reading it.

>>16194221

>>16194367
This(he does repeat himself sometimes though)

>>16194367
If I watched all of his lectures and every video of him out there including 12 Rules, do I still stand to benefit from reading his textbook? What am I gonna learn?

>>16194367
Should I read this or 12 rules?

>>16194941
I think that's his more theory stuff.
Religion and belief evolves out of thousands of years of asking questions and they have much wisdom in it. I think he misses the trees for the forest though

>>16194211
isn't this the one where he vividly describes his grandmother's pubic hair?

>>16194985
Yes. Yes it is.

>>16194211
Yes, even if you disagree with some of his recent stuff, this is still worth reading. Its well put together, dense, and stimulating.

>>16194229
Based

Anything rooted in psychoanalysis will be at least partially nonsense and will most certainly be a waste of your time.

>>16195089
Even if I disagree with it's contents, wouldn't it still be worth reading, if only to better understand the ideas of one the most prominent intellectuals of our time?

Some wisdom and some bullshit.

>>16194211
>In 2017, feminist academic Camille Paglia commented on the link between Maps of Meaning and her own book, Sexual Personae (1990).

>>16195644
There's a difference between being an intellectual who is prominent and being prominent as an intellectual.
Jordan Peterson has a large following, but what fraction of it is into the ideas that you need his book to grasp? How influential are his complicated ideas compared to surface level "clean your room" memery?
(I know very little about Jordan Peterson, this is not a rhetorical question)

>>16194214
fpbp

>>16195089

Analytical psychology is not the same as psychoanalysis, bucko.

>>16194211
No

>>16194214
>NOOOOOOO! YOU CAN USE METAPHORS TO SUMMARIZE TIMELESS HUMAN NATURE AND BEHAIVOUR, YOU HAVE TO STICK TO DULL TECHNICAL LONG ANLYSIS AND YOU'RE A BIGGOTED BIOLOGICIST

>ITT

>>16195826
That goes for everything ever. Turns out, it takes a damn long time to learn stuff on a deep level, and even more motivation.

>>16196804
The deep ideas can still be very influential if they reach the right people.
Take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics , for instance. Hoppe sure has a following, but this idea seems intellectually sterile. Reactions are mixed in his inner circle, and nobody pays attention to it outside it. It doesn't have any notable influence. You could look into it for its own sake but that's all.
And then take Hegel, by contrast. Notoriously hard to understand, might be bullshit for all I know, but definitely influential, and so worth looking into if you understand what people were on about in the 19th century.

>>16194214
Based

I wanna know if whatever is writen there is close to the truth (not in the retarded JP sense of the word, but in the actual sense of the word). Is it a scientific theory or what is it?

>>16196766
What group is cigbro a part of?

>>16194211
Watch his lectures, there he is giving you basically everything inside the book.

>>16196766
>doesn't drop the ciggy
Now son, that's a man who knows what's important in life.

>>16195689
What is your point?
Sexual Personae isn't worth reading either.

Yes, because its his scientific life's work, thats actually referenced, peer reviewed, and based off the works of other scientists (Jung, Piaget)

And it contains interesting concepts. Thats what Peterson produces when he puts effort into something. A bit contrast to all the epic political and self help commentary he makes up on the fly

>>16197400
>Psychology
>Science

>>16197400
>based off the works of other scientists (Jung, Piaget)

>>16196889
I wonder which side always covers there face and tries to tear down other peoples property

>>16197578
what are you puzzled about? use your words ret/a/rd

>>16197608
I know he's not Antifa, I was wondering if he was part of a specific group