/lit/ - Literature

why does he look like he got his head inside his ass?

>>18580721
Facts and Truth are not the same thing, retard.

Daily JP hate thread.

>>18580721
ALTERNATIVE FACTS

>>18580721
I think it's just the approach of behaviorism, that you should look at an individual's actions rather than trying to analyze their internal mental states or beliefs. There's a similar idea among PUA-type communities: look at what women do, not what they say.

Peterson takes it a step further and suggests you should apply this approach to yourself, i.e. something is true for you if you act as if it is true. Arguably this is a more materialistic approach.

>>18580748
i dont hate him i just think that if he had something to say he wouldn't try to force it on people by arguing on tv and such. there is a saying that goes: it doesn't matter what you believe in, if it doesn't make you happy you're wrong.

this guy isnt happy with anything other than his smug fucking face on tv. no, i dont like him, tell me one good reason why i should care what he has to say?

I read it in his voice.

>>18580765
You shouldn't but you seem to do it anyway.

>>18580777
i legit dont know a single thing he have said. also nice trips

I remember listening to some podcast where him and the host (think it was Sam Harris?) did nothing but argue over the definition of the word truth for like 2 hours. Most tedious shit I've ever heard.

>>18580730
Okay but JP claims facts aren't necessarily true.

>>18580721

A remarkable thing about Peterson is that he doesn't even have an undergraduate understanding of the many concepts he opines about. Hes clearly an intellectual fraud and charlatan.

Take 'truth' for example, he clearly knows little to nothing of Tarski's semantic theory of truth or logical theories, deflationism, realism, antirealism and relativism.

He has little to no knowledge of anything about pluralism, coherentism, functionalism, correspondence or pragmatism.

He might not even know anything about Nietzsche or Heideggers αλεθία.

>>18580757
Saying "facts don't have to be true therefore you cant prove im wrong" is not analysis

>makes nazis seethe
>makes commies seethe
>makes main stream media seethe
>makes SJWs seethe
>makes woke trannies seethe
>makes Canadian government seethe
>makes Twitter seethe
>every time he opens his mouth down lefty breadtuber has to make a 3 hour long character assassination video

And now…
>makes /lit seethe

All because he tries to help young men and incels.

How can one man be so based?

>>18580757
His"""pragmatic""" definition fails at the most basic of applications to the point where it's completely unusable outside of peterson's jerk off sessions.
>guy's wife cheats on him
>he gets shown photo of her and some other dude in bed
>he becomes depressed and kills himself
>therefore she didn't cheat on him
Do you see how fucking ridiculous this is?

>>18580721
There is no point. Are you not aware of this? The world ended after the invention of the microchip.

>>18580721
Why does he hate postmodernism so much? It's a pretty good description of the failure of enlightenment rationalism and predicted much of our modern problems. Should be appealing to conservatives who don't believe in absolute truth and have a pessimistic darwinian worldview.

>>18581016
See >>18580858

>>18580908
I don't understand. If he becomes depressed and kills himself, isn't that evidence that his wife cheated? Otherwise why did he kill himself?

>>18580721
*hits pipe*

>>18581029
Under normal logic you'd be correct but under petersontard logic he would have lived if it didn't happen so it didn't happen even if there is evidence that it did.
Like it was true that she was cheating up until he jumped off a bridge and then it became not true. Don't take it up with me, take it up with the tard in op's pic

>>18580721
JP is a postmodernist and follows in the footsteps of Derrida in reading attemps at finalized structural elaborations of existence, truth, reality, etc. as futile and the approach as fundamentally flawed. He's also closer to Zizek than most think. You have to realize his career is underpinned by academic work which as far as depth goes far exceeds what he's capable of communicating to the general public. The vast majority of people ITT have likely not engaged Peterson's work to a significant extent, by the way. (>>18580757) He's not a behaviourist. While prizing some of their insight detracts from them as "naïve". His episteme, if you'll permit me to interpret his work a fair bit, is closer to a pragmatist pluralism, as OP says, but it stops short from being a full blown philosophy when he uses it to argue for a heavily axiomatized worldview. From the outset excluding exaggregated readings like >>18580908. His lectures on Piaget would give an overview of what he means when he talks about how his idea of truth is close to 'what works'. It's important to understand it's a claim made in the context of the understanding of truth as having first and foremost a social, ethical, function (re: Nietzsche and the subsequent left-Nietzscheans). That what's discussed isn't its dry quality within the language of tautologies but the role it has in a subjective domain constrained by various material and psychological factors.

>>18580894
Based? More like a money grabbing hack, surprised the guy isn't jewish, seeing how much pseudo-intellextual crap he spouts daily and get's paid for it.

Read the classics, I still don't understand who needs Peterson or why. Read the Greeks.

>>18580847
my understanding of JBP is a combination of utilitarianism and perspectivism. He accepts what he calls the "post modern perspective" that there are an infinite number of factual perspectives. This is not to say anything can be made factual. 2 + 2 will never equal 5. But the privileging of any topic or subject is, according to JBP's view on pomo, subjective and hence the result of power politics.

JBP says that while this is true, there are only a handful of valuable perspectives among these. Perspectives that help us live our lives in accordance with some divine code found within our souls. The distinction between good and evil and committing ourselves to the Good.

I think he gets that moral aspect from Jung and the idea of a dragon slayer hero myth. The metaphorical hero must plumb the recesses of his mind and vanquish his psychopathologies and commit himself to the Good. And, according to JBP, this is the mode of being is true (albeit you are not factually killing dragons). The truth of the metaphor supercedes the facts of the matter.

Now you can argue with it and say "okay but how do you know that metaphor is the correct one" and desu I don't think JBP has to go any further. His message resonates with a lot of people for a reason. In the words of a Jungian, it's apart of our collective unconscious to try and nobilly emulate that dragon slayer metaphor.

>>18580894
He's pretty based, ngl.

>>18581131
this

>>18580765
Your critique of him is that he makes his message public? Even monks in monasteries do that.

>>18581144
Literally nothing to do with utilitarianism other than he directly opposes it. He doesn't give a shit about well being of others, only if they live or not, conditions irrelevant.

>>18581131
You cant just excuse retardation by claiming its "exaggerated" when that very question was asked and that's the fucking answer he gave

>>18581388
Where does he say this? I figured you were paraphrasing.

>>18581442
Sam Harris podcast, the first episode he's in.
Can't give you timestamp at the moment but it's somewhere between 50:00 and 1:10:00

>>18581442
>>18581461
To elaborate: Even if were to be paraphrasing it's still a practical demonstration of how he's full of shit.

>>18580765
If he had something to say he would not do it in media where the maximum number of people can hear what he has to say
You are literally a child. Go to your room.

>>18580730
This is correct, for example The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a factual document but it is true

>>18581477
>You are literally a child. Go to your room.
Uh anon you forgot to spread this piece of advice between two self-help books and charge a premium for it.

>>18580858
He has some interesting things to say about his field in the beginning phases of his fame and before, but since becoming one of the dreaded "public intellectuals" he is increasingly talking about things he has no clue about.

And this lack of insight into himself casts a lot of the stuff he said before in a new light as well.

>>18581132
Telling people offhand to "read the greeks" is not a productive route into the lives modern people.

>>18581103
LOL, where does he ever say anything like that? I'm sure you got a source!

>>18581500
See >>18581461
If you give me 2 hours I'll give you a link but I am at work at the moment

Doing "X" is the best way you could live your life, true or false?
Without seeing the rest of your life having practiced X and determining the desirability of that
life, you can't prove this statement to be true or false.
However, you can look at other people doing X, and you can estimate how X would impact your
life.
By doing this, you can estimate the costs and benefits of doing X and estimate the truthfulness
of the original statement.
It's basically just epistemological pragmatism

>>18581488
Doesn't change the fact that the idea that someone who has something to say would not do it on mass media, because to keep it real he'd only say it to a close circle of disciples or whatever, is fucking retarded. Like a child would think.

>>18581516
I did X in secret
Some dude nevertheless took a picture of me doing X without my knowledge.
He shows this to some girl, she doesn't like what she sees so much she kills herself.
Is the statement "I did X" true?

Petersontards will have a stroke answering this.

>>18581516
This is a way of assigning moral judgement to something that has NOTHING to do with epistemology.

We have a problem of language where there are maybe 5-10 concepts all being stuffed into the word "true/truth". You can't just show up to the argument and all caps TRUTH IS WHAT THIS GUY SAID IN 1900s. We need more words to encompass the thought region of what we broadly call "truth".

>makes a cringe thread

>>18581562
No, everyone knows what "x is true" means in any context that doesn't involve the pseud in the OP because he is poisoning the well so he can get away with fallacies.

>>18580721
Argumentation isn't necessarily about what's true, but about what's convincing. Peterson is terrible at rhetoric, but as a phenomenologist, he's not really trading in much empirical reality anyway.

>>18581586
Nobody says "x is true" and that is it. People make up "truths" by refering to anecdotal evidence. What then?

>>18581016
>Why does he hate postmodernism so much?
He's really just cashing in on previously extant hate and misunderstanding.

>>18581599
"the sky is blue" is shorthand for "the claim that the sky is blue is true"
Every time you ask someone for directions their reply has within it the implication that if you follow the directions, you will arrive where you want to, aka the claim that those directions will lead to the destination if followed is true.

>>18580748
he is a bit of a nonce, but the real question is why do people still obsess with him here, i thought he was off the map.

>>18581586
What if I say the truth is what propagates across time whereas that which does not is false.

>>18581461
>>18581468
I've listened to the relevant discourse. I'm wrong in calling your statements exaggregated. Embarrassingly it's the way you paint his personality that I find overblown. But for good reason, I hold. My claim regarding your viewpoint stands as far as I'm concerned. Your issue still isn't so much with Peterson but the post-Nietzschean conception of truth. I'll reiterate that the detour through the Nietzschean Weltanschauung confuses the notion of fact and truth (for Derrida the division between literature and speech), but with Peterson to the end of restoring their and their divisions' value. There's a lot of interesting post-structural discourse which you might want to delve into if you're interested in critiquing Peterson. Habermas and Zizek both critique the core of postmodernity from various angles.

>>18581626
this. talk about buttsalt.

>>18580894
The man enforces incel ideology

>>18581641
If you were to do that you'd be trying to redifine a very common word in the English language, probably to poison the well of discussion

>>18581655
He tells men to hate women? Where? I need to read this.

>>18581654
well maybe my claim to the word "truth" is stronger than yours.

>>18581665
Yeah if most people switched to that meaning "truth" overnight then I'd be the dickhead trying to confuse the listener, but that's not the case so it's just hijacking an existing word for malicious reasons.
If I were in a history discussion about Stalin and the other guy said 'stalin did this and that' and I say no he didn't (when he in fact did) and we go on like this do hours and then I relveal that actually I define "Stalin" as the chair I'm sitting on, I'd look like a retard for wasting everyone's time. Same is happening here.

>>18581701
So JP's maliciousness is proportional to the amount of people who agree with his definition. Judging by his success maybe he isn't such a bad guy then by your own logic?

>>18581641
then you'd have to address what factors make an idea propagate. You'd also have to reconcile your definition with how ideas can propagate for millenia and then die out depending on things like our scientific understanding, or how they jar with cultural norms. If a technological or cultural shift kills off an idea's ability to propagate, did the idea stop being true at some point? If contradictory ideas propagate equally well in radically different cultural contexts, are both equally true? Unless you're a complete relativist (kinda like the strawman postmodernists that peterson hates kek) it's a difficult circle to square.

>>18581729
You'd have to prove to me that most people use his definition of truth and not the one that's in every dictionary,good luck with that

>>18581645
You said "yes you're right" but then a bunch of verbal gonnorea

>>18580894
Too based for this world

>>18581792
Exactly, and isn't such a rich and nuanced landscape a more fitting environment for the word truth?

We have to look only as far as the natural world to see shapes and forms occupying some aspect of truth, and simultaneously denying pretenders. It's painstaking to observe every mechanism and edge case and yet there they are before our eyes.

We categorize endlessly because that categorization is useful (JP certified true) enough of the time. I suspect what we are seeing now with two grown men arguing the definition of a word, that our categorization of "truth" is no longer good enough.

>>18581874
I don't think you're a grown man, at best an overpromoted boy, and this isn't so much arguing as showing how full of shit you are.
Nice job dodging how that guy pointed out the many holes in what you're saying with "omg so much nuance"
Eat a dick

>>18580757
>There's a similar idea among PUA-type communities: look at what women do, not what they say
>Peterson takes it a step further and suggests you should apply this approach to yourself
Look at yourself as a woman?

>>18581833
Don't consider then if it's true for others, consider if it's true for yourself.

Does the word "truth" which western society has placed so high, conform to an axiomatic understanding by some handful of men.

I urge you to consider "truth" as something both higher, and lower than that. Lower in that it ties us to the beasts and animals, and the physical universe beneath that. Put simply it is evolution.

Put higher in that it contains axioms and is not engorged. Axioms written in the universal language of mathematics. An infinity within a finite space.

>>18580908
You don't even understand Peterson's definition of truth. His definition is a cope, but you are just wrong. Peterson considers "true" and "valid" to be the same thing, but the parameters of what should and should not be considered valid depend on the context. So let's take religion - we can say that it is incorrect, but it is an advantage from an evolutionary perspective. This means that religion is valid FOR THE PURPOSES OF PERPETUATING LIFE. This means that, in a sense, religion is true, even if you do not believe it is "factual".
Your dumb example seems to completely miss the point and is basically incoherent.

>>18581950
No it does not, it shows how ridiculous the idea is.
Guy sees the picture and kills himself,therefore his wife didn't cheat on him because the idea other having an affair wasn't"valid" for the purpose of his life? This is a very simple scenario and it shows that according to this guy an even can both occur and not occie depending on how someone reacts to it.

>>18581950
I agree that that anon's point is essentially drivel, but you're not really making Bret Weinstein's "metaphorical truths" argument, right? That would be silly (because it's a 'just so' story with minimal explanatory power).

>>18581988
How is it drivel?
Using JP's definition of truth, tell me if in that scenario the statement "the woman cheated" was true or not.

>>18580847
there's nothing wrong with this statement.

>>18580858
You should see him talk about history lmao like he claimed Christians never fought between each other until the enlightment but Muslims constantly did lmao

>>18581969
No, you are just mentally impaired, anon. I think the point which you meant to make, but failed to, is that if the guy delusionally rejects all evidence that his wife has cheated on him - even when it is obvious that she has, and he knows that she has - then that is "true" (aka valid) because it keeps him alive. But then we have to get down to the specifics. In what way would this be "true" (aka valid)? It would be valid in the sense that delusion becomes a valid evolutionary/survival strategy. Which is true. If you die, then you can't perpetuate yourself or your line anymore. There is nothing incorrect about this view. It fulfils its own criteria. If we are talking about objective reality - whether the wife cheated or not - then it is NOT true, because she has, in fact, cheated. Questions of validity depend on the context. In other words, from Peterson's perspective, the statement that the wife has NOT cheated would be INVALID, since it is incorrect. But if the husband is delusional, then Peterson would say that his delusion is valid within the context of self-preservation, because it is keeping him alive, which is the ultimate goal from an evopsych perspective. This does not in any way imply that cheating has not occurred. Do you understand now?
>>18581988
No idea anon, I don't know anything about Bret Weinstein. I gave an example of what I think the anon was trying to say above. You can read it and tell me what you think, if you would like.

>>18580721
Why are you all talking about this pseud in anything other than mockery terms?

>>18582025
I understand that you are coping with a completely bonkers definition.
So for me to say it's not true would be incorrect, but for the husband it would be. So it would both be true and not be true at the same time depending on who's being asked, even though we are talking about the same event. Contradiction. Ridiculous.

>>18582040
You do realize that we're not all the same person, right? Do you believe that a relationship is a precondition for expectancy models (think calibration), or the inverse?

>>18582025
Yeah so you *are* saying that under this definition it's possible for an event to both occur and the statement "this event occurred" to not be true.
Do you not see why someone might object to this?

>>18582065
I like to think that my grasp on the English language is pretty good but in this instance I'm at a loss.

>>18582025
Weinstein is/was a Peterson orbiter.
https://medium.com/@pratikstephen/metaphorical-truths-cf194ba57a50

>>18581874
>Exactly, and isn't such a rich and nuanced landscape a more fitting environment for the word truth?

no, because when you do consider those questions your conception of 'truth' becomes more vague and contradictory. If mutually exclusive premises can both quality as 'true' under your definition then that isn't nuanced, it's meaningless. Ideas propagate the same way organisms do, by being the 'fittest', with 'fittest' in this context meaning the best adapted for their environment, and their environments in this context being the minds of the humans who hold those ideas. So the 'fittest' ideas are the ones that are easy to grasp, intuitive, fit in with cultural norms, or satiate some human desire. None of those qualities require an idea to be 'true', as plenty of patently false ideas can tick all of those boxes. For example geocentrism was propogated for millenia, until around the 16th century when heliocentrism took over. Was geocentrism true and heliocentrism untrue until the 16th century? Except that you had some ancient cultures that believed in heliocentrism, like the ancient greeks. Or was it true in ancient times that the sun revolved around the earth, except for the greek city states which orbited the sun?

>>18582092
See >>18582025

Just replace the marriage bullshit with the earth bullshit

>>18582040
You still do not understand. So long as we are talking about OBJECTIVE FACT - i.e. about whether the wife has cheated or not, then we have to conclude that SHE HAS CHEATED IN ALL CASES. She is, objectively, a cheater. In the context of what actually happened, regardless from what perspective you look at it, the statement "the wife is a cheater" is TRUE. The objective reality does not change. However, the fact that the husband's delusional denial keeps him alive IS ALSO OBJECTIVE REALITY. He is in denial and this denial is, objectively, saving his life. He is objectively wrong that his wife is not a cheater. But at the same time, his delusional insistence would be keeping him alive. Which means that this same delusional insistence is objectively perpetuating his life, which means that this delusion is "valid" from an evopsych perspective, since it is an adaptive strategy that ensures the organism does not perish and can continue to perpetuate itself. The husband is still WRONG to think that his wife doesn't cheat. However, because he is wrong, he lives, which satisfies the criteria of self-perpetuation. Which makes this a "valid" approach to life, because he continues to live instead of dying. I can't make this any clearer, anon.
>>18582070
It's not quite like that. What you would consider "objective reality" remains unchanged in all cases, Peterson simply also makes room for the personal factor which is generally completely neglected. But yes. I myself am no fan of this specific definition, I think the Pragmatists are a Yank cope designed to perpetuate the collapsing liberal framework. However, if you have a brain and take your time to look through the material you are engaging with, it is not a complicated thing to wrap your head around at all.

>>18582130
I understand everything you are saying but I am still calling this horseshit because just because he has an UNTRUE belief about something and that belief is benefiting him in some way that belief is still NOT TRUE no matter how beneficial it is. ACCORDING TO JORDAN PETERSON HIMSELF THIS IS NOT THE CASE
ACCORDING TO HIM, BECAUSE THE FALSE BELIEF THAT THE WIFE ISN'T CHEATING BENEFITS HIM, THAT MAKES IT TRUE. EVEN THOUGH BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION IT ISN'T.
Again im not asking you to explain, I understand completely, but this still shows how ridiculous the premise here is.

>>18582164
>that belief is still NOT TRUE
Think about the context.
If the goal is to keep you self-perpetuating (evopsych perspective) and a delusional belief is the only thing that enables you to self-perpetuate, is that belief not valid? How could it possibly not be valid? It is valid. Peterson's definition is both consistent and sensible. I do not agree with it, but it makes sense and is functional.

>>18582065
>>18582083
I'm asking if you think behavior is modulated by aggregate consequences (which convey probabilistic information for expectancy, i.e. action outcomes)? The arguments I'm seeing seem to be about propositional knowledge, so I need to know if you actually think inference or evidence should alter belief-based contingencies. This is one of Peterson's psych schema (predicated on Piaget, Gibson, Vygotsky, etc). If you don't understand what I'm asking you, than you probably need to read more. I don't like Peterson, since he generates intrigue by obfuscating the obvious, but his "model" isn't a kludge.

>>18582218
It might be beneficial for you to hold but this is entirely independent of how true something is.

If we have to make the distinction between "objective truth" and "my own truth which is only true for me and has no relation to the first one" then there is absolutely no point in using the same word for both, other than to confuse people or do make it harder to understand what you're saying, which is exactly what peterson is doing here.

>>18581495
It is though.

>>18582110
similar but not quite the same, as there's a difference between propagation of an idea and the survival utility of an idea.

>>18581132
>Read the classics, I still don't understand who needs Peterson or why. Read the Greeks.
care to elaborate? it looks like you're making some kind of connection between the peterson and classics and/or peterson and greeks

>>18582370
I think he's saying nobody needs to be helped by Peterson since they can just "start with the Greeks." That's retarded, of course, since people don't read. That's why Peterson is popular.

>>18582444
how can the greeks help the people peterson is helping?

>>18582318
Not that guy but very few people can actually do this.

>>18582460
Well, he also said read the classics, which would include things like Dostoyevsky and the Bible.

Does Peterson even believe in objective truth, every time he speaks about it he sounds like Rorty-lite
Probably he hasn't thought about it in depth

>>18582362
>>18582318
I am >>18581516 and this is my 2nd post. Like I was saying, he's basically using the pragmatism type of epistemology, where a thought is true if it is the most useful as a tool. You're disagreeing because you are approaching "truth" differently from him, and you'll never agree unless you agree on which system of epistemology to use. He's not making up his own definition of truth. He's using a definition of truth from a long while ago.
Is eating pork a terribly evil deed? Probably not, but believing it is will make you survive before the world learns about parasites and the temperature needed to kill them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
"Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality."

>>18582558
He's a psychologist (think what you will), not a philosopher, no matter the references he likes to pepper throughout his works. See >>18582309

>>18582584
So what, I am talking about his philosophical views, which seem to be unsound

>>18582602
Any philosophical content would be grounded in his fieldwork (clinical psychology) - that's pretty relevant to understanding >>18582580 - don't you think?

>>18582623
It is not. A theory of truth is part of epistemology, and can be critically assessed in its own merits independently of the author's views on other subjects like clinical psychology.

>>18582667
That wasn't my assertion.

>>18581655
Ah yes, telling people that they are responsible for their own happiness and wellbeing is incel ideology
Tranny hands typed this

Is most of modern philosophy even true? How can you prove that a statement is true? Can we escape relativism (math did it, and so did the natural sciences)?

>>18582703
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

>>18582580
It's not at all pragmatic to use a definition that's unusable in 99% of scenarios when we have one that works for 99% of them instead
Based on jp's definition you cannot know if something is true or not until the last of humanity goes extinct because the sky being blue might make someone die which would make it not true..

>>18580721

don't understand why he doesn't just attack the value of truth instead of redefining truth

>>18582780
There are plenty of examples of him using a more objective definition of truth, with him saying he "acts as if God exists" when asked if he believes God exists.
Science is inherently processed through our finite and subjective methods of receiving, storing, and processing information.
Even though any belief of ours is inherently subjective, we can get "close enough" to objective truth through logic, shared experience, and replication of carefully controlled studies.
Refusing to call the sky blue because a person might die from it is like refusing to say gravity exists because we haven't tested the existence of gravity at every X, Y, and Z coordinate at every point in time that has ever existed.
Gravity and the sky being blue is close enough to being true.

>>18582713
I know that we cant start from nothing and even math has different types of geometries which come from different assumptions.

But, if we try to be as strict as possible and use only things that seem reasonable at the start (like math and natural sciences) we should be able to arrive at certain truths, even if they have presumptions, and derive "truth" from that. I know Descartes tried to do this, but I dont know much about it.

>>18582849
You're talking to me as if I agree with the con artist
He's full of shit and all this wankfest serves is for him to be able to say something is true but then not back it up. That's it.

>>18581144
Good analysis

>>18581372
> literally

>>18580721
I hate this smug, greasy cocksucker and I don't even really know why..

>>18581035
Somebody post that copypasta of raising a daughter just to be a cum dumpster for other men copypasta read in JPs voice.

Funniest shit I've heard in a while.

>>18581144
Mate, your privilege is showing: deux et deux font cinq
>The narrow-minded pedant still believes that two and two make four! (Princess Ida, 1884)
https://meaww.com/brooklyn-new-york-college-professor-says-purity-math-reeks-of-white-supremacist-patriarchy

>>18582952
I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for the men that will eventually fuck her in every hole. Raised the perfect girl? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man who had nothing to do with the way she grew up, who marries her. He gets to fuck her tight pussy every night. He gets the benefits of her kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised her. As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically.

>>18582980
forgot to link this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-cjd5cdIU

>>18580721
I had a friend try to lecture me how truths were subjective. It was clear he had just listened to some peterson lecture and had an elementary grip on the idea.

>>18582580
I'm aware it has its own background as a definition of truth. Still doesn't make it a good definition, and doesn't justify why it should use the name of 'truth'. If there's a class of beliefs the adoption of which brings survival utility that's fine, referring to such ideas as 'true' just opens the door to obfuscation and doubletalk, when you're really talking about the usefulness or durability of said ideas. Kind of like Lindy but not quite.

>Do you believe in God, Jordan?
>It would take me DAYS to properly answer that
holy shit this guy's deep

>>18581537
What worthwhile things does peterson have to say outside of the public eye? His entire life revolves around publicity.
Where is this secret group of peterson initiates? Fucking clown.

>>18582370
Theres as much a connection between the Greeks and Peterson as there is the Greeks and The Subtle Art of Not Giving A Fuck.
The Greeks are immensely more worthwhile, even from a self help perspective.
More wisdom in the first 12 lines of Sentences of Sextus than there is in all chapters of Petersons blog post turned book.

>>18583148
Its a yes or no answer, lmfao. Peter Griffinson is gonna burn in hell.

>>18582986
BASED anon

>>18582980
>That blogpost

I haven't cringed that hard in quite a while. Damn near broke my fucking back.

>>18583148
That means no.

all "philosophers" run into these types of problems because they're expressing positions through language
arguing philosophy is like arguing identity is like arguing direction
just act bro. these guys are all engaging in verbal hypnosis, conscious or not

>>18580847
That is a true statement.

>>18580721
There is no such thing as truth. I think Peterson is cool for actually having the balls to take Nietzsche's advice and transvalue the value of truth.

>>18583279
Totally. The bourgeois idealism of great man theory applied to the Nove-Millar debate is a perfect example of the failure of vanguardism.

>>18582980
> that filename
his daughter dressing up as a sexy lobster never gets old

>>18580782
>listening to Sam Harris was tedious
whoa... who would have thought?!

>>18580757
Look at what
>I think it's just the approach of behaviorism, that you should look at an individual's actions rather than trying to analyze their internal mental states or beliefs. There's a similar idea among PUA-type communities: look at what women do, not what they say.
I'd love to see your Youtube homepage

>>18582780
go open a history of philosophy book and learn what pragmatism is

>>18584847
I know what pragmatism is, I'm saying his definition is completely fucking useless as a tool because according to him we can't ever know if something is true or not until we know every consequence it has on the lifespan of every human.
Weather something is beneficial or not has no bearing on if something is true or not,it may be beneficial for me to think I'm a reincarnation of napoleon because if helps with self-esteem but that doesn't mean it's true.

The only reason he started this circus is so he can say shit like "Christianity is true" with a straight face, because if we accept this definition of the word "true" then there is no way to call him out on making non-sequiturs.

>>18580721
Am sorry. Literally who?

>>18584896
Cult leader, ignore.

>>18584889
This is how pragmatists approach religious beliefs, see what William James does in The Varietes of Religious Experience. Their only interest is the benefit it brings to the believer.

>>18584889
"calling people out" on what they say being false, is neither here nor there to someone offering you spiritual advice. peterson is a stranger offering you such advice, and the only rejection which is rightfully available to you, is to just ignore him. instead you are laughably focused on somehow responding to a random stranger on the internet

>>18580858
Having a degree or reading a book doesn't mean you understood anything about either or even that you're intelligent. As your post strongly suggests, you're an over socialized idiot who hides behind 'authority'.

>>18582024
This is a blatant lie.

>>18585011
Okay,and just because (if) a delusion is useful does not mean that it's somehow true.
Two people can have contradictory delusions that can't both be true yet they're equally beneficial.

>>18585027
>This is a blatant lie.
It was in a Q&A session with some german sounding dude over skype

>>18585020
He's offering "advice" under false pretenses. I offer you a pill and say it will cure your bowel infection, you are right to question my intentions and credentials.

>>18581487
Fuck off schizo

>>18585037
The pretense is that he is an elderly Canadian drug addict who makes self-help videos. Since I don't know him, and he doesn't know me, he has never suggested that he can do anything for me (very convenient, since I don't watch his videos, because I'm not a seething vegan antidepressant addict/neckbearded american retard)

>>18585032
>fails to post the evidence two times now
One doesn't even wonder why you need to lie, you're an ideological janny, you do it for free.

>>18585070
Probably haven't even read it

>>18585028
the consequences of an idea are the only criteria of truth for pragmatists
if you want to go against this you must know their arguments and answer properly and not just "no u"

>>18580721
Troll bait smells like shit

>>18581626
>but the real question is why do people still obsess with him here
Because of people like OP who bring him up.
Trannies also seethe about him

>>18580748
Marxists/leftists can't stand that he's as big as he is. Because he is the anti of where they stand. For some reason we live in a shitty time where it's seen to be bad to live up to higher ideals, and appeal to men. They hate that JP resonates with so many, so much that they unironically try labeling him a nazi or like-nazi. The fact that they even have the audacity to do that really helps show how crazy the times we live in are. Then you have the religious people who dislike him for not having a more literal interpretation of the Bible. He probably wouldn't have been well received a couple decades ago either. But there's nothing anyone can do except jump for joy and talk shit about his struggles. Complete cowards.

>>18582328
No. The Greek civilization fell apart and was easily conquered because of how separate the intellectuals were from society and how looked down upon it was to see yourself as an individual who strives for personal perfection while embracing and enhancing those around you. Women were literally not even included and even despised by many Greek philosophers, causing a segregation that made the sexes hate eachother. Objective thoughts from the Greeks also subjugated entire classes of people just to serve their higher ups, because they were "too good" to actually do manual labor themselves. Fuck most Greek philosophers, fuck most later German philosophers, and fuck Roman philosophers too.

>>18585278
Nazi and racist are these no no words no one wants to be labelled, which cause people to go way out of their way to dissociate from behavior that indicates Nazi or racist.
So then it becomes a game of weaving narrative where any behavior someone doesn't like is deemed Nazi or racist as a means to further their own cause

It's gotten to the point where you aren't allowed to criticize the behavior of people without it making it's way back to racism.
A lot of the racism/anti black labels that get thrown out when people criticize the character of others end up then intrinsically defining black as these certain characteristics.
It then normalizes those characteristics, regardless of racial connotations, and people can no longer criticize certain character traits without default being labelled racist. So destructive character attributes then become the norm.

So many people also validate their addictions this way.
I'm not going to trash on an obese person by any means, and I think things like weight can have a broader scale (heh) then our recent beauty standards allowed for, but anything can go too far.
Now what we have is people embracing not the human as being human. Treating them like a human. But we have someone being validated as obese as if this is their identity or is who they are. Beyond that we celebrate this obesity and thus normalize/standardize it and invite others to join.
All this because people struggle with leaving their addictions. You can take the same commentary I wrote about obesity here and apply it to most any addiction.

I'm not blaming people, addiction is usually coping mechanism coupled with being stuck or stagnant in life.
I still accept people as human and I think indulging in fruits is fine but they will always turn to poison when you binge and so many get lost there. Standardizing that isn't the answer.
Much the same that tolerating all behavior is not the answer.
I don't think people realize the implications of saying if you don't like X Or Y behavior you're a racist and/or a nazi... People will eventually accept ...

>>18580894
this

>>18580721
>Tries to redefine what "true" means
Oh, yeah. It's not like any major philosophers have ever done that. Nope. Never. Never happened. It's not like that's an ongoing discussion that's still happening in philosophy publications today. Nope. Not at all.
Jesus fucking christ you uncultured swine.

>>18585499
they actually won't accept unless they are very dull, because the meaning (not the language, which is only a framework and map for meaning) behind saying someone is a racist nazi is that they are evil and deserve to be destroyed. I'll pass on that one.

>>18585585
What I'm saying is there's only so far people are willing to sacrifice their identities in the face of the stretches made to equate something to Nazism or racism, especially as many people don't feel any sort of alignment with new age identities springing up

>>18585585
And by accept I don't mean they will brandish a swastika
I mean they will no longer fight the labels of others who will treat them a certain way with threats and aggression, further distancing. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

>>18585091
Probably haven't even tried thinking for yourself

>>18581132
>Read this, read that

>>18580894
He based

>>18585666
>criticizes something without having read it because the (((authorities))) told him it was wrongthink
>believes he is thinking for himself

>>18581562
perhaps an alternative is to start using a combination of words. like if i were to rewrite that sentance as
>perhaps an alternative/evolution is to start using a combination/dual-emotive of words
it was a weirdly ingenious part of the game Control, imo. there's a character that when it talks uses '/' paired with two words to more accurately define the feeling they're trying to convey. so perhaps
>truth/idealist
>truth/objective
>truth/imperative/decided

>>18580748
peterson appeals to people who have never learned to doubt the status quo, like peterson. guaranteed the only book peterson has read on pomo/socialism is stephen hicks self-published garbage. peterson is just tony robbins with a psych degree.

>>18583160
>Where is this secret group of peterson initiates?
You seem to be misunderstanding the post you're replying to. Read it once or twice more, slower.

>>18584889
>Weather something is beneficial or not has no bearing on if something is true
Read Nietzsche

>>18580765
Happiness is for children

>>18581495
it is when people are reading Peterson without ever having read the greeks

>>18581488
how braindead do you have to be to literally know nothing about someone or their message and argue solely from the position of a meme you heard lmfao

>>18585921
Cool/interesting idea/concept, you faggot/nigger

>>18584240
What is an example of an untrue fact?

>>18585999

In his debate with Zizek, the world's most prominent marxist intellectual, he prepared for the debate by reading the communist manifesto.

>>18580894
This

>>18581016
Because postmodernism itself is fucking self refuting, most especially when it delves into morality and truth. Anyone who subscribes to its ideas has lot of missing screws up there.

>>18580721
For all the hate /lit/ brainlets give to King Lobster, they can’t stop talking and seething about him. Just look at this and the past 200+ JP hate threads.

Thanks for the publicity, dumbasses.

>>18587337
Bruh...

Relevant for antipostmodernfags
https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4

>>18586602
Amazed he hadn't read it before that. It's a pamphlet, you can read it over lunch

>>18586602
zizek is even more of a hack than peterson

>>18580757
>There's a similar idea among PUA-type communities