/lit/ - Literature

>>23671937
I haven't watched any of his videos. I read his book out of curiosity and it seemed like your standard materialism, not explicitly reductionist but tending that way. So you have all the normal undermining or practical reason (whose target is the good) and aesthetic reason (whose target is beauty), with everything boiled down to a sort of aimless pragmatism.

For instance, the stuff about the lobsters. What is truly good? Apparently having access to lots of mates because that's what evolutionary success dictates. It's ultimately nihilistic then.

To be honest, I was hoping based on how people talked about him that he might be introducing young men to the classical tradition (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the Philokalia , etc.) as CS Lewis did earlier. But instead it's just this sort of sleep walking materialism blended with bland ideas of wellness and utility.

>>23671937
Hypocrisy, grifting, pseudism

Atheism: Peterson idolizes free market enterprise, while from a country with a very robust state sponsored welfare system and schooling system, which paid his salary. He obsesses over traditional values such as dignity and stoicism, while being a nervous wreck over the smallest things, such as having to delete a tweet.
Jordan Peterson is the right wing zeitgeist. A permanently triggered manchild who complains constantly how immature the dreaded esjaydubblejoes are.

Inane Culture War Grift.

i would call the core of his thought classical liberalism through jung.
>>23671958
>>23671980
these are accurate descriptors of the individual but not his school of thinking

>>23671937
judaism

>>23671937
It's a brand of brainwashed retard. A unique flavor with some genuinely gaudy suits. What do you think Russian doctors can unironically do about an addict that Western doctors can't?

>>23671937
Crypto-Judiasm. Picrel outlines the process by which it happened. This was published in 1948.

>>23671969
The right has genuinely valuable things to offer. C.S. Lewis, D.C. Schindler (still fairly young), Ferdinand Ulrich, Alsdair MacIntyre, Robert Sokolowski, etc. They have serious answers to the crisis of values, serious things to say on education, real rebuttals to post modernism.

Peterson meanwhile is basically a symptom of the rights turn away from the classical tradition and towards its own form of post modernism and moral nihilism.

Walmart brand Jungianism (which is itself Walmart brand Freudianism)

>>23671937
The "cultural Christianity," thing is bizarre. Reason without the Logos. Seeking goodness without the Good. Guilt without any real concept of goodness or sin. Just vague utilitarianism. And then "self-improovement" and the chasing of status and consoomption, instead of a focus on asceticism as an actual route to freedom and self-actualizing.

>>23671937
Zizek mogs peterson

>>23672129
How can you mandate actual belief when there is none or were it has collapsed? The only logical conclusion is the realization that there will be an increasing number of Cultural-Christians until a new faith (likely Islam) fills the void.

The other, less realized opinion, is the Evola/Nietzsche means of transvaluation and the forging of a system of values that incorperate a Godhead that unites secular concepts with transcendant ideals. Christianity can not do this because its theology places all as equal when we can not be. Without exclusivity there is no worth, thus it can not last.

>>23671937
Being a total retard crybaby? He reminds me of Holden Caulfield with his cringe gay lines about wanting to save the next generation of men.

>>23672129
I just read the image, this is part of what is mentioned here >>23672297 but again it assumes everybody, or at least a sizeable plurality can achieve such a state. This is as false as the notion that freedom is freedom to indulge.

>>23672150
> a literal marxist
I didn’t even watch the debate but I can’t even imagine how anyone could take a self described marxist seriously

>>23671937
Noahidism

>>23671937
Good grief. Could any of the commenters in this thread be further up their own asses? Lmao. JP isn’t that bad. He’s just a dork with some ideas that work.

>>23671937
Midwit Jung: The Disney Musical (Christian Version)

>>23672516
his ideas don't even need to work; but i agree, the man (was) in his zone.

>>23672516
>JP isn’t that bad
Let's see
>trumptard
>radicalized new wave of nazis
>conspiracytard
>validates and reinforces incels mindset
>dehumanizes transfolk
>christcuck
>shills for war in israel
>gay
>pro russia
>daughter got blacked

Pretty fuckin terrible if you ask me.

>>23672652
but i like that he's dug out some new-age niche that we can use to (vaguely) categorize these people

>>23672655
what i mean is, you see how it validates this group and work in reverse.
and like most philosophy that involves metaphysics, these are not fully baked ideas, and it's fun to see how people identify with it all

>>23672577
Why does he not mention that Jung said, thought and believed that Afolf Hitler was the embodiment of the Aryan Heroic ideal of Germany?

>>23672504
Many people are Marxist in some small degree. Even if the person in question thinks all people deserve or are equal in some way. Marx did not originate this idea but he certainly popularized it. Now it is present in every aspect of our discourse.

>>23672678
>marxism = equality
we're about critiquing capitalism, not setting up an alternative or utopia you fucking mongrel

>>23672682
Read your own literature you dumb fuck.

>>23672682
You spout what you think it is about. Like a fucking retard who scans a wikipedia page rather than reading sources.

>>23672682
Marxists are the most ignorant fucking retards.

>>23672694
>>23672701
This is a prediction moron, not a call to action.

>>23672704
>that highlighted quote
fuckin based

>>23671937
How anyone takes either of these people seriously is beyond me, zoomers truly are lost.
>>23672652
Weak bait but made me reply so there's that

Benzodianism

>>23672060 What book is this?

>>23671937
It's just portions from Jung, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and whoever else, but mainly Jung.

>>23671993
kek, beat me to it

>>23672800
Imperium, by Francis Yockey. In it he takes great influence from Spengler, Schmitt and Carlyle. A very accurate and pertinent read.

>>23672297
>Without exclusivity there is no worth, thus it can not last.

Meaningless assertion from a guy who thinks of Evola as a real philosopher. Unsurprising.

>>23671937
Christianity for conservative-leaning American atheists

>>23672953
Why is it meaningless? If we are all X, or equally worthy of X, where is the worth and value? Why try for something more?

Exclusivity is the root of value.

>free speech
he is famously against free speech, especially with the whole Israel thing

>>23671937


WHAT PHILOSOPHY? HE IS A SOPHIST.

>>23671937
>canadian
Is that supposed to be good

>>23671937
Chathiest
>god isn’t real, but you have to do the masochistic and bigoted parts of the Bible, because you just do ok, but not the socialist parts, because um if you do then sodom which didn’t really happen will happen again

>>23671993
this

>>23673005
This is at best question begging, but also seems circular and vacuous.

>Where does goodness come from? Why are some things better than others and some people better than others?
>"Oh, it must definetly come from some people being better then others. And if you're better than someone else that's what makes you better."

This is simply tautological and says nothing. Of course better is better. In virtue of what is one man better than another though?

Because they make more money? Because they have a more Nietzschean attitude? Because they are more loving? Because they goon more? Because they weigh more?

By what metric are you ranking people? If people "create their own good," and freedom is "whatever you choose bro," then determining who is "better" is essentially arbitrary. Is it just whoever can win a fight? But then all men age and all men sleep and can be deceived, so it seems like value just slips around wildly as one person rides and another falls.

The thing is, any measure of goodness is still arbitrary and all action vacuous if you deny any real being to the target of practical reason. And "all good is le relative" leads to being forced to say dumb shit like "Michael Jordan was a good basketball player is a proposition with no truth value because basketball is le artificial social construct," which is nonsense. Social constructs aren't arbitrary anyhow.

>>23671937
"Getting paid" -ism

>>23674265
Nta, but what are you arguing in opposition? That an objective Good exists?

>>23671937
jewery

>>23674309
The term "objective Good," is so loaded as to be useless. When people use the term "objective" they often mean something like "existing in the object itself, as a Lockean 'primary quality'" or they use objective as a synonym for noumenal. Plato and St. Augustine speak of what is "good for its own sake," but this is hardly what they mean and calling Plato and advocate of "objective Good," leads to all sorts of confusion. The modern mind thinks this must mean Goodness must exist divorced from culture and that there must be some sort of mathematically quantifiable goodness points that sit inside things themselves.

Well is a sunrise good? It's good for plants who need the sun to produce carbohydrates. It's good for the man who has been lost in the dark. It's clearly bad for the man who is in the desert without water, who will soon die as the heat rises from the sun. But there is no great problem here—the world of becoming is based on relations. Things are defined by their relations.

Likewise, the human good is always filtered through culture. Culture changes what is good. This doesn't mean that the good becomes arbitrary because culture itself is not arbitrary. The ideal that "social = illusory," is easily refuted. Social practices don't spring from the aether uncaused, they have to do with the way the world is, the way being is (including th Good) and the way human nature is.

>>23674369
Yeah but that's just interdependence. When people say "arbitrary," some of them are pointing to relativism, but not everyone who uses the term means that. It's more like, pointing out the lack of objectivity in Good, in order to remind themselves of interdependence.
It's still arbitrary though. I agree that social doesn't mean illusory, but nobody is arguing that it does mean that. They're arguing that it's constructed and therefore flexible/malleable. Not sacrosanct

>>23674369
One might as well argue that because different cultures long disagreed if the sun rotated around the Earth or vice versa there can be no truth of the matter. Or that because truths about the Earth's rotation are couched in human language and social practice they are ultimately arbitrary. They aren't.

And again, the denial of practical good results in having to say all sorts of ridiculous shit like "it is not true that Usain Bolt was a good runner, there can be no truth about goodness," or "there was no truth about what made a good monk in the Middle Ages or a good knight." Of course there was. These were objective in the way the rules of chess are objective. They are accessible to all human minds. Are the rules of chess totally subjective because they are part of culture?

Every mentally competent adult in the community knew what was meant by a "chivalrous knight," even if the standard was hard to actually live up to. And chivalry did not leap from the aether uncaused with no relation to a human good that sits prior to it.

>>23674379
Is it infinitely flexible? Is it affected by nothing outside culture? Is it culture and games "all the way down,' with absolutely no relation to how the world is, nature, human biology, physics, logic?

It seems very hard to make this case.

>>23672063
>Peterson meanwhile is basically a symptom of the rights turn away from the classical tradition and towards its own form of post modernism and moral nihilism.
Nailed it, an excellent summary of everything wrong with the modern right,

>>23674379
Also, the classical tradition—Plato, Augustine, Thomas—knew that different cultures had different standards and norms. Plato discusses diverging attitudes on homosexuality at length. The idea that they argue for some sort of "sacrosanct" norms is a strawman. They argue for things that are unchanging that sit behind and are filtered through social norms.

Even a materialist can see they are right though. The laws of physics shape what we see as good for instance and stay constant as culture changes.

>>23674383
>is it infinitely flexible?
By definition, yes. The Infinite is infinitely flexible, yes. Contingencies exist and interrelations exist because of interdependence and dependent origination. On a long enough timescale (forever and never are infinitely long timescales) then yes, all these things are infinitely flexible.
You say, things are what they are because of how things are. You realize that's what you're saying? Im not sure that you do. I agree with it, but so what? Thats the part I disagree with.
Things have been, and thus, things are. How will things be? It entirely depends upon how I feel and how everyone else feels, and how that all winds up interrelating. How will it wind up interrelating? No one knows. Could it all be some big plan or engine being driven by the Good? Maybe, but now who's engaging in tautalogies, hm?

>>23674392
The laws of physics are as subject to change as anything else in this speck of Infinity. They're not really Laws at all. They're contingent upon regularity, which is itself an illusion. Unless, of course, one defines regularity, as impermanence. That would be correct, but it would also refute any notion of "laws."

>>23674398
Sure, laws aren't like magical police men who scoot the planets into their proper orbits as Hume would have it. They are our descriptions, often approximate (Cartright, Hegel) of regularities.

However, obviously the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Newton's Laws aren't changing and evolving the way social strictures are and they obviously causally affect how social strictures develop and sit prior to them. Unless your point is to claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Boyel's Law didn't hold 2,000 years ago, or that there is no causality at all.

>>23674265
Nothing you said contradicts, or comes close to, the idea that value and worth is found in exclusivity. Goodness and goodly behavior is not what is meant. These are empty of worth, virtue and any spiritual meanining.

>>23674407
The laws of physics don't shape any such thing. Rather, it seems you believe government brainwashing centers is a good.

>>23674539
Nta but you're just a dumb fucking American aren't you?

>>23671937
Griftism

>>23672129
Does this guy think that the virtuous man didn't decide his own good or something? lol

>>23671937
I think it's very sad that Jordan Peterson succumbed to what he taught to avoid. He had a very good engaging style and put forth decent values that lots of society had abandoned. That alone is a decent point to make, and if he had focused on that, then I think he would have been okay. Unfortunately, his popularity got to him and he began to engage in politics and gravitate more towards the right. Don't get me wrong. I'm typically right leaning, But my point is, he originally didn't really associate with either side. And because he started to associate more with the right, he started to associate more with Christianity. But then he started interpreting it in this weird, unique way that doesn't really lend any applicability to the religion itself. It's sort of like he was transforming Christianity through a foreign philosophy and then trying to apply it backwards to the values that he feels society had lost. It was this very, very strange conglomeration of ideas that didn't really work if you knew either philosophy or theology. In any case, he started getting really, really into politics, which is fine. It's just not really what he originally was. And when you start out with sort of a pure, logical person who's focused on values and philosophy, and you see them turn into an adherent of political structures/discussions. It's just sort of sad to see what you've lost when someone sort of gives in to their popularity and runs with it.

>>23674457
Another blank assertion with no argument.

What makes exclusivity good? What sort of exclusivity? Some people goon more than others. Is superiority in masturbation the metric by which man should be judged? Some are more pious. There is exclusivity in piety. Does this make it equivalent with value?

Exclusivity itself says nothing because of course men vary in all manner of things and are unequal in all manner or things. Presumably, you assume that there is some particular sort of thing that is valuable, not just that "whoever takes the biggest shits is the best man by virtue that no one else can match the volume of his gigantic donkey dumps." And yet is this man not exclusively the biggest shitter among men? Surely he is.

But what then can you offer in support of your standard once you deny the Good any true being?

>>23674602
>decent values that lots of society had abandoned.
He never put forward any values, just actions. It was not until he was Post-Op that he went full crpyto-like. His encouragement and support of young men was of immense help, but that help was only conditional on said individual upholding the liberal hegemony.

Peterson's insistance on White European males not associating by shared ethnic, cultural, political and spiritual ties was the final nail in the coffin. Out of one side of his mouth he condemns it, on the other he actively encourages jews to do so. He even goes as far to say that you too should encourage and support jews.

>picrel sums it up perfectly.

>>23674539
>Belief in thermodynamics is government propaganda.
I see, it's another pseud gets called out and defaults to schizo posting so as to be ironical episode.

>>23674618
>He never put forward any values, just actions
That's fair. I still think my observation of him devolving into his own ego and bevaoming overtly more political than philosophical is accurate though

>>23674616
Fucking hell.

>>23674588
The wise man gains knowledge of the good. At least this is how it is framed for most of the history of Western philosophy (and ancient Indian and Chinese philosophy actually isn't that far away on this respect). Not all beliefs about what is good are equal.

The virtuous man is not necessarily wise since there are many virtues, although prudence is required to prefect any of the virtues. But Aristotle allows that some people have a natural talent for the virtues (literally "excellences") such that some are naturally brave (as opposed to cowardly or rash) and some are naturally friendly (as opposed to being irritable or too obsequious), etc. Yet the virtues can also be trained and educated.

One no more "decides" the Good than one can "decide" that having rectal cancer is good and that health is bad. Likewise, that we prefer truth to falsity is not something we decide, nor that we prefer pleasure to pain or sickness to health. The excellent man decides what to do and he does it in accordance with prudence, wisdom, bravery, generosity, etc. as opposed to acting while driven by vice. At the limit, the virtuous man chooses what he thinks is "truly good," not just what others say is good or what appears to be good because he is ruled over by the rational part of the soul as opposed to being driven by a mere part of himself, e.g. being a slave to appetite or passions.

Hence the excellent man is the only man who is truly free because he is not ruled over by circumstance, desire, instinct, and appetite but rather acts in accordance with the Good. We can always question if something is truly true or truly good. This is the power of reason, that it is transcendent. It allows us to go beyond what we already are, what we currently believe and desire, in search of what is truly best. And in transcending the given in pursuit of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True man goes beyond being merely a bundle of causes, becoming more self-determing.

You see this in adulterated form in Kierkegaard. Also in Hegel with the true infinite determining freedom. And it's in a castrated form in Kant's focus on the good will that wills itself. But it comes through in a more complete form in Plato, Plotinus, Anselm, and Augustine.

>>23674638
THERE are so many excitements toward evil that he (the human) is smarter. It would seem a natural gift for his bad instincts to increase as a direct result of the need to break down more obstacles in order to reach a state of satisfaction. But, on a happy return, that is not the case. Reason, more sophisticated at the same time as it aims higher and more demanding, enlightens the creature it leads on the material disadvantages of over-abandonment of all suggestions of interest. Religion, however imperfect or false, every day conceived in a somewhat lofty manner, forbids him to yield to his destructive inclinations on every occasion. Thus the Arian is always if not the best of men from the standpoint of moral practice, at least the most enlightened on the intrinsic value in this kind of deeds he commits. His dogmatic ideas are still the most developed and complete in this field, although closely dependent on the state of his fortune. As long as he is the toy of a precarious situation, his body remains armored and his heart so too; harsh on his own person, no less astonishing that he is ruthless to others, and it is in this uncompromising fact that he practises that justice with which Herodotus endowed the integrity of the bellicose Scythian. The merit here lies in the loyalty with which a law which is perhaps so fierce is accepted, and which only softens to the extent that the surrounding social atmosphere manages to temper itself.
The Arian is therefore superior to other men, chiefly in the measure of his intelligence and energy; and it is by these two faculties that, when he succeeds in overcoming his passions and material needs, he is also given to attain an infinitely higher morality, although, in the ordinary course of things, there are as many wrongdoings in him as there are in individuals of the other two lower species. This Arian now appears to our observation in the Western Branch of his family, and there he appears to us as vigorously beaten, as handsome in appearance, as warlike as [...]
?

>>23674602
He had this problem from the very begining. Once he began to get famous (and to get the money that comes with it) he became incapable of calling out his audience.

Ultimately, I think it's because his reductionist materialist outlook results in him lacking the courage of his convictions. He thinks he can teach people about a good way to get on in the world and live a pleasant life, but he doesn't think that the Good is the point of a good human life. He is not going to happily accept death because he prefers the Good like Socrates, St. Paul, or St. Ignatius. And ultimately this means he is less than fully free, he is dependent on external goods: drugs, fame, wealth, etc. (hence the grifter like behavior). He is not like Boethius, a man who had all the status in the world, being the second most powerful man in Rome, and who accepted torture and death to "do the just thing." Boethius could look ahead to his own grizzly execution in a few weeks and write a sublime work on how evil is its own punishment because he actually believed not only in himself but in what lay without himself. You can't build a good foundation on nihilism.

New age boomer truth regime psychology

>>23674625
>Completely unable to offer a counter argument.
Gotcha. Ok so exclusivity is the ground of value? What sort? Apparently you can't answer that question. Again, hollow.

>>23674655
I think your secondary points are accurate but I dont think he had this problem from the beginning. If you go back and watch him lecture kids in college, he is very cheerful and engaged and high energy, and you can slowly see as he gained popularity and did interviews, started posting on Twitter and doing lectures and programs that he became exceptionally more political and bitter over time. I dont think its inherent to him or his ideology, but I think susceptible people easily go down that road, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that

>>23674655
>Boethius could look ahead to his own grizzly execution in a few weeks and write a sublime work on how evil is its own punishment because he actually believed not only in himself but in what lay without himself. You can't build a good foundation on nihilism.

Sounds like grade A level cope and slave morality. Pic related, some more industrial level cope and slave morality.

>>23671937
It's called not being a statist loser.
Be responsible for yourself and your kin, be self-reliant, and don't expect someone else to save you.

>>23674734
Ah, so individual families should fight off invading armies? Barbarossa or the invasion of Ukraine could have been stymied by personal responsibility? And then multi-billion dollar flood control systems on which much agriculture relies, when these fail individuals should take up fixing them to avoid massive floods? And when a town like Joplin is leveled like a tornado, grit will return the community from absolute ruin to prosperity without any aid?

>>23674780
> And when a town like Joplin is leveled like a tornado, grit will return the community from absolute ruin to prosperity without any aid
An ethnically homogenous society is not crushed by a tornado.

>>23674660
Exclusivity is based on what higher actions people do, that which requires effort, perseverance, dedication and asceticism. The more of these it requires, the less people are able to it, thus the more exclusive said behavior becomes.

>But what then can you offer in support of your standard once you deny the Good any true being?
What do you mean by this question?

Are you saying that if i deny that inherwntly people are good, from does morality arise from?
Great men.

Are you asking what i offer as a metric in order to judge value, worth, morality, spirituality if I deny yours?
Again, exclusivity. My position is that most people, the majority are incapable of any meaningful spiritual or virtuous action and must be made to, forcefully in some cases, enact it by one of the rare people who does embody the spiritual connection with the transcendant. The metric for this being the earnest admiration and heroic action they attract, something impossible to find in our current society. The last Great Man was arguably Afolf Hitler.

>>23674734
Your refusal to incorperate the State in to your politik is why Conservatives have lost every single idealogical conflict, this has resulted in adults grooming children in schools.

>>23674796
What about an invasion from a coordinated hostile power? Schmitt makes it very clear that America has no true State and can not until a real potential enemy, of similae size and scope, sits at their border.

Judeo-American thought is Cancer.

>>23674734
>>It's called not being a statist loser.
>Be responsible for yourself and your kin, be self-reliant, and don't expect someone else to save you.
And peterson is none of that self made man fantasy made for beta cucks

>>23671948
fpbp

>>23674622
He has been a plant for a long time.
All "public figures" are the same way or they diminish into obscurity at a rapid pace.

>>23674780
Ah, so teams made out of people who can't resolve most problems on their own will be able to handle hard situations?
I definitely want someone who can't clear a clogged drain on their own on my disaster response team.

>>23674867
Your refusal to insist on the continual downsizing of state interference in private matters is what has allowed them to control so much of society to the point that people do not ask questions about people talking about sex to five year olds.

>>23675028
>>23674660
Exclusivity is based on what higher actions people do, that which requires effort, perseverance, dedication and asceticism. The more of these it requires, the less people are able to it, thus the more exclusive said behavior becomes.

>But what then can you offer in support of your standard once you deny the Good any true being?
What do you mean by this question?

Are you saying that if i deny that inherwntly people are good, from does morality arise from?
Great men.

Are you asking what i offer as a metric in order to judge value, worth, morality, spirituality if I deny yours?
Again, exclusivity. My position is that most people, the majority are incapable of any meaningful spiritual or virtuous action and must be made to, forcefully in some cases, enact it by one of the rare people who does embody the spiritual connection with the transcendant. The metric for this being the earnest admiration and heroic action they attract, something impossible to find in our current society. The last Great Man was arguably Afolf Hitler.

>>23674734
Your refusal to incorperate the State in to your politik is why Conservatives have lost every single idealogical conflict, this has resulted in adults grooming children in schools.

>>23672129
/thread

>>23674457
I agree with that anon you're just saying meaningless things
>worth is found in exclusivity
>>23674867
>that which requires effort, perseverance, dedication and asceticism
why are those things good?
>The more of these it requires, the less people are able to it, thus the more exclusive said behavior becomes.
being able to insert your whole arm in your own ass fits your criteria. Is there worth in that action?
>the majority are incapable of any meaningful spiritual or virtuous action
you just said worth is found in exclusivity, where are you getting "meaningful" and "virtuous" from?
>virtuous is that which is difficult to do, because doing the difficult is virtuous, because virtue is the difficult...
again, shoving rodents up your ass requires a tremendous amount of heroic fortitude, yet I don't think you'd see value in that.

>>23675279
Your grammar is so bad I can't even really tell what you're trying to say bro. Do you consider yourself to be a "great man" like based Hitler?

>>23675311
Do you consider any of the examples you give as higher than that of the average man?
Symbolically, metaphorically, spiritually.

>>23675319
Not at all. There are no great men in this century yet.

>>23674407
I fell asleep. This reply
>>23674539
Wasn't me and that should've been obvious from the sudden drop in quality.
But yes, my point is that on a long enough timescale (forever and never are infinitely long timescales) everything changes, nothing holds fast. It might sound like a pedantic argument, but it isn't. If we're talking about what's true, THAT is true. Even for thermodynamics.
The point is to understand the nature of reality. Well, that is its nature. Not whatever is happening in the moment. That is it's expression.

>>23671937
What happens when you practice deistic rationalism with an anglo-emprical ontology, i stead of idealism you arrive at atheistic Crypto-Materialism disguised as theism

>>23672924
>A very accurate and pertinent read.
It's peterstein-tier revisionism.

>>23671937
Both Zizek and Peterson are really embarrassing to watch. It's extremely clear that very often they speak out of their lane. They also have this weird behavior in interviews or conversations where they become weirdly deferential to the other person as a tool to not be exposed as a fraud because they don't know what they're talking about.
They are also both very fond of schizophasia: instead of staying on one topic and discussing it in any depth, they keep jumping around from topic to topic, which makes it harder for anyone to pin them down to figure out what the hell they actually mean by what they're saying. A great example of this with Peterson is the cosmic skeptic interview. He kept evading the simple question of the historicity of the bible right until the end of the interview.

These people are experts in lying, deceiving and appearing smart to a clueless audience.

>>23675630
In other words: They are intellectuals.

>>23671937
Grab-bag of half digested references and memes from big boy reading, in fact the perfect representative for youtube/twitter intellectualism. No structured worldview behind it. When it suits him, he's materialist, when he wants to have a good cry he goes off on mysticist gibberish and feels profound. Actually seems to think he invented the chaos/order duality. To top ot off, he let himself become dumber and dumber with online fame and doesn't even try to keep up with discourse in good faith and intellectual curiosity anymore.

lmao

>>23671948
>>23672129
Yup. No wonder Zoomers idolize Patrick Bateman, Scarface, and Peaky Blinders. There is no one to show the difference between degeneracy and decency, vice and virtue.

>>23671937
Zizek is a shit but I feel bad for Peterson

>>23671937
It's called "reeducation by the state" lol

benzos

>>23671937
this picture is ironic considering that the debate with zizek broke peterson. the audience was mostly communist so they outright laughed at his basic bitch takes like "if everything is shared doesn't that mean you'll fuck my wife?" and zizek basically ignored him and rambled about irrelevant stuff breaking the time limit multiple times (the host was too pussy to stop him). after that he fried his brains with drugs and had to go to a coma and he was never the same since then.

>>23681023
Communism is one of the most stupid political ideologies ever created, no wonder it appeals to the outright retarded pleb masses.

>>23671969
>while from a country with a very robust state sponsored welfare system and schooling system
I don't get it. Canada is suddenly a socialist marxist state because the state does stuff? Hey, at least the market does not dictate its will on every culture it inhabits. It's a benign parasite, like the flora in your stomach.

>>23672063
Alasdair macintyre is not a right winger.

>>23681029
Liberalism is the other side of that coin. Classical, modern, progressive. They both destroy and erase spirituality, fixate on materialistic conditions and reduce people to drones. Both are ruled by a foreign, economic elite.

>>23671937
Jungian Zionism

>>23672129
>Seeking goodness without the Good.
It is so telling that you guys have not seriously studied philosophy and its history at all. You, like post-modernists, just pick and choose whatever makes your stomach tingle the most. How can you find the good if you don't even know what it is? Your response will always be something along the lines of "human nature is so that everything that I do and like is good and moral whereas everything that I hate is bad and immoral"
You seem to think that when you have the good then you still need to find it. But you don't have the good. You are a blind man in a dark room and I'm here locking you inside telling you to find the good and only the good before you can get out.

>>23681034
Liberalism is still better than communism in many things because at least it still has a hierarchy. It might not be as good as feudalism or aristocracy but that's asking for a lot these days.

>>23672129
With Sartre you are indeed just free. You are free to follow these urges or not. For the guy in the pic, assume freedom only comes when some predetermined action puts you on the path to overcoming these urges. It feels like he has not read Sartre.

>>23672129
Not every single ancient believed in Plato's form of the Good. You guys are actually retarded.

>>23681044
>Liberalism is still better than communism
It is not. Communism kills the body, Liberalism rots the soul. We have suffered more under Liberalism than other Europeans under Communism. Everything we have has been ruined by it while under Communism much was preserved in an ossofied state and much was returned after its Stare withered away.

>>23681034
Nonsense, spirituality is still here.

>>23681057
Suffering is good, go figure.

>>23681044
>>23681061
The clap-your-hands-if-you-believe is not in any way spirituality.

>>23681066
Sure it is. But what is "real" spirituality in your mind?

Zionism

>>23681057
A system is made by it's people, not the people by it's system.

>>23671948
How is it nihilistic if he clearly states that evolutionary success is a truthmarker of what is good? Nihilism would not say that there is a marker for truth, not that you retards know what nihilism is or have ever seriously read philosophy in your lives.

>>23681066
Funny because pagans believed rich people go to heaven and poor people go to hell

>>23681075
This, anything can theoretically work if the people who make up the system are devoted enough to it. Bizarre that this has to be explained to a guy who posts pictures of Carlyle.

>>23681080
Before that, they believed that everyone went to hades and therefore your offspring had to care for you in life. Offsprings for the ancients were just insurance.

>>23672924
Why should I care about communist Jews?

>>23681084
And in yoday's era kids are there to produce likes on social media.
Not much better if you ask me.

>>23681075
All virtuous systems are imposed from the top down. Liberalism and Communism are both from the bottom up. Mass man has no values, virtues or spirituality.

>>23681109
Liberalism at its best.

>>23681061
No it is not. It is perfuctory and no different from Commumists celebrating the achievement of some production quota or a Liberal at a pop concert or sporting fixture. I do not go as far to say that Christians are incapable of spirituality and mysticism but that the vast majority are completely incapable of it.

>>23681309
Those things are indeed spiritual acts. Only communists and liberals like to pretend to be hyperrational atheists (and you, apperantly)

>>23681153
all systems can be said to be imposed from the top down. There is also no such "mass man" who is completely devoid of values. You are just too autistic to understand them.

>>23681153
>>23681465
also, what you said does not in any way detract from what the anon said. All systems are made up of people. This implies that all systems are made or unmade by the quality of their people, regardless of the system itself. Systems are not virtuous, people are.
Systems are, rather, ethical. Is it right or wrong that people should be allowed to own private property? is it right or wrong that people should be allowed to vote? etc.

>>23681109
>And in yoday's era kids are there to produce likes on social media.
definitely not for everyone. Most people just have kids because they don't know any better. At least the pagans could argue, albeit poorly, that the main and only real reason to have kids was so that they could feed you milk and honey when you are dead.

>>23681456
Those things are materialist acts, only heroic action and the more stringent types of asceticism are able to obtain understanding of spiritualism. Perhaps those close can witness a vague approximation.

>>23681465
No. Prior to the Enlightenment every system was imposed from the top down, predicated on a hierarchy that was roughly analogous in their orientation across the world. Modern systems are built from the ground up to elevate the mass man and his various forms of utilitarianism. Mass Man has existed since the inception of our existence, he is the Nietzschean Last Man, the Byronic Superfluous Man, the modern consumer. He has no values beyond whatever crude urges he is encouraged to pursue.

>>23681049
I don't see where Anon implied that.

Half the responses to this post just go off on a rant that seems to have nothing to do with its content.

>>23681042
Example: >>23681929

I am not sure what the whole Meno Paradox thing is supposed to prove. It's you who don't seem to have any education in philosophy if you think this is an unaddressed problem.

>>23681077
>How is it nihilistic if he clearly states that evolutionary success is a truthmarker of what is good?

Peterson doesn't say this. Not sure where you are getting that from.

>>23671937
He is a neoliberal materialist

>>23671937
Smithsonianism

>>23681531
Modern systems still have a hierarchy. At least you now admit that he does have values. also, see>>23681490
>>23681929
>I don't see where Anon implied that.
You don't have to read the image that anon posted, it's ok.

>>23671937
Benzoism with Zionist Characteristics

>>23682112
>Modern systems still have a hierarchy.
Everything has a hierarchy, albeit a weak and meaningless one in many cases. Every modern hierarchy is predicated on how easy you have access to money, this is the worst means of organization, worse so than the Communistic hierarchy of labor as there is great value in some professions than in others, despite their efforts to stop this. There is no value in modernity beyond how much money you have, thus it erodes all hierarchies based on culture, heritage, ethnicity, class, caste, spirituality, nobility and more. Further, we are mandated to value all life equally and thus no true hierarchy can arise. There is no differing intrinsic worth in others for who or what they are, only in what material function they can provide.