/lit/ - Literature

I mainly ignore the threads about him as they're not /lit/ related.

>>9560999
It's the other way around, they shit on Jung because Peterson

>>9561004
Thanks for proving me right, his psychology books don't just disappear because you haven't read them

stop shilling for this faggot jesus christ just fuck off to /pol/ we aint got room for the pseuds here. /lit/ is a patrician board.

What was the Bible translation he recommended again?

>>9561026
>his psychology books
Nobody has ever had a problem with his work in his field. He's discussed in context of (pop)-philosophy and his yt videos on this topic and rightfully called shit. Now fuck off and kys yourself for creating another garbage thread.

>>9561030
>Jung
>pseud
Go back to your faggy critique thread then.

Psychology is a fake science
Peterson is a sophist faggot
Get that non-/lit/ dogshit off my board

>>9561035
>I haven't read him but I saw this 3 minute clip of him and therefore I don't need to read him
Go fuck off to reddit

>>9560999
>I mainly ignore the threads about him as they're not /lit/ related.

He's an author, has an upcoming self help book (which kind of devalues him), discusses Nietzche, Jung, and other authors. He is just as /lit/ as Sam Harris pleb.

>>9561039
>this underage bait
Again, fuck off and kys.

>>9561049
>I'm too lazy to read
>I'll just watch this YouTube clip instead
>Wow that anon called me out for being a drooling illiterate? He is baiting!!!
Get a grip.

>>9560999
Peterson shares many of the same beliefs about morality and ethics with plenty of young readers who are always blasted with leftist, humanist ideology. It's nice to hear a different voice but he needs to write more works to gain a bigger audience, maybe try fiction. That's why Houellebecq is experiencing a rise in popularity again.

>>9560999
Fuck off with the peterson threads. I like him, but this just shits on the board. Discussions about him are never interesting and do not relate to literature.

>>9561057
You are the problem of which you speak, your post is dripping with irony.

>>9561060
There's nothing ironic in his reply, stop bumping your shitty bait thread and die.

>>9561060
There's no Irony. I sincerely want you and all the philosophy posters to fuck off to your proper boards.

>>9561094
Needs to be a proper philosophy board

I'm quite intrigued by this guy. I've listened to both of his three hour Joe Rogan podcasts, both of His Sam Harris Podcasts (The first one being a two hour argument on an axiom for 'truth'), a substantial amount of his Youtube videos, and have skimmed a pdf of Maps of Meaning and have slotted it in to my to read pile.

I can understand why /lit/ and other corners of the intent are heralding him as the new Messiah for his stance against SJW's, gender pronouns and the c-16 legislation, and his dislike of new-atheism.

My only criticism of him is the way he deliberately misrepresents postmodernism. I have no bias or desire to defend postmodernism, I was just curious as to why he is doing this. The more exposure to him I had, the more evident it became. For instance, throughout both Rogan podcasts, he belittles postmodernism at least fifty times, yet the only substantial criticism in those six hours was:

"Postmodernism doesn't care about the constraints of reality at all, all they do is say you can interpret the world however you want," and:

"They have an infinite number of ways to look at a finite set of objects; an infinite number of ways to interpret the world, and their next conclusion is that there is no right way so you can do it any old way. This is a vision problem the postmodernists have."

He then grouped Derrida, Foucault, Marx, Otherkin, feminists, leftists, and SJW's together as one handy strawman to attack and began a tangent about leftists playing identity politics.

I agree with Peterson on a tremendous amount, but it became clear that what he disliked, in addition to the various groups and people mentioned, was basic relativism. Of course, the postmodernists don't believe that all subjective notions about reality, no matter how ludicrous, are equal. Their lean towards materialism gives them a Bayesian model from which to rank the truth probability of a claim. It's a similar method to the workings of empiricism. But Peterson needs to claim that they are basking in a swamp of absolute relativism so he can very carefully sweep under the carpet the idea that he does not have objectivity. He then uses his counterfeit triumph against postmodernism as a pedestal to dismiss subjectivity, and after doing those two things, he is free to pluck the logos from thin air and pretend the cunning ideology he is about to create, and dismissal of every group he dislikes, has axiomatic grounding.

What he is doing is very clever, and I agree with him on most individual issues or remain neutral. I just find it unfortunate that he can't just say he hates relativism of all stripes. He hates cultural relativism, and, for lack of a better term, 'leftist identity politics' so much that he pretends that Foucault and Derrida, even Korzybski, held the belief that every subjective opinion is operating on equal footing because he needs them as an enemy for his anti-left stance and for the various manifestations he wants to create from Hebrew mythology.

>>9560999
Jung would approve of my messy room. Making a mess in his room like a child is why Freud first started having suspicions that Jung was completely mad, and I can spot a Freudian falseflagger from less than five hundred responses on /b/. NOU Read Jung, you arrogant numpty.

>>9561371
>/his/ - History and HUMANITIES

>>9561533
good post

>>9560999
DUDE DREAMS LMAO

>>9560999
his cringey head shots don't help. How anyone can take photos like this and be serious about it can only be interpreted as lack of self of awareness.

>>9560999
He keeps popping up on this board very often, as much as I keep telling myself "Literally who?" whenever I see him.

>>9561533
Best assessment I've read of Peterson so far

>>9561533
quality post my man

wish /lit/ was consistently this good

>>9561787
frozen is not a positive message for girls. its a positive message for radical feminist authoritarians

>>9561547
Not good enough

>>9561799
LITERALLY HOW?!

>>9560999
If you want to read Joseph Campbell why not just read Joseph Campbell.

>>9562077
Why not both?

>>9561904
>Magic will fix everything
>Other people will fix everything for you
>Man and woman coming together is not relevant

>>9561904
If you can tell me how it's positive i'll tell you how it isn't.

>>9562077
Star Wars slippery slope fags pls go

"Married University Professor, Jordan B. Peterson, who recently made headlines for his opposition to a Senate hearing concerning gender pronouns, was arrested in his hotel room early Wednesday morning after being on what one witness described as a, "three day bender of coke and trannies." Prof. Peterson, allegedly in the company of three MtoF transsexuals and one frogkin, procured thirty-seven grams of cocaine and embarked upon a three day rampage in the Sheraton Marriott Hotel.

"Ze was in a manic state from the moment Ze checked in," recalled xir Tracy, the hotel's receptionist. "Ze was shouting about Harry Potter and a basilisk then began poking patrons with a stick, threatening to 'burn their deadwood' if they didn't tell Zim where the postmodernists were hiding." One guest claims xe then saw Peterson inserting the nozzle of a blue fire extinguisher into the front of zis trousers and a cloud of foam erupting from around his ankles.

The trouble really started later that night when hotel staff were called to his room by the neighboring guests. "I've never seen anything like it," said Xyr Richards, one of the hotel's room service technicians. "Peterson was naked with zis head on the floor and both legs on the bed. A frogkin wearing fishing waders had inserted his entire arm [CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE]"

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/27/disgraced-professor-in-drug-fueled-orgy

>>9562214
i fucking knew it

>>9562214
top fucking kek

I'm farmiliar with Jung and his influences on this man but at the same time I have a hard time legitimizing a person who believes in any analytical-psychology theory that intently.
It's neat stuff to know and understand, but to make it gospel is pretty autistic and, in my opinion, close-minded.
There's something about his self-assuredness that makes me feel like he's sort of an overly educated child trapped in man's body.
I have a feeling he only just recently, or at least past the age of 20, learned how to communicate non-autistically with others.

It's why I'm interested in him but don't really respect him the way i know i would had he been more charismatic.

>>9562289
>I have a hard time legitimizing a person who believes in any analytical-psychology theory that intently.

Mind explaining why?

>>9562301
It's just an annoying way to live in the world.
Turns people into neurotic machines with forced natural states that, while arguably logical, do not reflect the real chaotic non-linear way their personalities operate in the 5% of life these types choose to ignore.
It's neat stuff to know/apply but the way this guy tosses around the terms as like definitive, palpable concepts and not just abstract explanations really just makes me cringe.

>visit /christian/ out of curiosity
>open a Jordan Peterson thread
>/christian/ has more intelligent scrutiny of Peterson in one thread with 4 replies than /lit/ has had in over a hundred

>>9562330
wait, 4chin has a Christian board now? What letter is it?

>>9562214
fuck off

>>9561533
>>9561533

This is brilliant. I've only watched the JRE podcast but I kinda noticed the same thing, that sth was very wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was exactly. but you said it perfectly.

And his Joe Rogan podcast. OMG, that bit where he says "have you heard about kek? The postmodernists have this whole thing now called the republic of kekistan and their leader is a frog." Joe pulls up know your meme and looks at pepe and says wtf is going on? Then Peterson says "It's chaos. postmodernists love chaos and hate truth. and they have a frog leader because it represents fluid gender. frogs can change sex from male to female, and these SJWs need that. Frogs also have a change from tadpole to frog representing gender surgery." and gives this whole ridiculous analysis of pepe and the word kek which is korean and other 4chan memes, and claims theyre all a conspiracy for leftist postmodern feminist marxists.

>>9562330
Now this is some good criticism. Not like the marxist retards here who claim a monopoly on philosophy then throw shit at you for not being a commie.

>>9560999
this really belongs in >>>/his/ or >>>/sci/

I shit on him because atheistic Christianity is horrific.
If there is one thing one ought to be sincere about, it is their religion. He's one of the worst things my province has produced -- a meme conservative.

>>9563143
Fuck off /pol/

>>9562099
lol

>>9563197
>I shit on him because atheistic Christianity is horrific
He doesn't have the atheism though. Just watch his Biblical series. As others have said ITT, he tiptoes around objectivity/subjectivity with the stealth of a ninja and hates to give straight answers. He is a full believer in the Christian God though. Often he uses postmodern logic and says "we only have a description of reality, not reality itself, so we cannot exclude that there are numerous things way beyond our comprehension." before bashing the evil feminists from tumblr for allegedly saying something similar

>>9563217
>He is a full believer in the Christian God though
no he isn't. he considers god to just be the highest value that humans have constructed and chooses christianity over other religions just because it expresses good/evil more thoroughly than other religions in its myths

>>9563217
He is an atheist, atheistic Christianity is 'symbolic Christianity'.

>>9563135
Can you link me to that bit? That sounds hilarious.

>>9561799
>radical feminists
>liking Frozen

I know you don't know enough to be embarrassed yet, but maybe you'll get there one day.

>>9563217
He has had meetings with god during his psilocybin trips and probably wants to believe it more than he argues fore, because intellectually he cannot fully accept it.

pseudery for pseuds

had Badiou for example said what kermit said in pic related, there would be already an army of mongrels chanting SOKAL PAPER, SOKAL PAPER or some shit like that

>>9561030
Stop worrying about pseud vs patrician and focus on actual discussion, and maybe girls will talk to you.

>>9562966
8ch

i wish we could talk about jung more. but lit doesnt read prophecy

>>9561787

one of the worst ones i've seen. try harder.

>>9563208
Not /pol/. You fuck off.

>>9561026
>Thanks for proving me right, his psychology books don't just disappear because you haven't read them

You didn't post about his books, moron.

>>9563135
I imagine philosophers of old would have a similar approach to deciphering memes

>>9561026
They didn't turn into literature either.

>>9563135
>>9563249
>>9563678
He talks about kek, kekistan, and postmodernism but he doesn't word it like that.
He specifically mentions the kekistani boys and talks about Kek being outside of a category like transgenders because kek is symbolized as male and female.
I don't think his analysis is is ridiculous either. You can be dishonest and misquote him on things, because people aren't going to go through a 3 hour podcast but whatever man.

>>9563213
Amazing refutation. I bet your brain feels massive.

>>9563217
I was seeing his "we only have a description of reality, not reality itself" was phenomologist logic

>>9563135
>>9563249
>>9563678
HAHHAHAHAHHAAHA. This is pure fucking gold!

Behold, boys and girls, Jordan Peterson discusses 4chan memes; from Pepe the frog to the God Kek.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t10KhJKDjdg

Skip to 3:10

"Oh, Kek is a mythological country that's ruled by chaos, by the God Ke,k who's a frog as it turns out. . . "

>>9563135
yeah this isnt what he said

>>9563783
That segment is right above you>>9563769

>>9563769
>Behold, boys and girls, Jordan Peterson discusses 4chan memes; from Pepe the frog to the God Kek.
It became a reddit meme long ago

>>9563769
He's talking about some twitter/youtube meme, it's its own thing now completely separate from /pol/.

>>9563809
Memes are just simpler archetypes.
It's not really a surprise that Jordan Peterson would start talking about metaphysics of Frogs and the mythology of Kek when those are the things that he's heavily interested in, metaphysics, mythology, archetypes.

Posts like >>9563769
make me feel old and out of place here.

I am probably older than most people here, but I wonder if it's me or is this place becoming more like reddit.

>>9562214
>threatening to 'burn their deadwood' if they didn't tell Zim where the postmodernists were hiding

holy shit, did i just have an extraordinary kek

>>9562214

Oh man those pictures are disgusting.
And why do they blur out the trannies faces but not Petersons?

>>9561547
>philosophy is in humanities

>>9563135
You dishonest fuck. Quote him correctly or do not quote him at all.

>>9563852
It's not just you man

>>9560999
Trips confirm he is Earth's saviour

>>9563921
Postmodernists don't care about honesty or coherence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_C3vZM4DZQ

>>9560999
Who shits on him?


Jordan helped me out with my situation...

>>9561544

Maxwell?

>>9562319
>>It's neat stuff to know/apply but the way this guy tosses around the terms as like definitive, palpable concepts and not just abstract explanations really just makes me cringe.

exactly. seeing jungianism as anything but heuristic is stunting

>>9561533
underrated post

>>9563737
>I was seeing his "we only have a description of reality, not reality itself" was phenomologist logic

That sounds more like it was lifted straight out of general semantics, a philosophical area Peterson detests as much as postmodernism. GS was responsible for the famous "Ceci n'est pas une pip" pipe image and the often quoted, "The map is not the territory."

A very basic introductory excerpt from General Semantics:

"While Aristotle wrote that a true definition gives the essence of the thing defined (in Greek to ti ên einai, literally "the what it was to be"), general semantics denies the existence of such an 'essence'.

It is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that -- descriptions -- which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe.

Language, natural or otherwise (including the language called 'mathematics') can be used to describe the taste of an orange, but one cannot give the taste of the orange using language alone. The content of all knowledge is structure, so that language (in general) and science and mathematics (in particular) can provide people with a structural 'map' of empirical facts, but there can be no 'identity', only structural similarity, between the language (map) and the empirical facts as lived through and observed by people as humans-in-environments (including doctrinal and linguistic environments)."

You can probably see why Peterson hates General Semantics so much.

>>9561544
not if you left it messy until you were a grown manchild

>>9563921
this

>>9565075
this

>Implying gender is binary instead of a fluid spectrum of culturally programmed gender values
>Not respecting this spectrum, clutching two outdated categories to your chest like a infant, and crying when your ideology is shattered and you are told to grow up and call people by harmless pronouns that place them wherever they subjectively feel they belong on the spectrum.
Never go full Peterson

>>9562099
Are you seriously implying that magic fixing shit in a childrens movie is somehow a feminist plot to destroy western civilization?

>>9563890
PFFFHAHAHAHAH

>>9565052
>he thinks Jung was 7 when Freud kicked him out
Jung was probably much older than you when he started his work independent of Freud.
>messy until you were a grown manchild
you reaally haven't read even the basics of Jung have you? valuing one shadow above another kind of ignores the whole point of having them.
come to think of it, it's particularly hilarious that this Peterson fellow seems to be known for thinking individual genders are singular and being a Jungian. everyone is parts both is a basic precept explained in most any work on Jung.

>>9561037
>Psychology is a fake science
t. Pic related
>Peterson is a sophist faggot
He is literally arguing against sophism to the point where it becomes repetitive and boring
>Get that non-/lit/ dogshit off my board
Do you say the same of all "what do you think of X published author?" threads?

>>9560999
>liking jung
>especially when most of his stuff is batshit /x/ tier insanity and retardation.
/lit/ plz.

>>9566183

>>9566191
>being this salty that someone called you out on you wanting to shit /lit/ up with how do i succubus threads and other brands of dumb
literally why?

>>9566277
>equating Jungian psychology to magickkkkkkkkkkk
Wew.

>>9561533
I suspect the problem here is watching interviews vs watching his courses because he does clarify and is specific; in the context your post is a bit silly.

If you're knowledgeable about the topics it's nothing new, obviously. Psyche 304, literally. I appreciate more about HOW he tells it and how it resonates with young men. I appreciate how he relates it to his active practice.

>>9563217
If you actually bother to consider what he says, it's pretty obvious that to any typical Christian he's an atheist or at least an agnostic.

>>9566183

>>9561035
His philosophy isn't any more pop than anybody else.

You can't possibly deny that the crisis he's attempting to address is real.

>>9563468
lol butthurt

>>9561057
Lmao there is literally only one Peterson thread active at this moment.
Get triggered harxer.

>>9566688
>If you actually bother to consider what he says, it's pretty obvious that to any typical Christian he's an atheist or at least an agnostic.
Like his interview on Louder with Crowder where Crowder corners him and says, "straight answer: Do you believe in a God?" and he tries to wriggle out of it and evade the question by saying, "I don't want to seem like I'm trying to wriggle out of this or evade the question," gives a five minute speech about the second Harry Potter movie, compares comprehending God to a three dimensional being trying to comprehend four or more dimensions, then finishes with, "but if you have to put me in the category of believing or not believing, then yes, I would be in the category of believing in a God, but we are so limited by or biology that we are completely unable to comprehend him."

As a fairly typical Christian, I wouldn't regard him as an atheist and feel comfortable claiming him for our side.

>>9563769

this autism

>>9560999
>curious about this guy I always see shilled here on /lit/ ... watched a few vids of his on youtube. I'm surprised the content of his lectures pass at UoT. Enjoyable to listen to but seems more like a self-help guru than formal instruction. Not bad -- mostly normative critiques.

I'll abstain from throwing shade on the man.

>>9561533
This post is shit

If you actually pay attention to him you would've realized that he actually accepts most of postmodernist ideas as true, his main posture is that the social constructs are what keep civilization from devolving into degeneracy, and he approaches them with Jung to explain how they tie up to very basic human psychological notions


Like literally, this is his train of thought:
1- Human beings have the capability to be horrible
2- Nietzsche and death of meaning
3- Vacuum in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia
4- Postmodern Ultra-Vaccum and social decay; psycho-geography
5- Jungian analysis of western myths and traditions
6- How this ideological struggle is mirrored in the individual's mind and how it can be overcome to have a meaningful life


Here you guys like to call him a shithead cause he adresses point 6, but its exactly it lacks of existence in anything from Sartre to Foucault that causes angst, you are woken up and shown you are in a jail to then be told there's no escape plan and nobody cares about anyways.

>>9565215
>it's particularly hilarious that this Peterson fellow seems to be known for thinking individual genders are singular and being a Jungian. everyone is parts both is a basic precept explained in most any work on Jung.

All this USI for fuck's sake, go read it again bucko, you fucked up

>>9567665
Also, in this case degeneracy is "holocaust rollercoaster", not jewish tv shows

On one of the first classes of maps of meaning, i think the second one, he posits evil as an aesthetic of horror and dehumanization, that would be his degeneracy

>>9563793
he didn't say its the postemodernists

>>9563313
>>9565192
>>9563890

Are you guys so retard as to not get that joke?

>>9563852
>>9563928
The internet is still turning on.

>>9561049
god you are such a whiny faggot kys bitch

>>9567665
This.

>>9561032
The KJV as literature or something like that

>>9560999
I dont understand the hate from /lit/ besides the overshilling. I love his stuff

>>9567673
>he really hasn't read Jung
Jung would say your desire to over focus on the animus over the anima was
>a kind of psychological short-circuit, to identify the animus at least provisionally with wholeness
which would lead to the animus trying to overthrow the self and which would ignore the shadow of the animus.

Literally go read Alchemical Studies and The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. They're both by Jung in case you're not pretending to be retarded and couldn't work that out for yourself. Animus without Anima is a fucking monster, and vice versa.

>>9568337
Anima and Animus arent genders faggot

>>9567665

>>9560999
if you've read Jung and you take him seriously you're probably the type of retarded fucker to join a cult.
his stuff works for retarded people with no common sense but if you've got that down reading him just makes you laugh

>>9560999
I have no problem with him save the fact he spends too much time shitposting on twitter.

>>9560999
>Another Peterson shill thread

Sort yourself out.

>>9568439
yes they are. there are also archetypal ages and all kinds of shit you would learn if you read Jung instead of watching youtube and lying.

>>9569125
Do you have anything to back that up?

>>9569450
>God doesn't exist.
>Prove it.
Lmao kill yourself

>>9569436
not that guy. anima/animus are descriptions for aspects of personality that are part of gender, they're not genders retard.

>>9569450

>>9569554
they are explicitly female and male archetypes. innate bisexuality is one of the parts of jung which him taking freud and running it to an end freud despised. you're fucking retarded and deeply repressed if you need to claim that they are not gendered.

>>9569857
which *is him

>>9569857
>everyone is bisexual
>you're deeply repressed
nice projection faggot.
>gendered
nice cop-out you fucking retard. anima/animus AREN'T genders, they refer to masculine/feminine but they're not fucking genders. why wouldn't jung just talk about feminine/masculine if he wanted to talk about genders? how fucking dumb are you to not even get the retarded person who came up with the theory you LARP with?

>>9569951
everyone is bisexual isn't my claim. it was a weak claim of freud (which he claimed was predisposition later) which jung made a stronger claim with- they were genders and could wholly possess someone regardless of their sex, which would lead to illness. if you don't have both genders as shadows of each other, jung thinks you're ill. the only way to make a single gendered person is for them to ignore one of their gender aspects and that would make them practically psychotic. it's not jung or my fault you're fucking wrong.

>>9569976
>talks about everything but the point he got wrong
come on faggot, tell me anima is a gender

>>9561042
Sam Harris isn't /lit/ at all so thanks for supporting the point.

Strange that a board on which there is very little sound discussion, and which allows memes like Zizek and dfw, is butthurt about peterson posting.

Honestly, discussing a distinguished professor who knows his Jung and Nietzsche better than anyone I've encountered here is the least of our problems. If you don't want it to devolve into /pol/ nonsense, just contribute

>>9561547
>>9561094
Let's see what the /lit/ sticky says.
>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his
Hmmm.
Hmmmmmmmm.

>>9560999
He's pushing people too far into the spook zone if he's pushing Jung down people's throats.

I'm not sure if it's the /x/ or Stirner spook zone however.

>>9561533

Excellent post.

I really admire Peterson for his efforts to make religious language understandable again for a generation born to a generation of people who forgot/refused to pass on the wisdom of tradition.

But he doesn't seem to grasp what postmodernism was about. This is really disappointing

He's naively blaming Derrida for the postmodern tradition, like I imagine a naive Christian would have blamed Nietzsche for the death of God. Don't shoot the messenger!
Derrida was a philosophical trickster; very annoying, destructive, but also to smart to ignore or brush aside.

>>9561547
Have you been there? Worse than /lit/.

>>9570007
it is. it's the female archetype: it is all that defines the female gender and without it there would be no female gender. it is definitively, and in Jung's work, explicitly, a gender. specifically, the female one. read, you fucking willful idiot

>>9570478

>defending postmodernist Derrida

>>9570525

No, I want to overcome it. It is destructive to everything I find meaningful in life. I study philosophy at the University of Amsterdam, completely infested with postmodernist, SJWs and commies. They are not stupid but very dangerous. If you want to destroy postmodernism, fight the real thing, not a strawman.

Peterson dismisses Derrida with a lazy psychoanalysis of his motives, a "philosophical slight-of-hand" as he calls it, which allows him evade actual intellectual confrontation with his ideas. That is not good enough for people with more philosophical knowledge than Joe Rogan.

Lyotard posed the problem of postmodernism in the first place as a "condition", which in French has the same connotation of a medical problem. The diagnosis is hard to deny, but what about the medicine?

>>9569461
>I worship proof
>proof is the ultimate existence
Nah, you have nothing. Doubt is not enough.

>>9569842
That's something that could influence the 14 year olds, because they don't want to be called stupid. But they are.

>>9570625
This. Peterson is, after all, not a philosopher but a psychiatrist. He argues against postmodernism 'as a practical way of approaching the world and its problems', because of the consequences he claims that kind of way of life has for individual and society, not against postmodernism as a philosophical school of thought.

>>9569842
Silence yourself fool, and leave this place.

>>9561533
This is genuinely one of the best posts I have ever seen on 4chan. Very refreshing to see an accurate criticism of Peterson that isn't just dismissive shitposting.

Also nice trips

>>9563921
>You dishonest fuck. Quote him correctly or do not quote him at all.

:/ Awwww, so adorable. You shouldn't get worked up like that, it's not good for you. I wasn't aiming to 'quote him' at all, the aim was to highlight the comedic value in a nearly 60yo guy saying sth like "have you heard of Kek?The postmodernists worship a magic gender-neutral frog as their god and live in the chaotic Republic of Kekistan..." And giving a cartoon meme frog academic analysis.. It's reminiscent of my father attempting to open an Instagram account and telling me what the crazy kids are up to these days while completely misusing hashtags. That's what I found funny, not the exact words he used... Im sorry you got upset that he was 'misquoted', but I didn't care about the exact words he used and wasn't going to watch a three hour interview again to get it word perfect when the funny part wasn't the exact words he used... Anw, I hope you have a wonderful stress-free day and try not to take trivial things so seriously.

>>9561004

True, but as for understanding Jung, his theories of psychoanalyzing people is easily applicable to literature (see Marie Louise von Franz).

>>9562077

Campbell is good but a lot of his work is watered down Jung, both are worth reading.

>>9562330
I would say human knowledge is symbolism, as once the past is gone it is only stored (and retrieved) within our minds/bodies as a compressed form --> symbolism

>>9561533


Based anon. Serious, well thought out, inviting discussion.

>>9571312
>gender-neutral frog
Hermaphrodite is not neutral.

>>9571570
Symbols only call values. If the value is lost, parroting remains.

>>9563769
Holy fuck, it's pretty incredible considering that when he's talking about kek that isn't even the peak of his delusions.

>>9563769
Name a part that is delusional. I find that Peterson in drag is more delusional than attempting to understand symbolism.

>>9563769
>Joe Rogan saying 'death to all normies' with his confused ape face

cemedy geld

>>9563811
>frogtwitter is completely separate from /pol/

>>9560999
As someone who loves Jung, his work is only really tangentially related to the good Doctor's. His riff on the collective unconscious is interesting, but if we're really being frank here it's about as "deep" as Persona 5's take on it. And then using it as a projective boogeyman to blame the current ideological hegemony in academia is, again, while interesting (and something I generally agree with) gets overplayed really quickly.

I did enjoy his counsel on the C16 Bill, however. What a piece of trash that is. As a gay man it effectively makes me run the risk of misidentifying someone at a gay bar and then being carted off to jail. It seems like it was made by people very divorced from the community (as much as JPete seems eager to disavow the existence of one)

>>9573152
>As someone who loves Jung, his work is only really tangentially related to the good Doctor's
the idea of the Unknown, the known and the hero as the fundamental structure of how we see the world, Jesus as the ultimate hero figure, the idea that we can't, contra Nietzsche, create our own values but must rescue them from history... that's the topic of his book "Maps of Meaning" and that's all Jung.

>>9561030
>/lit/ is a patrician board
I just came back to /lit/ after a while. The main page used to at least have one or two threads discussing some literature. Now it's just garbage. Get off your high horses. Peterson isn't anywhere near a serious thinker, but neither is /lit/ anywhere near a decent board.

>>9573330
Give examples of some serious thinkers.

>>9573363
Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Plotinus, Porphyry, Augustine, Denys the Areopagite, Boethius, Scot, Aquinas, Pico, Machiavelli, Montaigne, Descartes, Pascal, Hobbes, Leibniz, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the list doesn't go on.

>>9573475
If you were honest and not just meming you'd admit that almost all of them have such serious flaws that if you lived during their times, you'd be hating on them just as much.

Plato and Aristotle have said more stupid shit than would fit in a post, Augustine with his "this is true because someone told me so", Hegel was so ambiguous that he had followers claiming both one thing and its complete opposite, Nietzsche did a complete 180 throughout his writings, and so on.
Also, you're confusing "serious thinkers" with "philosophers".

>>9573330
/lit/ has phases of patrician and pleb, there are times when there are excellent threads and times of parched wasteland

>>9573548
You're one dumb, uneducated motherfucker.

>>9560999
if you mention Jung in a post, you're 30% more like to get dubs or trips, fascinating

>>9560999
Reminder that Jung believed in telepathy and telekinesis

>>9570014
That's like saying DFW isn't /lit/ kek. Sam Harris is praised here.

Is jung right

>>9568299
>I dont understand the hate from /lit/ besides the overshilling. I love his stuff

I'm quite a fan too. I think /lit/ just rails on him b/c of its classic urge to be contrarian, which I also kinda get.

>>9561032
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Designed-Literature-Testaments-Version/dp/0671879596/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496176573&sr=1-2&keywords=the+bible+as+literature

>>9573651
?

>>9574556
For heaven's sake, Geoffrey. How many times do we have to tell you?

Nobody's subjective map of reality is 'right', you blithering idiot. You may well agree with Jung when he went to Kenya and declared that he found the temperature to be hot. You may even go so far as to say, "Well, Gee Willikers, the old chap was 'right'. It's positively scorching." But that doesn't bring the truth value to 100%.

Damn, I'm sorry for calling you a blithering idiot, okay? It's just been a rough couple of weeks and you really haven't been helping..

Look, Geoffrey, everybody has a very low resolution map of reality. This map is comprised of linguistic descriptions, and yours is of such a low resolution that it's basically the screen from a Nokia 3210; the phone that you used to steal from Father to play Snake. Do you remember the two months you spent working out at Fitness First and you briefly read about nutrition and protein? Well your map contains a belief like, "Chicken breasts are a good source of protein." Your map is made of partially understood constructs just like that and you have patched them together to create your tiny little view of reality. Dr. Reilly, however, will have a more refined map in this area (though he has a little Nokia map in other areas like music composition or architecture). Dr. Reilly will tell you how the carboxyl side of isoleucine forms a peptide bond with the amino side of another acid and you'll get confused.

So you see, you have your little Nokia map, and most other people have a Nokia map with a small handful of areas that are in a much higher resolution.

Now, pay attention, Geoffrey. Inter-subjectively, we have one giant collective map. This is the map we own as a species. We have analysed all the areas of reality we can partially comprehend and have created an enormous description of how reality appears to be. No one person has a copy of this map, though, it exists in the pages of a million books and in the minds of 7 billion people, and is validated by peer-review. It's also impossible to look at the map in it's entirety. We can only look at isolated fragments like we did with Dr. Riley.

Fortunately the map is constantly being improved and our descriptions get more refined. Nothing about the map is 'right'. It's just a description of what we think we perceive. When it comes to Jung, a lot people have incorporated his theories like introversion and extroversion into their maps. This doesn't mean introversion is 'right' or that there are any such things as introverts and extroverts. And many people have rejected aspects of psychotherapy and analytical psychology.

It's really up to you, Geoffrey. Obtain as much of the highest resolution you can find and assess it using the tools currently in your map. Also read the assessment of others and try to comprehend the tools they use to asses. Whatever you subjectively agree with, you can incorporate into your map, into your description of reality.

>>9574933
is this pasta

>>9574933
impressive

>>9574933
>Nobody's subjective map of reality is 'right'
>Inter-subjectively, we have one giant collective map
>doesn't bring the truth value to 100%.
>Nothing about the map is 'right'. It's just a description of what we think we perceive
>So you see, you have your little Nokia map, and most other people have a Nokia map
>Whatever you subjectively agree with, you can incorporate into your map, into your description of reality

10/10 you clever bastard. peterson would be smashing his laptop against his desk if he read this.

First I thought it was real. then I thought it was a troll. then I thought it was real again. then I saw you took foucault and the same "no objective truth, everything is subjective, imma make my own subjective map" logic that the leftie postmodern sjw feminists use and made the most postmodern post possible to post.

>>9574933
This really made me think

>>9567665
ACTUALLY good post. I was confused by everyone saying the other guy had a good post. I mean he put a decent amount of effort into it obviously but basically it boiled down to "I like Peterson but I don't like that he misrepresents postmodernism"

This, however, is a conciser, more accurate, more information-filled and actually good post. Not to rag on that other guy, but just saying.

>>9574933
This is almost too good to be on /lit/, I'm surprised Google didn't show anything when I searched to see if it's from somewhere else.

>>9569842
Really pretentious but the ideal of being nice to people with beliefs you think are ridiculous is at least better than edgy (g)a(y)theists who think it's their God-given duty to argue with religious people and constantly bash on them.

>>9575106

social constructionism =/= nihilist relativism. stop strawmanning leftists you disagree with and either get literate and read them or stop speaking of that about which you cannot speak.

>>9574960
>is this pasta
No it's not, Geoffrey. It's almost a stream of consciousness exercise. I had the central premise and free-wrote postmodern logic around it with some nonsense about Geoffrey thrown in without paying much attention to what I was writing.
>>9574969
Thank you, sir.
>>9575106
Thank you, Geoffrey. You're very close to the truth. Yes, I deliberately used the postmodern logic that Peterson is opposed to. But the argument, the language, the terms like 'map' and 'description of reality', the idea that we observe a very small part of the map at any given time; the idea that everyone has their own map of reality; the idea that there is an ever-refining giant inter-subjective map that individuals refer back to (basically, anything from relativity to the structure of proteins.Concepts we collectively treat as true and refer back to as individuals even though an individual may only understand a portion of the concept); it's not Foucault or Derrida's , It's the logic of Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson.

The important part is, even though Peterson would certainly hate it, it's completely accurate and I don't imply that all maps are equal.
>>9575111
>This really made me think
Why, thank you very much. Try reading some Korzybski. He influenced everyone from Arthur C. Clark to William S. Burroughs. Michel Houllebecq even named a book after him called The Map and the Territory, after the simple idea that The Map an individual has of reality is not the territory it describes.
>>9575133
>This is almost too good to be on /lit/, I'm surprised Google didn't show anything
Oh, Anon, pls. You're making me blush.