Urgent question

[Anonymous No.10959471]

May I know why /pol/ and some of you consider Jordan Peterson to any extent a philopher? After extensive session of watching his lecturers I conclude that he is only paraphrasing the Dostoyewsky's concept of Christian morality enchanted with some behavioral analisys based on "crime and punishment" characters. Is it because he advocates for conservatism and /pol/ get booner because someone smarter than nascar driver finally agrees with them?
Ps. Conservative eurofag here.

[Anonymous No.10959474]

He is not a philosopher.
Only brainlets think that.

[Anonymous No.10959480]

Pol fags are clueless mostly, as he is advocating the ability to have a dialogue between each other, the ability to listen to each others arguments. Right /pol/ and left /pol/ are hardly able to do that.

[Anonymous No.10959481]

Pretty much. He's just parroting dosty, neetchy, and jung. He appeals as a father figure to all the worthless NEETs whose fathers have already given up on them. The appeal is definitely that people feel smarter having seen the lectures and since he advocates for conservatism. He uses all this to gain fame and fortune without having to do any real work like writing anything new.
He's cool for promoting canonical works I guess but the idol worship some idiots do is retarded.

[Anonymous No.10959491]

>>10959471
He’s arguing eloquently for individual responsibility and against neo-Marxism as he puts it. It’s an exciting argument for so many millennial males who have been raised on feminist and snowflake mentalities by single mothers and therefore he’s reviving the concept of masculinity as a good thing. That’s why he’s popular.
He’s no philosopher and anyone that claims him to be needs to look themselves in the mirror.
His ideas aren’t unique and they definitely come from a blend of sometimes misinterpreted information and meaning he gained form the following books he advocates for:
https://jordanbpeterson.com/books/book-list/

If you find a single idea he has thats good and that isn’t contained in one of these books I’ll be amazed.
He’s a good guy, he means well, and he talks well about the things he’s read. Thats all there is to it.
The fan base can be annoying and /lit/ therefore scorns him partly because he raises irritating brainlet reddit tier fans, and partly because they are full of ressentiment

[Anonymous No.10959514]

>>10959491
this tweet sums it up pretty well

[Anonymous No.10959522]

>10959480
I also notice the dialog initiating part. But don't you think anon that right side of pol is using him as a Egida shield and prostitute for every argument that left side gives? They are extremely clueless about vast part of his opinions eg. About shool schooters.

[Anonymous No.10959528]

>>10959522
If someone is still on /pol/ after listening to Peterson then he's either willfully blind or doing it to spite humanity itself

[Anonymous No.10959531]

>>10959491
>13. Maps Of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief – Jordan B. Peterson
kek the nerve of this guy

[Anonymous No.10959533]

>>10959531
>TRIGGER WARNING: These are the most terrifying books I’ve read

[Anonymous No.10959538]

>>10959491
Have you notived that in the book list he has choosen the "less hardcore" version of Nietzche philosophy? "Beyond good and evil" do not advocates abandoning the morality but modifying it. It's so so ridiculous he choosen it because it fits his views kek. I think Also sprach Zarathustra would be a bit less biased choice.

[Anonymous No.10959539]

I like how leftists can go from being radical infant terribles to staid defenders of the sacred tradition on the drop of a dime nowhere else but in their own submoronic imaginings.

[Anonymous No.10959540]

>>10959531
>>10959533

[Anonymous No.10959547]

>>10959539
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.10959557]

>>10959471
Read his 500+ magnum opus before offering pronouncements on what he belives or what depth he offers. Treatise =! a few vids on youtube.

[Anonymous No.10959574]

I appreciate his efforts in much the same way I appreciate the efforts of caretakers of the intellectually disabled.

[Anonymous No.10959577]

>>10959574
>le smug condescension

[Anonymous No.10959589]

He's not a philosopher, and has never claimed to be either. I don't get why it's supposed to be a problem to have philosophical musings even though you aren't academically trained in philosophy.

Yes, there might be a higher possibility of error when you don't have any formal education, but that doesn't axiomatically mean you're a hack or a fraud.

[Anonymous No.10959603]

>>10959574
Kekimus Maximus

[Anonymous No.10959619]

>>10959471
wat makes a person a philosopher then?

[Anonymous No.10959651]

>>10959538
Totally agree with you. I’m really surprised he didn’t have Genealogy in there though

[Anonymous No.10959668]

>>10959557
this post is the truth, and it's a grand irony that nobody realises

[Anonymous No.10959696]

>>10959619
Fresh mindset that is more than refreshing and defending old ideas. Think of French existentialists, they created new set of axioms predominantly unrelated to previous concepts thus they were very originall. Arguing with SJW is not very prestigious thou.

[Anonymous No.10959707]

>>10959619
Nowadays it could be someone advocating something and actually doing the opposite in its own life.

[Anonymous No.10959727]

>>10959696
>Think of French existentialists
>>10959707

Funny because Sartre exactly fits this definition : look at his stance on USSR. He knew how awful it was but still defended it, to keep the dream alive for working classes.

[Anonymous No.10959771]

>>10959557
I've unironically read most of this. It really only made me realize that he's not that great of a philosopher and has a fairly weak understanding of history and myth. That said, this doesn't take away from the fact that his common-sense advice and self-help teachings are good. Maps is better than Joseph Campbell, but it's really not more than a modern version of that type of work. That is to say, largely devoid of interesting or valid philosophy, but an interesting take on things if you have the time to read it.

>>10959538
Yeah this is a good point.

[Anonymous No.10959780]

>>10959668

The irony is that he seemingly has no problem offering pronouncements on Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault et al. despite clearly not having engaged with their work.

[Anonymous No.10959784]

>>10959619
Knowing what you're talking about, for starters.

[Anonymous No.10959795]

he's a giant ego-maniac. also manic-depressive.

[Anonymous No.10959801]

>>10959491
>he talks well about the things he’s read.
Well there's stuff he's claimed to have read, but actually doesn't speak well about at all. In fact, his "speaking well" is in general more a product of being a good orator than actually speaking clearly and making good arguments based on the arguments of the things he's "read".

Yeah he does mean well, but as an intellectual he's a hack.

[Anonymous No.10959817]

>>10959784
Triggered graduate spotted.
Graduating philosophy does not make you a philosopher or even thinker. You are just a bit more aware of surround world.

[Anonymous No.10959829]

name one coherent argument this guy has made

name one position he has or advocates for

this guy is a fucking hack who just rambles for hours on end with tonnes of hand movements and a vague sense of 'he's saying something profound??'

[Anonymous No.10959830]

>>10959727
I was speaking more of Camus. It think whitening USSR was the reason the finally stopped to be friends. Tbh I think your argument is a bit invalid. Do you really think that giving utopian delusion for people that probably weren't literate enough to understand or read his workings was the real reason for supporting soviets? I think it was powered rather by trauma of nazi occupation and image that he wanted to build among Paris intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.10959844]

>>10959829
> gender roles and stereotypes are determined biology and the deep subconscious. all cultures have recognized this in the past, and myths are a perfect example.
> postmodernists (as he calls them) have attempted to abandon tradition and replace it with cultural marxism. this is the root of much of our current social woes, and will result in eventual decline. the above point about gender roles is part of this.
> leftists have taken over academia and media, and there is no room today to talk about these things in an open manner.

[Anonymous No.10959845]

>>1095982
What does hack mean? I am /lit/ newfag

[Anonymous No.10959849]

>>10959829
Clean your room.

[Anonymous No.10959853]

Peterson is not a philosopher he just reads philosophy books and analyses them and makes broad connections between them throughout history. He’s literally just a poster boy for nazis that seems innocent but is really, actually dumb and mean

[Anonymous No.10959878]

>>10959577
:^)

[Anonymous No.10959884]

>>10959780
examples of where he has misinterpreted them?

[Anonymous No.10959896]

>>10959853
Holy shit. I'm scared now.

[Anonymous No.10959900]

>>10959829
>>10959849

[Anonymous No.10959903]

>>10959844
Just adding for the record that Peterson does accept binary trans people (see Theryn Meyer), but his main gripe is actually against non-binary trans and concept like gender fluidity, that you can just change genders and pronouns on a whim. It's not so much being against using "she" to refer to a natal male as it is having to use pronouns that are "made up" like zhe/xir/bun, etc. He'd actually find that quite a number of binary trans people would be more than willing to throw the pronoun brigade under the bus if they could just go back to society being indifferent to them, which was the case before Republicans in the States pursued bathroom bills, this making the whole matter a right/left issue.

[Anonymous No.10959904]

I like Peterson and I disagree with most of what he says.

[Anonymous No.10959916]

>>10959903
I was more referring to his interpretation that the feminine/masculine attributes, stereotypes and roles are standard and generic, and not up to cultural "interpretation" or due to nurture. I didn't know his stance on trans (not really too interested), but that's pretty interesting actually, thanks.

[Anonymous No.10959918]

He reminds me a lot of my music teacher from highschool, an old guy in his sixties who liked talking about politics and culture who wanted to make it in music but didn't really have the tallent. They even look alike. Peterson was never supposed to make it this far but like trump his monologue found a place amongs a bunch of confused concervatives that some how pushed his career far beyond his intellectual capabilities. His agenda is all about making money now, he's getting high off his own ego and he even wants to run for president

[Anonymous No.10959925]

>>10959471
Not exactly. He appeals to modern men who cannot choose between the nihilism of science and the absurdity of religion. The only reason why "intelligent" people watch his lectures is because he tries to explain religion from evolution. That religion was a result of evolution and there are principles within it that allows populations to flourish. Atheist on the other hand want to eliminate religion all together.

[Anonymous No.10959930]

>>10959471
the vast majority haven't read Dostoyewsky. We live in a time of brainlets who will consume information and regurgitate it. Shame. We have access to more information that anyone before us but squander this opportunity we have. Ah well, we are all destined to live and shit and sleep and then, eventually, die. So, who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous No.10959942]

>>10959918
but memes can be president now

[Anonymous No.10959952]

>>10959471
>because he advocates for conservatism and /pol/ get booner because someone smarter than nascar driver finally agrees with them?
nailed it

[Anonymous No.10959976]

>>10959903
So essiently you're saying when he encountered something that couldn't be reduced to fit into his framework of understanding, instead of realizing his limitations, he had a mental breakdown. Instead of abandoning masculinity when faced with the fact women, on average, have a higher IQ and are less violent he continues to promote it.

>>10959925
fyi reducing religion to biology isn't a bridge between the two... Jung already tried to bridge science and religion and like everyone who tried ends up just embracing a form of mysticism and rejecting positivism outright.

[Anonymous No.10960007]

>>10959925
>are principles within it that allows populations to flourish
Yes anon that's why he is so extensively using the Dostoyewski. However I do not necessarily agree. Religion or rather principles it states can be replaced eg. By system or repression apparatus that have nothing to do with God idea. Think of a Soviet union. Religion has been successfully removed and still it has "flourished" (at least technologically) for few decades. There are no things that connot be replaced especially when we are considering evolutionary categories. Even belief system.

[Anonymous No.10960013]

>>10959976
He never said "masculinity" involves being superior to women. He says both femininity and masculinity are required together. It's the dialectic of the two, the hero and the dragon, the order temporarily conquering chaos, the sky father expanding the realm of the known into the realm of the unknown/feminine, which is universal.

Women don't have a higher IQ on average, but they aren't dumber. They are just inherently not built for being the bringers of order, and their hero myth requires being fulfilled by a male - her actualization is in becoming the mate for the hero. On the other hand, the man needs her, to have children. So both need each other. It's not like masculinity is above femininity or something, and he gets that trans people might want to swap gender. He just argues the universality of the concepts that make up the two genders.

[Anonymous No.10960014]

>>10959916
I just thought I'd throw it in there because that's kind of how his name started getting known. He opposed Bill C-16 in Canada, which makes it illegal for institutions under Federal jurisdiction to deny employment and services to trans people on the basis of gender identity and expression, and in terms of criminal law it's now illegal to incite genocide against them, and anti-trans sentiment can be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. He had a different interpretation of the bill and saw it as government implementing "compelled speech" with regards to the made up pronouns, and so that's why a lot of people got on board with him. His reasoning was the vague definition of gender identity and gender expression which could mean any host of things from binary trans people, whom he has no issue with, to more radical concepts like fluidity, non-binary identities, etc. He became seen as an anti-political correctness crusader. Of course, then a lot of people starting saying he was transphobic, etc. and so here we are. Pretty much every anti-Peterson article mentions his opposition to trans activists, and how there was somewhere he had likened them to Maoists.

It also didn't help that staff at a university, which doesn't fall under federal jurisdiction, so isn't subject to Bill C-16, tried to invoke the bill to punish a student who showed a clip of Peterson talking about gender. And so now people feel that his fears of a slow creep towards totalitarianism is vindicated. The whole thing was a mess.

[Anonymous No.10960020]

>>10959976
>tried to bridge

Like Alfred Russel Wallace?

[Anonymous No.10960052]

>>10960014
good post unironically

[Anonymous No.10960106]

>>10960013
I watched his videos like 3 years ago and don't remember him mentioning femininity at all or being particularly dialectical about anything. His more recent stuff though is definitly saying a form of hierarchy, which he's tailoring to his financial backers, needs to be defend against its enemies.

>Women don't have a higher IQ on average
ummmmm ya about that, women are, on average, scoring higher on IQ tests these days than men are... you might find more men at upper and lower extremes but the average women is most likely more intelligent than the average man today [that is in the west anyways].
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/women-now-have-higher-iqs-than-men
If you're only interested in averages, and not outliers, make of that as you will.

>He just argues the universality of the concepts that make up the two genders.
Except that's wrong, any ethnologist can tell you a binary gender opposition isn't a real universal.

[Anonymous No.10960132]

>>10960106
Women have always had "on average" higher IQ than men. But men more often show up at the extremes, and we all know that average people don't do anything noteworthy anyway.

[Anonymous No.10960146]

>>10960132
What you're saying is right but GOD are you an edgelord.

[Anonymous No.10960149]

>>10959528
right

[Anonymous No.10960184]

>>10960106
>I watched his videos like 3 years ago and don't remember him mentioning femininity at all or being particularly dialectical about anything.
Then you didn't watch his material on the topic. It's a big part of his work, and the central theme of "Maps of Meaning". He has plenty of videos talking about what women want, what men want, the order/chaos dialectic in relation to this, etc. He has videos on gender roles and their evolution as well. His stuff about "hierarchy" is just pure biology, I don't know what you mean by saying he's tailoring it.

>If you're only interested in averages, and not outliers, make of that as you will.
Yeah true, in the West. But as Peterson talks about, it's the male drive and desire to conquer the unknown that allows civilization to flourish. Women exist to provide a balance to the male, and represent the primality of nature. They do require brains to do what they do, but what that is, isn't being innovative or ambitious. Many men are plebs who work and don't do much else, but the intelligent men are the ones who fulfill the hero myth. The female hero myth is similarly, not always achieved. It has to be a high-status man that they acquire and support. But most women at least fulfill part of the hero myth - having a family and raising it - so in that sense it makes sense they'd all have to have the basic IQ for that. Men on the other hand, are more variable - nature designed it's risk-takers, task-doers and thinkers to have more variability.

> binary gender opposition isn't a real universal.
nah, it mostly is. the exceptions are for individuals in societies, not for societies as a whole.

[Anonymous No.10960189]

>>10959471
nobody, including himself, says he's a philosopher.

He's a therapist by training and trade.

[Anonymous No.10960198]

>>10960132
This isn't true and JPB has told it sever

[Anonymous No.10960204]

>>10960189
Besides, what exactly would be wrong about him calling himself a philosopher? It's not like it's an internationally protected title, and the quality of philosopher that exists today is shit anyway, so it wouldn't be worse with him included.

[Anonymous No.10960211]

>>10959696
>Fresh mindset that is more than refreshing and defending old ideas.
>Think of French existentialists

"Old ideas are always worse than new ideas. All REAL philosophers go against the establishment that made my highschool bullies"

t. postmodernist brainlet

[Anonymous No.10960222]

>>10959471
He loves wisdom

[Anonymous No.10960235]

>>10960189
Read carefully anon. I am speaking of /pol/

[Anonymous No.10960247]

>>10960235
Oh well, if you want to understand /pol/, Peterson's lectures are a good start.

[Anonymous No.10960255]

>>10960211
>old ideas are always worse than new
Never said that. Extensively and repetitivly used they are just boring. Also I have never mentioned that old ideas refreshed cannot be as involving as new one. Stop categorising anons.
>bullies
I am pretty chad desu.

[Anonymous No.10960261]

>reading Jordan Peterson to understand /pol/
/lit/ used to be better than this

[Anonymous No.10960270]

>>10959539
Say more

[Anonymous No.10960272]

Do people on /lit/ think /pol/ likes Peterson?

[Anonymous No.10960275]

>>10960261
>understanding internet nihilists
what's there to understand?

[Anonymous No.10960276]

>>10960247
Well, I am lurkining /pol/ rather for amusement (reversed snowflakes give me hard kek) than understanding.

[Anonymous No.10960278]

>>10960270
Anon thinks Peterson is not right-wing enough.

[Anonymous No.10960280]

>>10960261
Yeah /lit/ didn't used to be obsessed with /pol/ like every board is these days