oh shit, it’s legitimate analysis of Peterson as philosopher

[Anonymous No.11155453]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/book-review-jordan-petersons-12-rules-for-life-78542

[Anonymous No.11155464]

>>11155453
>this might've been paid for by my donations

[Anonymous No.11155470]

>>11155453
>If anything characterizes this book, it is banality. You will find in it neither bold transgression nor a genius gone bad. Peterson is not an anti-hero or a misguided scoundrel. He is a tenured full professor of psychology at a major research university, who decided to write a self-help book to profit from his newfound fame. His book is opportunistic. There was nothing spectacular about reading it; the experience was mostly boring and tedious. I predict it will be stocked in thrift stores everywhere within a few years.
BTFO

[Anonymous No.11155471]

>>11155453
>Peterson as a philosopher
Stopped reading

[Anonymous No.11155486]

>>11155470
anyone who didn't recognize this on their own is too stupid to consider human

[Anonymous No.11155487]

>>11155470
I loved this paragraph. So savage.
>Peterson’s book begins with an oddly incomplete account of its origins and motivations, followed by an unconscious dismissal of Aristotle’s most compelling account of the purpose of life, followed by a lazy attempt to justify using a specialized term as a mystical buzzword for the rest of the book. Yet in some respects, these are the most reasonable eight pages of the book.

[Anonymous No.11155498]

>>11155453
>legitimate analysis of a life coach as philosopher
why would you do that?

[Anonymous No.11155502]

>>11155453
He will have his 15 minutes of fame and then *poof*!

[Anonymous No.11155524]

Based Catholics not tolerating Peterson's Gnostic "noble pagan" horseshit

[Anonymous No.11155543]

>>11155453
>catholicnewsagency

This should be good.

[Anonymous No.11155550]

>>11155487
>it's another episode of thomists still being butthburt about Aristotle

[Anonymous No.11155584]

Peterson is a materialistic subversion of Traditionalism, where Profane power structures of corporate and government are claimed to be legitimate and unchangeable, which is entirely opposed to the idea that Modernity has abandoned Sacred hierarchy of Priest-Kings engaging in timeless ritual

[Anonymous No.11155587]

>>11155543
UPDATE: I shouldn't have doubted the Catholics. That article is one of the only decent analyses of Peterson's book I've seen in the media thus far.

[Anonymous No.11155600]

>>11155453
BASED

[Anonymous No.11155601]

>>11155587
Catholics tend to be some of the most rigorously learned people you will meet, seeing as how many of the monumental philosophical works of the western world were written by their guys. And they actually care about their history, unlike the McDonald brand american protestants
Now, the administration and leaders of the Catholic church are another story, but nothing new. Hell, Dante was putting popes and bishops in the Inferno all the way back in the 1300s

[Anonymous No.11155622]

>>11155453
>Peterson’s treatment of postmodernism as an evolutionary adaptation of Marxism is highly simplistic. Peterson mentions French intellectuals like Jacques Derrida (despite the inconvenient fact that Derrida wrote a whole book, Spectres of Marx, outlining a critique of Marx) and also brings up the Frankfurt School, but his formula is that Marxism of any kind equals killing fields in Cambodia and, above all, Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and somehow gets from there to the present day Academy and University.
>Peterson’s own sources do not agree with his account. He unwittingly makes constructive use of Theodor Adorno’s essay “After Auschwitz” earlier in the book, and Adorno is a member of the Marxist Frankfurt School and absolutely not a postmodernist. Furthermore, Peterson’s overt reliance on Nietzsche and Jung, a follower of Sigmund Freud, shows that Peterson’s own ideas are built upon two of Derrida’s three “masters of suspicion”: Nietzsche and Freud (the third is Marx). Furthermore, Peterson seems quite unaware of the fact that Marxists and postmodernists do not get along in the Academy. Many Leftists, like Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Zizek, agree with Peterson’s dismissal of postmodernism despite not agreeing with each other on anything else. When Peterson warns his reader to “[b]eware of a single cause interpretation—and beware the people who purvey them” he again fails to take his own advice in his single-cause interpretation of Marxism and postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.11155624]

>>11155453
>This determinism supports his first rule about standing up straight with broad shoulders. Posture is an expression of dominance. What is ironic about this rule is that Peterson doesn’t show intellectual dominance; he is unable to make a powerful, upright argument. Instead, he repeats hunched-over Darwinian cliches through lazy analogies and silly deterministic narratives.
holy shit the Catholics take no prisoners

[Anonymous No.11155635]

>>11155601
>Dante was putting popes and bishops in the Inferno all the way back in the 1300s
Oh man, there's painting IN the Vatican that depict the same thing. This is standard Catholic wisdom. And I'm pretty sure that the term "necessary evil" was first used to describe the corruption of the Catholic rhuch

[Anonymous No.11155639]

>>11155453
>Article says the same stuff that every other critique of Peterson says
>But it's from BASED CATHOLICS SO IT'S BASEEEEEEED
this board is infested by subhuman zombies

[Anonymous No.11155640]

>>11155601
the long running joke is the fact that an institution as poorly run as the church has been able to last for 2000 years, which is proof that only god could have allowed it to happen

[Anonymous No.11155644]

>>11155639
/lit/ is a trad-Cath board. If you don't like it, fucking LEAVE

[Anonymous No.11155647]

>>11155644
>a tradionalist catholic anime imageboard
the absolute state

[Anonymous No.11155652]

>>11155647
Anime is just Japanese icons

[Anonymous No.11155657]

>>11155647
Leave! Heathen!

[Anonymous No.11155661]

>>11155639
Holy shit this. Even that Current Affairs article was more encompassing. Not that this article sucks, but it is no silver bullet

[Anonymous No.11155663]

>>11155647
>>11155639
the absolute state of unrepentant sinners

[Anonymous No.11155674]

>>11155453
The catholic news agency has marxist overtones to it, of course they would hate Peterson.

[Anonymous No.11155726]

>>11155639
Enjoy eternal hellfire for me

[Anonymous No.11155740]

>There are three truly weird moments in12 Rules for Lifethat have largely escaped notice, though they should have set off alarm bells among reviewer and author alike. The first comes in the introduction, where Peterson describes a dream he had while writingMaps of Meaningin which he was "suspended in mid-air, clinging to a chandelier, many stories above the ground, directly under the dome of a massive cathedral." Messiah much? He keeps going: "My dream placed me at the centre of Being itself, and there was no escape. It took me months to understand what this meant.…The centre is marked by the cross, as X marks the spot. Existence at that cross is suffering and transformation—and that fact, above all, needs to be voluntarily accepted
>The second is another dream about halfway through the book, in which our hero was again in the air, this time with a view of massive glass pyramids, "all full of people striving to reach each pyramid's very pinnacle." Yet there was a further space above all that, "the privileged position of the eye that could or perhaps chose to soar freely about the fray; that chose not to dominate any specific group or cause but instead to somehow simultaneously transcend all." Jesus.
>The final eyebrow-raiser comes in the coda, where Peterson tells a symbolic story about being wowed by a friend's night-lighted pen, asking for it as a gift, writing down on a piece of paper,What shall I do with my newfound pen of light?then waiting for revelatory response. Among the answers about life that tumbled forth: "Aim for Paradise, and concentrate on today" and "honour your wife as a Mother of God." Among the questions,What shall I do with a fallen soul? andHow shall I educate my people?The final couplet of this inspirational session: "What shall I do when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths." The only question is whether he's the second coming or merely John the Baptist

https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/05/jordan-peterson-is-not-the-sec

[Anonymous No.11155753]

>>11155740
thats cancer

[Anonymous No.11155754]

>>11155661
Did you read the article? The Current Affairs one doesn't even mention Marx, Aristotle, Derrida, Heidegger, etc.

[Anonymous No.11155768]

>>11155754
Who cares

[Anonymous No.11155772]

>>11155740
>and "honour your wife as a Mother of God."
I don't envy the place in hell Peterson will be getting

[Anonymous No.11155774]

>>11155768
So it's not really saying the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11155778]

>>11155639
2 sentence jabs that Peterson does not understand the difference between PoMo and Frankfurt school is not a critique, fren.

[Anonymous No.11155779]

>>11155774
Fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.11155781]

>>11155644
Meh...not even that much. I don't identify with even basic traditions and precepts of catholicism and it doesn't come up often enough to make me enjoy this board any less. Plus /lit/ really likes several hardcore atheists, not as many as people that are relevant to Catholic tradition, but still...

[Anonymous No.11155786]

>>11155470
tl;dr what non-extremists have been saying all along.

[Anonymous No.11155788]

>>11155639
Irreligious take on banality and beauty are second rate at best.

[Anonymous No.11155792]

>>11155740
How have our would-be messiahs actually become more retarded over the millennia?

[Anonymous No.11155812]

>>11155740
Christianity means emulating (and following) Christ. He does the former, but not the latter.

[Anonymous No.11155832]

>>11155543
>>11155587
Catholicism is an ancient faith, and they know better than to fall for hysteria and whatever is in vogue.

Which is why we need a new anti-pope.

[Anonymous No.11155885]

>>11155502
isn't Peterson already in downfall? i think he is not cool anymore

[Anonymous No.11155901]

But who is Norman Doidge?

[Anonymous No.11155912]

>>11155502
not if Ben Shiller has anything to say about it
he's practically worshiping him

[Anonymous No.11155938]

why are all aristotelians so butthurt?

[Anonymous No.11155941]

>He repeats his major preoccupation in Maps of Meaning: the Carl Jung-inspired ying yang of chaos and order. Peterson’s method here is iterative. He repeats “chaos is X” and “order is Y”, or makes similes about them. For instance: “Chaos is freedom, dreadful freedom, too. Order, by contrast, is explored territory.” Or, on taxes: “When your tax return has been filed, that’s order. When you’re audited, that’s chaos.” On Tolkien: “Order is the Shire of Tolkien’s hobbits… Chaos is underground kingdom of the dwarves, usurped by Smaug.” If you don’t follow his points, neither do I.
i mean Peterson is retarded, but is he even more retarded than Peterson?

[Anonymous No.11155948]

>>11155885
>i think he is not cool anymore
>isn't Peterson already in downfall?
>i think
>therefore everyone else thinks

[Anonymous No.11155953]

funny how the source changes opinion. all these points have been raised before.

[Anonymous No.11155962]

>>11155953
it did not change shit it just reinforced the opinions that where there.

[Anonymous No.11156003]

>and is the author of Tell Them Something Beautiful, Folk Phenomenology, and A Primer for Philosophy and Education.

[Anonymous No.11156011]

>>11155948
it's the impression i got from seeing he is just treated as old news in trendy places

[Anonymous No.11156074]

>>11155962
I was referring to the word "legitimate" analysis, instead of whatever illegitimate ones that repeat the same criticisms the OP has read.

[Anonymous No.11156293]

>>11155938
500 years of being straw-manned

[Anonymous No.11156301]

>>11156293
>just be happy lol

[Anonymous No.11156349]

>>11156293
let's be clear, Aristotle is the most coherent metaphysician in the history of thought, and there has been a soft conspiracy against his thought since Descartes and the anti-metaphysical turn in western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11156355]

>>11155453
If you really want to defeat ZOG and cultural Marxism drop Peterson and pick up SIEGE

[Anonymous No.11156435]

>>11155453
>Peterson as a philosopher.
>Doesn't even name the Jew.

[Anonymous No.11156449]

>>11155453
wtf I love Catholics now

[Anonymous No.11156474]

>>11155639
I mean, this poster is not wrong, these critiques were made even in the subhuman cespools such as r/badphilosophy.

[Anonymous No.11156481]

>>11155453
>catholicnewsagency.com
I'm not reading this shit

[Anonymous No.11156612]

>>11156349
>
if he is so smart, why did he create Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous No.11156643]

>>11155644
Whenever I see shit like this, I kick myself for not screencapping the guy who admitted he became a catholic for only 6 months.

[Anonymous No.11156648]

>>11155635
Michelangelo's work on Saint Peter's Chapel is full to the brim with his enemies as devils / his patrons as saints and angels. Badmouthing your political oponents and accusing them of being the literal devil is not IN the Vatican, IT IS THE VERY VATICAN ITSELF

[Anonymous No.11156666]

>>11155674
Sunday a guy tol me the CIA was communist and I thought to myself "wew lad that will be hard to top", but you went and did it anyway you fucking madman

[Anonymous No.11156721]

>>11155740
Many catholics take issue when non-catholics argue theology in bad faith. Why is this writer exempt from criticism for discussing psychoanalysis in bad faith? No one has a dream in which they are not the center. Should we say everyone's dreams are messianic? Peterson is not claiming to be extraordinary. The most radical thing he has claimed is that speaking as you think has significant consequences, and is a very good way to bring more meaning to your life and find a definite position in society. Would this author say Camus or Kierkegaard are any less messianic? This seems like the kind of catholic who justifies abortion by saying it's not their place to judge. But it is. The bible is clear. Yes, judge not, and ye shall not be judged. But, do unto others as you would have done unto you. Treat your neighbor as you treat yourself. A catholic is commanded to action. A catholic cannot simply watch. He is not reprimanded for judging, but simply forewarned that as he judges, so shall he be judged. If he says Peterson has a messiah complex, then what does he say for himself, who earns his keep by public judgment rendered in short form? Who can have a messiah complex greater than the Critic. Maybe he should read The Fall next.

[Anonymous No.11156823]

>the dumb person's smart man

there, that's the only analysis you'll ever need

[Anonymous No.11156844]

>>11156721
>No one has a dream in which they are not the center.
ahahaha and you have the balls to say someone else is discussing in bad faith
yes, everyone's dreams put them in "the center" but only insofar as you're experiencing the dream from your own POV, not fucking flying around in a cathedral or over pyramids while the little people toil beneath you

[Anonymous No.11156855]

>>11156844
I like how no one on the internet ever reads past the point where they get salty.

[Anonymous No.11156863]

>>11156721
>The bible is clear.
>talking about catholics
my niqqer do you have even a slight idea about how, where and why our university model was created?

[Anonymous No.11156926]

>>11156863
see>>11156855
I am Catholic. That this will change your interpretation and response demonstrates your bad faith.

[Anonymous No.11156960]

>>11156926
Mate, I've read your whole post but the thing is, to pretend catholicism has a single stance, specially a single moral or political stance based on bible literalism is to ignore that the conflict between theory and praxis is so strong within catholicism that it ended up permeating every aspect of western thought. You are being extremely delusional and acting as the typical internet catholic LARPer - I'm not saying you are, just that you choose to ignore the church's history in the name of a internet argument. A catholic is commanded to action, but a catholic is also supposed to follow the state's orders. A catholic must do unto others as you would have done unto you, but catholics have also fought wars for the church and fought wars not for the church but for the secular powers. A catholic must be meek and turn the other cheek, but he also must defend the Lord's name. These are all core conflicts which you ignore because lol clean ur room bucko

[Anonymous No.11157006]

>>11155453
based

>>11155740
cringe

[Anonymous No.11157093]

Since everyone is so whole-heartedly praising this article, I feel compelled to play Devil’s advocate.

First, we can safely discount all the ad hominem and vitriolic rhetoric in the article. The writer is obviously a master of invective, but there’s not really much substantial in saying “he’s a banal opportunistic self-help guru and also influenced by Darwinism and Jung and therefore not a good Catholic :^)”.

Second is the critique of his use of “Being” in the work. Peterson says he’s influenced by Heidegger in using it, but never claims to use it in the exact same way. Very few philosophers create entirely accepted philosophical terms using common language which are then accepted by every other philosopher, this would kill the uniqueness of every philosopher. For example, philosophers who want to talk about Nietzsche’s distinction between master and slave morality may not have to agree with Nietzsche on everything he said about them, and may even reformulate them for their own use. Peterson even says he uses it “in part” because of his exposure to Heidegger, and gives his own definition/interpretation of Being. Even if it’s not in perfect accord with Heidegger, he still gave his OWN definition of/interpretation of what he wants to call Being. Therefore, critiques should focus not necessarily on whether he agrees with H. completely but to what effect he develops this concept and logically works with it.

Second, he criticizes Peterson’s linking of Marxist and postmodernism by giving some examples of some Marxists/leftists who criticize postmodernism, and some postmodernists who criticized Marxism, and mentioning Nietzsche and Freud (whom Peterson is influenced by) influenced postmodernism. This is a shallow critique because 1.) just because some postmodernists critique Marxism doesn’t mean they still aren’t influenced by it, or the whole value system is influenced by it, and 2.) Peterson is not saying they’re the same thing or have to agree with each other on everything, but are psychologically/philosophically linked in certain ways, 3.) it’s also not necessarily relevant to talk about the big names of these fields because Peterson is also critiquing how the ideals have SEEPED DOWN into academia and modern culture and become fused in certain ways, and 4.) Just because Peterson is influenced by Nietzsche and Freud again does not mean he is a postmodernist or that he has to agree with them on everything.

[Anonymous No.11157098]

>>11155832
>hurr NOT MY POPE
let me guess, you joined because of 4chan

[Anonymous No.11157101]

>>11157093
>Since
Stopped reading

[Anonymous No.11157103]

>>11157098
No i'm actually an atheist

[Anonymous No.11157137]

>>11156960
You've simply proven my point in more ways than one. If you'd actually read my commentary, you'd notice that it was not a literal interpretation of commandments, but a reading of the parables as metaphysically meaningful ethics. The conflicts you throw out now are obviously irrelevant to the debate at hand. You have no problem applauding a catholic critic who agrees with you in the moment, but as soon as catholic values turn against you, you draw up imagined contradictions just to say that the whole ideology cannot be taken seriously. Like with all things you come across, you may have read the letters, but you did not read the words.

[Anonymous No.11157239]

>>11156721
You're mixing things up anon. The Reason article isn't written by a catholic. Yes, we are all the centers of our dreams, but only a few of us fantasize about leading the flock of mankind into salvation while soaring above the universe or claim to have received divine revelation. The guy is very cocky, and you can tell that he has a very high opinion of himself.

[Anonymous No.11157247]

>>11155453

[Anonymous No.11157268]

>>11157239
Hah, I did not notice it was a different article. My mistake. But it makes the criticism even less meaningful, because that's not how dream interpretation works, AND it's now how Peterson describes, nor interprets the dream. It looks like you're projecting your shadow.

[Anonymous No.11157275]

he's so fucking cringy

[Anonymous No.11157306]

>>11155740
>Assuming your dreams are instructions to give to others instead of just to you
For fuck sake, why do people always believe that God's words are meant for their mouths when it is only their ears.

[Anonymous No.11157387]

>>11155587
>He doubted the institution responsible for fusing Greek and Latin philosophy coherently with semitic religion and philosophy
>He doubted an institution that preserved Western literacy, founded the first Universities, and patronized the Renaissance of the West
>>11155792
It's easier to become a cultural meme now so your ideas don't have to be as strong, but they travel very quickly and easily
>>11155832
>>11157103
Makes sense. Only an atheist would advocate for a schism. Pope's come and go but the institution remains. Weaking the institution via schism is always more problematic in the long run than the damage any pope can do. That's why 98% of Catholics regardless if they agree with a pope whole heartedly do not advocate for schism.

[Anonymous No.11157405]

>>11157306
He does not even believe in God

[Anonymous No.11157409]

>>11157387
>That's why 98% of Catholics regardless if they agree with a pope whole heartedly do not advocate for schism.

As a Catholic I'll say this is entirely correct. Nobody who genuinely cares about the faith actually wants to do anything nutty like depose Francis or start their own Church. The only people who talk like that are already sedevacantists, and sedevacantists are just Protestants LARPing as Catholics anyway.

[Anonymous No.11157410]

>>11157405
I know it's fucking retarded.

All the evolutionists on here like him though. Fuck that shit.

[Anonymous No.11157443]

>>11157405
Even so, it makes even less sense. A Jungian would see that whom is sending him these messages or inspirations is his Self which makes such messages even more personalized to him and even less to be revealed or shared with others

[Anonymous No.11157450]

>Elsewhere in the book Peterson occasionally promises that he is not a dualist or a Manichean. But it is impossible to see anything else in this series of disconnected assertions. There are no reasons, evidence, or arguments presented; just chaos is this, order is that.

Peterson in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.11157679]

>>11155601
>Catholics tend to be some of the most rigorously learned people you will meet

Masturbation is a sin

[Anonymous No.11157703]

>>11155470
I mean that’s pretty unfair desu.
He’s writing a popular self help for the regular person. He’s obviously not trying to write a philosophical tract.

It’s like criticizing Harry Potter because “uhhhh like the prose is kinda bland”. Like no fuck, thats not the aim.

I’d agree with this in general about Peterson, that he’s really not saying anything new; but it’s a poor criticism of the book.

[Anonymous No.11157745]

>>11157101
Nobody cares save me and I'm nobody.

[Anonymous No.11157769]

>>11157703
>It’s like criticizing Harry Potter because “uhhhh like the prose is kinda bland”. Like no fuck, thats not the aim.

Bland prose isn't a legitimate criticism because Rowling was intentionally trying to be boring?

[Anonymous No.11157779]

>>11157703
>it's shit on purpose
that's even worse

[Anonymous No.11157788]

>>11157703
>He’s obviously not trying to write a philosophical tract.
Then why does everyone around him including him act like he does

[Anonymous No.11157819]

>>11157703
You can't avoid doing philosophy, you can only avoid doing it well. Jordon Peterson is an awful philosopher and this is evidenced by how many people have to defend it by saying he isn't trying to do what he's doing.

[Anonymous No.11157839]

>>11157779
>Be Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
>Spend years reading the most important texts in post-enlightenment thinkng
>Write a book trying to explain the mechanisms of phenomenological experience from a position of Jungian psychoanalsis
>It's too dense and esoteric. Nobody cares.
>Spend decades doing clinical studies, running private practice, and teaching at some of the top schools in North America.
>Demonstrate prior theory
>It's too specialized, nobody cares.
>Start posting lectures on youtube, because, hey why not?
>A few robots on the internet start to care.
>Canada makes a law about respecting attack helicopters.
>Be kind of mad about that.
>Everybody cares.
>Keep talking.
>Everybody cares even more.
>Make a book to summarize everything you've been saying for the past 30 years in a way that's not too specialized, dense, or esoteric.
>People care a lot.
>Now the robots are mad, because it's not specialized, dense, or esoteric enough.
>MFW I'm the first psychologist to ever sell out.

[Anonymous No.11157845]

>>11157839
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.11157849]

>>11157839
Oh please this book is no Man and his Symbols

[Anonymous No.11157854]

>>11157839
>Spend years reading the most important texts in post-enlightenment thinkng
yes, which is why he shows such deep understanding of themes he's talking about fucking lmao

[Anonymous No.11157879]

>>11157854
Just because someone disagrees with your professor, doesn't mean their reading is either shallow or wrong. If anything, it lends credence to it.

[Anonymous No.11157885]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVd0kWmEAwM

[Anonymous No.11157889]

>>11157879
he doesn't "disagree" he's just plain wrong