/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12604726]

>be JBP
>get dismantled by a YouTube atheist
How does he still have fans?

[Anonymous No.12604730]

>>12604726
>wake up
>not a youtube atheist

nice

[Anonymous No.12604736]

Will he ever debate Žižek or is he still pussying out?

[Anonymous No.12604753]

>>12604726
literally who

[Anonymous No.12604906]

>>12604726
I'm almost done listening to his 2017 maps of meaning lecture on youtube. It's having a similar effect on me as the one from Robert Sapolsky with his lectures on evolutionary human biology I believe it was called. I recommend both, but you will get more technical knowledge from Robert.
Jordan Peterson is heavily influenced by Jung, Freud, Piaget and likely many others. He has a different approach that doesn't do well with the modern rational mind, but it doesn't mean he isn't right or close to being right. Claiming that there is a true way to behave in the world and that you can study the older script all the way to the newer scripts and find underlying patterns, which would then represent a truth is not an easy claim to make. He dedicated his whole life to this and produced amazing work, but don't expect the average self-conscious mind to adhere to his perspective. No wonder he is being attacked by the atheist. Do you really think he never thought of the counter arguments himself? He most certainly is being tortured by such thought on a regular basis, without the need of your favorite atheist youtuber. Obviously, the average anon doesn't actually know shit about him except from random 10 minutes videos highlights of him. I don't understand why he is being hated so much on /lit/. To me, it seems like slightly above average minds don't want to be identify as a petersoncel or whatever they call them; mostly losers who are being told by peterson to get some responsibilities and do something with their life. Even though this is 1% of Peterson's speech, you can probably contribute 50% of the hate on him here for this. Pathetic contrarian's opinion. If your identity is defined by trying to not be reddit, you are far worse. Anyways, the fact that this man is proving his main point of all his work by literally becoming the embodiment of the Christ, and thus, by becoming a heroic individual and consequently showing the pathway to light to those who are slowly rotting away in the underground, especially in this darker age, is an absolutely holy act and should be recipient of nothing but admiration.

[Anonymous No.12604909]

>>12604736
in April he is

[Anonymous No.12604930]

>>12604909
it's going to be so good
i hope it's not like chomsky vs foucault

[Anonymous No.12604980]

>>12604930
that's exactly what it will be like and you know it

[Anonymous No.12605001]

>>12604980
i doubt it, they are both psychologists

[Anonymous No.12605004]

>>12604906
unironcailly based

[Anonymous No.12605033]

>>12604930
both of them are lightweights compared to foucault

[Anonymous No.12605042]

>>12605033
I like Foucault a lot better than chomsky, but in that particular debate I think he was being egregiously pedantic. I don't believe he thinks that our perception of human nature is that pervasively colored by power structures, to the point where the concept should just be abandoned entirely. Especially when the context here was the presence of universal grammar, it was hardly like Chomsky was talking about the more contentious concepts surrounding 'human nature'.

[Anonymous No.12605064]

>>12605033
peterson will melt in front of zizek

[Anonymous No.12605074]

>>12604906
this is quality pasta

[Anonymous No.12605147]

>>12605064
peterson will literally piss himself

[Anonymous No.12605622]

>>12605147
peterson will shudder and curl up into his mortal coil

[Anonymous No.12605637]

>>12605042
>I like foucault a lot better then chomsky

Literally why. Chomsky is miles beyond foucault

[Anonymous No.12605661]

>>12604726
>Wash your penis, reject pronoun-mania and read Solzhenitsyn
>But accept atomization, surrender your racial consciousness (while respecting that of others), and skip Two Hundred Years Together

He's a contemptible, treacherous gate-keeper.

[Anonymous No.12605683]

>>12605622
Peterson will unread a book because of Zizek

[Anonymous No.12605700]

>>12605637
>Literally why. Chomsky is miles beyond foucault

brainlet take

[Anonymous No.12605781]

>>12604906
is he nietzsche??

[Anonymous No.12605790]

>>12604736
Žižek is the one who pussied out so far.

[Anonymous No.12605807]

>>12605637
I don't want to start a flamewar but I am not exactly a fan of Chomsky. I don't mind his linguistics, though even those aren't really that well supported. On politics i have rarely disagreed with anyone that much.
Foucault I can respect because he carries his arguments to their actual conclusions. He is rigorous about his stuff, and while he's not one of my preferred philosophers, I get what he's doing in a way. plus his books are just fun, Madness and civilization, Discipline and Punish especially.

In that debate though Chomsky was acting as the reactionary and I have to side with him because I have deeply reactionary beliefs about 'human nature'.

[Anonymous No.12605842]

>>12604906
why should we worship him when he just parrots Jung and adds in some evolutionary psychology? "Become Christ" is just Aion summarised in two words.
Cringe and bluepilled.

[Anonymous No.12605847]

[Anonymous No.12605859]

>>12604726
>YouTube atheist
Who?

[Anonymous No.12606205]

>>12604726
>>12604736
>>12604930
>>12604980
>>12605033
>>12605042
>>12605064
>>12605147
>>12605622
>>12605661
>>12605683
>>12605847
Leave before things get messy trannies

[Anonymous No.12606256]

>>12604906
>Anyways, the fact that this man is proving his main point of all his work by literally becoming the embodiment of the Christ, and thus, by becoming a heroic individual and consequently showing the pathway to light to those who are slowly rotting away in the underground, especially in this darker age, is an absolutely holy act and should be recipient of nothing but admiration.
I know this is pasta, but I know people in the Catholic community in my city that unironically think Peterson has been chosen by God to fulfil some special purpose

[Anonymous No.12606272]

>>12605033
>implying Foucalt is a heavyweight

[Anonymous No.12606372]

>>12606205
>t.rannyfrog

[Anonymous No.12606979]

>>12605859
Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.12606986]

>>12605683
peterson will explode like a geyser of shit and piss on the stage

[Anonymous No.12607012]

>>12606205
Replying to many posts should get you instabanned. Also being underage.

[Anonymous No.12607024]

>>12604736
>Žižek
Never understood what was his "political position". Is he communist inclined? Or socialist?
For JBP to hate him so much i think he has got to be one of those things.

[Anonymous No.12607032]

>>12604906
you the one who longposts so only certain people read?
I read your post
why not add tldr?

[Anonymous No.12607040]

>>12604726
>YouTube atheist
those still exist?

[Anonymous No.12607048]

>>12604736
>they end up sucking each other's cock and everybody in their respective camps meltsdown
can't wait for it

[Anonymous No.12607052]

>>12605064
daily reminder that zizek got cucked by will self on a debate

[Anonymous No.12607053]

>>12606272
he is. go read the order of things and tell me about it.

[Anonymous No.12607056]

>>12607048
Peterson is a Canuck pussy
https://youtu.be/wcidexC4Aeg

[Anonymous No.12607058]

>>12605807
>He is rigorous about his stuff
except for pulling most of his historical facts from his own ass, i guess you can still find value in his analysis even if it's built around fake history

[Anonymous No.12607065]

>>12605847
JBP is a pleb but Richard D. Wolff is just bad leftist smug comedy and appropriating the successes of catholic distributists as if they were successes of commies

[Anonymous No.12607128]

>>12604906
>by literally becoming the embodiment of the Christ
This is embarrassing. Peterson is well intentioned but he wears the cliches of egotism and overconfidence that come with his grand invocations. I think the pearls of truth he had to begin with were carelessly spun into a weak philosophy when he gained an audience after the transgender malarkey, and this philosophy is more self-help bestseller than Biblical. Not least because he sees this as his chance to retire early on his royalty checks.

I don't think he is Christ-like myself, but for you who do remember that Christ wasn't omniscient.

[Anonymous No.12607223]

>>12605790
No JP asked for an absurd amount of money last time

[Anonymous No.12607245]

what's the deal with Zizek lately? literally all of his new articles are just re-branding common right wing talking points as if they were left wing

[Anonymous No.12607287]

>>12607245
the man is fascinated by memes, it was only a matter of time before he came around

[Anonymous No.12607302]

>>12607287
he hasn't though, he is basically just a standard globalist under his superficial talking points

see his talking point about Malcolm X for example, that just by we all becoming rootless mutts can we be truly free

[Anonymous No.12607346]

>>12607287
>the man is fascinated by memes

he´s a moron then

[Anonymous No.12607360]

>>12607245
he got really autistic about his mobius strip concept and is just toying around with it. I would like to see him stop caring about current politics and go back to academic Hegelianism.

[Anonymous No.12607373]

>>12607360
>I would like to see him stop caring about current politics and go back to academic Hegelianism.
is he even taken seriously in that area? i know Pippin reviewed one of his books, but you never know if they do it because they actually care or just to try to milk some some clicks out of Zizek's fame

[Anonymous No.12607376]

>>12607024
Zizek is a Lacanian Marxist. Or Marxist Lacanian.

[Anonymous No.12607386]

>>12607376
you are just saying memes

[Anonymous No.12607394]

>>12607373
Yes he is; I've seen his work referenced in everything from film criticism to post-colonial theory to theology. Sublime Object is his most cited work I believe, but I have seen even ticklish subject and less than nothing quoted. He's also referenced by modern continentals like Byun Chul-Han.

[Anonymous No.12607396]

>>12604726
He is controlled opposition. Read Marie Kondo instead.

[Anonymous No.12607397]

>>12607373
Zizek was a fairly big deal in serious philosophy before he became an internet celebrity. Similar in a sense to how Chomsky was already a superstar linguist before becoming famous for his dumbed-down politics.

[Anonymous No.12607411]

>>12607386
Went to check in the wiki page and he is in fact that.
Dont really know wtf is that really about desu. Must be some of those faggots that want some sort of "sexual communism" where people are always switching partners to avoid obsession or whatever. Might be wrong

[Anonymous No.12607423]

>>12607386
Not memes, just a simple explanation of Zizek's intellectual commitments. It's reductive, but it's the easiest way to understand where Zizek is coming from. He's what you get when you read Lacan from a Marxist perspective (of course Lacan was already influenced by Marx, but I don't think anyone would consider him a Marxist).

[Anonymous No.12607433]

>>12607411
He isn't. If anything, he is a leftist authoritarian (In Defense of Lost Causes), but in practice he's just talking shit because he knows it will never happen (he suggests as much in Puppet and the Dwarf). He is actually quite against what you propose, as he often bemoans the current state of love and romance, and recently wrote an article highly critical of the idea of a 'sex contract'.
He's more in line with a traditional marxist than the blue haired faggots who protest the system on college campuses then go off to join the workforce.

[Anonymous No.12607448]

>>12607394
>from film criticism to post-colonial theory to theology
i was thinking more about strict philosophy not the more cultural stuff

[Anonymous No.12607457]

>>12607433
Thanks for the explaination.
I honestly cant never know where the fuck he is coming from or what to expect from him. Every time i see a video of him talking he speaks in such vague terms that i cannot simply understand what "side" he is taking. Maybe its my ESL that is fucking it up, idk.

[Anonymous No.12607464]

>>12607411
Zizek is more interested in all the ways in which people who ostensibly desire the destruction of capitalism secretly desire nothing so much as capitalism itself. This is basically his critique of SJWs—that minorities are really oppressed, but that they and their white saviors are getting off on that oppression.

[Anonymous No.12607467]

>>12607302
well he did once warn against the "liberal communists" of the davos set, so rip i guess, though the fact he was about the best the left could seemingly do was clown world from the start.

[Anonymous No.12607477]

>>12607467
i know he criticizes the elites, but at the end of the day i can't see Zizek's underlying project being much different to the current elites project

[Anonymous No.12607484]

>>12607396
Kondo-sama >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peterson, Zizek and other charlatans.

[Anonymous No.12607487]

>>12607457
It's more that to understand anything he's saying you have to share his theoretical background. If you just read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Lacan, it will go a long way. He's a bit like Peterson in that sense—it sounds pretty dumb if you haven't read Jung and don't get where he's coming from.

But like most academics Zizek's also makes things extra confusing just to sound smarter, and he sometimes says stuff that doesn't really make sense just to be provocative.

[Anonymous No.12607488]

>>12607457
he never takes a clear side when it comes to arguments, but just grandstands a bit around being a communist to present where he stands.

like it's not clear how there's any "outside of ideology" for Zizek, sometimes he states that the material conditions are somehow objective and outside of ideology, but never very clearly and it sounds more like that's what he hopes or what he takes as an axiom than something actually well developed

[Anonymous No.12607491]

>>12607245
A talking point isn't right or left wing. The hegemonic liberal left is too obfuscated in their thinking to address any of the real issues concretely.

For example, a typical liberal in America wants more welfare for the poor but can't even imagine tackling the issue of poverty itself. Or they want more regulation on corporations that contribute to pollution but their economics relies precisely on these polluting corporate practices.

I'm interested to hear which points you think only the right can talk about

[Anonymous No.12607497]

>>12607457
My main problem with Zizek, at least in his more accessible works, is his repetition. Really if you have seen one video you get the gist of what he will say in the next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OabTK7y7d6E
from this I think he would view hookup culture, this wife swapping and so on, as a maintenance of the emotional distance that safeguards the ego against traumatic encounters.
I think if all the people who reject him outright for being a marxist boogeyman were actually to read some of his works they would change their opinions. He's a crypto-christian and constantly loves citing Chesterton and the other /lit/ traditionalist secondaries.

[Anonymous No.12607549]

>>12607477
i agree, just was adding that he seemed to circle close to getting it at some points but remains too lost in his freudomarxian nonsense to see any further.

[Anonymous No.12607552]

>>12607477
If you see the elites as entirely dedicated to promoting race-mixing or something, then I imagine Zizek isn't your guy, since he probably thinks the whole idea of racial purity and traditional values is retarded because, for Zizek, we were always perverted, dirty, disgusting, stained, corrupted, etc. Race-mixing, from this perspective, would at least have the virtue of being honest.

Zizek probably sees elites as mainly concerned with creating desires for us that don't challenge their power—if people are obsessed with getting to switch genders and have sex with whoever they want, they won't have time to demand a greater share of the economic product.

[Anonymous No.12607556]

Reminder that Peterson got BTFOd by fucking jim jeffries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

[Anonymous No.12607575]

>>12607487
>>12607488
>>12607497
Thanks for the infos. Is there really something i can read to get me to understand better his "ideology" or points of view? The great problem i have with this political/philosophical agents is that you have to spend years reading philosical works to get where they are coming from.

[Anonymous No.12607577]

>>12607491
well, when i say the say i mean the standard internet right, not normie conservatives. here are some recent Zizek articles and videos and how i think they boil down to right wing talking points with a left wing bend:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/toxic-masculinity-paedophilia-homeland-gillette-heroism-slavoj-zizek-a8773096.html
>Toxic masculinity can be heroic, and here are the women that prove it
no need to elaborate much, it's clear how the first part of that is a usual right wing talking point

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI8z8EL1M-s - ‘The real problem with fake news....’: Slavoj Zizek in RT’s ‘How to watch the news’, episode 03
this basically amounts so how fake news is not about facts, it's about the elite losing the grand narrative

>thephilosophicalsalon.com/nomadic-proletarians/ - Nomadic // Proletarians
this article is about how the western left is basically thinking they can import brown people and brainwash them for their own purposes

>https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/yes-its-really-about-power/
>So I think the accuser’s words and acts are much more the words and acts of a man who ruthlessly seized the opportunity and played the game as long as it appeared to advance his career, trying to squeeze out of it as much as possible (note how often his emails include a request to review and edit his writings!), and then turned against his mentor when it became clear there was no tenured post waiting for him.
this is basically the talking point right wingers have about actresses but Zizek directs it to a guy so it doesn't sound so right wing in that case

this is just a few ones i remember

[Anonymous No.12607592]

>>12604726
JBP was interesting in his lectures and recent bible series. He sold out to the jews when he got a (((publisher))) and went on book tour. He even denied Solzhenitsyn's work retroactively. Shame.

[Anonymous No.12607603]

>>12607552
i don't necessarily have anything against any of that, but i find people who relinquish so much in the destruction of tradition that they just give for granted many things that will not stand once tradition is gone

like Zizek seems pretty traditional when it comes to relationships and all that, and his generation basically had the opportunity to have fun, "subvert" rules and everything, but whenever they were tried of games and wanted a normal life they had the opportunity to just go back to tradition, pick and choose a few things that suited them and get married and have a few kids relying on those structures

but as the subversion really takes hold the new generations will not have that stronghold of tradition to go back and will just to keep playing games forever

[Anonymous No.12607607]

>>12607575
it's not clear what's his real ideology and what's just an spectacle for status points among academia, he was literally a candidate for the social liberal party in his country a shitload of years ago

[Anonymous No.12607609]

>>12606979
>>12605859
>>12604726

Sam harris is NOT an atheist god damn it. He's a jew. He only preaches athiesm to goyim. Everyone in the cringe "intellectual dark web" is jewish or JBP who is a zionist. The whole project is a trap to keep you from understanding you're in a group with your fellow man. Muh individual > evil collectivism

The only thing that can beat a collective is another collective. Telling the west they shouldn't group up only makes them succesptable to subversion and ultimately destruction.

[Anonymous No.12607611]

>>12607396
How many times do I have to see her non-ahegao face?

[Anonymous No.12607612]

>>12605661
this desu

[Anonymous No.12607616]

>>12607040
Alive and kicking. They call themselves "skeptics" now and they have the world completely figured out and know everything.

[Anonymous No.12607623]

Requesting that photo of his disorganized messy room

[Anonymous No.12607628]

>>12607616
i think skeptics was the rebranding from 4-5 years ago, i don't think anybody takes that label seriously or self-identifies with it except a few small channels that haven't kept up with the times

post-ideology and reason don't cut it as a political stance in the current year anymore, it's the same reason lolbertarians went extinct

[Anonymous No.12607629]

>>12604736
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43vRoD8GnIY

[Anonymous No.12607642]

>>12607556
ok. airhorn is quite funny

[Anonymous No.12607660]

>>12607577
anyone with a functional neuron left will tend to make similar observations though, what with the mainline left's narrative being as obnoxious and transparently absurd as it has become. though it could also be that he's getting older and has run out of fresh ideas.

[Anonymous No.12607679]

>>12604906
i find it always surprising that rightwingers try to appropriate the clearly antiautoritarian and anticapitalist message of christ.
just look at the cleansing of temple or matthew 10 (Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law)

peterson is so much the embodiment of christ like a hotdog is the embodiment of a dog.

[Anonymous No.12607683]

>>12607660
yes, but that's kind of my point, they aren't bad points, but if you've been on the internet you have heard them a million times from the mouth of literal retards, you don't need exactly a philosopher to point that stuff out, even if he is giving them a clever twist
>though it could also be that he's getting older and has run out of fresh ideas.
yes, i think he never made the switch from the post-ideological world to the world where people started having explicit beliefs again, his writings felt very fresh when nobody was stating their assumptions, but now we almost have the opposite where everybody jumps wholeheartedly into the trendy ideology of the week and then into the next one with no cognitive dissonance or anything

[Anonymous No.12607701]

>>12607628
You have Rationality Rules and Genetically Modified Skeptic who seem to be emblematic of the new horde of atheist youtubers. Same content, new people really

[Anonymous No.12607705]

>>12607679
well many of the recent extreme right wing analysts have noted that progressive politics is basically protestantism without god, so many people on the right are aware of the part of christianity, but it's not the only part of it

[Anonymous No.12607718]

>>12607701
They all have videos "debunking" Jordan Peterson using the same tired arguments. Crying about definitions and taking everything literally. Jordan's clout is making them gain a large audience

[Anonymous No.12607734]

>>12607245
already at the end of the parallax view, which came out in 2006 he said that in the long run the true marxist left alliance will be with conservative or even reactionary powers because we share most of their diagnoses and are able to challenge the status quo radically in contrast to liberals.

[Anonymous No.12607735]

>>12607701
well but i'd say those are not very trendy, the current trends seem to be either progressive full-on youtubers like contrapoints or right wing extremists that usually are smaller channels but a higher quantity of them

the only "center", "let's just be reasonable" big youtubers that are around are people like sargon or tim pool, who basically point out the same issues as the right wing, but don't commit to any solution to it, just publish outrage porn for normies

though even the internet right is not clear how much of it is an actual position and how much of it is people being hardcore online just to feel righteous but not committed to any actual project

[Anonymous No.12607745]

>>12604726

Mediocre minds are unable to understand Peterson's arguments which are multilayered and complex 'Real' philosophy comes from applying critical thinking to complex real-world problems and attempting to find tailored solutions, not from reading philosophy lectures and ebooks on the internet and mindlessly applying those ideas to irrelevant problems. Because their brains are compartmentalized and are able to think only in terms of black and white, whatever argument Peterson makes is several orders of magnitude above what their brain can comprehend and is able to process. So the only thing they can think of doing is attacking him or trying to find flaws in his arguments when very little exists. Try to reason with him one on one and show me that you can win against him logically. Only then you'll have my respect.

[Anonymous No.12607752]

>>12607734
i'll take a look to the book, but that kind of surprises me, seeing how much Zizek seems to love any breaks with the past and with tradition

i mean it's clear that in his own life he quite enjoys many traditional values like around relationships and order, but he never seems to push in that way when it comes to politics for some reason

[Anonymous No.12607811]

>>12607745
>Mediocre minds are unable to understand Peterson's arguments which are multilayered and complex
Holy shit so this is what the Dunning-Kruger effect looks like. Peterson doesn't even appear on the philosopher 'hierarchy' (as he would probably call it). You don't know what's out there. You don't know what good philosophy is if you think Peterson is anything but a sophist.

[Anonymous No.12607840]

>>12607577
this is in my opinion exactly what zizek is for.
we need someone on the left who talks about inconvenient truths for our special snowflakes and doesn't concede these obvious points to the right because of false political correctness.
the analysis of the status quo of intelligent right and left wingers is quite similar. however the reasons and policies to counter them differ dramatically.

someone needs to criticize the left. if the left had their shit together we wouldnt be in these absurdly conservative times

[Anonymous No.12607858]

>>12607811
you're just taking Dr. Peterson out of context, chum. are you one of his postmodern neomarxist haters?

[Anonymous No.12607859]

>>12607705
this is basically max stirner

[Anonymous No.12607908]

>>12607752
he does: in many of his works he states that we need a strong frame in order to behave freely in it.
this is why he identifies as a communist and not as an anarchist although he knows that the 20th century state was a failure.
of course he doesn't lament about our dating culture because this is not something political, but only a secondary symptom of commodification of everything including human relations, which he strictly opposes. to constantly complain about such symptoms would be intellectually dishonest, like goethe as 'beautiful soul' or like someone writing poems. it would basically amount to what adam curtis would call "oh dearism".

[Anonymous No.12607964]

>>12607908
yes, my problem with Zizek and people like him is that even if he talks about that strong framework they don't seem to have any justification for it. Like yeah, commodification erodes those structures, but leftists seem to like the removal of structures as long as those are oppressive and make somebody feel bad because they don't conform

they seem to think you can remove the oppressive part of the structure and keep some kind of "real" structure that doesn't oppress anybody, but i never see this properly developed in leftist literature

[Anonymous No.12607965]

>>12604736
Pussied out of debating big dick richard wolf too.

Peterson is pseud fraud

[Anonymous No.12608050]

>>12607964
letfism is about erosion of all constructs. That's their end goal. Many believe that they can indeed keep that structure (cringeworthy people who say they can create their own morals etc), but the leftist leaders know that what they do is pure entropy and destruction for the sake of it. They like "winning" when in reality things would decay on their own without any leftist interference, the left just accelerates description.

[Anonymous No.12608279]

>>12608050
this is absolute bullshit. you just built a totally cringeworthy strawman. leftist are
firstly totally divided on how much structure they need just like the right when you eg. compare objectivism or fascism
and secondly zizek's communist left believes that it is the only power that can save western values like individual freedom, love, etc

>>12607964
of course ultimately the question is how to construct a social body without an enemy. zizek often refers to alain badiou when he points out that the "truth" of soviet communism can be observed because the party turned against itself, which is the first step away from turning against the other (jew). we as leftists exactly have to find a way to avoid this. yugoslavia can be cited as an example and probably some of murray bookchin's ideas but also lenin and trotzky and so on and so on

[Anonymous No.12608301]

>>12608279
>firstly totally divided on how much structure they need just like the right when you eg. compare objectivism or fascism
well, arguably objectivists are clueless about how many structures and social norms have to be already in place for such a thing as a "free exchange" to be even possible or meaningful

objectivists and libertarians in general just like to ignore many of the implicit social norms as long as there's no state behind and assume them as if they are a given without putting up any work for them to be in place

[Anonymous No.12608312]

>>12607858
>no one in academic philosophy respects memerson
>y-you're taking him out of context!
anon what were you trying to say here?

[Anonymous No.12608319]

>>12604730
underrated

[Anonymous No.12608322]

>>12607423
he is more of a Hegelian communist... he has already said that everything that happened after Hegel is just a repetition. Hegel already said it all before, it's just that psychoanalysis developed it a little further.

[Anonymous No.12608324]

>>12607908
>of course he doesn't lament about our dating culture
read the Moebius Strip of Sexual Contracts, or anything he's written on Houellebecq

[Anonymous No.12608325]

>>12608279
leftism primary axiom is the dissolution of borders. I don't ascribe to zizek's beliefs, it just sounds laughable that the dilution of all responsibility by implementing communism will provide freedom. Socialism, etc., gives power away for support. But in that exchange when everyone has a slice of power, nobody can wield any of it. Socialism is the end state of democracy and not something to attempt to accelerate into.

[Anonymous No.12608331]

>>12607908
>he doesn't lament about our dating culture because this is not something political
this is a rather smooth brain take.

[Anonymous No.12608337]

>>12608331
that anon is wrong, Zizek has hot takes on modern sexuality and inceldom
see >>12608324

[Anonymous No.12608356]

>>12604906
Influenced by Jung, lol. No. He’s just trying to catch a whiff of him in order to pose with more cred. Peterson skims things like Jung or Dostoevsky. And then grandstands. Which is why he’ll never be able to debate an intellectual in an actual technical and deep debate.

[Anonymous No.12608359]

>>12608337
Zizek even talked about "sex socialism" in some article about incels, but it was to dismiss it as sex would always remain a hierarchical and full of violence realm that can't be tamed for him as a good psychoanalyst

too bad he still believes in fairy tales when it comes to other things

[Anonymous No.12608373]

>>12608050
LOL, look at what Beterson made you type. The absolute state of strawmanning by alt right gatekeepers

[Anonymous No.12608374]

>>12608356
i agree about Peterson, but Zizek's whole communist shtick is just grandstanding as well, so it would be fun to see those 2 on stage

[Anonymous No.12608381]

>>12608373
peterson is not the guy that writes about leftism being pure social entropy, that's other people

[Anonymous No.12608386]

>>12608374
Probably a very emotional and Ego-driven debate

[Anonymous No.12608398]

>>12608386
i'd be surprised if Zizek didn't try to befriend Peterson and find common ground, he is never that aggressive towards people when they are around

even with Bernard-Henri Lévy, i think Zizek once said he should be shot, but when they were both on stage he was quite friendly and not that aggressive towards the guy

[Anonymous No.12608404]

Peterson might as well be an altar boy. He just spends his time reading the Bible, no wonder he is such a hack.

[Anonymous No.12608414]

>>12608398
I want to see a debate between Marie Kondo and Zizek.

[Anonymous No.12608420]

>>12608373
You haven't read any of peterson if you think he says anything like that.

[Anonymous No.12608447]

So why does peterson talk about postmodern neo-marxists? Doesn't he understand how stupid that is?

[Anonymous No.12608460]

>>12608447
because if he said cultural marxists it would sound too nazi and he is socially aware enough to not say that meme word

[Anonymous No.12608475]

>>12608460
But knowledgeable or smart enough to not say either of those terms

[Anonymous No.12608480]

>>12608460
this. He's too much of a good goy to jeopardize his book tour by critiquing the real sources of pressure in the west

[Anonymous No.12608485]

>>12608475
Do you mean to say peterson is not smart because he uses those terms?

[Anonymous No.12608489]

>>12608475
Basically

[Anonymous No.12608490]

>>12608480
are you really still antisemitic? it is fucking 2019, quit being such edgy cucks please

[Anonymous No.12608499]

>>12608490
antisemitism has been btfod so many times as a weakling's conspiracy that is easily explained psychologically so many times. anyone still adhering to it just openly admits his idiocy.

[Anonymous No.12608514]

>>12608381
>>12608420
Bollocks. He’s laid out his thoughts exactly as such in several monologues at various unis.

[Anonymous No.12608515]

>>12608499
If that is what you believe goyim.

[Anonymous No.12608533]

>>12608490
>it is fucking 2019

[Anonymous No.12608540]

>>12608533
Basedmilk tastes unironically good.
Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.12608546]

>>12608533
WHY do they do this face?
I want a concrete explanation as to why.

[Anonymous No.12608557]

>>12608490
>>12608499

[Anonymous No.12608565]

Why is /lit/ obsessed with pseuds.

[Anonymous No.12608568]

>>12608514
which ones? i have never seen Peterson say that the left as a whole is about chaos even though he plays with that chaos-order meme

the idea that the left is pure entropy is from the neoreactionaries, not peterson

[Anonymous No.12608570]

>>12604726
Friendly reminder that I love you guys, and also that JBP is a kind, sensitive soul who has simply been teying his beat to deal with the recent and sudden fame he was catapulted into. If you ever see him in person, pat his shoulder and wish him well.

[Anonymous No.12608573]

>>12608565
Pseuds follow pseuds, sheep of a feather flock together.

[Anonymous No.12608576]

>>12608557
Can I ask you an honest question /pol/tards? Do you unironically believe there is a jewish conspiracy behind every opinion oposite of yours?

[Anonymous No.12608578]

>>12608565
too much leftypol here

[Anonymous No.12608595]

>>12608576
Of course not. I don't speak for the others, but most of the times I post the happy merchant as a funny meme only.

[Anonymous No.12608636]

>>12608490
nice bait

[Anonymous No.12608676]

>>12607629
the guys's impersonation of zizek is pretty good but there's not enough shirt pulling.

[Anonymous No.12608874]

>>12608490
>>12608499

this is pretty funny bait. Antisemetic used to mean someone who hates jews. Now it's someone who jews hate.

[Anonymous No.12608925]

>>12607575
I would suggest The Puppet and the Dwarf; it is short, about 200 pages, and he covers most of his talking points over the course of the book.

[Anonymous No.12608933]

>>12608874
Right wing cringe

[Anonymous No.12608974]

>>12608933
>right wing = anitsemetic
really now? the absolute state of brainlets these days

[Anonymous No.12609020]

>>12604726
>>12606979
Honestly I thought you were talking about TJ Kirk, who swore to make a series of videos combatting Peterson's Existential Philosophy, with his own, if you can believe it, "Nietzschean nihilism".

Sam Harris is certainly more significant than a "Youtube atheist". He's a major academic figure, with a number of published books and the party of many formal lectures and debates. Even his youtube content is mostly stuff from his podcast. I don't agree with him or anything but honestly I had no idea what the fuck you were talking about from the OP.

[Anonymous No.12609146]

>>12609020
Sam Harris is a fraud, you ponce. He plays no academic role. Get learned.

[Anonymous No.12609169]

>>12604906
>Anyways, the fact that this man is proving his main point of all his work by literally becoming the embodiment of the Christ, and thus, by becoming a heroic individual and consequently showing the pathway to light to those who are slowly rotting away in the underground, especially in this darker age, is an absolutely holy act and should be recipient of nothing but admiration.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHABAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.12609205]

>>12609146
So is Zizek but I wouldn't call him a "youtube atheist" either.

[Anonymous No.12609214]

>>12609146
is something that is how you perceive the object

[Anonymous No.12609267]

>>12609169
>falling for it
You are almost as retarded as people who think this

[Anonymous No.12609280]

Who are some actual heavyweights worth listening to? Everyone's a meme according to /lit/

[Anonymous No.12609320]

>>12606256
those types believe that everyone was chosen by God to do whatever they happen to be doing. it's safe to ignore them.

[Anonymous No.12609326]

>>12607609
boo commie, boo.

[Anonymous No.12609329]

>>12609020
Academically at least philosophically he is mostly considered a joke. I don't know about his neuroscience related stuff though. In terms of how he is so well known he is largely just a pop atheist and "public debater/intellectual" who rode the coat tales of the other four horseman. And he was always the lowliest and least compelling of the four. I'm not even sure how he got grouped in with them.
But the fact that he was still able to completely pick apart Peterson's arguments shows just how much of a fraud JP is.

[Anonymous No.12609373]

>>12609205
But you're wrong. This is unlike zizek.

[Anonymous No.12609374]

>>12609280
Plenty of academics are. Just not any of the so-called intellectual dark web and YouTube atheists/ alt right gatekeepers. Oh and while I agree with Dawkins, not him either. He’s rabid, extremely intelligent but also rather let’s say one-sided. Basically, the entire debate is worthless and nobody is worth listening to. That’s where we are right now.

[Anonymous No.12609409]

>>12609374
So I should listen to everyone, debunk them all with each others arguments and pretend to be above literally everything? Will that net me most /lit/ points?

[Anonymous No.12609428]

>>12607497

>at least in his more accessible works

That's why you should read his proper academic work, you actual pleb.

>>12607575

The Sublime Object of Ideology. If you cannot handle the Lacanian stuff, just read the first chapter.

[Anonymous No.12609595]

>>12609409
Middle ground fallacy. They’re all fuckwits, sorry. Why must you seek out fuckwits when plenty of authentic figures are available.

[Anonymous No.12609666]

>>12609595
>when plenty of authentic figures are available.
So name them

[Anonymous No.12609686]

>>12604726
>ywn read Maps of Mourning, Peterson's late-career discovery of Freud, Hegel and Lacan
>or the follow-up, No Rules for Life

[Anonymous No.12609695]

>>12609686
>No Rules for Life

quite edgy if you ask

[Anonymous No.12610092]

Jordan Peterson is just another man desperately trying to argue himself out of nihilism and moral relativism. Nietzsche was completely right, and it's been over 100 years since he died and we're still stuck

[Anonymous No.12610337]

>>12604726
Wash your penis.

[Anonymous No.12611571]

>>12610092
Why do you think nihilism is more justified than moral absolutism?

[Anonymous No.12611619]

>>12611571
not more justified, just objectively correct.

[Anonymous No.12611630]

>>12610092
I'll bet your vagina is filthy

[Anonymous No.12611690]

>>12604726
Imagine being this wildly jealous of someone's success

[Anonymous No.12611731]

>>12609329
You seem like a cuck who copes with his crippling inability to debunk his intellectual superiors whom he denigrates with feigned derision.

[Anonymous No.12611990]

>>12609374
>Plenty of academics are.
kek, except for the absolute state of academia, if you think anybody knows wtf is going on for the last 5 years, specially academics in their comfy chairs, you are deluding yourself

[Anonymous No.12611995]

>>12611630
I bet you've never seen a vagina IRL

[Anonymous No.12612000]

>>12609374
>Plenty of academics are.
lmfao
the absolute state of indoctrinated /lit/

[Anonymous No.12612007]

>>12611619
name one nihilist that isn't just sad or angry

[Anonymous No.12612034]

>>12605033
>/lit/ anon actually likes foucault
this is why this board has a shit rep

[Anonymous No.12612044]

>>12607223
Žižek literally said he wouldn't do it. He also made some rude remarks towards JP.

[Anonymous No.12612058]

>>12612007
Me. My nihilism is mostly motivated by my asexuality.

[Anonymous No.12612062]

>>12612058
i guess it's sad, angry or boring then

[Grignr the Ecordian No.12612071]

>>12606979
>Sam Harris
>"YouTube atheist"
haaahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.12612084]

>>12607223
JP is the Money Mayweather of debates. Based. He's in his path to become the GOAT.

[Anonymous No.12612087]

>>12607556
>when you see someone reevaluate a position and be open to change as getting "BTFO"
also this example was a false equivalency anyway. sexual orientation is quite clearly a different thing than race so comparing the two cases requires nuance, most of which probably got edited out by a hostile host for a cheap "gotcha" moment. shock and horror, there may actually be space for a constructive conversation on that topic, but instead we get nit wits like you cheering for sick burns and BTFOs. sad.

[Anonymous No.12612091]

>>12604736
>>12607024
Zizek is just straight retarded and a meme.
He has produced nothing of intellectual value, and will die in a shed from a lack of any real respect in life.

[Grignr the Ecordian No.12612105]

>>12612087
I thought that interview did JBP credit; being capable of actually stopping to think about what the other person is asserting as opposed to just jabbering your way through a list of talking points is depressingly rare. Look at the other woman featured in that video.

Really, this relates to the broader issue of whether we should value a dogmatist who holds the maximum number of "correct" positions above someone who may not be universally "correct" but is capable of thinking in a flexible and non-self-deceiving way.

[Anonymous No.12612122]

>>12612084
you mean he can't read?

[Anonymous No.12612123]

>>12612087
>defending daddy this hard

[Anonymous No.12612126]

>>12612091
he re-marries young qts every 10-20 years, he seems to be doing well

[Anonymous No.12612130]

>>12612105
It showed he's being a homophobic pissbaby when it comes to sexual orientation

[Anonymous No.12612133]

>>12612126
>being such a cuck he can't even satisfy any woman into becoming a mother
Holy shit what a fucking loser

[Grignr the Ecordian No.12612134]

>>12612130
That seems like a stretch.

[Anonymous No.12612135]

>>12612133
he has a kid

[Anonymous No.12612140]

>>12612130
>homophobic pissbaby
nice buzzwords you got there

[Anonymous No.12612144]

>>12612134
My dick is a stretch. Drop your email and I'll send you the pics to prove it.

>>12612140
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.12612163]

>>12612135
>>12612133
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54CeL2z9yrs

[Grignr the Ecordian No.12612172]

>>12612144
>Drop your email and I'll send you the pics to prove it.
I should probably tell you that my email address is "[e-mail]" or something, but I just can't be bothered.

[Anonymous No.12612176]

>>12612172
I hope you at least have enough energy to go straight to hell.

[Anonymous No.12612183]

>>12612176
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf5L6kwJJtA

[Anonymous No.12612184]

>>12608447
Here's why he say this: https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

He knows its contradictory

[Anonymous No.12612190]

>>12608447
>>12612184
i mean postmodern marxism is as much a contradiction as materialist hegelianism, but that didn't stop Marx

[Anonymous No.12612353]

>>12612000
The absolute state of tin foil hat wearers caught up in self-referential internet debates

[Anonymous No.12612356]

>>12612172
Accept,your femimine side, faggot.

[Anonymous No.12612717]

this retard put another book, is it a real one or just copy/pasted?

[Anonymous No.12612903]

>>12612007
Name one sad thing that is nihilistic at core.

[Anonymous No.12612907]

>>12604726
Jordan Peterson is racist, simple and plain.

[Anonymous No.12612921]

>>12612903
sadness can't be nihilistic because sadness presupposes meaning

[Anonymous No.12612928]

>>12612007
what about happy nihilism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14

[Anonymous No.12612969]

>>12604906
Watch the video where JBP, dressed like a dandy, answers how much money he makes.

[Anonymous No.12613008]

>>12612034
did you wash your dick today, anon?

[Anonymous No.12613273]

>>12608546
Because the basis of this society is a contradiction: the individual is forced into a position of maintaining his own sovereignty along with the disappearance of the state (which is in itself experiencing a similar disappearance and metastasis), yet mores and laws of social cohesion must be maintained to enable this disintegration to go on. Or in other words, the war of all against all is subsumed to the social contract.
In simple terms, what this means is that the individual is engaged in a pathological competition with society, both the whole and the individuals which make it up - like the exile who never leaves, his threat to burn it all down is never taken seriously because everyone else has the same moral system. Each person must enact rites of cohesion even as they diverge further away from each other in reality. The material explanation is that a man must take up feminine traits to create a sense of intimacy, or a centre, where none exists. But these are merely effects of the original problem, the crack in the foundation.
We are at a point where the contradiction exhibits itself in social mores and even physiognomy. The excessive expressiveness intended to compete with the very effects of competition are maintained even when away from the technological hyperlink. A man wishing to express his excitement and appreciation for his wife's gift over video link does the same for his mate's at the pub. The agape mouth is not so much a product of alienation as it the loss of oneself, and subsequently holding onto oneself within conditions which exceed basic biology. The competitive necessity of a society which destroys everything we have ever known surpasses necessity and even desire, to the point that we are relegated to expressing our own impossible nature. Our biology is at odds with itself, so we enforce social mores upon ourselves of mind-body reductionism - 'cogito ergo sum' subsumed to 'society goes on, my biology will transcend.' A theology of post-consequentialism leveraged against all pain.

[Anonymous No.12613278]

>>12613273
This would explain the reduction of human beings to bare symbols, the prevalence of passive-aggressive behaviours, adherence to a crude femininity, neoteny, and the medicalised social landscape which increasingly takes on the appearance of confused cries of a baby for its mother. A matriarchy of senselessness. The man with agape mouth knows what he desired is already passed, so he is torn from any real expression. All that remains is maintaining the order which once provided for his desires in real-time, but even that is disappearing, so he attempts to mother and peek-a-boo that which is being lost in the distance. Coochicooing the void into intimate appearance.
In short, our physiognomy is adapting to the nanny-state. We are moulding ourselves to the injection machine, the only meaning to our lives: a surrogate to abstraction. We have no great enduring myths of suffering because the only suffering is its end, there is no Sisyphus, the post-Leviathanic order is a curse with no need of punishment. Instead, a pathetic figure of the formless rules over us with neither hierarchy nor authority - we are engorged on the very utopia which brought on our malaise, and we must imagine ourselves as appearing happy.
The house with shingles of magic pies, the self-carving meat, the cloud of pudding. Each content as it waits for the narcissism of the roasted pigeon to fly itself into our open mouths.

[Anonymous No.12613295]

>>12607577
But none of this are innately Right of Left talking points. If anything this issues precisely distinguish liberalism and leftism

[Anonymous No.12613303]

>>12613278
>The man with agape mouth knows what he desired is already passed, so he is torn from any real expression. All that remains is maintaining the order which once provided for his desires in real-time
or become a trap

[Anonymous No.12613312]

>>12613295
the thing is that those talking points are being already brought up by 70IQ retards on the internet, you don't need le-ebin-slovenian-philosopher to point that stuff out even if he gives them a small leftist spin and pretends it's deep thinking somehow

[Anonymous No.12613321]

>>12613312
Those brainlets often talk about those topic but none gives that kind of insights

[Anonymous No.12613351]

>>12613321
what insight? his justifications about the Avital Ronel stuff is literally just copy/pasting things that rightwingers say about #metoo but Zizek makes it sound ok because in this case the accuser is a guy

[Anonymous No.12613386]

>>12613351
That was a personal and anecdotal account and justification for that professor so idk why you included that in.

Take for example that toxic masculinity example, most people won't quote or use Antigone as a reference for it (though I personally disagree with that part)

[Anonymous No.12613400]

>>12613386
>>12613386
>Take for example that toxic masculinity example, most people won't quote or use Antigone as a reference for it (though I personally disagree with that part)
yes, that seemed like a really bad example, as Antigone was basically spilling her feelings everywhere. not sure wtf was zizek thinking

[Anonymous No.12614469]

>>12612123
>projecting daddy issues this hard

[Anonymous No.12615002]

>>12607611
What's her ahegao face?