/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12650701]

Somewhat of a Peterson thread, but more in line with the Jung quote.

So I remember hearing Peterson say in a debate with Sam Harris something along the lines or sentiment of:

"The great authors of previous times express truths in their works which resonate with us, really without us even knowing why, but with an internal sense of the work being great."

Except what he actually said was:

"The authors get there first [before the philosophers and thinkers explicitly express these truths]."

Philosophically, do you guys find this to be true? I think I elaborated on the quote correctly. It's from the infamous "Truth" debate where Peterson takes a pragmatic approach, and Sam Harris takes a fact-based approach and forces Peterson to admit that compiling facts do not produce a "Truth" and that rather "Truth" is more of what is self-preserving and lasting for the species. It was essentially a debate over the definition of truth, but that line struck me.

I guess I was reading about Heidegger and his criticisms of being platitudinal, and was reminded of this quote.

Anyway, general discussion thread.

[Anonymous No.12651601]

Peterson describes the development stages of an idea something like Action -> Dream -> Articulation.The Action stage being a natural and pattern-based stage, the Dream stage being an abstract and creative stage, and the Articulation stage being a logical and rhetorical stage.

For example, the idea of sacrifice probably starts with cavemen realizing that they can store food away for the future instead of eating it all at the present and starving come winter. Then you get stories and rituals that emerge from these patterns of behavior like the Binding of Isaac or people burning fatty pork shoulders for Zeus. Then, eventually, you get some self-help guru explicitly telling you why it might be a good idea to sacrifice something that's pleasurable and expedient for something more meaningful and beneficial in the long-term.

So yea, seems good to me.

[Anonymous No.12651834]

>>12650701
That quote is from Freud, he said that wherever he arrived a writer had already went there first.

I don't understand Peterson. He claims to have read psychoanalysis but his core thinking is of the most plebeian behaviorist variety. It's like he understands nothing

[Anonymous No.12651846]

>>12651601
sacrifice actually plays a integral role to the survival of a society. its so widespread because most of the societies that never practiced it died out.

[Anonymous No.12651869]

>>12651834
Mind expanding? How is his thinking of the most plebeian variety?

What is he not understanding?

[Anonymous No.12651878]

>>12651834
>his core thinking is of the most plebeian behaviorist variety. It's like he understands nothing

you think? this is why people call him a fraud. no one is butthurt about peterson or his weird ass daughter being any sort of threat or saying any truths. they are literally frauds anyone with a cursory knowledge of the shit he's talking about will recognize how full of shit he is. he's annoying because people listen to him and take him seriously, because people are morons.

[Anonymous No.12651895]

>>12651869
The idea that by targeting the manifestation/symptom or superficially altering your behavior you can bring inner change. He sees humans from the outside in. It's not something new; the most prevalent psychological treatment of the last 50 years is exactly this

[Anonymous No.12651920]

>>12651895
I see, his memes show him to be as such, but he also utilizes psychoanalysis such as Maps of Meaning, and cog neuro aspects such as explaining the fMRI activation of certain brain functions and the right-left hemisphere specialization. Wouldn't you say that he isn't strictly behaviorist, but instead adopts the tried and tested concepts from each school (excluding psychoanalytics considering those are very difficult, if not impossible, to falsify)

[Anonymous No.12651952]

>>12651878
People think he's a fraud because he passes himself off as a liberal neutral observer, but he's really a liberal gatekeeper who's preserving existing power structures, deflecting criticism, ignoring the problem, misdiagnosis get the problem, saying progress is not possible or not worth it, etc., typical gatekeeper shit. It's not the content of his talks but what he is doing that pisses people off. And his followers redirect people calling him a fraud right back to his claims, as if the battle is to be won there, then we start all over again. It works for him. He's a smart guy. As far as his actual knowledge of psychology, I don't really know what he knows. I don't really care either. Why would you when you know the guy will say anything to keep people listening and following? Taking him seriously as someone who wants to get to the truth of the matter is where you fucked up.

[Anonymous No.12651971]

>>12651920
I haven't read his books but i get the feeling he uses psychoanalysis as some amusing dressing to his salad of references. If he has a core, it is behaviorism.
He's the 19yo white suburban atheist turned "buddhist" after reading 3 wiki pages and picking what he liked and understood (zero)