Thoughts on this critique?

[Anonymous No.14876692]

If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)

[Anonymous No.14876696]

Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.

[Anonymous No.14876703]

A pseud take about pseud takes. How novel.

[Anonymous No.14876706]

>>14876692
Perfect description of Continental 'philosophy'.

[Anonymous No.14876711]

Does he use syllogisms? Idea, counter-idea, synthesis? Does he build up to a thesis or merely begin with one?

[Anonymous No.14876720]

Is it Aristotrlian argument, Toulmin's argument or Rogerian argumentation?

[Anonymous No.14876725]

>>14876692
someone has been reading Robinson i see

[Anonymous No.14876726]

Has he discussed the history of rhetoric and the structure of his own thought outside of psychobabble?

[Anonymous No.14876774]

why did he become a benzo addict although there is written data over dozens of years about their dependence potential?

[Anonymous No.14876788]

>>14876774
Always thought he was a pharma shill, but it turns out he genuinely believes that anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs work, since he totally buys "serotonin in the brain"-tier hypotheses about mental illness. Turns out this "clinical" psychologist doesn't understand basic neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.14876791]

>>14876692
his lectures on jungian mythology are pretty good though
maybe if you watched his material rather than typing out multiple paragraphs of worthless, babbling, buzzword-ridden critique about it you'd actually have something better to post than this shitty thread

[Anonymous No.14876793]

>>14876788
well benzos "work" if used occasionally but how can someone believe in ssri when the whole serotonin theory is still unproven?

[Anonymous No.14876829]

>>14876692
I woulnd't be surprised if Robinson also thinks that Heidegger, Nietzsche, Hegel, Derrida, Kierkegaard and Adorno were all obscurantists. Anything that doesn't conform to the usual everyday babble of language and doesn't convey the illusion of immediate comprehensibility can only be rejected by this vacuous understanding of philosophical language.

[Anonymous No.14876848]

>>14876692

Surely you speak of postmodern thinkers?

[Anonymous No.14876853]

>>14876692
>Draw diagrams
> Construct elaborate theories with many parts
>Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work
>Never say anything too specific

[Anonymous No.14876866]

It's good and it happends very often.

That being said, it annoys me that this very criticism can be used in a poor way against actual coherent good arguments.

If you say something simple, one can argue you are just trying to pass a platitude through this technique. If the subject is complex, one could say you're just messing around with numbers to confuse people into thinking you are right. If you refute their criticism one could say you don't take criticism, etc.

It works both ways, it really depends on other things, the subject, who is talking, etc.

[Anonymous No.14877052]

>>14876829
He's not going to be your dad no matter how much you defend him

[Anonymous No.14877815]

>>14876692
>says drug addiction can be overcome with sheer willpower
gets addicted to Benzos
>appeals to authority
denies authorites of doctors wanting him to stop
>promotes social darwinism in any form
wife gets cancer
>says woman shouldnt use make up w/o expecting getting raped
his daughter
>defends institution of church
wont say what he beliefs with any conviction
>wants be martyr of free speach
nobody got arrested for anti trans behaviour
>fights against the mighty social marxism
is funded by neocon billionairs
>says he cant respect anyone who is physically inferior to him
is handicapped the rest for his life
>his only appeal is his affluent behavior to impress midwits
gets buttblasted by Zizek so hard he fell into a coma

He´s a like shitty movie character come to life, and probably half of /pol lit/ replacement daddy. The only good point he makes is that his poetic suffering is in a way like a prove of gods existence.

[Anonymous No.14877996]

>>14877052
Talk to me in 20 years when you're a clinically depressed tranny

[Anonymous No.14878031]

>>14877996
But you're the one making a clinically depressed guy your surrogate days

[Anonymous No.14878103]

>>14876692
I have never took this junkie seriously after that debate in which got btfo'd by a fucking antinatalist. David Benatar literally destroyed this hack. and debating with zizek was the final nail in the coffin.
There's point in taking any of his arguments seriously.

[Anonymous No.14878168]

>>14877815
Best description of him I read is "A Messiah-cum-Surrogate-Dad for Gormless Dimwits"

[Anonymous No.14878175]

And just like that, Jordan Petersons 15 minutes of fame is finished. Z

[Anonymous No.14878615]

>>14876853
>become so ingrained in own speculative mythos you forget to organize your paperwork
>forget which students use which pronouns
>never admit weakness, blame the thing you expose yourself to all day everyday

[Anonymous No.14878628]

>>14878175
Not really. The last health update video by his daughter got 2,7 million views. People are still pretty interested.

[Anonymous No.14878640]

>>14876696
He is a good entry point into metaphysical thought if you are a scientism brainlet
t. was my entry point

(but you do outgrow him almost immediately after reading even one of his sources)

[Anonymous No.14879067]

>>14877815
based post