/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15253252]

What actually is the problem with Jordan Peterson?

[Anonymous No.15253275]

>>15253252
He doesn’t read. He enjoys spending his time railing against Marxism and postmodernism yet he clearly knows fuck all about what he’s talking about.

[Anonymous No.15253286]

Leave Docteur Peterson to me.

[Anonymous No.15253314]

>>15253252
>Fast rise to prominence due to theatrical performance
>Affiliations with unsavory types (by which I mean bankers, pro-Israeli lobby, oil lobby etc.; not other ideologues)
>Too often talks about shit he has no clue about
>Raised a single mom

[Anonymous No.15253327]

>>15253252
For the sake of explanation, let's assume there are three types of people: Geniuses, normal people and those that try to explain geniuses to normal people.
Peterson is the third one, but plenty of people are mistaking him for a genius

[Anonymous No.15253336]

>>15253286
What a Chad

[Anonymous No.15253374]

>>15253252
He makes some stupid points sometimes, but i really like his work on the bible, Christianity and other relligions

[Anonymous No.15253382]

>>15253252
He probably has brain damage.

[Anonymous No.15253383]

>>15253275
not a fan of peterstein, but you need to dilate

[Anonymous No.15253394]

>>15253286
To be fair to Peterson, Derrida writes:

>Deconstruction has never had any sense or interest, in my view at least, except as a radicalization, which is to say also in the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism. There has been, then, this attempted radicalization of Marxism called deconstruction (and in which, as some have noted, a certain economic concept of the differantial economy and of exapropriation, or even of the gift, plays an organizing role, as does the concept of work tied to differance and to the work of mourning in general). If this attempt has been prudent and sparing but rarely negative in the strategy of its references to Marx, it is because the Marxist ontology, the appellation Marx,the legitimation by way of Marx had been in a way too solidly taken over [arraisonnées]. They appeared to be welded to an orthodoxy, to apparatuses and strategies, whose least fault was not only that they were, as such, deprived of a future, deprived of the future itself. By “welded” one may understand an artifactual but solid adherence whose very event constituted the wears and tears
whole history of the world for the last century and a half, and thus the whole history of my generation. But a radicalization is always indebted to the very thing it radicalizes. That is why I spoke of the Marxist memory and tradition of deconstruction, of its Marxist “spirit.” It is not the only one and it is not just any one of the Marxist spirits, of course. One ought to extend and refine these examples, but time is lacking.

So he essentially claims that his idea of "deconstruction" is a development within a certain tradition of Marxism that radicalizes it in some regard. With that said, when is the last time you saw one of these guys analyze economic data in a scientific spirit? Derrida might morally agree with Marx, that's really it.

[Anonymous No.15253396]

>>15253382
Don't we all

[Anonymous No.15253439]

>>15253252
He knows psychology. He doesn't know philosophy. He talks about philosophy like he has a deep understanding. He gets away with it because basically no one in the sphere of public intellectuals is worth half a shit at this point. When he debated an actual expert on one of the topics he likes to pontificate about, he ended up just agreeing with him.

He's exceptional at handling media. But tearing apart nonsense like gender differences not being innate is like bowling with the bumpers up on the sides.

[Anonymous No.15253449]

>>15253439
>bowling with the bumpers up on the sides
I totally agree with everything else in your post, but I have no idea what this means

[Anonymous No.15253500]

narcissism

[Anonymous No.15253528]

>>15253439
>He knows psychology
lmao no. Boomer morality and statistic research on behavior isn't psychology.

[Anonymous No.15253543]

>>15253449
Do you not understand that concept? Do you know what a gutterball is? The normal metaphor would be something like riding a bike with training wheels, it's nigh impossible to fuck it up but it's not productive either.

[Anonymous No.15253563]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YamAsbzPKA

[Anonymous No.15253569]

>>15253252
Jordan Peterson is evil and stupid. He has a daughter and says, “We are here to suffer so learn to suffer like a man.” A potential paradise could be like a never ending DMT trip with the constant pleasure level of heroin. If you get bored then it’s not paradise. There don’t even have to be human bodies. His is just a severe lack of imagination. And there is no sense in which suffering or mediocrity create meaning. All the meaning you need would be packaged into the paradise experience. But I am not experiencing such meaning and perhaps never will. That’s why despite the abundant grace and mercy I think I am not subject to a fully benevolent God. Perhaps God is like Jordan Peterson and I therefore consider him my enemy.

[Anonymous No.15253598]

>>15253563
A daring and delicious synthesis of sausage and roll.

[Anonymous No.15253600]

>>15253252
There's no problem with him, stop spreading rumors

[Anonymous No.15253612]

>>15253252
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxuw9ziGGzM&t=806s

[Anonymous No.15253615]

I think he locked himself in a bathroom and has been gacking dust for the last 6 months, like axl rose or something.

[Anonymous No.15253637]

>>15253563
Why is this commie praised again?

[Anonymous No.15253656]

>>15253394
>this kills the non-subvocalizer.

[Anonymous No.15253657]

>>15253528
>statistical research on behaviour
>not psychology

okay retard

[Anonymous No.15253702]

lol there's a 250 page book about this now

https://merionwest.com/2020/05/02/myth-and-mayhem-a-leftist-critique-of-jordan-peterson-sample-chapter/

[Anonymous No.15253727]

The way Peterson worships Russian writers as Great Fathers is exactly the way Peterson is worshiped by incels. Which would explain why Peterson has more in common with Stefan Molyneux than Dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.15253728]

>>15253702
>zer0 Books

[Anonymous No.15253734]

>>15253394

What is Peterson deconstructing? Reactionary stories are the magical thinking of resetting to a (non-existent) golden age that you create as you reset, not a deconstruction of the story of where we are today and the mistakes in story making that got us here.

If Peterson were even just reversing the story to see how it developed, it would be an inconceivable self-delusion to think that where we started from wasn't integral in deciding where we are, even if you make the terrain as you go along. So he is not deconstructing anything; he is parroting the delusion of conservatism.

This asswipe is nothing but a charlatan who sells conservatism's lie that things were ever better: a lie that serves only the exploiters who profit from your ignorance because they are perfectly happy where we are.

Philosophy's and history's mistake is in thinking the story being told is nearly as important as the story of the process of story making itself. And THAT is the weakness of deconstruction, not Derrida's complaint of all adversarial relationships – that the adversary's story is framed and limited by whom they oppose.

This fundamental mistake of looking at the story and not the story of the story making separate Logos and creates the inside and outside lie of ontology and metaphysics and epistemology and reality and cause and effect and all the other bullshit of modern story making that itself creates the paradoxes and contradictions that then go on to make an even more magical narrative.

But Peterson? Come on! This douche is just stupid

[Anonymous No.15253766]

>>15253734
I'm quoting Derrida mate. It's on p.115 in "Specters of Marx". I don't think Peterson is trying to deconstruct anything.

[Anonymous No.15253798]

>>15253766

My mistake. You started your post with "To be fair to Peterson" then talked about deconstruction, which to me implied you thought Peterson was deconstructing modern life through the lens of psychology...

.... and that russled my jimmies..

[Anonymous No.15253838]

>>15253734
>>15253766
Also if anything, rather than really being a Reactionary, Peterson represents an instance of a larger phenomenon, where, relative to the time of the French Revolution, thinkers on the Left and Right have reversed their roles in a way - namely, Left-wing thinkers are now defenders of the moral center and right-wing thinkers are using Reason to attack it. If you actually read the thought of so-called post-modern neo-Marxists, proponents of intersectionality, their thought is really quite far from the Cult of Reason or from the spirit of Scientific Socialism. They might claim to be influenced by Marx but they're really just moralists.

>>15253798
The reason I said "to be fair to Peterson" is that Peterson might call Derrida a post-modern neo-Marxist. I would argue that that isn't a terrible qualifier in a way based on Derrida's own admissions, however, in reality, Derrida's worldview, politically speaking, is more that of a left-wing moralist than a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.15253922]

>>15253766

Peterson is definitely trying to deconstruct disney movies. All while ranting about deconstruction.

[Anonymous No.15253975]

>>15253838

I disagree with your framing. You are doing the same thing Derrida derides. Adversarial relationships frame their reasoning as a reaction to the disagreement or difference in the story being told, which both limits the story they can make, and at the same time reinforces the underlying story that created the disagreement in the first place.
Politics and economics are examples of an exploitation and an adversarial reaction to that exploitation, both of which eventually both support the underlying exploitation because the tools of the story making that made that exploitation are reinforced by both sides.
If you reward exploitation then its adversary’s story making tools are also rewarded and defined by that same exploitation.

This is why both Democrats and Republicans reinforce the same capitalist tropes.
This is why Marxists and Capitalists both cannot understand economics. Neither can make a story that is useful because both have made a story of adversarialism that uses the broken story of economics that does not address the functional problems in the stories of economics or politics, because they can’t without destroying their own story.

That is why no dichotomy has any value. A dichotomy is a story making that ignores the narrator of the stories of each side of the story of their difference by assuming that both sides make the same narrator, making their difference the story which redefines both of the sides in the view of the narrator. When you put two stories in opposition, both stories are redefined and support the same underlying stories with which they were both made.

It is all about story making, and you can’t get there by reading the stories that are here now, nor by deconstructing the stories using the same tools of story making that created the nonsense to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15253993]

He degraded himself to a self-help guru.
I enjoyed his lectures on psychoanalysis and some of his other lectures. If he stayed with that and wrote books on Christianity, symbolism, and Jungian psychology, I'd probably look further for what he has to say.
I also used to like the fact that he was a clinical psychologist, until I went to therapy myself.
I would hate to have someone like him as a therapist. He doesn't let you figure anything at all himself. He figured it out and now he's going to tell you what's going to happen, and if you don't listen to him, you're doomed. There are different types of therapies for different issues, but the more I think of it, the more I think his "assertiveness training" is complete bullshit. His marketing is a joke.

[Anonymous No.15253998]

>>15253252

he took patreon money to go on tours, parties, abuse drugs, and promote an unhealthy diet while telling you to 'clean your room'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z22Ju7u2K1s

remember morons: apple cider=benzo withdrawl

[Anonymous No.15254060]

>>15253993
Isn't it incredible how a midwit that can speak well gets tenure? Isn't it even more incredible that high tier adult professionals got psychotherapy from a moralizing quack with tons of obvious personal problems?

[Anonymous No.15254072]

>>15253975
Do you though? I said Derrida might claim himself to be influenced by Marxism, however, Marxism itself relies upon dichotomies rather than "stories", and indeed would probably denounce such things as anti-Materialist. So Derrida's worldview really isn't all that Marxist despite his claims otherwise, which is what I was saying.

Also, doesn't Derrida's claim that adverserial relationships reinforce an underlying story that causes disagreement, imply a story-worldview in its own right?

Finally, if politics and economics are a form of exploitation, we have to have a clear idea of what that means, and once the idea of exploitation is introduced, since exploitation is a transitive verb after all, there is an exploitee, and thus a dichotomy, right?

[Anonymous No.15254105]

>>15254060
I think a lot of it has to do with his preaching of big five personality model.
You can't live your life like that. I simply, under no circumstances, believe that you can live your life based on some academic studies on personality. Then even if you tell yourself that you're agreeable or something and that is the reason for some of your actions, you would still be lying to yourself. We live by experience and not by some data that can be, in every case, made up. You don't get any idea of what assertiveness is unless you, in some form, experience it. All the rest is nonsense.
Imagine how much he must've charged for "assertiveness training". I suppose the main selling point is that he can help you ask for a pay raise within 10 sessions, or something along the lines. Such bull.

[Anonymous No.15254115]

>>15253327
>For the sake of explanation, let's assume there are three types of people
I wont, because this is a retarded cope.

[Anonymous No.15254192]

>>15254072

First off, everything is a story. You have simply made a story of reality that says reality is not a story, which then made the story of Story something less, or outside of the story of reality.

Your bad story making made a useless to be made story of reality. You did this because some stories are useful to be made and useful to be reused and some are not, but you confused which ones were useless to be reused with the ones that were just made poorly, and to fix that you made a useless story of Reality to keep them strait.

The Greeks had no definition for Logos. It was story and there was nothing else. But in trying to make a story that organized all the stories they had that all were Logos, they screwed up and created an inside and an outside to Logos. Materialism is just one of the results of that nonsense.

What they didn’t do was make a story of the story making process. That would have straitened everything out. But that story of story making is way beyond the scope of an imageboard. You'll have to wait for the book.

>doesn't Derrida's claim that adverserial relationships reinforce an underlying story that causes disagreement, imply a story-worldview in its own right?

No. It created the story-worldview and then paints itself into a box. It takes stories to make stories but the stories you have limit and create the stories you can make. Derrida hints at this but didn't get it when talking about the limitations of deconstruction.

>if politics and economics are a form of exploitation, we have to have a clear idea of what that means, and once the idea of exploitation is introduced, since exploitation is a transitive verb after all, there is an exploitee, and thus a dichotomy, right?

No. We define exploitation in terms of story making: Exploitation is hiding the win/lose of individual narration inside the win/win of collective narration.

When you see everything as story from the 4th person narrator of the story of the story making process, everything changes. It is a Copernican change of view that destroys all the Aristotelian stories of the Ptolemaic viewpoint, but goes way beyond that analogy/example in that both stories can be useful.

[Anonymous No.15254205]

>>15253275

Nicely put. He clearly believes himself to be very intelligent and knowledgeable yet has literally never read Marx lol.

[Anonymous No.15254211]

>>15254192
>You'll have to wait for the book.
What book is that?

[Anonymous No.15254247]

>>15254205
Just reading makes you dumb. Some of the most dumb conformist people I've met were well read. His problem is that he doesn't think

[Anonymous No.15254255]

>>15253252
Benzo addiction (from trusting doctors too much)
Slut daughter

[Anonymous No.15254258]

>>15254211

The one I am writing.

[Anonymous No.15254281]

>>15254192
>First off, everything is a story.

The only way you're making the above statement work is by depriving the word "story" of its original meaning, which is much more restricted and precise. It's a waste of a perfectly good noun, and of everybody's time. Any worldview that tries to make everything fit into just one concept is garbage.

[Anonymous No.15254289]

>>15253449
When children bowl "bumpers" are put up to block off the gutters so that they can always hit a pin.

[Anonymous No.15254300]

>>15253252
he's a charlatan

[Anonymous No.15254313]

>>15254281

no. You deprived it of its original meaning by making the story of reality. Look at aboriginal tribes. They don't have the story of Reality, and therefore don't have a story of Story that you have. You can't have one without the other, and so there is no story of Story until you make a bad story of Reality.

This is why Logos is so hard to translate.

as for the statement that trying for one world view is garbage: that is a world view.

[Anonymous No.15254345]

>>15254313
>no. You deprived it of its original meaning by making the story of reality. Look at aboriginal tribes.

We're not speaking some aboriginal language.

>as for the statement that trying for one world view is garbage: that is a world view

That's not at all what the statement was. Try reading it again.

[Anonymous No.15254355]

>>15253252
He is a terrible father trying to peddle his shit advice to others. Threadly reminder that his daughter abandoned her child and husband to shack up with a porn merchant.

[Anonymous No.15254392]

>>15254192
Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.

>As you see it, I've implied something along the lines of "reality is not a story, but a setting". However, to claim this limits the possibilities of "the Story of story-making", akin to excluding a set from the set of all sets. (Ok, we all know the set of all sets isn't well defined, but...)

>The Greeks had no definition for Logos. It was story and there was nothing else. But in trying to make a story that organized all the stories they had that all were Logos, they screwed up and created an inside and an outside to Logos.
I'm not totally sure what this means. As best as I can tell, you're saying the Greeks at some time viewed everything as stories (maybe this is referring to the era when most of Greek culture was transmitted via poetry?) However, at some point (maybe when writing started to develop?) Greeks attempted to organize this into something you're referring to as Logos. However, by doing so, there must exist stories that are not part of the Logos. Instead, you're calling for a meta-story about how we make stories, essentially, for everyone to see themselves as a narrator narrating the process of story-creation. Essentially, in the same way that the Copernican revolution de-centered humans in the universe, you're calling for a copernican revolution in which a central "story of civilization" is de-centered, so that each of us sees ourselves as participants engaged in the story-making process.

Am I getting the idea you're trying to communicate here?

[Anonymous No.15254417]

>>15253563
Kek

[Anonymous No.15254427]

>>15253252
I think the fame went to his head a bit. it would happen to most of us. he really did help a lot of people though, I've met a few

[Anonymous No.15254435]

He rekts crybabies on the left and the right

[Anonymous No.15254490]

>>15254392

Damn close, actually. I must say I am impressed.

It turns out, If we make a story of the story making process in a certain way, the narrator of that story of the story making process "sees" everything as story making, and by doing so sees the stories that make themselves. Furthermore, the stories we make become both useful to be made, and useful to be reused. It an even see it make itself.

When you use this you find that many stories we make we made improperly, just like when Copernicus saw the solar system differently, that Aristotelian stories of motion needing a constant force, and movement in curves had to change, along with Gods that moved planets in retrograde.

The flat earther needs no story of a round earth because none of the stories they have of going across town, or building a house require a story of a round earth.
However when confronted with the motion of a pendulum, then can no longer make a story of a flat earth. Does that negate their story of building houses?
It is our insistence on the story of reality that makes a reality narrator that reduces the stories we can make and creates the paradoxes and contradictions that make us make more bad stories, but stories still have to be able to be useful to make and reuse by themselves.

This reality story makes us rely on the story making of fundamental parts that build, or fundamental wholes that tear down into more fundamental parts infinitely, and to the idiocy of questions such as free will versus determinism.

This philosophy will straiten all that out, but again I hesitate to introduce it in an image board as evidenced by the reactions I have had in the past.

But again, i am impressed you picked up as much as you did from such a short description.

[Anonymous No.15254506]

>>15253275
But isn’t that kind of only a part of what Peterson talks about? His topics aren’t even directly political most of the time and uses that as a byword for the social atmosphere. I don’t think he’s right to do so, but his point is mainly on the psychology of things and helping people on an individual level. Yah, he steps out of his psych bounds occasionally, but you are attacking a contingent strand of Peterson rather than his core (like most people do, since they have a hard time confronting his main psychological stance).

Why do people attack a psychologist for his shit takes on politics if his main focus in his books and works is personal psychology? Is it some kind of strawmaning? Yah he’s not knowledgeable in Marxism, but if you read his subtext thats tangential to his main points.

[Anonymous No.15254559]

>>15254490
Thanks I guess, my training is in theoretical physics so I'm not sure how sympathetic I am to that sort of thing. Maybe within the meta-storification, you could frame scientific discovery as a story about arriving at asymptotic knowledge. After all, everyone knew the earth was at the center of the universe until it wasn't, everyone knew how to calculate with epicycles and deferents until it turned out that this was actually not so good, everyone knew the laws of nature were laid out by Newton and Maxwell until they weren't, etc.

[Anonymous No.15254592]

>>15253286
Leave Jordan Peterson to me.

[Anonymous No.15254597]

>>15254559

Good luck with that. I hope to finish soon, and when you read it I think as a theoretical physicist what I say will resonante strongly.

In fact, in the section on economics, the only math I could find that mathematically shows why capitalism fails relies on scalar divergence and curl in a function space, was quantum loop theory, but I couldn't make it work, and fortunately didn't need to, having only to show a lack of Nöether symmetry and thus a lack of conservation.

I'd better get back to work. Your questions actually helped, and I thank you.

[Anonymous No.15254621]

>>15254597
Econophysics stuff is mostly garbage mate, I wouldn't bother with that. Same with Loop Quantum gravity really, and if you try to work with stuff out of your depth mathematically it will just make you look like a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15254626]

>>15253569
Remember to cut up and down for results, not sideways for attention you blackpilled faggot

[Anonymous No.15254763]

>>15253637
because zoomers don't read books

[Anonymous No.15254835]

>>15253252
he does the thinking and talking for people who are even more pseud than him but want to fee like they're smart. he rarely says anything insightful

[Anonymous No.15254925]

>>15253252

Any footage of him speaking since the "recovery"?

[Anonymous No.15255049]

>>15253600
perma-xanned lmao

[Anonymous No.15255113]

he got brain damage

[Anonymous No.15256530]

>>15253563
based

[Anonymous No.15257433]

I've read through this entire thread, and found no credible arguement agaisnt him.
Sure, his self-help stuff is incredibly derivative. But his lectures on psychology, philosophy and religion are actually incredibly good, especially for an undergraduate level, which they are targeted at.

[Anonymous No.15257553]

>>15253252
He's a huge sophist.

[JagiThePretender No.15257575]

Every rebuttal to Peterson is a personal attack. Tells you something.

[Anonymous No.15257616]

lmao imagine reading Jung who says that anyone who reduces the world to a simplistic political narrative with a single Other to be beaten is violently delusional and needs to engage in serious self-reflection, then popping benzos and talking about how a bunch of thinkers you haven't read and repeatedly misrepresent are the source of all that's wrong in the world.

[Anonymous No.15257627]

>>15253252
"I can't do it."

[Anonymous No.15257999]

>>15253252
I've only ever seeing him lecturing impressionable young people or "debating" against total dumbasses compared to whom he's a genius, this leads me to think he's more charisma than brain. Not making a statement, however, just an impression.
He's also a good tool for the youtube algorithm to drive people into the alt-right.

[Anonymous No.15258904]

>>15253252
His prefrontal cortex is just really loud and really pushy. He screams about the guesses he makes and his own logic, which means, like >>15253275 said, he probably doesnt actually read anything. He won't speak out his shitty fanbase, which is the perfect analogy to him not cleaning his room.

Tl;dr He won't calm down long enough to beat the game.

[Anonymous No.15258924]

>>15254506
>But isn’t that kind of only a part of what Peterson talks about?
He's similarly poorly read about a host of subjects he's spoken on. I'm sure he's a fine clinical psychologist and his academic output is worth engaging in, but beyond that his lack of rigor suggests he considers his subjects and audience too dim to treat with respect. I don't care that he doesn't value Canadian common law or Marxism or post structuralism, but it seems foolish to consume the works of someone who thinks you're too stupid to know a lack of rigor when you see it.

[Anonymous No.15258961]

>>15254506
>Why do people attack a psychologist for his shit takes on politics if his main focus in his books and works is personal psychology?
That DFW review thread from a yesterday, it had a review by a mathematician that suggested DFW's seemingly poor grasp of math implied a poor grasp in topics he may have previously appeared knowledgeable in. Peterson so thoroughly and knowingly screws up on enough subjects that I sometimes wonder if his academic credentials are overstated or undeserved. I've seen the stats on his reach in the field, but given that he's rarely been the primary author on these articles, I wonder if he's benefited from numerous more talented colleagues.

Plus, it doesn't help that his self-help book is a rambling mess.

[Anonymous No.15258976]

>>15254506
Well, if stands to reason that if your take on politics evidences lack of studying the subject, you might not be a great psychologist. People like knowing that their shrink can pay attention to them and doesnt have ulterior motives

[Anonymous No.15259093]

>>15254506
He's better known in the public sphere for his political takes than his psychological ones

[Anonymous No.15259204]

>>15253252
T R A N S V E S T I G A T I O N

[Anonymous No.15259218]

>>15253327
I cant remember where I read it, but theres a punnett square of "ease of concepts" and "ease of writing." Difficult concept written in easy language is the mark of a good writer. This is what we would want from your third type of person. Peeps, unfortunately, jumps from topic to topic with little weight underneath. He writes for "normal" people yet expects them to know what the hell he's talking about, requiring them to know the answer ahead of time. His books really are just vehicles for his own neurotic processing and the essence of vanity projects.

[Anonymous No.15259221]

>>15253382
>probably

[Sir No.15259257]

>>15253252
Imagine a continuum of conceptual perception, one one hand is peace, ego death, and holistic experience. On the other is schizofrenia, absolute ego, and myopia.

When you are in the latter your most basal and paranoid fears materialize into being, you begin seeing others as evil, you imagine snakes that are not there and your thoughts alone will move you to tears and despair.

On the other hand of the spectrum is great humility. You begin to see phonomena not in this or that way, but just being so. There is not world or god, but just "the way of things" beyond all categorisation. In this state dukkha (suffering) disappears. Along with all expectations, fears and conceptualisation itself.

Jordan Peterson thinks he is wise, which he might be in his brightest moments, but he is entirely caught up in his own insanity. Incapable of moving beyond.

The art of detachment allows you to confront the worst of circumstance, the hardest of tasks without losing your peace. And you might not believe me, and i ask you to try it. Meditate, separate your being from your body and your thought. And you will find great strength.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5E6oo5wg0

[Anonymous No.15259291]

>>15257575
This. He’s based.

[Anonymous No.15259321]

>>15259257

Aside from the message, which is basically most people are incomplete and in order to become complete you should be more like me lmao, this guy's cadence is so obviously studied, every pause, every look at the crowd, pretending to gather his thoughts, everything is intentional to compensate for the lack of substance. A thespian this guy.

[Sir No.15259332]

>>15259321
It is a very Indian way, but he is highly respected among hindus. And holds great sway in India. He has spent 60 years in the monastic tradition. He runs an ashram with 3 million volunteers.

The video i posted was not his best, All of his speeches, essentially is about one thing.

this is my favorite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SXs40RR6cI&

[Sir No.15259436]

>>15259332
He even managed to get Gordon Ramsay to chill out a little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmqHh28raI

[Anonymous No.15259468]

>>15253734
>This fundamental mistake of looking at the story and not the story of the story making separate Logos and creates the inside and outside lie of ontology and metaphysics and epistemology and reality and cause and effect and all the other bullshit of modern story making that itself creates the paradoxes and contradictions that then go on to make an even more magical narrative.
I'd like to hear what you think of Plato then because he's definitely aware of the process of the story of the story.

>>15254060
It is incredible considering how Finkelstein spent his life exposing Israel and got snubbed by the same school.

[Anonymous American No.15259537]

Peterson is a fine psychological researcher; but he is a charlatan, with a poor grasp of philosophy and political theory, posturing himself as a tormented and misunderstood intellectual. He also happens to be possessed by greed.

[Sage No.15259561]

>>15259537
No intellectual critique of any claims made by Peterson. Resorts to ad hominem. D+, see me after class.

[Sir No.15259622]

>>15259561
>No intellectual critique of any claims made by Peterson
I can make some of those!

1:
>the postmodern neomarxists are trying to institute "equity"
Jacques Derrida one of the four horsemen of Petersons armageddon wanted to deconstruct exactly that out of leftwing theory, stating that many things we like (greatness, beauty and competence) are essentially based on inequity.
2:
>The postmodern neomarxists want to devolve all of the humanities into some kind of power struggle between percieved groups
This is exactly against what Michel Foucault said. Focault claimed that any categorical statement of people is false, he is not a homosexual, i am not white, you are not any gender. All of these are socially constructed, so to say that you can group all homosexuals into one strata is entirely against his message. Its intersectional theory that is his real enemy, not postmodernism.
3:
Just the fact that he thought doing a quick glance in the communist manifesto was enough to debate Zizek on Marx should tell you what he is.

He has consumed too much american "conservative" talk radio. And as such is entirely consumed by the paranoid style of american political discourse. Its repulsive and he is a pseud.

Note that i am neither a post-modernist or a marxist, but i try to actually read books instead of shooting at shadows.

[Anonymous No.15259686]

>>15257575
Calling him a hypocrite because he will argue a different position depending upon the parties at hand is not a personal attack.

[Anonymous No.15259695]

>>15257627
Holy shit. You refined it to its essence. I will meme this once I can figure the best imagery for it.

[Anonymous No.15259764]

>>15257627
wow how dare he not comment on wild conspiracy he has not even thought through

[Anonymous No.15259800]

>>15259764
He has had two years to refine his argument against it. Time's up.

[Sir No.15259817]

>He has had two years to refine his argument against it. Time's up.

[Anonymous No.15259847]

>>15253252
If you know a bit about his life, you can see that all his work is talking about himself. He had a semi-religous experience where an inner voice kept correcting him if he was trying to bullshit himself or others, which is why he emphasises telling the truth. I think there's a similar thing going on with his approach to human suffering and picking up a big load. It's all about him, not necessarily a human universal. And just putting up with suffering is a shit philosophy from someone who is apparently religious.

[Anonymous No.15259854]

>>15259817
Who am I kidding? Time is up for him on all counts, not just this one.

[Sir No.15259858]

>>15259847
>which is why he emphasises telling the truth
This is my favorite part about him, he is probably the biggest liar among public intellectuals currently.

I laid out two of his lies here>>15259622

[Anonymous No.15259870]

>>15253252
he's someone that makes dumb people feel smart. his fans watch his youtube videos and suddenly think they're fucking knowledgeable on philosophy and politics without actually reading the texts looool

[Anonymous No.15259886]

>>15259870

[Anonymous No.15259890]

>>15254506
>Yah he's not knowledgeable in Marxism, but if you read his subtext thats tangible to his main points.
>hE reAlLy dOeSn'T MeaAN whAt he'S SayINg!!!! yOu hAVe to DecyPher His WOrDS!
okay okay yeah, let's excuse his debauchery of understanding the texts he's talking about and say that it's just a supplement to his "main points"

[Anonymous No.15259895]

>>15259870
quintessential pseud /lit/

[Anonymous No.15259935]

>>15259858
Also not sleeping for 25 days straight.

[Anonymous No.15259979]

>>15253569
Hilarious post, faggot-kun

[Sir No.15259984]

>>15259935
Wow so Peterson actually stayed awake more than double the previous world record?

So thats the power of meat...

[Anonymous No.15260034]

>>15253734
>What is Peterson deconstructing?
imagine writing a block of text on an anime forum and revealing in the first four words that you have literally never even googled the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.15260045]

>>15260034
>revealing in the first four words that you have literally never even googled the subject matter
Kek. Totally Peterson tier.

[Anonymous No.15260052]

>>15253922
2/2 on not knowing what that word means

[Anonymous No.15260062]

>>15254258
cringe

[Anonymous No.15260937]

>>15254115
Irony

[Anonymous No.15260940]

>>15254592
Too soon

[Anonymous No.15260969]

>>15253838
>post-modern neo-Marxist
That's just some buzzword to mean guy with non conservative politics I don't like

[Anonymous No.15261097]

>>15253998
What are the odds of jordan lying about this being from apple cider, just because he wanted to share his suffering but didn't want to admit he was using benzos?

[Anonymous No.15261202]

>>15253998
>remember morons: apple cider=benzo withdrawl
Oh fuck, you're right.

[Anonymous No.15261258]

>>15253252
Right now his inability to wipe his own ass.

[Anonymous No.15261385]

Peterson is basically a better Shapiro, he's good at arguing and can handle the media, so when he faces the dumb fucks that are there he seems a prophet. I honestly like him, but the level of idolatry his "fans" reach is dangerous, especially for someone so inconsciusly influenced by retarded filo-american mentalities

[Anonymous No.15261519]

>>15259984
Recorded world record you mong. They stopped recording it because they don't want people to kill themselves trying to beat it.

[Anonymous No.15261611]

>>15253637
Because he's creative and fun.

[Anonymous No.15261622]

He knows about the Jews but he won’t say it

[Anonymous No.15261650]

949. There are three tiers of thinkers. On the third tier you have people like Jordan Peterson. These people fare well enough when confronted with trifling issues—like whether a language should have ten personal pronouns or ten thousand, for example—and for this they are lauded by the rabble as geniuses. But when it comes to the genuinely tough subjects—the definition of truth say—they can talk nonsense for 20 hours without getting anywhere—and that's why their opinions on these subjects never survive the test of time: they are so confused and sprawling, while simultaneously worthless, that no one can bother memorizing them. If these people were a bit smarter they would not have opined on these subjects at all, but alas they're not, and thus the rest of us have to suffer their verbal diarrhea for a few years, until time wipes it all away.
Then we have the second tier, that comprises people like Aristotle, whose definition of truth, while next to useless, really, is at least concise enough to be memorable: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true". This is merely common sense transcribed in a kind of formula that makes autistic people feel they've understood something, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Aristotle was on the spectrum somewhere. All "analytic philosophers" are in the same boat/spectrum, and all their writings are equally commonsensical and worthless. But if the universe functioned commonsensically, why would we need geniuses lol? So these people are superior to the base crowd-pleasers like Peterson because they at least make a concentrated attempt at grappling with the big issues, and the results are at least readable, if not exactly useful. Their main use, however, is to function as foils for the geniuses; to serve up the balls that the geniuses will hit out of the park, so to speak.
And finally, on the first tier, we have the bona fide geniuses. Consider Nietzsche's "Truth is will to power". Doesn't it make Peterson's 20-hour verbal diarrhea on the subject seem ludicrous? Even more so considering the latter comes a whole friggin century after Nietzsche, and Peterson has read him? Not to mention the analytic autists, who still pathetically try to pretend that Nietzsche never existed.
And there you have the three tiers of thinkers. In summa, barely a few dozen people in the history of the species deserve to be carefully read from start to finish, and you won't find any of them on YouTube.

[Anonymous No.15261705]

>>15261650
>barely a few dozen people in the history of the species deserve to be carefully read from start to finish.
Who do you think falls into this group?

[Anonymous No.15261706]

>>15253637
What's the matter, too halal for you?

[Anonymous No.15261787]

>>15253252
No appreciation for rigorous thought and analysis. Psychospook who thinks too much of Freud.

[Anonymous No.15262107]

post his thot daughter

[Anonymous No.15262126]

>>15253252
As for pure motivational speaking, I think he's a Godsend. He genuinely helped me with some of the practical aspects of my life. I went from being an unemployed 26 year old coomer/doomer to a reasonably prosperous 30 year old boomer with his house in order. And it literally all started with cleaning my room, no joke. Last night I was listening to a lecture by him, and he was talking about making incremental improvements in your life that add up, which is completely true. 3 or 4 years ago I started lifting, eating right, believing in myself, working on myself and doing basically everything that Peterson recommends in 12 Rules for Life, and yes, it genuinely fucking works. I guess someone could say the same thing about Tony Robinson, but Peterson isn't a total snake oil salesman: there is genuinely some substance behind what he says.

Then again, as a legitimate thinker, he does have a lot of very cringe moments where he seems to overstretch and try to sum up some subject but he fails miserably. I guess he doesn't have the wide-spanning intellectual capacities as someone like Chomsky or Zizek.

Fundamentally though, I agree with some of his basic ideas: the gender wage gap doesn't exist, dominance hierarchies, personal responsibility. It's just a logical extension of 19th century anglosphere liberalism, which I think has a lot of merit.

You all probably think I sound like a pro-peterson retard, but I assure you, if I have any praise for JP it's tempered by the fact that when it comes to any serious philosophy he doesn't really have a clue.

tldr: he a'ight

[Anonymous No.15262155]

>>15253600
he went full skelly mode. He was clearly lying about how he used to lift when he was younger. He was never anything other than DYEL (not that it really matters)

[Anonymous No.15262485]

>>15262126
>He genuinely helped me with some of the practical aspects of my life.
lmfao

[Anonymous No.15262507]

>>15253252
His daughter was born with a severe disability and his wife is dying, seeing him just reminded me that I should clean my room