/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19911590]

I have found out through many debates that most people who disagree with him haven't even read his work.

[Anonymous No.19911596]

>>19911590
I agree, why would they do that?

[Anonymous No.19911597]

We really do live in a society.
> https://youtu.be/QhnsC2V4_0w

[Anonymous No.19911606]

Negative bulge

[Anonymous No.19911626]

>>19911590
Could be a fun thread where people copy the line but change the picture.

[Anonymous No.19911804]

>be me
>31 year old neet
>first date with a girl I met on bumble
>dad gives me 20 bucks and drops me off at the place where we decided to meet
>we have a few beers
>she pays for most of them
>ok cool
>i share the haikus i wrote for jordan peterson
>she reads them out loud
>ok
>she offers to drive me back to my parents
>ok
>crashes into the median of an exit ramp at 70mph
>i am mad at her and do not look or talk to her
>police arrive
>she is arrested and booked for dui
>free uber ride back to my parents
>ghost her
>continue pawn stars marathon
I have ascended

[Anonymous No.19911938]

lmao

[Anonymous No.19912306]

>>19911590
Most of his writing is on the effects of alcoholism on personality. Is that what he's taking a stand on in his Youtube videos? Not so far as I can tell.
I honestly just find his voice unpleasant, manner insufferable, and, from what I've seen, Ideas paper thin.
But maybe it's just because I had a good upbringing and my parents are still together.

[Anonymous No.19912458]

his writings are 1-up from "t** sub**e a*t of n*t gi**** a fuck"

[Anonymous No.19912527]

>>19911590
The vast majority of things Peterson expresses an opinion about are domains that he is not an expert in. Climate? Communism? He’s a clinical psychologist who is an expert in personality and development, he is almost always out of his element and has a platform disproportionate to his expertise.

[Anonymous No.19912562]

>>19911590
he hasn't read the works of most people he disagrees with

[Anonymous No.19912569]

>>19911590
I think most people dislike him because of when he refused to use neopronouns and got fired. The type of people who criticize him probably aren't all that well read

[Anonymous No.19912584]

yeah idk my brother likes him a lot and anything my brother likes merits my consideration since he is such an excellent man

on the other hand, my neet ex whose mom still does his laundry really hated this guy

[Anonymous No.19912644]

>>19912569
that's also, coincidentally enough, what got him so famous to begin with

[Anonymous No.19912665]

>>19912569
> I think most people dislike him because of when he refused to use neopronouns and got fired
That didn’t happen. The neopronoun thing was 2016 and he retired from UofT only this year. He was a tenured professor but stopped teaching classes in 2017 by choice because he became an internationally famous self help guru and was too busy taking benzos or going on Joe Rogan to lecture at university or publish any new papers.

[Anonymous No.19912699]

>>19911590
His work bears little to no relation to whatever he discusses in debates and interviews.

[Anonymous No.19912714]

>>19911590
For me, it’s “Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire“

[Anonymous No.19912729]

>>19911590
on Rogan's podcast apparently he said it was okay for the western working class to be destroyed because it created a lot of Chinese engineers.
he is a neolib shill and he shouldn't be supported by anyone on the right or the left.

[Anonymous No.19912780]

I'm not required to read psychoanalytical mumbo-jumbo and self-help books to call him out on his retarded views that he spews out in interviews and debates . He isn't even famous because of his writings, he is famous for being a conservative mouthpiece whether he denys it or not.

[Anonymous No.19912874]

>>19911590
Most of the cunts defending this asshole are not taking their arguments from his books either, so why should I bother?

[Anonymous No.19912882]

>>19911590
clean your family life up, Mr. Peterson

[Anonymous No.19912893]

>>19911590
"You can tell a lot about a person by looking at the company they keep."

Jordan Peterson hangs out with Rogan, Dennis Prager, and a bunch of other political talking heads and is a complete sycophant when hes on their shows

Why would I even waste my time attempting to read his BS when he shows his faults through his actions

[Anonymous No.19912909]

>>19912882
hot mama

[Anonymous No.19912923]

I have found out through many debates that most people who disagree with him haven't even read his work

[Anonymous No.19912930]

>>19912527
You just summed up every public intellectual.

[Anonymous No.19912952]

>>19912729
You sound like a commie fuck. No one cares about your "working class".

[Anonymous No.19913027]

>>19912893
That's a reasonable heuristic for deciding who is worth reading—I've never read Peterson for pretty much the same reason: he seems like he's probably a midwit.

But the fact remains that if you haven't read someone's work—and read it seriously and generously—you should refrain from disagreeing with it (is real 'disagreement' even possible in such a case?). I haven't read Peterson—so I neither agree nor disagree with him.

[Anonymous No.19913047]

>>19912729
Rogan clearly prioritizes thestruggle of the GLOBAL working class. Incredibly based! (Marx was a neoliberal btw—the more you know!)

[Anonymous No.19913058]

>>19911938
Broke: Shakespeare was Bacon
Woke: Pynchon is Peterson

[Anonymous No.19913270]

>>19912952
>>19913047
the duality of cucks

[Anonymous No.19913297]

>>19911596
lmfao that pic, I'm growing to like this old man

[Anonymous No.19913316]

"Maps of Meaning" was great and "12 Rules" was okay. Is "Beyond Order" a cash grab?

[Anonymous No.19913359]

>>19912569
this

[Anonymous No.19913363]

>>19911590
>his work
Muh lobsters might do for 15 mins of youtube fame, but you tredLARP cuckbois are pathetic

[Anonymous No.19913712]

>>19911590
I disagree with him. I made a thread the other day about it, and I just finished writing the rough draft of my critique, which I'll be taking to my university to inquire about publishing. I'd upload a pastebin but I don't wanna have to worry about the systems detecting plagiarism so I'll summarize.

Peterson breaks down ethics into a science so we objectively understand the pragmatic utility of old values. This is useful but also creates a danger that ultimately concludes with solipsism which is quite literally philosophical psychopathy. If we act out old values for their pragmatic utility, we've turned the values into facts. Facts are useful because they are accurate but they are dangerous for ethics because they do not require belief. This matters because belief is the only thing preventing nihilistic materialists from becoming solipsists. Peterson says people "act as though they believe", but I've come to the conclusion that the only way to act as though God exists is coincidentally also the only way to love people: you must actually believe in the existence of others. Without a third-party (God), people are either objects of matter or objects of phenomena, not real things-in-themselves. Peterson's definition of love is even "when a person expresses the desire to cooperate with another in their pursuit of best interest". That's not love, firstly because people who love each other often waste time together (Peterson implies that if you waste time with someone you don't love them), and secondly because without a principle of unity that's just antisocial (using others to facilitate a pragmatic goal that is coincidentally mutual). The people who benefit the most from Peterson's work are people who wish they could bring themselves to belief in God but can't and are miserable thereby. These are people who struggle with belief in general. Because of this, they are also most vulnerable to the dangerous incompleteness of his theory. The more a person who struggles with belief incorporates Peterson's theory as a belief system, the more logic will dominate their personality and the harder it will eventually be to believe that other people exist. Peterson's work is the refinement of the antichrist.

[Anonymous No.19913736]

I have found out through many debates that most people who disagree with him haven't even read his work.

[Anonymous No.19913754]

>>19913712
All wrong and you are worthless.

[Anonymous No.19913801]

>>19913712
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.07.035
And to back my argument with science, this experiment found that psychopathy may be an attention disorder, rather than an emotional deficit. Psychopaths were found to almost exclusively respond to threat-positive stimuli rather than threat-neutral stimuli. Logic itself requires threat detection, because if there is no threat there is no problem, and without a problem logic has nothing to do. Petersonian ethics are purely logical, therefore they rely purely on discriminative cognition (Logos) and completely lack connective cognition (Eros). The only way to think is to doubt. The serpent of Eden was the first problem, the first threat to paradise, and thereby the first instance where man doubted God. To rely purely on Logic is to rely purely on doubt in the pursuit of power. That is the way of the antichrist.

[Anonymous No.19913819]

>>19913754
Peterson wants open discussion and discovery of truth, so should you.

[Anonymous No.19913821]

>>19911804
Wish it was real

[Anonymous No.19913825]

>>19913712
Peterson's main influences are Binswanger/Boss. He doesn't reference them in his talking-head shit because no one knows who the fuck they are. He's also very influenced by Carl Rogers. You're basically spending too much time with the public message of a talking head and your critique is boring to read. You need to write better.

[Anonymous No.19913836]

The best thing about Peterson's class was that you got to choose your own essay subject and you didn't have to write something completely pozzed in order to get a good mark.

[Anonymous No.19913837]

>>19913819
Do you think P says what he really thinks about anything, faggot?. Even now he is walking on eggshells.
Imagine him one 1 hour without any restrictions.

[Anonymous No.19913840]

>>19913825
My criticism is that Peterson's radical individualistic ideal leads to psychopathy when it is fully practiced. If its boring to read that is because I only care about making my point. If you think I'm wrong feel free to debate, but if you're aim is to use petty demoralization tactics, sorry shill.

[Anonymous No.19913846]

>>19913837
No, I don't. By "Peterson" I meant the persona that anon knows him as.

[Anonymous No.19913937]

>>19911590
I disagree with you and I haven't read your post

[Anonymous No.19913984]

>>19913825
>He doesn't reference them in his talking-head shit because no one knows who the fuck they are
He had lectures about Binswager and Rogers in his Personality and Its Transformation course. He also talked about them in 12 Rules For Life.

>>19913736
What he has written has little relation to his political commentary, the latter being the origin of most discussions about Peterson.

[Anonymous No.19913994]

>>19913316
Yeah.
I mean, Maps of Meaning was intended as a scholarly work.
12 Rules was self-help, but written earnestly. At this point, he genuinely wants to help people.

Then he got famous.

Then he wrote Beyond Order, because it was the perfect moment to publish another book and make millions. He only wrote it because it was the right time to sell a product.

[Anonymous No.19914040]

>>19911590
Jordan Peterson has powerful connections with the think tanks, UN, and more. He is a social engineer, not an intellectual. Most public "intellectuals" are just frauds.

[Anonymous No.19914052]

>>19911590
Why would I read his work? It's for pseuds. You don't need to read the work to refute the dumb shit he says.

[Anonymous No.19914084]

>>19911590
I don't read Jungian nonsense. Wallowing in Jungian mysticism is an easy disqualification of opinion.

The fact that the media and the people the media puts on tv are so pathetic that he can thrash them just by being polite doesn't make his work worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.19914095]

>>19914084
>Wallowing in Jungian mysticism is an easy disqualification of opinion.
pleb

[Anonymous No.19914121]

>>19911590
I was/am a fan of him his lectures were great and some of his podcasts are as well however.
He repeats himself a lot. It isn't a JP chat if he doesn't mention PLAY and how young people love music.
He said he read 200 books for his UN climate thing yet promoted a scientist who was accused multiple time of being on tobacco & oil payrolls.

[Anonymous No.19914155]

12 rules is just Meditations without the self reflection on sodomizing young boys.

[Anonymous No.19914340]

His fanbase is behaving like a cult. They cannot be reasoned with.

[Anonymous No.19914939]

>>19914121
>He repeats himself a lot.
yeah, that's one thing I noticed

In both all his lectures, and books, you can expect to find
- The Gulag Archipelago
- Why gorillas have big stomachs
- How to tease a snail
- The hero's journey
- Disney movies from a jungian perspective
- Stories about his daughter, Mikhaila
- Some complain about posmodern philosophy, and about Sartre and Derrida
- Praise for Heidegger and Binswager

[Anonymous No.19915125]

>>19911590

[Anonymous No.19915138]

>>19912527
Thanks for making OP's point for him with a ready make retard cope and a photoshopped image.

Pretty based ngl.

[Anonymous No.19915214]

>>19912780
of course the rational refutation gets no replies, cant deboonk a post like this with a witty catchphrase or meme

[Anonymous No.19915241]

>>19911590

>I have found through many debates that those that agree with him haven't read the criticism of his work.

See? I can use that stupid fallacy too.

I also know that those that have to argue using such indirect fallacies can't answer their direct criticisms because they know they are wrong.

[Anonymous No.19915257]

>>19911590

Wait...I don't see anyone attacking the content of his books. Many of his critics acknowledge his intelligence as a psychologist. Virtually all the criticism I see is for dumb shit he says in his talks/interviews which his critics have in fact seen.

[Anonymous No.19915845]

>>19915241
That's not a fallacy you fucking idiot. You can't make a direct criticism unless you know what you're actually criticizing.

[Anonymous No.19915868]

Does anyone else here sniff their own assjuice before taking a shower?

[Anonymous No.19916208]

>>19911590
the greatest argument against this fraud is that he doesnt take his own advice

>organize your room before trying to change the world

he couldnt even raise his kids properly so how will he give good advice to modern men on how to go about life and relationships? seriously his daughter is a hoe who left her husband to get ran thru by a romanian mob tied pimp just to break her husbands heart yet again and then come to ameriac to get ran thru YET AGAIN all while having a kid, look up rollos expose video on her shes disgusting..

he needs to take his own advice before playing the moral high ground which he plays all the time

[Anonymous No.19916989]

>>19916208
>the greatest argument against this fraud is that he doesnt take his own advice
That's no argument. Likewise, you could argue that a medical doctor leading an unhealthy life is a hack, or an ethical philosopher making unethical choices is a fraud.

A psychologist may have plenty of good advice to give, but likely need his own therapist to overcome the troubles in his life.

[Anonymous No.19916996]

>>19911590
>his work
He's not a public figure because of his work, no one ever read that shit.

[Anonymous No.19917004]

>>19916989
Was that meant to be a counterargument? Yes, integrity is important.

[Anonymous No.19917129]

>>19911590
you don't need to read his work, if you read nietzche and jung you know everything he has to say, probably even more, since he's not a good schoolar of neither nietzsche or jung

[Anonymous No.19917136]

>>19912952
>No one cares about your "working class".
lol everyone cares about the working class, what the fuck are you talking about? the working class is the main point of discourse of teh left and the right

[Anonymous No.19917193]

>>19911590
Come back when he is ready to speak about Two Hundred Years together

[Anonymous No.19917210]

>>19917193
this is just the critique of ideology

[Anonymous No.19917218]

>>19917210
Maybe but Peterstein is just a libtard that wants to go back to the 90s

[Anonymous No.19917248]

>>19911590
I've read the excerpt from one of his books where he claims that Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves the existence of God; that was enough for me to know that he should not be listened to by anyone.

[Anonymous No.19917314]

>>19917248
Just to make sure you aren't actually just making an ass of yourself, Gödel did actually believe that he himself had given a mathematical proof of God's existence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

[Anonymous No.19917347]

>>19914084
Cringe

>>19914095
Based

[Anonymous No.19917595]

>>19911590
that's the guy who after his debate with Slavoj though he wasn't a marxist

[Anonymous No.19917737]

>>19917595
lel

[Anonymous No.19918089]

People who read JBP are people who are virgin neets in their late 20s,

But also, reading JBP won't get you laid.

There is no escape for being beta.

[Anonymous No.19918569]

>>19918089
>There is no escape for being beta
It's not my fault, it's because snowball fights were banned at school!

[Anonymous No.19918585]

>>19911590
>Through many debates
Holy cringe

[Anonymous No.19918624]

>>19915214
Moreso you didn't say anything of value worth replying to.

[Anonymous No.19918657]

>>19911590
Same thing with the "Bell Curve"

[Anonymous No.19919488]

>>19915138
Here’s his work, knock yourself out.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en
My point is reading his opinion on anything outside of psychology is as worthwhile as reading a climate scientist or historian talk about psychology. Is it really a serious assertion to say that one must read all of a climate scientist’s work before you criticize their hot takes on the brain? Why should anyone listen to anything Peterson has to say about anything beyond his field of expertise?

[Anonymous No.19919554]

>>19917314
Try to read what I actually wrote before you reply. Whatever Gödel may have believed, Peterson claimed specifically that the incompleteness theorem is what proves God's existence, which is completely nonsensical and unrelated to anything in your link.

[Anonymous No.19919633]

I fucking love magic. I dream every day that I'll wake up and I'd be able to cast a fireball out of my eyes or something. Though every time I go out there and search for a magic novel it never fucking focuses on the magic. So after a few books here and there I'd tell myself maybe I just need to be more specific with my search, so I go out there again on bookreads or whatever and look up 'magic academy'. That should work right? Going to a fucking school about magic you should actually learn about the principles and intricacies of so and so's magic system, right? BUT FUCKING NO!! its just a goddam social drama where the background theme is magic, there is no focus on magic except that the main character is good at it, thats all. SO WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE MAGIC BOOKS WHERE THE MAIN CHARACTER ACTUALLY EXPLORES MAGIC, huh?

the only luck I've had is with web novels specifically ones from asia where the main character actually explores their magic system, something like lord of mysteries or whatever. sadly i cant read asian so the choices for me are much more narrow and translations are just a mix of trash dumps.