Dr. Peterson

When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant. Nietzsche saw that the Enlightenment would strip the values of Christianity away,but this requires the individual to create their own values and accept the lack of objectivity without falling into nihilism. The individual has to become an 'ubermensch' with their own values. This seems fine on paper, but in reality, whatever values, like rationalism, the individual holds highest is their God.

Nietzsche's existentialism and ubermensch is a brilliant idea, only it doesn't work. Nobody is able to create a value system that can replace religion and live by it. Peterson want's to resurrect Christianity, the logos, but he can't kill the objectivity problem, despite how hard he tries to hide it.

He knows objectivity is dead and all we have is a linguistic playground. Iv'e now seen six separate videos of Peterson admitting that this 'linguistic playground' is valid and the logical perspective to reach. During the Harris debate, he was even backed into a corner and even had to start arguing from this position. But Peterson had to be dishonest and pretend the entire European school of thought is so shallow it overlooked relativism, pretend that pomo says every view and opinion has equal weight.

Peterson had to blame postmodernism and pretend it enabled this intellectual relativism. So now he stands triumphant, pretending he has defeated postmodernism, and he can make his appealing picture of Christianity with Jungian archetypes. But he still has a problem. He tricked his congregation into dismissing postmodernism, but he still faces the objectivity problem. When asked if he believes in God, instead of saying no, he gives the predictable, "that's a very complicated question which needs hours of..."

His goal is to bring back Christianity, to give people the values it holds because people aren't able to be the ubermensch, I think it's a noble cause, but he can't manage to do it. Even if we go along with him and pretend he managed to slay postmodernism, he still faces the problem of Christianity being divorced from objectivity. His axiomatic reasoning is that evolution has etched archetypal characteristics and modes of behavior into humans, and we are pre-written with these archetypes instead of being born blank-slates, and people aren't as socially conditioned as academics like to say, and this creates a 'truth' that is a description of the world different to the truth that comes from the description of the world from empirical testing.

Even if his two truth's didn't fall apart under scrutiny, and even is his dismissal of postmodernism didn't fall apart, he still can't tether his ideology to objectivity. It was easy to mix postmodernism, radical feminism and communism with figures we collectively hate like the shaven-headed trans-rights feminist, but all he has is this strawman which he dances around and sweeps the real issues under the carpet.

I like Peterson but his attempt is too flawed.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLTFL2W3woU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Theres a video of Peterson literally crying on the internet while rrading a quote from Ayn Rand called Ode tp the individual.

I actually read all that, yeah, he's wrong. I'm just tired of hearing about Peterson. All you Petersonposters just make a thread about the utility of a Jungian analysis of Christianity and sprinkle it with Dostoevskian repentance and Nietzschian concerns of modernity instead

>evolution has etched archetypal characteristics and modes of behavior into humans, and we are pre-written with these archetypes instead of being born blank-slates

The thesis he puts forward in Maps of Meaning is that the archetypes are patterns of behavior that arise pretty much anywhere there are humans and that people copy these patterns. Much of religion is an attempt to understand these patterns.

People associate him with Christianity too much. He's hardly trying to "resurrect Christianity". He just wants people to become explicitly aware of the knowledge that was implicit in religion. He criticizes Nietzsche on the grounds that no one can actually create new values. Peterson takes things to be already valued based on our psychology.

And yes, he admits that the postmodern worldview is correct in that we have no real objectivity. But he's a pragmatist, so that's just not really relevant to him.

I think his position on objectivity is summed up by a different answer he gave to the question "Do you believe in God", to which he replied "I act as if God exists." He talks about the truth, but doesn't seem concerned with being able to establish objectivity, like you said.

Also, his brand of Christianity is very mystical and heterodox; I can't see how it's this rock-solid universal framework he presents it as. He's said that he doesn't go to church because "the preachers lie."

Why is this image being posted all the time? Is that fucking William Lane Craig?

It is. They are probably posting it because of that last debate.

Which was that?

I need to see it. jesus christ post sauce

>the archetypes are patterns of behavior that arise pretty much anywhere there are humans and that people copy these patterns. Much of religion is an attempt to understand these patterns.

If he were truly honest, he would use something like mathematics.

Instead of saying the universe and existence are infinitely more complicated than we can possibly conceive, and there are transcendent truths which we can't understand, but can only hint at through allegory and archetypal mythology, he could say nowhere in existence can you find a physical instance of an irrational number like pi, yet we know it's "true."

But using mathematics would put him in the same boat as the postmodernists he needs to kill.

He would be saying we each have a linguistic framework through which to process reality, and there is a second framework, on a different level of abstraction that contains these "truths" and exists independent you whether you are consciously aware of it or not.

Instead he uses his patterns of behavior that he and the great Jung could see. He tries to claim that these "truths" aren't within semantic frameworks with which to describe the world around us, as he would be siding with Derrida, so he has to claim they magically transcend them.

> He's hardly trying to "resurrect Christianity"
I think on the JRE podcast, he said his ultimate goal: “I'm trying to resurrect the dormant Logos”

Not Veeky Forums

>Instead he uses his patterns of behavior that he and the great Jung could see. He tries to claim that these "truths" aren't within semantic frameworks with which to describe the world around us, as he would be siding with Derrida, so he has to claim they magically transcend them.

I don't think it's necessary for him to say that. Identifying the pattern is useful for us. He's not saying there's a deep metaphysical truth behind them.

>I think on the JRE podcast, he said his ultimate goal: “I'm trying to resurrect the dormant Logos”

Right, but he's just saying he wants people to act out the pattern of the archetypal hero, which orders the world. The pattern of activity which orders the world is Logos.

waah

>He's not saying there's a deep metaphysical truth behind them
not the user you're replying to, but if he's using the term Logos, he does mean there's a deep metaphysical truth which underlies everything. it's what Logos is supposes to be.

The term is used metaphysically by Christians today, but a la Peterson, religion was not actually created as metaphysics. It's only interpreted that way by modern, metaphysical people.

>He tries to claim that these "truths" aren't within semantic frameworks with which to describe the world around us, as he would be siding with Derrida, so he has to claim they magically transcend them.
This what perplexes me about him. The types of people he's trying to fight aren't postmodernist nor really claiming to be, but if they were, it would be easily to annihilate their entire argument by picking any text they could cite from postmodernists. Yet, instead of arguing, This Blue Haired Crying Women has never and probably could never read Derrida, he argues that she has and would agree with Derrida, when Derrida might literally refuse to be in the same room as her despite how affable he could be.

Most of the things he claims about postmodernism seem terribly like projection/splitting. The closest I've heard a feminazi come to mentioning a postmodernist was Beauvoir, and they did not know she used Heideggerian terminology so I don't think they actually read her. I doubt they approve of her statutory rape habit either. Peterson's really the first time I've seen postmodernism blamed for the people he's fighting. During the Culture Wars of the beforetimes of the long long ago, the postmodernists usually only got blamed for the people saying "and that's why child-adult sex is natural", and Beauvoir became a "feminist" instead of postmodernist, but that was because she'd finally decided to call herself one once all the rest of postmodernism was dead or ignoring her and she no longer had to say "that's just a dumb label and principle".

no I mean Heraclitus, one of the first philosophers in Greek, inspiration to Nietzsche, uses the term in the same manner. If you want the ontic rather than the ontological sense, I can tell you Heidegger understands it in the same fashion.

I will admit the possibility though that Peterson doesn't know what Logos means and doesn't mean Logos.

Well you can dispute what the Logos really is, but that's what he means and how he interprets it.

Peterson's differences with the dictionary are hardly likely to hit common use let alone prescriptivist editions.

Well that's unfortunate for him?

Doubly so, since it's too late to name malapropisms after him.

You and every Peterson dicksucker should kill yourself.

>people aren't allowed to debate theology

>This what perplexes me about him. The types of people he's trying to fight aren't postmodernist nor really claiming to be
>Peterson's really the first time I've seen postmodernism blamed for the people he's fighting.
The past few years have been really strange. Watching postmodernism go from a harmless, usually positive term, to being an evil, catch-all buzzword to describe feminists who protest on campus.

It's because Peterson was hit with the pronoun controversy. He blames postmodernism and the notion that "There is no outside-text." His basis was that if there is nothing outside the text, and all we have are descriptions of the world, we can never verify the 'truth' of claim. From this he gets relativism, and says postmodernists think every theory is equally valid.

It's because the pronoun argument is linguistically based. It places male and female as two constructs that only reside within the text, and the spectrum between male and female as a concept inside the text too and, due to the implied relativism, perfectly equal to conventional biology. He also hates ethics and aesthetics treated as being exclusively within the text, and likes to treat them, especially 'evil,' as being external.

Any postmodernist worth his salt, or anyone who has read Derrida, Korzybski, Foucault, Baudrillard and others, would reject the idea that a gender spectrum is intellectually equal, and they would and have argued that you can't just invent anything and say it's equal to every other theory because we have no objective basis and no 100% truth verification.

It was just so easy for Peterson to reject the entire "within the text" concept, blame postmodernism for relativism, and use it as a ready made scapegoat to point his finger at.

>Nobody is able to create a value system that can replace religion and live by it.
But both religions and philosophies are value systems created by people, so this is false. Nietzsche himself created a new value system. Your post is stupid.

they are. just every philosopher of note and some major world religions all say peterson's wrong, including ones he cites

>not the user you're replying to, but if he's using the term Logos, he does mean there's a deep metaphysical truth which underlies everything
And it's where he get's his two truths from.

"What scientific truth tells you is: what things are. Genuine religious truth tells you: how you should act. These are not the same."

"What's the enemy? It's the snake. Fair enough. That's good if you're a tree dwelling primate. But for a sophisticated human being with six million years of additional evolution, and you're really trying to solve the problem of what it is that's the great enemy of mankind, well it's the human propensity for evil...as such. Well, that's the figure of Satan. And it's no joke. That's what that bloody figure means. Just like there's a Logos that's the Truth that speaks order out of chaos at the beginning of time, there's an antithetical spirit - the hostile brother...that's Cain to Abel, man - that's doing exactly the opposite. It's motivated by absolutely nothing but malevolence and the willingness to destroy. And it has every reason for doing so. That's what's revealed in the next story in Cain and Abel. And it's bloody terrifying. In one paragraph, the first glimmerings of that - outside of the strange insistence by the Christian mystics - on the identity of the snake in the Garden of Eden and the author of all evil himself."

For what my opinion is worth, I think his understanding of religion is more on the mark than anyone else. I don't mean his familiarity with the modern doctrines, but with religion's origins and its true nature. Once you see Peterson's version of the story, you can't really go back.

His attempt is golden. How dumb do you have to be to come to these realisations about what his aims are while understanding their merit and then use your reason to detract from his noble lie? He's a fucking psychologist who wants to help people, not a philosopher trying to bring truth to people. He's Paul Coelho with a righteous edge and his rhetorical method is bloody brilliant. If I were not Canadian though I'd be bored to tears with him for sure, but you have to understand what his popularity means to a society still greatly indebted to Christian institutions. The symbols abound within our government as well as in our daily lives, and the culture that is growing from it and against it requires spokes(people) to represent that mass nostalgia. I completely understand why this is lost on a lot of people, considering how the American election was lost. But I digress....

>When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant.
Yes it was. What a charlatan.

Sauccccce now

4/10

While this retarded individual supremacist spreads his gospel to the deprived youths, the fucking Chinese are invading and conquering his homeland called Canada.
Bravo Peterson

>Not Veeky Forums
>You and every Peterson dicksucker should kill yourself.

They're discussing the impact a popular author's work is having on contemporary society. You may hate him, but it's still Veeky Forums.

You need to relax a little. Veeky Forums is not your safe space cuddle zone where we only discuss books you like. If you're this triggered now, you're going to cry when his new book is released next week.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLTFL2W3woU

That's even worse. It means he got Derrida wrong in the way the protoSJWs did in order to discredit it- there being nothing outside the text means that the text is weighed against all other texts, and that nothing is excluded from that weight system, not that you can take an individual claim as worth its own weight. It's what makes postmodernism the people who say
>it's not a trap if the dick isn't a surprise
rather than
>you can't call trans people traps
or
>you can't pass as female with a dick muh biology needs sumptuary laws
You have to look like either a) a hambeast or b) a qt eurasian who doesn't yet know thigh high stockings mean trap to wear thigh high stockings for a western audience and not have them be unsurprised by penis. If a) the supporting amount of texts say the thigh high stockings are probably rainbow coloured and you're culturally and personally identified as pansexual to anyone who will listen. If b) it's a trap and please share pics.

What happened to postmodernism meaning you liked porn? How much do we have to pay Peterson to bring the meaning of postmodernism back to discussing the impact of brazillians in the replication of sex and why in a tribal society it wouldn't be so hard to get your buggery on and everyone would be much happier?

>no when he steals things from those philosophers he means that kind of logos, but he doesn't mean that kind of logos when he talks about logos
uhhuh and every pun you read intended not inferred i promise, schizo

I think it was and it wasn't. He thought it was liberating but he also feared it would lead to nihilism.

>>When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant.
>Yes it was. What a charlatan.

My understanding was that Neitzsche wasn't speaking of a literal God dying. He was talking about the death of Christian values in western society. And Neitzsche was mourning this death not celebrating. That's why he created his superman. A society of supermen who could create their own value structures to live by instead of adopting the one from Christianity. But I didn't think Nietzsche was celebrating this. His superman wasn't something he wanted everyone to aim for. It was something done out of necessity in the wake of God's death, the best viable alternative he could think of, and he was cynical about man's ability to even be able to create their own values in the first place.

m8 the next sentence from zarathustra is pretty much
>he died choking on his pity for mankind

nietzsche's view of the christian love another thing is that it stems from being nosy, and that being nosy only happens to the unlucky who then try to say it is pity or duty that makes them interfere in the lives of those who are lucky enough to not give a shit

read more spitball less

We've all read about Nietzsche faggot

You sound schizophrenic and I've read Nietzsche's entire oeuvre.

>He criticizes Nietzsche on the grounds that no one can actually create new values.

conservatives get butthurt when you inform them that the guy making bank on furry porn video games is a Nietzschean

Try a comma before faggot, faggot.

What the fuck

Jordan Peterson is the ultimate subverter. He accepts Nietzsche's message but then twists it and says we ought to return to the very thing that ended, that is, a belief in objective values bestowed by an Abrahamic God.

Doing this will only result in our ruin.

>says we ought to return to the very thing that ended, that is, a belief in objective values bestowed by an Abrahamic God

Confirmed for not understanding Peterson

My diction isn't up for debate faggot

Please learn punctuation. If you can figure out how to greentext, you can figure out how to punctuate. You're virtually unreadable.

>Neugierde. - Wenn die Neugierde nicht wäre, würde wenig für das Wohl des Nächsten gethan werden. Aber die Neugierde schleicht sich unter dem Namen der Pflicht oder des Mitleides in das Haus des Unglücklichen und Bedürftigen. - Vielleicht ist selbst an der vielberühmten Mutterliebe ein gut Stück Neugierde.
363, Human alltooHuman

I've already given you the citation for ASZ, just after God is dead, when he's quoting the former opposition.

You should probably just say that Nietzsche sounds schizophrenic to you when you're responding to quotes from him

>Doing this will only result in our ruin.

I had a dream recently where Jordan Peterson was giving his usual rant, clamped to a metal cross, as robotic tendrils meticulously replaced his innards with cybernetics and harvested his organs

>pls punctuate as per me
well, that's a couple of board meme books you can't read

Ah, you too then

Ha! But the individual still remains.

See:

>Doing this will only result in our ruin.
Y-yeah. We must obey the oligarchs instead, as equal, replaceable parts in an artificial society.

Go doubt the god known as Mammon out of existence or something.

>He was talking about the death of Christian values in western society.
Yes.
>And Neitzsche was mourning this death not celebrating.
No. Nietzsche was in no way mournful of the passing of Christianity. In fact he preferred pagan religion and Islam to Christianity, but more than that he valued the idea of being ubermenschen.

no, this was dream was in a room with other people tied to crosses as well, it all became an enormous bloom of metal and wires

What he is saying is completely reasonable.

I don't see how any of what you said ruins my point.

You can write however you want, princess, but if you want people to understand you and engage, you need to stop writing like:


So I have just read Harry Potter again and I finally understood and grasped the underlying message that JK Rowling was trying to portray to the teens who are targeted by this kind of book a message so clear that I am disgusted with myself for not observing it before but I guess you have to be submerged in that culture to pick up on it but the whole book is a metaphor for smoking cannabis even Harry POT-ter didn't give it away I can see Rowling was portraying muggles as the conservative boring types who don't indulge and will never be transported to a magical mystery realm of wizards and magic only now when I am sky as a height does it all fit in to place and seem so obvious Rowling is encouraging kids to remove the heavy shackles of our dull boring greyscale reality and take a huge bong hit or train as she likes to portray it and transport themselves into another colorful realm of strange and wonderful things and give in to enchantment and wonder I think she might listen to reggae

Money =/= the god known as mammon. There is a distinction, and it's in sacrifice.

So we are all agreed, then.

Full Communism is the only solution.

Alright, explain further.

No. You have prosopagnosia

money is of Mammon, when you pay someone with money rather than services and barter, you're doing so knowing that they could just as easy use that cash to buy a child prostitute as groceries

It's the citation in Nietzsche for the quotes you failed to recognise despite being leitmotifs throughout his oeuvre.
We're not the same user you're responding to. The chances are the problem is your comprehension, not two other people's.

>nonexpanantion

>God won't be dead until grammar is
How right Nietzsche was. Fuck, you, necrophile.

Sorry darling, I didn't know you were too obtuse to understand, I was saying you're clearly lying about having read Nietzsche. I'm sure people will tell you if you're missing out on anything, like the origins of curiosity.

>When Nietzsche declared "God is dead" it wasn't triumphant. Nietzsche saw that the Enlightenment would strip the values of Christianity away

Nietzsche wasn't just talking about the Christian God either, he was talking about the God of Zoroaster, the Gods of the forest, the Hindu Gods, etc etc, it was a broader sociological statement

What the fuck are you on about
-Those are two seperate posters
-"We've all read Nietzsche faggot," putting a comma before faggot is entirely a matter of personal diction. That was supposed to be one phrase, say it out loud, it sounds normal, adding a comma actually lessens the impact and is indicative of the stupid fucking way you communicate

>I'm just right. Look at these quotes. If you don't see the connection, you've just never actually read Neetch.

This isn't how you conduct an argument.

nobody is even an atheist in India m8

It's how you construct an argument against
>you sound schizophrenic and I've read all of Nietzsche
I mean, if you can demonstrate the whole post is Nietzsche quotes, you've pretty much got them, even in front of a jury of equally dull peers.

Money is a tool of exchange. You have to sacrifice (sell) something important for money to be on top of the value hierarchy. You have to be a money addict, a workaholic or a priest of mammon for this to come to pass. Every system where the material (ie. the replaceable, the resources and the repeatable) is not the highest value, mammon can not exist. Money can, and it will often change form. I've read that medieval German principalities used labor instead of currency as money.

Mammon is against good things, because it is for itself and itself only. You see huge corporations sacrificing quality and virtues of the products (like pragmatism) for money. Rather than out of necessity, they do so out of zealousness. What will they do with the money, since the method is Universal? All quality will be snuffed out to maximize monetary gains.

>Potential is actual
>Risk is in itself its realization
If I give you a (you), am I responsible for your actions?

>Y-yeah. We must obey the oligarchs instead, as equal, replaceable parts in an artificial society.

DUDE, THE ONLY SOLUTION TO A TRANSHUMANIST SOCIETY IS CHRISTIANITY, LMAO

Kill yourself, Christcuck. Christianity is a direct Ancestor of our modern age.

Our age is JEWISH and Christianity is a JEWISH religion.

>We're not the same user you're responding to. The chances are the problem is your comprehension, not two other people's.

As I saw somebody tell the other guy to use a comma, I decided to refer to you as the same grammatically handicapped person. I'm not nitpicking or telling you to avoid ending a sentence in a preposition and write, 'to whom you're responding,' but can you see how much clearer your last post is now that you've decided to employ punctuation?

>Risk is in itself its realization

Yep, welcome to the 21st century.

whether or not who or what they believe is beside the point

>"After Buddha was dead, they still showed his shadow in a cave for centuries -- a colossal, horrible shadow. God is dead, but given the way people are, there may still be caves for millennia in which his shadow is displayed. -- And we -- we must still defeat his shadow as well!”

I've got what?

You know what? I'm just going to stop because you are incoherent. Have a good day, user.

You realise I'm the user quoting Nietzsche, including Nietzsche saying those who worship grammar are as underdeveloped as a medieval illiterate Christian peasant? And that I'm not writing more correct sentences, but simpler ones more suited to an idiot's understanding? Good. Glad you understand.

Well, it extrapolates beyond the specific, but one finds you rather unlikely to understand the English use of the indefinite singular.

>DUDE, THE ONLY SOLUTION TO A TRANSHUMANIST SOCIETY IS CHRISTIANITY, LMAO
I'd like to give it a try, now that people other than oligarchs have some grip on mass psychology. As Aristotle put it, monarchy is the only system for the good of all.
>Kill yourself
I don't need to, with all these lovely, fellow tribesmen of mine.
>Christianity is a direct Ancestor of our modern age.
What about your ancestors? What about you? The modernity is born out of revolution, a great sin in Christianity.
>Our age is JEWISH
Indeed, full of revolutions.
>and Christianity is a JEWISH religion.
They sold Christ.

Christ is a JEW.

If you believe in 'tribe' then you wouldn't support (((Christianity))) which is an internationalist religion lol.

You still have a long way to go.

>"We've all read Nietzsche faggot," putting a comma before faggot is entirely a matter of personal diction.
No, that sentence required a comma to separate the noun from the main clause. Correct grammar doesn't come down to whatever you feel like writing. Sure, you're free to call somebody a prescriptivist grammar Nazi and write anything you like, but you appear uneducated and reduce your chances of being understood.

>That was supposed to be one phrase, say it out loud, it sounds normal, adding a comma actually lessens the impact
The addition of a comma actually places an emphasis emphasis the noun. Consider:

Do you ever read faggot?
and
Do you ever read, faggot?

If you really cant see the clarity and emphasis provided by that comma, you should stop what you are doing and watch some Youtube grammar tutorials on the vocative case and identifiers.

>If you believe in 'tribe'
In the tribal scene, we are all mulattoes.
>then you wouldn't support (((Christianity)))
I don't support (((Christianity))), I support Christianity.
>which is an internationalist religion
I see, yet another intentional misunderstanding on your part. Before God we are replaceable. Hence we are equal 'before God'. The whole of humanity can be replaced by rocks if He so wishes. This is evolution from the divine perspective. However, you forgot the parts where the men and women, the slaves, the servants etc. are given guidance to act out properly and differently. You forget the praise of all nations, because they are all within God's plan. "God has determined the time and place of nations."
>lol.

>you appear uneducated and reduce your chances of being understood
the context is a quip on Veeky Forums faggot did you think i was trying to communicate anything other than disdain

Leo Strauss’s Natural Right and History, read it, Peterson is essentially a Straussian who doesn’t ever mention Strauss.

You should actually read Nietzche and Jung and not Peterson dictate what these people thought.

If you are a Christian or an proponent of it you simply are not a follower of Nietzsche. You're also not really a Jungian either.

>If you are a Christian or an proponent of it you simply are not a follower of Nietzsche. You're also not really a Jungian either.
What if I like the heretic Nietzscheans and Jungians more?

>a quip on Veeky Forums faggot did you
Ahhh, you need to post a comma both sides of faggot in this one, faggot. It's okay, faggot, baby steps. Faggot, so that we can recap all you've learned today, ive just made three separate sentences using your identifying noun of choice. x

>You should actually read Nietzche and Jung and not Peterson dictate what these people thought.
I thought his point was more Derrida than Nietzsche, and how Peterson is lying and misrepresenting postmodernism to push his ideology on a gullible audience he can milk for $70k a month.

>misrepresenting things
>pushing ideology on a gullible audience for money

Isn't this what most college professors do who don't teach the hard sciences?

Why is he crying like he's just read the story of pinocchio?

>t. never read Jung
Jung literally said that becoming an observant Catholic was the most psychologically healthy thing a person could do. It's mentioned several fucking times. God damn, now I realize what people mean when they say /lit is a bunch of pseuds.

This is the first not-garbage Peterson take I've seen here in my entire time browsing Veeky Forums

have you still not realized thst since the first the post i've been purposely discarding grammar convention? And that faggot is a quintessentially Veeky Forums way to end a post like that And (anotha one) that adding a comma would defeat the entire purpose of what was supposed to be a sudden and crass comment? how long have you been on this site?

Peterson is a pseud, but he's right about post-modernism. I couldn't give less of a fuck about the specific dialectic of some brainlet obscurantist philosophy like formal pomo, it's the qualitative effect of it that matters.

>Nietzscheans
Imo you can't be a "Nietzschean." His philosophy has to many contradictions and is to linked to his life and personality