How will he EVER recover from this?

How will he EVER recover from this?

It's OVER, Petersonians.

youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>That bit at the start
Does JP know what postmodernism is?

>thinking someone needs to "recover" in the sphere of idea exchange
You have a child's mentality about all of this, bud.

We had about a week without Memerson threads. It was nice while it lasted...

>it's another "oh no Derrida broke my western civilization" episode

yes goy watch my videos and think like me

he's never going to respond to this video, which is unfortunate because it's actually put together quite nicely. One of his patrons should ask him to respond to it in his next Q&A

>One of his patrons should ask him to respond to it in his next Q&A
>implying their psychological programming isn't complete

the peterasts are back

can you summary this? i won't watch a 50 minute youtube video

and yes, peterson is retarded about post-modernism but is very accurate about what kind of game university professors inspired by post-modernism play

peterson is a sophist. thank me later

>50 minutes of faggotary
>implying I'm gonna waste my time like a lefty cuck

>pls don't make me put on the glasses

Knowing your enemy is a wise thing to do, user

It was a pretty good video.

yes, he is bluffing all the time, he still brings up some points that the left likes to ignore. one doesn't negate the other

Looking at the comments to this video you get the sense that Peterson's fans are desperate for a cut and dry boogeyman to exist.

Shouldn't postmodern critique exist alongside a strong culture, as part of a push-pull dialectical process? I think the problem Peterson has is that our entire 2,000 year moral tradition got replaced entirely, with both the positive and negative aspects of that tradition being done away with. Postmodernism is just the process of critique in itself, rather than a process of critiquing the bad in order to allow a space for the affirming parts of our tradition that feed and sustain life to exist.

It's nihilistic.

>You're doing the exact same thing as the nazis did
Dropped

bugs..

I watched his lecture about Adolf Hitler and his obsession with cleanliness as being indicative of mental illness and over-civlization.

A very one-sided argument and very naive in my opinion. He argues that national borders are there to keep out "dirty" foreigners away from the "pure" citizens, etc and that Hitler's murderous intention was a by-product of his OCD about cleanliness.

What he fails to point out is that three or four of Hitler's siblings died of sickness as a consequence of poor hygiene brought about by poor housing. His one true friend during the first 25 years of his life shared a similar background. And also Hitler from his mid teens onward planned to become an architect and to build urban areas that might prevent so many child deaths and sickly people. He himself lived in apartments in Vienna full of lice, draughts, damp and so on. To treat his desire for cleanliness as some autistic and sinister thing is very naive, and it's a shame Peterson hypes himself up about his conclusions despite lacking sufficient background reading.

They are just waiting for him to say "Jew."

WAIT WAIT WAIT
Hitler did holocost because germs?

So this is what the ideal of the nietzchean superman could look like?

oh fuck i never thought of it that way, i just thought he was your run of the mill self help guru

sif he has to say it and

>implying it happened

>that guys voice

fuck ecelebs

its almost like they have an ideology to make things simple for themselves...like the bloody postmodernists

>tfw have OCD..

Postmodernists are literally sophists. I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

>Protagoras is credited with the philosophy of relativism, which he discusses in his work, Truth (also known as Refutations).[9][11] Although knowledge of his work is limited, discussion of Protagoras' relativism is based on one of his most famous statements: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."[12][13] By this, Protagoras meant that each individual is the measure of how things are perceived by that individual. Therefore, things are, or are not, true according to how the individual perceives them.

They've tried to reclaim sophists.

What the Sophists believed isn't important. Plato didn't like their focus on rhetoric and pragmatism.

How is it a naive conclusion to draw? Isolated populations who meet usually pass on diseases both population haven't become immune to. The Native Americans died due to disease brought by the Spanish, and the Europeans died by disease brought by the Mongolians. It makes perfect sense that in such a case that we'd evolve a mechanism that makes us feel disgusted by outsiders.

>What he fails to point out is that three or four of Hitler's siblings died of sickness as a consequence of poor hygiene brought about by poor housing.
All of this does is confirm Peterson's hypothesis that Hitler was obsessed with cleanliness. What the point you're trying to make?

I'm not happy to have come to this conclusion but this guy is right. I too will end my subscription to Peterson's Patreon.

Some things truly never change under the sun

Derrida:

"Read. Stop watching, do your homework, and read."

Is he /ourguy/

What sophists believed absolutely triggered Plato

>As many modern thinkers will, Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective and transcendent realities and values.

>Both Plato and Aristotle argue against some of Protagoras's claims regarding relativity; however, they argue that the concept provides Protagoras with too convenient an exemption from his own theory and that relativism is true for him yet false for those who do not believe it. They claim that by asserting that truth is relative, Protagoras then could say that whatever further theory he proposed must be true

Yawn. Your arguments against Professor Peterson are disjointed and concentrate on the margins of his deconstruction of Postmodernism, Cultural Marxism, and Political Correctness.

I look forward to you actually addressing his arguments.

...

>Hrr the guy who was pushed on us at a time when everything he was saying jived with our preconceptions of things and offered a pleasing explaination of what the fuck is going on turned out to be a fraud.

Peterson will still be the definitive priest of post modernist theory, and probably Marxism to, because he go to em first.

Plato was a liberal commie faggot says the right.

which movie?

Children of the Damned.

Foucault
>jettisons the concept of man and humanist thought altogether
>thinks discourse structure "individuals"
Derrida
>not even a relativist when it comes to truthfulness

>REE THEY BE LIKE THE VILLAINS PLATO DESCRIBED

This is the same logic used for Trump lol

This video was made by a brainlet who does not understand argument.

>1. The connections between these three groups are tenuous at best. SJW's are, by and large, very vocal college students or attention-seeking individuals playing on the modern Zeitgeist. Marxist are, by and large, just as opposed to the work of Foucault and Derrida as the right, and on similar grounds. I will grant that foucault's work does play an important role in the early formation of identity politics, but only at the cost of ignoring other valuable insights.

As we can see, in argument (1.) clause one, the brainlet makes the claim that the connections between these groups are tenuous at best.

There exists a strong and fundamental common feature among these groups namely, the rejection of an objective material world and by extension the rejection of unchanging universals. The rejection of these two principals implies the rejection of formal logic since formal logic presupposes the existence of unchanging universals. So, the strong connection between these groups is their literally being unreasonable in the classical sense.

>brainlet calls others brainlets
Nothing to see here.

...

>Marxists reject the objective, material world

Holy fuck, dumbest thing I've read all year. Maybe try reading ANY MARXIST THINKER before you claim to understand their ideology you goddamn shit drinking philistine

>implying "material" doesn't mean "magic" in marx
go back to the basics

>le troll

>unironically believing in matter

>unironically believing in the mind

lol bloody. Is there a meme of Peterson involving his use of 'bloody'?

>unironically believing in matter without believing in the mind that does the believing

His obsession with cleanliness wasn't pathological, but rather a completely rational reaction against his disease-ridden environment.

What do you mean by "mind"? Some people use it to mean the appearance of intelligent behavior in humans, while others use the word as a fundamental replacement for the essence of humanity known commonly as the "soul."

I still believe to this day that what Peterson means whenever he is criticizing postmodernism is, actually, neo-marxism. Maybe he's unaware or the term isn't as catchy and makes him sound like a Cold War loon

Why are postodernists on Veeky Forums such morons? Every thread we have to them they claim different postmodernist authors claim radically different things and just tell anyone who disagrees with them to go back to /pol/

Or maybe post modernists actually favor neo-marxists and the two go hand in hand with the bourgeois ivory tower that is modern academia?

>Dude , everything is environmental and people only develop in relation to the means of production
>This is objective reality and "materialism" and not quasi religious nonsense

>giving a memer your money
>stop giving money because some lesser memer told you to
are you always this easily persuaded? will you give me some money instead? i have powerful knowledge to share, but you gotta act now, time is of the essence, western civilisation is falling

When did you almost get fired for speaking out against anarcha-feminism in Western school systems terrorizing people into conformity?

There certainly exists an overlap between the two, still it's a clear misnomer. Gramsci wasn't a postmodern thinker and Derrida wasn't a neo-marxist philosopher, for instance

Your pseudo-intellectual babble made me think you were a genuine ignoramus for a minute, but this is poorly done. I'll give you a 4/10 cumulative for tricking me on the first one.

peterson is basically fascist-lite mixed in with motivational speaker.
take the weak and broken and promise that if they give him money he will turn them into men.
not saying he doesn't give decent common sense advice, but do you really need all of the political shit?

>faschist-lite
Wat

>Your pseudo-intellectual babble made me think you were a genuine ignoramus for a minute, but this is poorly done. I'll give you a 4/10 cumulative for tricking me on the first one.
I like how you don't even pretend to know what you're talking about and just fish for (You)'s. You have no shame, user, no shame.

That is called "leftypol", and to them fascism is just a romanticism of manliness and authority for no reason because they only understand fascism based off of movies they have watched on the subject. Because they're just too lazy to read fascist literature and can't into history.

>trolls obviously with statements like "Marx thinks people only develop in relation to the means of production" as if Marx didn't account for the fact that people themselves develop the means of production
>expects anything other than strict derision

It's becoming apparent that you should just go back there

that's how fascists attract followers.
i couldn't give less of a fuck about politics.
as for fascism not being a romanticization of masculinity and authority, are you retarded?

>People develop the means of production
>Marx wasnt an environmental determinist
TOP KEK
>All reactionary thought is a romanticism
TOP KEK


Yeah your that one leftypol know-it-all with more.ego than brains who frankly doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>Marx isn't an environmental determinist
>Historical materialism doesn't posit that man only develops in relation to the means of production
First of all me saying that
>man only develops in relation to the means of production
Already implies that man makes the means of production but is still contingent on the means of production for ALL development.

The /pol/acks literally can't write. Literally.

The leftypol literally can't debate. Literally.

Like it's just sad that someone who isn't an actual communist knows more about leftist thought than people who call themselves """"""leftists""""""

People who shit on Peterson have not read any of his works or watched any of his videos.

Sometimes I wonder why I come to Veeky Forums when it's so very anti-intellectual - just a bunch of pseuds gathered together to jerk each other off. No actual critique, no actual responses, just name-calling and pretentiousness.

>like
>you were all defending communism
>leftism = communism
>""""""leftists""""""
>like

I can't take you seriously, I'm sorry.

I swear you post this every Peterson thread without actually reading it.

>All reactionary thought is a romanticism
didn't say that. you must be autistic.

Look at the outfit at :58 seconds. He's like a 6 year old whose parents let him pick out his cloths for the first day of school.

No wonder he's a hero to all you virgins.

>Already implies that man makes the means of production but is still contingent on the means of production for ALL development.
So you could give me an example of a "development" that takes place outside any process of production?

People always say this but it's never true

the dudes not even left wing you dumb spunk bubble

I've read the thread and I haven't seen any actual argument.

One good response:
And the unquoted stuff was all inane off-topic tripe with more name-calling and pretentiousness.

I'm a rightist who knows more about leftism than you. End of discussion. Topkek your ego tho
Genetics and epigenetics you moron

Neither of those things are outside the scope of material production. Children are produced.

>Didn't say that
You said
>as for fascism not being a romanticization of masculinity and authority, are you retarded?
You IQ < the number of months in a year
:DDD

>Neither of those things are outside the realm of material production
The means of production is not the means of reproduction and the deterministic model of Historical Materialism implies that all human behavior is developed via a man's relation to the means of production , except part of man's behavior is innate to the man regardless of environmental influences

>Derrida wasn't a neo-marxist philosopher

Of course he was.

The level of stupidity in this thread from plebs trying to, I assume, defend postmodernism is astounding. If any of you had the slightest clue about the JQ the truth would snap in you and you'd realize how idiotic you look and how nonsensical your arguments are. You guys have no idea what you're actually discussing, you're just the intellectual underlings of the 68er drone/brainwashed by TV generation. Pathetic.

Just because fascism is reactionary doesn't mean it romanticizes masculinity and authority because it's reactionary. That's like you thinking I said all dairy is solid because I said cheese is a dairy and a solid. Have you been clinically diagnosed with retardation?

The *implicit* argument you are making is that fascism, as a reactionary movement in Europe, was based solely on a romantic ideal of manhood and not hardcore reactionary philisophy meant to counter liberalism and leftism, thus depriving fascism of any intellectual basis simply because you disagree with it.

The original post you started with asserts that Jordan Peterson is s fascist because he promises masculinity to the emasculated as part of some large scam, implying that fascism was the same.

That would lead me to believe that you think reactionary thought is nothing but romanticism

plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
daily reminder

>The *implicit* argument you are making is that fascism, as a reactionary movement in Europe, was based solely on a romantic ideal of manhood and not hardcore reactionary philisophy meant to counter liberalism and leftism, thus depriving fascism of any intellectual basis simply because you disagree with it.
I'm not the guy you're talking to. Both of these definitions are wrong. Try opening a history book sometimes, both of you.

>the means of production is not the means of reproduction
Maybe not to Marx and Engels, but most modern Marxists consider family as part of both superstructure and base, and that reproduction is increasingly quantified in terms of capital (the birth-capital of a baby in the form of alleged genetic talent, for instance). An idea can be clarified past the intellectual potency of the person whose name it bears.

>reactionary philisophy meant to counter liberalism and leftism

Jewish bolshevism specifically. European leaders saw jews lead the overthrow of the Russian state then start murdering millions of native Russians. They moreover saw jews agitating to do the same in their own countries. Fascism was a response to this.

>I'm a rightist who knows more about leftism than you
I'm sure you think you do. I wonder if you have anything to add on the Left's recent debate on Rosa Luxembourg, imperialism and surplus value?

>that pretentious buzzword again
And Peterson's "side" has been oh so much more reasonable, articulate and insightful...

(real kek at this one)
The rest was off-topic tripe with more plebiness.

There's this thing called confirmation bias that you might want to look into.

Fascism was a romantic movement, any serious history book says it. But fascism also had a core philosophy with was based on nationalistic and reactionary reads of several philosophys. Some of the fascist philosophers didnt like the fascist movement, but others did. The same goes to non-fascist philosophers, like George Sorel, who the fascist read it their way, even tho he was a leftist.
Also, straserism is just the failed german version of nacional-bolchevism.
Until this fucking day the nazbols like Dungin are fascists, but not the same fascist that was in 39.

Which is also completely retarded because that assumes that all CAT scans and neurological studies of mental illness are due to economic problems and not genetic ones.
>Fucking bourgeoisie making my son have Down Syndrome

Ditto.

Its fucking so weird. Its like he's acting like a radiopersonality. Feels entirely like a put-on "intellectual" facade.

>Rosa Luxembourg
Basically any kind of socdem movement are bringing but traitors to the bourgeoisie and tools of imperialists because they allow individual ownership to occur and the porkies will never give that up through democratic means. Rose stands for killing Rosa, tovarische.
>Imperalism
A meme consdiering most leftist black block groups actually push for neoliberal policies like open borders and refugee resettlement , despite them being "aware" that employers love to flood labor markets to drive down real wages.

>Mussolini took the power in 1922
>The enactment of racial laws happened only in 1938, 16 years later.
but it was da joos
Please show me a history book that calls Fascism a "romantic movement".

>This poster calling anyone else pretentious
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

>Mussolini took the power in 1922

That was after 1917, you know. Are you retarded?

>surplus value?
>Recent debates on it
>Recent

Are you retarded or something? Why not just say
>What is your opinion on the """"recent"""" debates between marxists on the labor theory of value

I didn't actually say that. I don't mind the pretentious label, at all.

Learn. To. Read.

Word salad.