Is Peterson actually worth listening to? A-asking for a friend

Is Peterson actually worth listening to? A-asking for a friend

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jMqQBLZwRIE
youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

His voice puts babies to sleep.

No.

>Is Peterson actually worth listening to?

By what standard. This question is so vague I don't even what you are trying to communicate?

No. He fell for the cultural marxism meme.

By the standard of every other intellectual available to listen to obviously

wow ur so smart

He's good to listen to as an example of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that is rampant today among trending public figures.

stfu u faggot

Since you're so insecure you have to ask Veeky Forums I'd say yes

Listen to Joseph Campbell instead. Otherwise you're going to wind up talking to people for whom BLM matters somehow, and you know how those conversations go.

listen to one of his lectures or joe rogan's podcast with him and decide for yourself

no

Elaborate.

read his book instead

I've listened to a few of his interviews, and while the material seems interesting, he gets very mystical. Sure, examining stories in terms of archetypes is a fun and interesting exercise, I don't see how he extrapolates those to important life lessons.

You gotta read Jung user

In what way is he intellectually dishonest? genuinely curious

I'm afraid I'm too much of a brainlet to get much out of Jung. I'm a literal-minded STEM autist with no patience for mysticism.

Don't listen to the leftists here, Peterson is one of the greatest minds of today

Cuckerson is a faux intellectual. The worst kind of charlatan.

youtube.com/watch?v=jMqQBLZwRIE

jung is just a bullshit artist, don't worry

Just go listen to him and find out. I think he makes some great points about the state of free speech, but I also can't figure out who gave him the authority to speak about Postmodernism to budding minds.

He's delivering an important message young white people need to hear, particularly with regard to Marxism and postmodernism, which are the two major jewish ideologies/intellectual systems that have shaped the reality of today and are partly responsible for the current decline of the west. Jewish Christianity put the slave morality disease into Rome that caused it to die; these jewish systems, and liberalism generally, are the modern day equivalents of that and the contemporary jewish intellectual diseases we must understand the roots of, fight back against, and expel. Peterson nails the fine points and is good entry-level material for young whites making their first forays into non-liberal ideas, race realism, and the jewish problem.

Bruh, you can watch like 20 minutes of his videos or Joe Rogan's podcasts with him and make your own mind.
Veeky Forums circlejerks on the Peterson hate train.
He's unironically a great place for someone to start if they want to get into Jungian philosophy.

Veeky Forums tends to hate him for different reasons. One is because he talks shit against social justice, social marxism and communism in general. Which obviously doesn't bode well with the large chunk of leftists on Veeky Forums.
Other criticisms is that he's quite self-help orientated. A lot of his talks turn the philosophy into a practical application lesson. Many here don't like that because they prefer the types of philosophy where they can stare at the bottom of an espresso cup and mull over their suicide.

He's one of the few intellectually honest people on this planet.

t. wikipedia nazi

Yes.

oh, we're going to have this thread again? i refuse, you sack of fuck. fuck you. KYS. where are the mods around here, anyway?
WHERE ARE YOU HIDING MODS!?
COME OUT AND PLAY

I think he's an inordinately vain man with a Messiah complex. I feel bad for him and his vanity, but when I listen to him it's hard not to get the sense that he loves how wise and good he's being, and how he's changing young people's lives.

he's a strong voice for young whites to find their identity in a jewish postmodern marxist world

How can you think that? He is always having self-doubts and pretty much thinks of himself as a worm.

Is there anything inherently wrong in taking pride in your work?
Daily reminder that he talks consistently against nationalism and tribalism. He holds the individual above the group in all instances.

>that adjective ordering
gross

Since this thread is the type of thread that pulls people in - and for various reason I've concluded that my question has a higher chance to be read by competent people here I will go on:

Which examples can you guys give of literature work that the author expected the reader to memorize so that it could help him in life, to come in his memory actively. I mean that's surely the case with poetry - especially older one, and so on - you get the idea you can provide more material of such nature.

From now on everyone is to derail threads like these with questions like this. I don't have an answer for you, though. Sorry(dubs).

oh man epic fail haha

God so close to trips

let's see if it got wasted.

no i know when it comes down to it peterson will stand with his white brothers. he is a good man
get redpilled faggot

He started as something fresh that could revitalize the debate.
I was almost quitting on him when he started to praise Millo and the alt-right, since then I started to question him further.
I finally quit after the Damore affair, where I felt that Peterson is explicit a common conservative, and wasn't just playing maieutics for both sides.

The most interesting part of his work is when he talks about myths, but perhaps it would be better to go directly at his source: Jung.
His ethics are basically Nietzsche, but a spooked Nietzsche.

I don't plan to read his book, neither doing his self-authoring program

honestly one of the smartest and best read men in the world. Whether you like his politics or not, his analysis of myth and legend is essential

It's perfectly fine that he speaks against nationalism, racial issues, and the jewish problem -- who would expect him to do otherwise? He'd be destroyed if he did. Peterson is an entry point. It doesn't matter what he thinks about those things because he's a boomer and his young audience will eventually arrive at that point inevitably.

>He's unironically a great place for someone to start if they want to get into Jungian philosophy.

well, he is very didactic, this I wont deny.

But I don't think that Veeky Forums "hates" him for these reasons, I think he isn't a great intellectual, he is quite pretentious and plays politics a little too much.
If he was just criticizing social justice and marxism, it would be okay, but his arguments are not really interesting, and he relates himself with people and institutions that are /pol/-tier.

ROLFCOPTER!!LMAO

>when he started to praise Millo and the alt-right

Huh?

zoop de doop

never reply to me again, illiterate scum.

You see, partisanship and ego-centric tendencies dictate that an individual simply name people they don't agree with and, when among their own like minded echo chamber, that means they have immediately been victorious over their intellectual opponent.

He kind of is though. Remember, his target audience is 20-something losers who feel unmotivated and disillusioned, not Marxist philosophy majors of Veeky Forums. He's putting basic philosophy and sociology into a practical and digestible form so that people who don't want to grind through Being and Nothingness and understand 0% of it can have an opportunity to get a jist of how we can take charge of our lives. A ton of people on other boards like Veeky Forums swear he's changed their outlook on life. You can make fun of them for being normies or brainlets but I think it's very fair for him to be proud of helping people.

>when he started to praise Millo and the alt-right
That literally never happened
He almost had a breakdown on camera because people were harassing him about being alt-right
Milo is pretty much the polar opposite of his definition of a quality person.

Your grammar is fucking horrible, how can you be 'among' an echo chamber? All of /pol/ seems to type in this all-over-the-place, scatterbrained style. They can't make a thought last a full sentence.

He attempted a complex sentence structure and goofed in a couple spots, but your analysis is much worse than any grammatical blunder he made.

nou

only fur tha lulz

>wants to leave positive legacy, ergo: has Messiah complex

fuck off nihilist numbnuts

The problem with listening to someone whose epistemic system of truth is founded in "usefulness" rather than correspondence, is the nagging sense of bullshit, it whiffs off every word.

Aside from that he says some interesting things and even in disagreeing with him you can find something...useful.

yes, if anything go through the personality, maps of meaning, and bible lectures.

spotted the postmodernist / marxist

>Your grammar is fucking horrible
No your ability to comprehend syntax is atrocious
>The existence of people who disagree with me mean people who disagree with me have taken over the board
Wew. Lad.

no, because he is a fake Christian
he's pretty much the Christian equivalent of the pagans on /pol/

he's by no means an interesting or original thinker, but he's right on most of the things he say. i didn't watch many of his videos because he gets quite boring after while and every now and then he degenerates way too much in some sort of self-help\motivational trainer shit

He is very good at some things, and utterly terrible at others, as most people are, but sadly, he's good at convincing people he is right.

A lot of what he says is regurgitated Jung and even Freud, who we've moved past by leaps and bounds.

He often finds inherent moral values in what seems to be "useful" to the society, by his own standards, making a lot of what he says semi-circular and primarily based in Biblic standards.

I miss zizek being meme'd on Veeky Forums. Peterson is just too bland and boring to listen.

Eh, I haven't watched much but from what I've seen I'm not all that impressed.

Certainly better than the gay lefty shit that most professors preach, but it's all weak reactionary material. I remember he got his fame from first refusing to use people's preferred pronouns. That's cool in my book, but r/the_donald and nupol types who are constantly looking for their civnat /ourguy/ clung to him like a savior.

He makes good points, but I saw some video were he spends like 20 minutes trying to explain to some crazy dyke about how his not using preferred pronouns is logical and in no way harmful. This all happens while he constantly defends that he's not racist as some mystery meat kids howl in the background.

It's just sort of baseless. He's smart to be critical of our current bullshit, indulgent society, but it's sort of just "LE BASED OUR GUY". He's still working within a Marxist framework and trying to prove to them that they're wrong. It's a fruitless endeavor and he would be better off to just be unaplogetic and say that they are full of shit entirely while asserting his own philosophy.

TLDR: NuPol/T_D memed him into status but he spends too much time deflecting empty epithets from the left and not enough time being ideologically assertive.

He's a very entry level redpill but a necessary stepping stone who shares some good ideas.

He likes to abstract the ideas of post modernism as if these ideas are spontaneous. Ideas do not just pop up out of no where. Ideas come from people. He never dives into where these ideas come from. Because post modern marxist ideas started from well, you know...

this. it's not difficult at all to look like some sort of intellectual when most of the US humanities faculties are pestered with leftie professors who preach bullshit ideology under the guise of rigorous knowledge. the thing is that targeting low-hanging fruits lowers the public discourse and after a while seeing a dumb feminist tranny getting owned in a debate gets pretty boring. i'm pretty sure that if the likes of peterson were to debate with, let's say, an actual marxist intelelctual like zizek, he would as much of a dumb as the retarded trannies appear when they try to counter his points

No. He's nothing more than a secondary (distorted) source for Jung and Post-modernism, just go and read about them from the horse's mouth.

...the French?

>secondary (distorted) source for Jung and Post-modernism
This, very much. People who parrot him are some sort of a fucking tertiary repetition in a game of telephone, except nobody's even trying to be intellectually honest.

A fan of his I know IRL tried to tell me that Derrida was a "philosophical terrorist" who wanted to use his ideas to "destroy the west" and other trite shit that directly contradicts what Derrida was himself writing. Just read Derrida if you want to know what he says, instead of listening to some dude who read it in some book about Derrida. Do your own research, you intellectually lazy fucks.

true, and the same applies to all the intellectual midgets who talk shit about muh frankfurt school although they never read a book of adorno\marcuse whatever. i'm no fan of derrida and i think he was just hack who seduced the masses with his buzzword salads (see the "einstenian constant") but some works of adorno that i read are actually quite solid and they can even be appreaciated from a right-wing perspective like mine

Ye, I'm a leftcuck and I don't even like Derrida, but for fuck's sake, the incredible laziness when it comes to people and philosophy through secondary sources is infuriating.

I miss the days when it was edgekids misrepresenting Nietzche.

Different poster but i'd tend to agree. I haven't read much frankfurt school, but I did read some Fromm back in the day and it's pretty tactile and interesting stuff, even from a rightwing perspective as my own.

Man's Search for meaning , no matter how people feel about the validity of the holocaust narratives, has some objectively good chunks of wisdom. Don't know if I can say the same for Derrida and co, but the writing is so tangley and postmodernist it becomes more of an exercise in translation than actual thought for the reader imo.

I hate the "conspiracy" bullshit, its not a conspiracy if they're openly stating their goals and producing literature for people to read.

yeah he's okay

entry-gate to a lot of different fields of humanities and focuses on important recent thinkers/psychologists

lot of good self-help stuff

i always enjoy archetypal literary criticism too

TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT

TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT

TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT

>A fan of his I know IRL tried to tell me that Derrida was a "philosophical terrorist" who wanted to use his ideas to "destroy the west"

Your friend is right and you should listen to him and respect him for openly stating such a position follower types like yourself are unlikely to understand in full.

>His voice puts babies to sleep.
I find it's actually quite irritating and whiney, sounds like he's always about to cry.

He's good for turning people onto Jung, but his absolute inability to accurately describe post-modernism while viciously attacking it as some evil marxist conspiracy denotes pretty blatant intellectual dishonesty. I guess you have to if you want to appeal to alt-right dickheads like Also this

Dude postmodernism is dumb, I won't actually discuss Derrida or Foucault or Lyotard's work (because I haven't actually read them) but it's totally dumb and something something cultural marxism (even though I've never actually read the Frankfurt school). Please gib money to my 65k month patreon where I make self-help vlogs while quoting Jung. Oh and SJWs are dumb and Frozen is a propaganda film

He obviously understands those things better than you do. All you're doing in posts like this is highlighting your own ignorance. Namefagging is one thing, airing out your own ignorance? That takes a special kind of stupid, Joeman.

If you disagree with something I said, address it directly instead of making general accusations. Name calling isn't conductive to productive exchanges.

youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY

>follower types like yourself
Nice, armchair psychoanalysis through Veeky Forums posts.

As said before, my issue is the taking information through tertiary sources and, well, not finding it out yourself. Taking what people you find informative at face value is kind of following blindly, which coincidentally is what you're accusing myself of.

Have you read Derrida? He makes points directly contradicting JPB. Can you, in any way, confirm any place where JPB's derogatory remarks about Derrida actually fit with what Derrida is saying?

You're making bland accusations without actually giving examples and, well, that's pretty lazy.

Trying to make fun of someone's voice then whining about "evil Marxist conspiracy theories" and "alt right" dickheads" is not an argument. Would you like to try and make one? This is fundamentally a matter of you not understanding postmodernism and Marxism.

I wasn't making fun of his voice, just my opinion on it. Funny how you failed to address my only actual points, what I think of Peterson:
>He fails to describe post-moderism accurately
>He is intellectually dishonest
>He is still valuable for his interest and description of Jung's work, but ultimately just regurgitates information rather than creating any

That's it. If you disagree with these claims try offering a rebuttal, or you can keep whining cursing at people if that's how you think debates work.

Yes, I've read more Derrida than I ever should have. But the issue you're having, the gap in your understanding here, is that you're only pretending to understand postmodernism. I know you think you understand it, but you don't. You've been presented with a system and you've taken it at face value but lack the knowledge to comprehend what is really at the root of it. You're all surface-level. Joey here has the same problem. That's the underlying issue here. The discoursal conundrum we will now reach that blocks you from being able to transcend that reality is that even if I were to tell you what the gap in your understanding is (your unawareness of the jewish problem), you will have an emotional reaction (like the one you're having now) that will ensure you continue to not make the necessary connections in order to increase your understanding of the subject we are discussing.

You are the one who was cursing, Joeman. Those are not arguments, though, they are opinions you hold as someone who desperately wants to believe postmodernism is real when it's simply an intellectual scam. I included you in my response here . That's the root of your problem. But to be fair, I am also arguing that people who agree with Peterson's opinions about postmodernism and Marxism but who eschew the jewish question are also being intellectually dishonest, though not quite as much as people like you, who are deep in the enemy trenches but don't even realize it.

Instead of presenting an argument about why you are right and showing any proof for it, you are choosing to assert how unable we are to understand these depths of the Jewish question.

Just say what you want to say instead of faffing about with assertions that you totally are right despite lack of presented evidence.

>I've read more Derrida than I ever should have
What books have you read? Which were the worst?

jesus christ this could be pasta

What Derrida have you read exactly? Could you summarize his views on Marx?

No, I am explaining precisely *why* you don't understand and *how* you can learn to understand. I want you to understand. More than you know, friend.

Grammatology and a couple others but it's been a while. I too once had a starry-eyed view of this avant-garde-seeming method of intellectual interpretation. Then I became smarter and learned about the jewish problem, and then it all suddenly made sense. Because you can only really understand these things that way, which, as I said above, is what I want for you.

Summarize Derrida's view on Marx? Well, heh ... I'm on a different level here Joey. But I'd be happy to hear what you think he thought.

starting to believe this might be some leftypol false flag... either way thanks for the laughs. toodles

Peterson's life advice is solid, it's very easy to grasp and you should understand it thoroughly after watching only a couple hours' worth of his popular material.

However you shouldn't continue watching his videos over and over once you understand his philosophy of life.If you think it's worth it, take his advice to heart and act it out, don't just keep listening to it again and again like some kind of autism.

At least you can actually listen to peterson without needing subtitles.

Yes.

Well I was open to the idea, but if you think the video attached supports that claim you are a true fool.

Foucault called Derrida a terrorist too tho.

>Daily reminder that he talks consistently against nationalism and tribalism. He holds the individual above the group in all instances.

That IS anti-Judaism
Whites are the only real post-racial demographic

How so?

>Example number 1
Postmodernism has nothing to do with Marxism or gender pronouns.