Harris vs. Chomsky vs. Zizek vs. Peterson

>how dare he suggest that women instinctually like to be around children, what a shitlord

>Harris
>Chomsky
wew lad

Chomsky is a fucking idiot when it comes to politics and philosophy, but he is the only "important" nigger in that nigger list

This is your reading comprehension on Peterson. Not only are you picking the easiest of 4 claims to defend, you're already weakening it because it's untenable.

Girls never unironically held your hand as a teen and you were induced into an adolescently-induced nihilist coma. You are try to wake yourself up with Jordy, and I sort of admire you. Still, make no mistake. The man’s true colours are starting to show and you should make like a good rat and flee the sinking ship now (no offence intended). In any case, your current fashionable reality distortion field will start to wane when you notice the Honorable Guru’s methods were staying you in the face the whole time and his extra-ingredients make the broth stink a little. And then you’ll probably get into whoever the next charismatic walking penis who inadvertently enforces the status quo is, God help us all.

Chomsky
Zizek
Peterson
Zoolander

It's funny because a top psychologist from my country came to that same conclusion as Peterson in the pic and I'm pretty sure he's never heard of Peterson.

chomsky - smart and should be taken seriously thought i dont agree with him on some stuff

zizek - funny meme man who is great to have in the background while playing vidya, says some cool shit sometimes

sam harris - absolute fucking mongoloid but he actually has read some philosophers

peterson - next level memery right here holy fucking shit, i guess he is ok if you need to clean your room or whatever, but my gott he should have stayed in his field working as a therapist

Can someone post that meme thats says
>me: I will go to sleep early today
>me at 2:00 am: *screencap of the 40 minutes on a single paragraph from Nietzsche Peterson's video*
Asking for my gf

Whomstever picked anything other than Zizek needs to reevaluate philosopical education pronto

It took him four years to read the complete book

harris cause he has the hat

Found it very easily using Google.
Apply yourself.

This desu

Zizek is literally the only real philosopher there

>Chomsky isn't a philosopher
>[literally one of the greatest philosophers and academics of the 20th century]
>And Zizek (who's a hack) is a better philosopher than Chomsky

>t. retard that doesn't actually know shit about philosophy, linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, or computer science

Thanks for single-handedly and almost instantaneously demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance of a whole range of academic subjects.

LEFTKEK ZIZEK IS WINNING

POST THIS ON /POL/ AND /R9K/ AND LET'S HAVE ANOTHER WIN FOR THE RIGHT WING AND BTFO LIBERALS

>When you don't know shit about philosophy and haven't even read or studied a single contemporary philosopher, but you watched some Netflix documentary featuring Zizek about the abuse of Nicaraguan migrant workers on Mongolian Lake-Trout Cooking message boards and now you think you're the next Saul Kripke, but you don't even know Saul Kripke is.

Keep the Keks coming my friend, keep em coming.

In Murca? Who cares, the colony is only just starting to walk on its own legs. Nobody cares about your tiny intellectuals yet.

>jordan peterson in second place
i never knew there was such a sizable reddit population on this board.

Harris & Peterson will be forgotten in less than a century. Chomsky will be remembered for his contributions to linguistics. I don't know what the future holds for Zizek

those two tweets carry very sensible opinions as far as I'm concerned
are you a peterson shill falseflagging?

Zizek or Chomsky, both hit the right topics, Zizeks approach is less formal but encapsulates the spirit and ideology of the time, where as Chomsky relies on other intellectuals and concrete events without the realm of faith or the undetermined future

both identify as conservative liberals, Chomsky believes in a more limited future, while Zizek believes we will reach some kind of breaking point where we will have to change the way the world is organized

SORT YOURSELF OUT.

Ironically this is why is correct, Peterson only seems meaningful if your life has been made shitty through your own inadequacies or inattentiveness.
I mean good on you for coming to terms with it and working towards improving your life, but in reality "avoid unnecessary suffering" and "start small and work your way to solving bigger problems" aren't exactly groundbreaking philosophical notions.

Memerson of course.

>all these votes for peterson
fucks sake Veeky Forums

...

>all the kikes and leftists impotent rage
kek

Peterson helped me. Reading more and lifting more.

well since we in europe haven't heard of of any of them except zizek, ima go with him

Who's the metalhead comedian and ufc commentator?

Joe Rogan

I like listening to Harris sometimes, Peterson makes good content but sometimes it seems he's pandering to his far-right/anti-sjw audience

Peter Hitchens

Holy shit don't even put zizek in with those losers.

Harris
This isn't even a competition
He's legitimately never been wrong about any topic he's written about
The other three frequently humiliate themselves being so wrong

Harris proved Free Will doesn't exist, he has made the single biggest contribution of any and will be more appreciated with time

...

None of them are intellectuals, Chomsky may have been an intellectual decades ago.

>Who’s the most important public intellectual of our time?
If this is the question, then Chomsky. If the question is "the world would be a better place if more people thought like __" then I'd say Peterson. I'd be happy to see the left start taking up pragmatism again

Harris (but more specifically cognitivism) proved that the reductionist strawman of free will (spooky ghosts living inside all human beings, spookily influencing their actions) doesn't exist. The problem of free will remains because free will is a metaphysical notion. The question is whether the various physical influences that cognitivists talk about can be essentialized into the general concept of "will" without creating too much of a problem. Ironically, if one were to prove the existence of some "will" as an entity controlling human beings, it would totally disprove the concept of free will

More like their will and ideology is in reality, completely empty, so they don't actually care about criticising anyone, let alone such a foreign opponent like Islam (they have to actually learn about it, deal with legitimate opposition, overcome some of their own inhibitions and contradictions, etc). Their so-called "critique" is always empty pandering and retainment/strengthening of gynocentrism.

I now realize that I made a few mistakes in this post, & that I should have more clearly distinguished between the terminology I was using. If someone is confused, please respond and I'll try to explain what I meant

He proved jack shit. He only recycled old arguments against free will which are are unsatisfactory now as they were when they were first made.

Joe Rogan unirnoically controls the entire world.

Literally why is Žižek even talked about? Can you tell me about a single insightful observation made by that guy? And no I'm not reading some commie slob writing about Hegel for 800 pages.

>>t. retard that doesn't actually know shit about philosophy, linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, or computer science
Funny you say that because outside of linguistics this describes chomsky

>please spoonfeed me, and I'm not gonna read shit just because of a guy's political affiliation

That's exactly what I meant, congratulations you fag

This is his plan, can't you see? He tells you that you are really clueless, that you haven't sorted out not even a single thing in your life, that you're prejudiced and so on. The young, impressionable viewer agrees, and he starts this process, but as he is doing so he is also costantly listening 24/7 to Peterson rambling about ideological matters in an extremely biased way while emphatizing every gesture and word, often while knowing nothing about what he is talking about.
This is brainwashing 101: he convinces you to re-examine your life, and as you do it he costantly tells you what to think in the way that is to him, a psychologist, the one that will most likely seem reasonable, if not wise and deep, to the uneducated, naive viewer (he is a virtuoso in both giving talks to crowds and body language).
This is how he catches you guys, and this is why JPposters always use the same jargon, think in the same terms and reach the same conclusions.

>Petersonbulls are winning
>Chomskucks btfo AGAIN

Zizek

chomsky is most significant, zizek is most interesting, peterson is as much of a philosopher as paul joseph watson, harris is irrelevant

zizek is commie scum though

anyone who doesn't think sam harris is the best philosopher in the past hundred years is fooling themselves, he singlehandedly PROVED that we don't have free will. what has zizek ever done? analyse a few films? woah...

>Chomsky
>third
This fucking website

>Zizek still first

I feel bad for Chomskyfags.

i wish it were zizek, but chomsky is more important

>Zizek vs. Peterson
i just came to /lit to suggest this very debate

>you can't be a philosopher if you are not a philosopher
you can't know nothing

>there's been good moral philosophy since Aristotle

>sam harris
this pretentious cunt

Dennet obviously.

He merely suggests that change starts within, what's your bone to pick with him?

They sound the same because
they're regurgitating his memes

>zizek still #1 despite occupying redditors who upvoted peterson en masse
ha ha

They would talk past eachother

>debate
Discussion, please.

Zizek is the obvious choice. Sure, he's inconsistent and insanely prolific, but it's critique of the left from within the left and I never get tired of academics scrambling to denounce him as a 'useful idiot' whenever he's mentioned in a classroom. He also adheres to Lacan, that French intellectual otherwise so popular among erudite post-structuralists like Kristeva and Cixous. If you look past the psychoanalytic babble then it's still obvious that he's studied both Marx and Hegel extensively, and Hegelians in particular are a rarity to see in today's public discussion.
Meanwhile, JBP is glorified self-help who's popular because he's easily digestible.

>what's your bone to pick with him?
Did you not read their fucking post? I think it's pretty clear.

Imagine if he invited Zizek.

None of these qualify as thinkers, intellectuals, or philosophers by any stretch of the imagination, but I guess Peterson is the most likely to add at least a tiny amount of value to your life.

Zizek: smart, entertaining and well read when it comes to philosophy, but politically his commentary is boring conformist crap. Still, he seems dedicated and not just after easy bucks, although he seems to enjoy the fame a bit too much perhaps.

Harris: literally autistic, reasonably smart, but not as well versed in philosophy, he likes to cut corners with sophistry, panders to reddit for easy shekels. But I like him occasionally, because autists can be insightful and they see things their own way.

Chomsky: don't know that much about him. What I did read was good. It's a shame that he's not more entertaining, because his critique of American imperialism is insightful. I'd probably rate him highest when it comes to honest intellectualism, although he seems to have his old way of doing things and a permanent bias.

Peterson: he seems to have done some honest work in psychology and has some good insights in the current state of the world. But he got carried away by the fame, he literally uses Twitter (I can't respect a person who does that) and he doesn't seem very well read when it comes to philosophy and abuses some concepts to make a point.

is this bait?
>i know nothing about chomsky because I don't read books, but he is the smartest.
>peterson is dumb he uses titter. Sam harris is smart but he also uses twitter

I read a few Chomsky articles, not his books though.
Peterson and Harris are both reasonably smart (above average for sure), but probably dumber than the other two. And I'd probably put Peterson above Harris when it comes to intelligence.
Using Twitter means you're whoring yourself for fame and don't take intellectual thought seriously.

He'd either shutup and get converted or try and "debate" him despite being an uneducated meathead who probably couldn't even define Marxism

define important

have you considered the possibility that you're too stupid/autistic to recognize or measure intelligence in other people?

Half of /pol/ came to the same conclusion, way before Peterson was a meme. It's not rocket science once you realize that women like dominant men with strong boundaries.

I don't know man, Zizek loves to talk about pop culture.

Well I guess.... Sam Harriss.... isn't well liked on the..... Veeky Forums Veeky Forums community

only reddit could think sam harris is a valuable thinker. he's a trust fund baby riding off of his parents coattails and has contributed nothing in his life. he would be a failure if not for his parents connections and people only watch him because they think his voice makes him sound intelligent. he's the quintessential reddit thinker

too many enlightened bernie bro anarchist chomsky fanboi cucks on this board if you ask me.

+1 for the barely intelligible, tic-ridden slovene

fuck JBP and fuck Harris

I think Peterson will be remembered for the longest and have the most influence on the real world than the other three. That’s the reason I voted for him.

Chomsky and Zizek are the only intellectuals there.

>commie is used in a derogatory manner on Veeky Forums

This is why the gulags will be filled, you enemies of humanity.

>le ebbin gulags xd

lmao during the inevitable revolution that we've been on the brink of since 1848?

tell me how occupy wall street is going when we go on a helicopter ride you braindead lazy slob

peterson is a fotm intellectual and will quickly fade back into obscurity with no lasting influence. Chomsky has been in the limelight for decades and is only just now starting to fade out of his respective field and Zizek will have a lasting influence in psychoanalysis for a long time to come. Peterson has barely contributed anything academically and his 'real world influence' is as a self help guru and videos titled '10 times jordan peterson BTFO SJW'S'. He'll be lucky to be remembered in five years time, if you look at his social blade you can already see his views and subs are down 50% from last month