Who did you fundamentally agree with more?

I haven't listened to either of these jokers. They seem kind of stupid, honestly. Why not just read philosophy?

>and can understand positions he doesn't agree with.
His anti-religion shtick says otherwise.

He made the claim that his experience with ecstasy is related to religious experience and that figures like Jesus were most likely referring to that type of experience. While he has one point, which is that there is a physiological component that can't be ignored, what he seems to disregard is the possibility that there are mixtures of physiological and genetic conditions which emerge in life, the "great men" that Nietzsche spoke of, who are exceptions and who crumble and assimilate with humanity over time because of how unbelievably "coincidental" (read: dependent on extremely unlikely circumstances) their existence was.

Because of this disregard, I don't consider him as someone who really understands the positions of figures like Jesus, or even Nietzsche for that matter. He thinks he has access to those higher cognitive levels via drugs. Laughable.

Harris is a pretty big faggot.

So Peterson by far... although he really pisses me off me with his constant self-censoring on important subjects. He constantly champions Western civilization yet he has little to no comments whatsoever on the dangerou path it's currently heading, demographic-wise.

He seems scared of saying anything too racially insensitive.

People like OP think reading is beneath them.

To add to this... Pic attached is a post I saw on Peterson, which I agree with 100%.

>a dull fedoratipping positivist pseud whose doctoral is forever enshrined in the scientific hall of fail
or
>a pseudoscientist with rudimentary philosophy understanding who plays part time internet dad for lunch money of single-parent morons
The stakes have never been higher.

I agree. But Peterson is still highly valuable for his attacks on the jewish shibboleths of Marxism and postmodernism. Most of his audience barely has a foot in the door of the new reality and he could potentially do more damage to the system if he draws it out. Harris is a run-of-the-mill kike with minimal insight into anything whose ununique jewish resentment revolves around his hatred of Christianity. If you're white and supporting this jew, you need to pull your head from out your ass.

Peterson does take strong positions... but on topics that aren't really controversial.

The problem with him is that he's older now and also a grandfather. He will never stir the pot. And the people he concerns himself with don't really have a figurehead that can challenge him; he's fighting a battle with a headless opponent.

That said, if he was really daring, he wouldn't talk about "problems" in society. He would talk about the advancements we are currently undergoing. That's more controversial than anything among intellectual communities.

my retarded uncle

Sam "blacks are unintelligent" Harris is way more redpilled than Pinocchio boy.

>He would talk about the advancements we are currently undergoing.
What are you referring to?

"Redpilled" means having an understanding the jewish question. Harris is a turbo jew. Your logic doesn't add up.

> being on a littérature board in the year that it currently is
> actually reading

The only thing more pathetic than Peterson fanboys are poltards disappointed with him for not going full niggerdeath

His entire message is about avoiding ideological possession and you tards are sitting around waiting for him to champion your ideology

>waaah why hasn't Peterson redpilled the normies on the jewish question yet
because he's not a neonazi you fucking retards no one who lives in the real world is

The increasing complexity of sociopolitical structures due to globalist influences, these influences not as isolated ideologies but as natural occurrences in the overall Western tide, the increasing complexity of all fields of study and the arts, technological advancements, the emerging technocracy and its inevitable takeover, etc. Sometimes he does touch on these things, though incredibly vaguely and only indirectly, like when he points out that he reaches more people on his YouTube channel than the entire attending student body of the university that he teaches at. Dramatic changes to the world brought upon by increasingly advanced technologies. There is far more POSITIVE about today than there is negative to talk about.

Peterson's skull formation is much more healthy.

>Jews don't know about the Jewish question

It's your logic that doesn't add up, goy.

It's basically a competition between which facial expression you can bear to look at constantly: the smug and condescending arched eyebrow versus the concerned and probing squinted eyes

>the jewish question
Is there a more embarrassing display of ressentiment out there than antisemitism?

yeah zionism

>There is far more POSITIVE about today than there is negative to talk about.
Depends on your objectives.

How is anything focused on re-establishment more resentful than something focused on how a group of people who are doing perceivedly well are creating problems for you?

You can be both an antisemite and a zionist. The nazis were, for example.

It does. And the world is a reflection of ourselves.

"Ressentiment" was a term made originally in reference to jews. Wanting to remove jews is natural because they are an alien race that doesn't fit in or belong in civilized white societies.

it is had to say anything really i mean it was a terrible debate

Kierkegaard used the word in philosophy before Nietzsche did:

>Thus ressentiment becomes the constituent principle of want of character, which from utter wretchedness tries to sneak itself a position, all the time safeguarding itself by conceding that it is less than nothing. The ressentiment which results from want of character can never understand that eminent distinction really is distinction. Neither does it understand itself by recognizing distinction negatively (as in the case of ostracism) but wants to drag it down, wants to belittle it so that it really ceases to be distinguished. And ressentiment not only defends itself against all existing forms of distinction but against that which is still to come. The ressentiment which is establishing itself is the process of leveling.

Nietzsche's usage also doesn't change anything about what I said before.

Peterson by virtue of not being Harris.

Until something more powerful than us awakens and takes over.

Jews had just been let out of the stetl, Europeans then knew a fraction of what we do now. But you're still assuming that you have some kind of right here. Your people live in a country they don't belong to and think they have a right to change it and engage in nepotistic tribalism to control institutions they had no hand in building. People who point this out and express their desire to remove jews simply don't like them for who they are.

>Your people
Not Jewish by the way. Anyone who can get away with [thing] has a right to [thing] though. It's the law of the land, and if you want it back, take it back. I guess whining is one tactic towards that end but it's not an effective one.

Veeky Forums is fucked. Every board is filled with this pol cancer.

Sam Harris. JP talks about pomo way too much without knowing enough about it.

They are both pseuds but I'd take Peterson over Harris any day.

JP's positions and arguments themselves are ironically very postmodern.

That's the law of the desert you personally have been enculturated into believing is the law of the land outside of it. You must still be stuck in your libertarian phase. Either way, racially aware whites have every intention of doing what you said and spreading information about jewish nature and behavior is not complaining, it's an attempt to educate our brethren who may like yourself not quite get it yet.

Nothing in this thread has anything to do with pol or politics, stop being a paranoid idiot.

>muh jews
>muh immigration
>it has nothing to do with politics
>deflects by calling me paranoid
Your propaganda is obvious.

this but the other way round.

There are people talking about two individuals who are more or less writers itt: one jewish who attacks the jewish ideology of Christianity, another who attacks jewish ideologies like Marxism and postmodernism.

You must be stupid if you think mentioning the explicit jewishness that cannot be disconnected from such people and ideas is irrelevant or out of bounds. And whining about muh pol as if that has any place here only makes you look even more stupid.

>You must still be stuck in your libertarian phase
If by that you mean I'm aware of the irrational foundation behind all rationality and the uncivilized roots from which all civilizations grow from, then sure. All civilizations collapse in the face of mass violence and destruction. They are flimsy. Not to say they are useless at all, but what is truer is what is closer to permanence in the world, and the recursive imploding-exploding dog eat dog nature of things which I am talking about is closer, it's what outlives civilizations when they fall. Nietzsche also recognized this about the Jews, he doesn't peg them down for birthing slave morality, he applauds them for their victory.

I couldn't make it through their "debate" due to them getting caught up in semantics for way longer than was necessary, but when it comes to the topic of morality I'm more on board with Peterson.

Harris is a smart guy but he doesn't really seem to consider the fact that in order to use science as a tool to answer moral questions you first have to know what questions to ask, and moral questions themselves are ultimately based on non-scientific presuppositions. Now Harris' definition of morality is roughly "attempts to reduce the suffering of conscious beings", and that's not a bad definition as far as I'm concerned, but it's also precisely the sort of non-scientific presupposition Peterson would describe as a transcendental truth. It's not based on empirical fact, there's no evidence that this definition is accurate and in fact one could easily argue against it... and that's exactly the problem. I'm afraid that a model of morality that foregoes such transcendental truths and only looks towards science and rationality as a mechanism of progress is doomed to descend into moral relativism.

I agree with the people who say that we need separate boards for non-fiction and fiction. You phil faggots are insufferable emotionless autists.

Your perspective is that of an edgy individualist who doesn't actually understand anything about how civilizations are built and why they fall. Europeans build civilizations, jews destroy them, and they're currently destroying yours because they have no sense of stewardship toward western civilization. This all boils down to group struggle, and the most worthless people in such a struggle are the nihilistic dems go the spoils clowns who when it comes down to it aren't actually willing to fight for anything and are happy to give it all away.

>Europeans build civilizations, jews destroy them
Are Jews not a product of civilization though?

I like you.

Why is it one or the other? Do I have to choose because they got hung up on semantics once?

I like them both for different reasons and think they would mutually benefit if they got past their semantic hang ups and learned to work together. I think they ultimately pursue similar goals, albeit through different means and perhaps for different reasons

No, they are best understood as a kind of anti-civilization. The bad side of a duality. Jews have never built anything on their own and can barely keep a place like Israel together because they are at their roots gypsy conmen. Yet they've wandered out of each dead empire and moved onto the next, leaving a direct trail of the wreckage they caused: Egypt as told from exodus to the jewish Christianity that destroyed Rome, Germany and Britain to soviet union it could be argued as well. And we are seeing the beginning of the takedown of America through the multicultural liberalism jews are overwhelmingly behind the push for. This is a pattern.

Peterson's broader, more willing to accept the necessities of irrationality. Harris is just a boring turbo-positivist.

>No, they are best understood as a kind of anti-civilization
Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't a byproduct of it. Pretty much anything "anti-" is a byproduct of the thing. Which means that where civilization exists, there will always exist some body of people who want to level it. Which means that we are responsible for them.

Peterson. Harris is a fucking hack and a shill.

That argument could be reasonably made and on a spiritual or esoteric level I would agree. But it's difficult to know the origins of how and where the dynamic arose. Jews have been doing this for thousands of years so parasitic civilizational destruction obviously a part of their nature, but practically speaking I'm more inclined to say they're just a race of narcissistic tyrants whose evolutionary advantage/strategy is subterfuge and crypsis.

>You phil faggots

Calling them phil faggots is giving them too much credit. Peterson is a fucking hack whose "work" (aka YouTube videos) appeals mostly to pseudointellectual neckbeards who are angry they aren't getting laid and couldn't make it past their first semester in college. So now they're blaming their own inadequacy on postmodernism and Jews.

this is now the /pol/ containment thread.
please make one of these every week so you mental midgets can battle it out

>gets a pungent whiff of some of that old jewish projection

When will Memerson engage actual intellectuals like Chomsky, Zizek or Butler? I want to see him get BTFO with more validity.

i dont think you understand his arguments you brainlet

Not even a Harris fan but checking in to let you know that this is a bad post and you should feel bad about it

it would be funny to see him talking about Postmodernism and Marxism with either David Harvey or Fredric Jameson

What a nonsensical post, imagine taking three paragraphs to say nothing

Neither. I disagree with both.

>graphs with no source
>shitty extrapolating graph doesn't even take into account why demographics are currently changing, I.e why poor people have more children

Not all antisemitism stems from ressentiment.

he and chomsky would probably have more of an interesting discussion rather than an argument. It would be very interesting to see him engage with Zizek though, even if they only talked about psychoanalysis they would have plenty of disagreements with each other.

the ultimate display of being pathetic

Peterson actively tells people to blame their inadequacies, or at least the lack of improvement of them, on themselves

Peterson.

But both are ok.

This lol

The birth of Israel, truly a blessing to you goys in USA. Good thing you remember to glorify them Jews, else you would be cursed with foreigners.