Where do we fall on Jordan Peterson?

He's a clinical psychologist isn't he? Wouldn't that make his expertise the human brain? The possibilities regarding one's ability to analyze, synthesize, and apply information on a social, literary, or political level makes him a remarkably versatile mind.

Clearly you aren't well read enough to even make such a statement. I like Peterson a lot, but there's very little originality in him. He's a good speaker and he's well read, that's mostly it.

His heart is in a good place. I like him. Might not agree with everything he says, but I like him.

Seems you're under the impression there's more of a difference than there really is. Which is unsurprising. Postmodernism banks on making people think it's complicated when it's as simple as many initially perceive it is.

...

I can't stand how he refuses to deal with Marx. He only focuses on Solzhenitsyn which allows him to basically skip applying his theory to China, Cambodia, ect. Instead, the only version of Communism he will deal with is Stalinism. Why won't he actually critique what Marx wrote?

Peterson is a smart guy. He was smart enough to notice a radical change in ideas over the last few years and to capitalize on it. Now people can't shut up about him, his talks are fully booked, and his books sales are better off.

He's the kind of guy you know is puttin on an act and you suspect he's making it up as he goes along, but you tell yourself he isn't because you need someone halfway decent and sane looking whose videos you can listen to in the background while you lurk Veeky Forums.

This but unironically
Read something more than mere second hand accounts on the comments section of YouTube and Facebook.

I'd say that these days, and for the people he's reaching, that's enough.

The way I see his argument is that in a sense it doesn’t matter. If you argue with marxism in its language you’re playing the wrong game. Instead he pushes an empirical argument showing that wherever Marxist ideology takes root societies degenerate and people suffer. He also seems more concerned with debunking the façade of postmodernism SJW’s attack him with rather than the underlying marxism although he does acknowledge it several times. Perhaps his best critique or marxism itself is that it only talks about society and power structures in a vacum without really integrating the consequences of hierarchies of competence and how that might explain the social structure Marx criticized.

A run-of-the-mill academic with nothing particularly interesting to say. Evidently an excellent self-help guru though.

>Perhaps his best critique or marxism itself is that it only talks about society and power structures in a vacum without really integrating the consequences of hierarchies of competence and how that might explain the social structure Marx criticized.

Elaborate

>Instead he pushes an empirical argument showing that wherever Marxist ideology takes root societies degenerate and people suffer
No, he doesn't. He exclusively deals with Solzhenitsyn; he doesn't engage with the empirical side of the issue at all. The fact he often tends to conflate pomo and marxism should worry you, as even he has stated in the past that a marxist cannot be a postmodernist. And Marx does not "only focus on power structures", he presented an entire ontology (i.e. dialectical materialism).

he's right about most things and he's a serious dude who cares about people, which is more than you can say about just about any other public intellectual

Shhh let him think it over by himself. Let him elaborate.

>my internet dad told me to stop wasting time
>what an amazingly brilliant public intellectual

Not that user but all I see is one frogman fighting with another frogman.

Poorly read and a fool. The fact that I can hear people compare him to Mencken is pathetic

Seems like a cult. Just look at the answers in this thread.

you're a dog barking at itself in the mirror

tankies get out

Seems like a guy who triggers ideologues and anti-intellectuals. Just look at the answers in this thread.

>Using an analogy to say that he's projecting

C L E A N. Y O U R. R O O M.

>he restricts himself so well to his area of competence that he may very well be an expert on everything he talks about
I don't think this is true. Most of his iq videos (for example the one where he stratifies jobs based on iq) seems fairly speculated.

Nice try at wit, but cult thinking is as a rule positive without qualifications. These answers tend to be positive w/ qualification. Try harder user.

>Everyone who isn't Mencken is a fool
Baby's first idol

>Anti-Intellectuals
Oh yeah, because the dude who uses a broad artistic and philosophical movement as a boogieman for some imagined decline without ever providing a satisfactory definition for that movement is such an intellectual. The man can't even coherently define postmodernism, let alone critique it.

Woah. Is that one of your surrogate father's edgy quips? I don't think you're using it correctly. Time to rewatch the "How to Clean Your Room" for 20th time.

I don't even like Mencken, but he at least could keep up with the cutting edge of philosophy that was around at his time. Peterson can't even speak competently on Girard or Debord, two people who he vaguely alludes to in his critiques of "postmodernism".

A clever man capitalizing on retards with brilliant theatrics.

>without ever providing a satisfactory definition for that movement
I believe that everyone sufficiently educated who acts in good faith can understand which phenomenon he's describing. """Postmodern neo-marxism""" is a poor label but we don't have a better one yet.

"""Postmodernist""" writing is mostly gibberish and out of touch. The critique should be directed at real societal trends.

>catchphrases
Yeah definitely a cult.

JBP exudes that Alberta affect

and ya'll ain't seen nothin yet

Doesn't he have a postmodernist attitude towards religion and calls it meta truth?

>"""Postmodern neo-marxism""" is a poor label but we don't have a better one yet.
Then invent one.
>"""Postmodernist""" writing is mostly gibberish and out of touch
So have you ever actually sat down and read The Society of Spectacle, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, or literally anything by Michel Foucault? Because none of these things are gibberish. It seems like you're doing what most people who side with Peterson do, where you don't read the actual texts and you base your impressions of 60 years of philosophical, artistic, literary, and ideological thought on how some D-tier professors talk.

The thing is, what you believe doesn't count for shit right now. Peterson always attakcs a vague notion, rarely addresses individuals and speaks at length about them for critique, those who are akin to feeling a sense of alienation and detachment easily anchor it on his narrative of Pomo being the boogeyman who's responsible for their condition.

Post Modernist writing is far more than gibberish if you're accustomed to the background of what lead to it, I.e. familiarity with the subject.

>if you ask me to define the very things I'm talking about, you're either uneducated or have malice aforethought

I for one think postmodernism might be a very sophisticated concept but at the end it leads to bullshit results and even though objective truth might not exist, the concept of an objective reality as working hypothesis is much more productive and beneficial.

That's the reason why I don't need to read Foucault, because whatever postmodernism is, it doesn't work. Like communism.

>I can critique authors without having read them because I can see what their ideology produces when filtered through 60 years of undergrads fucking it up!
>I don't need to gain other perspectives on reality, I can just trust what I see in the "real world" without reading any actual philosophy!
I bet you think anything vaguely left-of-center that involves reshaping the economy away from capitalism can be reduced down to Communism. You people make me legitimately ashamed to be right-wing.

>even though objective truth might not exist
You're already postmodern and you don't even realize it.
>I don't need to read this because I say it doesn't work
You might as well get your pomo card and start clocking in every week. You can't even see it can you?

If anything I'm post-postmodern. And it doesn't work because it desolves the foundations of society just in order to what? Create a new equilibrium like communism where everybody starves to death. Postmodernism doesn't work because societies need to develop organically. You can't just astroturf a new paradigm from the top without creating chaos.

No, but I think radical lefties are delusional and their shit ain't working.

What kind of bullshit are we talking about?
The kind where you critique something without ever having any idea about it whatsoever?
Or the Kind where you strawmen, make false equivalencies and refer to different Philosophical movements as postmodernism without being aware of it?
Or is it both, like you are doing right now?

>i don't know what postmodernism is
>i know it doesn't work

Which AstroTurf did post modernism invent and do you even know what autopoesis of social structures even is? Do you even Luhmann, you pseudointellectual?

What do you define as radical? Which of their texts have you read? What are your formal critiques of their reasoning? You can critique society, sure, but the second you bring postmodernism into it, you're attacking a coherent group of ideologies which deserve a carefully constructed critique, not a slapdash assault.

>I'm a postpostmodernist!
Then what your alternate theory? Or would you literally say "Hey, postmodernism is intellectually airtight, but we should ignore it because it has bad consequences"?

tl;dr read what you're insulting. You can't base an intellectual critique of an academic movement on the actions of people who barely have any contact with that academic movement.

Never read him and nothing I've seen on Veeky Forums makes me want to.

he's pretty good.

trolls ungrateful college kids. takes nietzsche seriously instead of edgy "lol power games hurr". knows how to rhetoric and touches on a lot of complicated and important things. he is in a roundabout way a bit hegelian with his metaphysics, which is kind of funny all things considered. monadic dualism is the strangest thing, though. he's mentioned the taoteching once or twice and eliade was kind of like that as well.

jung is my favorite existential philosopher

pomo is counterculture drivel

marxism is murder

sort yourselves out

and someone mail him some epistemology books.

Genderstudies, SJW-culture.

I can and I do. There's no objective reality according to postmodernism and that's why I'm correct when I say it's just bullshit.

>There's no objective reality according to postmodernism

Well everything is a social construct including your definition of postmodernism.

So your beef is with gender studies and SJW culture rather than post modernism?

Lol why didn't you say so in the first place you cuck.

Also, citation needed on which author you've read from pomo trend that claims there to be no noumena to exist, and their work in which they say so.

>I can use "social construct" like Stirner memers use the term spook and it'll be a real tangible critique of postmodernism! Take that Michel Foucault!

You know, you still haven't answered what "postmodern" texts you've actually sat down and read between your insane and inane ramblings about SJWs and how Feminist semiotics are evil or something

For someone who doesn't believe in objective reality it's kinda absurd to ask fo citations.

And you didn't refute anything I said, maybe by citing something postmodernism that states an objective reality to exist. Maybe in terms of biology for example. Isn't SJW culture marxism an outgrowth of postmodernism?

>Isn't SJW culture marxism
Please read what the actual "Cultural Marxists" wrote. You might find that Horkheimer and Adorno's thesis that contemporary society devalues culture and turns it into a commodity to be bought and sold, rather than an experience to be lived applies to your understanding of politics.

"Postmodernism" doesn't typically talk about noumena. It talks about societal processes of understanding, and there's multiple ways of addressing that. Rene Girard, for instance, produces a coherent theory of how social interaction works with Mimesis, which he purported to be objective. Semiotics, a distinctly postmodern field, identifies the ways in which words assume meanings which affect reality, and you cannot have Semiotics without the presumption that there's a reality which can be effected. But you know, I doubt you're actually interested in learning, because

>Maybe in terms of biology for example.
You actually think that biology falls under the purview of philosophy, which it assuredly does not.

>say something completely retarded and intrinsically inconsistent
>get questioned on your competence and asked to simply define the topic you're talking about
>HAHA BUT YOU DIDN'T REFUTE MY INCOHERENT BUZZWORD SALAD
Do you really not see the absurdity or you just can't stop being pointlessly contrarian all the time?

>Assuming

>Isnt sjw culture an offshoot of Pomo

According to Peterson it is postmodernism instead of being an offshoot .

Also that's not how it works, you claimed that pomo says there isn't an Objective reality, what was your source for saying that? Because I've not read anyone who made that claim in the pomo trend, and if you have where did you find that?

he's a clown, and you're a clown if you fell for this snake oil salesman. and you barely know what being a clinical psychologist is.
> inb4 not an argument
i'll tell you wha'ts not an argument, for instance peterson's neuronic scapegoating about muh "frankfurt school" without ever going into details about a single work of a representative of that school-thought, perhaps because he has never read one and therefore he can go only as far as to very general accusations on how their philosophy is to blame for eroding the very fabric of our society. and btw i'm not a champion of the frankfurt school at all, i actually disagree with most of their conclusions and i'm as right-wing as it gets. also, what's the greatest peterson's accomplishment? shitting on retards because of their pronoun crusades? well, kudos, how brave, what an intellectual. does he really deserve $60k per month for doing something that every brainlet on pol and lit could do?

Does postmodernism advocate to change the meaning of words in order to change society?

And don't tell me biology isn't the purview of the humanities. Tell it to the people who claim genders can be made up and there's like 200 of those.

protip: he never read marx. he never read even a single work of the frankfurt school and he barely knows the difference between mao and stalin . he's just larping

All you need to know about Marx you can read in The Gulag Archipelago.

Fulfills the daddy figure so many boys look for when they think their real father is a beta.

Maybe if you sat down and listened to those people, instead of jumping to conclusions, you'd know that what they mean by that is that there are two categories of sex. There is what organs you have, and the societal expression of asserting which organs you have. The latter of those two concepts is gender, and is not a biological topic, but a sociological one, and is therefore within the purview of philosophy.

>Does postmodernism advocate to change the meaning of words in order to change society?
No, that is not what """postmodernism""" advocates. That is what we all do, every day. It's what you're doing right now. By defining postmodernism as an intellectual boogeyman that you can blame for the decline of a civilization, you've changed the meaning of the word postmodernism to change society. That's not called postmodernism, that's called basic fucking rhetoric.

i'm sure that jordan peterson agrees with your stance. now go back getting milked out of your shekels on his patreon, you gotta fund his war against the new pronouns m8

Listen, I don't have to read 120 Days of Sodom to know why fucking kids is bad. Maybe the Marquis de Sade has some kickass points about why pedophilia is supposed to be great according to him, but why bother.

Give me the tl;dr on postmodernism then, what it is and what it wants to do. I want to hear your thoughts intstead of you pointing to other people's work like a parrot.

Postmodernism isn't about fucking kids.

Idk man you already watch Peterson who does the tl;Dr for you. Maybe it's time to move past tl;Dr and actually read them books instead?

Your post isn't about understanding analogies.

Not an argument. You're just a shill who probably didn't read the books himself.

>X is bad and stupid and I hate it even though I don't know what it is
>well user maybe you should actually acquaint yourself with X before passing judgement
>no, what am I a retard. kek, numale commie leftard btfo once again, fellow pedes!

>words don't have meaning until I have sand in my vagina

Postmodernism is a wide-ranging series of academic doctrines, ideologies, and critical frames that emerged following the end of WWII and the emergence of the atomic era. Generally, it describes a wide and vast variety of literary, poetic, and philosophical movements. French Existentialism, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Neoscholasticism, and more can be counted among the philosophical texts. Literary figures that wrote during the period range from Anthony Burgess to Sylvia Plath, and from Joseph Brodsky to Michel Houellebecq. It also saw the fragmentation of philosophy into the Continental and Analytic philosophy as established doctrinal approaches, as well as the emergence of Feminist and Semiotic lenses into academic studies. It can be argued that postmodernism is still going on, although some have stated that it ended with 9/11. No one's really sure.

tl;dr it's not a fucking boogeyman you can blame the decline of western civilization on

>OY VEY, THE GULAGS WERE AN ATROCITY AGAINST HUMANITY GOYIM! READ SOLDIERSCHNITZEL!
>Oh, Dostoevsky was the greatest HUMAN ever, but you won't hear me mention how he was in a forced labour camp under the Tsar - because it detracts from my reactionary Soviet-bashing, which actually comes from folklore and Nazi lies.

Just because cancer is not the same as asbestos I still can blame asbestos for causing cancer. The emergence of feminist and semiotic lenses is definitely cancerous.

So the soviets only killed 10 million in their concentration camps instead of 30 million. Wow, I love communism now!

How much of Umberto Eco, Roland Barthes, or Mikhail Bakhtin have you actually read?

How much asbestos do I have to eat before I get feminitis? I can see how everybody who has read into postmodernism turns into an agent of cultural deconstruction.

>The total number of convicts in the Nerchinsk silver-mining district was approximately 952. There were 188 at Alexandrofski Zavod, 150 at Algachi, 70 at Pokrofski. The Kadainski and Smirnovo mines had 184. The Savenski and Gorni Zerentuiefski mines had 360.[1]

Truly, comparable to hundreds of thousands in each gulag. 960 convicts vs millions of civilians. The Tsar sure was a bastard. Hah! Praise lenin! bash the fash!

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where you read a pomo Philosopher claiming there isnt an Objective reality.

And I'm going to ask you why do you think Equality between the sexes on legal, and social grounds is a bad thing? Equality remember, not equity, we're going to go with the definition of feminism that is accepted and given by the dictionary and not those darned post modernists.

And do tell what you understand by semoitic lenses in your use of the word

>just because the Cretaceous period is not the Extinction of the Dinosaurs, I can still blame the Cretaceous period for the Extinction of the Dinosaurs

That's not how knowledge works. This isn't fucking Lovecraft you twit, you're not going to be driven mad by an evil book. You're not going to suddenly lose your convictions because you start being able to competently argue your opponent's point of view. Christ.

Because men and women aren't the same, obviously. Maybe we're all worth equally, but there are biological and psychological difference that demand different legal frameworks.

Also, I didn't Pomo claimed there wasn't an objective reality. I claimed it was premise for postmodernism.

It's exactly like lovecraft. At one point you're just an innocent traveller investigating some remote costal town, 100 pages later you've grown an innsmouth look and try to dive into the depths of communism to meat comrade Stalin. Only you additionally wear problem glasses now and call everybody who disagrees a cis white shitlord.

You can't actually believe this. Man, you have to be trolling.

You mean the way some lost young adults turn to certain Youtube videos for help with procrastination and organizing their personal life and then end up completely adopting and worshiping a random person's views on topics they don't understand in the slightest?

Different biology doesn't equate to different legal systems if there is only one governing body and with it a body of law in the same sovereign system, an example of the contrary would be how Islam treats Women as a secondary and less pivotal sex, something that Peterson is very much against.

Also yes, you did claim that A/c to post modernism there is no objective reality, that may have been misinterpreted as a claim rather than a premise hy me, but you still have to cite where you got the impression from and from who Also semoitic lenses? Elaborate.

Sadly, you've already been taken in by a greater cosmic horror. You can't escape the shitpost cycle now.

he's a cunt

>Also, I didn't Pomo claimed there wasn't an objective reality. I claimed it was premise for postmodernism.
The absolute state of Veeky Forums

It really is a mind virus, my dude.

>pointing like a parrot
what