Maps of Meaning

This book seems really ambitious:

>Why have people from different cultures and eras formulated myths and stories with similar structures? What does this similarity tell us about the mind, morality, and structure of the world itself? Jordan Peterson offers a provocative new hypothesis that explores the connection between what modern neuropsychology tells us about the brain and what rituals, myths, and religious stories have long narrated. A cutting-edge work that brings together neuropsychology, cognitive science, and Freudian and Jungian approaches to mythology and narrative, Maps of Meaning presents a rich theory that makes the wisdom and meaning of myth accessible to the critical modern mind.

This is not a bait thread as I have no interest in his views regarding "SJWS" or "post-modernists". I just want to know if he offers any original insight on religion and mythology or if he just mimics Joseph Campbell and Jung.

shameless self-bump

better question:

would this book even be in your hands if Memerson hadn't uploaded a video about transgender pronouns?

That should answer your first question.

Sage for not Veeky Forums Memerson posting.

Syncretism

Would you even be commuting the genetic fallacy if you weren't blinded by politics?

I don't get your question (joke?) and I'm not a terribly political person, but you would have to be an idiot to not realize Memerson is famous because of his Youtube video (the one that came out in 2016 and talked about politics explicitly) and not because of his book (the one that come out in 1999 and has no sexy political claims).

it's absolute dreck, and oddly enough the perfect example of the sort of "postmodern" twaddle that peterson rails against

This was the only one of his videos I have watched. I'm not a fan of Peterson, I just enjoy learning about religion, mythology and I am familiar with Jung and Campbell so I was wondering if he has anything new to offer.
His book is not about pronouns, so his fight against transgender pronouns won't make any different, right?

i'd read something from someone who's actually educated in the fields of mythology or religion then

Why is that a better question, and how in the fuck does it answer the first question? Are you implying that popularity = quality? This thread it about a book you fucking retard, you are the one trying to skew it towards nonlit shit.

could you offer some explanation?

I have. Religion and mythology are studied by people from different fields.

I'll take you on your word that you're into Memerson for the religion/mythology. In that case, why not pick up Jung/Campbell (as you mention) or Durkheim, Frazer or Geertz?

There's an absolutely enormous literature on these topics already.

I'm not "into Memerson", I've seen this guy being posted a lot and decided to check if he has written anything of value.
I have read Jung ,Straus, Campbell and others, I want to know if his study offers any collaboration to the field, that's all.

In that case, why not read "Maps of Meaning" and come back here when you're done for a decent thread?

Peterson's attempt to elaborate on the Is-Ought problem. And give his own take.

OWNED!

well played lad

The PDF is on his website for free. Yes, the book is a slab - I have the hardback on the desk right here, and it's a bit of a slog, but actually not as dense as I expected. To be honest, I find it a bit 'lite' compared to my usual fare but that's just me perhaps.

To be fair to JBP, he does suggest reading the chapter summaries together first to gain an overall picture of what the book is about. Then again you ADHD 'tards could always just look at the course videos on Juwetube instead.

Read first, shitpost later, goys. Note how everyone just seems to toss about the names of Jung, Campbell and Eliade without giving any hint of having read their work, much less understood it.

One thing I found interesting about the book from what I've read so far is how it neatly dovetails into his later politicised concerns. In other words, he has a rather impressive cultural and intellectual baggage to back up his socio-political and self-help claims.

My two cents at any rate.

Is this satire?

>treats the first valuable post as satire
Got a minions meme to go with that post, kid?

Nope.

Every time I see someone critique Peterson I realize they know nothing about him. He always has sophisticated reasoning to back up his assertions, no matter how antiquated they may seem. Criticisms of him are essentially people attaching slurs to his name without ever seeking to understand his position. In other words they are frequently vapid critiques. He has altered my perspective quite a bit.