Got this for my birthday. What am I in for?

>Step 1
>Write about how you're going to clean your room within the next five days
>Step 2
>Don't eat children
>Step 3
>Pay attention for dragons
>Step 4
>Drowning your father, but then rescue him
>Step 5
>Clean your room

I don't have experience with those two concepts.

He's helped a lot of young men with his advice. He's a fucking hero to me and my small gaming friend group.

>Most /pol/acks told me it was a good choice.

One hell of a ghost story

A dying meme.
>being so stupid you shit on your fanbase

quit the spookposting

I don't like Peterson, but if you got this for your birthday from someone you love, by all means go for it. Have fun :DDD

Self-help quackery a.k.a. snake oil.

>I have a qt azn gf who I met and approached in my computer science courses because of Peterson's advice
The jokes write themselves don't they?

An opinion that you should entertain but not automatically subscribe to, just like every other commentary in existence

>He's a fucking hero to me and my small gaming friend group.

Wtf I love Peterson shitposting now

memes aside, memerson is not a great writer, it's a book that doesn't really flow and the overlaying theme is not presented properly, lots of references though so if you are interested in any of the themes developed in any chapter you can go from there and get lots of related literature

the book was probably over-edited by himself and read weird for that

i don't remember any reference to godel, but it may be there in passing, there's plenty of references on the book beyond Jung

olive oil > snake oil

pretty much this, memerson is a psychologist, not a philosopher nor a literature professor, if you judge him as a psychologist there's nothing wrong with him, people get mad because it turns out that a psychologist is not a philosopher, who would have thought

an unread book on your shelf and a few more youtube videos so that you can pollparrot richard dawkins 2.0

>getting your ideology from different types of anglos
yeah, no thanks

nonresponsive

By the end of it you'll be taking pride in your son and denouncing pride in the other direction as evil and wrong.

>people get mad because it turns out that a psychologist is not a philosopher
People get mad because the psychologist likes to delve into philosophy and voice rather radical opinions based on severe ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject knowing full well he has thousands of fans who take everything he says as gospel.

>People get mad because the psychologist likes to delve into philosophy and voice rather radical opinions based on severe ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject knowing full well he has thousands of fans who take everything he says as gospel.
that's retarded, he is just analyzing those ideologies as they manifest in the world from a psychological point of view, of course he won't get the details of the text right, but that is irrelevant at the level he is analyzing these phenomena and pointing him to the text doesn't really address any of his criticism

>he doesn't understand the theory, but is capable to judge what is or isn't a practical manifestation of it
Come on, user.

How do you critique something you can't and don't want to understand?

Not to mention that Peterson ultimately is stuck in his psychology mindset, he can only see the pathological individual. But many of the things he talks about are precisely not at the level of the individual, via his critique all he ends up with is nonsensical reduction.

>the book was probably over-edited by himself and read weird for that
I seem to remember peterson saying something to that effect in a video

by that standard you shouldn't either write theory if you can't understand its psychological and economical implications, which is ridiculous and hasn't stopped any theorists ever before. you can analyze a phenomenon from different points of view, and criticizing its manifestation from one point of view doesn't require having a full understanding from another.

you don't need to understand the labor theory of value to realize that the murdering of people during stalinism was bad

>being so stupid you shit on your fanbase
how? he's advising them to be less shit. that's not shitting on them

>write a whole book (see OPs pic) in 1999 about not being a nazi
>people get mad when you explicitly say not to be a nazi in 2017
wew, not the sharpest tools in the box exactly

fpbp

But Peterson doesn't even TRY to understand anything outside the few authors he's read. If you critique a thing you have to at least bother to understand it within it's own logic. If one steps outside of his own discipline, one needs a certain level of humility and willingness to learn and Peterson just doesn't have that. He has literally admitted that he hasn't read ANY"""postmodern""" or marxist primary sources. That's the intellectual discipline of a high schooler. Hell, he has barely read any philosophy, which leads to an obvious botched understanding of Nietzsche.

by your standard you can grab some generic retard such as yourself and demand that they be taken seriously as an academic in some field they have no knowledge of.

>by that standard you shouldn't either write theory if you can't understand its psychological and economical implications
How did you arrive here? It doesn't follow at all.
>criticizing its manifestation
First you have to establish that something is indeed a manifestation of the theory you're discussing which is impossible without comprehensive understanding of it. Otherwise you may end up concluding something stupid like blaming Marxist analysis for Stalinist purges or works of Curie and Becquerel for the innumerable deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

why would you have to read the postmodernists to analyze the current campus politics and the psychological malaise going on? by that standard you would have to read giovanni gentile to criticize fascism, which i think would be a great idea, not saying that going to the sources of an ideology that you are trying to fight is not good for your own intellectual development, and would make what Memerson is saying more informed, but you are obviously putting standards on Memerson that you won't require on anybody else

you are saying leftist and X studies departments should be only judged by their own standards while they judge everybody else using arbitrary standards, doesn't seem like a fair conversation

How can people be interested in this fucking hack? I mean c'mon, he's just using the internet to create his own identity, which is plainly pathetic.
>inb4 but his old books are actually good
Without the scandal he intentionally created no one outside the academic world would care about those fucking scholastic dissertations devoid of any actual value.

Because he blames "postmodernists" for the current situation on college campuses. How can you do that if you don't even know what the "postmodernists" were trying to say?

If he was just another dude whining about SJWs in american liberal colleges, I wouldn't even fucking care. The problem is the bullshit Alex Jones level theory he develops to explain what is going on.

>why would you have to read the postmodernists to analyze the current campus politics and the psychological malaise going on?
You don't, but then have no grounds to posit that post-structuralists are somehow responsible for these developments.

No one IN academia cared about him. His "book" is a fucking joke autismo manifesto and the only actual research he did was some obscure clinical psychiatry research.That's why he is so perpetually butthurt.

That's what I meant bro. Absolutely irrelevant and annoying.

>the only actual research he did was some obscure clinical psychiatry research
Why lie?

Please tell me what kind of groundbreaking research he has done? Last time I checked all he did was co-author some decent psychiatry papers. Maps of meaning doesn't good, that's a meme book.

*count

>He's a fucking hero to me and my small gaming friend group.

lmao that's a direct quote

do you have an alternative to his theory

>tfw better philosopher than peterson

>by that standard you would have to read giovanni gentile to criticize fascism
Fascism was created before Gentile wrote his book tho.

>he treats "philosopher" like it's an accredited label
a philosopher is a lover of wisdom

Admit it, you only hate this guy because you are popular and you don't actually know the contents of Maps of Meaning. It's not a self help book at all. Now, I've mostly watched his lectures and only read parts of the book, but I think I have a pretty good grasp. I suspect that most of his critics (and his mindless fanboys also) are only judging him based on out of context 5 minute YouTube clips. When the wrote the book he was much less of a cringy crusader, but that doesn't make his work invalid. Also he is completely right about the state of the higher education system, but that's irrelevant when discussing the validity of Maps of Meaning.

>dismissing a 600 page book based on a single tweet

I really hate this cultural of dismissing ideas you have not even partially entertained.

I could point you to a pamphlet which explains it very well but it was written by a french marxist in the 60s so you'd probably just cry POSTMODERNISM and keep jerking Memerson off while completely ignoring Debord is actually so vanguardist in his critique of postmodernity that it wasn't even called postmodernity yet and he was already REEEEEing at it. Also, there are a lot of differences to consider, this has been written 50 years ago, but situationist critique of the commodification of "partisanship" (not the term I'm looking for, more like political conviction?) is spot on, specially when thinking about the american """""""""left"""""""""".
library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/4

Go ahead and read Jung. There isn't anything that Peterson could add to that, maybe clearer explanations, but I doubt it.

Peterson introduced me to Jung. I only ever heard about Freud in school, teachers never even once mentioned Jung.

I need someone to believe in and follow. Jordan's reputation is getting a little muddied for me to have faith in him anymore. I have doubts. I wish we could just go back to when he was fresh and unquestionably right all the time not matter what. Who do you guys recommend?

>right all the time
nick land

everybody is kind of shitty currently in the culture war, it's the most boring shit ever, hopefully the universities gets purged soon now that the public hates them all and they have issues getting money, and we can start speaking about something else more entertaining

That my friend is the correct paradigm for finding true knowledge: if the teachers don't mention it there is suspicion; if there is suspicion there is doubt; if there is doubt there is a lie. Ipso facto you have been lead by a negative example to the truth. Always follow the opposite. Universities are just buildings built on lies. The culture has been hijacked. Go towards the void and smile while it takes you in.

If you wanna be this redutionist, a scientist is a knower of things. Does this make me a scientist?

holy shit
>shittily satirize daddy pete fanboy mindset
>make a post that couldn't possibly contain more irony and criticism
>be taken seriously and even gain a sense of understanding from others

Irony is for fags. New sincerity or bust.

Largely because Jung looked at the the meagre attempt at producing a science which Freud had created and decided what it needed was a strong dose of magic and utter mysticism.

I remember talkin about Jung and archetypes in English class, but he is nobody in scientific psychology.

If you ever bother to read something like Freud’s interpretation of dream the first thing you’ll find is that a huge portion of the book is a literature review of all the experiments on sleep and dreams that had been conducted in the recent past and how his research as going to derive from that.

Jung on the other hand wrote a book about fckin alchemy.

Tell that to your boys. They're taking it for the truth every chance they get. It's useful if you know how to use it, that is, if you know its irony and not reality.

Still, irony has done more damage than good. It's easy to be ironic and dismissing, but hard to actually stand by your own feelings and believes out of fear of being ridiculed, so people just resort to ridicule themselves and mask their true believes with ironic statements.

True. But how does your original reply to my post prove that JP fanboys are anything other than lost kids looking for someone to buy into?

Also irony does have a meaning and usage outside of this moment. Saying irony has done more damage than good shows how ignorant you are of literature. It has been used for exposing tyrannical regimes and historical injustice. Just because we live in this postmodern time where irony is the default attitude for so many doesn't mean we need to erase it from our lives.

I have nothing against sincerity. We are on the internet you know.

That's a good thing, I suppose. I never heard about Jung until recently, and I don't regret reading him.

>But how does your original reply to my post prove that JP fanboys are anything other than lost kids looking for someone to buy into?
It doesn't. I love Maps of Meaning and I think Peterson is a pretty cool dude, but that doesn't change that fact that his fanbase are a bunch of cultists. However, since Peterson's agenda is to undermine ideologies feeding on the week and resentful, id say it's a good thing if an angsty teen worships Peterson as opposed to becoming a commie or fascist. His fans are cringy and the man himself likes to disappear up his arse from time to time, but that doesn't mean that he isn't an overall positive influence, especially considering the current political divide in the united states.

>It has been used for exposing tyrannical regimes and historical injustice.
Do you really need irony and snark to deconstruct nazis and commies?

who asks for this for their birthday...?

Jesus fuck this board is filled with homos.

>asking for presents
is this some kind of american degeneracy?

A’s has been mentioned, if he was just whining about how mean teenage girls with nose rings are to him, then fine. But he built up this idea of “postmodern neomarxism” and specifically talks about Foucault, Derrida, Marx and so on. He can bitch about activists all he likes, I just wish he wasn’t trying to get a generation of people to totally dismiss so of the 20th century’s most important philosophers.

Like, I don’t reallly agree with Derrida or Foucault or any of the other so-called “postmodernists” on much, but I recognized their thought grew organically out of the enlightenment tradition, and that they posed real and serious problems.

The great irony of Peterson’s total dismissal and attack on them and the postmodernists in general is that they were motivated by one of Peterson’s principle concerns as well, totalitarianism. They grew up in the shadow of Nazism, and increasing disillusionment with the promises of the Soviet Union. Foucault writes in the preface to Delueze’s Anti-Oedipus that (to paraphrase) ‘the principle concern of the book was ethics, a manual for living the non-fascist life, and not just political fascism but the personal fascism inside us all, the desire to be led’. That sounds exactly like a sentence Peterson would write. And it makes sense, both Peterson and Foucault were huge fans of Nietzsche.

The difference between Peterson and the postmodernists is that when confronted by the totalizing violent of modernism, people like Foucault moved towards increasing skepticism towards all forms of institutions, finding power and domination everywhere including in language, and Peterson retreats to pre-modern modes of thought, appealing to religion and the mystic thought of people like Jung.

Who the hell believes in ideology anymore? What is this, the twentieth century? I just have a problem with people who take advantage of people who are lost, or confused, or just starting their lives. I just hate it when I see people slavishly looking for an idol to worship and defend instead of having more intellectual curiosity of their own.

If all you take for tyrannical are nazis and commies, i'd say you have a very limited reach of history. I'm not gonna take this irony thing any further because I know you just got offended when I mentioned JP and have no real beef with irony itself other than what I mentioned in my last post.

brainlet, the post-ideological world died, we post-post-ideological now

Petersons point is that deconstructing grand narratives and ultimately meaning itself via endless relativism and social constructionism will eventually lead to people being disillusioned and resentful, causing them to run to the nearest structure and narrative that provides them with a purpose and to explain the world with. Which is true. People don't like to be confused or uncertain, they yearn for answers and the radical left and the radical right have those in spades.

>Who the hell believes in ideology anymore? What is this, the twentieth century?
Do you even see the absolute state of the US? SJWs and the far right are multiplying by the day. 7 years ago there was no far right with massive youth appeal. We are one great recession away from the late 1920s 2.0.

that's fine and a legitimate criticism of Memerson. i just can't take seriously the people who will dismiss anything he says because he is shit at talking about 1 domain. Everybody bluffs all the time and are unfair when talking about certain things.

Foucault was also shit at history, doesn't mean everything else he wrote should dismissed.

>believing in idealogy
*sniff* that is not how it works, my friend

>Petersons point is that deconstructing grand narratives and ultimately meaning itself via endless relativism and social constructionism will eventually lead to people being disillusioned and resentful, causing them to run to the nearest structure and narrative that provides them with a purpose and to explain the world with.
or they will be rammed out of the way by the next big player that comes along with a consistent ideology, being deconstructive is fine as long as you have the biggest cock in the block, but that may not last forever

>or they will be rammed out of the way by the next big player that comes along with a consistent ideology
That's the entire purpose of Maps of Meaning. It's the ultimate meta narrative. It's essentially post-post-modernist. Peterson's growing autistic cult fanbase seems like testimony to that. Peterson tries to fill the void in peoples hearts before anything more cancerous can.

>What am I in for?
disappointed parents

>He's a fucking hero to me and my small gaming friend group.

That's actually the perfect description of Peterson. He's a hero to losers and outcasts. Isn't there somebody more deserving of your admiration?

that's the think, Memerson following feels cultish, but the problem is not him, it's that society should have a place for those kids and they wouldn't have to need some meme psychologist to come along and provide some basic structure for them

Please fuck off to /pol/ or /r9k/, I don’t want you on Veeky Forums.

you mean Sam Harris?

>it's that society should have a place for those kids and they wouldn't have to need some meme psychologist to come along and provide some basic structure for them
Yeah, but you can't really blame the man. I think that he actually wants to fix society and not become a cult leader, but the fame is somewhat getting to him. If Peterson makes hundreds of thousands of teenagers saying "fuck you mom and dad, I believe in meaning and that I should become the best possible version of myself", that's a step in the right direction.

>those poor kids without a father figure
>dindu nuffin

>Porko & The Twinks

can't tell if those are 12 or 22

>a literal character select screen

>some basic structure
What like the YMCA?

I mean someone who doesn't have a Youtube channel and who isn't looking to profit off of his followers

What's their outfit? It would be fun fighting them.

>stop making money
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

i don't know, is that the rootless american version of structure?

What's his best book? I have to buy something to signify what group I belong to, and so I can put it on my shelf.

There's a European version? Who plays the Indian and the cowboy in your version?

>These are the people saying leftists aren't "real men" online

I fully agree that Foucault’s histories aren’t accurate, though I’d say anybody that takes him at his word as being a historian is missing the point. I think there is a significant point he makes even if everything of fact he says is wrong, in the same way that novels still can contain something despite being lies.