Jordan Peterson Christmas Gift!

>to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior

Doing this too munch can have strange effects on one's outlook.

He needs a visible intermediary to speak to people on his behalf. A daughter perhaps?

Yup. He’s gone full daddy self help.

I don't ever plan on touching it, but something in me wants it to become a bestseller.

Hate on Peterson all you want, but he is still better than most of the other self-help authors.

When someone becomes a homing beacon for pseudointellectuals they generally become hated and dismissed.
Sort of fair, when someone appeals to 18-21 year olds, you should always be skeptical

So what? Fans are always annoying. 80 percent of people are just annoying.

People don't like him just because "muh trannies" and "i want a tranny to suck me off like a vacuum"

people don’t like him because unlike other arch-pseuds: Chomsky and Zizek, his works don’t stand on their own merit and his followers are universally ignorant illiterates. He lies constantly and sends out legions of people to colonize social media and image boards so he can gain profits. Classic snake con artist, also inarticulate and squats on top of other people’s ideas as a gate keeper. Bad, really pathetic understanding of Jung and Nietzsche.

Well I'm happy for his success. You've made it when Penguin is publishing.

>not wanting a tranny to suck you off like a vacuum
gay

do you have single fact to back that up?

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

His fans are obnoxious, but Peterson himself is an ok guy, even if you only see him as a popularizer of literature. Something the world has been lacking lately.

I literally only read Orwell because of him.

i started reading jung because of him.

as i read modern man in search of a soul jung described transference. It woke me up to the attitude i had towards peterson and to not look at him as a substitute father/mentor, though it took a while.

problem is, with so many youtube videos of him out there its easy for fans to obnoxiously obsess and project some ideal onto him.

i want to ask him whether, being such a fan of jung, he notices this transference onto himself by some of his fans. and how he plans to fix the problem.

...

Just because you mongs are illiterate faggots who discovered whatever book for teenagers you hadn't read, doesn't make memerson any more significant. He's a self help "guru", nothing more; certainly not what you maggots and the rest of his groupies make him out to be.
>c-clean your room!
I'd rather clean shave your throats with a cleaver.

>Why does Veeky Forums hate this guy again?
Jealousy is my guess
Goddamn lazy Veeky Forums faggots

youtube.com/watch?v=vhlL7IjaZNI
How can he interview a mythomaniac without calling him out once?

Having at least 2 threads about him daily can get annoying.

a sense of importance derived from a lifetime of people telling them that they are special and their thoughts are special and oh gosh, aren't you just so smart, you should write a book, write ten, peoplee buy your shit, heres how you can improve.

by the end, you come out looking like J-Dog here, filled to the brim with ideas that you have to convince other's are worth their weight in ink. Doesn't matter though, does it? someone has to be adding to the canon, that never ending list of important works, increased by one every year or so. peterson is just a name in a long list that, at some point, will be too large for any one person to read. then what?

i can't speak for zizek, but at least chomsky's early intellectual output provided the theoretical basis for an entire field of science (psycholinguistics). his theories are by and large wrong, as most end up being, but at least he was taken seriously enough by others who stood on his shoulders

whatever his other accomplishments, peterson doesn't hold a candle to chomsky in terms of his intellectual influence on actual scientists.

Just because you cant understand that doesnt make it untrue

because he can't answer a real philosopher

called it

nope

face it Veeky Forums, peterson is an idiot who got btfo'd

image

holy shit this guy's on an ego trip

I legitimately like JBP's work, and it's since acted as a gateway drug to get me further into complex ideas.

But man, does he come off as an egotistical ass sometimes. This is preeeeeeety bad

That time in his biblical lecture he read fanmail about an Iowaska trip where he was seen as a god and immediately compared it to the Delphic Oracle calling Plato the wisest man in Greece.

I'm a big fan of Jordan Peterson's work, but this is one aspect that does really piss me off about him. He seems to be capitalising on his fame by making as much money as possible - there's nothing particularly wrong about this for the average person, but for somebody who preaches about the necessity of virtue it does seem to be a tad hypocritical.

I'm a bit butthurt because he's delivering a lecture about 15 minutes walk from where I live and I really want to see him, but I absolutely refuse to pay £30 for a 1 hour lecture. I can afford it easily, but the principle matters.

You sound so bitter and butthurt. At least his idea’s are out there

How? No one is making you go into those threads. No one is making you talk about it.

he refused to look up postmodernism in the dictionary and conflates it with what are modernist principles of the human body. he's wrong and any prescriptivist would detest the man and denounce him as illiterate.
his fans are myrmidons, but such is the case of all jung derivatives.
the last time it cropped up through campbell we got the star wars fans mouth breathers talking about the heroic journey, and before that we had the first round of jungians that led jung to declare "thank god i'm not a jungian".
people need to accept the red book while perfect is perfected by its idiosyncrasy and irreplicability is its own complement.

The thing is,

what Peterson SAYS is the point of his obvious shilling is that he is trying to found some sort of internet-based school for the humanities. Like, an entire online university. He fears (rightly) that the humanities have been completely destroyed by SJWs of various stripes, and his proposed solution is to punish academia where it hurts the most -- its wallet.

I don't know whether this plan will work -- I think, personally, the solution is Catholic schools sticking to their guns, again, but I'm a religious zealot -- but I am surprised to find myself full of hope regarding his endeavor.

.... That, or he's just capitalizing for personal gain. But, to listen to him, I mean ... I just don't see him as stupid enough to think getting as much money as he can will be satisfying anything, really.

Damn, this slightly right of center person has really bothered you.
In truth, he's no worse than 9/10 of the hacks who get posted here.

how is this guys 15mins not up yet?

You really can't figure out why it would be annoying?

jp please adopt me

How is Jung for teenagers?

>Transference is a problem and not just a psychological fact of life.

Your brain takes simple schemas and applies it to the world around you so that you can process information faster. Being aware of this process is helpful for survival when it errs (ie assuming all bright fruit is nutritious and not poisonous), however you're just doing advanced mental gymnastics when you worry about how your brain categorizes your social relationships. It's also something you can't fight, Jung would be the first to tell you the unconscious is much stronger than consciousness.

Should've started with the Greeks.

All Peterson is is a Puritan intellectual. Here believes that it is our duty to strive for an absolute moral potential that nobody has. His arguments about the dragons of chaos, procrastination, and wasted time sidestep the fact that maybe humans have an inclination to sloth around for a reason. Laziness reserves energy and breeds smarts. God knows he isn't actively pursuing his self-actualization every hour of the day, otherwise he would be much bigger than some YouTube-Podcast personality.

>bad, really pathetic understanding of Jung and Nietzsche
Thanks for your input tenured professor user

tenure just means if he has a retarded opinion it's harder to remove him.

>puritan intellectual
What do you even mean by this? What about him is anything like a Puritan belief structure?

>absolute moral potential that nobody has

First of all, what is it he has said that makes you think you can boil his entire worldview down to this?
Secondly, and most importantly: That nobody, in your estimation, has achieved this potential makes it impossible to attain, and unworthy of being sought after?

>laziness reserves energy and breeds smarts
You wanna know how I know you're a virgin shut-in embarrassment? Ambition, nigh-tireless effort, fortitude, etc., are virtues for a reason: they become virtues when normal people noticed that those who are most intelligent, most powerful, strongest, etc. --"best"--, had those attributes in spades.

>otherwise he would be bigger than a YouTube personality
But user, he is bigger than that. Like him or not, he is currently spearheading the only cohesive resistance to a conglomerate of cancerous ideologies. Every other potential mode of resistance has gone completely into hiding, that is, if they haven't folded entirely and disbanded outright. He is far more than some flash-in-the-pan YouTuber. He has a massive following (for a public intellectual), an ever-increasing source of capital, and clearly defined goals which he seems to be in the midst of accomplishing, the accomplishment of which will markedly impact popular culture, ie, culture writ large.

Fair enough in a way, but he obviously has academic merit due to his years of study.

>inarticulate
You're wrong about that, bucko. The dude absolutely enthralls his audiences. Sometimes he is profound; most often, he is not, but in such instances as those he is actually very gifted at throwing up smokescreens, ie, he is not inarticulate.

>universally
Nothing is universally anything, user. And if his followers tend toward illiteracy, it's not his fault: see his reading lists, his syllabi, and his constant haranguing about how it is important for people to read literature, especially great literature. If he gets one person who might otherwise have been a complete nincompoop to read the Bros. K, then he's a net positive for the world, say I.

>gate keeper
Yes. Or perhaps like a gateway drug. His field being psychology, I forgive him for his tenuous grasp of Jung and Nietzsche--in fact, I expect that. Who is the foremost Jungian for our time? Who, after Jung, has actually understood him?

And some of the greatest thinkers of all time have had a poor understanding of Nietzsche.

What you SHOULD do to challenge that user is to ask him to go into more detail vis-a-vis his exact argument as to Peterson's failings. This, because the user probably is not smart enough to coherently provide any true rebuttal to Petersonian ideas.

Don't hide behind the "well, he's a college prof!" Peterson would be the first to tell you that tenure means nothing.

Not bitter, I just can relate to that sort of upbringing. A lot of Veeky Forumsizens can: they were told they were smart from an early age and they believed it. The difference between Peterson and the average Veeky Forums user is that he actually had the ambition and determination to succeed (likely because he had a good, strong male role model in his life) whereas we had either no father, a divorce, or a milquetoast disgrace. In either case, our fathers weren't able to raise us right.

>otherwise he would be much bigger than some YouTube-Podcast personality

He is a professor of psych at a top university, a clinical psychologist, and runs multiple business ventures on top of being a public intellectual.

he doesn't really. you could elevate any other tenured psych professor through social media and it would be much of the same.
he's not outstanding in his field and strays beyond it often.
he is better at social media than he is at jung or nietzsche. nietzsche isn't such a big deal, but jung is the focus of many years of work and it's still a pretty shallow reading.

Veeky Forums spotted the problem early on because he got his terms wrong re: modernism and postmodernism. the people who spam him from other boards and websites are turning off him a bit from his popularity revealing a streak of human greed in him (as it would if you did the same social media run up with another psych professor).

but getting the definition of postmodernism wrong on Veeky Forums is going to get you called a pseud even if you're a dead tenured philosophy professor, and especially if any part of your home country speaks french. it's like going to /a/ and confusing rei and asuka or going to /vp/ and confusing gold and silver cartridges.

he's good at marketing. but i'd trust his opinion on nietzsche as much as dr. drew's or dr. phil's. any of their opinions on marketing i'd trust so long as they had no possible vested interest other than the money i was paying them.

To be fair though, I don't think there are even many tenured professors who would give a definition of postmodernism that Veeky Forums would accept. It is understood in many different ways.

it's not really. there are differences between postmodern philosophy, and postmodern fiction, and postmodern art, but most of those differences are restricted to the medium or refer to each other (for instance, french postmodern philosophy deliberately doesn't refer to titles or works by direct reference, while postmodern fiction deliberately falsifies all direct references.)

mostly, it's a rejection of modernist mechanical objective understandings of humanity in favour of narrative somatic subjective understandings of humanity. modernism is obsessed with the new, progress and improvement, while postmodernism thinks we probably could have got by without civilisation since we did in a lot of places until air travel became common, and that progress is neither infinite or necessary.

there's many disciplines (including psychology) which have clear outlines of postmodernism. you don't even need to use heidegrerean jargon to explain it to people, but peterson refused to look in a dictionary at minimum.

most of the people he wants to rail against are modernists: they think that medicine can rework the body like a machine, that sex is transformable with the right tools, and we should make those tools, and that will be progressive. they hate fake references or oblique references, and not one of the people who he accuses of being postmodernists is smart enough to read heidegger in the original.

keep in mind Veeky Forums has long hated sartre for getting heidegger into french philosophy wrong.

we're not being especially snide about peterson in comparison, it's just a really obvious pseud tell when you mix up the german stop abusing technology elf who draws water from his own well and spends time talking to farmers about life and greeks being neat, with SJWs. i have no faith whatsoever that any postmodernist would ask for a warning on twitter besides a warning you are about to use twitter which is bound to be awful in itself. confusing the two is probably more removed than confusing gold and silver cartridges tbph. it's more like thinking asuka's in boku no picu. postmodernists would probably be the first against the wall for most SJWs: OP's pic is an example of that becoming a definite reality really.