Why are pseuds with boring, middlebrow literary tastes so often highly regarded as erudite and cultured intellectuals...

Op is an uneducated neet, he wouldn't understand.

This. Nietzsche and Jung would shit all over his theories. LMAO.

>why is a psychologist not a philosopher
truly another mystery of our day and age

His "philosophericity" is an essential part of his public persona and while it is not strange that he's not good at philosophy I don't see how that shields him of a critique of his blatant pseudness.

What is showing itself as what it is not should always be shown in its own-ness and critiqued

Why does he pretend he is then?

>I don't see how that shields him of a critique of his blatant pseudness.
so call him a pleb about philosophy or literature, still doesn't change anything he speaks about in his own field

plenty of philosophers talk about modern science or human psychology and biology without a degree in it, not sure why that shouldn't go both ways, either you can address the criticism on its own terms or you can't and you just nitpick about him not following the rules of your academic field

he is just a run of the mill reactionary that happens to be a psychologist, not sure why the surprise at anything he is talking about

normal people casually talk about books and art and recommend each other things, not sure what's surprising about it

if you have something better to say about books just write about it somewhere?

... he didn’t ? How dare a psychologist talks about dosto in public speaking and youtube videos !

Reread my posts:
Thank you

I'm not a Peterson fanboy but what's wrong with his picks? They're a bunch of classics. Just because they are not totally obscure or maximalist tomes doesn't mean they aren't good. Only Veeky Forums would think so. I'd place a good analysis of "The Old Man and the Sea" above "look how obscure my unread book collection is" threads any day. He's a normal professor guy who portrays himself as a normal professor guy, and I guess he has pretty normal taste.

again, you are just saying that he shouldn't speak about anything remotely related to philosophy or literature unless he studied in those academic disciplines, by that standard philosophers shouldn't speak about society or biology or maths or psychology, and they obviously do

once you try to go abstract enough in any field you are going to sound "philosophical", if you have any clear criticism about it go ahead, but don't try to just strictly limit some academic fields when you obviously don't apply the same standards to other fields

>basic knowledge of psychology
Says who ? You sound very immodest yourself ?

Also, re : another post : How is Peterson a reactionnary ?

>>Also, re : another post : How is Peterson a reactionnary ?
>A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.[1]
i mean he literally talks about "discipline, respect for authority", not sure about the "etc" part though

>psychologist has opinions partially informed by what he has read and internalized over his life
>referencing those pieces of literature/philosophy in his discourses as analogies and allegory is somehow a bad thing

throwing around the word reactionary is almost as bad as throwing around the word racist

Wasn’t he only speaking in defense of active (yet unrespected) college reglementations in Laurier ?! Still don’t see it.

why? never said being a reactionary is bad

>angry pomo's

op needs a personality and to clean his room

...

who's that guy? seems like a pretty standard selection of books except for all the Jung, and some meme books like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Hating Peterson is like hating Dan Carlin, or Carl Sagan. Don't criticize them, but rather the people using them as a final source instead of a starting point.
But Veeky Forums already hates Carlin and Sagan, so it's not surprise.

what's a Dan Carlin?

Peterson has gotten high on his (relative) celebrity status, though, and that's what makes him annoying. I actually think Sagan was a bit of a cock, but at least he seemed pretty modest.

beautiful

he used the same style of grandstanding lecturing before getting internet famous though, so i would say nothing has changed

The host of a pretty popular history podcast. Of course he presents a panoramic view of a certain topic/event in history, and academically only serves as a starting point.

Yeah I can see how you can say that. Personally I don't agree, mostly because he still talks about the same stuff he used to teach in his lectures when he was nobody.

What better way to explore the psyche of the status-seeking bourgeois - the sociology of materialization perhaps - then to take part in their dialectic - the consumer qua consumerism being known exclusively from what ze consumes.

Daily reminder that peterson is a pedo

>Religion and Religious history
>Literally all Eliade

How does this man have a career

reminder anyone who defends this hack needs to leave
this board has never and will never be in favour of mediocrity, of which this man is essentially an incarnation of

So you didn't read the book?

>writes an the only good theory of religion
>isn't pop-psychology fedora crap or muh gawd nonsense like every other book about religion

Not mediocre if you ask me

Also, reminder that Veeky Forums used to like Peterson before he got famous with Bill C16

I miss those days.

>>no James Joyce, who can teach you more about the human mind in one random page of Ulysses than most psychology books
This is cringe-inducing levels of regurgitation.

>Ernest Hemingway
*inhales*

I didn't think the list was that bad either.

so few people read nowadays that if you read a book on some topic you're relatively an expert

and if you spent a large portion of your life reading widely on a topic (or topics) you'll stand out like crazy

add a healthy dose of charisma and a dash or two of controversial political opinions and bam, you got yourself a following

I've been on this board for 6 years and haven't seen his face once before he went mainstream

what are some of his "theories", user?

Not saying he was huge on here, but we had some threads about him

I don't have an issue with the man himself, it's just his undeserved fame and success that drives me crazy

>Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Wouldn't that be PoMo

It's only PoMo if it doesn't adhere to his archetypes-frame.

...

Ulysses is merely Illiad re-written in modern times, Freud is a debunked pseud.

Brainlets need idols they can understand.

Nobody cares about his own field and judging by his contributions to that field and how often he discusses it it doesn't seem like he does either.

nice 1

Who's doing the regarding? There's a lot of average people out there. What's your reading list, great one?

If Peterson looked like Zizek nobody here would care about his shallow and obvious ideas.

y?

the host of "hard r history with dan carlin"

This defense is retarded because normal people don't make 66k a month off their shit opinions and taste. Peterson is monetized pseud and ignorance

>t. brainlets as OPs

t. newfag

>amazon referral links
this guy is such a money-grubbing piece of shit!

Becausr to stupid people they seem like towering intellectuals, while the actual intllectuals are too smart for them to understand. Losers who wouldn't know what fascism is if jackbooted thuggish state police would drag them out of their homes for being an enemy of the state cry fascism because their internet daddy told them that. And to clean their room.

...

Yeah, because he wrote all of those books

fuck off faggot

>being this retarded

He is recommending middle brow books to his followers, who he knows are middle-brow or 18-24 year olds...

That's a pretty generic list.

"Middlebrow" is such a bad term.

That's a rather middlebrow thing to say.

>isn't pop-psychology fedora crap

:/

I consider myself a 3/4th-of-the-way-up-brow kind of guy, middlebrow is completely out of the question when you're referring to me

Lol. Zing! :^DDDD

Bazinga!

brainlet responses like these with no substance whatsoever perfectly illustrate what autistic pseuds peterson fags are

Brainlet responses like these with no substance whatsoever perfectly illustrate what autistic pseuds peterson fags are.

Those book recommendations are on point. I actually respect him a bit more now.

correction, he is a normal professor guy who charges non-students $200 to have a fucking conversation with him

The customer is always right

...

Because they offer actionable advice instead of mental masturbation that can only affect the most pedantic of pedants. Peterson helps people improve their lives; Evola is an unactionable shitter who amounts to nothing but self-fullfilling prophecies.

The amount of people who can fix their lives with Plato, through the sheer act of creative genesis is tiny. Self-help with concrete steps is something any moron can get on board with.

>Hemingway
>Tolstoy
>Steinbeck
>Bronte
>Dostoevsky

explain to me how these are middle brow compared to David Foster Wallace and Thomas Pynchon

>why do people like what i dont like?
>I hate it when normies like what i like!

There is an event in my city, tickets are $50 and you get a copy of his new book with the ticket. I'm not really fan nor am I going but your post is ridiculously inaccurate.

Are you suggesting anyone here thinks anything positive of Dickie Dawkins? Sometimes I think you people are trying to out yourselves as newfags.