The consensus of lit

At first he was hyped up for his "strong" and "brave" views on not using pronouns that trannies and traps wanted him to use. Then he realized that he was tapping into a large swathe of males coming out of broken families. He became THE internet daddy providing morals to the male computer addict. All the while milking people for ""donations"". Even though he spent his time telling people to speak out and tell the truth, he goes on infringing on other people's freedom of speech, such as not allowing certain people to talk/debate him.

youtube.com/watch?v=4iFi4p4QC44

Fair enough

So there's a list of people that tried to debate him that he refused?
Whats wrong with people giving their own money for something they want more of?

>Is there any real reason for it?
Alt-right faggots launched a hate campaign that succesfully shamed anons into pretending to hate Peterson. They now hate the fact that he makes a lot of money on patreon so much that they practically turned into the marxists they pretend to despise. All this because Peterson is an individualist who doesn't agree on the JQ.

umm hurr like pretty much all of them tbqhwyf

Because I've been trying to tell my friends about how insane modernity is for like 10 years, but everyone just looks at me and says "you're just a hater dude, you just need to like stop thinking so much."

And then fucking JP comes along, and now all of sudden everyone is talking about Carl Jung, and complaining about "postmodernists."

And they don't even get Peterson most of them. They're just plugging him into an existing framework of anti-liberalism/anti-leftism. In the end most people who follow him come to see the world like so:

"God isn't real obviously, but tradition is probably a good thing we need as a balance to the excesses of liberalism"

This is an extremely superficial adjustment of position! You're still stuck in the progress narrative, you're still trying to "find a decent job", you're still trying to "improve personally" etc.

It's classic Americana, now tempered with some big history perspective courtesy of Peterson, but also brimming with self-righteous rage at "Them" (the postmodernists, the liberals, the primitive ones, the fundamentalists), and bursting with pride about "Us" (the West, the rational ones, the heirs of great Civilization).

It's a trick. You're not becoming spiritual. You're not changing.

You're decorating your political, material existence with sentimentality. You still expect to stop existing at death, to return to a great blackness like pre-birth. You still think your life has value only if you can "make it" in this world. You still think some people are more entitled to things than others, and you still have a share in Caesar's son.

oh nooo Faith J. Goldy

Care to explain the difference between trying to be an authority on philosophy and just philosophising?
He hasn't tried to become the head of the philosophy department. He hasn't gone for any position of authority or prestige in the world of philosophy.
So where are you getting this from?

Just because I don't want to become a devotee of Richard Simmons, doesn't mean I'm too arrogant to follow generally.

What a stupid fucking reading of that post, gathering an extreme position that's obviously retarded by generalizing the specific case of Jordan Peterson to people in general. Fuck you.

>Dostoevsky
>Bad
Pick one

There's a VERY, VERY fine line between asking for financial support to keep video's/ power running tobecoming a televangilist who is constantly asking for gibs to support your already decadent lifestyle. after the 66k mark, and you're still asking for gibs, you're reaching that point.

The person JBP didn't debate was faith goldy, thought debating her was "too hot", as in the topics brought up would ruin the amount of shekels he was receiving.

I used love him but I just kind of grew tired of him. Seems like he has ran out of things to talk about and goes on and on about the same things, repeating himself on everyone's podcasts. Also, I've come to be annoyed with "individualists" in general.

It was a genuine question because I thought that when you said you're against the idea of a guru/life coachy kind of person that it was a bit pompous. You always need someone at some point to help unless you're some kind of ubermensch that can withstand anything.
Don't take it so personally.

Jesus fucking Christ, that's Peterson's Patreon?

Why does it matter how much people want to give him?

he is a psychologist and people get mad because he speaks about books and philosophers without having studied literature or philosophy, which means that he will say retarded stuff often, but this doesn't really subtract from his other points

>1984
>Brave New World
>Dostoe
>Nietzsche
>Jung
That's edgy Freshman core

Why is he not allowed to turn down a debate with someone?

...

>Care to explain the difference between trying to be an authority on philosophy and just philosophising?
Posting videos about it to hundreds of thousands

I don't hate him; in fact, his practical advice is often really solid in my experience. But his understanding of the philosophers he talks about is pretty surface level, especially the philosophers he dislikes, like Foucault and Lacan (can't speak for Derrida, have never read him).

I can't help but cringe whenever he uses the phrase "postmodern neo-marxists", since it betrays a lack of knowledge about what post-structuralism and post-marxism actually are.

It's especially disingenuous that he explicitly tells people not to read these writers, rather than telling them to make their minds up about them individually. Which is a shame because almost all the people he rails against can provide great insights if you read them carefully and don't just parrot the most popular interpretations of their work performed by halfwit academics who haven't read them either. I'm socially conservative, and I get a hell of a lot out of post-structuralist thought.

It's amazing to go back to his old lectures where he isn't playing a character and note the contrast with the way he acts now. You could say he's self-consciously playing into the internet daddy "clean your room" thing, but I think it's more likely that he's using it to his advantage to gain more followers, which is the kind of ideologically-driven process that someone who has studied totalitarianism should at least be a little wary of.

Sidenote: has Peterson ever said anything about The Last Psychiatrist, because that would be someone I'd legitimately want to hear his thoughts on (especially since I think the whole Jungian-heroic worldview can very easily slip into a kind of narcissistic fantasy-play)?

>Even though he spent his time telling people to speak out and tell the truth, he goes on infringing on other people's freedom of speech, such as not allowing certain people to talk/debate him.
what

Yep, here's JBP's shekel mine, he stopped giving us the exact amount.

Fuck off Socrates, I can cherrypick as much as I like.

>The person JBP didn't debate was faith goldy, thought debating her was "too hot", as in the topics brought up would ruin the amount of shekels he was receiving.
it wasn't a debate, it was a panel where the panelists agreed to drop faith goldy and go ahead with the panel without her

so you've read them all

I would furthermore point out that this also implies that he's read all the books on the list to come to an informed decision on whether or not they're good or not

...

i just think people would be better served by engaging with Aristotle, and it disappoints me peterson finds more popularity due to being slightly controversial

So I should research the philosophy he gets wrong?
Is his general sentiment towards the real-life implications of the authors reliable at least?

...

Not everyone on Veeky Forums hates them; I think when he first started to blow up most here liked him. As his fanbase got bigger he's declined in reputation.

You wouldn't know this because you're an illiterate newfaggot, but this isn't /pol/, and that list is intro lit. I've read all of them except 9, 13-15, and I'd say the same is true for a lot of other people here.

So the people saying he doesn't talk to certain people are being dishonest?

>if lots of people are familiar with it, it must be bad

>I got out of my nietzsche phase so now everyone reading nietzsche is an uninitiated edgy teenager

come on dude, stop

Then his taste in the list isn't shit but rather it's elementary. You know you could always say what you actually mean instead of lying

If a professor claims Dostoevsky is the greatest writer ever, which Peterson has, I am going to think less of his taste in lit. Combine that with Nietzsche and Jung and it's hard to take him seriously outside of his actual profession.

I like him but not love him. He got me to read The Brothers Karamazov which I loved (and was gonna read anyway), which got me to almost believe in God.

I've only read 1 through 11, and the only one I didn't at least like was Ordinary Men, which was still at least interesting

i am sure he doesn't talk to many people like everybody else, but the thing that turned the alt-right against him was this one with faith goldy being un-invited to an event, and people getting mad that the other participants didn't boycott the event to white knight her

Isn't it just the "he's a meme" meme?

I really like the guy, but I wish he would debate with people with different ideas. Though to be fair he has said many times that he wants to do so, yet feminists and others do not want to engage him.

desu spoken debates usually suck and mostly just prove who's most charismatic or smug

Both are true

Well yeah, but I guess it's better than someone stating their opinion and at most having others agreeing with them.

the old leftist fuck from the Zero books podcast said that he would like to interview Peterson in a confrontational way, so hopefully that happens

the guy that does that podcast is a marxist, but he is too old and autistic to play by the current left's rules, so he doesn't give a fuck, he recently interviewed that girl that got "social justiced" in canada and secretly recorded the social justice professors that tried to shut her up causing a national scandal

Is this a lit approved podcast?

it's about marxism more that it's about books, and the guy is a bit rambling, but i find it decent. i'm not a marxist myself but the guy seems honest

You sell it well

It's not even that he gets them wrong. It's just that he's giving a version of them that doesn't include the whole truth of what they're about. The kinds of thinkers he's referencing (like Nietzsche) have many many interpretations, and you're honestly better off reading them yourself, and reading different interpreters. A good rule is just to be skeptical of any second hand account of what a philosopher thinks. There's no substitute for reading them yourself

Also being scared of any author is bullshit; don't avoid anyone. There's nothing wrong with following your interests but avoiding an entire school of philosophy is just intellectual laziness I think. Everyone should read Foucault at some point and they should remember that he once said that "Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else." (something most of his interpreters like to forget.)

But yeah Peterson's real life advice is generally fucking great, even if it is geared towards a specific kind of person (introverted neurotic agreeable etc.) and I wish he'd branch out a little more often.

I actually really do need to clean my room at some point.

>Posting videos on the internet is trying to be an authority.

Yeah, right.

>83 lbs
Is that including ammunition and the power supply?

He has decent taste in literature, fuck you.

Don’t forget to give him $10 as well like all the other certified individuals. This guy is a classic case of establishing a brand and selling out hard as fuck. Can’t blame him really. I’d say all kinds of shit for $60k a month and rocking the boat would be the last thing on my mind.

That's more influence than any scholar could have ever

Mind your fucking language

So your problem with him is that he has a lot of influence and not authority. Why not just say what you actually mean?

these people don't have to give him money to get his content. You can get it all for free on youtube.

Yeah maybe if you’re a collectivist. Individuals pay bucko.

what are you trying to say?

Peterson doesn't read lit for prose of plot.
That's why he thinks Dusty is the best writer.
>Psychological!
Veeky Forums should love him tbhfamalam

He’s leveraging his long and successful career into a mad cash grab before people realize he’s not at all controversial or interesting.

Mind my balls in your mouth fuccboi

well if he really wasn't interesting then why is it that hundreds of thousands of people around the world still listen to him if what he was saying wasn't significant in some way?

And he shills Stephen Hicks who had been a running joke among actual philosophers long before anyone cared about this canuck.

...

Stephen Hicks book is pretty tame if you actually read it, i mean he is an autist ayn rander and he has some unconventional views like that Kant was the first step in the wrong way away from the enlightenment, but he doesn't let that ruin the rest of the book

What are you on about. Influence brings authority when there isn't mediation from something above both parties. Unless you mean authority among other scholars, oh yes he might be disreputed in those circles, but that doesn't affect his sway at large to any greater extent than the influence of the latter scholars might bear

...

He said once something like "if you're afraid to debate someone they're probably right."

Dostoe builds static characters soley to be the vehicle for some position and pits them against eachother around the protagonist's progression. There's a place for that, but he isn't a Tolstoy, he isn't even a Turgenev or Chekhov!

That's a fair point
What was it they were going to debate?

66k a month?!!!! is this fucking real?

I hate him because the stink he causes everywhere is 10 times worse in Canada. To some he's a national treasure bringing prestige to U of T and to others ( probly most where I Iive) he's a transphobic bigot. I watched him "debate" on CBC and God Damn is he not worth the fuss either way.

Because he acts like this guy that understood everything. You know in school those retarded kids that were skinny/fat and had like nothing they could brag with, so they just acted like they were fucking clever all the time and everybody hated them because of it? That's Jordan Peterson. Weird guy, not because of his standpoints, but of how he's that 70yo edgy guy who thinks he's "dangerous" as he would call it. I would beat the living shit out of that guy in the ring, spit him in the face and tell him to say again that he's fucking dangerous.

NEETbucks are a great inversion in current year

>actually thinking like this
Never gonna make it

I'm completely fine with him as a guru/life coach for NEET internet kids, I wonder how many rooms got cleaned because of this great man.

you could have written that entire post without the last sentence. It makes you look bad.

my room is sparkling and my tranny roommate is bleeding, thanks jordan peterson

Goldie is a Western racialist. Peterson is a Boomer individualist.

It also wasn't a debate Goldie was uninvited from a free speech chat by Peterson post-Charlottesville

When he started saying things like ‘postmodern neomarxist philosophy has infected all of the humanities, Foucault and Derrida are destroying western civilization, oh also I’ve never actually read a single book by either of them’

And then he tries to start up some sort of list to collect the names of all the professors who teach courses which are ‘anti western, postmodern neomarxism’.

People don’t pretend, read his work. He believes that male and female are metaphysical truths which are fundamental to understanding humanity, that at its very core it’s split into two essential spirits. This idea is reinforced by his Christianity. He cannot cope with the notion of trans or non-binary people because they fundementally defy his understanding of humanity.

It’s not bad, it’s just pretty entry level shit. Like when I was in high school I thought 1984 was the deepest shit, but today I think it’s kind of overblown and silly.

Also it frustrates me that he holds himself as an expert on the psychology of “Totalitarianism” but it sounds like his entire understanding of the Soviet Union is largely based on fictional works, rather than historical research. He presents The Gulag Archipelago as being a historical work, when it’s not, it’s fiction meant to ‘evoke’ real experiences, but because of the standpoint of the author it necessarily doesn’t give a realistic understanding of the situation. It sounds like Lacan using Poe, Joyce and Shakespeare as the source of his psychology.

yeah same here, he repeats himself way too much, it's borderline unwatchable now because it really doesn't seem like he has that much to say.

>It sounds like Lacan using Poe, Joyce and Shakespeare as the source of his psychology.
Why is Poe held in such esteem by non-anglos, been seeing this a lot lately

this

>He believes that male and female are metaphysical truths which are fundamental to understanding humanity, that at its very core it’s split into two essential spirits.

Problems?

That isn’t actually the bar that needs to be cleared to be considered interesting. Clever ads clear that bar.

The fact this thread has 100+ replies within a few hours should explain why many on this board don't like him
Not to mention the people who defend him
are embarassements

Why are you so salty? All his videos are free and all the money he gets come from donations. How is setting up a patreon account cash-grabbing when he almost never mentions anything about his patreon?