What did the distinguished philosopher Jordan Peterson mean by this?

holy shit this is pseud supreme

mocking is no substitute for argument no matter how much you wish it was.

Pretty sure Heidegger would say that Being is on ever material. What else would it be? Yeah?

lol

What the fuck is this garbage?

if you think this account of Heidegger is accurate then there's no help for you

mocking is no substitute for argument no matter how much you wish it was.

more like heinigger am i rite ?

noticed he dodged claimed to have actually read heidegger, he says he was merely "exposed to him" which is to say he did intro to 20th century phil as an elective junior year or whatever

>assuming anyone is interested in an argument or trying to argue

that's where u fucked up, and why u will always be a fuck up, why don't u go back to youtube and watch some redpill videos fgt

mocking is no substitute for argument no matter how much you wish it was.

ur stil fuckin up

How is he wrong?

asking question is not an argument

I want to read this book now.
I hope they release an audiobook.
I consume meme-books through my ears to protect myself.

I'm not looking to argue.

the audiobook is on audiobook torrent trackers and i'm pretty sure it's in the site wide "top torrents" all genres list on demonoid, but let's be real, this shit is going to be completely devoid of content

not looking to argue is not an argument

This is great

hi stjepan

dorito and fucko BTFO

I have no exposure to Heidegger. Someone pls sponfeed me what's going on here.

...

this pls

Underrated post.

Also this.

It's nothing groundbreaking and Peterson is no Jung but I'd say it's something 99% of athiests could stand to hear, since they can't differentiate the two (being and physicalist "reality")

Maps of Meaning is genuinely good (though overlong), but I won't be reading his new Tony Robbins-genre cash-in

my fucking sides

What's going on here is that NOBODY in this thread has read Heidegger, or Peterson, and are just slinging shit as though they know something that nobody else does about the legitimacy of any claims made by either of the two men.

Typical Veeky Forums shitthread. Nothing to see here.

Kek

he understands it perfectly... that's good

ha ha

Exquisite analysis user. I couldn't've said it better m'self.

i like it
antipathy toward mr peterson–extinguished

Being is not something that follows after subjectivity and is not brought info existence by action. I'm not gonna bother citing Heidegger directly on it, since kermit didn't bother either. What's terrifying, average kermit will read that And think he understands Heidegger better than average school of life watcher.

The absolute madman.

wew

I'm buying this now

heh

kek

Isn't the purpose of a capital in German to denote a noun? Makes things less ambiguous.

>em dash
BASED

Our world exists as a shared belief and individuality is a combination of instinctual reasoning and demonstrated ideas

I dont really understand your image, but if it makes that white supremacist faggot look stupid then im all for it, idiots like him should be fucking shot

i laugh

>Canadian thought

Explain yourselves right now leaffriends.

He's a psychologist ya druggo.

it's the "intro to existentialism" version of heidegger that attempts to explain him in such a way as to cover up the fact that his thinking made existentialism a dead letter before it even began.
>"letter on humanism"? what's that? bro, heidegger's big idea was about having the choice in life to live AUTHENTICALLY. being is for my mom and dad because they're fuckin boring, but i got my capital B here because i smoke week even though it's illegal! fuck Das Man for telling me what to do in life!

this is just to prove that Veeky Forums is better than peterson

heidegger's MO for being and time was to abolish the subject-object distinction that he thought had ruined modern philosophy since descartes. the entire book is written as an attempt to describe experience without appealing to descriptions of subjective states versus the external world. instead of calling this "consciousness" or "human perception," heidegger uses the term Dasein (literal translation: "There-Being") to indicate that our experience is inextricable from "the world." this continues the idea made central by the original phenomenologists of "intentionality": the property of thought to always refer TO something instead of simply being a representation OF something. there can be no distinction between "you" and "the world": the world is "in" your experience as thought and you are "in" the world through action (though you have to be careful with the idea of interiority and exteriority as it's only a metaphor of our language).

ANYONE who EVER would describe Being as subjective and reality as objective misses the point so badly that their opinion should immediately be discarded. even a passing glance at the first five pages of being and time would dispel this notion. instead, the distinction between beings and Being (called the "ontological distinction") is more a matter of opposing discrete entities (whether these are objects, ideas, emotions, ect) with HOW these things unfold in the world. it's not as simple as opposing discrete entities to a process, but it's a good start to think of Being as a dynamic, continually self-revealing "thing" (for want of a better word). everything peterson listed (emotions, drives, dreams, etc) are beings, but the fact that these things exist allows us to explore our own Being.

Finally a good comment.

Leftists on deathwatch

niBBa (With a capital B)

Holy shit Peterson is far more of a pseud than I thought. I'm sitting at a bar right now reading Intro to Metaphysics where heidegger explicitly rejects this notion of Being as such subjectivity. is absolutely right

well thats a lot of words and so i believe it desu

btw tldr

BASED

I ha ha'd