"Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands outstreched to take it."

And I'm tellin ya BUCKO you don't want to go there, it's a really dark place. And once you get there it's hard to get out. Solzhenitsyn talks about this, and I've read Solzhenitsyn. It's DARK STUFF BUCKO. Never mind that the CIA wrote it, it's DARK STUFF. And you don't want to go there. But I've read Solzhenitsyn, and it's not really obvious, it's really complex stuff. And DARK. And Solzhenitsyn is one of the deepest writers of the 20th century. He knew the darkness BUCKO, and. you. don't. want. to. go. there. He was a hero because he spoke the truth. It's hard to come back from that place, but he did. He cleaned his room and got the BUCKOS out of his country. And the other thing that's so interesting is that lobsters knew all this stuff. They cleaned their rooms 20 million years ago. And if you don't clean your room BUCKO it's a DARK PLACE, and trust me, you don't want to go there. I've been there, and trust me, you got to sort yourself out. And that's by no means obvious. The clean room is the foil of God. Clean your room, bring him out of that DARK PLACE man, and that's your father saved. Got it BUCKO? You get to be top lobster, and that's by no means obvious. It's an archetype, I've read my Jung. It's a DARK PLACE man, I've read him. He went into that DARK PLACE and saved the lobster. And that's because he took the time to pet the cat BUCKO. And trust me, you don't want to go there. It's tyrannical, you don't want to go there. And it's by no means obvious. It's pathological. Trust me, I know BUCKO. I spent 30 years studying the Jungian archetype in the Concentration Camps. It's a DARK PLACE, you don't want to go down that road. And that's by no means obvious. And NEETCHA too, he was in a DARK PLACE BUCKO. It's mind-bogglingly brilliant stuff. And by no means obvious BUCKO.

Go self-mutilate somewhere else.

>helping western man
>American manchild/neets

FTFY

Quote's from Zarathustra for all the idiots who don't realize.

I like Peterson, he's a good public figure. He isn't afraid to touch on metaphysics and is a big fan of Jung. He likes to talk about the logos and archetypes and how to functionally incorporate them into your life. He's someone like Alan Watts but then more focused on the western school of thought. Whenever I hear him speak, I'm always suprised at how well spoken he is. He's a nice fellow perhaps he's trying to capitalize on his new found success but he would be a fool if he didn't. I see that people on here like to call him a pseud but I don't see that as a bad thing.

Live stream with uncle Pete right now:
youtu.be/9rHHYne6bFg

Without a doubt, yes

>I see that people on here like to call him a pseud but I don't see that as a bad thing.

It's no joke

Honestly I find it hard to follow what he is saying when he starts going more in depth about psychological concepts

what is a good entry point to psychology? can I just pick up Freud and Jung or do I need some more groundwork to properly digest this stuff? Do I start with the greeks?

Pick up The Freud Reader by Peter Gay and supplement with YouTube clips, and web searches until you get a handle on Freud and psychology. After that you could read Freud: A Life of Our Time by Peter Gay. Its a very good biography of him and it tells you a lot about his ideas, his peers, and the whole scene at the time for contextual knowledge. After that branch out wherever you like: read read Jung, read more about Freud and read his unabridged works, learn about psychoanalysis in greater depth, etc. You do need to start with Freud though.

>that image
STFU pseud

>doesnt mind sucking a pseudo's dick
>uses it as an insult

Nice projection

I will never understand why this guy is worshipped.

Haahahah whats your major butthurt issue with this guy? He's exposing very obvious leftist dogma, that's been left uncontested for way too long.
Are you saying the media sphere is not dominated by leftist brainlets?
God damn this board is disgustingly socialist.

If he wanted to "expose" anything he's actually address the thought of said movements rather than cherrypicking fringe examples and simply claiming all disagreement with the Peterson leads to Stalinism.

It was a compliment, stop projecting.

>perform the brave, heroic act of refusing to use someone's gender pronouns
This never happened, he just denounced a Canadian law requiring the use of preferred pronouns under threat of fine.

God I don't even like the guy, or anyone who comes out babbling neo-Jungian garbage as a replacement for original thought, but if you're gonna take the piss at least get it right.

>compliment
How so?

That's the problem - Jordan Peterson is a psychologist, he's not a literary critic or (despite what his followers would tell you) a philosopher. He's not attacking ideas that inform how people as a whole should live their lives; he's only performing bottom-up, "clean your room up Billy" psychological pandering but on a large scale.

Its great and all that someone's willing to step in and play surrogate daddy in a society rapidly undermining men, but he's not producing concepts strong enough for those men to live on. I guarantee you that Peterson worshippers will fall back into their old ways once they come off Daddy's attention pipeline.

Jung informs psychology as a whole today to a degree Freud never did; you only need as much Freud as is necessary to comprehend Jung, and then some neoJungian analysts to see how the theories evolved.

Better than a normie and a normie is baseline.

>that backhanded compliment
>that gif

You're just wrong! I mean, Peterson, well he looks at things in high resolution! And Chomsky will tell you about language but he doesn't talk about the damn logos! It's like, well what the hell are you gonna do with language if you don't have a moral center?

and the bloody post-modernists always think they can just do away with pesky religion and just fall back on their marxist ideals, it's like, no way. They try to tell you that their communist utopia can exist but it depends on what you mean by "exist"! Then they might say that by exist they mean make it the primary economic system of an entire country but then it's like, well what the hell do you mean by "country"?

You know, these types of things aren't obvious, and marxism is just a low resolution representation of a very old, ancient, ancient idea. Marxism is the snake in the garden of eden, and you'd bloody well better be careful when you're dealing with this sort of thing!

The only Peterson I've watched is the interview he recently had that blew up and a follow-up interview he did with a Dutch media outlet. I was surprised at the level of discourse he engaged in during the second one; it's not brilliant logical analysis or anything, but it's a higher level than many people engage in regularly.

He is attacking some ideas that inform how people as a whole should live their lives. There is an common idea for many people that to be moral you just shouldn't do bad things, whatever that means. For Peterson, you can only be moral if you have the capacity to do bad things. In fact, he encourages you to make yourself "dangerous" in his own words in order to be able to engage in moral activity, and in fact for him making yourself dangerous is moral in a sense.

If you have that moral standpoint, it resolves some issues, though raises others. It is now moral to make yourself a proficient marksman specifically for the purpose of having the ability to kill people, even if you never actually kill people. It is moral to make yourself into a Chad so that you have the option of fucking a new girl everyday, even if you intend to settle down and marry. You can see why it's an appealing morality to young men, since it gives them options. It can also lead to a sort of nuclear arms race scenario where everyone is giving themselves nukes even if they don't intend to use them.

I don't think he's a philosopher. He is a literary critic, in that he has done analysis of literature. I don't like listening to him much because of some of his speech patterns, but he's not the pandering pseud you make him out to be.

He may not leave a legacy but if he can guide people towards reading and developing, that's a good thing. And his role in the current political climate undeniably needed.

As said, he's a good speaker, but i don't think his intention is earn easy points with a mindless crowd. He simply dislikes how infantile the west has become.

>The only Peterson I've watched is the interview he recently
At the very least do more than ONE research on him before giving your opinions

He's just preaching Neitzschian Ubermensch nonsense at that point. And I never said the man wasn't intellectually capable, he's well educated and academically trained. He's just not positing ideas about how the world works and how we should live in accordance to that - instead he's just asserting basic lifestyle choices that assist individuals in attaining one of a few pre-selected concepts of 'happiness'.
His platform boils down to a specific frame of Utilitarianism with a Nietzsche twist, which isn't a winning combination. Again, once people come off the attention pipeline they'll be just as hollow.

>He may not leave a legacy but if he can guide people towards reading and developing, that's a good thing
I'm worried he'll do the opposite; my own personal criticism of psychoanalytics is that they encourage an individual to ignore, or merely selectively engage with outside media and instead favor a perverted concept of self-actualization catalyzed by the teachings and rituals of a guru like Peterson. It's really no different from religion, which has always been framed around psychological manipulation.

Peterson's assertion that one needs to behave as though God exists in order to align themselves with the currents of a society built on religious ideology, for example, is a great excuse for an individual to never explore theological works and form their own answers.

>a perverted concept of self-actualization catalyzed by the teachings and rituals of a guru like Peterson
the frustrating part is that actual Jungian psychoanalysis doesn't really tell you how to live your life and shit, but rather vocalize what your dreams are( which is the unconscious communicating with the conscious)

Again, just from the interviews I've watched he obviously does posit ideas about how the world works and how we should live in accordance with that. For instance, he posits that humans operate by introducing logos into chaos. He specifies that it is better to introduce that structure with an end towards good, which is a moral specification, even though it doesn't really specify what good is.

In the second interview I referenced the interviewer is able to boil Peterson's thought into 5 main ideas. If Peterson was just spewing forth examples of how to make your life a little better, those main ideas would reflect that. Instead the main ideas deal with things like the Archetypal Hero's Journey and other higher forms of discourse.

I'm not a big fan of Neitzschian Utilitarianism either (which I think is a decent description of his platform). In fact, I think Peterson has a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of Christian metaphysics based on the interview he gave; for him good relies on evil in order to be good which is not what is commonly accepted in theology. But, he's not just telling people to clean their rooms. There are guiding principles given which can be applied by the individuals who learn them, if they so choose.

>Peterson's assertion that one needs to behave as though God exists...
What do you mean here? That it reinforces a casual take on theology? I'd say he might just as well introduce people to religious ideas, from a psychological viewpoint.
Possibly counterproductive if the only way to achieve true morals is to actually believe and not just read it as psychological phenomena.

Maybe i'm biased, I'm from the worst part of Scandinavia where there's the kind of ideological monopoly and rampant social engineering which he opposes.

>tfw you want your dad to be a real esoteric philosopher but he just gives you practical advice for being successful in the real world instead

>other forms of higher discourse
NeoJungian garbage, I discount it entirely

It reinforces an entirely secular worldview that accepts religious memetic concepts with no attempt to explain why those concepts arose or how they are relevant to a higher idea of what is real. I'm not advising he go full esoteric Gnostic or something; he could at least attempt to bridge the subject/object gap and address the concept of objective morality (which he won't do because it runs counter to his Nietzsche-driven view of post-Enlightenment thought

>the world isn't fair
ain't that the truth

>practical advice for being successful in the real world instead
If you both align your ideas of happiness with Peterson's AND can't reach that happiness yourself, you're beyond saving.

His explanation for how those concepts came to be is entirely psychological and basically ancient humans way of dealing with chaos and a growing society.
I was raised in a atheist environment so there might be something fundamental i don't get here, but i feel this secular approach of believing (without believing) hasn't gone on for long enough to show it's fruition.

>secular approach of believing (without believing)
The issue here is that it's a band-aid solution to ward away moral nihilists, by saying that there's TOTALLY an objective power structure and morality, while also admitting that there's no objective power structure or morality to keep atheists and fellow Nietzsche acolytes onboard.
Instead of just adressing the concepts of moral absolutism and moral relativism, Peterson throws out a sophistic argument that lets him hold no palpable position to be attacked (except by the religious, who he certainly doesn't care about)

>His explanation for how those concepts came to be is entirely psychological
>explanation
*unverifiable thesis

Also the idea that religion has at its heart a phenomenological purpose flies in the face of all accounts of ancient and contemporary theology; Peterson is misattributing the modern preconceptions of symbology as posited by Jung and neoJungians to ancient peoples and their ways.

If you think about it Peterson's conception of christianity is very similar to that of some postmodernists like Vattimo, which is pretty funny.

How many levels of irony is he on right now?

Well to me, an atheist it certainly seems very possible that roots of spirituality come from human phenomenology. Even if it wasn't intentional or even conscious.

Maybe i should read the bible.

yeah, he isnt. he is preaching the opposite of it. if you watch the podcast he did with joe rogan and bret wienstien you can see it clearly. with bret preaching Nietzschian Ubermensch nonsense

nietzsche called the death of god and peterson is calling for the dead god to become ressurrected because he doesnt believe the ubermensch is actually achievable

How?

>>whine about postmodernism and the cultural marxist boogeyman, never cite any actual literature or works or books by postmodernist
This was what first tipped me off to the fact that he is 86% bullshit, before all the more recent merchandising and such made it painfully obvious.

It doesn't matter what it "seems very possible", this is not how academic research is done. Joseph Campbell was a much more "centered" JBP and people shit on him to this day for por scholarship, despite him never having made the kind of leap Peterson typically does (like the process you mention in your post).
Every evidence we have seems to imply this was not the case, you can't just say "but see I'm a psychollogist and what they REALLY meant was..." for people living today, what makes you think you can do it for people 5000 years ago?
I bet you're one of those cunts who think evopsych is a science but philosophy isn't.

his conception of truth is as well

Don't post here again you retards.

then Peterson fundamentally misunderstands Nietzsche

Not an argument

He completely ignores the political and cultural context that informed religious developments in favor of an unverifiable meta-conscious form of communication of ideas and abstractions.

Living the dream.

no u

how does he misunderstand nietzche?

He's a literal who to 99% of people, and even philosophy students largely don't know who he is.
Alexander Dugin is someone doing things in the world.

underrated

no

I hate anglos so much.

Jordan that you?

His conclusion is that we should embrace utilitarian social christianism, which is kinda like the complete opposite of what Nietzsche believed.

despite all of his faults, Peterson is ultimately the good guy and most vocal detractors are simply left wing ideologues who curse him for calling them out on their shit and I havent seen any argument to convince me otherwise

>utilitarian social christianism

what does this mean?

being christians because the alternative of atheism has negative effects on your health
not him btw

>he completly ignores the political and cultural contex

I don't think so. Take his exemple about how Marduk is a representation of an ideal leader. I find it hard to dismiss it completly because of Marduk's story, powers and how the kings acted as avatars of Marduk . Do you have exemples of interpretations you find disconnected from reality

>The Post-Modern Empire is ended tonight
what did he mean by this?

if

agrees with your definition then i dont see how peterson is calling for that

watch his sam harris debate
His whole argument boils down to
>faith healthy, so god real, ooga booga

>>faith healthy, so god real, ooga booga
no. literally 2deep4u

Thanks for a template. Will come back with eye-opening memerson memes.

See this is exactly my point, you can't assign a definite intent to the symbology of a culture thousands of years old.

youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0

Here he does some of that. Also I see no issues with showing how radical left can quickly lead to extremes because it's something prevelent right now and you have to quickly show why something as alluring as "let's make everyone equal" isn't actually a good idea.

>He's just not positing ideas about how the world works and how we should live in accordance to that - instead he's just asserting basic lifestyle choices that assist individuals in attaining one of a few pre-selected concepts of 'happiness'.

What do you mean, he does that all the time, all the stuff about how everything goes to shit when people stop telling truth and how every person is actually already a demon. Also chances are people won't actually become empty if they will treat they job as important, get some friends and choose to take responsibility for something that is important to them.

Why not? He doesn't seems to be wrong. Marduk seems to at least partially represent an ideal leader.

Because we don't have the information to declare that. Hell, who defines these symbols anyways? The individual members of the culture that engendered the symbol no longer exist and our records of them are incomplete and biased.

Marduk well may be the god of leaders and kings, and also shoving pickles up your ass on leap years. For Peterson (or anyone) to declare an interconnected symbology of ANY kind is just based on unverifiable assertions but he acts as though these definites are keys to society.

he doesnt argue faith, he argues pragmatism

in the sence that you are the product of an old tradition. he argues that the old christianity is dead, as nietzche described. but he argues that that is the point, christianity has always been a changing thing like all traditions. all he is saying is dont dismiss the bible as a source of insight. he tries to prove this by giving a psychological interpretation of the bible which is 100% atheistic.

in the same way, people tell you to read the greeks. the greeks of the odyessy are dead and so is the culture, but you should still read that literature because it has influenced the west many times. by doing so you take a part of it, and it is revived in you, its not the same as it was but it is still in a way alive.

thats how i see it

These assertions aren't based on any verifiable information or truth beyond a very simple correlation between Jungian ideas and statistical information on human happiness statistics. I'm not saying Peterson's ideas are bad or don't work, I'm saying that the philosophy behind their development is wafer thin and will not do to inform the worldviews of Peterson's audience past the immediate effects of Peterson's teaching.

>psychological interpretation of the bible which is 100% atheistic
Which is inherently nonsensical and why psychological techniques intended to ward off momentary lapses in mental function or stability should not be treated as philosophically relevant.

Well, some interpretations are just much more likely than other. We also have access to at least some kinds of texts about them which is how we know Marduk was the leader of the gods for exemple. I also think there's some values that are shared by societies regardless of space and time as there is a biological common base between humans.

The facts that other culturs justified that their kings reigned because of the authority of some greater lordly being just prove that to me.

i must be a fucking idiot, how is it nonsensical?

I really hate it when meme thinkers like this get picked up because they're moderately intelligent and can bat away utter morons like Cathy Newman

>I also think there's some values that are shared by societies regardless of space and time as there is a biological common base between humans
Campbell thought the same thing, and his concept of the monomyth informed an entire generation of western cultural productions.

It was also based on fucking nothing and his contemporaries harshly criticized him for not doing his due diligence.

Peterson spouts this idea because it aligns with the neoJungian interpretation of the Jungian collective conscious; there's no evidence supporting its existence and it does as little to explain the internal forces of social groups as any other broad-stroke theory.

Tbh I am not going to claim to be some academic or literary critic that is familiar with the works of all the people Peterson cites but as someone that frequently listens to his shit and has dabbled with some metalogic and nihilism literature I feel confident in saying that I really do not feel that the sort of thinking Peterson's cult advocates for is productive; at least not in the serious sense. What the fuck is the use in being more and more meta with your thinking? What is the use in concluding that there is no meaning to life and life = suffering? I can appreciate this line of thinking being a good contribution to one's overall psyche and wisdom profile but harping on it like him and all his followers do just isn't productive to leading a healthy and fulfilling life. Not to mention that he is flat out wrong. I don't have anything bad to say about Peterson himself since I do enjoy the thought experiment of some of his lectures but fuck I just don't see the point in this type of philosophy

Theological concepts ingrained into society are not equatable to secular psychological memes. This is a big part of why theists and atheists have been at complete ideological odds for the entirety of history.

Peterson is a distant cousin of the psychoanalysts, he just chose to schism at the philosophical point Nietzsche inherits instead of going full retard relativist/hedonist "muh Lacan". His ideas still suffer the cognitive dissonance of those schools, only under the surface.

I'm pretty sure Cathy Newman was just shitposting that entire "interview", I've never seen someone act that irrational and plain stupid.

>go on Veeky Forums
>read a few threads
>most of it is low effort bait and /pol/posting
>make one high-effort post with original thought and content
>it's in a thread that no one reads or posts in
>no dialogue
>go on front page
>Peterson thread number eight thousand of the day
>realize I will be called a cuck for this post
>realize that the ones who will do it will do it even though I predicted it, because they think that makes it more funny, because they are chronically low-effort porn, internet and video game addicts who breathe nothing but resentment and thrive in their own failure
>leave Veeky Forums forever
>eventually meet people capable of stringing together two sentences of original thought instead of endless, stale, autistically repetitive, extremely low-effort and resentful shitposting
>have fulfilling life

I was with you until
>leave Veeky Forums forever
>eventually meet people capable of stringing together two sentences of original thought instead of endless, stale, autistically repetitive, extremely low-effort and resentful shitposting
>have fulfilling life

fat chance, enjoy your stay cuck

Question. How come Peterson is subjected to attempts of character assassination all the time instead of people trying to argue against his points? The whole Channel 4 thing was an obvious attempt to ambush him that failed miserably, and then even more pathetically, the guardian published an article that tried to save face by saying "security experts" were called in over all the supposed harassment and threats the reporter conducting the interview received. It all comes off as some weird vendetta

you're here forever

>The facts that other culturs justified that their kings reigned because of the authority of some greater lordly being just prove that to me.
You have an oversimplified understanding of ancient peoples. The Persians, for example, believed in a divine right for their King but also maintained the divinity of other kings under Persian subjugation and strove for the preservation of existing hierarchies in captured countries; meanwhile the Greeks believed in a universal Pantheon which other cultures merely misinterpreted and did not believe in a sole divine right of monarchy but instead in a form of divine inspiration for monarchs and governmental reformers alike.

Actually research these topics and you see how Peterson's and Campbell's ideas don't add up.