I'm unironically (dare I say it) a big Jordan Peterson fan...

I'm unironically (dare I say it) a big Jordan Peterson fan, but does he do anything except popularise Jung for a modern audience? Does he have any truly original thoughts that are worthy of philosophical note?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DC0faZiBcG0
youtu.be/ltYGVobKX0U?t=45
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No because he's not a philosopher, he confuses and associates ideas he picks from random thinkers and ends up with incoherent ideas.
The last time someone tried to convince me he had an original idea, they claimed he created dualistic monism. I hope for his sake they were making it up because it's stupidly contradictory.

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FAGGOT NORMIE FUCK YOU

Here's the thing - Jordan Peterson is NOT a philosopher, nor even a social critic or anything like that.

He's literally just a reasonably-smart psychologist who has incorporated some very basic ideas of philosophy into his lectures, and as a result young, dejected men have eaten his words up (which isn't a bad thing, actually I think it's been rather helpful, it's just not something intellectually profound.)

Comparing him to philosophers is the wrong way to go about it. He has more in common with Tony Robbins than he does with Jung.

His goal is to defend the free market and liberal principles like free speech and low taxes. As a consequence he's against affirmative action, because the employer is more important than the working man or woman.

>Does he have any truly original thoughts that are worthy of philosophical note?

Nothing is new under the sun, as Jordan B Peterson would say :)

...

cept dis bowl of kush, nigggaaa

#WakeNBake #CustomGrow420

> dualistic monism

There is such a thing as neutral monism (mind and matter having a common element such as information, basically Bertrand Russell) or univocal pluralism (plurality of different, unreducible, elements on the same monistic plane, basically Deleuze). I never saw Peterson as a metaphysician, the matter - archetype duality isn't necessarily a metaphysical dualism.

...

How is anything that I said related to atheism?

He takes Jung and existential philosophy and combines this with the current developments and history of research of psychology and his experience as a clinical psychologist. As far as "truly original thoughts" not really, he definitely wears his influences on his sleeve but the way he's interpreting them is modern. He's fusing a lot of older ideas with newer developments in neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and personality as well as applying his experience to now become somewhat of a pundit on our current social-political landscape. His book "Maps of Meaning" is his most original work.

>free market
There's literally no free market in current era and neo-liberal dream was never based on achieving any such thing ever, dumb Petersonfag. And most corporation would not sincerely want free market since there would exist no socialism for rich.

>dumb Petersonfag
I doubt that the guy you're quoting said that in an approving way, since even hardcore Randtards wouldn't say
>the employer is more important than the working man or woman
at least not outright like this, since it just looks bad. That's why the whole "job creators" bullshit exists.

>guy you're quoting said that in an approving way, since even hardcore Randtards wouldn't say
>>the employer is more important than the working man or woman
You understand those imbeciles desupham.

no idea.
I'm a serious person.I haven't got time for demi-celebrity, pseudo-academics like peterson ,zizek et.al

Not a big fan but his idea that young men are getting confused by the rapid changing of mores is interesting (although I don't agree).

>his idea
It's an age old conservative thought and Peterson hasn't contributed anything interesting to it.

Not familiar with him, only stumbled over some videos which were taken during his lectures, but did he ever claim to have created or contributed something original?

>quotes the Bible
>in fact, a bible quote that has become common knowledge but is hardly ever attributed to the bible
>attributes it to JBP
Decent bait, I'll give it a six out of ten.

He isn't a philosopher, so no.

No
He just happens to push against the grain in Canada and has an audience full of retards. He’s going to be forgotten in like a year or 2

leftists do not really care about the working class, it's all about the bluehaired trannies and virtue signalling freaks for them. leftist morality is just an inverted hedonistic version of christian morality, which however maintains the central place of the victim as a legitimator of the blue hair elite.

Holy shit. I finally listened to him for the first time last night. I thought it would be funny, but it was very depressing. He is a fucking idiot. Fuck. Fuck. I’m a Jungian, I have read all of Jung’s work, and it is clear that he has hasn’t touched Jung’s collected works. Jesus Christ, I know why he has an audience, but it is super fucking sad that he has an audience.

What does he get wrong about Jung?

He does a good job presenting the material he is familiar without fragmenting or oversimplifying it, so his lectures make a pretty good introduction to the relation between modern psychology, theories of cognition and a secular reading of religious archetypal thinking, and imo that in itself is already worth quite a bit, but he's still stuck in the belly of the whale-dragon called modernism.

The focus. He stays fixated on archetypes and a couple ideas that non-scholars associate with Jung but 90% of Jung’s work is basically unrelated to these concepts. These ideas are just background, sidenotes, to what he was actually interested in expressing.

He contributes nothing to philosophy. But, lots of people are coming out of the woodwork now and saying things about the "social justice" left because of him, other public speakers included. He basically got the ball rolling for a new libertarian movement among young people.

So what would you say is Jung's main focus or primary concepts? It's true that all people ever say is muh archetypes, but I've never heard it being described as a secondary concern. Haven't read any Jung directly so I've got no knowledge on the matter.

I agree with this gent, there is something to be said about a teacher who reaches a large audience.
Especially when his intentions are to educate in an objective and eclectic manner.
In all of his lectures I've watched (and I'm far from watching them all), I am yet to see an original idea.
His lectures on the biblical stories really are a mish mash of ideas from many areas.
They all yet remain other peoples ideas.
If your willing to learn from someone who clearly understands what's improtant and not, then Peterson is the guy for you.

The video where he cries. And there's no such thing as an original idea, all philosophers fuse various ideas into one.

>A close reading of 20th century history indicates, as nothing else can, the horrors that accompany loss of faith in the idea of the individual. It is only the individual, after all, who suffers. The group does not suffer – only those who compose it. Thus, the reality of the individual must be regarded as primary if suffering is to be regarded seriously. Without such regard, there can be no motivation to reduce suffering and, therefore, no respite. Instead, the production of individual suffering can and has and will be again rationalized and justified for its supposed benefits for the future and the group.

I'm unironically a big Jung and Nietzsche fan, read most of their books. I've watched a few peterson lectures and no he doesn't bring anything new to the table. Better read his sources, you'll take in more info reading than watching a video anyways.

He's not famous for altering the landscape of philosophical or psychological thought.

He's much more important than that.

He is a very rare type of person who can see the interaction of academia and wider socio-cultural phenomenon, but who also cares more about humanity than his own intellectual ideas and academic career.

Have others in academia tried to blow the whistle on the intellectual collusion and politicization of education? Yes. See for instance Steven Pinker.

What makes Peterson different from Pinker is that he isn't afraid to make himself into an intellectual pariah. Steven Pinker, and people like him will always play it safe -- they are where they are because they've devoted 100% of their efforts to being a preeminent thinker. Peterson, like other notable whistle blowers, has put his entire life on the line to take a stand for what he perceives to be the common good.

how many times?

>leftists do not really care about the working class
If you said "a lot of" you'd get more credibility, instead you seem like a malevolent ideologue.

Was this interview any good? Haven't watched it yet - never been a big fan of Russell Brand, but still curious

Peterson is a broken record at this point, the interview seems a bit more authentic than his latest stuff, so I'd say give it a go if you're interested.

I suppose in a way it's commendable that he's willing to do so many interviews with pretty much anyone who wants to, but it does get a bit old hearing him get asked the same questions and repeating the same answers again and again

>Originality
>Mattering
He's not a philosopher and he doesn't pretend to be one. His views are his own that he has developed through his reading.

this is true

Well, I agree that it's a bit disappointing that he isn't putting out more original content. The interviews aren't catered to people who are already familiar with his lectures, but you can't fault him for wanting to engage with different audiences.

he's not really in the spotlight for truly having original thoughts, his position is more like that of a catalyst. by rearticulation and abstraction of already existing ideas he's motivating people to consider having their own original thoughts and that's pretty good in my estimation
maps of meaning isn't really something new but it combines different ideas to get a greater picture of human nature

oh Solomon, we know it's you, even in Ecclesiastes. stop being so humble and attribute your works pls

>he's willing to do so many interviews with pretty much anyone who wants to
Exactly, that's what I always said when the deplatforming/sjw types on the far left say "he does all these interviews with right-wing/alt-right pundits he's obviously right wing!". No, he'll actually do an interview with literally anyone that offers, it's just that earlier in his career no one on the left would touch him with a 10 foot pole because they have this toxic politically correct "no platforming" thing and he was dismissed as a nazi transphobe or whatever. Now that he's finally gotten way too popular to ignore he's starting to get interviews from a bunch of mainstream/left-leaning news outlets like a snowball effect.

There's something interesting to be said about the frail nature of sovereignty and boundaries in this atomised late capitalist society of ours. It corresponds to the frail psychological status of the narcissistic late capitalist subject. beyond the rigid world of institutions, corporate PR and HR, there lies a lawless exteriority containing unfathomable potential for violence. Peterson, like popular ''sjw'' content creators, Eckhardt Tolle and ''the secret'' offers a ready made psychological coping strategy for a complex and often baffling world. You should look into things like the human potential movement and Erhardt seminars training.

That's a pretty shallow criticism if you just started watching him last night, Jung is very rich with thought so obviously he's not going to incorporate all of Jungs work in everything he does especially if you're watching something from him that's not specifically about only Jung. Here's a 2 part lecture that's specifically on Jung

youtube.com/watch?v=DC0faZiBcG0
here he mentions having read his collected works
youtu.be/ltYGVobKX0U?t=45

Peterson thoroughly btfo by true genius