What did the distinguished multidiscplinary scholar J. B. Peterson mean by this?

What did the distinguished multidiscplinary scholar J. B. Peterson mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

thebookoflife.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=kp29zPC3wuw
youtube.com/watch?v=wMOM34XEi2k
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

wtf he is influenced by a postmodernist nazi who wanted to destroy western metaphysics

>postmodern
>wanted to destroy metaphysics
no.

>reducing Heidegger to some dumb dualist
>conflating Being and Dasein
the perpetual anglopleb has to be stopped

>implying that 20th century philosophy is not a bunch of fags trying to end metaphysics

>Being is the totality of human experience
get out of here Memerson you fucking hackfraud

>implying Heidegger is one of them

BREAKING NEWS: GERMAN CAPITALIZES NOUN!!!!!

This isn't even the strangest thing I've read about Heidegger though.

This is School of Life-tier

What's wrong with school of life?

The grads are intolerable.

Oversimplifying philosophers and writers and turning them into self-help.

Why does he feel the need to talk about someone he clearly hasn't read, not even the wikipedia page for Dasein is this reductionist towards Heidegger

So? They're supposed to be quick videos, they literally can't add any more stuff even if they want. It's not supposed to be a thesis-level dissection of the works of a philosopher, just an introduction to them.

Anyway, I like this thebookoflife.org/ by them.

>likes Heiddeger
>doesn't like Derrida
??

You shouldn't be getting authors from second sources unless they're classes or videos by renowned interpreters of said author (which will probably make you read smaller works of said author anyway), and if you MUST - for a test, a good ol internet fight or impressing some qt - go get them from anywhere else but the School of Life.
Their aim isn't to educate you in shit, isn't to promote philosophy in shit, it's just an attempt to turn whatever that distorted fuck's head thinks is the "feelgoodier" aspects of authors so it can sell "a philosophical lifestyle" (actually just being even more clueless than your regular yuppie, and acting sanctimonious because of it)

Number of pseuds on Veeky Forums triggered by JP:
>2947

Number of copies of 12 Rules for Life sold so far:
>150 000

Number of times JP referred to himself as anything other than a clinical psychologist:
>0

Do you know what "oversimplifying" means? Do you understand that not every philosopher is supposed to be banal self-help?

>They're supposed to be quick videos, they literally can't add any more stuff even if they want
They can make longer videos, nobody's preventing them. They can try to give you a wider picture of a philosopher's work, or at least make it clear that they're focusing on only one part of his work. But they don't, they throw out all the metaphysics and epistemology and focus on feel-good life advice.

Damn, you Petersonites are truly an intellectual powerhouse.

>likes heidegger destruktion
>hates derrida for continuing his work
what did the greatest public intellectual of our time mean by this?

>feel-good life advice

The advice on the channel is rarely feel good.

As a Heidegger scholar with an enormous penis in real life, as I read this I thought, "As part of the manifold of 'Being' always already available to me right now (as Peterson might say, 'ready to hand'), I have multiple plausible (plausibility is of course a feature of 'Being') options available to me. The most immediate reaction I feel frothing forth, to the actual from the merely potential, is the possibility of nit-picking Peterson's appropriation and understanding of 'Being' to show that I understand Heidegger better than he does. I'm sure I could find something in Peterson's description of Heidegger to use a point d'appui for showing how much smarter I am and how much better I understand Heidegger."

"Look, here, he even makes a distinction between 'the objective world' in a naturalist or realist sense and 'the world for us'! Heidegger's stance on realism and idealism is difficult to locate, much less critique, so there is plenty of room to smear Peterson here for 'misunderstanding' Heidegger. But wait, I should resist that initial reaction, since I have done enough introspection in my life to identify it as juvenile 'one-upmanship' and grandstanding. In fact, when read with a normal human level of charity, Peterson's use of Heidegger here is quite subtle and interesting, if understood from the perspective of a depth psychologist who is probably not concerned with the finer points of Heidegger exegesis. He seems to have taken Heidegger's central point - the complete immanence of Being, of which Dasein is a part - seriously, and only really departs from Heidegger on his (understandable) 'layman's hunch' that the real world really exists in some sense, apart from our determination of it in Being. In fact, Heidegger probably agreed with Peterson here on the underlying point, and if he didn't, he could at least understand Peterson's hunch, bracket it, and still talk about Being qua Being in the same sense Peterson is using it."

"I'm glad I reflected on this before having a knee-jerk reaction and being a twat. I will have to add to my storehouse of 'Being', that is, to the depths of my psychology as (for instance) hermeneutically understood by the Heideggerian, Paul Ricoeur, additional emphasis on not being a one-upping grandstanding twat. I'm glad I can read things that fall within my intellectual purview without my primary filter being 'How can I use this to show how I'm the smartest guy in the room?' That would make me an awful cunt."

>nobody's preventing them.
Profit motive

Likes Nazis, hates postmodernists.

I enjoyed this post, nicely done
I don't think disagreement is necessarily one-upmanship or grandstanding though

>a Heidegger scholar
Imagine dedicating your entire life to studying another human being. I think I will become a Peterson scholar. Yes, that sounds nice.

they're feel good in the same sense the clickbait articles claming "smart people are most likely to do/be *negative thing*" are feel good

>magine dedicating your entire life to studying another human being
you're going to trip out when you hear of this 'christianity' thing

why does Veeky Forums hate sophists so much?

>Psychology is just leftist pseudo-science
>Continental philosophy is obscurantist hogwash
>Emperor's new clothes
>Sokal affair
>falsifiability

It's incredible to see the people who have regurgitated these lines ad infinitum have suddenly drop their intellectual baggage, latch onto Peterson and defend him.

wtf I/you love/hate Peterson/Heidegger now

Every single time peterson embarrasses himself with his retarded "philosophy" faggots like you always come out and say he doesn't pretend to be a philosopher. If that's the case why does he talk about purely philosophical topics such as the OP quote?

are you a philosopher? no? why are you talking about philosophy then? fucking pseud xd

I never claimed only those who study philosophy could discuss philosophy. Peterson shills constantly remind us that he somehow doesn't see himself as a philosopher (despite all the philosophers he quotes and barely understands) and this somehow justifies the incredibly stupid statements he makes.
I think if anything, people should accept at this point that Peterson does consider himself as some sort of philosopher and that when it comes to philosophy he's laughably uneducated. Like someone said in another thread, anyone who references Nietzsche regularly without ever mentioning Schopenhauer is likely a pseud.

To be clear, I don't believe one needs an education in philosophy to be a philosopher and desu anyone who thinks this is a moron.

>tfw anglo philosophers are becoming the kikes of Veeky Forums

ZERO BOOKS RELEASES BTFO OF PETERSON

youtube.com/watch?v=kp29zPC3wuw

Can you stop spamming yourself here? You already had your shitty thread

...

I can't wait for Zizek to stomp all over this guy.

This will change absolutely nothing.

Zizek will wipe the floor with Peterson because Zizek is an actual philosopher. But Zizek is borderline incomprehensible to the average joe, while Peterson's strength is feeding bullshit to the average joe and passing it off as expertise.

So all we will get is more entrenched ideological camps. The Peterson haters will confirm their hatred of Peterson; the Peterson lovers will confirm their incestuous love affair with a grifter.

Or even more likely, his fans will eat Peterson for some petty reason before this "debate" ever takes place, and it will be cancelled prematurely.

But if it does take place, the real moral is that debate is a fucking useless shitshow that values whoever can put on the best show over the facts.

Fuck man this psychologist using a miniscule fraction of heidegger's work for certain practical purposes doesn't totally understand the man's philosophy. I hate Peterson and am now a communist

>Zizek will wipe the floor with Peterson because Zizek is an actual philosopher
Are we referring to the Zizek who couldn't write two sentences concerning Peterson without falling flat on his face? Or the one who got overpowered by middlebrow writer Will Self?

At best, he'll have to conceal his agreement with Peterson on many key issues and end pretending to be retarded.

>implying this is intellectually honest

youtube.com/watch?v=wMOM34XEi2k

lurk more newfriend

Alternatively they'll just have a cosy talk where they basically agree on everything like Russel Brand did.

Zizek did all the pomo stuff way before Peterson.

Zizek doesn't have time to address the points from some reactionary Tony Robbins, so he just recycled an article from an old essay or book.

I hope this happens

Zizek never wrote an article about Peterson. He wrote an article about campus liberals in which he said that they need to sharpen up because they are making people like Peterson popular, and if they don’t change, Peterson is going to win the culture war.

Peterson is nobody to Zizek, just another symptom of the conditions of late liberalism, he’s not bringing anything that Zizek hasn’t seen a million times before. What was important to Zizek is what is always important to him, critique of the left

This.

This
Just a simple article about campus liberals that mentions Peterson in the title
And the subtitle
And the url
And five out of the eight paragraphs that form the piece
And the three that don't mention him are used to set up a point in the next paragraph that does
Filled with small quotes completely out of their contexts

You're very smart and I think you're right about this one, user

Haha, I've seen this before. You actually saved the original as copypasta? To quote your Internet father figure, clean your room, bucko.

No, I reprinted my own work
I put your butt in the mud once, I can do it again

You still didn't pull off the "BTFO the SJWs" like your Internet papa would have wanted. The user above had it right, the only notice Zizek cares to show Peterson is that he is a symptom of failures by the left.

>2nd hand source
>Validates the sub-par habits of a following that cannot summon enough mental discipline or patience to focus on and interpret a written work with original and complex ideas
>Taints the ideas of philosophers with an agenda to gain followers and amass capital via quick videos with pleasurable animation (not inherently bad)

12 rules for life is truly 'a tour de force'

Why didn’t he make that point in his response to the critics of the article?

Peterson as a whole is School of Life tier, if not worse.

Probably because it's rude for a public intellectual to publicly refer to another intellectual as being beneath their notice.

I just mean something like
>forgeeve me if I wash mishtaken about Petairson in shome way, I vas shimply trying to mayg a point about the mo-dern sho-called "left," you know.

Weird, you’d think an article about Peterson would actually talk about him in 8 out of 8 paragraphs.

Yeah, Peterson is how Zizek frames the piece. But read it again.

>Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? Because the left doesn't have its own house in order.
>The Canadian clinical psychologist and university professor has become hugely popular for his 'anti-PC' views and is beloved of many on the alt-right. He's appealing for a number of reasons, most of them connected to the left-wing people he opposes

The subject of the article is ‘the left not having its house in order’, Peterson is cast as a symptom of that.

He briefly characterized the ‘kind’ of political figure Peterson is, and then links him to a broader political trend on the right. Then he explains how modern left-liberalism is not adequately addressing the real problems which a driving people towards thinkers ‘like’ Peterson.

Zizek is basically just arguing a banal point about the over sensitivity of left liberals, especially in regards to the migrant crisis. By pretending there are no differences between cultures left-liberals make people who are drawing attention to them all the more appealing.

In the end he basically says that at the root Peterson is criticizing something that is both real and pernicious and THAT is why so many people like him. And because of that he is dangerous, because even more pernicious is the crazy cultural Marxist conspracy he pushes, and the left needs to quickly address this reality.

He’s not seeking to address what Peterson is saying. Nothing Peterson is saying is new, he’s just saying it better than most. And Zizek probably thinks that most people reading him in the Guardian also don’t buy into Peterson. So actually breaking down Peterson is unnecessary, what Zizek is explaining is why Peterson is appealing to the other people who do like him and do find him compelling.

It’s the absolute fanboy obsession that sought to characterize this is Zizek against Peterson. Despite the piece ultimately just being Zizek saying that political correctness is the reason why people like Peterson criticizing political correctness.

Unfortunately, this.

Peterson is a complete hack who clearly hasn't read anything regarding the topics he's talking about, but the average normalfag won't understand what is actually being said and will turn to Peterson because he can present dumbed down, easily digestible ideas in the most shallow, insipid way. He'll namedrop a few "philosophical" terms that the normalfag has heard before by skimming wikipedia, like "Being" or "Dasein" and that'll be enough to act as confirmation for them that he knows what he's talking about. He is a textbook pseud.

Jeez, that sounds bad. What are a few examples?

This

>Zizek never wrote an article about Peterson.
Who claimed he did? This whole desperate post reeks of cope

It doesn't matter what he's seeking to address when he writes sheer hysterical falsehood you gay little fanboi

>try to destroy metaphysics
>end up reviving Grand Narratives

Thank you continentals

It isn’t necessary for the average person to have background knowledge of the subjects. Such knowledge would only be incidental to the practical general ideas propounded by Peterson.

You are feigning some sort of concern where there’s no danger

Jesus, the Zizek fanboy club on this board is reaching reddit levels

>conflating Being and Dasein
Agree. What's the point of a paragraph on Heideigger without mentioning Dasein, or worse conflating it with Being?

The morally correct position

You're new to this board aren't you

>no danger
Yes, those hillariously bad takes on philosophers on Peterson namedrops from his bootlickers are no danger, just very ironic. Imagine bitching about the corrupted state of humanities while being lowkey one of the greatest symptoms of it.

>one of the greatest symptoms
I really can’t imagine what sort of downie could type this shit out with a straight face. Paul Krugman, a leading economist, declared that dubya was going to execute a coup resulting in permanent republican control of gov’t. Harold Bloom, the most famous living literary critic believed him and espoused the view himself. Peter Sloterdijk thinks Trump’s climate change denial heralds something new. Zizek cannot write a word about Peterson without falling face first into hysterics. The author of the best selling US history textbooks is not aware of the whig tradition or the importance of gouverneur morris. And so forth.

Anyone who censures peterson for misrepresenting is using concern as a false front to whine about an author he personally dislikes. Academis is a joke filled with charlatans. The fact alone that Peterson is competent in his field puts him above 99 of a hundred humanities people.

Why can't Zizek speak correctly? What's wrong with him? Too much saliva in his mouth?

>I'm smarter than the greatest scholars of our day
Maybe try going back to ?

>subject/object divide
Oh look, Peterson fucking misread another philosopher.
Liberalism is right wing.

Peterson as claimed he speaks on the "philosophical and possibly theological levels", which would be claiming, even if he is not a "philosopher" per se, that he debates philosophy. As far as calling him unread, I am not sure that is a great argument. He clearly favors Nietzsche and Jung, but that is because (at least I suspect it is because) those two overlap with clinical psychology a lot.

Most of his philosophical debate has been against two things: nihilism, and the "post-modern neo-Marxists". Most of his argument against nihilism is that it is looking at the world too broadly, and it is very destructive to one's self. I agree with this.
The points he has raised against the "post-modern neo-marxists" is a bit more complicated, and is usually countered (on Veeky Forums) by people claiming he does not understand it. He has, however, stated that which implied by the philosophy, and explained why he is against it. Whether or not he has the entire thing correctly stated I could see up for debate, but I think his concerns are valid, although often times far fetched. That all being said, I have yet to see anyone give an argument against his concerns specifically, or why "radical leftism" as he puts it would actually work on a societal level.

I have a decently messy room, I just think he is a valuable part of a debate that needs to actually happen, as opposed to people saying the debaters don't know what they are talking about because they haven't read every philosophy book that exists.

Usually, but in America the definitions have deviated a little. Here's a quick guide to American politics:

Liberal=left=Democrat
Conservative=right=republican

Although the conservative right is looking more liberal today, many would argue.

here we go again again again again again again again again

Nope. That's not how it works.
Compasses are prescriptive not descriptive. Even if they were, the parties are the exact same crap.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying in general terms this is what Americans mean when they say these things.

>he thinks this is what Heidegger meant
>he thinks that the reformulation of epistemology as ontology and the detachment from the Greeks and Idealist Germans is what is being said in the OP
>he tries to shame us, who put in the work to read Being and Time, for being disgusted by Peterson’s Yt comments section understanding of Ontology
someone should shoot you with a salt rock loaded 12 gauge in the fucking stomach

>jesus
>human being

yes Americans are corporate fascists they believe the government should be allowed to sentence you to death for drug dealing, that you should have to work for welfare, that Israel is their ally, that income tax benefits the middle class and not the rich, that the GDP increasing is good for them and that gun laws will keep them safe from criminal gangs, you should never for even one second care what americans or europeans or any plebs from any human cattle ranch think about anything ever.
he was, because God can’t incarnate itself anymore than it already does nitwit thus making the christian faith false and a perversion of spirituality

>he thinks heidegger is berkeley

lol ok, read merleau-ponty