I've been watching him for about two years now and just finished his biblical series. I realized that his entire work is ironically based off of core post modern foundations which is essentially infinite perceptions and Jordan certainly likes to make one standard line into a two hour lecture which is simply his personal projections onto the world. Truthfully anyone could do what Jordan does; just have a good imagination and deep state of creativity and you make make up an entire dimension of information from a simple thing such as " The old man thought of his youth and dead family then took a shit and then killed himself " into a 400 page book about the importance of youth and the deadly realities of regret. When not projecting his feelings, Jordan has never had an original thought in his life, everything runs back to another man: Peterson is nothing but a critic, he has created nothing of value but basic ramblings of setting your life in order, he's essentially a motivational speaker who cites philosophers with original thought to make himself seem smart. Jordan is intelligent, but he's essentially a critic with a good imagination who makes a hack intellectual.
Jordan Peterson Is a Hack
Other urls found in this thread:
currentaffairs.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Why the fuck would you watch his entire biblical series if you think this of him? If you think he’s worthless but spend tens of hours watching him, what does that say about you? Do you not value your time at all?
He says interesting things, just nothing new
>Truthfully anyone could do what Jordan does
Anyone could read the great philosophers and psychologists, and understand it well enough, and be articulate enough to explain it to others in a digestible way?
No.
Fucking no, mate.
I'm a pretty sharp guy, but I'm not nearly well spoken enough, or quick enough on my feet to do what he does.
currentaffairs.org
This article actually bothers to go through his published works to give a well-sourced account of the man's shortcomings.
What do y'all think about Peterson rise to prominence being the result of a lack of genuinely insightful intellectuals in the public eye to keep the pretenders in check? I don't know if I believe this totally, but that's in part due to my reservations about the term "intellectual." What does a "good" intellectual look like... DFW?
>I've been watching him for about two years now and just finished his biblical series
how autistic are you? imagine how much you could have shitposted instead with all that time
>Jordan has never had an original thought in his life
isn't that the whole point of being a conservative?
how is things being new something good?
My guess is he hasn't become worth bothering to complain about until he became the go-to online angryboy's "philosopher."
When someone makes the PR switch to "intellectual heavyweight" it only follows that people will start to hold you to that standard
still, there's no reason to watch hours of his material if you think he is garbage
i mean i watch Zizek for memetic reasons but i know what i'm getting into, it's for fun, but i know he is just going to meme and say the same 3 or 4 things he does in every lecture he gives without going anywhere
I like the parts of this article that critisize his vague statements and trashy book "maps of meaning" but then when he starts critisizing statements like "if you are too nice you will get taken advantage of" I started to realize that this article is written either by soyboy or female so I stopped reading and disregarded all her previous opinions I agreed with.
>currentaffairs.org
This retarded hit piece describes the opposite of Jordan Peterson says and does. Except diagrams. He does draw diagrams.
The article obviously presupposes that Peterson is a charlatan with nothing to say, and then works backwards by quote mining what are, in all fairness, some pretty obtuse statements. But his "published works" include more than just print. He has dozens, if not hundreds of hours of lectures on his youtube channel where he is considerably more concise.
I suspect JBP is a better speaker than a writer.
>What do y'all think about Peterson rise to prominence being the result of a lack of genuinely insightful intellectuals in the public eye to keep the pretenders in check?
On the other hand, that I do agree with. I think even Peterson would agree with this. He's often expressed bewilderment that his message has catapulted him to popularity when by his own admission it shouldn't be anything anyone's never heard before.
But then a lack of genuinely insightful intellectuals is the sort of thing you'd expect from a society that's been indoctrinated with cancerous postmodernist "thinking". Because to have intellectuals requires having a value system that prizes intellect, and postmodernists only know how to dismantle value systems.
Not even Peterson can do that
as if that statement shouldn't be criticized. there's a vast difference between being kind and being passive, and to conflate them is to paint any positive morality in its purest form as feckless
>nothing new
That’s a GOOD thing as far as I’m concerned.
While reading some of NN Talebs work I found his argument that the older something is the better it is due to standing the rest of time.
If Jordan Peterson is basically a filter and translator(into “layman’s terms”) I think that’s awesome.
omg shut UP
EDIT: Filter + refinery
EDIT2: “found the argument very compelling”
Time for bed I can’t even post right lol
>What do y'all think about Peterson rise to prominence being the result of a lack of genuinely insightful intellectuals in the public eye to keep the pretenders in check?
The general public has never been interested in "intellectuals".
This is what Eco called the "invasion of imbeciles". Basically the internet renders the figure of the "expert" obsolete by giving to every kind of retard the ability to express his uninformed opinions and find an audience. This, coupled with the general mistrust towards what is perceived to be the establishment which followed the 2008 financial crysis has given birth to all sorts of dunning-kruger fueled horrors, from tumblr feminists to /pol/tards, from philosophically illiterate fedoras to deus vult christians. Memes, hashtags and YouTube videos, thanks to their ability to feign thinking without having to actually think accelerated this process to light speed and now we find ourselves in a situation where critical thinking is being substituted by slogan spouting drones while it becomes less and less common. The worst thing is that these people think they are intelligent.
this pleb posted this over at /pol/ too. ill repost my response then
Peterson has a mostly cohesive worldview that many young people who have grown up with a hedonistic consumerist mentality have never heard articulated. He adopts a postmodern perspective because postmodernism HAS to be tackled. There is no easy strictly "rational" way to tackle the subjective nihilistic consumerist outlook of people today "nothing matters therefore I'm gonna do what I want". You really can't argue with that from a dry "objective" perspective. You have to approach it from a different angle, one that makes more sense to us as humans. A pragmatic approach that accounts for postmodern critiques of society.
The basis for Peterson's pragmatism is largely his idea of human nature rooted in psychology. i.e. religion is good because it gives people a sense of meaning and a structure to their lives.
He uses flowery and poetic language in a way that upsets spergs (like the way he uses the term "truth"), and he refuses to destroy his career by naming the Jew, but none of your criticisms have any depth or weight to them. Your attack on him is suspiciously superficial considering you've been watching his videos "for two years".
I myself dismissed him as a budget Joseph Campbell, but his lectures are solid and he's introducing ideas to the mainstream that I never thought I'd see popularized. On top of this, he's a lone voice pushing back against Canada's insane social justice cult. I have to assume you have other reasons for disliking him. Did one of your friends challenge you and you weren't able to defend Peterson adequately? Where did this epiphany that Peterson is worthless come from?
neither you nor him know what postmodernism is
the problem with Peterson is that he is not going far enough, but hopefully something good will come from his stuff unless he goes crazy first and starts ranting at something retarded. He seems a volatile person and his twitter is already a shitfest
He pisses people off that's all i need to support him.
this.
the fields of human knowledge are so vast that simply having someone calling attention to specific portions of it and explain how they relate and why are they important with eloquence is meritable in itself.
He wouldnt have become popular and OP wouldnt have listened to him for 2 years if he wasnt offering valuable material.
explain what postmodernism is in 60 seconds without using meme words
protip: you can't
>never had an original thought in his life
Ironic because this faggy, contrarian blog post that just screams "LOOK EVERYONE I'M DIFFERENT" is one of the most par-for-the-course things you will ever see on Veeky Forums.
Peterson's rise to prominence can be explained in one word: Reddit.
zfbokjDGpj S p[oZDGS mkDGSp[oGJS ] -opoDGS SGD] oj
There.
The author of the article was obviously rooting for being passive, and Peterson was rooting was not being passive, not being not kind.
>He's often expressed bewilderment that
I doubt this part considering how cynical he is able to manipulate media, i.e. taunting Zizek to a debate on twitter and when he actually responded to do, suddenly radio silence.
>I doubt this part considering how cynical he is able to manipulate media
I'm not about to dig through his entire Youtube catalogue to prove it, but it's in there.
What is in there? Him stating how is he going to cynically manipulate the media around him? I don't doubt that he made that statement, I doubt whether that statement is true (or whether he made that statement sincerely instead of another cynical attempt).
ironic or not, I've never read anything more reddit on this board before
>What do y'all think about Peterson rise to prominence being the result of a lack of genuinely insightful intellectuals in the public eye to keep the pretenders in check?
Why do people always over-complicate things? He's popular because he's putting into words the right things at the right time. A lot of people feel discontent with the particularly controlling left right now and hearing someone else put what's on their minds in an eloquent yet accessible way keeps em from going insane
those sound like meme words, are you trying to trick me?
...
I mean he is talking about the goddamn bible, of course it's gonna be nothing new.
I'd like to hear OP get more into this question
>so I stopped reading and disregarded all her previous opinions I agreed with
This is clearly a joke, but that people legitimately read like this, I think, is much more explanatory or Peterson's 15 minutes than anything else. The only "intellectual" that's going to win over hearts and minds of the west is going to have to be the one that feeds into the west's current anti-intellectual streak.
The writer of the article doesn't dive into his youtube channel, but he does quote interviews and lectures, so his speech gets some attention.
I don't think you know what "postmodernism" is, which is a vague term describing anything that follows modernism, be it in art, literature, or philosophy as it comes. In philosophy the term is so abused that it can refer to anything that goes about looking in places other than the current status quo to discover or rediscover new ways of thinking, which is why it's so easy for people to make any number of claims about postmodernists.
Based on your description of them, I think you might be referring to post-structuralism, but that philosophical avenue was exhausted almost as quickly as it was introduced. It's really not the boogeyman that people outside of academia claim it is.
>le reddit scary word
well memed
Jordan Peterson and his lobsters are immunized against all dangers: one may call them scoundrels, parasites, swindlers, profiteers, it all runs off them like water off a raincoat. But call Jordan Peterson an intellectual fraud & hack and you will be astonished at how they recoil, how injured they become, how they suddenly shrink back: “I’ve been found out.”
One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightning speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense.
*at the lobster army
stop trying to fit in reddit
Don't insult the king lobster.
About half way in, after he quotes Peterson talking about implicit violence between males when interacting, giving his own beta-male anecdotal rebuttal (that sounds willingly naieve, and, not understanding his whole point: where communication breaksdown men fight; you dont disrespect another man that is close, equal, or greater in strength than you, unless you want to fight--which is different with women, because even if they disrespect you, you aren't supposed to fight--so what do?)--hint bitch, if you want to take him down, then just say he is making an is into an aught with no other justification, but no, instead, the author bitches "it cant be done, he's too slithery, like a slimy snake oil salesman", he then quotes
his comment section, "my grandma once told me never hit a women, but you sure as hit can hit her back"(00's upvotes), "shouldn't hit anyone, but if someone attacks you..." (00's upvotes) and the authors remarks, after listing a couple other comments: "if people follow you seem to say things like this a lot, you should probably think hard about why you're attracting this kind of audience."
He literally did nothing wrong there, and that comment section is perfectly reasonable: you have the right to self-defense! I don't understand how that specific situation can be viewed negatively. The reviewer has some self-awareness, but has quite limited perspective of the philosophical cannon. They can't even understand his argument--in context--which is basic, but tbf, he does generalize on certain topics, however, his core foundation is easily ascertainable.
This b8 doesn't deserve my coherency
>He literally did nothing wrong there,
Did you even read the article. His problem about Peterson isn't that attracted that specific comment, but the upvoted comments had very vastly different interpretations and implications of what Peterson said
>that is sooooo Reddit lmfao rofl
>look guys I got this noob
I would be shocked if you were anything but some teenage loser.
They really didn't stretch his line very far. Self-defense is a logical implication of what he was hinting at in that statement.
Jordan is interesting to listen to. Jordan could make anything out of anything, the content of the bible comes out of Jordan's mouth an entirely different piece of literature; he doesn't respect the work, he's telling it in his own voice and message. Jordan could do the same as he does with any piece of literature he projects his insecurities and anti-depressant & whatever disorders he's trying to circumvent with said SSRI to. Jordan is a broken man, he states that everyone is simply talking from the mouth of a dead philosopher when the truth of the matter is that all of Jordan's work is based off of dead philosophers; Jordan has created nothing to be put into a library, nothing original, nothing Jordan Peterson - he's simply another failure of Academia and another stack of papers onto a million stack of papers of ordinary men explaining their feelings upon great dead men. Jordan has a-lot of feelings and his feelings & creativity is what has given him hundreds of hours of content for his speeches and youtube account and monthly income for his patreon account. Jordan wouldn't have this career, he would be making whatever his job at his University paid him and that only if not for Post-Modernism; his work is based on an infinite number of perceptions. Yet he only argues against the physical actions of an infinite number of perceptions - not the intellectual aspect of it, because he abuses and destroys the foundation of solid work and morphs it into an entire series to explore his fantasies, his projections, his failures as a man which now spread to everyone else because he can't bare the fact that he's a hack.
Does that answer your question?
his work is synthesis and I don't see anything wrong with that. The only legitimate criticism for JP that I've seen on the internet is his alleged misrepresentation of the post-modern & neo-marxist ideals.
Sure some comments implied that. Others that you conveniently ignored
>Peterson didn’t say that he would never hit a woman. He only implied that every woman he had ever hit is dead.
>I believe women deserve rights…. and lefts!!!
doesn't make the same implications
>I don't think you know what "postmodernism" is, which is a vague term describing anything that follows modernism, be it in art, literature, or philosophy as it comes. In philosophy the term is so abused that it can refer to anything that goes about looking in places other than the current status quo to discover or rediscover new ways of thinking, which is why it's so easy for people to make any number of claims about postmodernists.
This is itself a fairly postmodernist statement, so I'm tempted to say you're just one of _them_ and call it a day. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and clarify that I am specifically referring to post-structuralism, and nihilists, and the deconstructionists what don't know how to put anything back together.
So let's cut the shit, because you know what postmodernism is, and I know what it is.
>Jordan Peterson and his lobsters
Lobsters... I like it.
Peterson at the very best is a motivation speaker who cites men who've put in work into the world of actual value. He's a critic who states simple positive acts in life and turns them into cinematic events to excite delusional young men. He simply masquerades his basic, simple, copy-cat words as something fierce. Jordan has never created a work that wasn't piggy-backing on someone else. He might be the most unoriginal '' public intellectual figure '' with his influence today. His words are influential and resonates with his audience of losers & would be deviants because they're fake, made to be epic, made to be something else but simple things such as wipe your ass- You clean your room and wipe your ass because that's not being a fat piece of shit, not because you're slaying a dragon and turning the poverty-stricken NEET self of 50 years old into a millionaire.
That's what I'm going to say about it. Jordan is a fun idiot and so are his lobsters.
O M G that first one is clearly a joke dude, you have to be bating. The second one is a resentfully-bitter joke, but still dude, move along, I conveniently ignored nothing: you are an idiot.
LEL, so tired of this meme. Their are reasons not to like Peterson and this is not the one.
>B-but they were only pretending to be retarded
And there is the very problem that the author mentioned about the Rorschach test. Where people can pick and choose when an offensive statement is made unironically or not as when the situation suits them. Peterson cynically exploits that grey area to great effect
Is anyone accusing JP of murder? NO! Then the former comment, is a fucking joke 100%
>play of one his bible lectures
>kermit voice: and those texts are like... very old
Why exactly should I prefer his heathenish jungian hoghwash to the actual scholarship on the Bible that already exists?
>Is anyone accusing JP of murder?
Wew lad, the comment 'jokingly' implied violence against women. To what extent (death or otherwise) is irrelevant.
you shouldn't
JPS violence against women! And since no one is actually saying he hits women, it is a joke. last comment you are getting from me, I guess nice trolling: congratulations dude.
You didn't conveniently ignore the comment about how it's okay to hit an "aggressive bitch."
Jordan Peterson is clearly extolling the virtues of underlying threats of violence and how it "keeps things civil" while at the same time calling to attention that if a woman that annoyed him were a man he would use "techniques" that are forbidden for him to use against women.
The general point might hold some water in that people are less likely to be rude if they think they will encounter physical backlash, but his choice of example brings with it implications that his commenters are more than glad to bring home.
The author is rightly drawing a connection between his rhetoric and his following. Honestly, it doesn't take much reading comprehension to follow the argument made in the article.
r/enoughpetersonspam really scraping the bottom of the barrel now
>And since no one is actually saying he hits women, it is a joke.
The second comment already did. Your repeated insistence that it is a joke doesn't undermine the underlying point. That just coz it looks like a joke to you, doesn't mean the person who made it and those that upvoted sees it as such.
>heathenish jungian hoghwash
Please don't confuse his nonsense with actual Jungian psychoanaylsis
Saying something new is not necessarily a good thing. I don't believe that this is even his point; Rather, his point is that what he's preaching is what mankind had always, both consciously and unconsciously, knew.
And besides, all intellectuals project their prejudices on the world. Even historians fill the gaps in their knowledge and interpret events using their own whims and ideological biases. I'm not saying that what these people do is right, but if we're dealing with something as vague as religion and folk tales, then there's nothing wrong with some subjectivity. Religious stories are still stories after all, and the same story could convey different meanings to different people, depending on their own place in life.
First 2/6 examples are perfectly justified comments, in line with JP's assertion.
3rd/6 is the only one that might be crossing our society's line, however, they did not define aggression, so...the case is out
4th/6 is responding to a threat, which is a crime, and if followed up on--to any physical extent--gives you legal right to counter with violence.
Last 2/6 are jokes
5/6 of his examples are rubbish. 1/6 is quasi-acceptable, in support of his point
The second comment would be a perfectly justifiable situation to defend himself. No mo peterson threads for me, this is insane. Make your next comment nice and juicy, so you can get the last word with a tasty tang!
>The second comment would be a perfectly justifiable situation to defend himself.
Oh I meant the second comment I quoted, i.e. the last one. But you are probably gonna play the 'pretending to be retarded' card too huh?
>Saying something new is not necessarily a good thing
Veeky Forums is proof of that.
>Veeky Forums
4chan stopped saying new stuff a long time ago due to newfags like you and it fucking sucks
But user, JP clearly says, you shouldn't just go hit people unprovoked, so this, women deserve lefts comment, is at minimum baseless, and much more likely a bitter joke. Yes, I don't know this, but JP literally says nothing that would endorse this action, so if the poster is serious, then that's his agenda.
>He literally did nothing wrong there, and that comment section is perfectly reasonable: you have the right to self-defense!
self-defending against women is like self-defending against a 2yo, it's not going to look good
>he states that everyone is simply talking from the mouth of a dead philosopher when the truth of the matter is that all of Jordan's work is based off of dead philosophers; Jordan has created nothing to be put into a library, nothing original, nothing Jordan Peterson
Memerson being a pseud aside, why are you so obsessed with originality? he is a professor and a clinical psychologist, even if he wasn't a pseud it's not his job to be original, his job is to make people mentally stable and to teach children things from a book
Which is again bring back to the point that the author trying to point out, is Peterson tragically attracting idiots who willfully misread him or is he is deliberately being vague in articulating his ideas to cynically do so?
How can it be that someone who initially made a case for why an article is dismissing an argument in "in context" end up so narrowly insisting on having inane arguments about choice of comments for examples?
Not that it even matters anymore but the arguments for why a comment is a bad example don't even THEMSELVES take into account the larger context of where the comments are quoted. At no point in the article is it ever mentioned if its okay for a man hit a woman in self-defense. Who's talking about the law? I thought the point of a Literature board was for people who are capable of reading, inferring tone, and analyzing the relevant context of a piece.
It's no longer clear what you're arguing for or against, and I'm finding it very hard to remain civil because even the most basic observations would make that difficult. I can only hope at this point that other people might see this exchange and see how embarrassing it looks for someone to make bad-faith nitpicks that are not even accurate.
>attracting idiots
As though every comment section were pure except for his. 1/6 of his examples were valid, if he had so many idiots in his comment section, then why aren't there more examples? Also, who is to say these people aren't trolling?
>vague
Ya, sometimes he is, no doubt, but on this topic he was pretty clear with Camille Paglia.
Normies hearing Nietzschean points for the first time and they just freak the fuck out cuz their fragile little ears can't handle it
>He wouldnt have become popular and OP wouldnt have listened to him for 2 years if he wasnt offering valuable material.
>Try to be charitable and look up some Bepperson videos because maybe they are not as shit as his books, twitter, and interview.
>Youtube algorithm: "You might like: some reactionary bullshit from channels with names like "Red Pill Nation".
>Nietzschean
Peterson is the worst thing to happen to Nietzsche studies since Hitler
>then why aren't there more examples?
Coz the author needed to make a larger point?
If you want more examples, there was one fan who drew him in an Orthodox Chirstian glass painting with Jung and Nietzsche in it. And Peterson himself retweeted it. Let that sink in
wasn't Nietzsche himself already a joke who basically killed himself by eating too many kilograms of pears every day?
Out of 6, only one was valid. Ya, your latter point statement is gross: Im right there with you on that point.
i bet he would retweet this if he were in the car
Everything about Peterson screams "I'm a gigantic pussy".
It's very sad to see people clinging to each of his words because they don't know what to do with their lives. Yes, trying to be as square as possible is the answer, come on guys...
Niger is /ourguy/ though
Hitler was the worst thing to happen since that.
(I hadn't heard the pear reasoning for why he had symptoms similar to syphilis near the end of his life, but I like it a lot because it's the funniest one to say out loud).
The point isn't only point being valid, but why is there a vast disunity within the six points
> And Peterson himself retweeted it. Let that sink in
yeah if you let it sink in you will realize that it's meant as a joke
There are always exceptions to every rule.
We're all motivational speakers user.
He said he was 'honored' to be in that picture you retard
>Niger is /ourguy/ though
who's that?
better to be a retard than an autist that gets worked up because of a picture
>our speech shouldn't be policed because it leads to post modern neo marxism!
no, it shouldn't be policed not because of consequences but because of basic rights, like the existing human rights outlined by the UN
>every female and male trait has been scientifically proven to be based purely in biology facts are facts
no, the nature vs nurture argument is still unsolved, we aren't sure what traits are biological yet. we can't ethically take a person and raise them in an artificial environment. you can't just say that things are "facts" when they aren't
>then how do you explain the number of nurses in norway!
I wasn't aware that a country was able to abolish gender, wow, what a good argument then
Why haven't I heard him namedrop pic related? Seems pretty closely related to what he talks about.
Is it any good, by the way?
Cuz he has a lot of comments faggot, you can cherry-pick it anyway you want
>h-he was only pretending to be retarded
>browbeat by using the autistic word
How many layers of damage control are you on?
He picked the most popular comments. How is that cherrypicking?
that guy made a photo with a pepe flag and a reporter asked him about that for eight minutes,
you are the one who pulled out a fucking tweet as an example, a tweet holds no greater value