I read the introduction and first chapter or so. Always been on the fence about him so I decided to skip the lectures and go straight to the source material. I am actually enjoying it so far and now I am scared
Am I going to become a religious nut by finishing this? Will it actually help or will I feel 'helped' because anything is better than being depressed? I chose this one and not 12 rules because it seemed more interesting and less like self-help.
I just want to know Veeky Forums's genuine reactions to the book. The book, not the man.
he is a pseud satanist who worships jung. the book is long, meandering, and makes little coherent sense. he is a relativist and talks in meta-language or post-modern jargon. there's not much to get influenced by, after reading the book you will just want to evangelize it to other people, which is the only thing those ideas can do. there is little substantive benefit in someone telling you how to think, behave or what to do.
as an exercise in pure logic, take a pencil and pad and mark down every time he contradicts himself.
The introduction was simple but powerful. His own life clearly mirrored the crisis of belonging may young men are feeling today. I certainly felt more open to hear what he had to say, which is when I started questioning the validity of his ideas vs my desperation for some direction. But that was the intro.
When the theory came in it did seem like half-baked philosophy. My attention began to flounder when he was discussing the idea of the 'great mother and father' that supposedly appear throughout mythical history.
I think as a fedora wearing atheist I will probably not finish the book, I am just on the fence about him and wanted to give his actual work a fair chance
>there's not much to get influenced by, after reading the book you will just want to evangelize it to other people sounds a bit contradictory m8
What other books of psychology have you read
It's a good book but it should hardly at all be looked at as some sort of tool of conversion or even put in the same sentence as 12 Steps because it's literally a paychological textbook he composed for his course study. It's just an interesting psychological analysis of how groups of people may have come to have the values they do according to the metaphors, symbols, and lessons embedded in the various religions and mythologies. I see it somewhat as, while Jungian influenced, moreso a bridging off from Erich Neumann and what he expressed in "Origins and History of Consciousness" although with a different twist. It's definitely unique in its aspirations although I doubt more than 5 people on this board have read it so I'm sure there's little discussion to be had and this thread will just be the next fly trap for angry nerds.
You've mentioned that you're an atheist. Have you read anything from Plato or Aristotle, or any of the Christian apologetics? Republic is what got me.
sorry i should explain, peterson has a mind virus- where he has to spread it to others, and then it infects them and they spread it to others etc.
it's how cults, religions and psychology began, before more serious people reign in the crazy shit and kicked jung out.
so to clarify: it could theoretically (if youre a brainlet) influence you to influence others with the same ideas, eg. telling them what to do, the meaning of myths, all the nonsense he goes into. peterson is getting reinforcement in the form of money and adoration now, so he is _REALLY_ convinced he is on to something.
I wanted to look at the ideas he had before the media circus. Also am an aspiring writer and was interested to read about the human value aspect of certain stories and all that symbolic stuff.
Have you read 12 rules?
I guess the thing is I agree with some of what JBP says, so am I just an easily manipulated depressed young man?
All knowledge is a virus you pleb.
while certain "forms" should definitely be discounted on a contradictory nature. But cognitive dissonance is a huge thing. So I think contradiction when it comes to the human element is forgivable.
I've been reading the dialogues and have read poetics. I was planning on working my way through philosophy starting this year maybe I should've just picked up the republic instead.
Then you have nothing to gain from it. If you were already questioning its efficacy based on the Great Mother/Father motif, you're only going to gravitate further away as it goes on considering he is always drawing from the mythological and storytelling evolution (and these drawings get proportionately more complex as it follows the corresponding growth of mythology), and also you don't yet understand what the mythological and storytelling evolution necessarily implies. "The Great Mother" isn't a literal thing per-se, nor the Ouroboros stage that precedes it. They're more like representative titles to express the stage of development and sophistication of whatever. It's a stage of life as humans were still unfolding what they were, an expression of the advancement of their cultural form or even the structures of their societies (as in the Ouroboric/Great Mother societies they were still generally matriarchal, and the Great Father signified the transitioning/advancement into patriarchal societies which have continued until today).
No i haven't read 12 Rules. Reason: it's a fucking self-help book. I don't need a self-help book. The reason to read Maps is because you might be interested in mythological deconstruction, or at least psychology on some level considering as I said it is a book for his course (hint he a psych professor). You just sound like a cult of personality philistine
useful knowledge is falsifiable, nothing peterson says holds up under any rigorous analysis. it's wishful thinking wrapped up in superficial pragmatism. presumably he has lived his whole life trying to discover these ideas, and he was like 50 and barely making ends meet as a third rate psychology lecturer in a canadian backwater. you might as well read sheryl sandberg. his whole thing is a MLM scam at a very pseudo-intellectual level. he argued for 3 hours with sam harris about whether truth exists, when you cant find common axiomatic ground on an idea established 5000 years ago, you have become (in petersons case) the postmodern cancer you claim to fight. he's basically a more irritating version of alexander dugin without any political analysis, at least dugin has a sense of humour about the pure crap he talks.
this is why people hate peterson fans
From Plato I've only read Republic, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Euthyphro. Republic and Phaedo are the more relevant ones on that subject.
>I guess the thing is I agree with some of what JBP says, so am I just an easily manipulated depressed young man? Probably, but that doesn't mean he's wrong or a charlatan. I think some of his lectures are absolutely fascinating. If he strikes a chord with you there is no reason to deny it just to you can feel superior to him. Doing that is manipulating yourself.
I disagree. I am interested in narrative and the history of mythology. I am interested in psychology, if only tangentially. I understood the metaphorical nature of the ideas of the 'Great Mother' and 'Father'. Telling someone they have nothing to gain from it when they have clearly expressed some interest in certain aspects is wrong.
>You just sound like a cult of personality philistine Sure thing
Got any favorite lectures?
>useful knowledge is falsifiable, nothing peterson says holds up under any rigorous analysis could you point me to a scientific rebuttal of Maps of Meaning? thanks >he was like 50 and barely making ends meet as a third rate psychology lecturer in a canadian backwater "professor of psychology at the university of Toronto"
idk mate you sound slightly dishonest
He’s not religious mate why don’t people get this
>professor of psychology at the university of Toronto 119k salary is pretty good i guess
it's social sciences, they have no way to test their theories. it's like asking for a scientific rebuttal of eugenics. there isn't one, we just agree it's a bad idea in practice. except of course peterson was unknown and ignored until he decided to deal his drug directly to the masses. he's well within his right to profit financially from it, but let's not pretend like it's serious academic work or contains any new ideas, or is even useful.
i am not dishonest, it's called being disagreeable, your framing of this exact conversation displays why you are error prone in thinking. - someone disagrees, attribute malicious intent, attack the person.
peterson is an opportunist, with a mixture of ideas, who is convinced he can help others. his audience skews young, inexperienced men, who are prone to radicalization because they have no historical or social context (no children/wives, no taxes, no responsibilities).
>Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure of culture is disrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything-anything-to defend ourselves against that return.“The very fact that a general problem has gripped and assimilated the whole of a person is a guarantee that the speaker has really experienced it, and perhaps gained something from his sufferings. He will then reflect the problem for us in his personal life and thereby show us a truth.”
this is not science. it's bad literature.
he said he acts as if god exists
What does he mean by this? (I ask that genuinely not in the meme way)
Then if you're interested in the narrative of mythology, go ahead and read it. All I mean is that >My attention began to flounder when he was discussing the idea of the 'great mother and father' that supposedly appear throughout mythical history. (if that was (You)) doesn't inspire confidence, since he's going to keep doing it. As you go you will be presented with various schematics illustrating the growing sophistication of the narrative along its timeline, so it's going to be brought up again and again (and again). The idea of there being different Ages to the development of culture and value is I guess pretty central to the entire process, so you can't let the preliminary mentions of Ouroboric or Great Mother myth make you tap out because of ????
Just because I initially disagreed with/didn't understand something doesn't mean I should stop reading, right?
My favorites are from the "personality lectures: existentialism" and "biblical" series. I can't remember exactly which ones are the best, but I was very intrigued by his theories on evil, being fascinated by evil and its connection to suffering.
I was never taught Christian mythology in an interesting way that made sense in school or at home so it kinda blew me away to hear his interpretation of these myths that I had just been told to accept literally before. I think it's a good medicine against fedora lordery.
Think of him as you think of Dawkins. The selfish gene is great. Attending his anti-creationist stuff? Uhh... Petersons lectures are good. His new, hyped stuff? Fedora tier.
Actually I think it is proper that if you didn't understand something you would stop and go backwards to learn about that thing then resume. It is for this reason the we must all start with the Greeks.
found the creationist
He's deffo an opportunist. But he can help. He is very good at explaining simple ideas in a legthy manner. And guess what? People are dumb. I am dumb. Very simple stuff has to be explained to me over and over again. And he's good at that. And I thank him for it.
As for his scientific work, yeah, I've got my concerns.
Fine, but not approaching the work at all is moronic.
So basically everything before him becoming an alt-right darling is probably good?
Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that! You could really use some prayers, bucko!
Depends on what you're interested in. The psychological part really fascinates me. Everything tho? I doubt that.
Why do you guys think that you say anything worthwhile by calling him opportunistic? That's really a childish worldview. As if you guys wouldn't milk the living shit out of the publicity if you were in his place. That one shows a stagnation in one part of your development. Some self-observation would do you good.
true. if he is an opportunist, then it is because there is a large problem in the world with the audience he is speaking to.
If someone believes he is a charlatan, then they must admit that they would rather a well-read, educated one that is open for debate like JBP than a pure snake oil salesman.
He’s very obscure with his explanation whenever anybody asks him if he believes in God. I suspect that’s because he doesn’t want to alienate believers or atheists from his work. That said he focuses on the Judeo-Christian God in whom if he truly believed, he would not be obscure about his faith. Matthew 10:33 >But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. By being obscure and saying he “acts” as if god exists could be considered by any sane individual to be denying Gods true existence. Ergo he believes in the concept of God as the future - a person to be bargained with. He believes that the bible has astounding narrative and follows nietzsche’s idea of truth: >truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
Hope this helps
Petersen is like the existentialists, he's not that big on citations. Either he is giving people the "grade school" treatment of psychoanalysis/semiotics/existentialism/psychology (like how we were told Christopher Columbus discovered america) Or He's assuming you are already familiar with Freud, Jung, and a bunch of other pop culture psychology shit.