What is Veeky Forums's opinion of him? Let's try to avoid /pol/ and alt-right posting please and just focus on his philosophy and belief's.
I think he has many valid points in regard to gender pronouns, and his covering of Existentialism is fantastic.
Peterson thread?
Other urls found in this thread:
web.media.mit.edu
researchgate.net
twitter.com
"& Humanities" was a mistake.
Yes because circle jerking over Rome and Prussia was the right move. Not to mention that for a "History" board the main topics are usually Rome, France, and WW1&2
I like him. He has the best naturalistic theory of religion around, that's for sure.
>Straight up bullshit within 2 minutes
Guy could use a history book.
He pushes debunked historical theories and he regurgitates opinions made by better men than himself.
That being said, he's helping depressed men and that's good.
>implying there's anything wrong with Rome circlejerking
Consider suicide.
He gets into some entertaining topics sometimes in his lectures, but he has the tendency to repeatedly frame things in terms of what Marvin Minsky called "dumbbell ideas" (ideas defined by two alleged opposites like two ends of a dumbbell e.g. good vs. evil, joy vs. sorrow, order vs. chaos, etc):
>One often justifies a choice, simply by declaring that one likes this option more than that one. However, sorrow is not the mere absence of joy—nor is pleasure merely the absence of pain, nor is appetizing an opposite to disgusting. It can be convenient to misrepresent such pairs as like the two ends of a single line, but doing this too frequently could lead to one-dimensional ways to think, no matter that such two-part distinctions may blur other dissimilarities between pairs of substantially different ideas, by leading us into supposing that both sides of each pair are almost the same—except for having ‘plus’ or ‘minus’ signs!
web.media.mit.edu
What's weird is he'll often comment on how seeing people or nature as both good and bad at the same time is somehow *more* complicated as a viewpoint than what others might think of people or nature as, when really it's the opposite and he's reducing things down to just two poles of one dimension rather than expanding things out to two. I guess seeing people as both bad and good at the same time would be more complicated than seeing them as only bad or only good, but that's not much of an improvement.
Meme intellectual.
Based freedom loving leftist hating guy.
Leftists literally on suicide watch.
His thoughts are very much in line with a lot of stuff I've been working through during the years, mostly about my history of substance abuse. I got clean without finding god, but after listing to Jordan, and having a short e-mail exchange with the man, I've more and more come to realise that what I did was basically "finding god"- I just "found" truthfulness or honesty, what he calls "Truth" and The Logos, in place of some omnipotent being. This has made me interested in the orthodox tradition, but I still wouldnt call me a straight up believer.
Long story short: 3 years ago, I decided to make my first priority in life to stop lying, and began writing an autobiography. Within 6 months, I had no problem not drinking anymore. At all. I had been drinking myself black out drunk every day for years before that. Only now, years later, am I beginning to understand how and why that all worked. No god needed.
He's articulating the truth of the AA-concept, better than the alcoholics anonymous people, or me for that matter, are able to. He's providing a better alternative to the AA-thing, in that, they want you to "submit" to a god, or fate, and accept that your problem is out of your control. Whereas Jordan gets you to the same place, just through accepting responsibility rather than absconding it, which really speaks to me. "dont be a bloody victim", and all that.
In practical terms, I can also vouch for the value of autobiography, in working through your traumas. In general, there is a lot of value in what he teaches, but you dont have to follow it all the way to christendom. You do however have to face a lot of shit about yourself, which is bad enough.
I think his work on personality is much more important than his thoughts on religion. If you want to learn how to strengthen yourself emotionally, there is no better man alive to teach you.
He's also pretty funny, and I have become a much better fiction writer from following his lectures.
...
i can see why hes famous
he really, truly believes what he says and seems to get emotional frequently, combined with his canadian accent makes him really precious, someone you want to defend
ive only seen his lecture on dostoyevsky and nietzsche and he commits a lot of literary errors that irritate me, and his reading of existentialism doesnt seem particularly deep
If you haven't read Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, consider it.
Thanks, I will. Can I ask you to elaborate?
its a terrible book and hes insulting you
Reddit thread.
Fair enough. I am a bit wordy.
In your expert opinion, who is an example of a non-meme intellectual?
not him but perhaps someone who was noteworthy before a debate about pronouns
Fame occurs in interesting ways, a lack of fame before the pronoun incident doesn't discredit his work
To be fair, its not really about the pronouns. That's just what his opponents get hung up on. If you want to be dismissive, then its probably more fair to say that he's just another one of the anti sjw types.
He just happens to be the single one of those who has any public speaking skills.
It doesn't discredit his work, but there are hundreds of thousands of academics in the world, what else makes him noteworthy as an individual? Has he made any significant contributions to any field other that trashing SJWs?
Is it just me or is most of his theory about the development of civilization/modes of thought basically a rehash of Hegel?
Except that he doesnt consider 1800's germany to be the logical end goal of society, sure. As far as I can tell, he doesnt think there's any goal to aim for, only a way of moving forward.
saw him give a lecture today, most people just know him as the guy who doesnt use pronouns- I definitely did. will for sure check out more of his stuff
Cool, what was the lecture about?
Either you're denying that the Soviets killed millions of people or that marxist doctrine bears no responsibility for the deaths, considering that those are his only two claims in the first 2 minutes, both of which seem absurd to contest.
he talked a bit about why he opposed bill C-16 which is the Canadian government trying to make gender identity protected under law
then he talked a bit about why hes against social construct theory and nihilism
he had a tendency to go on tangents a bit so he sometimes got off topic
>whines about meme intellectual
>can't name a single non-meme intellectual
Quality post, faggot
So he just talked about why he doesn't use pronouns the whole time
not the whole time, more like a 30 min of a 2 hour talk
he really didn't stay on one topic for long
he does post a lot of his lectures online and I'm sure this one will go up, there were plenty of cameras
10/10 on Psychology
8/10 on Mythology
5/10 on contemporary political events, which he should probably stay away from
He's lectures on brain chemistry and his Psychotherapy are very interesting.
>Has he made any significant contributions to any field other that trashing SJWs?
Why do you ask easily answerable questions? He's worked on at least 100 research papers
>history of substance abuse
>wants to be an author
>not a single original thought in this post
Consider suicide.
Sort yourself out, user.
I just don't think we need more writers like you. We need people with fresh ideas.
(this wasn't me)
'We need fresh ideas' isn't a fresh idea.
I don't think you're being fair, but I get where you're coming from. The drinking is very cliché. I'm not showing off.
My original post was in no way mean to be "original". I was saying that jbp, in my eyes, could do wonders for addicts. I don't understand why you would judge that on originality, and honestly, I think you're overreacting.