*blocks your path*

this desu

they like the word "darwin" because it gets their jimmies arustlin and they start youtube link spamming

meaning of words is irreverent to these people, the "truth" is how they feel

*irrelevant lol google autocorrect

He really does this?

More like flushed out

Sure, but it wont be the ALT-right memery that you're hoping for.

Also you don't understand John Locke's Tabula Rasa as well as you think you do.

Laugh at him for believing humans can feasibly interact with truth.

He is a tenured professor because of this.

I see

>social darwinist
hang on I thought he was a jungian fanboy?

are you talking about Peterson or Zizek?

>but it wont be the ALT-right memery that you're hoping for.

Even Peterson shat on the aut-right

He is, but he talks about evolutionary hierarchies as well.
Note that I only know so much about Peterson's ideas. I tried give him a chance but he is Zizek tier: skilled at selling you nonsense.

Zizek is also relevant for the "holy shit, an actual, honest to god unironic Marxist" factor.

>imagination and reality are the same thing
Has my time finally come?

This. He's actually very good. You guys should pay attention to him if you want to make a career in humanities.

purityspiral.exe and call him a meme philosopher

>When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

is this some reddit invasion?

Is that why so much Hitler hate is on Veeky Forums?

left redditors are trying to take over his, lit and some other boards to weaken pol. explains all the bluepilled butthurt

Yes, hitler did absolutely nothing wrong

This, and that Darwinism of any sort is dead.

Comparing someone like Baudrillard to this guy. He's not good enough at his age to ever become great. People dismiss Foucault and Baudrillard and others because they don't understand them. This guy just isn't very good.

I don't think he even purports to be very good or even worth much in his own right. He's just been swept along in the 'anti SJW' maelstrom and feeds off it (rightly or wrongly).

From what I've seen of him on youtube, he's a good, engaging Lecturer but very little more. Nietzche was at Jordan Petersons position in life when he was 22 or so, about 30 years younger than peterson is now.

It's interesting to listen to him speak about other peoples ideas but I don't think his are worth much in their own right.

Careful. Moderators are banning anyone who dares to talk about and/or post evidence of the colonization efforts of Reddit /r/communism.

Tell him social Darwinism isn't a thing, but what do I know. I'm just a lowly ecology and evolution post grad

He is a clinical psychologist, but you are giving yourself away as a philosofag.

He is a step lower in openness than Jung.And he fixates on Darwinism when in fact neither Man nor the 'Dominance Hierarchy' are a priori. There are Universal principles in the context of which humankind evolved.

His justaposition between or reconciiliation of Jungian archetypes and findings in evolutionary psychology are profound and groundbreaking.

Philosophers watch out. This is the direction science and philosophy are going.

*science, as in certain, pertinent branches of science, not sciences on the whole.

Science is cancer, his philosophy is not philosophy, it's cancer. He's a disgusting stain on the Canadian name.

sort yourselves out

>Science is cancer,
hello burger flipper

He is not trying to be a philosopher btw, but he basically is. If Solzhenitsyn is a successor of Nietzche in any philosophical sense, then so is Peterson, who connects them. And if philosphy has nothing to say about the depravity of the Soviet Gulags, then shame on it.

>Science is cancer

top zoz

>if everyone thinks I'm an idiot, I must actually be a genius!

tell him i'm already sorted out and that he's a spook

>justaposition

"And if philosphy has nothing to say about the depravity of the Soviet Gulags, then shame on it."

Quite easy to explain really. Philosophy, particularly of the academic kind, is infested with Leftism. As there are no enemies on the Left, they remain silent.

>justaposition

Philosophy has retreated to the Ivory Tower. Bertrand Russell's Type Theory made modern computing possible. But as far as the real world is concerned, Analytical Philosophy is caught up in what could be called Semiotics. There are simply are no straight answers that can be pinned down with words. This probably isn't even the purpose of words, to be "alloreferrential", referring to other words, and an evolutionary psychologist like JBP would tell you as much. (Although Charles Sanders Peirce has some intriguing things to say about semiotics, though his career may bespeak the New World along with his contemporaries, sociologists and linguists, rather than the Old World and its dillemas.)

Nothing has really been said in philosophy since Sartre's time. Though Levi-Strauss mocked him, and he seems to have stood the test of time better (Levi-Strauss made his students treat Being and Nothingness as a myth.) Sartre was a Stalinist. Both he and Camus tried to fill the void of a shattered Europe.

They filled the void of a shattered Europe, which had arguably died at Verdun. It was the vacuum left by Nietzches prophecy of ideological clash between the forces that would fill the void when 'God' was dead - (positivist?) Communism and reactionary, traditionalist Fascism.

(cont.)

youtube.com/watch?v=MAQoTlgT8_Q

This video does some service to the conflicts between Sartre and Camus - Sartre was almost entirely... positivistic? He had a faith in 'man' from his experiences in the French prison camps in the sense of solidarity he experienced.
There seems to be only the present - only phenomenology - only a gestalt of self as a free agent, and a compelling moral obligation to be responsible for ones actions and more broadly , existence. It is a philosophy for a Europe that is dead. Curiously, he must have found Stalinism and authoritarianism filing the void that 'God' once must have filled, just as Nietzche predicted would happen. Camus had more faith in man and his redeeming qualities. Perhaps he was more conservative and thus Christian as rural 'pied noir'.

Nazi fascism was a reactionary backlash against Weimar Bolshevism, (steeped in the Templar tradition, I might add...). Guenon stated that the beginning of depravity in the West was the toppling of the Templar Order. The Templars presumably went went underground.

>The last book listed offers a general explanation of what Guénon saw as the fundamental differences between "sacerdotal" (priestly or sacred) and "royal" (governmental) powers, along with the negative consequences arising from the usurpation of the prerogatives of the latter with regard to the former. From these considerations, René Guénon traces to its source the origin of the modern deviation, which, according to him, is to be found in the destruction of the Templar order in 1314.

I would say that the Templars, being the sons of (aristocratic) Europe, who brought banking and commercialism to Europe, were the ones who were best prepared to lead Europe in its development both economically and culturally, and ultimately, spiritually.

Perhaps the demise of the Templar Order was why 'God' died - because its material development outpaced its spiritual faculties, whatever spiritual may mean in this context, and I should consult my Gebser...

Well isnt it?
For the individual the imagination is real? Or as real as the individual chooses to believe in it, everyone acts upon imagination, gommunists imagine a certain world if X happens, their world is made up of imaginations they truly believe in, they think the world works a certain way, which it doesnt.
All groups and set of ideas have some imagination to it really.

I almost feel bad for you guys, 60k in debt for a philosophy degree, still know less about humans and the world that a 12th century Venetian brick layer.

I sure as fuck am not.