*re-brands C. S. Lewis and adds some Tolstoy for fun*

He's better if you're already interested in psych. His best forum is a lecture. He's too unconstrained in interviews and goes off on incredibly long tangents. In lectures he forces himself to keep things cohesive, which he desperately needs because his mind just constantly wanders otherwise

>what a pseud.
>random pleb on a chinese origami board gives his opinion on a man with a PhD and many years teaching as the world's best institutions

>University of Toronto
>world's best institutions

Kek

Also taught at harvard amigo

He was an assistant there 20 years ago.

past tense wonder why

Dr. William Luther Pierce also had a doctorate, and the guy was a total tool, what's your point

And yet he remains more intelligent and accomplished than you
Point is that if you're a neet attacking a highly educated man then your opinion is worth very little

>you're a neet
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Fair assumption to make if some is backbiting an educated and smart man on the internet. Why would someone do that? Because they feel insecure about themselves and think attacking him will make them feel more accomplished and intelligent themselves

but he speaks like a pseud AND outside of his field

Or maybe they just think the guy is a tool

>professor of psychology at University of Toronto
>highly accomplished.

>best university in Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world
>within top 30 universities of the WORLD
your inferiority complex is showing senpai
Nobody called him a tool. Nobody even justified their opinions of him
And how?

>outside of his field

How so? Philosophy of religion?

he's a fucking psychologist
how is he suddenly an authority in politics or culture in general?

Low test numale beta cuck, just end yourself.

Projection.

>how is he suddenly an authority in politics or culture in general?
He doesn't claim to be. He just gave his opinion and it obviously struck a cord amongst a lot of people which implies there's value in what he's saying and to be dismissive of that betrays the highest of arrogance and ignorance

t. never read a single C. S Lewis theology book.

I went to the 24th best university in the world and I literally have an IQ of 90.

Please tell me what qualification gives you the right to be an authority on culture

Do you have a PhD?

No because I couldn't get the funding, but I qualify for it grades wise.

HAHAHAAHAH yeah totally.

I have a 71 average from UCL

I find it troubling how famous this man is. The ONLY reason he's attracted so much attention was because of a 10 minute video in which he tried to debate an SJW, and then because he said that making people use gender pronouns is literally Hitler.
I've yet to see any kind of significant discovery or research this man has made in his field, or new idea he's brought to the table that has advanced the general public discourse. The only reason he's so popular is because internet right wingers love to suck his cock over the fact that he's someone with a PhD who sort of disagrees with modern PC culture that they hate so much.

more like 71 IQ lmoa

He discussed why he thinks he's so popular

He said that he talks about purpose and the men in the room light up. He thinks he's attracting young men who have been told they are a roadblock to the success of more worth people, and telling them that their lives should be worth living

It seems to be a sort of accident. He touched on some hot-button topics, got some exposure, then found people who were desperate for a father figure to tell them to be good men

I don't want to but it is hard for me to accept your rejection of this message. I want to think that opposing opinions are based on some quirk of experience and are worth listening to, but I can't understand why you would reject the idea of young white men being told to be good people

Thanks for backing my point.

You are THAT retarded.

It's literally because he fucking hates post-modernism. And that is enough of a reason, to be fair.

...

I don't think Joe Rogan is a massive fan particularly. I'm not saying Rogan anything against Peterson but Rogan has plenty of different people on his podcast.

>t. postmodernist
I can do it too

How is just hating Postmodernism a good reason to garner so much attention? Plenty of academics dislike it but most of them still recognize the advancements postmodern thought has given us in the fields of psychology and sociology.

I sort of agree with this, even though I think the argument is facile and is made by people who also don't understand postmodernism.

Peterson rejects deconstructionism without tackling what it suggests. If concepts are inherently dependent on assumption, and those assumptions can be cast aside fairly readily, then so be it. It does seem to be the case, and that's probably just the human condition. But if there is value to be had in belief, as Peterson thinks, it should be rebuilt after deconstructionism, not as a rejection of it.

Basically I think Peterson should accept postmodernism and rebuild value structures in a post-postmodernist world. But maybe that's my bias, because I do actually think there is a lot of value in deconstructionism, and I also think there is value in the kind of structure that Peterson aims for

>recognize the advancements postmodern thought has given us in the fields of psychology and sociology
which are?

>How is just hating Postmodernism a good reason to garner so much attention?

In a post-modern world, everything is up for grabs. It comes with the assumption that concepts have no basis in reality, so therefore you can just play pretend on anything.

If you start rejecting that, suddenly the lies about gender get revealed. If the lies about gender get revealed, everything else gets subjected to the same lense, and everyone has to start telling the truth on all sorts of concepts. Whole institutions get broken down when you start doing that.

Lacanian psychology and Foucalt's theory of power off the top of my head.

>lies about gender
What lies?

both of which are nonsense

He absolutely destroyed Stiller in the debates, though.

First and foremost that gender identity is not a function of sex, not a function of genetic factors, and wholly a choice

Beyond the transsexualty issues, there are massive lies being told about the innate differences in task-specific gender performance

Mainly, though, the big lie being told is that you can dress up like a girl and everyone has to call you "she". The fact that we're being forced to pretend as such, under threat of losing our jobs, should be an outrage but isn't, because as I said everything is up for grabs and nothing is real

>Let the whole fucking system burn down
>We can always fucking rebuild it
Why do people think this is acceptable? It should be called neroism tbfh

Mhm. Whatever you say dude.

It's not about destruction. Postmodern has been used for pernicious purposes but is correct.

Think about the differences between you now and what you would have been like three hundred years ago. Think about what you would have been like 1000 years ago.

You're not a function of access to some sort unassailable truth, because "truth" as you think of it, constitutes like 5% of what you use to govern your interpretable world. The other 95% is arbitrary, a function of the people you come into contact with, and the people they have come into contact with, and so on. You can't break from that, you're beholden to a mental world that is not physics, not chemistry, not any science at all, but agreed principles that are shared between people you talk to.

Peterson is setting his cause back by rejecting that, pretending that religiosity or religious language has some deeper meaning that supersedes the practise of post-modernity

he's pretty cool has some interesting ideas he can be a little dry tho

>gender identity is not a function of sex, not a function of genetic factors
Most defenders of gender identities don't deny the influence genetics and sex has on gender though. They simply believe that gender can't be assigned specifically to either male or female poles, and that the majority of people do not identify with some (or all) of the aspects of gender that are assigned to their biological sex.

>there are massive lies being told about the innate differences in task-specific gender performance
Like?

>the big lie being told is that you can dress up like a girl and everyone has to call you "she".
That's not a "lie" that's being courteous. If that person wishes to be referred to with that pronoun then it would be rude to call them something they don't think matches what they are.

youtube.com/watch?v=2cqTE_bPh7M

The absolute state of Veeky Forums.

Pretty sure Noam Chomsky is just salty about Postmodernism because Foucault btfo'd him on live TV in the Human Nature debate in 71.

Still doesn't prove how Lacan and Foucault's theories were wrong.

>They simply believe that gender can't be assigned specifically to either male or female poles, and that the majority of people do not identify with some (or all) of the aspects of gender that are assigned to their biological sex
the whole gender identities thing seems to me to be a conflation of the conventional definition people use (as a synonym for sex) and the academic definition. to identify as a woman, you don't have to identify with all the characteristics labeled feminine or be unconscious to the fact that you don't fit all of these characteristics. the very fact that these are largely social constructs means that there aren't a set number of "feminine" characteristics and what is masculine or feminine could very to a degree from person to person even in the same culture. I don't understand why this would make someone need to create an identity such as gender fluid. yes, according to general stereotypes you perhaps act masculine sometimes and feminine sometimes. but so what? you don't need to have a word and special pronouns to announce this

You're full of shit. Post-Modernism is a vacuous philosophy that caters to the intellectually stunted by proposing assumptions that holds no actual merit.
>Think about the differences between you now and what you would have been like three hundred years ago. Think about what you would have been like 1000 years ago.
What the fuck is this? What does it mean? And why the fuck should I care about hypotheticals?
>You're not a function of access to some sort unassailable truth, because "truth" as you think of it, constitutes like 5% of what you use to govern your interpretable world. The other 95% is arbitrary, a function of the people you come into contact with, and the people they have come into contact with, and so on. You can't break from that, you're beholden to a mental world that is not physics, not chemistry, not any science at all, but agreed principles that are shared between people you talk to.
You have actually zero evidence for this, it's just gushing out of your arse like you're the source of the river Ganges. And I guess that's why genetically identical twins are so fucking similar, right?

You're literally doing the same mental exercises religious people do when they try to prove the existence of god

>he's a hack because I said so

Graham handcuck has a PHD

i love how /pol/ (or nu-/pol/, not much of a difference) always fiercely defends their favourite e-celebs only to forget about them after few months

He has one of the best grasps on Jungian Archtypical Psychology I've seen today desu. His book is a serious piece of work and it's a shame that his status as an e-celeb discredits a fairly worthwhile expansion on Jung.

You people really corralled into death camps. Sorry.

Why can't you just walk around in a skirt and be done with it? Why must you wage an active war against biology just because you have a fucked up fetish that results in self mutilation?

they both held their own in that debate imo

>Plenty of academics dislike it
For all the postmodern shittalking that goes on on this board, I'm always surprised how this is almost never brought up. In my experience at least, most academics dislike postmodernism. I studied one of the fields that's supposed to be rampantly postmodern (anthropology) at a few different universities, and I only ever knew one professor who admitted to being a postmodernist. Everyone else was either openly hostile to it, or tried to pretend it had nothing to do with them, and the same was true of the students. In a theory course, the professor even skipped talking about it because he thought it was useless, and at several major conferences I've been to, the postmodern-influenced session were all pretty small and infrequent.

Like Peterson, most of those people don't seem to fully understand it, either. It always seemed to me like those professor were just parroting their professors' knee-jerk reaction to something new. But outside of garbage fields like gender studies, postmodernism really isn't as pervasive or as well-liked as most people seem to think.

>and how
youtube.com/watch?v=o9BbQyg7zwQ

here's the clearest example I can think of but literally everything he does nearly is because he loves the sound of his own voice and thinks his opinions are revelating and amazing.

Most people hate overly talkative professors who can't stop but revert back to the same schtick every time. Even when he's on point talking about some concept he always, literally every single time when talking about something, connects it to the rest of his ideology and rehashes whatever traditionalist beliefs he has even when they're not relevant.

I agree with him on everything by the way, just explaining why people hate him. Even I'm completely worn out with him and only listen one every few weeks.

Oh and there's the element that he makes well over 1$million a year and still gets donations (like 500,000+) and still charges $30 per seat at his lectures. He's a leech so people are naturally very jealous.

half of christians these days are larping anyways. It's really hard to be a Christian these days.

This. The kind of internet Christians you get today wouldn't know the first thing about Christian love.

Seriously, post this image of the pope following the true example of Christ and look how they react.

>famous guy is better than person whose identity is completely unknown to me

Not that guy, but you are an idiot.

THIS

+1

/Thread

Not an argument sweetie ;)

are you black?

Yeah. I'm not that big into him but that really makes sense.

What I haven't seen in this thread are specific criticisms. Just vague "LOL he panders to /poltards what a cunt!" or "he talks outside his expertise." But nothing about specific arguments he's made and why they're wrong or even big character flaws. Tell me specifically what he's so wrong about that we need a thread about this every day.

Is he just hated because right wingers hold him in high regard? Is it because making vague criticisms is just easy bait on Veeky Forums? What's the actual deal here?

I get that he's popular because the people trying to get him fired or who show up with airhorns at his lectures are the closest thing in reality to those [autistic screeching] comics. Maybe it's just that people resent him for getting famous for that?

Traditionalist =/= Fundamentalist