/I posted a PDF of a book so this is technically a lit friendly thread/

then ask why he try to speak on something that he has no credentials for.

Because what he is doing is (political) conti-philosophy by now.
If he took his own opinions seriously, he'd publish and put it under scrutiny like an actual academic, rather than actively seeking out pink-haired undergrads and uneducated conservative radio show hosts who don't understand what he is saying.

I don't wholly disagree with everything he says. Specifically regarding the legislation of language. But he is turning into a Zizek-Meme.

Inquire about Veeky Forums's most common criticism of him. I'm actually quite curious to hear how he would respond. Something like this:

"Dr. Peterson, critics of yours have claimed that your use of the word 'postmodern' conflates SJW anti-capitalist culture with the actual postmodern movement, which is much more broad. After all, Jung was a postmodernist, and so are you, but you never seem to mention this in your lectures and speeches, painting postmodernism as something unambiguously evil. Your critics state that your colloquial and inaccurate use of the term indicates that either you do not know what postmodernism means, or you are deliberately spreading misinformation. How do you respond?"

Because he's decently read in continental philosophy. You don't have to be a part of an academic discipline to comment on its object of study in the public sphere; you do have to be part of an academic discipline to have a chance of being published in its field-specific journals

It's not really though is it? His thoughts aren't nearly systematic enough to be considered as philosophy. I like the dude, and think he has a good amount to say that's worthwhile, but it's not even close to the kind of material that's worth publishing in a philosophy journal, and that's not a bad thing necessarily. We need both intelligent generalists and cloistered experts in equal measure

This would be a very good question if you phrased in a sympathetic way, made it clear you're not trying to score a cheap shot at him.

I'm none of the guys you've quoted but I have to say it: you're retarded.

A question off thread
Is JP catholic?

>This would be a very good question if you phrased in a sympathetic way, made it clear you're not trying to score a cheap shot at him.
Ya maybe if you got down on your knees and sucked him off a little first.

>Because he's decently read in continental philosophy. You don't have to be a part of an academic discipline to comment on its object of study in the public sphere; you do have to be part of an academic discipline to have a chance of being published in its field-specific journals
Psychologists regularly publish in philosophical journals. Really anyone with a good enough paper can be published. Anywhere.
The point of publication is that you open yourself up to scrutiny of peers. If you don't do that, you are willfully confounding the debate on your proposals.
>It's not really though is it? His thoughts aren't nearly systematic enough to be considered as philosophy.
Sure it can. At the very least, he presupposes systematic arguments by referring to both other philosophers and studies. Entire conti books have been published on much less.
>I like the dude, and think he has a good amount to say that's worthwhile, but it's not even close to the kind of material that's worth publishing in a philosophy journal, and that's not a bad thing necessarily. We need both intelligent generalists and cloistered experts in equal measure
Not if he is building a career on it and is knowingly avoiding real scrutiny. That borders on demagoguery.

Ask him what, if anything, he thinks is valuable in Lacan's thought. Maybe Adler too. JP is very familiar with Freud and Jung, so he should be able to hold forth at least somewhat knowledgeably on Lacan more than "he's a postmodernist and wants to destroy everything."

Zizek has actually published and written lots of books, unlike Peterson.
Ask him why does he consider the book by Solzenishityn historical when there are lots of history books about the horrors of communism. Also, what is his opinion on why does he thinks marxism is the same as communism.

>Zizek has actually published and written lots of books, unlike Peterson.
I know. And after the dust settled, he just settled down with the other analyst/marxist contis and has been riding the meme-wave ever since.
Peterson skipped the whole part of at least establishing himself first, before amassing a cult following, who (I feel) influence him more than he is influencing anyone else.

...

>and has been riding the meme-wave ever since

????
He was doing both simultaneously. He still writes articles, look up the Zizekian Studies website (kek). Slavoj also said he always preferred writing instead of doing speeches but everyone likes to listen english with slovenian accent.

>who (I feel) influence him more than he is influencing anyone else.

Kek, I don't think so. He stills keeps his arguments about religion and the right-wing since he started the cult. I really hope his fanbase doesn't start doing shit like doing marches with his face on a sign just like the Kekistan crowd did with the frogs and feels memes.

can you blame them? zizek sounds sexy, peterson lilke a puppet frog

No

>He was doing both simultaneously. He still writes articles, look up the Zizekian Studies website (kek). Slavoj also said he always preferred writing instead of doing speeches but everyone likes to listen english with slovenian accent.
My point being that in the academic field, he's old news.
The high point was probably his squabble with Chomsky.
>Kek, I don't think so. He stills keeps his arguments about religion and the right-wing since he started the cult. I really hope his fanbase doesn't start doing shit like doing marches with his face on a sign just like the Kekistan crowd did with the frogs and feels memes.
Uhm... (pic related)
He indulges them af. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he refers to himself as the voice of the voiceless in every interview he gives now.

How disgusting, just anothet demagogue.

>What question should I ask him? (non-autist responses will be considered)

Ask why he thinks Jung can go beyond an ironic belief in God, and if he can't, then he's a post-modernist (which Peterson is).

>assuming he isn't trolling
WTF is wrong with people that they need affirmation and confirmation from anybody who they see as authority according to their media consum?

I just checked out the plethora of clips the internet algorithms just assigned for me because of my quick Peterson searches.
Seems most of his newer talks boil down to "conservatism was healthy. I'm not saying you should be a conservative anglo-christian, but you should totally be a conservative anglo-christian."

even if it was a troll I'm sure the upvotes were mostly sincere

Ask him if he believes in paderasty

Wouldn't this make him a pragmatist like Rorty, rather than postmodern?

rorty is po-mo pragmatism tho

oops

Ask him if he is actually a disillusioned atheist-moral relativist-postmodernist who uses trickery to influence impressionable young students and harness their natural desire to change to the world.

I get the strong sense that he is.
He's desperately trying to advocate conservativism without being a conservative.

what the fuck man

I thought Peterson was a serious guy. I hope he is doing it just to expand his cult, not because he actually agrees with them, since he have said multiple times he doesn't agree with the alt right (I know it's a made up term by the opposition but they call themselves that way now).

>literal jew on the right
hmm...

youtube.com/watch?v=AiGhhylUb4M
I don't know if he really gets it.

Being respectful isn't worthy of mockery

I was having an eye on /pol/ during the election.
The very second they discovered the frog connection, they went fucking apeshit. (This was during the Pizzagate thing.)
And then he fucking rolled with it.
youtube.com/watch?v=d7VUTIaXePo

I like some of his earlier stuff as a psychologist. But damn...

>that fucking voice
Kek
>a mythical country ruled by chaos
>"Pepee, the trump frog"
>between categories, like transsexual

Holy fuck. Nobody will get it, it's all for laughs, nothing is serious. Not even the kekistaners get it, they already want to make it a serious thing and no longer a meme.
I never watched the video but I remember the /pol/ threads. Honestly, it seems that the "/pol/ is one person" is now real since most of them agree on certain topics. Again, "normies" won't get it since since actual neo nazis are mixed within /pol/'s userbase of trolls.

>a disillusioned atheist-moral relativist-postmodernist

He's a Jungian, so, yes, absolutely. This should be obvious to anyone who knows Jung.

I think Jung was the other way around. A hippie who didn't want to admit to it.

>I never watched the video but I remember the /pol/ threads. Honestly, it seems that the "/pol/ is one person" is now real since most of them agree on certain topics. Again, "normies" won't get it since since actual neo nazis are mixed within /pol/'s userbase of trolls.
That's the whole problem. It all started as fun and memes, but some morons joined in, taking it seriously.

I remember when Trump was beginning to win.
/pol/ was divided between "muh kek magic" and "Uh, guys? You know we were just joking, right?... Oh god. What have we done"

How is Jung and him postmodernists when they both act as if there is an objective realm of order to things and do not advocate at all for something contradictory to this?

Like others said, Jung ironic belief. He can't make himself believe but he thinks it's cool than others believe, and he probably smoked weed or some shit.

Wut?
Peterson absolutely talks about us constantly trying to make sense of a chaotic world.
And his solution seems to be willful thinly failed conservative delusion.

Apparently Prof Peterson doesn't understand Marxism. Or else the person who created the Meme doesn't. Shocking, right?

>Communism BTFO (all worthwhile content version)
youtube.com/watch?v=BTa2P8Z-O0w

>>Communism BTFO (short version)
>youtube.com/watch?v=OlB_xNOAn1c&t=22s

comedically ignorant of basic history lol

But he gravitates towards a discipline at the end of the day. There is no "well it's up for debate because it's all subjective" nonsense. Acknowledging different perspectives does not imply otherwise, he clearly knows there is objective truth in all perspectives, including his own, and so does not put forward anything with any flimsy half-confident premise. Which is what differentiates him from postmodernists.

Compare him with someone like Alasdair Macintyre...Peterson comes out looking like a thinly veiled po-mo relativist.

Macintyre thoroughly btfo'd SJW relativism decades ago. Peterson is a weak opponent.

bruh
peterson is definetively the catcher

You know, postmodernism isn't a term that is well definied, you can have (I believe) two views about it. You are a postmodernist or a product of it because of the timeframe you are living in, and the institutions/structures permeate your thought forms whether you agree with or not, and thus you have the postmodernist world view despite what you critique of it is, you see, the antithesis of postmodernism might still be considered pomo if you consider the whole dialectic aspect of it. This is viewing postmodernism as a big structure or movement that has people supporting ideas from one side and the other, but ultimately they are part of the same big idea, which is what most people refer it as when they try to critique Peterson's view of it. Also, this creates the issue of trying to define well what postmodernism is, since it becomes a big abstract "Leviathan" that is hard to tackle in every way, since you can't get away from living inside a pomo society.
Consider this as something alike what most modern thinkers refer to Capitalism, which isn't just an economic model, but something far greater and complex.

The other view of Postmodernism is rooted in viewing as a smaller movement, compared to the one above, that tries to oppose the western values of the Enlightenment (maybe, I'm not so clear about this) and everything that you could consider 'conservative', the reasons could be many, but the methods are undermining the most objective moral values that the western world has (i.e. family) in order to push their worldview. I believe this is that Peterson refers to, but it still creates a huge issue of what we understand as Postmodernism.

I don't put myself in either side of the discussion and although I think Peterson is doing something good when trying to put forward a critique of the current social movements of today, most of his supporters aren't well informed of the bigger picture and the critique about what he understands of Pomo is strong, he should maybe reduce the scope of his critique.
I don't have any formal studies about this, but I think this is what the debate is about. Probably someone can explain it with more depth.

>there is objective truth in all perspectives
namaste

good post

Nigger is as respectful as you can get with asking this question. It's literally just stating Veeky Forums's argument and asking for a repsonse.

But user, pointing out his flaws so callously would probably be offensi-... oh.

If they just omit the "and so are you" part if would be fine.

in what way? i'm curious

step 3 is flawed in that it

1. is either ignorant of the ethical problems of allowing "winners" and "losers" in matters of livelihood, or else is willfully condoning the destruction of human life

2. is ignorant of the history, genealogy, and structure of the capitalist mode of production, which does not merely produce "winners" and "losers" but demands that the same people always "win" and continue to "win" until it becomes impossible for them to "win" any longer because they people losing, at whose expense the "winners" are "winning," can no longer afford to "play"

in other words in his attempt to reduce """social justice""" to fun and games, peterson exposes that this is, actually, how he understands politics

3. it also doesn't seem to acknowledge that from a philosophical perspective (you know, the one he loves to pantomime despite his transparent disciplinary biases) critique of structural hierarchies (win/lose) is a legitimate logical operation, especially when they create ethical problems, which are part of the field of philosophical inquiry.

>what is pragmatically phrasing your question to get the best answer and so he doesn't sperg out and shut you down
>Psychologists regularly publish in philosophical journals. Really anyone with a good enough paper can be published.
Sure but we're still talking about papers which are of a specifically academic interest. I'm by familiar with how continental journals work, but I'd imagine that the kind of political philosophy you publish is dry commentary on classic thinkers, rather than completely original work. There's no point in him publishing in an analytic journal, because he's a Nietszchean who doesn't actually believe in logic and reason like he says he does. Either way, his work is unfit for philosophy journals, not because of liberal bias or anything, but because of issues of form. He's a public speaker not a philosopher and you ought to be able to treat his ideas within that context. Or do you think we should stop writing novels and force all writers to present their ideas in journals too, since that's the only "valid" avenue.

Psychologists get published when they have something to contribute to philosophy of mind or something, not fucking political philosophy.

>Sure it can. At the very least, he presupposes systematic arguments by referring to both other philosophers and studies. Entire conti books have been published on much less
Yeah, and the dude practically did publish a conti book, when he put out Maps of Meaning. All I'm saying is the guy isn't an academic philosopher and it's pointless to regard him as such. He's a cultural commentator who uses the work of philosophers as a springboard for his commentary.

>Not if he is building a career on it and is knowingly avoiding real scrutiny. That borders on demagoguery.
Practically every thinker in history has build a career by knowingly avoiding scrutiny, except as a piece of theatre. How often do intellectuals engage in genuine debates, at the end of which one has conceded the point to the other and a conclusion has been reached? Peterson has offered to publically debate people with regards to his areas of expertise, which are psychology- not philosophy-related (I.e. Psychology of gender)

Look I'm really not the Jordon Peterson fanboy you seem to think I am. The guy has acted in an intellectually disingenuous way many a time in the past and many of ideas do not cohere. Plus I'd like to see him do a backtrack on telling people to avoid reading postmodern theorists because even if you share his political beliefs, avoiding important thinkers is cowardly and anti-intellectual. But that doesn't invalidate the things of interest which he does have to say, and frankly it also doesn't invalidate the positive effect he's having on the lives of many confused young men. It's just unadulterated cynicism to deny him that.

I literally cannot get enough of Jordan Peterson.

dog penis

>the destruction of human life
"Losers" refers to things like being less attractive or having a worse job or being bad at a game, not being gunned down in a ditch.

Good point we need to make sure we don't offend him. Maybe he needs us to follow a certain protocol in addressing him and asking him things if we don't want him to shut us down.

>P-p-peterson can't comment on philosophy he doesn't have philosophy credentials!!!!

Jesus Christ, is this the level of attack that anti-Peterson shills have finally been reduced to?

I really would like to know this also.

>jung

Look nigga all I was trying to say is that you're more likely to get a fleshed out answer if you present yourself as a friend, than if you present yourself as hostile and an enemy, in which case he'll be more likely to give you a terse and hostile answer in return.

You fucking stimming autist

>anything but jung

At the end of the day, isn't Jung just an inadvertent, and less developed, attempt at reformulating the Hegelian project minus the strong metaphysical speculative logic?

Peterson is very well-cited psych researcher

>dont dare you question my internet daddy :(
you fatherless numales are pathetic

He's interpreting the biblical stories from the lens of psychological research to give them modern credence. Why would he need to read theology?

What is it with the recent obsession with credentialism?

When post-modernism is used to describe a worldview, it usually refers to an attitude towards approaching the truth, not just the time period. The deeper problem is that there isn't a comprehensive definition or boundary for the post-modern movement, but then again that's exactly how post-modernists like it so it's not exactly a surprise.

>Nobody gets it
>Nobody but me

Most people who have been using Veeky Forums since 2014 will get it.

OP are you still paying attention to this thread?
What did you end up asking?

>OP makes a thread about Peterson and asks for questions
>anons trying to discredit Peterson from the first few posts onward.
Spot your shills boys.

I don't even like the guy, but this is fucking obvious. Fuck off leftypol.

Peterson is an uninteresting hack, and a liar. Ive been to a lecture once and he cleverly monopolised the conversation by trying to look clever. So ask him why is he such a tool.

>"Losers" refers to things like being less attractive or having a worse job or being bad at a game, not being gunned down in a ditch.

My point is equally simple and obvious.

>communists buzzwords and pseudo intellectualism
I love how you, already in point one, managed to accuse someone of destroying human lives based on predetermined assumptions you hold as truth (such as there even being an ethical problem to begin with).

Then you go on to accuse him right at the start of point two of "ignorance" essentially saying he is not as smart and informed as you while again basing it on predetermined assumptions you hold as truth thus if someone doesn't agree with you by definition they are either ignorant, malicious or both.

fag

>kek is lol in Korean
I... Oh my

bump