What the fuck is his problem?

See these examples. They can't stand any intellectual opposition so this man needs to be destroyed publicly, shunned out of academia while ridiculed and have his platform taken away from him. There's no actual argument presented at any point. It's always attacks on his character.

Why do people still name drop Freud in some circles while universally deriding Junge?

Hard mode: do not blame the jews

Bews

>implying
The first critique is a genuine critique. He uses critiques of post modernism to redefine "truth" while railing against Post modernism. Basically hypocritical at best

Prove wrong.

Hes a hypocrite. Calls post-modern slave morality bad (Which is true) but, Then goes on to say the Bible is good.
youtu.be/uGld3FbDY6s?t=10m31s

Gotcha, can't critique post modernism or you lose your job.

Maybe you should prove your unsubstantiated claims first or go back to your safe space where claims you make are automatically correct and need to be dis proven.

A mightily passionate man who offers some interesting perspectives. He probably didn't want half the attention he's now facing. I don't agree with everything he says, but I appreciate how he helps people think differently.

>unsubstantiated claims

1. He shits on post-modernism. Source: his videos.
2. He is a post-modernist. Source: his interview with Harris.

Its not exactly subtle. Deconstructing and reality truth is peak post-modernism, he did both.

start @10:22

Considering that in Jungs School of thought 1/3rd of scholars were jews, amtisemitism-accusations are very cheap.
He did believe though that different races brought forth different archetypes/psychologies ultimately.
This view might've been fueled by his experiences with freud and hid kike-school. Freud was really fucking salty about Jung at the end, even though he basically loved and admired the guy before he broke with the stupid overpathologizing and sexualizing.

The Jews never forgot that Jung was mildly sympathizing with the 3rd reich at its conception and mildly criticized jews, even though he kept on working and cooperating with them, even being friends with some. Kikes will never forget the smallest negative thing you say about them.

Also with the pseudo-rationalist sentiment and "haha religion is stupid xDDD" Jung is ofcourse fishy to most people for drawing many of his concepts from mythology, religion and alchemy.

He's basically a heresy in the Psychology-church, simply put.

Still it should make people think that jews are so present in Psychology.

>and reality truth i

Truth and reality*
No idea what happened there.

His work on psychology is great, but I disagree with him political (& the SJWs)

>He probably didn't want half the attention he's now facing.

See his Patreon. He is asking for over a million per year to run his own anti-SJW university online.

this, also praises the kekistani kids (who could also be described as postmodern), tepidly disavows the alt right who constantly use deconstructionist techniques against the (((elites)))

How does his interviews with Sam Harris make him a postmodernist? If anything he is a pragmatist

He deconstructed truth and reality to make his point.
This deconstruction is what we call post-modernism. Taking an established universal constant and breaking it.

>oh genders don't actually mean that
>oh races don't actually refer to that
/pol/ angry

>oh truth isn't actually that, let me explain
>actually reality isn't that
/pol/ happy and throwing money

Like all the other post-modernists he is a pseud.

I like him

check out

you can still like a hypocrite

Even if his hypocrisy is the bedrock of all his theory?

ITT: Marxist "historians" are confused by biological science, evolutionary and clinical psychology, and virtue ethics.

ITT: post-modernist canadian alcoholics redefine what reality and truth mean to avoid having to admit their skydaddy may not exist.

None of which he had any interest in prior. But because he's stubbornly defending his stances, his current career has a looming possibility of ending.

>Why are there so many
>songs about rainbows
>and what's on the o-ther side?

>implying i'm a Marxist

But why would you?

getting mad people give voluntarily give money to someone they like to listen too ahahahaha

Ingrish ?

>everyone who disagrees with me is an ebul marxist leftist
Literally the opposite of a marxist and I still think this guy is bullshit.

this desu senpai

>this lack of comprehension of a discussion

Top kek.

If you're not with us you're a kike nigger transgender dyke. Also, why do you hate the white race, you fucking cuck?

Chronic depression.

The sad thing is, that is literally what it is like talking to some people on this board.

>t. SJW
Please fuck off.

Because it is compossed of people like you. Can't wait for you to be outbred, low test cracker.

>If anything he is a pragmatist
??
pragmatist in the sense that he widened the definition of truth to fit his narrative?
I find his bible analysis stuff interesting and this guy certainly knows his psychology, but both discussions with Harris were horrible.

"There's truth and there's TRUTH" "a book may be true even if it isn't true in the scientific sense"

have you ever read/listened to anyone for a longer amount of time who's oppinions and ideas you found interesting?
If so: how have you NOT noticed that literally every person on the planet is a hypocrite

he is trying his hardest to invent relevance and give it to the masses as a product

reminder that that guy most likely had some weird religious experience during a drug trip with psychoactive drugs

youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi5KkXig3s&t=2h22m20s (open url in new tab for timestamp)
here he's basically arguing that humans might have been capable of "seeing" fucking DNA under strange conditions, thus the existence of double helical snakes in many cultures (although that's how sneks have sex)

youtube.com/watch?v=Gol5sPM073k
he has admitted on taking drugs before

youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8
?????? (i don't even know)

Not him
He doesn't "deconstruct" truth you absolute retard. He claims that it is more useful to consider truth in a Darwinian perspective which is a true and observable phenomenon.

The pseuds that litter these boards make me cringe

>truth in a Darwinian perspective
what the fuck is that supposed to mean? (didn't listen to the talk)

truth being a memetic tool to help us survie?
Doesn't that automatically weaken any point he might take on objective truths or even strong truths, since it is more favourable to have an adaptable structure than a rigid one in a darwinian sense?
sounds deconstructivist to me

The way he tries to us "Darwinian" is pseudo-intellectual and makes me cringe and would make Darwin cringe as well.

Darwinian evolution is an empirical, scientific explanation of how biology adapts to the external environment, it's not a broad philosophical concept that claims that external reality is subordinate in terms of "truth claims" to "mythical archetypes" just because some drunk psychologist wants to claim it is.

>truth doesn't actually mean what every single person on the planet thinks it means, and what we have always used it to mean
>instead it means what i want it to mean
>by the way fuck postmodernists for deconstructing universal concepts

lel

The fact that you can't understand the argument beyond repeating it simply shows your incompetence, not his.

For example, "fire is the devils house, do not tread there."

This line may not be true empiraclly, but practically speaking if it keeps people away from fire (before its chemical nature is understand) then it is "true enough for survival".

JP is of the opinion that "truth" means a view which leads to better outcomes.
He uses this to justify inequality, because hierarchy is "true", it leads to better outcomes. Equality is "false", attempts at it have historically led to bad outcomes.
You can probably fill in the blanks here, but ultimately he needs this to claim that God is true, because believers are happier than atheists.

Because this seems like a genuine question:
What he means is that, if a story tells you to not approach deep waters because shark-devils live there, and the story causes you to not go there, then the story is true in a Darwinian sense. This is why if a story imparts useful advice to you, say a religious text, even though it is not true in its literal interpretation, the message is still true.

This shows your lack of understanding

A strawman

Holy shit. I have no opinions on Peterson but that is one of the fucking stupidest things I've ever heard. That's like the exact opposite of what truth really is. He actually couldn't get it more twisted.

Protip if you belive in God just because you think it'll make you happier, you don't really belive in God

>This shows your lack of understanding

Not at all. That is very specifically what he claimed, it is not my misunderstanding at all. Listen to the first conversation he had with Sam Harris, JP very, very specifically (not Harris twisting his words) claimed repeatedly that empirical truth was subordinate to his moral truths and tried to use "Darwinism" to anchor his claims.

It's you who does not have a clue what the fuck you are talking about.

He doesn't use anything for an argument for God's existence. He's never claimed that God exists definitively. He instead talks about the psychological significance of the biblical (and other religions too) stories. He talks of the idea of God in regards to what it represents and what purpose it serves. He talks about the utility of religion in helping ground oneself.

He's stated multiple times that he does not make arguments for the existence of God, he focuses on explaining things through evolutionary theory and developmental psychology. He has a strong emphasis on reality.

>He's never claimed that God exists definitively.

He just redefines what "exist" means to make the claim with other words.
God is "true". The Bible is "true". Christianity is "true". They are true. This is his claim, its all true.

Assuming this thread is an accurate representation of his ideas, he could have picked any other phrase, like "useful," "advantageous," "pragmatic," "helpful to survival" etc. You know... words that already mean the things he's saying.
But he had to choose "true" to co-opt its meaning and redefine it. That's postmodern as fuck. Why he chose truth is an entirely different question

>What he means is that, if a story tells you to not approach deep waters because shark-devils live there, and the story causes you to not go there, then the story is true in a Darwinian sense. This is why if a story imparts useful advice to you, say a religious text, even though it is not true in its literal interpretation, the message is still true.
that's exactly what everybody replying to you was ridiculing and rightfully critizising as a weak/dangerous definition of truth

Again, all this shows is your lack of knowledge. I have seen the debate and Harris was clearly in over his head in understanding. He simply doesn't think on a large enough scale (which is why his philosophy is so pathetic). Not to say I don't have a lot of respect for Harris.

He claims that empirical truth is subordinate to moral truths because otherwise we would go extinct as a species. That is how it has been since the beginning of existence. He does not mean empirical truth is useless or any less *true*.

Your "argument" has so far been "2deep4u".
I suggest you replace it.

>He claims that empirical truth is subordinate to moral truths because otherwise we would go extinct as a species.

You're welcome to believe that assertion without evidence if you like but that is very clearly not based on Darwinism, which is purely empirical.

Are you retarded? He doesn't even say exist. He doesn't even say true. He simply talks about the utility of the idea from a psychological perspective. If you have not even heard the man speak, don't speak about him.

The idea goes deeper than that you literal 12th grader. If you need everything handed to you on a plate, please stay out of intellectual discussion.

It's not a redefinition. Both sides still exist. Legit just watch the man speak if you want to understand him, I won't do a good job explaining and sure as hell no one else will either. The people here are idiots.

>He simply talks about the utility of the idea from a psychological perspective.

And then redefines truth to mean "high utility". And then redefines reality to mean "whats true".

No, what you've shown clearly shows that it is "2deep4u". You have the understanding of a high-schooler, no joke. You have not made any arguments against him without distorting what he says significantly, or misunderstanding it completely. And when given the framework within which to understand it, you ignore it.

It really is "2deep4u"

Postmodernist cucks on suicide watch

Lmao literally all three of your arguments are just ad homs

Stop trying to defend him if you can't mount an actual defense you're just making him look worse

>that first link
jesus fucking christ!
how can people take this dude seriously?
He sounds just like Deepak Chopra

Didn't he have an argument about that even if there is no God, people must still believe in him, because people are not ready to accept reality?

Sounds machiavelian and patronising as fuck.

Not because people aren't able to accept reality. Rather, because God has utility, thus he is true, thus in reality he is.
The reality in which he exists is a better reality, and we must live in that reality instead.

>When you are so accustomed to having a verbatim 100:1 echo chamber of Leftists to Rightists in the Social Sciences and Humanities that one random mildly conservative Professor in one fairly unknown college in Murka triggers you so bad you need to wage actual IRL street protest campaigns against him

LOL

>He has a strong emphasis on reality.
ahahahahahaha

see what that dude considers "real" is just stupid

>Postmodernist cucks on suicide watch

This, Peterson's postmodernist nonsense has been buttraped in this thread.

>He has a strong emphasis on reality.

He makes up his own definition of reality for fucks sake.

It's the same argument Nicholas Taleb makes you fucking moron, and its sound. Religion is about choice, not faith. It is a group evolutionary strategy.

What are you talking about? He doesn't redefine truth, this has been stated multiple times. He gives another interpretation of it while previously making sure to indicate he understands the usefulness of its modern usage as well.

He doesn't argue against an objective reality. Consider a semi conscious human thousands of years ago. For it nature consists of knowns and unknowns, and both of those can be dangerous for it. And both of those are changing constantly. For it, it does not care whether fire is made of small chemicals. It cares that it is not supposed to approach fire. For it, everything that it considers "true" is what helps it survive. This is what he says, and he claims that this type of thinking could be useful today as well. He does NOT claim that you need to remove the modern definition of truth as an empirical agent as well.

>when you can't make an argument for three replies in a row, so you quit arguing and just make general meme posts dismissing the argument

Haha oh wow.

was my first reply in this thread.

For what it's worth Peterson is far too mild for me, but it's hilarious watching you shitlibs sperg out about a guy whose conservatism is so supposedly so "extreme" he denies the importance of biological race.

Back to your safe space with Foucault and Derrida and co.

Absolutely no one in this thread has expressed any upset at all about the issue that made JP famous, even trannies seemed to agree with him about the pro-nouns issue, I certainly do.

It is all the ridiculous horseshit that it has emerged the man believes since he became famous that made us stunned at his retardedness.

>I certainly do.

Are you tranny yourself, subhuman?

If you read carefully, you will see I responded to all of the claims made. And then proceeded to attack the character of you specifically, and encouraged the other two to actually watch or read the man. This is why understanding this stuff is just a bit too much for you.

Missed the thread then I take it and just thought you would dump a shitpost? Kek.

He states, multiple times in his Harris interview, that all of his theory relies on his interpretation of truth.
That is, everything he has ever said on those popular lectures on Youtube is only true when "truth" means "states of the world that increase evolutionary fitness".
The knowledge that you have cancer and will die is not true to him. You don't have cancer. Go make love to your wife and be happy for 3 more days. Its not true. Fuck reality.

LOL @ libs:

>"Well I'm not one of those EXTREME libtards or anything because I believe that people who mutilate their own genitals and have a 30% successful suicide rate might actually be at least somewhat deusional."

Wew.

It's a start at least.

Kek, user, I like your rhetorical style and the implication you derived there, it made me chuckle, but no.

Watch the biblical lectures and see if what he says isn't based on reality and logic. Hell, just watch the first episode. The echo chamber here really does gutter your minds.

That isn't what the discussion in this thread has remotely been about. Obsessed as you, personally may be with an issue he was discussing a year ago now.

So if a tranny is better off surviving in a society that her pronouns are used, does that mean they are true?
Or his definition of truth affects only majorities?

Nope, just an observer. You guys don't seem to be doing too well imo.

>he contradicts himself, thus he is correct

He's a very smart guy with lots of interesting things to say and with plenty of common sense. 4channers who seem bent on hating him are probably just being edgy contrarians who hate everything and everyone that's not super obscure.

So reality is subordinate to your opinion? How very post-modern of you. You have learned from your teacher well.

Its true for her, but its not true for the rest of us.
Which is what we are seeing actually.