We all agree that he's just the Richard Dawkins of this generation, right? A counter-cultural academic who is way overstepping his area of expertise and exploiting the 'zeitgeist' of the time?
He's perfectly intelligent and respectable when talking about things like psychology, but he's trying so fucking hard to pretend like he's a philosopher despite clearly not having even a basic grasp of PHI 101.
He is persuasive and that is ultimately what matters.
And I say this as someone who loathes cynical post-modern twats as much as the next guy. But I can't listen to guy butt-sniffing Nietzsche just because he glanced at his Wikipedia article or talk about morality or politics when he clearly has no epistemological or meta-physical theory to ground it. He has no sense of needing to fully justify his claims. I just want to pull my hair out listening to him.
What did he do in the field of psychology, anyway? My impression is that his whole business was taking political stance against communism/Soviet Union, which was in high demand during the Cold War, but not so much later.
> I just want to pull my hair out listening to him.
but you do listen and then go and make threads about him
user you are crushing hard on jp
Does he really believe in his jungian archetypes or is that just symbolic for him?
I would genuinely respect him more if he just has a weird spirituality rather than being a christian LARPer on steroids.
>I would genuinely respect him more if he just has a weird spirituality rather than being a christian LARPer on steroids.
So in other words Christianity is just too mainstream for you which is ironic because Christian spirituality is consider weird by most people.
He is to disaffected young white men what Oprah is to middle-aged suburban women.
apt comparison tee bee aych
>Does he really believe in his jungian archetypes or is that just symbolic for him?
>Does he really believe in symbolism or is it just symbolic?
I feel like your question is malformed.
Big five personality research and meaning are the two main areas.
I think his primary area of research was genetic influence on alcohol addiction tendencies. He kind of dropped that topic to focus on teaching efforts. Apparently was always extremely well-liked by his students, which is how he got decent jobs at Harvard and Toronto.
Bad reading comprehension or you just don't know a lot about him.
He's obviously not a real christian as he always talk of the Bible in terms of narratives and said that he doesn't believe Jesus was God, also called himself a cultural christian.
He's either a literal Jungian or a LARPer who doesn't believe in christianism but uphold it because of traditionalism and fear of sjw atheist cultural marxist post-modernists, a bit like some people on /pol/.
And I have more respect for weird spiritualists than LARPers.
young white men > middle-aged suburban women
I've always felt that we as a civilization are in something of a transition period. The organised religions and ideologies of old simply lack believability to most people, yet the materialism of modern society leaves a spiritual black hole that needs filling. I feel that in the coming decades we'll see the rise of a new form of religion that is able to thrive in a post-Enlightenment world. LARPers like Jordan would obviously fall completely in love with something like that.
Jung himself certainly believed that it was more than symbolic.
>said that he doesn't believe Jesus was God
Source?
I don't think "spiritual black hole" is a the right word because I don't think it needs to be a religion per se but I guess an obvious official philosophical system is lacking.
I just find ironic how that kind of LARPers are accusing people who don't want to pretend believing in something of relativism and nihilism despite their own position still being a self-aware of relativism. (And probably nihilism as they lack a sense of real absolute truth)
What makes you think Jordan is a nihilist?
That kind of LARPing is pretty nihilistic IMO, it's basically admiting that you don't believe in a form of greater meaning and hold on one you think is not actually true.
I'm not saying he's a /pol/ack but he's very similar to them in that aspect.
Holding on culturally/ethnically relative traditional values for the sake of it or just because otherwise your tribe will fall is not an absolute truth by definition, it's at least only a relative truth and generally not something that people of a modern background can genuinely think is true at all.
It's like Nietzsche who wanted to be a pastor before he lost his faith, desesperantly desired the creation of an artificial absolute meaning (The Ubermensch is kind of a messiah delivering humanity from nihilism) and admited that he would have liked to be born in the pre-colonial rigid indian society where everything is religiously justified without a doubt.
Not that guy, but I do think Jordan has struggled with nihilism a great deal. He's had fairly lengthy periods of depression and those two often go hand-in-hand. Part of me feels his modern personality is a bit of a façade to keep himself from slipping away again.
Ironically the far-left "post-modernists" they complain about generally have an archaic Enlightemnent-style belief in a universal humanist truth, they are merely modernists while modern reactionnaries have an actual post-modernist mindset.
What do you mean by this?
When did he say doesn't think Christianity is actually true? Are you this user ? The same one who couldn't provide the example of him saying Jesus isn't God? I'm starting to suspect you are just spreading gossip.
Peterson makes a comparison between old spiral snake drawings and DNA structure. He says the old stuff represents DNA, which is of course impossible since nobody knew about that yet.
Peterson always complain about post-modernists and it's not uncommon for /pol/acks of accusing leftists of being relativists.
And IMO these people are closer to believe in an absolute truth while the ideology of /pol/acks and the one of Peterson are at least fundamentally relativistic.
I've never really viewed this modern cultural dichotomy from an Enlightenment perspective. I suppose I agree with you.
>combover
Never trust a man who's that dishonest with himself to give you psychological advice.
user is tsun~ as fuck
I think you're thinking too much into it and mindlessly over critizing someone based off various YouTube videos that he doesn't himself upload or edit. If you had a conversation with him, and personally confronted him with your criticism, you'd probably realize you got the wrong idea. Maybe not. Neither of us know the guy. What you see from YouTube clips may be far from how he truly thinks or feels. Sure, on the other end of the spectrum, mindless praise is undeserving and I gurantee he would also say he doesn't deserve it, but there's no reason to get excessively judgemental and cynical just because he's gaining a following. There's a lot worse people out there to follow these days.
tl;dr he's not that bad stop being a cunt
>tl;dr he's not that bad stop being a cunt
Where do you think where are?
He's hardly the Richard Dawkins of this generation, Dawkins was one of the most influential scientists of the late 20th Century and world famous for his actual academic work before he went off the rails.
Peterson was a virtual unknown until he managed to be in the right place and time about an argument over trannies in Canada.
This. Remember that Dawkins actually birthed the word ''meme'' into the world, along with lots of other research. What has Peterson ever done?
Btw, Dawkins debates are also quite significant, while Peterson picks lowest hanging fruits.
youtube.com
and
youtube.com
What is there in phi 101 that you think he doesn't understand? I'm so sick of these vague as fuck "critiques"
Unless you have an actual problem with a specific claim, with a counterpoint, you realise it just seems like jealousy, right?
I have no idea where are. Those elusive cunts. Their whereabouts will go forever unknown.
Didn't Dawkins "debate" that clown from The Killers on Mormonism? Dawkins is so smug I can't stand it.
>What is there in phi 101 that you think he doesn't understand?
I've already mentioned this but I've never once heard forward or even imply an epistemological or meta-physical foundation for any of his ethical or political positions. Without those he's just a pandering sophist.
>I'm so sick of these vague as fuck "critiques"
That's part of the problem is that he's not making substantive claims. It's always the same glib, emotionally-charged, vacuous shit. He's the kind of guy who "DESTROYS/TRIGGERS LEFTIST SJW SNOWFLAKES" by just describing/defining some boogeyman (feminism, postmodernism, communism, etc), and generally incorrectly, but he uses negatively connotated phrases and buzzwords and a condemning and authoritative tone. He never explains his philosophical positions in a remotely philosophically disciplined way.
>Unless you have an actual problem with a specific claim, with a counterpoint, you realise it just seems like jealousy, right?
Tell you what, if you're up to it, locate an excerpt of his where he actually articulates a philosophical position, and I'll tell you specifically what's wrong with it.
What the fuck is the point of this post? Who cares about Peterson the "real" person? All 99.9999999% of the planet will ever know is the Peterson portrayed in the youtube videos, this is obviously the one we should be discussing and caring about.
True, but middle-aged suburban women weren't being ordered to give up their culture, identity and wealth and submit to being society's punching bag during Oprah's heyday. Jordan's just as much of a false prophet, tho.
>he's not making substantive claims. It's always the same glib, emotionally-charged, vacuous shit
>he uses negatively connotated phrases and buzzwords and a condemning and authoritative tone.
>He never explains his philosophical positions in a remotely philosophically disciplined way.
That's just what you're doing, user. Peterson has laid out the biocultural pragmatism as the foundation of his position many, many times. Clearly, articulately. You've done shit all, and again passed the buck.
>you show me ONE thing.
Fuck off, there are hundreds of moments. Pick ANY and take your stand, if you even have one. At least he has the balls to say something you spineless pansy.
He isn't saying anything in this video that isn't "self-help" shit. He's only talking about morality in the sense of hypothetical imperatives, which isn't controversial or interesting in and of itself in the philosophical sense. The best you can say is that he is sloppily rehashing Nietzsche (and then in other clips I've seen he seems to vaguely contradict it).
Now if he were clearly arguing something like anti-moral realism and forwarding self-interested goals as the functional replacement of conventional/normative morality, he'd be saying something interesting at least. But this is a guy who seems to like to vaguely evoke Burkean traditionalism too.
OK, so we can forget all the content of your post that could be summed up as "boring talk about something that I want to listen to!" because that's not a philosophical argument. All we're left with is
>sloppily
And
>later contradicts it
How so?
>Peterson has laid out the biocultural pragmatism as the foundation of his position many, many times. Clearly, articulately.
>Fuck off, there are hundreds of moments. Pick ANY and take your stand
I've watched dozens of his interviews and 'debates' now and I've never once seen him 'lay out' 'biocultural pragmatism'. I'm not denying that he has, if some clip is out there I'd like to see it. Otherwise, what I think you might be doing is making some assumptions about what lays at the foundation of his ideas because it seems to fit best.
Why don't you read his fucking book or articles you pseud?
Because I'm on a discussion board not a book club mailing list. I take it you've read his books? Then you should be perfectly capable of at least summarizing his epistemological, meta-physical, meta-ethical, and ethical theory, right? If you're want to come here to defend him but are incapable or otherwise unwilling to, just say that, save us both time.
So now you're just calling me dumb? So what if I am? You're still saying literally nothing about any of his ideas, and I didn't start this thread. Nice big words, by the way. You sure showed ME you're not a pseud.
Why do you think the defence needs to lay out the first position by the way? That's not how this works. If you come in and say "everything that guy says is shit" and I ask "why?" you don't get to then say "first you need to rewrite his entire thesis for me before I can tell you".
Tbh he’s not wrong in asking you to present evidence of Peterson’s philosophy. You did say it was prevalent in his talks, and thusly you should be able to find some evidence of this
This is not a zero sum game fuckwit, figure out a way to prove you are right, don’t chump out and refuse to comply with a reasonable request
t. has no fucking idea about philosophy
chimp*
t. Phoneposter
>is continuously aggressive with "fuck offs!" and "you're a psued!". I just ignore it.
>somehow reads into my post that I'm calling him dumb.
>thinks literal first week philosophy 101 words are "big words" and insinuates that I'm being a pseudo-intellectual for using them in a discussion about philosophy.
>Dawkins is so smug
He can afford it, being as smart as he is. Unlike Peterson.
He wrote a book that used behavioral psychology and comparative religion to explain the Cold War.
THIS
He holds that Jung is a genius, but that psychology has developed significantly, which necessitates that Jung be reinterpreted. His book Maps of Meaning significantly updates Jungian thought.
He's the Jared Diamond of the right in terms of going way out of his original expertise..
>Glorified self-help writer pretending to be a philosopher
fpbp
you can sperg about what he says as much as you want, but the only reason he gets any attention is how he says it
>its a "leftwinger gets mad at Peterson simply because he is succeeding in demolishing his movement while also revealing all of its flaws to the point that even when hit pieces about him come out, they backfire horribly" episode
No I'm with him man, I love JP and watch his stuff a lot, I think he may have missed a mark by focusing so much on a Christian angle to the phenomena that he so brilliantly describes.
>After graduating from Fairview High School in 1979, Peterson entered the Grande Prairie Regional College to study political science and English literature.[2] He later transferred to the University of Alberta, where he completed his B.A. in 1982.[14] Afterwards, he took a year off to visit Europe. There he developed an interest in the psychological origins of the Cold War, particularly 20th century European totalitarianism,[2][15] and was plagued by apocalyptic nightmares about the escalation of the nuclear arms race. As a result, he became concerned about mankind's capacity for evil and destruction, and delved into the works of Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,[10] and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.[15] He then returned to the University of Alberta and received a B.A. in psychology in 1984.[16] In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University. He earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl in 1991, and remained as a post-doctoral fellow at McGill's Douglas Hospital until June 1993, working with Pihl and Maurice Dongier.[2][17]
>From July 1993 to June 1998,[1] Peterson [taught] at Harvard University as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department. During his time at Harvard, he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse and supervised a number of unconventional thesis proposals.[14] Former Ph.D. students: psychologist and teacher from Harvard Shelley Carson, and author Gregg Hurwitz, recalled that his lectures already were highly admired by the students.[8] In July 1998, he returned to Canada and took up a post as a full professor at the University of Toronto.[1][16]
>His areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational,[1] religious, ideological,[2] political, and creativity psychology.[3] Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers.[18]
Nothing makes me laugh more these days than random hipsters on the internet trying to brand a distinguished psychologist as unqualified because they have dirty rooms.
I wish we had kept Gould instead of Dawkins...
Nice perspective.
>anyone who criticizes JP is a lefty sjw
the absolute state of /pol/
>What has Peterson ever done?
started the death throes of neo-marxism in academia, is last bastion, therefore killing it for good and making it as irrelevant as neo-nazism
How many academic papers on psycholog does he have to write and Harvard classes does he have to teach before he's not a glorified self help writer? Honest question.
>wäääh he didn't read my marxist 101 course
kys leftist cuck
>>anyone who criticizes JP is a lefty sjw
pretty much, especially based on the fact that you are attacking him from the left. The "h-hes just a psychologist, what does he know?!" meme is one leftypol types use. This is because they have no real idea what Peterson is saying (because they have never listened to or read anything by him) and dont get that he doesnt spend time talking about policy and politics, but examines people who are authoritarian from a psychological perspective. This is why he is critical of both SJW/communism AND nazis/alt-right
does he really? that's confirmation bias of the most clear sort
Hipster or not, you and your ilk are still trying to brand a highly accomplished psychologist and Harvard professor is unqualified to lecture people about human psychology.
If you find his views unreasonable, explain why. But what you can't do is say the man is unqualified. The reason why all of you actually refuse to refute his main ideas is because you can't, so you ad hom. So predictable.
>here he developed an interest in the psychological origins of the Cold War, particularly 20th century European totalitarianism,[2][15] and was plagued by apocalyptic nightmares about the escalation of the nuclear arms race. As a result, he became concerned about mankind's capacity for evil and destruction
oh come on, we've always been like this. We've just never had the technology capacity to destroy ourselves before.
>We've just never had the technology capacity to destroy ourselves before.
Yeah I think that's the point buddy. Kind of galvanizes someone to be more concerned about it.
>We've just never had the technology capacity to destroy ourselves before.
exactly, we were always limited in technology, but now, we could kill everyone just by pushing a button. Off topic, but I HATE people who look back and laugh at cold war paranoia as if it was just stupid conspiracy theoriest are something.
Yeah but that's not evil, it's just human nature.
It's also human nature to be deeply concerned about the possibility that civilization could be destroyed at any time within a 45 minute window beginning at any time without warning.
If that's the decision we come to as a species then clearly we can't do any better, we failed the test. I forget who, but there's that one scientist who when it came to the possibility of aliens brought up the scenario that maybe the ultimate test of a species is if it can responsibly handle weapons that would destroy them. And that maybe the reason there are no aliens within a couple light years of us is they've all failed.
That's one conclusion, it's a decent one too, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is worth studying.
isn't*
Isn't what? You can't add an edit to my post without context
Lol it's in reference to the first response to you, I meant "doesn't mean the whole thing *isn't* worth studying.
Philosphy dies on a bookshelf. Peterson is a living testament
Psychology wouldn't be outside of his area of expertise, he's a clinical psychologist.
He's just stated what the literature states on intelligence and differences between people. There's not much evidence for the idea that there's some innate equality of aptitude among different people or different groups of people.
People who learn Hegelian epistemology and then expect others to give a shit should be rounded up and drowned.
The guy is a psychologist with decades of both clinical and corporate experience; he's obviously very well read in history, biology (specifically physiology), mythology, and -- if you'd actually watched any of his lectures you would know this -- philosophy, including the major works of post-structuralists with whom he disagrees.
First it was the cognitive scientists, then it was the physicists, now this. Who are you hubristic cunts going to embarrass yourselves with next, honestly? I heard mathematicians still think reality exists.
>he's trying so fucking hard to pretend like he's a philosopher despite clearly not having even a basic grasp of PHI 101.
How many courses did Diogene assisted to?
"Post-modernism" has always been an oxymoron, and I strongly disagree that the left currently has *anything at all* to do with Enlightenment ideals.
But if you were to say "modern 'reactionaries' are better at critical theory than postmodern critical theorists," I would agree wholeheartedly, and I do think the non-retarded core of what's known as postmodernism is well-represented by Peterson's views.
What's with Peterson shills?
That's not the point, he needs to start saying words like "meta-ethical" a LOT, otherwise he's clearly not smart enough to talk in public.
He's exposing the academic priesthood as frauds and becoming a threat. They have to squelch this stuff somehow to keep the racket going, so just like any other entrenched power, they resort to PR to do it.
Well thats just the Channel 4 interview stuff. online shilling on here is by useful idiots who believe they are fighting against a nazi kkk white supremacist. I would bet money that the SPLC will write something about how horrible Peterson is.
By the way, aren't all of you faggots who are up your own asses about "muh epistemology" supposed to be learning about the principle of "charitable interpretation" during your "PHI 101" classes?
Is that still a thing, or has it pretty much been completely subordinated by your need to become the next ideological moral authority?
He's the Ayn Rand
>clearly not having even a basic grasp of PHI 101
What do they teach in PHI 101 these days?
Diversity is strength and all who say otherwise are Nazis?
You must be so smart to talk in public, please send me a link to your youtube video lecture
Some of the finest strawman i've seen today
I think you are confusing universities with MacDonalds. Still, I understand that is all you know.
...