Repeats shit Nietzsche and Jung said

Cosmo Kramer?

He quotes Jung all the time retard

Contrarian

Not a Peterson fanboy by any means but... it bears repeating.

That was a good discussion though. I don't even care for Peterson, nor have I read any of his books, but that was enjoyable.

If you're Canadian he's a fucking hero, keep that in mind. A light of free speech in the darkness of a stagnant PC culture.

Just as Nietzsche and Jung built on others' ideas. Such is the nature of civilization

And completely misunderstands his psychoanalysis, dumbass

You Buckos never cared about free speech; you just want something to justify your hate of trannies.

>Repeats shit scriptwriter wore
Wow what a genius

I never said he understood it

Really Nick? Here now too? You're just so predictable! Stop DMing girls on Instagram, you creep!
Such a small Pecker!

*wrote

Can you articulate how? He has 10s of thousands of hours of lecture experience on the subject and he's generally considered an expert. Where are the gaps in his knowledge/understanding?

I don't get your tryhard reference, sorry.

>Nick detected

Can't we have both?

Fuck off, Nick! You're no good!

Not him but Peterson seems much more Campbellian than Jungian. Jung constantly emphasised the subconscious's ability to help a person grow or provide wisdom. The purpose of myth was to facilitate this. Three elements where Peterson does not seem to talk much that fall into this category (although I have not seen much of the man): dream interpretation, the shadow, and the anima/animus.

Peterson seems to see myth as a set of guide lines, instructions, which is much more in-line with Campbell's thinking.

This is more of a classification than criticism. The one crititism I have is that Peterson when discussing psychology does not emphasis quality enough. For instance he discusses that introverts do this or that. Well for Jung introvertion had a quality scale: a scale of not HOW intrevert you are but how developed that part of you is. A low quality introvert is one who is hindered by it such as the loser who struggles to make basic conversation. A high quality introvert is aided by it such as Nietzsche or Heraclitus who used it to perform amazing feats of self-analysis. This error of not emphasizing quality enough is present in his general advice. He speaks about things as though they were universial when most often he is talking about psychology that only applies to average or below average psyches.

>Whoa I don't like this person
>Instead of saging/reporting/ignoring threads related to X person I better make more shitpost wars about it

Just suck his cock already you numale cuckie

Why does /leftypol/ hate him so particularly? Because he cites Solzhenitsyn?

human

The real answer is that he hasn't read or engaged with Rene Girard. Just like all of you.
Shame on you.

But but, millennials hate him and here's why.

Quantity is not quality.
>he's generally considered an expert.
For fuck sake, by who? Some morons on the internet? Myers-Briggs has a better claim to that than Peterson

He constantly uses jung's psychoanalysis for his self help shit when it is far more reteroactive and individualistic. It doesn't map out the path to individualation but informs it instead. Indeed Jung helped his patients by interpreting their dreams with them to direct them to improve themselves. But Peterson weaponizes or commodifies this process for his own end.

Also using jungian psychoanaylsis to prop up Christianity is like using Marxism to prop up capitalism. I never witnessed such irony in my life

and that's a good thing

>commodifies this process for his own end.

nigga's got to make a living. He gave it all away for free for like 20 years.

I'm pretty sure you're replying to a schizophrenic.

>Can you articulate how? He has 10s of thousands of hours of lecture experience on the subject and he's generally considered an expert.
jesus fucking christ the absolute state of this shitheap board

Smells like the brandposter to me, it's the same "everyone obviously knows" style troll

Peterson made a great point re: C-16 though: if radical constructionism is built into the law, what's to stop far right groups from flat-out claiming "trans people are just making it up in their head"? Discarding the biological components at play, or contradicting them, doesn't serve the people it's trying to help at all.

you add nothing

Simply because he exposes how shitty PC left wing politics have become, especially in Canada.
... Except they don't. A large chunk of his audience are teenagers and young adults looking for guidance, and for that matter I don't think the advices he gives them are half bad.

yeh he isn't an intellectual heavyweight but he does have a public platform as a Professor and should be commended for standing up for freedom of speech when so few will, even if its in the context of bizarre, seemingly irrelevant references to Nee Chee and Jung.

check out his discussion with David Benatar if you really feel like a laugh

Why is he so based?

he tells the truth

>A lecturer lectures people about stuff.

HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!

>a psychologist thinks he is educated in the field of biology, philosophy and all other sciences

>philosophy
>science
analytics pls go

they're connected, but not the same, continentals and analytics both concede this point

Science never influences philosophy, but philosophy does influence science

Of course he bloody well is, bucko.

That's what is actually happening and "radical constructionism isn't built into the law" wathever that means.
We have a biological centainty, safewarded by biological and medical insitutions, there are only two sexes: male and female. These two sexes MUST have an harmony between body and mind, and must be given from birth.
Surprisingly we find "males" or "females" performing, feeling and thinking like the opposite so this biological dichotomy is betrayed. They're sick, they have a psychopatology they say. What the fuck does it matter if far right groups say that they're biologically sick and need treatment or that they're making it up in their heads and they need treatment?

>Science never influences philosophy
lol

>cybernetics is giving birth to a whole new doctrine of philosophical thought.
I could give you hundreds of examples, but this one case is evident enough for you to see how wrong your cliche is.

What philosophical thought?

The ethics of waifuism

The funniest thing of all is more or less no one of his followers read his magnum opus: "Maps of meaning" and they never will.

Have you, and is it any good? If it's just watered down Jungian psychology I don't see the point since I've already read Jung.

Agency replaces old identity, boundaries between the self and the other and all other dichotomies are being materially broken, a further critique of reason centered on the subject, a "new" conceptualisation of the human and non-human . etc.

and especially still waiting for an answer. dismissing something as trolling doesn't count - particularly when it's not. face facts, fools, peterson got thoroughly destroyed. it's embarrassing that this board even talks about it and more embarrassing that failed to point out peterson's biggest and most trenchant critic.

I did. Well, I watched his lectures based on in and read the parts of the book that the lecture doesn't cover.

Veeky Forums isn't going to stop being filled with youtube-tier retards who obsess over this or that e-celeb "philosopher". Get used to it.

>Three elements where Peterson does not seem to talk much that fall into this category (although I have not seen much of the man): dream interpretation, the shadow, and the anima/animus.
I've heard him talk about all three.

they can at least be obsessed with the right e-celeb "philosopher" (who is an actual philosopher, unlike stupid peterson who is just jim jones reincarnated as a boring canadian man)

Who's that "right" e-celeb "philosopher"?

This is the most Reddit shit I've ever seen.

Peterson is getting a large amount of young people to read classic literature as well as take personal responsibility. I fail to see how either one of these is somehow bad, yet Veeky Forums and reddit seem to hate the guy.

Some points were off but as a Peterson fan who's reading Jung it rings true

>>Three elements where Peterson does not seem to talk much that fall into this category (although I have not seen much of the man): dream interpretation, the shadow, and the anima/animus.
Idiot, he talk about those all the time

Why is taking personal responsibility good?

...

It's a terminal case of Rick and Morty fandom. His worst fans are the most vocal, and they suffer from a really bad case of Duning-kruger

From then it was only a matter of time until the contrarians found an obsessive hatred of him and made three hate-threads for every one praising him

Because he is wrong. Him saving you /r9k/posters doesn't change that

he says start with jung, which is objectively wrong. reading the right books is as important as reading 'classic literature'

mainly because of how obnoxious his fanboys are

even he kind of acknowledges it, have you cleaned your room yet?

>& Humanities

>Veeky Forums seem to hate him
he was overwhelmingly liked pre-2018, he's received more hate recently - mostly from /pol/ - for refusing to answer a question on Jewish treatment or something? I'm unsure, maybe another user knows

>Rousseau
>Machiavellian

Are you 15 or still living at your parents?

critical-thinking

I like him but yes, he gets too much praise as a thinker by his fans who do see him as some kind of genius with profound new insights. He's one of those academics who make philosophical and intellectual topics popular and spreads some ideas and helps people get their act together. There's nothing wrong with that though.

please user, don't be retarded. even you should be able to understand the difference between building on previous thought in your own way on the one hand and just plainly referencing and repeating fragments to give people who don't read some old lessons the easy way. I like Peterson but to put him on the same level as actual important philosophers is laughable.

Even so, I fail to see how having unsavory people like a thing makes that thing any more repulsive in the eyes of people. It's basically like blaming the apple tree for making bad apples.

hes very sincere in an unsincere time and he tells the truth

he never said he didn't like him, he's criticising other's evaluation of him.

What a smug Frenchmen. What's a good essay or book of him to start with, and how would you summarize him in one sentence?

There isn't a brainlet wojac for this one

>the truth

what the fuck is that user

>Science never influences philosophy

you are a dumb person

>Pisses off leftist faggots.

What more can one ask of a man?

>DUDE, WE SHOULD RETURN TO CHRISTIANITY BUT IRONICALLY, LMAO

I actually just read Jung's lecture on introverts/extroverts and enjoyed it quite a bit, but I'm still pretty far off from finishing Modern Man in Search of a Soul. It's nice to hear a synopsis of his exposition on that part though.

You're a fucking moron, congratulations.

...

Some /pol/ack flat out gave him a copy of 200 years together on stage and tried to get an answer to the JQ. He just sorta walked away and said “I can’t do it” to the JQ, and /pol/ has been on his ass especially since then.

...

How do we know Socrates actually said it? He never wrote it down.

Faggot