Jordan Peterson

Delete this.

Link to the lecture?

He's worth listening to, just don't suck his dick.

youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

Maps of Meaning is great.

>more than anyone else I've come across.

Really? It's great that your friend is finding something meaningful through him... but really?

What are some other lectures worth watching?

I'm glad Sam "The Shining STEMGod" Harris exposed this bitchboi as a fraud he is

This

w-what did he mean by this?

>Should I listen to a CIS white male?
No.

WOW, YOU MADE FUN OF SJWS! XD
HOW EDGY AND SMART! XD

t. sjw

Its worth listening to his maps of meaning lectures, they are really good.

He can't be a worse use of your time than browsing Veeky Forums.

>jungian retard who had to invent utility-bound definition of truth just to defend his worldview is worth listening to
top meme my mang

t. Æutist

Anybody who has engaged seriously in philosophy, won't be impressed by this guy. He's like a pop-psychologist/philosophist. Very simplistic and reductive theory, if you compare it to (for example) Jung himself. He is what many on Veeky Forums pretend Zizek to be. Except if you read Zizeks real stuff like The Parallax View etc., you will see how untrue this is. For Peterson though it is absolutely true. One might even say that his effect is Anti-Intellectual, since all the people who flock to him in recent times do so out of a desire for philosophical security and assurance.

I just watched 45 minutes of the interview here: He's not that bad. I'm suspicious of how he naturalizes (it all comes back to biological reality) and I worry that his view of religion instrumentalizes it, but he definitely seems interesting.

It is odd, though, that for all his talk of Jung, he never seems to mention Hegel. His view of Christianity is straight out of Philosophy of History, for example, and his idea that Christ is the union of the particular and the universal is also straight Hegel.

I saw Jordan Peterson at an event in Los Angeles a few months ago. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, and that I didn’t want to be a douche and start a deep philosophical discussion or anything because I would have taken too much of his time.

He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and went to the other booths, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I was about to head out I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen copies of "Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity" in his hands that he snagged from some girl's booth.
The girl at the was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Mr. Peterson, you need to put those back.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to her table.
When she took one of the books and started flipping through it, he stopped her and told her to not to read those book because they cause “gendrilical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she looked through each book and put them back on her table and began trying to sell her book to other people at the event, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

cool pasta

He's just a conservative saying fairly generalized conservative things. Half of the Catholic men over 30 in America likely have the same opinion, he just articulates it from a place of relative power. Tell your friend to go join the catholic church. He's now "famous" because he said that made-up pronouns are dumb from a language perspective(i.e. that using the pronoun "zwaba" to describe someone instead of 'he/her" weakens our language and is dumb).

It's a basic extension of the long-standing arguments that it isn't offensive to, in english, use masculine pronouns for groups because romance languages do the same. That's exactly what I thought of when listening to him for a few hours -- my old conservative teachers that insisted we use "he" instead of "they" in a sentence like:

"If one finds himself asking whether to listen to Jordan Peterson or not, he should consult a japanese cartoon board"

even if the reader could presumably be female.

This line of thinking isn't wrong, but I think it's kind of autistic to care so much about what pronouns someone wants to use. Obviously in academic discourse we should stick to "he" or "they"(or perhaps even "she" if one must be contrarian), but in places like the classroom where it genuinely does not matter I think it's fairly anti-intellectual to be up in arms about this.

And as for his other opinions, not this one thing that made him famous, they're still very simple christian academic opinions. I really don't think he has much to offer outside of the mainstream. I guess he's an accessible entry point into conservative views of post-modernism(within the realm of the topics he covers), but that's all you should expect to get out of him.

>all the people who flock to him in recent times do so out of a desire for philosophical security and assurance.
You've got a point desu. I feel like a lot of /pol/acks like him because he says a lot of similar things with a heavy dose of intellectual and philosophical rationalization. Certainly not saying he's right or wrong on anything, but weak minded people will cling to whatever he says. He's the new Molyneux, to be honest.

>He's the new Molyneux, to be honest.

there are many people like this, just few are conservative. He's cut from the same block as people like Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.

Pop thinkers are pop thinkers. If you want to be reassured that your conservative views on postmodern identity are right without having to really think about it then listen to him. It's the same as people on the other side who don't like Christianity listening to Dawkins. I would argue that Peterson essentially only uses arguments of opinion and simple reductive reasoning though, which is inherently far weaker than the generic "science is awesome omg!!!" arguments frequently used by the usual pop psychologists/scientists.

Who would you reccomend that has a deeper philosophy?

read what he reads

He is racist and probably national socialist too. Nothing you want to hear. People like him are suppose to be jailed or atleast restricted somehow.

Real philosophers would be a good start. You aren't going to learn meaningful things if you try to watch pop philosophers on youtube.

Zizek is the only ultra popular philosopher that has real merit, and I wouldn't read or listen to Zizek until you have a strong background in philosophy.

You should just read Hegel and Kant(after reading the bible), then see where you're lead from there. You're not going to find a youtube video that gives you a meaningful world view. Finding justification for conservative Christian ideas is not easy and you're going to have to work on it. A guy saying that the young'uns shouldn't be changing their pronouns isn't doing anything meaningful.

Fair enough.

His views on Nietzsche are retarded.

He probably has cancer.

That he likes Lewis Carroll.

>Zizek is the only ultra popular philosopher that has real merit

I've heard him talk about Kierkegaard, who shares a similar idea about Christ being the ultimate paradox

>Sloterdijk
>popular

If only.

>My friend
GET THE FUCK OUT NORMIE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Genuine question, should I read his book before his lectures or vice versa?

The guy is an actual psychologist, but he often indulges in pseudophilosophy.
People listen to him because he opposed preferred pronouns in his university, that's where he comes from.

If you're dumb enough to listen to hacks like Sam Harris listen to him. If you know better avoid him, he's intellectual poison.

t. psued

>he listens to Jordan Peterson lectures
>he actually think he's not the pseud here

>"no u"
Nice argument!

Your friend probably doesn't read and therefore is easily impressed by stale, incoherent ideas.

Hey!

What lecture?

Bait

How does one Sloterdijk?

It is definitely pseud to enjoy a spastic depressed hack regurgitating Campbell and Jung, specially if your interest in said hack comes from him not liking preferred pronouns or some other american bullshit in those lines.

Sam Harris is a hack as well and anyone who likes either him or Peterson should leave this board.

"Buttmad leftist convinces lazy millenial that his ideological opponent is entry lvl" a tragedy in 4 acts

lesson 2 b lrnd:
Veeky Forums pepo are not afraid of being called bigots but are absolutely scared to the death of being perceived as entry level

Am I the only guy who found Peterson through his lectures on existentialist writers? Also you guys keep going on about him being Christian, yet after watching his maps of meaning and a few of his personality lectures, I have never hear heard him give a Christian biased opinion.

I enjoy Jung and I enjoy Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, so what's wrong with listening to somebody who has thought over these thinkers for decades? I don't know why you contrarian psueds give him the straw man routine. He has a lot more to say than ninety percent of people on this board.

I found him that way too, his Dostoevsky and Nietzsche lecture is one of his most viewed videos.

The extent to which he's made the pseudo-intellectual Marxists on this board mad, and the fact that they only ever make straw mans of him and his arguments just proves he's onto something.

He is himself very post-modern with his notion of truth.

Are you joking? I dont think you know what post modern is m8. Someone who asserts that there are absolute universal truths is about as far from post modern as you can get

>whether a fact is true depends on if the fact benefits us in the long run
>absolute universal

jordan peterson is a god amongst men

Right. Hes assigning an absolute definition to what truth is. Not very post modern

pretty sure the guy's just a glorified hs teacher

what is it do you really want?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The other user's point is that Peterson's pragmatic notion of truth is as opposed to Enlightenment notion of "truth=rationality" as it is to the pre-modern "truth=Divine word." If we say that truth=what works, then we've given up on truth as a super-human thing that either sanctions or disallows our actions, because the success of our actions or thoughts determines their truth.

Derrida stated that there are universal truths. Is he a postmodernist?

It takes a while to understand his "big picture".

No

I watched the whole series and am now reading the MoM book. It's good and yeah it does have that that "ah" quality. I haven't read much non-fiction but most of the other stuff I have read ( Barthes, Foucault, etc ) has had that "mmm that's hard to understand and if true rather depressing" quality.

Fuck no. If anything, his notion of truth is based on an older design of truth. You know, the one before scientific basis.

Anyone who has engaged serious in psychology knows how mistaken you are. I find Peterson reductionist to a fault, but fundamentally his premise isn't without merit. And that's largely because at his best he's just parroting Jung.

It's a joke because he never smiles

absolute madman records his lecture

youtube.com/watch?v=EKqu1UWrLxM

this btw, butthurt leftists are definitely trying to stain his character at every chance

Thank you for being honest. He is known for his existential thoughts because he can make clear examples of many existential circumstances from his experience as a psychologist. He isn't just parroting somebody. All of those ideas have been internalized and connected to him so he can speak about the whole movement from the inspiration to its lasting effect on contemporary society. If anyone does this better Veeky Forums even if it's a book, I'm all ears because you see, I'm not a contrarian pseud only interested in patronizing intellectuals to elevate myself. I'm actually interested in learning about the history of philosophy and its effects on cultural movements.

Listen to his podcast with joe rogan its worth listening to it all but it really picks up around the last hour
youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

Has anyone tried his self-authoring program?

He's a pretty smart guy, and he's right about a lot of things.

But it's not like he's without faults, but I doubt he tries to be either.

>put it on x1.5 velocity
;)

I did but I don't really trust something like that on the internet if you get what I mean.

no he's a complete waste of time, just randomly and badly lifts ideas from nietzsche and kant and puts them together terribly

plus he sounds like kermit

It wants death, so it has manufactured the means of it's own destruction, though it knows it not.

They all want to die so badly, for being born white straight and able; they can't think of a nicer fate.

he's a meme. he'll do well. the next zizek