Why do you hate him?

Why do you hate him?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=p8TDbXO6dkk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because negan made him look like a bitch.

Because he is a meemee on a weeb image posting site which has dubious taste/standards at the best of times

I love him

His lectures are pretty decent. Disagree with him on some points because I reject his premises or because he omits aspects of a subject which I consider important, but he usually makes a good amount of intelligent points that are connected in a way that forms a coherent whole, and that's more than can be said about a lot of modern intellectuals.

The only thing I take sort of personally is the fact that he blames Romanticism for the postmodern "but muh feelings"-brand sjw-ism.
REEEEEEEEEE

But he is right

So, which of the romantics have you read, and how does this reading apply to their work :^)

>he blames Romanticism

you mean Rousseau?

The whole "omg I love this country so much non mycountrysians will never understand my novel" meme comes from romanticism and is pretty much the same logic found in the "omg we gelosabetransgtbqty-kin are so opressed normal people will never understand our pain" meme
Then the logical conclussion to both memes is the "lets start making laws and shit and force our ideas on other people because we are so right about everything everyone else is bad" meme

can you please check whether your thread already exists before you make it?

i think he's great.

Is not the same thread, my friend

>The whole "omg I love this country so much non mycountrysians will never understand my novel" meme comes from romanticism and is pretty much the same logic found in the "omg we gelosabetransgtbqty-kin are so opressed normal people will never understand our pain"

Wrong. You are a retarded Anglo.

>The whole "omg I love this country so much non mycountrysians will never understand my novel" meme comes from romanticism and is pretty much the same logic found in the "omg we gelosabetransgtbqty-kin are so opressed normal people will never understand our pain" meme
>Then the logical conclussion to both memes is the "lets start making laws and shit and force our ideas on other people because we are so right about everything everyone else is bad" meme
And you guys call "postmodernists" indecipherable

never read him but I only ever see him recommended by people who are also trying to convince me that Jews run the world, so no, but I probably would if I knew more about him

He's literally nothing like that. He's a leftist in most regards but is concerned with post modern academia and radical destabilisation in the west. Nothing suggests racism at all, you have been misled by your own dogma.

a seriously doubt your definition of leftism and mine align

He's an intellectual lightweight thats appealing to pseuds as a pastor and not an intellectual, he formulates the world to them in a digestible and non-disturbing way. Anyone with even basic philosophic literacy are able to see how flimsy and totally unjustified his propositions are, to the point in which he is laughably pre-Kantian in scope yet has the pretension to focus on systems of philosophy organized two centuries later.

An embarrassing pseudointellectual of the purest sort who only encourages even lower tier lightweights to come here and to be corrected on basic precepts.

Because you're a Marxist I assume, in which case you should avoid him.

>Because you're a Marxist I assume

>this is the level of discourse this man encourages

I agree with you on account of him being very accessible for newcomers to academia but I wouldn't say that his views are necessairly pseudo intellectual. What specific points would you disagree with?

no, I'm not, but straw-manning everybody who includes materialist critiques of society with 'gommunism' is as intellectually dishonest as saying all conservatism is fascistic

the one where is whole theory was pulled out of his ass after losing his mind and formulating some rickety structure of ideology that he can yell at feminists at his uni about

Well are you? I'm legitimately asking, I didn't mean to accuse.

this is me
now it's my turn to ask a question - do you browse /pol/?

The fact you immediately come to speak of "specific points" already highlights the fundamental inadequacy with him as a thinker. Thats all he is, just a loose network of specific points that for arbitrary reasons seems to resonate with him on some simplistic emotional level rather than actually having the philosophic literacy and integrity to work through an actual transcendental framework and not just chatter within a self assuming interior discourse.

I'm not him and I find the question both reductionist and irrelevant. For one I have no idea what you even think a "Marxist" is in order for me to identify with your conception of one.

I see a lot of condemnation about the framing of his ideology but no specific criticisms as to their validity. Peterson is very much a materialist, he believes in a structure and that structure should be maintained and not dissolved, the source of dissolution is radicalism on both sides. You strawman as being a proponent of right-wing ideology when you couldn't be more incorrect.

>Peterson is very much a materialist,
holy fuck your stupid

>radicalism on both sides

You're such a retard out of your depth

This is reductionist analysis, I could critique anything as a "loose connection of specific points".

Materialismis a form ofphilosophical monismwhich holds thatmatteris the fundamental substanceinnature, and that all phenomena, includingmental phenomenaandconsciousness, are results of material interactions.

Peterson's psych work is based on the idea procedural memory and how the manifests is religion and science. I don't see how I'm stupid.

Bad formatting on my part apologies.

>I don't see how I'm stupid.

Thats normal for stupid people

did you literally just copy paste that from fucking wikipedia

my god do you think everybody is as retarded as you it stripped the line breaks for fucks sake

Very clever.

Yes? Is it incorrect?

My parents lived in a standard ranch-style house, in a middle-class
neighborhood, in a small town in northern Alberta. I was sitting in the
darkened basement of this house, in the family room, watching TV, with
my cousin Diane, who was in truth—in waking life—the most beautiful
woman I had ever seen. A newscaster suddenly interrupted the program.
The television picture and sound distorted, and static filled the screen. My
cousin stood up and went behind the TV to check the electrical cord. She
touched it, and started convulsing and frothing at the mouth, frozen
upright by intense current.
A brilliant flash of light from a small window flooded the basement. I
rushed upstairs. There was nothing left of the ground floor of the house. It
had been completely and cleanly sheared away, leaving only the floor,
which now served the basement as a roof. Red and orange flames filled
the sky, from horizon to horizon. Nothing was left as far as I could see,
except skeletal black ruins sticking up here and there: no houses, no trees,
no signs of other human beings or of any life whatsoever. The entire town
and everything that surrounded it on the flat prairie had been completely
obliterated.
It started to rain mud, heavily. The mud blotted out everything, and left
the earth brown, wet, flat and dull, and the sky leaden, even gray. A few
distraught and shell-shocked people started to gather together. They were
carrying unlabeled and dented cans of food, which contained nothing but
mush and vegetables. They stood in the mud looking exhausted and disheveled. Some dogs emerged, out from under the basement stairs,
where they had inexplicably taken residence. They were standing upright,
on their hind legs. They were thin, like greyhounds, and had pointed
noses. They looked like creatures of ritual—like Anubis, from the
Egyptian tombs. They were carrying plates in front of them, which
contained pieces of seared meat. They wanted to trade the meat for the
cans. I took a plate. In the center of it was a circular slab of flesh four
inches in diameter and one inch thick, foully cooked, oily, with a marrow
bone in the center of it. Where did it come from?
I had a terrible thought. I rushed downstairs to my cousin. The dogs
had butchered her, and were offering the meat to the survivors of the
disaster.

- Jordan Peterson, Maps of Meaning

>This is reductionist analysis

Thats not what reductionist means dipshit.
Listening to him for over a minute brings you to a constant slurry of disconcerted and incongruent assertions and presuppositions. The fact a meme like Sam Harris was able to bring him to a collapsing point on his bizarre and untested ontology was enough to dismiss him as anything resembling a serious intellectual.

>Yes? Is it incorrect?
yes you raging moron

this is you

There are different definitions of it, I'm speaking in terms of the basic philosophical principle of there existing a material world of matter that we react and act upon and that structures occur out of that. The disagreement between people is what we do with that information, it comes out of the same basic principle foundation.

I dunno apparently I'm just out of my depth.

>I'm just out of my depth.
now you're getting it

Are you literally reading Wikipedia articles between in reply just trying to hold a conversation with someone? Maybe that says something about what you're trying to argue.

Thanks pal

yeah while I'm at it

>I dunno apparently I'm just out of my depth.
Start with the Greeks

I'm not going there but nice strawman.

I was just double checking I assumed one definition. An error on my part.

>I'm not going there but nice strawman.
this isn't your high school debate society you fucking faggot. go away

This

>I was just double checking
Are you literally in middle school?

Very nice of you, thanks. If a little hypocritical.

> fact checking is middle school tier

>acting like a child with his hand stuck in a cookie jar when you're found to literally not be able to hold a coherent discussion with someone
>fact checking

why don't you go back to your containment board and jerk off to memes and do whatever the fuck you do over there

>> fact checking
What is your implication?

>> fact checking

you know it must be nice to be so blissfully ignorant that a) you're dumb enough for it to seem pathological b) you're too smooth-brained to understand that nobody is going to attempt to engage in a good-faith argument with you after you've demonstrated ad nauseum that it would be an completely quixotic affair

Alright, let me clarify something. Clearly I started getting criticised strongly when I brought up materialism. Disregard that then, as a concession for my lack of intelligence or whathaveyou. That's fine.

I just don't understand what people mean by Peterson being a hack when they bring up no specific ideas that they disagree with. The biggest criticism is that his arguments are emotional, is emotion not a valid form of understanding? Isn't that why we have certain higher moralities and stories?

>I just don't understand
how about you take that with you and get off this fucking board

youtube.com/watch?v=p8TDbXO6dkk

New episode with the Samuel, boys.

you never did answer me as to whether you browse /pol/ or not. how about we start with that?

it's the thread topic, I'm basically rephrasing it.

I had to double check quixotic, I hope you don't mind. I get it, you're very smart I'm very dumb. Thank you.

Yes I did, perhaps you should
>check your facts.

>Isn't that why we have certain higher moralities
please name these numerous moralities you're referring to.

how the fuck did you even find this board

>is emotion not a valid form of understanding?

Well the example that I like is fiction. We understand that has an emotional aspect of it that we derive as wisdom.

Have you even read Peterson? Do you honestly think that even if you did anyone would believe that you have an capacity to internalize his theories and be amenable to critique?

It sound like you're less interested interested in his actual thought than what is allows you to do.

>Isn't that why we have certain higher moralities and stories?

I'd say read Kant but you'll need to start with the Greeks first

Ok great reaction image. Is it not correct to say, that when you see a person for example, that when you notice that the person is sad you're showing to understand them better?

Stop saying 'we' like a fucking agitator.

> ****I****understand that has an emotional aspect of it that ****I**** derive as wisdom.

Please explain how ****you**** derive "knowledge from "emotion" in as explicit detail as you can muster. I'm sure it's riveting.

This is getting hilarious to the point of absurdity. Somebody screencap this shit

he was a professor at harvard which demonstrates that youre a fucking retard for thinking everything /pol/ likes is bad

>LibertyOrDeath !!L9JqUeNpR3I
I'd do an archive search to see how new you are but I'm currently engaged in leading a horse to water.

>he was a professor at harvard

In psychology

What you did there is called a non sequitur. Please explain how empathy relates to wisdom and knowledge.

>Yes I did, perhaps you should
Hmm, I searched the thread but you didn't respond to the post where I asked. Perhaps you could remind me by replying to this post.

this fucking lummox is frantically reading wikipedia right now I know it

I didn't mean to agitate, I apologise if I've overstepped. But that's the story of this entire thread isn't it?

I guess how we gain knowledge through rationalising it in the mind. I shouldn't have said that we acquire knowledge through emotion, that was stupid of me. But emotion can be used to interpret knowledge and that interpretation is valuable. Does that makes sense? I'm really trying here.

>But that's the story of this entire thread isn't it?
That you're trying (poorly) to convince everybody that Peterson is... no actually I have no idea what you're doing.

>that was stupid of me.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

>LibertyOrDeath !!L9JqUeNpR3I
>first post March 10th
jesus

>I guess
>Does that makes sense?
> I'm really trying here.
Have you even read Peterson? Have you ever even voluntarily read a book?

>I'm really trying here
If this is truly your best effort than I'd suggest spending less time on Veeky Forums and more time actually reading. Here's a good starting place.

Alright, I concede. Forget it, I was trying to add and I got lost. I tried to get back on track and I don't clearly grasp things enough to argue properly. You guys win, so I'll read Kant as someone suggested here. Maybe this hostility is needed, and I need to challenge myself. Sorry for the blog post. I get the sense that I'm really hated as of now.

If you try to read Kant you'll have a seizure, go back and read that post again

btw this has been me samefagging you almost this entire thread to overwhelm you :^)

the irony of your post

Well you succeeded, take that to heart. I've read some of the Greeks already (Theatatus, Euthyphro and The Republic), but maybe I'll revisit or expand.

Victory for the Left! Marxism prevails again

Nice to see you admit it. Protip though, Peterson is legitimately a moron.

I wasn't lying when I said I wasn't a Marxist.

He is a dogmatic pseud

He is absolutely correct on mythology

no idea how anyone takes this guy seriously. he spews intellectual new-age garbage mixed in with some obvious truths and people think he's a genius. actually people are stupid so that makes sense.

What makes you say the content of his lectures is "new-age garbage"?. Personally I don't think he's a genius, but you'd have to be being willingly obtuse to deny that he is inteligent.

>intellectual new-age garbage
peterson's culties can't read.
he's above average in intelligence, perfect level of intelligence to fool people who are average but think they are above average.
also love that your defence was that "BUT HES INTELLIGENT" as if bullshitting doesn't require a certain level of intelligence.

I am not a "cultie", why are you assuming that?.

You're being hostile and making assumptions about my views. Yet you still haven't outlined why you think it's all "new age garbage" in response to a simple inquiry?.

it's obvious what your view is stop pretending to be on the fence it's sad.
the fact that you need me to explain why it's new-age garbage is pretty indicative of where you stand. you're like a religious zealot who asks for proof of no god.

Don't conflate my two sentence reply as equalling me being a Jordan Peterson cultist. That's an absurd jump for someone who fancies themselves an intellectual heavyweight.

I don't "need" you to, I will be able to get through the day just fine. I'm simply interested, given that this is a board for discussion I don't see the problem to be honest.

He was talking about "the Romantics" in general.
Petersons claim is that they're responsible for the split between reason and feeling, when in reality the enlightenment project brought that about all by itself. Scientific and industrial progress created a belief in the power of cold, objective reason and the irrationality of emotion, and an almost mechanistic worldview where people abandoned themselves to necessity and almost gave up on the individual as a entity which transcends the circumstances of its being.

Romanticism attempts to re-contextualize rationality to disspell the illusion that the objectivity of scientific discovery is an absolute one (which is something you can observe every time there is a kopernican turn. Newton was "right", but Einstein completely transformed the meaning of what he had discovered by re-contextualizing it. And the Einsteinian model isn't the be-all end-all either. In fact, no such "uppermost level of understanding" exists. Truth, as we are capable of understanding it, is always just an abstract simplification of an infinitely more complex structure).

Romanticism shows the limits of "pure" reason and the unattainability of true knowlege and stresses the importance of feeling and intuition as a part of rational being - which is completely different from the postmodern post-truth relativism that claims that both realism and idealism, both knowledge and belief are totalitarian in nature. Postmodernism is a negative image, a deconstruction of the enlightenment (which makes sense considering the enlightenment project is its sworn enemy), whereas Romantics wanted to build upon it.

Not an argument, not a single argument in two posts! Sad!

>>>/@realDonaldTrump/

there's nothing to discuss you just want someone to educate you on charlatan behavior. perhaps go buy a timeshare or some crystals.

You made a strong case, "new age garbage", about the entire work of a man whom it would be fair to say has SOME credibility by most standards. I asked you to explain why you characterised it that way; I've seen plenty of people call his work shit but I've never seen it described as "new age".

All you've done is wriggle, try to put me in a nice little box and refuse to even begin to answer the question. It's almost like you don't have one and expect to just shout me down. The reeking irony of you accusing anyone of charlatan behaviour.

Why's he still replying?

>It's another Veeky Forums dismisses someone as a pseud to maintain their contrarian identity episode

Never change.