So one of you fuckers went to a Peterson talk and actually talked about Veeky Forums. Who was it? @37:35

Seems like a bad question just to get him to know or acknowledge that he knows about Veeky Forums.

> dude Veeky Forums ever heard of it?? lol what are you?

They're basically kids and see him as their daddy, of course they want acknowledgement

True. Better question to ask is when the narwhal bacoms

He makes a better daddy than Donald Trump who would probably beat you ro Milo who would molest you

Go back to and stop shilling, retards.

No, you go back there, bloody neo-Marxist postmodernist social justice warrior

Veeky Forums is a neo-Marxist postmodernist social justice warrior board, get used to it friend

Epic post, Really got me to think!

Wrong.

Define wrong

Check the dictionary, numbnuts

>says the ama shill

>wrong
>adjective
>1. Not correct or true

Define truth

Wonder what kind of questions he'll get on reddit. There are plenty of people who hate him there

95% will just be atheists telling him there's no God and pointing out fallacies in replies he gives them

anyone else noticed he laughs like kermit the frog?

There are other boards with that function, /pol/ only got it recently.

The only other two are /int/ and /sp/ neither of which are liable to be discussing him

It was me.

Nah, you are the first one

youtube.com/watch?v=h4ftiL4c_CA

Obvious pol poster. Hope someone doxxed him and sent him pizzas

>dictionary

Please kill yourself, STEMfag

Lmao, this is how /pol/tards speak in real life.

>What are you?

Embarrassing.

peterson is such a good lad
i hate when faggots here bully him

Maybe if he didn't bully the mentally ill we wouldn't

Trans people are not mentally ill, bigot.

I'm talking about anyone who believes in the gender spook

>/pol/

This. If they wanted to talk about the value and dangers of an anonymous space for discussion and self-improvement they should have phrased it in an abstract way. What they were really hoping for was for Peterson to acknowledge their existence. Weak.

>/pol/ for ants?

Ahm frahm faww chain
>WHAT ARE YOU

This shit is so cringey

He doesn't bully them you dramaqueen
treat yourself

Words are defined by their context in a language and the relation of those contexts to our experience of the world. Right and wrong can be observed when you try to cross the street and get run the fuck over because you refuse to acknowledge that the abstract concept of "being run over" has any reality.

He is though, he's making a big deal about just calling girls (male) she while literally every other intellectual just humours them and stick to considering actually important matters.
His issue is he's too full of spooks himself and thinks shit like "freedom of speech" and gender mean anything

So the implication of what you are saying is our ability to know truth is limited by the capability of language to represent reality

Yes. Which is why language systems need to evolve over time to become more capable of accurately representing it.

>Which is why language systems need to evolve over time to become more capable of accurately representing it.

This is deconstructionism

How was that the implication presented in the statement. The implication seems to be that right and wrong is seperate from any thought experiment but is the simple polarity of harm vs gain.

>this is a Peterson cultist's best attempt at joining in

Start with the Greeks

I'm not a Peterson fan, I was just trying to understand his post.

Deconstructionism is the act of forming an antithesis to a construction of the world. For the most part it merely points out the ways in which language seems to be inadequate on a fractural level. That is to say it does not acknowledge the whole of the system, and the ways in which the different parts justify eachother. Instead it observes that everything is justified by something else and infers that it is a mere thoughtbubble, unable to see the transcendental quality such a system has.

Which is why Derridas has given us such gems as "the industrialization of art is no loss because art was always just a means of keeping people complacant by constructing a world for them." and that it should not be the role of the artist to "supply reality". He's completely olivious to the fact that 1) every construction is also a deconstruction of any incompatible construction, which means that stories not only have the power to construct peoples worlds for them, but that people take an active role in transforming their own systems of thought through story as well and 2) it is through the process of construction that deconstruction becomes meaningful in the first place, and demands that the role of art be reduced to tearing things down.

Well I presumed so because it sounds exactly like the nonsense he was raving about to Sam Harris.

The correspondency notion of truth of statements has been the standard way the concept has been understand from Aristotle all the way through Kant

>1) every construction is also a deconstruction of any incompatible construction

I don't see how you assume Derrida was oblivious to this whatsoever.
Likewise deconstructionism absolutely acknowledges the whole of the system, its inherent in his conception of the act that every construction of reality will be inadequate and as a result run into interior contradictions. This is only possible when considered as a whole as most individual statements are not inherently contradictory but only become so on a significant didactic scale

*disjunctive scale

You misunderstood my post. I said that it seemed like his implication was morality through consequence, not that that reflected my personal beliefs.

Explain his broken relationship to art and his obsession with the anvantgard then.

I'm afraid I'm not qualified to, its area of his thought that goes outside my study of him which was specific to his hermeneutics

Derrida contributed absolutely nothing novel or valuable to human thought, and his acolytes merely embarrass themselves by propagating his ideology

Its gotten you pretty mad, thats valuable to me

Fair enough. I'll confess it's the other way around for me. There are plenty of thinkers who have very sensible ideas on an abstract level and yet come to questionable conclusions when they attempt to translate that approach into a social theory. I'll give his hermeneutic writings a shot.