Name a flaw

ARCHETYPES

That's hilarious. Apparently his classes are packed with people that don't go to school here hahaha. I just thought he hated faggots.

Freud was never wrong, Jung is a retarded idealist though

Peterson is depressed?

He can't ever explain any of his theories. Worse than Derrida.

didn't you see the video where he breaks down into tears over the "divine individual"?

Yes, he went on TV and talked about his history of depression its on youtube

He just connects everything to myths. You can connect anything to Nostradamus predictions too. It's all cognitive bias.

Thats the point though, everything can be made to fit the hero's journey

he got btfo by sam harris on this when sam described the deep symbolism of a random cookbook recipe.

>my theory literally covers everything
>also it can't be falsified, sorry
into le garbage can, how bout you read karl popper kid and grow up

His head looks like a pouch of Pepe eggs, I'm sure the tad/pol/es will escape soon.

Such a boring looking dude lol, clearly takes no joy in his gender presentation. He should just transition already.

he's a pagan

From what I can tell, all he said was that he refused to use gender-neutral pronouns. So that made him literally Hitler of course.

He's just a self-help guru faggot masquerading as a philosopher

Was that the Ressurection of Logos talk? His voice was all shaky in that one. Thanks in advance
Oh I had no idea. I'll have to check it out thanks user

How do you reconcile that there is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, for what Freud propounded?

My curiosity got the best of me and I am listening to a lecture
Peterson clearly knows a lot, but he still somehow comes up with a fantasy

Thought Veeky Forums would like him, he is the Zizek archetype

I ask whatever idiot would ask such a question to specify what propositions he thinks requires evidence rather than responding to a nonsensical blanket statement

Freud propounded he lived in Vienna, would you like evidence to support that?

Because Zizek doesn't believe in bullshit like archtypes

Somehow you think that Lacan is ok but Jung not. I suppose there is a way to make that work, but why not disown psychoanalysis as a whole like it should?

He's a meme on a weeb image posting board and fawned over by virgin neets.

If you need to vent, that is quite fine, but my question was not with hostile intent. I am not well read when it comes to Freud, of which I have only read a few seperate pieces, and it thusly made me wonder how those who seem to take Freud his expounded theories as fact reconcile the seeming lack of evidence.
To name something very mundane; the piece where he writes about forgetting foreign words.
(bartleby.com/284/2.html)

So he's Dostoevsky?

Sam Harris can't even defeat his made up version of Christianity.

No.
Dostoevsky had a presence before Veeky Forums/the internet.

If you're not familiar with Freud then why would you ask a question with the presupposition that his claims are made without any justification? Of course I'd react as if it was intended with hostility though the sheer ignorance and absurdity of it I found more aggrevating

In either case Freud didn't expound theories as fact, he theorized based on concepts he arrived on through rational analysis and interpretation, inductive reasoning in other words, then them through their application in clinical practice.

A necessary method given at the time and up to the present day we have no means to epistemologically ground our experience of the psyche outside the crude and ultimately in my view naive misapprehensions of cognitive-behaviouralism.
This however does not divide it accountability to empirical evidence as propositions developed through induction are still falsifiable.