Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant ideological agenda is fucking bullshit?

Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant ideological agenda is fucking bullshit?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/5eid8u/forming_a_socialist_meme_committees_through_reddit/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit
youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Considering his circumstances as a North American academic in this political climate, no, his "agenda" is entirely understandable.

>"agenda"
This is what i'm talking about, he gets these mindless followers who aren't any different from the SJWs he constantly criticizes.

>psychology
>anything but sham
MUH ARCHETYPES
FUCK SCIENCE
MUH TALES

Dunno man,his ideological ideas make sense to me.

>FUCK SCIENCE
You're probably a troll but while I agree on psychology for the most part you can't deny the human condition.

i would say the same bullshit for 30k per month desu desu with you and everyone else

Fucking Christ. Is it too late to jump on anti-SJW gravy train?

You're far more mindless than any of his actual followers for jumping to that conclusion, fampai. He ended up pandering to conservative elements despite having been fairly liberal for most of his life because he realized the position of contemporary liberals, especially in the hyper-radicalized college setting, is entirely untenable. His anti-commie, anti-postmodern slant does get somewhat tiresome and repetitive, but it makes sense considering his run-ins with the people who consider themselves to be the present day proponents of those movements. You don't have to follow him or necessarily find those aspects of what he does all that amazing to understand this.

Isn't framing this question in this way misleading?

He doesn't have an ideological agenda, he's a Jungian psych prof with ideas and those ideas are about how to live a life that can bear up under suffering. He says these things out loud and people pile on him because they feel triggered. He responds - and usually with more calmness and impersonality than his attackers.

Where's the ideological agenda here?

t. Peterson fan

JBP would look like Bloom if he gained 200 pounds. I hope he exercises.

he's at the meme forefront of modern Christian apologetics. He has popularised the idea of what I would interpret as 'cultural Christian', even 'atheist Christian'. They will soon be acceptable identity categories and the Christian community will embrace them, just like the Jewish community accepted a similar sort of non-theistic Judaism as part of their identity spectrum.

I don't mind it. Gets boring and I'm not taking him too seriously, but hey, I'm all for the ongoing secularisation of religions, so more power onto him.

Young people seem to like him. He's a good father figure and also polite, so yeah, no issues with mr. Jordanson as long as the whole meme doesn't take cult-like proportions and goes through a Molyneux stage.

Jesus Christ user, sort yourself out. Go read a book and stop making threads asking us to validate your views on fucking Youtube celebrities.

good post

Oh you mean how he proves Marxism is bulslhit and hurts your /leftypol/ feelings because of it? That agenda?

Poor baby. Go send someone a death threat on Twitter so you'll feel better.

Nice post user

I feel more or less the same. I like a lot of what he says but he definitely has a few positions that are annoying, e.g. "Anything that is written for a political purpose is not art, oh btw Dostoevsky is the greatest artist of the 19th century"

Also the mental gymnastics involved in his reasoning for his """Christianity""" from a mythological POV are fairly incredible

How is his "ideological agenda" different from his "psychology stuff" and why is it bullshit?

>go read psychological nonsense, a few obvious classics, and a "great" novel dismissed by every major novelist of the age as ideological pap

I'm mindless because.... I don't worship him like you do?
You've obviously read up on his life like some braindead cult member no idea why you're distancing yourself from your fellow braindeads.

>He doesn't have an ideological agenda
It might be more obvious to you if you didn't hang on every word he said.
>he's a Jungian psych prof
Exactly, he should stick to that.
>He says these things out loud and people pile on him because they feel triggered. He responds - and usually with more calmness and impersonality than his attackers.
Why are you so focused on his personality? Cult member symptom no.1.

Agreed, especially your last point.

Fuck off nerd.

The way you write makes it seem like you're the one with the ideological agenda.

got 'em

T. Sub 80 IQ brainlet

don't forget his Indiegogo.

just $100 and you too can get a 30 second youtube video of him saying thank you before he promptly forgets your name and existence

T. literal low test 75 IQ JP paypig

I feel exactly the opposite. He's useful to have around, but I'm never going to engage with his work.

OP sounds like one of those confused leftists who just started taking the red pill. He's dipping his toes into JP, but can't fully commit yet, because that would be a sin and would get him kicked out of the local antifa group.
>I-I just like his psychology stuff, guys, it's not like I'm a conservative or anything, heh

>our psyche is natually attuned to religious thought
>therefore you should become a christian
Petersons argument for religion is unreflected, unphilosophical bullshit. The thing that gets me most is that he has the gall to complain about the pomo rejection of logos, when he himself believes that it's nothing more than a tool. He accepts the premise of postmodernity but refuses to acknowledge the consequences.

>ideas are about how to live a life that can bear up under suffering. He says these things out loud and people pile up on him because they feel triggered

except that's obviously wrong, no one is attacking him for his ideas about living a good life under suffering.

they are attacking him for his ridiculous "using a transsexuals preferred pronouns is a slippery slope to the gulags" stance.

i like some of his lectures but when he talks about politics he sounds absolutely retarded.

It's for the best that such a premise is taken from these nihilistic leftists and channeled into something more constructive.

T. literal negative IQ mouth breathing vegetable

Thanks for helping prove my point that his followers are braindead dumbfucks.
>Educate me
Try reading and paying attention.
His braindead followers have zero ability to think for themselves. Sad!
I don't align my ability to think with left or right that's for weak-minded retards. Your entire post is a copy-paste of every anti-SJW ever try using your own words sometime buddy.

LMAO this is fucking gold.

why do all of you people think and write identically? Startling lack insight. execrable.

>>therefore you should become a christian
Where/when did he say that?

>I'm mindless because.... I don't worship him
You're mindless because you can't separate the wheat from the chaff and let things go. You're looking for conflict and rationalizing it with "I am not a mindless sheep because I can criticize".
Aggressive adversity is not less mindless than mindless fanboyism.

I've been grappling with postmodernism for long enough to understand that Petersons position is nothing more than sophistry. He resorts to calling Derrida "head trickster" and ignoring an entire intellectual movement because of pragmatic considerations instead of approaching it with intellectual honesty because he's afraid of fascism. He's manipulating people for what he believes to be the good of society.

This leads down a different rabbit-hole. When you define the value of truth by its usefulness you will soon want to discard those truths which you find to be inconvenient or dangerous.
If Petersons views become the new Zeitgeist we'll be in an age of pragmatic dogmatism, which may not be fascist but certainly tyrannical. This is just the kind of attitude that will allow people to act according to "common sense" while remaining blissfully unaware of the groups and ideas that fall under the table in their system - which will be the ones that they don't consider useful.

I'm interested in his personality because he's very consistent in what he says. Whether lecturing or IRL. That consistency implies a conviction, and he's capable of articulating what he believes without recourse to cheap rhetorical strategies.

He doesn't engage, charitably, with the writers who he blames for the malaise of postmodernity: Derrida, Lacan, and Foucault. He's dealing with the fallout of this, and he's dealing with it in the way that a clinical psychologist would: by telling people to sort themselves out, and giving them a literary and psychological vocabulary with which to do so. Unlike his interlocutors, he's not forcing anyone to agree with him or blaming them when they don't, accusing them of misunderstanding them and so on. It's courageous and it's honest and he communicates that.

Of course people are attacking him. They just do it in a very passive-aggressive way, claiming that the refusal to use the preferred pronouns is tantamount to violence, hate speech and so on. Whether it's the Paikin interview or at the lectures where the passive-aggression is so thick you could cut it with a knife, it's there. Huge, huge rage and ressentiment that boils over and lands on his lap. He's not obligated to suck up to either the students or the administration and so he doesn't. He risked both his tenure and his own psychological health to say these things. When his funding got pulled he was mad because it was the graduate students who would suffer, not him. I believe him.

>when he talks about politics he sounds absolutely retarded

This is part of his appeal. Because he's telling people to look within rather than to the state or politics. It's what any therapist would do. Zizek does this, using Lacanian analysis to diagnose the missing links in bourgeois liberalism, capitalism, to find ideology. Peterson's critique isn't as sophisticated as this but it's no less valuable. Peterson isn't bemoaning the absence of the left, he's trying to get people to stop looking to political solutions to solve personal problems.

Reminder that his psychology lectures are not actually psychology lectures, rather they're self-help motivational meetings.
He never teaches you anything about the human mind, he just goes there and say in a melodramatic tone that you should not procrastinate. Is this what passes for academic lecture on Veeky Forums? Are il/lit/erate user so illiterate that they can't even tell a academic lecture from a guy who is trying to sell you something?

Notice that I don't think that motivational speaks are worthless per se (the fact that Toronto university offer them to their students is commendable), but I still don't think that being good at such a thing justifies you're costant presence here on Veeky Forums.

You only think he has a blatant ideological agenda because you are left-wing. Chances are most of your favorite philosophers have similar ideological agendas, you just don't notice it because you agree with them.

Guess how I know you haven't actually watched his lectures.

Post a lecture that is actually a psychological lecture, no matter how old. You will quickly realize that he is a motivational speaker, a self-help guru, who also uses a few concepts mainly from Jung and Nietzsche. But is saying "shadow self" 20 times enough to call your tragic rambling about productivity "lecture"?

>Peterson
>ideology

>he is a motivational speaker, a self-help guru, who also uses a few concepts mainly from Jung and Nietzsche
If you watched his lectures (you didn't) you'd know that he borrows mostly from Piaget.

ebin

There's a quality -- I'm not sure I can identify it exactly -- that the most brilliant intellectuals possess that simply isn't present in Peterson. Maybe you could call it subtlety, or an unwavering resistance to reductionism. Nietzsche had it. Hegel had it. Joyce had it. Tolstoy too. And make no mistake, I'm not talking about the inscrutability of the French. Whatever it is, Peterson's missing it.

'Fully commiting' to his beliefs goes against his whole fucking philosophy. It's literally the most obvious takeaway from any of his lectures.

>Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant ideological agenda is fucking bullshit?
Psychologizing is an ideologicalizing process, don't try to filter shit through any categories just take a pure operational approach to what is

>You're probably a troll but while I agree on psychology for the most part you can't deny the human condition.
I can question if humans actually really exist in any meaningful sense today
HYPOTHESIS: the symbiotic relationship humans have developed with technology has already reached a critical point... a qualitative shift has occurred and individual men no longer exist but collective cyborgs have emerged in their place... since man and machine form one effective unit today all traditional theories of mind cannot effectively deal with the new race of cyborgs

You say that because you've seen him speak. The only documents left by the philosophers you mentioned were in the form of text, which can be doctored easily to project the desired image of the author. It's a little more difficult when you're forced to speak on the cuff to a room of students.

The biggest problem is he genuinely views Christianity as some kind of positive force in the history of mankind(Europe), hence why he calls himself Christian. I don't think I've ever heard of him even mention Europe pre-Christianization or the wealth of knowledge, philosophy, culture, etc. coming from there, the actual native values of Europeans. Can't really take him all too seriously because of this, the Judeo-Christ fetish is too much.

>$100 CAD

Ok so I have to pay for his 6 piece McNuggets and I get a personal thank you video? Seems worth desu

This. Pre Christian Europe was better than christian Europe especially for the first 1000 years of Christianity.

This is basically my relationship with him as well. I enjoy watching his lectures occasionally; the stance on marxism and anything overtly progressive however is always reduced by him to some illogical hyperbole, and he comes off as incredibly ill-formed.
A common case of an intellectual in one field incorrectly trying to apply their methods of thought to an idea of a nature entirely foreign.

>Peterson isn't bemoaning the absence of the left, he's trying to get people to stop looking to political solutions to solve personal problems.
I do believe you're applying credit where none should exist. His innocent interpretations of marxism and post-modernism allude not to his desire for a psychology void of politics, but rather a politics shaped by his own ignorant world-view.
I do think too much credit is given to this man.

...

Good thread, I like the good balance of pro's and con's.

Clearly there is a leftist issue and he formulates some problems well.

His explanation, blaming on Marxist and Postmodernism, doesn't quite convince, but I don't mind as it's not too problematic insulting dead people.
I also like the archetype ideas and the self-help'ish perspective. You must be very ideologically loaded or cynical to be against his sort-yourself-out appeals.

I don't mind at all that he's not making money from his fame. Who the fuck wouldn't do that? What I know is that lots of people would fuck up benefiting from that traction and he seems to do well.

PS I rewatched Pinocchio last week. Funny how they didn't mind drastic and immediate scenery changes. My immersion was sort of lost when, with the intent to find the whale in the sea, Pinocchio literally jumps into the sea at a random stop and starts his search. Does he really expect to find a particular creature this way? In the whole SEA?

And I wonder if Peterson is aware of Astro-Boy

tfw too intelligent to have an ideology

...

>he gets these mindless followers who aren't any different from the SJWs he constantly criticizes.

How are they the same exactly? Your post makes no sense at all.

I like his psych lectures and i even agree with his stance on pronouns and gender.

Where i part ways with him is his conspiracy mindset.
>evul post modernists are comin to get ya!
>the bloody neo marxists are turning us into a communist state!

I don't think Hugh Mungus sexually assaulted
that crazy ass lady and I don't think whites are
racist merely for being white. Is that radical?

Is it bad that I'm reading that pic in his voice even though I hate him and have only watched one video by him more than a month ago?

oh boy

difference is plenty of religious societies avoided violence whereas no marxist societies managed to

catholicism tries to reign in human behaviour whereas marxism tries to change it, this is why he describes marxism as ideological

no capitalist society has ever avoided violence either

that's because living without god is ideological

I'm the reverse. To me his politics seem mostly solid, but I find his pigeonholing of various Jungian ideas into his ideological speech kind of distracting and unnecessary. Shoehorning that stuff in weakens his message and credibility in some ways, and that's a shame.

I don't hate psychology or Jung, it's just included more out of his personal limitation than any need or fitness.

I'm someone who is regularly accused of being leftist, conservative, libtard, alt-right, etc. by various rabid people simply because I believe what is and not what I merely wish it to be, and they disagree with me and can't articulate and argument; and I've found that reality doesn't conform neatly along ideological lines. He's dead on concerning the bulk of his ideological platform - enough that it forgives the rest, which is relatively innocent and not that insidious at all.

>plenty of religious societies avoided violence

care to name one?

Not them, but I'll give it a try. What are your criteria?

For example, we should probably agree straight off that violent conflict is endemic to nature, as well as human nature. How against doctrine does behaviour need to be in order to not count against that doctrine? Does a religious society have to be still existing today to count? Does it have to have been nonviolent for the entirety of its existence? How large does a religious society have to be to count?

These sorts of clarifications will, I hope, lead to an intelligent conversation rather than a pointless argument.

he's just plain wrong most of the time, dont get why he has a following

Care to give some examples?

I think he is entertaining to listen to and brings up good points from other writers, but his politics are so shallow in comparison and connects the two at the hip and throws himself even deeper into right-wing media.

big one where he lost all credibility for me was his stance on kids

So he makes literary comparisons to modern day politics, but they're shallow because the "right wing media" agrees with them? OK, comrade.

Every time. You're not fooling anyone.

But what was it about his stance that gave you that reaction?

You're asking for an actual discussion, with an argument and everything? It's not going to happen, man.

Reasonable people like you are lost in a sea of foaming extremists who are completely uninterested in informed discourse.

what subreddit is this?

The fact that you can't see how every human society has it's founding nomos associated with the monopoly of violence only goes to show how ideologically charged you are.

Stick to your jungian mumbo jumbo and leave actual philosophical discussion to non-brainlets.

The reason why you're accused of all those things is because you're obviously so ideologically entrenched in the capitalist paradigm that your opinions can easily be associated with any of the institutional sides, since you're so bland.

What you confuse for individuality is actually being so much of a drone to the spectacle that you can't actually have any authentic opinion anymore.

There's reddit cancer and then there's socialist reddit cancer.

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/5eid8u/forming_a_socialist_meme_committees_through_reddit/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit

What is more authentic about institutionalized left- or right-wing thought?

Not the user you replied to, but his ludicrous misrepresentation of "post-modernists" and further attempts to "trace back" how these ideas that no one actually holds impact some intangible group of people is stupid enough to dismiss him of having any intellectual credibility, imho.

>how these ideas that no one actually holds impact some intangible group of people

How has he misrepresented post-modernists?
What ideas specifically?
What intangible group of people are you referring to?

I thought so. So much for that intellectual credibility.

what are you refering to exactly?

Epic post bolshy

this meme is effective.

It's because religious truth remains religious truth because it survives the darwinian reality throughout times. Socialism and communism is against that reality and will always collapse itself like lemmings.

By Jordans own logic if religion leads to catastrophic violence it can not be considered truth under his Darwinian framework. It has in the past but jordan does not care.

>By Jordans own logic
Where precisely does Jordan present this logic? I'd like to see for myself.

First debate with same harris on his "waking up" podcast. It's in two parts. The get stuck on the definition of "Truth" for about an hour in part one.

youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY

He does not express the points stated in as they claimed.

>you can't be pigeonholed? It's because of how incredibly stereotypical you are!
I have an IQ of 169, I am a world respected thinker and I have scientifically proven that my favorite flavor of communism is viable in the real world. I now spend my days on Veeky Forums's Veeky Forums board, dispensing wisdom to the masses and informing people I've never met about the intricacies of their political beliefs. I am smarter than all of you and I have nothing left to learn. If everyone in the world thought like I do we would be living in paradise.

He points out that tribalism part of what causes the vilence, along with religion.

Science and political regimes provided a much larger scale of destruction compared to religion.

It's like mass shootings with a gun vs a knife. Same intent, just more deaths.

I'm willing to bet that your post was a scathing repudiation of . Still, Poe's Law can be terrifying.

would you care to write an argument against why one should oppose state mandated speech, meaning not if you say these things the state will fine you and jail you, but if you DON'T say these things the state will fine you and jail you?

these laws seem to cross the tyranny line pretty clearly.

>I have nothing left to learn.
... except for comma splices.

Tribalist mentalities. You can see them on facebook/youtube comments.