Has anyone read it? Is it worth 50 dollars? I love watching Peterson's lectures...

>Is it worth 50 dollars?

I wanted to but it is too expensive... Whatever people say, I unironically find Peterson comfy.

Everyone does think he's comfy though, its extremely apparent he's comforting to the naive and under-read

What the fuck is this autism

Its the work of a "scientist"

Does it make sense now, retard!?

it's always so embarrassing when humanities and social science people try to make their bullshit seem "scientific" by making a bunch of stupid charts and equations and shit, and i say that as a proud humanities fag

oh man it gets worse as you get further in

Lmao, how do people respect this guy. It's memes all the fucking way down.

Yes and yes. It's actually quite Veeky Forums. Probably a bit too Veeky Forums for Veeky Forums.

>It's memes all the fucking way down.

Mein gott!

BTFO'd

...so what do these charts mean?

Nothing, it's an attempt to give a scientific feel to his unverifiable claims about spooky shit that he says goes on in the unconscious mind.

Can you retards really not wrap your head around these charts? Its simple as dirt, they only help you visualize the progress of the progress.

Not sure if you know this as its kind of an occult secret but...

visual aids help people understand

But his diagrams are literally occult bullshit.

If they're so simple I'm sure you'll be able to explain them specifically and concisely in laymen's terms, instead of vague bullshit like "le progress of le progress."

Seems more like schizotypy. The guy took drugs maybe that's why

pdf is free on his website, lads

Why does it do the inception thing?

This.

Don't give this tenured meme any more space to breathe. He's everything wrong with the North American academic profession.

So, noboy has read it in this thread. That's good to know.

The pdf is free on his website

Hes tedious just read Jung

the undergrad sense of superiority is strong with these two.

>when community college tier uses undergrad as an insult

Not that user but literally none professors I've met in my phil department has anything good to say about him.

>but muh Neo-Marxism
Uh-uh, they're all analytics, and the few continentals that are here are post-existentialists, that deals more with individuals rather than communities and their politics.

He's a laughing stocj for actual academics, regardless of their political leaning. Also, since nothing he has said is original in the slightest, people don't even feel the need of answering to his statements in peer reviewed journals: he is that insignificant (unless you're a guy on Veeky Forums who needs a internet paternal figure).

I'm only surprised they knew of him at all

>He's a laughing stocj for actual academics, regardless of their political leaning

Firstly, the term 'actual academic' is meaningless.

Secondly, studies have repeatedly shown academia to be overwhelmingly liberal. So no wonder those useless fucks don't like him, they are almost certainly opposed to his beliefs and they are probably also jealous that he is getting the exposure he is.

Undergrads always quote pseudo-intellectuals, so everyone ends up knowing who people like JP, Sam Harris, Molyneux or Shapiro are, and what are their arguments (in the aforementioned cases it's easy, since their bibliography is either non-existent or trivially small).

Not that user but

>it's another " I can't trust academics but I'll trust other people on Veeky Forums" episode

Literally anti-intellectualism

The only reason people like Peterson is because he shits on trannies and SJWs. He really has some shit0tier loony ideas such as "Frozen is propaganda" and "postmodernists think that literally nothing exists and gave rise to SJWs."

>they are probably also jealous that he is getting the exposure he is.

>implying he is getting exposire for his academic merits

lol

He has been famous for how much now? 1 year? Well, in 1 year I still have not heard him make a coherent statement on postmodernism, nor I have ever seen him actually quote a pomo philosopher.

I'm pretty sure this guys is playing a long con on naive anti-SJW kids on the internet. He's in for the money.

>"Frozen is propaganda"
frozen is propaganda in the sense that it is not based on fairy tales like older disney movies were. the writers imagined up their own scenario that is not consistent with the themes in fairy tales which jordan holds up high as actually factual.

>Firstly, the term 'actual academic' is meaningless

You know something spicy is coming when this is how he begins

Oh look, another triggered Frozen-loving manchild.

Not this user but literally every professor I've met in my phil department had something good to say about him.

Frozen? Thats the angle you want to go with?

>Well, in 1 year I still have not heard him make a coherent statement on postmodernism, nor I have ever seen him actually quote a pomo philosopher.

This is probably why he does not take debates with people who hold a different opinion than his.
I'm sure he has no follow-up for his arbitrary, all-encompassing judgements: he's just saying that, but he does not really know why Derrida should be criticized, or if he should do so in the first place.

Meant to reply to

I imagine in the same way everyone has something good to say about a senile dottering old lady

>literally every professor in my department has good things to say about internet self-help daddy with no academic record and a fraudolent career that stemmed from the misreading of law texts that have been enacted for years

Are your professors 19years old kids who don't know how to sort themselves out?

...

I don't care about Peterson very much, but there are a few recurring caricatures that pop-up during debates about him that people should beware of:

1) The guy who thinks that Peterson is just some hack who's banking-in on the anti-SJW hysteria, as if SJWs (or whatever you want to call them) aren't a legitimate and growing problem in university/colleges campuses & political discourse/etc. What started Peterson off was that the Canadian govt. wanted to make it literally compulsory to address people by their chosen pronouns, and ergo illegal to 'misgender' them.

2) The guy who shits on his Jungian/psychoanalytical spin whilst giving Žižek/etc a free pass. This guy is almost invariably a Freudian.

3) The guy who shits on Peterson for having 'superficial' critiques, blissfully unaware of the fact that to have a meaningful media present (that is to say, reach a meaningfully significant audience), it doesn't pay to talk beyond their IQ range. Again, see above - what Žižek says in public is hardly ground-breaking either.

4) The guy who associates (and ergo dismisses) Peterson with /pol/, just because he happens to share their POV on several issues - and even then, with much more nuance.

>Anything written to serve a political purpose is propaganda, not art.

>I don't care about Peterson very much
>but here's my long attempt to try dismiss every criticism of him

Kindly fuck off

He's right, you know.

Again, funny that people shit on Peterson for this whilst giving Disney a free pass for pushing the "strong independent woman who don't need no man" narrative.

>I care about Peterson very much
>But here's my attempt to shit on another attempt that sought to add balance/nuance/etc

Kindly fuck off

I do care about Peterson, I care about his stupid culty followers like you keeping far away from any places aimed at serious discussion

t. Jordan

What you responded to was far better than your shitpost response.

It isn't its trite and tiresome. Strawma framing every valid criticism of him in the flimsy pretense of an objective observer is both disingenuous and non-constructive.

>can't argue the statements, comes up with something random

It's 4 fucking statements. It's not a fucking essay.

Seemed objective to me tbqh.

>Canadian govt. wanted to make it literally compulsory to address people by their chosen pronouns, and ergo illegal to 'misgender' them.

Nope, you fell for his misinterpretation of that law, which has been enacted for years now and has resulted in zero people going to jail/paying fines/having to deal with the legal system in general.

>2) The guy who shits on his Jungian/psychoanalytical spin whilst giving Žižek/etc a free pass. This guy is almost invariably a Freudian.

Too bad that, at the very least, Zizek is doing original philosophy, Peterson just quotes Nietzsche and Jung without ever putting anything of his own.
Zizek would never answer to someone by saying "about that Lacan said *insert here what Lacan said*".
>The guy who associates (and ergo dismisses) Peterson with /pol/, just because he happens to share their POV on several issues - and even then, with much more nuance.

No one in this thread has done it, at best people have associated him with youtube anti-SJW

>tfw a tenured professor has done an interview with fucking Sargon of Akkad 3 weeks ago, and treated him as a peer

here's where pleb learns the meaning of propaganda while looking like a retard

>plebed yourself

>Nope, you fell for his misinterpretation of that law

It's in black and white.

>has been enacted for years now and has resulted in zero people going to jail/paying fines/having to deal with the legal system in general.

Just because a law is not enforced, does not mean it doesn't exist.

>at the very least, Zizek is doing original philosophy

Name one meaningful contribution he has made to philosophy.

>having a strong female protagonist is now propaganda
>respecting in any sort of way the autonomy of a young woman finding her place in the world (ending up in a fairly traditional position in the end) is propaganda

You guys are completely divorced from reality. It was not sexualized and it was not androphobic: what's your problem with it? Care to expand? Because JP hasn't.

Fine in short order. 1. Him being a parasitic opportunist on what may be a legitimate issue doesn't make him any less of a vulture.
2. Freudians are in the best position to deconstruct the pseudo-mystic nonsense that is Jungianism as they're well acquinted with the structures and language of the thinker.
3. His critiques are superficial regardless of context from his laughable book to his "academic" lectures to when he decides to cry on a webcam
4. He's associated with /pol/ because of his following on /pol/, a following he has actively courted through including making a vlog about fucking pepe

Holy shit, I already thought Peterson was stupid but how the literal fuck did he ever get a position in academia. Fuck.

>a strong female protagonist
>the autonomy of a young woman

These things are themselves political/ideology. There is no 'apolitical norm/default' when it comes to these things.

>It's in black and white.

Try to read it, maybe, and hear a second opinion about it, since you apparently know only JP's point of view (which, as I've said earlier, is fallacious).

>Just because a law is not enforced, does not mean it doesn't exist.

The law has been enforced for years, it simply does not work in the way described by Jordan.

>Name one meaningful contribution he has made to philosophy.
His costant, written interpretations and critics on ideological contemporary structures.
You may say that they are irrelevant, but at the very least they're not straight-out quotes by academics who have lived 100 years ago.

>Name one meaningful contribution he has made to philosophy.

Synthesizing the Marxist conception of ideology as a constantly produced hegemonic narrative with the functions of subconscious thought.

>having strong women in your art is propaganda
>having weak women in your art is not propaganda

*sniff*

>These things are themselves political/ideology. There is no 'apolitical norm/default' when it comes to these things.

There is ideology in all art. So what? Frozen was hardly Triumph of the Will. It was a fairly innocuous children's movie.

It isn't propaganda.

>There is no 'apolitical norm/default' when it comes to these things.

By that point there is no apolitical/default when it comes to literally any presentation of a person. Hence why his statement that any work with a political function can't be art is middleschooler retarded

>which, as I've said earlier, is fallacious

Without explaining how/why.

>The law has been enforced for years, it simply does not work in the way described by Jordan.

See above.

>His costant, written interpretations and critics on ideological contemporary structures.

These are not contributions, but interpretations.
This was done long before him. See: Lukacs/etc.

keep your 2-digit IQ to yourself in the future, please
it's for the good of our board and humankind as a whole

You are now realizing that all art is propagands. Congratulations, Peterson is right.

>Anything written to serve a political purpose is propaganda, not art.

>having women presented unnaturally for political gain isn't propaganda
>having women presented naturally to facilitate artistry is propaganda

*snort*

>This was done long before him. See: Lukacs/etc.

Yeah yeah, literally any contribution by a philosopher can be reduced back through antecedents. Zizek was still the first to attempt to develope it as an analytically structural and coherent project

Geez you really showed me, m8. I bet you're really smart.

>varg

>having women presented naturally

Ideology at its purest

It's funny that peterson fans and zizek fans are always the ones arguing with each other. of course zizek fans think peterson is a hack because zizek is a marxist. however, the "discussion" never goes anywhere because zizek fans are only looking at peterson through the lens of a marxist and never actually explaining their position. it's just a "this is what" rather than a "this is why, which is why these threads are always the same

>fans.

Can a "Peterson fan" please give us some of Peterson's thoughts in clear terms. Like what are some of his most important arguments? What are his contributions?

Moreover: Why does he think political motivations prevent something from being art? Why does he think there was a political bent to Frozen?

Where would you have me begin?
On why archtypes are a stupendously flawed backwards reading of historically constituted symbols?
Why his dismissal of post-modernism is at the same time both flacid and misrepresented?
Or why his opposition to structuralism in the favour of a creedence to esoteric commitments is ironically predicated on the very contributions of the post-modernists he apparently opposes?

1.If you do anything for personal gain you are a parasite and a vulture. Fuck me.

2. I have determined that you are not allowed to speak because you don't have my qualifications or my knowledge.

3. So? Why can't they be superficial? And, yes, crying on cam is a bitch move.

4. Would you rather he courted a group of people that are not his following? The best way to explain and teach is through conduits that are popular. Pepe is one such so why shouldn't he?

by expecting people to give you his positions you are setting yourself up for a horrible discussion. if people do respond to that request they will mostly like not provide his thoughts as clear as peterson himself does or represent him entirely accurately. this gives you the opportunity to attack the crude representation of his views and allows you to leave the thread satisfied without having learned a damn thing. actually read/listen to him to gain an understanding of him, don't take someone else's word. that seems to be the common practice here unless peterson is the topic. "so you want to learn about x? start with the greeks! then read y by z!" ... "so I want to learn about peterson, and I have all these reasons why I think he's wrong... explain him to me!"

well this post is more "this is what" rather than "this is why", so go ahead and provide any "why"s you can.

1. It is if you are intentionally manipulating what you know is a non-issue for exposure
2. What I said is why Freudians would be in a prime position to read and criticize Jung not that its not possible otherwise.
3. They can be superficial all he likes and we can criticize him for being superficial all we like.
4. My preference is irrelevant. The point is why an association is legitimately drawn not whether it is respectable

>"so you want to learn about x? start with the greeks! then read y by z!" ... "so I want to learn about peterson, and I have all these reasons why I think he's wrong... explain him to me!"

kek what a fucking persecution complex. Even the most time tested monumental figures in the Western canon get shit flung at them every day here.
Of course some in vogue meme thinker will get an even harsher treatment.

I have heard him speak about things. And I have read some of his writings. They seemed to be meandering and devoid of actual arguments. Rather, they were cleverly disguised rhetoric which seemed to be aiming at appealing to the emotions of his disgruntled "fans"

The fact you use the term "fans" to refer to people who agree with his positions is disconcerting.

>Without explaining how/why.

You could, for a starter, read the actual bill, instead ofnpretending you've already done so.

>These are not contributions, but interpretations.
Not really, since Zizek is using his own philosophical and analytical system, which was not stolen from other philosophers. That's a contribution,mwether you like it or not.
We can debate over the value of this contribution, but it's still better than the contributionless career of Jordan Peterson.

If you really believe that anything currently coming out of the Disney corporation is "art" and not a cocktail of hundreds of hours of market research, merchandising projections, calculating headlines in MSM and so on, then I just feel sad.
It's not like they're secretive about it either, they very openly talk about how they mix the ingredients of the feminist heroine, strength through diversity, and so on.
Of course you can say the main motivation is money and it's private, so it's not propaganda - but the message is so blunt and it's so closely tied to a loop of mouthpiece media, forcefeeding to millions of children and so completely opposed to the idea of the single "autor" who just expresses his personal ideology that I cannot see how anyone misses the propaganda effect.

It's in fact the very same way it worked in the Third Reich (since you mention Triumph of the Will): Private companies would create "art", the government would make-or-break this art through media and activists that were on the party line, and the rarely-subtle-message would get eaten up by millions. I doubt you'd argue that wasn't propaganda.

Sorry for tl;dr but it pains me that even Veeky Forums people would show their children modern Disney movies and think it's proper art.

That's not the objection JP made, though.
He was not railing against corporative cinematography.

except this isn't just about shit slinging. people asked questions about him here and wanted them answered by others and refuse to take the initiative themselves, as you are doing now.

>I have heard him speak about things. And I have read some of his writings. They seemed to be meandering and devoid of actual arguments. Rather, they were cleverly disguised rhetoric which seemed to be aiming at appealing to the emotions of his disgruntled "fans"
like I said, this is more "what" while leaving out all the "why". this doesn't get a discussion going at all. you're just describing something, who knows what talk or what writings, and giving no indication of what it was exactly you heard/read. there's no way to prove you right/wrong about whatever you may be talking about since you aren't telling anyone what you're talking about. also, I don't see how the term fan is disconcerting at all.

>like I said, this is more "what" while leaving out all the "why". this doesn't get a discussion going at all. you're just describing something, who knows what talk or what writings, and giving no indication of what it was exactly you heard/read. there's no way to prove you right/wrong about whatever you may be talking about since you aren't telling anyone what you're talking about. also, I don't see how the term fan is disconcerting at all.

Not him, but all of his philosophical content is utterly worthless. Since my statement is that absolute, you can prove me wrong by linking to me a single istance of philosophically valide, well researched and well sourced content made by Jordan. I'm waiting.

>also, I don't see how the term fan is disconcerting at all.

kek. Fan: literally a fanatic.

>there's no way to prove you right/wrong about whatever you may be talking about since you aren't telling anyone what you're talking about.

No one was trying to prove anything. Do you not know Peterson's arguments well enough to recount them with clarity? Many thinkers arguments are given here many times a day. People talk about their views etc etc. Why should Peterson's arguments be omitted? Are they too precious to hold up to a little bit of Veeky Forums scrutiny?