Why does Veeky Forums hate Jordan Peterson...

He's literally the Andy Six of Veeky Forums.

fuckin boring and i don't care at all about sjws

He's only famous for being against "muh pronouns" yet there are usually around five threads about him every time I come to this board. Anyone who's seriously interested in philosophy knows that these public intellectual types like Peterson and Harris are basically just bite sized faux philosophy for people who are two lazy to read and sit around watching YouTube videos all day instead exception: Zizek. Honestly, people like you who don't want to discuss literature need to fuck off to a different board.

This

essentially this

People don't like their precious marxism torn apart

go back to your individualistic, libertarian paradise at /pol/

I'd be willing to bet all NEET bucks that he has never read a word of Marx.
>inb4 muh manifesto

>taught at Harvard

Dur I know better

Holy shit, you understand nothing about /pol/.

>lit is r9k for people who don't like video games
>a small slow shitty board with some of the sites worst posters
>lots of disillusioned people who hide from reality in fantasy worlds or by pretending to read about these fantasy worlds
>Jordan Peterson overtly attacks this escapism with well thought out explanations and tested hypothesis
>it makes people uncomfortable to have their shortcomings pointed out, especially those deeply invested in escapism
>radicalized liberals try over and over to peg him as some kind of bigot despite all his thoughts and opinions clearly laid out to the contrary
>lazy unintelligent people do not like having their delusions challenged (similar to schizophrenics) and act out against him, they thoughtlessly align themselves with the false narrative against him because speaking out against that mean bigot guy gives them a cheap meaningless source of self worth and purpose

It's because he's popular with middlebrow people and reactionary /pol/ users. His lectures aren't bad, and he is intelligent, but he lacks specificity and reflexivity in his philosophy and seems deeply emotional to the point of parody. I admire the attempt to revive interest in Jung, he is too easily dismissed by pretentious undergraduates and his arguments aren't examined properly. But other than that, no real use for him.

>taught at harvard
>invited to harvard by student organization to talk about pronouns

thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/11/peterson-talk-draws-criticism/

yeah, /pol/ is mostly a hivemind, nothing individualistic or libertarian about it

There are half a dozen well-thought-out posts itt outlining exactly what is wrong with him as a philosopher. Not everyone who disagrees with you is doing it because muh blind libruhls crying libruhl tears calling people rayciss

i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.

>Veeky Forums is a board for the discussion of literature
>threads about Jordan B. Peterson's YouTube videos regarding gender pronouns on a daily basis
>anyone who has a problem with this lives in a "fantasy world"
You somehow managed to reply to OP's incredibly stupid question with an even more stupid response. Congrats on being the stupidest person in this thread.

Like most traditionalists, he falls victim to the approach of appealing to emotion and conflating his intellect with his senses, ending up sounding too dramatic and far too out of touch with everyone else around him Ironically, in a sea of schizo's, he and other "classical" conservatives are now the odd ones out, in the sense that others can understand them, yet they fail to understand postmodernism and that it has come to stay. Easy prey for the (((leftists))) he claims to destroy, because postmodernism does not even take itself seriously enough to even acknowledge him as a threat. He fights a losing battle, whereas some of his lectures are still mildly interesting.

It is not a matter of hating him, it's just that he's simply not capable of activating anyone's almonds, and it is almost as if he only exists in order to balance out some of the sjw crowd.

The Left/Right axis of the political spectrum have stagnated for years now, and everyone is numb from all the repetition of conflict; no revolutions are going to happen anymore, and people like him are just as much of a marketing asset than people over the other side.

His patreon is upto $37,000 a month now.

$50 of that is me.

>Anyone who isn't Marxist is a libertarian.

He wrote one book nearly 20 years ago. Does he have anything new to say?

researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2
>117 research items
Hmm.
Also he wrote another one this year.
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to chaos
goodreads.com/book/show/30257963-12-rules-for-life

youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Petersons new lecture on the psychological significance of the biblical stories.
He barely gets into the first few sentences of Genesis by the time he's done with the lecture and he moves on to questions 2 hours later.
Really heavy on myth, how we pass down stories, and dreams/jung.
The bible is the first hyper-linked text, with 63,000 cross references inside of it.
I didn't know about that.
pic related

Beginning he says, when he lectures he's not trying to tell people what he already knows, he views it as a learning exercise IIRC.
And he tries to have an application with his ideas, that people can use them in real life and not just abstract for the sake of abstraction

Why are you both so fucking gay?

Because "Darwinian" epistemology isn't clever, true, or useful.

that user was talking about when he used to teach classes regularily in the 90's i think. it's what saddens me about these threads, in my view he is an experienced and decent academic, the things he says seem very interesting and nobody has challenged in a debate or anything to call him out on his supposed bullshit. i see some ok criticism of him itt but i wished more people here took him seriously and just discussed his ideas, without fixating the lgbt drama.

also that link you posted is bullshit, i only skimmed a couple paragraphs and it's already full of cherrypicked quotes and mislabels, fuck off

GGGGGGGG
WHY MUST YOU MAKE THIS THREAD JUST AFTER THE LAST ONE DIED DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GENERAL OR SOMETHING YOU COCKSUCKING FAGGOT

STOP FUCKING POSTING ABOUT THIS CUNT NOBODY CARES

>this man is not an intellectual.
>He's only famous for being against "muh pronouns
Wrong, anons.
>exception: Zizek. (AND PETERSON) Peterson BTFOs Zizek anyday. You can just tell Zizek is putting on an air of smelly rotten-clothing intelligentsia.

>NOBODY CARES
You seem to care, user. (So do I).

...
But it's literally how our mind works, as he well supports in his lectures and general body of work/production.

>/leftypol/ plague

there's like 4 people who post on leftypol....two of them are fascists trying to infiltrate left-wing organizations.

get the fuck out.

>muh jung
neck yourself

>discussed his ideas
What's to discuss? If you find his ideas profound, log off and go to church. He makes an argument that it's Bad that "God is Dead." It's not new or noteworthy. These threads garner backlash because the idiots who post about Peterson are poorly read yet arrogant.

>bible is the first hyper-linked text

this is a retarded point because the bible is not one coherent text, it's a collection of books written over a thousand years and compiled later.

it doesn't cross reference itself, it's a bunch of different books, some of which reference earlier ones, that have been collected together centuries later.

Because this board is filled with trannies and Marxists.

Seriously though; what's up with the disproportionate number of trannies and Marxists on Veeky Forums? Can someone please explain?

he's not a conservative at all you fucking nigger

>What's to discuss? If you find his ideas profound, log off and go to church.
you're obviously not familiar with his ideas. he does not advocate going to church and he's said himself that he does not attend. poorly informed yet arrogant indeed.

>it's a collection of books written over a thousand years and compiled later
why don't you actually watch what you're going to critique. he literally says that multiple times. and the bible wasn't just "compiled." it was edited, that's the point of the hyperlinking you fucking simpleton.

>"God isn't the only axiom a person can accept," or "God is within one's thought just like all other axioms," or "The 'unraveling' you describe isn't inherently bad."

This is satire, right? Please tell me it's satire.

board is full of humanities students and the humanities are overwhelmingly leftist.

Veeky Forums is also full of cloistered nerd faggots who prioritize systematizing over actually doing anything. it lets them feel accomplished while being useless sacks of shit that will never acquire wisdom by acting in the world. marx of course was Nerd Systematizer Prime and they all want to be like him unconsciously or consciously.

Because anything mainstream is going to be unpopular here

People on this board are SMART, they know a lot of long words and obscure authors that they like to casually namedrop

He's not a serious intellectual. You latch onto him because you can't afford college

>anyone trained in philosophy or logic
you mean an "intellectual?" one of those perverse, diminutive creatures with one overgrown organ that have never done anyone any good?

why don't you actually be forthright and say what you think is wrong with what he said instead of saying "pfft anyone smart like me can tell he's wrong, don't ask me to explain why though haha."

>leftist
Kill yourself faggot.

>serious intellectual
oxymoron if there ever was one. intellectual = professional wanker.

>afford
kek, dummy who couldn't get a scholarship detected

>anti-intellectual
>implying he went to school
If you hate intellectuals and still went to school you were probably studied STEM and didn't make friends

>you were probably studied
ha, i'm actually taking a roadtrip with some college buddies this weekend. nice projection though, mr. no friends!

>Because out of all the mothafuckin' rational animals ever to have recorded anything this asshole is somehow worth analyzing
Still on the greeks ty

*tips fedora*

Have you ever been to /b/? And maybe you can find Marxists on a Veeky Forums board because people here read Marx before they engaged in muh-political-wing heresay.

Axioms other than God:
>Sanctity of life
>Rational self-interest
>Honor/family/some meme like that
>Maximizing utility
>Kant's Deontology

I can't list examples of God being a thought, because there's only one, and that's
>Belief in God is a thought. This is true whether or not God actually exists.

Examples of good unraveling:
>abolition of slavery
>separation of church & state
>secular music
>stronger penalties for rape
>pedophilia is now unconditionally bad
Or do you wish you could marry & force yourself on a 13-year-old before heading off to mandatory mass?

/pol/ stemfag logic 101

>muh /pol/

actually i was a humanities major myself, that's partially why i can say that. do you think it's untrue that most of Veeky Forums are or were humanities majors? and do you deny that humanities departments are left-leaning?

Jeez, this is some really high school tier reasoning.
Take a philosophy 101 course or at least watch that meme Žižek. He's a hack, but he can at least tell you something insightful about god/belief. So will Peterson, actually.

I disagree with your logic
>humanities = left = Marx

>Show that all Peterson's points are wrong
>"This is some really high school tier reasoning"

Sniffle man's thoughts on god are basically
>religion is ebbin undialectic
>le Lacanian big other
>pure ideology ecks dee

Peterson goes to God as a solution to the grounding problem, I understand that, but there's plenty of other answers too. He'd be better off with Kant, since that'd enable him to reach all the same conclusions while still being taken semi-seriously as an intellectual.

Sorry pal, but when you make statements like
>>Belief in God is a thought. This is true whether or not God actually exists.
It's clear that
A) you didn't watch Peterson's lectures, let alone read his books
and
B) your philosophy (and psychology) skills don't go past high school level

If you'd rather listen to Žiž you can check this out, it's an easy watch
youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3g2zS6Tuk

I read everything he's ever written and listened to all his lectures, even many that were never published on youtube.

He's a fucking imbecile

lol

I read everything you've ever written and listened to all your conversations, even the ones you've had with yourself in your head.

You're a fucking imbecile

best answer.

Notice how /pol/ claims to hate intellectuals and higher education in general, until some minoe credentialed academic justifiers theyre petty bigotry, then of course he's jesus of nazareth

>disagreeing with someone is now hating them

Why are /pol/fags so dramatic?

TBF the vast majority of humanities are leftists.

I'm sympathetic to his cause -- free speech in academia, etc. but he's very quick to turn postmodernism into some sort of boogeyman for all of the West's ills.

The postmodern ethos creates circumstances and a prevailing mood for the sort of cultural degeneration he's railing against, but the ideological framework for most of this was laid by the Enlightenment, so his petty critiques of low hanging fruit (all of 20th century feminism, Chomsky et al) ignores what most other more versed cultural critics have subscribed to increasingly -- that the general thrust of Western individualism has created a sort of decayed monoculture of consumption and inoffensiveness that renders us open to intellectual assaults from globalist identerianism, etc.

He also fundamentally misinterprets Marxism economic theory as something other than a desperate reaction against the cultural cesspool we find ourselves. He's essentially refused to see the increasing psychological instability is caused by late stage capital's creation of an underclass of emotionally and intellectually stunted petit bourgeoisie who offer zero resistance to the ideological state apparatus because of consumer good satiation.

Why are demagogues so dramatic, you mean.

>Peterson
>justifier of bigotry
Come on /leftypol/, even your better than this.

finally some decent critique

I can't imagine someone who has studied World History not to be a Leftist.

/leftypol/ here. it's because he's a fucking bigot. he refuses to show trans individuals an iota of respect and has incredibly conservative/traditionalist views when it comes to women, relationships etc. HE"S A FUCKING BIGOT. no wonder why pol likes him so much. any pol fuckers in this thread can fuck off back to their safespace now

Why?
Historians (and philosophers) actually tend to be the least leftist.

> two lazy
Veeky Forums in a nutshell

This guy is an embarrassment for the faculty of the university where he teaches.

this better be bait.

sorry i sperged out there. but you guys get my point

>philosophers
>tend to be the least leftist
The validity of this statement depends on If your solely talking about alive philosophers, or your including dead philosophers in that statement and what level of famous.

Because like 99% of Philosophers are literally no-name Marxists teaching at their local community college for $13k/yr.

>using psychology as a basis for philosophy
This is the fundamental point of disagreement in the first place. Peterson thinks the point of a belief system is to satisfy our psychological needs (thereby making us "productive" in a broad, societal sense), and that a society that doesn't offer a belief system of this kind is somehow ill. This thought process is not only anti-rigor and anti-intellectual, it's anti-thought. According to Peterson, once we have some stable, widely-held, societally-useful belief, philosophy ends (excluding, perhaps, defending said belief).

The truth is precisely the opposite: the job of philosophy is to take these beliefs to task. Zizek himself does this, and the fact that you recommend him alongside Peterson is astounding. If the two met, they'd agree on what religion/philosophy does, but not much else.

Maybe in certain parts of the US, its the opposite elsewhere

To put it plainly; it's because he's (wrongly) critical of Marxist thought. It's people like Jordan PEPEson that stand in the way of Marxist ideas ever being implemented in society in any serious manner. Fuck him.

The US actually produces more philosophy and humanities than the rest of the world combined, so he would be technically correct if most were "least leftist", but he isn't.

ITT: Undergrads shitting on a tenured PhD.

How many of you even knew who Jung was before he namedropped him on JRE? I hope the mods ban you leftist retards.
>HURR HE DONT GET MARX ONLY I DO HURR DURR
Children.

I always smirk a bit when Zizek gets called "our guy" over there because apart from his points on the nature of religion and his stance on the refugee crisis, /pol/ got baited into putting an out-and-out Leninist into their pantheon.

>The US actually produces more philosophy and humanities than the rest of the world combined

Thats quite a claim to make, whats your source?

Funnily enough I've heard people on Veeky Forums claim Peterson is solely responsible for renewed interest in Jung, he's the new fraud "Wrong about everything! disproven!"

>can fuck off back to their safespace

The irony of a "lefty" anything saying this. You emotional reasoners are literally the worst. I'm not even white and I lurk /pol/ all the time. I do so because your ilk are so ludicrous with your nonsense emotional reasoning that it's unbearable to try and have are serious discussions without you about social and geopolitical situations without you freaking out and tossing scarlet letters around.

Zizek and psychoanalysis are universally loved here for the most part. Most everyone here was familiar with the likes of Lacan, Jung, Erich Fromm, etc. through readings and lectures by Zizek. Any cursory reading of Freud also inevitably leads you to Jung because of their correspondence and pollination of concepts & ideas. All roads lead to Vienna.

scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=1200&category=1211

Stop believing shit Veeky Forums spews about France, continental philosophy and European universities.

Except Zizek is a fraud and literally talks about nothing. Link me an original idea by

>>using psychology as a basis for philosophy
What?

>you recommend him alongside Peterson
I only recommended him because you/he clearly showed a naive (almost r/atheism-tier) view of what god and/or belief in god about.

The point I was making was that he synthesizes a lot of psychoanalytical thought so the level of exposure to the early 20th century founders of the school is going to be more significant. It also goes to show how /new/ you are here because this place at peak discussion 5/6 years ago was consumed with a tripfag's thesis that committed to a psychoanalytic analysis of Infinite Jest for a good month or two. We even published it in one of the short lived zine projects back then.

t.Butthurt lefty

>According to Peterson, once we have some stable, widely-held, societally-useful belief, philosophy ends (excluding, perhaps, defending said belief).
that's not true at all, one of the points he is always on about is the save the good from the past and transform what is needed and that its a neverending process. and
>that a society that doesn't offer a belief system of this kind is somehow ill
this you also pulled out of your ass, i never got that from what the videos i saw of him at all

>it's a collection of books written over a thousand years and compiled later.

>it doesn't cross reference itself, it's a bunch of different books, some of which reference earlier ones, that have been collected together centuries later.
chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualization/BibleViz
It's crazy how casually you type that, I don't think you understand.

>the job of philosophy is to take these beliefs to task.
Thats literally what Peterson says in his most recent lecture Introduction to the idea of God.