Why do anti-Peterson posters always scurry away with their tail between their legs when asked to explain their...

go back to /r/(((the_donald))) you fascist

>look for your own faults
>unless you're jewish, in which case it's always somebody else's fault and they're all jealous

>reference to 'le evil leftism' in the image
>reference to Jews

2 for Jew
1 for muh leftists

Why does Peterson talk so much about ideology without knowing what it is?

>implying JBP has ever endorsed Catholicism or the Catholic Church fucking ever

How does he not know what it is?

shut the fuck up.

He's really amorphous when it comes to religion, he avoids saying whether he believes in a literal god or not for instance. Look at this shit.

I know nothing about any of his"ideas".
I just assume that because he's getting shilled so hard by reprobates that he must be full of shit.

He's a prophet of Lord Kek

I have read and listened to him quite a bit, and it is plain to me that he does not believe in a literal God, though he entertains the possibility. He believes in God insofar as he believes in the existence of a mythical image who represents consciousness, logos, the moral ideal, and or reality itself, especially the moral structure of reality.

>Peterson trolls atheists
>reeeee why won't he just answer me!!!!!!
Try reading him instead of reading Reddit. Speaking of reddit, fuck off back there.

2 - Jews
1 - Reddit
1 - Lord KEK
1 - muh leftism

>He believes in God insofar as he believes in the existence of a mythical image who represents consciousness, logos, the moral ideal, and or reality itself, especially the moral structure of reality.

So beneath all this word salad he's a fucking atheist. I really don't like that he's trying to 'monopolize' religion but that's for another day.

>So beneath all this word salad he's a fucking atheist.

Yes, if you want to put it that way.

He has really bad definitions at least. When asked to define it he usually spouts some vague bullshit about how ideology is modeled on religion but is a distortion of religious truth, or something or other about "low resolution images". There's very little analysis on his part as to how ideology actually functions or what it actually does, usually he is just listing off symptoms of it ("it makes people talk like a tape recorder" or "it distorts your image of reality"). But why is this "high-resolution image" considered the antithesis of ideology? Ideology is always calling us to "see things for what they really are" or to "examine the whole picture", because this very same density of resolution obstructs the social reality. Someone who "sees the whole picture" in this way is limited to acting on ideological assumptions about reality

>so behind all that word salad Nietzsche is a fucking athiest!?!?

It helps to read his book. You're never going to understand him fully if you don't read Maps.

Basically, Peterson thinks that myths portray the human reality as a whole, with all of its constituent elements (it's a sort of phenomenological view reality). When speaking of how ideology misrepresents reality, he is speaking of the constitute elements of reality at the level of individual - culture - nature. Each of these elements has a positive aspect and a negative aspect, and to suggest otherwise is to be an ideologue. For example, conservatives will tell you that culture and its institutions are wonderful and should be preserved while progressives will tell you that culture and its institutions (at this time) are oppressive and should be changed. The conservatives ignore the fact that culture is often oppressive and corrupt and the progressives ignore the fact that our culture is quite beneficial (and should be tampered with at our own risk).

Can you stop making this stupid fucking thread?

wew

Not until you and your bookcuck friends burn every copy of the paper Jew you possess and Veeky Forums stockholders delete the bookshit board.

>conservative : Western Culture is good except for those products I don't like
>liberals: same

Everyone is discontented by something. Peterson is an idealogue.

what exactly are you trying to convey? im kinda getting the sense that you're critically retarded

dont' know him much
is he right or left wing?

both wing

how so ?

gnosticism > politics

>anarcho-masochist

his dreams are haunted with puppets frogs & gulags

He thinks both wings are necessary for a properly functioning society.

sounds almost Ligottian to me

Both left and right wing share the established cultural milieu and each find some fundamental aspects of it displeasing. The conservative argument is a little more elusive since it seems to support Western culture without question, but this is not true of course since all the conservative does with those aspects of his culture he finds distasteful is to label them as degeneracy (meaning they are only present when culture is not approached dogmatically enough) or, he attributes it to some alien "other" e.g. Jews, communists or Satan. Both sides of the spectrum of ideology are functionally the same, they codify the ineffable discontent which an individual experiences as a result of his base wants and urges being repressed by his reason in order to obtain the benefits of a civil society.

That is a strawman and you know it.

>left and right both dislike thing
>therefore left and right are identical
look at how many big words you used to convey an idea so simple and retarded. good job buddy. top-pseud

Hey retard reductio ad absurdum is not a refutation but nice try nothing personell

>reductio ad absurdum
that's not even close to anything anyone has said in this thread

do a quick wikipedia search before you use big latin phrases that are above your IQ bracket

Also I didn't say they were identical but suggested that they serve the same need in their respective adherents. Have fun being mollified by ideology while the powerful simply devise strategies to serve their own ends.

He was employing reductio ad absurdum when he reduced my argument to an absurdity, ignoring almost all of what I said. Fuck off with your meme pic too I'm sick of seeing his autistic face.

>dude if you value things you're the exact same as literally anybody who values anything. don't be a puppet bro

>He was employing reductio ad absurdum when he reduced my argument to an absurdity
That's not what reductio ad absurdum is even though that's what it sounds like it would be to your sloped little pseud head. The term you're looking for is strawman, but it's not appropriate because I didn't misinterpret your retarded argument.

>ignoring almost all of what I said
wrong

Well at least you stopped stealth samefagging. However you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is, that much is clear, it is obvious you immediately googled it and read the first two or three sentences of the Wikipedia entry. Definitions have nuance, and I know that is hard for an opinion junky like yourself to comprehend but it is true, sugarbutt. Also I didn't address values whatsoever I was commenting on ideology i.e. "Left-Right" ; Ideology is irrelevant to actually functioning power. Ideology is what happens to values when they are used as a means to an end. If you subscribe to an ideology you are being taken in by forces greater than yourself, by people smarter than yourself in order to turn you into a malleable, zealous fool. What values do you actually value? Anyway you are ignoring my argument entirely, and to put it simply, mass politics and ideology are merely a spectacle which mollifies by giving one the sense that his unhappiness is well founded and that it is the result of others, and is not because he is simply frustrated. And I said this frustration comes from the repression of desires, desires which are not cohesive with the reasonable functioning of an individual in society. Society has benefits and those benefits can only be obtained if one is willing to repress parts of himself; that is reasonable. But desire is unreasonable, and in repressing our desires we become frustrated and discontented with society. The left and right each offer compelling explanations for this our frustration but they are not the real explaination. The reality of our frustration is irreconcilable and this creates among other things, violence and self-destructive violence as well.

>Well at least you stopped stealth samefagging.
boy you really are unironically retarded arent you

>bro dude don't value things. politics doesn't matter dude. this totally isn't my argument though dude stop reductio ada absurdumining my ideas bro
you should sue whoever you learned all of that unnecessarily wordy pseud babble from. sort yourself out.

you have been defeated

>Not a single person has actually given a serious critique of JP
Hmmm

Why do you insist on that silly ass green text mimicry? Are you just too much of a pussy to argue?

He doesn't warrant serious attention.
It's true what that other user says, in our society you are free to do what you want but not to want what you want.

I love how jordan peterson threads are slowly turning into bait threads.

I absolutely love it!

>REEEE I HATE PETERSON
>Can you expound on that?
>Well... ummm.... He doesn't warrant serious attention
Hmmm

I never said I hated him. I have never read or watched anything he created. I only came into the thread to say that he isn't worth paying attention to.

I have a neutral opinion on him. But I wonder how many who have a negative opinion of him have actually entertained what he has to say instead of relying on hearsay.

Why would anybody care about what you have to say?

Y-you too

I'm not being snarky, you literally say you have no idea what he's about yet declare he's of no use.

I am judging him based on the fact that his greatest achievement is becoming a YouTube celebrity. I have gathered that he memes about archetypes, postmodernity and the like and I know for a fact that there are several more serious writers who have written on those subjects so if I wanted to know I would just read them.

Be careful OP, the last Peterson thread got deleted once people started asking dangerous questions like that.
To be fair the thread wasn't about literature ,except in the sense that the subjects of discussion happened to be authors.

The guy taught at Harvard you fucking imbecile.

I've been subscribed to his channel since he had 8k subscribes and was just uploading his lectures recorded in an awkward angle. I'm glad he's getting more popular.

So should I slavishly follow all the Harvard professors now? I don't fucking care the only reason he is known is because he outwardly resents transgender acceptance.

kek. peterson got meme'd hard by solzhenitsyn.

hah these babbies are still butthurt and crying because their boyfriend doesn't know what postmodernism is. why is /pol/ such a bunch of fucking girls?

literally never said the latter. shithead

>get BFTO by Veeky Forums every time he posts this
>hopes if he keeps posting it Veeky Forums will get bored of pointing out how he's wrong
kekekeke

So how does he reconcile his hate of the post-modern with the fact that Jungians are post-modern? Is he resigning or just a lying paid whore?

>So should I slavishly follow all the Harvard professors now?

The fuck even is this? You said being a Youtube celebrity was his highest achievement, I said he taught at Harvard which seems like a pretty big fucking deal.

Why does it matter why he's known? How does it change his ideas?

>resents transgender acceptance.

I see. You're a tranny or leftist or what?

>i haven't read jung

Every time I ask them to critique, clarify, counter-argument way Peterson uses po-mo in his arguments I get no replies.

>be Jungian
>ask for pls delete postmodernism
>doesn't not delet self
that's like the retards who call for human extinction and never delete themselves or anyone else. lazy lazy people with no real convictions

>HE THINKS JUNG ISN'T POSTMODERN
>HE THINKS THAT JUNGIANS AND JUNG HAVE THE SAME INTERPRETATION
>HE DOESN'T KNOW EVEN JUNG WANTED TO DELETE JUNGIANS FOR BEING POSTMODERN
>HE THINKS ANYONE BELIEVES HE READ JUNG
there aren't enough laughing Veeky Forums girls in the world to laugh at your retarded virgin-on-Jung dumbass

stop embarrassing yourself please

I have actually, it's pretty clear you don't see how a reaction against modernism, which is present in alllllll Jung's work once he's out from under Freud, is plainly postmodernism. If you don't know what postmodernism is on this board, it's the equivalent of not knowing Star Wars has wookies on /tv/ or whatever shithole you crawled out of.

That's how dumb you are.

nobody else feels your embarrassment at being poorly read and laughed at by girls. get that autism checked out, schizo. you not reading your hero and his sources doesn't mean the Veeky Forums board doesn't.

such awkward projection, please read jung

>/pol/ hates postmodernism because big words have to be bad right
>doesn't bother to check if Jungians are postmodern
hah, it's like watching 14 y/o's trying to bullshit their Shakespeare homework in class while their gf tries to hide her association with a retard

>he doesn't understand Jung describes his condition as such
If you read Jung you could diagnose your own autism

it is funnier than having to correct them on the rest of the shit they don't read.

Neither in fact I'm pretty apolitical and I don't even see the point of being transgendered but that doesn't change the fact that Peterson is most known as a YouTube guy who rustles es jay dubbleyous.

>es jay dubbleyous.
you mean there's two sides to this retard fight? I thought it was just /pol/ who were trying to shill Jung, who they wouldn't shill if they read, against their own interests, but what are the bluehaired fatties saying?

I have similar experiences. I'm starting to consider the possibility that maybe Veeky Forums actually likes Peterson and this kind of thread is what they use as a pleb filter:
>construct Peterson threads not about literature
>immediately break into conflicts mostly targeting Peterson's fanbase's overlap with reddit and /pol/
>start arguments with no intention to elaborate on them
>brainlets see the numerous objections to Peterson and think "wow fuck that guy"
>everyone capable of independent thought goes about their business as usual

I don't know like I said I never even watched one video by the Xr. Peterson

>maybe Veeky Forums actually likes Peterson
not really, he's a pseud. he goes with the rest of the booktubers.

Here's your chance kiddo. No one has managed to do it in all these threads but surely you are the one; explain why you think he is a pseud.

i doubt they were the ones to point out Jung thought everyone was bigendered and bisexual because bluehaired fatties don't read good books either.

it's even funnier if they're talking about something else, but that would be my best guess- someone pointed out what Jung said and got called SJW for pointing out Jung thinks some craycray shit

>I'm pretty apolitical

Bullshit.

>Peterson is most known as a YouTube guy who rustles es jay dubbleyous.

I ask again: So what? His ideas haven't changed.

He thinks Jungians aren't postmodern. He doesn't understand the definition of postmodernism. It's pretty simple. It's like saying Derrida is the best structuralist. You have to be beyond retarded to be that wrong.

Peterson not even right-wing. Is claim to fame is supporting free speech.

Are you really ceding that position to the right?

Is Jung worth reading? Or is it just self help bullshit?

who is this strawman even addressed to?

>bullshit
Why? I actually think politics are a waste of time

>so what?
Anyone who spends time creating A video blog and isn't Varg (who I've liked since I was 13) is a loser, in my humble opinion.

How is his use of po-mo wrong

He's crazy fun. He's worth reading because of his influence (peter pan syndrome, psychic nutjobs, Campbell and Star Wars etc) and because he's a good writer. It would probably not work as self-help, and he'll never tell you to clean your room. He might tell you to make more mess for your warhammer figurines

Well, if he wants to resign his position and give up being a Jungian and decry Jungians, then he would be closer to not supporting post-modernism, but as it is, his degree and job and pay relies on him being a post-modern psychologist.

Do you believe that when Peterson uses the word "postmodern," he's referring to something real, but just using an inaccurate word? If so, what would you recommend he use instead?
Or, if you think he's making an overgeneralization of postmodernism, what claims has he made that are inaccurate?

For example, in this clip he gives a quick rundown on his opinion on what he calls "postmodernists."
youtube.com/watch?v=9UtgY0N6Wcw
What would you say is wrong with his claims here?

The thing is that I really like Freud. I don't actually believe that Freud thought there was a cure or even an explanation for neuroses; neuroses was simply the figure which caused his soul to rhapsodize.

Well, your opinion is trash. He's trying to do educate people on the internet because he thinks the universities have become corrupt.

I think he doesn't understand that his views are post-modern too. He's trying to claim the solidity of meaning that modernism has, but a Jungian that turns modernist is just another Freudian.

I think he doesn't know what it means and relies on a group that doesn't know what it means to give his definition an idiosyncratic meaning- which is post-modern in itself, claiming that words should have niche definitions like that which ignore all other interpretations for their own internal values.

>he thinks the universities have become corrupt.
Berkeley didn't even allow free speech for right wingers.

yes universities are corrupt because they are run by pedagogical dicks who want to be your daddy like this Peterson clown.