Holy

Nice, I'd also like how to get cock readily from the internet nerds. Greatest gay pickup book written most likely.

>a psychologist writing a self-help book
Well, that's actually quite sensible if you ask me.

THESE MEMES JUST KEEP WRITING THEMSELVES

I'm also in the process of writing a self help book. Anyone interested in looking it over?

Not gonna lie, former Peterson fan here, it was funny when Kermit was railing against postmodernists and hanging out with wrestlers, but in all seriousness we can't let this frogburger get access to the feminine psyche.

dude, I bet you haven't even integrated your anima yet

Why not? He knows how meme works and he's already using that power to get to people. He's sorting the world out!

who is this dude and why is he such a hot potato in the mouth of Veeky Forums

It's pretty sad to see Veeky Forums fall for bait this hard

>tfw smart enough to post someone else's argument.

Peterson is a conservative Jungian psychologist from Canada who has gained a following on /pol/ for giving basic good-living advice and refusing to use made-up pronouns for trannies. Veeky Forums is buttblasted because of that and tries to denigrate his academic credentials.

I can't believe you missed out on this. Are you new here?

This one's better

i wish this was real

tweet not even real

sage this shill

I suppose they have a point in calling him out for using his credentials in a different field than the one they're relevant in

Yeah pretty new

His credentials are completely relevant to that discussion even if you disagree with his conclusion also lurk more.

Who can blame Peterson for speaking out against postmodernism, poststructuralism, or whatever you want to call the brand of intellectual mediocrity, moral relativism, and social progressivism that's threatening to dismantle all meritocratic standards in society. Peterson probably became bitter as he saw his field become more and more accepting of ideological bullshit before connecting the dots and realizing that it's become widespread across all walks of life.

more like we are bombarded daily with polbabbies looking for us to validate peturdson and getting angry that we don't give a shit about his spooked ass, shitposting him to the infinite.

>Peturdson
That's an Obummer-tier name pun. Apply yourself.

that is what im doing though.

It's obviously not working. I think if there was a solid argument against his central points these posts would slowly fade off. Instead the best argument presented is that Peterson is actually a post modernist which makes no sense given how he believes religions hold a lot of moral truths in them.

Sure, I can't blame him if that's the way he feels. But his credentials have nothing to do with his opinions

>spooked

He's contributing to a reaction against leftist political agendas that are permeating all facets of society through his expertise of psychology. It's not like he's trying to critic Foucault or Derrida. I personally have no bad feelings against those two philosophers, but it seems like their students have become some of the worst academic degenerates that this planet has ever seen.

The argument that is typically lobbied against JBP is that he doesn't understand postmodernism. When one of his detractors are asked to expound upon this criticism, they either stop responding or replying with a rambling, nonsensical word salad that makes zero sense and has bad capitalization/spelling/grammar/etc.

One critic in particular seems to pop up in every thread about JBP and is one of the most retarded, pseudointellectual posters I've ever seen on Veeky Forums. This () is him right here I think.

These fake news OP's should be a ban category. I'm fucking serious.
This is a problem and it's widespread throughout popular boards.~

>when i dont get it is a word salad
literally, brainlet

>it's n-not word salad y-you just don't understand me!!
you're retarded bucko

sorry i have no time to make you a video using disney examples for your retarded ass

Imagine being butthurt enough to make this

One of the most disappointing things about Peterson thread is the constant reminder how well defined Philosophy has become that if it isn't written in a regurgitated stream of consciousness that brutalizes language like a Florida Man in a wife beater its considered literally anything else.

Are there any philosophical works that focus on this phenomena of worshipping random people and their outlooks on life?

Why do figures like Harris and Peterson have (relatively) huge followings?

>Why do figures like Harris and Peterson have (relatively) huge followings?
They had the right views on social issues at the right time.

the thing about peterson is that he tries to understand the world from a purely subjective point of view, which is fine because he is a psychologist. but he has no clue of institutions and other subjectivised structures like the state, capital or the economy, which account for the reality of most of our lives. in a way he is an idealist and thinks that sorting yourself out will solve the world. however there is a complex interplay of ideas, structures, institutions with the self that form reality. concentrating on the self if pretty shortsighted imho

I wouldn't call following people who are really high up in their field and published authors "random"

can apply to Peterson, but Harris has been publishing books for a while, and as much as their social views help them it also hurts them.

they just shit on islam and trans people.
in a way they are the perfect germans like heinrich mann described him in "Der Untertan".
"nach oben buckeln, nach unten treten"
my respect can be gained by criticizing power, not weakness.

At first I thought lol but in reality it's going to be written by a guy living 30 years ago. He will talk as if you can just walk in to a church and meet women like it's 1929

He's made it very clear why he sticks to an individual level because the individual comprises those institutions. I understand what you're saying and maybe he should focus on how these institutions bend our selves, but a lot of his rambling shows direct examples of how the individual selves collectively cause action on a global scale.

i agree with most points, but this is a bad meme. too much text. it is a typical symptom of leftist memes (not meant to be derogatory). the less content -> more meme

Harris had the right view on dumber Christians at the right time, and he's had the appropriate view on Islam for a while as well.
Harris isn't high up in any field from what I understand.

Harris is such a boring cuck

OP bait images in general shouldn't be allowed.

t. brainlet

I agree, but he's also been slandered incredibly badly for those same views. Instead of cracking under that pressure he very calmly approached and earned a lot of respect.

>Harris isn't high up in any field
I don't actually know how accomplished he is in his field, but just being a Neuroscientist is a pretty large credential.

I'm just making the point that he has merit to a level that other politically opinionated people with worshippers like Milo or Cernovich don't.

i think incentives by the socio economic and religious systems embedding us are far stronger than individuals, even though they originated from the self, as they operate mostly unquestioned and are backed by force if necessary.
believing in in individual selves acting collectively is just some naive trust in democracy that has long since been disproven.
blaming the individual is an absolute culdesac
this guy himself is just a whiny bitch addicted to youtube hits. he is okay as a self help guide but hugely overrated as a "philosopher"

yeah man it takes days to type up a short paragraph identifying someone as a hack.

>definition of truth
>pointless

Jordan Peterson is ironically such a postmodern sophists that he equates truth with whatever benefits the individual regardless of fact.

Fixed

>he tries to understand the world from a purely subjective point of view, which is fine because he is a psychologist
That is actually my problem with him. Psychology is one of my passions and I put much effort into seperating the good psychology from the bad.

The field has problems and those need to be solved and attitudes like yours aren't helpful.

>m-m-my posts totally aren't rambling pseudointellectual w-word salads!
jfc bud

Harris isn't a neuroscientist. He paid somebody to perform a now debunked study in his name without any prior experience before. He had an undergraduate degree in philosophy for fucks sake, and he manages to mangle that, so what chance did he have of understanding even the basics of neuroscience?

When has a totalitarian regime produced anything even remotely comparable in well-being, or in really anything that is used as a metric to measure how "good" a society is, to a free liberal democracy? And how hasn't it been disproven that societys where the individual has been discarded as a mindless sheep who cannot know what's best for them end up being just a hell on earth?

How do any of our systems operate mostly unquestioned? They undergo heavy questioning not just day to day, but throughout history every revolution is born from questioning status quo. I'm willing to acknowledge that a singular individual is not always capable of completely changing his environment, but if you're a healthy individual in a first world country you have a pretty large amount of power to.

>believing in in individual selves acting collectively is just some naive trust in democracy that has long since been disproven.

citation needed

According to the Los Angeles Times "Harris recently completed a doctoral dissertation in cognitive neuroscience at UCLA." WaPo backs this up as well, and I don't understand how his undergard major being philo really removes that possibility. 4 year degrees go fucking nowhere anyways.

pragmatism's epistemology is worse than postmodernism. everything you feel like not having to intellectually justify and defend is deemed "true enough" because believing in any fantasy you want to believe tangentially correlates with desirable outcomes

His dissertation was basically "what happens if you put religious people usher an fMRI" that was poorly controlled for variables and obviously influenced by his polemical agenda. His book, the Moral Landscape, was basically an extended version of his thesis, and it still had little scientific rigor at any stage of the book. Recently, blanket fMRI studies such as the one Harris performed, have been shown to have such huge methodological problems that they might as well be worthless. This might have been avoided had Harris possessed a strong background in neuroscience, since STEM undergraduate education DOES matter for the basics, but Harris has yet to produce a single new study after being awarded a PhD. It boggles my mind how Harris managed to debase UCLA's academic reputation through his mother's Hollywood contacts, but he did the impossible just so he can pretend to be an intellectual.

this image is always an incoherent mess and anyone who unironically posts it is stupid by association.

>"what happens if you put religious people usher an fMRI"
>tfw I was gonna go into neuroscience and do this for my thesis
I guess I have to go into physics and pulbish "Showing Telepathy Exists Using Telepathy" or maybe I'll study math and publish "Proving You Can't Know Nothin: Applications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems"

Thanks for the info It'd be interesting to see someone confront him on this.

It's a pretty straightforward response to a common line of thinking among nihilist neckbeard types.

It's two pseud arguments, not NIHILISTS BTFO

>His dissertation was basically "what happens if you put religious people usher an fMRI" that was poorly controlled for variables and obviously influenced by his polemical agenda.
How does he confirm they really believe in a god?

leaving aside the fact that using images to do your talking is degenerate parrotry, even if the poster was the author of the image, it's a poor response to (existential) nihilism. hypocrisy of your opponent is first of all not a refutation of their words, appeal to hypocrisy is a fallacy. second of all saying that all knowledge is based on [axioms] is some kind of postmodernist truth denial, is mouse saying chemicals don't exist? what is he even saying? the last line, will you fight or perish like a dog is some kind of "lol don't think about it just focus on living", this is of no help to duck's distress

I actually responded in my own words to him the picture was somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. Appealing to fallacies is a fallcy. The line where Mickey's meaning about chemicals is immediately spelled out for you when he says that "all knowledge is ultimately based on that which you cannot prove"

The last line may not be a perfect argument, but it's possible this is satirizing people who don't offer a logical answer to nihilism and resort to emotional appeal. The more sensible answer is that the creator intended for a more emotional appeal to fix the worry Donald has.

why are you getting so defensive? are you personally identifying with the picture?
> Appealing to fallacies is a fallcy.
appealing to fallacy is to argue that the conclusion must be false because the argument is bad. pointing out that the argument is bad and fails to reach to reach the conclusion is not a fallacy. is this your standard go to response whenever you're accused to saying stupid shit?
>The line where Mickey's meaning about chemicals is immediately spelled out for you when he says that "all knowledge is ultimately based on that which you cannot prove"
can you specify the meaning? i don't see it.

>The more sensible answer is that the creator intended for a more emotional appeal to fix the worry Donald has.
donald is a philosopher, he doesn't care about garbage arguments. he doesn't even care if he lives or dies, he wants an escape from his existential terror, that's how disciplined he is.

Eric Hoffer - The True Believer

He discusses what kind of people join mass movements and gravitate to outspoken "leaders." It's mostly frustrated and ineffectual people--they don't have control over or derive satisfaction from their own lives, so they need something to blame or a narrative that promises them a good life. Creative people are the opposite, generally, because they get satisfaction from having command over their artistic powers.

The thing about Peterson is that a lot of his advice is good shit. He has helped me sort myself out after years of being addicted to sexual gratification and weed, but he's essentially a metaphysician and it seems that his popularity is really getting to his head.

You're saying more to imply anger than I am, so I don't know if you're on the spectrum or what. You give more evidence to this with your second greentext where you can't comprehend a very simply laid out statement.

looks like i was right on the money, mouse doesn't know what the fuck he means and your "lol isn't it obvious what he means" when i politely ask for clarification is a typical emperor's new clothes response

and before you retort with another "lol git reading comprehension", i understand what the line "all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove" means at face value, but what is he saying that in reference to? is he trying to undermine the legitimacy of duck's observations about the brain being reducible to chemicals? this is tantamount to denying reality, is mouse a relativist? how is that a response to existential nihilism? i get the general idea, but see no interpretation of that sentence that constitutes a relevant response to ducks' position.