Why do I have the feeling that everyone who hates Peterson with a passion is either an SJW apologist or just a butthurt...

well what do chimps do when you confront them with a problem they can't understand?

they throw feces at it until it works

>of course since they're ideologues and Post-modernism deals in factual relativism other views that aren't theirs can be disregarded
But wouldn't a true post-modernist disregard his very own views in the same matter? If everything is relative no one is right. Especially not me. Do post-modernists even exist, or is post-modernism just a rhetorical shield used by all sorts of believes to deflect any sort of valid criticism?

I don't like anyone with a cult of personality. It's not that I don't like him, I actually don't pay much attention to him at all because half the time he's just talking nonsense about myths and archetypes. That's not what I'm interested in so it's whatever. I can't stand the sort of people that follow him around and put him on a pedestal like he's some sort of genius. He's not. This stuff about archetypes and myths have been the territory of CS Lewis and Tolkien for decades. Jordan Peterson is not adding anything new to the discussion other than some words his audience doesn't fully understand like post modernism or Marxism.

This isn't always the case but when most people like something or somebody it's probably dumb. Think about how stupid the average person.

That's actually a common criticism, that its self-refuting

when they say you don't understand post-modernism they're literally refuting themselves

I'm as left as they come, hate on me as much as you want whatever, I like Peterson. Though I don't necessarily agree with some of his points, he's trying to instil an ethos into a fragmented society that has become disillusioned and full of itself, that much I admire. But I detest the fact a lot of his proponents have misinterpreted his teachings as a way to cling onto and recreate a traditionalist narrative, which is a bit of a paradox

If you admit to not even giving the otherside a fair shake, what the fuck are you even doing commenting? If all you saw was his joe rogan interview where he goes on about memes and chaos, then that's just confirmation bias. take the time to watch one his professional lectures, they're out there. I'll even help you

youtube.com/watch?v=I_7hCPYgXEk

youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc

>If everything is relative no one is right.
No one is wrong either, so there's no particular reason to reject your own beliefs.
Of course that's not really even true in the first place. Saying that facts are relative doesn't insist that nothing can be true, it simply claims that there is no a priori One Right Answer that everything must be measured against but rather that truth is dependent (to varying degrees) on society and the individual.
>or is post-modernism just a rhetorical shield used by all sorts of believes to deflect any sort of valid criticism?
It can be abused in that manner but no more than saying "everybody who disagrees with me is a butthurt marxist SJW" as if that makes them wrong.

I've seen a bunch of his videos and I don't find him interesting so I don't watch him anymore. That's what I'm saying in a nutshell. I know what he's about.

Why is this thread still up?

Conservatives in my phil department hates him with a passion too.
Basically if you're on his side and you're also educated, you'll see him a a retard and you'll laugh at the banality of his arguments. Only retards who take youtube talking heads seriously are giving him any aort of recognition.

if you close your eyes while listening to him, it's like being lectured by kermit the frog

I stopped taking his critics that seriously when one of the academic subreddits referred to him as a "Nazi" in an upvoted post. It's just the same hyperbolic caricatures and leftist buzzwording you see whenever an academic remotely right of Foucault has an opinion.

>when they say you don't understand post-modernism they're literally refuting themselves
Because there is no objective reality post-modernism can just mean anything to me and therefore there is no such thing as post-modernism to begin with. Correct?

So basically: True post-modernists deconstruct post-modernism itself and as a result stop being post-modernists, therefore a true post-modernist evaporates the moment he is created. Anyone else who claims to be a post-modernist and doesn't realize that there is no such thing just uses the central observations of post-modernism to justify whatever bullshit they like?

I don't like his fanbase of MRAs and edgy teenagers, but I love the man himself.

>Jordan Peterson is not adding anything new to the discussion
He exposed me to Jung, so that's that. I would have never even heard of Jungian Archetypes if it wasn't for Peterson. What's wrong with bringing Jung to a wider audience? In school we just talked about Freud.

Well. Peterson is a centrist, but his philosophy is a great foundation for traditionalism if you buy into the fact that we are closer to absolute chaos rather than absolute order, which seems to be the case.

Because he is not a real conservative. He's just a pragmatist who doesn't bash tradition and religion.

Peterson hates Commies more than Nazis by a factor of a thousand, but he is still against totalitarianism or far right traditionalism. But to a leftist everything that's not them is literally Hitler.

The banality of his arguments? If novelty and originality were prerequisites for having an academic career, then three quarters of our schools would be completely empty. The fact that he appeals to so many people is in itself evidence that he's valuable as an educator.

> But to a leftist everything that's not them is literally Hitler.
Exactly the view Peterson helps to push. Pol-pictures of normies on social media might lead you to buy into this but in the real world there's no such thing.

the right thinks of "postmodernism" -- to put it simply- as a mechanism or ideology to break down or destroy traditional western values and culture.

Now whether you disagree with that or not, you can't say they don't understand because of the relativist nature of post modernism,.
Seeing post modernism as ugly and dangerous is not "wrong".

Let me put this in a way that your kekistani memfag brain can understand.

A post-modernist 1/16th native American literature professor and anti-theist was teaching a class on Dirrida, a known neo-Marxist.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and accept that Christianity is wrong and African witch doctors can shoot thunderbolts at people!"

At this moment, a brave, stoic, pro-life gaunt skinny student who had browsed over 1500 hours of memes understood the necessity of pretending Christianity is real even if it isn't stood up and held up a picture of a bizarre frog drawing.

"Post-modernism is a neo-marxist scheme designed to de-stabilize Western society!"

The arrogant professor rolled his and tiredly replied "Post-modernism rejects marxism because its a modernist theory."

"Wrong. Christianity is useful for society whether science agrees or not and its part of our identity. Empiricism is an oppressive meta-narrative and the cold hard razor of science cannot replace the warmth and pride and meaning Christianity could."

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his dreamcatcher. He slapped his forehead and said "That is a fucking post-modern argument you stupid little shit, have you even read any books on post-modernism? No? Get out of my class!"

That student later went onto re-enrol as a psychology student. That students name? Jordan Peterson.

I just think he only gives you the first few steps of self improvement, but ultimately doesn't go full red pill.

>The banality of his arguments?
What do they even mean by this? I'm legit confused. That he invokes hobbes social contract theory and mill's harm principle a lot?

t. SJW

I've had some IRL encounters with those people Peterson is talking about around the same time he acquired e-celeb status. They are very much real and absolutely dangerous. If you disagree you are either ignorant because you didn't have the misfortune of dealing with those people on a first hand basis, or you have some sort of agenda that would fall apart once you accept that SJWs are real, and not just a meme boogeyman for edgy internet teens that listen to Molynmeme.

There is such a thing in academia. I had a professor who said "Christian fascists like Ted Cruz" in the middle of a sentence as it were the most self-evident fact in the world. He didn't say it in class, but it does demonstrate how these people think.

Jesus how many Peterson threads do we need?

The 3 other from this weekend weren't ample enough opportunity for fucking plebs to trot out your ideologies?

We've had more than that in the past. If you want there to be fewer, don't complain, that "feeds the trolls". Just don't engage, or derail them with pointless shit.

Why do people think that the far right in the USA is fascist? Fascism is totalitarian and collectivist, while republicans are full force "1776!!! Don't tread on me! Taxation is theft". That's literally the opposite.

That's not quite what relativism means. It starts with the recognition that there can exist multiple belief systems which are logically sound, relevant to reality, and contradictory of one another. There's no absolute truth because arriving at a truth about human nature, or ethical behavior, or whatever, requires taking certain assumptions as premises in your belief system. If those premises are changed (in the right way), it is possible to derive an equally valid belief system that arrives at contradictory conclusions to the other. It's impossible to judge the validity of these different, valid, and contradictory value systems from outside one's own value system, as well. The act of determining validity requires a pre-existing belief system. You can't step outside your own belief system, and you can't reconcile your system with other belief systems, so there's no single, absolutely true belief system which supersedes all other systems.

Cultural relativism takes this further and recognizes that these logically sound and contradictory belief systems are themselves usually the product of cultural circumstances. Most people's beliefs are largely the product of their upbringing. People from one culture can see one kind of truth in some issue, and people from another culture can see a different truth in the same issue. Because their belief systems are both valid and irreconcilable, the truth of an issue becomes "relative" to the culture in which one is situated.

>If novelty and originality were prerequisites for having an academic career, then three quarters of our schools would be completely empty.
If you're going to be a public intellectual and philosopher, your arguments should be more nuanced than what a undergrad may come up with.

>The fact that he appeals to so many people is in itself evidence that he's valuable as an educator.
The student is not a good judge when it comes to education, for he still does not possess the tools to verify his teacher's competence. This is the case: whoever talked about postmodernism after having listened to Peterson, has in fact talked about nothing.
>b-but clean your room
Basic self-help advices: guidelines like these have been out there for decades.

> understood the necessity of pretending Christianity is real
Christianity is real... It's an ideology that contains within it the supernatural, that can be argued where is real or not.
>"Post-modernism is a neo-marxist scheme designed to de-stabilize Western society!"
This is a fucking straw man, and it doesn't really matter if the person is under the impression that it is a marxist creation you just threw that in there as a red herring.
>"Post-modernism rejects marxism because its a modernist theory."
Post-modernist can reject EVERYTHING, just because it doesn't discriminate doesn't negate the claim that it can be "de-stabalizing" force. The christian isn't wrong, he simply arrived there with a somewhat misguided belief of marxism which you just threw in there as a red herring.
people would defend Christianity simply because they have a reverence of their culture. and find postmodernism ugly,

I'd argue the world is today is created by chaos and thrives on it. To lean towards traditionalism is fine for a personal philosophy, but for the world at large it comes at odds with conflicting cultures and ideals. At least Western traditionalism that is.

We stick to our western tradition and the rest of the world can stick to theirs. Why do people always equate western traditionalism with imperial enforcement of western values onto other cultures? Seems like leftist brainwashing to me.

This is academic elitism masquerading as critique. I'll say this again, if the students find value in his self-help platitudes, why would it matter whether they're getting the advice from him or from some older source that no one's pointed them toward? You're upset that his popularity doesn't match what you perceive to be his originality; in other words you're a hipster snob.

I've never in my life encountered anyone who fits Peterson's description. I have, however, seen an ample supply of pictures of them. It's also unclear what impact these people exactly have? Western degeneracy? It's often said that they pervade academia, that courses on literature tend to 'overfocus' on black/ queer/ feminist literature. I attend a --in my opinion-- great uni and I have never seen this. For instance, I had a course on modern spanish literature and the authors we dealt with in more detail were all Old White Males - some of them even deceased

But Western traditionalism is coming under issues with people coming from those Eastern countries and conflicting with the West, even the traditionalists! No matter where you go, people and cultures will try to instil their own value onto society.

The syllabus of course on Spanish literature is made up of books written by Spainiards, and someone this proves that there's no progressive activism in academia. Good logic right there.

I've been watching some of Peterson's lectures and they're very, very clever though, I will admit, not necessarily as readings of the books he uses. He does have good insights into, eg, the Bible and philosophy, but some of his best stuff just uses that as a launching point and goes elsewhere. So you'll learn a lot about how to manage yourself in life, but not necessarily as much about Exodus or whatever passage he's talking about.

I was put off by the cult of personality and self-helpish aspect of all of it, but I have to admit, I'm rather impressed by him. Not sure why people dislike him so much besides hatred of anything popular; it seems that even SJWs have moved on from hating him. I'm glad he's around and I've found him useful these past few days.

One particularly interesting thing he does is that he combines insights from the psychoanalysts and from neurosciences. Being learned in both STEM and humanities fields makes him rather unusual, period, and frankly a whole lot less useless than most psychologists (who end up knowing neither much humanities nor much stem.) He does truly aspire to the role of a soul doctor.

I don't. But I honestly believe that people in the west would be better off if they stopped this cultural and ethnic self hatred. But if the don't want to it's their loss. I believe that if they continue on this path of mindless "progress", it will ultimately destroy them. Their loss.

There is nothing wrong with tradition. There is nothing wrong with the west as such. Hierarchies based on competence, beauty and intelligence are not oppressive. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your culture and wanting to preserve your civilization. That's all.

No it isn't. It's made up by a professor

>Anyone else who claims to be a post-modernist and doesn't realize that there is no such thing just uses the central observations of post-modernism to justify whatever bullshit they like?

You're talking about this "thing" in static terms, and propping it up with the claim that there are central observations to this label, postmodernism. If you'd like to make that term cohesive, you should be asking questions about its relation to modernism before you can be sure about those observations.

And then you can question the views of individual modernists from the same era who don't fit into what you come to believe is the central tenants of modernism. This may upset the core of your critique of the concept of modernism, but it will also unsettle you about postmodernism, I'm sure.

But never, ever, write any of it down. Because they'll call you a postmodernist if you do. And that is to die an unknown death.

---

>Because there is no objective reality post-modernism can just mean anything to me and therefore there is no such thing as post-modernism to begin with. Correct?

Unless you understand it as an extension of modernism, which having undergone a battle to define objectivity, has settled comfortably into pragmatism, learned judgement, and scepticism. The results of which have been very slowly trickling down to even the lowest forms of intelligence, social conservatives.

Peterson clearly and cohesively underlines problems and gives solutions, and I'm indebted to him. But he sells solutions to problems that are more complex than what he simplifies, and the simplifications are not even his fault. "Postmodernism" itself has been a term that has made a lot of people money writing For dummies books, and most have been from the left. His scapegoating of postmodernism is the fault of those groups he attacks, because they needed oversimplifications to make rules and laws.

There's this very interesting Roman Catholic monk that was into Derrida, I can't remember his name. Hope someone knows who I mean. I'd like to read some of his works and see what relation to Peterson he might have. Anybody?

I'm saying that the syllabus of a course in Spanish literature could only possibly comprise of Spanish authors. The fact that it does doesn't prove anything

Can we address the real issue here,

relativists want an equality of outcome because we're all the same and even 5'4 takahiro yamamoto can be the next labron james

and the right wants equality of opportunity, which is considered mean and unfair

postmodernism in my opinion is just an extension of equality of opportunity of outcome and equality debate. One side says that Rembrandt is real art. The other side says toilet seat on a white background can is real art too. The other side says "my 4 year old could make that" the other side says "you don't understand postmodernism"

I agree with you and it's a subtle point, but I worry that the left is feeding the far right when the left claims that any defense of your culture is Nazism. If any authentic defense of the West is crushed in the middle between neo-Marxists on one hand and neo-Nazis on the other, we're fucking toast. The Chinese won't even have to own our debt for us to be chopped up and sold off, piece by piece.

I do admit that it's not as if the left is the entire problem. The West has, in general, lost faith in its own bases (particularly scientific rationality and Christian religion, two things which are both essential to it AND conflict with each other). In other ways, we're victims of our own success; we got so rich that we forgot what makes life worth living and have forgotten the strategies that make life secure in the first place. This is partly why Peterson is so valuable; he reminds us that myth isn't a bunch of just-so stories but actually 1) describe the living values of some society at some time in such a way that they can become our values, too, and, more importantly, 2) describe the mechanisms and strategies those societies had for surviving an essentially indifferent, and occasionally chaotic and hostile, world. We have a resurgent right and left because we've forgotten 2). We got so comfortable that we forgot how bad things could be, so we keep on trying to make it perfect (whether that means gender-neutral perma-orgy or the Pagan Amerikkkan Reich) without understanding how fragile civilization is, in general.

But isn't it funny that the understanding of post-modernism isn't evenly distributed; ie, you have to go to college to appreciate it. So the debate occurs also at every level.

so we've come full circle to jordan peterson's hyper-intellectual argument

youtube.com/watch?v=C3fy0RYpU8Q

literalyl first 5 seconds

Uhu but they also have 50% woman population and a salad of ethnicities (Spanish America). Two women chose to make up a syllabus consisting of only the white and the male - and they more than probably were justified in doing so.

Anyway, you're right. Anecdotes hardly prove anything

So, what is it that so-called SJW's are destroying? I'll rephrase myself a little less cynically: what harm do they do?

>If any authentic defense of the West is crushed in the middle between neo-Marxists on one hand and neo-Nazis on the other, we're fucking toast.
That's what I fear too. If you call someone a Nazi long enough they will eventually embrace it and say "Fuck it, I'm a Nazi, gas the kikes race war now". I know this better than anyone else. The 2016 election chaos made me go full /pol/ and I used to be a fucking communist in my early to mid teens. This crazy time is driving everyone to the fringes and that's seriously troubling.

>the rest of your post
I agree 100%, actually. Can you see into my mind? We live on the decaying corpse of our dead culture and we need to revive it before its too late. It's a comfy kind of depression, the feeling that you know that everything you know is slowly dying away and that it just takes a major geopolitical fuckup or a new financial crisis to light the matchbox that will send us into a new dark age or straight into hell. What a time to be alive. I just hope that I and the few people I care about will survive whatever lies ahead of us.

I think I've pinpointed what bothers the left so much about old JP. He's a christian and they have reservations about religious influence, a remnant of the fedora atheist days.

News flash: people are complex beings. They can have contradictory beliefs. He's pretty secular in his academic pursuits, he's not a proselytizer of Christianity at all

That's not what I mean and, even if it were, what's the problem of coming back to Jordan Peterson in a thread in which he's the topic? Are you looking for an argument where there isn't one? My point was that even within the equality of outcome camp, they're riven by class distinctions which they promulgate, and they can't even see it. Broadly, I'm an equality of opportunity type of guy, which makes me LITERALLY HITLER to most of academia (in which I work) and a cuckservative shill to most of Veeky Forums (in which I play).

But, anyway, I don't think you and I were disagreeing.

>what harm do they do?
Deliberately inducing gender dysphoria in preteen children for ideological reasons, for starters. There is going to be a HUGE suicide wave in the next 10 to 20 years because of this nonsense. Screenshot this.

No i wasn't disagreeing, I was usingthat video's argument to bolster yours. That video is what believe started the whole Jordan Peterson meme on lit

Glad you found it useful user (and nice digits, James Bond). But I worry that the problem is even greater than reviving the corpse of the West. First off, it's not clear that that's possible. Second off, the West itself has contradictory drives within it. So it was made strong by Christian religion and scientific rationality, among other things, but these two strands of it conflict with each other. Also keep in mind that the opposition to the West is part of the West itself. SJWS and the alt-right are both produced by our schools and our cultures and they have so much free time because they've been failed by our economy. We didn't import Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street and Identity Europa and the fucking Republic and Democratic Parties, we made them.

I don't know if we're going to survive, because of political chaos but also because of the threats of global warming and of war. Sometimes I think the best possible outcome is that, 100 years from now, Western Culture Studies is a department at Chinese universities, which Chinese hipsters take when they want to piss off their parents by not studying business or medicine. Our culture becoming an object of someone else's study at this point might be best possible outcome.

I think they are rather not to rigid about gender-roles. And that --I think-- is a good: it has been proven that boys who do not try too much in their role get better results in school. Machismo is vile; and I can hardly see parents encouraging their children to let go off their inner boy and embrace the inner counterpart. But sure, the phenomenon exists and like homosexuality, it's real

Oh sorry, I'm just so used to being on here and at everyone else's throat all the time. So I was the one starting the fight, sorry user. Yeah, I like that video, Peterson's got a point. This is the one that I watched the other day that made me want to watch more of the longer ones.

Because you're an idiot?

First, if you took a course on Spanish-language literature (as opposed to just Spanish literature) and the syllabus was made up entirely of white people born in Spain, then you took a shitty class. And second, my problem with activist-focused syllabi is that they privledge ideological interpretations of literature over aesthetic analyzation. It's like studying Wagner's music only because he was an important figure in 19th century German politics, rather than because his music was sublime. It also teaches kids the rebels of Western high culture before they're even aware of what Western high culture is. It's robbing them of a full understanding of the cultural tradition they're the progeny of.

Nope.

youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

The same shit that happened in Norway to promoting women into different workplace positions is going to happen to gender roles. 10 to 20 years and we'll be talking about the relation of gender dysphoria to biology, and be well past its relation to its current ideological phase.

When a nation loses it's religion it replaces it with something else. The fact is we're biologically predisposed to be religious. The west is trying to put in social justice as surrogate way of displaying virtue all the while Islam is also bidding to take the spot.

Do you see the unusual interest in politics lately as being religious and ritualistic? The government should be secular, but the masses need something to get them by.

Brainwashing your child into believing they are transgender because that do not fit the gender stereotype 100% (no one does) is literally evil. Anyone who uses the term "toxic masculinity" unironically needs to be shot. Or at least kept away from children. If children are not developed enough to consent to sucking my cock, they sure as hell aren't capable of deciding what gender they are, especially considering that 99%+ of the population is """cis"""

>and be well past its relation to its current ideological phase.
Literally 90% of LGBT politics is pure ideology. A gay conservative is a literal race traitor to them.

>Our culture becoming an object of someone else's study at this point might be best possible outcome.
So basically western culture has to die in order to save western culture because we are our own worst enemy?

That's funny because I feel like every Petersonfag also owns a Kekistani flag or isn't actually studying the things he talks about in depth, preferring instead to just watch lectures on YouTube and namedrop the people Peterson cites.

>Literally 90% of LGBT politics is pure ideology. A gay conservative is a literal race traitor to them.

You mean unless they need votes, right? Oh, and the libertarian ones don't count, too, right?

You wouldn't be afraid of a cannibal coming for the sons and daughters of the milkman would you?

those who would discredit peterson because of his fan base are worse then any meme spousting kekistani

Ah no, it was a class post-war spanish-language literature. The authors we dealt with in more detail were: Borges, Cortazar, Marquez, Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes, Max Aub, Cela, Octavio Paz, Bernando Axtaga, Javier Marias and Muñoz Molina

I don't really know what activist-focused means but texts were indeed looked at in terms of their interpretation, textuality, themes...

You're right but a student spanish you can hardly do without these names: they are important historical figures and their texts contain a lot of that history - literary and social.

Why should I read Peterson? I haven't read any Judith Butler, should I bother to read Judith Butler, too? Why the fuck should I give this faggot any of my fucking time? You fucking people won't stop fucking talking about him and he's boring and derivative and almost purely political. I really do not give a fuck about Peterson. I am not claiming to refute him. I do not give a fuck if he is right or wrong about anything. I only know that his fanboys are fucking terrible.

There's a few mestizos on that list; it's not all white Spaniards. My point about activist literature is the attempt to expand the Western canon to include works by marginalized voices just for the political content of their work, rather than focusing on works with great aesthetic and thematic value. Kids aren't really required to read Dante anymore, but they've all read Toni Morrison. Even if Morrison is a good writer, her introduction into the canon has far more to do with her race than with the inherent value of her work.

Thats just reddit itself making seemingly intelligent people insufferable.

Then get out of this thread. This isn't about Peterson, it's about his ideas.

MAYBE, IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT MARXISM IS, YOU COULD STUDY MARXISTS
MAYBE, IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT POSTMODERNISM IS, YOU COULD READ A FUCKING BOOK
INSTEAD YOU GET MAD WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS AND OTHER PEOPLE TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE BETTER DEFINITIONS THAN THE ONES THIS GUY IS USING
JORDAN PETERSON'S PROJECT IS INHERENTLY POLITICAL AND IS THEREFORE INHERENTLY SUSPECT
FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, READ A FUCKING BOOK

No it isn't, it's about OP's impression of people who disagree with him, you insufferable fairy.

I used to be a commie. I know what fucking Marxism is. I also used to like Postmodernism as a rejection of modernism and the general idea of aesthetic relativism when it comes to art, aka "it's supposed to be shit".

Because it makes you feel better when people shit on him.

>I used to be a commie.
But you've never stopped being dumb, obviously.

>muh agenda
>muh ulterior motives
Peterson's politics are derived from his theories, not the other way around. Also this all caps autism just makes me want to listen to you less. Why do you act this way?

No. I don't mind having my view point changed. But you have to provide actual arguments instead of just namecalling.

AI and singularity may just be that point wherein we are either saved or brutally fucked.

>singularity
/g/ here. Please hang yourself. Technology isn't magic.

>Peterson's politics are derived from his theories
This might be the most naive statement I've ever read on this board. Do you actually believe this? There is nobody of which it is a true statement.

>distrust le authority
>everyone has an agenda
You sound like a post-modernist.

It's not magic but the encroaching AI is a serious existential issue. And it will literally change our world whether we like it or not

>No. I don't mind having my view point changed. But you have to provide actual arguments instead of just namecalling.
You asked a question and I tried to answer it.

But here's my main problem with Peterson. He can't stay focused and he can't argue his points well. All of his lectures are scatterbrained and filled with tangents so you have to listen for hours to get what he's really trying to argue. Then when he argues with someone like Sam Harris he can't defend himself at all. Sam Harris shouldn't be tough to argue against, but he still fails at it. Also his idea that truth is what is helpful for humanity is just silly. Or maybe he's correct about it, but he really has to become better at defending such a ridiculous claim.

Peterson isn't talking about truth in the scientific or mathematical sense. How is that not clear? His notion of "meta-truth" is something completely different. Wisdom would be a much better word for it. You are literally too stupid and pedantic to understand Peterson's point.

I don't know, man, the idea that theory derives from material conditions sounds more like Marxism than post-modernism.

>"What is truth?" retorted Pilate.
Ah, another fool who subordinates truth to politics.

It was obvious in his debate with Harris that he wasn't explicitly distinguishing between scientific truth and religious truth. He wants to argue that following/learning the truth is always right, but he has to change what truth means so that trying to teach the world the truth about how to make mustard gas doesn't become moral. It's just silly.

kekd
Good post.

...

>It was obvious in his debate with Harris that he wasn't explicitly distinguishing between scientific truth and religious truth.
He does though. That's clear to anyone who actually seen his lectures or read his book. It servers a different function from scientific truth. Scientific truth has been around for about 500 years, while Peterson's concept of wisdom is as old as the first stories told by literal cavemen to one another. Scientific truth is more powerful, but useless when it comes to providing people with a framework of behavior to act out in order to get the future that they want. You can't prove your morals are correct via the scientific method. Peterson is also not inventing this concept, he simply gave it a name. It's the unwritten rules by which we have always operated. Passed on from generation to generation to the point where this information about behavior has been coded into our DNA in the form of Jungian Archetypes.

>nazi
Did you take that form your local SJW reddit?

You realize that referring to everyone who disagrees with you as an "SJW" is the exact equivalent of when you get called a "nazi", right?

>Why do I have the feeling that everyone who hates Peterson with a passion is either an SJW apologist or just a butthurt Marxist?
You get that "feeling" because you aren't very smart and you "feel" instead of "think". Stop watching youtube videos and read a book.

lolol

Can you stop bringing up youtube or "youtube intellectuals" in every /pol/ thread? It's getting tiresome.

Sure. I'll be sure to stop as soon as OP stops making this same stupid thread. Like honestly, for months now there has been a thread with this topic (or an extremely similar one) active at all times on Veeky Forums. It's interesting that you admit in your post that this is a /pol/ thread, so why not have this discussion on /pol/ instead? Its not like anyone is discussing literature in these threads. Thus, my suggestion to read a book. I actually made one of the most on topic posts in the entire thread when you think about the purpose of a board dedicated to the discussion of literature. The fact is that the bulk of JP's audience doesn't read books (philosophy, literature or otherwise) and has no interest in doing so. This is obvious to me because his books are discussed in these threads exactly 0% of the time.

I've also seen a few naive realists who think they're atheists get really enraged by him.