What did he mean by this?

TAKBIR!

Jordan bin Peter, alhamdulillah, just sent the kuffar on suicide watch.

It's insulting to jewesses name Phillis Stein

another way of stating this thesis: All knowledge is socially constructed.

fuck, I rescind that post then
sorry to any Phillis reading this thread

Yes, this is definitely lit related

I doubt a christian would agree that god is socially constructed.

FUCK YOU Jordan is /ourguy/! He fights the evil sjws and he even talks about peepee the meme so he's one of us you postmodernist normie lesbian cuck.

Empty gibberish.

can lesbians be cuckolds?

I'd be interested in that

>objects of faith can be objects of knowledge

lol

should man not strive to be closer to God, and thereby more knowledgeable of Him and His will?

>God = only axiom
whoa...

haa haA HAAAAA so he's a logician now too?

why do you queers listen to this dumb fraud nigger

he means "i have no idea how maths or science work"

now
Veeky Forums - LITERATURE
fuck off to your Veeky Forums containment board

Philosophers HATE him!
Thousands of years of epistemological thought undone with this ONE sneaky trick!

This is just an outdated way of saying that a presupposition is necessary for all thought, and if you follow the rabbit hole of presuppositions you will eventually find one that you cannot provide evidence for, therefore you need faith in the unknown to some degree in order to exist.

tl;dr the rationalists are naive. Irrationality is essential to the world.

why does your foundational axiom have to be faith in god?
prove that it has to be.

Yes cuckquean is a thing. As if special snowflake victim fetish wasn't enough for these degenerates, they legitimately had to go and spell queen the wrong way.

Modern left is irredeemable.

God is a symbol for the unknown in this passage. The unknown is considered the ultimate controller of the world to many, like the unconscious for Jung (which is where Peterson is coming from), so they refer to it as God.

lol

I really doubt leftists are the target market

He is a total science guy and his brand of psychoteraphy is 100% science (trust him!)

pic related: science

You can know nothing!

>All axioms are arbitrary.
>If Jordan Peterson uses God as an axiom he can delude himself into thinking that he is now actually getting closer to Truth and Good with the capital t and g.
>since this is a systematic yet vague super-imposition, having God as your axiom does not really change the nature of most of those thoughts that ought to be verified
>the illusion remains that: an illusion

>said illusion still gives him the nerve to publish shit like pic related

His insight has absolutely zero moral and epistemological value, all it shows you is how to be Jordan Peterson without going manic. Apparently to do so you have to convince yourself that what you are doing is in the name of God. Draw your own conclusions.

If academia is so hard to get into, how do memesters like this get a position in academia?

Seems like a reductive but relatively solid theory model. There are identifiable archetypal stories and characters throughout history for a reason. Much of the human condition is represented in them.

Archetypal analysis were considered pseudoscience 100 years ago, and Peterson adds absolutely nothing to it.
If you think this is necessary for Peterson to cure his patients, just know that his success track is perfectly average for Canadian psychologists, so you can't even justify it by saying "hey, it works!", since it works as much as everything else.

What a pseud fucking position
I mean I had my medieval philosophy phase too but it should reasonably be abandoned in your mid 20s after you get over church romanticism

academia is driven by markets now....not merit. if there's a market for people wanting to pay to study total wankery then the promoters of it will attain positions of significance. this has always been a problem with american academia but now its spread through out the west.

Have you ever seen his lectures? He wasn't really teaching psychology (in the sense that what he taught wasn't general and clear enough for it to be applied systematically on one's own patients.
His "youtube" lectures are small time seminars (him telling cool things about mental ilnness, creativity and productivity to uneducated audiences) or lessons that universities usually organize in order to motivate their own students (his most famous lecture has him telling to their students that they will follow the self-authoring program as required work).
He is basically your high school psychologist, but he can deal with students and drug addicts too.
You might think that this is low-brow, but students of Toronto might still need a push every once in a while.

Actually, the first prerequisites for any systematic knowledge are the material conditions of life, which structure the mode of material reproduction and social division of labour arising in a given historical period, thus providing the basic background that shapes the ideological superstructure of that period. Unquestionable "axioms" are maintained as long as they serve a function to justify the current social structure.

Wow, that is pathological. You're too crazy and not well-adjusted enough for me to take seriously your ideas.
*sciences his way out*

>solid theory model
>archetypes
>psychotherapy
one of those things is not like the other

thank mr zizocks

>The Dragon of Chaos

So what do you make of archetypes across thousands of years of stories? Do you think they are random and pointless? Is all mythology trash that can't be analyzed (i.e. understood)? Why do humans invest so much in such imaginations and why are there trends in them? Where did the original symbols and forms of the hero and monster originate from?

I didn't say anything about using this for psychotherapy. Does Peterson ever even say that this is necessary to cure people? I haven't heard him suggest the sort, but I haven't watched even half his videos yet.

You end up at some form of axiom in any logic that is trying prove something because at its most deconstucted form, non-circular logic cannot prove.

>So what do you make of archetypes across thousands of years of stories?
Some situations are more common than others, and from them archetypal character might arise.
For example:
>Where did the original symbols and forms of the hero and monster originate from?
For this archetype you just have someone to identify another person as an enemy and ta-daa! Hero and monster. Generally these categories are so wide and encompassing that most narratives can be fit into it, yet since the only differentiator is the role taken in the power structure by the archetype, it also means that they're too vague to describe anything precisely, even human made-up narratives. This is why not even psychologists, psychoanalysts and psychiatrists have taken it seriously for most of the last century (usually improving their rates of success after quitting these literary approaches).

>Do you think they are random and pointless?
I don't think they have scientific value, whoch was your first point. I haven't talked about their value.

>Is all mythology trash that can't be analyzed (i.e. understood)? Why do humans invest so much in such imaginations and why are there trends in them?
If there is a way to study it, it's certainly not JP's way, since it's not sourced, systematic nor developed. If you were interested in the study of mythology, I genuinely don't know why would you end up reading Peterson.

>I didn't say anything about using this for psychotherapy.
He has been a therapist for most of his life, and most of his lectures are set to reach pragmatical goals that are usually the ones of this field.

>Does Peterson ever even say that this is necessary to cure people? I haven't heard him suggest the sort, but I haven't watched even half his videos yet.
You're shilling JP and you son't even know the first thing about him. Brr

No need for faith; the fact the Being is is all you need

>Not understanding the Epistemological distinction between "Proof", and "Evidence"
>Not understanding that axioms are only used in conversations about strictly a priori concepts, and God, as a (hypothetical) entity that exists outside the minds of individuals, and effects the natural world, is therefore an inherently a posteriori concept.
>Not understanding that when attempting to logically deduce anything about the naturally world, it is necessary for your starting propositions to be Empirically verified hypotheses, i.e. theories, and not just an idea taken as "self-evident", because we cannot conceive of any state of affairs that exists otherwise.

>So what do you make of archetypes across thousands of years of stories? Do you think they are random and pointless? Is all mythology trash that can't be analyzed (i.e. understood)? Why do humans invest so much in such imaginations and why are there trends in them? Where did the original symbols and forms of the hero and monster originate from?

Yes, myths and 'archetypes' are legitimately interesting to interpret and study and that stuff can be a revelation for someone who hasn't encountered it before. But they can be very ambiguous in many ways, and this is such a basic, crass and simplistic take on them, formulated through a very crass and simplistic world view. I get why it fascinates uneducated and gullible, though. It is funny how it gained such traction when there are actually quite a few reactionary charlatans out there, who are genuinely more learned and better at this game.

>This is why not even psychologists, psychoanalysts and psychiatrists have taken it seriously for most of the last century (usually improving their rates of success after quitting these literary approaches).
Can you give evidence for this? Because it seems to me like it would be like being a tailor; you find sizes that fit most (archetypes) and then do more specific measurements for proper fitting. Sometimes the archetypes work on their own, sometimes not, but they can always be used as a starting point and they can give clarity on where the nuances lie.

>I don't think they have scientific value, whoch was your first point.
Science is analysis. JP's model is not original or any better than what his predecessors put forth but what I was really responding to was your implication that the entire method of analyzing myth to understand human behavior is fruitless and can't be scientific, or at least that's what I got from it. And I think JP's isn't bullshit, just elementary. He's not spewing completely random shit, it's just shallow. People can discover things through him and then they ought to do their own reading, I agree with that sentiment 100%.

It gained traction because it's simple and because he made some jabs at online radical hemispheres, that's it. His popularity will dissipate quickly.

What's a more complex approach to analyzing myth to you than relating the philosophical and spiritual connotations of myth? Historical meaning? The philosophical lies deeper than the historical though.

smug af. Are you an anime girl?

That's not what Godel proved. Thank you for convincing me that Peterson is a dumb hack for unintelligent tweetards

He's not wrong.

>Can you give evidence for this?
He uses notions formulated by men that were completely unaware of the nature of mental illness and neurochemistry.

>Because it seems to me like it would be like being a tailor; you find sizes that fit most (archetypes) and then do more specific measurements for proper fitting.
That's a very naive take on therapy. It's not even wrong, and clearly does not account for most mental pathologies (in fact JP soes not use it in therapy, and only teach it in lectures, probably only because it sounds interesting to the uneducated).

>Sometimes the archetypes work on their own, sometimes not, but they can always be used as a starting point and they can give clarity on where the nuances lie.
So it's just another starting point? Do you realize that virtually every great psychoanalist came up with similar devices? Why analyzing archetypes and not lapsuses, lexicon or mental imagery? But most importantly, why should any of these things have prevalence over other "starting points" if they give no new stable insight, if they do not actually improve the condition of the patients and if it is not even adequate as a tool most of the time?

This is not science, and if it anthropology or mysticism, it is very badly done. Do you realize how much secondary literature is there on Jung archetypes? Do you realize to what extent srchetypes and mythology have been milked out in the last 60 years? Peterson is not a good source even if you're agreeing with he is saying.
I mean, have you even read the divulgative Jung's books on psychoanalysis? Are you really defending Archetypes in psychology (an EXTREMELY controversial stance) while accounting only for what JP told you in short youtube videos?

Come on, be less naive and doubt more.

>what Godel says: a system can't prove its own coherence
>what Peterson understands: if Insay I believe in God I can pretend what I'm saying is rooted in truth

Where were you when you've discovered that Peterson was the strawman postmosernist all along?

He uses the exact same obscurantist tactics they do.

No, I'm actually mostly into philosophical and esoteric/occult angle on it. And if one should single out perhaps the most pervasive and crucial 'archetypal' complex, trickery and ambiguity would be much better choice than hero and truth. But for certain reasons this whole field is marginal and basically a playground for some pretty dull people.

>implying that the death of the author doesn't mean Godel said whatever I wanted him to say
I bet you regret that stem degree now, cuck.

christ its as bad as /r/books talking about the same writers over and over again.

pynchon and dfw are our vonnegut.

Veeky Forums is as bad as reddit

Pic relaed, bump and "sage" are our upvote and downvote homogenising system

>drunk posting in the wrong thread

my point stands and i won't delete my own post

>He's not exactly wrong.
He's totally wrong.

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axioms.html

He is not wrong. He just uses shitty terminology.