Green-pill me on Jordan Peterson

green-pill me on Jordan Peterson

Prophet sent by the Logos.

He posted a quote from the Gospel of Thomas on twitter once

I wonder if he knows about Yaldabaoth

he is a psychologist pretending to be a philosopher, playing daddy for neet ex-gamergaters and pulling the sargon of akkad scheme of being outraged at le sjiws while milking the true believers' wallets

the gog to my magog

...

>green pill
m8 just take ecstasy you'll be closer to jung than peterson will ever be

snore

>psychologist pretending to be a philosopher

Everyone who searches for wisdom is a philosopher.
There's zero evidence to claim that Peterson is insincere. You're a buffoon.

shills for stephen "kant did postmodernism" hicks, no philosophical journal takes him seriously

>kant did postmodernism
w-what? he doesn't honestly say that does he? wtf no wonder peterson's fucked up on the definiton

...

thanks user, this is the best sound-bite

>green-pill

ok

he's deep into the works of Jung, Campbell, Huxley, et. al. in terms of archetypal theme/motifs in narrratives and psychology. he loves his phenomenological bois as well, which is ironic as heck since they kickstarted the post-structuralist school he bleats on about. academically this puts him in a very adversarial position

at face value he's been called a "cultural Christian" but I am not entirely unconvinced that he isn't a crypto-Gnostic (re: how he discusses the concept of the divinity of the individual, about the Logos, and other little scraps here and there) but that's unsurprising considering how deep into Jung he is

if you're a turbo-NEET with anime and masturbation addictions (or just lost in the ennui of depression and meaninglessness), the best thing that you can do is go watch his maps of memeing lecture and take the good parts to heart and you might make something of yourself

if you're already sorted well, then you don't need good ol JP outside of the phil/psych/lit names he drops. yeah, they are entry-tier, but man must start somewhere in order to go somewhere else

tl;dr what said

he's a shapeshifting satanic lizard from space and the white men must stop him

he's an erudite self-help guru who breadpilled a hundred thousand atheists

no, when outlaying the history leading up to PoMo Hicks mentions that PoMo is the logical result of progression from Kant

is Jung really cutting-edge at this point? it's been 50 years

is he a hegelian or something?

Why is he so big with the /pol/ crowd?

he's saving western civilization

jesus christ. this is what /pol/ does to your brain

no, people who do philosophy professionally are philosophers. every idiot who dissects a frog is not a biologist.

Sounds like you need to rescue your dead father from the bottom of the ocean.

He's clearing the fog of war from Western canon and rekindling desire to embrace Western values again in the regular person who couldn't make up from down in a society pummeled by moral relativism. He's doing God's work.

Not him but, not single-handedly but he is having a conversation on the relevance of Christianity and Western philosophy on a macro scale (See his Post-Modernist speeches). Even if you don't agree with him entirely (which if you find anyone you agree with entirely you're either crazy or in love [and perhaps both quit deifying people]), you can see he is arguing for western culture. And on top of that, his arguments make sense, delve into a wide variety of western philosophy to back his claims (which has the effect of distancing westernism from post-modernism in totality and does well to argue that westernism shouldn't be gotten rid of for something new).

Anyways, I've literally never seen a good response against anything a right winger has brought up in the past 3 or 4 years that I've been into right-wingish politics. So I expect no honest response to this, maybe some outrage.

he's a shameless grifter working over people who know pretty much nothing about philosophy or the "western canon" (and/or "values") they claim to extol

define postmodernism

Why don't you actually bring up a point? Why do you people never bring up a point?

Listen to Bowden instead.

I shouldn't have to. Read a book or watch a video. It's Subjectivity to Objectivity compared to Modernism. It's the concept that all your ideals are contrived from your circumstances and all physical aspects are as well. It's a close ally of Nihilism.

Don't ask people who gave you a full paragraph response a simple question you could look up. If you aren't educated then don't speak about it until you understand either side of the conversation.

>The story of Sodom and Gamorrah isn't about homosexuality
Fucking dropped!

lol
got a source for that?

your inability to even articulate what kind of postmodernism you're talking about proves my point better than any paragraph-length response

why are you dropping the bible in a postmodernism thread?

Anyone have that green pill chart?

Who said anything about pomo

i like porno

STOP masturbating

What does 'arguing for western culture' even mean?

Arguing that the culture and values that have been developed in the West are a Good Thing that we should Preserve.

I mean what are those. What specifically is "The West"? Do you want to preserve liberal democracy, return to some sort of monarchy, establish a feudal oligarchy, or what?

which values?

Jordan Peterson is a liberal democrat

Christian and Enlightenment values

...of what? what do these values express? what are there claims? are "christian" and "enlightenment" compatible?

Most enlightenment values are either explicitly or implicitly anti Christian and writers like Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky that Peterson lives are both anti enlightenment.
This is my major critique of the current right: it seems there are a lot of people who don't have super well defined ideas about what they want, only what they don't want.

*that Peterson loves

>of what? what do these values express? what are there claims?
humanism and individualism

>are "christian" and "enlightenment" compatible?
that's the big problem that Peterson is attempting to solve via Jung

>Most enlightenment values are either explicitly or implicitly anti Christian and writers like Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky that Peterson lives are both anti enlightenment.
he disagrees wtih both of them (especially nietzshce) on a number of things. just because he thinks they're important doesn't mean he agrees with them on everything

>This is my major critique of the current right
peterson isn't right-wing though so this is a non sequitur

>he disagrees wtih both of them (especially nietzshce) on a number of things. just because he thinks they're important doesn't mean he agrees with them on everything
I'm not knowledgeable on Peterson enough to say this with any real certainty but it really seems like he's creating a sloppy syncretic position
>peterson isn't right-wing though so this is a non sequitur
Where did I say I was referring to Peterson there

you really think the contradictions inherent in a combination of humanism, individualism, and christianity can be resolved via antiquated psychological techniques that are mostly taught as a historical anachronism? moreover, how is psychology supposed to deal with explicitly philosophical and theological quandaries?

Because the modern interpretations of the bible are trash. Today's interpreters say Sodom's transgression was being inhospitable, but it explicitly states in 19:5-8 that the citizens of Sodom wanted to sleep with Lot's angelic guests. It's clearly a concession to today's values because, they know Christianity is dying. That shit is gay, yo.

Ease up on the elitism, you're posting on a Mongolian tapestry enthusiasts forum

no

>he's creating a sloppy syncretic position
>you really think the contradictions inherent in a combination of humanism, individualism, and christianity can be resolved via antiquated psychological techniques that are mostly taught as a historical anachronism?
I think he does it pretty convincingly. You have to read his book or watch his lectures to see his argument

Can you give me a tl;dr (or tl;dw) of his argument?
It's just incomprehensible to me that someone would heavily quote Dostoyevsky and then turn around and defend the enlightenment

>moreover, how is psychology supposed to deal with explicitly philosophical and theological quandaries?
He seems to see philosophical and theological problems as fundamentally psychological. Maybe this is wrong-headed, but he's a pragmatist

Can it really be said to be elitism when his argument is fundamentally retarded?

imagine believing this while at the same time issuing screeds against moral relativism and the postmodernism boogeyman

He claims that Enlightenment values emerged out of Christianity's supposed veneration of true speech as the highest good, so as far as he's concerned they're quite compatible. The problem is when Enlightenment rationalism starts to undermine religion as superstitious, and replace the God of Christianity with the false god of science. This is Nietzsche's "death of God" that he claims resulted in totalitarian political movements of the early 20th century that resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. Peterson essentially claims that Jungian archetype theory provides a foundation for Christian values in light of Enlightenment rationalism, and he argues for it using philosophical positions of pragmatism and phenomenology, as well as contemporary neuropsychology

>He claims that Enlightenment values emerged out of Christianity's supposed veneration of true speech as the highest good
That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen

so he doesn't even understand the is/ought distinction. cool.

Dostoevsky's books an example of what happens when you put the Overman's cart before the horse -- good examples of why you shouldn't collapse your own value structure and why you should be careful about the value structures of others (to a point)

abandon God on a societal level and you get hundreds of millions dead in a very orderly, efficient and global fashion in less than a century from what comes around to fill up the parts where God used to be, since something HAS to be there in a metaphysical sense

Kierkegaard, Jung and Frankl provide the how and the why

also this

the point he makes is that the is/ought distinction is so separated that there is no "ought" anymore and that the ultraempirical rational New Atheist troupe only see what "is"

And it would seem to me that the enlightenment had a huge influence on that removal of God.

in the process of separating the world and its phenomena we have separated ourselves from them

And so he attempts to rescue the dead father from the bottom of the ocean

wow, isn't it awful that the New Atheist scientism believers are the only philosophers that exist anymore?

I get the feeling that he never read "Demons" by Dostoyevsky because one of the main characters is quite similar to him and is pretty heavily criticized

Tha'ts one of the books he recommends most highly. You'll have to ask him about it.

as far as i know this is the first time i've ever heard the jungian type shit quantified by science


all of peterson's talks are a major confirmation bias for me, especially since i'm also 'struggling' with not necessarily logos but the idea that pretty much all 'wisdom' 'philosophy' 'religion' has been completely spawned by the mystical, either through direct experience or through the 'weird' metaphysical pondering of those past


it seemingly all leads back to all this weird shit i thought i was trying to avoid
sometimes i wonder if peterson himself is even aware of the can of worms he's picking at

Then he must not be a very good reader

Well, we know why he doesn't like postmodernism (a term he uses as a catchall for mid-late 20th century continental thought). I don't know what he thinks about Anglo-American philosophy outside of pragmatism since he doesn't talk about it much

i love you guys for how unaware you are of the irony of complaining about the things you complain about


pepe, 'fake news', 'alt-right', 'sjw nazi', image boards, RED PILLS, BLUE PILLS, MULTIPLE NARRATIVES COMPETING FOR HOMOGENEITY


our reality *is* post-modern, and the 'cultural marxists' literally called all of it


Culture Industry< look this up

and it was okay for him to offer his them his daughters, and then it was okay when they had kids with him


nah brah

I don't see his fixation on Jung and buds as ironic or hypocritical. He simply takes what they say to a different conclusion.

He's also said he doesn't go to church because preachers "lie". At the very least he's a christian mystic, but considering his obsession with Jung et al I wouldn't be surprised if he was a gnostic.

fuck i fell for it

it happens to the best of us

You are looking at it from the vantage point of the modern day. As for the latter part, of course what Lot's daughters did to him was wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't have sex with them when he was sober. That much is self-evident.

fucked up how much incestuous rape the bible has

Really stand up guy. Even if you don't care for his lectures, politics or philosophy, his advice videos are really helpful and he articulates his reasoning very well. Idk why he's branded as a pseud when he's literally a lifelong academic.

I like his anti-extremist political view and think he does a good job of defending his views and making his leftist attackers look idiotic.

I don't really care for him, but the only people who actually hate him are political radicals. It's kind of funny.

Keep failing bro. I for one have found great success and am becoming stronger because of JP. Let your pathetic philosophies cuck you. I will fuck your girlfriend will you're at it.

Just because a bunch of narratives are competeing for homogeneity doesn't mean that there is no "right" path. Our reality being post modern is a result of the infection of post-modernist ideas into our culture, which has lead to duplicitous media, education, and societal narratives.

>crypto-Gnostic
gnostic

Is this religion a meme or what? It seems to be very popular on /x/ these days? When did that happen? What's up with Gnosticism, Veeky Forums ?

these things were inevitable from the beginning, worrying about what is and isn't 'post-modern' is a complete bogeyman

It's Nietzsche's idea, not Peterson's.

last century they found some more books in the bible series, and some of them had really FAR OUT imagery, that played with the idea of reality being fundamentally broken, ultimately something to be escaped


church didn't like it because of course it threatens their hierarchy, which wouldn't catch on anyway as the gnostics practiced asceticism to the point of not procreating. to the gnostics the god of the bible is a false god that out of a horrible mistake ended up making and controlling this reality, with the snake in the garden of eden being the good guy, while actually being jesus as well.


there's an ambiguous idealism here that a lot of people here have been taking to recently, not necessarily through gnosticism itself, but through the greeks, which are connected to gnosticism anyway

They're certainly the ones with the most cultural relevance, the vast majority of people aren't familiar with those other philosophers.

>with the snake in the garden of eden being the good guy, while actually being jesus as well.

Well Peterson is always talking about how snakes are inherently a symbol for evil because of how deadly snakes were to early humans, so if he's a Gnostic he's a very strange one.

Sounds like we should ask him directly about it? He does a lot of question and answer sessions.

Can we just agree the hegelian/marxist dialectics are a logical fallacy?

They produce a teleology and then infer the theories and pathways that lead to it.

They just have a conclusion/ideals and make up ways to reach it while sprinkling it all with hiffy methodologies.

>works of Jung

Thank you.
I knew something was off about this guy.

Freud and all of his contemporaries were frauds.
Psychology is pure pseudo-science which first arrives at the conclusion first.

I've only watched a few of JP videos but thinking back - arriving at the conclusion first is exactly what I often hear him doing.

He's the next daddy figure for you culty faggots. He'll make a shitload of money off of lonely weebs by playing the tune they like then he'll eventually be ostracized by the unis after the inevitable "Moana" or "Howl's moving castle" meltdown that will show he is an incoherent frothing ideologue without much to say.

are you okay user?

You have to pay for them, and everyone here is a cheapskate or poorfag.

he always avoids the subject of religion, despite claiming from time to time to be "deeply religious."

for instance, he was asked about his religious views in an AMA on reddit and he responded something among the lines of "yeah i know god/christ he's a great buddy of mine lol"

there were a few sects in the 1st and 2nd century AD that promoted things that were not in line with the orthodox christian movement that culminated in the Catholic church. we have the Nag Hammadi Codex, the Pistis Sophia, and a couple other handfuls of their stuff since heresy/10.

little known tidbit: the most recent revival of Gnosticism in the form of the Cathars kicked off the Inquisition and put forth the meme of "kill them all, let God sort them out"

not a terrible amount is known about their day-to-day, and there were about 3-4 different groups making "Gnostic" writings, but the typical flavor was Christianity with a heavy neo-Platonic theme. Ireaneus wrote about them having sex orgies and they self-reported as hardcore ascetics on the regular so who fucking knows what they actually did.

they claimed that the god of the OT was not the god of the NT, but just a lesser, creator god (the Demiurge or Yaldabaoth) and because of this, the material world was either a) absolutely wicked and corrupted or b) inherently flawed and not "evil" but strictly inferior to the spiritual world

they put a lot of emphasis on Sophia (divine feminine principle of Wisdom, roughly speaking. Often paired with Christ, and she had a hand in creating the Demiurge) and depending on the group they either were just ok with the idea of Jesus, or that he was just a really good teacher and an apparition/not entirely man

Partly true but not wholly. Hasidic Jews make no allowances for homosexuality but interpet the tale as a parable of inhospitality.

All these posts and it seems most people miss the simple reason why JP is popular:

He's an INTELLECTUAL who gives MORAL guidance.

That's it, that's why he stands out. Almost all other intellectuals avoid it, because they think it's "dirty" or something. And in a way they're right, moral questions are dirty and they're HARD questions to approach with intellectual honesty.
Of course you can approach them without intellectual honesty, but then you'll be just another preacher or politician or some "guy with an agenda".