Since4pass

Who would win in a debate?
Which one has a better understanding of Nietzsche?
Discuss.

Attached: daddyvsnephew.png (493x313, 156K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wxvljjNxI-E
youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms
youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvTGaPzF4v
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

is this a joke?

Fucking off yourself you irreparably impaired moron

No. I saw Peterson take down Foucault in a video recently and it has my brain jogging for an answer on who would win in a proper debate. I think Peterson has the edge because he knows a lot about psychology while Foucault was always naive to it
youtube.com/watch?v=wxvljjNxI-E
Discuss.

Haha, yeah, you tell him. People who can't see Peterson's superior intellect are fools. He's read DOSTOYEVSKY, TOLSTOY, AND JUNG, AND HE LITERALLY MENTIONS THAT EVERY TIME HE TALKS! How could he not be intelligent? Focalt was gay too xD

What's wrong with mentioning your field of study? Foucault constantly talks about power and geneology and all that shit, why can't Peterson do the same thing?

Foucault wasn't trying to be Nietzsche

I think Foucault was more about how society should treat the "mentally ill". Not that such people with different conditions didn't exist

that is literally his primary inspiration

Peterson may be a clueless brainlet, but Foucault is literally the epitome of the “postmodernist” charicature he claims to be against.
The second Foucault starts calling anything a social construct Peterson will start crying about Lobster examples, rendering Foucault speechless thus “winning” the debate.

>because he knows a lot about psychology while Foucault was always naive to it
........ le niveau d'asservissement des anglos me surprendra toujours

Peterson would win because he doesnt have toxoplasmosis in his brain due to an HIV-compromised immune system.

Attached: apu.png (657x527, 13K)

This is an english speaking board. Idek what langage you're trying to speak but take it to

The history of how words came about isn't irrelevant and we shouldn't just take them for granted. If thinking that makes you a "post-modernist" then so be it, he was just pointing out how ideas aren't static

Foucault would probably lose but he's more of a historian than a philosopher

mmh nan, mon chou. This is a french board obviously, we even have french memes now

>Proust
>Juif homosexuel. Inintéressant, racontars de la vie de la bourgeoisie juive.

one is massive faggot lunatic who has aids, the other is Foucault

>Foucault is literally the epitome of the “postmodernist” charicature he claims to be against
That's Derrida, isn't it? F is nowhere near D in terms of obscurantism and pseudo-profundity.

Even if he was a filthy AIDS-infected postmodernist, Foucault was still a highly skilled philosophical historian and genealogist of ideas, which is more than one can say about Papa Washyourpenis's worthless pseudointellectual Jung-lite ass. Foucault would fucking curbstomp the Lobsterman, he'd come through with numerous historical counterexamples demonstrating how shoddy and insubstantial Peterson's ideas truly are. Lol I can imagine Foucault taking personal offense at Peterson's sheer existence as a public figure and the very nature of his ideas and rhetoric, the way he actively seeks to obscure systemic cultural relations of power and psychologically ensnare the disenfranchised by dressing up and deploying tiredass platitudes about personal responsibility and individualism and shit.

>you didnt get to call yourself a marxist anymore
>mfw one of the largest political parties in france at the time was communist
>mfw marxism is still respected among thinkers today

if you watched this and thought anything other than "how do brainlets buy this garbage?" then you might be one of those brainlets

>he thinks the lobster argument is good
Nobody in the world holds that hierarchies don't exist among animals or are not found in nature. It does not follow that we cannot criticise (or flatout reject) modern human hierarchical structures from the fact that some forms of hierarchy exist in nature.

All I know is we would lose

Despite how much I dislike Foucault, he'd was a formidable person. Would run rings around Peterson

i disagree with the win/lose dichotomy.

for one, Peterson's "field of study" is clinical psychiatry. Dostoy, Solzhenitsyn, Orwell, none of that is relevant to his expertise. Hell even Jung is pretty damn far outside of clinical psychiatry for the most part

Why are Yea Forums pass users always so dumb?

Don't trust bald lads, something strange about their heads. Don't trust UN shills either. Just read Nietszche yourself, fuck the two of them.

Attached: IMG_20190322_234658.jpg (720x789, 92K)

Lmao whiteboy, Peterson 69 gay 69s out of 69.

>it does not follow
Why not? Our basic socialization is also found in nature. It’s weird how atheists can see there’s no grand narrative for reality yet put human beings outside of nature. It has a certain mysticism about it that’s laughable.

Never got why Foucault was so fond of Nietzsche, when N probably would've fucking hated him as a degenerate slave to his desires.

why are you painting n as a some kind of moralist? "slave to his desires" sounds 2much like christian morality-slave morality "y-you are having fun, having sex with ur gay buddies, thats degenerated!!!"

Nietzsche openly said that an overman would leash his desires like a master of hounds. He wouldn't atrophy them like Christians, but he wouldn't let them drag him along to a San Francisco bathhouse to get his anus pozzed with HIV, either

"b-but daddy told me how to behave!"

>put humans outside of nature
There have been many ways of arranging hierarchy in history. Our current organisation is in no way natural nor is it beyond criticism or reorganisation. Saying 'lobsters have hierarchies' does not justify the hierarchies we see in the west.
The funny thing is, Peterson knows this. That's why he said in the interview with the feminist that the lobster argument was meant to address the view that hierarchy is not found in nature. But this is a strawperson argument; nobody believes that.

>Yea Forums pass user since 2016
you can't make this up

you know Neech was sexually progressive and almost certainly experimented with Paul Ree, he was basically in a three way polyamourous relationship (he ended up getting cucked)

I've yet to see a single refutation of Peterson's argument. If YOU can't beat Peterson in an argument, how can you speak down to him like Foucault would do soooo much better? I think it'd be a lot closer than you think.

I literally met someone, a prominent figure in my uni’s Philosophy Society, I’m told, who held that exact belief - that hierarchy itself was a human construct, with no grounding in the natural world. Peterson’s a professor at an ultra-liberal college, you can bet your arse he’s met a few loonies like that in his time. It’s not a widespread enough belief for him to really reasonably treat it with the level of scorn and attention that he does, but it’s still something worth highlighting, and to suggest that nobody believes it at all is a bit naive.

That's like the /fit/ thread about taking down a gorilla with bare hands. That's how idiotic it is.