Why does Peterson not have a single clue of what he is talking about? Not just with regards to philosophy, history, economics but even religion and Christianity? He hasn't a clue about anything except his lame, abstract psychometrics.
Why is he even popular? I seriously bet there's a good share of people even on this stupid board that are more qualified to be on the podium with Zizek than Peterson.
Explain
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
reddit.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
He's the biggest pleb filter since C. Hitchens & Co.
Well when you see his vedio talking about his belief is God beeing a spectrum and there is no clear answer, should be enough for anyone to dismiss him as a charlatan.
>Why is he even popular?
something about trannies and their pronouns
People just put whatever beliefs they have in his ramblings and hear those beliefs getting reflected. He acts as a mirror of sorts.
I know he's totally unhip now even with the conservatives and pretty much only has his post-fedora following but I still think he's a good lecturer and the only major contemporary voice for the existential tradition in philosophy and psychology.
because he panders to the frustrated audience who are not smart enough to see he is a joke?
you mean how all philosophy works?
close, but we both know it is about freemdom of speech and compelled speech. Tranny pronouns were just the catalyst
It's enjoyable hearing him speak and his Maps of Meaning stuff is fun.
Good philosophies actually has substance such that with experience you procure more out of the said philosophy. Peterson says common stuff hiding it behind jargon
He's not that bad if he just sticks to Jung and Piaget and the people he has actually read.
peterson was a CIA psyop that was pushed super hard after trump won in order to siphon off nhilistic white teens from extremism
>why doesn't this single mind possess all knowledge on all topics?
The guy is specialized in clinical psychiatry with a focus on alcoholism and a theoretical background in Jungian psychoanalysis. You can't expect him to be an expert on every topic he touches on. Freud wasn't. Jung wasn't. Marx wasn't. Zizek isn't. Like them, he has a highly specialized field that casts a long shadow on many subjects that any one person can't be expected to understand perfectly.
I'm a Christian and I find Peterson's view of Christianity repellent, and he obviously isn't that familiar with the religion. He's doing his best, and knows far more about religion in general than most people by virtue of his familiarity with Jung. Give him some credit and cut him some slack.
Because he is a word wizard. He says a lot of things that are broadly true, mixes in something that is broadly true but SOUNDS like something controversial, then waits for somebody to pick him up on that that, so that he can go: "No, I never said that is what we SHOULD do, I said it has to be taken into account". He is basically winning arguments by cleverly baiting opponents into bad attacks, and then, anticipating those, expertly parrying these.
BUT if you actually get to probe him on anything deeply, or let him talk long enough you start to notice how a lot of the shit he says are either incredibly basic "You should clean your room before you clean your life before you clean other peoples life" or incredibly dumb and wrong, like seeing ancient chinese artworks of snakes coiling around each other and then saying "I think these represent DNA".
Then of course, a lot of anti-SJW people feel disenfranchised as fuck, and they cling to any hero who will preach their gospel (Bearing, Sargon, Peterson). Not realizing that he's just taking them for a ride as well.
t. ex lobster.
>touches on
he has made this one his primary intellectual positions; he has lost all his credit and deserves no slack.
What an absolutely retarded post. You will have forever wasted part of your life typing it.
if your entire shtick is to shit on "postmodernist neomarxists", you should probably do more before debate than skim through communist manifesto once
Yep, his lectures on the Bible are terrible, he looks at the etymology of words the KJV uses, as if it's the original language, he totally confused Mosaic law with the Greek idea of natural Law, and presents his psychoanalytical take as the "true" meaning of the text.
He isn't a religious studies scholar. He approaches religion through a Jungian psychoanalysis perspective and his understanding of the subject is bog standard for that field, and as limited as expected. You're demanding too much of him or anyone.
Please tell me what is wrong with it in particular, so that I may better myself in the future. Those are just my observations with Peterson, as someone who used to be a "fan" in the days when the whole thing started, and ended up distanced himself once I saw more and more of his talks.
I think he also alienated a lot of people by claiming that "everyone who is a good person, is automatically religious, if they want or not"
Germanfag here. He is also seriously wrong about Nazis, describing them as the humanoid manifestation of chaotic evil, demons and the like. Which, yes they did bad things, but describing them of just wanting evil for evil sakes, is just plain wrong, and doesn't teach us what motivated and has driven these people. Because clearly and obviously, it was not just a group of people coming together, foaming at the mouth, wanting to bring death and destruction because they so loved the act itself.
Most PhD's are hesitant to speak on topics WITHIN their field of expertise of they are not well read in the relevant material. He took hundred of thousands, if not millions, from patreon/speaking to promote his intellectual project, we now have undeniable evidence this was little more than a fraud.
I only talked about why his perspective on religion can be found wanting, but OP was demanding that Peterson be an expert on pretty much every major sphere of human knowledge, which is absurd. Peterson is qualified to give a psychoanalytic perspective on postmodernism and Marxism, but he can't be expected to address these fields on their own terms of semiotics or economics or whatever because that isn't what his background is in.
>Zizek references Chesterton's idea of the meaning of Jesus crying out on the cross
>Peterson is amazed by this interpretation that he claims he's never heard before, Zizek has to remind him that the idea comes from Chesterton
This pretty much confirmed Peterson hasn't even read within his own claimed area of expertise, let alone in anything else. What a hack fraud.
He just has different values than you and it's driving you crazy. He's speaking on values regarding such things, there's no less credibility to it than any angle you'd prefer.
GK Chesterton?
As far as I know the topic of the debate was "Capitalism vs. Marxism." Is that it or was there more to it? I haven't been able to watch it yet.
>Peterson hasn't even read within his own claimed area of expertise
Isn't his claimed area of expertise jungian psychology and marxism?
Nobody has read everything, you're grasping at straws because your ideological wiring is compelling you to. Have you ever considered that your being a little drone for such things has no relevance to anything?
He talks a lot about religion and marxism, is it really that much to ask for him to know bare basics on those subjects?
>He says a lot of things that are broadly true, mixes in something that is broadly true but SOUNDS like something controversial, then waits for somebody to pick him up on that that, so that he can go: "No, I never said that is what we SHOULD do, I said it has to be taken into account".
That's just bullshit. Proof: you have no single exemple of him doing this.
>read the Communist Manifesto once, maybe twice
>expert on Marxism
Is that really all it takes to get a PhD and become a public intellectual nowadays?
>Peterson hasn't even read within his own claimed area of expertise
Isn't his claimed area of expertise jungian psychology and marxism?
you faggots really get butthurt about this postmodern marxist thing
>different values
reading isn't a "value" it's necessary step for intellectual debate. being misinformed and uneducated is not simply relative you postmodern fuck
That part made be burst out in laughter.
Peterson is a dumbass
His claimed area of expertise is Jungian psychoanalysis and alcoholism.
Charisma
He would be nobody without Gamergate. This community were the mid-wives of this nonsense. Many of you who lurk here were edgy /pol/ and Yea Forums tards back in those time.
Peterson is the middle class cultural capital of the Trump years. He's an actual academic and professional which gives him greater kudos than masturbators turned Youtube demagogues, but he's still part of that crowd. The crowd that tells you that you're smarter than better educated people, you don't have to read what they read, it can all be dismissed with common sense and the rightwing tropes that have been showered upon you since the 90s.
The entire Cathy Newman debate is this? He constantly says something that might be scientifically true like lipstick being an invention designed to make females more attractive, while completely ignoring any other factors, like that it is by now complete social norm for women to wear makeup, as it is for men to wear suits, and they do it even to events that are not designed to "find possible mates" like family gatherings. Then, when someone ask him "Does that mean (or in her case, the unfortunately phrased 'so you're saying') women shouldn't do that?" he can lift his hands, look shocked and say "I never said that! I just said it's a factor we need to take into account!" and thus earning victim points as being "misrepresented" And he does this a lot. His entire career is build on misrepresentation.
Like I said, I used to follow him intensely, because I was (sadly) deep in that "Youtube skeptic" scene, before I discovered what a load of bullshit most of it was.
Have sex
He only talks about them in terms of psychology. There's already an enormous body of literature on the psychology behind religion and politics and there's little reason for him to consult the mountains of primary sources directly. He's a psychiatrist not a theologian or political theorist. He also talks a lot about Disney movies but he never attended animation school.
he literally owned that marxist retard what are you talking about
>He only talks about them in terms of psychology
he gave a 30 minutes critique on the Communist Manifesto, you cannot possibly argue that was psychoanalysis. you are scrambling to protect him but he doesn't deserve it, he didn't prepare and got embarrassed as he should have
Hey I'm glad you're out man. The only acceptable scepticism is Pyrrhonism.
You are being deliberately stupid by comparing the basics of religion/Marxism to animation school. That's like saying he should learn calligraphy to read a book.
>he gave a 30 minutes critique on the Communist Manifesto
So demand that he engage exclusively with primary sources in a way outside of his field of expertise but also fault him for actually doing so? Chose one.
Because I am reading through difficult books, and I am actually confused whether I prefer a postmodern or a marxist approach to life etc. If it were that simple to unite the two, it would solve much of my unresolved pathologies.
He doesn't need to be an expert in every field of expertise to be able to address those fields from his own field of expertise. He doesn't need to be an an animator to address animation from a psychoanalytic perspective.
what are you trying to argue? that peterson should be given a pass for his ignorance? should we give him a gold sticker for reading Marx's propaganda pamphlet? he has argued against Marxism in an academic setting for decades user, and not taken the time to read ANY of it since he was fucking 18. I would fucking apologize to my fanbase for that performance if I was Peterson
You may have your own personal idea of Hell. Mine is an eternity trapped in a room with Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek. I do not like these men. I consider Peterson a toxic charlatan and Žižek a humiliating embarrassment to the left. I believe they both show how far you can get in public life without having anything of value to say, if you’re a white man with a PhD who speaks confidently and incomprehensibly. In fact, this is not really a debate at all, because these men are nearly identical as far as I am concerned. I sincerely believe that history will look back on this moment as a dark human low point.
You people always complain about people "shilling" Peterson on this board but it has become obvious that the only ones obsessed about him are you lot
How many threads are you retards going to make about him?
It's an enticing scene to be in, because while you're in that bubble, you only get information from there. You don't see the source, you see loud youtubers, telling you the strawman version of the source and mocking it. And of course if you don't realize that they are misrepresenting what they are mocking, it is easy (and justified) to join in with it.
But eventually, you might see some other sources. Might see skeptic after skeptic turn out to be some extreme alt right weirdo, or you actually do know a source and realize "hey, they're cutting shit out to make her sound silly and unreasonable".
For me a lot of that was Anita Sarkeesian, a person I very much dislike and disagree with almost everything she ever said. But then I saw "skeptic" youtubers, posting clips of what she said and laughing at how dumb and wrong it was. But the clips were cut out of context of a whole where it made sense. And I realized "If you have sunken so low, that you need to misrepresent a person who ACTUALLY has said lots of incredibly wrong stuff, to have an argument, maybe you don't have an argument"
The lipstick thing wasn't in the Cathy Newman interview it was with the fat chink.
Anyway, from what I remember his point was that it's hard to know what is appropriate sexual signaling at the workplace. So he gives as an exemple makeup who have a real sexual purpose. And as you said it has become something of a cultural expectation so it's something people never really think about. I don't think he advocated for the removal of makeup, that's just projection.
What sort of debate - designed to show the intellectual heft of the participants, allows you to google answers half-way through?
Zizek, of course has some tatty notes, probably written a few weeks ago and lost at least once.
>no you see the communist manifesto doesn't count because it's just propaganda it doesn't reflect his idea at all ahah
Why do marxist do this.
Engaging with the manifesto is like engaging with the cliffnotes version of Marx, he just wrote it himself
Kek
Marx and Engles were very clear about why they wrote the Manifesto, it was propaganda to rile up the working class
Didn't he say something similar with Newman? Either way it kinda proves the point I was making: He does this a lot, and I think it is deliberate to trick debate opponents into tripping themselves up.
>Anyway, from what I remember his point was that it's hard to know what is appropriate sexual signaling at the workplace. So he gives as an exemple makeup who have a real sexual purpose.
I think you are wrong. I think you are extrapolating the most reasonable, and sensible meaning out of what he said (something that I used to do as well), but I now am really more inclined that while that MIGHT be partially what he did mean, I think the main reason for saying these things in such a way is to purposefully trip up his "opponent".
I also don't think he advocated for the removal. But I think he likes to be just vague enough so people ask him, or worse accuse him of doing that, so that he can say "I never said that, how dare you say I said that"
So you can't criticize the manifesto because it was the ideas he was going to feed to the majority of the world?
Because he keeps making marxists mad beyond belief and frankly it's hilarious.
What books exactly would he have had to critique and to what depth exactly would he have had to address them and for how long for you to have been fully satisfied?
If you haven't read Kapital, and the German Ideology along with the Communist Manifesto - then you don't understand Marx. Those are the absolute minimum standard, in my opinion, before you can critically engage with Marxian thought.
JP just hasn't been bothered and yet goes about acting the public intellectual who understands the true danger of Marxism (particularly Neo-Marxism, how much do you want to be that he has not read Badiou, Althusser etc.)
He is a fraud.
The Bible says the same thing about God.
You can still understand the main tenets of Marxist Communism through the Communist Manifesto.
After all, Kapital is largely a treatise on Capitalist economics.
if you want to learn what Marxism is, there are better things to read. It's Marx's attempt to present his theory for brainlets, so in that respect I can see why Peterson found it such an attractive source.
Yes but he should, ideally, read the book or watch the film. He also did not make psychoanalytic arguments he was talking about efficiency - which is not his field.
citation needed
I don't remember him talking lipstick with Newman, mostly pay gap.
>I think you are extrapolating the most reasonable, and sensible meaning out of what he said (something that I used to do as well)
I'm sorry but I don't see how else you could interpret that with the full context.
So in other words, if Peterson had offered full in-depth critiques of the Manifesto, Das Kapital, and the German Ideology together during the debate (a tall order given time constraints, don't you think?), you still wouldn't have been satisfied, and would have insisted that he cite numerous other works in order to fully refute all the nuances of the theory. OK.
Why are you talking authoritatively about things you haven't read?!
He would have been better of (as Zizek pointed out) reading the Critique of the Gotha program. It's short and precise, and would have cleared up 80% of his misconceptions about equality, material conditions, wage scarcity, biological inequality, ect. again, this isn't something he is winging, he has been academically attacking Marxism for years before this debate was even a thing, he is woefully underread in every possible respect for this topic
>Marx feed propaganda to wrkers who turn out to be terrible for the well being of societies
>hu no sweetie you can't criticize him for that you must face his true autism
No one, including commies give a shit about what Marxist truly is. There's no point in talking about it.
>Marx, Karl. Das Kapital.
>Marx, Karl, Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto.
A debate isn't "describe everything you know about Marx". However, if he knew Marx, don't you think he would have been able to refer to these works too? It's also evident that he has little understanding of a materialist account of history - which are central pillars of Marxian thought, and only briefly referred to in the CM.
as hegel pointed out, you are retarded beyond belief
lmao
you people keep saying this but cant post a single thing hes wrong about, just vague criticism
Because you are a humanities person that can't appreciate science and stats.
So to satisfy you he would have had to refute an essentially limitless number of titles in both the Marxist canon and beyond, all in one sitting. OK.
>No one, including commies give a shit about what Marxist truly is. There's no point in talking about it.
You are the one's who seem to want to talk about it the most! You just start off with the bias that "Marx is evil/stupid" because you've grown up in the neoliberal hegemony all your life.
Just as well for you! Lets continue to talk with authority about a philosopher about whom you know about 4 bullet points worth of knowledge about. Oh and criticize people who have read him as being naive in the process! Oh and feel like you're shit hot in the process!
you can demonstrate fluency and familiarity with works and ideas without explicitly recapitulating them. Peterson is not prepared to talk about these issues with anyone who's spent more time thinking about them than like, Joe Rogan or some 28 year old magazine staff writer
So how would you feel if I took the posts in this thread, and used only them to go around the world slandering you, user, and everything else you have ever said, slandering everyone whom (through half-baked conspiracy theories) agrees with and supports you. I gain a following and make thousands of dollars a month on my apparent expertise on you, user.
You'd say that was a bit unfair, that I didn't know you and that my claiming to be an expert on you was fraudulent. Or would you be just make excuses for me when I people thus challenged me?
Because he's controlled opposition
Most people aren't interested in Peterson's beliefs and philosophy. They see the 'JBP demolishes feminist interviewer' and use his credentials and status as an academic to validate their opinions.
If you don't believe me, look at the top all time posts for reddit.com
I just posted three times about marxist itt, I should have opened with the classic "not him but"
Anyway, Marxism has failed so obviously Marx was stupid to think it was going to work.
>Lets continue to talk with authority about a philosopher about whom you know about 4 bullet points worth of knowledge about.
I haven't read a lot about intellectual fascism but I don't need to because this is just academic masturbating. Those ideas aren't meant to be implemented, but used to sells books and sound intelligent.
I'd like to tell you that while I am indeed hot I'm certainly not shit.
ok, that's the best picture I've seen of this debate. Fucking hilarious
Can you please put a concerted effort into not looking like a blatant tourist in the future?
You could say the same about Zizek's following that only know him from memes, Vice articles and youtube clips.
stop feeding this scumbag
Get a load of this guy
>you dont REALLY understand marxism
do fucking marxists ever use another argument or they just not accept someone disagrees with them
So you want him to tear down specific titles in depth but you don't really want that.
You made me picture Marx with big puppydog eyes. Thanks for the laugh.
>if we imagine that all knowledge is a marxist conspiracy then peterson is blameless for not possessing any!
no, I'd like to see him state his case in at least a way that doesn't mark him as an obvious charlatan. It's like the difference between a flat earther who uses difficult-to-disprove mathematic obscurantism and one who just posts pictures of the horizon looking like a straight line and saying SEE???
>being this Reddit
Hahaha
I've gathered that you wouldn't have been satisfied with his performance in the debate no matter what he had or hadn't said, simply because you disagree with his position and harbor implacable hostility toward him as a person for dissenting from your own viewpoint. That isn't how formal debates work, but I don't think you even understand what civil dialogue is. Good day.
Marx would have eaten you, Peterson and Zizek for breakfast. He was an intellectual chad and a lot of his appeal, back in the early days was akin to "how can one man be so based."
Pavel Annekov on witnessing Marx in a debate in 1846
"“he spoke only in the imperative, brooking no contradiction... the personification of a democratic dictator such as might appear before one in moments of fantasy.”
how do you think Peterson should have approached the debate? I can't imagine you were satisfied with his performance, either.
People don't actually understand what they're disagreeing with, other than a caricature provided by the bourgeois media. It's a little bit annoying to say the least.
I like paragraphs and I visit Reddit but I can still be right.
Pls explain the joke about Zizek's paper
He's pretty bad at those guys too. He's an okay lecturer in the way getting an English lecturer who read Austen and reads as much twitter is okay. He's not someone you'd want to headhunt, but also not as pricey. To be fair to him, if he stuck to people he was au fait with then he'd probably have not made tenure. He's playing the same game all those English teachers with private projects they force on the class are.
It's stained by his constant spitting I belive kek.
No you can criticise it all you want and it's actually pretty good for understanding how he saw history. But he did write it in 1848 right before the failed revolutions of Europe so you are missing quite a bit if you don't know how he reflected on what was happening around him.
I prefer Foucault's view of Marx as a mere journalist.
Yes, thank you.
>doesn't know who hegel is yet knows how to spell his name from hearing it
calling bull on this shittier unrealistic meme KYS
The goyim know. Initiate crab69.
t. reddit
>he's a good lecturer
Highly questionable.
>the only major contemporary voice for the existential tradition in philosophy and psychology.
Maybe existentialism is better off dead?
>He hasn't a clue about anything
You clearly have, so teach us.
I didn't really read your post I just decided to bully you. You're fine.
Why doesn't Peterson actually read the books?
A fucking intro Phil student has a better grasp on Marx and Foucault
Hes a benison fag
Most zizek fans have heard enough of his lectures that they've heard 80% of what he said in the debate before he said it.
the fact that you think the manifesto is in ANY way marxist theory exposes you as a complete moron.
there's literally no reason that thing is even sold today, it was a propaganda pamphlet then and a book for chapo LARPers today
> Why is he even popular?
YouTube's algorithm.
When you watch a self-help or philosophy videos on YT, this guy automatically pops up to your recommendation. Same for Elon Musk on technology topics.
to expand on this, the reason it's incredibly stupid to analyse and attack the manifesto is because it's just Marx's thesis, without any of the reasoning behind it.
Saying "and Marx and Engels just take this as an axiom" or "they ignored a bunch of problems with this statement" is dumb because that work does not contain the theory behind the statements
>cleaning rooms are for thee, not for me
>not have a single clue of what he is talking about
Bold accusation from someone who probably knows much, much less than he. He is a distinguished professional in his field who has co-authored hundreds of academic papers and has been cited thousands of times. Meanwhile, you are... some fat guy with a neckbeard who thinks God isn't real and that it somehow qualifies you to say anything about Peterson's credentials?
And Marxism is all about understanding capitalism,
>distinguished professional in his field
>field
>psychology
>Jungian
opinion discarded
no, its just the manifesto that is worthless to attack.
if you want a real takedown of marxism (or as close as you could get) read "Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", but that's probably too complicated for you considering you won't know what the fuck he's talking about
Can you even imagine how psychologically awesome it would be to have a girl interested in you that you met on Yea Forums?
:3
The christ cuck, lobster daddy shills are here. Typical
the Chinese funded reddit cuck shills are here. Typcial.
Fat guy on the right is basically a
>EUROPE SO MUCH BETTER
faggot, how is that deep?
he's canadian
cope harder hellspawn
Will you be my gf and let me find out?
based
Peterson is a psychologist who can give advice to improve your life based on his studies and personal experience.
Zizek is a philosopher, he is a very knowledgeable but offers no actual advice on how to improve your life
obviously the first is going to be more popular as many people want to improve their life
jordan peterson is basically a walking pyramid scheme who has tricked a shit ton of people into paying for his shit offering answers when really he just says a bunch of nonsense