Fuck this obscurantist postmodern critical theory types who write 500 page books no can understand about how some...

Thanks

what the fuck he is dead only 48

Maps of Meaning doesn't seem that bad

It might not be but everything I've heard come out of his mouth politically is painful so I wouldn't trust his psychology.

U don't like that Slavboy applies Freudian psychoanalysis to 3 minutes of a blockbuster movie and calls that philosophy??

Get with the times m8 he's like the first YouTube pop philosophy channel, back when YouTube philosophy channels didn't even exist.

I admittedly don't know enough about Jung to assess whether or not Peterson's psychology stuff is quack or not, but it's hard to take shit like this seriously

that being said, it's not that much more ridiculous than most of the diagrams you find in psychoanalytic writing

Attached: petersonreplace-1024x756.jpg (1024x756, 86K)

imagine not being able to discern between separate ideas and analyze them on their own terms because they come from a source you don't like.

Are you sure that Pererson can discern between his ideas?

Ignore his politics then. Give his biblical lectures on YT a try if you want to, they're what got me into him. I've got to admit he's fallen from grace a bit. His fanbase is also one of the most cancerous of the """IDW"""; It now consists partly of diehard "own the libs" types, partly of conservatives who use his rhetoric as talking points and a small minority of people who enjoyed his original works. I would place myself in the latter group but I don't wanna come off as too pretentious so I'll hold off on that.

Psychoanalytic shit always looks like quack but the insights are always intriguing to me, especially Jung. It deals with myths and "dream"-concepts so it's not hard to veer off into mysticism when writing about it.

“I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother sitting by the bank of a swimming pool, that was also a river. In real life, she had been a victim of Alzheimer’s disease, and had regressed, before her death, to a semi-conscious state. In the dream, as well, she had lost her capacity for self-control. Her genital region was exposed, dimly; it had the appearance of a thick mat of hair. She was stroking herself, absent-mindedly. She walked over to me, with a handful of pubic hair, compacted into something resembling a large artist’s paint-brush. She pushed this at my face. I raised my arm, several times, to deflect her hand; finally, unwilling to hurt her, or interfere with her any farther, I let her have her way. She stroked my face with the brush, gently, and said, like a child, “isn’t is soft?” I looked at her ruined face and said, “yes, Grandma, it’s soft.”

My point was more so that Peterson is just as "obscurantist" as Zizek, at least by OPs standard

Imagine being a fanboy of someone like Jordan Peterson.

Why does the right only enjoy controversial alpha types who can't stop talking and love attention? Trump, Milo, Peterson etc. It's like they want to be cucked, and they're just projecting onto the left when they call them cucks.
Meanwhile the left just likes reasonable people with mild personalities. AOC is the "loudest" out there, but she obviously pales in comparison to any of the Republican figures. The worst attention seeking thing she did was dance... when she was like twenty and not in the public eye.

Go back to leftypol and\or dilate

I love psychoanalysis but I always can't help but wonder who the fuck is having these cryptic as hell dreams
I dream every night, and they absolutely are reflections of my unconscious, repressed impulsss etc. But they're always more or less straightforward. None of these bizarre cryptic images.

Closest was maybe recently I dreamed I uncovered a pedophile ring inside a McDonald's, where the happy meal toys were being used as ways for the pedophiles to send messages, communicate etc

That's true, for both you have to jump through hoops to gain some basic understanding of what the fuck they're actually talking about. I tried reading a paper from Zizek once and I didn't get shit. He went rambling on about Lacan which I haven't read anything of. Granted, this was a while ago so I'll probably try pick him up again at some point. Peterson seems somewhat easier to get into considering how popular and publicly accessible his work is.

I'll take the b8 in case you're actually just retarded
The shark serves to unite the fears and desires of the scattered, random people it attacks. It's the enemy and other, as he put it "foreign threat to ordinary americans" and that this can be read as either natural disaster, immigrants, or some threat to government. The interesting part is where he mentions the total opposite opinion, Castro's love of the film and conviction that the people were really The People being exploited by the archetypal vampire-capita. Zizek expands to say that the fears of ordinary people are broad, we have class fears, sexual fears, ecological, political, economic fear, etc. He says "the function of the shark is to unite all these fears so we can, in a way, trade all these fears for one fear alone."
More to the point, he only uses cinema and all of art to illustrate his points. He's partly saying "the role of the shark as Spielberg intended is x," but mostly "the role of the shark as a sort of concrete instance of abstract foreign intrusion is." The latter is almost totally separate from the plot.

>More to the point, he only uses cinema and all of art to illustrate his points. He's partly saying "the role of the shark as Spielberg intended is x," but mostly "the role of the shark as a sort of concrete instance of abstract foreign intrusion is." The latter is almost totally separate from the plot.

This is important that I think people need to be reminded of (at least, it took me a little while to understand). His use of films isn't to say "this is the hidden message that found its unconscious expression in Spielbergs film" but simply that the plot just kinda nicely aligns to illustrate some other psychoanalytic point. The films just take the place of anecdotes or hypotheticals, but are easier to understand because you will presumably already have some familiarity with the film.

>the shark serves to unite the fears and desires of the scattered, random people it attacks
why? I don't see how this connection can be made. Is this something that can be obviously read from the text, did the director intend this, can this be discerned from the director's politique throughout other films, etc.

Literally every time Slavoj says anything about any movie, it's always "why????"
I see that the shark CAN be seen as that. But that is through no fault of the movie.
The same way I could say "the shark is the embodiment of masculine power," but the film in no way carries that in its text, subtext, motifs, etc. etc.

Slavoj is an entertaining figure at best. He's definitely an absolutely horrible scholar of film/film theory.
But I can't comment on his philosophy.

my ex saw a peterson lecture and got me a copy of maps of meaning maybe a year and a half or so before he blew up. it's fine. very autistically written and well-argued, but unconvincing. his academic work in personality psychology is solid and uncontroversial. conflating that with maps of meaning and his meme career makes him look like more a quack than he is. his politics are cringey but he's a fucking civnat boomer so what does anybody fucking expect?

people making fun of maps of meaning have clearly never read Jung, who sloppily appropriates old religious ideas that he finds aesthetically pleasing and fabricates case studies to validate his untestable theories. if anything, peterson's adoration of jung is what drags him down more than his own ideas. he's trying to square jungian shit with scientific theories which is dead end.

i didn't read the list book because list books are for retards and it was clearly a cash grab. the """"debates"""" are gay af and he's clearly falling apart because he can't deal with fame.

no concrete ideas...? I thought you said he was talking about the sides of buildings!

See
The movies are just illustrations, he's not actually reading that meaning into the film

Do you have a defence of the diagrams though? I don't mean this antagonistically, I'm curious about your opinion. I feel like no depth of understanding of Jung would be enough to decipher this mess.

Attached: peterson5-1024x795.jpg (1024x795, 93K)

>500 page books no can understand

oh no no no no

If someone can understand your work, then it's not philosophy.

Attached: 1555014515013.png (831x799, 399K)

>Is this something that can be obviously read from the text
No. He's using the text to illustrate a point about theory.
It's definitely an old Lacanian thing about clinical readings of text, but it's also just a standard of critical theory. Hell, I'd go so far as to say it's a pretty basic part of literary criticism. I wouldn't get too "death of the author" about it, but being able to fillet a narrative device from the skeleton of it's narrative arc is a must.

Attached: 4d6d735b12543f3eba8721efcdb3d71a.jpg (400x309, 20K)

Ah gotcha. I guess that does make him a horrible film theoriest but

>simply that the plot just kinda nicely aligns to illustrate
seems like shitty philosophy desu.

*devices
*their arcs

imagine assuming i'm a fanboy because i think a person is more than the things you don't like about them. and even if they weren't, their statements about the world can be judged without reference to who they are.

No. Specifically, I think his treatment of unfalsifiable ideas in his arguments betrays his inability to let go of his belief that his pragmatic "truths" are actually objectively true. He clearly makes the distinction between them in bad faith to get his foot in the door when talking to non-religious people, but doesn't seem to internalize what it actually means. As I mentioned in he clearly wants Jungian ideas to be true but has to mangle them into something more science-y to not be embarrassed by them.

Top zozzle

I think you're mistaking him for a cultural or film theorist. He's a Hegelian Marxist and a Lacanian psychoanalytist, he uses films to make those concepts easier to understand to normie audiences. He also uses jokes in the same way. This should be clear if you read any of his books.

He's just another American Psychologist, pretty good in practice but sloppier than wet shit in theory.

There is no airtight theory. It's impossible.

unironically good response user.

No, they're mostly just confusing out of context. I remember the better ones being simpler ideas like the motor homonculus and the binary nature of mother/father archetypes and shit like that.

>I'm not a fanboy because Jordan Peterson is more than the things that people dislike about him
Sure... I guess. U wanna suck his dick or something?

>their statements about the world can be judged without reference to who they are
I don't get this. Nobody knows Jordan Peterson by who he is anyways, he is known by his statements about the world.

He is an above average psychologist and researcher, who once held respect in his academic field, but he is definitely no philosopher. His Youtube channel and self-help books are pretty straightforward and banal trash tier "stand up straight, be responsible for yourself" etc. He uses terms like "marxism" and "post-modern" way too willy nilly, where they do not apply. He does not have the experience or the ability to connect loaded philosophical terms and ideas, but he constantly tries to, and it's annoying.

>racism is just blind-spot projection of our own insecurities
I don't buy it. How does zizek explain niggers?

Ah yes, what could an athletically superior, sexually virile, large appendaged, culturally dominant race possibly do to make the white man feel insecure?

I can certainly see that line of argument applied to wiggers and coal burners who most certainly do act on those insecurities. As for shallow attributes, I'd assume its the same thing asians have for whitey, then?

The idea is that nobody is buttmad about how jews look (aside from caricature), /pol/ is buttmad about what they do. I'd assume its the same for niggers - people hate niggers because they behave like niggers, while you can easily be friend with a black person.

Well, if you're actually interested, Zizek is not explaining racism, specifically. Every member of a group is racist toward another group to some degree. He's explaining the fantasies groups construct in order to explain the failures of their own societies. Do the people who hate 'niggers' blame them for the Western civilizational decline? More often I see people blaming the Jews for encouraging black culture as a means for them to degrade Western civilisation. In this case, the 'nigger' is just the puppet of the Jew, so the Jew is still the object of the fantasy.

In Nazi ideology, Negroes are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy, while Jews exist outside of the hierarchy completely. Hence why the Jew needs to be exterminated, and the Negro merely need be put in their place.

So, in short, I think we're talking about two slightly different things.

An inverse example would might be found in the tendency for the proletariat to blame

Oops, left a half finished thought in that last post (am phone posting).

Now Zizek doesn't make this point (as far I've seen) so I'm kindve thinking out loud, but I think a comparable example regarding black people specifically would be in the slave holding South, where the Negro is projected as paradoxically servile and dumb, as well as rebellious and conspiratorial. This paradoxical fantasy masks the inconsistencies of the later era slave state, which requires the premise of moral superiority (there is a reason why we enslave only black people, but not white people also). A sense of moral superiority which is patently undone by the cruelty of the system itself.

>inb4 there were white slaves too

In the early days, but not by the end really. In any case, white slaves enjoyed a different status to the black slave (either as indentured servant or convict)

There are more slaves today than ever before.

I am quickly moving towards the praxis of assuming anyone who uses the word obscurantist is a smoothbrain

for me it's the concept of recycling semen

that literally has nothing to do with what he said. Can you breathe and walk at the same time? The point made is of a specific period (antebellum, slaveowning South in the USA) and about a specific practice (white enslavement of the negro races).

Reread, child. Again!

excellent answer

bumblasted lobsterboy detected

Attached: canadian dilf takes rough ideological pounding.jpg (1005x772, 76K)

I'm in different part of world. Most niggers are simply loud and dumb, with none of that colonial era nostalgia you have in the US.
My pet theory is that Bantu expansion was a dysgenic disaster, invasive species who pretty much dropped IQ in rest of africa by 15 points. When half of your ethnic group is clinically retarded, no wonder arabs and persians bred em in pens like horses and a cash crop. You don't breed a beast of burden to be smart, but to be strong and resilient.

>Verified Amateurs
I don't know why but I lost at this

>Sure... I guess. U wanna suck his dick or something?

I offered more substantial criticism than anyone else in this thread.

>I don't get this. Nobody knows Jordan Peterson by who he is anyways, he is known by his statements about the world.

"Who he is" meant his identity and that was lost on no one, just like everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said "someone like him". Maybe you should brush up on your close reading techniques (and by that I don't mean anything involving canvas and paint, since you need these kind of things explained to you).

>he is definitely no philosopher. His Youtube channel and self-help books are pretty straightforward and banal trash tier "stand up straight, be responsible for yourself" etc. He uses terms like "marxism" and "post-modern" way too willy nilly, where they do not apply. He does not have the experience or the ability to connect loaded philosophical terms and ideas, but he constantly tries to, and it's annoying.

Thank you for astroturfing your position by reiterating points I already made.

That's all post modernism is. Inventing new words that mean nothing. Do you think it has meaning?

the diagram attempts to abstract and tell the story of all story, its the author attempt at summing up all possible stories

Its easier to tell a concrete story, and see how its an isomorphism

you are the wife of a good husband
you clean the house every day
you prepare breakfast for him in the morning and greet him back in the evening
you currently carry a baby
you think your husband is the sun that shine light to the house at night

sometimes you have troubles with your husbad
sometimes you argue
sometimes you think hes not being reasonable

despite that
you wish to stay like this forever
you wish to give birth to a beautiful child
you wish your child will go to a good school nearby

this is the reality on the top left
you have your current situation
and you have a future
and you have the obstacle along the way
sometimes luck is against you : you tripped, the water is leaking, you have to move,
sometimes luck is for you : your husband received a bonus, you had great sex, the tv shows are really good

SUDDENLY

you saw your husband having sex with your neighbor in your bedroom

suddenly, everything changes
how long was he cheating on me?
can i trust him?
can i live with him?
do i want my child to live with him?
do i still love my child?
if i leave, how am i gonna support my child?

this is the realm on the bottom, chaos

now the path could diverge

you could reconcile with your husband (this means you will take the leftmost arrow from chaos => order

or you could change your life, move to another state, divorce your husband : this is taking the rightmost arrow

why is it 2 separate reality?
well, because now you no longer trust man
you no longer have the support of your husband
you no longer see your child being in university
you now need to work
you now cant spent all the time with your child
you now distrust your neighbor
etc etc

you have moved to a new reality, despite realily never really changes
if i am God observing from above, i can see everything that ever, did, will happen
but as a person, i can only see through the lens of my own conscience, the reality REALLY did changed for me

>I don't understand it, therefore it's obscurantist

it can be noted, and observed, that all stories have this kind of structure

you have the current state of the universe, for whatever reason, it just seem right

then you have something happen, that suddenly change the state of the universe in a way that make it seem wrong

then the possibility opens up: one could succumb to the thing and dissolve into despair
or one could master the thing and ascend to a possibly better state.

pick any story, and you could trim out the details and it will eventually look like this

Asians don't seem to have as much of a weird obsession with white people ( sexually, at least ) as white people do with negroes.

>no one can understand
Not his fault you’re a midwit.

>postmodernism
>believing 'newness'

chicken corn sweat descontruction under the capitalist hegomonlical hegelian dimitism

This still doesn't really have all that much to do with Zizeks point though. We're not talking only about all types of racism.

So....

Introduction -> Complication -> Resolution?

You mean the story structure we're taught in kindergarten? Thanks, really appreciated the diagram.

Lost all respect for him when he started doing damage control for Mass Migration and attacking the "far right" for being hateful and evil and repeating the same talking points of CNN

Max Weber.

Attached: Max_Weber_1894.jpg (406x542, 45K)

yes, its an expansion on that, you could argue its trivial or whatever, but its rather profound (and even exploitable) to notice that this is _always_ true

as such, one wont succumb to luxury, because one _knows_ that there _will_ be an impending chaos

one will always be prepared, regardless of how safe one feels

because, the author claims, stories are our literal attempt at describing this truism; that from order there will be chaos, and from chaos will come order

the fact that we can now, at least try to, articulate this means that we bear more responsibility on our destiny

our choices will determine the next reality we end up in

if you are a druggie or doing something that you _know_ to be wrong, but you simply glance it as to human is to err, then you are the only one to blame.

you knew the chaos is coming, and yet you are unprepared,

Nah, nothing bad every really happens

not everyone can fancy such luck.