LMAO METAPHYSICS

>LMAO METAPHYSICS
Why does Jordan Peterson have such a large following?
He basically just regurgitates Nietzsche and Jung.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sVvSSmYra1Y
youtu.be/LsB5vHs_83Q?t=14m28s
youtube.com/watch?v=dnrT7yZEV-g
youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM&t=3135s
youtube.com/watch?v=pksHjddXp6k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

in the land of the blind

He's controlled opposition.

the man with one eye is a meme

fpbp

I'm bummed on him these days.
He is very smart but his "products" he put out (self authoring and big 5 test) were sub par and did nothing to implement his vision.
It made me feel as if he doesn't really take it seriously. Also he repeats the same stuff SO much that I am getting tired of it. Read some new books brother.

Maybe apply the shit he repeats into your life until you don't need him? I've done half of it and I don't listen to him as much, I have to admit I feel much better after watching almost all his videos. What you want Is a magic pill that will make you appreciate life or something. Only thing close to that is psychedelic drugs (not a bad idea imo, but it's up to you) you're not going to get this magic sentence or pill that will fix you up. You gotta put work into it.

Anyone find it a little sketchy that you have to do the authoring programs IN browser?
I was starting the future one, but now I don't know, feels like someone watching over your shoulder..

Because people don't read Nietzsche or Jung so they're hearing a lot of it for the first time. Not that Peterson pretends much differently. He's pretty open about his sources. He's not a philosopher, never called himself one.

Most people are not familiar with Jung and Nietzsche.

>doesn't know what opposition means

Because he's alive

/thread

He's a modern preacher and synthesizes those philosophers into applicable ideology in the modern world. He's not an inventor of anything, just an advocate.

Yeah, he's basically just a psychologist who's read a small amount of philosophy. Like his Biblical lectures are decent, but you can tell he's never read anyone like Aquinas.

He's doing something that very few people have bothered to do (or at least done successfully), that being making Christianity modern and relevant. Also, he's mentioned time and time again ho surprised he's been to see people, mostly men, latching onto his message of responsibility rather than the endless doling out of "rights" that you hear nowadays. There's fat too much feminine self-esteem self-love crap floating around that young men are hungry for people telling them that self-worth comes from being a worthwhile person, and not puffing up your self-esteem. He's good, user.

He's affirming the importance of traditional masculinity for guys that need it. Sort of like a surrogate father figure.

This.
He's just doing what he's been doing for years.

Focusing on Peterson himself is stupid when it's clear the real thing to think about are the people listening.
People are devoid of faith, purpose and uttery sick of identity politics.

He's speaking to a generation of oil-soaked kindling ready to be ignited.

When this new 21st century Christianity catches fire, it will be exactly what the west needs.
There will be no stopping it.

This, dad's just trying to help us grow up a bit.

Encouraging order and Logos from the bottom-up, from the individual radiating outward into their society, is a very good thing. The antithesis of grievance industry, gibs, and baseless narcissistic acceptance flailing. Peterson is doing God's work.

Because very few people actually read books.
You would be surprised how many people 'interested in philosophy' haven't cracked open a book since high school and only watch youtube videos on the relevant topics.

ask yourself why does a mother bird regurgitate food for their babies

This...i wish he was my dad. Trying to sort myself out, but I suck at it. If it were my job, id be fired.

You're as delusional and small minded as he is.

>He basically just regurgitates Nietzsche and Jung.
so?

I don't know but after I saw his speech about how Hitler and Nazis were "evil" I think he's a major faggot and blue pilled af. Just another normie Regurgitating the same propaganda to the Sheeple.

Are you one of those guys who buys self-help books?

>Christianity
remeber goy, jamal and you are exactly the same, were all gods children after all
now turn the other cheek cuckboy

...

No no, I got the future authoring one for free a while back because of a thread on here actually. I just didn't start it until a few days ago, and then I saw you had to be online to use it, just seems a little fishy.

>then I saw you had to be online to use it, just seems a little fishy
Makes you wonder why it was "free" eh... Just like facebook is "free"

If my delusions include what's actually happening (disenfranchised millennials seeking purpose), how delusional am i really?

Face it, he's succeeded where Sup Forums has failed miserably at getting people to man up and appreciate tradition and order.

And it's utterly pathetic there are cretins on Sup Forums mad and jealous at him for getting there when they couldn't.

The spoken word has more power then written.

Please faggot, it's like you've never learned a single thing about renaissance Europe and the various golden ages Europe has experienced.

I rather hand out with a tranditional black chistian than a white degenerate liberal.

He's basically a average professor that says what his "followers" want to hear.

as it turns out there is somewhat substantial demand for guidance into existential thought

He fulfils pretty much exactly the age-old requirements for becoming a meme among the young, inadequately-educated and over-excitable - the first and foremost of these being GOOD LOOKS.
I'm sure you've all noticed that he's very sexually attractive in a silver-templed, Daddish sort of way.
That will just about do it for 90% of your typical fanboy personalities, be they openly homosexual or not.
The "intellectual substance" he offers is, frankly, neither here nor there.
Though, just as a protip, let me point out in passing that the kind of nebulous, quasi-mystical sludge he fills his books and lectures with makes him a definite SJW "Trojan Horse" within the very Neo-Traditionalist movement that is making a hero of him.
Ask any blue-haired, septum-pierced Gender Studies student who her two favorite "heavy" writers are and she'll tell you:

"Jung and Nietzsche"

Genderqueer non-heteronormative polyamorous androgynes all love Jung because he took Freud's cold hard "patriarchal" psychological theories, based on the sensible but triggering principle that "biology is destiny", and twisted them into some warm fuzzy mulch of myth and mysticism that anyone can find their non-triggering "safe space" in.

And Academe has succeeded so spectacularly in the past thirty years in turning Nietzsche into something that Nietzsche himself would have fled from in utter revulsion that what is eroding American culture like acid these days is much more accurately described as Cultural Nietzschianism than as Cultural Marxism.

Unfortunately, judging by documents like the recent Peterson/Sam Harris debate, it's not the old, real Nietzsche of the "blond beast" and opposition to society's "Judification" that Peterson draws his inspiration from but rather the "post-modern" Nietzsche who holds that "nothing is true, everything is permitted" (i.e. "I may have a dick but I'm a woman if my feels and my friends tell me I am")

Exactly. We want to hear the truth and jordan peterson is one of the few intellectuals who tells us what is actually true.

The metaphysics of various epistemological ideologies are beneficial in determining the root causes of Postmodern Neo-Marxism.
That’s the very manifestation that is plaguing academia today through the Humanities, psychology, and social sciences.

Most people have never read them.

Any professor that is religious is automatically considered not worth listening to in my opinion, because that means he convinced himself of such falsities, and can continue to create other fake narratives without proof using four syllable words to "convince" others. People like him are honestly a danger a to society.

>the blonde beast Nietzsche

The primal stuff that Nietzsche suggested was fucking retarded too.
“Oh reason is dumb and for the weak, it makes people complacent with their environment. We must reject reason and logic and embrace raw instinct in order to face the world and wrestle it into submission.”

Nietzsche was a Postmodernist at heart, he followed the Kantian tradition of believing that humans could not understand something as basic as the world around them using reason so it was better to rely on feelings and instinct than to learn about the world through the senses.

He's in a position of influence. I like the man.

All he does is explain to people that the things that post-modernism tells are useless "old" superstitions are not so unreasonable after all; that they are deeply rooted into how we perceive ourselves as agents within the world, and our purpose within it.

Essentially: myth is important.

You know nothing about any of these matters.

You don't possess even a fraction of the knowledge of the history of ideas that would be required in order for you to form any kind of coherent or defensible view about which "metaphysics of an epistemological ideology" contributed in which way to causing which of the "manifestations" "plaguing" academia today.

Can you say a single intelligent or even approximately accurate thing about the relationship between the "epistemological ideology" of Kant, that of Nietzsche, and that of the pseudo-doctrines currently destroying the minds of American youth, like transgenderism and third-wave feminism?

No, you can't. All you can do is sit entranced by the sight of Peterson's cheekbones and gobble down whatever reductionist, mistaken, self-contradictory line on these complex questions, such as

"Nietzsche good, post-modernism bad"

he feeds to you.

This. Christianity will make a comeback and push the moors right back into the desert to be nuked.

>Any professor that is religious is automatically considered not worth listening to in my opinion
just because you disagree with him in only a single thing it doesn't mean that he has nothing to say that's worth listening to. You're basically an sjw who needs a mental safe space

I don't know if he's actually religious. As far as I know, he just really likes the bible.

Anyway, calm down.

So much text for such boring meme-ing.

I saw a video in my recommended feed that was titled "Jordan Peterson: Why the nazis were even more evil than you might think". How do you justify this?

Postmodernism is a rejection of truth, reality, and the nature of man.
Believing that, because man’s senses have an identity of their own, it is impossible to understand the objective world through reason, this was Kant’s assertion during the counter enlightenment and everyone followed him down this flawed line of thinking.
Heidegger took this a step further by rejecting the model of Subject and Object by instead replacing them with Being and Nothing.
In Heidegger’s model, there is only the subject, the experience of being, and outside of this there is nothing else.
This eliminated the objective reality completely.

because nietzsche and jung should have larger follwings as well, it's just that peterson's translation reaches a larger audience than barnes n nobles

Clean your room bucko

>I don't know if he's actually religious
why? Because he doesn't go to church? The way he sees religion and God alone is enough proof for me that he's a christian.

Kant = Flawed premise

Nietzsche = Discple of Kant’s flawed premise

The flawed premise is that there is no way to understand the objective world through reason.

You’re pathetic, didn’t refute anything and went on an ad hominem filled tirade.
Throw a tantrum elsewhere frog.

To take this further, one of the only things Nietzsche was correct about was his collectivist criticisms.
He accurately described the rise and fall of communism.

>Why does Jordan Peterson have such a large following

Because he's an above average orator, who (due to teaching classes) is able to present information and his arguments in a way that can be easily understood and absorbed. People at least feel like they've learned something when they listen to him lecture about something.

Because I haven't ever heard him say he believes in God, just him talking about the depth and lessons of certain bible stories.

It's probably not unlikely that he is, but I don't think you need to be Christian to talk about the Bible.

>21st century Christianity catches fire
You do know that christcucks have been saying this shit for generations right? Newborns are fucking laughable think they know everything.

>danger to society
>that flag
Fucking lol

Cognitive Dissonance of Jordan Peterson (& of Individualist in General)
youtube.com/watch?v=sVvSSmYra1Y

youtu.be/LsB5vHs_83Q?t=14m28s

Jordan Peterson is against Postmodernists, and is standoff up for Western Civilization.

Jordan Peterson had said, "Make no mistake, the patriarchy is Western Civilization."

We need Jordan Peterson to open people's eyes. I these dark times speaking the truth is revolutionary.

Well, that is kind of my point, at least as regards Peterson.

There is indeed a virulently anti-realist current in modern philosophy that runs from Kant through Schopenhauer through Nietzsche directly to our present-day screechers that "everything is just a social construct".

So there's clearly something a bit off, for anyone with even a basic understanding of these matters, about some guy who is constantly bleating on about Nietzsche becoming the cult-hero of the very movement most OPPOSED to the "everything is a social construct" ideology.

Regarding your point as it relates to Nietzsche himself, however: your reading is certainly a defensible one but, if we were in a more suitable forum than this one, I'd still argue against it. The problem you state involves, as I'm sure you're aware, not just two terms - "reason" or "instinct" - but three - "reason", "instinct", and "the senses".

Kant and Kantians - right down to today's "trans-genderists" - have certainly never relied on "the senses". Kantian "reason" is a faculty of the human INNER world that is imagined to be able to MAKE the outer world of reality from the bottom up. Nietzsche DID go along with this Kantianism in all the passages where he insists that the world is made through language etc. But I would argue that the "visceral" passages in his writing, where he uses shocking biological-zoological images like the "blond beast" are passages in which the faculty of "instinct" is presented as basically just another term for "perception of reality through the senses". In other words, THAT Nietzsche was simply a materialist, the very opposite of the extreme idealist Nietzsche that has been taken up by the post-modernists.

The reason why he never explicitly said that he believes in God is because he doesn't want to be put into what he calls ''boxes'' or categories so people can make a straw man out of his arguments. For what I understand, he believes in God though his actions. Bear in mind that God can be anything that is 'true', in this particular case it is the teachings of Jesus Christ.

He's a meme because he seems to be the only uncucked male in Canada.

There is your problem your christianity will never EVER work. There is a reason why the majority of us aren't religious and thats why.

Also Jesus was a JEW. I don't really give a shit about what the bible says or all the interpretations of the bible trying to justify blacks as not being human and what not but it comes down to this. If you preach that you wish to have a white ethnostate in some form a homogeneous society you cannot take other foreign religions. Any type of foreign influence that forms the foundations of your nation will rot your nation. You can try all you want with the justification that 2000 YEARS CHRISTIANITY but it doesn't work when we use those inflated numbers they have failed in only 2000 fucking years.

>buys product for "vision"
>disappointed world doesnt magically transform on purchase

Low IQ incel detected

Again, it is clear from the drivel you write that you have never read a line of Kant.

It is laughable to anyone who has gotten even halfway through the first semester of an undergraduate course in philosophy to see someone claim that Kant proceeded on the premise that "there is no way to understand the objective world through reason".

I think the standard one-line account of Kant's philosophy you'll find in any textbook is that he believed that the ONLY way to understand the objective world is through reason.

Please don't embarrass yourself any further, kid.

The things he has left to say anybody can discover for themselves, he's no genius he has nothing to really contribute to anybody. Like I said he's a average professor that tells other relies people what they want to hear and they flocked to him. Also he's dangerous because he measures their beliefs instead of letting them off easy. And like I said, he believes in fallacies, that's all that needs to be said. And the small of amount of people who are SJWs are the exact same as people to "religiously" follow Peterson. Sad world.
Clam down because a man you is a supposed educator has unprovable other worldly beliefs and uses words most of his followers don't understand to reenforce the idea that "smart" people are on their side. I know I want live in a "Utopia" in my lifetime of my children's or their children's lives. But organized religion is a plague on human beings that has caused more messy then help. People talk about the Koran being dangerous, the Bible is just as bad. Produce nothing but zealots that soon become indistinguishable from Muslim terror groups when conceiving points of worth.

Kant believed in a few universal principles, but a basic analysis as it concerns today is all that is required when relating it to Postmodernism.
That was the major part of Kant’s philosophy that stuck.

I hope you do a better job of keeping the many French Postmodernists at bay than what you have displayed here.
Cheers.

won't* instead of want

Which thinkers comprise your own recommended philosophical cannon, if not the bigger names of modern philosophy? Ridicule me if I'm wrong but I'd guess that you would self-describe as a neo-Platonist?

I'm young and retarded, it takes a lot of reading to suss meaning from the divergent, convoluted and as-of-now oppositional strains of philosophy

I like him because I hadn't ever come across those sorts of ideas before, and they have help me to start to come out of an existential crisis. I misunderstood Nietschze before, and I misunderstood Jung. By discovering Peterson I've started to get back onto a path that will probably make me happier, and I daresay he has had a similar impact on lots of other lost young men too desu.

Jordan Peterson is a retarded christcuck.

youtube.com/watch?v=dnrT7yZEV-g

pretty much this.

>implying books are any better

>Kant believed in a few universal principles, but a basic analysis as it concerns today is all that is required when relating it to Postmodernism.
That was the major part of Kant’s philosophy that stuck.

Just for the information of you other early- to mid-teens here, this is what "philosophy" sounds like when it is being dribbled out of the keyboard of some pencil-necked little prick who has never actually read a single work of philosophy.

>Kant believed in a few universal principles
>a few universal principles
Yeah, so did every writer on every topic under the sun before 1800. Can you specify what those universal principles WERE? Didn't think so. So that kind of makes your statement completely substanceless and worthless, doesn't it?

>but a basic analysis as it concerns today is all that is required when relating it to Postmodernism.
This appears to be as meaningless in its content as it is clumsy and confused in its grammar. So what does this "basic analysis" of Kant's philosophy "as it concerns today" actually REVEAL about its relation to post-modernism? Again, you have absolutely no idea, because you have never read a line of Kant, so you say nothing.

>That was the major part of Kant’s philosophy that stuck
So the "few universal principles" were "the major part that stuck"? But if that is what you are saying, then you are saying that Kantianism does NOT lie in the same tradition as post-modernism - the exact opposite of what you said a moment ago.
Or is the problem just that you have not mastered English grammar sufficiently to make it clear just WHAT you are saying?

Jordan and Paglia deconstructing the entire post-modern feminist/liberal social development, pretty much a giftwrap to conservativism as an ideology:

youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM&t=3135s

>that being making Christianity modern and relevant.
>is also a cuck too Jews
Imagyn muh Shawk!

You mean EXACTLY when Cucktianity died off and ancient Greek and Roman polytheism, its philosophers and thinkers were rediscovered after the dark ages and natural science started to blossom again?

Yeah, I heared about that alright.

2000 years isn't even true for most of Europe. It's 1,000 years at best for Germany and roughly 200 for Finland. And Lithuania has never been Christian to this very day. Plus Bosnia and Albania are Muslim European countries.

>muh white Islamic heritage
>muh Islam is the religion of the white man!
>muh white Shariah

Wew lad, you are salty.
The nerf of reason was the portion of Kantianism that stuck through to Postmodernism.

You should take an aspirin, you’re far too angry about this.

>why do people like this charismatic, wise scholar with a lot of knowledge and great rhetorical abilities? He basically just formulates some of the key tenets of one of the two greatest intellectuals of all time, showcasing his very adequate understanding of both their work in a manner that becomes very relevant and uplifting for young, disenchanted men.

a lot of things in life confuse you, don they user?

>banned in your country

>why does this intelligent person who has dedicated most of his life to understanding complex ideas that most people are too busy to read about...why does he spend time distilling those complex ideas into easily understood clips so laymen can try to better themselves?

It's baffling.

I'm much older than you but if I'm honest I have to admit that I'm still casting about trying to find my philosophical bearings myself.
It would never have occurred to me to describe myself as a Neo-Platonist but I can actually see where you are coming from when you say that (I would guess you have had some education in philosophy and the history of ideas). Plato, Aristotle and Aristotelian Scholastics like Aquinas were, for a long time, classed as completely anti-materialist Idealists. But as what has been referred to in this thread as the "Kantian" current in philosophy has taken more and more extreme forms in the past 200 years, these "Idealist" systems of Platonic inspiration have become more and more the last bastions of realism (they were in fact always also called "Realists").
In a world where what passes for "intellect" is the celebration of group delusions and hallucinations that you find in Foucault or Derrida the (on first impression) completely fantastic and ridiculous ideas you find in Plato and Aristotle about every actual table being an imperfect copy of the "Idea of the Table" stored up in heaven begin to look like healthy common sense.
Although I'm not a Thomist, then, I certainly feel I can recommend to Sup Forums browsers, as an antidote to the rampant disease of Cultural Nietzschianism, G K Chesterton's book on Aquinas, which really does make a marvellous case for Platonism being the true form of Materialism.
Chesterton's works, in fact, are probably still the most effective weapon against post-modernism for English speakers, even 100 years on. His generation took the full brunt of the first wave of "Nietzsche enthusiasm" to sweep across the world, around 1900, and his responses are still valid.

Peterson is the doctor offering morphine to a terminal cancer patient because "the surgery might kill you."

Because he dumbs down Nietzsche and Jung for me .

Yeah, sorry kid, but once again, what you have written doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong.
Your ignorance is such that it literally doesn't mean anything.
I don't know what
>The nerf of reason
is.
Nor do you.
Nor does anyone.
You're just banging randomly away at your keyboard in the hope that the other 13-year-olds in this thread will be too ignorant themselves to notice that you are typing gobbledeegook.
You need to stop now.

He probably has, just chooses to ignore them or doesn't understand them.

I bet this sounds even more horrendous in your ugly language.

>dumbing down Nietzsche
Read Kierkegaard.

I have no idea why you're strolling in here and waving your big philosophy dick around. I swear to God, no one can mention Peterson without someone like you aking sure everyone knows that he's not a philosophy master. He's never claimed to be an expert on philosophy, and to nitpick about what he says on the subject is to totally miss the point of why people are so drawn to him.

>Encyclopaedic knowledge of Nietzsche and Jung
>Deconstructs Post modern Neo-marxism

This is somehow a bad thing?

Fuck off Leaf, you are the least favourite of my sons.

I remember there was a video on YouTube about six months ago that some Peterson fanboy had entitled "Camlle Paglia on Jordan Peterson". It was a complete misnomer. It emerged in the course of the video that Paglia didn't even know who Peterson was. Here's the video more accurately titled:

youtube.com/watch?v=pksHjddXp6k

Now it seems Peterson has sought her out and is trying to ride on her coat-tails to a slightly higher position than he occupies right now. But once again, dear fanboy, I feel obliged to point out to you that you only have to look at this new video to see that Paglia is relating to Peterson as she would to Piers Morgan or Larry King or some journalist who'd invited her onto a TV show to talk about HER work and HER ideas. She is not DIALOGUING with him. She is just allowing him to ask her about HER analysis of contemporary intellectual life. And rightly so, because, as Paglia is aware, SHE is actually a significant figure in contemporary intellectual life. HE is not.

Meine haessliche Sprache heisst "Englisch", Junge. Ich glaube aber, dass ich verstanden habe, was Dich hier irregefuehrt haben mag. Du bist wohl
(a) vierzehn Jahre alt
und
(b) ziemlich geistig unbegabt
und kapierst deswegen nicht, dass
(a) erwachsene Menschen Muttis Haus verlassen duerfen
und
(b) Menschen, die nicht geistig behindert sind, manchmal Sprachen lernen und benutzen, die nicht ihre Muttersprachen sind.

Lol that's far from the only grammatic error in your rant. The whole thing read like a retard having a stroke tried to write it. Sort yourself out and then come back and try again bucko.

I’m okay, if you’re disillusioned with this website then leave.
Being a comparative asshole is hardly the way to present one as enlightened as yourself.

Ignoring your previous misgivings and appearance or an angry demeanor, as an innocent, unloaded question, would you say you are content with your life?

Und Du bist einfach nur ein eingebildetes Arschloch.

Gott schütze die Natur! Dafür, dass Du wie alle anderen verrotten wirst!