Why don't you like this guy?

Why don't you like this guy?

>inb4 leaf

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YC1pvjyKYr4
youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/120132023/#120132023
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/119277518/#119286689
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/111469379/#111478135
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Most of us do like him.

I think he makes some mistakes.
Like turning the word truth into a convoluted mess to get away with being Christian.
But for the most part, I think Jordan is a gem that's teaching our young people the good principles of being on the right.

Peterson is based.

Somewhere in this interview he does a better job than he did in that Sam Harris conversation of explaining what he means about "facts" vs. meaning/value:
youtube.com/watch?v=YC1pvjyKYr4

it isn't convoluted at all
Does it serve your purpose and doesn't hurt others? well, you're acting true

his "truth enough" was an excellent argument that either went completely over sam harris' head or he simply pretended to not understand it so he didnt have to agree with it

0:55

youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE

Why are we ascribing truth value to actions?

its not about that at all. watch

The same reason we ascribe truth value to propositions.
What is an action but an acted upon proposition albeit framed slightly differently.

too soft on the kike

It's not about liking or disliking. We just don't want e-celebs shilled here, or at least a big portion of us don't.

I imagine user could answer my question in less than two hours and a half.

Could you give me the context and purpose?

Because actions have moral value and truth is (in Peterson's explanation) a moral category above an essentialist/materialist category. But he also explains it was evolution that *made* us this way--such that the truth rests in social space rather than pure material space, because our survival came to depend on satisfying needs and priorities within social hierarchies.

his vids have by far some of the best pol-like rhetoric for modern usage, that alone should make them ok to be discussed here. its a disservice to the board to think jp threads are shilling him

He's a psychology professor, hating Jews ain't his job.

Please give me an example, used by Peterson, in which it is useful to declare an action true.

I like Peterson. He's weak on racial questions though, and so he isn't able to speak to some of the more important issues of the day.

Jordan is red pilling so many faggots that his name alone is political.

He's not bad, basically a less insightful and hence less blackpilled version of the last psychiatrist.

Just as he gives little redpills to us, we will give little redpills to him

>God isn't real but it's irrelevant anyway 'cause hierarchical structures

fascinating

fascinating

See the section of that video () that starts at about 46:25.

If he knows about the jews, the hate should be instinctual. If he knows about the jews and their lies and doesn't hate them, then there's cause for concern.

I would pay top dollar to see Jordan Peterson debate Jared Taylor. I think there is actually a coherent belief system between the two that acknowledges real human nature, but I doubt Peterson would be willing to go there.

>Could you give me the context and purpose?
>give me the truth of truth
I already did

He talked about chimpanzees and is now getting into rats, but hasn't ascribed truth value to their actions. Are you sure this is the segment? Where does it start, precisely?

An example used by Peterson, then. That would probably clarify what you meant to me.

I think so, just keep going--he's going to start talking about our evolutionary inheritance being such that "facts don't speak the truth"--at least the sort of truth that helps us make meaning for ourselves that we regard as existentially important.

peterson is not talking about a logical value in the formal sense

>Does it serve your purpose and doesn't hurt others? well, you're acting true
So if I slap you hard in the face, and just to be clear it hurts you, this action isn't true. If it doesn't hurt you and it served my purpose to hit you, it is true.
I can't see how this conception is useful.

This sort of truth, which I'd call philosophical, can be figuratively expressed in mythology and poetry. But action, unless it's designed to be 'about' it, as in a drama, doesn't seem to benefit from this qualification.

>But action
I mean ordinary action, most of our everyday actions.

..Not sure what you mean by this. But he's not speaking in analytical-philosophical categories and trying to pinpoint what "value" is formally. He's saying that value (and hence truth, as we experience it) lies between people, within a tribe/society, and correlates with what helps the group survive.

I very much enjoy him- I wish there were more passionate and well spoken multi-discipline conservatives like him. We get history, politics, psychology, religion, philosophy. Jordan is pretty bad ass.
There needs to be more people with other ideas that cover other topics and other areas. He's got a right-ish wing monopoly on Jung and solzensykn. (Another, albeit more lefty leaning philosopher with good Jung stuff is Richard Tarnas- he talks about astrology a lot but he's also really well read).

But I do

>I can't see how this conception is useful

peterson's argument is solely that ideas that generate courses of actions that give your social sphere darwinian fitness are truer than ideas which are simply "correct" according to objective scientific method but result in decreasing the fitness of your society

I see. Action got into the discussion simply because it's described in myth?

he is talking about contemporary meta-narratives (christian vs secular) that have direct relation to how people behave

>But action, unless it's designed to be 'about' it, as in a drama, doesn't seem to benefit from this qualification.
Well, I think the point of his focus on myths and archetypes, in this context, is that they model right (and wrong) action for people. So if your thinking is saturated in the myths your tribe has produced (in order to guide its survival) then you're always aware of the correct way to act (in order to further that survival). In this way, all action is like drama--and drama was originally a means of telling and examining and reinforcing myths.

Someone once mentioned in another discussion that he got tangled up by claiming a 'lie' inside a story told by Harris was true merely because lying was the ethical thing to do. I assumed this is what was meant here - Ok, but then you simply say it's true, although it's expressed figuratively, even if believed literally. I don't see how that would lead to any complications.

Niggeranon, I'll call a spade a spade and state that you're trying to read only the boiler plate summary of JP's points and hope to integrate it as a useful piece of information.

I don't believe it's as easily summarized as you think it can be. If you have but one takeaway, let it he that you'll need to give him a longer chance to express himself. Maps of Meaning, a 400-level psych course he teaches is available on YouTube along with my favorite lectures of his on a Personality course.

Most anons in the know find Peterson through the SJW wrecking, but stay for the intellectual content. His points made here take longer to integrate then the tranny bashing clips. You'll find it valuable, I guarantee it.

>you simply say it's true, although it's expressed figuratively, even if believed literally
That's...how literature, and all figurative culture (representative art, etc.) works. That's who we are as a species. We read the figure into our own lives. I don't think that needs a defense per se.

Harris is a tactical nihilist. He doesn't believe in anything outside of his neu-Athiesm pseudo-buddhist bubble

>You'll find it valuable, I guarantee it.
I'll give it a shot. The only thing I 'hoped to integrate' was the first reply itt with my memory of a comment by another user in another thread.

Well, exactly.

You mean it was a trick?

~t. user who cares and has sorted himself out

Past the black pill is Peterson, I've circled back from athiest, to agnostic, as now after Peterson into some weird "Who cares, we are God" state of understanding of personal motivation.

When you finish both series, you'll not question any of the systems, but rather say "How could these be written in any other way?" This coming from a purely biological stance - the bit on the rats playing and letting the smaller ones win, along with mice enjoying being tickled. These are the foundation of morality and motivation.

I sure hope you do, user. I've literally watched 100++ hours of his lectures and series, and know I can barely begin to express a lot of his points - you'll have to start from square one. He's spent a lot of time refining how to convey his thoughts, the entire biblical series is literally him trying to vocalize and summarize the wealth of thoughts he's drowning in.

he's been asked about them and he kind of sidesteps the question.

What do you mean by like and what do you mean by this guy?

t. Jordan Peterson

Probably because he is just another fad in a line of Internet fedora tipper memes involving Sagan, Harris, and now himself.

Probably because his critique of post modernism is laughable and shows he has grasped the bare basics of it.

>Being this pathetic at arguing
Let your opponent pick the definitions, so you can fight their logic instead of vague, leftists whisps who are about as concrete in definitions as their hair color

...

Where can I find his lectures?

Harris is a fucking retard who got destroyed by a fucking cartoonist.

Yet he was a fucking icon to all the fedoras of four chan

Where does an image like that even originate?

He has to be - look at how pained the guy is during some public Q&A's.

He surely has a level of self control beyond most anons, in that there's recognized benefit by not going full autist - but instead leveraging his education status to pass on redpills in a more lasting manner.

Kys, Peterson is winning the long game. Note how the lefties have been utterly unable to stop him so far.

maybe you should take the time & educate us on the details the prof is missing...

i'm sure you arent doing anything important

>that ideas that generate courses of actions that give your social sphere darwinian fitness are truer than ideas which are simply "correct" according to objective scientific method but result in decreasing the fitness of your society


>Whine about post-modernism
>Roughly shill for the way Hegel understood action, idea and concept.

Well well well isn't this just another epic tier cognitive dissonance within Peterson

>~t. user who cares and has sorted himself out
I don't think there's an end to sorting yourself out, but if you're implying I haven't at all, I can only point you to archived posts that reflect some of my understanding, as I can't show you my life.
On Christianity archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/120132023/#120132023
On rescuing your father, an improvised interpretation - I still don't know how Peterson uses the expression, I was only contributing my thoughts. archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/119277518/#119286689
Basic motivation archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/111469379/#111478135

I tend to like these topics, but haven't been in the mood to read or watch videos on them lately.

YouTube.

He has his own channel, and sections for each. I'm a mobile bed-posting faggot so you can link yourself

>namedrop and misrepresent what he's saying as "whining" without actually explaining your reasoning at all

Hello kike shill. KYS.

...the internet.

>or he simply pretended to not understand it so he didnt have to agree with it
Which that dumbass would do

Pretty beat, desu but I'll read your posts come morning.

Perhaps my sorting comment could be better stated as nowhere in my life have I been told that I'm pathetic, weak, easily controlled - but also contain the ability to make my life a little less horrible.

My strongest takeaway of his archetypes if that of the Phoenix, and how you don't need to have your life go up in fiery hell to be able to burn off the bad feathers bit by bit in a controlled, progressive state of improvement.

Maps of Meaning goes into this more deeply, in how every moral decision, however small, guides your life. And additionally, every crumb under your desk that you ignore, or bill you leave unpaid triggers a threat response that grows and consumes your life.

These two concepts have literally spurred more personal growth and development in the past year of my life than the decades before. Of course I'm not sorted out, but it's better to be handed the TOOLS of self improvement than temporary attainment of perfection.

I don't need to explain anything since the guy wrote what Peterson thinks, I just needed to point out that JP is shilling for how Hegel understood Action and Idea, while trying to bitch about post-modernism.

It's also v. funny that he is such a Nietzsche fan when Nietzsche was a proto-post modernist.

>It's also v. funny that he is such a Nietzsche fan when Nietzsche was a proto-post modernist.

Shows that you really haven't really touched on Peterson at all if you think that that's all there is to that.

If you're interested, only the first link leads to long posts, btw. The other two are mid-sized single posts.

Good luck on your journey.

I watched enough to see who his favorite thinkers are. He really should've stayed in the realm of pseudo-science instead of trying to discuss hard philosophy.

He hasn't named the Jew yet, so I don't give a fuck.

Actually reading now.

Thanks friend, and if we don't speak again, die well.

...

You're welcome. Thanks for the rec.

Kinda looks like the guy from left for dead 2

all canadians deserve to be shot
starting with me

I see this all the time, why do assume the ontological premises is the same between Hegel and Peterson? You see a coherence theory and start shitting the bed with fallacious leaps and anachronistic interpretations. Nietzsche being a "proto-post modernist" is just a terrible Marxist reading of a few selected works, the fact educators can still get away with this when all his works are at your fingertips for free is astonishing. Not to mention Nietzsche's thought changes drastically throughout his life.

And on this day, the garden tools will stay in the shed.

this. and basically buying the ww2 lolocaust narrative wholesale. it would be one thing to just be quiet on it, but to actively go out and talk about muh Hitler and muh Nahtzees! for years is retarded.
other than that he's great. he should shut up about "the alt-right, authoritarianism" blah blah blah. but i don't blame him for not wanting to take more heat than he already has.

It's just that he's repeating himself over and over. I listned to his lecture about Buddhism, he talked maybe 30 mins about the history Buddha and then for 2 hours on Gulags, Solzhenitsyn, radical left and the danger of Postmodernism. He can't keep his mind on a subject

lol

You are a retard. The scientific "Sam Harris" understanding of "truth" is already a redefining of an ancient concept that doesn't lead to clarity or understanding at all.

Peterson makes mistakes, but repudiating that scientistic nonsense isn't one of them.

>he's repeating himself
>He can't keep his mind on a subject
?

>Nietzsche was a proto-post modernist

Fucking kys imbecile. Nietzsche was a perspectivist who essentially turned life itself into the divine principle; his assertions all grow from this and there is nothing post-modernist about them.


Peterson interests me because sometimes he goes so far as to sound almost Evolian, certainly quasi-fascistic, but then he rebounds back to "i'm just a classical liberal moderate hur durr" almost as a reflex. Can't decide whether he's hiding his power-level, or just doesn't understand the roots of the ideas he promulgates; if I had to guess i'd guess the latter tho.

Whoops. Meant i'd guess the former.