Are his commentaries good literary criticism?
>>24925107i thought he mostly critiqued disney movies
lol
>clinical psychologist who spent decades personally helping hundreds of people severely afflicted by mental illness>academic who published dozens of widely cited papers ranging in subjects varying from practical counseling, historical/philosophical roots of psychology, research paradigms in neurology...>research scientist working on the operationalization of personality constructs as well as the neurobiological basis of addiction>university professor who mentored dozens of grad students into academic, research, and counseling careers>assisted in the development of software that increases the likelihood of at-risk students reaching graduation as a side project>accidentally became internationally famous and ended up publishing !3! best selling books (so far) as well as organizing lectures in various countries throughout the worldinb4>he's a drug addict tho!>his office was messy once!>er...you don't have a dad!>er...wash your dick!>his daughter is a slut!>y-you're Jordan>he likes the Jews!>he's controlled opposition!Still triggering trannies who don't like the truth, libtards who propagandize, racists he won't associate with, and pseuds who can't tell the difference between a media personality and real life
>>24925107He doesn't have any but if he did, no.
>>24925107He’s a decent jungian that’s about it
>>24925344Is this real? This shit reads so badly nevermind the content
>>24926236Newfag.
>>24925107Why the fuck did you open with an AI pic of this old retard?
>>24927043>AI?
>>24925107how does he pull off being smug and pencildicky at the same time? impressive.
>>24928767The exact opposite of the way you don't pull off being a pretentious virgin.
hes become very cringe and needs to step away for a couple of years to reflect on the JQ
>>24925348He's obviously very competent in his field and I applaud him for taking a stand against tranny bullshit at great personal risk.He's a shitty culture warrior though and got shit on by Shlavoj ShiShek
>>24928873>Peterson: my wife is pretty mid, but your girlfriend is downright fugly, Zizek. All your girlfriends to date have been pretty Goddamn ugly.>Zizek: I sleep with ugly women all the time Jordan. But that's okay, because the woman I eventually settle down and marry will be beautiful. So I guess I win.Zizek's Marxist "argument" in a nutshell. It's hilarious how easily critical literacy dopes are fooled by rhetoric.
>>24925107no but he served as a gateway to literature to me, since he found le meaning hidden inside tales, basically saying fiction is untapped knowledge of people or stuff like that. He only made me realize I was missing on fiction but that's it
>>24928843vitriol and sass, what a predictable fanbase. has more in common with elden ring orchestra attendees
>>24925119ben shapiro does that more often but you're on the right track
>>24925107Commentaries on the Bible? Yes. Mostly because they echo classical theology like the Church Fathers. And there is no shame in re-iterating those.>>24928873Zizek shat on Peterson online but the debate was pretty uneventful.
>>24930715the matt dillahunty debate is better if you want something more "eventful"
>>24930727That Matt Dillahunty had an eventful debate requires more faith than Christianity proper. Was there any highlight besides "stuff from other cultures looks weird" and 50 re-iterations of "prove God with science, not my problem it has 0 methods to achieve this" ?
>>24930737i thought the part were peterson couldn't figure out how to use the term self-evident properly when all he should have said was evident was funny. overall the debate is interesting because peterson gets emotional over strange stuff, like his cigarette cessation claim was a superstitious interpretation of some old study. it's more interesting than any of those Atheist Experience debates if that's what you mean. the talk isn't really about proving God, but about how to determine well-being with or without a divine authority. there are definitely highlights worth watching, if you can put up with the insufferable clickbait titles designed for dopamine-addicted teenagershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxwuErxth3U
>>24930764oh yeah and this behind the scenes talk is cool revealing how peterson only debates people approved by his publicist kekhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw9xFLPz85I
>>24930764Thanks for the link, they do actually open with an incredibly interesting point - reductionism. Shame that instead of grilling Dillahunty on his naive stance, Peterson redirects this discussion to people being implicitly theistic. And when MD tries to bake normative claims into physical laws (and physical definitions), JP just fools around... this shit is frustrating, I ain't watching no more lol
>>24930690>elden ringCool projection but I don't know what that is ;)
>projection is when someone knows more things than me
>>24932970>t. autist who thinks his knowledge of Sonic the Hedgehog lore is power
Peterson's gonna commit suicide any year now and his fans will never recover. Probably will see hundreds of copycats occur overnight kek
>>24925348How do you post this much glazing without even a hint of embarrassment?Maps of meaning is unironically a good book, and his resistance to the gender bill was admirable and argued on firm principles against coercive speech. Everything he’s done since then has been a grift of the highest caliber. Obviously he’s gotta keep calling out the woke mob to sustain himself because that’s how he got famous, but all of the pseudo-religious waffle he talks on podcasts or in debates is laughably transparent. He won’t say definitively what he actually believes because he doesn’t want to alienate sections of his audience, but ultimately he’s a secular cultural Christian and as much a post-modernist as the people he attacks.
>>24930715Zizek had his kiddie gloves on, Peterson wasnt even worth debating because he had only read the communist manifesto and assumed a literal propaganda pamphlet is an accurate representation of an entire ideology. He just poked fun at him and then did some Hegelian hand-waving magic to try and find some common ground.
>>24933090Still crazy that he would show up to a debate on marxism having never read marx
>>24933085How do you write so many buzzwords while convincing yourself 1) you have a point to make and, 2) it's worth sharing?
>>24933327What buzzwords are you specifically referring to? Peterson throws around the postmodernist label constantly so it’s fair game as far as I’m concerned. In his case the accusation really is a confession. If you actually listen to him talk about Christianity, he only ever really talks about the moral and spiritual value of the story of Christ AS a story, not as god literally made flesh. He’ll say we should all act as if God exists, but won’t actually affirm the existence of God. So when I say he’s a secular cultural Christian, those aren’t just buzzwords, that’s literally what he is (even if he would rather endlessly obfuscate than openly admit it).
>>24933090>Zizek had his kiddie gloves onZizek is pure word salad rhetoric about intangible ideals, so what does he do? Go from kiddie gloves to hand puppets?>literal propaganda pamphletSo the guy bungled a vignette but I'm in the wrong for not wanting to read his epic multi-part novel. Right.
>>24933374>Zizek is pure word salad rhetoric about intangible idealsThat’s funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing about Peterson.>So the guy bungled a vignette but I'm in the wrong for not wanting to read his epic multi-part novelAre you really too retarded to understand what propaganda is? It’s pulp fodder designed to get the proles riled up. It’s not a solid explication of the Marxist worldview, if you’re going to debate about communism and you’ve only read a pamphlet intended for sub-80 IQ miners, then you shouldn’t be surprised when your opponent doesn’t even bother to debate you.
>>24925107>99.7% pain, 00.3% disgust
>>24933360>What buzzwords are you specifically referring to?You averaged almost 1 per sentence. Not reading the rest of your post because it's obvious you're filtered and can't think.
>>24933400>no specific examples>zero engagement with the content of my postsWhy even bother to reply then? Peterson glazers really are an odd cult. Can’t handle the slightest bit of criticism (which they didn’t even bother to read) without chimping out.
>>24933418>Why even bother to reply then?Because you needed to be told.
>>24933387>It’s not a solid explication of the Marxist worldviewSome paranoid schlock about boozhie vampires constructed entirely out of bad math and stolen economic theory?
Welp, looks like Peterson wins again. The rest is seething.
>>24925344I’m going to show this to anyone who doesn’t understand what bad prose means. What an unpleasant thing to read.
>>24933863Newfag.
>>24933792Imagine bumping your own thread with more Peterson glazing. Take your benzos and clean your room pops
Welp, looks like Peterson loses again. The failures-to-launch are seething.
>>24934175>>24934831>The rest is seething.
>>24935311>>The rest is seething.
>>24935350>>>The rest is seething.
>>24935350>big madPeterson has that effect on resentful losers. Try cleaning your room, grub.
>comic book "posting" on /lit/
>>24925348He's an egghead who trivializes the hardships of others by loosely comparing his own boring life with others who are way out of his league. NEVER should you take advice from someone who doesn't leave their living room too often, if at all.
>>24935532How many international lecture tours have you done?
>>24935543>loaded question and appeal to accomplishmentsStick to video games and anime
>>24935547The traditional cope and seethe of the unaccomplished and unpublished /lit/izen.
>>24935547>0Got it. Next time don't be such a retard that you end up self-refuting, lol.
>>24935543>popular is....le good
My unpopular opinion is that all the critique of his refusal to answer "are you a Christian" comes from brainlets that can't understand why he might refuse the question.
It's obvious why this closeted atheist refuses to answer the question
>>24935567>NEVER should you take advice from someone who doesn't leave their living room too often (>>24935532)And how many international lecture tours have you been on?
>>24935571100% correct.
>>24935597More than you
>>24928862My theory is that he's actually very redpilled but knows dying on that hill is not worth it. Anyone can name the Jew but he has other priorities. Probably just cope on my part though.
>>24935613>popular is....le goodNo one made that argument, brainlet.
>>24935619I've had more tours than Peterson. Therefore, I win. Simple as!
>>24935623No one made the argument to which you're replying. Are you a schizo or just really dumb?
Still winning! Don't forget to pray for our friends in Russia today, friends!
Reminder that the autists stimming themselves by repeating the same nonsensical vitriol about Peterson, thread after thread for year after year, are pathetic ideologues and resentful idiots. His best feature is that he gets them to out themselves as such.>libtard /lit/Seethes that Peterson turns them into reactionaries by pointing out their bullshit.>pseud /lit/Thinks cynically dunking on mass media meant for a general audience is a sign of intelligence.>chud /lit/Thinks he's part of a Jewish conspiracy preventing them from having sex.>tranny /lit/Thinks he's a "literal nazi."
I've never really paid any attention to this guy but anyone who inspires this much seethe from certain anons must be onto something. A hurt dog will holler.
>>24925107Which ones? You mean the Old Testament? Or Pinocchio?
>>24935647>t. has never heard of von Franz
>>24935543>lecture toursCompletely pointless now that most people can read and write on their own.
>>24935651I can't tell if this is an answer to the question but if it isn't, go to the camps.
>>24935653Anon.....I........
>>24935655>t. has never heard of Bettelheim
>>24935658I found a video of that anon at an art gallery even though pictures exist. He's a hypocrite. Pic-related.
>peterson can't answer questions directly and sincerely>peterson fans can't either
>>24935571Midwit ideologues are mind broken by refusal to play within their prejudice. This is why Peterson filters so many despite being accessible and easy to understand.
I'm interested in literature for its emotional depth and aesthetic qualities, whereas Peterson seems exclusively interested in the psychological insights that stories provide, which maybe has some value but isn't what I care about and I think is a poor indication of literary quality
>>24936289trusting psychologists with anything more complicated than fantasy was a massive error
>>24935571Brainlet here, care to explain why he would refuse to answer?
>>24935687That’s because the vast majority of Peterson fans haven’t even read Maps of Meaning, they just saw him DESTROY a female bbc journalist with FACTS and LOGIC and thought it was based. I don’t think they know what his actual beliefs are, I’ve never once seen any Peterson fan on /lit/ articulate them without relying on the same sophistic tricks that he himself uses to avoid answering a question.
>>24925107Juden Peterstein
>>24937343I'll try. The question is often insincere, and even if it were, it's probably not possible to answer it. When Peterson asks the questioner to define "Christian", that's not juvenile rhetoric. Does anybody know what it truly means to be Christian? Who are we do even guess who will go to Heaven? When someone claims to be a Christian and inevitably falls on their face, the same questioners will point and laugh; "look, he is a hypocrite!"I believe Peterson is practicing radical humility. Pharisees cloaked themselves in titles. Peterson is letting others decide if to call him a Christian, and in some sense, that's more valuable than whatever comes from his own mouth because it won't be confused for pride.
>>24937343Peterson didn't refuse to answer it so much as he answered it in a way fedoras can't reconcile with their own bias. The answers he gave expanded the purview of the question by elaborating on the subject and fedoras, who wanted to box Peterson in via a loaded label and play within their prejudice, were filtered and became frustrated. Basically, instead of allowing them to attach a label in a way they could use to talk past him he began unpacking it; this actually clarified his beliefs better than a simple yes/no but to someone who wants to attack based on terminology they've loaded according to a specific prejudice, of which they're likely not even aware, it's a mind break. This is why most of the responses they gave relating to it are a flat "Peterson wouldn't answer the question" (e.g. a lot of them fall back on the title of the video Peterson had nothing to do with) instead of interacting with the content of what he actually said.
>>24937500>Does anybody know what it truly means to be Christian? Who are we do even guess who will go to Heaven?So, definitionally speaking, a Christian is someone who will go to heaven? Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a Christian who does not make it to Heaven?>I believe Peterson is practicing radical humilityWell that all depends on what you mean by “believe”. (Read this in Peterson’s voice for maximum ironic effect)
>>24937560>Basically, instead of allowing them to attach a label in a way they could use to talk past him he began unpacking it; this actually clarified his beliefs better than a simple yes/no but to someone who wants to attack based on terminology they've loaded according to a specific prejudiceHow is this any different to progressives who refuse to define themselves in terms of the gender binary?>”are you a woman?”>”well, let’s unpack that. Thats very loaded terminology you’re using there. What do you mean by “woman”?”
i hope he dies in agony
>manchildren are sperging out in manchild core thread>Peterson thread suddenly has angry posts as wellCoincidence? I think not kek
>>24937564>So, definitionally speaking, a Christian is someone who will go to heaven? Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a Christian who does not make it to Heaven?I think that's one attribute of a Christian, yes. If you call yourself a Christian and end up in Hell, you weren't really a Christian, were you?>Well that all depends on what you mean by “believe”. (Read this in Peterson’s voice for maximum ironic effect)Haha, I suppose "I think" would have been more accurate.
>>24937588 It’s a fair point, and one I admit I had not considered. I do think however in practise it does come across like a strategy of rhetorical distancing rather than any form of humility. In fact it looks rather like the very postmodernists he tends to criticise (rejection of labels, hermeneutics of suspicion, grand narratives, etc..). I think you’ve made a decent case that his motivations aren’t as maligned, though I’m not entirely convinced.
>>24937573>How is this any different to progressives who refuse to define themselves in terms of the gender binary?They're completely different subjects hence why the example you gave is muddled and reverses the roles of those that usually ask for a definition.
>>24937618Thank you for the compliment. I mean this as no offense to you, but again, I do think he is not simply practicing immature rhetoric, and I think that those who perceive it as such are le fedora Reddit atheists who are using that exact bullshit rhetoric all the time. They've been poisoned by their own rhetorical weapons so to speak and that's all they can see now. They don't realize their own question is insincere and they can only see Peterson as being insincere.
>>24937684>I think that those who perceive it as such are le fedora Reddit atheists who are using that exact bullshit rhetoric all the timeAs much as I dislike the “I heckin’ love science’ crew I don’t think that’s accurate, those new atheist types are very into the idea of clear and rigorous definitions, in fact they’re the very people who have been crucifying Peterson for his refusal to pin himself down with labels (cosmicskeptic literally mediated a debate between him and Dawkins and challenged him on this very point, Matt Dillahunty did the same thing in his debate with him too).As for myself, I’m suspicious simply because I’ve known about Peterson for a long time and have mixed feelings about him. Maps of Meaning is an unironically good book, and I genuinely admire him for speaking out against the gender bill in Canada. but I can’t deny that all his podcast appearances since then, his alternative online university, his garish and tasteless suits, etc.. feel a little grifty. So when he comes across as evasive or obscure in debates, it puts me on high alert.
>>24936289why do you think that emotional depth and aesthetic qualities and psychological insights are mutually exclusive? i would say they are wholly and completely interrelated. how can one exist without the other? im not even interested in jordan peterson, but i fail to see why you dont think that the psychology of the reader or consumer of said art isnt a foundational pillar of the consumption itself
>>24937755>those new atheist types are very into the idea of clear and rigorous definitionsNo they're not. They're into simple definitions they parrot back and forth that mark them as an in-group. One of the main reasons the fedora fad broke apart is that they were unable to properly engage a rise in feminism so their movement split into woke vs. woke reactionaries.
>>24937755I actually like CosmicSkeptic a lot too. I think Dawnkins just gets butthurt when Peterson can't give a one-sentence answer you could put in a box and rip into with FACTS and LOGIC, but it's a tremendously complicated question (again, brainlets failing to realize the depth of the question and his answer).What exactly is grifty about the suits, interview, and suits? The fact that he charges money for the university?I think he's being careful, precise, and humble rather than evasive or obscure.
>>24937805>No they're not. They're into simple definitions they parrot back and forth that mark them as an in-groupI mean, they literally are. You might not agree with them, but they are rigorous and transparent according to their own (scientific) framework. That’s WHY the split happened in the first place- their simple (static) definitions collapsed when confronted with the dissolution of the gender binary and all the screeching shemale olympians that arrived with it.Also, all communities do this. It’s how a culture (atheistic, religious, or otherwise) proliferates itself. You can frame the other side reductively, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re probably saying the same thing about you. See pic relatedBeyond that, I’m not really sure what this has to do with the clarity or rigour of their definitions. Maybe leave your personal problems (and hat) at the door?
>>24937818Do you genuinely believe that this outfit is giving humility? It’s like that kid who wears expensive designer clothing to school but gets awkward when you compliment him on it, or acts like it’s nothing. Trying too hard to appear like he’s not trying at all.
>>24925119fpbp
>>24937950>I meanUsually I stop reading when someone starts a post that way but I'll make an exception. >they are rigorousLol, no. They're simplistic which is the opposite of rigorous.>according to their own (scientific) frameworkFirst, no one has their "own scientific framework". Second, Nu Atheism attempted to cannibalize the idea of scientific enterprise in order to proselytize a belief structure (a mix of toothless contrarianism and scientism). Adherents were sold a short cut that benefitted their self-esteem but it turned out falling back on the idea of science doesn't mean very much sans a historical and philosophical understanding of science itself. Nu Atheism liked Popper because his work can be interpreted to mythologize science but there's 100 years of work that has moved well beyond him (not unlike the "conflict thesis" regarding science and religion, which Nu Atheism promoted, that was itself also overturned about 100 years ago). >That’s WHY the split happened in the first placeNo. The split happened because Nu Atheism created a bunch of bloviating ideologues and when a competing ideology crept in the movement didn't have the tools to deal with it. >all communities do thisOnly if you trivialize the discussion by overgeneralizing. >Beyond that, I’m not really sure what this has to do with the clarity or rigour of their definitions. Asserting simplistic "definitions" and having a meltie when someone refuses to play a game in which you use them to monopolize the interpretation of concepts is a clear indication the side doing the asserting is disingenuous. This is why fedoras end up filtered an mind broken when Peterson refuses to accommodate their prejudice.
>>24938057>Do you genuinely believe that this outfit is giving humility?No. I think it's fun though. You can have a sense of whimsy and still engage in serious topics at the same time. I don't think he's worn that while debating/arguing on the topic of God.
>>24938057>is giving
>>24937791I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive. But I disagree that they are wholly and completely interrelated. For instance, a psychology textbook can have deep and accurate psychological insight, but that does not mean it has emotional depth or aesthetic value, so clearly that psychological depth is not a sufficient condition for those two things. Conversely, you could perhaps make the argument that psychological insight is necessary for emotional depth and beauty, but I fail to see what psychological insight is provided by the Goldberg Variations or watching a sunset, unless you consider psychological insight to include any concrete awareness of deep emotions.
>>24938260>a psychology textbookNo one is talking about textbooks. If you want to reference academia you should consider the fact Freud/Jung both had immense influence on literary criticism. NTA, btw. Your original post was so dumb I refused to give it a (You) because it should have been ignored.
>>24938287My point is that the emotion expressiveness and aesthetic value of a work is not necessarily related to the psychological insight it provides.> Freud/Jung both had immense influence on literary criticism.I’m not impressed by Freudian readings of art
>>24938314>My point is that the emotion expressiveness and aesthetic value of a work is not necessarily related to the psychological insight it providesAnd you're wrong because psychological insight creates depth which is directly related to "emotion expressiveness" and tangentially related to beauty in narrative. >I’m not impressed by Freudian readings of artNo one cares, anon. You're not important.
>we have paul tillich and chris hedges at home
>>24938327Refer to the examples I gave in my previous post. What is the psychological insight of the Goldberg variations? What is the aesthetic value of a psychology textbook?
>>24938343>Refer to the examples I gave in my previous postDon't need to. Psychological insight creates depth and enhances narrative. Simple as. >Goldberg variationsWe're talking about literature, pseud. >What is the aesthetic value of a psychology textbook?Again: no one is talking about textbooks. If you want to bring academia into it the fact is Jung/Freud had immense influence on literary criticism. Sorry you were wrong on the internet. Maybe be less pretentious in the future (that will make it less embarrassing for you).
>>24938356You are retarded. You are saying psychological insight creates emotional depth. I gave an example of something with psychological insight but no emotional depth. You have not attempted to refute this.> We're talking about literature, pseud.The same principles that apply to other forms of art can also apply to literature.
>>24938410>You are retardedNo you. >I gave an example of something with psychological insight but no emotional depthAs I pointed out we're not talking about textbooks, anon. I know you're not very bright but, if you continue to feel the need to impose your pretentious midwittery on myself and others, do try and keep up.>You have not attempted to refute this.It's refuted by the fact we're not discussing textbooks, dumb-dumb. No one is arguing psychology textbooks are aesthetically beautiful. >The same principles that apply to other forms of art can also apply to literature.To a degree but not when we're specifically addressing the role of psychological insight in literature. Wow, you're a dumb one.
>>24938435> It's refuted by the fact we're not discussing textbooksYou have conceded that there are written works with psychological insight that are not emotionally expressive and do not have aesthetic value. To refute my point you must explain what is unique about literature that makes it so that psychological insight becomes a sufficient condition for expressiveness and aesthetic value, which you haven’t done
>>24938454>You have conceded that there are written works with psychological insight that are not emotionally expressiveNo one argued that all written works that contain psychological insight are aesthetically beautiful, dumb-dumb. The point was that psychological insight creates depth directly related to "emotion expressiveness" (as you retardedly put it) and enhances narrative.>To refute my point you must explain Lol, no. No, autist. That's not how this works. Your point is asinine because psychological insight plays a significant role in experiencing literature as it's directly related to emotional signifiers and the interplay of such when it comes to character and narrative. For example, the end of Cathedral is beautiful only if you understand the psychological growth/shift which took place on the part of the narrator--this notably happens via the attempt to physically render the titular cathedral because the narrator found it to be beyond words. The sublime exists specifically because of psychological shifts and the impact such have upon yourself and, in the case of literature, a given character. >psychological insight becomes a sufficient condition for expressiveness and aesthetic valueAnon, all you've done is ignore people giving you various reasons of why the point you attempted is idiotic. Psychological insight indicates you probably want to have wave an entire field of study because you think it marks you out as superior. The reality is it marks you as an idiot and a laughably pretentious one at that.
>>24938513You seem to be claiming that psychological insight is necessary for good literature, which I still disagree with, but my main point is that it is not sufficient for good literature, which you have yet to provide substantial arguments against. I agree that for a lot of literature, psychological insight is important, but there are great works of literature that are great because of their style and form rather than their psychological insight.
I just checked out this thread 'cause it was on the front page, I don't ever browse /lit/. Do threads usually devolve to two anons calling each other retards like this?
>>24938601They usually devolve into some faggot thinking he's above it all but still wants (You)s for some reason. (You).
>>24938562It wasn't but if that's what you want to shift the goalposts to in order to feel less dumb about being wrong on the internet be my guest.
>>24938630Thank (you)
>The Incel PhilosopherSlayingthedragon bros....our response?
>>24938644To clarify my original post, I was criticizing Peterson who values psychological insight in literature for its own sake, and seems to imply that that is the thing in itself that makes literature good. I am interested in the psychological insight of literature only as a means of serving the emotional and aesthetic value of the work, but I do not believe that those things are equivalent, and I have provided examples which support that claim.
>>24938665Psychologists are automatons with no aesthetic sensibilities and no faculties for pathos or emotive contemplation
>>24938665>aestheticYou're a fag.
>>24938665You were wrong on the internet and you're turning it into a life event. My guess is you have a mix of autism and vulnerable narcissism.
>>24938700>a mix of autism and vulnerable narcissismprobably a psych major
>>24938723You're definitely a faggot.
>>24938862uh oh someone feels seen
