Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


12 rules for life

- Mon, 15 Oct 2018 01:34:22 EST kbqhsVlv No.209498
File: 1539581662436.jpg -(13754B / 13.43KB, 650x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 12 rules for life
what a joke. How the fuck does this guy get a way with it? Somehow he got smilies, litteral colon-close-bracket's - :) - past the editor and in the forward he is cited as "one of the world's most influential public thinkers". A housemate happened to leave this book lying around so I started reading it but fuck me it's trash. The first chapter which goes on at waffling lengths about lobsters and other animals can be summarised as "don't let people fuck you over".
Is there something i'm missing here?
Molly Winnerfuck - Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:12:05 EST Bucl4KP/ No.209499 Reply
1539691925596.gif -(192045B / 187.54KB, 400x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Is there something i'm missing here?
Well did you clean your room BUCKO?
Hedda Goodfuck - Tue, 16 Oct 2018 22:52:16 EST ehCGSF3V No.209501 Reply
Hugo and Jake on youtube go over each chapter.
Yeah, it's pretty shit.
Fanny Sizzletock - Wed, 17 Oct 2018 03:03:22 EST VhdWon+z No.209503 Reply

My impression of Peterson is 2 fold maybe...

  1. His philosophy is basically common sense or, if speaking "philosophically," so boring as to be self evident. I'm not accusing him of tautology. But nonetheless alot of what he says is very obvious.

2. His popularity is, in large part, related to larger trend relating to... I suppose one could say... "single male internet types" and the original youtube video
Edwin Hedgegold - Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:59:18 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209504 Reply
>>But nonetheless alot of what he says is very obvious.
Honestly I feel like this applies to most people going off 'philosophically' nowadays. Being a philosopher no longer has anything to do with studying the history of philosophical debate and learning rigorous logic, but just mouthing off on naive realism and culturally relativistic concepts and calling themselves 'logical' for it.

>>2nd point
I think this is the thing people should really understand about him. He's really just your garden variety kinda dumb academic with his head up his ass, which are a dime a dozen. The only reason anyone cares about what he thinks is because he provides ideological cover to MRA-types...but to real academics or philosophers, his ideas have no weight at all. It's kinda like how if you want to be a famous climate scientist, just say you disagree with all climate science, and people who have a vested interest in denying climate science will suddenly hail you as one of the greatest minds of your generation...
Hamilton Bardforth - Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:07:32 EST VhdWon+z No.209509 Reply
Insofar as Philosophy "as a study" is concerned yea that's true- I would say though that that's related moreso to how certain sciences don't require the kind of, as it were, a priori or axiomatic considerations that are the common conclusions of these kinds of thinkers.

Your comment relating to MRA things notwithstanding, I consider MRA "asks" to be legal and not social considerations, more to the point, the deal is that while I said his stuff is mostly common sensical, and that remains unchanged, that doesn't mean everything he says is therefore not to be considered.

His sentiments relating to hierarchy and so on are useful in and of themselves only to a point. Then other considerations of whatever topic is being discussed can being.
Jack Pockdale - Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:18:12 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209510 Reply
Well, I think in general one has to evaluate statements by themselves. Merely because he provides ideological cover (and that's the primary reason he's famous) for a particular group doesn't make what he says good or bad, true or false, in and of itself. But, in the full analysis, he mostly combines truisms, simple scientific facts anyone with a proper general education should know, along with subtle sophistry to spin out a much larger ideology. If there were good ideas in there (that genuinely belonged to him) I would credit him as such, but from what I've seen, it's rotten top to bottom.
Hamilton Bardforth - Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:51:04 EST VhdWon+z No.209511 Reply
Rotten may be a bit harsh as a castigation goes. Might I suggest "obvious" or "overly simplistic"

Insofar as the principle that he provides ideological cover, and it being the reason for his fame, i honestly couldn't say. there isn't anything, in my own view, that could be considered on it's own and by itself to be "extreme" in one direction or another. though that could be my own problem since I try to separate the "thinker" in this case peterson, from those who 'support' him nominally. It's the same kind of "filter" as it were that I have now come to be familiar with in dealing with young atheists who are quite happy to play with their new found toy right to your face.
Jack Pockdale - Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:57:27 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209512 Reply
Well I would agree with that principle if he didn't actively court these types. He knows who is giving him so much attention, and even if he tries to never reveal that fact (especially since it would destroy his whole purpose for them, as being this seemingly unbiased even-handed thinker) he still will occasionally throw them a bone and say something more extreme. In his book he mostly keeps it together, but have you ever seen any interviews with him? He never goes over the line into blatant talking points, but he gets damned close.
Polly Drillerbanks - Fri, 19 Oct 2018 20:53:48 EST kbqhsVlv No.209513 Reply
Peterson is incredibly slippery. He never fully explores the implications of what he's saying, I don't think he can. He restricts himself to the examination of the individual or individuals as that is what his field - psychology - permits him to, quite exclusively. He cannot say 'women should not be allowed in the work-force' because he does not really have any tools to analyse such a phenomenon which is explicitly social. He reaches back to biblical and other ancient texts to argue that the individual body, rather than the collective or social body, is the prime cultural mode of being. He also rants against those who he terms 'collectivists' which could be anyone from nazi's to communists to lgbt activists, deploying confounding conflagrations. It seems that his solution for social problems is to grant everyone their own psychological therapist, to craft people on an individual level, to in effect make them patients in the care of psychology, rather than to treat them as rational subjects and let them actively work towards solutions for the social problems they face.
Hamilton Bardforth - Fri, 19 Oct 2018 21:54:09 EST VhdWon+z No.209514 Reply
>Well I would agree with that principle if he didn't actively court these types.

To that I couldn't speak. I mean to say that I don't know who he is courting. I state that seriously by the way, it's not some evasion. I assume the idea would be that he gives an ideological base to parts of the internet that now pretend to exist as political movements. But beyond that, as we've said, if what he provide is just obviousness and boredom, then I assume when it comes to his jolly-dumb followers parroting it back it's just as dumb and obvious. He knows who is giving him so much attention, and even if he tries to never reveal that fact (especially since it would destroy his whole purpose for them, as being this seemingly unbiased even-handed thinker) he still will occasionally throw them a bone and say something more extreme.

Again I don't really know? of anyplace that is a gathering of Jordan Peterson supporters?, so I cannot say what I've read them say because I've just not. I try to keep to my own book lernin' most of the time.

>In his book he mostly keeps it together, but have you ever seen any interviews with him? He never goes over the line into blatant talking points, but he gets damned close.

Speaking seriously I actually have watched, I would say, a fair deal of Peterson, again most of it is very simple stuff, as we've talked about. And other parts I completely disagree with. He's not a particularly well spoken man face to face. I've never read his writing so he may be more eloquent there. But having said that I think he's basically no Christopher Hitchens when it comes to what it really meant to be a "public intellectual."

He got popular, I'm sure we all remember, from that one youtube video where he was talking about the bill in canada and arguing with students or something. That's how he got popular. Then 4chan picked him up because it's 4chan.

I watched the debate particularly with him, Stephen Fry and Michael Dyson, The former two were on one side of the proposition and Michael Dyson, along with some other person who I only recall as being a white woman. The proposition was relating to Political Correctness. Peterson wasn't very good at it. He gets defensive quite quickly and it's unfortunate from just a debating standpoint that he cannot, generally speaking (no pun intended), do it.

I saw that BBC? Canada BBC? that one interview that was everywhere for a while where he kept saying no. Remember that one? I saw that... that was just mostly annoying.

I mean mostly I feel bad for him overall. He's far out of his area of expertise at this point and he's now become the fake leader of a fake political movement that really only exists on the internet. As soon as they find the next person they will drop him.
Phoebe Nucklefotch - Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:57:07 EST FUBFhAqG No.209515 Reply
1540058227997.jpg -(41269B / 40.30KB, 715x474) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think jp is dead on when he talks about lots of things, especially about people who dislike him. I was watching his shit long before he blew up in popularity, i think his lectures are good. I never really understood the hate, it often feels like the explanations are half ass explanations.>>209498
Priscilla Billingson - Sat, 20 Oct 2018 20:46:51 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209517 Reply
The only good things JP can talk about is his lectures on mythology. And even then there are other people better at it because he's not a classical professor or anthropology professor. He's just a psychologist.
Sidney Gankinkodge - Sat, 20 Oct 2018 22:15:45 EST kbqhsVlv No.209518 Reply
> especially about people who dislike him
do you mean those imaginary po-mo neo-marxists? Are they the same people that turned the frogs gay?
Albert Peddlefuck - Thu, 01 Nov 2018 08:54:56 EST VBH3q3ZR No.209548 Reply
Overrated egotistical fuck made popular by parroting libertarian propaganda in the form of "intellectual debate" and refusing to be PC(not a bad thing in and of itself). Half the shit he says is just nonsense or follows such a disconnected train of thought I can't believe anyone takes him seriously. His understanding of psychology reminds me of shit conservative political scientists say and almost never has nothing to do with rational psychology and usually pushes a political narrative to make him and his colleagues feel deserving of their status.

The few good things he says are mostly just common sense
Albert Peddlefuck - Thu, 01 Nov 2018 08:58:55 EST VBH3q3ZR No.209549 Reply
And also for pandering to a lot of the ideas of people like "pimps" or "redpills" (fuck if I care to really research the difference) and anti-social types who project their problems on everyone else. Which is sort of ironic they would support somebody who blames the same people but not the system that made Peterson rich and left them with zero opportunities.
Walter Bruttingdale - Mon, 26 Nov 2018 07:24:13 EST fb66YWtq No.209592 Reply
1543235053185.jpg -(99825B / 97.49KB, 617x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>what a joke. How the fuck does this guy get a way with it

He's basically the conservative slavoj zizek without any of the edge or insight.

Lots of disaffected young dudes are getting pulled into his shit because of alienation/social isolation. They are very loud about it on the internet which contributed to the amount of attention he gets.

It wouldn't be as much of a problem if he just preached his common self-help advice but he packages said advice along with reactionary politics.
Phineas Finningstock - Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:42:44 EST jWTVuJt9 No.209595 Reply
I dont really see how that makes him the conservative slavoj zizek. Afaik zizek (and most serious intellectuals) regard him as a pseudo-scientist.

I have actually been looking into self-help recently, apparently the seminal psychologist to work on self esteem -Nathaniel Branden- had a romantic affair with Ayn Rand. I get the sense that self-help and non-identitarian far right, libertarian and neo-liberal politics are different sides of the same coin. It all comes down to the individual to paraphrase jordan peterson. The dissolution of society requires strong and independant individuals. Rather than build a society based on love we have to become hyper rational individualistic supermen. Its all very Nitzschean... sad.
Beatrice Bocklekane - Mon, 03 Dec 2018 11:30:24 EST drRXUI87 No.209596 Reply
1543854624906.jpg -(54018B / 52.75KB, 540x718) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Rather than build a society based on love we have to become hyper rational individualistic supermen.
I agree, however if you can't love yourself how will you love someone else? I think being individual supermen doesn't exclude loving each other. individualism does not equal egoism. I think most people here hating hard on him are just being contrarian, i mean he's way too famous and you really shouldn't blindly listen to him about everything but acting like he has nothing to say or everything he says is bullshit is kinda retarded.

I agree with it being mostly common sense, but i guess that's not something everyone has so maybe it's a good thing. idk
Matilda Bropperville - Mon, 03 Dec 2018 22:25:15 EST oggYrtsP No.209597 Reply
1543893915695.png -(1111031B / 1.06MB, 1280x909) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
idk if what he says is so much common sense. Yeah sure, if you clean your room and stand up straight you will be a more well-put-together human being but that's only the superficial layer of what he's talking about. It's still a response that implies a bunch of complexities about how (he thinks) society should work. And that doesn't concern his cold-war style dismissal of marxism or the bizarre and nigh-on conspiratorial targetting of post-modernism as the scurge of society.

I mean, the basic problem is that society is pretty hard. If you look at Marxists such as Mark Fisher f.e. they will talk about how society's dissolution creates these individuals -mainly by individualising society through (economic) policy, culture and technology. Those are then people who could use a dose of (his) self-help medicine and will buy into it, it's also being marketed to them. True, he isn't just a snake-oil salesman but the strategy he uses to remedy these problems is pretty shit and an approach from the wrong perspective. Gabor Maté specifically identifies Peterson's approach with repression adn people's desire for repression...

> if you can't love yourself how will you love someone else?
It's possible to just turn that question around:if you've never been loved how can you see yourself as worthy of love?

You could boil this down to a basic nature-nurture conversation and the nature end of the scale motivates alot of JP's reasoning and arguments. I think though that its still crucially important to look at the immediate reality and society that we have today and inform our approach by examining how our societies came to develop these problems.
Albert Branderham - Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:04:42 EST KGYHppHw No.209598 Reply
1543950282288.jpg -(77040B / 75.23KB, 708x559) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209597 Thanks for good analysis.

Seems Ecopsychology partly points the way, with phenomenology, to a reconnection with reality (the natural world) and away from our late-modern abstractions. Which involves digging up alot of unpleasant emotions which have been suppressed within. That one author of that one book suggests group therapy. Ecopsychology, unlike environmental psyschology (viewing nature purely through an analytical detached lens), is attached to liberatory politics and a critique of authoritarian apparatuses running our society. So basically ecopsychology supposes a grounding, an increased awareness of or relation to what is real, within and with-out (internal and external).
Caroline Bombletark - Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:17:40 EST oggYrtsP No.209600 Reply
does Ecopsychology take after Lao Tzu? I just found this interesting passage:

>In Lao Tzu’s eyes, most of what is wrong with us stems from our failure to live ‘in accordance with nature’. Our envy, our rage, our manic ambition, our frustrated sense of entitlement, all of it stems from our failure to live as nature suggests we should. Of course, ‘nature’ has many moods and one can see in it almost anything one likes depending on one’s perspective. But when Lao Tzu refers to nature, he is thinking of some very particular aspects of the natural world; he focuses in on a range of attitudes he sees in it which, if we manifested them more regularly in our own lives, would help us find serenity and fulfilment.
Basil Purrytadge - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:18:28 EST KGYHppHw No.209604 Reply
1544735908863.jpg -(30710B / 29.99KB, 380x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Definitely a parallel there, and the author of that one ecopsychology book i keep referencing recognizes as much. There's also the field called naturalistic psychology which "approaches psyche in terms of both the natural ordering of our experiences and the natural 'others' who are prefigured in, or who call forth, our experiencing."

The idea we are a part of a natural order of things, and to line ourselves up with it, is of course very old. This in contrast to the modern cult of technology and its celebration of disembodied intelligence, that through technology we will transcend our human limits. (That's what 2Lw and yG5 were discussing in this thread: >>209390 .) In that book the author quotes another person who calls Taoism a religion that serves life by following "the way" of nature. Which is also connected to a Native American "Great Spirit" or "Great Mystery". As the Koyukon Indians believe: "the proper role of humankind is to serve a dominant nature." This is reminiscent of the myths of the medicine wheel, the labyrinth, and the mandala, which define oneself in relation to other life, their immediate environment, the world, and the universe, placing their-selves within all of it.

>Naturalistic psychology, accordingly, calls for a humbling of the self, an admitting that we emerge from and are beholden to serve a natural world much deeper and greater than our individual or personal selves. A narcissistic culture, however, takes the reverse view, insisting that the world of nature serve it.

Chuang Tzu is an old Chinese philosopher who represents one of the branches of Taosim. His central theme is freedom. Unlike the proposals put forwards by the Confucians, the Mo-ists, and the Legalists, are all different, but base their proposals on common-sense approaches through concrete social, political, and ethical reforms, the Chuang Tzu Taoist branch is grounded upon a wholly different type of thinking. It is the answer of a mystic, free yourself from the world.

He means, through a story of a man named Nan-jung Chu who went to visit the Taoist sage Lao Tzu in hopes of finding some solution to his worries. When he appeared, Lao Tzu promptly inquired: "Why did you come with all this crowd of people?" The man whirled around in astonishment to see if there was someone standing behind him. Needless to say, there was not; the "crowd of people" that he came with was the baggage of old ideas, the conventional concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, life and death, that he lugged about with him wherever he went.

>It is the baggage of conventional values that man must first of all discard before he can be free.

>If man would once forsake his habit of labeling things good or bad, desirable or undesirable, then the man-made ills, which are the product of man's purposeful and value-ridden actions, would disappear and the natural ills that remain would no longer be seen as ills, but as an inevitable part of the course of life.

From the Chuang Tzu translation by Burton Watson, the chapter "Autumn Floods" epitomizes the concept of transcending human concepts to reach heavenly ones.
"From the point of view of preference, if we regard a thing as right because there is a certain right to it, then among the ten thousand things there are none that are not right. [..] If we know that Yao and Chieh each thought himself right and condemned the other as wrong, then we may understand how there are preferences in behavior."

"A beam or pillar can be used to batter down a city wall, but it is no good for stopping up a little hole--this refers to a difference in function. Thoroughbreds like Ch'i-chi and Hua-liu could gallop a thousand li one day, but when it came to catching rats they were no match for the wildcat or the weasel--this refers to a difference in skill. The horned owl catches fleas at night and spot the tip of a hair, but when daylight comes, no matter how wide it opens its eyes, it cannot see a mound or a hill--this refers to a difference in nature. Now do you say that you are going to make Right your master and do away with Wrong, or make Order your master and do away with Disorder? If you do, then you have not understood the principle of heaven and earth or the nature of the ten thousand things, This is like saying that you are goin to make Heaven your master and do away with Earth, or make Yin your master and do away with Yang. Obviously it is impossible. If men persist in talking this way without stop, they must be either fools or deceivers!

He defines heaven as an euphemism for the unknown going-ons inside as well as the natural world (i think i understand it correctly).

"Horses and oxen have four feet--this is what I mean by the Heavenly. Putting a halter on the horse's head, piercing the ox's nose--this is what I mean by the human. So I say: do not let what is human wipe out what is Heavenly; do not let what is purposeful wipe out what is fated; do not let [the desire for] gain lead you after fame. Be cautious, guard it, and do not lose it--this is what I mean by returning to the True."
Edward Goodwill - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:44:53 EST h4qbyubn No.209605 Reply
1544737493102.jpg -(88136B / 86.07KB, 822x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I totally understand where you're coming from here but I feel it is important to take Jordan Peterson's entire bibliography into consideration when you're evaluating his worth as a thinker.

Admittedly, 12 Rules for Life is his weakest book. But pic related on the other hand is his magnum opus. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it has changed my life dramatically. This book cements Jordan Peterson as the greatest resevoir of penis-related philosophical insight since Diogenes.

I used to be like you. I used to gaze upon Jordan Peterson's dour visage and feel nothing but contempt. Now I am a convert. I look at Jordan and I see hope, wisdom and a sort of lumpy grey paste that does absolutely nothing to arouse your apetite but is nonetheless highly nutritious.

A friend of mine does the pyro for Jordan's live shows, I'm gonna pester him to get me a free ticket when he comes to my town. If not, I don't mind dropping 100 bucks for good seats. Then I'm gone settle in, drop a triple threat (ecstacy, viagra and human growth hormone) and get ready for four and a half hours of non-stop action.
Lillian Mablingnun - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:17:57 EST EAaZgnMX No.209608 Reply
OP, people don't write books to change the world, they write books to make money. People buy into shit like this, they buy books like this, and they feel like it helps their life somehow, and then the writer makes a dime off of them. That's all either the writer or the reader wants, and they get it. They don't care about the little details you care about.
Frederick Shittingville - Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:20:17 EST Pl6rJWm9 No.209627 Reply
Never paid him much attention but he is very pervasive and the way algorithms work in this day and age means watching 1 JRE podcast will lead to 100 pimp MRA MGTOW video recommendations on youtube. It is sickening and blatantly obvious how people get so easily radicalized now but whatever.

I don't agree with his weird relationship he contrives with IQ and life success and enjoyment. Apparently having a high IQ means you'll have a happy and successful life. I disagree with both from my experience. Maybe he has stats but I've never seen them nor has he discussed them in what I've seen. More intelligence leads to great or macro depression in my experience. IQ-poor types get far more emotional it seems and may have further extremes of unhappiness but it seems readily evident; the smarter one is, the more likely they will be a life-long depressive. Success is also meaningless in his context because he seems to apply it to job placement as if being in a neuroscience field makes you more successful than a landscaper.

That is the most off putting thing I've seen from him and it is about the only thing I've seen from him. For him to also be a clinical psychologist, I think he does his works a disservice by appealing to god so much as well. I don't think you have to be an atheist but his religious beliefs seem to influence his work far too much. I've noticed he likes to make the connection between living a meaningful life and being spiritual on some level. He just generally seems to be big on self-help psychology and I think that field in general comes with a lot of horseshit.

>I also don't like any appeals to god or higher authority in general.
Phyllis Dambleman - Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:20:56 EST OaolgcgK No.209628 Reply
1553084456368.jpg -(61498B / 60.06KB, 1200x628) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
lol he's selling lobster themed clothes now
Reuben Brookwill - Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:30:10 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209629 Reply
See, lobsters have like, serotonin, so I'm supposed to be an asshole.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.