Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zaphod

jordan peterson

Recommended Posts

it’s truly astonishing that this cheesy dude who’s cashing in on pop cultural outrage by regurgitating ignorant cliches about pc culture that one finds in a thousand op eds in practically every major news outlet from fox to nyt has followers who seem to honestly believe he’s some kind of untouchable, masculine philosopher hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

there were at least two serious articles posted here that dealt with his shit quite thoroughly. it would take you much less time to seek them out than to write that post above. it's kinda stupid to ignore those and write "people who disagree with him are largely incapable of competing within the realm of ideas" instead.

should i read and adopt someone else's opinion rather than formulate and share my own?

 

also, in terms of memetics, someone posting an article in response to something jordan peterson said barely comes close to what, the 20 years of lecturing students he's done? the probably millions of total hours of youtube videos & podcasts consumed? that's what i mean by competing within the realm of ideas

 

it seems you're a bit confused. you protested that peterson's ideas were not criticized in a serious manner, while in fact you simply missed/ignore those instances where they were, and still continue to do so claiming those simply don't exist.

 

also, why do you read and watch peterson instead of forming your own ideas about the topics he covers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*refer to serious manner articles for my well-formed nuanced opinion*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These hair transplants aren’t gonna pay for themselves. Fork it over, beta bitches.

 

haha, I noticed that too. We've come a long way but not that long. Really, not facing baldness and walking through the fire of that makes you a pussy

Edited by marf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imagine if the entire substance of jordan peterson's argument against C-16 was "lmao, this shit is fucking retarded." that'd be the end of it, and noone would give a shit what he had to say. one might even go so far as to think he was a bit of an imbecile.

 

instead he seems to have, quite cunningly, couched his ideas in a corpus of psychoanalytic work that he's been constructing for decades - work which is not only positively resonating with a large number of people, but it also seems to be nearly impossible for those that disagree with it to rationally criticize or dismantle.

 

it's almost as though someone is going to need to come along and articulate a coherent counter-argument to properly deal with him and move the dialogue forward. maybe that's actually the point - that the very progress and social reform (that those who would disagree with peterson are clamouring about) are to be made through a rigorous debate of the validity of various ideas; and that insulting and belittling those that you disagree with only serves to impede progress and create more of the chaotic strife and disarray that the world would be far better off without.

 

Imagine if I had never claimed that was the entire substance of his argument - oh that's right, I never did.

 

 

there were at least two serious articles posted here that dealt with his shit quite thoroughly. it would take you much less time to seek them out than to write that post above. it's kinda stupid to ignore those and write "people who disagree with him are largely incapable of competing within the realm of ideas" instead.

should i read and adopt someone else's opinion rather than formulate and share my own?

 

 

 

 

Asks for counter-arguments, then refuses to read them when presented. Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the Canadian law states that it's only in public institutions like universities, you have to use their preferred made-up pronoun, that's still a HUGE move in the wrong direction.

 

Again, if you are federal employer, or a provider of services or housing, then you may not discriminate against them on the grounds of gender expression or identity. As an individual student on campus, you can discriminate to your heart's content, unless of course the university code of conduct prohibits discrimination.

 

In Canada, we have tended to enjoy providing protection to those who have been discriminated against. So why is this a huge move in the wrong direction? The "made-up language" argument unfortunately doesn't work, all language is socially constructed. Go and google "doxa", "orthodox", and "heterodox".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those of you who think this guy is some kind of decent thinker here's what he says about foucault in a few minutes of a lecture:

 

"a more reprehensible individual you can hardly ever discover or even dream up no matter how twisted your imagination." lol ok deep shit.

 

"in the late sixties and early seventies [foucault was an] avowed marxist, way after anyone with any shred of any ethical decency had stopped being a marxist." patently false. foucault was a member of a communist party ("without knowing marx very well" ) from 1950-52. it was a passing experience in his 20s. his published work contains very little on marx and practically the entirety of it is critical. his most sustained examination of marx appeared in "the order of things" in 1966 and was written in response to a  "hagiographic glorification of marxist political economy" for which he was roundly condemned by marxists, a pattern of condemnation he experienced throughout his entire career.

 

jp claims foucault was "suicidal his entire life." this is entirely unsubstantiated by the standard biographies of foucualt (eribon, macey, miller) and has no bearing on his argument. it's a petty lie meant to make his subject look bad.

 

jp claims mf "never fit in anywhere" and was "peculiar, bitter and resentful" about this for his whole life. this is entirely false and unsubstantiated by the literature (a pattern appears!). foucualt was widely loved and celebrated throughout his career, recognized by his peers, etc. his tenure and lectures at the college de france are an important example of his acceptance by the academic establishment and broader intellectual community in france.

 

i stopped watching the lecture after like five minutes bc peterson was just rambling about what a hierarchy is. guess what? a hierarchy evaluates and excludes. for some reason he thinks this is an important observation that also somehow disproves foucault's entire work. lmfao

 

what one finds in peterson's presentation is a series of falsifications and distortions meant to substantiate an entirely trite "psychologizing" of foucault along the lines that his entire body of work can be characterized as resentment about never fitting in. it's not only completely untrue, it not only says absolutely nothing substantial about any of foucault's ideas, but it's just incredibly fucking stupid. it's some idiot making up biographical factoids and offering them as "critique." it's not even good "psychology."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chen posted a very good article that completely dismantles peterson's take on "post modernism". conveniently enough no one responded to it and instead people keep posting about nobody having a counterargument. peterson has not read most of the source materials written by the thinkers he's critical of. that's deeply dishonest for a so called intellectual to be doing. why anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.

Edited by zaphod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RPS ( I think that’s who posted it, apologies if wrong, misspelled name) posted an even better article from the baffler. It was really well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chen posted a very good article that completely dismantles peterson's take on "post modernism". conveniently enough no one responded to it and instead people keep posting about nobody having a counterargument. peterson has not read most of the source materials written by the thinkers he's critical of. that's deeply dishonest for a so called intellectual to be doing. why anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.

 

in light of the fact that it's rather easy to demonstrate not only his incorrect interpretations of the subject matter he endeavors to speak about but also his declarations of outright falsehoods on the matter, i think it's obvious his appeal has less to do with the integrity of his thinking as much as it does with the fact that he crudely tells people what they like to hear. people don't care that he gets all this shit wrong bc it makes them feel good that videos of him "owning" people can be trumped up as more substantive bc he's a "psychologist." the amusing irony is that his pronouncements about "insane," "crazy," "harpy sisters" or "avowed marxists" who are "suicidal their whole life" would be somewhat less ridiculous if he wasn't a "psychologist."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is great. It's helpful for watmm. It's proving extremely effective at identifying all the cute lil baby brain boys we got here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so precious; we get to watch them grow, their budding little minds swell with new ideas, eased in by the soothing cooing of daddy peepee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i’d also like to point out that he doesn’t even represent the free speech debates accurately. for one thing, he entirely fails to acknowledge that a tactic such as “no platforming” is widely debated on the left and among literally avowed marxists (cultural and otherwise). even his opponent zizek has been writing about and against liberal pc culture since the early 90s. peterson is presented as some kind of courageous thinker telling the hard truths the left don’t want to hear, which simply isn’t true.

 

additionally, in the campus wars throughout the years it has been the left that has been targeted the most consistently and with the most extreme consequences. if one takes a look at the history of campus culture wars in various western nations from the 60s it’s impossible to ignore the ways in which leftists students and faculty have been targeted, policed, fired, expelled, etc. it seems to me that jp doesn’t make any effort to explain this legacy and the ways in which it persists in the 21st century.

 

we live in an era where people like bari weiss, who in her college years campaigned against the employment and presence of pro-Palestinians on campus, can write opeds in the nyt about how pc liberals want to destroy free speech. or alan dershowitz can be featured in a documentary presenting the same notion even after his disgusting legacy attempting to ban books and ultimately pressuring a university to ruin an academic’s career bc of a personal vendetta based on his books on israel-palestine.

 

it’s indeed curious that jp only seems capable of speaking truth to power in the form of falsehoods against the traditionally powerless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was gonna shop 'foucault' onto the boxing glove but thought that might be too much

post-4979-0-30095400-1518981751_thumb.jpg

Edited by auxien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still good oc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure they could write with a little less rhetorical flourish, but that doesn’t invalidate their ideas, as Searl repeatedly points out.

Also Bordieu is really not that tough to get. Foucault can be wordy but not terrible. Just takes a bit of time to connect the dots.

Actually he mentions Foucault’s Berkeley lectures, the ones on parrhesia would fit this topic to a T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait foucault is hard to understand? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure they could write with a little less rhetorical flourish, but that doesn’t invalidate their ideas, as Searl repeatedly points out.

Also Bordieu is really not that tough to get. Foucault can be wordy but not terrible. Just takes a bit of time to connect the dots.

Actually he mentions Foucault’s Berkeley lectures, the ones on parrhesia would fit this topic to a T.

Foucault isn't the worst offender, and Searle had time for Foucault in person, but not with his writing (though he thought his later work was less bad). Searle certainly wasn't a fan of their ideas either, he's only pointing out that at certain rare times it was possible to drag out some form of coherent argument out of them, not that he agreed with it. Searle's book on social construction is the only sensible thing I've read on the subject btw.

 

Not sure why JP is picking on Foucault in particular rather than Derrida though (...or Lacan or Deleuze, to name a few), who was never anything other than impenetrable, maybe that's all he's actually read? Or maybe it's just because Foucault had more impact politically? I've tried to read some Derrida, complete waste of time. It's possible there's something lacking in the translation, but I doubt it (if there's anything of note there it should be able to survive translation), even reading Rorty's writings on him doesn't really highlight anything worthwhile in his thinking (so I'm not coming at him from a purely critical POV). Rorty isn't bad though himself, blending sensible American pragmatism with the French/German nutters; not that I agree with him on all that much, but at least he wrote in a sensible manner.

Edited by caze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from perusing a few of his lectures, rather than certain podcast content, Capitalism & Schizophrenia by Deleuze isnt mentioned once, which is surreal given it would be a key target

 

Foucault & Judith Butler both support the notion that sex is biological & gender is cultural, which Peterson might've got some traction with especially when being interviewed by non-academics for larger audiences but still keeping things detailed when overdosing on differences between males/females

 

still, strange times made more strange by new media & a degradation in the standards of academic discourse of key ideas & concepts which a lot scholars Peterson derides contributed to, whether folks agree with them or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone get jordan peterson a copy of renoise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chen posted a very good article that completely dismantles peterson's take on "post modernism". conveniently enough no one responded to it and instead people keep posting about nobody having a counterargument. peterson has not read most of the source materials written by the thinkers he's critical of. that's deeply dishonest for a so called intellectual to be doing. why anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.

 

Who benefits from doing away with objective truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure they could write with a little less rhetorical flourish, but that doesn’t invalidate their ideas, as Searl repeatedly points out.

Also Bordieu is really not that tough to get. Foucault can be wordy but not terrible. Just takes a bit of time to connect the dots.

Actually he mentions Foucault’s Berkeley lectures, the ones on parrhesia would fit this topic to a T.

Foucault isn't the worst offender, and Searle had time for Foucault in person, but not with his writing (though he thought his later work was less bad). Searle certainly wasn't a fan of their ideas either, he's only pointing out that at certain rare times it was possible to drag out some form of coherent argument out of them, not that he agreed with it. Searle's book on social construction is the only sensible thing I've read on the subject btw.

 

Not sure why JP is picking on Foucault in particular rather than Derrida though (...or Lacan or Deleuze, to name a few), who was never anything other than impenetrable, maybe that's all he's actually read? Or maybe it's just because Foucault had more impact politically? I've tried to read some Derrida, complete waste of time. It's possible there's something lacking in the translation, but I doubt it (if there's anything of note there it should be able to survive translation), even reading Rorty's writings on him doesn't really highlight anything worthwhile in his thinking (so I'm not coming at him from a purely critical POV). Rorty isn't bad though himself, blending sensible American pragmatism with the French/German nutters; not that I agree with him on all that much, but at least he wrote in a sensible manner.

At 54 seconds into the video you linked, Searle literally says “he wrote a lot of good stuff.” He being Foucault.

 

As for social construction, read Durkheim. Then read Berger and Luckmann.

Much better than Searle (objectively and subjectively).

wait foucault is hard to understand?

I mean, not to sling insults around, but for the average Peterson fanboi...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Foucault isn't the worst offender, and Searle had time for Foucault in person, but not with his writing (though he thought his later work was less bad). Searle certainly wasn't a fan of their ideas either, he's only pointing out that at certain rare times it was possible to drag out some form of coherent argument out of them, not that he agreed with it. Searle's book on social construction is the only sensible thing I've read on the subject btw.

 

Not sure why JP is picking on Foucault in particular rather than Derrida though (...or Lacan or Deleuze, to name a few), who was never anything other than impenetrable, maybe that's all he's actually read? Or maybe it's just because Foucault had more impact politically? I've tried to read some Derrida, complete waste of time. It's possible there's something lacking in the translation, but I doubt it (if there's anything of note there it should be able to survive translation), even reading Rorty's writings on him doesn't really highlight anything worthwhile in his thinking (so I'm not coming at him from a purely critical POV). Rorty isn't bad though himself, blending sensible American pragmatism with the French/German nutters; not that I agree with him on all that much, but at least he wrote in a sensible manner.

At 54 seconds into the video you linked, Searle literally says “he wrote a lot of good stuff.” He being Foucault.

 

 

...and 19 words into the post you're replying to I literally wrote: "though he thought his later work was less bad" (that's what he's referring to about good stuff for the most part, and after that quote of yours he literally says 'but in general he just wrote badly').

 

As for social construction, read Durkheim. Then read Berger and Luckmann.

Much better than Searle (objectively and subjectively).

 

I have. You can't really say Durkheim is better than Searle, they're not really dealing with the same stuff for the most part. Searle's work on social construction was tackling it primarily from an epistemological standpoint, Durkheim is more pragmatic in general and has a wider focus and his epistemology is basically pretty similar to Searle's anyway, if a bit more old-fashioned (much like his ethics).

 

Berger and Luckmann's book on the other hand was not at all any good, like pretty much anything in the phenomenological tradition, and not really in line with Durkheim (there's an influence there, but it's not foundational) so not sure why you link them together. Searle's book is basically an antidote to theirs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol c'mon man. 'his attitude prevents any reasonable discussion' = 'he won't agree with me'

 

you can think that if you want, but this is like when people say "why won't people debate milo?"

 

maybe because he's a condescending prick who would throw a tantrum and refuse to admit he's wrong whilst resorting to every tactic he claims to hate about his opponents. 

 

plus these are people who have created their own universe of ideas and they will only debate within their sphere according to their rules. it's impossible to win with them. but this does not mean they are infallible, it just means they've gone to great lengths to create the illusion of being infallible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...