Jordan Peterson - Neo-classic views in 5 mins or less

Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
(2 votes)
Page 1 of 23 123411 ... Last
Results 1 to 25 of 551

  1. Post
    #1

    Jordan Peterson - Neo-classic views in 5 mins or less

    This guy is forming a bit of a following between people who feel aimless (millenials) and people who are looking for ammo against sjw's.

    Who's got an opinion on him and his following?

  2. Post
    #2
    Funnily enough he's crossed my path in the last week or so, for the first time.

    He's possibly a bit negative, but overall he challenges status quos and issues surrounding the human ego quite well, for an academic.

    As for his following, there's a core of anti SJW there which will hurt him in the long term.

  3. Post
    #3
    some very interesting philosophy ideas with him, tbh i think he is quite right on many things. I personally believe his core of anti SJW will be the one defining reason to listen to him because much of the current SJW movement with stuff like micro aggression , 3rd wave feminism and gender pronouns is frankly not the world worth living in.

    one day tho, it would be hilarious to insist to a Canadian that he/she must address me with some made up internet pronoun like i identify as an attack helicopter with napalm missle payload and if you do not , it is hate speech LOL>

  4. Post
    #4
    >critiques pomo whilst fundamentally understanding it
    >his positions are fundamentally pomo

    lmao

  5. Post
    #5
    I wouldn't say that, he appears to still adopt moral positions.

  6. Post
    #6
    I was listening to him last night. Religious apparently which is a bad start

  7. Post
    #7
    It doesn't sound like he's religious, it's more he laments the decline of religion and the inability for materialism (so like science and stuff) to provide a shared stable keystone on how to behave.

  8. Post
    #8
    he isnt quite religious either, he is more attracted to how religious text show how similar fundamental modern philosophical and psychology methodology and doctrine mimics each other

  9. Post
    #9
    bradc wrote:
    I wouldn't say that, he appears to still adopt moral positions.
    What definition of post-modernism are you working with that holds moral positions as mutually exclusive? By that token, most of the major theorists of post-modernity are not post-modernists.

  10. Post
    #10
    Most of them point to morality being individually subjective. Anything goes, to various degrees.

    He's still proposing a universally true morality people *should* abide by.

  11. Post
    #11
    Can only watch him for short clips find him a rambling mess mostly, and by the time he gets to an answer, everyones forgotten the question.

    Reminds me a lot of grandpa simpson.
    His personal war on Lefty SJW's and the universities that embrace that culture is entertaining.

  12. Post
    #12
    i find the personality/iq research stuff most interesting

  13. Post
    #13
    Where do you think you sit?

  14. Post
    #14
    bradc wrote:
    Where do you think you sit?
    when i did an online test a year ago i got

    - moderate openness to experience and neuroticism,
    - low agreeableness, conscientiousness, introverted

  15. Post
    #15
    What do you think drives your interest in this field? Just curious more than anything, it seems to be very important to you.

    Interesting that Peterson reckons behind intelligence, conscientiousness is a strong marker behind life/business success. Although it's a lot harder to measure.

  16. Post
    #16
    bradc wrote:
    materialism (so like science and stuff) .
    I haven't paid enough attention to him to know, but by "materialism" he's probably taking aim at the Marxist theory of historical/dialectical materialism rather than enlightenment principles.

    edit: I'm being a bit assumptive here tbh

    bradc wrote:
    Most of them point to morality being individually subjective. Anything goes, to various degrees.
    Which ones are you referring to? Unless you're speaking of liberals like Bauman or Beck, the majority of them are simply making an argument that norms, ideals and the constitution of the subject are contingent on factors external to the subject which, for endless reasons have become increasingly complicated under late capitalism. It kind of seems based on this he's taking aim at post-structuralism and conflating it with post-modernism too.

    This really brings into question why so many of them are committed to moral projects seeking liberation, especially when if they were such aimless nihilists, surely they would have simply internalized the anti-humanism of Marx's epistemic break like everyone else who relies on Althusser and stuck with a teleological conception of history, then following from that not bothered doing any writing seeking a way out of "postmodernism" as the "cultural logic of late capitalism" (i.e. the state of things today, not an ideology internalized by academics and 'SJWs').

    FWIW I'm not familiar at all with Peterson because I can't stand Youtube videos over written articles, but from what I've seen marking students' essays he seems to just take a lot of weak potshots at Foucault and SJWs while treating postmodernism as an ideology (it's not). He seems good at capitalizing on the many pitfalls of popular identity politics (which y'know, most theorists of postmodernity also lament), while simply looking towards a turn towards molar identity/tradition and I'm yet to see a single student use anything he's said to accurately diagnose the state of politics today (e.g. incorporating an analysis of the various fractions of the right and the bourgeoisie as the most ruthless exploiters of polysemy and dissolution of truth regimes under postmodernity).

    Maybe it's a thing within shitty American academies that are all too happy to teach bad courses that reduce Foucault to discourse analysis, but academia has moved far beyond his critique and I'm baffled at why anyone thinks his work is some sort of Top 10 most brutal anime deaths against critical theory lmao.

    He's still proposing a universally true morality people *should* abide by.
    I don't understand where this is going but I'd love to know how he gets there lol.
    Last edited by Gesellschaft; 3rd November 2017 at 1:26 pm.

  17. Post
    #17
    Gesellschaft wrote:
    I haven't paid enough attention to him to know, but by "materialism" he's probably taking aim at the Marxist theory of historical/dialectical materialism rather than enlightenment principles.
    Materialism is a word I may have used badly. His take is that scientific fact has supplanted faith based religion, but it fails to allow humans to address existence.
    Gesellschaft wrote:
    Maybe it's a thing within shitty American academies that are all too happy to teach bad courses that reduce Foucault to discourse analysis, but academia has moved far beyond his critique and I'm baffled at why anyone thinks his work is some sort of Top 10 most brutal anime deaths against critical theory lmao.
    I have no idea, Peterson has some big issues with American Universities also.
    Gesellschaft wrote:
    I don't understand where this is going but I'd love to know how he gets there lol.
    To me that is the most interesting part of Philosophy, a quest for an ideal human mode of being. Almost all philosophy has some form of merit, but a lot of it can also be bupkiss, I think it gets itself lost in human self importance. We have probably the most complete body of evidence and arsenal of tools to establish the ideal mode of being and this is being held back by human ego.

    Fundamental to this I think is living it, rather than studying or thinking about it.

  18. Post
    #18
    bradc wrote:
    What do you think drives your interest in this field? Just curious more than anything, it seems to be very important to you.

    Interesting that Peterson reckons behind intelligence, conscientiousness is a strong marker behind life/business success. Although it's a lot harder to measure.
    the genetic aspects of human nature are important in order to understand reality

    in the context of first world countries (welfare and equal opportunity) and the modern knowledge economy which rewards brains, its common sense that smarter, harder working people will be more likely to be successful.

  19. Post
    #19
    Jumboots wrote:
    the genetic aspects of human nature are important in order to understand reality
    I might be splitting hairs here, but I don't think reality is something a human can understand. At best you can experience it.

  20. Post
    #20
    Watched a fair bit out of curiosity. He's clearly intelligent... I just don't like his moaning tone. He also seems more sure of himself and his theories than some of his more likeable peers. I do value some of his modern day analysis, and it's sad that he has become a beacon of sorts for a lot of assholes.

  21. Post
    #21
    He had (what I thought to be) a very good conversation on the Jocko Podcast last week. Went over a lot of previously explored ground, but seemed especially concise and relevant this time.

  22. Post
    #22
    I know a few followers. Some of them are explicit about getting a defacto father figure out of him. Others certainly need it.

  23. Post
    #23
    He specifically talks about the illusion of the father figure, and that the individual ultimately needs to answer most burning questions themselves. Rather than appealing to a father figure for approval, or answers.

    So I guess if you know people doing that, they're clearly not listening very well.

  24. Post
    #24
    Yeah I can imagine that, though his videos have been chopped up into 5 minute topics a lot so it is very easy to go on youtube and google jordan peterson + topic. Whether that's intented idk. But it's possible and accessible and to be fair not all advice is useful at certain points in ones life. You don't exactly explain that reality is an illusion to someone during a panic attack. Instead you tell them that eating this orange will help.

  25. Post
    #25
    Yeah I guess there's a lot of searches for "Jordan peterson owns Sjws".

    A lot of the advice is useful at all points of life, I think the problem is people expect advice to be instantaneously life changing, which is not how behaviour modification usually works.