Getting your shit together starter pack - Page 5

Ok well, we can agree that it is a (defeasible) form of an appeal to authority, but it isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, which is the important distinction to make. An appeal to authority is used "in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context." I think linking to a large group of professionals who have many differing views but who have a consensus on one particular topic is relevant and shouldn't be dismissed as a fallacy. I should have linked to the askphilosophy threads before linking to the circle jerk subreddit, that was a misstep on my part. Don't let that prevent you from learning a few things from educated people. There are plenty of threads that treat his ideas fairly and critically.

Right, I know it was mostly the anarchocapitalism stuff (which I think is part of the silly stuff too) but I find it weird how you gravitate towards these people whose confidence is derived from a strong objectivist stance. Peterson studied Ayn Rand in his youth just like Stefan and he had to use all of his mythological studies only to come back full circle and conclude that there are objective/absolute truths independent of us and people who don't agree with them are destructive and worthy of scorn etc. It's as unsophisticated as thinking gets and I wouldn't feel compelled to listen to anyone who believes that. Whatever is good in there is not original and I'd rather direct people to those original sources. For Peterson that would be Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dewey, Campbell and Jung. As for the self-help tidbits, a few of his sound bites might be original but overall I'd be hardpressed to choose him over quality ancient philosophers like Lao Tsu, Zhuangzi, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.

I do grant people who find JBP to have valuable things to say that possibility, it's just that there is such a huge personality cult around him that there's very few of those people. Just recently someone posted a thread about dreaming about Peterson and there was like 10 other people who jumped in and expressed how great it is to dream of him or whatever. It's creepy as hell. There are YouTube channels dedicated to applying the wisdom of Peterson to life. I've never dreamed of Schopenhauer or seen any channel dedicated to his wisdom. I also haven't read Schopenhauer in years, fwiw, but I read some parts of a book I was gifted by prof Frederick C. Beiser that goes into the developments of German Idealism/Pessimism which I plan on finishing after I'm done with more important stuff.

When I say he's transphobic, I'm not saying he's going to disrespect every trans person he comes across. I mean it in the broadest sense that he is uncomfortable with anyone who doesn't conform to society's gender expectations. As a deviant myself I'm sensitive to that kind of thing and it's very visible that he has an issue with deviants of all sorts, whether they are antinatalists or trans/nonbinary people. What he's comfortable with is what is normal and traditional.

nvm delete

You are a leper in Peterson's world Loco. Everyone stay far away from Loco. The world will break into gulags with any ounce of crediting anything Loco has to say. Have you even read the Gulag Archipelago bro? Neither have I but this is truth. The world is a complex mechanism and we have to keep everything as traditional as possible. It's God's will. Haven't you studied the bible. Let me tell you a story about Cain and Abel. Have you even seen Pinnochio? Beauty and the Beast? Sleeping Beauty? You have to listen to Dr. Peterson break down these movies. It may be the key to life. That and cleaning your room. I once saw someone holding a "Poverty Is Bad" sign on the street and thought that was a worthy cause but now I make my bed every morning and clean my room 3 times a day. I couldn't even name a post-modern thinker but fuck those guys. They are trying to destroy the world like those damn nihilists.

Sidenote: I have heard Peterson talking about tragedy and nihilists responding "who cares, it won't matter in 100,000 years." Has anyone actually had any experience with that? I am basically a nihilist trying to figure out worthwhile things to do and I hear a story of someone getting raped the last thing I think is "oh, who cares, it won't matter in 100,000 years."

I mean I would love to see how Peterson responds to the idea that we should all just walk into extinction hand in hand. That makes the most sense to me. It will never happen as long as Catholicism is around. Those fucks have like 10 kids. Too many accidental kids. Too many people thinking having kids is the meaning of life or at least a meaning in life. I obviously don't think murdering everyone with a nuclear weapon is sound but if a meteor were to head our way it would be a little scary and a little sad but it's got to happen sooner or later right?

"You don’t have to engage with postmodernists, socialists or Marxists because they are wrong, Peterson tells his followers.

When you’re arguing with a socialist, you’re arguing with someone who is “murderous and genocidal,” and who would be more than happy to fill our streets with blood if it meant winning the ideological war — “the precise antithesis of good.”

“Postmodernists don’t believe in facts,” he said. They are motivated by hatred, not compassion, and they see truth as an obstacle to overcome before implementing their sick agenda."

https://www.ubyssey.ca/culture/Jordan-peterson-versus-everyone/

"This is Peterson’s favourite rhetorical play. Once you define the “other” as evil, bloodthirsty tyrants, you leave no room for any definitions they propose — anything your opponent says becomes an extension of Pol Pot’s ideology"

"It paints your opponents into a corner: they can accept the wisdom you are willing to dispense, or they can live a savage life, untethered by morality.

It makes you a hero, and it makes them easy to dismiss."

If there is anything that gives Jordan B Peterson boners these days it is the idea of being a hero in his own story.

Peterson's Crusade against postmodern neo-Marxist indoctrination cults! (aka liberal arts education)

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/a...-calls-indoctrination-cults-1.4396974

"One thing I think is dangerous about Peterson is he claims to know the one true way towards the future and I think what history has taught is that there's no one person who is ... that prescient," they said.

–]apricots256 18 points 8 days ago
This is a problem with Patreon, Youtube, etc people - your massive income is dependent on you giving your audience what they want. At this stage you're practically an entertainer. Before long you start eating your own dogshit and sliding into a zone you can never, ever come back from.

On November 20 2017 10:47 Loco wrote: Ok well, we can agree that it is a (defeasible) form of an appeal to authority, but it isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, which is the important distinction to make. An appeal to authority is used "in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context." I think linking to a large group of professionals who have many differing views but who have a consensus on one particular topic is relevant and shouldn't be dismissed as a fallacy. I should have linked to the askphilosophy threads before linking to the circle jerk subreddit, that was a misstep on my part. Don't let that prevent you from learning a few things from educated people. There are plenty of threads that treat his ideas fairly and critically. Right, I know it was mostly the anarchocapitalism stuff (which I think is part of the silly stuff too) but I find it weird how you gravitate towards these people whose confidence is derived from a strong objectivist stance. Peterson studied Ayn Rand in his youth just like Stefan and he had to use all of his mythological studies only to come back full circle and conclude that there are objective/absolute truths independent of us and people who don't agree with them are destructive and worthy of scorn etc. It's as unsophisticated as thinking gets and I wouldn't feel compelled to listen to anyone who believes that. Whatever is good in there is not original and I'd rather direct people to those original sources. For Peterson that would be Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dewey, Campbell and Jung. As for the self-help tidbits, a few of his sound bites might be original but overall I'd be hardpressed to choose him over quality ancient philosophers like Lao Tsu, Zhuangzi, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. I do grant people who find JBP to have valuable things to say that possibility, it's just that there is such a huge personality cult around him that there's very few of those people. Just recently someone posted a thread about dreaming about Peterson and there was like 10 other people who jumped in and expressed how great it is to dream of him or whatever. It's creepy as hell. There are YouTube channels dedicated to applying the wisdom of Peterson to life. I've never dreamed of Schopenhauer or seen any channel dedicated to his wisdom. I also haven't read Schopenhauer in years, fwiw, but I read some parts of a book I was gifted by prof Frederick C. Beiser that goes into the developments of German Idealism/Pessimism which I plan on finishing after I'm done with more important stuff. When I say he's transphobic, I'm not saying he's going to disrespect every trans person he comes across. I mean it in the broadest sense that he is uncomfortable with anyone who doesn't conform to society's gender expectations. As a deviant myself I'm sensitive to that kind of thing and it's very visible that he has an issue with deviants of all sorts, whether they are antinatalists or trans/nonbinary people. What he's comfortable with is what is normal and traditional.

Indeed a consensus isn't a fallacy but "my professional friends say this" isn't an expert consensus, if you had used different wording or went more into detail perhaps it would have been better, but still its generally a silly way to argue.

I gravitate thoward objectivism ideology because I partially agree with it, its hard and fruitful but limited and nearsighted while subjectivism becomes a nihilistic anti-intellectualism filled with charlatans.

I've usually argued your side (against my mom mostly), why read and follow these mediocre gurus instead of reading much better ones if you have them easily available, and I think I see her point a bit more, philosophy can be heavy and difficult to read, and while presented by people like JBP its more digestable so I guess its "better than nothing".

I get that you believe JBP to be a negative force overall for the world, I disagree, I think many young ppl will listen and find purpose and structure and yeah sadly he will spread some stupid conservative ideas but I think in general he does good and I also think fighting the growing left ideology is important, I think that is far more dangerous than conservatives, its pretty well documented that capitalism is less popular than ever among the youth, naturally its easy to see its grotesque flaws particularly for a generation that has not seen the potential of desctruction of collectivism.

On the transphobic absolutely he is not comfortable with it but I think those words like racist or sexist and even rape are being thrown away so lightly that its actually counter-productive, quoting that meme: "if everyone is a transphobe, nobody is"

On November 20 2017 19:13 RiKD wrote: Sidenote: I have heard Peterson talking about tragedy and nihilists responding "who cares, it won't matter in 100,000 years." Has anyone actually had any experience with that? I am basically a nihilist trying to figure out worthwhile things to do and I hear a story of someone getting raped the last thing I think is "oh, who cares, it won't matter in 100,000 years."

Nihilism is the ultimate truth but its a dangrous one, it can be liberating or it can be very destructive for yourself and others

On November 21 2017 04:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2017 19:13 RiKD wrote: Sidenote: I have heard Peterson talking about tragedy and nihilists responding "who cares, it won't matter in 100,000 years." Has anyone actually had any experience with that? I am basically a nihilist trying to figure out worthwhile things to do and I hear a story of someone getting raped the last thing I think is "oh, who cares, it won't matter in 100,000 years." Nihilism is the ultimate truth but its a dangrous one, it can be liberating or it can be very destructive for yourself and others

Nihilism with a moral compass and reasons to continue living is the only path I see myself on. I guess there will be times of depression and despair for me unfortunately but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Nihilism with no moral compass and resentments is the danger zone.

Nihilism does not equal bitterness, resentment and evil even if there are cases in which that is true.

There is perhaps more bitterness, resentment and evil among Catholic priests.

Nihilism isn't "the ultimate truth" nor is subjectivism the (only) alternative to objectivism. If you want to know what's truly at the root of everything harmful in this world it is this kind of binary thinking that is assumed as self-evident. If you want to expand your thinking, read "El arbol del conocimiento" by Humberto Maturana and "Introducción al pensamiento complejo " by Edgar Morin. I can quite confidently say that these works could have a life changing influence on you if you give them the time.

I agree about the destructive nature of nihilism though, and I think that destructiveness is not a sign of having found the truth but rather a sign of not being embodied in truth, in other words it distorts (displaces) reality, which is co-constructed. The question of meaning is answered by Merleau-Ponty when he said that we are condemned to meaning -- it is irrelevant whether meaning exists independent of us or not.

Also, I've hung around a lot of nihilistic types and the truth is that they are never truly nihilists. The possessive nature of ideas and our desire for certainty precludes it. These people believe they have abandoned grand narratives and are absolutely lucid but they are still fanatics, most of them have uncritically embraced a greedy reductionism or scientism. If there's one thing Peterson gets right it's the power of myths or mimetic desire which no one ever manages to escape unless they end their lives. Even the most staunch nihilist carries a bunch of illusions to confirm and take pride in their conception of the world. At its worst they'll become ill due to the inhibition of action, and they'll project their ills onto the world.

On November 21 2017 04:09 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2017 10:47 Loco wrote: Ok well, we can agree that it is a (defeasible) form of an appeal to authority, but it isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, which is the important distinction to make. An appeal to authority is used "in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context." I think linking to a large group of professionals who have many differing views but who have a consensus on one particular topic is relevant and shouldn't be dismissed as a fallacy. I should have linked to the askphilosophy threads before linking to the circle jerk subreddit, that was a misstep on my part. Don't let that prevent you from learning a few things from educated people. There are plenty of threads that treat his ideas fairly and critically. Right, I know it was mostly the anarchocapitalism stuff (which I think is part of the silly stuff too) but I find it weird how you gravitate towards these people whose confidence is derived from a strong objectivist stance. Peterson studied Ayn Rand in his youth just like Stefan and he had to use all of his mythological studies only to come back full circle and conclude that there are objective/absolute truths independent of us and people who don't agree with them are destructive and worthy of scorn etc. It's as unsophisticated as thinking gets and I wouldn't feel compelled to listen to anyone who believes that. Whatever is good in there is not original and I'd rather direct people to those original sources. For Peterson that would be Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dewey, Campbell and Jung. As for the self-help tidbits, a few of his sound bites might be original but overall I'd be hardpressed to choose him over quality ancient philosophers like Lao Tsu, Zhuangzi, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. I do grant people who find JBP to have valuable things to say that possibility, it's just that there is such a huge personality cult around him that there's very few of those people. Just recently someone posted a thread about dreaming about Peterson and there was like 10 other people who jumped in and expressed how great it is to dream of him or whatever. It's creepy as hell. There are YouTube channels dedicated to applying the wisdom of Peterson to life. I've never dreamed of Schopenhauer or seen any channel dedicated to his wisdom. I also haven't read Schopenhauer in years, fwiw, but I read some parts of a book I was gifted by prof Frederick C. Beiser that goes into the developments of German Idealism/Pessimism which I plan on finishing after I'm done with more important stuff. When I say he's transphobic, I'm not saying he's going to disrespect every trans person he comes across. I mean it in the broadest sense that he is uncomfortable with anyone who doesn't conform to society's gender expectations. As a deviant myself I'm sensitive to that kind of thing and it's very visible that he has an issue with deviants of all sorts, whether they are antinatalists or trans/nonbinary people. What he's comfortable with is what is normal and traditional. I've usually argued your side (against my mom mostly), why read and follow these mediocre gurus instead of reading much better ones if you have them easily available, and I think I see her point a bit more, philosophy can be heavy and difficult to read, and while presented by people like JBP its more digestable so I guess its "better than nothing". I get that you believe JBP to be a negative force overall for the world, I disagree, I think many young ppl will listen and find purpose and structure and yeah sadly he will spread some stupid conservative ideas but I think in general he does good and I also think fighting the growing left ideology is important, I think that is far more dangerous than conservatives, its pretty well documented that capitalism is less popular than ever among the youth, naturally its easy to see its grotesque flaws particularly for a generation that has not seen the potential of desctruction of collectivism. On the transphobic absolutely he is not comfortable with it but I think those words like racist or sexist and even rape are being thrown away so lightly that its actually counter-productive, quoting that meme: "if everyone is a transphobe, nobody is"

The thing is that there's no reason to commit to an either/or view here (either listen to people like Peterson or nothing). There are accessible texts for people who want to learn about philosophy, written by actual philosophers. There are philosophy podcasts and YouTube channels that serve the purpose of introducing key ideas/figures to lay people. There's no reason to go to a psychologist for that. Especially not one who supports really stupid/dangerous ideas and has literally no philosophy at all on his reading list outside of Nietzsche.

Contrary to you, I would argue that it's worse to have the illusion of knowledge than to know that you're ignorant. People don't really act on their ignorance, but they do in a destructive manner when they're in the grip of illusions. I would add that people have honestly no idea how bad learning from YouTube in general is. It can take years to break out from an echo chamber on there and undo the damage that was done by giving too much credit to the wrong people. It also doesn't test you, or help you contextualize your knowledge, which is the most important thing of all. 99% of people using this medium and who believe that they are becoming educated are in fact doing a very poor job at it and listening to second-rate thinkers and self-promoters, which is what that environment breeds.

I think if you have a real interest in knowledge you'll come around and see you were fundamentally wrong about Peterson and I have no doubt his influence and legacy will not be a positive one. Having given him the benefit of the doubt previously I think it's crazy to think that in general he does more good than harm at this point. He's only gotten worse with time. But I can see why you would think that since you're under the illusion that fighting this culture war the way he does is a positive thing. I couldn't disagree more that this fight has any real value, it's all bickering and profit-oriented nonsense. It's a massive distraction from the real problems humanity is facing and if it keeps growing it will culminate in pointless violence and nothing will be learned from it.

Alright i havn't quoted anyone this post is directed at some comments over last 2 pages.

subjectivism is retarded haha-the belief that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth. no one can truly beleive it, since as soon as you argue for it, you stop being a subjectivist. You can question weather there is an external world or objective truth, fine, everything is open to question. but you cant actually be a subjectivist without losing brain cells, and you can't be one in everyday life, where you believe things to be true. I don't see what's wrong with ridiculing people who say they are subjectivists, since that's the level they are on. A lot of very long philosophy essays are written on this by undergraduates, but it's actually very simply a self defeating idea and you can point it out in about two sentences.

my brief look at peterson's comments from reading this thread, he criticizes it but in a very unprofessional manner, involving lots of hyperbole and the criticisms are not good, or scientifically rigorous. Nothing good can come from this type of criticism, so i agree with loco on that. Just look at what alan sokal and jean bricmont, noam chomsky, or richard dawkins have said about postmodernism. Their criticisms are much better imo.

The guy in loco's video he linked said sokal and bricmont only criticized the culture of postmodernism, not the actual scholarship. (2:00) I didn't really get that from reading fashionable nonsense, it came across very clearly that the scholarship was beyond idiocy level. I mean just take the wiki page on the book, it summarizes it, correctly imo, as what the book critized them for:

-Using scientific or pseudoscientific terminology without bothering much about what these words mean.
-Importing concepts from the natural sciences into the humanities without the slightest justification, and without providing any rationale for their use.
-Displaying superficial erudition by shamelessly throwing around technical terms where they are irrelevant, presumably to impress and intimidate the non-specialist reader.
-Manipulating words and phrases that are, in fact, meaningless.
-Self-assurance on topics far beyond the competence of the author and exploiting the prestige of science to give discourses a veneer of rigor.

seems like a criticism of scholarship standards to me.

I have read a lot of words but I don't follow why a professor on Youtube is stupid and dangerous and 99% of Youtube is shit so I should go Reddit instead and educate myself with an obsessive subreddit dedicated to debunking someone who apparently copies Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dewey, Campbell and Jung but has literally nobody on his reading list except Nietzsche

On November 21 2017 13:50 Stroggoz wrote: Alright i havn't quoted anyone this post is directed at some comments over last 2 pages. subjectivism is retarded haha-the belief that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth. no one can truly beleive it, since as soon as you argue for it, you stop being a subjectivist. You can question weather there is an external world or objective truth, fine, everything is open to question. but you cant actually be a subjectivist without losing brain cells, and you can't be one in everyday life, where you believe things to be true. I don't see what's wrong with ridiculing people who say they are subjectivists, since that's the level they are on. A lot of very long philosophy essays are written on this by undergraduates, but it's actually very simply a self defeating idea and you can point it out in about two sentences. my brief look at peterson's comments from reading this thread, he criticizes it but in a very unprofessional manner, involving lots of hyperbole and the criticisms are not good, or scientifically rigorous. Nothing good can come from this type of criticism, so i agree with loco on that. Just look at what alan sokal and jean bricmont, noam chomsky, or richard dawkins have said about postmodernism. Their criticisms are much better imo. The guy in loco's video he linked said sokal and bricmont only criticized the culture of postmodernism, not the actual scholarship. (2:00) I didn't really get that from reading fashionable nonsense, it came across very clearly that the scholarship was beyond idiocy level. I mean just take the wiki page on the book, it summarizes it, correctly imo, as what the book critized them for: -Using scientific or pseudoscientific terminology without bothering much about what these words mean. -Importing concepts from the natural sciences into the humanities without the slightest justification, and without providing any rationale for their use. -Displaying superficial erudition by shamelessly throwing around technical terms where they are irrelevant, presumably to impress and intimidate the non-specialist reader. -Manipulating words and phrases that are, in fact, meaningless. -Self-assurance on topics far beyond the competence of the author and exploiting the prestige of science to give discourses a veneer of rigor. seems like a criticism of scholarship standards to me.

Is there a reason why you only chose to outline the problems of subjectivism (I'm assuming we're talking about solipsism and not panpsychism here) and didn't equally say that its antithesis is just as ridiculous? Naive realism and Randian Objectivism is just as bad if not worse.

He didn't say that it wasn't at all about the scholarship, he said it spoke mostly about the terrible reviewing processes surrounding postmodernism and that it ended up casting a long shadow on non STEM disciplines (due to people jumping to conclusions like you did). Sokal precisely said he doesn't include Derrida, Barthes, Althusser and Foucault in his critique of postmodernists misusing scientific terminology, yet these are some of the most influential people that are supposed to be at the head of the postmodernist cabal that's corrupted the universities. Sokal and Bricmont also specifically stated they did not intend to analyze postmodernist thought in general, just what they thought was an abuse of concepts from mathematics and physics.

On November 21 2017 14:03 Santafairy wrote: I have read a lot of words but I don't follow why a professor on Youtube is stupid and dangerous and 99% of Youtube is shit so I should go Reddit instead and educate myself with an obsessive subreddit dedicated to debunking someone who apparently copies Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dewey, Campbell and Jung but has literally nobody on his reading list except Nietzsche

I was very clear in saying that it was a misstep of me to link to the circle jerk subreddit and I linked to the /askphilosophy subreddit. That's where I last said people should be going to see if his ideas stand up to scrutiny. There's no obsessiveness and no cults of personality there and a great diversity of views, so that's why it's a better learning environment than YouTube. Also because YouTube (and audiobooks) are shitty learning tools compared to text.

He doesn't copy these thinkers, the ideas he presents are a mishmash of these people's ideas, and easy impressionable people mistake that as a synthesis of their ideas. He does not offer a synthesis nor even a competent introduction to these ideas a lot of the time. Some of it is a fair representation of their ideas (especially with Jung) but a lot of it is inconsistent, especially his views on Pragmatism. You go to the source because you don't have to trust one person's interpretation. If going to the source is too daunting you can find other popularisers who were more rigorous, in part because they didn't spend their life studying clinical psychology. Video lecture-wise, Rick Roderick from the Teaching Company has a lot of great lectures available online.

The reading list I am referring to is Peterson's "Great Books" recommended reading list, which has no philosophy other than Nietzsche. It doesn't mean that's all he's ever read, but it gives a good idea that he hasn't read much philosophy if that's all he can recommend to people.

On November 21 2017 05:30 Loco wrote: Nihilism isn't "the ultimate truth" nor is subjectivism the (only) alternative to objectivism. If you want to know what's truly at the root of everything harmful in this world it is this kind of binary thinking that is assumed as self-evident. If you want to expand your thinking, read "El arbol del conocimiento" by Humberto Maturana and "Introducción al pensamiento complejo " by Edgar Morin. I can quite confidently say that these works could have a life changing influence on you if you give them the time. I agree about the destructive nature of nihilism though, and I think that destructiveness is not a sign of having found the truth but rather a sign of not being embodied in truth, in other words it distorts (displaces) reality, which is co-constructed. The question of meaning is answered by Merleau-Ponty when he said that we are condemned to meaning -- it is irrelevant whether meaning exists independent of us or not.

Are there decent translations of those 2 books?

We are condemned to act. I don't see how we are condemned to meaning?