when i said literally i meant metaphorically, man, you just don't get academia
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
archetype; a very typical example of a certain person or thing.
really exists; a thing that exists in the real world
Well if Peterson's merely highlighting the occasional flaws in scientific categorisation, then he's late by several decades...
i chose it on purpose because peterson is a charlatan and doesn't deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt, no one says dragons really exist if they have the ability to think more than 1 word ahead
jungian archetypes also aren't things that can be describing as really existing because it's fairytale bullshit and anyone who peddles it is a moron
Didn't Jung believe that, through 'active imagination', certain entities could be brought into existence (or, at least, our perception)?
I bet that there are philosophers out there who have devoted their lives to the question at what point something becomes real.
He also wrote about alchemy, which peterson talks about in his lectures, in the 21 century when people who have gone to middle school know enough science to laugh at it.
It's just that I've a fondness for the idea of archetypes - it appears to link differing phenomena such as roadside ghosts (often an 'old hag' or beautiful young woman) to the observer-expectancy effect.
Stupid!!
Would you describe preferring Pepsi to Coke discrimination? Or The Beatles to The Rolling Stones? It's an unusual way of framing it and in my opinion, it's a dog whistle to MRAs and incels.
Here:
1. He has a shallow understanding of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism"/identity politics but often refers to it (it has taken over universities and corporations(!)). It is explained very well in this video. (11:00 onwards)
2. He got famous by misinterpreting a bill.
3. He's a psychologist who uses evol-psych VERY loosely: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/has...tually-gone-mad.404570/page-102#post-22035368
4. Highlights from his AMA:
Someone questioned him directly about the enforced monogamy:
Question, answer
IMO that word salad does not address the question - how is the "enforced mongamy" which would stop incel violence (his own words) different from living in a society which values and enforces monogamous marriage. This one goes for you too, @Pogue Mahone since apparently we are cherry-picking this quote.
The problem with these "metaphors" and Jungian archetypes is how literally he takes tham - he believes that any story that doesn't follow certain archetypes is ideological propaganda.
He also has a segment on the Pareto principle which I believe he gets totally wrong and I'm going to make a post about that too.
I honestly cant get over the idea of cultural marxism. Its impossible to take anyone who believes in it seriously.
You mean a handful of Austrian Jews aren't responsible for the worlds problem? Then why can't JPBs fans get laid?
In case anyone's in doubt who we're talking about
Jung is way too interesting to talk shit about. I wouldn't laugh at any of his theories. Even the wrong ones
And the wrong ones were very, very wrong.
http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4412/1/J...amuels___Institute_of_Historical_Research.pdfJung said:
What if it helped you in your anti-Jordan crusade to convince people who already aren't Peterson fans that he's not all that.
I hated it when Christopher Hitchens cited quotes and evidence in his anti-religion crusade to convince people who arent already religious that it's not all that.
You're just cherrypicking our posts. You can't pass judgement on us unless you've spent a week caravaning with all of us.
You're no Hitchens. And the implication of dealing with biblical quotes is that its implicit people are already familiar with the subject matter, which you and Silva are clearly not.
Agreed.
Enforced caravaning does have some benefits for society tbh.
Enforced caravaning is a key component in evolutionary biology.
See, you keep saying this and yet you've offered nothing substantive to suggest that Peterson doesn't believe the things he says and posts. If the probably more than 100 quotes we've posted of his so far aren't representative of what he believes, what does he believe?
Correct, I'm not Hitchens. I didnt advocate for the iraq war. The point is that it's common for people to discuss the issues of the day and express their disagreement.
Christ have you never in your life said something controversial that'll look pretty awful in 20 years time?
He was alive during the rise of Nazism, it'd be nearly weird if he didn't have some anti semetic quotes. He was an agent for the allies during the war. His views changed, if they ever were anti semetic, with the rise of Hitler. Its one thing immediately dismissing Nazism today because we know how it ends. Giving people shit for not immediately dismissing it 100 years ago seems kind of harsh.
Uh, no, feck that. I'd rather respect the Germans who played no part in the rise of the Nazi regime and gave their lives fighting it instead of writing horrific things. If I play any part in causing another holocaust, I don't want history to remember me fondly.
@berbatrick
First of all thanks for taking the time.
I haven't watched the videos, but the stuff about the misinterpreted bill and what you've written about his lobster argument makes him look pretty untrustworthy.
Regarding the AMAs, the first answer (while not being particularly versed in history) doesn't seem factually wrong to me, but at the very least seems deliberately vague.
The second one is just baffling, since the answer is completely beside the point of the question and no one was forcing him to answer that particular question in the first place(?!).
First of all thanks for taking the time.
I haven't watched the videos, but the stuff about the misinterpreted bill and what you've written about his lobster argument makes him look pretty untrustworthy.
Regarding the AMAs, the first answer (while not being particularly versed in history) doesn't seem factually wrong to me, but at the very least seems deliberately vague.
The second one is just baffling, since the answer is completely beside the point of the question and no one was forcing him to answer that particular question in the first place(?!).
Ok but you are the one saying not to laugh at any of his theories. That one is laughable.
Now I know that it was a good idea to waste my work time hearing his voice and driving myself mad
The atheist answer - I was unsure about it too - but a quick wiki search confirms he is very wrong. He deleted the answer after comments.
The reason I get so passionate/triggered by him is because from what I've seen, he uses pseudoscience or shoddy combinations of different fields to argue against people who try to reduce hierarchy/inequality in society, in favour of a return to a stratified society with more entrenched hierarchy because that is what is natural, according to him.
So for me as a leftist, he has a strong reactionary political message I despise and feel that I should contest. We can do that by showing how incoherent he can be in general or countering one particular argument in detail (I think both are valid).
we know that's not trueliterally all of it
Yeah true. Guilty. It wasn't one of his primary ideas and theories? He did disavow it? I'm not that inclined to shit on historical figures for their missteps.
I dont know enough about him to say either way. But I am inclined to criticize onjectionable ideas.
Its not an admirable statement. Jung is pretty fascinating though.