The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Bullitt68]

FYI Laurier's main campus is dominated by business students and athletes, so just a reminder that supporters for the shit above are fringe (at least among the student body).

Which only adds to the craziness. When did the tail start wagging the dog?

Drinks are on me if I run into Shepherd at a bar. Here's hoping.

Make it happen, Caveat. For Sherdog.

 

[DragRacer]

When you’re deranged enough to expand the definition of violence to include simple speech that either questions or criticizes your radical ideology, it’s not hard to understand that everything stated in that list of demands (at least to its author) is very, very real.

I honestly thought that I was past the point of being shocked by nonsense, but that can't be real...can it?

 

[IDL]

Which only adds to the craziness. When did the tail start wagging the dog?

That's how subversion works. The students are useful tools being churned out but the strategies and language are developed elsewhere by people who know what they are doing and how a small group can dictate over a larger group. For example how to apply pressure to the right people and single people out, how to use guilt and shaming tactics, and orwellian language to cloak what is essentially aggression, within warm and fuzzy and intentionally confusing buzzwords and jargon.

None of these tactics are developed by students. They learn them and repeat them.

And of course, it isn't just students involved. Those applying pressure to politicians, writing up bills (such as C-16), churning out propaganda, and most importantly financing initiatives (follow the money) are all part of it.

You could sort of look at it like how lobbying outfits work, but on a much larger scale. A corporation will use lobbyists to push policy, so that means a very small number of people get to decide for everyone else. Now imagine if you could subvert the education system over time to churn out lobbyists for your corporation, on an international scale, like a horde of zombies.

The majority of people in any society are passive and agreeable in the grand scheme of things, even if they don't like what they are seeing. Most aren't even aware.

 

[Bullitt68]

@dontsnitch @Caveat @Devout Pessimist @splendica @sangreporsangre @TheGreatA @KidBaize @WrestlingJudo @irish_thug @Denter @Bald1 @TheWorm @Ruprecht

Hey, guys. Sorry for the spam, but if you got this notification, it's because you've either expressed interest in this stuff or you're someone I've noticed is particularly philosophically-minded.

I mentioned a while back that I was going to have an essay published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in which I critique poststructuralism (specifically Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida) in relation to the philosophy of art. Well, it's been published, so I'm leaving a link to it here for you if you're interested in checking it out.

https://www.academia.edu/35375985/P...Poststructuralism_and_the_Axiom_of_Authorship

Unfortunately, it went to press before I started getting into Peterson's stuff, so I wasn't able to add anything from him (though I tried ), but I did manage on the last round of revisions to slip in a reference to Solzhenitsyn

 

[irish_thug]

@dontsnitch @Caveat @Devout Pessimist @splendica @sangreporsangre @TheGreatA @KidBaize @WrestlingJudo @irish_thug @Denter @Bald1 @TheWorm @Ruprecht

Hey, guys. Sorry for the spam, but if you got this notification, it's because you've either expressed interest in this stuff or you're someone I've noticed is particularly philosophically-minded.

I mentioned a while back that I was going to have an essay published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in which I critique poststructuralism (specifically Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida) in relation to the philosophy of art. Well, it's been published, so I'm leaving a link to it here for you if you're interested in checking it out.

https://www.academia.edu/35375985/P...Poststructuralism_and_the_Axiom_of_Authorship

Unfortunately, it went to press before I started getting into Peterson's stuff, so I wasn't able to add anything from him (though I tried ), but I did manage on the last round of revisions to slip in a reference to Solzhenitsyn

Starting now. Thanks.

 

[splendica]

@dontsnitch @Caveat @Devout Pessimist @splendica @sangreporsangre @TheGreatA @KidBaize @WrestlingJudo @irish_thug @Denter @Bald1 @TheWorm @Ruprecht

Hey, guys. Sorry for the spam, but if you got this notification, it's because you've either expressed interest in this stuff or you're someone I've noticed is particularly philosophically-minded.

I mentioned a while back that I was going to have an essay published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in which I critique poststructuralism (specifically Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida) in relation to the philosophy of art. Well, it's been published, so I'm leaving a link to it here for you if you're interested in checking it out.

https://www.academia.edu/35375985/P...Poststructuralism_and_the_Axiom_of_Authorship

Unfortunately, it went to press before I started getting into Peterson's stuff, so I wasn't able to add anything from him (though I tried ), but I did manage on the last round of revisions to slip in a reference to Solzhenitsyn

Thanks man, much appreciated. I'll check it out some time today hopefully. Congrats on the publication!

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

@dontsnitch @Caveat @Devout Pessimist @splendica @sangreporsangre @TheGreatA @KidBaize @WrestlingJudo @irish_thug @Denter @Bald1 @TheWorm @Ruprecht

Hey, guys. Sorry for the spam, but if you got this notification, it's because you've either expressed interest in this stuff or you're someone I've noticed is particularly philosophically-minded.

I mentioned a while back that I was going to have an essay published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in which I critique poststructuralism (specifically Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida) in relation to the philosophy of art. Well, it's been published, so I'm leaving a link to it here for you if you're interested in checking it out.

https://www.academia.edu/35375985/P...Poststructuralism_and_the_Axiom_of_Authorship

Unfortunately, it went to press before I started getting into Peterson's stuff, so I wasn't able to add anything from him (though I tried ), but I did manage on the last round of revisions to slip in a reference to Solzhenitsyn

+1, will read.

I'm about 100 pages into Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism," which I'm also pretty sure was recommended somewhere by Peterson. His take on Kant as one of the first "anti-modern" thinkers really rustled me, since I've always had the opposite impression. The guy wrote the essay defining Enlightenment ffs.

May post a summary thread in here when I'm done.

 

[Bullitt68]

Starting now. Thanks.

Thanks man, much appreciated. I'll check it out some time today hopefully. Congrats on the publication!

+1, will read.

I'm about 100 pages into Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism," which I'm also pretty sure was recommended somewhere by Peterson. His take on Kant as on of the first "anti-modern" thinkers really rustled me, since I've always had the opposite impression. The guy wrote the essay defining Enlightenment ffs.

May post a summary thread in here when I'm done.

That's a great book. I don't know if Hicks actually identifies as an Objectivist, but he's very much a part of that world (he's put stuff out with David Kelley, one of the best Objectivist philosophers out there, and he's published in the same Rand journal and spoken at Objectivist conferences, etc.), and as far as Objectivism is concerned, in the story of modern (post-Cartesian) philosophy, Kant is fucking Darth Vader.

Leonard Peikoff made the case (following Rand's occasional critiques of Kant, the most explicit of which is contained in her essay "For the New Intellectual") that what Kant did was basically secularize the mystical nonsense of Plato, thereby giving Platonic philosophy a new modern lease on life. With that in mind, given the idea that at its core philosophy is a battle between Plato and Aristotle, and given that Aristotle is Objectivism's forebear, Kant's Platonism obviously puts a big ass target on his back at which Objectivists frequently take aim.

For my part, that essay that I posted is essentially the first two-thirds of the first chapter of my PhD thesis. After dealing with poststructuralism for a chapter, I actually take things a step back in the next chapter and demonstrate that poststructuralism itself is merely a symptom of Kantian philosophy. I then try to undo the damage that Kant caused (focusing, since I'm dealing with aesthetics, on his third critique, Critique of Judgment).

Personally, I tend to see a link between Kant and Derrida on the one hand and Nietzsche and Barthes on the other (and that's reflected in my essay). To that end, I'm not as hard on Kant/Derrida as I am on Nietzsche/Barthes because, as far as I can see, Kant and Derrida each set out from a good place and just got turned around and messed up and it resulted in goofy nonsense, whereas Nietzsche and Barthes strike me as Joker-esque, just-want-to-see-the-world-burn wackos.

 

[Denter]

@dontsnitch @Caveat @Devout Pessimist @splendica @sangreporsangre @TheGreatA @KidBaize @WrestlingJudo @irish_thug @Denter @Bald1 @TheWorm @Ruprecht

Hey, guys. Sorry for the spam, but if you got this notification, it's because you've either expressed interest in this stuff or you're someone I've noticed is particularly philosophically-minded.

I mentioned a while back that I was going to have an essay published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in which I critique poststructuralism (specifically Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida) in relation to the philosophy of art. Well, it's been published, so I'm leaving a link to it here for you if you're interested in checking it out.

https://www.academia.edu/35375985/P...Poststructuralism_and_the_Axiom_of_Authorship

Unfortunately, it went to press before I started getting into Peterson's stuff, so I wasn't able to add anything from him (though I tried ), but I did manage on the last round of revisions to slip in a reference to Solzhenitsyn

Thanks, will read and provide feedback.

 

[unimackpass]

Well worth the time.
It's going to be interesting watching people attack this guy without engaging his arguments. Always entertaining.
Can't wait.

"Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege"

 

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[The ScorpioN]

Not sure I like the positionality of the interpretationalization.

 

[21 Savage]

@dontsnitch @Caveat @Devout Pessimist @splendica @sangreporsangre @TheGreatA @KidBaize @WrestlingJudo @irish_thug @Denter @Bald1 @TheWorm @Ruprecht

Hey, guys. Sorry for the spam, but if you got this notification, it's because you've either expressed interest in this stuff or you're someone I've noticed is particularly philosophically-minded.

i cant believe i was not included in this tag list

 

[Fronk]

i cant believe i was not included in this tag list

 

[sangreporsangre]

In the Wilfred Laurier saga, it turns out that there was no complaint by any student in Lindsay's class. The Rainbow Coalition got wind of the fact that she played a few minutes of the video and made the complaint. What a joke. Now they, along with the university itself, keep claiming that there has been this massive uptick in transphobic "violence" but when asked for proof, they can't offer anything.

 

[IDL]

In the Wilfred Laurier saga, it turns out that there was no complaint by any student in Lindsay's class. The Rainbow Coalition got wind of the fact that she played a few minutes of the video and made the complaint. What a joke. Now they, along with the university itself, keep claiming that there has been this massive uptick in transphobic "violence" but when asked for proof, they can't offer anything.

Unsurprising if true. They act like commissars.

Got a link?

So the little room 101 tribunal lied to her and said that one or more students in the class made a complaint when instead it was purely ideologically driven political activism by the usual suspects.

 

[Bullitt68]

In the Wilfred Laurier saga, it turns out that there was no complaint by any student in Lindsay's class.

I second in my laziness IDL's request for a source.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Unsurprising if true. They act like commissars.

Got a link?

So the little room 101 tribunal lied to her and said that one or more students in the class made a complaint when instead it was purely ideologically driven political activism by the usual suspects.

Howard Levitt, the well-known Toronto employment lawyer who represents Shepherd pro bono, wrote Rob Centa, the lawyer Laurier hired to conduct the investigation, last weekend, asking for the details of the complaint or complaints made against her.

In reply, Centa told him “I do not believe there is a document that contains a ‘complaint’ made about Ms. Shepherd nor is there anything I would describe as a formal complaint under any WLU policy.”

But perhaps most surprisingly, Centa also answered Levitt’s question about the terms of his mandate by saying it is an employment-related matter.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chr...ob-not-free-speech-is-target-of-laurier-probe

Her lawyer asked their lawyer for the evidence of the complaint, but the dude had to admit that there was none. I'm sure I saw that it was the Rainbow freaks who made the complaint somewhere, I'll try to find it.

 

[Vicky]

Well, if you've got a background in philosophy, then you'll hit the ground running. I'm a fucking movie nerd who's never taken a single philosophy class. I just read this shit so I can tell other movie nerds who use it that they're stupid and wrong and the people they're quoting are also stupid and wrong. In order to do that, though, I have to make sure I know what I'm talking about, so I'm stuck doing a hell of a lot of reading



The easiest way to proceed will probably be to settle on the Derrida shit you want to read first. Of Grammatology is Derrida's main calling card, and that's the one where he goes through Ferdinand de Saussure and his Course in General Linguistics and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his Essay on the Origin of Languages. However, I'd probably recommend the edited collection Writing and Difference, where you can go one at a time through easier-to-manage essays rather than giant volumes of crap and take the thinkers and texts he selects one at a time. So there'll be one essay where he's dealing with Michel Foucault, and you can go one-to-one. Then something with Husserl, then something with Freud, then something with Hegel, and on and on down the line.

I also have to recommend his "fight" with John Searle. In 1972, Derrida wrote an essay called "Signature Event Context" in which he critiqued J.L. Austin's How to Do Things with Words in which Austin developed his theory of "performative utterances." Searle wrote a reply to Derrida in which he basically called him out on (a) not making sense and (b) failing to understand Austin. Derrida then replied in one of the most hysterical replies you're likely to find in philosophy. The mask was gone and it was the flailing hysterics of someone whose safe space had been invaded. In a way, it's actually sad to read, but it's proof of what Peterson always mentions about how these types of people don't believe in and have no desire to enter into a dialogue with you. They just want you to accept the nonsense on faith, fall in line, and help push the bullshit forward.



Best of luck. I hope you come out the other side still believing in philosophy

OT: I'm only on page 21 of this thread and still have a lot more videos to watch. However your post #405 made me think of the movie: Exit Through the Gift Shop. Then I saw this post where you described yourself as a "movie nerd". I was curious if you had seen that film and what you thought about it. I found it thought provoking especially since I have no background in art or philosophy (my background is in medicine however I think I took a Philosophy 101 course back in the 90s.....).

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

As a JP fan I recommend other fans of JP to watch this discussion. He does a fantastic job articulating his thoughts (as always hehe, 145+ IQ) as to why advertising atheism is cancer. At first I didn't understand, but now I'm aware that atheist bus ads are clever media ploys. As the case so often is, the careful listener will notice just how far ahead, intellectually, JP is compared to all the other guests.

Like always when I watch Dr. JP clips and lectures I feel almost overwhelmed by the amount of wisdom he endows upon me and all of his other listeners, so I've tried to pick out some of my favorite quotes of his from this discussion.

"There is no evidence that he [Richard Dawkins] is being opressed, even though maybe he should be."

"If you don’t have any faith in an ultimate authority that says essentially that life is sacred, what’s to stop you from mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can?"





Really makes you think

Tremendous video. I watched the whole thing and will try to find more of that show.

Not surprised that the biggest twit was the bible-thumping lady and her Obama is a Marxist cries.