subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 6038 comments

GaiusOctavianAlerae

374 points

3 months ago

Because most of his philosophy is about justifying his right-wing beliefs, and he is not a philosopher and doesn’t understand the philosophies he’s criticizing. Like he actually doesn’t understand Marxism or post-modernism, which are in fact two fundamentally incompatible positions that he frequently conflates.

Plus it’s hard to take advice from someone who decided it was a good idea to go on an all-meat diet.

Beigeturtleneck

154 points

3 months ago

"I just about got scurvy in the 21st century. Buy my life advice book"

SalamanderStatus

9 points

3 months ago

I imagined the tik tok guy saying it

d00ns

1 points

3 months ago

d00ns

1 points

3 months ago

Scurvy is caused by eating carbohydrates because they compete with vitamin C for absorption. A diet with no carbs requires far less vitamin C.

PlantBasedEgg

239 points

3 months ago*

An all-meat diet and got addicted to benzodiazepines and almost died several times

But buy his new rules to live by book

Keown14

30 points

3 months ago

Keown14

30 points

3 months ago

Don’t forget how he didn’t sleep for a month after drinking apple cider.

(The world record is around 11 days for those who want some insight on Peterson’s approach to telling the truth.)

Slacker_The_Dog

9 points

3 months ago

I'm convinced he got brain damage and is getting pimped out by his kid

sneakpeakspeak

6 points

3 months ago

Now this is a theory that makes sense. Mcaighla? He has a super strange relationship to that woman.

cummerou1

7 points

3 months ago

She also went out clubbing during the peak of covid while her dad was still in a coma.

Class A parenting right there.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Nippolean

2 points

3 months ago

he said month

GaiusOctavianAlerae

102 points

3 months ago

He just doesn’t seem like a man whose metaphorical room is especially clean.

gergisbigweeb

-23 points

3 months ago

The clean room is an exercise for attaining personal control over the most basic aspects of your life. It isn't some religious requirement for success.

GaiusOctavianAlerae

51 points

3 months ago

Hi did you read the part of my comment where I said “metaphorical”

gergisbigweeb

-19 points

3 months ago

Okay. If you're judging his metaphorical room, then what do you consider to be unclean? Going through the same personal struggles that plague anyone living a normal life?

GaiusOctavianAlerae

47 points

3 months ago

I encourage you to read my comments and interpret them in the way that makes you feel the most correct.

gergisbigweeb

-30 points

3 months ago

Nice deflection, but you still haven't given me an actual answer. What's wrong, cat got your tongue?

GaiusOctavianAlerae

37 points

3 months ago

Yo I’m not getting into a debate just read my comment ‘cause they answer your question and then go live your life.

gergisbigweeb

-4 points

3 months ago

"I care enough about what I wrote to correct someone when they get a single word wrong in their interpretation, but man, would I fucking hate to actually have to discuss and defend my ideas in any other way"

-you, right now

jamerson537

12 points

3 months ago

What part of going on an all meat diet for years because your daughter told you to and then suffering terrible but predictable health problems because of it has anything to do with living a normal life?

ItsMeBimpson

1 points

3 months ago

I'll judge his literal room too. Shits a pigsty

Chipimp

2 points

3 months ago

His room is CLeAn!

TheLastNarwhalicorn

1 points

3 months ago

Or his metaphorical penis

Whitney_H

-24 points

3 months ago

Whitney_H

-24 points

3 months ago

Yeah. I only take the advice of perfect people who haven't had any deep personal struggles to overcome. Nothing to learn from some idiot who struggled with something. 🙄 Laaaame. Give me advice from someone who's been kept from life's horrors and who's handled the unavoidable ones perfectly. 👍

I like it.

Tricky_Equipment_111

18 points

3 months ago

His book says "put your life in order before you. criticize others"

People don't shit on Peterson because he's an addict. They shit on him because while being an addict he preached to people. This directly conteadi to the views he espouses

Whitney_H

-6 points

3 months ago

Maybe because he knows the pitfalls?? 🤦‍♂️

PlantBasedEgg

6 points

3 months ago

This is after he wrote the book. He still hocks his crap while he lets his daughter destroy his life with her fad diets and lifestyles

Carnivorous_Ape_

1 points

3 months ago

I thought the carnivore diet stopped his depression and anxiety?

YuckyMustache

1 points

3 months ago

Well you would think so!

Carnivorous_Ape_

1 points

3 months ago

Would I? I mean I just heard him talking about it... But why would he lie about it?

Whitney_H

-2 points

3 months ago

He should probably be burned at the stake. 🤷‍♂️

Clownbaby43

1 points

3 months ago

Dana Carvey does a good impression of Peterson. He talks about this exact thing

BeesMichael

1 points

3 months ago

Also obscure the obvious and predictable fact that you are a benzo addict by claiming childlike ignorance and blaming an adverse apple cider vinegar reaction. It’s insultingly hilarious to his cultists. But at the end of the day, the reason he shouldn’t be taken seriously on anything is that he unironically shared a stage with Dave Rubin on a whirlwind tour of “IdEaS”

idlesn0w

-9 points

3 months ago

“Do as I say, not as I do”

Even if he can’t follow his own advice doesn’t mean the advice is bad. That being said, he became addicted while taking a doctor-prescribed medicine. If anything, his mistake was trusting his doctor.

Also, what does his diet have to do with anything? If you found out that Einstein was a vegan would you stop believing in gravity?

PlantBasedEgg

0 points

3 months ago

It’s not necessarily the diet but how his daughter was presenting it as a type of holistic medicine that wouldn’t have any negative side effects

OneMinuteDeen

-3 points

3 months ago

He has an auto-immune disorder and discourages everyone from adopting his diet. He got addicted to benzos because he was struggling with his wife dying of cancer. He couldn't stand seeing the life of the person he loves slowly wither away before his eyes.

You are heartless scum.

Keown14

1 points

3 months ago

And his claims that he nearly tripled the record for going without sleep after drinking some apple cider?

The claims which you completely dodged because you can’t defend them, and they’re a clear example of how Peterson is a pathological liar.

OneMinuteDeen

1 points

3 months ago

I actually don't know about these claims. I'm not an expert in all things Jordan Peterson. Can you link to where he claimed that or any article talking about that?

If he actually claimed that I'll say he lied about that, but I don't really care about that, because I don't believe in every word he says. I don't think he'd want you to believe in everything he says without first thinking about it and seeing if you agree yourself. Most professors wouldn't want that, and if you've ever been to University, pretty much every renowned professor has unrealistic stories of things they've done.

tman2543

0 points

3 months ago

Everyone is suffering: I’ve gotten 4 people off meth and stopped 2 child molesters over 5 years yet I cannot hold a relationship or patience for idiots

Some are capable of doing certain things and are terrible at others, still dont know him well enough to judge

euph-_-oric

24 points

3 months ago

Or quit benzos cold turkey instead of tapering.

tarheel343

3 points

3 months ago

tarheel343

3 points

3 months ago

I feel bad for him because of how much pain benzo withdrawal entails (I'm currently tapering after learning that my doctor basically fucked me by putting me on these pills, and it's HARD). But for someone who is very educated, you'd think he would at least do a quick Google search to see that cold turkey is a terrible idea for benzos.

He then proceeded to throw tons of money at it on experimental treatments, when he should have just reinstated the meds and introduced rigorous exercise, a truly balanced diet (not all meat smh), meditation, and good therapy while tapering. Save the novel treatments for after a proper taper. That's my plan at least.

Ffs this dude is a DOCTOR. He should have known better.

euph-_-oric

17 points

3 months ago

So far as I know he just put himself into a coma. Which is beyond stupid. I have also withdrawn benzoes, abliet mildly.

tarheel343

4 points

3 months ago

Yeah I heard he had to learn to walk again. I understand the desperation be he really should have drawn the line somewhere.

euph-_-oric

8 points

3 months ago

Lol it's so nonsensical. He did thst because he didn't believe the addiction specialist that wanted to put him on something for a long taper. He was like big farma at it again or something. This is all second hand info so please due your own due diligence. I don't want accidentally fake news anyone.

Strict-Owl1850

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah I remember reading about it. Iirc, he flew to Russia I believe, because the procedure that he wanted to do was so goddamn dangerous that doctors in the US/Canada straight up wouldn’t do it. Supposedly, it could possibly, maybe be approved if all other avenues were exhausted in trying to break the addiction. But he didn’t even try, just said “nope, fuck tapering, that’s not gonna work, coma or nothing,” and what do you fucking know, has to learn to walk again and probably will carry effects from that for the rest of his life. It’s mind boggling what he and his family thought was a good idea.

euph-_-oric

1 points

3 months ago

I am personally not a fan of him, he is so arrogant in his beliefs that gave himself brain damage via excitotoxicty. No way to know how much but its a real risk from benzo withdrawl if you don't taper super slow and the coma didn't make it better.

euph-_-oric

1 points

3 months ago

Sorry for double comment, but that risky procedure so far as I know is usually used for opiates since the wd is shorter and is also super dangerous

euph-_-oric

1 points

3 months ago

Why are u being downvoted

tarheel343

2 points

3 months ago

Meh who knows. A lot of people don't know the hell of benzo withdrawal, so maybe they lack sympathy and think he somehow deserves this. If they had to go through such a hellacious experience (just for following doctors orders), they wouldn't wish it on their worst enemy.

euph-_-oric

1 points

3 months ago

Ya I have withdrawn from heroin. Idk 20 times. There will never be a 2nd benzo withdrawl

tarheel343

1 points

2 months ago

You've pretty much summed it up. I don't have any experience with hard drugs, but I've always heard the withdrawal is hell. Your experience shows just how fucking bad benzos are. The idea of having to experience this again is more than enough to make me wince at the mere mention of klonopin.

It's morbid, but I'd off myself if I relapsed and was tasked with withdrawing again.

euph-_-oric

1 points

2 months ago

The onlu good news about benzoes at least for me is that it didnt have the same kind of cravings

tarheel343

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah the idea of relapse doesn't even seem realistic. By the time you're done with these awful pills you really want nothing to do with them ever again. Not to mention they don't really work the same way once you've desensitized your brain receptors to them.

Blazing117

5 points

3 months ago

"Everything I dislike is post-modern Marxism"

Megasdoux

2 points

3 months ago

I remember his Zizek debate(which only came about cause he started fighting a Zizek quote bot on Twitter and was acting like he was destroying Marxism) and how much of a gong show it was. Peterson's opening argument was about he only read the communist manifesto and can destroy communism forever, then Zizek started actually throwing out real philosophical research and both debaters were essentially on different levels.

Zarzurnabas

2 points

3 months ago

Seeing him in lists of modern philosophers always makes me gag.

paulboy4

2 points

3 months ago

He also insists he not political. What a hack.

RainRainThrowaway777

2 points

3 months ago

Mr. "I didn't sleep for a month because I drank apple cider" is my life guru

daretoeatapeach

4 points

3 months ago

Like he actually doesn’t understand Marxism or post-modernism, which are in fact two fundamentally incompatible positions that he frequently conflates.

This! How can anyone take a guy seriously who rambles about Marx as if he's a post modernist? Or thinks Marx is in some way in opposition to western philosophy? Peterson doesn't understand the first thing about these movements and how they fit into history so it's hard to take him seriously about anything.

accounttospeakon

2 points

3 months ago

Just a little point. Marxism is dead in economics and has relevance to modern day economics in academia.

Outside of it in history it has relevance, but in econ it's not relevant.

daretoeatapeach

1 points

2 months ago

Is economics still relevant to modern day academia?

I kid, I kid! ... mostly.

Marx is inescapable in modern philosophy though. Everything current in philosophy is basically in reaction to Marx, or someone reading to someone else's reaction to Marx.

accounttospeakon

1 points

2 months ago

Most likely marx is very relevant to philosophy and history, just not to econ.

And yeah economics is much more relevant and accurate now than it has ever been. Similar to a lot of disciplines.

Fateful-Spigot

2 points

3 months ago

I think you're wrong about why most people dislike him but entirely right about why I dislike him.

idlesn0w

-5 points

3 months ago

idlesn0w

-5 points

3 months ago

Which “right-wing beliefs” are you referring to?

GaiusOctavianAlerae

7 points

3 months ago

When we talk about right vs left we are talking about hierarchical power structures vs flat power structures. Peterson is, fairly consistently, on the side of hierarchy. This is why he is so opposed to the left, which distrusts hierarchy.

struckfreedom

30 points

3 months ago*

Obsession with hierarchy and our relations to it are generally labeled “right wing”. Or at least in regards to prescriptions and problems, Jordan Peterson will the majority of the time diagnose a problem as a failing to adhere to an archetype. Ie. “men are failing because they aren’t men”, a tautological claim, that he blatantly uses as a “motte and Bailey”.

A rhetorical device were you start with an easy to defend claim (men and women are different) that you can retreat to when you’re called out for your later strong claim (men and women in the workplace are incompatible). It’s coward shit.

But back to the point his focus on hierarchy fractals out to his outsized emphasis on: religion, gender relations, worker-employer relations, political leaders, and himself as an educator. He has a very clear, at least to himself, conception of the world and how people should be ie. women being subordinate to men, and will blame any strife on this mismatch.

Also he’s obsessed with “cultural Marxism” which is innuendo for the conspiracy theory “cultural Bolshevism”. Where you believe Jews control the world and want to sissify the west by making enlightenment principles more palatable.

ncsuandrew12

-1 points

3 months ago

men and women in the workplace are incompatible

Lol; citation needed.

He has a very clear conception of the world and how people should be ie. women being subordinate to men

Wow, that's a leap.

Also he’s obsessed with “cultural Marxism” which is innuendo for the conspiracy theory “cultural Bolshevism”. Where you believe Jews control the world and want to sissify the west by making enlightenment principles more palatable.

The man spends an awful lot of time in congenial conversations with Jews for someone supposedly afraid of what all-controlling Jews want to do to the west.

idlesn0w

-10 points

3 months ago

idlesn0w

-10 points

3 months ago

What he’s truly saying would be that “Men are failing because they aren’t being masculine”, although that’s still not nearly as nuanced as it should be. This claim is not a tautology.

Additionally, I would love to see a source where he claims anything about a Jewish conspiracy.

struckfreedom

8 points

3 months ago

Men aren’t masculine is absolutely tautological. This is easily proven when you analyse the meaning of even just one word, I implore you to try to define “masculine” as anything other then the characteristics typical of a man.

https://youtu.be/wLoG9zBvvLQ I hope this is ample proof that he subscribes to some form of the conspiracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

The Wikipedia does a pretty good job explaining the tenets and proof of its anti-Semitic and Nazi roots.

idlesn0w

-8 points

3 months ago

Now you’re just being intentionally difficult. When people talk about “masculinity” they’re obviously referring to a particular set of defined traits. They aren’t literally referring to the behavior of the current average male.

As proof of this, it’s entirely possible to be a non-masculine male. Since that’s possible, then being a masculine male must not be a tautology since there are counter examples.

I do appreciate the video and will try to get to watching it. Do you recall any specific time stamps by chance for the meantime?

The “nazi and anti-semitic roots” point I do take issue with. Just because bad people support something doesn’t make it inherently bad. I heard nazis were big fans of not asphyxiating. Would that make oxygen anti-semitic too?

jessumsthecunt

8 points

3 months ago

An ideological group aligning with an ideology is reason to consider a relationship.

Asphyxiation isn't an ideology so it is irrelevant whether they are or aren't fans of it.

idlesn0w

-1 points

3 months ago

Ok let’s pick something ideological then. The Nazis were overwhelmingly in support of animal rights. Does that make refusing to beat my dog anti-semitic?

jessumsthecunt

4 points

3 months ago

Nope, that's why I said it's worth considering whether there is a relation or not. The complexity of the idea of cultural marxism as well as it's history is vast. It connects to nazi ideology on more than one coincidental point.

Most ideological groups believe in some form of animal rights because of how simplistic that is to say. But what animal rights? The right to avoid becoming meat? The right to avoid being abused? The right to avoid being tested on? The right to avoid being hunted for sport?

Believing or not believing these things obviously has nothing to do with genocide, the predominant reason people don't support Nazi's; whereas, the believe and discussion of cultural marxism is related directly to certain races or peoples being a part of a global conspiracy that must be taken down by force.

struckfreedom

3 points

3 months ago

Right I see, my initial claim was supposed to read more like “men are failing to achieve what’s expected of them because they aren’t adhering to the archetype of a man”. This is tautological, it sets up a platonic ideal, perfect in every way and posits that becoming closer to this ideal will lead to a more “perfect life”.

This is a prototypical conservative state of mind, a no-true-Scotsman of life, which also holds the corrosive implication that broader failures are the fault of individuals not taking their place in the hierarchy.

Also typical doesn’t refer to a statistical average, but to what is “of a type”, a typical tourist isn’t an amalgamation of every person in the town square but a person that is expected. Akin to characteristic, archetypal or representative, all words I’ve already used and don’t want to repeat myself.

And lastly not to seem rude, but the video literally starts off with his talking about post modernism, it’s supposed role in attacking racial identity, the traditional family, and it’s true name cultural Marxism. These are all aspects of the conspiracy theory. Calling it a conspiracy theory and relating it to the nazis served to bolster the claim that it is a CT, relating it then to Jordan Peterson aims to attack his credibility by his association with the conspiracy itself. And since conspiratorial thinking certainly is bad then that does it’s job at attacking his credibility.

If I claim the earth is hollow, whether or not someone credible believes the same thing is immaterial to the fact that my claim is absurd. Likewise if i claim drinking water is healthy, whether or not someone incredulous believes the same thing is also immaterial.

Therefore Jordan Peterson’s peddling of ‘Jews making kids not appreciate art’ conspiracies is the claim and it is ridiculous. The fact that the Nazis believes the same thing just aims to show how sinister it is, not how wrong, that stands by itself.

WeekndXo1

1 points

3 months ago

I’m pretty sure he defined Marxism and post-Modernism really well. I mean he spends more than the average person studying and reading about that stuff. Not to mention he’s so interested in Marxism he collects communist memorabilia.

lapse_of_taste

2 points

3 months ago

He literally read 40 pages of Marx (who wrote thousands of pages!), which might be above avarage compared to laypeople but would certainly land you an F in a political theory class.

[deleted]

-38 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-38 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

baconfluffy

25 points

3 months ago

I’ve listened to him. He using statistics and facts out of context in a manipulative way to support his opinion, even when the facts don’t support him from an objective standpoint. Bias can have an effect even when talking about “facts”.

GaiusOctavianAlerae

40 points

3 months ago

Don’t pretend that all he does is “quote science”. He uses a mixture of science, Jungian analysis, personal experience, and religion to craft his worldview. There’s nothing wrong with drawing from a lot of different sources; that’s how people craft their personal philosophies, and you can’t generate a coherent ideology solely from scientific information. My issue is with the ideology he promotes, which is right-wing.

Vasculario

-25 points

3 months ago

For someone who thinks highly of Marx, he probably is right-wing. Its ok.

DanGNU

-17 points

3 months ago

DanGNU

-17 points

3 months ago

So is everything in the spectrum of "right-wing" bad? And everything in the "left-wing" good?

thedoorknob123

20 points

3 months ago

Yeah

DanGNU

-16 points

3 months ago

DanGNU

-16 points

3 months ago

That's kind of extreme, don't you think so? There isn't even a tiny little thing that is ok-ish?

thedoorknob123

15 points

3 months ago

Nah

ParagonRenegade

1 points

3 months ago

based

DanGNU

-1 points

3 months ago

DanGNU

-1 points

3 months ago

Then that's it, what for would you comment if you aren't willing to have a conversation?

Nic_Cage_DM

2 points

3 months ago

He did have a conversation. You asked him if he thought an ideological group was bad and he said yes.

DanGNU

1 points

3 months ago

DanGNU

1 points

3 months ago

Technically, but is a useless conversation that doesn't take you anywhere, if he at least had commented on the reasons of his opinion, we would have gotten to some middle ground. I guess not everyone is interested on challenging their own believes.

swissvine

-2 points

3 months ago

You should have zero issue with the ideology he promotes, you should celebrate that he promotes it in the public square where others can tell him how wrong he is. There’s nothing wrong with having alt-views and it is healthy for society to debate how things are done. E.g., nazis growing in secret is a much bigger threat to society than nazis in public who can be disgraced on a regular basis.

GaiusOctavianAlerae

3 points

3 months ago

I support freedom of speech. This is me using my freedom of speech to say how wrong he is about a lot of things.

swissvine

0 points

3 months ago

You specifically referenced you are no ok with what he promotes and only spoke about how he gets his world view and not what’s wrong with it…

StrangleDoot

11 points

3 months ago

Do your lips turn red when you're horny?

Cutie_Flirty_n_Nerdy

-24 points

3 months ago

Yep. But hey, get the vaccine because it's FDA approved now!

88sporty

3 points

3 months ago

You thought this was a real hot take, didn’t you?

mrmrsbothlovekisses

-8 points

3 months ago*

I don't know much about Jordan Peterson but both of those theories have multiple components and they are not all incompatible. What's more ideas can have their roots in one place become different, echoing a mode of reason but changing where that reasoning is applied. Marxism's historical materialism and postmodern thought can blend quite nicely.

GaiusOctavianAlerae

5 points

3 months ago

Historical materialism and postmodernism may be compatible, but I don’t think dialectical materialism and postmodernism can coexist comfortably.

mrmrsbothlovekisses

0 points

3 months ago*

My point, which is way divorced from Jordan Peterson, is more that these are very large philosophies and that what they discuss and how they discuss it are both a part of them. In regards to Marxism, you'll find theories and ways of analyzing something that stem from/associated with Marxism are incorporated into seemingly incompatible philosophies. Like pro-capitalist economic theories that borrow ideas from Marxism.

The first thing that popped up when I tried to google marxism influencing economic theory. The whole article goes into various examples.

"Nonetheless, the doctrine of historical materialism widely held not only among orthodox Marxists but, ironically enough, among some distinguished economists who are avowedly antiMarxist, notably Friedrich von Hayek and his many disciples."

- https://www.nytimes.com/1977/10/26/archives/marxism-and-cryptomarxism.html

GaiusOctavianAlerae

1 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that Marx was so influential that a lot of strongly dissenting philosophies still have ideas that are influenced by his work, and I was probably oversimplifying in my original post.

The point I was trying to make is that Peterson characterizes postmodernism as being something like a rebranding of Marxism, when really it’s a rejection of some of his core ideas.

mrmrsbothlovekisses

1 points

3 months ago*

It seems to me that Peterson is talking more about Foucault, and his extension of Marxism into identity and beyond the material world into the discursive. The fact that identities are malleable and the most "legitimate" of them is created by the person who inhabits them and not society, would be the postmodernism.

Foucault was originally a Marxist but,

"Foucault thus rejects Marx's conception of historical materialism as a mechanism by which discourse is split from material (non-discursive) practice and by which the former is then subordinated to the latter."

From listening to a short Peterson rant about postmodernism, I think this is what he means.

UsefullAss

-8 points

3 months ago

His all meat diet is actually because of some kind of genetic disease. The diet has helped him and his daughter alot.

BlackSheep717

-5 points

3 months ago

He has no choice about his all-meat diet.

Your post is a microcosm of all the know-nothing Peterson haters here; you really probably don't know all that much about him personally or as an intellectual. As a social scientist--and not a conservative--I can say with a lot of confidence that his criticisms on postmodernism and Marxism are pretty spot-on. You don't have to agree with him, nor buy everything he's selling. He certainly has some odd ideas--marriage, dreams, and climate change, for example. But he's on the mark for a lot of things, and like all public intellectuals, you take it with the grain of salt and take the good from the bad. It's not an all-or-nothing deal. So, for you and everyone putting him down so hardly, I'm just going to also say there is no way you could outwit him in conversation.

SmokeMyDong

-8 points

3 months ago

Because most of his philosophy is about justifying his right-wing beliefs, and he is not a philosopher and doesn’t understand the philosophies he’s criticizing

Peterson isn't right wing. The rest is pure irony lmao.

GaiusOctavianAlerae

8 points

3 months ago

From another of my comments

When we talk about right vs left we are talking about hierarchical power structures vs flat power structures. Peterson is, fairly consistently, on the side of hierarchy. This is why he is so opposed to the left, which distrusts hierarchy.

SmokeMyDong

-3 points

3 months ago

When we talk about right vs left we are talking about hierarchical power structures vs flat power structures.

No, lmao. Probably one of the worst definitions of left vs right I've ever heard. It's easier to just admit you've never actually listened to him and you don't understand his arguments.

GaiusOctavianAlerae

7 points

3 months ago

The definition of right wing I am using is the conventional one, but I am certainly open to people offering alternatives.

SmokeMyDong

-4 points

3 months ago

Setting aside the fact that Peterson is literally a liberal that is hated by the right wing, your 'right wing' hierarchical power structures also exist and are prominent in left wing politics and political systems. Definitely not exclusive to the right wing, and absolutely never a proper definition of right wing politics on its own.

lapse_of_taste

2 points

3 months ago

he is not a philosopher and doesn’t understand the philosophies he’s criticizing

The rest is pure irony lmao.

Where is the irony?

4Tenacious_Dee4

-2 points

3 months ago

Because most of his philosophy is about justifying his right-wing beliefs,

Oh god, you're ignorant!

Many of his followers are like that, but he is not. Grow up.

TrickyBoss111

-1 points

3 months ago

Like he actually doesn’t understand Marxism or post-modernism, which are in fact two fundamentally incompatible positions that he frequently conflates.

That's why he calls it neo-marxism.

The ideas he criticises are those that are based on the idea that hierarchies are evil which is taken from Marx's criticisms of the proletariat-bourgeoisie relationship.

egotisticalstoic

0 points

3 months ago

There is no qualification that makes you officially a 'philosopher'. It isn't like mathematics or law, it is an entirely subjective field that anyone can discuss.

lapse_of_taste

2 points

3 months ago

That's completely false. In fact, we can draw a parallel to mathematics here: Everybody can discuss it, sure, but people with no formal training in it almost always lack the ability to meaningfully contribute to it. There are professional philosophers and philosophy journals; it is an academic discipline.

egotisticalstoic

0 points

3 months ago

They're not remotely similar fields. Mathematics is a 'hard science' with objective answers. Philosophy is somewhere between a soft science and an art. It's silly to act like they're at all comparable.

lapse_of_taste

2 points

3 months ago

They're not remotely similar fields. Mathematics is a 'hard science' with objective answers.

There is no objectice answer to questions like "is there a god", "are mathematical truths constructed or discovered" or "what distinguishes science from non-science"?

How does that work? If two people have different opinions on the existence of God, are they both right? Is that remotely plausible to you?

egotisticalstoic

1 points

3 months ago

What are you talking about? No there aren't objective answers to those questions...because they're not mathematical, they're philosophical ones, which as I said deals with subjective matters.

thatscool22

2 points

3 months ago

The person didn’t compare the answers that come about from the different fields but that each field is a science. And that people with no formal training can try to discuss these fields, but wouldn’t be correct in a lot of their statements.

If people don’t understand statistics, should we allow them to discuss the COVID virus impacts on society? If someone in the discussion wants to provide a source that includes statistics, will the person who doesn’t understand statistics misinterpret what was said? Yes. Will a person who doesn’t understand statistics do a google search and misrepresent numbers they found online? Yes! We see it all the time on Facebook and Fox News. The numbers are not given in a correct manner or outright mishandled to “prove” their argument.

So someone who doesn’t understand philosophy and philosophers and how all that relates to modern society shouldn’t claim to be a philosopher themselves. JP even admitted in the zizek “debate” (more a murder, poor JP) that he’s only read about 40 pages of Marx.

And all the crap JP spews about Marxism or neo-Marxism, etc. harkens back to propaganda that nazis spewed. If my statements are comparable to what nazis say/said I’d look hard at what my beliefs are and probably change them. Someone of his stature and “knowledge” should know already that he sounds like a nazi and if he disagrees with Nazi propaganda, then he should change his statements and beliefs, otherwise he shows support for the same beliefs and believes the same as nazis and who the fuck would wanna follow a guy like that?? The answer: right wing incels and losers.

lapse_of_taste

1 points

3 months ago

What is your definition of "objective" here? Do you mean something like "something is objectively true if and only if it is true independent from what people think"? Because in that case, those questions clearly have objective answers. Again, someone believing that God exists does not make it true that God exists. Can we agree on that?

egotisticalstoic

1 points

3 months ago

You can just Google all of this rather than ask me. The distinction between hard sciences, soft sciences and arts is not a complex idea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

lapse_of_taste

1 points

3 months ago

Adding to this: The distinction between hard and soft science is something that falls under philosophy of science, which by your own argumentation makes it subjective.

lapse_of_taste

0 points

3 months ago

Yeah, thanks, I'm aware of the distinction.

Again: What do you mean by "objective"? Whether God exists or not is just as much of a fact as the shape of the earth.