Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

Shpongoolio Trismegistus said:
Apologies, what questions were those?
Click to expand...
Peterson is not genuinely eccentric? The man who expressed his opinion that ancient art depicting spirals are depicting DNA helix? The man who does lectures on the bible but can't answer if he believes in god, because he doesn't know what they mean by "god"? And of course the man who did a bad podcast with sam harrison and then came up with the excuse that he was at the tail end of 40 days of not sleeping because he had a glass of cider?

This is all natural in the contrxt of his life? Why?
Click to expand...
I believe those would be the questions @Lemmingwise was referring to.
 
  • Autistic
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: BluntyBitch, Felis Meanis, Bixby Snyder and 1 other person
Shpongoolio Trismegistus said:
Firstly, art as an activity is an expression of contents of the mind. An equivalent argument to yours may run something like "Love is nothing but art". An archetype is a subjective experience, after all.
Click to expand...
You again haven't answered any of my questions. It's a bit of a running theme when discussing things with Peterson fanboys. At least you answered questions the first time, which puts you above the other dozen interactions I've had with lobsterboys.

I have a rebuttal for what you typed here but I decided to delete it as this is straying pretty far off-topic for the thread and you have refused to elucidate the relevance.

Shpongoolio Trismegistus said:
Secondly, you've read several of Jungs books,? I find that difficult to square with your lack of knowledge of archetypes.
Click to expand...
Ok.
 
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: BluntyBitch, RadioactiveMonkeyMan, Embaby Cumjar and 1 other person
Lemmingwise said:
You again haven't answered any of my questions. It's a bit of a running theme when discussing things with Peterson fanboys. At least you answered questions the first time, which puts you above the other dozen interactions I've had with lobsterboys.

I have a rebuttal for what you typed here but I decided to delete it as this is straying pretty far off-topic for the thread and you have refused to elucidate the relevance.


Ok.
Click to expand...
Frankly, your questions require some baseline knowledge of the constituent elements of the topics they pertain to in order to comprehend the answers I would provide. I do not believe you possess this baseline. These are sophisticated topics, and you are not proving yourself a sophisticated thinker. I mean no disrespect by this.

In example, regarding the question about Peterson's assertions that the double helix structure of DNA may be depicted in ancient symbols? This was a position that Jung himself was one of the first to make and take from a scientific perspective, and indeed Peterson references Jung's work in his own apropos this subject (that being archetypal symbolism, something you would have at least some semblance of knowledge regarding if you'd actually read several of Jung's books, as you claim)

Thank you for answering my questions, I'll be seeing myself out. Best of luck ... doing whatever the hell it is you people are doing here.
 
  • Autistic
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: deathdisco, BluntyBitch, Angry New Ager and 8 others
Shpongoolio Trismegistus said:
Thank you for answering my questions
Click to expand...
The eternal peterson fanboys. Only answered 2 out of like 10 questions. Asserted his own big brain position and unable to conceive that someone might come off with a different conclusion after reading Jung's work. Unable to defend his assertions or explain the relevance of his discourse.

If the questions are too complicated for you to explain, then you have a very poor understanding of the concepts you think to be an expert on.

Just to be clear. I mean disrespect with this. Your backhanded comments are as transparent as your unduly high opinion of yourself. You are not as magnanimous as you think you are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Agree
Reactions: Bartholomew96, deathdisco, Lurky McLurkzorz and 9 others
Lemmingwise said:
The eternal peterson fanboys. Only answered 2 out of like 10 questions. Asserted his own big brain position and unable to conceive that someone might come off with a different conclusion after reading Yung's work. Unable to defend his assertions or explain the relevance of his discourse.

If the questions are too complicated for you to explain, then you have a very poor understanding of the concepts you think to be an expert on.

Just to be clear. I mean disrespect with this. Your backhanded comments are as transparent as your unduly high opinion of yourself. You are not as magnanimous as you think you are.
Click to expand...
"The world can be validly construed as a forum for action, and as a place of things"

This is the first sentence from Maps of Meaning. Why don't you impress me and tell me what you think it means?
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: BluntyBitch and Cisna H. Scumale
Lemmingwise said:
The eternal peterson fanboys. Only answered 2 out of like 10 questions. Asserted his own big brain position and unable to conceive that someone might come off with a different conclusion after reading Yung's work. Unable to defend his assertions or explain the relevance of his discourse.

If the questions are too complicated for you to explain, then you have a very poor understanding of the concepts you think to be an expert on.

Just to be clear. I mean disrespect with this. Your backhanded comments are as transparent as your unduly high opinion of yourself. You are not as magnanimous as you think you are.
Click to expand...
Ngl. I would have thought his profile pic was a dead giveaway of either him being a shitty troll or a intellectually inept cock sucking dumbass.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: BluntyBitch, Boris Blank's glass eye, Cisna H. Scumale and 2 others
Shpongoolio Trismegistus said:
This is the first sentence from Maps of Meaning. Why don't you impress me and tell me what you think it means?
Click to expand...
Why should I answer any of your questions until you've answered the ones I've asked you?

You thanked me for answering your questions, so you see the value of getting answers to questions. Why don't you do me the same courtesy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluntyBitch
Shpongoolio Trismegistus said:
It would be a gesture of good will. A question for a question, perhaps?
Click to expand...
I have asked you 4 times and you come with this gay shit. I can't bore people with this shit here any longer.

@RadioactiveMonkeyMan even quoted the bit.

You could have just answered some questions. I'm done humoring you.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: BluntyBitch, Embaby Cumjar, George Floyd Sneed and 3 others
Seasoned News Reporter said:
Ngl. I would have thought his profile pic was a dead giveaway of either him being a shitty troll or a intellectually inept cock sucking dumbass.
Click to expand...
1644456712271.png
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Bartholomew96, Lurky McLurkzorz, Yeeted Teet and 2 others
Shpongoolio Trismegistus said:
What is the difference between merely sounding smart, and actually being smart? (this is one of the most common criticisms I have seen of Peterson here)
Click to expand...
Substance. Peterson is the king of verbosity. Self help books with 12 guidelines don't need to be 400 pages.

An example.
The big thing people use when discussing Peterson is the following rule: "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."

On the face of it, this is a thought provoking concept. The average reader may look at this and ask themselves, "do I really have the grounds to make criticism of society/someone else/etc when my life isn't in perfect order?" and proceed to put any criticism or critique on the back burner to improve their own life.

However, even the most cursory exploration of the idea shows that it's not thought provoking, it's thought terminating. Scrutiny of the rule and how it's applied shows that it's easy to abuse in order to shut down discussion or criticism. If I criticize your actions or behavior, for sake of example, you could respond with the rule to attempt to get me to stop criticizing you.

Its a lazy, dishonest method to deter critique or commentary.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Bartholomew96, Stanley Ipkiss, Beard_Chan and 16 others
ADN_VIII said:
Substance. Peterson is the king of verbosity. Self help books with 12 guidelines don't need to be 400 pages.

An example.
The big thing people use when discussing Peterson is the following rule: "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."

On the face of it, this is a thought provoking concept. The average reader may look at this and ask themselves, "do I really have the grounds to make criticism of society/someone else/etc when my life isn't in perfect order?" and proceed to put any criticism or critique on the back burner to improve their own life.

However, even the most cursory exploration of the idea shows that it's not thought provoking, it's thought terminating. Scrutiny of the rule and how it's applied shows that it's easy to abuse in order to shut down discussion or criticism. If I criticize your actions or behavior, for sake of example, you could respond with the rule to attempt to get me to stop criticizing you.

Its a lazy, dishonest method to deter critique or commentary.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the authenticity of your response.

Would you be opposed to me offering a counter argument? Only so as to further explore the position you've taken.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Yeeted Teet, Viridian, Angry New Ager and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back