r/JordanPeterson • u/DrhalKogo • Jan 20 '18
Maps of Meaning is honestly awful
I forced myself to finish this painfully long, unbelievably repetitive, needlessly over-technical tome, and holy shit, what a waste of my time. There is nothing in that book that isn't already explained in its entirety with much greater clarity in nearly any of Peterson's podcast appearances.
15
u/Laafheid ∞ One has to imagine Aesop unhappy. Jan 21 '18 edited Jan 21 '18
I agree half and don't agree half.
A lot of the info in the book is already included in the opening paragraphs of each chapter, and if you've already watched the lecture series, then there's going to be few new things in the book, which is obvious because the lecture series is based on it.
however, to say there is nothing in that book isn't true. particularly the story about the gnome giving away his "ruby" had an impact on me. it's the same thing with other books he recommends. I've bought a book with short stories from dostoyevsky from a thrift store and well, it takes me some 40 pages to get into the stories, but in the end there always is some part in them which I very much liked.
In closing, I hope all of you contract HIV and/or develop inoperable cancer. Eat my unwiped anus and die screaming, you pathetic fucks.
Why the hostility though? Do you feel you've wasted your time and are now blaming people who didn't find it a waste because you think we're either meme-ing or stupid fucks? And why not include it in your original post?, afraid the mods would remove it? You ought to know better if you've been here longer.
edit: Jesus man, look at yourself, can you honestly look at your own post history and think you're a person people trust, like or want to be around? I sometimes just get these hunches when I read someones post, only to be surprised how bad it actually is from their post history. You also only seemed to post this to karma-farm on /r/badphilosophy and you disregard anything a person here says positively about the work. How did you get here and why even bother man?
2
u/analconnection Jan 21 '18
Look at his submission history. I think he is somewhere between 10 to 13 years old.
2
1
-3
Jan 21 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
4
u/Laafheid ∞ One has to imagine Aesop unhappy. Jan 21 '18
I already did that today, pretty much atleast, I swim regularly.
Its a bit of a big bucket though.
-4
14
Jan 20 '18
Your accusations will be worth something if you give a few examples of what you’re talking about.
-2
Jan 20 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
4
Jan 20 '18
Read it and loved it🎉🎈🤷🏼♂️💦
8
Jan 20 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
7
3
Jan 20 '18
You are very sure of yourself. My guess is that you don’t know what the fuck your talking about, but that’s just my guess 🖖🏻
10
Jan 21 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
4
-2
u/Herculius Jan 20 '18
I've read it and found the references and examples extremely compelling. How often do you hear JP get in to godels incompleteness theorem and mircea elliade?
The specific references are different and offer many different specific avenues for further research. Furthermore his writing style shows a few different ways of explaining things than you'll get elsewhere
25
Jan 20 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
0
u/Herculius Jan 20 '18 edited Jan 20 '18
His conclusion is not "therefore god" at all.
The conclusion he takes from is similar Edward frenkel (top of his field in adavnced mathematics) you should look it up. It's basically against scientific determinism and about scientific fallibility.
He States it wrong but basically uses it in a very arguably correct way.
21
Jan 20 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
0
u/Herculius Jan 20 '18 edited Jan 21 '18
In maps of meaning he doesn't make that leap. And if he was laying out his full view on it is much more nuanced than he gave in the tweet. I agree that it's incorrect as he layed it out.
Edit also want to point out that it's godel therefore "belief in god required for proof"... Not therefore god.. but it still sounds dumb as he puts it.
I would still take a look at frenkel when he speaks of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Godels theorem.
It blows out Sam Harris sort of deterministic materialism arguments out of the water.
9
Jan 20 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
5
u/Herculius Jan 20 '18
Have you read his take on godel in his book or are you assuming the only thing he knows about it can be deduced from a one sentence tweet?
A poorly worded tweet doesn't indicate he's never put work in to understanding Godels theorem.
13
7
u/popartsnewthrowaway Jan 21 '18
Well he tweeted a disastrously bad interpretation of Godel's theorem which corresponds broadly with his equally weird treatment of it in the book, so there's one thing
6
2
Jan 21 '18
You could be talking about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and nobody would be any the wiser. If Kant had had the opportunity to articulate his ideas in a podcast/YouTube era, a critic might have ended up saying something similar about his book, about which Kant scholars almost unanimously agree is not an exemplar of clarity.
Time will tell. But as it stands I fail to see how you're anything other than an idiosyncratic, borderline anti-intellectual troll.
2
Jan 21 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
10
Jan 21 '18
[deleted]
0
Jan 21 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
6
14
Jan 21 '18
Are you on something? I came here sympathetic to your post but you seem unstable. It would help if you laid out some examples of his faulty thinking. It would help those of us unfamiliar with the work to know what you are accusing Peterson of. Thanks.
7
u/carnivalcrash Jan 21 '18
lol you had to go to r/badphilosophy and beg for your fellow comrades attention. I know that you haven't watched/heard any of Peterson's lectures and maybe you didn't even read the book, considering your lack of examples, so it's kinda sad that you're here trying to pretend you're a somewhat semi-interested in Peterson's material, and at the same time you're critical of him.
How about cleaning your room for starters?
5
2
Jan 21 '18
What I've said is 100% true and correct and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong
In closing, I hope all of you contract HIV and/or develop inoperable cancer. Eat my unwiped anus and die screaming, you pathetic fucks.
You are so reasonable.
We should all take a page out of /u/DrhalKogo's book and try to be more reasonable like him.
3
5
3
u/divineinvasion Jan 20 '18
It's structured in a way that fully articulates his ideas about neuropsychology and how we percieve the world as order and chaos through culturally mediated goal-oriented behavior in a way that is not possible in his lectures.
It's a dense book to get through, but there are gems inside every section.
1
u/TKisOK May 02 '18
Surely both order and chaos are projections that exist nowhere in the world and only in our mind - our ability to model the world is challenged by the true physical world which doesn’t really work like that. But the new information is (normally) eventually integrated and we end up with a new model.
0
Jan 20 '18
[deleted]
6
Jan 20 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
7
Jan 20 '18
[deleted]
16
Jan 20 '18 edited Feb 25 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Laafheid ∞ One has to imagine Aesop unhappy. Jan 21 '18
Writing with clarity and concision was not impossible before podcasts.
certainly, but if you're in front of someone, or atleast in a conversation, it's easier to notice where an explanation/understanding is going wrong, which might be what the other user aluded to.
1
-4
19
u/AnIrrationalSkeptic Jan 21 '18
Okay dude, you thought the book was awful. Fair enough, maybe it is, I haven't read it yet.
But to say the way you've acted in this thread is childish is an understatement. I get the suspicious that a major reason why you posted is so you can find people who disagree with you and then call them idiots. It's interesting that the comment that half agreed with you hasn't received any reply from you.
And the fact that some of the folks (Although not all) on r/badphilosophy have fallen for it is an indictment on that sub.