Then he's not speaking the same language as the rest of us.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That equivalence is a bit a of stretch. Peterson analyses “God” as a jungian psychologist, like it refers to a kind of generative grammar of human belief structure. Why would anyone be surprised, much less annoyed, by this?
-
Peterson is not a Jungian psychologist and true Jungian psychologists do not analyze God "like it refers to a kind of generative grammar of human belief structure."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
To be fair, the word “God” is exponentially more abstract to begin with. Don’t think this is apples to apples.
-
God is undefinable, to begin with. We try are best but we can never fully define God, fully.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am most of the way through "12 Rules for Life". He does the same thing there, practically on every page. Frustrating, because it obscures the stuff that is valuable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Disagree --the use of "God" is consistent with his use of "Savior", "Heaven" and "Hell" and is meant to say that such religious terms are universally experienced even if they are not always called that.
-
" and is meant to say that such religious terms are universally experienced ". Unless he's asked *everyone* about that, it's a major and unwarranted assertion. denying anyone with an contrary experience. Me, for a start.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.