Yes. You can disagree and argue that it actually has worth and there isn't a big movement growing up around it of people, primarily young men, who find him inspirational and to bring hope but this doesn't make it a bad faith argument to disagree with you.
We absolutely did expect people to be annoyed because of the similarity in responses to criticism of the Peterson phenomenon as to criticism of religion. It's not like criticising an intellectual idea where ppl can tolerate disagreement. It cuts deeper coz JBP brings meaning.
-
-
You saw the bloke earlier comparing him to John the Baptist and saying he was leading people away from the rocks? People don't usually do this when someone criticises an academic. They don't take it so personally. But Peterson means more to people.
-
Again, I don't remember disagreeing about the level of devotion of his fans, my issue was with the a priori assumption that devotion procedes from deception. You don't have to agree with the philosophical basis to acknowledge it exists
-
I don't know where you are going now. People do have different views and they do come from them. They do think other people are mistaken. This is a priori? OK. Deal with it. Don't know what the last sentence means. James should have said 'A philsophical basis exists.' Why?
-
I've just checked. He acknowledges the philosophical basis 7 times and 2 of those are quotes of Peterson explaining his. I really don't understand your problem.
End of conversation
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.