How can we ever criticise anything if it is bad faith to say people are wrong about it?
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
It's fine to say ideas are wrong, and that people are wrong for expressing them, but if you don't attempt to explain WHY they're wrong, it's not really criticism it's just character assasination. Perhaps, as you say in the other response, he's written well & extensively about
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
No, honestly, people can write about social phenomena and psychology and movements. It really is OK. Gurwinder Bhogal wrote an excellent thing on the appeal of fundamentalist Islam. He didn't need to include why Islam isn't true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In the same way, religious people can write about this without first having to explain why God is real. We know that people have different views on this - theist/atheist, pragmatist/empiricist. They can write all sorts of things from those perspectives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
I agree with you. But if you write about social/psychological phenomena in a way that characterizes a broad swath of people (particularly in the latter case, where you're interpreting their internal proceses as well as external characteristics) as rubes, you should expect them
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
to be annoyed and demand more information about your reasoning.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.