Welcome back! Feeling better?
-
-
-
Much, thanks. :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
>First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Many philosophers and public intellectuals, historically. >It does help if you are male and Caucasian. Casual -isms detract from your point.
-
>If it’s so “obvious” that he can be written off as a charlatan, why do so many people respect his intellect? Motivational speakers need not be especially original-- merely memorable. I do not see anything fundamentally different about, e.g., Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning".
-
I think it talks about that. There are psychological needs at play.
@Goddoesnt talks about them here. https://areomagazine.com/2018/01/29/the-guru-appeal-of-jordan-peterson-in-our-post-everything-world/ … People are constantly being drawn to charismatic leaders. It's why Deepak Chopra is so popular. No indication he is a charlatan tho. He believes himself -
While I certainly don’t agree with some of what JBP espouses I don’t yet think he is a charlatan. Stefan Molyneux is a charlatan
-
Yes. Molyneux often does cite verifiable statistical data, but his broader claims seem to greatly overreach it, and his past as a de facto cult leader makes me question any action whatsoever thereafter.
-
Of course, overreaching on statistical data is ubiquitous among the SocJus Maoists as well, but both are in the wrong.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thorough, if not accurate...just a more articulate and (much more) verbose version of the same opinions he distances himself from in the beginning.
-
If you are determined to read all criticism of Peterson's thinking - no matter how many examples of it given - in terms of leftist tribalism even when it comes from people who see the same problems he does on the left and are also trying to deal with them, I give up.
-
Never mentioned which of those articles he was like; @ "determined" and "all", assume away. As much as I wish he was balanced, it was regardless nice to read a serious attempt at criticism.
New conversation -
-
-
This was a strong piece. Thorough and well done. But, I didn't get the point that it was fruitless to raise the issues. The article ended with an admission that Peterson has tried to fill a void a certain segment of center-left-political academia hasn't. And until they do...
-
I was referring to where he talks about Peterson's ability to avoid being pinned down to anything and the wide range of possible interpretations.
-
Understood. I would have to think about whether Peterson is unique in that regard, in terms of vagary and multiple interpretations. Or whether it's an artifact of the level he is trying to posit ideas (metanarrative). Or whether it is that he is particularly slippery debater.
-
I think it's a mix of his using needless verbosity, and his arguing both sides of balances (e.g., between openness to foreigners and closed borders, between egoism and altriusm, etc.).
-
The verbosity can be critiqued, but I think arguing both sides of balances (i.e. "complexity") is something we desperately need public intellectuals to attempt. Peterson may fail in some ways, but he's integrative & many of his critics are mono-perspectival. Part of his draw.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's an interesting perspective. To take a well published, cited academic, also an experienced clinician, who has managed to garner an extraordinary following outside academia, and evidently has had a profoundly positive impact on many peoples lives; and conclude that because >
-
Each one of these rather cranky explanations on the rise of JBP sound similar: he's charismatic and vague enough to fool the masses. Each pundit admits to a shallow skim of JBPs work , but they still weigh in - without the charisma.
-
I think a lot of people see the world in the way Peterson describes it. Some don't and find his unravelling of human experience simply incomprehensible as another language. The article questions why chaos is feminine but it may as well denounce gendered nouns in French
-
That last sentence encapsulates the idea we have not, and still do not, seem to seriously study. What IS woman, in a sociologic sense? Minus mother or helpmeet, are there characteristics which could be honed to compliment/propel a better social order?
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.