I need to write something about the problem of looking at the cultural, political situation via people rather than ideas. It comes down to people being essentially a bundle of ideas and the temptation if you admire or dislike a certain person to take on or reject all of them.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Also, there is the tendency to see an individual in terms of the thing which is most important to you and assume that everyone else sees them defined as that thing too. Then 'I admire/dislike this person' becomes 'I agree or disagree with this thing that is important to you'
Show this thread -
Suppose you admire JBP for his message about individual responsibility which has been presented in terms you find inspiring and which have helped you personally but someone else sees him in terms of epistemology - how we determine what is true - and disagrees strongly with this?
Show this thread -
You might understand that second person saying 'I am not a fan of Peterson' as saying 'I am not a fan of personal responsibility' when they mean 'I am not a fan of Darwinian notions of truth.' Therefore, miscommunication has happened & you could actually agree on both things.
Show this thread -
The question 'What do you think of so-and-so?' really needs to be answered with 'I know him/her mostly in relation to this idea about which I think...' but it's probably better not to ask that question at all in most situations and start with the ideas.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Can you name some blank slatists in modern academia with sources to their supposed blank slatism?
-
Dozens, yes. The academic term for this is 'social constructivism,' you can find numerous sources on Google Scholar searching that term. I recommend The Norwegian Gender Paradox to see some in action & the debate between Spelke and Pinker. Gender Trouble by Judith Butler. 1/2
-
That's the founder of Queer Theory and the book in which she sets out the main thesis that gender is a social construct. Mapping the Margins by Kimberlé Crenshaw in which she sets out the foundations for intersectionality saying it depends on PoMo ideas of cultural constructivism
-
Those are key texts. Steven Pinker also looks at several in 'The Blank Slate.' But throughout identity studies of all kinds, you will find that social constructivism is assumed & the word 'construct' throughout. Feminist epistemology & critical race theory are based in this too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would love to see you and
@jordanbpeterson get together for a discussion / debate. The two of you are among my favorite thinkers. -
Thank you! But we are coming from a fundamentally different epistemology so we'd run into the same problems that the talks with Harris and Dillahunty did and I could not address them nearly as well as those experienced & articulate speakers. I'm a writer really.
-
You still have some interesting insights and I often find your perspective useful in helping me find my way. I don't believe in echo chambers, and I welcome the opportunity to listen to intelligent, articulate people I may not always agree with.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You don't need to agree with him. But it's also the case that the character assassination is on the same spectrum as not listening to his (or others') ideas if they challenge one's own current views. Close-mindedness is close cousin to intolerance.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I love the Jungian archetypes stuff though, when he's in his storytelling element and just trying to provoke thought rather than make concrete assertions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
++ JBP needs to be aware how neoliberalism is at the root of much of the social problems he harps upon, and that economic structure matters a lot towards people's chances of achieving a better outcome.
-
You can't separate social and economic structure as they are one. Deregulated markets for labor and free trade will means deregulated sexuality and consumerist materialism. Sociological research has demonstrated the link between "open borders" and "free love" degeneracy.
-
Which is why the talk about a "sexual marketplace" is so puzzling. Neoliberal economists and conservative "masculinists" (or whatever they call themselves) are essentially marketizing and commodifying personal relationships.
-
The Rightwing analysis of sex is that patriarchy is sexual socialism and that is the basis of civilization where female choice is removed and replaced by Paternal choice. Patriarchy is the process of males systematically removing "bad boys" from sexual selection.
-
You highlight a very important contradiction for both sides. Leftists are redistributive when it comes to everything except sex, and rightists are free marketeers about everything except sex.
-
You are right that the "left is redistributive to everything except because leftism is female reproductive strategy in politics. The so-called right is divided by the two Make reproductive strategies i.e. Conservatives (Warrior Class) and Libertarians (Merchant Class).
-
Interestingly enough, before 1968, men would vote Democrats and Labour than GOP/Tories, while women were the ones voting for the GOP and Tories.
-
Parties are meaningless. I'm talking about policy. Women vote one way on policy i.e. whatever redistributes away from men and toward women and their children. I don't blame them. Women vote in their immediate interests but long term that will create problems.
- 1 more reply
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.