Sounds like an ideology, and a rather extreme one at that, like Libertarianism. Societies depend on collective cooperation, so that needs to be respected as well, right? — praxis
So entrenched is he in this idealism that he has even fallaciously tried to attribute it to Nietzsche, claiming that Nietzsche knew morality/values could not be bolstered without some kind of supernatural foundation(???). This is Nihilism! This is also a distortion and woefully incompetent mischaracterization of Nietzsche's position [see Peterson's exchange with Susan Blackmore]. (This proves that he is exactly the kind of Nihilist Nietzsche warned about.)
Not only is this a mischaracterization, this is pretty much the literal exact opposite of Nietzsche's actual position. — Enai De A Lukal
He should definitely stick to psychology — Enai De A Lukal
When he's talking to those who can think and hear.
— Xtrix
How does he know when this is the case? And further, does this have to happen within a set perimeter of time? — JerseyFlight
As per your revision: "Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 years, and then finally have them understand it or change their mind."
If it is a relative thing then how do you know what you're talking about? I thought I heard you say, "they're really just wasting their time -- no one is changing their minds and nothing is getting done." How do you know this? — JerseyFlight
You'll know when you see it. — Xtrix
Then clearly you assign a limit of time to effectiveness. This seems most strange to me, as I am still being affected by thinkers who are long dead that never even spoke to me. Also, this must mean, if one cannot "see it," then it must not be there, but what if it is there, but one cannot see it? What if one's intellectual labor only bears fruit in the distant future? Clearly you would not call this an impossibility? It would seem the history of culture stands against it. What if the intellectual decided not to speak because he could not see that his work would have value in the future? It seems you are simply telling me to order my intellectual life according to what I feel? — JerseyFlight
I think time is better spent elsewhere. — Xtrix
I would be shocked if you were not an American, and even more, are probably one that escaped poverty, the projects, etc. (Indeed, let us try to sell Peterson's ideology to Syrians). — JerseyFlight
Is this how thinkers should think? Prejudice and stereotyping? — Judaka
Peterson is a Nihilist, which simply means he accepts the false presumption that value must be rooted is some kind of Eternal, Absolute Idealism in order for value to exist at all. — JerseyFlight
Which seems to be saying that if you don't set yourself in order first, your arguments are going to be bad. — Echarmion
Good advice, certainly, but what if an unordered mind comes up with something rather important? — Echarmion
Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have a positive direction, a plan, a better way of life, a better way of thinking, etc., and let people join in with that -- questioning ourselves and correcting mistakes along the way, but not getting sidetracked by "debunking" things (unless there's a real chance that it helps). The same is true of "debate" -- a ridiculous concept, really. — Xtrix
I think time is better spent elsewhere.
— Xtrix
That is just the knowledge I am trying to get at, how did you determine this? — JerseyFlight
Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have a positive direction, a plan, a better way of life, a better way of thinking, etc., and let people join in with that -- questioning ourselves and correcting mistakes along the way, but not getting sidetracked by "debunking" things (unless there's a real chance that it helps). The same is true of "debate" -- a ridiculous concept, really.
— Xtrix
What positive direction do you believe in? — fdrake
Depends on what we're supposedly reacting against. If it's climate denial, for example, simply present the evidence -- that's a positive direction forward. If its pseudo-intellectualism, then counter it with actual intellectualism (re: Peterson), etc. Not complicated. — Xtrix
Of course, those who are merely conforming do not perceive any of this, their approach to the world is not critical but intuitive, and this means their intuition blinds them to the negative development of reality. There is something very wrong with any thinker who is telling us to forsake thought in exchange for comfort. This is not resistance but resignation, it is functional Nihilism, even if it doesn't adopt the name. Thinkers are better than this, thought is a greater power! — JerseyFlight
Peterson has no model of anything. It'll change as the wind blows. Total pseudo-intellectualism and charlatanism. Has many strident followers, I'm sure. So does Trump. If you take it seriously, that's your business. — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.