the fact that they like him and not some alt-right...is a good thing in my view. — Wayfarer
And it makes me cringe when he compares today's left-wing activists to Mao and so on. — Baden
Peterson is a gateway thinker ..... — Maw
Peterson manages to spin it out over hundreds of pages, and expand it into an elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory that encompasses everything from the direction of history, to the meaning of life, to the nature of knowledge, to the structure of human decision-making, to the foundations of ethics.
Now there’s a rogue metaphor right there.... — Wayfarer
New article on Jordan Peterson by Nathan Robinson that's thorough — Saphsin
Let’s be clear--I’m not going to deny that there are problems with hyper-professionalized academia, SJWs, etc. etc. I’m extremely sympathetic to your situation regarding bill C-16, and even wrote to you privately expressing as much. I’m a fan of Sargon’s “This Week In Stupid,” and have had enough experiences of my own in and around academia to know that you’re pointing out some legitimate issues and some troubling trends in public opinion. Things like the Sokal hoax are crystal-clear examples of how much of a sham “peer reviewed” journals can be, but they’re not much of a takedown of the actual ideas behind postmodernist theory. If anything, they’re more evident of a general problem within all of academia. After all, Antivaxxing, homosexual shock therapy, craniometry, etc. all had a presence in peer reviewed publications while in fashion.
Saying Derrida and Foucault were Marxists is flat out wrong--the former refused to join the French Socialist Party or write Marxist theory, despite immense pressure to do so, and the latter spent so much time shredding Marxist arguments that they refused to accept him. It is absolutely, inarguably true that both of the thinkers I am defending grew up in cultures that were heavily dominated by Marxist thought. But even then, saying “Marxists make Marxist philosophy” is as inane as saying “Capitalists produce capitalist philosophy” or “Jews produce Jewish philosophy.” You’re either saying something astonishingly, painfully obvious--that people produce thoughts relating to the culture in which they find themselves, or you’re making the very strong claim that thinkers are not able to produce valuable insights if they find themselves within the confines of a restrictive ideology. We know, from people like Martin Luther, Nietzsche, Frederick Douglass, Solzenitzen, and so many more that great thinkers often produce thoughts that run against the grain of the society in which they were raised, despite oppressive regimes that attempted to stifle discussion. Furthermore, the most valuable, ever-green insights from these thinkers are often their critiques, not their recommended solutions.
And while Peterson has explicitly distanced himself from Richard Spencer, the latter, in a tweet, stated, "I respect your work. And we share a lot of common ground and philosophical starting points." — Maw
Furthermore, the most valuable, ever-green insights from these thinkers are often their critiques, not their recommended solutions.
You yourself are a postmodern philosopher, and many of your views align neatly with those found in Rorty’s interpretation of Derrida. It’s in your interest to use Postmodern texts to your advantage by dismantling the weaker arguments of your opponents, not to constantly advocate for their elimination from the intellectual world.
Forgot this gem, addressed to Peterson. — fdrake
So apparently it is proper to like a book more than the review if you've never read it, I don't see the sense in that. — Saphsin
I'm a defender of jargon, which can most effectively be used either sparingly or bountifully depending on the case. I think there's a clear difference between that and what the author has a problem with Peterson throwing jargon around to serve as an intellectual cache and not to illuminate actual content. — Saphsin
It's a casual conversation on an Internet forum. So far everything I've heard about Peterson, which is not much, seems agreeable enough. Can't see what all the fuss is about.
I don't know where the author advocates for a messiah of the Left (he just says Peterson succeeded by filling a gap that the rest of the Left visibly does not fill for American consumers, that's not advocating one figure to fill the gap) and I don't know where the author says there is the absence of an alternative full blown ideology (whatever that means) — Saphsin
Conservatives like to blame the victims to distract away from institutions, social organizations, or actions by powerful people. What he's saying is something different. There's a difference between that kind of excuse-making and making important self-reflections that movements are going about their ways insufficiently, which btw, they are in America to my experience in activism. — Saphsin
Because Mao was a savage psychopath who killed millions of his own people. — Baden
So how can we be sure that some of our nice modern Leftists aren't nascent savage psychopaths? — gurugeorge
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.