Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Foucault - Patron Saint of Child Indoctrination | Logan Lancing" video.

@Philosophy-esque You sure didn't show me that the emperor has no clothes. All you showed me was that you're full of yourself by using big words and circular logic. If you want to show us that he has no clothes, you address what HE is saying and don't try to baffle with BS and pretend that this is evidence of some kind. It's BS and nothing more and says nothing about the emperor or what he's saying.
1
@Philosophy-esque When you write a lot of nonsense, that doesn't prove that what someone else wrote is nonsense as well. All it shows is that YOU wrote nonsense and did it intentionally. Just because you didn't understand "Maps of Meaning", that doesn't make it a jumble of words with no meaning. It could mean that it's a difficult read and needs one to use their brain to understand it. Also, I've read it a long time ago and it is a very difficult read. Some ideas were very intriguing, like how people use narratives to express personal beliefs or behaviours. Peterson simplifies it in his YouTube series on "Pinocchio" and also using the stories of the Bible. However, it's always easier to mock than to do the work of trying to get his point or even analyse it so you can explain your position on it. You're the one with the big problem with it. Why don't you explain why those ideas are wrong instead of feigning intelligence through sneering remarks. You don't even have to read the book to do that.
1
@Philosophy-esque Apparently, you just wrote in one short paragraph what Peterson did in 400 pages. At least that's what you think. It's like saying that the theory of evolution was the complete brainchild of Darwin when he built it on evolutionary ideas of others but added one perspective that no one else thought of. The theory of evolution already existed before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. Knowledge grows upon knowledge and Peterson tied together elements of many disciplines to end up where you did and it discusses the very heart of why human history was so brutal and yet so productive and did it within his own journey of discovery, citing an wide array of authors and thinkers. Too bad you weren't around to simplify it for him and he wouldn't have had to spend years doing all that research. However, I'm sure that he would have dismissed your cynicism and the "I already knew that" attitude that allows you to display your arrogance like some young peacock. I even have a feeling that you didn't even read the book and that you're only repeating what someone else has said....someone who finds the ways that he links religion, the narrative, psychology, evolution, human behaviour and other disciplines as a justification for religious belief and no more then mere superstition. Sneering cynicism isn't all that profound either.
1
@Philosophy-esque I think that you're the one missing the point. If one hasn't been exposed to those ideas before, you learn about them. The library is full of redundancies, yet we still go there. Reading one book should lead to another and another. It's not just the information, it's how it's presented and the perspectives. One builds on the other. You want to prove something. I just want to learn. I could have picked up something by Jung but I didn't. I picked up "Maps of Meaning". From there I read Hannah Arendt, Voltaire. Knowledge is intertwined and a journey. I've read Milton and Solzhenitsyn, Marx and Foucault. Do I agree with everything they've written? Of course not but I still learn from them. I assume that everyone knows something that I don't. From what I can see, you'll dismissive and arrogant, too good to learn from those you believe don't have your vaunted IQ. YOU are missing a lot but you'll never know because you're too good to find out.
1
@Philosophy-esque "no formal education or academic contributions" the supremacy of the expert. I might as well quit interacting with you because my formal education is in computer programming and systems analysis. What expertise do you have in psychology? Like me, you have no background to even speak on it. Nice talking to you but apparently my lack of a formal education in these matters precludes any discussion on anything but how to design a computer system. I most humbly apologise.
1
@Philosophy-esque "Regarding that perspective, I’m aware of Peterson’s compulsion to mix subjects from different fields in which he has no formal education or academic contributions" This is not my interpretation. This is copied and pasted from your comment. So far, you've not said one thing that would demonstrate that this one book or his series on Pinocchio or his Bible series lack merit. All you've done is harp on his use of big words and how ambiguous they can be. I found those YouTube videos quite entertaining and thought provoking, even with my limited education in those fields. You're not talking about his ideas. You're making it about him. "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt. So far, you've not passed talking about him, who is a person, a singular people. Anyway, considering my lack of formal education is these fields, I'm going to relax on this lawn chair and contemplate the beauty of my neighbours black eyed susies. Beautiful flowers. Don't know much about them but that's not important when appreciating them, is it?
1