Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Dr. Todd Grande"
channel.
-
220
-
171
-
126
-
76
-
57
-
52
-
48
-
45
-
42
-
35
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
23
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
15
-
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I don't know Peterson, so it is impossible to hate -- or love -- him. I object to his limitations -- which are precisely what his fanboys "love" about him; for whom, that is, it is all politics, even while dumbly buying into the idea that he is a "philosopher".
They "love" him for his biases; because he agrees with them, but appears to give legitimacy to those biases by providing elaborate, even verbose, rationales for them. He does the "thinking" for the smug who can't do their own "thinking" on those issues.
He, as example, rejects "feminism" without bothering to examine it; instead he simply asserts that it doesn't exist -- the reality that it does is beyond his consideration. He's a political "conservative" who appeals to political "conservatives" -- none of which is philosophy.
George Will is another "conservative" who pretends his political ideology -- bias -- is actually "intellectualism," "philosophy". He is a lightweight political ideologue that the untutored in actual philosophy believe is a "philosopher" because he "thinks" "things" they haven't thought of, but which affirm their existing unexamined beliefs; which they mistake for "philosophy". The same goes for his mentor William F. Buckley, defender of the status quo of the wealthy.
Peterson has fanboys because of his reactionary defense of traditional WHITE male chauvinism; because he affirms their unexamined assumptions/biases.
He does their thinking for them, so they not only needn't think for themselves, but also so they can continue to comfortably avoid the self-examination of questioning their own fundamental assumptions.
His elaborate defenses of bad ideas do not transform those bad ideas into "the good," which latter is the "goal" of philosophy. Philosophy is the pursuit of truth, not justification of one's refusal to change as truth discovered requires.
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
@_letstartariot Anyone can be a philosopher? How do you define "philosopher"?
Every area of human specialization is 'gatekeeped" because not everyone is competent in those specializations. We don't commingle brain surgeons with plumbers, as example.
Are bullshitters "philosophers"? How about con-artists? How about salesmen? How about propagandists? They all have good gifts-of-gab.
So I guess we can begin to distinguish between "philosopher" and "not philosopher". Certainly we evaluate the productions of "bullshitters" on their merits; but their productions do tend to point back to their source. If what they do isn't philosophy, then they are not philosophers.
Is the first question of philosophy, "What is reality?" And is the purpose of "philosophy" the pursuit of truth? And aren't there tonnages of specious nonsense between that first question, and that purpose?
If Peterson is "philosophizing," then why does he reject out of hand, as example, "feminism," and characterize matters in terms of politics, such as "far left"? And what, in his view, is "far left" -- the "liberals," who are part of the moderate middle, and who founded Western "civilization"?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7