General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

J Nagarya
Dr. Todd Grande
comments

Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Jordan Peterson Critique | Philosophical Genius?" video.

@An-fi8is You haven't had many professors if you're still that impressed by them.
45
@johnwinthrop2702 It made you evaluate his "thinking" as if your own. That is the danger of not thinking for yourself.
25
@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
@ramushsteinuts9318 Nothing is perfect, and there are no absolutes.
12
@Malt454 I grew up, from about 6, reading, and reading, and reading. Born in 1948 -- do the math -- at my age I'm not much impressed by any so-called 'intellectuals" -- which isn't by itself the whole person. Better to read Socrates: he teaches how to THINK CRITICALLY.
11
@An-fi8is It isn't difficult to find good and even excellent professors. The point is whether you allow yourself to be snowed, or go to the opposite extreme and reject education, or instead learn to reason not only with but also critically evaluate that they present. Any professor worth his credentials appreciates challenge -- because that is part of what they are there to teach: critical thinking.
11
@resentfulandvengeful2193 "believe in him"!? Evaluate that phrase.
10
@RohitSinghhere No view is beyond critical evaluation. That you are offended by that fact is your issue. Peterson is not a "god" or a substitute for any "god," or a substitute for pursuit of truth. You are enamored of his views as if it were a "religion" because you either agree with his biases, or you are incapable of critical evaluation of his nothing-new views.
10
@peteroconnor6394 Peterson ventures, beyond psychology, into philosophy, and makes judgments based thereon.
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
@TV-ob1if He most definitely is. He is at foundation a social Darwinist -- survival of the fittest. That's why those who dumbly rail aginst gov't/rule of law fall for his reactionary POLITICS -- which is NOT SCIENCE.
6
@RohitSinghhere I note your defensiveness. And shifting from that to personal attack. Who are "you guys" -- white Westerners? You have no idea who I am, or what I believe -- I don't hang my ego out there for everyone else to kiss up to and praise, then get offended when they do not. "Inclusiveness" embraces difference, moron; it does not mean we pretend falsehoods are truths, or falsehoods are legitimate "opinion," or that bias is "objectivity" because we like the way it sounds. It does not mean being mindless globs of jelly who pretend that "inclusiveness" eliminates all differences, or that the intolerable must be tolerated. It does not mean we all get stupid "together". What rubs you is that I am critical of Peterson. Period. Full stop. That I don't fall for, and in line with, views that are actually nothing new. Views that, not being perfect, are full of error. That I won't turn a blind eye to error and imperfection so you'll be comfortable in your sleep. I don't look outside myself for others' biases that affirm mine, and then surrender my intelligence to whatever that is. While you have elevated him to the status of perfect guru. Maybe it's time YOU did some "introspection" in place of lashing out at anyone who critiques your sacred cow.
6
@resentfulandvengeful2193 Most people do not have a "philosophy in life". They have a mishmash of generalized beliefs to which they cling without regard for the truth or falsity of any of it. Because they believe, they believe the belief is therefore truth. Rudy Giuliani asserted, "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH!" Is that a truth? I'm a writer. 1. Writing is "thinking on paper". It is an exact statement of one's thinking, including errors. 2. Rewriting is critical evaluation of one's thinking, correcting errors in one's thinking. I have constantly to critically evaluate my thought -- is it true? Is it rationalization of a falsehood? There's more to philosophy, to being a philosopher, than being able to breath and emit words. More to it than "I believe this" -- "belief" is a place to pause, not a place to stay. Philosophy is the active pursuit of truth, including against one's own unexamined assumptions, one's own biases, one's own beliefs. My mother told me I was born, and claimed to be in the room at the time. I assume that is true, but I don't recall any of it. AND my mother was also known to lie.
6
And you believe that Jordan Peterson doesn't have an agenda?
6
@carlsong6438 And there are those who neither hate nor are skeptical of him but instead are sold on him. I am especially skeptical of those who make a thing of being "intellectual," and those who are enamored of them. Even more so when those enamored of them are so because of politics, not because of any inherent merit.
6
Which he counters with his own bad reactionary cliches. Those who flock to him do so becuase he confirms their POLITICAL biases, while apparently fooling themselves that they are hearing "science".
5
@resentfulandvengeful2193 A person who has a degree in philosophy learns not only the history of philosophy, but also the substance of the different schools of philosophy. Oh -- you didn't know that philosophers are professionals at what they do, and understand fundamental approaches to it? Socrates' method was to ask a question; and those in the conversation would provide and answer or two. He then would ask questions about the answers. More answers, and he would ask questions about those answers. (It is called the "Socratic method" and is used in law schools.) Ultimately -- and this can be achieved, though it requires concerted WORK -- Socrates said he "knew nothing". The untutored idea is that philosophy is about "wisdom" as answers. As clever one-liners. About competitive "winning of 'arguments'." Socrates wasn't satisfied with such pretend-knowledge. The purpose of philosophy is pursuit of TRUTH. If the truth is that none of us actually knows anything, then that is the truth of it. The untutored are instead about impressing others with their "knowledge". That is ultimately boring. Having been through all that, and having by my own efforts proven to myself that I know nothing, I have no patience with amateurs. No patience with those who are seeking OUTSIDE THEMSELVES someone to believe in, someone to provide them the "answers". Someone who appears to be able to make an "argument" that the person seeking such answers can't make themselves. And that is always competitive over against something else. So Peterson smears the "far left" -- whatever that is to mean -- as if all the truth is on his side of the divide he creates for himself. That is not philosophy; it is political ideology. That means he is not a great mind because he rejects truths that don't exist in his little box, within his self-limitation; truths that exist outside his narrowness that he rejects.
5
@shuffman8094 Because I inform myself in advance of critiquing. That is the intellectually honest approach. So instead of taking that approach -- critically evaluating his views -- you personally attack me. What I resent is stupidity, and the biased buying into bigotries of which they approve, while blithely ignoring the dishonesty.
5
@LionEagleOx I have an education in law; you do not. I adhere to law, and you don't know what you're talking about. As example, John Adams was the foremost constitutionalist among the Founders. He researched every instance of democracy back to the Greeks -- which the Greeks founded in keeping with PHILOSOPHY. Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, which was the model for the US Constitution. Also included among the Founders considerations were European Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke. This is an example of the Founders' view, from the 1784 New Hampshire constitution "Bill of Rights": "III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights ["natural rights" being a philosophical concept] to that society, in order to insure the protection of others [AND OF THEMSELVES]". Thus the first responsibility of gov't, which is by definition RULE OF LAW, is protection of public health and safety. You have no idea what philosophy is, and you mistakenly believe the easy way to learn it is to watch youtube videos by a right-winger who IS NOT a philosopher but IS a dogmatic -- dictatorial -- absolutist who rejects out of hand whole areas of PHILOSOPHY based upon right-wing BIGOTRY. All of which means that you believe his bias because it is YOUR bias. Philosophy is the PURSUIT of truth, NOT the "possession" of it; "wisdom" is the byproduct of that pursuit. Peterson believes he POSSESSES truth, which is as arrogant and elitist as it gets, and you buy his crap because you are looking for absolutes. Philosophy "knows" two things: (1) that there are no absolutes, and (2) that ultimately we "know" NOTHING. An actual philosopher is Socrates, who can be read in "Plato's Dialogues". Begin with that. Or begin with "The Story of Philosophy," by Will Durant.
5
@LionEagleOx Behind all else I'm an artist, and am a published poet. As said, you don't know what you're talking about. And you obviously believe communications are all about argument and combativeness, as if that proves something. "Belief" is a place to rest, not a place to stay. You are stuck with trying to find OUTSIDE YOURSELF something to believe, instead of creating meaning for yourself. You don't know anything about philosophy and are rejecting the tips I gave you. You aren't about learning or pursuing truth; you already have your fixed set of "facts," and that's your limitation.
5
@resentfulandvengeful2193 Peterson isn't a philosopher. Your argument that wallowing in uneducated belief is equal to being a philosopher is stupid. Go play your specious circular non-argument in your local bar.
5
Social satirists Irma Bombeck and Art Buckwald identified the source of humor as anger. Early in his career Mark Twain identified the source of humor as anger. Near the end of his career he identified the source as pain. (I've been told by psychiatrists that behind anger is fear. I ask, "Fear of what?" I answer, "Fear of pain.")
5
@jodycwilliams Gov't establishes and enforces the tule of law. In fact, gov't is by definition rule of law. And gov't has always regulated to protect public health and safety. And in the US, "We the people" are the gov't; so the idea that gov't is some foreign entity is a fundamental ignorance of that fact. It is essentially irresponsible. The Founders of the United States believved in "liberrty WITHIN the law" -- everyone else also has rights not to be violated. In other words: rights are secured in law; "rights" and law are not opposed to each other.
5
@resentfulandvengeful2193 So to criticize another's belief is "disrespectful"? We are instead to recognize that "we all have different opinions" -- even when falsehoods are palmed off as "opinion" -- and therefore not critically evaluate those "opinions" on their supposed merits?
4
Yes: philosophy is a profession of EDUCATED professionals. If you don't know the history of philosophy, or the differences among the various schools, and its purposes and methods, then you are essentially a bullshitter. Worse, you are indirectly attempting to defend a bullshitter as instead legitimate. You can't win an "argument" by attempting to pretend the uneducated is equal to the educated. You are talking in circles, denigrating education, in effort to falsely elevate your position -- knowing nothing of philosophy -- to equality with the qualified. The hypocrisy and irony is that you are rejecting "elites" while falling for the politics of an elitist named Peterson. What you want is affirmation of your existing biases -- which is contrary to philosophy.
4
@LionEagleOx Western "civilization" was founded on Greek and Enlightenment -- "woke" -- philosophers.
4
@shuffman8094 An "opinion" has a chance of being true. A falsehood, because false, cannot be true, therefore cannot be an "opinion". His dogmatism is elitist -- while he preaches against "elites" (but only of a specific political position, which he rejects, along with its truths, out of hand). And it is his dogmatism which refutes any legitimate notion that he is a "philosopher". Philosophy is the PURSUIT of truth, NOT the "possession" of it. Critically evaluating his views is not "tearing others down"; it is exposing illusion as being illusion.
4
@LionEagleOx Philosophy is the mother of science. The difference is that science must be based on hard evidence. Philosophy is the pursuit of truth. Because there are no absolutes. By contrast, "religion" -- which is not philosophy -- is based upon supposedly immutable truth, and claims to POSSESS truth, which is ARROGANT. Read "Plato's Dialogues". AND "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant. That's the least you can do to inform yourself as to what philosophy is, instead of constantly bullshitting in circles.
4
@_letstartariot If you had a grounding in actual philosophy you'd find a lot of argument between and among them. Some might even venture that one or another "philosopher" isn't a philosopher. But what if a pseudo-philosopher's "works" don't "measure up"? Are you able to determine that by omitting the possibility that the "philosopher" you swallow doesn't "measure up"? And do you base that determination on "philosophy" -- or politics?
4
@faysuxxss In other words, he disagrees with your starry-eyed view of Merkle.
4
You accuse the unnamed of "envy," when in reality it could be they are not dupes for "intellectual" verbosity. There's much self-flattery in those who believe in "intellectuals" like him because they can "understand" what he says, therefore they are "intelligent" too.
4
His "critique" of 'feminism" is a rejection of it. He doesn't bother to take it seriously.
4
Do they "hate" him? Or are they simply not as credulous as you?
4
@life_lab_chronicles As a projection, yes. But not a reliable view, as it characterizes those who are skeptical of Peterson as "hating" him. Such an emotional response by someone "impressed" by a so-called "intellectual".
4
@RunBayou His exceptionless dogmatism tends to raise the hackles in those who don't like dictators. And that dogmatism vitiates any claim that he's a "philosopher". Those who seek absolutes buy into his absolutism; in reality there are no absolutes.
4
@vancouverterry9142 What a condesending heap of judgmental rubbish. Are you of Peterson's inner circle, deployed to "crush" all critical evaluations of Peterson's precious fulminations?
3
@RohitSinghhere No "alternative point of view" is perfect.
3
@_letstartariot So the word "philosopher" has no meaning, no standards, no basic requirements? There is a prevalent knee-jerk tendency to sling the label "genius" at anything that is beyond the understanding of the person slinging the label. In music they do it when they LIKE the music -- which doesn't mean that the music, objectively considered, is particularly remarkable. Yes, I know: the critical evaluation is sidestepped by asserting that "art" is "all subjective" -- despite the objectified manifestations of it, which manifestations are legitimately subject to critical evaluation. I believe it was Socrates who said that the evaluation is necessary to determine whether the thing, the idea, under scrutiny is legitimate, or instead a "wind egg" (fart).
3
@resentfulandvengeful2193 You are attempting to limit and bias the critique before it is even uttered. And when you don't like the critique, you change the subject by asserting that the critique is "disrespectful," instead of actually addressing the critique. Which only means, "I don't like your critique because I choose to take it personally."
3
@resentfulandvengeful2193 So there is a "wrong mindset"? And what is the evidence for their being a (or any) "god"? And how is "religion" relevant to philosophy? And what is "nature?
3
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I answered your question: Philosophy is the PURSUIT OF TRUTH -- not the POSSESSION of it. Peterson is not a philosopher. Instead of talking in circles, READ "Plato's Dialogues". Read "The Story of Philosophy," by Will Durant.
3
@resentfulandvengeful2193 Get an education instead of trying to equate grunt-stupid with intelligence. Peterson is not a philosopher.
3
@RohitSinghhere Maybe you should cease confusing politics for "psychology" or "philosophy". How about "introspecting" on your bigotry?
3
@resentfulandvengeful2193 According to which philosopher? Not every opinion is worthy of respect. Consider: An opinion has a chance of being true. A falsehood, because false, cannot be true, therefore cannot be an opinion.
3
@LionEagleOx The fact is that the sources of Western "civilization" were Greek and European Enlightenment philosophies. Those are the sources for the US Founders' philosophy of gov't. What is the "argument" that you present that is relevant to those facts?
3
@michaelmcgee335 His dogmatism, which verges on demagoguery.
3
Except that Peterson makes specific hard-and-fast dogmatic statements which are not to be question or disagreed with. That's where he becomes a bully.
3
@LionEagleOx I got it from you and your attitude. You are defending nonsense which you refuse to critically evaluate because it "validates" your own biases.
3
@jamescooke5063 I agree: those who have no education are the best judge of education. Because, ya see, until one gets an education, one knows it all.
3
@deerlow1851 Pursuit -- not possession -- of truth. Which requires honest humility. Peterson both rejects whole areas of truth, and denies existence of things that exist, in service to his POLITICAL dogma.
3
@jah8875 Being diplomatic is posting facts. The facts are ignored, so the option is to be blunt. I see Peterson was on Rogan's program, and they explained what it means to be Black. Doesn't square with the views expressed by Blacks about their experience. But what do Blacks know about their own experience in the face of white supremacist conviction? Understanding psychology and formal philosophy requires a level of sophistication -- critical thinking -- that the joiners don't have. If Peterson claims to be a philosopher, they believe it -- even though the reality is that they believe his underlying political agenda because they believe it will provide them a security they lack. So Peterson is a cult figure, and they are seeking to overcome self-doubt. Yet doubt, precisely because humans are imperfect and prone to error, is essential. But that requires a degree of honesty -- the ability to admit, "I don't know," when that is the fact -- from which they are seeking escape.
3
@daronmann7159 See The Psychology of Careers: an introduction to vocational development (NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957), Donald A, Super, M.A. Those attracted to the "psychoanalytic" profession are those with their own issues -- they seek the help they need. Whether they are "successful" in getting their issues "cured" depends on how resistant they are to treatment. Too often their intellectual "expertise" is a defense against the help they need -- a complex of denial and resistance. So Peterson makes a big deal of a so-called "masculinity crisis" -- and his issues are expressed as a political/ideological view that happens to be white supremacist. And his appeal is to those who have no inner compass, so they seek outside themselves the "strength" they don't subjectively experience. In short: right-wing racists flock together with right-wing racists. Peterson appears to them to have an articulate defense of that which is both based on a falsification of history, and indefensible.
3
@daronmann7159 In another words, you aren't interested in learning. I answered your question. You refuse to accept it in order to continue your ranting non-defense of Peterson by attacking me. And that's all you have. Peterson has issues; you prefer to see his issues as "truth" because you're as superficial as the typical cultist. And that's all you have.
3
@jonathandavid9720 "superb communication skills" = snow job. When he stays within his limits, perhaps. His problem is that he doesn't seem to be aware that his knowledge and expertise is within those limits, and he goes on and on about "facts" -- which he gets wrong -- from fields in which he has no expertise. Many, perhaps most, fall for "dazzling vocabulary" as a signifier of intelligence. Not being a child, that is the first warning, because con-artists tend to "dazzle with bullshit". I suppose among con-artists there might be a competitive gradation, the best at it being classed as "superb". If Jordan's "skills" included empathy, and a desire to communicate instead of overwhelm, he'd meet the audience's level of comprehension. Instead he drones on and on, with excess verbiage and "mysterious" nomenclature, and that is the essence of his "technique". And your attack is typical: defend Jordan as faultless.
3
@tikiweshe That's why his political views -- they suffuse everything he says -- are "conservative" and "conservatives" identify with him. But politics is not science.
3
He's "taken off" with conservatives, which he is behind his views.
3
It can't be proven that there's a "God". Believing otherwise is not science.
2
@vancouverterry9142 So Peterson is, in your estimation, is to be elevated above criticism?
2
@Theactivepsychos I learned about thc pending climate crisis in junior high science during the late 1950s-early 60s. Jordan Peterson is not a climatologist, which is a science. And his opposition to "anti-capitalist front" poisons his views on many issues. He is in many areas simply closed-minded. He rejects as "false" many things without bothering to actually know anything about them.
2
"Fan" is short for "fanatic," and their objects of adoration are entertainers. None of which involves intellectual rigor.
2
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I'm saying it is certainly an advantage. That way one has learned in an organized way. Without that education one doesn't know how to make sense of it. As said, there is the history -- and there are different schools of philosophers.
2
@resentfulandvengeful2193 "The Story of Philosophy," Will Durant.
2
@captrjd Personal attack noted. And without a single example of anything I've commented that fit your pedantic diatribe of a characterization of them. I'm not responsible for you, or your state of mind, or your decisions, so it isn't my fault or responsibility that you can't find in yourself "a shred of positive to say". Perhaps you should learn to think for yourself, instead of being so dependent upon and influenced by others' thoughts that you can't do that. That you can't stand your ground and be balanced in doing so is your responsibility. I was born in 1948: do the math. I'm steeped in studies in psychology, philosophy, theology, and politics. I recognize when political dogma, political ideology, is disguised as such as psychology. Or when psychology is based at most fundamental on political ideology. Add to that the problem of a "scholar" who, for political reasons, dispenses with half the political spectrum along with the truths that half legitimately represents. A half-truth -- which is all he has left to work with -- is the equivalent of attempting to walk on one leg without hopping. In other words: I have a finely-tuned bullshit detector; I refuse to be bedazzled by verbosity, or even vocabulary, even with "disarming" disclaimers sprinkled in in order to give the appearance of objectivity. I refuse to be stupid.
2
@shuffman8094 He's a bullshitter who endeavors to overwhelm with bullshit. His dogmatic pronouncements vitiate any claims that he's a philosopher.
2
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I said Peterson is not a philosopher because of his fixed beliefs. "The unexamined life is not worth living" -- Socrates. That's your problem also: you fail to critically examine your beliefs and assumptions to determine whether they are true. That is the most important focus of the pursuit of truth. Your specious "argument" is that stupidity is every bit as good as being a philosopher because of your dumb-assed belief that education is irrelevant. I told you: want to know what philosophy is? READ PHILOSOPHY. Instead you continue sucking your thumb while deluding yourself that doing so is intelligent. Philosophy, the pursuit of truth, begins with the question: "What is reality?" It has a METHOD. One learns that by READING PHILOSOPHY.
2
@resentfulandvengeful2193 Stop putting words in my mouth and go away.
2
GeTTeM i GoTTeM ENT. Psychologists/psychotherapists reaching conclusions is not new. But is it philosophy?
2
@LionEagleOx Idiot: the Founders who drafted the Constitution based their doing so on PHILOSOPHY. I already pointed to the essential sources of their philosophy of gov't.
2
@michaelmcgee335 Beware of those who have all the answers.
2
@garymelnyk7910 So you're impressed with his dictatorial "debating" style? Philosophy is the PURSUIT of truth -- not a competitive "debate" over who can be most dogmatic. And I've yet to see a right-winger who actually knows the meaning of "debate".
2
@LionEagleOx You have yet to make clear your "argument," except that you reject the rule of law. I adhere to the rule of law. You spin your wheels trying to find excuses around it. The first thing people do when they get together, so they can work together, is establish a set of agreed rules. After that they build buildings, etc., together.
2
@resentfulandvengeful2193 You're still rejecting education in order to avoid knowing what you're talking about. You are intellectually lazy. You reject REASON.
2
@jerryw6699 So you and your buddy, sitting on your bar stool "Agoras," having never observed and critiqued your thought processes and ideas, are nonetheless philosophers? Actions and decisions don't make a philosopher, especially as you omitted the most crucial element: TRUTH. Any asshole can "act" and "decide". That does not make assholes into philosophers.
2
@ag7075 There are no absolutes except constant change, which constant change vitiates "absolutes".
2
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I don't hate Peterson, though I see as dangerous his presenting himself as some sort of guru, and not warning his cult-members NOT to view him as knowing-it-all. And I suspect his rants about "masculinity crisis" is his argument with himself.
2
@daronmann7159 Whether you inform yourself of the relevant is your decision, for which you are responsible. And there are doubtless other texts on the same topic which you might prefer. But you don't read, don't inform yourself of views other than Peterson's. Because that is what is required of history-illiterate cult members. The idea that "Western culture" -- the United States in particular -- was based on white European philosophers and "Christianity" is cripplingly false. The United States was founded on genocide and slavery, and philosophies as far back as the Greeks -- who were neither European nor "white"; and its polyglot "Christianity" was derived from the Middle East where Christ and "His" followers were Jews. Peterson embraces the US-specific right-wing version of "Christianity" that promulgates white supremacism and anti-Semitism. If you want insight into that racist bigotry look at the 6 "Federalist Society" extremists on the Supreme Court which, with their overturning of "Roe," and the targeting of other decisions based on the right of privacy, was accomplished by their erasure of the right of privacy based on the elementary-school level that such right does not exist because the words "right of privacy" do not appear in the Constitution. They are also gutting separation of "religion" and gov't in total disregard of the First Amendment separation of the two. Other words that do not appear in the Constitution: "Individual right to possess guns".
2
@jonathandavid9720 Yes, I have bias, because I'm imperfect and finite. So are you. And so is Jordan Peterson. "False dichotomy": you identify none. "[C]ritical error"? "[N]egative presumption. You identify none. [C]ritical error"?
2
@PrimePhilosophy So you believe in the extreme individualism of your "philosophy" not being a "mish-mash" because entirely alienated from the social milieu in which you are embedded? Why would you need a philosophy -- a compromised "negotiation" with reality, which includes other humans; why not just act according to one's unmediated/sublimated ID? Why not simply reject education, which is what you are doing? You exist in a democracy founded on the rule of law. The citizen in a democracy doesn't have only "rights" and "freedom"; there are also responsibilities. Rights are inextricably entwined with responsibility. There is no "right" to be stupid. You also remind of my youthful view that "education" would "taint" my creative process. I would learn from experience, and study, that it is quite opposite: learning enriches, and improves one's skills. It is bizarre to argue that rejecting formal knowledge of philosophy -- substantively -- will result in being a "philosopher". And that that means one will come up with ideas not already examined and articulated in formal philosophy. Have you a foundation for your "Philosophy of Ignorance"? Other than, that is, ignorance?
2
@PrimePhilosophy How then, being untethered from anything and everything objective, does one distinguish between "philosophy" and self-bullshitting?
2
@zacharybils9182 So he complains about the one-sided juvenile "cancel culture" meme -- but not when it is done by his cult members.
2
@jakedefenbaugh603 He's a bullshitter. Those who haven't exposure to formal philosophy often mistake the two. A degree in psychology is not a degree in philosophy.
2
@faysuxxss So you're saying that as a psychologist he isn't to reach any CONCLUSIONS. So how do you propose a psychologist engage in TREATMENT if s/he doesn't arrive at a conclusion of what needs to be treated? You know nothing about EVIDENCE-BASED THINKING. And you certainly know as much about bias, psychology, and psychotherapeutics.
2
Both of whom are political "conservatives". But that isn't science. Other "careful rhetoricians" are huckstering bullshitters. When I was a kid, we called it, "Overwhelm with bullshit."
2
Is there much more stupid than your repetition of the bullshit buzz-phrase than "left Marxism"? You obviously know nothing about Marxism, or anything else factual about politics and political science. It's an obvious and consistent tradition: right wing extremists/racists/white supremacists ALWAYS label those who believe and THINK differently than they as "Communists" and "Marxists" even when they aren't any of that. Why? Because morons like you were taught from the cradle to hate THE WORDS without ANY FACTUAL knowledge about ANY of what they actually mean. Peterson, like all authoritarians, panders to and preys upon the ignorant. And you fall right into the trap because he is manipulating your baseless hatreds of buzz-phrases that have no substance or meaning. And which negates itself: "Marxism" is by substance and definition far-Left, exactly as Fascism is far-RIGHT. And we know where you stand on the political spectrum: with Fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were FASCISTS. At bottom you hate freedom because it allows others to believe differently then you -- and you can't comprehend a way of thinking other than baseless griping and hatreds of realities you don't comprehend so want stomped out. You are the epitome of STUPID. AND YOU are RESPONSIBLE for that decision.
2
@StrengthInSuffering Or you'll ever be, name-calling buckaroo.
2
"Common sense" is a red herring. Those who think recognize that sense is not common. "Common sense is none too common." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Common sense is much too common." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Common sense" is invocation of an unpolled invisible mob not proven to exist.
2
@Scott100W That tiny minority, today, being "conservatives".
2
@andyhalstead3949 Feminism exists. That he rejects it does not cause it to cease to exist. There are many theoreticians of feminism. They also call it feminism. Rejecting feminism, as does Peterson, is anti-intellectual. When I was a kid, we called what Peterson largely does, "Overwhelm with bullshit." Those impressed by verbiage are suckered by it because they are seeking to receive a belief, or to have their biases validated. which are the opposite of critical thinking.
2
"Intellectually honest"? Like his discussion with Joe Rogan in which they explained what it means to be Black, even though neither has ever been that? I'd say he was perhaps-inadvertently honest about his white supremacism.
2
@willmerritt2922 Symbolic meanings given to colors also differ from one culture to another. Analogously, that's why "dream analysis" is problematic: first, what do they mean as a "process"? Second, dream "symbols" have different meanings, again, from one culture to another.
2
Peterson provides easy answers for those who are susceptible and seeking simplistic absolutes.
2
Cult of personality.
2
Gemma Dann Transforming a "burp" (or a fart) into a profound comment for those who succumb to being bedazzled.
1
@d.nakamura9579 Those are the excuses for the arrogance.
1
@vancouverterry9142 Why do you indulge in the unintelligent resort to ad hominem? Not a shred of which is a defense of Peterson. Defensive much?
1
@keithk.3963 You don't get around much.
1
Do you ever evaluate the "ideas" he puts out there as to their truth? For those skilled in evaluation of thought processes, he is easy to follow. But, however flashy, that does not at the same time make the "thoughts" valid.
1
@kelseychow5415 The slot has already been filled at University of Toronto. And I'll be you're opposed to ad hominem attacks when you are the target.
1
I agree: that's why "conservatives" flock to him as a "conservative". It isn't for them about the "science"; it is about his "eloquent" "defense" of the paranoid view of reality.
1
@Zetsuke4 He's critiquing the criticism.
1
Except Jordan Peterson?
1
You mean he confirms your biases.
1
Cult of personality. He agrees with you, so he is a genius.
1
I have more self-respect than that. And the ability to critically evaluate complex "ideas". When I was a kid, we called it, "Overwhelm with bullshit."
1
@gorkyd7912 Look through his expressed views to their roots: they are authoritarian. He is a reactionary "conservative". That's why "conservatives" flock to him, duped by his clothing of his politics -- which isn't science -- in psychological" clothing.
1
@TiPitSgtBuddy Buzzwords as substitutes for the hard work of study and thought.
1
@northwestpsychfest7329 He does have his cult of personality because he confirms dumb right-wing anti-intellectualism and biases.
1
@resentfulandvengeful2193 So everyone, including the stupid, who appear to "think," is qualified to be a philosopher. And the "good" and the "evil" are irrelevant to that, so even Hitler is a philosopher? Whether one has a degree in philosophy may or may not make one a philosopher; so let's, with you, reject all criteria, all distinctions, all standards at which philosophy arrives in the pursuit of TRUTH. Let's not bother ourselves with whether a belief is true or false; after all, "anyone" can be, therefore ipso facto must be, a "philosopher," including the pathological liar, the criminal, the sociopath, the nihilist. Rudy Giuliani must, after all, be a philosopher, as he said, "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH!" So "philosophy" isn't actually about anything at all; just a general muddle of appearing to think, spewing words, regardless sense, and sans logic, because unintelligence is equal to and as "good" as intelligence.
1
@resentfulandvengeful2193 How did Socrates function? Did he not recognize that knowledge is about truth, and that belief is not the same as knowledge because it can be false? How did Socrates function? Did he propound "wise" statements so he could be quoted someday? Did he declare that he had "knowledge"? Did he engage in competition? Did he reject truth that also exists in the "far left" -- whatever "far left" is? Is the pursuit of truth about accumulating "knowledge" and then making a boastful show of it? That one doesn't need to have a degree to be a philosopher means degrees are to be rejected? How, if one doesn't have a degree in philosophy, does one avoid "discovering" things that are already well known in the history of philosophy? How does one avoid repeating a past of which one is ignorant? How does one know to distinguish philosophy from everything humans do? How does one do philosophy that isn't instead politics with an axe to grind?
1
@resentfulandvengeful2193 Most who don't have a degree in anything believe they know better than those who do. That's why they attack and attempt to tear down those who do have degrees, instead of asking themselves why they don't have any. No one said a degree is "everything" -- your lack of self-critique, particularly as to all-or-nothing extremist "thinking". But those who have no degrees "evaluating" the value of degrees have no criteria by which to evaluate their value. That's doubtless why you fall for Peterson being a "philosopher" when in fact he is a self-limiting ideologue.
1
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I'm saying that those who don't have degrees are not the best judge of their value.
1
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I answered your question. You simply don't like the answer. Typical of right-wingers, if you don't like the facts, you reject them.
1
@LionEagleOx Plumbing is indicative of civilization. The ENLIGHTENMENT philosophers of Europe. Locke as example. John Adams was the foremost constitutionalist among the Founders -- he wrote the Massachusetts constitution, which was the model for the US Constitution. He studied democracies, all the way back to the Greeks, noting especially their flaws. That is why he separated gov't power into three co-equal branches -- "jealousies" as they were called -- and instituted other checks and balances. Right-wingers falsely assert that the Founders rejected democracy; in fact, the Founders distrusted it, but did not reject it, thus the checks and balances. And they instituted elections, which are the essence of democracy. This, from the 1784 New Hampshire constitution "Bill of Rights," represents the Founders' view, as based on such as Locke, and reflects the first purpose of gov't: protecting public health and safety: "III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of others [AND OF THEMSELVES]".
1
@ag7075 Incel?
1
@Sam R-A Essentially my view. I'll even take a tack different than that of one who largely holds views similar to mine if I see an inconsistency based on bias. Above all I believe in reason. That's the essence of it.
1
@RohitSinghhere It's Republicans who engage in cancelling -- including private medical procedures, and pushing the burning of books.
1
@resentfulandvengeful2193 I'll cut to the chase: In view of the fact that you have no degree, by what criteria do you presume to evaluate the value of degrees?
1
@LionEagleOx Like it of not, law-illiterate, the foundation of Western civilization are drawn from the Greeks and, in the United States, European ENLIGHTENMENT -- "WOKE" -- philosophers. You EALRN that by reading what the Founders actually addressed as their sources. Also, like it or not, law-illiterate, the United States gov't -- by definition rule of law -- is based upon a PHILOSOPHY OF GOV'T. That is why we have LAWS -- and LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PRISONS -- for incoherent irrationalists who reject the rule of law behind a cloud of specious gibberish. As ignorant of law as you are you are at least as ignorant of the actualities of the Founding era. As example, the "Declaration of Independence," which applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND, has never been law. And, as example, the Founders DID NOT engage in "revolution," which is the OVERTHROW of gov't. They "overthrew" ZERO gov'ts, including that in London, and because they were all along in control of the colony gov'ts. Nor were the Founders -- as should be obvious -- anti-gov't: the evidence is in front of your face as gov'ts and RULE OF LAW. The power of gov't is derived from "We the people" -- yes. But that does not eliminate gov't or the rule of law, or the "niceties" of the purposes of gov't, the first responsibility of which is to protect public health and safety. That is why we have laws, which limit exercise of rights, and law enforcement for the dumb-assed who are ignorant of limits, and prisons for those who refuse to accept the limits. Your notion of reality being fact-free doesn't account for anything beyond your rejection of realities you "don't like". You nonetheless don't have the right to infringe the rights of others -- the word for which is RESPONSIBILITY.
1
@LionEagleOx What I can make out of your perspective is that I've been seeing from the far-right extremes since the 1990s. Verbose gibberish behind which is the rejection of the rule of law. For you there are no norms but yours as an individual. You are a manipulator who believes yourself a superior bullshitter. Civilization is built on the rule of law, which imposes limits on the exercise of "rights" for the protection of all. The idea that that could be the reality without gov't, and enforcement of law, is to believe humans are perfect, therefore perfectly behaved in relation to each other regardless context. All of history refutes that nonsense.
1
@LionEagleOx You ae under the delusion that perfection is possible. So, as laws aren't perfect, they should all be repealed. Why don't you admit where you're really at behind the specious bullshit.
1
@LionEagleOx 1. Maxwell was indicted under Barr. 2. The DOJ, when functioning properly, is INDEPENDENT of the president. But those who like to elevate Republican presidents above co-equality with the other two branches, or blame the president for everything when a Democract, will characterize the current DOJ as "the Biden administration". 3. It is the far-right that uses the lack of perfection of human institutions as their excuse for rejecting the rule of law. 4. The Founders were not anti-gov't. Right-wingers are. Per the Constitution, "We the people" are the gov't. Thus the gov't exists to meet the needs of "We the people," as paid for (taxes) and determined by "We the people". That is SELF-GOVERNANCE, which cannot function when "We the people" reject RESPONSIBILITY in the false name of absolute and unlimited "freedom". That is today's Republican Party and its dupes.
1
@LionEagleOx The Founders weren't anti-gov't -- they FOUNDED gov'ts. the Republican Party is ANTI-gov't, and has been since at latest Reagan (who inherited right-wing extremists from the Nixon administration). And, no: the Federal Constitution has the SUPREMACY clause: any law inconsistent with the US Constitution, down to and including state constitutional provisions, is NULL-AND-VOID. The states are SUBORDINATE to the Union. The "states' rights" "argument" is at bottom segregationist/white supremacist. One sees this especially with the militia/National Guard. The purpose of the Second Amendment was twofold: to establish a national defense based on the Militia[/National Guard], and preserve the states' -- GOV'TS -- right to keep its well-regulated militia. Well-regulated meant UNDER constitution and laws. But that means under BOTH US and state constitutions and laws. Art. I., S. 8., C. 15 & 16. The first stipulates the purposes of the Militia[/National Guard], especially law enforcement and suppression of insurrections; the second has the US Congress, among other things, ARMING the Militia[/National Guard]. In the US are two levels of gov't: Federal, and state. A US citizen is a citizen of the United States, and of the state of his/her residence. The CONGRESS enacts legislation, and as required allocates funding under that legislation. The Federal gov't has the authority to withhold funding when a state wants the money without the strings attached -- the legislation tied to the funding. The gov't has been corrupted "for a while"? Gerrymandering is corruption. And it was invented by Founder Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Because humans and their creations are imperfect, there is always some degree of corruption. The best that can be done is to expose it and eliminate it where found. ("Fast and Furious" was begun by G. DUI Bushit -- but one wouldn't know that from listening to the Republicans who tried to blame it on Obama, who inherited.) The degree of corruption in gov't is roughly equivalent to the degree of corruption in the electorate. "Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. The Republicans have been all politics all the time, in effort to overcome and undermine the rule of law, since at latest Nixon.
1
@LionEagleOx So you play games with people, based on the belief that you're superior. And then when you lose -- everything is nothing more than a competition to you -- you fall silent until you can find a way to repair and return to head-games. So all your spew is meaningless bullshit intended to fool; and when that doesn't work, intended to overwhelm with even more bullshit. You're never sincere, and nothing you say has substance. And all because you can't handle Peterson being exposed for what he is -- a standard-issue right-wing male chauvinist -- and isn't: honest.
1
@JH-pt6ih "One doesn't need a degree to be a philosopher" = "I know what I believe, and nothing can change it." I was next going to pose the question, "What is 'knowledge'?" for an alternative and fun approach to stimulating actual thought. Anyway, thanks for the worthwhile response.
1
@deerlow1851 Doesn't make him a philosopher. Does a philosopher, in search of truth, reject whole areas of truth?
1
@deerlow1851 He insists that "feminism" doesn't exist, though it in fact exists. He out-of-hand rejects "the Left," despite the fact that there are truths in that position. In fact, the US Founders were Liberals -- LEFT of Peterson's right-wing politics. And that's why white males hang on Peterson's every word: they are insecure in relation to women, and are suckers for the "White Europeans established Ameria" distortion of history.
1
@deerlow1851 Peterson says "feminism" doesn't exist -- even though it does. His problem is that it DOES exist. As for rejecting the Left -- one half of the political spectrum -- and ITS truths -- is UNINTELLIGENT. Peterson is more a political hack than any sort of professional when it comes to addressing the TRUTHS of "feminism" and that half of the political spectrum. Philosophy is about the pursuit of truth, without bias. Peterson makes no effort at either. As said, insecure white males who have problems with women -- and "feminism" being falsely characterized as "left" -- hang on throwback Peterson's every word because they feel validated by his right-wing white male bias.
1
@deerlow1851 I'm racist because I call out white supremacism? He rejects the "Left" without any differentiation. But we get it: as I said, it is rightwing white males who are insecure about women who identify with and hang on Peterson's every word. You weaklings are so obvious.
1
@andresdubon2608 So "everything" is "philosophy" if we reject REASON, and the rational distinctions it makes between truth and falsehood, and between and among discrete areas of human endeavor. In contrast, I like that a subset of philosophy is ethics; and a subset of ethics is etiquette.
1
@andresdubon2608 Let's omit humility.
1
@swannoir7949 He'd try to "adjust" you to his beliefs.
1
@swannoir7949 You don't know anything about psychotherapeutics. Therapists who don't attempt to "adjust" the patient/client to their idea of "normal" -- their bias -- are rare.
1
@user-bh3bq5ej7n That's why you don't use capitalization or punctuation?
1
@user-bh3bq5ej7n Obviously. And not especially sophisticated in grammar; your conformism is getting in the way.
1
@user-bh3bq5ej7n I point out also that ultimately we don't know anything. It takes work to realize that -- and humility. Being imperfect, doubt is required. But that requires humility.
1
@jah8875 I'll not reveal my techniques, except that I adhere to facts and law.
1
@joysanders59 I've seen both. He still pushes the same white hyper-macho supremacism that appeals to a particular faction of insecure white males. We saw him with Rogan explaining what it means to be Black -- even though neither has ever been Black. That sort of belief and behavior is way over the line from reason into brutish irrationality.
1
Dank Keifman He's simply stupid.
1
@bridgetriley8242 I've had many. And those who set themselves up as cult leaders, and pander to the uninformed who happen to be politically right-wing white supremacists and misogynists who lack internal values so allow themselves to be lead around by the nose are not worth giving one's time let alone tuition.
1
@resentfulandvengeful2193 "Respectful" -- like your screen name?
1
@LionEagleOx "The Kentucky long rifle says you're wrong." Three cheers for racist genocide -- in order to "clear the land" on which to establish "civil" "civilization".
1
@LionEagleOx The Founders generally and John Adams in particular studied political philosophy, philosophies of gov't, seeking the best form of gov't they could derive. The US democracy is based on the rule of law. The gov't is "A system of Laws" (John Adams -- by definition the rule of law.
1
@Rose Goodwin Peterson is head of a cult of personality. And a demagogue. You remind me of the cult member who asserted that Peterson "tells the truth". How would that cult member know he's telling the truth when in fact Peterson is his only source of information. And your comment is sub-literate, and of course you smear others who criticize Peterson in effort to ignore their criticisms. Your entire comment is a serious of bullshit excuses that are irrelevant. As example, no one has "cancelled" Peterson; that bullshit is typical of those who falsely claim freedom of speech is being "violated" simply because his VIEWS are critiqued and exposed for the demagoguery they are. Peterson is an "intellectual" to those who have no idea what THINKING and intelligent critique mean. You don't as example, address any of the critiques and attempt to refute them; you simply smear imaginary people who know that "woke" means BEING INTELLIGENT, instead of looking outside oneself for someone or something to do your "thinking" for you.
1
@Rose Goodwin Philosophy is the PURSUIT of truth. "Religion" claims to POSSESS the truth. They are not the same thing. The first is honest, beginning with oneself; the second is at best stunting of growth. And we aren't talking about Canada; we are talking about Peterson who is, in essence, a white supremacist bigot who is full of shit, and typically using "religion" to sucker the gullible. It is the typical cult of personality for those who have no internal moral compass so look outside themselves for someone to tell them what to believe.
1
@RoseteMonik Your personal attack noted -- because your haven't any point to make that is irrelevant. Why not just talk about "Canada" again? His "crisis of masculinity" is his own; perhaps he should see a shrink about his sense of inadequacy as a man.
1
@daronmann7159 Ask yourself why you believe Peterson "tells the truth" while he is your only source. Peterson is projecting his ideology and issues -- he needs a psychiatrist -- and morons believe it is "philosophy" or some sort of objective intellectual exercise. The intelligent accept truth regardless source. Morons limit themselves to one source -- that which confirms their confirmation bias. And that's how cults make of their fake "leaders" into cults of personality. If one hasn't developed one's own internal set of values, and continually critiques it for errors, then one will look for what to believe outside oneself. Your fundamental error is your extremism: either/or, black/white. Reality is both/and -- GREY.
1
@daronmann7159 You have yet to defend Peterson. Instead you've been wasting time attacking me. But that's all you have: defend your cult leader based on nothing. Do you also support Putin's genocidal war against Ukraine based on Putin's false "history"?
1
@daronmann7159 You can't defend even your own views let alone Peterson. And you respond to none of the issues I raise. So you attack me. That's all you have. Stupidity is your profession.
1
@daronmann7159 In ignorance you mock intelligence and education. That's why you're so easily gulled. You are not smart: and that is your choice, for which YOU are responsible. Show us you know how to go away.
1
@moniquesmith7138 But he does suffer himself more than gladly. See through his "overwhelm with bullshit" verbosity: he is a right-winger and white supremacist.
1
@RohitSinghhere So you make no distinction between truth and falsehood. A false "opinion" is every bit as good as an opinion based on actual fact? Peterson is a Canadian, not a European. So why is he pushing "Europeanism"? We in the US know why: it is the far-right's white supremacism. The right-wing has also been bashing feminism since it emerged in the 1970s. Peterson's extremism is to DENY that feminism even exists. He is wrong, but that's his BIGOT'S "opinion". Truth matters. When an "opinion" is false we reject it; we don't view LIES as "alternative points of view" as if they have merit.
1
@PrimePhilosophy You live in a context which, much as you egocentrically bullshit yourself, "taints" your "individualism". Only those who have no education, and argue against the value of learning, would insist that stupidity is every bit as good and equal to knowing what one is talking about. Your "argument" is yet another evaluation of a topic without any knowledge of the topic.
1
@latinaalma1947 "AS a professor and clinical psychologist I agree. The students who excited me most were those who challenged me..not merely to challenge to be disagreeablee, but rather because they loved ideas and were probing and questioning to better understand". That's the only kind of teacher or professor worthy of the label. The alternative -- those who know it all -- have nothing to teach.
1
@Marexie Is it "name-calling" to correctly characterized an asshole as being an asshole? Look at what you're defending for what it is.
1
@Andrea-gs6zh Sense is obviously not common.
1
@ellapines2850 No, he is not a philosopher. He is a mentally ill ego-driven demagogue.
1
Yes, fan-girl/dupe: reject all criticism of the imperfect and fallible cult leader Peterson. Else you risk gaining perspective. So either address the issue, or avoid it by attacking a critic of the "reasoning" of your Dear Leader. I certainly don't hang out listening ti right-wing supremacists such as Peterson. But now and then, months after I commented, some newbie wanders by and comments on one of my old comments, to which I respond. In fact, and frankly, responding to psychologically immature weenies is not my hobby.
1
@Andrea-gs6zh I'm not the issue, twit.
1
@garymcintyre6356 " I have watched some of his interviews, he is speaking for many that think and believe the same way." No: his audience are people who want someone to tell them WHAT to believe. And his audience is full of bigots who seek ways to defend and rationalize their bigotries. You are doing similar. Racist speech, as example, is "freedom of speech"; but beyond the ill-mannered bigots that use it is the fact that the racism is BASELESS. Stupidity is not to be encouraged. And when the speech leads to actions -- violence -- that is sufficient reason to put a stop to the numerical MINORITY of ASSHOLES who actively threaten the public health and safety of the MAJORITY. I'm fed up with the defenses of the indefensible in the false name of "freedom". In a democracy there is no "right" to be STUPID.
1
@Simon Magus On what grounds?
1
@Simon Magus The only "absolute" is that it is all unknown. But one must be objectively skeptical of one's conclusions, therefore cannot posit absolutes.
1
@RohitSinghhere DUNCE: the question is whether the "opinion" or "alternative" is TRUE. That he can BULLSHIT people is not a proof that his BULLSHIT is TRUE.
1
GGE415 It's nothing knew: he's a bullshitter whose entire gimmick is to bullshit people. There are numerous videos on youtube taking on specifics of his assertions and demonstrating that his understanding is flawed or non-existence -- or erroneous.
1
So he must be correct because he agrees with you?
1
@weignerleigner3037 Though they deny it, females receive all sorts of support and encouragement. Males are taught they must stand on their own two feet, and to be dependable but not to depend on others.
1
@tigerlilly5579 Compare it with Paulo Frere's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed".
1
Can one "love" a person to whom one does not have any actual proximity, and with whom does not have a personal relationship?
1
Jordan Peterson is a PhD. -- DOCTOR.
1
@vyaj Reactionary "conservative". Old-school social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. It is anti-Enlightenment and anti-democratic.
1
Certainly. And one can learn from that. But that doesn't speak to the value or merits of the contents of his thought process, or his conclusions.
1
You don't get around much. Jordan Peterson views himself as a "public intellectual". But taht isn't SCIENCE.
1
Make-up is a deceit.
1
@riaanscheepers7951 Can't back up your conclusory assertion?
1
George Will also views himself as a "public intellectual," when in reality he is a political hack.
1
@renato360a If his views were balanced, he'd be a moderate, not a conservative. Yes: he is a conservative BEHIND his views. That's why he advances a conservative view. And what in hell is "far left" beyond an amorphous buzzphrase? The Founders of the United States were LIBERALS, who founded a LIBERAL democracy. Yet the conservatives in the United States, while claiming to wrap themselves in the Constitution, demonize liberals as "far left". Instead of looking outside yourself for something to believe, see THROUGH the views of alleged "intellectuals" to the underpinnings of the views -- that's where the real meaning of the views is. In terms of psychology it is "depth perception". Don't be bedazzled by the verbal fireworks, the superficial show, which tend to be intended to blind.
1
Or disproved. Jordan doesn't claim to be a "theoretical psychologist".
1
He isn't as precise in his speech as he could be. Sometmes he searches for the correct word, only achieves approximate, and then moves on.
1
Jordan Peterson is telling others how to live.
1
Cult of personality.
1
You deal with him personally? He has power and status, and his foundation is to maintain those.
1
@berniegertje5358 He's a social Darwinist, which is not science. Typical "conservative": the powerful defending the powerful against the many.
1
"Clever" -- but does any of that mean anything?
1
Trump did the same for people who look to be lead from outside themselves instead of having a moral compass at the center of their own lives. Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
1
@nicolelabram5575 Nor does it not always. PTSD is result of a trauma that overwhelms the victim's defenses/coping mechanisms.
1
@unitedfools3493 And Jordan Peterson isn't? How much of "psychology" is "science," and how much "social science"?
1
There's nothing especially unque about his "analytical mind" (especially if 'enhanced" by stimulant drugs). One learns critical thinking from the hard work of study and thought, typically in university. It is a further step to learn to critique one's own thinking.
1
I'm "special" too.
1
@donedeal725 Yeah, random name-calling nincompoop.
1
Cult of personality.
1
While he blindly regurgitates political pejoratives which have no basis in fact or reason.
1
Which would "learn a lot"? If you view Peterson as a source from which to learn beyond how to critically evaluate one's own thinking, then you are well behind the curve.
1
No. Read Socrates -- but don't make the mistake of believing that he's on your side.
1
Jordan evaluates the "emergent" from the perspective of his root fundamentalism. If you listen closely, he speaks in absolutes -- though likely would deny it.
1
I evaluate his psychology -- his thinking processes, and those lead to the underpinnings. He is a "conservative" social Darwinist -- none of which is "science".
1
@Alfans-Imperator Jordan Peterson.
1
Your high on the rhetorical superficialities. Look beyond those to his premises, and their roots. He's a reactionary "conservative". Old-school social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.
1
@unclejoe3397 Theology and philosophy are not science. Neither are his political views.
1
@Sockem1223 Let's not tell the truth.
1
Three cheers for "religous" propaganda.
1
@keithk.3963 Some of us have sufficient education and hard work behind us and in our work that following Peterson's isn't at all difficult. He has his cult following, but is not a first-rate anything.
1
@rolandvonmarburg3006 Yes. Being imperfect, doubt is a central requirement of "faith"
1
Perhpas his anxiety disorder is at the root of his reactionary politics.
1
@robguyton3577 "Towering intellect" -- ego -- is not always comsensurate with "towering IQ". "Something somewhere is doing we don't know what." -- Einstein. Peterson purports to know.
1
Another Freud acolyte was Otto Rank, who came up with "birth trauma".
1
@ErezYehuda Everyone has issues. Moreso those who gravitate to the mental health "sciences," because they are seeking self-cure.
1
But it is fair to criticize the result of the effort, foolish not to do so.
1