FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0
Even so, this is the best one I've seen posted that doesn't resort to ridicule of Peterson and he has some good points. Either way, I like Peterson, but the whole "Christian" thing has made me guarded against where his intentions lie and some points he makes have left me more than wanting.
I was first attracted to him because I am very fond of Jung. The fact that he has opened up people to Jung is good enough for me (That under the assumption that people will read Jung as a stand alone thinker rather than as part of the Peterson "package." I can certainly understand the awe Peterson gives to both Jung and Nietzsche and he's helped me discover other useful resources and thinkers.
Other doubts I have are in his string dislike of Derrida; who I am not yet deep enough into to get the gist if his views, but I do relate them more toward Husserl than those of Heidegger (who I believe when off-piste regarding the thoughts of Husserl.) Derrida at least seems to reiterate some of the problems of Husserl - that Husserl himself knew about.
I have listened to the full exchange between Harris and Peterson and found them both to be a little obtuse and hope they will approach each other again in the future and lay bare the differences of opinion and mark out what they do agree about more clearly for the listeners.
Anyway, all thoughts welcome here. I am always on the look out for counter positions to people whose words I find useful.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
It is in this case that I do believe the "post-modernist" approach (or literary theory and such) has a use in demarcating our differences and oppositions and unravelling deeper "meaning" rather than making claims about "truth." Such a display of "truth" is always a circumstantial display ... it is performance and no more. The "truth" in set up within the contexts of the rules that function. In physics the truth is irrelevant to the physics and only of import to the physicist - as a value that can be applied to phenomenon (that is a mouthful and language does become cumbersome the more precise we try and frame the most simplistic of ideas - hence philosophical "discourse'! haha!)
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
Great video. It seems that Peterson's fallacious method of playing ping-pong with definitions of truth, rendering "everything we confidently know, all facts, all knowledge, as ultimately unknown", is very popular these days. It's ironic, as the video blogger says, that Peterson criticizes postmodernism while advocating postmodernist approaches to discourse. The guy is really clueless and overrated.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x8XPX7YW14
I always say that this only happens because of the level of the opponents.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
I wouldn't say clueless. Peterson has many good ideas and insightful views, and what is more important is that although he is not saying anything new he is managing to express it clearly (for the most part.)
The talk with Harris was telling for me. Both make good points, yet both continue to talk past each other. The issue of "truth" is always going to be a difficult area when we're dealing with cross discipline discussions.
What I believe is happening is that a certain position in language is being exposed as inadequate for expressing experience.
The "metaphorical truth" is a very shaky idea, but certainly not one we can so easily dismiss. Why is this? I would say because it is a human truth, a truth that drives at the beginnings of logical differences. "Death" and "rebirth" are metaphorically true, but how Peterson presented his view of Christ was intentionally vague.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
No, because he is not interviewing Peterson. He is offering his analysis - he makes some bad points and good points. Pretty much everyone who speaks makes good points and bad points; I just pay more attention to those who make more good points yet keep the bad points in mind so not as to get caught up too much in blind bias.Dark Matter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 11:00 pm If you listen carefully, it takes the speaker a little more than 2 minutes to fall into the same pattern Cathy Newman was criticized for doing.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
I can understand if JP is taking a metaphorical view that Jesus is a metaphor or hub for the higher qualities of humankind and those qualities will always rise again, no matter how beaten down. If he is entertaining for a moment that the literal texts are true, then it's another surprising blind spot in an otherwise fine observer of humans.
Then again, is there a single observer of reality or life that any of us agree with all of the time? About the clearest thinker I know of is Richard Feynman.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
He’s offering his spin.Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 11:30 pmNo, because he is not interviewing Peterson. He is offering his analysis - he makes some bad points and good points. Pretty much everyone who speaks makes good points and bad points; I just pay more attention to those who make more good points yet keep the bad points in mind so not as to get caught up too much in blind bias.Dark Matter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 11:00 pm If you listen carefully, it takes the speaker a little more than 2 minutes to fall into the same pattern Cathy Newman was criticized for doing.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
But when it comes to the deeper refine philosophy, he is out.
E.g. JP's view of truth = anything that is related to survival and his religious views are too amateurish.
Why JP has this inclination for theism is due to compulsion from that inherent existential crisis within his psyche, albeit not as active as the fundamentalist religionist.
Whilst JP's view of truth is off base, the presenter view of truth, i.e. Philosophical Realism is also not a realistic truth per se.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I believe the most realistic view of truth is that from the Philosophical Anti-Realist and especially the Kantian view of truth which is explained on the basis of how a proposition is held to be true.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
I would say his "views" and you say "spin" ... see the problem here with bias? You may find it fun to watch any old interview online and pause it and try and answer the question quickly and without thought. This way you may find yourself saying some very silly things, or saying something very vague, in order to essentially avoid the depth of conflict you have over the question put to you. Then consider how these "discussions" are played out within a limited timeframe and under duress.
There is a lot to be said about the critique of the need for news channels to adapt to more wide reaching and in depth discussions. Social media is certainly a much richer form of information for people if they wish to understand the range of views out there and the opposing positions and relations. Sadly it gets damn hard to find opposing views online without having to wipe your search memory otherwise you end up in a bubble.
IF someone was to look at my searches they would think I am two different people. One day I look at neo-Nazi's and the next liberal commentaries. Even so, it is still hard to figure out the "middle ground" and I cannot help but remain deeply skeptical of anything other than scientific data - which suffers from lack of subjectivity as much as that being the very thing that it relies on for its factual authority.
Spectrum -
Yes, I would agree if I thought that was his point about "truth". I don't think that is his point, and I am not really clear about what he means. He does seem to veer toward more hermeneutical and literary interpretations. I am a big admirer of Jung, so I am inclined to take on board some of his more obtuse references more easily - he is helpful in outlining Jungian ideas and that I am greatful for and hope many people will place Jung's ideas before Peterson's (who has merely been reaping the benefits of bringing Jungian ideas into a more modern frame.)
The problem is with matters of the human mind objective data is not really the primary function, but with greater extensions of objective data and how neuroscience functions, we can begin to dismiss certain psychological ideas from the field of play and narrow down the field of investigation for the less accurate (more subjectively derived) data sets.
I do not see how the future of humanity will not be dictated by the advances and breakthroughs, to be made (and in the making), in neuroscience and psychology. It may well be that huge mistakes will lead us down the wrong path or that we'll stumble on better solutions in order to create better societies and future outcomes.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
Regarding politics, from my perspective, he just toes the Christian line and talks like a politician when cornered. Just seems very intellectually dishonest to me.
As a self help guru taking advantage of his unexpected rise in popularity I don't really take him any more seriously than any other self help guru. I've never read a work from someone claiming to be able to improve you that didn't reek of snake oil. As an exercise can anyone mention a good self help book? Again for me the self is a little too large and complex a subject to be so simply tackled.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
I'm with Spectrum here. JP is good for the common issues, but easily gets lost in more complex subjects. That's why he appears inconsistent, it depends on the topic and the counterpart. He's very articulate with the Idpol issues, but that's an easy target to hit, because Idpol is plain nonsense, as the Newman interview showed.Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 11:21 pm Count -
I wouldn't say clueless. Peterson has many good ideas and insightful views, and what is more important is that although he is not saying anything new he is managing to express it clearly (for the most part.)
I'm not a big fan of Harris either, I think he too is overrated (and even worse, he overrates himself), but I didn't listen to his debate with JP.Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 11:21 pm The talk with Harris was telling for me. Both make good points, yet both continue to talk past each other. The issue of "truth" is always going to be a difficult area when we're dealing with cross discipline discussions.
"Metaphorical truth" is a fallacy, a workaround when arguments fail to simple logic and evidence. It is in the same neighborhood of relativism, subjectivism, solipsism, etc.Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 11:21 pm
The "metaphorical truth" is a very shaky idea, but certainly not one we can so easily dismiss. Why is this? I would say because it is a human truth, a truth that drives at the beginnings of logical differences. "Death" and "rebirth" are metaphorically true, but how Peterson presented his view of Christ was intentionally vague.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
What puts Feynman a cut above other observers of reality to my mind is his refusal to make claims in areas which are not known. Without an agenda to push there was just an intense love of life and reality in general that powered his curiosity and subsequent insights.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023