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
Count -
Your last comment is simply not within the correct context. Logic is anything but "simple." Generally the most simple logical problems are almost impossible for the human brain to cope with in an abstract manner - context can make a logical problem obvious.
For me Peterson's problem is his outright dismissal of post-modernism. I'm not a fan of it myself, but he seems a little blind sighted to me about the use (especially in his particular line of work.) I doubt he is "blind" to this, and it is more likely no one has ever really questioned him on this well enough.
- 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
In terms of intellectual level, you're completely right. They both have their occasional moments of wisdom and of clumsiness. Harris' clumsiness, however, hss a more damaging effect in political discourse. Perhaps that's because Peterson is a newcomer in public debate and his views have not been completely exposed.Eduk wrote:I'm with you on not being a fan of Harris Count. Actually I find him and Peterson very similar.
It will be entirely subjective, but although they are at the same intellectual level, I feel their characters don't compare. Harris, besides being pretentious, is known to have taken truly machiavelian positions, justifying evil acts of collective punishment, with a simplemindedness and cold-blooded lack of empathy, that is terrifying. Peterson, OTH, seems focused on libertarian issues, which he defends rather naively. But at least in his naivity looks a little humbler and in general well-intentioned, a much better person than Harris. I wouldn't decline having a chat with JP.Greta wrote: I greatly enjoy each - they are both brilliant, insightful people whom I would love to know. I enjoy their choices of topics and many of their insights.
Nonsense. Any set of operations has degrees, from the most basic to the more complex. Calling "simple" the most basic is perfectly legitimate.Burning ghost wrote: Count -
Your last comment is simply not within the correct context. Logic is anything but "simple." Generally the most simple logical problems are almost impossible for the human brain to cope with in an abstract manner - context can make a logical problem obvious.
Those are the moments in which he really looks clueless. Listen to him advocating for Nietszche's views, perhaps unaware that postmodernism is almost purely Nietszchean. In his take against "Cultural Marxism" he is also completely ignorant of these distinctions. His intellectual radar has a very short range.Burning ghost wrote:For me Peterson's problem is his outright dismissal of post-modernism. I'm not a fan of it myself, but he seems a little blind sighted to me about the use (especially in his particular line of work.) I doubt he is "blind" to this, and it is more likely no one has ever really questioned him on this well enough.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
If we cannot find something in what someone says to be incomplete it is a sure sign of dogma. That is all I know.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbTc3YVMFhQ
I think this is a good counter position to what has been previously said. There are certainly points here that are not comparable to "scientific fact." The issue is the human position, and to some degree it could be looked at as pragmatism.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
For me I've yet to hear of an argument where believing something false gave better results on average and over time than believing something true.
When I hear Peterson talk about truth unfortunately I hear someone who believes in religion first and fits it to reality second. He's smart so fitting that to reality is quite the job, hence the mental cartwheels.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
You must be well endowed with smart conversationalists in your life to be so choosy! Each man would be a refreshing change. Try living amongst conservatives for a while and then tell me how SH would not be worth knowing.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 9:08 amIt will be entirely subjective, but although they are at the same intellectual level, I feel their characters don't compare. Harris, besides being pretentious, is known to have taken truly machiavelian positions, justifying evil acts of collective punishment, with a simplemindedness and cold-blooded lack of empathy, that is terrifying. Peterson, OTH, seems focused on libertarian issues, which he defends rather naively. But at least in his naivity looks a little humbler and in general well-intentioned, a much better person than Harris. I wouldn't decline having a chat with JP.Greta wrote:I greatly enjoy each - they are both brilliant, insightful people whom I would love to know. I enjoy their choices of topics and many of their insights.
Yes, he carries on about Muslims and supported middle eastern invasions, which I assume are your issues with him. However, as I say, one doesn't have to agree with observers on everything to enjoy and respect them. SH has made many informed and fascinating observations about the brain, the mind and consciousness.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
I think you've got a problem then (as we all do!). Understanding religion and being religious are two different things. I am not "religious", but at the same time I can also say I am "religious." It depends on the usage of the term - in the common sense I am not religious, but in a broader cultural sense I certainly am a product of religious ideas, and in a psychological sense I certainly understand how beliefs and explorative thinking can benefit my view of the world.When I hear Peterson talk about truth unfortunately I hear someone who believes in religion first and fits it to reality second. He's smart so fitting that to reality is quite the job, hence the mental cartwheels.
That said, I also remained "guarded" about his "religious" views. He doesn't belief in a deity though. We all have a sense of aesthetics and I think it is more or less this aesthetical perspective that get caught up in human cognition and how we apply ourselves to life that creates the "picture" of religion.
I do think Peterson misplays some of his points and uses too much enigma in his speech to give the appearance of backing up his positions. If pressed I am sure he'd likely back down though because in the moment we all tend to get caught up in pressing our views a little harder if we've spent a great deal of time putting work into them and found ourselves unable to offer good counter arguments to them.
What I said as criticism of Peterson I've just heard him acknowledge (in part) during the talk on Rogan talk.) He, and Weinstein, both admit that post-modernism point out a serious problem. What I personally would like to see Peterson do is stop pushing against ALL aspects of the post-modernist position and address the bits that are "correct", or rather worthy critiques, of the human social condition.
I see the same problems arising in critics of Trump. There is nothing but derision and an inclination to pander to blatant propaganda against Trump. This is sadly the inflated age we live in. Sensationalism is an ever present danger because we're short in our attention spans, even conditioned by most media outlets to instill this flaw, and by doing so a lot of the important underlying issues that matter are cast aside - everyone loves a scandal. While we're distracted the real action is taking place out of the spotlight more often than not.
ANYONE who brings Jungian ideas into the public sphere is good news in my books. Jung has suffered a long, long time from the New Age movement hijacking his ideas. If ever there was a point in human history where psychological ideas were important it is now. Given the advances in neuroscience we're just beginning to get some kind of empirical grounding for more abstracted psychological functions - what we've already found over the past few decades has violently waxed and waned from one position to another; once things settle down the knowledge will filter through I hope. Jung is extrememly important in my view.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
Trump doesn't require any propaganda against him. His recent comments about running in to tackle an armed gunman don't require spin.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
Sadly more time is spent repeating soundbites than attacking actually policy. I guess that is the way with US politics. The hype and sensationalism is more important than actually analyzing the policies and demanding actual strategies.
I am looking forward to visiting the US and seeing what people have to say.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
Also why look forward to what 'people' have to say?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
I don't agree. The systems are different and the methods employed to win are different. Of course there are similarities between them all though.
I look forward to going to new countries and listening to their views. People from different countries and different cultures have different things to say. Why is that so strange a thing to say? I've met plenty of Americans and in general they are culturally different to me; some barely and some more obviously so - it is quite an isolated country geographically.
I am interested in what people say, what they think, and how my own views and understanding can benefit from such experiences.
As I've gotten older I've found myself becoming more and more interested in political systems and history.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
I'm not saying you are wrong to want to go to new countries and talk to people by the way. But it probably is wrong to hope for much quality political discourse. On average I would expect the papers to do a better job than average Joe and I think the papers do an awful job.
- 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
There was a time when being liberal or lefty was a reliable indicator of the good health of a person's intellectual compass. Of course there were exceptions, but the left's intelligentsia used to be the best source of insightful analysis and political orientation (now I realize that there were already signs of decline many decades ago, but that's another subject). Not anymore, at least not consistently.Greta wrote:You must be well endowed with smart conversationalists in your life to be so choosy! Each man would be a refreshing change. Try living amongst conservatives for a while and then tell me how SH would not be worth knowing.
Anyway, let's look at what we might call a "smart conversionalist". If by smart we mean clever, sharp, I don't think that's all we should look as someone's intellectual assets. There is people with poor education and functionally ignorant in many areas of life, which still are very clever, practical, and accumulate a good amount of "social capital" (we had a couple of presidents like that). On the other hand, some people with average intellectual capabilities can greatly benefit from a formal education and continuous learning, as we usually see in academic or professional circles. They accumulate some amount of what is called cultural capital, which I think is more valuable than innate cleverness. I think people like JP and SH belong to this class. And then there are the game changers, the critical thinkers, the real intellectual elite, which is capable of creating paradigm shifts or providing very critical, profound, insightful analysis of what's going on, usually well-equipped with an unbelievable amount of cultural capital. There are degrees between these groups and all can provide, given the proper context of the fields where they excel, meaningful conversations.
Having said that, I may clarify that my issue with Harris has nothing to do with him being smart or not. I'm pretty sure he's an educated, intelligent man. But I cannot respect the man, I don't like him for what he seems to be as a person, and since he's no game changer in intellectual life, I've decided I won't even bother anymore to hear what he has to say. As I said, it's mostly subjective. Something similar has happened to me with Steven Pinker, which just the same, I acknowledge is no ignorant fool.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: FINALLY! Someone offering some considered critique of Peterson
What is it especially that turned you away from him? Very few commentators are philosophical game changers. Given the number of geniuses throughout history who have devoted their minds to the great questions, about the only space for "game changing" today comes from using modern information, unknown to earlier observers (failing Einstein-like revolutionary thinkers).Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 2:45 pmHaving said that, I may clarify that my issue with Harris has nothing to do with him being smart or not. I'm pretty sure he's an educated, intelligent man. But I cannot respect the man, I don't like him for what he seems to be as a person, and since he's no game changer in intellectual life, I've decided I won't even bother anymore to hear what he has to say. As I said, it's mostly subjective. Something similar has happened to me with Steven Pinker, which just the same, I acknowledge is no ignorant fool.
The new breed who are questioning theistic power and influence are of more sociological than philosophical interest. Those observers, such as Dawkins, Harris, Pinker and Cox were stellar in their earlier careers, which gave them the credibility to become dull, but perhaps necessary, political warriors. Dawkins on EB, Harris on the brain and consciousness, Pinker on psychology and sociology and Cox on natural physical systems were gifted and fascinating. The same could be said of Peterson. Keep all of them away from religious topics and they will be at their best.
For me it's a shame and a waste for these minds to address simple superstitions but, given the accuracy of Sagan's prediction, it seems that sometimes one must exchange the good things in life for relatively dull and stressful struggles so as to retain those good things.
- 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 became acquainted with some of Harris' ideas after he published The Moral Landscape. I disagreed with a lot of them, but more importantly, I was suspicious of how he projected his own persona in the public domain. Perhaps he was a bit narcissistic, promoting himself disproportionately, I was not sure. And then he did exactly what you would expect from someone begging for fame: he challenged Noam Chomsky for a public debate. Chomsky declined, so their exchange went on private e-mails, which Harris later disclosed. And what was said in that exchange convinced me of what was Harris all about.
If not influential in changing paradigms, at least, as I said: providing very critical, profound, insightful analysis of what's going on. Only people with a vast culture can do that, and it has to be interdisciplinary. That's why specialists who perform very well in their fields, when trying to engage in broader topics, reach other fields that they just don't handle well and look very bad. There aren't many renaissance men nowadays.Greta wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 7:54 pmVery few commentators are philosophical game changers. Given the number of geniuses throughout history who have devoted their minds to the great questions, about the only space for "game changing" today comes from using modern information, unknown to earlier observers (failing Einstein-like revolutionary thinkers).
But they will need to take a leap outside their narrow fields of knowledge to truly provide insights to the great questions. And I don't mean just wanting to have opinions on other topics, which of course they do, but being well educated in their theoretical framework. It would be hard to find a good contender to Chomsky.Greta wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 7:54 pm The new breed who are questioning theistic power and influence are of more sociological than philosophical interest. Those observers, such as Dawkins, Harris, Pinker and Cox were stellar in their earlier careers, which gave them the credibility to become dull, but perhaps necessary, political warriors. Dawkins on EB, Harris on the brain and consciousness, Pinker on psychology and sociology and Cox on natural physical systems were gifted and fascinating. The same could be said of Peterson. Keep all of them away from religious topics and they will be at their best.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
2023/2024 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