|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 15, 2020 0:25:43 GMT
I think it depends on the quality and professionalism of the person and not what is between their legs. I have had both male and female bosses. Where I work at present, is largely female dominated, but that is only a sub-sector of a bigger whole. Previous jobs, the corporate management appeared to be dominated by arrogant and douchy white males, but this was over 10yrs ago.
I just think females can be more sentimental than males and that might not always be the best trait either, especially if a job needs to get done and males do tend to have a different dynamic and energy when working together, than females would. In some instances I do see women looking out for other women, as I have also seen men looking out for own brethren. That is just the nature of the gender beast. Thing is, I feel some women want to change men into being like them, as though it will make it easier for them to understand, or even control them.
I think that sentimentality is what makes them better managers. Their subordinates feel their female bosses really care about them. And don't just treat them as despendible tools. Interesting you say that, because I was just thinking of some female bosses I have had and they could be real tyrants and unreasonable too. I guess it depends on the personality of the person and the other management types around them. We will either connect with someone or we won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 15, 2020 0:32:32 GMT
Common sense and rationality are best to work both hand in hand. One needs to be rational thinking in the first place, in order to employ common sense.
No one can know all the relevant research and even if they think they are researching sources from recommendations, it could be a bumsteer. It is still all knowledge and with science, and what we are discussing here, much can still be conjecture.
I disagree. I don't do sympathy well, it is falling into a trap of pity and 'victimhood' and sometimes it might not help the receiver. If that makes me a sociopath with no conscience, then so be it, because I know that is not true. It is the semantic thing again, if words are that important, but empathy falls more into the realm of compassionate mind. One can see the issue and even cause and take appropriate steps of care, but doesn't take it on board and is capable of stepping away from, without taking it all on. Do you think professional and skilled psychiatrists and doctors are being sympathetic, when they are consulting, analyzing and operating. What good does sympathy do to help?
Human suffering that is born of mind games, is not the same of human suffering born out of realness of physical deformity. Whatever a transgendered person is going through, is not the worst of what can happen to somebody. It does not move me at all. I accept and acknowledge their need to identify as they feel and choose and request. I cannot under any circumstance, be expected to understand what is going on with their own psychology of mind. Take them to a children's cancer ward, and perhaps they just might start to put things into more perspective. People have to fight for their own sanity of mind and "self" image IS one of the biggest issues we have. What is there to worry about self-image, as opposed to somebody who has been badly burned and scarred in a horrendous accident, or somebody who has lost the use of a limb or organ. To me, TG issues are minimal, compared to bigger picture. Depression also works in with what I have just mentioned about putting things into perspective and I speak from experience.
I simply disagree that one needs to be rational in order to employ common sense. There's no rationality involved in not walking off a cliff; evolution has just programmed us to be wary of heights for our survival. Any animal not accustomed to heights will be wary in such situations, and most animals aren't rational, they're instinctual. I think you're confusing sympathy with excuse. They're very different things. I have sympathy (really more empathy) for the suffering my mother is enduring with her health, but I don't excuse her behavior I feel has lead to that suffering (poor diet, smoking, no exercise, etc.). In fact, I constantly remind her that if she wants to get healthy she needs to make radical changes in her life. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize/empathize with how she feels as I've dealt with physical suffering myself, and I know it's not easy to change. But sympathy/empathy =|= excuse. However, there are situations where sympathy/empathy leads to a more robust understanding of the full situation and we realize that people are not at fault for feeling how they do. I don't support victimhood mentality, but some people are, indeed, genuinely victims and have every right and reason to feel how they feel. That, in itself, doesn't necessarily endorse any course of action by itself, but it's part of what we should consider when considering what action to take or endorse. I simply fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph. The mind is as real as the body, and mental suffering is/can be every bit the equal of physical suffering. Only someone who's been through both, as I have, can realize this though. To suggest otherwise when you haven't been through either, or at least not extreme forms of either, is pure ignorance. Also, playing games of "who has it worse" is pretty silly, and also pretty irrelevant. It assumes that we don't have the mental capacity to care about all forms of suffering, and why don't we? What is it asking of either of us? Transgender people are asking for nothing other than that we allow them to live the life they want how they want without judgment. How is giving that to them taking away our focus on any other issues? How is "I care more about cancer patients than transgender people" even work practically? Maybe if you're donating time or money then, sure, pick whichever causes you feel are most relevant; but sympathy requires neither. If we're going to go super big picture, then all human suffering is "minimal" compared to the time and physical scale of the universe. We (and our suffering) is just a blip in time and space. Eva, I will just have to agree to disagree with many of your points here. We have already had previous discussions about mind and brain for a start.
As for TG, to keep it succinct, they can get over their preciousness. It is the least of a human beings suffering I 'personally' care to focus on. The narcissism and naval gazing is just oh so apparent with me. I am not going to boo hoo over them.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 15, 2020 0:59:14 GMT
I think that sentimentality is what makes them better managers. Their subordinates feel their female bosses really care about them. And don't just treat them as despendible tools. Interesting you say that, because I was just thinking of some female bosses I have had and they could be real tyrants and unreasonable too. I guess it depends on the personality of the person and the other management types around them. We will either connect with someone or we won't. I'm making general statements. I'm sure some men are great bosses. And some women can't manage anything. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 18, 2020 19:35:24 GMT
Actually I don't want to sound like the proverbial "angry white male" because I'm not. White males are the most privileged human beings on earth. But what annoys me is that white females from privileged middle class backgrounds have manipulated affirmative action. No one helps the working class white male. Women are now almost 60% of college graduates and are dominating new management positions. Working class males are digging ditches and working construction. How many women do you see doing construction or highway maintenance? Zero. Were white males privileged when they were sent to war or forced to stay on the Titanic (even the rich ones?)? The privilege thing is just another attack on the society.
The other factor is, how many of those 40% of male college graduates are not white males? The imported foreign replacement is another assault--and I doubt Peterson talks about that since it doesn't fit the controlled oppo agenda he follows.
Yes, I've often asked myself this same thing. Hardly anybody talks about this, and I don't know why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 19, 2020 4:31:27 GMT
Were white males privileged when they were sent to war or forced to stay on the Titanic (even the rich ones?)? The privilege thing is just another attack on the society.
The other factor is, how many of those 40% of male college graduates are not white males? The imported foreign replacement is another assault--and I doubt Peterson talks about that since it doesn't fit the controlled oppo agenda he follows.
Yes, I've often asked myself this same thing. Hardly anybody talks about this, and I don't know why. They do talk about that stuff. It's a fact that both males and females have certain privileges in society. Privilege isn't a zero-sum game where if one side has it, the other doesn't. It entirely depends on what exact area of society we're looking at. Not sure if war was the best example, though. You can look at that either way: either that it was a privilege men could do something women couldn't, or it was a privilege women didn't have to do something most didn't want to do. A better example of where women have privilege is in criminal justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 19, 2020 9:45:11 GMT
Yes, I've often asked myself this same thing. Hardly anybody talks about this, and I don't know why. It's a fact that both males and females have certain privileges in society. Privilege isn't a zero-sum game where if one side has it, the other doesn't. It entirely depends on what exact area of society we're looking at. Not sure if war was the best example, though. You can look at that either way: either that it was a privilege men could do something women couldn't, or it was a privilege women didn't have to do something most didn't want to do. A better example of where women have privilege is in criminal justice. I've never been around anybody who wanted to discuss the topic. I took a political science course when I was a freshman in college and I brought this up in class and it fell on deaf ears. And I seriously doubt if anybody would feel that going off to war is a privilege. War is anti-humanity. Nothing privileged about it. Besides, if war is seen as a privilege, then what was the need for the draft? Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now" would say yes, and maybe Patton, but they're about the only ones. Though I do agree that both sexes enjoy certain privileges, as either a male or a female.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 19, 2020 10:46:07 GMT
They do talk about that stuff. It's a fact that both males and females have certain privileges in society. Privilege isn't a zero-sum game where if one side has it, the other doesn't. It entirely depends on what exact area of society we're looking at. Not sure if war was the best example, though. You can look at that either way: either that it was a privilege men could do something women couldn't, or it was a privilege women didn't have to do something most didn't want to do. A better example of where women have privilege is in criminal justice. I've never been around anybody who wanted to discuss the topic. I took a political science course when I was a freshman in college and I brought this up in class and it fell on deaf ears. And I seriously doubt if anybody would feel that going off to war is a privilege. War is anti-humanity. Nothing privileged about it. Besides, if war is seen as a privilege, then what was the need for the draft? Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now" would say yes, and maybe Patton, but they're about the only ones. Though I do agree that both sexes enjoy certain privileges, as either a male or a female. Search for "Men's Right's Advocacy" on Google and you'll find plenty. One political science course isn't a large sample size. I guess you could say it's a dubious privilege. A privilege could be defined as anything one is allowed to do that others aren't. So being able to go to war would technically be a privilege, even if many wouldn't want that "privilege."
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 19, 2020 10:52:41 GMT
I've never been around anybody who wanted to discuss the topic. I took a political science course when I was a freshman in college and I brought this up in class and it fell on deaf ears. And I seriously doubt if anybody would feel that going off to war is a privilege. War is anti-humanity. Nothing privileged about it. Besides, if war is seen as a privilege, then what was the need for the draft? Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now" would say yes, and maybe Patton, but they're about the only ones. Though I do agree that both sexes enjoy certain privileges, as either a male or a female. Search for "Men's Right's Advocacy" on Google and you'll find plenty. One political science course isn't a large sample size. I guess you could say it's a dubious privilege. A privilege could be defined as anything one is allowed to do that others aren't. So being able to go to war would technically be a privilege, even if many wouldn't want that "privilege." Well, in that case being a woman and not getting drafted and having to go off to war and getting to stay home instead (as men didn't have this luxury, or privilege) would be one of the bigger privileges I could imagine. Thanks for the search term, by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 19, 2020 11:24:06 GMT
Search for "Men's Right's Advocacy" on Google and you'll find plenty. One political science course isn't a large sample size. I guess you could say it's a dubious privilege. A privilege could be defined as anything one is allowed to do that others aren't. So being able to go to war would technically be a privilege, even if many wouldn't want that "privilege." Well, in that case being a woman and not getting drafted and having to go off to war and getting to stay home instead (as men didn't have this luxury, or privilege) would be one of the bigger privileges I could imagine. Thanks for the search term, by the way. I will say that the general problem with most Mens Rights groups is that they're often just anti-feminist groups in disguise. I actually think we need more serious attention paid to the ways in which society is unfair for men, the same way we have serious attention paid to the ways in which society is unfair to women. Unfortunately, many do, indeed, look at this as a zero-sum game where we must, eg, drag feminism down to help men, or drag men down to help women. That shouldn't be the way it is, but it often is.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 19, 2020 12:10:54 GMT
Well, in that case being a woman and not getting drafted and having to go off to war and getting to stay home instead (as men didn't have this luxury, or privilege) would be one of the bigger privileges I could imagine. Thanks for the search term, by the way. I actually think we need more serious attention paid to the ways in which society is unfair for men, the same way we have serious attention paid to the ways in which society is unfair to women. Unfortunately, many do, indeed, look at this as a zero-sum game where we must, eg, drag feminism down to help men, or drag men down to help women. That shouldn't be the way it is, but it often is. I can see why you might think that. By the same token, many feminist groups have the appearance of being anti-male, and you really can't blame somebody for sticking up for their own, so round and round we go. If I felt like I were disliked or being attacked or whatever, I think I'd get a little defensive. As long as I have Jordan Peterson to listen to, I feel like there's some sanity out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 19, 2020 13:10:14 GMT
It's been said that Donald Trump is popular because he embodies a poor person's idea of what a rich person is like. I always thought Peterson is popular because he embodies a dumb person's idea of what a smart person is like. I'd say that Peterson triggers those that are too dumb to see how smart he is. Yes, I always understand what Peterson is talking about, because he is clear and direct. I never have any idea what his detractors are talking about, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 19, 2020 13:39:22 GMT
I'd say that Peterson triggers those that are too dumb to see how smart he is. Yes, I always understand what Peterson is talking about, because he is clear and direct. I never have any idea what his detractors are talking about, though. That may say more about you than his detractors, though, since I tend to understand what both are saying. As for Peterson being "clear and direct," I'd say that depends on the subject. Here was how Jordan Peterson defined "God" in his talk with Sam Harris: Now, you can call this many things, but "clear and direct" isn't one of them. I say this despite perfectly understanding what he's saying. I also think it would've helped if he would just come out and say "I see God as a metaphor for many different things," since that basically encapsulates his position. He clearly doesn't believe in the God the way most fundamentalists do. Why he skirts around just saying this is a worthwhile discussion in itself. Here's my advice: don't treat Peterson as a guru. In fact, don't treat any thinker as a guru. Develop your own critical thinking skills by challenging every idea you come across, and don't be lenient with those that support your biases. Listen/Read many thinkers and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's some good stuff to be taken from Peterson (much of it is just notes on Jung and various existential philosophers/authors), but he's by no means perfect. I would, eg, not want to touch his epistemology with a 100-foot pole.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 19, 2020 14:01:11 GMT
Yes, I always understand what Peterson is talking about, because he is clear and direct. I never have any idea what his detractors are talking about, though. That may say more about you than his detractors, though, since I tend to understand what both are saying. As for Peterson being "clear and direct," I'd say that depends on the subject. Here was how Jordan Peterson defined "God" in his talk with Sam Harris: Now, you can call this many things, but "clear and direct" isn't one of them. I say this despite perfectly understanding what he's saying. I also think it would've helped if he would just come out and say "I see God as a metaphor for many different things," since that basically encapsulates his position. He clearly doesn't believe in the God the way most fundamentalists do. Why he skirts around just saying this is a worthwhile discussion in itself. Here's my advice: don't treat Peterson as a guru. In fact, don't treat any thinker as a guru. Develop your own critical thinking skills by challenging every idea you come across, and don't be lenient with those that support your biases. Listen/Read many thinkers and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's some good stuff to be taken from Peterson (much of it is just notes on Jung and various existential philosophers/authors), but he's by no means perfect. I would, eg, not want to touch his epistemology with a 100-foot pole. Yeah, that was pretty dense. I've never heard JP speak this way before. Maybe "God" isn't his forte, or maybe he's trying too hard to allign himself with his hero, Carl Jung, and gets in over his head and ultimately falls short. I'm not going to come down too hard on JP for this. And I don't regard JP as a guru, but rather an excellent and inspiring role model, especially, perhaps, for men. Carl Jung's intelligence and his basic humanity is also inspiring, and Mr. Peterson certainly has good taste in heroes. During this whole time, though, maybe JP doesn't want you touching his, ahem, "epistemology", least of all with some 100 foot pole! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 19, 2020 14:33:28 GMT
That may say more about you than his detractors, though, since I tend to understand what both are saying. As for Peterson being "clear and direct," I'd say that depends on the subject. Here was how Jordan Peterson defined "God" in his talk with Sam Harris: Now, you can call this many things, but "clear and direct" isn't one of them. I say this despite perfectly understanding what he's saying. I also think it would've helped if he would just come out and say "I see God as a metaphor for many different things," since that basically encapsulates his position. He clearly doesn't believe in the God the way most fundamentalists do. Why he skirts around just saying this is a worthwhile discussion in itself. Here's my advice: don't treat Peterson as a guru. In fact, don't treat any thinker as a guru. Develop your own critical thinking skills by challenging every idea you come across, and don't be lenient with those that support your biases. Listen/Read many thinkers and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's some good stuff to be taken from Peterson (much of it is just notes on Jung and various existential philosophers/authors), but he's by no means perfect. I would, eg, not want to touch his epistemology with a 100-foot pole. Yeah, that was pretty dense. I've never heard JP speak this way before. Maybe "God" isn't his forte, or maybe he's trying too hard to allign himself with his hero, Carl Jung, and gets in over his head and ultimately falls short. I'm not going to come down too hard on JP for this. And I don't regard JP as a guru, but rather an excellent and inspiring role model, especially, perhaps, for men. Carl Jung's intelligence and his basic humanity is also inspiring, and Mr. Peterson certainly has good taste in heroes. During this whole time, though, maybe JP doesn't want you touching his, ahem, "epistemology", least of all with some 100 foot pole! Funnily enough, Peterson's peddling of a Jungian God is one of my favorite things about him. I'm an atheist, but an atheist with a deep passion for the arts, and I see God similarly, as the "Supreme Fiction" (as Wallace Stevens called it), the attempt at capturing the deepest truths and highest aspirations of man. I'd rather see more people talking about God the way Peterson does, as a metaphor for such things, than in the way most fundamentalists talk about God as some authoritarian asshole who cares about, eg, who you sleep with. He gave that definition in one of his talks with Sam Harris, which I'd still recommend watching/listening to (they had several talks: IIRC, one podcast, and four different live discussions--two in Vancouver, one in London, and one in Dublin). Harris is another thinker worth reading/listening to, but also another one I don't consider perfect by any means. I really like Harris's podcast where he talks with a wide range of people from many different backgrounds on many different subjects. It's almost always interesting. I was shocked when Harris had a personal hero of mine, Eliezer Yudkowsky, on. Ha! I've probably spent more time on epistemology than any other philosophical field, so I've developed a pretty rigorous notion of what I consider to be "knowledge/truth" and how to get there. Peterson seems to what "truth" to mean something very different than what I (and I think most) consider it to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2020 0:25:42 GMT
Yes, I always understand what Peterson is talking about, because he is clear and direct. I never have any idea what his detractors are talking about, though. That may say more about you than his detractors, though, since I tend to understand what both are saying. As for Peterson being "clear and direct," I'd say that depends on the subject. Here was how Jordan Peterson defined "God" in his talk with Sam Harris: Now, you can call this many things, but "clear and direct" isn't one of them. I say this despite perfectly understanding what he's saying. I also think it would've helped if he would just come out and say "I see God as a metaphor for many different things," since that basically encapsulates his position. He clearly doesn't believe in the God the way most fundamentalists do. Why he skirts around just saying this is a worthwhile discussion in itself. Here's my advice: don't treat Peterson as a guru. In fact, don't treat any thinker as a guru. Develop your own critical thinking skills by challenging every idea you come across, and don't be lenient with those that support your biases. Listen/Read many thinkers and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's some good stuff to be taken from Peterson (much of it is just notes on Jung and various existential philosophers/authors), but he's by no means perfect. I would, eg, not want to touch his epistemology with a 100-foot pole. God is not so easy to define and even impossible, depending on ones perception and notion of what God does or doesn't represent to them. Peterson would have expressed God in context to the questions asked of him. This would not have been one pre-amble without any question asked beforehand. There are points in his answers that I get, without knowing what the question was put to him. It is academic rhetoric that is being intellectualized, for the point of discussion.
As for touching his epistemology Eva, that is getting into some serious "me-too" stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2020 0:35:13 GMT
That may say more about you than his detractors, though, since I tend to understand what both are saying. As for Peterson being "clear and direct," I'd say that depends on the subject. Here was how Jordan Peterson defined "God" in his talk with Sam Harris: Now, you can call this many things, but "clear and direct" isn't one of them. I say this despite perfectly understanding what he's saying. I also think it would've helped if he would just come out and say "I see God as a metaphor for many different things," since that basically encapsulates his position. He clearly doesn't believe in the God the way most fundamentalists do. Why he skirts around just saying this is a worthwhile discussion in itself. Here's my advice: don't treat Peterson as a guru. In fact, don't treat any thinker as a guru. Develop your own critical thinking skills by challenging every idea you come across, and don't be lenient with those that support your biases. Listen/Read many thinkers and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's some good stuff to be taken from Peterson (much of it is just notes on Jung and various existential philosophers/authors), but he's by no means perfect. I would, eg, not want to touch his epistemology with a 100-foot pole. Yeah, that was pretty dense. I've never heard JP speak this way before. Maybe "God" isn't his forte, or maybe he's trying too hard to allign himself with his hero, Carl Jung, and gets in over his head and ultimately falls short. I'm not going to come down too hard on JP for this. And I don't regard JP as a guru, but rather an excellent and inspiring role model, especially, perhaps, for men. Carl Jung's intelligence and his basic humanity is also inspiring, and Mr. Peterson certainly has good taste in heroes. During this whole time, though, maybe JP doesn't want you touching his, ahem, "epistemology", least of all with some 100 foot pole! What I like about Peterson and where his forte lies, is in his leanings towards male empowerment and standing up for the boys, when they are getting torn down by dishonest pc driven propaganda and anti-male sentiment, from those females that are either jealous of males, or those that just want to look phony virtuous and lack integrity within their own standing of being. Peterson puts gender into common-sense perspective and his delivery of truth, is due to his intelligence and sense of humanity, which appears pretty balanced to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 20, 2020 0:39:43 GMT
Yeah, that was pretty dense. I've never heard JP speak this way before. Maybe "God" isn't his forte, or maybe he's trying too hard to allign himself with his hero, Carl Jung, and gets in over his head and ultimately falls short. I'm not going to come down too hard on JP for this. And I don't regard JP as a guru, but rather an excellent and inspiring role model, especially, perhaps, for men. Carl Jung's intelligence and his basic humanity is also inspiring, and Mr. Peterson certainly has good taste in heroes. During this whole time, though, maybe JP doesn't want you touching his, ahem, "epistemology", least of all with some 100 foot pole! What I like about Peterson and where his forte lies, is in his leanings towards male empowerment and standing up for the boys, when they are getting torn down by dishonest pc driven propaganda and anti-male sentiment, from those females that are either jealous of males, or those that just want to look phony virtuous and lack integrity within their own standing of being. Peterson puts gender into common-sense perspective and his delivery of truth, is due to his intelligence and sense of humanity, which appears pretty balanced to me. Yeah, I think if one pays close attention, then it is not so difficult to surmise that Jordan Peterson is rather a tender hearted fellow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2020 0:44:27 GMT
What I like about Peterson and where his forte lies, is in his leanings towards male empowerment and standing up for the boys, when they are getting torn down by dishonest pc driven propaganda and anti-male sentiment, from those females that are either jealous of males, or those that just want to look phony virtuous and lack integrity within their own standing of being. Peterson puts gender into common-sense perspective and his delivery of truth, is due to his intelligence and sense of humanity, which appears pretty balanced to me. Yeah, I think if one pays close attention, then it is not so difficult to surmise that Jordan Peterson is rather a tender hearted fellow. He can come across as a little dry, but he appears warm also. His dryness is perhaps his front for his professionalism in terms of not coming across so excitable, nor agitated. It is interesting when I watch interviews and one of the speakers gets rattled, or are perhaps in disagreeance with one of points made, they reach for their glass of water. Peterson did this with Newman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 20, 2020 1:05:21 GMT
That may say more about you than his detractors, though, since I tend to understand what both are saying. As for Peterson being "clear and direct," I'd say that depends on the subject. Here was how Jordan Peterson defined "God" in his talk with Sam Harris: Now, you can call this many things, but "clear and direct" isn't one of them. I say this despite perfectly understanding what he's saying. I also think it would've helped if he would just come out and say "I see God as a metaphor for many different things," since that basically encapsulates his position. He clearly doesn't believe in the God the way most fundamentalists do. Why he skirts around just saying this is a worthwhile discussion in itself. Here's my advice: don't treat Peterson as a guru. In fact, don't treat any thinker as a guru. Develop your own critical thinking skills by challenging every idea you come across, and don't be lenient with those that support your biases. Listen/Read many thinkers and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's some good stuff to be taken from Peterson (much of it is just notes on Jung and various existential philosophers/authors), but he's by no means perfect. I would, eg, not want to touch his epistemology with a 100-foot pole. God is not so easy to define and even impossible, depending on ones perception and notion of what God does or doesn't represent to them. Peterson would have expressed God in context to the questions asked of him. This would not have been one pre-amble without any question asked beforehand. There are points in his answers that I get, without knowing what the question was put to him. It is academic rhetoric that is being intellectualized, for the point of discussion.
As for touching his epistemology Eva, that is getting into some serious "me-too" stuff. IIRC, the context of his definition was just what his definition was. I think he had written most/all of that down before the discussion. I still think one could say what Peterson said in a more "clear and direct" way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 20, 2020 1:26:46 GMT
God is not so easy to define and even impossible, depending on ones perception and notion of what God does or doesn't represent to them. Peterson would have expressed God in context to the questions asked of him. This would not have been one pre-amble without any question asked beforehand. There are points in his answers that I get, without knowing what the question was put to him. It is academic rhetoric that is being intellectualized, for the point of discussion.
As for touching his epistemology Eva, that is getting into some serious "me-too" stuff. IIRC, the context of his definition was just what his definition was. I think he had written most/all of that down before the discussion. I still think one could say what Peterson said in a more "clear and direct" way. I guess he had to stretch out the time and philosophy is not so much his field as psychology is. Why was he asked to give some reasoning or definition of God here?
|
|
