|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 20, 2020 1:55:48 GMT
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? Because that (God) was the main subject of the discussion between him and Sam Harris. They had four of these talks; I think this was from their first discussion. Like I said before, these discussions are worth listening to in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 11, 2021 1:24:48 GMT
More awful truth from JP regarding making the use of incorrect pronouns illegal. This senator thinks she's going to make a difference based around her preposterous bill: 
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 11, 2021 6:53:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 11, 2021 23:34:58 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. See, now, I understood all of that perfectly.
|
|