Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Please, engage in a modicum of self-awareness before engaging in another childish authoritarian rant about who is competent enough to make judgements on the competence of others. Not only is it hypocritical, but it treads dangerously close to an ad hominem that’s simply meant to shut down free speech.
|
Another classic Pepsifree strategy: "No,
you!
You're the problem you just described with my postings! It can't be something wrong with me!" The lengths people will go to avoid self-examination...
Newsflash: all you have done in this thread, despite having posted in it more than anyone, is to make bald assertions about Peterson not being worth listening to, not being worth public attention, being an intellectual lightweight, having poorly thought out views, and is unimportant. You have essentially appointed yourself arbiter of who's worth the time to engage with, without any substance to back it up.
In contrast, I pointed out my biggest philosophical problem with Peterson: his epistemology. I described it. Enoch Root suggested that I was mischaracterizing him, so I posted an interview - two full hours of an interview, not a hit piece with a bunch of two line quotes taken out of context - that demonstrated that I wasn't mischaracterizing him. I explained that I don't think that "how you arrive at truth" is determined by figuring out what's evolutionarily viable, you do it by performing experiments and developing hypothyses. Thus my position that his whole world view is insane, and that the only way to take him seriously on any topic is to ignore it and treat him like a broken clock. In other words, if he makes a good point, it's essentially by accident - bad math that produces what seems to be the right answer - or he's not following his own rules.
So, what's the distinction here? Simple. People can either agree or disagree with my criticism, based on my reasons for it. In contrast, the only way to agree with your criticism is either:
1) To cede the authority to you to decide which public intellectuals are worth listening to, or;
2) To come to the same conclusion independently.
The first, no one should be willing to do, because frankly we've read your posts and you don't seem like you have any basis for that sort of authority, because this is more or less your whole modus operandi. The second is fine, but if people are coming to the same conclusion independently of your declarations, then you've added nothing to the conversation whatsoever.
As an aside, I actually have a second main problem with Peterson that's been bothering me, which is sort of hinted at in this tweet from the twitter thread I posted on the first page of this thread:
Quote:
James Lindsay @GodDoesnt
Undoubtedly, Peterson is aware of the ways in which fainting-couch feminism manufactures, exaggerates, and exploits the vulnerabilities of young women, and he seems quite savvy at doing the same thing (ironically?) w/ adrift young men. He knows his audience. Responsibility needed.
|
...But I don't want to get into it in any detail because I'm waiting for Lindsay to write an article about it, and suspect he'll have more interesting things to say on the subject.