4 ms·

> Jordan Peterson's rhetoric is just another round of reactionary sophistry Reactionary? As far as I understand it, a 'reactionary' is someone who wants a retu

> Jordan Peterson's rhetoric is just another round of reactionary sophistry Reactionary? As far as I understand it, a 'reactionary' is someone who wants a return of monarchy. There doesn't really seem to be anything in Peterson's dialogue about that. Unless you mean something different by that, and it was just a poor choice of words? Calling his argument sophistry without any actual reference to them is in and of itself sophistry. Most of what he's saying, once understood, is material that would have been common sense to virtually anyone a few generations ago, and the arguments still stand very strong. > There's not enough hours in the day to devote to deprogramming a true believer who in the long run is severely mangled as an intellectual being by internalizing his garbage. Are you going to make reference to any of this 'garbage' or are you simply going to assert this without evidence? Such a brave position to take. I'm sure you think of yourself as the sole voice of reason muchn of the time. So are you suggesting the opposite of Peterson's claims - should young Western men simply shrug their responsibilities and be happy hive-dwelling consumers, the "salad men" as the Japanese call it, continuing to fail at their attempts to build meaningful lives? You offer no alternative and you don't even admit to recognizing there's actually a crisis. Shame.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
I'd love to hear a thoughtful response to him. His lecturing style is, according to his own description, more exploratory than explanatory. He's said before that he's not trying to tell people what to think, rather he's basically just thinking out loud on stage. This approach leaves a lot of room for disagreement, because of course there will be things left out, scholars not mentioned, and plenty of inconsistencies. But I've yet to hear a real example of such a disagreement. All I hear is anger and contempt for him.
- core-questions 9y ago
  Agreed, it would be excellent to have someone with opposing views actually have a proper dialectic conversation with him. So far we've only seen rhetorical counter-arguments which accomplish very little - and have in some cases pushed him, out of necessity, into also using a more rhetorical approach. I'm sure there are some reasonable qualms with some of his views - and further, I'd be willing to bet he'd be willing to explore them with someone who's actually offering an open conversation to discuss their concerns rather than an attack. It's just not the common approach, especially in public dialogue.
  - Compostmodern 9y ago
    I am not sure he would be willing to engage with an actual dialectic conversation right now. It would almost certainly expose him as a fraud and destroy a) his credibility in academia (that might already be shot actually) and b) destroy his alt-right lecture tour.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago

I'd love to hear a thoughtful response to him. His lecturing style is, according to his own description, more exploratory than explanatory. He's said before that he's not trying to tell people what to think, rather he's basically just thinking out loud on stage. This approach leaves a lot of room for disagreement, because of course there will be things left out, scholars not mentioned, and plenty of inconsistencies. But I've yet to hear a real example of such a disagreement. All I hear is anger and contempt for him.

core-questions 9y ago
Agreed, it would be excellent to have someone with opposing views actually have a proper dialectic conversation with him. So far we've only seen rhetorical counter-arguments which accomplish very little - and have in some cases pushed him, out of necessity, into also using a more rhetorical approach. I'm sure there are some reasonable qualms with some of his views - and further, I'd be willing to bet he'd be willing to explore them with someone who's actually offering an open conversation to discuss their concerns rather than an attack. It's just not the common approach, especially in public dialogue.
- Compostmodern 9y ago
  I am not sure he would be willing to engage with an actual dialectic conversation right now. It would almost certainly expose him as a fraud and destroy a) his credibility in academia (that might already be shot actually) and b) destroy his alt-right lecture tour.