5 ms·
> To be clear, Peterson's commentary is not original. M. Scott Peck, the Buddha, and literally 100s of other philosophers and psychologists have shared similar
by cgmg 9y ago
> To be clear, Peterson's commentary is not original. M. Scott Peck, the Buddha, and literally 100s of other philosophers and psychologists have shared similar insights. Remarkably, those thinkers managed to share this insight without offending half the population in order to drive book sales and line their pockets.
What point are you trying to make with this snide remark?
That sources should be disregarded if their ideas “offend” 50% of the population (a claim for which you provided no evidence)?
That sources should be disregarded if they made money from book sales? This would mean disregarding almost all sources.
That a commentary is "unoriginal" if someone in the past has "shared similar insights"? This is pure nonsense.
- pault 9y agoOne could argue that quoting a source who is a bit of a lightning rod for controversy makes the conversation more complicated than it needs to be if there is an alternative source available.
- sudosteph 9y agoI don't care either way on JP and his book sales, but you have to admit that the quote boils down to "Life is suffering". Which has been the the core belief of Buddhist philosophy since it started. So yeah, that's a pretty unoriginal idea to attribute to someone else.
- cgmg 9y ago> the quote boils down to "Life is suffering" Not in any meaningful sense. Clearly the quote contains more than that. It's like saying "everything boils down to A = A" (Aristotle, Metaphysics), therefore anything following from that is an "unoriginal" idea.
- obscurantist 9y agoI can assure any megamind in here that Socrates offended more than just 50% of Athens' population.