4 ms·
While I agree with the thesis (Peterson is indeed a shallow intellectual), I disagree with the author's position that there are no deep intellectuals left. With
by glitchc 3y ago
While I agree with the thesis (Peterson is indeed a shallow intellectual), I disagree with the author's position that there are no deep intellectuals left. Without naming names, the reason we don't hear from them is because of the current state of the internet, where communications is so democratized that it is impossible to curate effectively. In short, the noise exceeds the signal, and so we only hear about the demagogues, whose one-note message can be amplified sufficiently to rise above the rest. More nuanced voices offering complex opinions are difficult to distinguish amid the sea of uninformed opinions and criticisms.
The author bemoans that intellectuals have failed the general population by being afraid to dumb down complex messages for general consumption. The only flaw with this theory is that modern life itself is rather complicated, irreducibly so. Simple explanations are often wrong, and since true intellectuals pride themselves on being factual and correct, it would be beneath them to offer such solutions.
What we really have is a society that prides itself on anti-intellectualism and is outright hostile to reasoned discourse. Until society holds itself to a higher standard, we will get the intellectuals we deserve.
- bsenftner 3y ago> Until society holds itself to a higher standard, we will get the intellectuals we deserve. Until society matures. We have a critical issue with adult immaturity. That's why quality intellectuals are scant and missing: they don't sling mud, and our immature public society is all about slinging shit disguised as mud. As boring as it sounds, we need an intellectual promoting basic maturity, pointing out the critical foundation it forms in which all worthwhile human activity can be built. As well as the deterioration of everything worthwhile when maturity is lacking.
- gr__or 3y agoJoscha Bach came to my mind, as a sort of anti-Peterson. Deeply materialistic, systematic though also not easy to grok. I think he's making sense, but at times he alludes me.
- HKH2 3y agoeludes*
- drewcoo 3y ago> I disagree with the author's position that there are no deep intellectuals left Well, there is the problem of the author trying to distance from liberals by calling them "left." Slavoj Žižek is many things, but also deep, left, and not liberal. If the claim had been "no deep intellectuals of the politics of the middle," I could have agreed. It's difficult to think deep thoughts while drinking the Kool-Aid.