tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post2712016381932552843..comments2024-03-26T14:20:38.103-04:00Comments on The Thought Criminal: The Intellectual We Sould Expect Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-47245110082795552722018-03-27T14:47:59.935-04:002018-03-27T14:47:59.935-04:00You have the common misperception about free speec...You have the common misperception about free speech that someone is required to publish whatever someone else wants them to publish, that everyone is required to provide you with a place to say whatever you want them to. Well, that's not a requirement of free speech even under the misread Constitution, I'm not required to post your cruel or nasty remarks about some of the finest people before the public today. Emma Gonzalez gave what is certainly one of the finest speeches ever given by someone in the English language. The rest of the speeches were some of the finest and most meaningful as well. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-66818529706914732962018-03-27T14:08:22.322-04:002018-03-27T14:08:22.322-04:00Of course not. Free speech is for people you agre...Of course not. Free speech is for people you agree with.Liam Pravardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02939183220563675989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-88187687648351317332018-03-27T06:50:11.409-04:002018-03-27T06:50:11.409-04:00For fuck sake, a TV interview isn't a Platonic...For fuck sake, a TV interview isn't a Platonic dialogue, it is a short, quick thing which happens in a set time limit, that's especially true when it's a live interview. <br /><br />If he doesn't like what happens on TV when he's challenged to clearly say what he means and address the consequences of what he says he doesn't have to appear on it. Instead he and his fan boys whine about what any grown-up author would expect when they write in a controversial way. <br /><br />You can make the same claims against men being paid at a set wage or for a set salary, and it used to be. Not all men produce the same value or were assumed to not produce the same value for those who were paying them. I doubt you would like it if your pay was based on some characterization stacked against of how little your boss should be able to get away with paying you. <br /><br />I am sure that Jordan Peterson would be the first person on the staff of the U of Toronto if his pay was paid on the basis of the actual worth of his work, psychotherapy being a totally bogus load of horseshit, to start with. <br /><br />Peterson is tapping into the same audience as Alex Jones and extending it into more white-collar whiny straight white men by having a university position and whining instead of blustering. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-6003919952698944312018-03-27T06:41:04.476-04:002018-03-27T06:41:04.476-04:00Oh, for crying out loud. She was asking him quest...Oh, for crying out loud. She was asking him questions about what he meant, if he wanted to say what he meant it was up to him to say what he meant. <br /><br />She went on to ask him if rational conclusions about what he said were accurate. His answers danced all around what could have been a clear clarification of what he meant. <br /><br />There apparently is no such thing as "any reasonable reading" of Jordan Peterson's word salad style of writing. I think my diagnosis that it was a stream of connotations without any definite denotative significance is accurate, so is the defense made of him. <br /><br />The interview technique of asking a writer about what they meant, especially the controversial aspects of it is universally used when an author is peddling his or her stuff. What Peterson is doing is the white-male whine technique which for you guys means "they're being mean to me because they won't just say we win". <br /><br />Your comment on the demonstration on Saturday is unacceptable for my comment threads. I don't post that kind of thing. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-18765594892556181252018-03-27T04:06:02.388-04:002018-03-27T04:06:02.388-04:00But's that the point I was making. Newman sho...But's that the point I was making. Newman should have asked him to clarify, instead of taking what he said and making a crude mutation of his words. There is much to be critical of regarding Peterson's philosophy, but any reasonable, unprejudiced reading of their exchange will leave you shaking your head at her missed opportunity.<br /><br />As per Mishra, "Western right-wingers who swear by Solzhenitsyn and tend to imply that belief in egalitarianism leads straight to the guillotine or the Gulag."<br /><br />Horse. Shit. To couple this with Peterson, he makes the point that equality of opportunity is the desired goal for a society but that it is dangerous to demand equality of outcome. "Harrison Bergeron" is not a portrait of an ideal society. Though I have encountered a few who seem to think '1984' is just a matter of right politics, wrong party.<br /><br />God help us all if that idea spreads.Liam Pravardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02939183220563675989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-58285771525011356592018-03-27T03:41:34.279-04:002018-03-27T03:41:34.279-04:00"A live interview takes place in real time, P..."A live interview takes place in real time, Plato's puppet Socrates doesn't have any relevance to what happened in that interview."<br /><br />You're worse than Newman with that comment. My cousin's joke was, and is, and will be, that cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals (or, the Socratic method) is vastly preferable to ad hominem attacks and dismissiveness. Hence the joke. Millennial snowflakes reading Plato and asking, "Why doesn't Socrates just call Phaedrus a Nazi or a [blank]phobic bigot?" The idea of reasoned, respectful discourse seems utterly lost on them. He's only 8-9 years old than them but man he can't believe how little critical thinking they do.<br /><br />Moving on...<br /><br />Newman might be a good interviewer, but you're desperately trying to give her credit for something just because she's a woman and you don't like straight white men. <br /><br />Here's an example: Peterson talks about the pay gap, and explains why it exists for myriad reasons, but Newman won't hear of it.<br /><br />Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for [the pay gap]. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.<br /><br />Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.<br /><br />Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.<br /><br />Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?<br /><br />Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it!<br /><br />For God's sake man, you might think him a cult leader, but Newman isn't listening or responding to his statements. It's stunning how she keeps trying to create straw men to knock over. Peterson says, clearly, the pay gap exists, but it isn't just because of ONE hinging factor. He even says, "And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim."<br /><br />I think you really need to step back and try reading the dialogue without your prejudices. I don't care about Peterson this way or that, but you haven't actually offered one concrete example where he is evading what he REALLY thinks and that’s why Newman comes across so badly.Liam Pravardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02939183220563675989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-9086655410270329312018-03-23T22:33:15.461-04:002018-03-23T22:33:15.461-04:00And this explains why an American Catholic Bishop ...And this explains why an American Catholic Bishop would like Peterson:<br /><br />"It is imperative to ask why and how this obscure Canadian academic, who insists that gender and class hierarchies are ordained by nature and validated by science, has suddenly come to be hailed as the West’s most influential public intellectual." Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-74644678637947936532018-03-23T22:31:47.850-04:002018-03-23T22:31:47.850-04:00"Packaged for people brought up on BuzzFeed l..."Packaged for people brought up on BuzzFeed listicles, Peterson’s brand of intellectual populism has risen with stunning velocity; and it is boosted, like the political populisms of our time, by predominantly male and frenzied followers, who seem ever-ready to pummel his critics on social media."<br /><br />Thanks; this is much better.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-77255687184353695502018-03-23T22:26:28.891-04:002018-03-23T22:26:28.891-04:00By the way, clicked your link on "celebrity p...By the way, clicked your link on "celebrity priests."<br /><br />Really need some kind of warning before going to stuff like that. I think I'd be more comfortable stumbling into hard-core kiddie porn than reading that stuff. (well, that's a little strong, but still; post a warning, will ya? ;-) )Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-5224361455924303322018-03-23T22:25:24.380-04:002018-03-23T22:25:24.380-04:00I'm not anything like a fan of Feser, consider...I'm not anything like a fan of Feser, considering what Pankaj Mishra pointed out about the hostility of Peterson to what I think is the most important and essential value of democracy, equality, a hostility shared by Feser, I would never be anything like a fan of him. I do think he did a fairly good takedown of Rosenberg, though. <br /><br />http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/<br /><br />Peterson had a Twitter meltdown over the piece. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-12980139314952232682018-03-23T22:10:30.819-04:002018-03-23T22:10:30.819-04:00I didn't read the interview, so I can't co...I didn't read the interview, so I can't comment on its value. I did read the link to the critique of Peterson by Robinson, which includes long quotes of Peterson's writings which, presumably, reflect what he means to say. And Robinson is right: it's gobbledygook.<br /><br />I've read Foucault, I've read Derrida, I've read Levinas and Heidegger (and Socrates; I often teach at least one of the "last" dialogues, i.e., about the death of Socrates), so I don't really have trouble with people asking questions, or with reading densely written material meant to be as exacting as possible. But the examples Robinson gives of Peterson's words indicate a man trying to blow squid ink in the water. I kept thinking of a fictional character who is a bad con man trying to impress the credulous with his patter, all the while saying absolutely nothing. There's got to be a fictional character who personifies that kind of speech, but the name keeps eluding me.<br /><br />Peterson is that character brought to life. Sorry, not trying to argue with anyone in particular, just saying: Peterson is not a "philosopher," he's just what people who don't understand philosophy think philosopher's sound like (Daniel Dennett is another, though Dennett at least tries to make sense).<br /><br />Feser, on the other hand, strikes me as too Catholic for his own good. He's still arguing as if the Scholastics had any claim to a voice in the conversation, and as if Aristotle were still The Philosopher. I've a soft spot for medieval Europe, but I don't want to keep arguing as if they were the last word and still the measure of all things.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-57568963972756181172018-03-23T21:38:14.376-04:002018-03-23T21:38:14.376-04:00What happened during the interview is what is rele...What happened during the interview is what is relevant to the discussion of what happened in the interview. Here, from a transcript.<br /><br />Peterson: Well, it’s, I’m not saying anything. It’s just an observation, that, that’s the way it is. There’s plenty of women that are watching my lectures and coming to my talks and buying my books. It’s just that the majority of them happen to be men.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Newman: What’s in it for the women, though?<br /><br /> <br /><br />[03:00]<br /><br /> <br /><br />Peterson: Well what sort of partner do you want? You want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with, that’s going to help you?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Newman: So you’re saying women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Peterson: It depends on what they want. No, I mean, it’s exactly how I laid it out. Like, women want, deeply, want men who are competent and powerful! And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power! That’s just corruption.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Power is competence! And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why actually. You can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination, …<br /><br /> <br /><br />Newman: So you are saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Peterson: No. I’d say women who have had their relationships with men impaired and who are afraid of such relationships, will settle for a weak partner, because they can dominate them. But it’s a sub-optimal solution.<br /><br /> <br /><br />[04:01]<br /><br /> <br /><br />Newman: Do you think that’s what a lot of women are doing?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Peterson: I think there’s a substantial minority of women who do that. And I think it’s very bad for them. They’re very unhappy. It’s very bad for their partners. Although the partners get the advantage of not having to take any responsibility.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Newman: What gives you the right to say that? I mean, maybe that’s how women want their relationships, those women. I mean, you’re making these vast generalizations.<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />All he did was make vast generalizations, it's pretty much all he does do. She was trying to get him to say what he meant, WHICH IS WHY SHE KEPT ASKING HIM WHAT HE MEANT OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T SAY WHAT HE MEANT. <br /><br />A live interview takes place in real time, Plato's puppet Socrates doesn't have any relevance to what happened in that interview. Plato wrote those and considering what a set up job they were, they probably had as little relevance to what happened as the dialogue in a Hollywood bio-pic. They are totally irrelevant to that particular interview. <br /><br />Jordan Peterson is a bull shit artist, a snake oil salesman who makes Marshall McLuhan read like Morris Cohen. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-17111541037595640802018-03-23T21:01:54.013-04:002018-03-23T21:01:54.013-04:00Now you're doing it. You sound like those NRA...Now you're doing it. You sound like those NRA nuts ("They won't say what they REALLY mean!"). I have read some of his writings and he doesn't say women need to fix men. Ay caramba. <br /><br />But you can't say an interviewer does a good job if he has to stop and collect himself during the interview due to a point raised by the interviewed. That is a point you refuse to even concede he was correct in asking. <br /><br />My cousin is a philosopher and he told me, amusingly, that Socrates asked questions and asked his opponents to think. Little wonder he's not read today - he doesn't call anyone a Nazi. What kind of arguing is that?Liam Pravardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02939183220563675989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-87655415384309602942018-03-23T20:36:18.663-04:002018-03-23T20:36:18.663-04:00I listened to it several times, she kept trying to...I listened to it several times, she kept trying to get him to say what he meant and he wouldn't say it, she kept asking if if he meant things BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T SAY WHAT HE MEANT. She did ask for clarity, he wouldn't give it and she had to keep an interview with the jerk going. <br /><br />The criticism of her was opportunistic for Peterson and his fan club, I don't have any sympathy for the snake oil salesman. I think he might have one of the biggest psychotherapeutic cults in history, apart from Freud and Jung, since he's a Jungian - really, about as ridiculous a pile of pseudo-science as anyone gets away with in alleged science - it's not that surprising. <br /><br />Newman is a good interviewer, she had a dishonest bunco artist on her hands. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-4301300959602334002018-03-23T20:26:48.736-04:002018-03-23T20:26:48.736-04:00Cathy Newman screwed up that interview six ways fr...Cathy Newman screwed up that interview six ways from Sunday. That you WANT her to be right doesn't make it so. Jesus, Mary and Joseph he even confronts her on the point that she can't challenge his right to make people "uncomfortable" because her line of questioning is intended to do exactly that! That's something a freshman philosophy student wouldn't walk into. She should have asked for clarity instead of trying to interpret something that is so nebulous.Liam Pravardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02939183220563675989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764506766343254616.post-1040416482433371752018-03-23T12:24:06.050-04:002018-03-23T12:24:06.050-04:00Never heard of this guy, which at first makes me t...Never heard of this guy, which at first makes me think I'm too out of touch. Then, reading the first link to the Current Affairs article, I realize those who praise him are the company he keeps: people like Malcolm Gladwell and David Brooks and a Guardian columnist and Time Magazine (okay, the last is not a person, my parallelism is broken now! Agh!). What passes, in Anglo-American circles, for intellectualism, IOW.<br /><br />Somehow Anglo-Americans never notice the French philosophers who could gather crowds to their lectures (the late Foucault, for one), or travel between France and California (which I guess isn't Anglo-American enough, or at least not U. of Chicago enough; and my reference here is the late Derrida). Our public intellectuals are flyweights like Sam Harris (whatever happened to him?) and the late Hitchens, and, apparently, this guy I've never heard of.<br /><br />Reading the article I can understand why Robinson calls Peterson a Jungian, although I'd be more inclined to call him a Campbellian; raising him to the level of Jung seems unwarranted, somehow. And I wouldn't say the language quoted is problematic because it can't be proved, but rather because one sentence is not connected to the next in an attempt to communicate. It's a basic error of composition I see: the paragraph has no topic, really, so the sentences don't have to relate to each other, or even pass on an idea from one sentence to the next until the accumulation is an insight, even a concept. It's just the old distraction of throwing sparks in the air and hoping someone imagines they see a dragon in the randomness. The other long quote, about the nature of the law, puts me on firmer epistemological ground, frankly, and I can tell you it's simply nonsense. He's throwing words in the air, not elucidating concepts. It isn't clear he knows how to do anymore than throw words around.<br /><br />Obviously I'm writing this as I read through the article. I yield back my time to Mr. Robinson. You're right; Peterson is the man Camille Paglia wishes she were.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.com