Without writing a thesis and deepdiving into his rhetoric - He’s not a philosopher, yet often makes references to well known philosophical platitudes from people like Gödel in efforts to argue conservative and religious viewpoints. For example: Argument on Existence of God
Notice how he takes a common sense observation, and then applies it to an idea. That’s okay, your supposed to do that. My issue with him is that he then makes another assumption, then another…then another. And soon, he’s making conclusions built upon a shaky bridge of assumptions that lead back to a small kernel of actual wisdom.
If your paying attention to him, it’s very similar to how conspiracy theories are created, you take a solid kernel of truth or seed of wisdom that you can use to anchor the idea…to someone that doesn’t know better, that’s all they need to believe everything else.
Jordan Peterson is not always wrong, I think he makes genuine points on some subjects when it’s based on his actual areas of expertise, but he’s sort of a smart sounding jack-of-all-trades when it comes to anything else. For example, he’s a psychologist…why did he come up with an all/mostly-meat diet? Because it worked in a niche case with his daughter? It’s entirely anecdotal, not researched, divergent from common sense dietary advice, and frankly dangerous.
I said dont give a religious example as that is open to much criticism. I am talking in reference to his points on self-improvement and how everyone here believes they should be ignored. Please give an example on that.
I gave you an example of his argument style that I have issues with, not specifically an argument about religion that I disagree with. I noticed that a lot of his arguments try to use a strong basis on moral or objective reasoning and then provide flimsy but intellectually sounded deduction to stretch further and further towards his ultimate objective. I’ve given an example of it, and technically a second in regards to his promoted dietary practices. Do with them what you will. :)
Without writing a thesis and deepdiving into his rhetoric - He’s not a philosopher, yet often makes references to well known philosophical platitudes from people like Gödel in efforts to argue conservative and religious viewpoints. For example: Argument on Existence of God Notice how he takes a common sense observation, and then applies it to an idea. That’s okay, your supposed to do that. My issue with him is that he then makes another assumption, then another…then another. And soon, he’s making conclusions built upon a shaky bridge of assumptions that lead back to a small kernel of actual wisdom.
If your paying attention to him, it’s very similar to how conspiracy theories are created, you take a solid kernel of truth or seed of wisdom that you can use to anchor the idea…to someone that doesn’t know better, that’s all they need to believe everything else.
Jordan Peterson is not always wrong, I think he makes genuine points on some subjects when it’s based on his actual areas of expertise, but he’s sort of a smart sounding jack-of-all-trades when it comes to anything else. For example, he’s a psychologist…why did he come up with an all/mostly-meat diet? Because it worked in a niche case with his daughter? It’s entirely anecdotal, not researched, divergent from common sense dietary advice, and frankly dangerous.
deleted by creator
I said dont give a religious example as that is open to much criticism. I am talking in reference to his points on self-improvement and how everyone here believes they should be ignored. Please give an example on that.
I gave you an example of his argument style that I have issues with, not specifically an argument about religion that I disagree with. I noticed that a lot of his arguments try to use a strong basis on moral or objective reasoning and then provide flimsy but intellectually sounded deduction to stretch further and further towards his ultimate objective. I’ve given an example of it, and technically a second in regards to his promoted dietary practices. Do with them what you will. :)