A Few Thoughts On Jordan Peterson, And Most Other Contemporary Intellectuals
Someone said he doesn't talk to the Left. He does talk to them, but if he wanted to avoid them he WOULD have very good reasons, since they habitually ask the stupidest questions (about gender, for instance. 'Do you believe trans women are real women?', in full inquisitional tone of course, springs to mind as laugh-out-loud funny) and their characterizations of him and his ideas tend to be hatchet jobs verging on slander.
The real question is why does he refuse to even address the topic of a Satanic, Globalist, Zionist or other conspiracy, etc. as the possible root cause of much of the social-malaise that he rightly points to, i.e. it is the 'extreme right' that he avoids talking to, not the Left, an encounter with the latter being in fact quite apparent to his thought - evidently, all too apparent for those without a shred of anything to cling to to defend their violent, dangerously widespread and bizarre ideologies from his insightful and wonderfully humane critiques.
But isn't he, along with nearly the entirety of the Left, by coming out with nothing but pathetic platitudes and sanctimonies which no intelligent person could possibly set any store by, (or in his case and at best avoidance) when faced with the other subject, tacitly giving credence to such shameful theories? If a true intellectual really believes what he says, we expect them to come up with rational arguments. The latter are like feathers to a peacock; if they have them they are only too keen to show them off. And we should judge what and how people really think, the true form, beauty or ugliness of their souls by the reasons they give or fail to give, which are what reveals who a person - particularly someone setting foot in the slippery, often deadly business of politics - really is... not the trite opinions they like to camouflage themselves with, like vipers under a flower, (or caterpillars behind a leaf), before the deluded public.
The real question is why does he refuse to even address the topic of a Satanic, Globalist, Zionist or other conspiracy, etc. as the possible root cause of much of the social-malaise that he rightly points to, i.e. it is the 'extreme right' that he avoids talking to, not the Left, an encounter with the latter being in fact quite apparent to his thought - evidently, all too apparent for those without a shred of anything to cling to to defend their violent, dangerously widespread and bizarre ideologies from his insightful and wonderfully humane critiques.
But isn't he, along with nearly the entirety of the Left, by coming out with nothing but pathetic platitudes and sanctimonies which no intelligent person could possibly set any store by, (or in his case and at best avoidance) when faced with the other subject, tacitly giving credence to such shameful theories? If a true intellectual really believes what he says, we expect them to come up with rational arguments. The latter are like feathers to a peacock; if they have them they are only too keen to show them off. And we should judge what and how people really think, the true form, beauty or ugliness of their souls by the reasons they give or fail to give, which are what reveals who a person - particularly someone setting foot in the slippery, often deadly business of politics - really is... not the trite opinions they like to camouflage themselves with, like vipers under a flower, (or caterpillars behind a leaf), before the deluded public.
Comments
Post a Comment