I felt quite disappointed reading such a strong critisism of Jordon Peterson. I haven't had time to listen to the almost 2 hour interaction. But I did find it and watched a bit. Wolf appeared as Peterson's guest. Peterson's job in that context, it seems to me, is to help the audience understand the guest's views. Peterson has many opportunities to express his own views. Maybe I'm off here because I didn't watch the whole show. But it doesn't necessarily seem bad if he worked at understanding (and helping the audience understand) Wolf's views rather than having a 2 hour wrestling match in an effort to dominate.
I watched Peterson's interview with Naomi Wolf as well, where she described her sexual assault by Harold Bloom at Yale. I have no idea what actually happened, but one has to know that this is a classic feminist victim strategy. If you disagree with her you are siding with a monster. I agree that Peterson just took everything she said at face value. When he mentioned her in subsequent interviews, it appears that he did not do any additional research, such as talk to other students of Harold Bloom.
Conservatives really need a Bill Buckley; someone to clearly articulate conservative philosophy. Do we have anyone with his intellectual capacity and ability to articulate concepts?
I tend to believe that we have enough philosophizing. We need men of action. If the intellectuals can focous the action and make it coherent, well and good. Otherwise, they are superfluous.
I think we need the philosophers to be our North Star. But then we need men and women of action to do the implementation. I consider myself a conservative, because I know I am very wary of government expansion and control. But, I am less clear about what we promote as solutions. Not to venerate anyone, but to articulate ideas that can excite.
The world's greatest academic.
I felt quite disappointed reading such a strong critisism of Jordon Peterson. I haven't had time to listen to the almost 2 hour interaction. But I did find it and watched a bit. Wolf appeared as Peterson's guest. Peterson's job in that context, it seems to me, is to help the audience understand the guest's views. Peterson has many opportunities to express his own views. Maybe I'm off here because I didn't watch the whole show. But it doesn't necessarily seem bad if he worked at understanding (and helping the audience understand) Wolf's views rather than having a 2 hour wrestling match in an effort to dominate.
I watched Peterson's interview with Naomi Wolf as well, where she described her sexual assault by Harold Bloom at Yale. I have no idea what actually happened, but one has to know that this is a classic feminist victim strategy. If you disagree with her you are siding with a monster. I agree that Peterson just took everything she said at face value. When he mentioned her in subsequent interviews, it appears that he did not do any additional research, such as talk to other students of Harold Bloom.
I was under the impression that Bloom was homosexual.
That's what I thought too! Which makes Wolf's story even more peculiar.
Conservatives really need a Bill Buckley; someone to clearly articulate conservative philosophy. Do we have anyone with his intellectual capacity and ability to articulate concepts?
I tend to believe that we have enough philosophizing. We need men of action. If the intellectuals can focous the action and make it coherent, well and good. Otherwise, they are superfluous.
I think we need the philosophers to be our North Star. But then we need men and women of action to do the implementation. I consider myself a conservative, because I know I am very wary of government expansion and control. But, I am less clear about what we promote as solutions. Not to venerate anyone, but to articulate ideas that can excite.