אני חושב שהדוגמה הכי חמורה למחדל שלו בויכוח עם ז'יז'ק בפרט (וכפי שציינת בביקורת שלו על הוגים בכלל) באה לידי ביטוי שהוא לא מכיר את הניאו מרכסיסטים שלמעשה העבירו ביקורת הרבה יותר חריפה על מרכס.
תשמע, הויכוח הזה היה קרקס של בעיות. לדרג ביניהן נשמע לי קשה ;-) אני דווקא קצת בוכה על הפספוס: הם שניהם מפתחים ברצינות אלטרנטיבות ישנות לתיאוריה הפסיכואנליטית של פרויד, ודווקא שם נדמה לי שיש להם הכי הרבה קרקע משותפת. אני הייתי שמח לשמוע מהם דיון בין לאקאן ויונג.
You wrote: "...I argued that Peterson, as a psychologist, is undoubtedly an interesting and unconventional figure. " and "Much of Peterson's project rests on remodeling modern psychological and neurological knowledge to produce a subject that functions properly on the symbolic and ethical level."
I wonder: Is it Peterson's struggle and pain that he swings his intellectual sword ('psychology') fiercely grasping the wrong end?
To speak with Wittgenstein: “The confusion and barrenness of psychology is not to be explained by its being a ‘young science’; its state is not comparable with that of physics, for instance, in its beginnings… For in psychology, there are experimental methods and conceptual confusion… The existence of the experimental method makes us think that we have the means of getting rid of the problems which trouble us; but problem and method pass one another by.” (Philosophical investigations / Ludwig Wittgenstein; Rev. 4th ed. / by P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, 2009).
You concluded: "It seems to me that the time has come to think a bit more seriously about the problems his thinking creates, preferably from figures who are no less intellectually capable than him..."
It strikes me: Here is a man who cries in broad public darkness besieged by his depression and helped by a pure carnivore diet - perhaps an unwitting image of his public wolfishness- who now calls out to others. Slavoj Žižek reaches towards him: "I want to solicit from you to tell a joke, don’t you see this? " But, Peterson does not receive the (divine ?) inspiration and relief in and through humor. What might he, like many of his followers, need? Probing compassion instead of condescension, I guess.
You are one of the "figures who are no less intellectually capable.." and ignatiously curious!
Please, continue and I shall be your faithful reader.
אני חושב שהדוגמה הכי חמורה למחדל שלו בויכוח עם ז'יז'ק בפרט (וכפי שציינת בביקורת שלו על הוגים בכלל) באה לידי ביטוי שהוא לא מכיר את הניאו מרכסיסטים שלמעשה העבירו ביקורת הרבה יותר חריפה על מרכס.
תשמע, הויכוח הזה היה קרקס של בעיות. לדרג ביניהן נשמע לי קשה ;-) אני דווקא קצת בוכה על הפספוס: הם שניהם מפתחים ברצינות אלטרנטיבות ישנות לתיאוריה הפסיכואנליטית של פרויד, ודווקא שם נדמה לי שיש להם הכי הרבה קרקע משותפת. אני הייתי שמח לשמוע מהם דיון בין לאקאן ויונג.
You wrote: "...I argued that Peterson, as a psychologist, is undoubtedly an interesting and unconventional figure. " and "Much of Peterson's project rests on remodeling modern psychological and neurological knowledge to produce a subject that functions properly on the symbolic and ethical level."
It has been written: "The central error of cognitive neuroscientists is to commit the mereological fallacy, the tendency to ascribe to the brain psychological concepts that only make sense when ascribed to whole animals."https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1389787/; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41682961
I wonder: Is it Peterson's struggle and pain that he swings his intellectual sword ('psychology') fiercely grasping the wrong end?
To speak with Wittgenstein: “The confusion and barrenness of psychology is not to be explained by its being a ‘young science’; its state is not comparable with that of physics, for instance, in its beginnings… For in psychology, there are experimental methods and conceptual confusion… The existence of the experimental method makes us think that we have the means of getting rid of the problems which trouble us; but problem and method pass one another by.” (Philosophical investigations / Ludwig Wittgenstein; Rev. 4th ed. / by P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, 2009).
You concluded: "It seems to me that the time has come to think a bit more seriously about the problems his thinking creates, preferably from figures who are no less intellectually capable than him..."
It strikes me: Here is a man who cries in broad public darkness besieged by his depression and helped by a pure carnivore diet - perhaps an unwitting image of his public wolfishness- who now calls out to others. Slavoj Žižek reaches towards him: "I want to solicit from you to tell a joke, don’t you see this? " But, Peterson does not receive the (divine ?) inspiration and relief in and through humor. What might he, like many of his followers, need? Probing compassion instead of condescension, I guess.
You are one of the "figures who are no less intellectually capable.." and ignatiously curious!
Please, continue and I shall be your faithful reader.