Originally Posted by
Bertrand
that's precisely what his claim is though, and he makes a great case, people that dismiss him don't engage his main point and in doing so beg the question that he can't be right or that its facially flawed
which is fine, you can not like peterson and not be interested in investigating him, but to pretend you can "logically" dismiss him in .5 seconds, when hes an ivy league tier professor who has caught fire in a way few academics ever manage, seems arrogant and unfounded.. the appurtenant assumptions to make that theory work are mindblowing (that its facially flawed and a quick fix)
further peterson is successful precisely because hes brought Jung to the forefront of his thinking, something academics have been scared to do since forever... we're on a board grounded entirely in Jungian thought, your own interest in the topic speaks to its power so, from my point of view, your thinking appears confused where its like you're saying one set of things in re peterson but acting out a different set of priorities, one which is completely consistent with his thought... to me this speaks of confusion or ignorance as to his points; anything but a rebuttal, anything but impartial logic