This conversation between Peter Clarke and Naum Milyavskiy covers the recent debate between Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins that was moderated by Alex O'Connor.
i find jordan peterson interesting. not a messiah. not some kind of loony fascist. just ... interesting. is that strange? i feel like i need 2 have a more extreme opinion about the guy and i dont
I do think he's gotten a little nuttier over the years. At least he seems to have become more reactionary and bitter than he used to be. But the way he talks about stories, archetypes, and religion doesn't strike me as crazy at all. Stories are incredibly powerful, and it should be within the domain of psychology, at some level, to talk about how and why stories matter so much to us. It's just really hard to talk about this with someone like Dawkins who lives and breathes the hard sciences.
i find jordan peterson interesting. not a messiah. not some kind of loony fascist. just ... interesting. is that strange? i feel like i need 2 have a more extreme opinion about the guy and i dont
I do think he's gotten a little nuttier over the years. At least he seems to have become more reactionary and bitter than he used to be. But the way he talks about stories, archetypes, and religion doesn't strike me as crazy at all. Stories are incredibly powerful, and it should be within the domain of psychology, at some level, to talk about how and why stories matter so much to us. It's just really hard to talk about this with someone like Dawkins who lives and breathes the hard sciences.
I think his issue is that he often seems to buy into his own persona. And I agree that he’s gotten more out there, I guess.
I also think his stuff about stories & metaphor & archetypes are really spot on
Also, I think Dawkins’ “hard science” stuff is remarkably closed, reactionary and arrogant in many ways— not investigative or curious at all.