>>24519860
>The philosopher, in contrast, gets into definition of things, thriving in uncovering the truth--being.
This isn't a valid criticism.
Peterson has never denied the existence such a definition in his personal life and has stated it before.
Peterson does not get "lost" in the myriad of possible definitions. Quite the contrary, in fact.
The goal of asking
>what do you mean by
during a debate, is to make the other party state his definition of the concept, thereby asserting a starting point through which he often leads to the statement that "belief", as defined by the other party, isn't a substitute for "blindly trust" but, in actuality, the set of ideas that drives their actions.
There is no confusion about what the definitions are.
He, quite literally, does what you stated that a philosopher does.

Not a single criticism itt is based on anything factual. It's rather an obvious display of a basic lack of understanding.

I am not saying that Peterson doesn't have any faults. I am saying that your particular criticism is obviously wrong.
The biggest criticism of Peterson is his lack of originality, but he has NEVER portrayed himself as a proponent of original ideas, or philosophical revolution, understood as the development of new, even if derivative, frameworks.

It's quite sad, and boring, how most public criticism of Dr. Peterson stays so shallow.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

The sophist never defines things, thriving in the realm of ambiguity--seeming. The philosopher, in contrast, gets into definition of things, thriving…