/lit/ - Literature

So what's the consensus on him?

>>14283018
The problem with Peterson is that people take him for more than he is, and that he's less than he could've been. After the initial tranny pronoun business he became quite a controversial figure because of the implications of what he was saying, but when he was pressed to actually pick a side, or name who "bloody postmodern neomarxists" are he waffled back and forth and sputtered on about "identity politics bad". He went on to use the publicity, and the legion of men looking at him for answers, to cash out by selling tickets, and selfies, and rugs, and books. He was born onto the public stage as one of these free speech martyrs, but fled from his duty for 30 pieces of silver. The Apostles gave their lives to speak the truth, yet Peterson couldn't be asked to risk his ten thousand dollar suits.

The fact that his personal life is in utter shambles is just further proof of his greed and cowardice.

>>14116435
Defo read your post wrong but then wrote too much not to post it.

If I want to get into philosophy what should I start with. And if I am supposed to start with the Greeks what should I read first? Are there any charts that might be helpful to me?

The history of mankind is marked and pervaded by the flashes of genius. Scientific progress was often not the result of cooperative projects, but the revolution of a few talents. Names such as Einstein, Leibniz or daVinci are still present in our cultural consciousness today. But all these geniuses have one thing in common: they have long been dead. Prominent "geniuses" of our time are Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates, both known for anything but their works. No Turing or Gauss, no Heisenberg or Euler is among us anymore. Even among the lesser known geniuses who are famous in their field, the best we get is the likes of Terence Tao. By no means untalented, but they just no longer contribute to the degree the men of the past were able to, since the breadth and depth of these fields of knowledge far exceed the capacities of any human being.

So, has the age of geniuses come to an end? I would say yes. But does this mean the times of one man revolutionizing the human consciousness is over too? Perhaps. But perhaps, this is the age of not the genius, but the age of the intellectually gifted. Of those who by all means who possess peak intelligence, but in well distributed, spread out fashion. Perhaps this age requires not extreme overspecialization in a certain kind of field such as physics or math for us to get anywhere, but people who are able to attain a general understanding of many kinds of fields of knowledge, and are able to synthesize them all.

Why is he so controversial?

>>13842554

>Applying your modern and probably passing cultural foibles to someone living 2500 years ago often leads to absurd results, yes.

>Aristotle, a privileged man part of the ruling class defends class hierarchy as natural 2500 years ago
>Gautama Buddha, a privileged man part of the ruling class radically opposes class hierarchy as natural 2500 years ago

Really makes you think

ITT: things that are like crack for midwits, I’ll start
>Roman history
>anti-Americanism
>secular humanism