The review is in - Peterson thinks he's, like, super-smart and, like, sophisticated but he can't answer a straight question and his book Maps of Meaning was, like, boring and stuff, and I couldn't follow because it was, like, too complicated and stuff, and yeah we all know there are archetypes but, like, so fuckin' what right?
(7 votes)
Comments
(Old Spike)
Also Peterson moves his hands around a lot when he talks, which distracts you from being able to understand what he's saying - 10:10.
(Old Spike)
I watched that 2 hour conversation Jordanson had with Sarris earlier. The video posted on this site misrepresented it IMO. I ended up agreeing more with Sarris' reasoning although there was a huge disconnect for which both share blame. Jordanson seemed to want to claim that 'wisdom' is 'truth' in order to add a subjective element. I really did not agree with his definition. Neither man was able to get across the principle that truth is external to the human experience.
TLDR; this is a pissing contest.