“What’s the criticism, specifically? Stop being a Jungian?”– The criticism is t

–“What’s the criticism, specifically? Stop being a Jungian?”–
The criticism is that he’s rude, and ending his legitimacy as a public intellectual despite his presence of a populist.

Peterson is capable of the empirical an very good at it. His penchant for the narrative: jungian, literary, mythological, and theological – is useful for attempting to provide historical legitimacy to the unsophisticated – it’s all they unsophisticated have to work with.

But in ‘adult conversation’ it would behoove him to first, remain within the domain of the empirical – otherwise it’s using private language and rude, and to stop interrupting those using the empirical, because it’s rude. And both taunt your opposite into either not responding, responding dismissively, and it baits them into ‘stooping’ to a level unsuitable for intellectual honesty in adult discourse, which is not only rude but insulting.

Interviews on present matters of import are not a forum for fictionalism (look it up) they are a forum for empiricism.
That is called ‘exchange’.

Conversely, when speaking to an auditorium of people of different abilities the utility of fictionalism is helpful in reaching a broader audience with meaning, before reducing that meaning to it’s empirical (scientific) foundations.
That is called ‘education’.

There is a difference.

Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @ccllaazz @AhmedAlmahdie