This is not true. He has only clarified why he doesn't answer the question, not given an answer.Also, let's just state for the record that Peterson has, in fact, answered the question.
That would only be the case if you assume him to be as forthright and truthful as he presents himself.If he was muddying the waters with semantics he would say "I can't answer the question because we have different definitions and can't talk about it."
If you think him to be intentionally deceptive about his point his answer makes a lot of sense. Because it evades having to give an answer. Your answer wouldn't work in that case, because it wouldn't cause people to come to his defense, because it would leave no room for interpretation. They could only repeat the weak "he doesn't want to talk about".
Like his refusal to talk about 200 years together, Solzenitshyen's other book, despite having been prompted at least twice (recorded) and receiving a free translated copy.
It's a much weaker position than allowing people discuss the epistomology and semantics if what words mean. In that sense I admire Peterson for managing to hoodwink people.
And to hear a defense of the podcast with Harris about truth being some high brained thing; Peterson himself has admitted on Rogan that it was a shit podcast and came up with not having slept for 30 days as a reason for it being shit.
Pretty amazing that people would still defend that podcast. I suppose that ends now that they know daddy admitted it was a bad podcast?
Last edited by a moderator: