The answer might be almost all public intellectuals. And not only the ones who hang out with Epstein to get inspired by him.
Seriously, I think many scientists/ non-public intellectuals see public intellectuals critical. Because they often talk about things they are not expert in. They say they often don't show humility and many were grifters.
I think Jordan Peterson is a grifter. Even though some psychological advices helped me temporarily. But eventually the things Slavoj Zizek replied to him in this famous debates described my problems way better and offered a solution.
Peterson focuses on the individual who was to work on one's personality, acknowledging what society offers and one needs the will to contribute to society. Zizek position was what if you are in North Korea cleaning your room and all the other virtues are worth nothing if there are systemic roots for your unhappiness. I think he wanted to allude to the capitalistic world we are living in where there are systemic reasons why people can't make it. Personally, I find some of Peterson's advices cynical. But they motivated me. (to torture me further).
Who am I to criticize them. I don't even have a bachelor degree. Lol. There are some intellectuals that just bore me. The way they talk. For example, I listened today to a lecture of Peter Sloterdijk and I just cannot listen to this dude. I know Zizek likes him. But he annoys me. I don't think he is overrated. Not necessarily but I just can't listen to him.
I like when intellectuals emphasize empirical evidence and also emphasize when there is a research gap and uncertainty. The German philosopher Philipp Hübel does that. He also adapted his opinion on a culture war topic because there were new empirical findings.
I think public intellectuals are a necessary evil. There is a need for them. But they often don't get respect by researches. It is also difficult to mediate extremely complicated topics to a mass audience.
The biggest German grifter is Richard David Precht. I once liked him until I realized that. I considered to read a book of him and experts warned that it is very mediocre.
My favorite intellectuals are David Foster Wallace and Slavoj Zizek.
I haven't heard much positive about Harari. For college I worked on a paper about Mearsheimer The Israel Lobby. The lecturer wanted me to write that the book is sort of antisemitic. Honestly, I didn't have the feeling it was antisemitic and I wrote a different critiique. I considered to write a thesis on Zizek. But I quit college because my mental health was horrible. And Zizek is too complicated anyway. It was a too ambitious project and I knew that.
In German newspapers and journals you read a lot of Hannah Arendt articles. I think it is her 120th birthday. Many people criticized her work when she published it. But the evaluation of her legacy changed drastically.
Seriously, I think many scientists/ non-public intellectuals see public intellectuals critical. Because they often talk about things they are not expert in. They say they often don't show humility and many were grifters.
I think Jordan Peterson is a grifter. Even though some psychological advices helped me temporarily. But eventually the things Slavoj Zizek replied to him in this famous debates described my problems way better and offered a solution.
Peterson focuses on the individual who was to work on one's personality, acknowledging what society offers and one needs the will to contribute to society. Zizek position was what if you are in North Korea cleaning your room and all the other virtues are worth nothing if there are systemic roots for your unhappiness. I think he wanted to allude to the capitalistic world we are living in where there are systemic reasons why people can't make it. Personally, I find some of Peterson's advices cynical. But they motivated me. (to torture me further).
Who am I to criticize them. I don't even have a bachelor degree. Lol. There are some intellectuals that just bore me. The way they talk. For example, I listened today to a lecture of Peter Sloterdijk and I just cannot listen to this dude. I know Zizek likes him. But he annoys me. I don't think he is overrated. Not necessarily but I just can't listen to him.
I like when intellectuals emphasize empirical evidence and also emphasize when there is a research gap and uncertainty. The German philosopher Philipp Hübel does that. He also adapted his opinion on a culture war topic because there were new empirical findings.
I think public intellectuals are a necessary evil. There is a need for them. But they often don't get respect by researches. It is also difficult to mediate extremely complicated topics to a mass audience.
The biggest German grifter is Richard David Precht. I once liked him until I realized that. I considered to read a book of him and experts warned that it is very mediocre.
My favorite intellectuals are David Foster Wallace and Slavoj Zizek.
I haven't heard much positive about Harari. For college I worked on a paper about Mearsheimer The Israel Lobby. The lecturer wanted me to write that the book is sort of antisemitic. Honestly, I didn't have the feeling it was antisemitic and I wrote a different critiique. I considered to write a thesis on Zizek. But I quit college because my mental health was horrible. And Zizek is too complicated anyway. It was a too ambitious project and I knew that.
In German newspapers and journals you read a lot of Hannah Arendt articles. I think it is her 120th birthday. Many people criticized her work when she published it. But the evaluation of her legacy changed drastically.
