He champions the individual because it is what needs to be most respected in a functioning society. — thinkery

Sounds like an ideology, and a rather extreme one at that, like Libertarianism. Societies depend on collective cooperation, so that needs to be respected as well, right?

You are right. There are certain personal freedoms that need to be sacrificed for a society to function. I got a little ahead of myself there, thank you

Sounds like an ideology, and a rather extreme one at that, like Libertarianism. Societies depend on collective cooperation, so that needs to be respected as well, right? — praxis

Praxis is here spot on. Everything that makes up an individual is determined by the system into which he is born... for all objectors and haters -- good luck refuting this! The last fifty years or more have seen the social sciences verify this premise over and over and over again, and it is not in danger of being refuting because no human could survive without society, it is a physical and psychological impossibility. So what we get in Peterson is exactly that, "ideology," the myth of the self-made-individual. There is no such thing! Peterson is pushing a delusion, the very idealism that leads to totalitarianism, rugged individualism. All one has to do is follow his premises to their logical political conclusions. One ends up distorting the ontology of the individual as well as the ontology of society; one ends by resorting to violence as a way to deal with contradiction. This is what happens when thought is removed from the equation, and this is exactly what Peterson has done. However, what he doesn't realize is that this is not actually a way to rid the world of tension, it is merely the act of burying one's head in the sand, or worse, erecting a dogmatic delusion, immortality system (see Becker), in order to cope with the tension. When this system is threatened, because thought has been removed from the equation, the only recourse is that of violence, the delusion must be defended against those who seek to refute it! What's at stake, in Peterson's delusional, reactionary world, civilization itself! This is how the violence eventually gets justified.

So entrenched is he in this idealism that he has even fallaciously tried to attribute it to Nietzsche, claiming that Nietzsche knew morality/values could not be bolstered without some kind of supernatural foundation(???). This is Nihilism! This is also a distortion and woefully incompetent mischaracterization of Nietzsche's position [see Peterson's exchange with Susan Blackmore]. (This proves that he is exactly the kind of Nihilist Nietzsche warned about.)

Wow, has Jordan Peterson honestly never read Nietzsche? Not only is this a mischaracterization, this is pretty much the literal exact opposite of Nietzsche's actual position. I've seen Jordan Peterson's strawman arguments about Marx, so I'm not overly surprised to hear he does similar violence to Nietzsche, but... woof. What a clown. He should definitely stick to psychology and leave philosophy to those with at least some familiarity with or talent for it. From what I gather, he was a competent if not especially distinguished academic in his primary field, but from everything I've seen or heard about his philosophical and social/cultural erm.. "contributions" (using this term generously), he's woefully out of his depth and should definitely consider staying in his lane.

Not only is this a mischaracterization, this is pretty much the literal exact opposite of Nietzsche's actual position. — Enai De A Lukal

What's most interesting is that he has a history of distorting intellectual's positions. He did the exact same thing with Jung... now, I don't know all the details about this one, but my friend who is exceedingly well versed in the field of psychology watched one of Peterson's lectures on Jung, where he tried to defend Jung from Nazism, my friend went into detail about how Peterson totally distorted the facts in order to make Jung look better. My only question is, how many times is an intellectual allowed to do this, without correcting themselves, before they lose credibility?

He should definitely stick to psychology — Enai De A Lukal

He can't even be trusted in this domain, actually, it's even worse. His pop-psych stance is one of complete cherry picking. Let me cite just a few revolutionary names to prove this, Peter Fonagy and Allan Schore, ground breaking work in Attachment Theory. But there are so many more incredible advances in Social Psychology and Cultural Psychology, Peterson conveniently ignores them all, his consciousness reflects none of it. He is not bringing young people into the modern world with all its advances in the social sciences, he is regressing them to primitive values! This is directly against Nietzsche's position, exactly as you say. I just want young people to know, I want the people who are being duped by this man to see that we have better answers to Nihilism, that moral conservatism is not a path to enlightenment, it is just the opposite. Conformity is not a way to go forward but a way to go backward. I long to see young people, and people in general, liberated to the power of thought -- not my thought, not Peterson's thought, but what they can make of thought.

When he's talking to those who can think and hear.
— Xtrix

How does he know when this is the case? And further, does this have to happen within a set perimeter of time? — JerseyFlight

You'll know when you see it. If you're not able to tell, then you're the one who can't think. There are no recipes or algorithms or equations to figure it out.

As per your revision: "Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 years, and then finally have them understand it or change their mind."

If it is a relative thing then how do you know what you're talking about? I thought I heard you say, "they're really just wasting their time -- no one is changing their minds and nothing is getting done." How do you know this? — JerseyFlight

See above. True, maybe there's some use in banging your head against a brick wall as well. How do you know for certain it won't do any good? Etc.

You'll know when you see it. — Xtrix

Then clearly you assign a limit of time to effectiveness. This seems most strange to me, as I am still being affected by thinkers who are long dead that never even spoke to me. Also, this must mean, if one cannot "see it," then it must not be there, but what if it is there, but one cannot see it? What if one's intellectual labor only bears fruit in the distant future? Clearly you would not call this an impossibility? It would seem the history of culture stands against it. What if the intellectual decided not to speak because he could not see that his work would have value in the future? It seems you are simply telling me to order my intellectual life according to what I feel?

Then clearly you assign a limit of time to effectiveness. This seems most strange to me, as I am still being affected by thinkers who are long dead that never even spoke to me. Also, this must mean, if one cannot "see it," then it must not be there, but what if it is there, but one cannot see it? What if one's intellectual labor only bears fruit in the distant future? Clearly you would not call this an impossibility? It would seem the history of culture stands against it. What if the intellectual decided not to speak because he could not see that his work would have value in the future? It seems you are simply telling me to order my intellectual life according to what I feel? — JerseyFlight

:yawn:

If you want to spend your time arguing with people about Jordan Peterson on an Internet forum, you're welcome to. Maybe little things like that help, and someone has to do it I suppose. I do not recommend it, however -- I think time is better spent elsewhere.

Cheers.

I think time is better spent elsewhere. — Xtrix

That is just the knowledge I am trying to get at, how did you determine this?

Peterson relies on a populist distortion of Jung, and hence the main criticisms of Jung apply to Peterson.

Peterson paraphrases archetypes, synchronicity, and an archaic version of Darwinism in a defence of CIS masculinity.

And that all-meat diet didn't work out so well, either.

It's all a bit sad, really. As are his defenders.

It's all a bit sad, really. As are his defenders. — Banno

But what is really sad is that so many people would rather (selfishly) perpetuate lies than face the truth.

But what is really sad is that so many people would rather (selfishly) perpetuate lies than face the truth. — A Seagull

Mmm. Indeed.

What are we to conclude from that truism?

The only reason I accepted Asif's banning was because he engaged in personal attacks in a large majority of his posts. Personal attacks, repetitive, lack of philosophical content, goodness, how about some self-awareness? How could YOU give those reasons for having someone banned, I was amazed to hear it. You go around smugly mocking people from the perspective of the same ideology and with bare-bones (if any) argumentation. Your contribution to nearly every thread you're involved in is some smug one-liner that puts someone else down.

Cheers.

I would be shocked if you were not an American, and even more, are probably one that escaped poverty, the projects, etc. (Indeed, let us try to sell Peterson's ideology to Syrians). — JerseyFlight

Is this how thinkers should think? Prejudice and stereotyping?

If one only asserts, instead of argues and justifies, then since I can't tackle the argumentation all I can do is assert back in the opposite direction. Which is pretty much your entire response. Try to stick to one or two topics at a time, explain why you're talking about it and what it means.

"[Nietzsche] knew that, when we knocked the slats out of the base of Western civilization by destroying this representation, this God ideal, we would destabilize and move back and forth violently between nihilism and the extremes of ideology." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, I Introduction to the Idea of God.

This is not what Nietzsche knew, this is Peterson's mischaracterization of Nietzsche. What Nietzsche knew is that Christian ideals had been so entrenched into western culture that people would (as Christianity engineered) fall into Nihilism. The Nihilism was not the result of an inability to handle reality or construct more intelligent values (we have been doing this for hundreds of years), this Nihilism was the direct result, pre-programmed, cult reaction to having the error of Christianity ripped out of the brain. Peterson tries to make it sound like Nietzsche believed man needed the ideal of God! This is false. The culprit is not reality, but the negative indoctrination that Christianity has done to culture.

Do you mean Christian ideals or religious ideals because it seems the loss of religion in general would create the nihilism you speak of. I don’t know what Peterson believes, but Nietzsche believed society needed something as powerful as the belief in god, that why he offered the idea of the ubermensch. Perhaps Peterson believes it would serve the general population better having some Christian foundations. But to blame the effects of the lack of religion entirely on Christianity shows your blind spots. And to think the general population and philosophers need the same existential foundation isn’t the case.

I am against stupidity and ignorance, most especially when they come to occupy a place of authority.


Man, that is such a foolish thing to say. I’m not a religious person, and maybe my knowledge of history might help me understand this better, but you say that standing on the graves of your ancestors, have some respect. Christianity has been a force of good throughout history, everything done in its name hasn’t been good, but Christian scholars recognized this. Human nature is almost always the culprit.

I am more than happy to engage with intelligent, thoughtful replies on this thread, but some of the replies here are so inept that I will not do it. If I have not answered your reply, it could mean I didn't have time, it could also mean it contained too many indefensible, loaded premises, manifesting that it speaks from a place of ignorance. I will not go back to the foundation over and over again merely to correct blatant errors of presumption, just so one can finally get to a place where they comprehend the nature of my criticism. I wish I could, but I don't have time. (For those who are religious, if you pray to your God he may help you out. It's worth a shot).

Is this how thinkers should think? Prejudice and stereotyping? — Judaka

Does the culture one is born into affect their view of reality? What about one's economic status?

Deconstruction is not my cuppa. So I'm not overly sympathetic to the critique in the OP. For instance this:

Peterson is a Nihilist, which simply means he accepts the false presumption that value must be rooted is some kind of Eternal, Absolute Idealism in order for value to exist at all. — JerseyFlight

That's not what I would call Nihilism. But drop that term and your point stands.

Right.

A clinical psychologist writes a self help life advise book through essays and in the end what's at stake, according to JerseyFlight, is civilization itself.

That surely is "deconstruction" at it's best.

Which seems to be saying that if you don't set yourself in order first, your arguments are going to be bad. — Echarmion

Good advice, certainly, but what if an unordered mind comes up with something rather important? — Echarmion

Ok, this is not what Peterson is saying. Of course a disordered person can produce a good argument. Peterson isn't concerned here with the type of arguments being produced by a disordered person.

Peterson is speaking to the self here more as a therapist or a coach, not as a philosopher who is purely concerned with the rigor of one's arguments. Nor is he speaking as a political activist who is trying to rally people for some cause and will use whoever he can get. He is saying before you actively try to change the world and put yourself in those leadership positions maybe take a step back and gain some maturity and perspective.

I kind of agree with you. If I heard a political theorist say something like "before you criticize some government, put yourself in order" I would be suspicious. However, with Peterson he begins the chapter talking about people who are just anti-being. It's not a political thing. There are some people who just criticize virtually everything because they fundamentally hate being. Take off your philosopher goggles and put on your therapist/life coach ones. Keep in mind that for Peterson the good precedes the right/the rational.

Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have a positive direction, a plan, a better way of life, a better way of thinking, etc., and let people join in with that -- questioning ourselves and correcting mistakes along the way, but not getting sidetracked by "debunking" things (unless there's a real chance that it helps). The same is true of "debate" -- a ridiculous concept, really. — Xtrix

What positive direction do you believe in?

I think time is better spent elsewhere.
— Xtrix

That is just the knowledge I am trying to get at, how did you determine this? — JerseyFlight

How do I determine that time is better spent doing something other than "debating" people on an Internet forum? Because I'm an adult. Take your Socratic questioning elsewhere -- I'm bored.

Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have a positive direction, a plan, a better way of life, a better way of thinking, etc., and let people join in with that -- questioning ourselves and correcting mistakes along the way, but not getting sidetracked by "debunking" things (unless there's a real chance that it helps). The same is true of "debate" -- a ridiculous concept, really.
— Xtrix

What positive direction do you believe in? — fdrake

Depends on what we're supposedly reacting against. If it's climate denial, for example, simply present the evidence -- that's a positive direction forward. If its pseudo-intellectualism, then counter it with actual intellectualism (re: Peterson), etc. Not complicated.

Depends on what we're supposedly reacting against. If it's climate denial, for example, simply present the evidence -- that's a positive direction forward. If its pseudo-intellectualism, then counter it with actual intellectualism (re: Peterson), etc. Not complicated. — Xtrix

Oh. I misread you then. I thought you had a competing life model/model life to Peterson's.

Peterson has no model of anything. It'll change as the wind blows. Total pseudo-intellectualism and charlatanism. Has many strident followers, I'm sure. So does Trump. If you take it seriously, that's your business.

Of course, those who are merely conforming do not perceive any of this, their approach to the world is not critical but intuitive, and this means their intuition blinds them to the negative development of reality. There is something very wrong with any thinker who is telling us to forsake thought in exchange for comfort. This is not resistance but resignation, it is functional Nihilism, even if it doesn't adopt the name. Thinkers are better than this, thought is a greater power! — JerseyFlight

Yes, well-stated. With philosophical pessimism, I feel it is similar to the critical stance you mentioned. It is a rebellion against the structural/necessary negatives of being a human animal in the world. There is a sort of default cultural ideology, bolstered by various social and psychological biases for why people vehemently oppose and don't fully consider implications of suffering. The problem is see, you are not self-helping your way to a better, happier you! You cannot implicate the situation itself. You must be Stoic statues, utility maximizers, and zen motorcycle mechanics. You must radically accept the situation like a maniacal Nietzschean hero. You must sit in your comfortable rocking chair in your English garden as an old gent, pondering your accomplishments, with dignified outrage at whatever recent bit of news you read in the news. You must find yourself in the wilderness shouting from a mountain top, or in social endeavors and enterprises. The one thing you can never do is look negatively at the whole system itself. For this, philosophical pessimism is reviled.

Remember when Jordan Peterson prepared for a debate on Marxism just by reading the Manifesto, which he admitted he hadn't read since he was 18

Zizek really pitied him

Peterson has no model of anything. It'll change as the wind blows. Total pseudo-intellectualism and charlatanism. Has many strident followers, I'm sure. So does Trump. If you take it seriously, that's your business. — Xtrix

I don't take what he's selling seriously. I take why people buy it seriously.