Sure.

Sure — Judaka

Well then, Newton was mortal. There you have a rational argument. If you want to attack it you must go after the integrity of the premises. (I must also confess, I am not much interested in this exchange. I consider high level thought to have the ability to work from strong premises, meaning, two skilled thinkers don't have to seek justification for every premise, because they already have a great deal of knowledge they can actually make progress in thought. These are the exchanges that most interest me because life is very short).

That's all fine and well, but if he admits there's a problem, which he does, he even validates the word "oppression," what caused it? Is his approach to the problem actually targeting the source? We already know the answer, his reply is, forget about the complicated details of reality and just fall back into the Matrix. — JerseyFlight

I think he'd say there's a billion different reasons that could have caused one to be "oppressed." I think if we, as a society, were to honestly target all of the sources of oppression we would turn into something like the dystopia Kurt Vonnegut described in Harrison Bergeron - basically a society where everyone is equally disadvantaged by reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

EDIT: This is not to say that Peterson is against fighting oppression. Of course he supports fighting certain forms of it.

From the moment you made your anti-Peterson stance clear and I made my pro-Peterson stance clear, you had to have known that you couldn't take your base presuppositions for granted and expect that to fly. I will be frank, I think many of those you've agreed within this thread would not be able to paraphrase your position in a way that would satisfy you, simply because have skipped crucial steps in explaining your views. Most of the discussions you've had on this thread are really just shallow and meaningless. Two people don't like Peterson, they agree he is a bad influence on people, the end.

My advice: don't waste any time on Jordan Peterson, whether as criticism or not. Better off digging a ditch and filling it back up. — Xtrix

This is indeed the proper and initial response, but there is a serious problem here. The attitude you embody, though it truly does come from a place of higher critical intelligence, fails to see that Peterson is doing damage in culture. Whether one likes it or not, he has become relevant, people are influenced by him, they look up to him and see him as the very thing he is not, an intellectual example. When intellectuals like yourself withdraw from the advancing public discourse, the narrative is lost to people like Peterson, it regresses. What is required is an intellectual fight. Those who actually read literature across the domain of the social sciences, know that this fella is a charlatan, the problem is that we expect other people to know it as well, but they cannot connect the dots. In the shadow of religion's collapse many have become Nihilistic, they feel the weight of reality without the crutch of God. Peterson comes along and says, "don't worry, I feel the same Nihilism that you do, but I have real answers, I know the way forward." Tragically, his answers are entirely reactionary, conformity to authority, "go back to the old slave masters and you will feel safe again." People are so intellectually bankrupt and frightened that they will take anything they can get, hence the strong man doctrine, hence a return to authority, the mindless affirmation of delusion on the basis of pragmatism: religion, because it helps us cope with our Nihilistic feelings of terror. — JerseyFlight

There is no previous response from Xtrix, really, this is what you are responding to. "Don't waste any time on Jordan Peterson".

From this you assert:
1. Proper initial response but there is a serious problem here
2. The attitude you embody, though it truly does come from a place of higher critical intelligence fails to see that Peterson is doing damage in culture
3. Xtrix is an intellectual withdrawing from the advancing public discourse

Can you see how utterly meaningless and pathetically shallow your response is? You have absolutely no idea what Xtrix thinks about Peterson, there's a fair chance he didn't even read your OP and just said "fuck Peterson" because he saw the thread title. The basis of your agreement is so shallow that all subsequent conversation between the two of you is a joke because neither of you could even attempt to paraphrase the position of the other, you don't even know the extent of your agreement or disagreement. It is reasonable to assume that I think Newton is a man and men are mortal and so you don't have to explain it.

Going back to the comments you made to me, the list of assumptions you make are just staggering, only someone who really hated Peterson could agree with your characterisations. However, because you don't explain your reasoning or make any argument for your positions, the burden of proof is shoved entirely on me to dislodge or challenge every claim you made and honestly, I can't even do that because I'm not entirely sure what you're even referring to. It's just a narrative you constructed based on your interpretation and feelings on Peterson. You are free to just rant on Peterson all you like, call those who agree with you esteemed intellectuals and those who disagree ignorant and inept but you are deluded if you think you can have an actual conversation of substance with this type of behaviour.

"One of the debates, we might say, between early Christianity and the late Roman Empire was whether or not an emperor could be God, literally to be deified and put into a temple. You can see why that might happen because that’s someone at the pinnacle of a very steep hierarchy who has a tremendous amount of power and influence. The Christian response to that was, never confuse the specific sovereign with the principle of sovereignty itself." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, I Introduction to the Idea of God.

Once again, another distortion and false presentation from Peterson. The Christian response was not philosophical! It was, "the emperor cannot be God because our God is the only true God!" This was in fact, and still is, the Christian response. Here Peterson is trying make Christianity sound general and philosophical, socially intelligent.

"It’s brilliant. You can see how difficult it is to come up with an idea like that, so that even the person who has the power is actually subordinate to a divine principle..." Ibid.

Another false presentation. Christianity did not come up with this idea, its idea was that the Christian God was the supreme ruler of the universe, a celestial dictatorship, therefore it naturally follows, not due to any brilliance, that the emperor could not be God. Christianity simply demanded that every other idea was explained in terms of itself. This is not brilliance. Further, there is a negative side to what Peterson is here saying, because Christianity did not respond as Peterson falsely characterizes, but actually responded in terms of brute fundamentalism and authority, when Christianity did come into political power, it shattered both the neutral idea of law as well as the practice of social freedom. Theocracy is synonymous with totalitarianism.

I think if we, as a society, were to honestly target all of the sources of oppression we would turn into something like the dystopia — BitconnectCarlos

We have already done this and continue to do this, and in so many cases it has helped us to pass more intelligent civil laws. Your reason for not doing this is merely a negative assertion which amounts to the fallacy of poisoning the well. It is clear that you have mindlessly resigned to the error of Peterson's reduction. This merely proves that he's socially dangerous.

We have not already done this. We have come nowhere close. Answer me this: Why are there still ugly people? Why are there still tall people? Why are there still charismatic people while others are socially awkward? Why do we have those who can speak fast while others must speak slow? Why do some have to worry about their tourettes while others don't? Why are some people born with certain genetics which makes it easier them to lose weight?

You want equality and absence of oppression? Start there.

have skipped crucial steps in explaining your views. — Judaka

?

Can you see how utterly meaningless and pathetically shallow your response is? — Judaka

No, I am not in the habit of consciously striving to put forth "meaningless," "pathetic" and "shallow" responses. If I saw this I would refrain from putting them forth.

If they are in fact, all the negative things you claim, one would think this should make them very easy to refute.

the list of assumptions you make are just staggering, only someone who really hated Peterson could agree with your characterisations. — Judaka

Well, I do gladly admit that I don't like him, as I don't like charlatans, authoritarians and conformists in general, but I wouldn't go so far as to say, I hate him.

He probably didn't read your OP, if he followed his own advice and said "don't waste your time on Peterson" without giving any reason as to why and you said his attitude was that of a higher critical intelligence and you don't see that as meaningless and shallow? You guys then discussed his impact on culture - yet you still don't have the slightest clue of why he thinks you shouldn't waste your time on Peterson. If you want to have that kind of discussion, fine.

JerseyFlight - Dun like Peterson

Me - Peterson good

Okay, let's skip the lengthy paragraphs and agree to disagree.

Why are there still ugly people? — BitconnectCarlos

You mean this is an objective category?

Why are there still tall people? — BitconnectCarlos

Because there are people who are able to get the right nutrients, rest, have the genes for it, etc

Why are there still charismatic people while others are socially awkward? — BitconnectCarlos

Socially awkward? You mean, people that have social anxiety, poor social skills? Well this usually results from trauma, abuse, neglect etc. Has to do with the development between the right and left brain.

Why do we have those who can speak fast while others must speak slow? — BitconnectCarlos

See above answer, but this could also be brain damage. It could also be due to lack of nutrients.

Why do some have to worry about their tourettes while others don't? — BitconnectCarlos

Well, I think this is classified as a neurological disorder, so I think that would explain it.

Why are some people born with certain genetics which makes it easier them to lose weight? — BitconnectCarlos

My understanding is that genes are past down, so this means the answer is because of the past nutrient experiences of parents and grandparents etc. However, I don't know enough about genes that cause fat to answer this with any kind of authority.

Jersey, I'm asking you how do we, as a society, fix the inequality/unfairness/oppression of these issues? You say you want to target all forms of oppression. Tell me how we fix this.

Jersey, I'm asking you how do we, as a society, fix the inequality/unfairness/oppression of these issues? You say you want to target all forms of oppression. Tell me how we fix this. — BitconnectCarlos

That depends on the nature of the oppression, and before we can know how to fix it we must do what Peterson is telling us not to do, we must look into it, we must follow its fragmentation and trace it back to its source and then use intelligence to obliterate it. I'm pretty sure that's what an advanced species would do.

If you are more specific about the problem, but then again how you could you be, Peterson told you not to be specific, then I can do my best, using my intelligence, to tell you what I think we need to do to fix it.

If you are more specific about the problem, but then again how you could you be, Peterson told you not to be specific, then I can do my best, using my intelligence, to tell you what I think we need to do to fix it. — JerseyFlight

Great, well I'm thrilled to hear it. I love getting specific, there's just so many issues to address.

Lets start with the issue of attractiveness in men. Now I want you to consider the full spectrum here - everything from models to.... you ever see 90 day fiancee? Just google search "ed from 90 day fiancee."

I don't think I need to go over with you how attractiveness is an obvious advantage socially speaking, and it's also one in the workplace.

In any case how do you create a world where attraction is no longer an advantage for one and a disadvantage for another?

In any case how do you create a world where attraction is no longer an advantage for one and a disadvantage for another? — BitconnectCarlos

Cultivate a stronger cultural emphasis valuing quality of character above that of physical appearance.

Got it, so we just need to teach people to value quality of character over attractiveness and we're all set. Attractiveness no longer matters.

You really understand humanity.

It'll no longer make a difference whether a girl is a 9 or a 2, us men will only judge her on her character and not even notice her outward appearance.

Got it, so we just need to teach people to value quality of character over attractiveness and we're all set. Attractiveness no longer matters. — BitconnectCarlos

Considering the fact that the value of physical attractiveness is set in place through the emphasis of culture, if you want to alter the values of a culture then you have to alter its emphasis. The good news is that this can be done on the basis of intelligence! (However) when you jump to the conclusion of saying, attractiveness no longer matters, this depends on what you mean by "matters?"

I don't believe that physical attractiveness is just a cultural phenomenon. I don't believe humans are endlessly malleable through culture, either. There are biological realities which you're going to need to deal with at some point. I get it, you can try to use culture to patch them over or make them less of an issue, but the fact of the matter is these realities are intractable features of life and unless you want to exterminate the entire human race you will have to deal with them.

These biological realities help form our individual identities whether we like them or not, and despite all of this talk of "progress" we really don't know what's truly going on inside the minds of others. To claim that we just need the right culture to bring about complete uniformity of attitude or instinct or reaction towards something is just too much for me, personally. I don't mind if you believe but it's just not worth it for you to try to convince me on that.

To claim that we just need the right culture to bring about complete uniformity of attitude or instinct or reaction towards something is just too much for me, personally. — BitconnectCarlos

If values are not established by culture, where do they come from? Much fatalism you have here. I wonder if the people you find attractive in your culture would be equally attractive to the members of another culture? Some tribes drastically alter their bodies, if you are lacking these cultural alterations, it is doubtful you would be attractive to the people in that culture.

In this thread I will critically examine the writings of Jordan Peterson. I will periodically update the thread from time to time with new criticisms. — JerseyFlight

Although I am quite sympathetic to this project, and the points brought up are interesting, I think discussing Peterson in philosophical terms is only useful after a discussion of his thinking in glib terms. Peterson seems quite genuinely unaware of what the philosophical problems are.

In philosophical language perhaps it is true that Peterson can be characterized by:

The reader needs to be clear, 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. This means Peterson's entire approach to the world is dictated by the substrate of a false, negative idealism. When he says "thinking leads to the abyss," he has resigned himself to the unspoken premise that life must submit itself to delusion if it wants to partake of quality. Hence, his clinging to Christianity. His admonitions to conform are motivated by his deep fear of reality. In Peterson one simply gets a Nihilist void of intellectual resistance. This is the very opposite of what it means to be a thinker. — JerseyFlight

However, Peterson doesn't use this language himself. It's already psychologizing Peterson to say he "fears reality". Arguably true, considering his "anxiety" that developed after his debate with Zizek, where, as I noted at the time, it seemed Peterson wanted to be co-founder of Marxist Zizekism, just without the label Marx to make it more palatable. And Peterson's A-game is psychologizing his opponents, whether in his imagination like the "post-modern cultural Marxists" or then real opponents such as the LGBTQ activists, and so we shouldn't follow his example.

Rather, I think we should first point out the obvious contradictions in Peterson's analysis.

The first obvious contradiction is that his claim to expertise is in psychology. Where this is a contradiction is that he believes in "competence hierarchies", but propounds what are clearly meant as expert opinions in all sorts of areas (mainly political, philosophical, theological, logical, as well as other sciences from time to time) in which he has no basis to have climbed the competence hierarchy. By his own creed, he should submit to the experts on the top of other competence hierarchies: [insert quote of Peterson saying kids should submit to the competence hierarchies around them even if they don't understand why]. If post-modern neo-marxists have taken over knowledge institutions, just means they are the top dogs on the knowledge competence hierarchy and Peterson must go to his room, think about what he's done, give it a good vigorous scrubbing and only come out when he's ready to apologize and submit.

Of course, elsewhere Peterson praises his kind of "brave radical" ready to contradict established competence hierarchies with new truths (such as himself standing as a tiny David in the winds of the mighty transgender Goliath), without realizing this simply collapses his entire apologetics of conservatism as it provides no standard in which to judge a competence hierarchy's truthiness other than in hindsight because the new truths won out; i.e. winning is truth (when his issues win), which is why Peterson is so comfortable around fascists who are "just trying to win", even if they are at the bottom of the competence hierarchies they are trying to overthrow using the exact same post-modern neo-cultural-Marxist tactics Peterson decries.

Why Peterson can prattle on indefinitely without addressing such contradictions is simply because his analysis is glib, never goes farther than psychologizing his friends or his enemies; the harms caused by his friends are understandable whereas the harms of his enemies are condemnable, but he proposes no standard upon which to make such a judgement nor even analyse the harms in question beyond anecdote.

Of course, I don't want to pull a Peterson and never actually quote my opposition. All this is best represented on Peterson's views on Health-Care:

It seems indisputable, I would say, that the Canadian health care system is preferable to the US health care system, except at the very highest end. And there's a couple of reasons for that, that maye even appeal to conservatives, which is what is the amount of administrative overhead which is spent by Canadian health institutions is far less than it is in the US; partly because Hospitals don't have to collect money so they don't spend 30% of their intake on the financial end of the equation, which is approximately the case in the US. And because of that, our rate of individual entrepreneurship is higher in Canada than it is in the US, and that's because, becaues people don't have to worry about losing their healthcare if they switch jobs, they can switch jobs more easilly, and they can also take risks if they have a family. They can take entrepreneurial risks without putting the health of their entire family at stake. So these things can't be broken down really simply into right wing versus left wing issues, right; they're too complicated. But, the overall point is that Canada has done a very good job of having that, um, conversation. Even our socialists are basically fiscally conservative; right, although they're not socially conservative. But, their are signs of the kind of polaraization in Canada that is really plaguing the United States, and of course that's not good for the US, and it's not good for Europe where it's also happening, and it's also not good for our Country. I don't want that to happen, so that's partly why I've been objecting to the ill-advised and radical moves the so-called liberals have been managing over the last few years." — The Canadian vs. the American Healthcare System - Jordan B Peterson Clips

Several things are amazing about this quote.

First, he simply outlines the Nordic model social well-fare state argument and saying this would "appeal to conservatives also". What's so glib about such a statement is that he makes the false equivalence that the US right and left want the same thing and it's purely a question of administrative efficiency to achieve it (which the left happens to be right about), while at the same time throwing in his signature apologetics for the right that "except at the high end". However, the conservative argument against universal healthcare is that it's "not fair" to take people's money and redistribute it, even if it leads to better social outcomes measured in one dimension overall. More amazing, Peterson doesn't address corporate lobbying as a potential explanation of why the US doesn't already have universal health care but insinuates that it's a good faith debate that "fiscally conservative socialists" in Canada happen to have won on and implemented responsibly, but the other side is winning the debate in the US at the moment; or then maybe the idea is US socialists are not "fiscally conservative" so don't deserve to implement universal health care just yet. But it gets even more amazing when Peterson wraps all this up in the great apologetics trope of "polarization" and (as described above) the left is responsible for the harms caused by this polarization and must be called out on it, but the Right (we can only assume because of the only positive note for them in this analysis that "except on the high end") we need not discuss.

Peterson is unable to even create the mental space in which the hypothesis can be formulated that "perhaps if universal Canadian styled healthcare is 'preferable' then maybe it's the people denying or blocking this social advancement in the US that are the cause of the 'polarization' and share most, if not all of the blame."

Furthermore, Peterson talks like health care is some fringe issue to the "radical moves" the left really wants, rather than a central flagship issue, not only in itself but in being a microcosm of other flagship issues such as money in politics, corruption, a critical step in more equitable race relations, important example of people losing their homes to unjustifiable bankruptcy from a "social outcomes" point of view, and that if the general social welfare argument is true for healthcare maybe it's also true for other things like education, public housing, and the rich need to be taxed to pay for it. Again, incapable of creating the mental space in which implementing the "preferable" universal healthcare system might result in preferable results more generally, and alleviation of some of the young-white-man suffering because at least society functions with less overheads.

Most importantly, and most fatally to Peterson's project, he is clearly unable to conceive of the possibility that left wing radicalism is a completely reasonable response to right-wing money in politics in the form of inundations of propaganda, corrupting not simply politics but the judiciary and bureaucracies, exploiting to the limit gerrymandering and minority rule flaws. That, due to money in politics and minority rule, the left cannot advance with simply "friendly banter" between civilized people (i.e. white people who have nothing to gain from political change) as Peterson clearly views as the alternative to "dangerous radicalism" (as seen by the company he keeps), and so trying more and more radical things to overcome money is simply a reasonable response; unless, of course, money is truth (success on a competence hierarchy in Peterson's lingo).

Once it's firmly established that Peterson simply doesn't engage with any of the critical issues, and rather is simply bailing straw into the furnaces of his own locamotive (i.e. Asi conmigo enfrente ella se hace la gata en celo contigo, te cotorrea el oído pa tenerte en alta. Ella muere por ti, tu por mi es que matas. Sigo tranquila como una paloma de equina: mientras ella se pasa en su [BLM] - Cicero), then it makes sense, in my view, to address the question of what sort of philosophical framework might be inferred from Peterson's project as a potential heart if some wizard among us would be so kind as to make one: the heart we might place into the tin man of our own fabrication in this analogy. After doing so, we might ask why those frameworks don't really cohere to Peterson's project for the simple reason that he has no such framework and it would be a miracle if he just so happened to unwittingly represent one; in otherwords, that at best, we can only construct an apologetic for Peterson's conservative apologetics; which maybe interesting to explore why such an apologetic of an apologetic is unsatisfactory, but it should be made clear it is far removed from anything Peterson actually says and it seems clear Peterson himself doesn't seem to understand what the philosophical issues we are trying to resolve for him actually are in the first place.

You only need to watch... — BitconnectCarlos

No, I don't need to watch any of it. Ten minutes wasted.

There might be a worthwhile exercise in examining the relation between oppression and privilege; it's not as clear as is assumed in your presenting this video as a rebuttal of what I said about privilege.

Well done.

If values are not established by culture, where do they come from? Much fatalism you have here. I wonder if the people you find attractive in your culture would be equally attractive to the members of another culture? Some tribes drastically alter their bodies, if you are lacking these cultural alterations, it is doubtful you would be attractive to the people in that culture. — JerseyFlight

I just don't believe people are blank slates waiting to be filled up by whatever the culture presents. I think if we were we'd be seeing an insane degree of uniformity of thought and attitude within a culture when even within strong cultures we see a diversity of that if we dig below the surface. I know Steven Pinker and Chomsky have done some serious work on this, and their work shows that the mind comes pre-programmed, in other words some things are innate. Our minds are not just blank slates waiting for the world to write on anything them, and I honestly think this idea is dead scientifically speaking. Of course there's room for culture in influencing us but to say it's 100% is just too much.

I don't think what I'm saying it fatalism. Think of it this way: If we are just 100% culture, do we even have a self? If there's nothing permanent about you, then who are you? There is no you.

As for the tribe comment I'd just need to see more research done. There has been research done into what humans find attractive, and there has been some research which claims a universality of some features such as facial symmetry being attractive. I know of no culture where men prefer women with masculine faces. I'd like to see culture try to teach that attraction.

EDIT: Consider homosexuality - it exists in every culture. If people are truly blank slates and endlessly malleable then we should be able to cure homosexuality through social reprogramming. These efforts have failed miserably where ever they've been tried.

I think @JerseyFlight's post is a pretty straightforward argument written in a polemical way.

(1) Accepting an ideology can have a palliative function for people.(see here)

From linked paper:

Since that time, many researchers have replicated the results of this work in samples across the globe, demonstrating that conservatives (or right-wingers) are happier than liberals (or left-wingers), and this relationship is mediated by system-justifying beliefs that legitimize existing inequality

Intuition pumps:

Contrast "everything is going to work out in the end" with "The end might well happen within 50 years (citation citation citation citation)"...

Contrast: "If you work hard, you'll go far" with "How you end up depends a lot on where you start, and you can't control where you start (citation citation citation citation)"

(3) People instinctively understand the palliative function and don't want to lose it. Like I felt anxious without my nursing blanket when trying to sleep as a wee kid.

(4) (3) splits along left+liberal/conservative lines (see linked paper). Systemic critique is generally a leftward thing. It is explicitly opposed to system justification narratives - critiquing+agitating against systemic injustice vs not seeing it as a relevant political category/explicitly justifying it as fair or as unavoidable.

(5) Adopting viewpoints that result from systemic critique tends to put you more left along the split in (4), which correlates with losing the palliative function in (3) since you invest less in it.

Find a common vulnerability - exploit it. This is not a new thing, it's a venerable tradition; people do not like being told that love means taking up your cross and getting crucified, they want to hear that it's being very nice and popular, and having friends and admirers. They want to hear that if they pretend to enjoy being exploited, they will stop being exploited. Peterson is selling soft soap cunningly disguised as hard rock (for real men). But look out, them commies want to steal your freedom! — unenlightened

:up:

Fair enough, you've shown there was an argument and my criticism was wrong.

@JerseyFlight and @Banno I apologise for my comments, I said there was no argument but I think I was being self-serving with my logic here, that or, perhaps didn't fairly assess what I was reading.

It's hard to parse left polemical arguments unless you're used to them, I think. It's not just a you thing!

I apologise for my comments, I said there was no argument but I think I was being self-serving with my logic here — Judaka

This is exceedingly impressive, it is one of the rarest things I have ever seen within the context of an online format. In general we all just defend, defend, defend, no one ever wants to admit to their error. Judaka, I join you precisely in this, I believe it is really the only way to move in the direction of high level thought. The thinker who merely defends is usually trying to avoid the pain of a reality he fears. I hope I can do the same thing when I am in the wrong.

to cure homosexuality — BitconnectCarlos

I wasn't aware that it was a disease. Why not cure heterosexuality, after all, it is merely an assertion that the species should propagate itself. Perhaps intelligence lies in the other direction? Life always assigns itself a value regardless of justification.

Thx for the kind words and for accepting the apology.

Peterson doesn't use this language himself. It's already psychologizing Peterson to say he "fears reality". — boethius

Thank you for your detailed contribution and clarity. I agree with many things you said.

I'm not exactly sure what language you are specifically referring to? (But please note), I don't think an exchange on this is really worth it. Further, I am not merely psychologizing the man, and even if that's all it was, just so long as it was accurate, the fact that I was doing it, would neither be a refutation or prohibition, it would merely be a statement of fact premised in the negative. One does not need to come out and say they are a Nihilist in order to be charged with Nihilism, one merely needs to condemn the positivity of existence, either through radical skepticism or some kind of imaginary Other that gives them the leverage to overcome positivity. One does not need to use a specific language to be guilty of specific content.

Once it's firmly established that Peterson simply doesn't engage with any of the critical issues, and rather is simply bailing straw into the furnaces of his own locamotive (i.e. Asi conmigo enfrente ella se hace la gata en celo contigo, te cotorrea el oído pa tenerte en alta. Ella muere por ti, tu por mi es que matas. Sigo tranquila como una paloma de equina: mientras ella se pasa en su [BLM] - Cicero), — boethius

This seems quite pretentious to me. Why give a Spanish citation of Cicero?

at best, we can only construct an apologetic for Peterson's conservative apologetics; which maybe interesting to explore why such an apologetic of an apologetic is unsatisfactory — boethius

This is your own assertion.

Peterson doesn't have some comprehensive program. The guy is a conformist and back-seat Christian. His entire polemic is founded on the idea that myth resides at the base of all human psychology. He is so impressed with this premise, because he feels like it provides the philosophical grounds of justification for all his conservative views, that he has gone out into the world to preach it. It's the kind of thing people hear and think, "wow, that's amazing, I've never heard anything like this before" [enter intuition] "yeah, that makes a lot of sense." The listener affirms the premise and never gives it a second thought. Now they credit Peterson with enlightenment.

Tragically, Peterson isn't even a believer in his own ideology, it didn't work for him, his life fell into shambles and his will power failed. I saw him complaining, traveling around the world to find doctors that would tell him what he wanted to hear so he didn't have to face the truth. Most addicts don't have the luxury of doing this, they have to detox in abject poverty crushed by guilt and shame. His myth beliefs have not delivered him from the hard bite of being (a hardness which results from the unnecessary tyranny of a backward system). He knows this, he is still searching, and that is why he can neither be an example or a guide. I see nothing more than a frightened man clinging to a shallow notion of God. Contained within his confession of myth, behind it is the ultimate negation of reality, the very Nihilism of which Nietzsche spoke, is the false presupposition that humans need delusion in order to survive and thrive. For Peterson unconscious myth is the foundation of order, when in reality, this virtue belongs to intelligence.