Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

[Spoken]

I'd say it's sad that Peterson is the most influential academic in the west (if media is the measure). There are folks with far more careful, thoughtful, and ground breaking ideas that Peterson, but they're not folks writing stuff for the average person, or putting themselves on platforms to be seen, and/or they lack the charisma to do it well.

That said, I think Peterson is smart, but I disagree with his fall narrative the way in which he approaches "postmodernism" as the bad guy... honestly, philosophers on either side of the political spectrum make fun of this dude's many caricatures of western intellectual thought. His genealogies are hilariously wrong. There are a few other philosophical points I think he gets wrong, but it's not super detrimental to his arguments or anything.

but the only BAD thing about Peterson, I think, is how he's weaponized by douche bags who miss his nuances, and his hated by douche bags who miss his central argument and nuance. Generally, he's onto something that folks have been saying for awhile. He's just a more compelling package for selling it.

 

[TheGreatA]

Seemingly "basic" things need elaborate explaining in these times.

We are talking about an era when men don't know they are men, and women don't know they are women. Can one truly blame Peterson for sticking to the basics?

 

[forum poster]

He blows life size holes through liberalism, shocked you’re not a fan
How alinskyesc of you

Doesn't he favour UHC and progressive taxation to counter extreme wealth inequality? As well as favouring SSM?
He would be called a commie in US politics by the Glenn Beck and Tea party crowd if he expressed those views.

 

[forum poster]

That's a fair position. The guys I work with who typically toss Shapiro and Molyneaux shit at me all day have also graduated to Peterson, and it's been nice not having to politely smile and put headphones in for the entire day anymore.

The other day one of them (with no post-secondary education) actually began a sentence with "In the literature on..." at which point I may have shed a single tear.

Peterson has redeeming values. Listen to the guy talk about Dostoeyski or general self-help. Shapiro and Molyneux are legitimate dipshiits on almost any topics they speak about.

 

[Rational Poster]

That's a fair position. The guys I work with who typically toss Shapiro and Molyneaux shit at me all day have also graduated to Peterson, and it's been nice not having to politely smile and put headphones in for the entire day anymore.

The other day one of them (with no post-secondary education) actually began a sentence with "In the literature on..." at which point I may have shed a single tear.

Molyneaux is so fucking bad it's ridiculous.

His historical anaylsis videos have so much disinformation in them. It's bad.

His video about the Native American genocide is disgustingly inaccurate.

 

[TheGreatA]

Doesn't he favour UHC and progressive taxation to counter extreme wealth inequality? As well as favouring SSM?
He would be called a commie in US politics by the Glenn Beck and Tea party crowd if he expressed those views.

I would call him a centre-left dude from the 90's who is trying to rein back on some of the "progressive" madness that has developed on the left, since the new millenium.

Back when, you know, saying that women and men are a separate entity, wasn't a controversial position.

I'm pretty sure that Peterson considers himself a liberal in many aspects. Just not necessarily a "progressive".

 

[tonni]

Molyneaux is so fucking bad it's ridiculous.

His historical anaylsis videos have so much disinformation in them. It's bad.

His video about the Native American genocide is disgustingly inaccurate.

His Beauty and the Beast video was an embarrassment.

Molyneaux gives off a real "I have to pay child support so now I am an oppressed minority" vibe

 

[kpt018]

I think that you have a lot of lonely, somewhat disturbed young dudes looking for a guru, and Peterson is good for them (and certainly better than people like Molyneux, Jones, Michael Savage, etc.). So I think you're right that he kind of embarrassingly missteps when he reaches too far, but I also really appreciate his presence.

Agreed and maybe my post was harsher than how I feel about the guy. When he's having discussions in that realm (giving purpose to lonely, angry dudes) he's really good.

I've heard him embarrass himself a bunch of times and again, that can happen to anyone but I would expect an intellectual like him to know when he's treading into areas he hasn't thought much about (like business, economics, etc.).

Overall his presence is a net positive and he does seem like a good dude.

 

[forum poster]

I would call him a centre-left dude from the 90's who is trying to rein back on some of the "progressive" madness that has developed on the left, since the new millenium.

Back when, you know, saying that women and men are a separate entity, wasn't a controversial position.

I'm pretty sure that Peterson considers himself a liberal in many aspects. Just not necessarily a "progressive".

I'm not from the US. But I follow a few US political commentators on youtube who call themselves "progressives". David pakman is one of the most popular progressives that I've seen. I wouldn't call myself a progressive in Australia, I would lean more towards the conservative side in AU politics. But what a 'progressive' like pakman is advocating for is basically the status quo/conservative side of politics in my own nation.

 

[TheGreatA]

I'm not from the US. But I follow a few US political commentators on youtube who call themselves "progressives". David pakman is one of the most popular progressives that I've seen. I wouldn't call myself a progressive in Australia, I would lean more towards the conservative side in AU politics. But what a 'progressive' like pakman is advocating for is basically the status quo/conservative side of politics in my own nation.

There are basically two kinds of progressives in America. Economic progressives (who are basically socialist, or lean towards socialism) and social progressives (who focus on identity issues, criticizing hierarchies, tradition, etc.). Sometimes the two go along with each other, but not always.

We've got posters on this forum, from what I've witnessed, that are economic progressives but social liberals, who despise the vocal "socially progressive" part of the left, every bit as much as the right-wingers.

Most left-wingers/centrists here would be conservatives/right-wing liberals by North European standards (because our economics tend to lean very heavily towards the left). But then there's a very whacky part of the left in America (and Canada, and increasingly in Europe), that's as radical as anybody. Those people are mostly the focus of Peterson's tirades, because in his work environment (Toronto university), those are the people he mostly deals with, on a day-to-day basis.

 

[forum poster]

There are basically two kinds of progressives in America. Economic progressives (who are basically socialist, or lean towards socialism) and social progressives (who focus on identity issues, criticizing hierarchies, tradition, etc.). Sometimes the two go along with each other, but not always.

We've got posters on this forum, from what I've witnessed, that are economic progressives but social liberals, who despise the vocal "socially progressive" part of the left, every bit as much as the right-wingers.

Most left-wingers/centrists here would be conservatives/right-wing liberals by North European standards (because our economics tend to lean very heavily towards the left). But then there's a very whacky part of the left in America (and Canada, and increasingly in Europe), that's as radical as anybody. Those people are mostly the focus of Peterson's tirades, because in his work environment (Toronto university), those are the people he mostly deals with, on a day-to-day basis.

From everything I've seen, those radical 'social progressives' are a tiny minority. They may make a lot of noise online and on campus but they are almost non-issues. Looking at the polling, the whole 'campus craziness' is so blown out of proportion it's almost absurd. It's like the conservative movement in the US is so desperate that they have to keep recycling campus stories just to have an opposition, because opposing things is all they have. Opposing Obama and his slightly left of centre policies was all they have. As far as campus craziness is concerned, It wouldn't/t surprise me if they were even more radical in the 60's and 70's. It's just that we have everyone with a HD camera phone capturing it all these days.


I don't think the mainstream left as a voting block has changed much at all in the last decade. But the mainstream republican voting block has shifted into crazy land. Just look at the republican support level polling of Trump.

 

[RubberGuard5]

I'd say it's sad that Peterson is the most influential academic in the west (if media is the measure). There are folks with far more careful, thoughtful, and ground breaking ideas that Peterson, but they're not folks writing stuff for the average person, or putting themselves on platforms to be seen, and/or they lack the charisma to do it well.

That said, I think Peterson is smart, but I disagree with his fall narrative the way in which he approaches "postmodernism" as the bad guy... honestly, philosophers on either side of the political spectrum make fun of this dude's many caricatures of western intellectual thought. His genealogies are hilariously wrong. There are a few other philosophical points I think he gets wrong, but it's not super detrimental to his arguments or anything.

but the only BAD thing about Peterson, I think, is how he's weaponized by douche bags who miss his nuances, and his hated by douche bags who miss his central argument and nuance. Generally, he's onto something that folks have been saying for awhile. He's just a more compelling package for selling it.

Any recomendations?

 

[Spoken]

Any recomendations?

for what? People to read other than peterson?

 

[RubberGuard5]

for what? People to read other than peterson?

Yup, non mainstream thinkers you've mentioned.

 

[Spoken]

Yup, non mainstream thinkers you've mentioned.

Ernst Junger, Alan Badiou, Jurgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, David Bentley Hart, Alistair McIntyre, John Milbank.

Nice mix in there, but these fellows, in rather different and conflicting ways, are some of the best in modern thought, from marxist philosophy to social theory to theology and metaphysics. These guys are mainstream in the academy in different ways, but certainly aren't popular or in the media.

edit: also, though very mainstream, Tolkien.

 

[m25105]

Peterson has redeeming values. Listen to the guy talk about Dostoeyski or general self-help. Shapiro and Molyneux are legitimate dipshiits on almost any topics they speak about.

Careful now, you're going to anger those on the War Room who thinks Shapiro is an intellectual giant (yes, someone actually said that. It still cracks me up.)

 

[TheGreatA]

From everything I've seen, those radical 'social progressives' are a tiny minority. They may make a lot of noise online and on campus but they are almost non-issues. Looking at the polling, the whole 'campus craziness' is so blown out of proportion it's almost absurd. It's like the conservative movement in the US is so desperate that they have to keep recycling campus stories just to have an opposition, because opposing things is all they have. Opposing Obama and his slightly left of centre policies was all they have. As far as campus craziness is concerned, It wouldn't/t surprise me if they were even more radical in the 60's and 70's. It's just that we have everyone with a HD camera phone capturing it all these days.


I don't think the mainstream left as a voting block has changed much at all in the last decade. But the mainstream republican voting block has shifted into crazy land. Just look at the republican support level polling of Trump.

I wouldn't under-estimate the effect of these people. An empty wagon might make the most noise, but whoever makes the most noise also tends to see their will be obeyed.

Left-wing politicians hear a lot more from these people than they do from the moderate, "silent majority". The silent majority do not stage protests, they do not demand, they've grown content in their position. They expect that their needs will be catered to, without making any noise about what their interests and objectives are.

Hillary, to me, represented the "last stand" of America's old guard Democrats. She was trying desperately to pander to the progressive left, through her gender and her shift in stances towards LGBT/minority/etc. issues, but failed even at that, due to being so obviously dishonest and agenda-driven. The next candidate is likely to be much more populist and reactionary, more legitimately concerned about "progressive" issues. A lot more "nutty", one could say.

 

[forum poster]

Careful now, you're going to anger those on the War Room who thinks Shapiro is an intellectual giant (yes, someone actually said that. It still cracks me up.)

"someone"? Isn't that half the war rooms opinion of the guy?

If anyone mentions the name Shapiro in regards to intellectuals or the topic of economics they should be referring to David Shapiro. Not the nasally voiced lawyer that won't stop appearing in my youtube recommendations.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Agreed and maybe my post was harsher than how I feel about the guy. When he's having discussions in that realm (giving purpose to lonely, angry dudes) he's really good.

I've heard him embarrass himself a bunch of times and again, that can happen to anyone but I would expect an intellectual like him to know when he's treading into areas he hasn't thought much about (like business, economics, etc.).

Yeah, his pining for a return to "traditionalism" is fine. The right definitely deserves an intellectual more serious and dignified than Shapiro, Molyneaux, and others.

But he seriously missteps when he hops on the "Cultural Marxists are out to shake the foundation of civilization" thing. That's internet forum dumbass territory right there. At worst, it's right-wing terrorist talk.

 

[forum poster]

I wouldn't under-estimate the effect of these people. An empty wagon might make the most noise, but whoever makes the most noise also tends to see their will be obeyed.

Left-wing politicians hear a lot more from these people than they do from the moderate, "silent majority". The silent majority do not stage protests, they do not demand, they've grown content in their position. They expect that their needs will be catered to, without making any noise about what their interests and objectives are.

Hillary, to me, represented the "last stand" of America's old guard Democrats. She was trying desperately to pander to the progressive left, through her gender and her shift in stances towards LGBT/minority/etc. issues, but failed even at that, due to being so obviously dishonest and agenda-driven. The next candidate is likely to be much more populist and reactionary, more legitimately concerned about "progressive" issues. A lot more "nutty", one could say.

Hmm. I disagree. I think when the time rolls around in 2020 they'll try to play it safe again and put up Joe Biden. I hope I'm wrong though. I'd like to see Elizabeth warren run, personally. Either way, I think the democratic voters just need to get out and vote. Apathy and thinking Trump couldn't possibly win led too many democratic voters not even bothering in 2016.
Every single possible Trump voter got out to vote enthusiastically, (even so-called 'libertarians' and other older people who haven't bothered to vote in decades), whilst democrats were apathetic, thinking they already had the election won.