Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

[n...not crazy]

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.

I don't think that breaking ground is the job he's trying to do.

SJW-ism came on at an overwhelming pace. In the face of that, it has taken some time for well-articulated counterpoints to be put forth. That's the job Peterson has been doing IMO. He's trying to stand firm and HOLD ground, not to break ground.

 

[Fronk]

TLDR: Peterson is extremely verbose. When he's not dressing up Captain Obvious statements with flowery language he says controversial nonsense in ways so vague and obscure that he can always wiggle away from defending what he's obviously suggesting.

Good read. I applaud him for fighting the push to normalize transgenderism, but he and his cult followers are just about as annoying as the "SJWs".

The author does a great job in pointing out the irony of Peterson always rallying against postmodernism and modern academia while falling in the same traps they often do; the way of hiding, often simpler, concepts behind grandiose language heavy on terminology. Now that is maybe a bit unfair on Peterson. I haven't read his new book but I'm guessing the intent was to reach(cash in) on a wider audience than Maps of Meaning and I would think this one is easier to digest.

I also think it's important to have someone critical of Peterson actually dwelve into specifics instead of just calling him a whatever epithet is on the agenda; racist,sexist, kkk etc. That makes his follower unable to just fall back on their old defense of his detractors never willing to actually handle his arguments because it's so brilliant his opponents just won't deal with them.

That said it's really hard to dislike Peterson. I haven't read his latest book, I'm not really interested in self-help, but when speaking he is actually very concise and you know he puts alot of thought into his ideas. That said I hope he doesn't go down the road of having to pander to a specific audience, especially a toxic community like the "alt-right" or whatever, because of them patreon dollars.

 

[m25105]

That said I hope he doesn't go down the road of having to pander to a specific audience, especially a toxic community like the "alt-right" or whatever, because of them patreon dollars.

My favourite part when people do that, are the British youtubers that are obviously catering to their American audience, using the bastardized version of liberalism, and calling football soccer. It's so transparent that they don't care about the issues in their own country, merely feeding the fear of their north American viewers who think the entire western civilization is about to go down the drain cause some obese crazy woman is shouting about patriarchy.

 

[kpt018]

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.

Yeah it always struck me as a fringe view and it seems it bears out in data. His other big issue is free speech on campus and social warrior types, which also strikes me as somewhat infrequent. I'll grant him that when it does happen it's bad but scientists are studying the issue and it looks like colleges are actually becoming more open to hearing opposing and/or controversial opinions despite the Milo and Shapiro type shit that happens.

 

[RubberGuard5]

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.

Postmodernism is a real thing, and it is a anti enlightment movement. So yes, if applied it's gonna shake the foundation of civilization.

 

[Fronk]

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.

You can actually see the fire in his eyes whenever marxism is brought up as a topic. His whole demenour changes. It's both hilarious and jarring.

 

[TheGreatA]

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.

Biden is going to be like 77-78 in 2020. The Democrats need young voters, I don't think that's the way to go on about it.

Pandering to young progressives by putting forth a more "youthful" neoliberal conman like Trudeau or Macron, is probably the way to go, pragmatically.

It would allow the Democrats to retain their relatively right-wing economic platform, while satisfying the emotional needs of social progressives to be pandered towards.

Economic progressives/socialists would be the most screwed in that scenario.

 

[Harry Flashman]

You can actually see the fire in his eyes whenever marxism is brought up as a topic. His whole demenour changes. It's both hilarious and jarring.

Yes hes serious about it, because hes not a fucking idiot.

 

[Prokofievian]

The author does a great job in pointing out the irony of Peterson always rallying against postmodernism and modern academia while falling in the same traps they often do; the way of hiding, often simpler, concepts behind grandiose language heavy on terminology. Now that is maybe a bit unfair on Peterson. I haven't read his new book but I'm guessing the intent was to reach(cash in) on a wider audience than Maps of Meaning and I would think this one is easier to digest.

I also think it's important to have someone critical of Peterson actually dwelve into specifics instead of just calling him a whatever epithet is on the agenda; racist,sexist, kkk etc. That makes his follower unable to just fall back on their old defense of his detractors never willing to actually handle his arguments because it's so brilliant his opponents just won't deal with them.

That said it's really hard to dislike Peterson. I haven't read his latest book, I'm not really interested in self-help, but when speaking he is actually very concise and you know he puts alot of thought into his ideas. That said I hope he doesn't go down the road of having to pander to a specific audience, especially a toxic community like the "alt-right" or whatever, because of them patreon dollars.

It really depends which ideas we're talking about. If it's the ideas and arguments that have brought him celebrity then I would argue that the lack of thought is quite apparent. Often times he seems to have no taken a moment to think about the subject. For example on the use of pronouns: it appears that he just googled what the most common argument is against the singular ''they.'' Specifically, that it doesn't distinguish number. That's the only thing he could say against the use of a native feature of the English language for an emerging purpose. He said ''you can't lose grammatical number.''

However, that misses the obvious counter argument that the english 2nd person pronoun is actually fairly unique among languages in that it does precisely that: you cannot distinguish between second person singular and plural - at least in every case I can think of - in English even in the presence of the conjugated verb. For example: you do, you are, you see, you think. By comparison many languages don't even use pronouns in spoken language because the pronoun is implied by the context and the verb conjugation. Some english speakers even try to invent an unambiguous 2nd person plural pronoun: yous, or ''you guys.''

It also doesn't even engage with grammatical gender and its necessity as a concept, which would be important if you're willing to make the argument (or implication) that this is at least a cog in the cultural marxist machine to erode personal identity. Languages have more or less grammatical gender with seemingly no effect. Finnish has no grammatical gender. Apparently Hebrew, and Arabic have gendered 2nd person pronouns. His argument also doesn't engage with the reality of spoken language: often complex inflectional structures are abandoned out of convenience.

 

[Spoken]

I don't think that breaking ground is the job he's trying to do.

SJW-ism came on at an overwhelming pace. In the face of that, it has taken some time for well-articulated counterpoints to be put forth. That's the job Peterson has been doing IMO. He's trying to stand firm and HOLD ground, not to break ground.

I think this is true. Perhaps having read the actual philosophers he appeals to--and the ones he doesn't tend to like--I find myself on the outs in being interested in what he's actually arguing for because I've been drinking from the well for so long. But I totally appreciate public intellectuals. It's a unique skill to own the spotlight like he is... but I do wish it was someone who was more careful with and widely read on some of the things he's attacking.
Generally, however, I'm sympathetic to cause.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yeah it always struck me as a fringe view and it seems it bears out in data. His other big issue is free speech on campus and social warrior types, which also strikes me as somewhat infrequent. I'll grant him that when it does happen it's bad but scientists are studying the issue and it looks like colleges are actually becoming more open to hearing opposing and/or controversial opinions despite the Milo and Shapiro type shit that happens.

The free speech thing in Canada IS an issue but it's tremendously telling that they get all riled up for this when the bigger issue is that "inciting hatred" and "advocating genocide" are crimes to begin with.

In other words, they have no problems (no big problems at least) with the acts of inciting hate and genocide being crimes, but they flip the hell out when LGBT people are included in this category. This is similar to an anti-discrimination bill that failed to pass here in Houston a couple of years ago. It's your standard bill forbidding businesses to discriminate against race, gender, and sexual orientation that exists in every big city in the country. But these dishonest pieces of shit framed it as a bill that could let people born as men go into women's bathrooms (if they identified as transgender) and the business wouldn't be able to stop them.

So everyone knew it as "the bathroom law" and it spooked enough people out that it didn't pass.

 

[kpt018]

The free speech thing in Canada IS an issue but it's tremendously telling that they get all riled up for this when the bigger issue is that "inciting hatred" and "advocating genocide" are crimes to begin with.

In other words, they have no problems (no big problems at least) with the acts of inciting hate and genocide being crimes, but they flip the hell out when LGBT people are included in this category. This is similar to an anti-discrimination bill that failed to pass here in Houston a couple of years ago. It's your standard bill forbidding businesses to discriminate against race, gender, and sexual orientation that exists in every big city in the country. But these dishonest pieces of shit framed it as a bill that could let people born as men go into women's bathrooms (if they identified as transgender) and the business wouldn't be able to stop them.

So everyone knew it as "the bathroom law" and it spooked enough people out that it didn't pass.

Yeah, when it happens it's definitely a problem and it should be addressed for sure. I can't speak to Canada so I'll take your word for it but the idea that it's spreading to American campuses like the plague is turning out to be totally bogus. Again, when it happens it's really bad but it's pretty rare.

I'm certainly not against Peterson's crusade but I think we should correct people when they overstate the problems too.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Postmodernism is a real thing, and it is a anti enlightment movement. So yes, if applied it's gonna shake the foundation of civilization.

I don't know what you mean by "if applied."

Postmodernism is an extremely broad philosophical movement, not a political guide for shaping the future. It's mostly junk and unintelligible but the parts that you can understand just encourage the reader to deeply analyze meaning and social structure, and question everything. You could even argue that the notion that everything should be questioned and that nothing is sacred is pretty Enlightened in itself.

But you paranoids take a broad current in philosophy that exists mainly in lit departments in college and treat it as a modern Mein Kampf.

 

[Fronk]

It really depends which ideas we're talking about. If it's the ideas and arguments that have brought him celebrity then I would argue that the lack of thought is quite apparent. Often times he seems to have no taken a moment to think about the subject. For example on the use of pronouns: it appears that he just googled what the most common argument is against the singular ''they.'' Specifically, that it doesn't distinguish number. That's the only thing he could say against the use of a native feature of the English language for an emerging purpose. He said ''you can't lose grammatical number.''

However, that misses the obvious counter argument that the english 2nd person pronoun is actually fairly unique among languages in that it does precisely that: you cannot distinguish between second person singular and plural - at least in every case I can think of - in English even in the presence of the conjugated verb. For example: you do, you are, you see, you think. By comparison many languages don't even use pronouns in spoken language because the pronoun is implied by the context and the verb conjugation. Some english speakers even try to invent an unambiguous 2nd person plural pronoun: yous, or ''you guys.''

It also doesn't even engage with grammatical gender and its necessity as a concept, which would be important if you're willing to make the argument (or implication) that this is at least a cog in the cultural marxist machine to erode personal identity. Languages have more or less grammatical gender with seemingly no effect. Finnish has no grammatical gender. Apparently Hebrew, and Arabic have gendered 2nd person pronouns. His argument also doesn't engage with the reality of spoken language: often complex inflectional structures are abandoned out of convenience.

It's interesting because we had a very big debate on pronouns in Sweden a few years ago. The fact that there is no gender neutral personal pronoun is actually a real problem in the swedish language. The proposal, based on finnish hän, flows quite well but real problems do arise when it becomes politicised. Now people won't use it, just on principle, because of the changes being part of some sort of normcritical agenda or something. If the application of a gender neutral pronoun isn't there to replace he and she then what is the problem if it actually does help in cleaning up uneeded complications in language?

 

[21 Savage]

It's interesting because we had a very big debate on pronouns in Sweden a few years ago. The fact that there is no gender neutral personal pronoun is actually a real problem in the swedish language. The proposal, based on finnish hän, flows quite well but real problems do arise when it becomes politicised. Now people won't use it, just on principle, because of the changes being part of some sort of normcritical agenda or something. If the application of a gender neutral pronoun isn't there to replace he and she then what is the problem if it actually does help in cleaning up uneeded complications in language?

is sherdog allowed on ur new google version

 

[RubberGuard5]

I don't know what you mean by "if applied."

Postmodernism is an extremely broad philosophical movement, not a political guide for shaping the future. It's mostly junk and unintelligible but the parts that you can understand just encourage the reader to deeply analyze meaning and social structure, and question everything. You could even argue that the notion that everything should be questioned and that nothing is sacred is pretty Enlightened in itself.

But you paranoids take a broad current in philosophy that exists mainly in lit departments in college and treat it as a modern Mein Kampf.

That's a really superficial description of postmodernism.

 

[Prokofievian]

It's interesting because we had a very big debate on pronouns in Sweden a few years ago. The fact that there is no gender neutral personal pronoun is actually a real problem in the swedish language. The proposal, based on finnish hän, flows quite well but real problems do arise when it becomes politicised. Now people won't use it, just on principle, because of the changes being part of some sort of normcritical agenda or something. If the application of a gender neutral pronoun isn't there to replace he and she then what is the problem if it actually does help in cleaning up uneeded complications in language?

The political argument allows JP and others to bootstrap his lacking linguistic arguments. After all, using hate speech legislation to mandate pronoun use is fucking stupid. That's one issue. It becomes the only issue, though, even if its eventuality is actually a bit dubious. There is no separating the Ontario Human Rights Court and the argument about pronoun use. They're one and the same: part of the same cultural marxist conspiracy.

 

[Rational Poster]

The author does a great job in pointing out the irony of Peterson always rallying against postmodernism and modern academia while falling in the same traps they often do; the way of hiding, often simpler, concepts behind grandiose language heavy on terminology. Now that is maybe a bit unfair on Peterson. I haven't read his new book but I'm guessing the intent was to reach(cash in) on a wider audience than Maps of Meaning and I would think this one is easier to digest.

I also think it's important to have someone critical of Peterson actually dwelve into specifics instead of just calling him a whatever epithet is on the agenda; racist,sexist, kkk etc. That makes his follower unable to just fall back on their old defense of his detractors never willing to actually handle his arguments because it's so brilliant his opponents just won't deal with them.

That said it's really hard to dislike Peterson. I haven't read his latest book, I'm not really interested in self-help, but when speaking he is actually very concise and you know he puts alot of thought into his ideas. That said I hope he doesn't go down the road of having to pander to a specific audience, especially a toxic community like the "alt-right" or whatever, because of them patreon dollars.

The only reason I've seen to dislike Peterson is because of his pateron activity and he gets wishy-washy about religion.

Dude is way past needing a pateron but he's still got his hand out. He has actual corporate patrons, he doesn't need donation from his viewers.

He does pander to the cultural marxist conspiracy dorks a bit as well.

 

[ultramanhyata]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Warning - Long

Rustlemania Incoming

"If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)

Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train."

...

"If Jordan Peterson is the most influential intellectual in the Western world, the Western world has lost its damn mind. And since Jordan Peterson does indeedhave a good claim to being the most influential intellectual in the Western world, we need to think seriously about what has gone wrong. What have we done to end up with this man? His success is our failure, and while it’s easy to scoff at him, it’s more important to inquire into how we got to this point. He is a symptom. He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle. Jordan Peterson may not be the intellectual we want. But he is probably the intellectual we deserve."

It's a good read, whether you agree or not.

Thanks for sharing this. I said as much the first time I saw JP come up as a topic in the WR.

 

[PubliusVentidius]

There are basically two kinds of progressives in America. Economic progressives (who are basically socialist, or lean towards socialism)

Who are the ''economic progressives'' in the US who are ''basically socialist''?