Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

[ultramanhyata]

Peterson's beliefs aren't "simple," first of all; second, it'd be more accurate to say that, rather than self-improvement being the key, Peterson considers it the first and most important step towards what you call "social or collective improvement." Now, that's not to deny that it's difficult for Peterson to actually articulate clear, effective steps towards something as large and complex as social or collective improvement. And it's no wonder: That's really fucking hard. But to lampoon his position as just a simple hand wave followed by quick fix fortune cookie advice doesn't help the conversation.

For a serious example of the difficulties inherent in trying to establish the necessary links between individual and collective evolution/betterment, you should check out Peterson's and Shapiro's exchange on Rubin's show if you haven't already seen it.



I didn't time-stamp it because I don't remember where exactly the individualism/collectivism conversation starts, but the whole thing is worthwhile anyway, so, if you're interested, just dig in for yourself.



Like before, these are subtle distinctions, but they are distinctions with differences: He doesn't believe those who seek to lay blame at the feet of institutions are just making excuses. There may be legit reasons for having problems with a particular institution. But so what? What does that mean for how you conduct yourself in life (hence the importance of the notion of "maps of meaning" in his philosophical outlook)? Does it mean you just whine and do nothing because you think it's impossible for you to overcome whatever obstacles are in your path courtesy of whoever/whatever institution put them there? That's the type of shit that Peterson encourages people to transcend with reference to a commitment to self-improvement and self-reliance.

You're still not dealing with the contradiction between Peterson considering his crusade against Marxism an effective and important use of his time while calling it a waste of others' time when they crusade against capitalism.

Does one have to attain to some kind of high philosophical priesthood before he is "ready" to call out systemic injustices? Must the laity stay focused only on keeping their rooms clean?

I mean, imagine if Peterson had actually lived in Mao's China. Would his approach have been to not rock the boat by speaking critically of the power structure but to just concentrate on being the hardest-working collective farmer, and best husband and dad, he could be?

 

[Willy Womack]

I'm about finished with Peterson's new book. Been following him since the loonies at his university put him in the spotlight. I like this guy and it amazes me how much the SJW/Vice News leftists hate him. That they hate him as much as the neo-nazi stormfronters makes me trust him even more.

 

[Lovestorm]

He provides a unique insight. On top of which he triggers like crazy with thought provoking material, so no wonder why the SJWs and blue haired freakazoids hate him so.

Is always good to see a smart white man, unapologetic of his existence, stand firm against the vile and smelly orc hordes.

 

[hymn]

My favorite part of that article was the advertisement toward the end that says, "Do like the books that Jordan Petersen writes and the author if this article is taking a shit on? If you do, you'll love the author's book of similar content!"

the joke on that count though is that the author's own book was a parody of messianic discipline-hopping gibberish

 

[sleepwalk]

the joke on that count though is that the author's own book was a parody of messianic discipline-hopping gibberish

ahh...

 

[esotamoc]

He is not 'cutting edge' or at the fore front of critucal theory and his ideas arent new but the fact that someone like him is needed at this precise time in history shows how far if the rails contemporary theory and its influence on society has become.

 

[forum poster]

the joke on that count though is that the author's own book was a parody of messianic discipline-hopping gibberish

Lol, this is hilarious. The joke went right over petersons head.




Now Peterson fans are leaving reviews of the book on Amazon.
Amazon product ASIN 0692479813
This is comedic gold.

Mr. Ashley Robinson
1.0 out of 5 starsOne Star
March 16, 2018
Format: Paperback
Typical neomarxist garbage. Would give 0 stars if I could.
Comment|Was this review helpful to you?
Yes

No
Report abuse

stephen jack
1.0 out of 5 starsOne Star
March 15, 2018
Format: Paperback
garbage
Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?
Yes

Report abuse

Jamie
1.0 out of 5 starsGarbage
March 16, 2018
Format: Paperback
I would recommend readers pick up Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life instead.

 

[A.S. Deep]

I'm a big fan of Peterson and love his lectures. No one should be worshipping him, but then again no one should be worshipping ANYONE. I take what's useful from his work, which is a lot. He also got me to respect a lot of the biblical stories even though I'm an atheist.

 

[Bamboozled]

You're still not dealing with the contradiction between Peterson considering his crusade against Marxism an effective and important use of his time while calling it a waste of others' time when they crusade against capitalism.

Does one have to attain to some kind of high philosophical priesthood before he is "ready" to call out systemic injustices? Must the laity stay focused only on keeping their rooms clean?

I mean, imagine if Peterson had actually lived in Mao's China. Would his approach have been to not rock the boat by speaking critically of the power structure but to just concentrate on being the hardest-working collective farmer, and best husband and dad, he could be?

You have to prove they exist and you also have to provide a better alternative. In both cases you can't.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Peterson/Shapiro = heroes for scared white virgin males with autism.

Yea that's all fine and dandy except you basically described his critics.

 

[Peteyandjia]

A podcast I listen to said he sounds like Kermit the Frog and now I can't take him seriously.

I think he sounds like if Bob Odenkirk was Canadian.

(which now that I think about it, he kinda seems like he should be anyway.)

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Dr. Peterson is at the top of the lobster hierarchy.

 

[RubberGuard5]

One would think that before dismissing claims about postmodern neo marxism being a right wing paranoia, you should at least try to read something by a postmodernist. They are not hiding they are marxist.

Derrida: "deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism in a certain spirit of Marxism."

 

[forum poster]

One would think that before dismissing claims about postmodern neo marxism being a right wing paranoia, you should at least try to read something by a postmodernist. They are not hiding they are marxist.

Derrida: "deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism in a certain spirit of Marxism."

lol. I see you're well read on the topic of Post modernism.

 

[RubberGuard5]

lol. I see you're well read on the topic of Post modernism.

No, I've barely scratched the surface. I did however read various texts on education written by postmodernists during my college years. It made me want to digg deeper into underlying philosophy and resulted in discovering the connections between postmodernism and marxism.

 

[Bullitt68]

You're still not dealing with the contradiction

That's because, as I mentioned in my original response to you, there isn't a contradiction. I'm good, but even I can't deal with the nonexistent

I mean, imagine if Peterson had actually lived in Mao's China. Would his approach have been to not rock the boat by speaking critically of the power structure but to just concentrate on being the hardest-working collective farmer, and best husband and dad, he could be?

Once again, as I mentioned in my original response to you, your argument is fallacious because it presupposes that there's nothing fundamentally different between capitalism and Marxism - or, in this case, Maoism - and, by extension, between those who fundamentally oppose capitalism versus those who fundamentally oppose Maoism, or between the reasons for such fundamental oppositions, etc. But, as I mentioned, that's not true.

In any case, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're genuinely interested in these issues and Peterson's position on them, this video features an interviewer who usefully pushes on Peterson's claims regarding, to use your phraseology, "rocking the boat":



Here's also a good post about this particular interview courtesy of @Caveat (who for his part was responding to similar remarks about this interview made by @panamaican):

I think you've touched on a couple of the reasons that Peterson has so often been branded a conservative. He speaks much more frequently in terms of preserving society than improving it, for a few understandable reasons that probably include (1) society is already pretty good, though fragile; (2) improving society is hard; (3) young people aren't being adequately trained to contribute effectively to the improvement of society; (4) society seems to be under attack from a radical collective of people with intentions that are both malevolent and uninformed.

But I've always kind of thought that the endpoint of his own philosophy could lead one to becoming the exact kind of person he's been using that philosophy to criticize, for some of the reasons you state in the second paragraph. I get that he doesn't like empty activism from college students. He does seem to be in favour of starting businesses and having families though.

He talks about the mythology of societal revolutions in his lectures but I'm not sure what he has to say about changing today's society. Maybe someone else who has heard him speak to that topic more recently can weigh in.

I get why people might find frustrating what they see as a sense of the "uncriticizability" of Peterson and his ideas, but it's important to keep in mind that that's not coming from Peterson himself, as he actually encourages criticism of ideas, whether or not the ideas happen to be his. There's plenty of shit that Peterson's said/written to which pressure can be applied, for which reformulations might be warranted, and which is plainly wrong. But none of that will ever come to light - which means conversations will never amount to shit - if Peterson's ideas aren't approached seriously and if instead everything that he has to say is trivialized, caricatured, or reconstituted out of straw.

 

[panamaican]

That's because, as I mentioned in my original response to you, there isn't a contradiction. I'm good, but even I can't deal with the nonexistent



Once again, as I mentioned in my original response to you, your argument is fallacious because it presupposes that there's nothing fundamentally different between capitalism and Marxism - or, in this case, Maoism - and, by extension, between those who fundamentally oppose capitalism versus those who fundamentally oppose Maoism, or between the reasons for such fundamental oppositions, etc. But, as I mentioned, that's not true.

In any case, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're genuinely interested in these issues and Peterson's position on them, this video features an interviewer who usefully pushes on Peterson's claims regarding, to use your phraseology, "rocking the boat":



Here's also a good post about this particular interview courtesy of @Caveat (who for his part was responding to similar remarks about this interview made by @panamaican):



I get why people might find frustrating what they see as a sense of the "uncriticizability" of Peterson and his ideas, but it's important to keep in mind that that's not coming from Peterson himself, as he actually encourages criticism of ideas, whether or not the ideas happen to be his. There's plenty of shit that Peterson's said/written to which pressure can be applied, for which reformulations might be warranted, and which is plainly wrong. But none of that will ever come to light - which means conversations will never amount to shit - if Peterson's ideas aren't approached seriously and if instead everything that he has to say is trivialized, caricatured, or reconstituted out of straw.

My singular criticism of what I've heard hasn't changed but I stay out of these threads because many of his supporters go into a panic when criticisms are directed his way.

Essentially, his work on archetypes actually supports the idea that societies are going to constantly undergo large scale changes. Yet his work is frequently brought up as an argument for why the modern society should fight very hard to prevent change because we've gotten here by following a specific set of rules that are best for society.

I don't know if that's a flaw with Peterson's work but it's definitely a flaw with the internet supporters of his work. And since the internet supporters are who I encounter discussing his work, I find it best to avoid them.

 

[jimmas99]

What i don't like about Peterson is that he seem to pander a lot to the "Trump" people, and his postmodern view on truth.

 

[luckyshot]

@Bullitt68

So, thanks for posting all those conversations.

I don’t have time to listen to all of them, but. Did listen to a good bit of the Russell Brand one. A lot of the conversation focused on inequality. Frustrating listen, IMO.

1. Peterson says inequality is a huge problem, one that the left isn’t nearly pessimistic enough about ( a favorite critique of his).

2. Yet he also thinks a certain level of inequality is necessary. Ok, fine. A certain level. But what about extreme inequality? Peterson starts talking about the relative size of stars in galaxies and trees in the woods.

3. When Brand presses, ok, but shouldn’t we try to level it out with social systems, Peterson basically says, no because only war and pestilence reliably create equality... Which completely ignores the empirical fact that many societies ( specifically Scandanavian socialist democracies and Peterson’s own Canada) HAVE succeeded in leveling inequality to a FAR greater degree than much of the rest of the world.

Like, why won’t he look at empirical evidence that compare different social models instead of insisting on his ideological position and supporting it with “evidence” cherry picked from essentially unrelated anecdotes and completely different disciplines?

It really does border on willful ignorance.

 

[helltoupee]

@Bullitt68

So, thanks for posting all those conversations.

I don’t have time to listen to all of them, but. Did listen to a good bit of the Russell Brand one. A lot of the conversation focused on inequality. Frustrating listen, IMO.

1. Peterson says inequality is a huge problem, one that the left isn’t nearly pessimistic enough about ( a favorite critique of his).

2. Yet he also thinks a certain level of inequality is necessary. Ok, fine. A certain level. But what about extreme inequality? Peterson starts talking about the relative size of stars in galaxies and trees in the woods.

3. When Brand presses, ok, but shouldn’t we try to level it out with social systems, Peterson basically says, no because only war and pestilence reliably create equality... Which completely ignores the empirical fact that many societies ( specifically Scandanavian socialist democracies and Peterson’s own Canada) HAVE succeeded in leveling inequality to a FAR greater degree than much of the rest of the world.

Like, why won’t he look at empirical evidence that compare different social models instead of insisting on his ideological position and supporting it with “evidence” cherry picked from some essentially unrelated anecdotes?

It really does border on willful ignorance.

It's the same story repeated every 100 years or so. Conservatives will be dragged kicking and screaming into enlightenment like the dinosaurs they are.

Jordan Peterson is no different than the people who insisted that indigenous peoples were savages, women should be 2nd class citizens, blacks are less than human, etc etc etc, only now the boogeyman is transgenders and postmodernists.

Kind of funny that Jordan Peterson would be nowhere near Canada if his family didn't load up in a boat at some point in the past and sail across the Atlantic to spread their own brand of multiculturalism.