Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Jordan Peterson

189101113

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,061 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    Agree that Peterson does not have a formalized philosophy. His message appears to be a hodgepodge of cherry-picked suggestions from various academic disciplines and Christian beliefs in an attempt to support his positions.

    When cherry-picking, Peterson ignores evidence that may be contrary to his message. When challenged accordingly, he often claims that he has been misunderstood in context and content.

    He often makes controversial statements that draws attention to him, as well increasing the chance for opportunistic interviews to promulgate his message and sell his books.

    His message falls more appropriately within the non-scholarly self help genre, especially as it may appeal to men having difficulty adapting to cultural, social, and psychological changes.

    MOD: Peterson’s failure to construct a formalized philosophy, as discussed here, has utility, in that it allows us to compare, critique, and contrast his message with what we consider philosophy.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Failure to construct a philosophy or never made the attempt? Agree with your post though.

    Taking your last line, his work would be more philosphical if he addressed the grounds of his assumptions and at least tried to place his work within an epistemological framework of some sort.. but all that takes time and that's not what pop intellectualism is about anyway - soundbites, easy to follow 'rules' etc etc

    I'm contrary though, so in his defense, I note that several figures regarded as philosophers never established a formalized philosophy, w/ Nietzsche being the most obvious example. 'Is N's work philosophy or literature?' is a valid question. Similarly is Pascal's Pensées (which I really like) a philosophical work or a load of aphorisms? (Pascal had 'formal' philosophical work in his background though.)

    Also, if we consider that for Kant 'How ought we live?' was one fo the great philosophical questions. It could be argued Peterson is addressing that in his popular works. On the surface this is true, but again philosophers examine the problematic grounds of knowledge, experience, perception and then offer insights on how to live.

    Scratching the surface here, but also we have to remember that Peterson works in the completely different field of clinical psychology, which is, from some philosophical point of views, just an errant branch of philosophy of mind with an empircal twist :D



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,061 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    Interesting points you made for those persons labeled philosophers by others. Could we add Jacques Derrida to your list of those without a formalized philosophy, but labeled a French philosopher? Then again, we might include a few more from the post modernist era? How can deconstructionists construct philosophy? (Excuse the pun).

    Unfortunately, many of Peterson’s advocates may fail to see the problematic content of Peterson’s writings, vids, and interviews. In some cases they may see what they want to see as mentioned by earlier posters.

    Plus, we can encounter many very loose thoughts about what constitutes a philosophy, philosophers, philosophical statements, etc. To confound matters further, I have encountered the question “Is everyone a philosopher?” An ontological question.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The last bit reminded me of Hegel. To paraphrase - claiming that everyone is a philosopher because they have thoughts and ideas, however muddy and unexamined they are, is a bit like saying everyone is a cobbler because they wear shoes.

    Hegel:

    Everybody allows that to know any other science you must have first studied it, and that you can only claim to express a judgment upon it in virtue of such knowledge. Everybody allows that to make a shoe you must have learned and practised the craft of the shoemaker, though every man has a model in his own foot, and possesses in his hands the natural endowments for the operations required. For philosophy alone, it seems to be imagined, such study, care, and application are not in the least requisite.

    Derrida made real contributions. Deconstruction and postmodernism are based on philosophical grounds (whether you agree with these philosphies or not, I find them superficial, esp. postmodernism). Zizek does the public intellectual stuff, but has made a contribution.

    Existentialism is a huge influence for me, so while all this talk of hierarchies and in-groups and out-groups (some of which I introduced, admittedly) has some value, at the end of the day it is the philosophical insight that works and that causes people to do that is of most value to each individual. The source, formal nature, relation to philosophical tradition etc are all superficial compared to changing someone's heart, values, perceptions, world view, orientation towards the external world, interpretative framework et al.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Philosophy or method or what? Derrida's deconstructionist approach has value. He claims it is not a method. Although to me it looks like a useful method to examine philosophies, or theories, or models. Doubt that he would examine Peterson's writings. Not falling within the philosophical domain.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Agreed all round. Derrida has value. No question. (And a method he has to deny.) Even when he's twisting some inner logic around ironically. A lot of gesturing and performance about that literary philosophical style though. It doesn't feel very existential to me, it's very much a prdouct of the academy. That could be said of most philosophy, of course, it's just that some philosophy seems to get lost in language itself, and in doing so loses power in its relation to the empirical world.

    Personally, I would find the likes of Wittgenstein more useful. He understood the limits of the academy well, I think and lived accordingly. Like Derrida, Witt too evokes and explores the tangled foundations and limits of everyday thought and language, but Witt does so with more immediacy and impact, at least for my taste.

    I often return to Nietzsche's description of philosophies as unconscious autobiographies... For readers of philosophy it's interesting to ask: 'what does your taste in philosophies/philosophers say about you?'



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 29,038 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    Regrettably, I don't have the philosophical chops to comment on Derrida either way. What I will say is that Peterson in 12 Rules merely presents Postmodernsm as something which is wrong without even attempt to engage with it in any meaningful way.

    If anyone wants a definition of Postmodernism or a primer, I found this video immensely helpful:




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭ mzungu


    I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't believe he has ever stated exactly what part of postmodernism he disagrees with. It encompasses a large field of work with many disparate views, so it's not quite clear if he thinks its all bunkum, or just some of it.

    In a way, it becomes something of a meaningless critique. If he keeps it vague and never zeroes in on exactly what parts he finds troublesome, is he not just creating a straw man?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 29,038 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    He never does. Never. As I said, it's something to be reviled. To define it would be to engage with it and it's just so much easier to dump in a box labelled "Heresy".



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Derrida discusses signature. From a linguist position. Suggested that interpretations of a writer’s works vary. So much so that the original author may not recognize his own words or thoughts. “According to...”

    Others may use this notion of misunderstanding as a defense when confronted with their own contradictions. This appears to be how Peterson frequently answers his critics.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,859 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09


    Peterson's at it again on climate change. His target market is obviously pretty opposed to the notion of climate change, so Peterson is opposed to the notion of climate change. This interview with Joe Rogan he gives his flock new reasons to doubt climate change based on the modelling being flawed.

    He says that "climate is everything, but the models don't include everything". Not joking that he calls climate "everything". It's undergrad level research critique along the lines of the standard. Too few participants, -or if it has enough participants then it took too long to collect so the early data is out of date, doesn't account for the long term - or if it is longitudinal research then the early data is irrelevant, and so on.

    In any case, his people are likely already climate deniers so he's giving them clever sounding reasons to believe what they already believe. It's the long form version (very long) of Fox News

    Edit: link to article


    Post edited by El_Duderino 09 on


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 29,038 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    Yeah, I think he's well and truly jumped the shark now. I saw a clip and debated sharing it but couldn't find it later. I think he's realised that his "precision with words" prevaricating just doesn't cut it and is now going to throw out red meat instead. He's resigned his position as a professor so expect to hear lots of nonsense about being forced out or pressured to quit.

    Edit: Tweet was linked in the Guardian if anyone wants to hear it for themselves:




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭ mzungu


    Aye, a sort of vague evasiveness masquerading as deep thought. Talk at length while at the same time saying nothing of any real significance etc.

    That said, he does seem like a harmless enough skin. But given a lot of the thoughts he has aired about postmodernism, politics & climate change (to name but three) it becomes apparent that he has done little or no research.

    Post edited by mzungu on


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Peterson steps away from his clinical psychology discipline into a cherry-picking of philosophy, paternalistic religion, lobster biology, and Ozzie and Harriet politics to author books and vids of his decidedly male self help message. Such a skewed position lacks natural balance for males vis-à-vis females in our rapidly changing Brave New World. But how am I qualified to say so? Or how is Peterson?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭ Mecanudo


    Tbf Peterson wasn't the first referring to "Climate is everything"

    This got widespread coverage a while back and is possibly what he's having a dig at?

    https://time.com/5954495/story-behind-climate-is-everything-cover/



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,035 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    Which of his 12 rules was to be "precise when you speak"?

    If you're referring to one particular headline in one publication you should say that, not go off on a weird rant that makes everyone think you haven't got a clue what you're talking about



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 29,038 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    There's a difference between point out that climate change affects much, if not everything on earth and dismissing climate models because they don't factor in literally everything. It's base pandering to his base and nothing more.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,035 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    Denying climate change is going to see a huge resurgence this year as people primed by all the vaccine conspiracy theories will be seeking something g new to focus on as life returns to normal

    Lots of money to be made if you're not particularly moral



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Was Peterson hosted by Joe Rogan? The same Rogan of today’s Spotify scandal of alleged mis- and disinformation about Covid vaccination? The same Rogan challenged by so many musicians led by Neil Young? What does this association say about Peterson’s message?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,859 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09


    Yeah I suppose Peterson's target market are going to need a new focus. He'll probably never go down the QAnon route be explicitly pro the january 6th insurrection, but he'll happily hit the anti-establishment, pro Christian, anti climate change, anti-BLM, anti-critical race throry, anti- feminist, anti-woke and whatever else is topical on the right. Basically whatever Fox News is saying minus some of the most fringe elements of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 29,038 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    Precisely. He's slimy and cowardly enough to leave the overt fascism to others while he peddles anti-vaxx, anti-climate change and anti-woke drivel. I just unfollowed him on Twitter. It's been a cavalcade of diarrhoea from him over this trucker thing in Canada.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭ Mecanudo


    A 'rant' ???

    Your quote "to be precise when you speak"? is not even from my comment!

    I raised the point (in response to one of the above posters comments) that Perterson certainly wasn't the first to use the phrase "climate is everything"

    (Peterson) says that "climate is everything, but the models don't include everything". Not joking that he calls climate "everything".

    There's even a question mark included in my comment whether this is Peterson having a dig at that idea as given in the Times Magazine series of articles on climate change

    But sure go ahead - chew someone's head off. 🙄

    Post edited by Mecanudo on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭ Mecanudo



    Again the question asked is he using that to have a dig at that concept? The Times Magazine afaik did a whole series of articles under that banner. Peterson certainly didn't coin the phrase as seemed to have been suggested previously.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭ Mecanudo


    I really have no idea. I don't watch Joe Rogan and have come across Perterson incidencently. However I had read some of the Times articles under that banner and presuming in at least part he may be reusing that phrase.

    But hey mea culpea. All my fault I seem to have wandered into a vipers nest 😅



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 29,038 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    A Time magazine article very few people are familiar with is a weak basis for an argument. Peterson was clear. He can't refute the studies with logic and facts so he descends to this level of desperation.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Obviously Time magazine is not a credible philosophy source.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭ Mecanudo


    OK. Let's be clear. There's no "argument" offered. It's simply a fact.

    I'm neither arguing for Peterson or against him. It is a fact that he was not the first to use that phrase!

    And the Time article was all over social media and the phrase "climate is everything" is quoted plenty of places including twitter etc before the above video afaik

    Btw I recognised it offhand and I wouldn't be a regular Time magazine reader - so I guess its been around for a while anyway

    Perhaps you might have a stab at the question I asked thanks.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭ Mecanudo


    Hmmm I do believe the Times Magazine articles detailed above were on the issues of climate change change and not "philosophy"



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 29,038 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    I'm afraid stating that something is a fact does not make it so. I've never heard the expression before so you'll have to engage further if you wish to be convincing.



Advertisement