Jordan Peterson

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

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:

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.

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?'