Jordan Peterson

ancapailldorcha · 19-11-2021 9:46am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118187338#Comment_118187338

I haven't so I can't add anything of worth. I'm guessing that this book extols the virtues individual liberty, faith and hard work and Peterson is in full agreement unless someone disagrees with him and then they're woke Nazis or something.

Fathom · 19-11-2021 7:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118189663#Comment_118189663

Critical race theory has been soooooo attention gathering of late. It has buzzword punch! Whereas, overused and nebulous racial discrimination lacks it. A good concept for those, but not all, "conservative, White Christian men" that may be vulnerable to his message. Once again, a great target market for his book sales.

In the wind · 01-12-2021 8:50pm

Just announced Dublin 3 Arena on Sunday 11 September 2022.

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/events/

Black Swan · 14-12-2021 6:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253118#Comment_118253118

Quite the tour schedule.

14-12-2021 7:36am

What is this chap doing in a philosophy forum? He's a quasi-Jungian crank. Entertaining, but where is the philosophy? Scraps of existential advice, for example, do not amount to an exploration of exitentialism.

Jung, himself something of a crank, but streets ahead of Peterson philosophically speaking, was often at pains to develop counterpoints to dominant Christian narratives, which he saw as one dimensional due to their focus on just one side of the good-evil duality. Jung liked to fill what he saw as gaps in our capacity to understand the world, while noting that these gaps gaps result from Christianity (particularly Protestant traditions) itself.

Peterson comes along and switches this Jungian message around.. he is still filling gaps and offering counterpoints, like a good Jungian. But he seems to extolls a simplified version of Christianity as a counterpoint to the dominant cultural narrative, without exploring how problematic Christianity is in itself. Any Jungian --clinical or 'literary'-- that doesn't explore the problematic nature and grounds of their own ideas isn't much of a Jungian, IMO and is not a philosopher of any kind at all.

In the wind · 14-12-2021 2:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118318283#Comment_118318283

I don't really understand a lot of what you wrote there & indeed I don't understand all of what Peterson says but I do know that quite a few people get value, insights & direction from his youtube lectures & books.

Perhaps he is not all an informed philosophical observer might expect but for the uninformed, like me, he brings value.

In the wind · 14-12-2021 2:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118318250#Comment_118318250

Indeed, there is a big appetite for Peterson around the world.

14-12-2021 2:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118319824#Comment_118319824

Fair enough. Didn't mean to sound snobby. I'm not questioning his value. He has clearly captured something in the zeitgeist. I just question whether he is doing any sort of philosophical work at all.

ancapailldorcha · 14-12-2021 3:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118319842#Comment_118319842

I don't think so.

Based on my reading of 12 Rules for Life, Peterson has just nabbed bits of various religions, cultures and philosophies and cobbled them together with Christianity providing by far the primary inspiration for the book.

If you read 12 Rules and your life improved as a result, that's great. The book has nothing original in it whatsoever (save for Peterson's fixation on Lobsters). Peterson himself just seems like a standard reactionary albeit one who works for a university. He's entitled to hold Christian and/or Conservative opinions but it's all standard "no, no, no" stuff. He's ranting about Trudeau and vaccines on Twitter as of yesterday.

14-12-2021 3:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118320390#Comment_118320390

I find the culture wars stuff exhaustingly unphilosophical, TBH. Too many grounds and assumptions are left unquestioned, misidentification of problems is widespread, category mistakes all over the gaff, ufff... it's hardly worth it and his participation in that stuff is a black mark against him in philosophical terms (as it is for Zizek, with the proviso that Zizek has produced some philosophical end product in his life), but as you say, if it does a little good for someone, somewhere, well and good. Philosophy it isn't though... more like like a religiously tinged set of semi-empirical generalizations about the everyday existentials of human existence.. which should also be a black mark, really, now that I think about it.

Black Swan · 16-12-2021 5:07am

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.

16-12-2021 6:23am

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

Black Swan · 16-12-2021 7:21am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118329232#Comment_118329232

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.

16-12-2021 7:47am

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.

Fathom · 16-12-2021 9:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118329265#Comment_118329265

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.

16-12-2021 10:36pm

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?'

ancapailldorcha · 17-12-2021 11:31am

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkliHO1olto

mzungu · 03-01-2022 11:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118335942#Comment_118335942

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?

ancapailldorcha · 04-01-2022 9:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413395#Comment_118413395

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".

Fathom · 07-01-2022 6:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118413395#Comment_118413395

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-01-2022 10:15am

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

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models

ancapailldorcha · 27-01-2022 11:41am

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:

https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1486103450446303234

mzungu · 29-01-2022 7:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118434904#Comment_118434904

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.

Fathom · 31-01-2022 2:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118551123#Comment_118551123

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?

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 2:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538959#Comment_118538959

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/

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 2:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559527#Comment_118559527

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

ancapailldorcha · 31-01-2022 2:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559527#Comment_118559527

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.

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 2:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559564#Comment_118559564

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

Fathom · 31-01-2022 3:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559527#Comment_118559527

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?

El_Duderino 09 · 31-01-2022 5:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559606#Comment_118559606

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.

ancapailldorcha · 31-01-2022 5:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560748#Comment_118560748

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.

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 6:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559564#Comment_118559564

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. 🙄

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 6:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559569#Comment_118559569

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.

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 6:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559727#Comment_118559727

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 😅

ancapailldorcha · 31-01-2022 6:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561206#Comment_118561206

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.

Fathom · 31-01-2022 7:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561239#Comment_118561239

Obviously Time magazine is not a credible philosophy source.

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 7:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561239#Comment_118561239

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.

Fathom · 31-01-2022 7:10pm

MOD: While most of us love a lively debate about Peterson, please let’s all attempt to avoid ad hominem trolling against each other. As the old cliche goes, attack the post, not the person making the post.

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 7:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561276#Comment_118561276

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

ancapailldorcha · 31-01-2022 7:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561286#Comment_118561286

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.

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 7:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561194#Comment_118561194

Sorry I wasn't saying that you were ranting I meant Peterson was ranting about 'climate is everything' and even if you're charitable and grant that he was making a reference to that Time cover art, it certainly wasn't very precise so violates his own rules for life

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 7:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561376#Comment_118561376

It's a fact that he didn't come up with the phrase or the first to use it simply because the well publicised series of Time Magazine and articles with that title were all over social media. And those articles would have certainly gone a long way to popularise the phrase. "Climate is everything". I have certainly came across it long before the present Peterson debate. And no I'm not a fan of his either! But viewing that video I automatically presumes that's where he took it from. But maybe I'm wrong and it's just a coincidence

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 7:42pm

I just think Petersons logic contained such a fallacy that a philosopher or intellectual would see through it instantly

1st, It's entirely a straw man argument

He starts with 'There's no such thing as Climate', then he says Climate and everything are interchangeable words. Climate is not 'everything' so the models do not need to Include everything in order to be useful models

Secondly models do not need to be 100% accurate to be useful, - the impossible standards fallacy. - The question is actually a matter of are they reliable enough to be useful for a given purpose

Fathom · 31-01-2022 7:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561375#Comment_118561375

Point taken. One problematic source given earlier here was the Peterson podcast hosted by Rogan. Where Peterson challenges the meteorological models used to explain and predict climate change. Peterson claimed that climate change was so complex that it could not be modeled. This ignores the scientific suggestion of Robert Merton where grand theories may not yet have the analytical data methods today to lend conclusive support, but theories of the middle range (eg, models) can have enormous value towards an eventual grand theory of climate change. So unlike Peterson, let’s not toss out the models with the bath water.

El_Duderino 09 · 31-01-2022 8:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561496#Comment_118561496

Sure. And I've read Joe Rogan fans telling everyone about how smart and intellectually honest he is. So I wonder did Joe make any of the points you made above? Or was he muttering assent throughout the whole thing and agreeing with whatever Peterson said? I mean, If you listen to 2 guys agree with each other on everything for 4 hours, you might be forgiven for beginning to believe they're both super smart and right about everything.

The truth is that none of Petersons target audience will think about the points you just made. I'll be shocked if anyone tells me Rogan challenged him on any of the climate change denial stuff. So it's just a matter of Peterson saying it, Rogan agreeing, Peterson's target audience have their pre-existing belief that climate change is just a leftist conspiracy validated, Peterson's Patreon donations go up, people criticise Peterson and his profile is enhanced, Peterson's Patreon donations go up again, job's done, damage done, everyone's a winner.

Fathom · 31-01-2022 8:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561616#Comment_118561616

Rogan air time for Peterson. More air. More controversy. More book sales. Like the Huey Long King Fish maxim for attracting attention to building your rep. Good news is the best news. Bad news is the second best news. And no news is bad news for a politician, or in this case, for spokesman and author Peterson.

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 9:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561616#Comment_118561616

Joe Rogan did actually challenge Peterson on his definition that climate is everything, and pointed out that climate scientists were concerned with the human drivers that are causing the current warming. Peterson just ignored his point and went on to confuse climate with weather and asserted that the models will spiral out of control because of compounding errors. Joe Rogan tries a little bit to bring him back to reality but Peterson just bamboozled him with non sequitur about Chickens and discounting in a load of waffle that goes absolutely nowhere

He's such a frustrating person to listen to and he constantly contradicts his own positions. He spent ages saying we can't predict the future because the future is unpredictable and 2 minutes later he posits a theory that if we make everyone in the world rich as fast as possible this will save the planet. (A prediction, but its OK to make predictions when you're JP)

generic_throwaway · 31-01-2022 10:02pm

It's amazing that this pop psychologist is now not only a philospher but a climate scientist. And I thought all the Renaissance men were dead these 400 years.

mzungu · 31-01-2022 10:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561525#Comment_118561525

This would reaffirm my belief that he does precious little research into any of the topics he talks about. For starters, mixing up climate and weather right at the beginning was a doozy. He struggled to get near any form of coherent thought after that.

Fathom · 31-01-2022 10:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562273#Comment_118562273

Makes me wonder if Peterson knows there’s a substantial difference between weather and climate in terms of how they are conceptually defined and operationally measured?

Jordan Peterson

Comments