Jordan Peterson on Orthodox Christianity

[mark kennedy]

This is from April, but just in case you haven't seen it, I thought it was worth posting.

His view seems compatible with what I have always thought of the Orthodox. They seem to have a more eastern view I guess, they accept that some mysteries are hard to grasp. Perhaps a little more mystical then what I'm comfortable with but an impressive eccelesiastical tradition. If it was the Antioch (Syria) elders that commissioned Paul on three missions to the Gentiles for Paul doesn't that say something for their tradition? When Constitine supposedly converted and moved his capitol to Byzantine doesn't that mean his capitol fell under an Orthodox Bishop. The Nicean Creed, all Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants embrace as the basic definition of what it means to be a Christian, wasn't that under an Orthodox eccesiastical order?

I embrace this tradition and identify with it in many ways, even being a Calvinist. They refuse to bow the knee to Rome, I say good for them. Unfortunatly they might not be as quick to claim me as I am to identify with them but that's just how it goes.

A fascinating video, really enjoyed it. Pick up your cross and make your way to the city of God. What Christian worth their salt would have a problem with that?

Not meaning to intrude into an in house discussion, just liked the video.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Good, I hope people will abandon him for the truth of Christianity and forget his nonsense.

I am reading his book 12 Rules for Life and I would recommend it to anyone. Far from being “nonsense”, his message is highly sensible, often quoting from Scripture, and reads like a summary of many of the main themes of the book of Proverbs. The message can be summarised as: “Take responsibility for your actions!”.

He arrives at his message through a combination of evolutionary biology and psychology. I would agree that his reliance on evolution is nonsense and obviously unchristian but at least he gets the conclusions basically right.

 

[gzt]

I am reading his book 12 Rules for Life and I would recommend it to anyone. Far from being “nonsense”, his message is highly sensible, often quoting from Scripture, and reads like a summary of many of the main themes of the book of Proverbs. The message can be summarised as: “Take responsibility for your actions!”.

He arrives at his message through a combination of evolutionary biology and psychology. I would agree that his reliance on evolution is nonsense and obviously unchristian but at least he gets the conclusions basically right.

His reliance on evolution is bad science, even. If the message you take away from it is "take responsibility for your actions", that's a fine message. He has a ton of other bad messages, though. Like any other self-help book.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

His reliance on evolution is bad science, even. If the message you take away from it is "take responsibility for your actions", that's a fine message. He has a ton of other bad messages, though. Like any other self-help book.

Wow. A tonne—that’s sounds like a lot.

Name 5 messages you consider wrong and un-Orthodox from Jordan Peterson. Please provide sources so we can look at the context.

 

[gzt]

If you really want it, I will, though much of it is "bad in general" rather than the specific "bad for Orthodox".

 

[fat wee robin]

Humanism seems to produce better measures of human development, than countries that are oriented towards theocracy.

You got it the wrong way round .First came Christ and the discipline of the commandments which brought the growth of human life and society ,and now there is the testing time ,age ,if you will ,when we will choose between a fleshly individualistic god , or a Transcendant One .
Yes ,a rational materialistic society gives best results for atheists ,as this is their time ,but as Always as in the past, it will disappear, and it's adhérents with it .

God planned that this time would be a time for modern methods of planned living where people would enjoy the fruits of living Christian lives .The problem is it all depends on Him ,the 'humanism ' and the scientific advancements which were all planned to come after humanity had largely become christian and picked up their crosses .
Only when we all have the capacity to have learned widely through modern technology ,and made a choice between God and His purity ,and human made society and values , will He judge us , finally sorting out the wheat from the chaff .

 

[fat wee robin]

You make a mistake assuming I am ignorant of Bonhoeffer. I am a Lutheran and admire Bonhoeffer a great deal. In his Letters and Papers from Prison he reasserts the Lutheran humanistic emphasis and expounds on it radically, emphasizing that humanity has "come of age" and no longer needs religion-as-explanation.

So Bonhoeffer is not a true christian, as if he was ,he would never have said that .
True Christian society as organised according to Christ would be perfect for all humans ,but humanity and Lucifer did always keeps trying to Humanise it and push God out of the picture .
What a pesky God He is ,was , when Lucie challenged Him ,to keep insisting that we carry our cross until the end , even if we keep dropping it . Maybe we should again just make a nice humanistic society, like under communism ,and all would be well .

 

[JM]

Experimental or Experiential Calvinists like John Bunyan, Richard Baxter, John Ball, Robert Hawker, J. C. Philpot and numerious others. Far too many to name. These Reformed Calvinists would have little to no problem with the explanation given by Peterson. The biggest issues as I’ve come to see it, is the inability for Protestants/modern Christians in general, to view Christianity as multifaceted. Some are all doctrine and dogma, others are all experience…there is both in Reformed theology just as there is both in Orthodoxy.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[gzt]

I'm not asking you to give a benefit of the doubt, I'm just not going to give five heavily sourced examples, and you will appreciate that asking for this is demanding a fair amount of labor. I have very little respect for Peterson, frankly: he's a huckster. As I said, I will give some more substantial response. But, fraknly, I'll likely just point at other people who did work and give some of my own thoughts. I have little desire to go back and re-examine the tedious primary sources.

 

[gzt]

He is extremely dishonest in his representations of others' work. He does as much work on those primary sources as I'm doing here, so what point is there in treating him seriously? He fails in his admonition to tell the truth. Just compare what he (erroneously) says about Foucault with what he himself says, for one.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I'm not asking you to give a benefit of the doubt, I'm just not going to give five heavily sourced examples, and you will appreciate that asking for this is demanding a fair amount of labor. I have very little respect for Peterson, frankly: he's a huckster. As I said, I will give some more substantial response. But, fraknly, I'll likely just point at other people who did work and give some of my own thoughts. I have little desire to go back and re-examine the tedious primary sources.

But by your very words, he has a “ton of bad messages”. So it shouldn’t require a “fair amount of labor”. If you want to malign Peterson, fair enough. Show us why. You need to back it up your opinions or it just sounds like calumny.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I'm too lazy for this, just read this, then, bucko:

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

Jorbo's response was that he'd slap him happily - which is not rational discourse, by the way, or respect for free speech, or whatever he's on about. Petrosen misrepresents everything he touches outside his narrow area of expertise - certain aspects of psychometric testing of personality. I've read a few of his papers on that and, not being a psychologist but being a statistician familiar with the specific methods in this, they were fine (at least, in terms of statistical methodology). After that, he's just serially dishonest - he's wrong about climate change (and misrepresenting it intentionally), he's wrong about C16 (Are Jordan Peterson's Claims About Bill C-16 Correct?), he's misrepresenting research about the gender wage gap (willing to elaborate if you really want but I don't want to explain much math), he clearly hasn't even read either Foucault or Derrida (Historicizing with a Bulldozer – Member Feature Stories – Medium) etc etc.

Your criticism of Peterson not having read “Foucault” rings pretty hollow, since you clearly have not read any of Peterson’s books. Citing a bunch of second hand research you pulled from a Google search is “lol”(in your words). If not reading a primary source is his greatest sin, you are equally culpable.

By the way, which books by Foucault and Derrida have you read?

 

[gzt]

Foucault: Discipline and Punish, chunks of History of Sexuality (particular emphasis on his readings of Christian ascetic literature), chunks of his work on madness, a handful of his essays.

Derrida: not as much, mostly selections.

My criticism is not that he doesn't read so much as he misrepresents (in a way that suggests he doesn't understand them). He presents himself as an expert on a variety of things he botches. I listed several. He is utterly confused when he ventures outside the narrow area of his expertise.

 

[gzt]

As for Peterson, I've read perhaps 5 of his papers (how many have you read?), the opinions in a couple court cases he's been involved with (the judges don't think highly of his expert opinion, it's rather amusing), seen a couple interviews, and seen a fair number of his internet interactions with others. He has two books, one of which nobody has read and nobody paid any attention to until he became a popular figure, one of which is new bestseller [EDIT: note I had formed most of this opinion of him before the book came out] - I've read perhaps a quarter of it and don't have it on hand, which makes your demand for citation difficult.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

As for Peterson, I've read perhaps 5 of his papers (how many have you read?), the opinions in a couple court cases he's been involved with (the judges don't think highly of his expert opinion, it's rather amusing), seen a couple interviews, and seen a fair number of his internet interactions with others. He has two books, one of which nobody has read and nobody paid any attention to until he became a popular figure, one of which is new bestseller [EDIT: note I had formed most of this opinion of him before the book came out] - I've read perhaps a quarter of it and don't have it on hand, which makes your demand for citation difficult.

Yet your criticisms of him stem from secondary sources, which you cite above. If I based my exploration of Orthodoxy based on secondary criticisms of Orthodoxy, I would never have become Orthodox.

Even your secondary source criticisms are really weak tea. He doesn’t truly understand Foucault and Derrida, two of the most pernicious, anti-Christian intellectuals of the twentieth century? Um, so what? Raise your hand TAW if you judge an author by how well they understand arcane French post modernist philosophers.

If you actually read Peterson’s work, you might appreciate what he really is concerned about. Engage with his actual work—not criticisms of it by hostile, post modern authors—and then we can talk.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Foucault: Discipline and Punish, chunks of History of Sexuality (particular emphasis on his readings of Christian ascetic literature), chunks of his work on madness, a handful of his essays.

Derrida: not as much, mostly selections.

My criticism is not that he doesn't read so much as he misrepresents (in a way that suggests he doesn't understand them). He presents himself as an expert on a variety of things he botches. I listed several. He is utterly confused when he ventures outside the narrow area of his expertise.

But you base that criticism not on actually having read Peterson’s comments on Derrida, whatever they are, or having read Derrida. Rather, you base them on some obscure secondary criticism. That’s just intellectually dishonest, for you cannot know for sure if he indeed “misrepresents” them. You don’t know, yet this is your “ton of bad messages”. Maybe he has a “ton of good messages”. You don’t know—you cannot rule that out— since you haven’t read his books.

 

[gzt]

Yet your criticisms of him stem from secondary sources, which you cite above. If I based my exploration of Orthodoxy based on secondary criticisms of Orthodoxy, I would never have become Orthodox.

Even your secondary source criticisms are really weak tea. He doesn’t truly understand Foucault and Derrida, two of the most pernicious, anti-Christian intellectuals of the twentieth century? Um, so what? Raise your hand TAW if you judge an author by how well they understand arcane French post modernist philosophers.

If you actually read Peterson’s work, you might appreciate what he really is concerned about. Engage with his actual work—not criticisms of it by hostile, post modern authors—and then we can talk.

I'm giving examples of criticisms from secondary sources, some referring to parts of the primary sources I've seen myself. Ah, you also don't know what you're talking about. Good grief. We're done.

 

[gzt]

But you base that criticism not on actually having read Peterson’s comments on Derrida, whatever they are, or having read Derrida. Rather, you base them on some obscure secondary criticism. That’s just intellectually dishonest, for you cannot know for sure if he indeed “misrepresents” them. You don’t know, yet this is your “ton of bad messages”. Maybe he has a “ton of good messages”. You don’t know—you cannot rule that out— since you haven’t read his books.

His remarks on, eg, "post modern neo Marxism" are among the things of his I've read. Good grief. And note there's only one book, not books (plural), that people actually read. I've seen quite a bit of his project as well, as I mentioned. So, yes, we're done here. As I've said, he serially misrepresents things, whether it's science, history, or philosophy he's criticizing, whenever he talks about anything outside his expertise in the service of his false agenda. I've given a couple examples above. I won't bother to engage you further on this, however, except to note that your contentions about me and my opinion of him are false.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

His remarks on, eg, "post modern neo Marxism" are among the things of his I've read. Good grief. And note there's only one book, not books (plural), that people actually read. I've seen quite a bit of his project as well, as I mentioned. So, yes, we're done here. As I've said, he serially misrepresents things, whether it's science, history, or philosophy he's criticizing, whenever he talks about anything outside his expertise in the service of his false agenda. I've given a couple examples above. I won't bother to engage you further on this, however, except to note that your contentions about me and my opinion of him are false.

All I am asking is that you read him before you criticize him as some “self help” guru. I value your contribution here, but if you base your fulmination on “somebody says Peterson, whom I haven’t read, gets Derrida wrong, whom I haven’t read”, that is less than worthless. It’s calumny.

If you would actually engage with what he has written, I would welcome your thoughts. And your criticism!

Good grief!

 

[gzt]

Again, I've read several of his journal articles, seen a couple of his interviews, read the opinions from a couple court cases he testified (unsuccessfully) in as an expert witness, and read a quarter of the book. TGood grief. I demand an apology for accusing me of calumny, I have sufficient basis for my opinion of him.