Jordan Peterson

[Tom 1]

I’ve recently started reading some of Jordan Peterson’s work, and I’m interested in what other people think about it, in terms of drawing deeper meaning out of the bible as well as addressing issues in secular society. He won’t be tied down to any public statement on his own beliefs, whatever they are (

), and he tends to avoid purely spiritual themes from what I´ve read so far, but I do find his process of drawing out meaning relevant to human behaviour from the biblical text useful in getting at what the intention of the relevant passages might be. I’ve found comparable-ish approaches in David Rosenberg’s Abraham biography, and in John H Walton’s treatment of Genesis, comparable in that they are looking for the meaning in the text by putting it into a real world, historical context.

I’ve only read one critique on Peterson but it didn’t really offer an alternate view, does anyone know of any criticisms of his work that offer a comprehensive alternative view?

 

[Tom 1]

There's a Christian only forum similar to Kitchen Sink somewhere that's probably more appropriate for this.

He’s not a Christian psychologist as such, he just draws meaning from biblical texts, among other things.

 

[Babe Ruth]

I've watched some of Peterson's lectures on YouTube.
I don't always agree with his takes, but I generally think he's insightful; and he's a candid & compelling speaker.
I like Peterson's analysis of Robert Crumb, based on his viewing of the old Crumb documentary.

 

[Tom 1]

I've watched some of Peterson's lectures on YouTube.
I don't always agree with his takes, but I generally think he's insightful; and he's a candid & compelling speaker.
I like Peterson's analysis of Robert Crumb, based on his viewing of the old Crumb documentary.

Thanks, I’ll look that up. Is there anything in particular you really disagreed with? I’m interested in alternative views on issues he’s had something to say on.

 

[Babe Ruth]

Is there anything in particular you really disagreed with? I’m interested in alternative views on issues he’s had something to say on.

Yeah.. one example: I watched a Peterson lecture recently where Peterson (essentially) said Hitler was even more evil than generally believed bcuz Hitler's principles were a fraudulent cover/veil for his deeper emotional objectives..
I don't think there's anything unique about people using high principles to justify/advance their base emotional objectives. I'm a firm believer that politics is a lot more about self-interested human emotions (like resentment and revenge) than lofty ideals. I'm not a defender of Hitler. But I think Peterson is wrong in suggesting that Hitler was a uniquely hypocritical/evil leader in that respect. I think it's typical of politics.
Peace.

 

[Tom 1]

Yeah.. one example: I watched a Peterson lecture recently where Peterson (essentially) said Hitler was even more evil than generally believed bcuz Hitler's principles were a fraudulent cover/veil for his deeper emotional objectives..
I don't think there's anything unique about people using high principles to justify/advance their base emotional objectives. I'm a firm believer that politics is a lot more about self-interested human emotions (like resentment and revenge) than lofty ideals. I'm not a defender of Hitler. But I think Peterson is wrong in suggesting that Hitler was a uniquely hypocritical/evil leader in that respect. I think it's typical of politics.
Peace.

Sounds interesting, thanks

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

My wife really likes Petersen. She bought me his 12 Rules and has now bought me his first book as well.

I think he is working from within a good established tradition. A lot of what he says has a sort of Campbellian Hero with a thousand faces flair, or Fraserian Golden Bough interpretation. You can see he references Buddhist ideas at times as well.
However, his analysis of Christian texts fits nicely the Moral or Tropological interpretation of Scripture. This used to be quite conventional manner of interpretation (alongside the literal, Anagogical and typological). You can see Dostoyevsky there, and he has an almost CS Lewis-like belief in mythopoeic meaning.

When reading 12 Rules for Life, I noted his continuous notion of Being, which he elevates on occasion into quasi-divinity in my opinion. I've heard people say that he strikes them as a CS Lewis in his Idealism phase, still still slightly south of the road in the Pilgrim's Regress. Jordan Petersen is not very clear on God I think, but his referencing of religious symbolism and odd penchant for analysing his own dreams, makes me think he acknowledges more meaning there than not.

 

[Shempster]

He is highly intelligent and observant. He is able to unravel the hidden misconceptions in everybody's thinking.
The only thing is that he does it in a way that makes people look weak, foolish and stupid. I wish he would express more love and compassion.
He might even get his opponents to consider his thoughts.

 

[Tom 1]

He is highly intelligent and observant. He is able to unravel the hidden misconceptions in everybody's thinking.
The only thing is that he does it in a way that makes people look weak, foolish and stupid. I wish he would express more love and compassion.
He might even get his opponents to consider his thoughts.

Thanks, do you have a particular example in mind, of how he deals with critics? I should imagine in private practice he steers away from making people feel weak etc.

 

[Shempster]

Thanks, do you have a particular example in mind, of how he deals with critics? I should imagine in private practice he steers away from making people feel weak etc.

Not really. I don't follow him but I have watches several of his discussions. His attitude is always on display.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Moving this to Deeper Fellowship from the Kitchen Sink.

 

[grasping the after wind]

He is highly intelligent and observant. He is able to unravel the hidden misconceptions in everybody's thinking.
The only thing is that he does it in a way that makes people look weak, foolish and stupid. I wish he would express more love and compassion.
He might even get his opponents to consider his thoughts.

I did not find that he is able to make people appear any way other than how they make themselves appear. Sometimes his opponents make themselves look foolish or stupid but Peterson isn't causing that he just happens to be there when they are doing that to themselves. He may point out the holes in their arguments but doing so does not mean he lacks compassion. Perhaps he simply regards telling what he perceives to be the truth as more important than stoking the egos of his opponents. Attacking an argument really ought not be seen as attacking the person. We all make poor arguments from time to time. Pointing out that those arguments stink is not a personal attack but an attack on a stinky argument. Peterson is a psychologist and I believe it has been concluded by more than one expert that most people that go into that field and become successful are not the warmest and fuzziest among us. They tend to speak their mind bluntly and not shy away from saying things that others might not wish to hear..

 

[gfauser]

He’s not a Christian psychologist as such, he just draws meaning from biblical texts, among other things.

I agree with this. Peterson is influenced by Carl Jung's psychology which sees value in religious symbols and myths. What Peterson is doing is not Christian Theology but Psychology of Religion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

He is highly intelligent and observant. He is able to unravel the hidden misconceptions in everybody's thinking.
The only thing is that he does it in a way that makes people look weak, foolish and stupid. I wish he would express more love and compassion.
He might even get his opponents to consider his thoughts.

I don't think he purposefully makes people look weak and stupid. He comes accross as very sincere and nice. It is like Socrates when asking questions. The people's positions themselves make them look so. One of his precepts is to always remember that you might learn something from someone, so he actually tends to listen attentively, which inevitably makes incoherencies plain when pressed upon. He is a clinical psychologist after all, so listening to people is his profession.

 

[Shempster]

I don't think he purposefully makes people look weak and stupid. He comes accross as very sincere and nice. It is like Socrates when asking questions. The people's positions themselves make them look so. One of his precepts is to always remember that you might learn something from someone, so he actually tends to listen attentively, which inevitably makes incoherencies plain when pressed upon. He is a clinical psychologist after all, so listening to people is his profession.

Well you might see it that way because you agree with his ideas.
The other side takes him as a scoundrel because he basically is proving to them that their paradigm is all wrong.
You're right. Basically he seems nice, but there are times where he blows his lid too.
I just think he is in a position of great importance with his current platform and I think he could reach his opponents with some softer language - that's all. I kind of like him.

 

[Babe Ruth]

he seems nice, but there are times where he blows his lid too.

To me, Peterson's pet peeve seems to be thoughtless and/or totalitarian cultural-Marxism..
I've heard him go off a couple times; combating parroted assumptions about White privilege & alleged sins of patriarchy, etc. I don't think he's necessarily dismissive of those concepts.. but he seems to understand (& resent that) those ideas are often advanced by kids, thoughtlessly & heavy- handedly repeating what their Liberal professors taught 'em..

 

[Noxot]

most the the critiques of him that I have seen are not very good.

sometimes he does not allow the person he is talking to to get a word in. it's a bad habit of his and is probably partial done due to excitement. he talks too much about boring things that he already talked about a billion times like the sjws and like how bad communism is.

he tends to try to, like most Christians, justify God even if it seems God is unfair or unjust. for instance he will say that "God can do whatever he wants". imo that's not a close enough relationship with God, it treats God like someone far away and alien to the person. I don't accept that God can act like some kind of mere authority figure towards me.

as far as I can tell from what someone else said, he is not giving derrida his due treatment or respect and that is one of the biggest problems I think might exist with JP. would like to see him talk with an expert that knows derrida but sadly rick rogerick is dead. it would have been nice to see the two have a conversation.

but as for a comprehensive alternative view that is totally against his... well I don't know how that is possible. I can be critical about him in other ways but I instead choose to see that he says what he says for specific and useful reasons. I think his view can be used as steps to something even better but it does not mean those steps are unworthy.

 

[Tom 1]

most the the critiques of him that I have seen are not very good.

sometimes he does not allow the person he is talking to to get a word in. it's a bad habit of his and is probably partial done due to excitement. he talks too much about boring things that he already talked about a billion times like the sjws and like how bad communism is.

he tends to try to, like most Christians, justify God even if it seems God is unfair or unjust. for instance he will say that "God can do whatever he wants". imo that's not a close enough relationship with God, it treats God like someone far away and alien to the person. I don't accept that God can act like some kind of mere authority figure towards me.

as far as I can tell from what someone else said, he is not giving derrida his due treatment or respect and that is one of the biggest problems I think might exist with JP. would like to see him talk with an expert that knows derrida but sadly rick rogerick is dead. it would have been nice to see the two have a conversation.

but as for a comprehensive alternative view that is totally against his... well I don't know how that is possible. I can be critical about him in other ways but I instead choose to see that he says what he says for specific and useful reasons. I think his view can be used as steps to something even better but it does not mean those steps are unworthy.

Thanks for your insights - I suppose what I am interested in are developed alternative ideas or arguments on some of the issues he addresses, anything recently published, rather than anything general. Just out of curiosity or for additional context. I haven’t read Derrida so maybe I’ll try starting there.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thanks for your insights - I suppose what I am interested in are developed alternative ideas or arguments on some of the issues he addresses, anything recently published, rather than anything general. Just out of curiosity or for additional context. I haven’t read Derrida so maybe I’ll try starting there.

Petersen hates Derrida. Personally, I think Derrida has valid points as to the subjective nature of determination of meaning, but I disagree with the extent. Derrida seems to imply you cannot determine value without constantly re-evaluating it vis-a-vis its opposite, which is a tad too far. Deconstruct yes, but that does not mean that you cannot rethread the quilt into a meaningful whole.

 

[MarleneJ]

Jordan Peterson is my Canadian homeboy! Because, in this land of solid left wingers, media and universities truly overrun by idiots, and disallowing freedom of speech, he has stood against this. I personally don't think he is a Christian, yet, from everything I have seen him say and do. But, he does stand firmly with conservatives, which is more about allowing dissenting opinions in Canadian society.

Canada is in big trouble, where Christians are concerned. Trinity Western University, literally gets taken to court, every time they try to open up a new practical department. I got my teacher's certificate back in 1982, and even then, the leftwing BCTF was taking them all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, to block the teachers' program, because it would be biased against non- Christians. I forget what came next, but for the last 15-20 years it has been about starting a law school. Because Trinity Western does not allow for any extra-marital sex, (for anyone unmarried, straight or gay) they are therefore biased against homosexuals. The catch? There are homosexuals who have signed the covenant and go to school there. But then, who wants competent Christian lawyers who haven't been brainwashed for 8 years in secular university?

The point being, JP has fought back. And he is educated and articulate. Something the left hates. And by the left, I mean people who have been forcing an agenda on Canada for decades, now.

Besides, it is nice for once for a Canadian and a conservative be all the rage, for once! It doesn't happen very often, I want to enjoy it while lasts.

PS.I looked to see if there were any specific Canadian addresses that might contain more info, as the OP requested, and I don't see it. This is the link to his website, which you might already have, as it is .com, not .ca!

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's Blog - Psychology, Philosophy, Politics & News