I think Peterson is an excellent example of the dangers of ultracrepidarianism. When Peterson sticks to his areas of expertise — that is, when he talks about the psychology of meaning and of authoritarianism — he’s pretty good. But when he starts spouting off about philosophy of religion, it’s a disaster. Like, an absolutely unmitigated train wreck — a veritable nuclear meltdown of obfuscation and incoherence.
(In fact, now that I’ve seen Peterson display such deep confusion about philosophy, I worry that he’s deeply confused about psychology, too, and that I just can’t tell, being a non-psychologist myself.)
As a Christian, I’m also miffed that the Jubilee folks didn’t even invite a self-identified Christian on the show.
His expertise is most definitely not in authoritarianism or in any type of governance or any area of political science. Just like in theology he is a layperson. He does, however, have opinions on everything and about everyone. So do I, but what makes him stand out is the fact that he stands out. Famous for being famous. There are people that are interested in his ridiculous opinions. I can’t even see how he would be a good clinical psychologist - the one area where he can claim expertise. He clearly does not apply objectivity to anything he shares publicly and he is clearly disturbed by his own judgement and the certainty in the value and conclusiveness of his judgement. Practically spitting when he talks about the people he hates (even if he’s never met them). How could a person like that be a good clinician? I’ve talked myself in a bit of a circle. I take it back. I don’t believe he can claim true expertise as a clinical psychologist. He’s simply an articulate wing-nut. INVHO
I think a lot of this has to do with an over-reliance on one particular field which leads one to extend the significance of that field into domains where it doesn't apply.
Much of Peterson's old work deals with how archetypes within stories exist cross-culturally, in which religion and god is viewed from a psychological perspective. And analyzing religion from that perspective is fine and can enable you to come away with interesting insights into the role religion can play in establishing a sense of meaning. However, if Peterson is to argue against atheism, as the Jubilee video implies, he cannot reduce religion to a set of psychological experiences and their effects on people.
What made the video both irritating but also fascinating is that I found myself agreeing with many of the points that Peterson brought up despite considering myself an atheist, but that's because they didn't actually "refute" atheism (ie provide evidence for the existence of a god). For certain claims I was almost expecting one of the atheists in the video to run up to the table, concede Peterson's claim and then ask what's the point.
And that's where the issue lies, he's relying on psychology to discuss an issue that is fundamentally philosophical in nature.
It seems to be that the more he was obsessed with a particular topic, the worse he became.
Years ago, he had some useful things to say about authoritarianism. But then he went raving mad on the topic. He seems to have spawned a whole culture of seeing ‘tyranny’ in everything except the actions of real tyrants. He would passionately rail against anything coming out of Justin Trudeau’s mouth, but was/is happy to swallow (and spread) Putin’s propaganda about invading Ukraine.
It’s very sad. Last time I saw him, he looked and sounded like someone who’s had a total breakdown. If he stays in the public eye he’s just going to be a freak show for the rest of his days.
I really disliked his demeanor in this appearance but unfortunately have come to expect it. Peterson did much for my thinking and mental health. Watching him now in non pristine Petersonian conditions saddens me.
Thank you for a fair critique. I still think Peterson has lots to offer but will need to learn to defeat his demons.
He started off giving good sensible advice to young men and then somehow became a climate change denying anti-vaxxer completely devoid of scientific understanding.
Peterson criticizes postmoderism for not giving people coherent meanings... For either words or life! But this is projection from Peterson. I don't think there's a single more incoherent public figure on the issue of ethics and spirituality.
Why he doesn't admit he's just a non-literalist Christian, I'll never understand.
Matsumo appears to be arguing from a theological perspective, while this post points at lack of philosophical rigor. They’re not really counterpoints as much as ships passing in the night, moving forward unobstructed along their individual vectors.
I find what he says to be clear and directly addressing what is stated. BB'S position here seems to be that Jordan Peterson's lack of clear or straightforward sentences are indicative of Peterson's *internal* rigor of thought. That his way of talking (in this example refusing to state he is Christian) is demonstrative that he is confused about what he is talking about. What Matsumo says is (or what I gather): 'yes, externally, this can seem not rigorous, but this is not stemming from a lack of understanding of what it means to believe, but rather of a certain type of understanding of belief he is (possibly rightfully) afraid to profess (and I suppose, not amazing communication around that).'
I think a part of where this confusion arises from (in general , in myself) is that we just aren’t able to hold an entire complex chain of reasoning in our minds all at once. You sort of have to think through the first part, form a conclusion, then use that conclusion to think about the next part, etc. but sometimes there’s something subtle about the first part such that its conclusion doesn’t actually apply in the case of the second part, and maintaining a discipline in the mind to keep awareness of that possibility is difficult.
Someone can point out Z (the final leg in this long chain) clearly doesn’t follow from A, but when you go back through the logic in your head it all seems to work. Someone has to point to that subtle missing premise to make you see your error, but they may not realize that that’s where you made your error.
And yes, analytical philosophy absolutely helps with this problem as it explicitly tries to improve the discipline at each point along the way. Other modes of thinking seem to deliberately obscure those connections.
Do you think they actually told him he'd be in a video with this title? I didn't watch it, but as you say, JP seems a really weird choice. They could have given him many other topics. Or perhaps, he himself requested it?
Nice article. Despite the intentional lack of clear argumentation from Peterson, it's interesting giving him some charity by drawing parallels to other arguments with rigor. His point seems akin to, "God is the highest point in a hierarchy of values." Is this not unlike a maximal God? Could it be similar to a Godelian God possessing all positive properties? As an immense stretch, is it a close cousin of deontic symmetry breakers where a perfect being should exist and is thereby possible? Maybe it's a quick and dirty version of Rasmussen's argument from arbitrary limits? Or is it far more nebulous with God tied to apparent inherent values in human perception and logic itself? Of course, maybe a few of these theories don't lend themselves to a coherent ontology of a personal being either and therefore can't be God. You rightly criticize his theistic views as not believing in God, the being, and instead favoring the mere existence of conscience.
Not to get into his personal business, but I think his wife converted to Catholicism after getting a grave cancer diagnosis, praying the rosary and then being cured. This is truly wonderful and miraculous. There also couldn't be a better reason to praise and believe in Jesus Christ. Yet, I understand how confusing and painful such an ordeal must be too. All we can do is pray for him and his family.
Peterson is angry because he constantly feels himself grasping at a confused haze of philosophical ideas, but he can't quite put his finger on what he's trying to say, because he hasn't studied any of the stuff. To his fans he can then appear as some profoundly innovative thinker, grappling with the ambiguity of words, while everyone else is a philistine who thinks meanings are obvious. I personally don't mind if someone wants to problematize everyday notions of truth and belief, but at least advance a cogent argument about why existing definitions fail, and why they should be redefined. Instead Peterson prefers to position himself as some bearer of esoteric fundamental wisdoms which resist verbalization...
The "I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question" dodge is my pet peeve. Especially so when it comes from politicians running for office. Like there's someone running for President or some other high political office and a journalist asks "What would you do if Plausible Future Situation X arises? How would you handle that?" and the candidate says "I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question". We want to know how you would handle plausible future situations because that's how we decide whether to vote for you or not!
I was joking, JP is a mongoloid, although I guess you couldn't tell because I'm even more of a retard for fucking up the video link. Here's the real transcendental wisdom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoUZp_PJd5Y
Absolutely spot-on.
I think Peterson is an excellent example of the dangers of ultracrepidarianism. When Peterson sticks to his areas of expertise — that is, when he talks about the psychology of meaning and of authoritarianism — he’s pretty good. But when he starts spouting off about philosophy of religion, it’s a disaster. Like, an absolutely unmitigated train wreck — a veritable nuclear meltdown of obfuscation and incoherence.
(In fact, now that I’ve seen Peterson display such deep confusion about philosophy, I worry that he’s deeply confused about psychology, too, and that I just can’t tell, being a non-psychologist myself.)
As a Christian, I’m also miffed that the Jubilee folks didn’t even invite a self-identified Christian on the show.
His expertise is most definitely not in authoritarianism or in any type of governance or any area of political science. Just like in theology he is a layperson. He does, however, have opinions on everything and about everyone. So do I, but what makes him stand out is the fact that he stands out. Famous for being famous. There are people that are interested in his ridiculous opinions. I can’t even see how he would be a good clinical psychologist - the one area where he can claim expertise. He clearly does not apply objectivity to anything he shares publicly and he is clearly disturbed by his own judgement and the certainty in the value and conclusiveness of his judgement. Practically spitting when he talks about the people he hates (even if he’s never met them). How could a person like that be a good clinician? I’ve talked myself in a bit of a circle. I take it back. I don’t believe he can claim true expertise as a clinical psychologist. He’s simply an articulate wing-nut. INVHO
I think a lot of this has to do with an over-reliance on one particular field which leads one to extend the significance of that field into domains where it doesn't apply.
Much of Peterson's old work deals with how archetypes within stories exist cross-culturally, in which religion and god is viewed from a psychological perspective. And analyzing religion from that perspective is fine and can enable you to come away with interesting insights into the role religion can play in establishing a sense of meaning. However, if Peterson is to argue against atheism, as the Jubilee video implies, he cannot reduce religion to a set of psychological experiences and their effects on people.
What made the video both irritating but also fascinating is that I found myself agreeing with many of the points that Peterson brought up despite considering myself an atheist, but that's because they didn't actually "refute" atheism (ie provide evidence for the existence of a god). For certain claims I was almost expecting one of the atheists in the video to run up to the table, concede Peterson's claim and then ask what's the point.
And that's where the issue lies, he's relying on psychology to discuss an issue that is fundamentally philosophical in nature.
It seems to be that the more he was obsessed with a particular topic, the worse he became.
Years ago, he had some useful things to say about authoritarianism. But then he went raving mad on the topic. He seems to have spawned a whole culture of seeing ‘tyranny’ in everything except the actions of real tyrants. He would passionately rail against anything coming out of Justin Trudeau’s mouth, but was/is happy to swallow (and spread) Putin’s propaganda about invading Ukraine.
It’s very sad. Last time I saw him, he looked and sounded like someone who’s had a total breakdown. If he stays in the public eye he’s just going to be a freak show for the rest of his days.
I really disliked his demeanor in this appearance but unfortunately have come to expect it. Peterson did much for my thinking and mental health. Watching him now in non pristine Petersonian conditions saddens me.
Thank you for a fair critique. I still think Peterson has lots to offer but will need to learn to defeat his demons.
He started off giving good sensible advice to young men and then somehow became a climate change denying anti-vaxxer completely devoid of scientific understanding.
Good summary basically. On the good advice stuff: https://open.substack.com/pub/joeybream/p/jordan-peterson-has-written-some?r=1r9nm9&utm_medium=ios
Peterson criticizes postmoderism for not giving people coherent meanings... For either words or life! But this is projection from Peterson. I don't think there's a single more incoherent public figure on the issue of ethics and spirituality.
Why he doesn't admit he's just a non-literalist Christian, I'll never understand.
Philosophy is like Marketing. All the experts in everything else think they automatically understand it.
Enjoyed the voice over. And you should do the next one entirely in your Jordan Peterson impression.
Here's a longer video of me doing a Peterson impression https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmejjPGkASE
You nailed it. I wrote a post about some of his merits here: https://open.substack.com/pub/joeybream/p/jordan-peterson-has-written-some?r=1r9nm9&utm_medium=ios
Counterpoint: true belief is not so easily defined: https://matsumoto.substack.com/p/defending-jordan-peterson
Matsumo appears to be arguing from a theological perspective, while this post points at lack of philosophical rigor. They’re not really counterpoints as much as ships passing in the night, moving forward unobstructed along their individual vectors.
I find what he says to be clear and directly addressing what is stated. BB'S position here seems to be that Jordan Peterson's lack of clear or straightforward sentences are indicative of Peterson's *internal* rigor of thought. That his way of talking (in this example refusing to state he is Christian) is demonstrative that he is confused about what he is talking about. What Matsumo says is (or what I gather): 'yes, externally, this can seem not rigorous, but this is not stemming from a lack of understanding of what it means to believe, but rather of a certain type of understanding of belief he is (possibly rightfully) afraid to profess (and I suppose, not amazing communication around that).'
It’s strange though because he has written so lucidly in the past: https://open.substack.com/pub/joeybream/p/jordan-peterson-has-written-some?r=1r9nm9&utm_medium=ios
>Whereas, when philosophers think about other fields, we tend to merely be ignorant, not confused.
This is ironic because analytic philosophy is a completely confused field. Huemer's phenomenal conservatism is also just a bad approach to anything.
So, just another day for JP then.
He used to be really good man https://open.substack.com/pub/joeybream/p/jordan-peterson-has-written-some?r=1r9nm9&utm_medium=ios
I think a part of where this confusion arises from (in general , in myself) is that we just aren’t able to hold an entire complex chain of reasoning in our minds all at once. You sort of have to think through the first part, form a conclusion, then use that conclusion to think about the next part, etc. but sometimes there’s something subtle about the first part such that its conclusion doesn’t actually apply in the case of the second part, and maintaining a discipline in the mind to keep awareness of that possibility is difficult.
Someone can point out Z (the final leg in this long chain) clearly doesn’t follow from A, but when you go back through the logic in your head it all seems to work. Someone has to point to that subtle missing premise to make you see your error, but they may not realize that that’s where you made your error.
And yes, analytical philosophy absolutely helps with this problem as it explicitly tries to improve the discipline at each point along the way. Other modes of thinking seem to deliberately obscure those connections.
Do you think they actually told him he'd be in a video with this title? I didn't watch it, but as you say, JP seems a really weird choice. They could have given him many other topics. Or perhaps, he himself requested it?
Actually got into his stuff recently and quite impressed: https://open.substack.com/pub/joeybream/p/jordan-peterson-has-written-some?r=1r9nm9&utm_medium=ios
Nice article. Despite the intentional lack of clear argumentation from Peterson, it's interesting giving him some charity by drawing parallels to other arguments with rigor. His point seems akin to, "God is the highest point in a hierarchy of values." Is this not unlike a maximal God? Could it be similar to a Godelian God possessing all positive properties? As an immense stretch, is it a close cousin of deontic symmetry breakers where a perfect being should exist and is thereby possible? Maybe it's a quick and dirty version of Rasmussen's argument from arbitrary limits? Or is it far more nebulous with God tied to apparent inherent values in human perception and logic itself? Of course, maybe a few of these theories don't lend themselves to a coherent ontology of a personal being either and therefore can't be God. You rightly criticize his theistic views as not believing in God, the being, and instead favoring the mere existence of conscience.
Not to get into his personal business, but I think his wife converted to Catholicism after getting a grave cancer diagnosis, praying the rosary and then being cured. This is truly wonderful and miraculous. There also couldn't be a better reason to praise and believe in Jesus Christ. Yet, I understand how confusing and painful such an ordeal must be too. All we can do is pray for him and his family.
Some of your points here brought to mind this article by a Dominican friar on Peterson from a few years ago: https://www.dominicanajournal.org/the-theology-of-jordan-peterson/
Yes
Peterson is angry because he constantly feels himself grasping at a confused haze of philosophical ideas, but he can't quite put his finger on what he's trying to say, because he hasn't studied any of the stuff. To his fans he can then appear as some profoundly innovative thinker, grappling with the ambiguity of words, while everyone else is a philistine who thinks meanings are obvious. I personally don't mind if someone wants to problematize everyday notions of truth and belief, but at least advance a cogent argument about why existing definitions fail, and why they should be redefined. Instead Peterson prefers to position himself as some bearer of esoteric fundamental wisdoms which resist verbalization...
To be fair, he has made some really good points in the past: https://open.substack.com/pub/joeybream/p/jordan-peterson-has-written-some?r=1r9nm9&utm_medium=ios
The "I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question" dodge is my pet peeve. Especially so when it comes from politicians running for office. Like there's someone running for President or some other high political office and a journalist asks "What would you do if Plausible Future Situation X arises? How would you handle that?" and the candidate says "I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question". We want to know how you would handle plausible future situations because that's how we decide whether to vote for you or not!
JP gives some of the most insightful transcendental wisdom https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZoUZp_PJd5
True https://open.substack.com/pub/joeybream/p/jordan-peterson-has-written-some?r=1r9nm9&utm_medium=ios
I was joking, JP is a mongoloid, although I guess you couldn't tell because I'm even more of a retard for fucking up the video link. Here's the real transcendental wisdom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoUZp_PJd5Y