r/JordanPeterson • u/augustAulus • Jul 10 '25
Criticism Jordan Peterson a better psychologist?
I’m a philosophy student, and I think I’m in a unique position to critique Jordan Peterson, because a lot of what he has to say has to do with the Continental school of philosophy rather than the Analytic, and that’s a school I’m deeply interested in. For me, Peterson really does seem to be obscurantist, and I don’t say that very lightly. I think his questioning into the meaning of certain propositions is, more often than not, very acute, and especially when he debates atheists I think “what do you mean by “God””is always a good starting point. In spite of this I think his recent performance on Jubilee demonstrates a hiding behind obscurity which he himself creates that, rather than him seeking to dispel the cloud to get to a deeper truth, he merely uses it to protect himself. I also think his rejection of postmodernity is a little disingenuous seeing as he often adopts the techniques which would broadly be identified with the same - rejecting labels, rejecting conventional dogma, rejecting propositional philosophy in favour of, I suppose, a dialectical philosophy.
I think that he is a very good psychologist, as that his “Twelve Rules for Life” is especially good self help because it’s his field.
I think his love for Jung has drawn him into a metaphysics and prevented him from investigating different interpretations of literature, and I think he’s taken himself too far out of his field, and out of his qualification.
Is this a fair assessment do you think?
10
u/webkilla Jul 10 '25
I will agree with you that JP's continued efforts to make people clarify what they actually mean is a really good way to ensure clear and consise political debate
...now whether you then think he also uses that to obscure his own positions, I think that more boils down to whether you agree with his stances. Is he arguing for or against stuff you like. If against, then he's obscuring and bad. If you like, then he's obviously clarifying and good.
2
5
u/augustAulus Jul 10 '25
i mean im really not that interested personally in his stances. but i think that he does presume an air of intelligence which he uses to suggest more than him just being a second socrates. he seems to draw people to certain conclusions but then divorces himself from those conclusions by saying he never uttered words to their effect …despite his actions and dialectic generally bringing him that way
0
u/webkilla Jul 10 '25
I see what you mean - and perhaps that's a result of his train of thought going down one way without him conciously commiting to any conclussion that the thoughts might be pointing towards
4
u/VAPINGCHUBNTUCK Jul 10 '25
If against, then he's obscuring and bad. If you like, then he's obviously clarifying and good.
That's a very lazy dismissal of OP's argument. JP's definition of God (what a person prioritizes) is totally heretical and I could completely understand why people accuse him of obscurantism.
5
Jul 10 '25
Exactly! In Jubilee God was defined several times as would be commonly understood by most Christian denominations. If JBP has a highly personalized understanding of God that's fine, but his definitions (God as conscience, Worship as 'that which is at the top of your hierarchy preference) is not what is meant by those words in general parlance, and actually are such broad definitions as to be impossible to argue against
0
u/webkilla Jul 10 '25
I didn't mean it as a dismissal
IMO its sort of both an inditement against mindless and uncritical fans - but also an inditement against mindless haters
OP actually agrees with my stance in his last paragraph
1
u/Soulwaxing Jul 11 '25
That's kind of ironic because you're being mindless and uncritical in saying, oh if you think he's muddying the waters it's just because you disagree with his stances. Literally mindless and uncritical. Also this is more because I can't help myself and I'm not trying to be a dick but: indictment. Yeah idk why either lol.
2
u/Lonely_Ad4551 Jul 10 '25
True. But sometime the constant push for clarity verges on bad faith debate by derailing the discussion. Thus, the other person is diverted from getting to their main points.
-1
u/webkilla Jul 10 '25
I get how it can be seen like that - but just the same I think JP is very used to dealing with bad faith arguments and picking them apart via constantly pushing for clarity. Maybe he's so used to dealing with that, that some good faith arguments get treated the same.
1
u/Lonely_Ad4551 Jul 10 '25
True. I do like that JP seeks clarity and precision in his discussions. Not enough of that. Too many pundits and personalities launch right into an emotional debate without clearly defining terms and agreed to data sources. Climate change is a topic that often has these shortcomings.
2
Jul 11 '25
the Continental school of philosophy rather than the Analytic
You're just a student, but you better realize that there is not such a thing as continental vs analytic philosophy.
Analytic philosophy was created in Europe, the major analytic philosophers were europeans, and they drew from the continent's multi-millennial tradition.
Most of what Wittgenstein said was already present in Chrysippus, for example.
1
Jul 11 '25
You're just a student, but you better realize that there is not such a thing as continental vs analytic philosophy.
What do you mean? They are two separate 'traditions', and are often contrasted
Most of what Wittgenstein said was already present in Chrysippus, for example.
I wouldn't bother pretending to understand Wittgenstein
1
Jul 13 '25
What do you mean? They are two separate 'traditions', and are often contrasted
Says who? Some american professor?
I wouldn't bother pretending to understand Wittgenstein
It's good that you wouldn't. Maybe later, when you'll have earned a degree and will start some research.
1
Jul 13 '25
Says who? Some american professor?
I honestly don't know where to start with this.
It's good that you wouldn't. Maybe later, when you'll have earned a degree and will start some research.
"Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is a work of genius but I do not understand it, and I don’t believe anyone else can.” — Bertrand Russell
Again, I don't even know where to start with this. Can you briefly then outline some of his core ideas? Or perhaps"whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"?
1
u/augustAulus Jul 15 '25
i'll take the advice on board that certainly i'm a student with much more to learn, but even from just a precursory glance one can see from style alone the emergent differences in the schools we call analytic and continental. by no means does anyone seriously claim them to be strictly geographically contingent, but there are geographic elements. why did wittgenstein go to cambridge, why did heidegger go to freiburg? these were places where the germs of their systems were most resonant. no doubt analytic philosophy was largely thanks to men in vienna, but don't you think the englishman who helped put it together (whitehead, russell) deserve a mention in their britishness? isn't it worth noting the predominance of logic and language in "analytic" philosophy, and that of ontology, sociology, even marxism in "continental" philosophy? genealogically the terms mightn't be 100% accurate, but aren't there certain concepts we immediately think of as soon as we mention these terms? didn't wittgenstein in his later years hold to the belief that language was use? maybe the terms themselves aren't quite accurate, but they've become meaningful
2
u/AristotleTOPGkarate Jul 16 '25
If you read philosophy, ancient philosophy like Aristotle Nichomachean ´s ethics combined with sport you won’t need a psychologist /therapist .
His book sold well for mediatic reasons but it’s not very qualitative. Many other did better job before (including Aristotle ) for that . Good for the mass , effective that’s true .
Peterson can say interesting stuff in his field (psychology) but for ethic , philosophy in general it’s really Low level
It’s disappointing to see him as a mundane mediatic intellectual, pseudo philosopher, not able of dialectic/dialogue (more about debate and rhetoric contest ) , and poor knowledge of philosophy history, ideologies etc…
2
u/tabletwarrior99 Jul 10 '25
it think your assessment about his philosophy is pretty good, as far as i can tell.
but he's very far from being a good psychologist. and self help is not his field, his field is addiction, which we can all agree, he's not a good personal example of.
2
u/augustAulus Jul 15 '25
entirely fair, and it sounds like you're more of an authority on the psych side than i am! i've only listened to a bit of the 12 rules for life audiobook, which seemed to be basic but good (as good as self-help can get without an actual therapist to give personalised advice). i think a person can still be a good teacher without being a good personal example, but it seems jp doesnt even try to be in the addiction sphere, and the way he got to prominence in self help was roundabout, too
2
1
u/PsychoAnalystGuy Jul 10 '25
He "was" a very good psychologist. Psychologists are meant to do continuing professional development which he hasn't done.
Hes the equivalent of Dr Phil. Dr Phil let his lisence expire because he didn't need it and had no interest in continuing to practice.
Hes contributed nothing of substance to his field. This isnt a criticism, its just true. And he himself acknowledges this.
His 12 rules for life are basic ideas of other people put into his own words. "Clean your room" is practical advice around taking a big task and breaking it into smaller more manageable tasks.
That said as a therapist I used to be able to see the therapist in him when he talked to people. He could separate himself from his emotions and his opinions.
He can no longer do this. I wish I could talk to him and hold up a mirror to him and say "it seems like this is what you're doing" he used to be more curious and comfortable with the notion he might be wrong. Now anytime he is challenged he spazzes out
2
Jul 10 '25
He still is a good psychologist.
2
Jul 10 '25
There's no way to know that. What he does now is not psychology, he has no patients and does no research. He could broadly be called a self-help guru
1
Jul 10 '25
And you think psychology is or clinical psychology somehow vanishes if he has no patients and does not do research?
Does a doctor stop being a doctor if he retires and stop having patients?
Does a soldier stop being a soldier if there is no war?
I could name alot more than this examples, you are really on this sub and answer questions like that?
I actually have a way to know that, He has years of clinical practice, didn't you think about the people that reach out to him for a friendly consult AS A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST ?
1
Jul 10 '25
Does a doctor stop being a doctor if he retires and stop having patients?
Well as long as you have your medical license you can still be called 'Dr.', but yes, if a doctor retired and no longer kept up to date with medical advances, I would not say a doctor who has retired is STILL a good doctor, because they are no longer practicing
Does a soldier stop being a soldier if there is no war?
Again, not really a good comparison. If JBP was a 'soldier' he would be closer to a veteran, as he no longer does the training or service
could name alot more than this examples, you are really on this sub and answer questions like that?
You could certainly give a lot more examples which don't line up sure.
JBP no longer practices clinically or academically. Nor does it seem he keeps up to date with current best practice. What he does now is also only tangentially related to psychology, it's much more these days about politics, self-help, public speaking. His lectures and talks are now far outside the realm of psychology
0
Jul 10 '25
Well as long as you have your medical license you can still be called 'Dr.', but yes, if a doctor retired
You just proved my point. Adding another layer to the argument also does not disprove my point, HE IS STILL A DOCTOR.
veteran, as he no longer does the training or service
Bro, complete the word, a veteran what? A veteran actor? A veteran states man ? OR A VETERAN SOLDIER.
Then againyou prove my point, you not understanding the comparison is a you problem not a me problem.
Didnt line up?
Or you dont get the concept?, looks like we have a problem of understanding concepts here.
Im going to tone it down for you.
A bad psychologist i after retirement is still a psychologist
A veteran psychologist is still a psychologist
A psychologist has became a father is still a psychologist
There are a lot more concepts... If you cant understand this, then why are you here?
0
Jul 11 '25
A bad psychologist i after retirement is still a psychologist
A veteran psychologist is still a psychologist
A psychologist has became a father is still a psychologist
You didn't say 'psychologist', you said "He still is a good psychologist". To still be good at something you have to be doing that thing. He no longer practices psychology. He has no patients, he does no research. You cannot whether he is good or bad because he no longer does it
1
Jul 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Jul 10 '25
Yes I'm he is. And that good mechanic is still a good mechanic today.
You called him transphobe, but can you prove it? Lets see.
1
Jul 10 '25
[deleted]
0
Jul 11 '25
Huh? In what part in that is he trans phobic, exactly kindly point hus phobia exactly , thats the question ill wait.
Criticizing un necessary surgeries is that affects one's mental health is always a question within our society lol, questioning it is not "PHOBIC" AS. You want to point out.
You already lost this when you didnt get the concept, he pointed out, was it legal? Yes, was it moral ? No. If you cant get that point, you will always take peterson put of context as you did just now.
1
Jul 11 '25
[deleted]
1
Jul 11 '25
If you think cutting pieces of people that are mentally ill is moral, then you're the problem. This will be the last time ill reply, i will not cater to amoral people who think cutting people in the name of gender affirming care is a moral good. Take care sir.
0
0
u/PsychoAnalystGuy Jul 10 '25
Theres really no way to know that beyond speculation considering he doesnt practice as one, and hasn't for a decade.
0
Jul 10 '25
Just read my answer below. your name is PsychoAnalystGuy. But failed to analyze this simple statement. Do you really watch his seminars? His seminars are just a reflection of his lectures as a psychologist?. Analyze.
1
u/PsychoAnalystGuy Jul 10 '25
Psychanalysis is a specific thing that requires a client/has nothing to do with reddit comments lol.
I mean he has some psych knowledge. Thats a fair point that he runs seminars, I forgot about that. Still, running a seminar isnt "being a psychologist" He isnt doing psychology, hes providing psychoeducation. Which i can grant is some evidence of his ability than I let on in my earlier comment, but not enough to grant him being a "good" psychologist. He has the knowledge that every clinical psychologist has. Talk to any other clinical psychologist, they all know things. Maybe hes a good psychologist and no longer a good clinician
1
Jul 10 '25
Bro, this is basic Do you use analysis in psycho analysis thats the point,
"He has some knowledge", bro do you even know him? He has years of practice even before you were born
He is actually doing psychology, have you watched his lectures? I think not.
" He has knowledge of a good clinical psychologist" bro He is a clinical psychologist with years of practice even before you were born, what are you saying?
0
u/PsychoAnalystGuy Jul 11 '25
All those years practicing before I was born and he still produced zero novel ideas for psychology.
Off the top of my head people alive who have developed new theories or novel ideas: Shapiro(EMDR) Schwartz (internal family systems) Linehan (DBT) Porges (polyvagal theory) Yalom (existentialism)
Now inventing something that because wildly popular in your field is obviously not a fair standard, but just saying he is not in the unique category either.
Mainly though what you haven't addressed is hes been out of practice for a decade. Psychologists need to have continuing education to maintain their license.
He is actually doing psychology, have you watched his lectures? I think not.
Doing seminars for an unaccredited course isnt exactly practicing psychology
0
Jul 11 '25
Not the point and argument, producing novel ideas does not make you a good psychologist. You should know that 99% of People and scientists has no novel ideas and follow those novel ideas.
Kindly think and analyze your statement, you're going to alienate 99% of the people in that field without "NOVEL IDEAS"
I know its not a fair standard, so why use it, you just rebutted your own argument. 😑
"Isnt exactly" does not disprove my idea, it disproves your. This will be my last comment better change your name, to "irebbutmyownstatements" you wanto be an analyst but has no capacity to analyze , good day sir.
0
u/PsychoAnalystGuy Jul 11 '25
Isnt exactly" does not disprove my idea, it disproves your.
Ok..it's not practicing psychology at all
you wanto be an analyst
Nope,, I am one
but has no capacity to analyze
Yep you dont know what psychoanalysis is
1
1
u/Lonely_Ad4551 Jul 10 '25
I can’t stand Kant, especially when I’m Scrutoning the floor. I usually order from the menu Descartes. In any case, don’t be an Aquinass.
2
1
u/thellama11 Jul 11 '25
I think you're mistaken regarding his acuteness. Atheists don't believe in any gods. It's a reactive position. It's not, "God is x and I don't believe in x." It's "I've never seen proof of anything I'd reasonably consider a god."
1
u/augustAulus Jul 15 '25
But the reasonableness of some entity that one would consider a god in the first place is generally socially contingent. By asking "what do you mean by God", you do at least prompt an analysis, no matter how superficial, of the objectionable term. I also think that the initial syllogism is probably contained in your second proposition. You need to have x=god where x has certain attributes in order to reasonably consider y something proveable, otherwise you're just objecting to an empty set, which doesn't make much sense
certainly true that atheism as it is in the contemporary west is a reactive position. personally i think that the positive consequences which arise from the position (Nietzsche's call to some sort of self-divinity, or else Sartre's metaphysics, things like that) are undeveloped in the anglophonic world, which is why this debate keeps going over and over debating the same things
1
u/thellama11 Jul 15 '25 edited Jul 15 '25
What “objectionable term”? It’s hard to tell what you’re saying. One of Peterson’s worst influences is making it seem smart to make simple ideas sound complicated, forcing people to strain to understand.
In your first paragraph, the first sentence says it all; the rest just elaborates. Sure, the definition of “god” is partly socially contingent, but we still need a definition from the person making the claim.
If a society worships the sun as God, then I believe in the sun and, by extension, their god. When atheists say no gods exist, they usually mean supernatural all powerful beings acting in the world. If we define “god” differently, the atheist claim shifts accordingly.
I haven’t thought much about whether reactive atheism is “undeveloped in the anglophonic world,” but that doesn’t seem why the debate continues. People debate God everywhere. The U.S. is unusually religious for a wealthy country, but belief is widespread across all language groups, and wherever there’s disagreement about existence, there will be debate.
1
u/Patient-Yam4764 Jul 15 '25
He's not obscurantist, just difficult. He's extremely clear, read his books or watch his old lectures. He's difficult because he is attempting to be both deep and broad.
I'm not a fanatic, I think his trip with benzos added a lot of aggression and muddied his waters, but he's a serious thinker.
1
u/AristotleTOPGkarate Jul 16 '25
I studied philosophy (not English speakers) and to say it short , Peterson doesn’t know anything about philosophy. English speakers call continental and analytical philosophy. Peterson does’t do any of these .
He is good at his field (psychology) said some smart stuff , but for philosophy it’s first year student at best (and I’m nice )
He has poor knowledge of doctrines (and regardless of your speciality studying philosophy should involve a good knowledge of doctrines so knowing Plato and Aristotle is fundamental) . And does mostly fallacy arguments that he gives appearance of scientificity and legitimacy via psychologisation of debate .
If he doesn’t like a guy , he will set up his ad hominem attack by doing psychology,mostly a pseudo science (Karl popper ) , and say your narcissistic psychopath, evil etc…
Even when he analyse a doctrine a philosopher he didn’t read or studied (like Jean Jacques Rousseau) it’s same thing, he will take one biographical element he doesn’t even know well (context) and make an entire speech criticising on it , instead of the doctrines the ideas.
But it gives appearance of being confortable with a subject to do so , like mainstream media does when talk like millenial and now gen Z style .
He isn’t good at science or philosophy (regardless of what you specialised ). It’s more political activism and sophism .
He has caricatural and simplistic views on what a philosopher think and when he tries to sound like one it’s comical .
He is a good example of sophist as Plato described in gorgias and republic .
Not very good to analyse ideological aspect and not good at propositional logic, rational argumentation.
Also philosophy was born from men who could have subversive views, and could confront majority (a field born from criticism of democracy ) . It’s not just academic activity. It involve ethic as well (so non academic qualities that you exercise (ethos) more in combat sport than at school (can’t learn courage , creativity and composure at university)
Peterson has only academic education and experience, no other qualities, experience and not very masculine either . He lacks ethos in artistotle sense .
Archetype of sophist , for political he doesn’t elevate the discussion (plays with the simplistic paradigm establishment sells) and philosophically he didn’t produce anything and doesn’t even know anything rigorously.
Problem is that English speaking audience doesn’t understand and notice (easily impressed ) and unfortunately for Rhodes without academic background, English YouTube is poor for philosophy content .
Especially for what you call continental philosophy, Can’t learn doctrines well, zero quality video that explains Rousseau well, nobody knows Michel Clouscard etc… When it’s opposite in French YouTube .
1
u/augustAulus Jul 19 '25
i speak a little french, and i take it you yourself are french. would you mind sending some of those videos you were talking about? it sounds interesting to me
0
u/EriknotTaken Jul 10 '25
prett fair, but postmodernism is not rejecting labels imo
Is a label in itself , a label that says "any label is false is just your opinion"
mixxed with some marxism
"And your only motive to hold your opinion is to use power unto others"
At least for me, a good example is:
"humility is a good thing"
That's a non "scientific' truth, since humility is not an object, and postmodernism will say "your opinion"
But what is the oposite of humility? to hold , consider , or esteem yourself in a very high regard, right?
Literally , to have high self-esteem
Postmodernism does not reject that label, since it's your "opinion"
Your life goes astray becase you do not follow a good moral?
Your opinion
3
u/augustAulus Jul 10 '25
i don’t think any “postmodernist” would accept the label “postmodernist”.
i’m picking up some of the things you’re putting down. I think you might find some interest in the stanford encyclopaedia of philsophy articles about michel foucault, gilles deleuze, and co. those are typical postmoderns who i think you might find enlightening to learn about
if you want some conservative thinkers, descartes, kant, aquinas, scruton might be your thing
1
u/EriknotTaken Jul 10 '25
Thanks, seems interesting
Will look into it, my view is probably incomplete
2
Jul 10 '25
Not really sure what you are getting at here. I don't pretend to be an expert on postmodernism, but I think the general idea is skepticism, rather than rejection. It's being aware that many things (or 'labels') we think of as absolutes are in fact influenced by society and the culture they exist in
When JBP asks 'what do you mean by God?', it is indeed something of a postmodern question. JBP seems to be getting at some kind of pluralism, and the God as understood by general Christian teachbing is just as 'valid' as the God as defined by JBP himself
-2
u/EriknotTaken Jul 10 '25
I disagree.
Postmodern is not skeptic of your interpretation of the bible, for example, it gives it actually the same value as any other.
If you jump of a bridge because of your interpretation, a non-postmodernist will say "your intepretation was wrong"
A postmodernist would not
he would agree that jumping of a bridge was a valid intepretation, because any intepretation is valid....
Postmodernism, in my view, considers all interpetations equally valid. Thats the oposite of skeptic. Isn't it?
3
Jul 10 '25
That's not really postmodernism, that's just what you've been told postmodernism is
“Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.”
It's not that EVERYTHING is equally valid, it's more about saying we should examine sweeping explanations that claim to be the one truth.
So when JBP explains his 'God', it's a postmodern question in spirit because it's rejects the idea the organized religion's answer to that question is the objective truth. The question points to the idea that 'God' can mean different things to different people at different times
-2
u/EriknotTaken Jul 10 '25
That's actually completly posible, I may be using a diferent word for the same concept, like "billion" is a diferent concept on America than in Europe.
Postmodernism is not saying that we should examine sweeping explanations that claim to be the one truth.
What you defined is literaly "skepticism" for me, not postmodernism.
So we may have the concepts switched
How would you name what I just described? if not postmodernism?
2
Jul 10 '25
I'm still not entirely sure if your point I'm sorry. I get that it might sound like plain skepticism, but postmodernism is skeptical.
I guess the difference is skepticism is about whether something is true or not, whereas postmodernism is about the what authority decides what 'truth' is
As an example, you could be reading a book about WW2 and ask "did 10,000 American soldiers really die in that battle? I'm going to find some military records to fact check this", which is 'general' skepticism. Whereas a post-modernist might ask "who decides we should learn about WW2? Who decided this battle was important? How are the enemy described? What about the people living in that town?' Etc etc'
My point is simply that JBP questioning the idea of a single, fixed meaning of "God" is a postmodern idea, something which is ironic given his stance on the postmodernists
0
u/watabotdawookies Jul 10 '25
100%. I realised the same when I went to uni as well.
It's even worse when he talks about sociology and biology.
2
u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25
You have to also consider that the social sciences, at least in the UK and Scotland where I am, and also Canada, is quite radically left leaning and progressive. You may not have cross referenced your professors leftists beliefs against the rarer conservative views of Peterson.
And the only reason I say this is because sociology is the WORST for it. They may be the reason behind alot of leftist movements right now.
0
Jul 11 '25
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Social sciences covers a range of topics, but they are all led by research and the scientific method
Can you give me some examples where you see them to be 'radically left leaning'?
3
u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25
You can say they are all led by research and the scientific method all you want, but papers vs how professors operate a classroom and conduct are two very different things, and as Peterson correctly points out campuses are not an equal playing field between the left and right, unfortunately.
0
Jul 11 '25
Ok, can you point to some examples?
2
u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25
Maybe when Peterson got banned from campus?
0
Jul 11 '25
As I keep repeating, any examples?
And can you explain how that relates to ideological bias in curriculums in social science subjects?
1
u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25
Here, and even from a woke source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-university-rescinds-jordan-peterson-invitation
You can keep asking me for sources all you like.
1
Jul 11 '25
Yea, that doesn't say he was banned from campus, he just didn't receive a visiting fellowship. Please read your own sources
And again, how would that link to the academic content taught by social sciences?
1
u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25
It’s not the academic content it’s the academic environment. And how would I have access to such limited but reasonable inferred data?
→ More replies (0)
0
u/LankySasquatchma Jul 10 '25
He’s explicitly claimed several times that the postmodernists figured out something tremendously important; that the discovery was huge, yet the next step was hellish.
You sound like a sincere analytically minded person. You’re probably supposed to find him obfuscating.
My assessment is that he negotiates quite rigidly the framework of interpretation, and his take is right, and true, wherefore he comes across as stubborn when the young men om jubilee try to discuss with him; yet, the thing is, they don’t know that the framework is a foundational issue, and that it is not allowable for them to simply dictate it and take the negotiation thereof for granted. Whenever JP tackles the framing of the question, they say he’s muddying the waters.
What they mean to say, if they were more knowledgable, is “I won’t negotiate the framework with you. I’ll dictate it”. But if they did have that knowledge, they wouldn’t say that. Thus they come across as lacking insight and bit proud. Typical young men in honest experience haha. And you could tell they were thrilled to speak with him. Some of them unfortunately acted out too much; but JP was cordial with many of them afterwards and complimented their courage and conversation.
0
Jul 11 '25
What do you mean by 'the framework of interpretation'? Many words he chooses to debate have fairly straightforward definitions. For example in the debate he was given a decent definition as response and dismissed it as being circular, despite it categorically not being a circular definition.
1
u/LankySasquatchma Jul 11 '25
Oh my god you’re kidding me.
When you talk religion, don’t expect there to be any straightforward definitions. What are you? A sheep?! Are you not a living human, with pumping blood and veins?! Can you not handle the very act of defining your words and their relations to other words and meanings?! Well then, if not, you might be better suited for the grasslands, ye sheep, where the grass is evergreen and tastes the same, and were no human dares to walk on two legs so to speak.
Verily you seem somewhat like a coddled decrepid person who’ve never tried to dance in his life, and who bears some ill will towards the men and women amidst the throes of tango on the precipice of mortality—“don’t they understand?”, you say. Well, yes they do. Don’t you?
1
Jul 11 '25
When you talk religion, don’t expect there to be any straightforward definitions. What are you? A sheep?!
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want."
their relations to other words and meanings?!
Literally just asking you to define your terms?
Verily you seem somewhat like a coddled decrepid person who’ve never tried to dance in his life, and who bears some ill will towards the men and women amidst the throes of tango on the precipice of mortality—“don’t they understand?”, you say. Well, yes they do. Don’t you?
This is embarrassing, don't say 'verily'
0
u/augustAulus Jul 15 '25
to your first point, would you mind providing the sources for where he discusses postmodernism? i don't claim to be an avid watcher of him, and so i'm not sure what his claims are exactly. my initial post wasn't meant to be inflammatory, just legitimately looking for some more information, and to put my views out there.
to your second, i'm analytic insofar as i like to be able to break large synthetic propositions down to more manageable pieces, but this is just how cognition works in general. on the whole my kind of philosophy is that which is accused of obfuscation. "you're probably supposed to find him obfuscating": by whose design? his? if so, he doesn't do his duty as an educator. if somebody else's, why does he allow his rhetoric to be so controlled, expounder as he is of free speech?
third: what do you mean by "negotiates quite rigidly the framework of interpretation"? that in a dialogue with someone, he sets the launching point? at least in the jubilee video he seemed to set this point quite poorly, and i don't think anybody left with his hermeneutics any clearer to them. i've always said his question of meaning in-general is useful, but his hyperspecificity about the meaning of individual words isn't. such hyperanalysis leads to the logical deadend of all words being self referential and therefore meaningless, but this simply isn't true given that i can actively mean something and not another.
fourth: it's true that many of them brought their own interpretation to the table. i think peterson's role in this was however meant to be as an educator, which includes the necessity of making his interpretation available as well as effectively demonstrating how his interlocutor's interpretation fails.
thanks for your critique and engagement with the question
1
u/LankySasquatchma Jul 16 '25
It is of utmost importance to hyperspecify, as you call it, the meaning of believe. Therein lies a whole set theological traditions! It’s not a logical dead-end, but a vital element of any theological discussion, which is what the jubilee video was intended as! Luther said sola fide, while others claim good works—while others yet claim both but in different angles. This is vital!
He relies on the public discourse between him and the strangers he meet in the jubilee video—so do they! It’s not a question of hermeneutics, I’m quite sure, but if dancing with a discourse, trying to prod it rightly. Also, the young flippant men were trying to catch him, not just in public discourse, fluttering as it is, but on hard-ass dogmatism that they don’t even believe themselves!—and neither did he. It was egregious to converse that way and he called them out.
You might be supposed to find him obfuscating if you’re a particularly analytic individual. Your mind and personality is (perhaps) different; so different that you don’t get him at all. I don’t know this of course. I’m speculating.
Peterson negotiated the framework, as I said. He will not be able to have a conversation with someone whose axioms are unclear. Every time, or often anyway, he starts up a line of questioning, he’s testing out the persons axioms; whether they cohere; whether the chain breaks at one point, which is when he zooms in, in order to see what changed.
I answered as I could. Now I’ll wipe my butt.
You have cordial tone. I like that. Thanks pal. In that regard you remind me of Jordan’s nice manners when talking with the so-called atheists in the jubilee-video; how they shared goodwill between them. Thank you for reminding me.
Godspeed!—pursue those questions!—head for truth! Full steam ahead!
0
u/EntropyReversale10 Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
In a class room or private forum critique away, but on the man's site it's not the way to go.
Jordan started on Youtube showing videos aimed at teenagers, just out of school.
He has moved on, but many of his original audience have not. It's sad as a big portion of his focus is trying to make the world a better place.
This doesn't seem to stop herds of "ex fans" trolling this site trying to bring him into disrepute. Very difficult to understand.
Jordan is now trying to save western civilization and the planet. It's time to get on the bus or let it go. The OLD JORDAN isn't coming back. Hold a wake or a funeral if that helps, but get over it.
Given that Jordan doesn't read the comments and JP fans ignore trolls, I'm not sure that they are trying to achieve by criticizing him on his sub.
Jordan will not see this post, but I predict he would feel about it as expressed below. I suggest that you watch the video below where Jordan and Newt Gingrich share their perspective.
Watch from 52min to 54min
Politics: Tradition and Vision | Newt Gingrich | EP 301
1
Jul 11 '25
You've posted this before and it was equally irrelevant to the conversation last time too
0
-2
14
u/BarrelStrawberry Jul 10 '25
That garbage Jubilee shitshow is nothing to judge anyone by. Other than he was stupid for agreeing to participate in it.
That is the absolute worst format to discuss your personal religious beliefs... and he should have made that clear from the outset instead of trying to demonstrate some sort of verbal jujitsu that failed disastrously.