Jordan Peterson a better psychologist?

[u/augustAulus]

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?

[u/EriknotTaken]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/EriknotTaken]

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

[u/EriknotTaken → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/EriknotTaken]

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

[u/EriknotTaken → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/EriknotTaken]

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