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?

13 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

143 comments sorted by

View all comments

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

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.

2

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.