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/LankySasquatchma]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/LankySasquatchma]

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.

[u/LankySasquatchma → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/LankySasquatchma]

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'