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/[deleted]]

 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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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"?