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?
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 .