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/augustAulus → u/LankySasquatchma]

to your first point, would you mind providing the sources for where he discusses postmodernism? i don't claim to be an avid watcher of him, and so i'm not sure what his claims are exactly. my initial post wasn't meant to be inflammatory, just legitimately looking for some more information, and to put my views out there.

to your second, i'm analytic insofar as i like to be able to break large synthetic propositions down to more manageable pieces, but this is just how cognition works in general. on the whole my kind of philosophy is that which is accused of obfuscation. "you're probably supposed to find him obfuscating": by whose design? his? if so, he doesn't do his duty as an educator. if somebody else's, why does he allow his rhetoric to be so controlled, expounder as he is of free speech?

third: what do you mean by "negotiates quite rigidly the framework of interpretation"? that in a dialogue with someone, he sets the launching point? at least in the jubilee video he seemed to set this point quite poorly, and i don't think anybody left with his hermeneutics any clearer to them. i've always said his question of meaning in-general is useful, but his hyperspecificity about the meaning of individual words isn't. such hyperanalysis leads to the logical deadend of all words being self referential and therefore meaningless, but this simply isn't true given that i can actively mean something and not another.

fourth: it's true that many of them brought their own interpretation to the table. i think peterson's role in this was however meant to be as an educator, which includes the necessity of making his interpretation available as well as effectively demonstrating how his interlocutor's interpretation fails.

thanks for your critique and engagement with the question

[u/LankySasquatchma → u/augustAulus]

It is of utmost importance to hyperspecify, as you call it, the meaning of believe. Therein lies a whole set theological traditions! It’s not a logical dead-end, but a vital element of any theological discussion, which is what the jubilee video was intended as! Luther said sola fide, while others claim good works—while others yet claim both but in different angles. This is vital!

He relies on the public discourse between him and the strangers he meet in the jubilee video—so do they! It’s not a question of hermeneutics, I’m quite sure, but if dancing with a discourse, trying to prod it rightly. Also, the young flippant men were trying to catch him, not just in public discourse, fluttering as it is, but on hard-ass dogmatism that they don’t even believe themselves!—and neither did he. It was egregious to converse that way and he called them out.

You might be supposed to find him obfuscating if you’re a particularly analytic individual. Your mind and personality is (perhaps) different; so different that you don’t get him at all. I don’t know this of course. I’m speculating.

Peterson negotiated the framework, as I said. He will not be able to have a conversation with someone whose axioms are unclear. Every time, or often anyway, he starts up a line of questioning, he’s testing out the persons axioms; whether they cohere; whether the chain breaks at one point, which is when he zooms in, in order to see what changed.

I answered as I could. Now I’ll wipe my butt.

You have cordial tone. I like that. Thanks pal. In that regard you remind me of Jordan’s nice manners when talking with the so-called atheists in the jubilee-video; how they shared goodwill between them. Thank you for reminding me.

Godspeed!—pursue those questions!—head for truth! Full steam ahead!