Bad Apologetics: Jordan B. Peterson

I finally got through a 10 hour podcast of 3 people slowly disecting mr. Petersons' talking points. And I have to say it was extremely intresting to go beyond the clipped content from people whoes only goal is to make him look bad. Altough all the people on the panel agree that the man does have something to say, they also all agree there is an extreme problem with all his opinions that are not directly related to his field of expertise.

For those that want to take the time and are intrested, you can find it here:

[media=https://youtu.be/4juvCrKJ5uk?t=29903]

When it comes to certain toppics, I can't help to think that these are great examples for Albert O. Hirshmans' book called: "The Rhetoric of Reaction". Espescially Petersons' vieuws on climate change, where things are just too complex to solve and therefor it's futile to try, can be directly linked to the chapter on "Futility" that Hirschmans' described. Also how Peterson tackles a toppics like pornograhpy, can be a school example of the chapter on "Perversion".

For those people that it's not clear what the man is doing, this is a pretty intresting watch/listen. For those that already figured out that this person is insconsistent and ideologically driven on almost every toppic except some parts where he actually is an expert on, well... this 10 hour wild ride is a goldmine to understanding how weird it really is.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M

@deadteddy Yeah if you're interested in philosophy and psychology he is a rich well to draw from. His lectures are genuinely interesting.

Once he became a public figure and he involved himself in politics and cultural observation he became another well spoken talking head in a sense for his values which happen to be very conservative. He's no worse than most, he has a large platform though.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Ryannnnnn What does "not worse then most" mean here? He is well spoken, but when it comes to his political and cultural observations... and even the philosophical stuff. He's often quite wrong, and sometimes just don't know what he's talking about. But he will have an opinion about it.

revenant · F

@Kwek00 point out where he is wrong

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M

@Kwek00 You can't really be wrong when it comes to subjective ideas and interpretations of abstract concepts. Philosophy is a foundation to be built upon. And yes my point is that all people are "wrong" most of the time, that's what opinions are. Wrong unless you agree with it as the truth is often subjective.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Ryannnnnn When he talks about philosophical positions though, he should at the bare minimum respect the meaning of terms that he uses. And if he doesn't do that, then he's obliged to explain what the terms means that he uses so diffrently like everyone else. Something the people in the pannel complain about in the parts that deal about his philosophical statements.

JP has also attacked philosophical positions that he just doesn't understand. He even made up new words and then gets all scared about, like: "post-modern marxism"... as if that term can even make sense.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

revenant · F

Canada is a "postmodern" nation as Justin Trudeau said himself...duh

Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M

@revenant I am a lefty dude lol.

Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M

@Kwek00 post modern Marxism would infer a deconstructionist view of modern society through a Marxist lense. So it does make sense at least to myself.

I'm neutral on it all really, it doesn't bother me to the degree it does others.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Ryannnnnn Well, I advice you to watch the part on "postmodernism", the people in the video explain very well, where the issues are. But to give the short version, postmodernism as a discipline is trying to criticize grand metanarratives. Big stories that linger in society and that seem to explain everything. You know... like "marxism", that harbors the idea of historical-materialism. In Marxism, the history is a history for class struggle. Postmodernists are weary of such ideas, they don't go hand in hand. A lot of postmodernists come out of marxists circles, but they didn't identify as marxists any longer when they took on the new label.

But inside Peterson, there is almost this cold-war red scar going on. The enemies of his worldvieuw, are quickly labeled with all these terms that he uses so liberally that they loose all meaning. It's a bit like left wingers invoking "fascism" everytime they see a conservative with authoritarian tendencies. In those situations, it just becomes stupid.