5 ms·

Jordan Peterson's rhetoric is just another round of reactionary sophistry, perhaps slightly better than the "A is A" bullshit of Objectivism or the flimflam of

Jordan Peterson's rhetoric is just another round of reactionary sophistry, perhaps slightly better than the "A is A" bullshit of Objectivism or the flimflam of Praxeology. There's not enough hours in the day to devote to deprogramming a true believer who in the long run is severely mangled as an intellectual being by internalizing his garbage. There are thousands of such believers. David Brooks will forever be David Brooks.

kevmo 9y ago
NYT desperately needs some fresh blood in their op-ed stables.
- Cyberdog 9y ago
  I was expecting this to be an excoriation of Peterson rather than a rather even-handed overview of his principles. Seemed pretty fresh to me for NYT standards.
  - KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
    You'd really classify this article as even-handed? >I’d say the lives of young men can be improved more through loving attachment than through Peterson’s joyless and graceless calls to self-sacrifice. One of the many asinine misrepresentations littered throughout this hit-piece; the entire point of Mr. Peterson's work is to allow people to experience joyful, meaningful life, instead of living in abject misery. Besides, what kind of activities creating "loving attachment" among men, or women for that matter? Voluntarily associations of like-minded individuals working together towards a common-goal; an expression of their ability to get things done will earn not only the respect of others but, more importantly, themselves.
juststuffyaknow 9y ago
I think you can find (at least some form of) wisdom in anything. You don't have adhere to anyone's perspective absolutely, but to discard everything he says is equally foolish. Just a thought, I can't help but entertain perspectives different than my own. It's good "exercise" and can solidify your unique individual beliefs.
asabjorn 9y ago
How is telling people to use their agency and take action to improve their own lives instead of complaining reactionary sophistry? Your criticism seems incredibly off-base.
- danharaj 9y ago
  That is an incredibly selective sampling of his views and you know it. That's how.
  - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
    What are his views, then?
    - AlexCoventry 9y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDggKqt3KA#t=620 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDggKqt3KA#t=620
      - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
        So, don't allow yourself to be manipulated by guilt over something you have no power over? That seems reasonable to me.
        AlexCoventry 9y ago
        It exemplifies the ignorance of structural inequality underlying his approach.
        juliangoldsmith 9y ago
        It's not ignorance, it's rejection of the concept.
        9y ago
j4ship 9y ago
You made so many judgements ... but no real points ... I know this your opinion of him (and me as the one internalizing) but so what?
core-questions 9y ago
> Jordan Peterson's rhetoric is just another round of reactionary sophistry Reactionary? As far as I understand it, a 'reactionary' is someone who wants a return of monarchy. There doesn't really seem to be anything in Peterson's dialogue about that. Unless you mean something different by that, and it was just a poor choice of words? Calling his argument sophistry without any actual reference to them is in and of itself sophistry. Most of what he's saying, once understood, is material that would have been common sense to virtually anyone a few generations ago, and the arguments still stand very strong. > There's not enough hours in the day to devote to deprogramming a true believer who in the long run is severely mangled as an intellectual being by internalizing his garbage. Are you going to make reference to any of this 'garbage' or are you simply going to assert this without evidence? Such a brave position to take. I'm sure you think of yourself as the sole voice of reason muchn of the time. So are you suggesting the opposite of Peterson's claims - should young Western men simply shrug their responsibilities and be happy hive-dwelling consumers, the "salad men" as the Japanese call it, continuing to fail at their attempts to build meaningful lives? You offer no alternative and you don't even admit to recognizing there's actually a crisis. Shame.
- tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
  I'd love to hear a thoughtful response to him. His lecturing style is, according to his own description, more exploratory than explanatory. He's said before that he's not trying to tell people what to think, rather he's basically just thinking out loud on stage. This approach leaves a lot of room for disagreement, because of course there will be things left out, scholars not mentioned, and plenty of inconsistencies. But I've yet to hear a real example of such a disagreement. All I hear is anger and contempt for him.
  - core-questions 9y ago
    Agreed, it would be excellent to have someone with opposing views actually have a proper dialectic conversation with him. So far we've only seen rhetorical counter-arguments which accomplish very little - and have in some cases pushed him, out of necessity, into also using a more rhetorical approach. I'm sure there are some reasonable qualms with some of his views - and further, I'd be willing to bet he'd be willing to explore them with someone who's actually offering an open conversation to discuss their concerns rather than an attack. It's just not the common approach, especially in public dialogue.
quantumofmalice 9y ago
So you're saying Jordan Peterson is a deeply honest classical liberal trying his best to work his way to truth and inspiring millions of people of all sorts of political outlooks to improve their own lives?
leepowers 9y ago
This is true for people who make Peterson the end of their intellectual journey. _But this also holds true for any and all philosophies._ Whatever stink you're detecting on Peterson's followers doesn't necessarily translate to his ideas. Terrible annoying assholes can still speak the truth - we have to evaluate Peterson's ideas on their own merits, which at the very least the NYT article attempts. All that being said I don't really "get" Peterson. I find his YouTube videos to be rambling and incoherent as he wanders and flits between topics that appear to be only tangentially related. (Though occasionally I'll detect some interesting nugget of an idea). Initially this seemed to my mind to be a weakness and flaw but now I think it's actually the core of this appeal. His style requires listeners to make the connections on their own, to bring themselves into the lecture as active listeners. A searching young man primed by ennui will make those connections and will self-initiate into Peterson's philosophy, the listener will take ownership of the ideas. This contributes to the perceived clannishness of Peterson adherents.

kevmo 9y ago

NYT desperately needs some fresh blood in their op-ed stables.

Cyberdog 9y ago
I was expecting this to be an excoriation of Peterson rather than a rather even-handed overview of his principles. Seemed pretty fresh to me for NYT standards.
- KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
  You'd really classify this article as even-handed? >I’d say the lives of young men can be improved more through loving attachment than through Peterson’s joyless and graceless calls to self-sacrifice. One of the many asinine misrepresentations littered throughout this hit-piece; the entire point of Mr. Peterson's work is to allow people to experience joyful, meaningful life, instead of living in abject misery. Besides, what kind of activities creating "loving attachment" among men, or women for that matter? Voluntarily associations of like-minded individuals working together towards a common-goal; an expression of their ability to get things done will earn not only the respect of others but, more importantly, themselves.

juststuffyaknow 9y ago

I think you can find (at least some form of) wisdom in anything. You don't have adhere to anyone's perspective absolutely, but to discard everything he says is equally foolish. Just a thought, I can't help but entertain perspectives different than my own. It's good "exercise" and can solidify your unique individual beliefs.

asabjorn 9y ago

How is telling people to use their agency and take action to improve their own lives instead of complaining reactionary sophistry? Your criticism seems incredibly off-base.

danharaj 9y ago
That is an incredibly selective sampling of his views and you know it. That's how.
- juliangoldsmith 9y ago
  What are his views, then?
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDggKqt3KA#t=620 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDggKqt3KA#t=620
    - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
      So, don't allow yourself to be manipulated by guilt over something you have no power over? That seems reasonable to me.
      - AlexCoventry 9y ago
        It exemplifies the ignorance of structural inequality underlying his approach.
        juliangoldsmith 9y ago
        It's not ignorance, it's rejection of the concept.
        9y ago

j4ship 9y ago

You made so many judgements ... but no real points ... I know this your opinion of him (and me as the one internalizing) but so what?

core-questions 9y ago

> Jordan Peterson's rhetoric is just another round of reactionary sophistry Reactionary? As far as I understand it, a 'reactionary' is someone who wants a return of monarchy. There doesn't really seem to be anything in Peterson's dialogue about that. Unless you mean something different by that, and it was just a poor choice of words? Calling his argument sophistry without any actual reference to them is in and of itself sophistry. Most of what he's saying, once understood, is material that would have been common sense to virtually anyone a few generations ago, and the arguments still stand very strong. > There's not enough hours in the day to devote to deprogramming a true believer who in the long run is severely mangled as an intellectual being by internalizing his garbage. Are you going to make reference to any of this 'garbage' or are you simply going to assert this without evidence? Such a brave position to take. I'm sure you think of yourself as the sole voice of reason muchn of the time. So are you suggesting the opposite of Peterson's claims - should young Western men simply shrug their responsibilities and be happy hive-dwelling consumers, the "salad men" as the Japanese call it, continuing to fail at their attempts to build meaningful lives? You offer no alternative and you don't even admit to recognizing there's actually a crisis. Shame.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
I'd love to hear a thoughtful response to him. His lecturing style is, according to his own description, more exploratory than explanatory. He's said before that he's not trying to tell people what to think, rather he's basically just thinking out loud on stage. This approach leaves a lot of room for disagreement, because of course there will be things left out, scholars not mentioned, and plenty of inconsistencies. But I've yet to hear a real example of such a disagreement. All I hear is anger and contempt for him.
- core-questions 9y ago
  Agreed, it would be excellent to have someone with opposing views actually have a proper dialectic conversation with him. So far we've only seen rhetorical counter-arguments which accomplish very little - and have in some cases pushed him, out of necessity, into also using a more rhetorical approach. I'm sure there are some reasonable qualms with some of his views - and further, I'd be willing to bet he'd be willing to explore them with someone who's actually offering an open conversation to discuss their concerns rather than an attack. It's just not the common approach, especially in public dialogue.

quantumofmalice 9y ago

So you're saying Jordan Peterson is a deeply honest classical liberal trying his best to work his way to truth and inspiring millions of people of all sorts of political outlooks to improve their own lives?

leepowers 9y ago

This is true for people who make Peterson the end of their intellectual journey. _But this also holds true for any and all philosophies._ Whatever stink you're detecting on Peterson's followers doesn't necessarily translate to his ideas. Terrible annoying assholes can still speak the truth - we have to evaluate Peterson's ideas on their own merits, which at the very least the NYT article attempts. All that being said I don't really "get" Peterson. I find his YouTube videos to be rambling and incoherent as he wanders and flits between topics that appear to be only tangentially related. (Though occasionally I'll detect some interesting nugget of an idea). Initially this seemed to my mind to be a weakness and flaw but now I think it's actually the core of this appeal. His style requires listeners to make the connections on their own, to bring themselves into the lecture as active listeners. A searching young man primed by ennui will make those connections and will self-initiate into Peterson's philosophy, the listener will take ownership of the ideas. This contributes to the perceived clannishness of Peterson adherents.