4 ms·

Thank you for posting this honest revelation. I sympathize as I also had similar infatuations with Rand in my teens and Chomsky in my twenties. However, let m

Thank you for posting this honest revelation. I sympathize as I also had similar infatuations with Rand in my teens and Chomsky in my twenties. However, let me also warn you that this path of becoming infatuated with "thinkers" like Peterson is a dead end. People like Rand, Chomsky and Peterson look heroic merely because they are willing to shout the loudest and attract the spotlight. If you are really searching for authentic meaning, you're probably not going to find it among those in in the spotlight. Instead of Rand, seek out Robert Nozick. Instead of Chomsky, seek out Murray Bookchin. Instead of Peterson, seek out Alasdair MacIntyre. There are smart, brilliant thinkers of every ideological stripe. However, the best and brightest rarely make the NYT bestseller list. Continuing to be attracted to "thinkers" like Peterson will only lead to disappointment. Almost everything he is saying has been said before by someone who was smarter and a better writer, and most importantly kinder, than Peterson.

pzone 9y ago
There is one thing about Peterson that makes this interpretation a bit more difficult. For most of his career, the guy was a relatively obscure but respected academic, not making an effort to reach a broader audience with his message except through a well liked course for undergraduates at the University of Toronto. He had strong convictions and a clear message, and there was certainly a current of conservative political belief, but his launch into fame was largely happenstance. He took issue with a new Canadian law that he considers an attack on free speech, and this came at a time when conservative media feels its job is to emblazon this kind of viewpoint. He has done a good job surfing the wave of fame for sure. In my opinion the core of it is not about fame though, the core is a message he's promoted for decades and that he truly thinks is correct, and helpful to people.
tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
I don't see Peterson as an end in himself. I see him as a valuable pointer. He hasn't shown me any destination, only a recognizable path. But I've spent my adult life looking for that path with no luck, so it's a huge achievement in and of itself. I think you're falling into a trap that's easy to fall into, and perhaps lies at the crux of the criticisms leveled against Peterson. What I'm about to say has certainly been more eloquently stated by someone else, but I'll do my best here. As I see it there are effectively two types of knowledge acquisition and transference. The first is explanatory knowledge. Scientists and philosophers work to build new explanations of the world. In this realm, it makes no sense to re-tread familiar territory, and the faster we accumulate this knowledge, the better. There's another realm, and it's what I would call cultural knowledge. These are like "social truths" that are arrived at via some method of consensus in a given group of people. In this realm, the re-treading of familiar territory is acceptable, so long as the knowledge still needs to propagate throughout society or be contested by those who deviate from it. In this realm faster is not better, because these truths act as societal stabilizers. I see Peterson's influence as belonging to the second realm. I find it irritating when people point out that "it's been said before". Yes, I'm sure it's been said before, but that is not the point. The point is to revivify that knowledge within a culture. To assume he needs to tread new ground is to treat him as belonging to the first realm, and I don't think that's the correct approach here.
- rusk 9y ago
  You've described "Top Down" and "Bottom Up" means of knowledge production. Often cast as rationalism and empiricism respectively. One favours knowledge that is known already and seeks to generalise that to explain the world, and the other favours knowledge that is produced trying to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis. Each approach has it's conceits, strengths and weaknesses but truth emerges where these are reconciled and a synthesis is arrived at.
mercurysmessage 9y ago
Peterson is also anti-women and pseudo scientific, not a great intellectual on those counts.
- themarlzy 9y ago
  Any examples of his “anti-women” stance?
  - mercurysmessage 8y ago
    Certainly, I wrote this in another statement, but I'll repost it here: https://twitter.com/21logician/status/831020059212541956/vid.. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/831020059212541956/vid.... Purposefully misrepresents the opinions of those he disagrees with potentially, here. Not to mention how messed up what he is saying is. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813901825539788800/vid.. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813901825539788800/vid.... Maybe we should oppress Dawkins, and other atheists. Very hypocritical here. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813890243606802432/vid.. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813890243606802432/vid.... You need to be religious to have morals (unless you are Muslim, he hates Muslims...) There is another video of him stating that women want to be brutally dominated, and that is why women support Islam... can't find the video now though. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/615e3z/i_am_dr_jordan_.. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/615e3z/i_am_dr_jordan_.... Frozen was propaganda, in his mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjON3cwjILQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjON3cwjILQ Women should just have a family, not try to have a career or work. There are plenty of examples of him being hypocritical, pseudo scientific, and anti-women. There is a good collection of this on the subreddit enoughpetersonspam.
LMYahooTFY 9y ago
I have to strongly disagree. You're writing off people in "the spotlight" as if it is incapable of shining on people who convey rational ideas. To be frank, you also assert your opinion on the competence of thinkers as if it's factual.

pzone 9y ago

There is one thing about Peterson that makes this interpretation a bit more difficult. For most of his career, the guy was a relatively obscure but respected academic, not making an effort to reach a broader audience with his message except through a well liked course for undergraduates at the University of Toronto. He had strong convictions and a clear message, and there was certainly a current of conservative political belief, but his launch into fame was largely happenstance. He took issue with a new Canadian law that he considers an attack on free speech, and this came at a time when conservative media feels its job is to emblazon this kind of viewpoint. He has done a good job surfing the wave of fame for sure. In my opinion the core of it is not about fame though, the core is a message he's promoted for decades and that he truly thinks is correct, and helpful to people.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago

I don't see Peterson as an end in himself. I see him as a valuable pointer. He hasn't shown me any destination, only a recognizable path. But I've spent my adult life looking for that path with no luck, so it's a huge achievement in and of itself. I think you're falling into a trap that's easy to fall into, and perhaps lies at the crux of the criticisms leveled against Peterson. What I'm about to say has certainly been more eloquently stated by someone else, but I'll do my best here. As I see it there are effectively two types of knowledge acquisition and transference. The first is explanatory knowledge. Scientists and philosophers work to build new explanations of the world. In this realm, it makes no sense to re-tread familiar territory, and the faster we accumulate this knowledge, the better. There's another realm, and it's what I would call cultural knowledge. These are like "social truths" that are arrived at via some method of consensus in a given group of people. In this realm, the re-treading of familiar territory is acceptable, so long as the knowledge still needs to propagate throughout society or be contested by those who deviate from it. In this realm faster is not better, because these truths act as societal stabilizers. I see Peterson's influence as belonging to the second realm. I find it irritating when people point out that "it's been said before". Yes, I'm sure it's been said before, but that is not the point. The point is to revivify that knowledge within a culture. To assume he needs to tread new ground is to treat him as belonging to the first realm, and I don't think that's the correct approach here.

rusk 9y ago
You've described "Top Down" and "Bottom Up" means of knowledge production. Often cast as rationalism and empiricism respectively. One favours knowledge that is known already and seeks to generalise that to explain the world, and the other favours knowledge that is produced trying to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis. Each approach has it's conceits, strengths and weaknesses but truth emerges where these are reconciled and a synthesis is arrived at.

mercurysmessage 9y ago

Peterson is also anti-women and pseudo scientific, not a great intellectual on those counts.

themarlzy 9y ago
Any examples of his “anti-women” stance?
- mercurysmessage 8y ago
  Certainly, I wrote this in another statement, but I'll repost it here: https://twitter.com/21logician/status/831020059212541956/vid.. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/831020059212541956/vid.... Purposefully misrepresents the opinions of those he disagrees with potentially, here. Not to mention how messed up what he is saying is. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813901825539788800/vid.. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813901825539788800/vid.... Maybe we should oppress Dawkins, and other atheists. Very hypocritical here. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813890243606802432/vid.. https://twitter.com/21logician/status/813890243606802432/vid.... You need to be religious to have morals (unless you are Muslim, he hates Muslims...) There is another video of him stating that women want to be brutally dominated, and that is why women support Islam... can't find the video now though. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/615e3z/i_am_dr_jordan_.. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/615e3z/i_am_dr_jordan_.... Frozen was propaganda, in his mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjON3cwjILQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjON3cwjILQ Women should just have a family, not try to have a career or work. There are plenty of examples of him being hypocritical, pseudo scientific, and anti-women. There is a good collection of this on the subreddit enoughpetersonspam.

LMYahooTFY 9y ago

I have to strongly disagree. You're writing off people in "the spotlight" as if it is incapable of shining on people who convey rational ideas. To be frank, you also assert your opinion on the competence of thinkers as if it's factual.