4 ms·

>He is captivating to a certain audience, but so are televangelists. That's the whole crux of the problem. If you recognize it as being entertainment and an aes

>He is captivating to a certain audience, but so are televangelists. That's the whole crux of the problem. If you recognize it as being entertainment and an aesthetic/subculture, that's fine. But Peterson is presented as a leading thinker to people, which is a problem. Despite what I've written, Peterson isn't even someone I'm specifically interested in, it's more about the underlying issue of which he is a prominent example. I think that's a reasonable point. I'd still maintain that his message is useful and his ideas are, imo, interesting and illuminating. I haven't thought of JP-televangelists comparison before so I'd need some time to mull it over. But in my personal experience I listened to Peterson for a while, internalised what I thought was useful and moved on. Whether televangelists have the same effect - I don't know. >Consider the following: during the Žižek debate, it became clear that not only was the Communist Manifesto the only Marxist text he had read, but he could not accurately recall some of its main points. And it's a really short pamphlet! That means that Peterson had expounded at length on Marxism, made it a central point of his critique and philosophical brand, while having almost no knowledge or understanding of it. Even with the most charitable interpretation, that goes way beyond just occasionally making mistakes due to a discursive style. I wish I had more knowledge on Marxism/leftists school of thoughts right now to have a more interesting discussion on this, but I don't. It does look bad on Peterson that he was so ill prepared for that debate. Having said that, we cannot not say that there isn't a cultural shift happening in the academia and in our societies at large. Traditional cultural norms are being thrown out and in some extreme cases even shamed(not saying that's a 100% bad thing, but imo such things must not be done rashly), instead of bringing equality there are some attempts of inversing the inequality, and people are getting cancelled/silenced/fired/deplatformed in some cases simply for having a different opinion. Whether this is Marxism or not is really irrelevant, what's important is that we note these changes and act to mitigate them, and I believe this is what Peterson was referring to as "cultural Marxists". It might be embarrassing if he got the name wrong, but it doesn't change WHAT he's talking about.

Bakary 6y ago
It is a bit counter-intuitive, but the cultural shift you describe is a mirror image of Peterson's popularity, in the sense that both are the result of sloppy, black-and-white, and adversarial thinking and ideological repackaging. If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse. The result is that the money and attention of people concerned about cultural shifts is then funneled into the pockets of people like Peterson or Shapiro or whomever, with some pretty unenviable results. You end up in a situation where people talk of rediscovering traditional norms and opposing them to new norms, without actually understanding what the traditional norms are or engaging with them beyond vague social-media ready descriptions. What could have been effective or at least thoughtful conservatism paradoxically turns into a post-modern parody of itself, with plenty of references to the aesthetic aspect (flags, slogans, freedom of speech etc.) without the substance that originally generated those symbols. And this substance and world lying outside of the Petersons and Shapiros starts to shrink because they monopolize the attention of people who would have otherwise engaged with deeper material and applied it in productive ways.
- 0x737368 6y ago
  I'm sorry but I don't follow you here. >If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse. Peterson DOES encourage informed discourse. Unlike some public figures that are wont to use strawman arguments and/or voice their opinions in an echo chamber, I've seen Peterson go on almost hostile interviews, keeping calm and giving accurate and measured answers to their questions whilst ignoring their jabs(see Cathy Newman or Vice interviews for example). And as was mentioned before, he's also known to change his opinion if he's convinced that he was wrong - now you show me another public figure that's willing to do that, not too many of those from what I've seen. >The result is that the money and attention of people concerned about cultural shifts is then funneled into the pockets of people like Peterson or Shapiro or whomever, with some pretty unenviable results. I can't speak about Shapiro since I haven't watched him or his stuff, but I have no problem with Peterson getting money or attention from his lectures, interviews, or books. I cannot find what harm his material can cause either. >You end up in a situation where people talk of rediscovering traditional norms and opposing them to new norms, without actually understanding what the traditional norms are or engaging with them beyond vague social-media ready descriptions. What could have been effective or at least thoughtful conservatism paradoxically turns into a post-modern parody of itself, with plenty of references to the aesthetic aspect (flags, slogans, freedom of speech etc.) without the substance that originally generated those symbols. And this substance and world lying outside of the Petersons and Shapiros starts to shrink because they monopolize the attention of people who would have otherwise engaged with deeper material and applied it in productive ways. I think it's healthy to be at least A LITTLE bit sceptical of new norms. Our society was pretty much the same for at least thousands of years and in a few decades we're changing things up very drastically. Are you that sure that it's not going to cause issues that can have dire consequences in the future? I'm not. I'd like to reiterate again that I don't think Peterson is as conservative as you seem to be implying, he doesn't want everybody being under Sharia-like social rules of Christian propriety. He does seem to lean towards traditional family values, which I don't think is a bad thing. Otherwise he seems to champion personal freedom, especially against any form of tyranny. With regards to him not understanding traditional norms I'd like to disagree. If you can show me some examples of where he does that please do.

Bakary 6y ago

It is a bit counter-intuitive, but the cultural shift you describe is a mirror image of Peterson's popularity, in the sense that both are the result of sloppy, black-and-white, and adversarial thinking and ideological repackaging. If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse. The result is that the money and attention of people concerned about cultural shifts is then funneled into the pockets of people like Peterson or Shapiro or whomever, with some pretty unenviable results. You end up in a situation where people talk of rediscovering traditional norms and opposing them to new norms, without actually understanding what the traditional norms are or engaging with them beyond vague social-media ready descriptions. What could have been effective or at least thoughtful conservatism paradoxically turns into a post-modern parody of itself, with plenty of references to the aesthetic aspect (flags, slogans, freedom of speech etc.) without the substance that originally generated those symbols. And this substance and world lying outside of the Petersons and Shapiros starts to shrink because they monopolize the attention of people who would have otherwise engaged with deeper material and applied it in productive ways.

0x737368 6y ago
I'm sorry but I don't follow you here. >If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse. Peterson DOES encourage informed discourse. Unlike some public figures that are wont to use strawman arguments and/or voice their opinions in an echo chamber, I've seen Peterson go on almost hostile interviews, keeping calm and giving accurate and measured answers to their questions whilst ignoring their jabs(see Cathy Newman or Vice interviews for example). And as was mentioned before, he's also known to change his opinion if he's convinced that he was wrong - now you show me another public figure that's willing to do that, not too many of those from what I've seen. >The result is that the money and attention of people concerned about cultural shifts is then funneled into the pockets of people like Peterson or Shapiro or whomever, with some pretty unenviable results. I can't speak about Shapiro since I haven't watched him or his stuff, but I have no problem with Peterson getting money or attention from his lectures, interviews, or books. I cannot find what harm his material can cause either. >You end up in a situation where people talk of rediscovering traditional norms and opposing them to new norms, without actually understanding what the traditional norms are or engaging with them beyond vague social-media ready descriptions. What could have been effective or at least thoughtful conservatism paradoxically turns into a post-modern parody of itself, with plenty of references to the aesthetic aspect (flags, slogans, freedom of speech etc.) without the substance that originally generated those symbols. And this substance and world lying outside of the Petersons and Shapiros starts to shrink because they monopolize the attention of people who would have otherwise engaged with deeper material and applied it in productive ways. I think it's healthy to be at least A LITTLE bit sceptical of new norms. Our society was pretty much the same for at least thousands of years and in a few decades we're changing things up very drastically. Are you that sure that it's not going to cause issues that can have dire consequences in the future? I'm not. I'd like to reiterate again that I don't think Peterson is as conservative as you seem to be implying, he doesn't want everybody being under Sharia-like social rules of Christian propriety. He does seem to lean towards traditional family values, which I don't think is a bad thing. Otherwise he seems to champion personal freedom, especially against any form of tyranny. With regards to him not understanding traditional norms I'd like to disagree. If you can show me some examples of where he does that please do.