“I think I can demolish the atheistic argument permanently.” Well, I guess he's succeeded where every other intellectual has failed. Good thing this dude, with no background in the philosophy of religion, can set the record straight.
For goodness sakes, how does he remain so clueless about the nature of expertise, and so clueless about how strong his own epistemic position is?
I would never offer my amateurish opinions on psychological topics, even though I taught cognitive science for undergrads. Hell, I don't offer my opinions on matters in physics, and I have a Master's degree there. But Peterson has no sense of what it takes to form reliably true opinions.
My guess: if you spend a decade with people constantly asking you for your opinions about everything under the sun, you lose your good sense that you're an amateur about most things. Just a guess.
Given that he is well paid to ramble incessantly (so long as he rambles in a way conservatives like) I think he sees no reason to stop. He is, in that respect, no different than Joe Rogan, he has to fill airtime and keep the audience so he keeps on talking. No more, no less.
"I have no doubt, either, that Peterson sunk a lot of work into this book. And if the Labour Theory of Value is true, it’s a terrific theological accomplishment." This earned a full-belly laugh from me, which rarely happens (when reading an email at 9am on a Sunday, that is).
I would be lying if I said I was not in some way influenced by Peterson in how I approach the intersection of mythology, meaning and psychology, although you can argue I'm just indirectly sampling Jung, Campbell, Vanderklay, Vervake and Piaget through him.
I found his Youtube series "Maps of Meaning" lectures (long before he was internet famous) to be fairly clear and understandable (even if I have a few quibbles with his Lion King correspondences to Egyptian mythos), and they arguably form the Only Peterson Talks You Really Need for most people. I was able to understand him at the two events I attended as well, which to be fair, could just be my luck.
However, his books suffer from the same wordiness and fancy for jargon as other academics (including those who criticize him), and while I could parse through what he meant in the samples you quoted, it was an arduous parsing nonetheless. I essentially stopped consulting him when he went into Biblical exegesis, and even many fans I've talked to think his benzo withdrawal induced coma affected his abilities.
Of the people familiar with/following Jordan Peterson today, I’m not sure what the split is between those who knew his work before he got big in 2015 versus after. I’m one of those who was familiar with him from before, which probably colors my view somewhat. I think my sense of him has always been something like “heart is almost always in the right place, really wants to do good, very woolly thinking that might be getting woollier over time.”
From what I understand, JP was actually a good therapist - a job where philosophical clarity is less important than listening and talking authentically in the moment.
Thank... god?... that Alex O'Connor was there to moderate Peterson v Dawkins. It actually, ever so slowly, came together into something coherent (in the meantime, the type and placement of ads is enough to sustain one's undivided confusion).
Dawkin's book of the dead went off the rails "real fast," but somehow by staying within the rails so very hard. The metaphor for a phenotype as sheets hanging from butcher hooks and genetic mutations as changes in elastic tensions... whaaaaa?!
Can we please just stick the two of them on the business ends of a particle collider and see if we can discover the fundamental equivocation equation that keeps them salient?
“I think I can demolish the atheistic argument permanently.” Well, I guess he's succeeded where every other intellectual has failed. Good thing this dude, with no background in the philosophy of religion, can set the record straight.
For goodness sakes, how does he remain so clueless about the nature of expertise, and so clueless about how strong his own epistemic position is?
I would never offer my amateurish opinions on psychological topics, even though I taught cognitive science for undergrads. Hell, I don't offer my opinions on matters in physics, and I have a Master's degree there. But Peterson has no sense of what it takes to form reliably true opinions.
My guess: if you spend a decade with people constantly asking you for your opinions about everything under the sun, you lose your good sense that you're an amateur about most things. Just a guess.
The Ayn Rand analogy applies to your last point too
Given that he is well paid to ramble incessantly (so long as he rambles in a way conservatives like) I think he sees no reason to stop. He is, in that respect, no different than Joe Rogan, he has to fill airtime and keep the audience so he keeps on talking. No more, no less.
"I have no doubt, either, that Peterson sunk a lot of work into this book. And if the Labour Theory of Value is true, it’s a terrific theological accomplishment." This earned a full-belly laugh from me, which rarely happens (when reading an email at 9am on a Sunday, that is).
I would be lying if I said I was not in some way influenced by Peterson in how I approach the intersection of mythology, meaning and psychology, although you can argue I'm just indirectly sampling Jung, Campbell, Vanderklay, Vervake and Piaget through him.
I found his Youtube series "Maps of Meaning" lectures (long before he was internet famous) to be fairly clear and understandable (even if I have a few quibbles with his Lion King correspondences to Egyptian mythos), and they arguably form the Only Peterson Talks You Really Need for most people. I was able to understand him at the two events I attended as well, which to be fair, could just be my luck.
However, his books suffer from the same wordiness and fancy for jargon as other academics (including those who criticize him), and while I could parse through what he meant in the samples you quoted, it was an arduous parsing nonetheless. I essentially stopped consulting him when he went into Biblical exegesis, and even many fans I've talked to think his benzo withdrawal induced coma affected his abilities.
Of the people familiar with/following Jordan Peterson today, I’m not sure what the split is between those who knew his work before he got big in 2015 versus after. I’m one of those who was familiar with him from before, which probably colors my view somewhat. I think my sense of him has always been something like “heart is almost always in the right place, really wants to do good, very woolly thinking that might be getting woollier over time.”
Oh, the labor theory remark! What a delight!
From what I understand, JP was actually a good therapist - a job where philosophical clarity is less important than listening and talking authentically in the moment.
It sounds like he needs a Charlie Watts: https://tempo.substack.com/p/in-need-of-some-restraint-founder
“I think I can demolish the atheistic argument permanently.”
—me when I present the anthropic argument
Amos <a few days back>: Should I read the new Peterson book?
Damn near everyone: No. Don't bother.
Amos: ...Imma read the new Peterson book.
😆
Thank... god?... that Alex O'Connor was there to moderate Peterson v Dawkins. It actually, ever so slowly, came together into something coherent (in the meantime, the type and placement of ads is enough to sustain one's undivided confusion).
Dawkin's book of the dead went off the rails "real fast," but somehow by staying within the rails so very hard. The metaphor for a phenotype as sheets hanging from butcher hooks and genetic mutations as changes in elastic tensions... whaaaaa?!
Can we please just stick the two of them on the business ends of a particle collider and see if we can discover the fundamental equivocation equation that keeps them salient?
Good review. Deep sympathies you had to spend so much time with this charlatan.