Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
For those interested - here is a video of the full Q&A session with Peterson (the video I posted above only contains the first 30 min):
https://youtu.be/_UL-SdOhwek
In the second half, he again has many insightful things to say. With regards to collective (Western) guilt, he basically said we should work hard to be worthy of our privileges, and that to sort out one's own life is enough to mitigate the guilt of living in a rich society that is rich partly because of the sins of our ancestors.
Someone asked him about proof that the logos exists, i.e. proof for the divine. He said you have 2 'proofs': the testimony of the ages, and experience. He said we should try it: get your life together, speak the truth (avoid deception) as best you can, and see what happens. Exactly, I'd say.
https://youtu.be/_UL-SdOhwek
In the second half, he again has many insightful things to say. With regards to collective (Western) guilt, he basically said we should work hard to be worthy of our privileges, and that to sort out one's own life is enough to mitigate the guilt of living in a rich society that is rich partly because of the sins of our ancestors.
Someone asked him about proof that the logos exists, i.e. proof for the divine. He said you have 2 'proofs': the testimony of the ages, and experience. He said we should try it: get your life together, speak the truth (avoid deception) as best you can, and see what happens. Exactly, I'd say.
The more I listen to his interviews and lectures the more his ideas fascinate me. What bothers me is his apparent underestimation of psychopaths in power (he did mentioned Robert Hare in one of his interviews, but somehow he never goes too deep into this topic). And in this video he recommends to study Freud! Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams is even on the first place of the list of his recommended books! It's pretty astounding to me after all that I got to know from Induced delusions; the psychopathy of Freudism by Coyne Herbert Campbell. 
I found an amazing panel discussion between Jordan Peterson and several proponents of the Orthodox Church, including Rev. Fr. Theodore Paraskevopoulus, the carver Jonathan Pageau and Rev. Fr. Geoffrey Ready. It is quite long, but imo was well worth it. Jordan Peterson begins speaking at 51:58-ish, but I really quite enjoyed hearing many of his own understanding of Carl Jung's thoughts of symbolism, meaning, and responsibility mirrored in many Orthodox theological concepts shared by the other speakers. Particularly, the idea of Christian typology and logi, which bear relationship in ways to the divine names of Ibn al-Arabi, as well as our responsibility to embody Christ and his bearing of the suffering and sin of the world. It was personally extremely interesting for me to see some Paleochristian concepts present even in modern interpretations of traditional Christianity.
https://youtu.be/KVo5hq64B2M
I quote a comment that provides a table of contents:
https://youtu.be/KVo5hq64B2M
I quote a comment that provides a table of contents:
obyvatel
The Living Force
[quote author=luc]
Recently, he talked to Sam Harris again: https://youtu.be/31Ud7-EkZE
I listened to it the other day - Harris was no match for Peterson I think, and although he said a couple of interesting things, Harris came across as rather dull to me. There's a stark contrast in Being between the two as far as I can tell, which made it impossible for Harris to really grasp many of the things Peterson is talking about. [/quote]
I listened to the podcast. My take was different. I think putting Peterson's ideas through the sieve of Sam Harris' thinking made for a worthwhile and productive discussion. Peterson acknowledged as much in the podcast. From the little of what I have seen of Peterson's public interactions, he either debates with radical left wing snowflakes or speaks to a pliant and somewhat fawning audience. Or put in another way usually he is a professor lecturing to students. This one was different. Peterson knew he was up with a more skilled discussion partner.
The stories which Peterson interprets (Genesis, Cane and Abel) to support his exaltation of Judeo-Christian tradition have flaws which were pointed out by Harris. And I do not think that Harris did not understand what Peterson was saying, leave aside it being impossible for him to grasp such arguments. I have not read or heard much of Sam Harris but from this podcast I came away with the feeling he has heard the essence of such arguments before and does not buy it wholesale for reasons which may be deemed limited but are derived from a consistent framework of rational and critical thinking. Also, Harris came across as broader in his scope of thinking compared to Peterson who is more narrowly focused and deep in the area of psychology and mythology. In a way, Peterson's lectures and talks come across to me as "Jung made easy for the 21st century". He has used lateral evidence from some scientific disciplines to add meat to Jung's symbolic thinking. However, he lacks the breadth of Jung and seems to suffer from it in some ways as far as I can tell.
Both Harris and Peterson are knowledgeable, articulate and respectful. Both exalt the speaking of truth and commit to the primacy of free speech and open discussion to hash out ideas. Despite their differences, the common ground they share and the constructive debate they had was good and educational imo.
Recently, he talked to Sam Harris again: https://youtu.be/31Ud7-EkZE
I listened to it the other day - Harris was no match for Peterson I think, and although he said a couple of interesting things, Harris came across as rather dull to me. There's a stark contrast in Being between the two as far as I can tell, which made it impossible for Harris to really grasp many of the things Peterson is talking about. [/quote]
I listened to the podcast. My take was different. I think putting Peterson's ideas through the sieve of Sam Harris' thinking made for a worthwhile and productive discussion. Peterson acknowledged as much in the podcast. From the little of what I have seen of Peterson's public interactions, he either debates with radical left wing snowflakes or speaks to a pliant and somewhat fawning audience. Or put in another way usually he is a professor lecturing to students. This one was different. Peterson knew he was up with a more skilled discussion partner.
The stories which Peterson interprets (Genesis, Cane and Abel) to support his exaltation of Judeo-Christian tradition have flaws which were pointed out by Harris. And I do not think that Harris did not understand what Peterson was saying, leave aside it being impossible for him to grasp such arguments. I have not read or heard much of Sam Harris but from this podcast I came away with the feeling he has heard the essence of such arguments before and does not buy it wholesale for reasons which may be deemed limited but are derived from a consistent framework of rational and critical thinking. Also, Harris came across as broader in his scope of thinking compared to Peterson who is more narrowly focused and deep in the area of psychology and mythology. In a way, Peterson's lectures and talks come across to me as "Jung made easy for the 21st century". He has used lateral evidence from some scientific disciplines to add meat to Jung's symbolic thinking. However, he lacks the breadth of Jung and seems to suffer from it in some ways as far as I can tell.
Both Harris and Peterson are knowledgeable, articulate and respectful. Both exalt the speaking of truth and commit to the primacy of free speech and open discussion to hash out ideas. Despite their differences, the common ground they share and the constructive debate they had was good and educational imo.
Jordan Peterson was scheduled to speak at McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario yesterday, but was drowned-out by airhorns and chanting SJW activists for 20 minutes before moving the talk to another location. Here is a video posted of the first 17 minutes, the camera is sideways until the 5 minute mark, but there is closed captioning dialogue available so you can see what he's trying to say to the crowd. Kudos to him to for remaining calm and restrained throughout.
https://youtu.be/r5_Pv0A-xjE
https://youtu.be/r5_Pv0A-xjE
obyvatel said:
Thanks obyvatel for your perspective. Maybe I primed myself a bit in the wrong way before listening to the podcast, which distorted my interpretation. For example, without having read anything by Harris, I remember having listened to something by him years ago, and in my mind I put him in the same category as Richard Dawkins, whom I labelled (perhaps wrongly, or in too black and white terms) as a kind of intellectual bully.
Ever since I read two books by Rupert Sheldrake, especially his "Science delusion", who I think did a splendid job tearing apart the kind of Dawkins-style atheism and showing the stark contradictions of the materialist philosophy in general, I couldn't take those people seriously anymore. But I may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater a bit here.
What struck me as "dull" in the podcast was Harris' insistence that we can take any story whatsoever and read archetypes and what have you into it. It seemed to me as if he was basically denouncing all mythological and archetypical interpretations as Mumbo jumbo, especially his example of reading things into a random recipe book. Also, his constant insistence that religions lead to huge delusions was a bit strange - of course they do, but this doesn't exclude the power of a religious archetypical story at all in my understanding. It's two very different things. This struck me as rather childish and lacking in understanding. But it was a valid point in a sense, and sparked an interesting exchange. I thought Peterson's answer to that was pretty good as well.
I related it to Being because the way Peterson talked about the suffering of Christ and all that, for example, really spoke to me and imo shows that Peterson has personal experience with these sorts of archetypes in his life. To then compare these stories to a recipe book just didn't sit well with me, although I understand what Harris was trying to say here.
I found one youtube comment on the podcast interesting that said:
This is how I see it too, and my impression was that Harris is 'merely' a brilliant intellectual, whereas Peterson has quite a few struggles with his self under his belt and as a consequence combines a brilliant mind with a (partly) integrated Being that allows him to push forward on his path with a greater passion, awareness and understanding (as Gurdjieff uses the word).
But me too, I thought that all in all, it was a good dialogue when I listened to it, maybe I was a bit harsh in my post and, as I said, 'primed' to criticize Harris' points and accept Peterson's.
As far as Peterson's understanding of Jung is concerned, I can't really judge it because I don't know much about Jung. If Peterson is a 'popularizer' of Jung's ideas, then I think it's a good thing. So far, what he said about Jung's ideas and how he applied them to different examples made sense to me, based on my current understanding. What do you think is an important aspect, in the context of Peterson's lectures and his audience, of Jung's thinking that Peterson is missing/where he lacks the 'breadth'?
Edit: added a paragraph
And more...
https://youtu.be/q5GjYuWMmhg
This appears to be some history in action. An actual act of shouting reason from high ground. -And not as a mechanical affectation or play re-enactment of a "St. Crispin's Day speech" type of performance for narcissistic effect or because that's simply what people think they're supposed to do in order to stay on the script of the moment, but rather action borne of genuine necessity.
Despite the call to reason being expressed, I do find myself quite emotionally engaged, proud that this element of humanity exists.
I don't know if that's a problem, but there it is.
https://youtu.be/q5GjYuWMmhg
This appears to be some history in action. An actual act of shouting reason from high ground. -And not as a mechanical affectation or play re-enactment of a "St. Crispin's Day speech" type of performance for narcissistic effect or because that's simply what people think they're supposed to do in order to stay on the script of the moment, but rather action borne of genuine necessity.
Despite the call to reason being expressed, I do find myself quite emotionally engaged, proud that this element of humanity exists.
I don't know if that's a problem, but there it is.
Woodsman said:
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I find myself in solidarity with him too. He's basically helping people learn how to navigate and think for their selves. And his idea of "open dialogue" is basically networking. I liked the last part where he was talking about relying on your conscience. It sounded like he was saying you have to make sure your reading instrument is calibrated by not lying to yourself.
obyvatel
The Living Force
[quote author=luc]
As far as Peterson's understanding of Jung is concerned, I can't really judge it because I don't know much about Jung. If Peterson is a 'popularizer' of Jung's ideas, then I think it's a good thing. So far, what he said about Jung's ideas and how he applied them to different examples made sense to me, based on my current understanding. What do you think is an important aspect, in the context of Peterson's lectures and his audience, of Jung's thinking that Peterson is missing/where he lacks the 'breadth'?
[/quote]
Jung's discovery of the collective unconscious was made from empirical evidence from people whom he treated as a psychologist and the considerable research he did on mythological and alchemical thinking across cultures. Symbolic thinking in the framework of archetypal psychology - which is the tool Jung used to describe the landscape of the collective unconscious - is a risky endeavor. Harris's parody of the recipe from a cook book brought that out. It was delusional as Patterson pointed out. But Jung actually used such material in a clinical context to form the hypothesis of archetypes and the collective unconscious. One question Jung asked was why do these visions and narratives coming from mental pathology show striking similarities across a diverse group of people? Now, if Peterson (or anyone else) speaks in mythological and archetypal terms, he needs to be able to not only navigate but also articulate this strange grey area where the line between madness and sense is very very blurry. Jung had great intellectual discipline which helped him navigate this territory. That is where scientific thinking becomes a lifeline as it anchors the person and keeps him from being swept away into madness.
Peterson is using archetypal material very selectively to exalt Judeo-Christian tradition. That is going to bring him the adulation of people who were born into this tradition but have been disillusioned since. There is a need in people for this kind of archetypal explanations legitimizing a tradition. So yes, at present he is playing the role of a culture hero and attracting attention, adulation and brickbats (from the sjw) group. I was thinking it was perhaps only a matter of time before people from the church start inviting him. Given the current wave of conservative right wing ascendancy in parts of the Western world, it will be interesting to see how Peterson's championing of Judeo-Christian religion unfolds.
The other factor is Peterson's insistence that totalitarian regimes and human evil be attributed to people not speaking the truth. It is part of the picture and it is important to encourage people to speak the truth. But to me it seems like an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon. Jung acknowledged the existence of archetypal evil. In addition there is ponerology. Peterson's simplistic appeal would energize people but using archetypal imagery in a selective way can bring about trouble."Speak the truth as you see it" is fine; "the culture where speaking truth has reached its highest form in present times is the Judeo- Christian tradition" (paraphrasing his statement to Harris from my memory) is problematic, especially when used in conjunction with symbolic interpretations of "Genesis" and "Cane and Abel". Jung had all this data and much more - but he did not tread this path. Peterson sets himself up as a culture hero (in a mythological and archetypal sense) and he does tread this path. So I have my reservations about this. We will see how this plays out I guess.
A rather long winded post - but hopefully it makes some sense.
Fwiw
As far as Peterson's understanding of Jung is concerned, I can't really judge it because I don't know much about Jung. If Peterson is a 'popularizer' of Jung's ideas, then I think it's a good thing. So far, what he said about Jung's ideas and how he applied them to different examples made sense to me, based on my current understanding. What do you think is an important aspect, in the context of Peterson's lectures and his audience, of Jung's thinking that Peterson is missing/where he lacks the 'breadth'?
[/quote]
Jung's discovery of the collective unconscious was made from empirical evidence from people whom he treated as a psychologist and the considerable research he did on mythological and alchemical thinking across cultures. Symbolic thinking in the framework of archetypal psychology - which is the tool Jung used to describe the landscape of the collective unconscious - is a risky endeavor. Harris's parody of the recipe from a cook book brought that out. It was delusional as Patterson pointed out. But Jung actually used such material in a clinical context to form the hypothesis of archetypes and the collective unconscious. One question Jung asked was why do these visions and narratives coming from mental pathology show striking similarities across a diverse group of people? Now, if Peterson (or anyone else) speaks in mythological and archetypal terms, he needs to be able to not only navigate but also articulate this strange grey area where the line between madness and sense is very very blurry. Jung had great intellectual discipline which helped him navigate this territory. That is where scientific thinking becomes a lifeline as it anchors the person and keeps him from being swept away into madness.
Peterson is using archetypal material very selectively to exalt Judeo-Christian tradition. That is going to bring him the adulation of people who were born into this tradition but have been disillusioned since. There is a need in people for this kind of archetypal explanations legitimizing a tradition. So yes, at present he is playing the role of a culture hero and attracting attention, adulation and brickbats (from the sjw) group. I was thinking it was perhaps only a matter of time before people from the church start inviting him. Given the current wave of conservative right wing ascendancy in parts of the Western world, it will be interesting to see how Peterson's championing of Judeo-Christian religion unfolds.
The other factor is Peterson's insistence that totalitarian regimes and human evil be attributed to people not speaking the truth. It is part of the picture and it is important to encourage people to speak the truth. But to me it seems like an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon. Jung acknowledged the existence of archetypal evil. In addition there is ponerology. Peterson's simplistic appeal would energize people but using archetypal imagery in a selective way can bring about trouble."Speak the truth as you see it" is fine; "the culture where speaking truth has reached its highest form in present times is the Judeo- Christian tradition" (paraphrasing his statement to Harris from my memory) is problematic, especially when used in conjunction with symbolic interpretations of "Genesis" and "Cane and Abel". Jung had all this data and much more - but he did not tread this path. Peterson sets himself up as a culture hero (in a mythological and archetypal sense) and he does tread this path. So I have my reservations about this. We will see how this plays out I guess.
A rather long winded post - but hopefully it makes some sense.
Fwiw
BHelmet
The Living Force
Good point.obyvatel said:
obyvatel said:
I am not sure this is quite the case. The exaltation may or may not be there but I have heard Peterson on several occasions mention that the ideas and archetypes that underpin the Judeo-Christian tradition are far far older than the bible or the aforementioned tradition. He is, I think, suggesting that Western traditions are far older than is generally acknowledged. (and seems to be implying that there is a lot more to learn in this area and that our present "learning" is faulty/incomplete/misunderstood.) He is also gently breaking the "bad news" to the religious dogmatists by doing so.
Along the same lines, I don't think Peterson is championing any particular religion. He acknowledges them but seems to be trying to point at something much older, and much more deeply buried that lies beneath "religion". I think he is championing the ideals beneath Christianity, not the modern religious version of it.
obyvatel said:
Is telling the truth simple.....ever?
Anyway, judging Peterson's stance on religious and spiritual ideals based only on the Harris vids kind of gives an incomplete picture, IMO. There are about 8-12 vids, or more, where Peterson references Christianity or Christ or God or religion. I have watched almost all of them. Actually I am kind of disappointed in the Harris vids. Peterson let Harris prattle on with one unsupported and unexamined assumption after another and did not really take Harris to task. I think they were both treading lightly and largely doing some intellectual shadow-boxing and refraining from taking off the gloves and really getting down to it.
obyvatel said:
Thanks obyvatel, it makes perfect sense.
Me too, I'm a little uncomfortable with his notion to "always speak the truth" - it flies in the face of strategic enclosure and external considering. And it ignores the fact that there are dangerous people out there.
On the other hand, in the context of Peterson's path, it kind of does make sense and it translates into a powerful message that could get people started to change something. I think his audience are mostly more or less regular folks (most of them men, interestingly), and not so much "truthers" or conspiracy theorists and the like. So his message could lead to positive changes in them.
Yet, there is danger in that and as you said, it can (and will) lead to trouble. But then, Peterson emphasizes the importance of suffering and accepting it - as we know, the right kind of trouble in the right dosage can teach us the most. He himself learned a lot in this process, I think his talks got better and better.
I believe Peterson himself intuitively understands that you can't go "all-out truth" all the time. Following his talks for some time, I think he tested the waters continuously. For example, he didn't talk a lot about religion and such at the beginning. Also, he mentioned at some point that he had mystical experiences, and I think he is convinced of the existence of a transcendent reality, yet he doesn't talk about it much and tries to bring the discussion back "down to earth" when someone asks about it.
Another thing to consider is that strategic enclosure is a relative thing: the deeper the knowledge we have, the more we need it. For example, the esoteric knowledge that Laura and this forum offer does have some very far-out elements to it, like aliens, reincarnation, channelling, esoteric Work etc. In the context that Peterson speaks about "telling the truth", there is much less dangerous knowledge involved that needs protection. I think his audience will more likely understand it in the sense of "I need to voice my political standpoint, see what comes out of it, and refine my opinion if necessary", or "I need to tell my spouse an ugly truth, even though it's hard for me" etc.
Some people were even inspired to start a youtube channel and speak out on social media by Peterson's talks. I think this is great, especially when considering that (imo) those who have the most to say/share are often those with the most self-doubts and self-sabotaging behavior, which then leaves the 'playing field' to more narcissistic people who put themselves out there to be admired, not to share truth and learn.
Something else: from a marketing perspective, if you want to change people's thinking and confront them with new and challenging information, you want to give them what they want first, and then, when you have them hooked, give them what they need. In a sense, Peterson gives people what they want: an anti-thesis to the bashing of Western civilization, a path to reconnecting with their cultural and religious traditions, and for the religious people a confirmation of their feelings of alienation from the crazy post-modern Western society. But, he then goes on to give people what they need, as opposed to what they want: the acceptance of suffering, being responsible for your own life, getting your house in order, the burden of meaning, leaving their comfort zones etc. He does it in an authoritative way that is useful here I think, yet he comes across as a normal human being with his own quirks as opposed to a charismatic charlatan who is full of himself.
So yes, let's see where Peterson's path will lead and whether he gets derailed at some point.
Just some further thoughts.
3D Student said:
Careful not to project here. If he was walking the Fourth Way, he'd be walking the Fourth Way.
obyvatel said:
Exactly; different path.
obyvatel said:
I find it interesting that it comes at a time when the origins of both Christianity and Western civilization have been subject to critical examination as never before.
luc said:
Again; different path.
luc said:
Yes, he's kind of more salve than savior in that respect.