The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:50 pm

As most of you know the Canadian professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson is becoming somewhat of the spokes figure for the rapidly growing no nonsense school of conservative sanity.
He has also made the memosphere.


If you don't know the guy check out one of his lectures.
Just go to this video, watch it, and then follow the suggested links.

Tell me what you think of the JP message.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Thunderbolt steers all things. ( Wolf Child )
Book - - Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
Posts: 7162
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:04 am

I have watched a couple of his videos in the last two days one on Free Speech and one on Existentialism
I find him to be an excellent thinker and orator and I fully intend to watch all his speeches and lectures
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Postby Silhouette » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:53 am

I've watched a huge amount of videos of this guy, not because I am a follower, not at all, initially it was because he showed up on my youtube feed and the title was probably the kind of provocative thing that I like to listen to that challenges common points of view or even my own.

There are areas where his knowledge is annoyingly lacking, which is what drove me to continue to listen to him - to see if he could expand on it and justify it better, and happily his understanding of his position was far more founded than I am used to, even to the point where I wasn't quite sure why he was wrong on certain points and had to give it a good think - which is exactly what I'm looking for. He's even right about a great deal and well-foundedly so - no doubt the source of his appeal. But he's clearly straight out of North America, and what he has the most to say about seems to be predominantly about North American issues which are different to European ones. As a European it's hard to get as into these issues when you don't see them as much. Sure, SJWs exist over here, but it seems like their severity and influence doesn't even closely match that of those on the other side of the Atlantic. As such, I don't have a strong opinion on his psychoanalysis of them, seems ok to me.

I think his immediate environment, especially since he works in a university, has understandably significantly skewed his understanding of the left and he doesn't seem to be able to separate the young and loud US left from more sober and objective approaches to it. I don't have anything against his primary aim, but I do have plenty against its collateral damage to too-easily-associated movements, which only serves to magnify the already distorted view of the left held by far too many North Americans already. He professes the scientific method, and has plenty to back up his use of it, but it really doesn't seem like he applies it sufficiently to the left.

One of the most glaring contradictions in his methods though is to correctly argue in favour of and to represent free speech, but to use it to try and silence those who he is against. Though personally I take seriously the argument in favour of a conditional version of free speech, which is to violate the free speech of those who are against free speech/pro censorship. Obviously it's scarily utilitarian to support this argument, just think of all the possible abuse and twisting of it, but what good is free speech if you can't use it to defend your free speech by calling for the silencing of those who are trying to take it away free speech from everyone except themselves and others with whom they agree? As such I have a certain sympathy for his struggle, but disrespect his lack of awareness of its issues in consistency. To be honest, everybody already expects certain moral conditions to free speech: that those who are logically and/or empirically wrong ought to be silent, and that those who are lying ought to be silent. It's not so much of a big step to extend this to those who are trying to take away free speech - that they ought to be silent.

Anyhoo, yes he's a very domineering and engaging public speaker, a good communicator and despite his rambling he keeps it interesting and even brings up some very thought-provoking ideas much more often than most. Unlike his followers... I absolutely detest the parroting and the unthinking sycophancy that they spew out, genuinely nauseating, never mind frustrating. I often find it hard to resist the urge to set them straight. Those who just listen to what they want to hear for validation and a feeling of strength and courage to subsequently voice some suspicions or shallow musings with a new-found coherence using somebody else's words just depress me... and the sheer amount of likes that these comments get(!)
User avatar
Posts: 3119
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Return to Society, Government, and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users