Such an explicit apology is an extraordinary thing. Respect.

I'm not exactly sure what language you are specifically referring to? — JerseyFlight

The specific language would be describing Peterson as a nihilist. Peterson doesn't describe himself as a nihilist and, indeed, perceives himself as fighting the nihilism and/or relativism of the post-modern cultural marxists.

As you also note:

Peterson doesn't have some comprehensive program. The guy is a conformist and back-seat Christian. — JerseyFlight

Which is debatable whether conformism and back-seat Christianity, as you put it, is a form of nihilism. Conformists generally find meaning in their conformity. Peterson proposes no coherent defense of why one should conform; and, worse, cherry-picks topics in which to be not "politically correct" and brandish about his courageous radicalism from the mainstream, while simultaneously, and unironically, reifying the enlightenment which was, at least a central part, about breaking with the conformity of feudalism.

If by "doesn't have come comprehensive program" we agree he has not coherent world view at all, my point here is that this should be firmly established as first step in a critique of Peterson.

Further, I am not merely psychologizing the man, and even if that's all it was, just so long as it was accurate, the fact that I was doing it, would neither be a refutation or prohibition, it would merely be a statement of fact premised in the negative. — JerseyFlight

Claiming someone "fears reality" is psychologizing, likewise "Peterson isn't even a believer in his own ideology", and "He knows this, he is still searching, and that is why he can neither be an example or a guide", are all psychologizing statements claiming to know Peterson's inner life. The problem with psychologizing a person's arguments is that claims about inner-life are not falsifiable.

Not necessarily uninteresting, as you say, they could be true, but an apologist will simply give a different, likewise unfalsifiable, account of Peterson's inner-world.

What can be much more constructively debated is if there's inconsistencies in Peterson's arguments and actions, then these inconsistencies can be exposed and a challenge to his supporters (or Peterson himself) made to resolve them.

Speculative psychologizing can support such an argument by providing potential explanations of why Peterson is motivated to maintain inconsistencies, but, at least for me, it's best to say things like "these contradictions seem to me evidence of a man 'complaining, traveling around the world to find doctors that would tell him what he wanted to hear so he didn't have to face the truth' " rather than positively claiming to know Peterson on the inside. In other words, the critical wound is exposing contradiction in an opponents own terms, that the ideology makes no sense in itself. Psychologizing is simply adding salt to the wound to make the sting more painful and aid in helping rouse supporters to the defense of the "injured deer, being separated from the heard" or then make it more clear they have abandoned their fellow dearling to the blinding headlights of critique, to be hit by its full force as they turn their cheeks away from the carnage.

However, I preambled my comment as my own view on how best to approach this sort of interlocutor. My goal is not to convince you that you should definitely adopt my method of first firmly establishing Peterson offers only glib analysis, and that, one of his main problems is psychologizing everybody and never engaging with the actual issues (such as the citation on health-care clearly demonstrates). Once Peterson's supporters abandon attempts to resolve these problems or apologize for them, then, again in my view, is the moment to discuss if what we see may express some deeper nihilism or delusional psychological problems, or both, and what we can learn from such tin-manning.

For instance, with your method the conversation quickly turned to "human nature" or then simply psychologizing you as psychologizing Peterson such as the following:

However, because you don't explain your reasoning or make any argument for your positions, the burden of proof is shoved entirely on me to dislodge or challenge every claim you made and honestly, I can't even do that because I'm not entirely sure what you're even referring to. It's just a narrative you constructed based on your interpretation and feelings on Peterson. You are free to just rant on Peterson all you like, call those who agree with you esteemed intellectuals and those who disagree ignorant and inept but you are deluded if you think you can have an actual conversation of substance with this type of behaviour. — Judaka

Which is an argument that cannot really be advanced. Judaka likes Peterson and attributes positive vibes to the man and so rejects your negative psychologizing of Peterson.

However, in simply bringing out what Peterson actually says and pointing out how it makes no sense and seems simply completely ignorant of who Peterson is talking about, we can see if Judaka is able to resolve such contradictions. If he or she can't, or she or he won't, then it maybe fruitful to move on and speculatively psychologize about why Judaka is unable or unwilling to do so.

Apologists for Peteron, as apologists generally do, usually want to quickly move the conversation to the "big" questions (human nature vs. socialization, relativisim vs. universalism, redistribution vs. competition, collective interests vs. individual interests etc.) which serves the function of first credibilizing Peterson by making it appear he genuinely engages with these issues in a coherent way as well as fruitful ground to fabricate the fallacy that as long as there is one credible position in such a philosophical debate we could imagine, that can be somehow associated with Peterson, then Peterson therefore has a credible position, while also focusing the conversation on issues that have not been resolved for thousands of years and there are plenty rebuttals for everything on-hand.

However, by focusing on what Peterson actually says outside the attempt to make some theory Peterson is imagined to be representing or then a theory of what ulterior motives Peterson has, but rather just the simple self-expression of the man and whether it's coherent or incoherent, then the challenge to supporters is much more acute: they must actually deal with Peterson and not their own noble conceptualization of Peterson.

For instance, in the citation on health-care, Peterson supports policy A, as it seems obvious to him that A is superior to B, and then somehow concludes with the idea that the people that also support policy A are to blame for the divisiveness between A and B supporters; therefore, it's his duty to oppose supporters of A. He does not even mention the possibility that if A is superior and A doesn't happen, then that's a recipe to making a worse society that will cause all sorts of problems that may manifest in all sorts of ways, including the people that support the obviously better A will get more and more angry and radical about it. Rather, he seems to think that conservatives have simply not encountered the idea that A maybe better for being more financially efficient for society, but if they do hear about it maybe they'll be tempted to jump on board (or then he simply feels his conservative children have no onus to think and take responsibility for their positions and can merrily jump and play while Peterson carries out the fearless defense of their peaceful idyllic shire, the calm of which need not be troubled with policy debate).

If is unable to resolve this, then clearly he or she is not a serious thinker and we can conclude is likely just projecting his or her own bad faith onto you.

Which is debatable whether conformism and back-seat Christianity, as you put it, is a form of nihilism. — boethius

This is not an original argument on my part it was Nietzsche's formation.

The statements I made are falsifiable, they are deduced from both Peterson's positive and negative affirmations, as well as his actions. What you don't seem to comprehend is that there is a negative side to a positive affirmation, the same is true of negative affirmations. Further, this is a superior way to proceed because one is using the subject's own premises to arrive at a contrary conclusion.

Apologists for Peteron, as apologists generally do, usually want to quickly move the conversation to the "big" questions (human nature vs. socialization, relativisim vs. universalism, redistribution vs. competition, collective interests vs. individual interests etc.) which serves the function of first credibilizing Peterson by making it appear he genuinely engages with these issues in a coherent way as well as fruitful ground to fabricate the fallacy that as long as there is one credible position in such a philosophical debate we could imagine, that can be somehow associated with Peterson, then Peterson therefore has a credible position, while also focusing the conversation on issues that have not been resolved for thousands of years and there are plenty rebuttals for everything on-hand. — boethius

That is, you have here admitted that his supporters are not drawn to him for the reasons you say, but precisely because he is good at "making it appear" that he has "genuinely engaged these issues" and arrived at comprehensive answers. I will continue to attack him precisely at this point. People want answers to the "big questions."

However, by focusing on what Peterson actually says outside the attempt to make some theory Peterson is imagined to be representing or then a theory of what ulterior motives Peterson has, but rather just the simple self-expression of the man and whether it's coherent or incoherent, then the challenge to supporters is much more acute: they must actually deal with Peterson and not their own noble conceptualization of Peterson. — boethius

You have admitted that this "noble conceptualization" results from Peterson's ability to posture on the "big questions." Then you go onto the topic of healthcare, claiming that the ability to show inconsistency here will result in the demise of the "noble conceptualization." I think not friend. I will stick to attacking Peterson on the "big issues."

This is not an original argument on part it was Nietzsche's formation. — JerseyFlight

It seems obviously debatable to me, unless Nietzsche is a standard of truth. Furthermore, it's also debatable that Nietzsche's "God is dead, and we killed him" type arguments are saying "post-God" "Christians" are already nihilistic, or then this process of secularization is leading to nihilism or then the fear of nihilism. It seems debatable as we are debating it. I would definitely argue that conformists are generally not nihilists, but implicitly or explicitly assign universal truths as justifying their conformism (often the simple truth that "they" are good and the "other" is bad); now, it maybe true that a conformist that genuinely engages in trying to formulate a justification for conformity, will likely fail and be faced with either nihilism or needing to embrace some new radical truth (and it maybe true that Peterson is in such a state right now), but insofar as a conformist undertakes no such introspection I would not dismiss the meaning they find in their comforts and accomplishments (and I would say, in our culture, the bedrock of conformity is the full commitment to undertake no such introspection ever, and so the conformist is quite secure ... insofar as their external environment continues to reflect this internal peace of mind, the conformist need only to consume to fill the void; I would not dismiss the possibility that it truly is filled).

The statements I made are falsifiable, they are deduced from both Peterson's positive and negative affirmations, as well as his actions. — JerseyFlight

Statements about internal psychology are not falsefiable; psychology already had to face this in the 70s (because it was not a science and, unfortunately, did not rectify the fundamental problems since). Peterson seems to have not gotten the memo, psychologizing entire groups all the time (both real and imaginary).

Now, we can assume people do have some internal nature, but we cannot really claim to know anything about it. How would we prove that someone "fears reality"?

Further, this is a superior way to proceed because one is using the subject's own premises to arrive at a contrary conclusion. — JerseyFlight

This would be true if Peterson was coherent enough that his own conclusions were clear.

Witness his lecture on the question of God: https://youtu.be/TUD3pE3ZsQI.

His main question is the consequence on one's actions if one believes in god or not, while also proposing the bizarre idea that one may need to feel a "right" to believe in god. I don't have the time to transcribe the most ludicrous parts (starting with his complaint that "it's a private matter" without any sense of irony with his self-appointed position of providing critique and mediation of and between Christians and secular liberals) but even a cursory browsing should be enough for anyone to conclude Peterson is simply unaware of the theological debate that has been going on for thousands of years (that it can be discussed outside the context of Christianity ... which, again, he seems to be genuinely unaware of the most basic theological arguments; yet is constantly defending).

However, apart from Peterson's poor understanding and analysis of theology within Christianity, seemingly oblivious to theological debates within philosophy more generally (not to mention other religions), the his most fatal misunderstanding is that he seems genuinely unaware that one's concept of "good" in which to evaluate "will believing in God make me a good person" may change depending on whether one believes in God or not. And, this basic error of taking good and bad for granted, then proceeding to psychologize some groups as "good" because (regarldess of what they believe and if it is true) they are lead by these beliefs to do good things according to Peterson and psychologizing other groups as "bad" because (regardless of what they believe and if it is true) they are led by these beliefs to do "bad" things according to Peterson, is clearly just begging the question over and over and over again.

Rather, I would argue Peterson has no premises and has no conclusions, he goes in circles dizzying and mesmerizing his audience as he does so.

If this is the case, it seems simply more efficient to ask supporters of Peterson to contend with what he actually says, such as his views on health care or his speech on God.

Whereas, the weakness of bringing Peterson's premises to different conclusions creates an endless quagmire of what his premises and conclusions actually are; which are very unclear. To even make the attempt requires what I call tin-manning: reformulating Peterson in some plausibly coherent way in which to analyse the premises of such a tin-man; not to say it is isn't a useful exercise, but it is not Peterson, only a fabricated tin version, and his supporters are right to point this out. His supporters will simply say his "intentions are good" and "he's helped people" and invent all sorts of alternative tin-man versions of Peterson with different gears and hinges; seems more to the point to simply point out that's the core philosophical contention of ethics and make the simple challenge to his supporters, or Peterson himself, to find in all of Peterson's moralizing where he ever addresses this central issue, without which there is no foundation for anything he says. If the challenge can't be met, Peterson is simply empathetic and understanding of his friends and dismissive and scornful of his enemies, while professing allegiance to a religion that teaches: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

This was the first and only time I ever saw anything of Peterson. He basically stated right from the get go he hadn't even read Marx apart from cramming the night before - or effectively so - on the Manifesto. That made the debate seem more like a publicity stunt than a serious debate. Hadn't given him any thought since this thread popped up - apparently he has a couple million followers on YouTube now.

PETERSON AND THE POISONED METAPHYSICAL ROOT:

"Well, we don’t know what’s happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, but we know that God’s got wind of it, and that that’s not good. We know that sin means to miss the mark, and so we know that whatever’s happened in Sodom and Gomorrah means that something about the natural, ethical order of things has been seriously violated. There’s a strong intimation in the Old Testament— which I think, by the way, is completely correct—that, if the proper order of being is violated, and that’s something like the balance of chaos of order, then all hell will break loose. One of the things I can tell you from reading a very comprehensive set of myths from around the world is that that’s a conclusion that human beings have come to everywhere: stay on the goddamn path, and be careful, because if you start to mess around, and you deviate—especially if you know that you’re deviating—things are not going to go well for you. That idea is everywhere. I think the idea is right because there aren’t that many ways of doing things right, and there’s a lot of ways of doing things wrong. If you do things wrong, the consequences of doing them wrong can be truly catastrophic." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, XI Sodom and Gomorrah.

There is no such thing as a "natural ethical order," this is pure fiction; it is Peterson's attempt to ascribe attributes to the universe that the universe does not contain in an attempt to comfort himself against the hard reality of chaos. He is much sheltered, as are we all, by the soft conditions of earth.

Peterson speaks of "the proper order," enter here the roots of fascism! Notice the silent fear hidden behind this exposition... what will one do, what must be done in order to maintain "the proper order?" We need to hear more about this "proper order!" If one transcends cultural values (The Proper Order) then one must face the horror of chaos, disorder will ensue? Is this accurate?

At one time it was The Proper Order that women should not participate in democracy, those who were not born white were considered slaves, but low and behold, we broke The Proper Order! Down with the conformists and their ignorant attempt to condemn the world to primitive values! And what happened when we liberated the oppressors from false values, did the world collapse into chaos? Did the sun unhinge itself from the reaches of space, did we tumble through oblivion? All these fears are unfounded, they are an overreaction, a desperate attempt to hold onto what is familiar and therefore comfortable. As evidenced from what has been cited, Peterson is motivated and driven by his psychological fear, how then can he be a liberator of those who are afraid?

"Stay on the goddamn path, do not deviate, things will not go well for you little child... fear! fear! fear! the consequences of everything I say: run back to conformity and you will be safe. I know the wild winds caught you, and you crouched in the shallow brush, come back to the fold and you will be safe."

"If you do things wrong" ? Moral language, behold the language of the Gods! But why not just use the word intelligence? 'Do not act foolishly my son, be wise, navigate the world with intelligence.' This seems more fitting, one has no need of the Gods. 

Peterson is his own myth, his mythology is comprised of absolute ignorance regarding class structures and systems, it is an ignorance that extends to the quality of the individual, what it seeks to create is not a liberated specimen or species, but a serf, both content and oblivious to his chains.

The message of the thinker (in contrast to the conformist) is to learn how to resist tyranny, is to study and comprehend, to learn how to overcome unintelligent systems, not only does our own quality hinge on this activity, but also the quality of our children. How human society is organized and valued plays the largest role in the quality of human life.

What lies buried beneath Peterson's exposition is the false claim that the reality into which we are born is a standard for life's quality. To depart from this, thinks Peterson, is to destroy the world. Dialectical awareness comprehends that this naivety is a kind of false consciousness, one that the specimen is fond of imposing on himself and others. Where are the thinkers!? Are we so dull that we are but the mere replicants of culture, only to mindlessly advocate the same? To properly contextualize Nietzsche, this is not the way of The Higher Man, he is not a mere replicant, but his thought is fiercely and courageously bent in the direction of intelligence. If one cannot see through the stupidity of an ignorant such as Peterson, how can one hope to move in the direction of a higher species awareness, how can one possibly be the Creator of Higher Values?

Peterson is not so intellectually large, my young friends, the problem is that he is too small! Thought-power has always resided with the non-conformists, and though their ideas are rejected in every epoch, it is the form of history that they often become the guarantors of a better future. Seek out the non-conformists, seek out the thinkers, do not run to men like Peterson to quell your fear. Learn to face it and overcome it by the power of thought, as so many quality thinkers have done before you.  

"I find Peterson’s fixation on political correctness and other targets as the extreme outgrowth of ‘cultural Marxism’ (a bloc which, in its ‘postmodern neo-Marxist’ form, comprises the Frankfurt School, the ‘French’ poststructuralist deconstructionism, identity politics, gender and queer theories, etc.) to have numerous problems. He seems to imply this ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ is the result of a deliberate shift in Marxist (or communist) strategy: after communism lost the economic battle with liberal capitalism (waiting in vain for the revolution to arrive in the developed Western world), its leaders, we are told, decided to move to the domain of cultural struggles (sexuality, feminism, racism, religion, etc), systematically undermining the cultural foundations and values of our freedoms. In the last decades, this new approach proved unexpectedly efficient: today, our societies are caught in a self-destructive circle of guilt, unable to defend their positive legacy. I see no necessary link between this line of thought and liberalism. The notion of ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ (or its more insidious form, ‘cultural Marxism’), manipulated by some secret communist centre and aiming to destroy Western freedoms, is a pure alt-right conspiracy theory (and the fact that it can be mobilized as part of a ‘liberal’ defence of our freedoms says something about the immanent weaknesses of the liberal project)." Slavoj Zizek, Jordan Peterson as a Symptom... of What?, contained in "Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, Zero Books 2020

The criticism here is twofold: 1) Peterson is propagating a conspiracy theory and 2) the liberal project is in an impoverished state if such conspiracy theories can pass themselves off as knowledge or critique.

Peterson's philosophical conceptions are grounded in Jungian myths, archetypes, and religious narratives. This is superficially evident in 12 Rules and expounded in great depth in Maps of Meaning and his University Lectures

His core belief is that the eons of human evolution have not only developed and determined our physical adaptations, instincts, and survival habits but that equally powerful cultural behavioral codes are also embedded in our unconscious and perhaps coded in our DNA. And some of this manifests in our art, religion, and mythology. What we are looking at here is a kind of Neo-Jungian reload.

It may help to understand that Peterson doesn't need a personal supernatural creator god at all. Those billions of years of evolution embedded within our body and mind are in fact god. (whether he will admit it or not ). Religion, Myth, Archetypes are the conscious ripples of deeply embedded and inescapable wisdom of the ages, possessing within themselves all the secrets and complexities of the creator. (For those who have read maps and/or viewed his lectures, I would be fascinated to know how you read this)

I can't decide how to make a full assessment of Peterson but I like him and confess that I find his core foundation thought-provoking. For Peterson, a BIble story is no more or less profound than Greek, Nordic, Egyptian, or Indigenous Mythology. He believes those stories are packed with timeless/infinite wisdom with deep layers of meaning.

This might seem like a recipe for an inherently conservative perspective. But we find that the central theme in all his myth unraveling always advocates reform and renewal. Always, warns of the dangers of a tyrannical order leading to the corruption of civilization.

I have yet to find a genuine critique and criticism of Peterson that is mature and coherent - I think he would welcome it himself.

"and so they retreat to the idyllic past, but here the image of the past is itself distorted, projected as a kind of utopia from which mankind has departed."

Curious as to whether you have lived in this past to have such a clear view of the distortion. Interestingly politics has separated itself from a utopian view of the future whereas religion still believes in utopia but recognises we are heading towards dystopia. Religion is relaxed about the threats to its existence as throughout history it has been under attack. It still remains the default place to shelter when all else has failed.

In my pompous opinion, commentary which treats religion as if it were a single thing is immediately suspect and probably not meriting further time investment. Religion is this, religion is that etc, mostly bunk.

Religion encompasses billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the globe. It comes in too many forms and flavors to begin to list. Even within single denominations there is typically substantial ideological diversity. Individual congregations contain a multiple of people who are in attendance for a multitude of reasons. Even within the minds of a single individual one's relationship with their religion can change from day to day.

I have yet to find a genuine critique and criticism of Peterson that is mature and coherent - I think he would welcome it himself. — yebiga

Good luck finding that mature and coherent criticism of anybody today.

Peterson has a new book coming out in March titled Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life. Some of the chapter titles are:

Rule 13: Don't Go On An All-Meat Diet
Rule 14: Read More Than Just The Communist Manifesto When Debating Marxism
Rule 15: Never Try Benzos
Rule 16: Don't Travel to Russia With Your Daughter

:smirk:

Hope that he's in better shape now.

Oh well, since in March 2021 you don't have Trump anymore as President, there's at least then "alt-right" Jordan for you to ridicule, dismiss and/or to get upset about.

What great times we live in with the philosophical expertise of the likes of the bloke who was on 'Mock the Week', the guy out of Interstellar and the Canadian Hunter Biden lookalike, JP:

Hope Peterson has recovered but he's had his 15 minutes. I don't think anyone cares much about his ideas any more.

Would that we be so lucky. I fully expect a renewed flood of 14 y. o. Petermites in the forum soon after his new book is released, if not sooner.

Hope Peterson has recovered but he's had his 15 minutes. I don't think anyone cares much about his ideas any more. — Baden

Peterson still has a ton of adoring fans. That book is gonna sell out instantly.