I don't think JP is so much as 'viewed' at all within philosophy, let alone viewed negatively or positively. Philosophers are apt simply to ignore him. They don't cite self-help authors any more than they cite Marie Kondo or the guy who wrote the Subtle Art of not Giving a Fuck, whatever his name is. It's not a left or right thing, it's an academic relevance thing.

It's interesting you said "self-help authors". I want to be a clinical psychologist and I wouldn't like to be seen as a self-help author. I mean, there are so many self-help authors for sure but how come a clinical psychologist is viewed as a person without training? It's also interesting how he uses Nietzsche and by him, it got more popular. By reading some of his fans I feel like pseudo-intellectualism is on the rise.

Not all clinical psycologists are self-help authors but JP certainly is. From what I've seen though, he seems to have led a revival not so much in Nietzsche, but in Jung, whose name I hadn't seen brandied about since JPs rise to fame. It doesn't help that Jung is almost universally ignored as the kooky wing of an already seemingly kooky enterprise - psychoanalysis.

I've seen a few of Jordan Peterson's videos. He speaks very well, and I agree with much of what he says. But I have significant problems with his overall worldview.

For example, I maintain organisms evolved, and human beings in particular, were imbued with a moral sense by evolution in a tribal context, and that religion is an expression of the innate moral sense.

Peterson describes Christian religion as logos - that one can interpret as the moral discourse of Western civilisation. Okay, but, in Christianity, Christ is logos, and this relates in turn to John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Peterson claims that it is impossible to define values outside of this context, suggesting perhaps - he believes in God, and Christ, and that the logos he refers to is not merely the literary foundation of Western civilisation, but is actually a reference to the divine. When asked directly if he believes in God his answer was typically entertaining, but less than conclusive.

I maintain the basis of morality is evolutionary, and consequently, universal. Christian religion is the moral discourse of Western civilisation, and has enormous significance - no doubt. But religion is an expression of the innate moral sense, not the author of morality.

In short, I think Peterson has gotten hung up on reconciling the divine to his psychological, sociological, literary...etc, conception of reality - and consequently he fails to discover the deeper mechanics at play, the fundamental evolutionary basis of all morality, that is, the need of surviving organisms to be correct to a causal reality, or be rendered extinct.

Anything a nitwit like Peterson can say has already been better said thousands of years ago. However, the same can be said for analytic philosophy.

Maybe he's in it for the money!

Even a well-meaning intellectual like Jordan Peterson can’t resist but profit off the culture wars. It's just too easy money. There’s the Jordan Peterson who writes earnest but mediocre books like 12 Rules for Living, and there’s the online Jordan Peterson, who goes into extraordinary paroxysms about post-modernism and social justice warriors. And it’s this latter Jordan Peterson who is truly raking it in. — Jules Evans

https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/culture-war-profiteering

JP makes his distaste for the extreme left very clear, he talks about the worth of traditional values and he talks about the value of old stories such as those in the bible. He talks about the importance of free speech, the importance of family and community, personal responsibility, the objective nature of morality. Even though JP is almost certainly left-wing (liberal), it's easy to see why the right-wing likes him. I have no idea why you're talking about incels, nor do I know why incels would like him.

For the leftwing, it's obvious why they would dislike JP and there are many things they dislike. Besides being openly ridiculed by him on a regular basis, he attacks intersectional feminism, communism and Marx, the gender pay gap, the laws on transgender language, activism culture, the degree to which the left is nurture orientated and so on. This forum is exceedingly leftwing and actually quite radically leftwing, JP is not going to be viewed favourably here.

Why is Peterson so attractive to the right? — deusidex

Wrote on this here and here. I think the reasons he's popular and attractive to the right+centrists are detached from whatever his scholarly merits are.

I see people using incel language and the like (e.g. calling women as "females"). — deusidex

I don't think "females" is incel language. I don't like the word myself (but I am not a native speaker, so what do I know); however, I think it is more commonly used as a politically correct, age- and social status-neutral way of referring to, well, females - as opposed to "girls" and "women." Same with "males," of course.

How is Jordan Peterson viewed among philosophers? — deusidex

(Sorry, this is actually a deeper OP than I expected, but that was my initial reaction to just the title).

Why is Jordan Peterson this lightning rod to the leftists, that furiously denounce and ridicule him? Why are people even talking about this Canadian academic?

a) The simple fact is that Jordan Peterson came into the media focus and public discourse thanks to his opposition on a bill in Canada " Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code", which basically was a critique of political correctness and identity politics in legislation.

And of course critique of PC culture in an obscure bill in the neighboring country of the US still got a lot of attention in the highly polarized era of Trump. This made him something of a lightning rod, because conservative values from an academic person are more rare these days. Add one famous interview that became very popular in social media, and then "Jordan Peterson" became to be this "controversial" person on the right.

b) In an age where right-wing discourse was dominated by a populist simpleton like Trump and Fox News, there weren't many intellectually interesting commenters in the public debate. Hence Peterson filled that void. In a similar manner, a leftist biologist named Bret Weinstein came to the national attention (in the US) during the 2017 Evergreen State College protests, and afterwards was someone that was interviewed a lot as a critic of present PC culture and other modern leftist eccentrics.

c) Thirdly of course his actual work got interest and his books on self-help (like 12 Rules for Life) became best sellers and created a following, which curiously was portrayed to be "right-wing", which is a rather dubious portrayal.

I've seen a few of Jordan Peterson's videos. He speaks very well, and I agree with much of what he says. — counterpunch

What a fucking surprise.

-------------------------------------------------

I think everyone else got this covered. He wrote a self-help book but a bunch of alt-right losers bought instead a manifesto.

JP is probably responsible for a lot of the extremely low-quality political raving you see on here, e.g. the recently exiled Rafaela Leon.

The right like him because of a substitution error that they all seems to make now: criticising the left by criticising Marxism, then characterising the left well beyond Marxism. And they like him because his real target is not Marxists but decency. JP is famous because of his shortcomings as a professor of psychology, which led to a meltdown in front of his students which was seen instead as a call-to-arns by every misogynist, homophobe and transphobe in the world.

As a result, anyone who isn't a misogynist, homophobe or transphobe is now a Marxist whether that label makes any sense or not.

The other attraction to right-wing nutjobs is that JP presents conspiracy theory as philosophy. He takes old anti-Semitic myths and presents them anew with communists as the secret evil who are controlling everything: the media, academia, education, our minds. He has the special glasses, has awoken from the slumber that this underground power has kept everyone else in, and has an explanation for why you find yourself disagreeing with so much of the egalitarianism that you see: it's not that you're a backward asshole; it's not even political correctness gone mad... It's commies! And we know how evil commies are.

If logical fallacy and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory fucked and had a kid, it would be Jordan Peterson.

An interesting new trend where everything that one doesn't like is branded as "anti-Semitic".

I think the relation with incel culture comes from an interview with JP where he showed sympathy with the demand (voiced by some incels) to be assigned a sexual partner by the government. As usual with JP, it's hard to say whether he was just doing some psychological analysis of the demand or expressing some kind of endorsement.

Besides being openly ridiculed by him on a regular basis, he attacks intersectional feminism, communism and Marx, the gender pay gap, the laws on transgender language, activism culture, the degree to which the left is nurture orientated and so on. This forum is exceedingly leftwing and actually quite radically leftwing, JP is not going to be viewed favourably here. — Judaka

It's odd that I very rarely see someone defending JPs philosophy in it's substance, I only ever see people claiming that he is viewed unfavourably because of his politics. As a result, I have no idea what people who consider JP an important or convincing philosopher actually believe.

c) Thirdly of course his actual work got interest and his books on self-help (like 12 Rules for Life) became best sellers and created a following, which curiously was portrayed to be "right-wing", which is a rather dubious portrayal. — ssu

What's dubious about the portrayal? Peterson styles himself as a culture warrior against the left.

I'll speak up in his defense - his books and videos seem really to have helped a couple of young male relatives of mine - actually they were the first people to mention his name to me, Christmas 3-4 years back. What they seemed to get from him - not that they said much - was the importance of self-discipline and doing things properly. I was impressed that they were impressed by this, so I watched a few of his short talks. Had I encountered him at their age, I might have been drawn to him. I don't think he's terrible, which apparently I'm supposed to do. He appeared here in Aus a few years back on panel show, and I have to say he completely out-debated anyone who tried to tackle him. On the negative side, he was always breezily confident that Trump would win the 2019 2020 election, which instantly put me off, and I hope he regrets saying it.

Jung is almost universally ignored as the kooky wing of an already seemingly kooky enterprise - psychoanalysis. — StreetlightX

When I went to University, Jung's name was strictly verboten in the psychology department. The only place he ever came up in the curriculum was in Comparative Religion. I personally place Jung in the milieu of gnosticism.

I think the relation with incel culture comes from an interview with JP where he showed sympathy with the demand (voiced by some incels) to be assigned a sexual partner by the government. As usual with JP, it's hard to say whether he was just doing some psychological analysis of the demand or expressing some kind of endorsement. — Echarmion

I suppose that makes sense.

It's odd that I very rarely see someone defending JPs philosophy in it's substance, I only ever see people claiming that he is viewed unfavourably because of his politics. As a result, I have no idea what people who consider JP an important or convincing philosopher actually believe. — Echarmion

JP really likes focusing on personal responsibility, that seems to me to be the central theme of his philosophy. He believes that by adopting personal responsibility, you give your life meaning. Mostly, his philosophies are very self-help orientated as far as I can tell. Sometimes it seems as though he is suggesting one should focus on personal responsibility to the exclusion of fixing any social issues.

When he's not talking about self-help, he can be extraordinarily difficult to follow. Whether it's the archetypes, religion, morality, politics or the psychoanalysis. I've listened to JP quite a lot but I would have a hard time accurately paraphrasing his views on any of these things, he talks self-help or anti-left or anti-identity politics most of the time. He gives little bits of wisdom but they're not necessarily part of a larger structure.

I would say most of his usefulness as a cultural commentator has been the self-help, anti-left and points which seem to come from his background in psychology. His philosophies outside of the self-help, he has them but I don't think they're well known or even totally understood by even the people who like him.

When I went to University, Jung's name was strictly verboten in the psychology department. — Wayfarer

Sounds like an excellent department! Gnosticism seems right though.

Here's the long take on JP:

Jordan Peterson rose to prominence among the right (including the anti-SJW center/left) partially due to a coincidence: as a professor he protested some type of mandate about invented pronouns during a time when "anti-wokeness" was at it's peak on social media. The anti-wokeness crowd instantly took a liking to Jordan Peterson because he was an academic authority that was preaching against invented pronouns (the anti-feminist/SJW crowd was desperate for an academic counter to intersectional feminist theory).

The alt-right didn't really exist when his first protest went viral; at the time the main driver of the movement was simply a rejection of progressivism gone wild. Peterson merely rejected the use of new/invented pronouns, but the narrative quickly escalated to the idea that he rejected using the pronouns that his transsexual students presented as (he/she, or they upon request). Because of this, Peterson instantly became popular both with the large and amorphous anti-SJW center, but especially popular with any anti-SJW element that was also transphobic (and by extension, the overlaps of transphobia).

With the momentum from his original viral exposure, he naturally started exporting his various ideas in conversations and interviews, many of which take the form of religious or conservative metaphors (as a talk-therapist, simple ideas to help troubled people focus/improve is his specific area of expertise). But this was also the time period where the alt-right was beginning to coalesce and solidify. It would take too long to recount all the bat-shit ideological developments of the alt-right movement (and it's not a pretty picture), so in short, Peterson was one of the original anti-SJW rallying-poles that conservative-leaning (and especially young and stupid) anti-SJW's gathered and grouped around.

While Peterson thought he was exporting his clinical talk-therapy ideas to a culture that needed them, his "followers" were actually festering in darkened internet-corners, fuelling and reinforcing their shared delusions. They parlayed their starting nest-egg of sexism/racism/transphobia/anti-semitism/xenoiphobia into full blown Nazi ideology. There is actually a specific moment that in my opinion marked the official beginning of the alt-right (but at the very least it marks the point when Peterson was confronted with the reality of his followers' agendas, and also the point when the alt-right movement abandoned him and started searching for actual white supremacists). It's captured on video:



The absurdity and specificity of the question shows some of the wacky conspiratorial depths that the proto alt-right was immersed in at the time, and Peterson's "failure to answer the question" was interpreted by them as a complete betrayal/sign that he is the enemy. He was abandoned by the now minted "alt-right" overnight. The clip itself was a kind of formative signal that in my opinion formally launched the alt-right as a movement and unified its direction. Them that bandwagon'd to abandon Peterson over the above clip became the definitive alt-right base. The rest is our horrendous recent history...

Peterson was so easily misunderstood that he even misunderstood himself. He suddenly found himself being asked to make extensive political commentary (low-hanging anti-marxist rhetoric was crowd pleasing, so he kept playing the hits) but he didn't actually have any political experience or understanding outside of his niche as a clinical therapist. Drawing on his idiosyncratic religious and conservative therapeutic metaphors was all he could do to be persuasive as a speaker (and it did earn him some basic wins against basic idiots), but it turned out that experience in talk-therapy does not a political scientist make. He was completely unaware how thoroughly he was being misunderstood by his followers and detractors alike, and he was therefore unable to navigate the landscape. (Ben Shapiro is an example of a similar early alt-right rally-point, but because he actually understood what was happening, he was able to successfully dissociate himself from it).

Being in over his head from the get-go, it was all he could do to make money from his notoriety (he likely couldn't resist not shutting-up even if he understood what was happening from the beginning, and that he was entirely in-over-his-head). The philosophers that have had conversations with Peterson tend to bump up against his arbitrary use of metaphor and religion (seldom or never being able to correctly categorize the therapy-centric nature of his concoctions). Peterson himself believes that his borderline spiritual ideas have some kind of real world truth merit outside of being emotionally useful to some of his patients, so he can't even himself correctly situate the "truth" component of his ideas and worldview. That is or was his cardinal error, but really it's all one big tragic-comedy of errors...

I'm not sure what he has been saying since his return from Russia (where as far as I know, he spent over a year detoxing from a "clonazepam" addiction which he was using it to treat his mounting anxiety), but that's how it all went down.

An interesting new trend where everything that one doesn't like is branded as "anti-Semitic". — Tzeentch

Do you always just pick a word and guess the argument rather than reading? I never said he was anti-Semitic.

Are you trying to suggest that a large percentage of JP's base was alt-right? If so, do you have any evidence for this and if not, why are you talking about the alt-right as though it plays a huge role in JP's success?

Peterson merely rejected the use of new/invented pronouns, but the narrative quickly escalated to the idea that he rejected using the pronouns that his transsexual students presented as (he/she, or they upon request). Because of this, Peterson instantly became popular both with the large and amorphous anti-SJW center, but especially popular with any anti-SJW element that was also transphobic (and by extension, the overlaps of transphobia) — VagabondSpectre

He specifically rejected them on the basis of free speech, I can easily find him saying this more than once, I can also find him saying that he would call a transgender person by the pronouns they asked provided it was within reason. But you are making the claim that the reason Peterson became popular with the anti-SJW centre was that the narrative was that he refused to use he/she as asked to do so, so, can you show me anything to verify this?

Are you trying to suggest that a large percentage of JP's base was alt-right? If so, do you have any evidence for this and if not, why are you talking about the alt-right as though it plays a huge role in JP's success? — Judaka

I specifically explained how and why JP played a role in the emergence of the alt-right, which schism'd off from the anti-SJW crowd:

The absurdity and specificity of the question shows some of the wacky conspiratorial depths that the proto alt-right was immersed in at the time, and Peterson's "failure to answer the question" was interpreted by them as a complete betrayal/sign that he is the enemy. He was abandoned by the now minted "alt-right" overnight. The clip itself was a kind of formative signal that in my opinion formally launched the alt-right as a movement and unified its direction. Them that bandwagon'd to abandon Peterson over the above clip became the definitive alt-right base. The rest is our horrendous recent history... — VagabondSpectre

He specifically rejected them on the basis of free speech, I can easily find him saying this more than once, I can also find him saying that he would call a transgender person by the pronouns they asked provided it was within reason. But you are making the claim that the reason Peterson became popular with the anti-SJW centre was that the narrative was that he refused to use he/she as asked to do so, so, can you show me anything to verify this? — Judaka

Free speech was included in his initial argument/protest, but what made him fervent was, as he explained, the fact that being forced to memorize a slew of new pronouns and to tip-toe around them was too much of a cognitive burden to expect anyone to endure. That was his argument as a psychologist (it's nested in the original viral video IIRC). I am also aware that he never refused to call people by their preferred pronouns within reason, but that nuance was lost on just about everyone who interviewed him (and it attracted some of the ideological ingredients of the alt-right toward him early on). He wasn't aware enough of what was happening to properly clarify even that. The subject of transexuality/transgender in general has been a singularity of controversy and noise for about a decade, so it's understandable why he could not control that aspect of his own narrative.

But what I'm pointing to is the overall stochastic effects that the rapidly warping and escalating narrative around Peterson had on some groups and individuals within the anti-SJW crowd. The video where some random idiot asks Peterson about the Holodomor is around the point when the escalating narrative boiled over completely, and it had already long been out of Peterson's hands...

I'm a psychology student and I'm curious about the reason(s) why so many people on the right feel aligned with Peterson. — deusidex

Look at him: that characteristic earnest face, the tense body, never really smiling, a certain coldness and distance in his demeanor. It's what right-wingers, esp. those who are more far out on the right tend to have in common.


If you're a psychology student, you should be able to have access to many studies of the psychology of right-wingers, and specifically of right-wing authoritarians.

E.g.
The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes.

Egocentric victimhood is linked to support for Trump, study finds

I specifically explained how and why JP played a role in the emergence of the alt-right, which schism'd off from the anti-SJW crowd: — VagabondSpectre

It doesn't matter that you "specifically" explained your narrative, I asked for any evidence. If you don't have any, that's fine, I was just asking. Just realise that if you don't have any, your entire narrative is your word and since I disagree with pretty much everything you said, if you can't back up any of it, there's really nothing for me to do except "okay".

Free speech was included in his initial argument/protest, but what made him fervent was, as he explained, the fact that being forced to memorize a slew of new pronouns and to tip-toe around them was too much of a cognitive burden to expect anyone to endure. — VagabondSpectre

He specifically, repeatedly and consistently said the major problem was that the law policed language by forcing people to speak in the mandated way as opposed to forbidding them from speaking in a certain way. The slew of new pronouns was not the main issue he had but what makes you think it was? Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I know I can find a lot to back up mine if I need to.

He wasn't aware enough of what was happening to properly clarify even that. The subject of transexuality/transgender in general has been a singularity of controversy and noise for about a decade, so it's understandable why he could not control that aspect of his own narrative. — VagabondSpectre

I would consider myself anti-SJW though I think what people mean by SJW is generally intersectional feminism. I also actually know enough about the alt-right to say that their ideology is NOT based on anti-SJW ideas. I automatically assume anyone talking about the alt-right has no idea what the alt-right is, nothing personal but it's become a term for "something I don't like" for too many. We're talking about anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, white nationalism, white supremacy.

The alt-right is not exactly that new, it clearly parallels neo-nazi ideology. I don't know about the dark web but Reddit and 4chan are commonly cited to be the home of the alt-right and the alt-right had a presence there before 2016. People like Richard Spencer were already talking about the alt-right well before Peterson became famous. I think I'm borderline able to prove that your claims are just impossible to be correct but do you have literally any evidence to support what you're saying?

Think what you want about Jordan Peterson, but never, in five decades of studies, have I seen a psychologist more widely informed of the bibliography of his profession. He seems to have read everything his colleagues from various countries have written.

It is worth mentioning a phrase from him that applies a lot today:
"The historical education of most people is so inadequate that it is even a crime."
(Jordan B, Peterson)

Are you trying to suggest that a large percentage of JP's base was alt-right? If so, do you have any evidence for this and if not, why are you talking about the alt-right as though it plays a huge role in JP's success? — Judaka

JP's specific appeal to the alt-right has been boasted by none other than JP himself, who has rationalised that appeal as him actively reaching out to that audience in particular in an effort to make them less racist, misogynistic, etc. Utter bullshit, of course.

Of course the word "female" itself is not derogatory, without context. But in the context they use it, seems to be disparaging and patronizing.

I don't like the alt-right, I really despise their ideology and reject it as strongly as you do. I feel similarly about intersectional feminism, at least as an ideological group, ironically, for mostly the same reasons. Militant identity politics, prejudicial, hateful, consumed by race and sex categories and the similarities go on. I will admit, I have no idea what JP is talking about with the post-modern Marxists and I don't know why he didn't just call out intersectional feminism and I don't agree with him on everything. However, his criticisms of the far left, and your ideology, seem spot on to me. It has nothing to do with the alt-right and if they also dislike the far left, that's about the only similarity they share with Peterson, they share it with me too but it means nothing.

I mentioned incels because they seem represent a kind of pseudo-intellectualism and some of them seem to "follow" Peterson.

However, his criticisms of the far left, and your ideology, seem spot on to me. It has nothing to do with the alt-right and if they also dislike the far left, that's about the only similarity they share with Peterson, they share it with me too but it means nothing. — Judaka

The reasons why JP appeals to the alt-right are a little separable from JP's principles themselves. My fault with him is far less about his conclusions than his arguments. Nonetheless those arguments are identikit right-wing ones: 1) criticise X by criticising Y and associating X with Y, then proceed on the basis that X has been criticised; 2) insist that X is the public face of a more sinister Y conspiracy that has its tendrils everywhere.

If you think that pointing to anything you don't like and hissing "Marxism" is smart, he's the guy for you.

I don't think you know what my ideology is. Although you have good reason to know what it is not, which might be good enough for you. And Peterson. And the alt-right.