Jordan Peterson

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Any specific statements you would identify as especially controversial? I'm more interested in particulars than vague gesturing towards "all the transgender stuff."



So his statements are controversial but not controversial at the same time?



What has he said about Christianity that is embarrassing and/or controversial?

Yes. On reflection I should have says his marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it chimes with jus target market's prejudices and if helps if it's controversial.

Watch him talk about Christianity. It's truly embarrassing to see a grown man go all around the houses and talk for so long and still make such a weak case.

All the transgender stuff was what made him famous specifically because it was controversial and conservative. He didn't get to his current level of fame by doing self help books and teaching psychology to post grads.

Do you at least see the controversy in espousing an all meat diet as a 'cure'?

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. On reflection I should have says his marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it chimes with jus target market's prejudices and if helps if it's controversial.

Watch him talk about Christianity. It's truly embarrassing to see a grown man go all around the houses and talk for so long and still make such a weak case.

All the transgender stuff was what made him famous specifically because it was controversial and conservative. He didn't get to his current level of fame by doing self help books and teaching psychology to post grads.

Again, more vague gesticulating towards "all the x stuff" that is allegedly so controversial — and yet so unspecific.

If his views are so inflammatory, and if he'll say "almost anything," it's odd that nobody can give specific examples of his controversial opinions.

Do you at least see the controversy in espousing an all meat diet as a 'cure'?

Sure. But he's not being attacked for giving questionable nutritional advice, surely?

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Again, more vague gesticulating towards "all the x stuff" that is allegedly so controversial — and yet so unspecific.

If his views are so inflammatory, and if he'll say "almost anything," it's odd that nobody can give specific examples of his controversial opinions.



Sure. But he's not being attacked for giving questionable nutritional advice, surely?

The all beef cure diet is definitely something he's being critiqued for. As man example, I'm criticising him for espousing an all beef diet as a 'cure' and I'm not criticising him for advising petting cats. An all beef diet is nonsense but it's also something his conservative American market would like the sound of.

I actually don't criticise him for the Christianity stuff but its just a marketing ploy as his climate change denial.

If you don't know about the transgender stuff, look it up. It's what made his name. I've absolutely no idea what he actually thinks about transgenderism but he took the controversial angle because it suited the brand he was creating.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The all beef cure diet is definitely something he's being critiqued for. As man example, I'm criticising him for espousing an all beef diet as a 'cure' and I'm not criticising him for advising petting cats. An all beef diet is nonsense but it's also something his conservative American market would like the sound of.

I actually don't criticise him for the Christianity stuff but its just a marketing ploy as his climate change denial.

If you don't know about the transgender stuff, look it up. It's what made his name. I've absolutely no idea what he actually thinks about transgenderism but he took the controversial angle because it suited the brand he was creating.

Right -- so we're agreed about his all-beef diet. That's a bit silly. But I don't think he causes such controversy by giving dietary advice.

I looked up his views on Christianity which seem to amount to saying God may not exist, but that the Biblical texts and Christian religions propagate valuable teachings that should be preserved. I'd agree with that myself. I don't think it's all that controversial to note that Christianity played a significant foundational role in spreading ideas about tolerance, forgiveness, and human rights that shaped the modern world as we know it. (Look at the values the Romans held before Christianity spread, and the latter is infinitely preferable.)

On the transgender issue, he disagrees that gender has no grounding in biology. He also objects to the Canadian government's efforts to compel people to use transgendered people's preferred pronouns, seeing that as an issue of compelled speech. Again, hardly controversial, unless you believe the government should be passing laws around such things.

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Right -- so we're agreed about his all-beef diet. That's a bit silly. But I don't think he causes such controversy by giving dietary advice.

I looked up his views on Christianity which seem to amount to saying God may not exist, but that the Biblical texts and Christian religions propagate valuable teachings that should be preserved. I'd agree with that myself. I don't think it's all that controversial to note that Christianity played a significant foundational role in spreading ideas about tolerance, forgiveness, and human rights that shaped the modern world as we know it. (Look at the values the Romans held before Christianity spread, and the latter is infinitely preferable.)

On the transgender issue, he disagrees that gender has no grounding in biology. He also objects to the Canadian government's efforts to compel people to use transgendered people's preferred pronouns, seeing that as an issue of compelled speech. Again, hardly controversial, unless you believe the government should be passing laws around such things.

The all beef diet isn't just silly. It's a cynical example of how far away from reality he's willing to go to sell his products. It casts a fairly dark cloud over all his work if he's willing to peddle that kind of absolute nonsense - but it's what his market wants to hear. Honestly, that alone should be a massive red flag.

Re Christianity, if only he said it so succinctly.

Re climate change denial, it's pretty cynical to use climate change denial to market your product. But Peterson didn't mind.

I have no problem with advising people to stand up straight, tidy their room or stroke a cat. And if that's all he said then neither of us would have ever heard of him because those things are unremarkable. It's the controversial stuff that got him known to the public.

An all beef diet... I mean, seriously. It's not just a bit silly, it's a sign of a man who would say anything to sell his product and that's pretty much how I see him.

Fathom

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I'm just looking at table of contents on Amazon,

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The titles of the chapters are all but completely and utterly meaningless. They sound wonderful but the first chapter contains much more about lobsters (pages and pages worth)

The first chapter of 12 Rules should be renamed "Lobsters as a guide for human behavior," before Peterson launches into his pseudo-science.

Fathom

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Right -- so we're agreed about his all-beef diet. That's a bit silly.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The all beef diet isn't just silly. It's a cynical example of how far away from reality he's willing to go to sell his products. It casts a fairly dark cloud over all his work if he's willing to peddle that kind of absolute nonsense - but it's what his market wants to hear. Honestly, that alone should be a massive red flag.

Peterson just looking for another controversy to sell something.

He really does seem to inspire an opposition..

And like, regarding the beef diet.. after he was on it a few months he looked way healthier than he had in a long time..

Fathom

CQD wrote: »

And like, regarding the beef diet.. after he was on it a few months he looked way healthier than he had in a long time..

Anecdotal. Not science.

ancapailldorcha

Another issue I have with him is that he can come across as being highly disingenuous. For example, in the Helen Lewis interview she brings up the beef only diet. He says that it resolved a lot of his issues but states that he wouldn't recommend it. Extolling its virtues is an implicit recommendation while attempting to cover himself.

Fathom

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

...the beef only diet. He says that it resolved a lot of his issues but states that he wouldn't recommend it. Extolling its virtues is an implicit recommendation while attempting to cover himself.

Allows Peterson and his apologists to claim that he is often misunderstood.

El_Duderino 09

Fathom wrote: »

Anecdotal. Not science.

And he said he was on an all beef diet. That doesn't actually mean he was on an all beef diet. Doctors (medical doctors with expertise in nutrition and gastrointestinal health) will tell you it’s absolutely not a viable diet.

nkl12xtw5goz70

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

Fathom

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And he said he was on an all beef diet. That doesn't actually mean he was on an all beef diet. Doctors (medical doctors with expertise in nutrition and gastrointestinal health) will tell you it’s absolutely not a viable diet.

According to Rafi Letzter in Live Science (November 2019): "High cholesterol, cancer and a shorter life span would all be very real risks," of an all beef-diet.

Fathom

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

No. See earlier posts about Peterson's Maps, 12 Rules, and vids.

Black Swan

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

Fathom wrote: »

No. See earlier posts about Peterson's Maps, 12 Rules, and vids.

Add Peterson's debate on Bill C-16.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Black Swan wrote: »

Add Peterson's debate on Bill C-16.

Peterson's concern about Bill C-16 was and is legitimate. On Boards.ie, posters have been threatened by a community manager with bans if they refuse to refer to a trans individual by his or her or their or zir chosen pronoun — meaning, in effect, that Boards.ie compels speech. Now, imagine that logic extended to the category of hate crime. "Call me what I wish to be called or face arrest." It is entirely possible.

Is it just that he kind of moved the conversation/thinking forward beyond the kind of scientific materialism of the previous era that he incites such ire?

Fathom

CQD wrote: »

Is it just that he kind of moved the conversation/thinking forward beyond the kind of scientific materialism of the previous era that he incites such ire?

Or did Peterson move the "conversation/thinking" back to previous eras? Back to theology, mythology, patriarchal, and pre-scientific?

Fathom

Fathom wrote: »

Or did Peterson move the "conversation/thinking" back to previous eras? Back to theology, mythology, patriarchal, and pre-scientific?

Well, yeah, I had to stop myself putting /back in to that too..but the point being that the ideas that had come to prevail were lacking in some respects?..

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

It's a really obviously harmful thing he's espoused. Proper nonsense to sell products. I've mentioned all the transgender stuff which is the Controversy which made him famous. I didn't claim to know how to rank his controversial topics though.

Why are you interested in my ranking of his controversial topics?

Fathom

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

CQD wrote: »

Well, yeah, I had to stop myself putting /back in to that too..but the point being that the ideas that had come to prevail were lacking in some respects?..

Reiterating earlier posts. Look at the subtitle of 12 Rules for Life: "An Antidote to Chaos." In reading 12 Rules, order was symbolically male, and chaos was female. This was not based on Peterson's clinical psychology. Rather, it's his philosophy of gender. He then attempts to reinforce his philosophy with his patriarchal religious beliefs (in Maps). Cherry picks Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces (in Maps) for additional confirmation bias. Mistreats the left-brain, right-brain metaphor as if a scientific fact that favors men's intelligence over women's (in Maps). Then leaps pseudo scientifically between the behaviors of lobsters and humans (Chapter 1 in 12 Rules); which, not so subtly, continues his male role model dominance theme. It appeared from Maps and 12 Rules that Peterson advocates a return to the American 1950's "Ozzie & Harriet" era, with hubby the head of household, and wifey the 2nd class citizen.

The order and chaos thing was an taoist idea..the principle of the yin yang..Cambell is pretty much saying the same thing as Jung in a lot of ways, so I'd imagine that was why he was brought up..I think he probably views the male female dynamic as a more complimentary (yin yang like) relationship than you give him credit for..The lobster thing probably does give a biological credence to the point he's trying to make.

As for the fifties..I suppose time will tell whether that societal dynamic held things together or was a means of oppression..

And, yeah..women and chaos..sounds about right..

nkl12xtw5goz70

Fathom wrote: »

Reiterating earlier posts. Look at the subtitle of 12 Rules for Life: "An Antidote to Chaos." In reading 12 Rules, order was symbolically male, and chaos was female. This was not based on Peterson's clinical psychology. Rather, it's his philosophy of gender.

It's not necessarily his philosophy — it's arguably derived from Erich Neumann's History and Origins of Consciousness, which in turn relies heavily on Jung. Neither is it a philosophy of gender as much as it's a mythology of archetype, relying heavily on creation myths that envision masculine order emerging from feminine primordial chaos (Plato's Timaeus, for instance).

Here's a quote from Peterson's book relating to order and chaos: "Order is not enough. You can't just be stable, and secure, and unchanging, because there are still vital and important new things to be learned. Nonetheless, chaos can be too much. You can't long tolerate being swamped and overwhelmed beyond your capacity to cope while you are learning what you still need to know."

Peterson isn't saying that order is good and chaos is bad, but that we need balance between order and chaos — too much order, and we create unchanging rigidity; too much chaos, and we become unable to function. Keeping these opposed principles in balance enables a healthy person to live a full and happy life.

Black Swan

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Peterson's concern about Bill C-16 was and is legitimate. On Boards.ie, posters have been threatened by a community manager with bans if they refuse to refer to a trans individual by his or her or their or zir chosen pronoun — meaning, in effect, that Boards.ie compels speech. Now, imagine that logic extended to the category of hate crime. "Call me what I wish to be called or face arrest." It is entirely possible.

A "storm in a teapot" or "1984" or someplace along this continuum?

**Swannie waves wing at Permabear**

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

A "storm in a teapot" or "1984" or someplace along this continuum?

Derridean nightmare!

nkl12xtw5goz70

Black Swan wrote: »

A "storm in a teapot" or "1984" or someplace along this continuum?

**Swannie waves wing at Permabear**

CBC News asked Brenda Cossman, a law professor at the University of Toronto, and Jared Brown, a litigator at a Canadian law firm, whether the bill could be used to prosecute someone who refused to use a trans person's preferred pronoun.

“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”

If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

That's two Canadian legal experts who acknowledge that Peterson has a point — that under this legislation, someone who refuses to use a trans person's preferred pronoun could potentially be fined, sent to sensitivity training, forced to apologize, be banned from publishing his or her views, and even be sent to prison.

That isn't a state of affairs that anyone who believes in free speech — or a free society in general — should endorse.

That said the element from 1984 that most resonates here is the Two Minutes' Hate from the left every time they hear Peterson's name...

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

That said the element from 1984 that most resonates here is the Two Minutes' Hate from the left every time they hear Peterson's name...

Tenuous 1984 reference. But some people think even mentioning 1984 is clever though.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Tenuous 1984 reference. But some people think even mentioning 1984 is clever though.

It was Black Swan who brought 1984 into the conversation. That said, Orwell's description of groupthink and the need to purge anyone who thinks differently was an eerily prescient foreshadowing of what would actually occur once the left established an academic monoculture. They can't force Peterson to drink hemlock, but the ostracism and hatred from the left towards him are quite something to behold. A professor recently said that he would fail any student in his class who cited Peterson as a source — despite Peterson being a much-cited academic in his own right.

ancapailldorcha

I find nothing more discrediting or tedious nowadays than meaningless generalisations about some sort of mythical, homogeneous and tyrannical "left".

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

It was Black Swan who brought 1984 into the conversation. That said, Orwell's description of groupthink and the need to purge anyone who thinks differently was an eerily prescient foreshadowing of what would actually occur once the left established an academic monoculture. They can't force Peterson to drink hemlock, but the ostracism and hatred from the left towards him are quite something to behold. A professor recently said that he would fail any student in his class who cited Peterson as a source — despite Peterson being a much-cited academic in his own right.

Make him drink hemlock? The desire to exaggerate opposition to him is genuinely interesting.

Even opposing something as obviously bogus as his miracle cure (which you can buy from his daughter) is treated by his supporters, as unfair criticism.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Make him drink hemlock? The desire to exaggerate opposition to him is genuinely interesting.

A reference to the trial of Socrates, in case that wasn't obvious.

Socrates was sentenced to death for refusing to recognize the official gods of Athens, and for allegedly corrupting its youth.

Given that Peterson attacks the sacred cows of political correctness, and is regularly accused of corrupting the minds of young men, I thought the comparison apt.

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

A reference to the trial of Socrates, in case that wasn't obvious.

Socrates was sentenced to death for refusing to recognize the official gods of Athens, and for allegedly corrupting its youth.

Given that Peterson attacks the sacred cows of political correctness, and is regularly accused of corrupting the minds of young men, I thought the comparison apt.

Oh I get the old timey reference. And I'm sure some people think that even referencing Socrates its nearly as clever as referencing 1984, no matter how apt it is or isn't.

The most apt part might be the genuine nonsense that he's putting in young men's heads that they can cure mental illness by buying his daughter's miracle cure for depression. Even a staunch supporter must be able to admit that its a greasy bit of business to muck about with mental health to make our daughter a few bucks.

Some people will say anything for a few bucks though.

P.S. you might or might not note that I didn't call for his execution, imprisonment, beating, crucifixion or any other method of murder. It's possible to call a conman a conman when they do conman behaviour, without calls for murder. I can also acknowledge that petting cats, standing up straight and cleaning your room (if you allowed it to get dirty in the first place) are grand, if not extraordinary, advice.

cdgalwegian

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

A professor recently said that he would fail any student in his class who cited Peterson as a source — despite Peterson being a much-cited academic in his own right.

Cited Peterson as a source to what? Obviously his clinical psychology material falls within the realms of scientific/empirical testing. But his metaphysical stuff? IOWS, is the professor refusing to allow metaphysical theories to be smuggled in under the umbrella of Peterson's broader writings? What's the context here?

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I get the old timey reference. And I'm sure some people think that even referencing Socrates its nearly as clever as referencing 1984, no matter how apt it is or isn't.

Accusing people of trying to be "clever" by referencing a philosopher on a Philosophy forum? Er...

As for your efforts to wedge Peterson's beef diet into your every post, Boards does have a Nutrition & Diet forum, where I'm sure you'll find posters eager to debate the pros and cons of fad diets.

nkl12xtw5goz70

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Cited Peterson as a source to what?

Anything. The professor, who teaches sociology at the University of Calgary, stated that any he would fail any student who cited Peterson as a source, period.

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Accusing people of trying to be "clever" by referencing a philosopher on a Philosophy forum? Er...

As for your efforts to wedge Peterson's beef diet into your every post, Boards does have a Nutrition & Diet forum, where I'm sure you'll find posters eager to debate the pros and cons of fad diets.

Ah now. Comparing Peterson to Socrates based on the persecution they both experienced, is tenuous. One was effectively put to death, the other has been criticised. Hardly similar.

And the fact that Peterson is peddling some genuinely dangerous miracle cures for serious illness like depression, fur jus daughter's benefit. That means Peterson is in line for genuine and harsh critic. But still his supporters flock to defend him and exaggerate the criticism. Here we have people comparing criticism to murder. Don't you even see it as a stretch?

cdgalwegian

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Anything. The professor, who teaches sociology at the University of Calgary, stated that any he would fail any student who cited Peterson as a source, period.

I was writing this post, before DDGing it:
"Was that something said in jest by this professor, as hyperbole? In terms of social science, is refusing to accept empirical research- based on material extraneous to the empirical research by the writer- even allowable? "

DDG search:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/calgary-professor-tweets-he-fails-students-for-citing-jordan-peterson

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here we have people comparing criticism to murder.

Oh, for Pete's sake. How much twisting can you do?

Socrates was killed because he refused to accept received beliefs and because he encouraged young people to question those beliefs.

Obviously, we no longer sentence people to death for such offences, at least in the Western world. Instead, we use ostracism and vilification, as Orwell anticipated in 1984 when he wrote about "thoughtcrime" and the "Two Minutes' Hate."

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Oh, for Pete's sake. How much twisting can you do?

Socrates was killed because he refused to accept received beliefs and because he encouraged young people to question those beliefs.

Obviously, we no longer sentence people to death for such offences, at least in the Western world. Instead, we use ostracism and vilification, as Orwell anticipated in 1984 when he wrote about "thoughtcrime" and the "Two Minutes' Hate."

Tenuous, isn't it?

nkl12xtw5goz70

cdgalwegian wrote: »

I was writing this post, before DDGing it:
"Was that something said in jest by this professor, as hyperbole? In terms of social science, is refusing to accept empirical research- based on material extraneous to the empirical research by the writer- even allowable?

After a backlash, the professor tried to claim that it was a "joke."

I don't believe that it was. In another Canadian university, a teaching assistant was reprimanded for violating its "sexual violence" policy after she showed a Peterson video to her students. Threatening to fail students who mention or cite him would seem a logical extension of that attitude.

cdgalwegian

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

After a backlash, the professor tried to claim that it was a "joke."

I don't believe that it was. In another Canadian university, a teaching assistant was reprimanded for violating its "sexual violence" policy after she showed a Peterson video to her students.

I don't believe it was a joke either. A lot of what is happening here, in terms of academia, is the recognition by academics of Peterson using his academic bona fides to peddle his metaphysical stuff as part and parcel of a scientific analysis of how to live our lives.

nkl12xtw5goz70

cdgalwegian wrote: »

I don't believe it was a joke either. A lot of what is happening here, in terms of academia, is the recognition by academics of Peterson using his academic bona fides to peddle his metaphysical stuff as part and parcel of a scientific analysis of how to live our lives.

That happens all the time. Another prominent example is Brené Brown, a professor at the University of Houston who has written a number of New York Times bestselling self-improvement books, such as Daring Greatly, Rising Strong, Braving the Wilderness, and Dare to Lead. Her online videos are extremely popular, and she now features in a Netflix special called Brené Brown: The Call to Courage.

The only essential difference is that Brown isn't poking at the hornet's nest of the progressive left — which means she escapes the vilification and ostracism that academics direct at Peterson.

cdgalwegian

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

That happens all the time. Another prominent example is Brené Brown, a professor at the University of Houston who has written a number of New York Times bestselling self-improvement books, such as Daring Greatly, Rising Strong, Braving the Wilderness, and Dare to Lead. Her online videos are extremely popular, and she now features in a Netflix special called Brené Brown: The Call to Courage.

The only essential difference is that Brown isn't poking at the hornet's nest of the progressive left — which means she escapes the vilification and ostracism that academics direct at Peterson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren%C3%A9_Brown
It's not the only main difference; my point would be that she is not trying to smuggle metaphysical claims- under the cloak of science- into mainstream media. This is what annoys many in academia. For good reason.

nkl12xtw5goz70

cdgalwegian wrote: »

It's not the only main difference; my point would be that she is not trying to smuggle metaphysical claims- under the cloak of science- into mainstream media. This is what annoys many in academia. For good reason.

From the Amazon description of Brown's bestselling book Braving the Wilderness:

Brown argues that what we're experiencing today is a spiritual crisis of disconnection, and introduces four practices of true belonging that challenge everything we believe about ourselves and each other. She writes, ‘True belonging requires us to believe in and belong to ourselves so fully that we can find sacredness both in both being a part of something, and in standing alone when necessary. But in a culture that's rife with perfectionism and pleasing, and with the erosion of civility, it's easy to stay quiet, hide in our ideological bunkers, or fit in rather than show up as our true selves and brave the wilderness of uncertainty and criticism. But true belonging is not something we negotiate or accomplish with others; it's a daily practice that demands integrity and authenticity. It's a personal commitment that we carry in our hearts.’ Brown offers us the clarity and courage we need to find our way back to ourselves and to each other. And that path cuts right through the wilderness. Brown writes, ‘The wilderness is an untamed, unpredictable place of solitude and searching. It is a place as dangerous as it is breathtaking, a place as sought after as it is feared. But it turns out to be the place of true belonging, and it's the bravest and most sacred place you will ever stand.’

There would seem to be many "metaphysical claims" at play here — from diagnosing a "spiritual crises of disconnection" to advocating "practices of true belonging" to finding "sacred places" to stand.

But this stuff gets a free pass.

cdgalwegian

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

From the Amazon description of Brown's bestselling book Braving the Wilderness:



There would seem to be many "metaphysical claims" at play here — from diagnosing a "spiritual crises of disconnection" to advocating "practices of true belonging" to finding "sacred places" to stand.

But this stuff gets a free pass.

Excuse the metaphysical pun: the devil is in the detail. That looks to me like metaphysical referencing, rather than making metaphysical claims. Even many of the non-spiritual persuasion may find this appealing, and use such references as holding places, just as western yoga-practitioners etc can dump or simply ignore the metaphysical underpinnings of what they practice. Well-being is a huge industry, so it seems she is able to stride the empirical and the metaphysical fence in her output, by not endorsing any metaphysical claims (from what little I've seen). Fair dues to her. Peterson's modus operandum seems to be to court controversy. Instead of striding the metaphysical fence, Peterson prefers click-bait.

nkl12xtw5goz70

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Excuse the metaphysical pun: the devil is in the detail. That looks to me like metaphysical referencing, rather than making metaphysical claims.

So we can be clear about what we're talking about here — what "metaphysical claims" has Peterson made, and why are they invalid?

cdgalwegian

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So we can be clear about what we're talking about here — what "metaphysical claims" has Peterson made, and why are they invalid?

A quick DDG search for efficiency:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

"REALITY

Peterson’s three major metaphysical categories are Being, Order, and Chaos, all glorified with capital letters. By “Being” he does not mean existence, but rather the “lived experience” of existence. He is less interested in the objective world of things studied by science than in the subjective world of experiences and meanings that he thinks is the province of literature, religion, and mythology. Although he cites scientific studies when they support his views of gender, he draws most of his conclusions about the experience of existence from literary sources such as poetry and the Bible.

Peterson says he got his idea of Being as the totality of human experience from Heidegger, but Heidegger did not confuse Being with his more subjective concepts of “Being-there” and “Being-in-the world” (Dreyfus, 1991). Peterson’s use of the term “Being” for the subjective experience of existence causes much confusion, for example when he says that “cats are a manifestation of nature, of Being, in an almost pure form.” Nature has been around for at least 13.5 billion years, since the Big Bang, but subjective experience has only been around for less than a billion, when animals with nervous systems evolved. Peterson follows anti-science philosophers in assuming that subjective experience can never be explained by objective methods, but progress is being made on developing neuroscientific theories of consciousness. Hence the gap between what exists and people’s experience of it is starting to close.

Peterson’s subtitle is “An Antidote to Chaos”, and the point of his rules is to help people to achieve order. “Order is where the people around you act according to well-understood social norms, and remain predictable and cooperative.” It is “explored territory.” “Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens.” It is “all those things and situations we neither know nor understand.” Without justification, he says that order is symbolically masculine while chaos is feminine. Both chaos and order are part of Being in his subjective sense, so they belong to experience of reality rather than to reality itself.

Peterson’s emphasis on order might be taken as part of the traditional conservative emphasis on social order and hierarchy, but he insists he is a classic liberal. His message on order is more personal, that people can benefit by organizing their lives so they are less stressed and anxious. Use of deceptively deep categories of Order and Chaos provides only the illusion of profundity. "

The piece ends with:
"Peterson’s allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrow-minded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere."

Any such metaphysical claims are by their nature not provable i.e. not evidenced empirically. But Peterson folds his metaphysical claims into the mix, along with his empirical credentials, where his credentials are what give much of the public the 'free pass' he needs, but which academics do not.

nkl12xtw5goz70

So the issue is that he uses Heideggerian terminology such as Being?

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Any such metaphysical claims are by their nature not provable i.e. not evidenced empirically.

We'd live in an impoverished world if academics could inquire only into phenomena that are "provable." In particular, much traditional philosophical inquiry into existence, knowledge, ethics, reason, aesthetics, etc., would not be deemed "provable." Heidegger himself wrote extensively about Being without producing anything resembling scientific proof for his views.

But Peterson folds his metaphysical claims into the mix, along with his empirical credentials, where his credentials are what give much of the public the 'free pass' he needs; but with the academics they are not.

You believe that academics criticize Peterson because he uses his academic status to voice opinions and write books about things that he is not qualified to talk about?

I'd note that linguistics professor Noam Chomsky has spent decades speaking and writing books about issues such as US foreign policy, capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the mainstream media, and other concerns that have nothing to do with his academic training. In all that time, relatively few academics have questioned his right to use his academic position as a platform for his views.

The explanation, of course, is that there's a palpable double standard. Chomsky is feted by the academic left because his political stances — however unqualified he is as a professor of linguistics to write or speak authoritatively on them — broadly support the positions that predominate in that community (anti-capitalist, anti-Israel, etc.). But when a professor such as Peterson, whose views are perceived to support right-wing positions (the horror!), writes a general and relatively uncontroversial self-help book, the knives come out.

cdgalwegian

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So the issue is that he uses Heideggerian terminology such as Being?

No.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

We'd live in an impoverished world if academics could inquire only into phenomena that are "provable." In particular, much traditional philosophical inquiry into existence, knowledge, ethics, reason, aesthetics, etc., would not be deemed "provable." Heidegger himself wrote extensively about Being without producing anything resembling scientific proof for his views.

Totally agree.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

You believe that academics criticize Peterson because he uses his academic status to voice opinions and write books about things that he is not qualified to talk about?

I'd note that linguistics professor Noam Chomsky has spent decades speaking and writing books about issues such as US foreign policy, capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the mainstream media, and other concerns that have nothing to do with his academic training. In all that time, relatively few academics have questioned his right to use his academic position as a platform for his views.

Everybody is entitled to make metaphysical claims; expertise helps in the capacity to add to an argument, but bringing the nature of reality into empirical hypotheses doesn't really fly, because empirical hypotheses require empirical data. This includes Chomsky; it doesn't matter what your background is if you make an empirical observation- it needs to be backed up with empirical data: Chomsky's favourite line is "Let's look at the facts", is it not?

So yes, some academics criticize Peterson for what they perceive as his charlatanism.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

The explanation, of course, is that there's a palpable double standard. Chomsky is feted by the academic left because his political stances — however unqualified he is as a professor of linguistics to write or speak authoritatively on them — broadly support the positions that predominate in that community (anti-capitalist, anti-Israel, etc.). But when a professor such as Peterson, whose views are perceived to support right-wing positions (the horror!), writes a general and relatively uncontroversial self-help book, the knives come out.

As above, Chomsky deals in facts (which can be challenged). Peterson uses empirical studies, but incorporates them into his metaphysical narrative. The narrative he proposes- as the means to understanding and thereby living a better life - is superficially empirical; the underlying metaphysics is an adapted unscientific Jungianism.