Jordan Peterson

It looks to me like another Judeo-Christian based prejudice to say that order is represented by a male principle, and chaos by the feminine.Other cultures, including western culture in previous phases, have thought quite differently. It's an attempt to set male above female. To make one dependent for order on the other. In other words patriarchy pure and simple. Fear of chaos or the feminine leading to a need to impose control. It could easily be seen as betraying a certain anxiety and insecurity despite all appearance to the contrary.

I think in one place he misuses the Chinese yin yang symbol to stress this point. But it's nonsense. In that system neither yin nor yang is the ordering principle, but Tao which is beyond all categorazation as to masculine and feminine. To say yang equates with order and yin with chaos is simply not to grasp the symbol.

Just another prescription to continue to dominator style of culture which is leading us to the brink in so many ways.

The notion that the patriarchy is based on competence is also very questionable to my mind. I can in fact look at the UK and the USA to see how money and not competence is key to gaining a high position within the heirarchy. No one can seriously claim for instance that Trump would be where he is now purely on the basis of competence.
I'm not saying that all hierarchies are thus corrupt, but on the political level many are.

 

Any chance you could provide a link to a video where he says this - or where it comes from?

 

I can try later. I heard him talk about it in one of his podcasts like a year ago. Let me do some digging.

 

2. Personal Responsibility--i.e., Rugged Individualism

Lord knows the twenty-something, thirty-something unemployed millennial man-children living in their mom's basements and spending much of the day playing computer games could use some instruction on self-responsibility. So in that respect Peterson is doing the Lord's work by exhorting them to take responsibility for their lives. Unfortunately, in doing so, his dualistic thinking requires that he condemn group identity as leading to collectivism. His advice to assume the lobster pose, claws out, is based on Social Darwinist notions of the necessity of dominance hierarchies and competition. But human brains have billions more neurons than lobsters, and early on, humans saw the value of group action in assuring their survival and advancement. Peterson's rather emotional, weepy, defence of individualism on YouTube seems a bit over-the-top.

To Peterson, values of personal responsibility “aren’t warm, fuzzy virtues. They’re cold, hard, judgmental virtues. They’re the demands for performance, for example, that go along in the workplace.” Yes they are. But Peterson discourages collective action to mitigate the harshness. Workers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries discovered that they couldn't get ahead in the Dark Satanic Mills through individual self-help, so they formed labor unions and improved their condition. African-Americans, women, ethnic minorities, gays, etc., followed suit. Does Peterson seriously believe their grievances were all delusional? Does he seriously think the "free market" will solve their problems? Those young unemployed millennial males had the misfortune of entering the job market as it was collapsing around them during a major recession, and during a period when potential employers were enamored with the economic benefits of downsizing, outsourcing, automation and relocating overseas. Those are systemic problems calling for collective action. To label that "Neo-Marxism" and subversive is neither rational nor helpful. Peterson warns: "I think the whole group identiy thing is seriously pathological where we''re making your group the most important thing about you." He calls it "reprehensible, devastating, genocidal" and predicts it will "ultimately bring down our civilization if we ultimately pursue it." Horse pucky. I agree that we shouldn't make a group the most important thing about us, but that doesn't mean our group identities aren't important. Being male is an identiy, and Peterson certainly caters to that one.

 

That's a commendable position, but what a misleading way of putting it: "enforced monogamy" means instilled value of monogamy. For someone who has a cardinal rule "Be precise in your speech", Peterson seems pretty sloppy in his.

 

Meh, imo it's not really sloppy, it's just a phrase that without explanation, leaves room for spin in this socially sensitive climate.

 

I'm actually having trouble following how this statement he made about what men could potentially do as to not lash out at women for their problems got construed as sexist? as that link you posted suggests.

I suppose it's this track record of other stuff about defending men and status quo that has been mentioned in this thread?

 

'Divide and rule'.

We have to have a balance between individuals and the groups they form. If we just have this kind of rugged individualism that devalues the group, big corporate interest for example has no problem at all trampling the rights of the individual underfoot when it suits their agendas.

This is one reason why the quality of employment here in the UK has gone down to such a low level compared with the 1970's. In the 80's the conservative government bought in new and draconian laws to effectively cripple trade unions. Zero hours contracts, families where 2 adults are working but still can't earn a living wage and have to have a top up of govt. benefit are some of the the results. Along with massive insecurity and the rest of it. Meantime a few individuals become obscenely wealthy off the backs of the isolated individuals upon whom they prey.

Your lobster claws won't help you much in that kind of situation. (unless you goal is simply to be lobster number 1)
It requires people to organize in groups that are powerful enough to be able to stand up to corporate interest. Because corporations are certainly powerful 'groups'.

I really can't see why being a member of several groups must lead to a lack of responsibility. Arguably, a person who sees everything in terms of narrow self interest is less responsible than one who seeks the best outcome for the collective.

 

Who is going to 'enforce' monogamy though? The state? The church? Corporations?

 

Men in general

 

I think OP is confused with Peter Jordanson.

 

Have you ever seen them together? Jordan Peterson VS Peter Jordanson : JordanPeterson
Jordan Peterson VS Peter Jordanson (Part 2)

 

I swear on my life I didn't know this was an actual thing.

Fuck, this shit is funny.

 

That's a quality edit. The only reason I knew it was fake was the "Dubin Report" banner in the background.

 

It only shows to go us the postmodernists were right. Reality is a construct!

 

3. Gender: Biology is Destiny. This may be an inauspicious time to get serious, but the real Jordan Peterson (at least the one on Shaman's Youtube video "Why the Left Hates Jordan Peterson) had some serious if questionable things to say about gender. He didn't say "biology is destiny" That was Freud (actually he said anatomy is destiny). But same difference. Peterson did say (on the video) "The idea that gender identity is independent of biology is-- is-- insane. It's wrong. The scientific data are not only clear, they're clear beyond dispute. It's as bad as claiming that the world is flat in my estimation. It's so primitive--the idea that identity is your choice. Gender is negotiated with other people, which the bloody social constructionists even admit. The idea that it's a whim, is something you choose on the basis of a personal feeling, that level of understanding is approximately the level of a two year old, and I mean that technically." Hmmm. Before beginning to deconstruct this, I should note on the basis of past experience that a True Believer in Jordan might object that I'm misunderstanding him. Like the Delphic oracle, Peterson has a penchant to express himself in somewhat hyperbolic and ambiguous language that leads the uninitiated to misinterpret him completely. I'll acknowledge that, but plunge ahead and let the cognoscenti straighten me out.

What is he saying here? First of all, it sounds like he thinks that gender is not independent of biology and anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. But that can be given two alternative interpretations. (1) stating the obvious: we're born with given genitalia and hormones, although Christine Jorgensen proved in the early fifties and others like Caitlyn Jenner have shown since that 's not an insurmountable obstacle in the long run. In those cases, one could still say that their decisions were not independent of gender, because they had to do something about the gender that they started out with, and/or they didn't do it on a "whim", but thought long and hard about it and went through the pain and expense of lots of surgery, so they're not necessarily "insane' or "wrong" for making the change. If that's what Peterson meant, he was correct but sounding profound about something trivial. Or (2) He might have meant what it sounded like he was saying: that people like Christine and Caitlyn are crazy and wrong for defying biology--and culture. What does Peterson mean when he says gender is "negotiated with other people"? Obviously, he 's not speaking literally. I certainly don't recall entering into such negotiations. I assume he means that society and culture help to define gender. So what he seems to be getting at is that we should defer to societal and cultural expectations about what a person with a certain set of genitalia should be like, and what role(s) are suitable for such a person. I'll assume that's what Peterson is trying to say. Obviously, there have been remarkable changes in recent decades about societal notions toward gender. Peterson seems to be complaining about these. Let me concede that there have been deplorable cultural excesses that have been the subject of much discussion on Fox. Speaking to Duncan Trussell, Peterson explained that harmless-looking cartoon characters such as ‘genderbread person’ or a unicorn are used to teach children at the seventh grade level that their biological sex, psychological sense of their sex, the way they dress, and their erotic feelings towards others are all independent of each other. Peterson also claims that "Some activists teach that a person can be a man one day and a woman the next, or even change sexual identity from minute to minute". I.Jordan Peterson: Gender ideology is ‘completely insane’ . 'll admit that's an extreme and highly questionable view. But I'd say we need to call it that and not make what sound like blanket condemnations of the basis of extreme incidents. We need to distinguish between questionable instances, like classroom indoctrination in areas where there is no consensus, and the broader questions of whether it's permissible for people to choose their own lifestyles. After all, Peterson is supposed to be a libertarian. And doesn't the position that gender must be "negotiated with other people" imply acceptance of at least some indoctrination?

 

Peterson first attracted international celebrity over the issue of Canada's bill C-16 and the Ontario Human Rights Committee's ruling that refusing to refer to a person by a personal pronoun that matches their identity would probably be discrimination. Peterson, of course, protested that this would be an infringement of his free speech. I agree with him in principle. In the United States, restrictions on speech are pretty much restricted to libel, obscenity, and fighting words, which are not considered protected speech. That's as it should be.

But Peterson seems to have seriously mischaracterized Bill C-16 and went off the rails in arguing that gender nonbinary people do not exist and therefore should not have their rights protected by law. Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech for which he could be imprisoned. In order to commit a hate crime violation punishable by imprisonment, Peterson would have to engage in significant harassment, and just misusing pronouns doesn't rise to that level.Are Jordan Peterson's Claims About Bill C-16 Correct?..

Beyond that, his reasons for opposing the law include some rather extreme rhetoric:
“I think (the pronound) connected to an underground apparatus of radical left political motivations. I think uttering those words makes me a tool of those motivations. And I’m going to try and be a tool of my own motivations as clearly as I can articulate them and not the mouthpiece of some murderous ideology.” "Underground apparatus", "murderous ideology" seem a bit hyperbolic to characterize a silly law, and suggest to me ideological extremism on Peterson's part, as well.

 

Peterson’s contention that nonbinary identities are illegitimate because gender is rooted in biology and is particularly difficult to defend, for the reasons presented in post 76. In his interview with a trans person, Theryn Meyer, he asks a troubling question: "what if ‘your mere existence is a threat to categorical order’, to the extent that the right thing to do would be to ‘deny your own inner impulses and conform’?"
I'd say, screw the "categorical order". What kind of libertrian would find that to be a decisive question?

 

4. Religion and God

Acccording to the breathless young lady on the video: "another hallmark of progressivism is hostility toward religion, specificlly Jeudeo-Christian practices. In general, the progressive midnset loolks at practicing Christians and Jews and sees them as old fashioned, superstitious , brainwashed." Really? The progressive Christians I worship with every Sunday would be surprised to hear that. We think that Jesus calls us to be Social Justice Warriors, and tend to think that our fundamentalist brothers and sisters , God bless them, are Latter Day Pharisees gone astray. As for Peterson, his views on the subject are complex--more like ours, I think, than the fundamentalists, but missing an understanding of the compassion that Jesus preached.

I think the following videos pretty well sum up Peterson's views on the subjects.
jordan peterson god youtube - Yahoo Video Search Results
jordan peterson god youtube - Yahoo Video Search Results
jordan peterson god youtube - Yahoo Video Search Results
jordan peterson god youtube - Yahoo Video Search Results

Peterson doesn't like people to ask him about his beliefs in God, because he doesn't want to be pinned down, since his views are complex, so I hope I do him justice in trying to sum up what I make of what he's saying. His ideas about religion are different from the usual back and forth about supernatural entities, because Peterson thinks he can believe in God without believing in the Dude in the Sky or the particulars of Christian creeds.

First of all, he talks about God in metaphorical terms similar to Tillich's Ground of Being. He's not a literalist. God is "the ultimate transcendent value", "the highest ideal that a person holds, consciously or unconsciously, that's their God." Jesus was probably a real historical figure whose "spirit lives on", in the sense of having "a massive impact over time" Did he physically rise from the dead? Peterson leaves that door open. There are strange things things in this universe that we don't understand". He's "not willing to dismiss the mysterious".
Second, as a Jungian, Peterson believes that myths are not falsehoods but rather convey metaphorically deep truths that science is unable to capture. The world religions are repositories of the wisdom of humanity, and the stories that they tell in myth and legend draw on the collective human unconscious. In this, he seems to follow the path of Karen Armstrong, fellow Jungian Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, and Jung himself. As Armstrong puts it,. this is the Mythos, as opposed to the Logos. Logos is science or reason that helps us comprehend the facts of physical reality . Mythos is about meaning, or the significance of existence--the why of it all or "the more difficult aspects of our humanity, about for which there were no easy answers".
Third, he seems to follow the path of Kant and C.S. Lewis in invoking transcendental presuppositionism: moral values and institutions presuppose a deity; he acts "as if" God exists. That's the best I can do in explaining what I think he's trying to say. As I mentioned, I agree with it, as far as it goes, but think it falls short in placing more emphasis on Darwinian competition than on the compassionate love of humanity that Jesus was all about.

 

5. Academia

We're told here that progressives hate Peterson because "the hallowed halls of academia have become a safe space for neo-Marxist thought." Like Peterson himself, the commentator provides nothing to back up this claim. Ordinarily, it's incumbent upon people making charges and assertions to support them up with evidence. Peterson doesn't do this, although he's been a university professor long enough to know the rules. Instead, he advances a muddled theory conflating Marxism or neo-Marxism, identity politics, and post-moderninism, which most social scientists consider to be contradictory or unrelated bodies of thought. I could elaborate on this, but it's late and it's really the job of the asserter to make his case.