Interesting take. I've never been a big watcher or viewer of Peterson myself. I don't like how a lot of people see him as representing Christian values when he isn't even a Christian himself. I will say I oppose much of what he opposes, but not for the same exact reasons he does. But I think he can definitely teach us something. A hidden marginalized group in our society is lonely young men, who have the highest depression and suicide rates. The fact that so many of them are turning to him shows us the church has failed to help them in a Christian way, driving them to look to alternatives. What do you think?
Agree with you about the need to respond to the problem of disillusioned young people, especially men. I am not sure Peterson is the answer, but he definitely highlights a need for it in the Church, which is failing in this area.
I've watched a lot of YT content that has criticized JP and this is the best by far. I also think it is pretty profound to say that as a Christian voter, you vote based on a candidate's views on helping the poor and oppressed
@@anahata3478 Yes, the Christian perspective was great. I'm familiar with the criticisms of him using fancy language to not say a lot as well as basing his views on incorrect info
It really makes me pretty sad that’s it’s not immediately obvious to more people that this man is a charlatan. Makes me nervous about our susceptibility to persuasive yet substantially bankrupt people. Also, I really liked your feeelings towards our responsibilities to the downtrodden.
Have mostly just watched his lectures, not really interested in reading his books. I get very frustrated watching him. If he harbors feelings of inferiority, this may partially explain his machinations when he speaks publicly. Feelings of inferiority were a large part of what drove Adolph Hitler and his violent antisemitism. His connection with white nationalism really worries me. He is influencing thousands of young men.
Hi Micah, I set it to "unlisted" because it was only getting negative attention, and I didn't feel like dealing with that anymore. But I believe if I send you the link you can still view it and share it with others. Let me know if that works: th-cam.com/video/Q7Kkl58p2fE/w-d-xo.html
@@StephenDMorrison Thanks for sharing, I’m sorry you got a negative reception to it. I thought it was a very well done and well researched video. Looks like the link works, thank you!
I appreciated the video, and I do echo that his books are a challenge to get through. I think he is more victim of social media than accomplished scholar. It was a TH-cam video of his that propelled him into the spotlight, and I just think he has gotten swept up into political and cultural and religious conversations and platforms that he probably had never intended to approach. With all that, I think there is a contribution for him to make. I appreciate his criticisms of the culture, the political environment, and loss of a sense of the individual. You and I disagree on the merits of those critiques and their place in the Christian ethic, but there are many Christians with a different ecclesiology and social ethics, so to write him off completely is disregarding the impact he is having - though imperfect and minor in the grand scheme of things - on the conversation of building the Kingdom of God within the Christian community
I agree bud. The part that made me cringe was when Peterson said "when Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father but by me" basically was a abstract concept, That can be applied to any of us. In that, if we ALL would just pick up our crosses(take responsibility of ourselves)and aim for the highest level of good possible, then we will go to the hypothetical "heaven" and obtain meaning and joy." I paused at that point and said "whoa dude, you're missing ALOT by saying that with such confidence." BUT, he doesn't get EVERYTHING wrong. However, that's no small potatoes there, claiming to know what Jesus meant, and misrepresenting it, is NOT good exactly. Idk man. I feel you, I like Jordan but he is NOT the ultimate source for the wisdom of God. God's Word is! And heresy is easier to discern when you've heard the Truth. Take care buddy!
First of all, nice criticism of Peterson. You actually go after his arguments and points rather than his character which is refreshing on YT. I agree with you on many of your challenges of him, mainly his underplaying/underacknowledgement of his own privilege or the existence of privilege in the first place. However, I completely disagree with your choice to boil down Maps of Meaning to basic insight. His argument in that book is so much more than "myths reliably pop up across space and time." Its the similarity across those myths- that I would appreciate to hear more of your criticism of. Fair enough on his "12 Rules for Life". That is not profound and was never intended to be, I believe. Peterson himself would probably describe it as "making hay while the sun is shining". After all, he is a capitalist, and thats what they do.
I don't disagree with much of your critique. But I also agree with much of Peterson's philosophy and ideas. 12 Rules, which you see as sort of dumb and simplistic is meant to be just that. We have pushed aside the simple fundamental little rules that actually are a good foundational starting point for getting back on track. His general philosophy is don't let anything make you live a defeated life. Nothing anti-Christian in that except we know that we must partner with God in all that we do. It is unfortunate that he's not Christian and uses too much of scripture to make secular points. And yes, he draws on many other philosophers, without too much depth, to bolster his points. But we're all a product of all that we've read or heard during a lifetime. The trick is to mix and blur it all so we sound sophisticated and scholarly. And as someone who was once liberal as a Kennedy and now a conservative libertarian it's refreshing to see a psychologist that leans right. A funny made up quote from Peterson can be enjoyed by those who love or hate him: Dr. Peterson what's your favorite color? Well, that all depends on what you mean by 'color.' I think back to the late great William F. Buckley Jr. and how that question would trigger a thirty minute answer from him that would be incomprehensible.
Peterson manifests itself that he is transcendentally confusing, and often self contradictory, by deliberate obfuscation of simple and unoriginal ideas.
I appreciated this video and your take. I have some agreement and some disagreement. I agree basically that as Christians much of what Peterson is trying to do falls flat because we are not striving on our own power (or even competence as Peterson might protest) for our own gain (or even the gain of our families and community). We are empowered through Christ to work for His Kingdom. I agree that the Christian message is not fundamentally individualistic, while I would argue Peterson’s is. There is, however s lot of nuance that I think is worth exploring there. What I don’t like about this video is it strawmans some of Peterson’s ideas, which is not fair to Peterson and also allows his fans to dismiss you. So let’s talk Lobsters. To Steel man Peterson’s idea, he is not saying we should organize our society along the lines of the lobsters. Let’s not be Cathy Newman here. In my reading his point is the function of serotonin and the neurobiological similarity in lobsters and humans, which is actually true. It’s not a naturalistic fallacy, we do lots of animal research because animals are in fact similar to humans. His point is that your brain has a complex method to track your perceived social status and release serotonin accordingly. The lobster makes a simpler analogy of this because it has only one hierarchy with one goal. I think his point is that by acting and perceiving yourself as higher in some hierarchy, and taking steps to advance you can start a feedback loop that will lift you up. Where this fails is you can’t just give someone poor and marginalized a book and tell them to stand up straight and uplift themselves. So yes it fails for the individualism, but I think we should not strawman his argument which has more merit than you give it credit. I also think Peterson makes a crucial cade for the necessity of liberals and conservatives. Conservatives preserve hierarchies, liberals build new ones. Without conservatives we have anarchy, without liberals we have tyranny. One is not right a priori, it all depends on context, and the discourse between them is critical to a functioning society. To say peterson defends and preserves hierarchies is a bit too simplistic in my opinion. I really think we need more people to pick up the point about the importance of both liberals and conservatives in a discourse to find the correct balance for a particular society. My conclusion: I don’t really know. Peterson’s work helped me at a dark time in my life and faith. Of secular influences possible, I’d much rather he be the influence than say Sam Harris who is anti-God. I think Peterson’s appeal shows us a hunger for meaning that the church is failing to provide young people. We should work to correct that, but in the meantime, I’d rather Peterson than most people out there.
Btw you totally misrepresented the lobster analogy. Peterson does not say that the human brain is like a lobster's. His point is that our higher cerebral functions sit atop a very fundamental biochemical structure, in Freudian terms: the subconscious is always there, the ES dwells underneath the surface and it very much influences your personality (and people ignore this at their own peril). Now, the funny part is, that in the very moment you in your video make a little fun of Peterson and the lobster analogy, you actually prove it performatively. Because this act (making fun of something, calling it ridiculous) is the muster example of your brain acting out its "lobster-like" basic functions of enjoying to show a little dominance over the other lobster. Why do you make a video like that in the first place? Because it gives you a little serotonin boost! It's like a lobster waving his claws. Of course men do this in a much more sophisticated manner. But it is still the same behaviorial pattern. Peterson tries to make people aware of this, so they are able to integrate, control and use these patterns. Which is better than acting them out while thinking they would not apply to oneself.
Perhaps I did mischaracterize the analogy, I'll give you that. But I am mostly concerned with his justifications of unjust social hierarchies, whether it is from a lobster analogy or from psychology. Either way justifying unjust hierarchies is a problem in my book. That was the main point with bringing it up. Though I still find it absurd and your explanation doesn't make it any less so, in my opinion. But that isn't really the point I was making.
If you want to call something ridiculous, then this definitely does not mean, that you want to be dominant about soemone else. You may just want to express your opinion. Your argumentation does not make any sense. If I say I see you like someone dumb, I never want to to put myself above in the hierarchy. Because I don't care about hierarchical structures. I just express my opinion and if you'd take it or want to discuss it, I'm not interested in, because this is not important enough to me. And it shouldn't for you as well.
@@Gandalf_the_quantum_G actually it does imply dominance. One’s not wanting to participate in hierarchical structures doesn’t manifest exemption. Simply stated, the moment that one idea is pitted against another a hierarchy is taking shape. Hierarchies are pervasive.
@@StephenDMorrison I was shocked to hear “naturalistic fallacy” misused in this video. I did a quick google, and learned that this fallacious usage is widespread. Perhaps, Stephen, you picked up this apparent conflation with Hume’s “is/ought” on Reddit as this misinformed usage seems to be particularly prevalent there when discussing Peterson’s lobster analogy? Moore’s “naturalistic fallacy,” appearing in his “Principia Ethica,” is concerned explicitly with the ontological nature of “goodness.” To commit a “naturalistic fallacy” in ethics is to attempt to define the word good in terms of some natural quality. I guess I can sort of understand why people are making this mistake; however, it ranks low on the hierarchy of proper application.
I Believe he is looking at things from a very different perspective than Peterson. Less of the word salad and more about how to live out what the Bible says. Jesus loved and served the poor and He wants us to do the same. He also wants us to walk humbly with God and with others. Humility is a very important character trait to God.
Many of the young men who follow Peterson and seem to idolize him, are not unlike the people who follow trump. They have this passionate admiration for the person that seems unhealthy, like a form of hero worship. Peterson has developed a way of eliciting this from his audiences and seems to need this intense, almost worship, as much as his listeners need to give it. I find this very concerning and then when you mix in Christian neo-conservative politics, you Have the potential for a dangerous brew.
How do you know he hasn’t read much of Marx? Are you assuming that? If so you are offering a poor critique of what you say is his poor scholarship on Marx. Although Peterson does not have a good handle on Christian scholarship, that is not to say that he has not studiously engaged Marx. Unfortunately your critique lacks substantive examples. And who are these outright neo-nazis that he is aligned with? Notice I said that “he is aligned with.” We can’t control who aligns with our ideas.
He said as much in the debate with Zizek. I left a link to it in the description, see for yourself. For the Nazi question, also please see the description and the article on the alt-right. I have over 20 sources listed here for what I am saying. While I agree we cannot control who aligns with our ideas or uses them, my point was that he has not done enough to distance himself from the alt-right. He could do more but it fits into his narrative.
@@StephenDMorrison what would be an example of his critique of Marx getting something wrong where you believe Marx is correct and Peterson’s lack of scholarship has misunderstood the value of a Marxist ideology for today? Your antipathy towards Peterson is most evident in your critique of his rule 6. Do you honestly think that is what he was saying? Honestly? None of what you said follows from rule 6. The fact that he he used Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as an example in his chapter undermines your conclusion that he is advocating for (or smuggling in) some notion of political antipathy. Your critique is wholly imported on to his writing, resulting in the eisegesis you accuse him of doing with biblical material- a fault I would agree with in many respects.
@@mattb7069 I think there are many problems with how he understands Marx. Here is a good article that breaks down specific points from the Sizek-debate: medium.com/@RyanMallettOuttrim/25-debate-quotes-that-show-jordan-peterson-doesnt-know-what-marxism-is-1a3579e3d5db. Also Ben Burgis offers a good critique here: quillette.com/2019/04/24/marx-deserves-better-critics/. I can't add much to what they are saying. He just flatly does not understand Marx. As far as apathy is concerned, it is of course true that Peterson is highly political. I said is much in the video. The point is that he seems to lift up a particular kind of political apathy, namely, a lack of concern for the poor and oppressed. His politics is one that reinforces the status quo and conservative principles, rather than one that struggles for justice and liberation of the oppressed. I do not think anyone can be truly apolitical, but many can and are apathetic towards the poor and oppressed. And he seems to make this into a virtue. See the point about how he answered what to do when you see a poor man in their plight towards the end of 12 rules. If concern for the poor is not central to a political program, then, in my understanding of Christ, it is not Christian.
The problem with your critique is, that you see (and judge) Peterson's work through the lense of your christian worldview (hence: a "christian" critique). But Peterson does not pretend to be in accordance with christian dogmas (even his biblical series is only concerned with the psychological significance of the Bible, nothing else). His work is based on clinical experience, empirical studies and psychoanalytic theories, not on a priori worldviews like christianity, liberalism, marxism or whatever. He just tries to grasp the nature of the human psyche and give advice in respect of the way it functions in the empirical world.
He's not criticizing JP for not being a good Christian. Rather, he is saying that as a Christian, he cannot agree with JP. So even though JP isn't a Christian, many of his followers are. His patriarchal approach resonates with them. Christians using Christian morality to criticize non-Christians is also nothing new. Just listen to a homily at the next mass to get an example.
Exactly as Nick said, it is valid to criticize him from a Christian perspective. As a Christian, I cannot accept his work. That is a statement about me not him. I am not concerned with his personal faith but with his effect on Christian faith in general, which is apparent in his popularity among believers.
I’ve never listened to Jordan Peterson. Nor have I read any of his work. My impression has always been that he is not a profound thinker, though perhaps somewhat helpful to young men on the internet. But this critique is pretty much just a regurgitation of every other critique, which makes me suspicious. I hope you have been honest.
@@anahata3478 No, he presents his opinion based on his practice as a clinical psychologist, and his degree in psychology. Maybe you should listen to what he actually talks about. You'll find he's critical of conservatives as well. He has his own opinions, which is why you don't like him, because he doesn't have your opinions. That's the difference here, we can accept and even respect someone who doesn't agree with us. You can't.
You're right. It is OUR duty to take care of the poor. It OUR responsibility. We don't get to pass it off to others, or take from others what is theirs to give to the poor. You don't get to set that responsibility aside or pass it off to the government and think, "I've done my part." You haven't. Christ commanded us to give of OUR substance, not the substance of others. He also said we'll always have the poor among us. You cannot justify theft by saying you stole from someone to give what you took to the poor. You are a thief, whether you break into his house, hold him at gun point, or elect a politician to take by tax what is not yours to take. May I suggest that if you don't understand this, you do not understand that Christ whom you profess to adore. You need to read his parable, especially the parable of the talents, the parable of the laborers in the field, and the parable of the widow's mite.
You render unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is His. If Caesar goes ahead and helps the poor with what has been rendered unto him, that's a good thing.
@@farlado5459 But not to his salvation. He doesn't know God, God doesn't know him. Caesar does it for praise, not for God. You are not understanding the righteous meaning.
@@troubadour81 I don't see your point. Jesus says rather plainly that the tax is what is Caesar's. And if Caesar has received the common grace by which some good may be wrought of him - as is God's providence - then why would we protest that Caesar has done some good with what is his? Jesus at no point expresses that taxation is theft, otherwise rendering unto Caesar "what is his" would be to not pay taxes, which is not what Jesus here is saying. We cannot even begin to discuss the righteous meaning if you have failed to understand the plain sense of the Scripture.
@@farlado5459 You obviously don't understand. Caesar may or may not have done good, but the fact is, he still had no belief in a God, especially one that the Jews worshipped. Had this been true, there should at least be a mention of this miracle, of a Roman Emperor being touched by the words of Jesus, but it isn't so. Pontius Pilate on the other hand, he must have felt some emotional distress at what he was about to do, and may have regretted his decision after, we'll never know. Biblical revision is a very dangerous slope. Jesus expressed this and cautioned to anyone who would change what has written for their own glory and the manipulation of others. Their punishment would be just. A Follower of Christ is commanded to give to the poor, to care for the sick, the afflicted, those in pain, in need, in sorrow. But they are to do these things without praise and without acknowledgement. Jesus told us to do it for love and not for show. Jesus said "Do not be like the Pharisees". As a Follower of Christ, we are to love our neighbors and love our enemies with all our heart. If a gay Christ Follower hates his brother because he mocked him, he is not a True Follower of Christ, but a Pharisee. Jesus also cautioned his Followers to not YOKE with the unbelievers and the enemies, because they would corrupt you and cause you to question your faith. Christians should not HATE anyone, but they too have to option to not make friends nor spent time with them. They should do it, with caution as Jesus asked us to.
@@troubadour81 Whether or not Caesar believes is immaterial to my point. There is a common grace by which even the unbeliever has a law written on their heart (cf. Romans 2), and this can certainly extend to Caesar. I think you're getting bogged down in something I am not trying to say. Agreed that what Jesus said is what Jesus said. You're quite literally preaching to the choir (well, more to the altar guild and acolytes but that's beside the point). My point is far more about the fact that taxes are something which we are told to pay; and if those taxes go towards doing good, why ought we bemoan that good was done? After all, there are plenty of times where God's providence brings good things through those who hold political power; this isn't something that ceased.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting take. I've never been a big watcher or viewer of Peterson myself. I don't like how a lot of people see him as representing Christian values when he isn't even a Christian himself. I will say I oppose much of what he opposes, but not for the same exact reasons he does. But I think he can definitely teach us something. A hidden marginalized group in our society is lonely young men, who have the highest depression and suicide rates. The fact that so many of them are turning to him shows us the church has failed to help them in a Christian way, driving them to look to alternatives. What do you think?
Agree with you about the need to respond to the problem of disillusioned young people, especially men. I am not sure Peterson is the answer, but he definitely highlights a need for it in the Church, which is failing in this area.
You are a wonderful light in a dark time..keep shining!
Very well done and an honest critique of Peterson like this is very much needed right now
Thanks for watching!
I've watched a lot of YT content that has criticized JP and this is the best by far. I also think it is pretty profound to say that as a Christian voter, you vote based on a candidate's views on helping the poor and oppressed
Thanks for watching, Nick! And wow, I'm shocked to hear my impromptu video would be the best you've seen! Very kind.
@@anahata3478 Yes, the Christian perspective was great. I'm familiar with the criticisms of him using fancy language to not say a lot as well as basing his views on incorrect info
@@anahata3478 I really liked Hakim's videos, too. I linked them in the description.
It really makes me pretty sad that’s it’s not immediately obvious to more people that this man is a charlatan. Makes me nervous about our susceptibility to persuasive yet substantially bankrupt people. Also, I really liked your feeelings towards our responsibilities to the downtrodden.
Brilliant, and rather charitable, response to Peterson's work.
Thanks, Wesley!
I appreciate honesty and frankness! Thanks!
Remember the Good Samaritan?
Have mostly just watched his
lectures, not really interested in reading his books. I get very frustrated watching him. If he
harbors feelings of inferiority,
this may partially explain his
machinations when he speaks
publicly. Feelings of inferiority
were a large part of what drove
Adolph Hitler and his violent
antisemitism. His connection
with white nationalism really
worries me. He is influencing
thousands of young men.
What happened to your CRT video? I wanted to share it but I saw it was taken down?
Hi Micah, I set it to "unlisted" because it was only getting negative attention, and I didn't feel like dealing with that anymore. But I believe if I send you the link you can still view it and share it with others. Let me know if that works: th-cam.com/video/Q7Kkl58p2fE/w-d-xo.html
@@StephenDMorrison Thanks for sharing, I’m sorry you got a negative reception to it. I thought it was a very well done and well researched video. Looks like the link works, thank you!
I appreciated the video, and I do echo that his books are a challenge to get through. I think he is more victim of social media than accomplished scholar. It was a TH-cam video of his that propelled him into the spotlight, and I just think he has gotten swept up into political and cultural and religious conversations and platforms that he probably had never intended to approach. With all that, I think there is a contribution for him to make. I appreciate his criticisms of the culture, the political environment, and loss of a sense of the individual. You and I disagree on the merits of those critiques and their place in the Christian ethic, but there are many Christians with a different ecclesiology and social ethics, so to write him off completely is disregarding the impact he is having - though imperfect and minor in the grand scheme of things - on the conversation of building the Kingdom of God within the Christian community
I agree bud. The part that made me cringe was when Peterson said "when Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father but by me" basically was a abstract concept, That can be applied to any of us. In that, if we ALL would just pick up our crosses(take responsibility of ourselves)and aim for the highest level of good possible, then we will go to the hypothetical "heaven" and obtain meaning and joy." I paused at that point and said "whoa dude, you're missing ALOT by saying that with such confidence." BUT, he doesn't get EVERYTHING wrong. However, that's no small potatoes there, claiming to know what Jesus meant, and misrepresenting it, is NOT good exactly. Idk man. I feel you, I like Jordan but he is NOT the ultimate source for the wisdom of God. God's Word is! And heresy is easier to discern when you've heard the Truth. Take care buddy!
Rampant individualism has been plaguing society for decades, when was the sense of the individual lost?
A much needed video! Thank-you. I agree that there are much better people to read.
Never understood the hype on his work. Tried to read him once, and could not stay captivated.
First of all, nice criticism of Peterson. You actually go after his arguments and points rather than his character which is refreshing on YT. I agree with you on many of your challenges of him, mainly his underplaying/underacknowledgement of his own privilege or the existence of privilege in the first place. However, I completely disagree with your choice to boil down Maps of Meaning to basic insight. His argument in that book is so much more than "myths reliably pop up across space and time." Its the similarity across those myths- that I would appreciate to hear more of your criticism of.
Fair enough on his "12 Rules for Life". That is not profound and was never intended to be, I believe. Peterson himself would probably describe it as "making hay while the sun is shining". After all, he is a capitalist, and thats what they do.
Thanks for watching, Kevin! I appreciate the comment.
I don't disagree with much of your critique. But I also agree with much of Peterson's philosophy and ideas. 12 Rules, which you see as sort of dumb and simplistic is meant to be just that. We have pushed aside the simple fundamental little rules that actually are a good foundational starting point for getting back on track. His general philosophy is don't let anything make you live a defeated life. Nothing anti-Christian in that except we know that we must partner with God in all that we do.
It is unfortunate that he's not Christian and uses too much of scripture to make secular points. And yes, he draws on many other philosophers, without too much depth, to bolster his points. But we're all a product of all that we've read or heard during a lifetime. The trick is to mix and blur it all so we sound sophisticated and scholarly. And as someone who was once liberal as a Kennedy and now a conservative libertarian it's refreshing to see a psychologist that leans right.
A funny made up quote from Peterson can be enjoyed by those who love or hate him: Dr. Peterson what's your favorite color? Well, that all depends on what you mean by 'color.'
I think back to the late great William F. Buckley Jr. and how that question would trigger a thirty minute answer from him that would be incomprehensible.
I needed this today buddy. Thankyou!
thank you for saying what I felt all along, but could not put my finger on: he is a reactionary!
Peterson manifests itself that he is transcendentally confusing, and often self contradictory, by deliberate obfuscation of simple and unoriginal ideas.
Well done. I hope Peterson has a change of heart and finally understands this whole Jesus movement thing.
I appreciated this video and your take. I have some agreement and some disagreement.
I agree basically that as Christians much of what Peterson is trying to do falls flat because we are not striving on our own power (or even competence as Peterson might protest) for our own gain (or even the gain of our families and community). We are empowered through Christ to work for His Kingdom. I agree that the Christian message is not fundamentally individualistic, while I would argue Peterson’s is. There is, however s lot of nuance that I think is worth exploring there.
What I don’t like about this video is it strawmans some of Peterson’s ideas, which is not fair to Peterson and also allows his fans to dismiss you. So let’s talk Lobsters. To Steel man Peterson’s idea, he is not saying we should organize our society along the lines of the lobsters. Let’s not be Cathy Newman here. In my reading his point is the function of serotonin and the neurobiological similarity in lobsters and humans, which is actually true. It’s not a naturalistic fallacy, we do lots of animal research because animals are in fact similar to humans. His point is that your brain has a complex method to track your perceived social status and release serotonin accordingly. The lobster makes a simpler analogy of this because it has only one hierarchy with one goal. I think his point is that by acting and perceiving yourself as higher in some hierarchy, and taking steps to advance you can start a feedback loop that will lift you up. Where this fails is you can’t just give someone poor and marginalized a book and tell them to stand up straight and uplift themselves. So yes it fails for the individualism, but I think we should not strawman his argument which has more merit than you give it credit.
I also think Peterson makes a crucial cade for the necessity of liberals and conservatives. Conservatives preserve hierarchies, liberals build new ones. Without conservatives we have anarchy, without liberals we have tyranny. One is not right a priori, it all depends on context, and the discourse between them is critical to a functioning society. To say peterson defends and preserves hierarchies is a bit too simplistic in my opinion. I really think we need more people to pick up the point about the importance of both liberals and conservatives in a discourse to find the correct balance for a particular society.
My conclusion: I don’t really know. Peterson’s work helped me at a dark time in my life and faith. Of secular influences possible, I’d much rather he be the influence than say Sam Harris who is anti-God. I think Peterson’s appeal shows us a hunger for meaning that the church is failing to provide young people. We should work to correct that, but in the meantime, I’d rather Peterson than most people out there.
Btw you totally misrepresented the lobster analogy. Peterson does not say that the human brain is like a lobster's. His point is that our higher cerebral functions sit atop a very fundamental biochemical structure, in Freudian terms: the subconscious is always there, the ES dwells underneath the surface and it very much influences your personality (and people ignore this at their own peril). Now, the funny part is, that in the very moment you in your video make a little fun of Peterson and the lobster analogy, you actually prove it performatively. Because this act (making fun of something, calling it ridiculous) is the muster example of your brain acting out its "lobster-like" basic functions of enjoying to show a little dominance over the other lobster. Why do you make a video like that in the first place? Because it gives you a little serotonin boost! It's like a lobster waving his claws. Of course men do this in a much more sophisticated manner. But it is still the same behaviorial pattern. Peterson tries to make people aware of this, so they are able to integrate, control and use these patterns. Which is better than acting them out while thinking they would not apply to oneself.
Perhaps I did mischaracterize the analogy, I'll give you that. But I am mostly concerned with his justifications of unjust social hierarchies, whether it is from a lobster analogy or from psychology. Either way justifying unjust hierarchies is a problem in my book. That was the main point with bringing it up. Though I still find it absurd and your explanation doesn't make it any less so, in my opinion. But that isn't really the point I was making.
If you want to call something ridiculous, then this definitely does not mean, that you want to be dominant about soemone else. You may just want to express your opinion. Your argumentation does not make any sense. If I say I see you like someone dumb, I never want to to put myself above in the hierarchy. Because I don't care about hierarchical structures. I just express my opinion and if you'd take it or want to discuss it, I'm not interested in, because this is not important enough to me. And it shouldn't for you as well.
@@Gandalf_the_quantum_G actually it does imply dominance. One’s not wanting to participate in hierarchical structures doesn’t manifest exemption. Simply stated, the moment that one idea is pitted against another a hierarchy is taking shape. Hierarchies are pervasive.
@@StephenDMorrison I was shocked to hear “naturalistic fallacy” misused in this video. I did a quick google, and learned that this fallacious usage is widespread. Perhaps, Stephen, you picked up this apparent conflation with Hume’s “is/ought” on Reddit as this misinformed usage seems to be particularly prevalent there when discussing Peterson’s lobster analogy?
Moore’s “naturalistic fallacy,” appearing in his “Principia Ethica,” is concerned explicitly with the ontological nature of “goodness.” To commit a “naturalistic fallacy” in ethics is to attempt to define the word good in terms of some natural quality.
I guess I can sort of understand why people are making this mistake; however, it ranks low on the hierarchy of proper application.
I Believe he is looking at things from a very different perspective
than Peterson. Less of the word
salad and more about how to live out what the Bible says. Jesus loved and served the poor and He
wants us to do the same. He also wants us to walk humbly with God
and with others. Humility is a very
important character trait to God.
If he ain’t against us he is for us…?
Many of the young men who follow Peterson
and seem to idolize him, are not unlike the
people who follow trump. They have this passionate admiration for the person that
seems unhealthy, like a form of hero worship.
Peterson has developed a way of eliciting this
from his audiences and seems to need this
intense, almost worship, as much as his
listeners need to give it. I find this very
concerning and then when you mix in
Christian neo-conservative politics, you
Have the potential for a dangerous brew.
How do you know he hasn’t read much of Marx? Are you assuming that? If so you are offering a poor critique of what you say is his poor scholarship on Marx. Although Peterson does not have a good handle on Christian scholarship, that is not to say that he has not studiously engaged Marx. Unfortunately your critique lacks substantive examples. And who are these outright neo-nazis that he is aligned with? Notice I said that “he is aligned with.” We can’t control who aligns with our ideas.
He said as much in the debate with Zizek. I left a link to it in the description, see for yourself. For the Nazi question, also please see the description and the article on the alt-right. I have over 20 sources listed here for what I am saying. While I agree we cannot control who aligns with our ideas or uses them, my point was that he has not done enough to distance himself from the alt-right. He could do more but it fits into his narrative.
@@StephenDMorrison what would be an example of his critique of Marx getting something wrong where you believe Marx is correct and Peterson’s lack of scholarship has misunderstood the value of a Marxist ideology for today? Your antipathy towards Peterson is most evident in your critique of his rule 6. Do you honestly think that is what he was saying? Honestly? None of what you said follows from rule 6. The fact that he he used Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as an example in his chapter undermines your conclusion that he is advocating for (or smuggling in) some notion of political antipathy. Your critique is wholly imported on to his writing, resulting in the eisegesis you accuse him of doing with biblical material- a fault I would agree with in many respects.
@@mattb7069 I think there are many problems with how he understands Marx. Here is a good article that breaks down specific points from the Sizek-debate: medium.com/@RyanMallettOuttrim/25-debate-quotes-that-show-jordan-peterson-doesnt-know-what-marxism-is-1a3579e3d5db. Also Ben Burgis offers a good critique here: quillette.com/2019/04/24/marx-deserves-better-critics/. I can't add much to what they are saying. He just flatly does not understand Marx.
As far as apathy is concerned, it is of course true that Peterson is highly political. I said is much in the video. The point is that he seems to lift up a particular kind of political apathy, namely, a lack of concern for the poor and oppressed. His politics is one that reinforces the status quo and conservative principles, rather than one that struggles for justice and liberation of the oppressed. I do not think anyone can be truly apolitical, but many can and are apathetic towards the poor and oppressed. And he seems to make this into a virtue. See the point about how he answered what to do when you see a poor man in their plight towards the end of 12 rules. If concern for the poor is not central to a political program, then, in my understanding of Christ, it is not Christian.
He literally says he hasn’t read Kapital or the Critique of the Gotha Program or anything but the manifesto.
We know he hasn’t read much Marx from the fact he knows nothing about Marx.
The problem with your critique is, that you see (and judge) Peterson's work through the lense of your christian worldview (hence: a "christian" critique). But Peterson does not pretend to be in accordance with christian dogmas (even his biblical series is only concerned with the psychological significance of the Bible, nothing else). His work is based on clinical experience, empirical studies and psychoanalytic theories, not on a priori worldviews like christianity, liberalism, marxism or whatever. He just tries to grasp the nature of the human psyche and give advice in respect of the way it functions in the empirical world.
He's not criticizing JP for not being a good Christian. Rather, he is saying that as a Christian, he cannot agree with JP. So even though JP isn't a Christian, many of his followers are. His patriarchal approach resonates with them. Christians using Christian morality to criticize non-Christians is also nothing new. Just listen to a homily at the next mass to get an example.
Exactly as Nick said, it is valid to criticize him from a Christian perspective. As a Christian, I cannot accept his work. That is a statement about me not him. I am not concerned with his personal faith but with his effect on Christian faith in general, which is apparent in his popularity among believers.
I’ve never listened to Jordan Peterson. Nor have I read any of his work. My impression has always been that he is not a profound thinker, though perhaps somewhat helpful to young men on the internet. But this critique is pretty much just a regurgitation of every other critique, which makes me suspicious. I hope you have been honest.
There really isn't any substance to Peterson's work, so you're not missing anything
You're impression based on what? You admit you've never read him, never watched him. You don't have an opinion, you have a prejudice.
@@anahata3478 No, he presents his opinion based on his practice as a clinical psychologist, and his degree in psychology. Maybe you should listen to what he actually talks about. You'll find he's critical of conservatives as well. He has his own opinions, which is why you don't like him, because he doesn't have your opinions. That's the difference here, we can accept and even respect someone who doesn't agree with us. You can't.
@@jongoff7829 man, someone’s upset. You’re going to be embarrassed to read this one once youve sobered up.
@@lbdeuce Nope, not upset. I just can't believe the ignorance masquerading as intelligence here.
You're right. It is OUR duty to take care of the poor. It OUR responsibility. We don't get to pass it off to others, or take from others what is theirs to give to the poor. You don't get to set that responsibility aside or pass it off to the government and think, "I've done my part." You haven't. Christ commanded us to give of OUR substance, not the substance of others. He also said we'll always have the poor among us. You cannot justify theft by saying you stole from someone to give what you took to the poor. You are a thief, whether you break into his house, hold him at gun point, or elect a politician to take by tax what is not yours to take.
May I suggest that if you don't understand this, you do not understand that Christ whom you profess to adore. You need to read his parable, especially the parable of the talents, the parable of the laborers in the field, and the parable of the widow's mite.
You render unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is His. If Caesar goes ahead and helps the poor with what has been rendered unto him, that's a good thing.
@@farlado5459
But not to his salvation. He doesn't know God, God doesn't know him. Caesar does it for praise, not for God.
You are not understanding the righteous meaning.
@@troubadour81 I don't see your point. Jesus says rather plainly that the tax is what is Caesar's. And if Caesar has received the common grace by which some good may be wrought of him - as is God's providence - then why would we protest that Caesar has done some good with what is his? Jesus at no point expresses that taxation is theft, otherwise rendering unto Caesar "what is his" would be to not pay taxes, which is not what Jesus here is saying.
We cannot even begin to discuss the righteous meaning if you have failed to understand the plain sense of the Scripture.
@@farlado5459
You obviously don't understand.
Caesar may or may not have done good, but the fact is, he still had no belief in a God, especially one that the Jews worshipped. Had this been true, there should at least be a mention of this miracle, of a Roman Emperor being touched by the words of Jesus, but it isn't so. Pontius Pilate on the other hand, he must have felt some emotional distress at what he was about to do, and may have regretted his decision after, we'll never know.
Biblical revision is a very dangerous slope. Jesus expressed this and cautioned to anyone who would change what has written for their own glory and the manipulation of others. Their punishment would be just.
A Follower of Christ is commanded to give to the poor, to care for the sick, the afflicted, those in pain, in need, in sorrow. But they are to do these things without praise and without acknowledgement. Jesus told us to do it for love and not for show. Jesus said "Do not be like the Pharisees".
As a Follower of Christ, we are to love our neighbors and love our enemies with all our heart. If a gay Christ Follower hates his brother because he mocked him, he is not a True Follower of Christ, but a Pharisee. Jesus also cautioned his Followers to not YOKE with the unbelievers and the enemies, because they would corrupt you and cause you to question your faith. Christians should not HATE anyone, but they too have to option to not make friends nor spent time with them. They should do it, with caution as Jesus asked us to.
@@troubadour81 Whether or not Caesar believes is immaterial to my point. There is a common grace by which even the unbeliever has a law written on their heart (cf. Romans 2), and this can certainly extend to Caesar. I think you're getting bogged down in something I am not trying to say.
Agreed that what Jesus said is what Jesus said. You're quite literally preaching to the choir (well, more to the altar guild and acolytes but that's beside the point). My point is far more about the fact that taxes are something which we are told to pay; and if those taxes go towards doing good, why ought we bemoan that good was done? After all, there are plenty of times where God's providence brings good things through those who hold political power; this isn't something that ceased.