Love this piece on Peterson. His book 12 Rules for Life changed me. . And revitalized my creative spirit. Maps of Meaning is like my Bible. I read it almost everyday. Audiobook on it. Lectures.
It might be cliche my story but - for two decades I suffered with an illness nobody could find. No doctor. No psychologist. No therapist. . Little did I know the only thing I needed was a dialogue between Peterson and I in 12 Rules. Which led me to a week long transformation that was extremely painful. I cried every single day reading that book. And then read it again.
Peterson has done some amazing things for me and has allowed me to transform into the writer you see today. If, at any point in time, you'd like to have a co-author with very in depth knowledge of Peterson, Jung, Eliade, Neumann and many other writers. Check out my publication for my work.
P.S. forgive my openness and long comment length. It's just exciting to finally find someone who loves him just as much as I do. Thank you. 🙏
“Peterson’s strength was his ability to tie these different intellectual threads into a cohesive theory. “
Absolutely enjoyed this piece. My shift into adult life coincided with Petersons rise, and he was a motivator in my life for a few years.
The biggest thing he did though was introduce me to Jung. And you’re absolutely right, Peterson is a synthesizer of other thinkers, many of them more influential than himself.
But Jung I believe is the one I find the most at the core of Petersons beliefs. I’m all for this, because there’s still a lot to unpack in Jung’s work - especially the later years.
Anyways... great article. Are you planning on writing more on Maps of Meaning?
Interesting. I have become interested in Peterson recently and like you, don't agree with everything he says but find his ideas very thought- provoking. Have started More Rules but not finished it yet. I do think he has put his finger on the Modern Disease -narcissism.
This is a fascinating article. I've never dug in-depth into Peterson, so your article was a primer of sorts. Modernism is definitely characterized by some overreliance on empiricism and a departure from anecdotal/experiential evidence.
Don Colacho has a quote: "Loyalty to a doctrine ends in adherence to the interpretation we give it.
Only loyalty to a person frees us from all self-complacency."
I think this is part of the value of the Christian Ethos--it's loyalty to the person of Christ, which is distinct from modernist political doctrines.
It is slow! But the goal is different--it's not victory in any rational sense. It's survival. It's not even flourishing--just getting by.
I have a similar soft spot and history with our friend JP. I haven't read the books (besides the preface to Maps) but the YT lectures introduced me to all the things you mentioned. I would've found all of those things without JP, but his work definitely sped up the process. For that I'm grateful.
However.
JP's got some red flags and I'm not talking about the ones everyone already talks about. Here are my hot takes.
1) JP's thought hasn't evolved much in the past 24 years. I find this alarming for any critical thinker, and I'm worried that JP has discovered a minor truth and equated it with "the truth".
“The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and non-sense, not between right and wrong. The numinosum is dangerous because it lures men to extremes, so that a modest truth is regarded as the truth and a minor mistake is equated with fatal error.”
Jung, MDR PG 154
2) JP's poor reading of Jung and misapplication:
"It was Jung who formulated the concept of persona: the mask that “feigned individuality.” Adoption of such a mask, according to Jung, allowed each of us – and those around us – to believe that we were authentic."
J. Peterson, Maps, PG. 11
Persona is not a "feigned individuality" in Jung's thought. Persona, to Jung, is a fundamental part of the psyche which we use to interface with the world effectively. It isn't our true self (if there is such a thing) instead, it protects our self in situations where other expectations are dominant or expected. Peterson's misapplication begins when he thinks that his criticizing voice is his true self, on page 11, "My experiment had been a success; I was the criticizing part." Therefore, it seems he fell into some kind of ego identification with one specific part of himself, in the IFS sense, and this is a dangerous thing.
3) Peterson's double-think.
"It was not socialist ideology that posed the problem, then – but ideology, as such. Ideology divided the world up simplistically into those who thought and acted properly, and those who did not. Ideology enabled the believer to hide from his own unpleasant and inadmissible fantasies and wishes."
-J Peterson, Maps, PG 8
"I have become convinced that the world-that-is-belief is orderly: that there are universal moral absolutes (although these are structured such that a diverse range of human opinion remains both possible and beneficial)."
-J Peterson, Maps, PG 13
In the first quote Peterson decries ideology as simplistic and acts as a shied, for the believer, from unpleasant feelings. Then, in the second quote, he comes to the conclusion that an ideological belief "the world-that-is-belief is orderly" is the correct way to moving through the world. As far as I can tell he then spends the next 300 pages or so building his "orderly" belief system, correct me if I'm wrong.
Often, contradiction is totally admissible in a work of positivist philosophy but this one hit me as a little to extreme to swallow without an authors explanation, because he condemned his former associates and left them behind to do exactly what they were doing, just like the Hitler/Stalin two sides of the same coin thing.
There are plenty of good JP takes but I'm afraid they're laid over the top of a shaky foundation. That said, his biblical lectures were fantastic. I also DO NOT disagree that there is an order to the world, or an ordering principal, etc. but we can't have our cake and eat it too, and neither can JP. Seeing an order in the world is an ideological system.
Great article.
It’s unfortunate that you have to remind people to suspend judgment, etc. We’ll never agree 100% with anyone.
He’s done a lot of people a lot of good and I’m one of them.
Looking forward to the next instalment.
Love this piece on Peterson. His book 12 Rules for Life changed me. . And revitalized my creative spirit. Maps of Meaning is like my Bible. I read it almost everyday. Audiobook on it. Lectures.
It might be cliche my story but - for two decades I suffered with an illness nobody could find. No doctor. No psychologist. No therapist. . Little did I know the only thing I needed was a dialogue between Peterson and I in 12 Rules. Which led me to a week long transformation that was extremely painful. I cried every single day reading that book. And then read it again.
Peterson has done some amazing things for me and has allowed me to transform into the writer you see today. If, at any point in time, you'd like to have a co-author with very in depth knowledge of Peterson, Jung, Eliade, Neumann and many other writers. Check out my publication for my work.
P.S. forgive my openness and long comment length. It's just exciting to finally find someone who loves him just as much as I do. Thank you. 🙏
“Peterson’s strength was his ability to tie these different intellectual threads into a cohesive theory. “
Absolutely enjoyed this piece. My shift into adult life coincided with Petersons rise, and he was a motivator in my life for a few years.
The biggest thing he did though was introduce me to Jung. And you’re absolutely right, Peterson is a synthesizer of other thinkers, many of them more influential than himself.
But Jung I believe is the one I find the most at the core of Petersons beliefs. I’m all for this, because there’s still a lot to unpack in Jung’s work - especially the later years.
Anyways... great article. Are you planning on writing more on Maps of Meaning?
Interesting. I have become interested in Peterson recently and like you, don't agree with everything he says but find his ideas very thought- provoking. Have started More Rules but not finished it yet. I do think he has put his finger on the Modern Disease -narcissism.
This is a fascinating article. I've never dug in-depth into Peterson, so your article was a primer of sorts. Modernism is definitely characterized by some overreliance on empiricism and a departure from anecdotal/experiential evidence.
Don Colacho has a quote: "Loyalty to a doctrine ends in adherence to the interpretation we give it.
Only loyalty to a person frees us from all self-complacency."
I think this is part of the value of the Christian Ethos--it's loyalty to the person of Christ, which is distinct from modernist political doctrines.
It is slow! But the goal is different--it's not victory in any rational sense. It's survival. It's not even flourishing--just getting by.
Love this! Thank you for writing this article!
I have a similar soft spot and history with our friend JP. I haven't read the books (besides the preface to Maps) but the YT lectures introduced me to all the things you mentioned. I would've found all of those things without JP, but his work definitely sped up the process. For that I'm grateful.
However.
JP's got some red flags and I'm not talking about the ones everyone already talks about. Here are my hot takes.
1) JP's thought hasn't evolved much in the past 24 years. I find this alarming for any critical thinker, and I'm worried that JP has discovered a minor truth and equated it with "the truth".
“The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and non-sense, not between right and wrong. The numinosum is dangerous because it lures men to extremes, so that a modest truth is regarded as the truth and a minor mistake is equated with fatal error.”
Jung, MDR PG 154
2) JP's poor reading of Jung and misapplication:
"It was Jung who formulated the concept of persona: the mask that “feigned individuality.” Adoption of such a mask, according to Jung, allowed each of us – and those around us – to believe that we were authentic."
J. Peterson, Maps, PG. 11
Persona is not a "feigned individuality" in Jung's thought. Persona, to Jung, is a fundamental part of the psyche which we use to interface with the world effectively. It isn't our true self (if there is such a thing) instead, it protects our self in situations where other expectations are dominant or expected. Peterson's misapplication begins when he thinks that his criticizing voice is his true self, on page 11, "My experiment had been a success; I was the criticizing part." Therefore, it seems he fell into some kind of ego identification with one specific part of himself, in the IFS sense, and this is a dangerous thing.
3) Peterson's double-think.
"It was not socialist ideology that posed the problem, then – but ideology, as such. Ideology divided the world up simplistically into those who thought and acted properly, and those who did not. Ideology enabled the believer to hide from his own unpleasant and inadmissible fantasies and wishes."
-J Peterson, Maps, PG 8
"I have become convinced that the world-that-is-belief is orderly: that there are universal moral absolutes (although these are structured such that a diverse range of human opinion remains both possible and beneficial)."
-J Peterson, Maps, PG 13
In the first quote Peterson decries ideology as simplistic and acts as a shied, for the believer, from unpleasant feelings. Then, in the second quote, he comes to the conclusion that an ideological belief "the world-that-is-belief is orderly" is the correct way to moving through the world. As far as I can tell he then spends the next 300 pages or so building his "orderly" belief system, correct me if I'm wrong.
Often, contradiction is totally admissible in a work of positivist philosophy but this one hit me as a little to extreme to swallow without an authors explanation, because he condemned his former associates and left them behind to do exactly what they were doing, just like the Hitler/Stalin two sides of the same coin thing.
There are plenty of good JP takes but I'm afraid they're laid over the top of a shaky foundation. That said, his biblical lectures were fantastic. I also DO NOT disagree that there is an order to the world, or an ordering principal, etc. but we can't have our cake and eat it too, and neither can JP. Seeing an order in the world is an ideological system.