Show me what it's for Make me understand it 'Cause I've been crawling in the dark Looking for the answer Is there something more Than what I've been handed? 'Cause I've been crawling in the dark Looking for the answer 1. The reason. When I was young someone once said this to me:
I’d like to understand WHY a few individuals who share Peterson’s worldview (for the most part) are so critical of him - dismissing him as charlatan or simply a clever wordsmith, but adamant that he has nothing to offer - no substance. Or worse that he’s deceiving and “dangerous.” I have a hard time understanding where they’re coming from here. I feel Peterson’s influence, body of work, engaging, articulate lectures and authenticity proves his worth. Maybe they are just trying to get noticed by being “against” him.
You are correct that men gravitate towards Peterson's message of meaning and responsibility in a world awash in the meaningless nihilism of post-modernism. Unfortunately the word "meaning" encompasses an impossibly huge idea like "God"
Peterson spoke with moral clarity and conviction and against the relativistic rot that has settled into the western institutions, especially the church. I've long been bothered by the character and ethos of the American suburban church in particular and the church in general. It's hard to describe the problem exactly, but I'm always left with this vague constellation of impressions - as if the church doesn't really believe its message; as if the church secretly thinks, or at least suspects, the scientific materialists / evolutionists are correct; as if the church feels guilty about its moral teachings and is afraid to take a moral stand; as if the church secretly prefers and is chasing after worldly things but must do so under false pretenses; as if the church doesn't understand that it cuts its own legs out from under itself when it accepts at face value many modern (and post-modern) presuppositions about the world and truth - and thus seems to start belief in God by swallowing a contradiction. I think all of that can be summed up in the idea that the Church doesn't seem to understand its own message nor believe in it. Peterson seemed to talk about God, the Bible, and faith in a way that made it come alive, have relevance, have intellectual credibility, and have meaning.
He gives the boys meaning in their lives by hitching it to hierarchy. Tells them it's always been the way. He holds that the patriarchy exists because men are more competent to hold power, not that women might have been systematically excluded. The boys love it. It's a whole industry now telling boys that in fact it is right and good to exercise power over women.
I looked at his 12 rules. They seemed either vapid, platitudinous, or simply wrong. Number 12, thrown in there i guess because it's more meaningful sounding than 11 or 13, is to pet stray cats. That's not a good idea. People have always been vulnerable to the wisdom mongerers. In his own life he seems to ignore a great many of them.
I’d like to understand WHY a few individuals who share Peterson’s worldview (for the most part) are so critical of him - dismissing him as charlatan or simply a clever wordsmith, but adamant that he has nothing to offer - no substance. Or worse that he’s deceiving and “dangerous.” I have a hard time understanding where they’re coming from here. I feel Peterson’s influence, body of work, engaging, articulate lectures and authenticity proves his worth. Maybe they are just trying to get noticed by being “against” him.
You are correct that men gravitate towards Peterson's message of meaning and responsibility in a world awash in the meaningless nihilism of post-modernism. Unfortunately the word "meaning" encompasses an impossibly huge idea like "God"
Peterson spoke with moral clarity and conviction and against the relativistic rot that has settled into the western institutions, especially the church. I've long been bothered by the character and ethos of the American suburban church in particular and the church in general. It's hard to describe the problem exactly, but I'm always left with this vague constellation of impressions - as if the church doesn't really believe its message; as if the church secretly thinks, or at least suspects, the scientific materialists / evolutionists are correct; as if the church feels guilty about its moral teachings and is afraid to take a moral stand; as if the church secretly prefers and is chasing after worldly things but must do so under false pretenses; as if the church doesn't understand that it cuts its own legs out from under itself when it accepts at face value many modern (and post-modern) presuppositions about the world and truth - and thus seems to start belief in God by swallowing a contradiction. I think all of that can be summed up in the idea that the Church doesn't seem to understand its own message nor believe in it. Peterson seemed to talk about God, the Bible, and faith in a way that made it come alive, have relevance, have intellectual credibility, and have meaning.
He gives the boys meaning in their lives by hitching it to hierarchy. Tells them it's always been the way. He holds that the patriarchy exists because men are more competent to hold power, not that women might have been systematically excluded. The boys love it. It's a whole industry now telling boys that in fact it is right and good to exercise power over women.
I looked at his 12 rules. They seemed either vapid, platitudinous, or simply wrong. Number 12, thrown in there i guess because it's more meaningful sounding than 11 or 13, is to pet stray cats. That's not a good idea. People have always been vulnerable to the wisdom mongerers. In his own life he seems to ignore a great many of them.
It’s an interesting juxtaposition: Lena Dunham’s celebrated narcissism masked as feminism, and Jordan Peterson’s theme of personal responsibility.
Thanks for the summary. I tend to agree
Excellent piece. Needs minimal editing as a few typos are present.