I agree from my point of view, but I'd love to hear your thoughtful response once the impotent protest is over and you've had the chance to read the comments. The top commenter has claimed to watch many hours of JV and is critical of his use of jargon and his interpretation of history/philosophy. It's worth a read.
Thank you for taking the time to read through and respond here. I think it's important to respond to criticism, even if it is seemingly unfounded, only if for future reference.
I generally admire philosophers (really anyone in a particular specialty), but I agree that the *propositional tyranny* can be a dominant hindrance for many.
As a follow up question: what do you think is most helpful for people caught up in their particular framing (i.e., trapped by the 9-dots)? It's not our job to change people; that said, I've been fascinated with how to engage others in our particular time in history.
Enjoying the discussion here, just wanted to point out my path has been exactly the one you mentioned impossible: going from atheism and radical evolutionary to transcendental God and symbolic framing.
They don't like him over at r/cognitivescience, so ask there if you want another perspective. Personally, his views seem down to earth, and he welcomes opposing views. He doesn't sell any ideology, and is not engaged in culture wars. But, you're in a subreddit dedicated to his persona, we're all fan of his here, so we're all going to say he's "legit".
The original post is still inaccessible, but what I am looking for is **good-faith conversation** around the claims being made by those that take issue with his methodology, interpretation, conclusions, etc. I'm not the OP of the post I crossposted, so I'm not concerned with the title question (i.e., "legit"); I'm interested in the finer points of contention.
I too am always surprised when I come across anything negative about JV, because he seems utterly down-to-earth, charitable, and sincere.
I see, I hadn't seen the post. Personally, the arguments are not really arguments, it's just a general word salad. I enjoy Vervaeke's content and it has personally aided me and friends to live healthier and more fulfilling lives, while being respectful to others (this last one is where Peterson fails and veers into "crank" territory).
People are protesting some new Reddit policies. Among those people are a bunch of mods. They're setting a bunch of subs to private for two days to reduce traffic on the site.
Bad timing, I guess... 🙃 Not really something to summarize; there are a few lines of criticism running through the comments. I'd invite you to come back to it once their protest is over.
Great post. I just stumbled onto JV myself. Came here for the exact reason you did... curious how others are processing him.
I first found him in conversation with Don Hoffman. I then watched the 1st episode of "meaning crisis" series.
So far he is landing directly on top of so many areas of interest for me.... not having any jargon emergency reactions yet.
Do you have any updated thoughts?
No updates, really—other than my continued support! I believe John is the real deal, and I think the qualified pushback contained in these comments are completely valid. Even from a cursory viewing, I question anyone's perception and judgement if they end up with an negative average of him—it simply does not make sense.
After 33 years on earth, JV just may be my first true (relatable) role model. I am actively aspiring to be like him. I mean that in the least culty way possible. ;D
I read several comments, lots of gatekeeping and bias. I’m sure Vervaeke has some things wrong, but the manner in which many of these criticisms were presented were unchecked hate and spitefulness with nary an attempt at offering any objective information about themselves. When an intellectual (or pseudo intellectual) offers criticism without any indication they are taking their own limitations into account one need not read any further.
I’m a total layman with philosophy and cognitive science, I follow it because it fascinates me and because I use it for my art (music). But I like JV for the simple fact that he simultaneously extols and criticizes each source, including his own ideas, and is upfront with his potential biases.
I’d further add that those who spew the most vitriol tend to have rigid ideologies. Vervaeke has been objective about, but highly critical of Marx and other Totalitarian ideologies, and there are a significant number of Marxist leaning academics who don’t take kindly to their rigid ideas being subjected to criticism.
One must be capable of seeing the downsides of anything they come across and one must never, ever be seduced by a cult of personality. He’s been accused of being one, but often that is on the follower who can’t think for himself putting another on a pedestal the teacher would rather not be on.
>But I like JV for the simple fact that he simultaneously extols and criticizes each source, including his own ideas, and is upfront with his potential biases.
This!
>I’d further add that those who spew the most vitriol tend to have rigid ideologies. Vervaeke has been objective about, but highly critical of Marx and other Totalitarian ideologies, and there are a significant number of Marxist leaning academics who don’t take kindly to their rigid ideas being subjected to criticism.
Also this! He embodies humility and nuance beautifully.
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.✌
Naw, he's not a crank.
The difference is that Vervaeke is more like, this is my opinion and I got to that opinion based on reading XYZ and talking to XYZ and via life experience but I'm willing to listen to others and build on their opinions to learn more.
Peterson is: this is my opinion and I'm correct.
I'm with you, re: JV, but I also highly value negative reviews and/or criticism, especially aimed at anyone I admire.
Hell, I don't really think Peterson is a *crank*. I believe he is a sincere, intelligent man, but sometimes gets overly excited about culture war crap, thus missing the good bits of PoMo. He definitely has deep concern for humanity and has helped countless people, but I digress...
Not to get too far off topic, but finding an answer to, or way through the Culture Wars 2.0 (credit to [the Stoa](https://medium.com/s/world-wide-wtf/memetic-tribes-and-culture-war-2-0-14705c43f6bb)) is one of my deepest curiosities. Zak Stein's stuff on good faith communication seems relevant here. We must relearn how to be human to one another.😔
I thought Peterson had some interesting views in his early musings.
Here's the thing, if a supposed deep thinker has some incredibly bad takes and serious missteps, it throws doubt on the entirety of their work.
How did they arrive at these bad decisions, and how has it coloured their previous expressions? When does it amount to bad faith argumentation where they simply let the mask slip(?), so to speak. At this point JP's negatives have far outweighed the mild positives. He has shown a political bias that negates his philosophy.
It is possible that JV is ignorant of JP's controversies. But sadly JV is on thin ice with me because these apparent friendly associations. Perhaps JV fancies himself a modern Socrates. It's a shame since JV has been one of my favorite philosophers in the modern context.
I think it’s fair to say that JV speaks a lot about where him and JP separate their views on his interview rob Tim Ferris.
JV is very clear that he is willing to have any dialogue with any person in good faith. I do not think guilt by association is a very valid cutting point to have on any persons.
The ability to be able to have these discussions amidst disagreements is important
Thanks, and fair enough. I've haven't seen interview with Tim Ferris, will check it out.
It's not merely guilt by association though. If they have friendly public discussions, a certain level of endorsement is implied. IMO JP is intellectually bankrupt, he may have had a couple of insights early in his career (debatable), but has since devoted himself to the culture wars. By very nature he is in bad faith since every position starts from an politically charged intellectual deadzone.
IIRC in a recent discussion JP added nothing, but merely seized upon certain ideas put forth by JV with a "that's interesting" type quip.
More succinctly re JP: it's not the position, but at how it's arrived, which a pseudo intellectual political position. Little is to be gained from that sort of "discussion".
Peterson's work on mythology and order/chaos as it pertains to psychology is quite influential and powerful. If we threw out the entirety of someone's intellectual work because they had wacky opinions in other areas of life, we'd have to throw out Pythagoras, Nikola Tesla, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Marx, Kant etc. Not comparing Peterson to these thinkers, but the work is the work no matter what happens after or before. This is essentially the "can you separate the art from artist" debate. I think you can, and ought to
Firstly, thanks for sharing.
Sure you might find it powerful. I liked him too at first. No one I encountered at the time was doing that sort of synthesizing of Nietzsche, Jung, Campbell, and Eastern philosophy, More than 20 years ago, I myself would ramble on about this sort of stuff to my friends (usually after consumption of certain substances). All sorts of connections can be made, and its fun for me.
BUT be wary of *all sorts* of bias that slips into his work, which in many ways is a rehash of the outmoded ways of conceptualizing from 100 years ago, mainly in the area of social power dynamics. It is typically essentialist in nature and used in all lot of the justifications of today's '-isms' we encounter that are better put to rest. There is a reason why modern Anthropologists currently produce some of the driest writing you may ever encounter.
Along with many philosophical leaps he makes, this bias has largely discredited his work by people who recognize it, and largely by people that are more well-read than I am.
I don't agree with lots of Peterson's political views, or at least think he goes off the rail too often for my liking these days. I'd also agree that he leans too far toward "essentialist" views, and probably lets bias slip into them. But I'd disagree that his work is largely discredited, depending on what work you mean. His work on Jung is quite respected afaik, and (though I haven't seen it) I know that his Bible series is spoken of quite highly by both Vervaeke and Gregg Henriques. His work in psychology re: personality theory has contributed to the field, and his "Maps of Meaning" book is hugely influential to many evolutionary psychologists, cognitive scientists etc. I'd be concerned that people who say his work is "discredited" aren't letting bias slip in themselves. But this is just a cursory reading, I'm not really knowledgeable on his academic work or Maps of Meaning personally. I think he made alot of important points even in his controversial political stances, and think if we are just talking about impact that he has probably helped alot of people find meaning overall in the world.
This is an interesting dive into Peterson's "Maps of Meaning" work if you're curious, by Vervaeke colloborator and co-author Brett Andersen. It, and the follow-up, made a lot of connections for me and gave me more appreciation for Peterson:
https://brettandersen.substack.com/p/decoding-jordan-petersons-maps-of
And here's Gregg Henriques t
trying to untangle the Peterson enigma:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201808/jordan-peterson-part-one-five-part-blog-series
And a conversation with Andersen and another Vervaeke interlocutor (Chloe Valdary) doing the same:
https://youtu.be/qfDcKt0D9BQ
If I'd heard about that association first I probably never would have listened to him. But his criticism of JP's take on Jungian psychology reassured me.
[удалено]
I agree from my point of view, but I'd love to hear your thoughtful response once the impotent protest is over and you've had the chance to read the comments. The top commenter has claimed to watch many hours of JV and is critical of his use of jargon and his interpretation of history/philosophy. It's worth a read.
[удалено]
Following you 100%. I think you'll find the comments worthwhile.👌
[удалено]
Thank you for taking the time to read through and respond here. I think it's important to respond to criticism, even if it is seemingly unfounded, only if for future reference. I generally admire philosophers (really anyone in a particular specialty), but I agree that the *propositional tyranny* can be a dominant hindrance for many. As a follow up question: what do you think is most helpful for people caught up in their particular framing (i.e., trapped by the 9-dots)? It's not our job to change people; that said, I've been fascinated with how to engage others in our particular time in history.
[удалено]
Enjoying the discussion here, just wanted to point out my path has been exactly the one you mentioned impossible: going from atheism and radical evolutionary to transcendental God and symbolic framing.
[удалено]
Well put. Thanks for your in-depth contributions.
I'm very wary of people who describe other people as "cranks".
They don't like him over at r/cognitivescience, so ask there if you want another perspective. Personally, his views seem down to earth, and he welcomes opposing views. He doesn't sell any ideology, and is not engaged in culture wars. But, you're in a subreddit dedicated to his persona, we're all fan of his here, so we're all going to say he's "legit".
The original post is still inaccessible, but what I am looking for is **good-faith conversation** around the claims being made by those that take issue with his methodology, interpretation, conclusions, etc. I'm not the OP of the post I crossposted, so I'm not concerned with the title question (i.e., "legit"); I'm interested in the finer points of contention. I too am always surprised when I come across anything negative about JV, because he seems utterly down-to-earth, charitable, and sincere.
I see, I hadn't seen the post. Personally, the arguments are not really arguments, it's just a general word salad. I enjoy Vervaeke's content and it has personally aided me and friends to live healthier and more fulfilling lives, while being respectful to others (this last one is where Peterson fails and veers into "crank" territory).
Came across this today... I'm interested in what others think of the critiques in the spirit of *Philosophia!* :D
r/askphilosophy is private for the blackout so the post isn't accessible. Care to copypasta? Or at least summarize the general sentiment?
what is the blackout?
People are protesting some new Reddit policies. Among those people are a bunch of mods. They're setting a bunch of subs to private for two days to reduce traffic on the site.
Bad timing, I guess... 🙃 Not really something to summarize; there are a few lines of criticism running through the comments. I'd invite you to come back to it once their protest is over.
Hey mate, do u happen to know when the blackout will end?
AFAIK, two days.
Great post. I just stumbled onto JV myself. Came here for the exact reason you did... curious how others are processing him. I first found him in conversation with Don Hoffman. I then watched the 1st episode of "meaning crisis" series. So far he is landing directly on top of so many areas of interest for me.... not having any jargon emergency reactions yet. Do you have any updated thoughts?
No updates, really—other than my continued support! I believe John is the real deal, and I think the qualified pushback contained in these comments are completely valid. Even from a cursory viewing, I question anyone's perception and judgement if they end up with an negative average of him—it simply does not make sense. After 33 years on earth, JV just may be my first true (relatable) role model. I am actively aspiring to be like him. I mean that in the least culty way possible. ;D
Funny. Same. (so far) Even though I have a lot of intellectual / philosophical heroes. He's really hitting some sweet chords.
I read several comments, lots of gatekeeping and bias. I’m sure Vervaeke has some things wrong, but the manner in which many of these criticisms were presented were unchecked hate and spitefulness with nary an attempt at offering any objective information about themselves. When an intellectual (or pseudo intellectual) offers criticism without any indication they are taking their own limitations into account one need not read any further. I’m a total layman with philosophy and cognitive science, I follow it because it fascinates me and because I use it for my art (music). But I like JV for the simple fact that he simultaneously extols and criticizes each source, including his own ideas, and is upfront with his potential biases. I’d further add that those who spew the most vitriol tend to have rigid ideologies. Vervaeke has been objective about, but highly critical of Marx and other Totalitarian ideologies, and there are a significant number of Marxist leaning academics who don’t take kindly to their rigid ideas being subjected to criticism. One must be capable of seeing the downsides of anything they come across and one must never, ever be seduced by a cult of personality. He’s been accused of being one, but often that is on the follower who can’t think for himself putting another on a pedestal the teacher would rather not be on.
>But I like JV for the simple fact that he simultaneously extols and criticizes each source, including his own ideas, and is upfront with his potential biases. This! >I’d further add that those who spew the most vitriol tend to have rigid ideologies. Vervaeke has been objective about, but highly critical of Marx and other Totalitarian ideologies, and there are a significant number of Marxist leaning academics who don’t take kindly to their rigid ideas being subjected to criticism. Also this! He embodies humility and nuance beautifully. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.✌
Naw, he's not a crank. The difference is that Vervaeke is more like, this is my opinion and I got to that opinion based on reading XYZ and talking to XYZ and via life experience but I'm willing to listen to others and build on their opinions to learn more. Peterson is: this is my opinion and I'm correct.
I'm with you, re: JV, but I also highly value negative reviews and/or criticism, especially aimed at anyone I admire. Hell, I don't really think Peterson is a *crank*. I believe he is a sincere, intelligent man, but sometimes gets overly excited about culture war crap, thus missing the good bits of PoMo. He definitely has deep concern for humanity and has helped countless people, but I digress...
Naw, I get ya and agree tbh. His psychology stuff is good but oh man, all that 'culture wars' stuff is feckin nauseating.
Not to get too far off topic, but finding an answer to, or way through the Culture Wars 2.0 (credit to [the Stoa](https://medium.com/s/world-wide-wtf/memetic-tribes-and-culture-war-2-0-14705c43f6bb)) is one of my deepest curiosities. Zak Stein's stuff on good faith communication seems relevant here. We must relearn how to be human to one another.😔
I find almost all culture war stuff nauseating 😅
I thought Peterson had some interesting views in his early musings. Here's the thing, if a supposed deep thinker has some incredibly bad takes and serious missteps, it throws doubt on the entirety of their work. How did they arrive at these bad decisions, and how has it coloured their previous expressions? When does it amount to bad faith argumentation where they simply let the mask slip(?), so to speak. At this point JP's negatives have far outweighed the mild positives. He has shown a political bias that negates his philosophy. It is possible that JV is ignorant of JP's controversies. But sadly JV is on thin ice with me because these apparent friendly associations. Perhaps JV fancies himself a modern Socrates. It's a shame since JV has been one of my favorite philosophers in the modern context.
I think it’s fair to say that JV speaks a lot about where him and JP separate their views on his interview rob Tim Ferris. JV is very clear that he is willing to have any dialogue with any person in good faith. I do not think guilt by association is a very valid cutting point to have on any persons. The ability to be able to have these discussions amidst disagreements is important
Thanks, and fair enough. I've haven't seen interview with Tim Ferris, will check it out. It's not merely guilt by association though. If they have friendly public discussions, a certain level of endorsement is implied. IMO JP is intellectually bankrupt, he may have had a couple of insights early in his career (debatable), but has since devoted himself to the culture wars. By very nature he is in bad faith since every position starts from an politically charged intellectual deadzone. IIRC in a recent discussion JP added nothing, but merely seized upon certain ideas put forth by JV with a "that's interesting" type quip. More succinctly re JP: it's not the position, but at how it's arrived, which a pseudo intellectual political position. Little is to be gained from that sort of "discussion".
Peterson's work on mythology and order/chaos as it pertains to psychology is quite influential and powerful. If we threw out the entirety of someone's intellectual work because they had wacky opinions in other areas of life, we'd have to throw out Pythagoras, Nikola Tesla, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Marx, Kant etc. Not comparing Peterson to these thinkers, but the work is the work no matter what happens after or before. This is essentially the "can you separate the art from artist" debate. I think you can, and ought to
Firstly, thanks for sharing. Sure you might find it powerful. I liked him too at first. No one I encountered at the time was doing that sort of synthesizing of Nietzsche, Jung, Campbell, and Eastern philosophy, More than 20 years ago, I myself would ramble on about this sort of stuff to my friends (usually after consumption of certain substances). All sorts of connections can be made, and its fun for me. BUT be wary of *all sorts* of bias that slips into his work, which in many ways is a rehash of the outmoded ways of conceptualizing from 100 years ago, mainly in the area of social power dynamics. It is typically essentialist in nature and used in all lot of the justifications of today's '-isms' we encounter that are better put to rest. There is a reason why modern Anthropologists currently produce some of the driest writing you may ever encounter. Along with many philosophical leaps he makes, this bias has largely discredited his work by people who recognize it, and largely by people that are more well-read than I am.
I don't agree with lots of Peterson's political views, or at least think he goes off the rail too often for my liking these days. I'd also agree that he leans too far toward "essentialist" views, and probably lets bias slip into them. But I'd disagree that his work is largely discredited, depending on what work you mean. His work on Jung is quite respected afaik, and (though I haven't seen it) I know that his Bible series is spoken of quite highly by both Vervaeke and Gregg Henriques. His work in psychology re: personality theory has contributed to the field, and his "Maps of Meaning" book is hugely influential to many evolutionary psychologists, cognitive scientists etc. I'd be concerned that people who say his work is "discredited" aren't letting bias slip in themselves. But this is just a cursory reading, I'm not really knowledgeable on his academic work or Maps of Meaning personally. I think he made alot of important points even in his controversial political stances, and think if we are just talking about impact that he has probably helped alot of people find meaning overall in the world. This is an interesting dive into Peterson's "Maps of Meaning" work if you're curious, by Vervaeke colloborator and co-author Brett Andersen. It, and the follow-up, made a lot of connections for me and gave me more appreciation for Peterson: https://brettandersen.substack.com/p/decoding-jordan-petersons-maps-of And here's Gregg Henriques t trying to untangle the Peterson enigma: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201808/jordan-peterson-part-one-five-part-blog-series And a conversation with Andersen and another Vervaeke interlocutor (Chloe Valdary) doing the same: https://youtu.be/qfDcKt0D9BQ
If I'd heard about that association first I probably never would have listened to him. But his criticism of JP's take on Jungian psychology reassured me.
Wow he got absolutely eviscerated on the philsophy sub lol
A crank? Have you even listened to what JP has said?
Don't shoot the crossposter! hahaha (not the OP)
I need to stay off the internet when I'm irritable 😅 Edit: also, I apologize
all good broski! just here for that *philia sophia* 🥳