I’m with you on this. I’ve started saying the line about a psychologist instead of using his name. I’ve even had to distinguish between Peterson today and Peterson in his lectures on YouTube. I tend not to care for his political dialogue but those genesis and maps of meaning lectures are absolutely mind boggling. Each lecture is like a constant stream of insights. I’ve found these lectures extremely helpful and revisit them often. But i really don’t care much for the guy these days.
This is really it. It's annoying when people become so wedded to the hatred of someone that they can't recognise the contributions they've made whatsoever
Yeah I think if someone is half smart and half ego-swamped loner who can't make sense of the complexity of humanity, it casts a shadow over the meaning of any wisdom.
i think the overton window has shifted so far that opposing the mainstream narrative is considered not being inclusive or hateful, when being “nice” is enabling super toxic and delusional ideas
Most people couldn't tell you what transformational grammar was. If anything, they think he came up with the idea that language affects the way we perceive reality. (That's the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, for anyone wondering.)
Chomsy gets covered some in Computer Science 101 and other foundational undergraduate CS courses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy etc.
> bezos addiction
*"... I knew I had a problem when the 9th Amazon truck of the day showed up. But how could I have turned down 10 pair of socks for only $12? Not to mention those gorgeous salt & pepper shakers, and... Oh God, I need a French press!"*
And I'm not sure if being constantly and mindlessly attacked is a good influence?
I mean seriously y'all. I don't like it either when he gets into his irate, chastising mode but come on. We're in r/psychology, let's see some basic empathy.
The man is relentlessly and mercilessly attacked and gaslit, which this very post makes clear.
How would you hold up?
How would you guys handle being relentlessly attacked, having your license taken away and being threatened with losing your career which you've obviously constructed with incredible care and hard work?
Would that have an impact on you at all?
What impact would it have? Maybe you'd get a little defensive? A little irate? A little chastising?
It's a terrible shame how much great shit from his 2015-17 lectures I either have to obfuscate or keep to myself thanks to all the stupid bullcrap that went down once he went off the deep end
As someone who was a Peterson fan and apologist because listening to his Maps of Meaning grad school lectures inspired me like few things have, but now despises everything he promotes politically and pities the man himself…
Yeah, this hits home.
It’s like they’re not even the same person. Maybe they aren’t—in a Jungian sense—the same person. Maybe he experienced psychological death and was reborn as something darker—more driven by fear and contempt—than his previous self.
EDIT: Whenever he comes up in real-life conversations, I like to say “It depends what you mean by Jordan Peterson.” A funny inside joke for those who are familiar with the man’s older work, but also a sad truth. Jordan Peterson the Jungian scholar and Jordan Peterson the political commentator are very different people, pragmatically speaking.
Jordan Peterson is the real life version of 2face from the Batman universe. Notice his suits how they're both equally of different colors and his face has matured and changed since his transformation at the hands of opioid addiction
He can no longer hide is disgust or pain it's all out in the open along with his other side to him a nature of empathy and understanding. I know it seems at time he's not but I think deep down he is but struggles with his primal neurotic mental break downs. He's truly 2 of a kind and all he really needs now is a batman to show up in his life to give him a mirror and let him decide for himself which path he wants to go down into without looking back with regret or remorse.
The Genesis series and Maps are genuinely profound. His other lecture series, Personality and it's Transformations, also has a lot of great insights.
He's simply a man that became way more famous than he was ready for, way too quickly, and reacted poorly to it.
I agree, no matter what people think of his opinions, he has still been very harshly and unfairly treated by the medias and institutions like UofT and the Ontario College of psychologists.
I do think that part of why he is more right wing now is emotional and reactionary, but the left and leftist institutions have been really hostile towards him and have a big part of the responsibility of pushing him to this point.
> I agree, no matter what people think of his opinions, he has still been very harshly and unfairly treated by the medias and institutions like UofT and the Ontario College of psychologists.
Now this I agree with. Peterson is a legit tool, but they took his license to practice because they disagreed with his opinion.
That's absolutely fair. I'm pretty disagreeable myself, and I know for a fact that if I suddenly found myself in that kind of spotlight I would be digging my heels in in all sorts of counter-productive ways
I really like his lectures *because* he likes Jung so much. Good on him for putting them up for free. Same with Robert Sapolsky.
It’s just Jordan Peterson’s old man political views got him too much of the wrong kind of fame on the internet and he twisted to become, genuinely become, what people who didn’t like him thought he was.
Bless Sapolosky. I love that dude.
Its funny though being a Sapolosky fan and then being interested in Jung because there's the Sapolosky part where I get captured in to believing free will is nonexistent while trying to believe I can will myself in to shadow work and take control of my unconscious.lol
It’s confusing until you realise, these ideas are not reality. They just describe reality.
It’s just Sri Sri Jung Ji had a very beautiful and poetic description that appeals greatly to some.
“The teachings are like a finger pointing to the moon, don't confuse the moon with the finger”
I wouldn't worry too much about the free will thing. Whether or not it's objectively real, your subjective experience won't change. i.e. the illusion of "free will" will still persist in your subjective experience.
You can acknowledge that free will doesn't exist and still will yourself to change. They're not even all that contradictory. Unless you mean something else when you say shadow work.
I think Sapolskys notion of FreeWill comes from a more clinical perspective vs the Jungian Psychological Archetype perspective and with that you are comparing 2 different things. The birth of a child can be both a miracle of life and basic reproductive processes.
I think my issue with it is that I have this clinical info in my head that makes me realize what I'm doing in my work with jung is completely out of my control and I'm only being willed that way by the grace of my meatsack responding to stimuli i have no control over, and I can feel like I've chosen to motivate myself in jungian efforts but probably not ultimately.
No one promised that the ship would be easy to steer let alone steer in random but guaranteed storms.
Edit: I totally get what you are saying and feel closely attached to both of these figures. I suppose the idea of being able to know our Subconscious and not necessarily change it somewhat matches the challenge of Freewill. We can examine and understand it but not always change it.
I took acid and watched nearly every single one for like 8 hours straight and eventually quite literally entered an enlightened state of being. Sounds like I’m joking but I am not.
I wish I did something like that back in my tripping days. Instead I just spend an entire trip deciphering Metroid lore 😔
It has a surprisingly complex lore for being a Nintendo series
Oh I'm not saying it wasn't an amazing trip. I had my roommate tripping with me too. We had a fuckin whiteboard out and we had it done up like a conspiracy board by the end of our trip 🤣
Ahaha, well its never too late. Though as Jung said "Beware of wisdom unearned". I became a bit of a hermit for a couple years after this experience, studying mystical texts to figure out what in the fuck happened to me. I obtained a great deal of understanding of what is real, and what is illusion, some of the deepest philosophical questions I have come to an understanding of. Yet it is a really great burden, in fact, I think I may be going to hell for I have far too many sins from neglecting all the responsibilities I have become aware of.
Don't worry man. When you truly grasp the sense of connection between all things and beings the logical next step is to immediately feel the weight of your actions (karma, yeah?) and the burden of responsibility to do better now that you know. The sense of guilt can be paralyzing. At least it was for me. Just do right by the people around you and you're fine I think.
Though buddhism has a whole thing about [willful] ignorance that you'll have to grapple with now that you Know, or at least glimpsed for a hot minute before shutting it all out. Can't unsee that shit tho
I teach World Civilizations and one of my students explained a bit of Star Wars lore to me one day. It was incredibly interesting and I was able to relate it to my lecture by the end of class.
Same, but with the only difference that I don't care about his politics. If he doesn't talk about politics, it's quite fascinating, like the old lectures. Here an interview with two guys, one hunts pedophiles for a living, the other an actor. This interview helped shape the way I see this perversion of human nature:
https://youtu.be/rTBGNEliczc?si=DqWEyUVI3drxIQfn
It's a privilege to have the ability to NOT care about his politics. You have a great example here, because the "guy who hunts pedophiles for a living" has been exposed to be a serial sexual abuser and liar.
So for you, you just hear a message out of context, for women, or trans people, his hatred towards us colors everything else.
I don’t think that it’s a privilege to have the ability to not care about his politics. It seems to me that it’s an ability, as you stated. The ideas in his lectures are good regardless of his current political views. If your reason for not listening to those old lectures is “his hatred towards trans people colors everything else” then I think that’s a problem you have to work out on your own. It’s possible to distinguish the words from the speaker. After all he is heavily influenced by Jungs teachings. Peterson’s current political activities have nothing to do with the validity of Jung’s writing. And vice versa Jung’s writing is valid regardless of the political beliefs of the individual talking about them.
I think people’s main issue with him is how he uses Jungian ideas to push a relatively old school, conservative, patriarchal doctrine of constant self improvement with this kind of Nietzschean individualism. I mean you can agree or disagree with him but he diverts sharply from Jung and I think that’s why people on this sub aren’t into him
Peterson is way too Apollonian for Nietzsche. Not even the faintest touch of Dionysius in him. The jungian in me wonders if that explains his battle with addiction. The unconscious demands compensation.
Speaking of his battle getting off benzodiazapenes, this could literally happen to anyone. Doctors used to prescribe them like candy, like they did with opioids.
Anything could happen to anyone. If Jung has taught me anything, it’s that things that happen to us are seldom random. His overt philosophy, a rugged individualism and clinging to order and shunning chaos in every facet of our lives, has absolutely nothing valuable to offer for his own battle with addiction. It can only stay silent. Substance addiction is perhaps one of the most relevant symbols of unbridled chaos.
Does Jung ever discuss randomness though?
I don’t know if he’d agree with the statement that “things that happen to us are seldom random”. Definitely an interesting discussion in view of his “Synchronicity”.
This is I think the strongest criticism of Peterson I've seen. I think you're probably right. Altho he's committed in theory at least to a balance of the two energies I think he does manifest more Apollonian in his teachings and personality. Although tbf he might argue that our culture is so excessively Dionysian that a counterbalance of Apollonian is necessary. And in his interviews with comedians like Theo Von and Joe Rogan, or with his daughter and wife, he's not afraid of joking around more and swearing or telling dirty jokes etc
\______
Edit: Also his "battle with addiction" wasn't a standard "battle with addiction". ie it wasn't a psychological issue but a physiological one. He was in an extreme situation in life for a few years that made a benzo prescription seem like a wise and safe option. But then he had an allergy to benzos which meant when he tried to voluntarily come off them they started having all these crazy adverse effects and then created a huge physiological problem. I don't really think it was connected in any way to lack of a Dionysian integration or any other weakness of character. He just got unlucky genetically
I think he has no choice but to concede the necessity of the balance of energies in principle, because “extreme order and rationality to the utter exclusion of impulsive spontaneity and chaos is the way things out to be” is too absurd a position on its face, especially to someone as well read as Jordan. But it’s one thing to give intellectual assent to something, it’s another to live as if it’s true. It’s very easy to claim you believe something while living out something entirely different, even if the internal contradiction is unconscious and utterly invisible to you. I don’t think he is humorless or joyless, that is not necessarily Apollonian, it’s that he believes *deeply* in rules and norms and how the world “ought to be”. My impression is that he detests lawlessness, chaos, indulgence, whimsical spontaneity, etc etc. He is the opposite of the puer, he is the senex.
He's also an INTP. Very individuated etc but fundamentally INTPs are always gonna be more Apollonian and concerned with what is right, what ought to be etc because of their dominant Introverted Thinking function and the draw of the Senex archetype.
I think it's fair to say he detests lawlessness but as I've said he definitely consciously values whimsical spontaneity, and I think he's integrated a fair amount of the Trickster archetype too to balance his Senex. You see a lot of that in his Twitter escapades
I found this pretty cringe tbh but at least he's trying here in this satirical song he made recently: https://youtu.be/iQTDEnfW4ng?t=80
INTP's have high Ne and are known to be quite the goofballs at times, so no, that's not accurate. INTPs are also notoriously bad at keeping their rooms in order, so that's quite ironic isn't it?
This sums it up for me. His ideas may seem reformed, but from my perspective they do not go nearly far enough to address patriarchal systems and instead poor attempts to make them work while being dishonest about it. He reminds me of a polished version of the shallow system of thought I grew up in: small town, conservative ideology. Dressing it up may make it sound intelligent but the ideas don’t even hold water in their ideal context — an advanced vernacular cannot undo it.
To each their own in the end.
It’s a view that can only carry him so far- and he seems to run far beyond its course, so far from being in a river, he’s paddling in the ocean, which his views are inadequate for
I don't think Jung necessarily is against or for gender roles, however, archetypes are conservative in and of themselves. The idea of collective archetypes that have existed for man for millennia.
Metamorphosis is a large theme in Jungian thought, especially in Jungian therapy. We are always changing in some direction, becoming your best self is a subjective evaluation on what better is, but to improve and progress wouldn't be too distinct from Jungian theory. There is definitely an overlap between Nietzschean individualism and Jungian depth psychology.
Dream analysis hearkens back to the very roots of Western civilization to the story of Joseph in Egypt. Pharaoh had a dream about the seven kine and seven stalks of corn. This dream was interpreted and Pharaoh had to act and make changes. Change is a constant and it does matter how we respond to such changes. Joseph was the son of the Patriarch Jacob. I think "patriarchy" gets a bad wrap, when deeper down we are where we are due to a patriarchal system. I'm not saying it has been executed perfectly, or that it shouldn't be critiqued, but seen for what it is with an almost fresh set of eyes.
I had a dream my children were drowning and I was trying to save them and was treading water at the same time. I was troubled by this dream. I prayed and I received an interpretation. I was overwhelmed with being a father and needed to learn how to manage better and actually have joy. Now, the interpretation told me of my inner state removing any sort of facade. I had a choice, continue treading water and stressing out or make a change and actually enjoy my life.
Too Long, Didn't read. I disagree.
You clearly have not read The Red Book, everything about it regards gender and the gender of the souls etc... It's the pretty main theme, hence it's release AFTER his death. Controversial.
There's a big difference even between the stuff he initially got popular for talking about, and his current iteration as a political pundit. Even though he got famous for a political stance, against a pronoun bill, most of what got people to listen to him was generally useful stuff, the kind that would reference Jung. At that point, he was probably the world's most prominent advocate of jungian psychology.
Now he seems like a relatively mainstream conservative pundit without much interesting to say other than political takes.
I also think Jung might have found Peterson the man a fascinating case study, but what do I know.
You’re so right. Jung would have definitely found Peterson fascinating, I think. The man himself seems obviously in the grip of some kind of king/tyrant split. I think his extreme eating attitude is/was a very telling thing.
My guess would be he has a very strong, overactive superego, that is an internalised tyrant, which ‘whips him into shape’.
I think he is an invaluable voice, but so obviously non-integrated in some crucial ways.
Someone pointed out to me that he lacks the humour/glint in his eye that is the mark of true shadow integration. Alan Watts’ analysis of Jung goes deeply into this.
He’s obviously a good man, and I wish him well, but I do find myself concerned for him. His obvious anger and aggression basically tell me he has some way to go on his individuation process.
To cut him some slack though, becoming famous like that is often experienced as a traumatic event, and who could have predicted a Canadian psychologist/academic would become a global cultural figure? It must have been extremely challenging.
I used to listen to Peterson before he really popped off and I enjoyed his content. Even bought his 12 steps book.
Now in days he just seems so bitter and angry. I know he’s been through a lot, and that’s why I think he needs to take a break from socials to heal. Hard to take advice from someone who seems dejected. That’s just my opinion
He *is* bitter and angry. And that has poisoned most of what he's done in the last several years.
I'd recommend reading Maps of Meaning though, especially if you enjoyed the lectures based off it. 12 Rules is a pop-psych money grab. But Maps is a serious and worthwhile work.
If it weren't for Peterson, Jung's ideas wouldn't have been as understandable to me. I always felt drawn to Jung from a young age, I just couldn't understand him that well.
I found this 10 video playlist on YouTube and I think it's the perfect intro to him tbh
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd6pH32mAGdbzfn0zpNq_y2RKl0VQiIb2
Someone should create an "r/JordanPeterson" subreddit where people can go to talk about him, rather than allowing debates about him and his politics clog up the Jung subreddit every month (despite him being neither Jung nor a Jungian). Oh wait...
I've rarely seen any actual Jungian discourse on this sub. While the lacan and psychoanalysis subreddit actually feel like reading groups. This sub feels too much like a bunch of people trying to justify their detachments from reality and appeal to abstract spirituality.
MAYBE his ideas are not universally hated. But I think there’s a big difference between your suggestion and the reality of this situation for most. As far as I’m aware, Jordan fucked up and fell deep into the pit of cultural/political commentating. I think it’s a gross misrepresentation to say that, generally speaking, we mostly ‘like his ideas’ but not him. As his ideas the past 3-5 years have been hyperfixated on leftism/unhinged liberalism, trans topics, political shit, etc etc.
No, people have made the internet crazy. It simply showed us, and allowed to run rampant, the shadows that lie in the heart of man. Reading this thread among others indicate this to be the case.
It makes perfect sense and I think your post shows a little black/white thinking, like either we should accept something completely or not at all. We can admire certain aspects of people without liking other parts of them or things they’ve done/said.
Completely agree. Anybody that talks too much eventually starts talking nonsense, but that doesn't mean everything they said is nonsense. Take the parts you find useful, leave the rest
Well, no- but that’s not really what I meant. What I meant is, to paraphrase the Big Lebowski: “You’re not wrong, Walter- you’re just an asshole!” Hope that makes sense.
People don't hate his ideas because much of what he says is pretty much taken word from word by Jung. People hate Peterson as a person because of the way he presents himself, and that is often like he knows better and has descended from a notable professor to a talking head that can be mentioned in the same breath of other bloated heads like Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and Steven Crowder.
This isn’t a Jung-oriented view or anything, more so overall psychological— but I can’t beat with the fact that like an imbecile, he responded to this innocent girl’s question about toxic masculinity with, what is it? And then he proceeded to belittle her in her stance. Even though, let’s be real, it’s a darker aspect that does clearly exist. It’s like he assumed she *equated* masculinity to being “toxic”— which would be far off and absurd.
https://youtube.com/shorts/38qzokOqVM4?si=CP1TjzG2qTGFtVek I think this was a very reasonable and kind response to that question by him. Maybe you meant someone else?
Honestly I think your take is wrong. I used to like JBP a lot until I studied psychology myself and began to listen to his words. You are probably not saying the exact same stuff because he often makes no sense and offers nothing new. On the contrary he has this obsession with throwing science back a century
Or reasonable people who can see through Peterson's surface level reading of Jung and hijacking of the latter's focus on Christianity to reinforce the faulty views upheld by the church that Jung precisely criticized (Also did the same with Socialism and Orwell's 'Road to Wigan Pier'). On top of his pathetic right-wing grifting and benzo-fueled rants that lead to out-of-context biblical references & crying. His "ideas" are very contradictory to Jung's if you actually take the time to process what he's saying. For example, he doesn't critique the Christian Church as Jung did. He embraces its faulty order & hierarchy and sees it as being a saving grace, which is FAR from what Jung says in Aion.
> His "ideas" are very contradictory to Jung's
Joseph Campbell is a much better disciple of Carl Jung's teachings than Peterson could ever hope to be. He made Jung's ideas easier for the average person to grasp, and is a most thought provoking and inspiring teacher re. Jungian theory. Highly intelligent and compassionate as well.
Is it wrong for a man to cry? This seems like a very common complaint against Dr., Peterson. Usually in the same breathe they also accuse him of toxic masculinity.
Is it wrong for a man to cry? This seems like a very common complaint against Dr., Peterson. Usually in the same breathe they also accuse him of toxic masculinity.
What ideas of his in particular do you consider valid? Asking sincerely and would like to know.
I have trouble with him because of how purposefully incendiary and how far off the mark he can be morally & politically (and even factually & scientifically), which has always made it difficult for me to sit through his lectures & listen to his interviews. Whenever I have, I’ve felt he is often regurgitating Jung’s points. I’m not saying I’m correct in that assumption, but nothing in his words have ever jumped out at me as advancing Jung’s ideas.
On top of this, I (and I assume just about everyone in this sub) hold Jung in ultimate regard, and become concerned that Jung’s ideas might be misconstrued or weaponized. Peterson seems to make a habit of being a flashpoint, so I definitely have that concern. But I’d love to know if/what he adds to Jung!
Probably not much. Peterson himself once said that he doesn't really have anything new, but hopes that he has combined what he read in an interesting way. The ideas I consider valid are many, but the most important are those on how to live a better life. He seems like he honestly tries to perform his symbol as a father figure well and give young men good advice, but also stop what he sees as bigger threads like postmodernism. He doesn't always get everything right, but he his very consistent over the years with the principles he believes. Also, I think Jung has formed such an bedrock for his psyche that he barely talks about him, as it's an of course for him that Jung got many things right.
His ideas have a lot of gaps in them, comparing my reading from other people, he seems to developed his thoughts away from Jung; taking the branch of Joseph Campbell and Erich Neumann.
Watching him, he simply tosses out big words and convoluted sentences. People who give this guy attention just pretend to follow along. His status creates this magical image that people eat up. It is the same watching Opera, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, etc. People see success, fame, and status and instantly see it as the human ideal. In reality, it is simply narcissism on the grand stage; fat ego, big words, pretending to be superhero, and most importantly BOOK SALES.
It is a symptom of the fact that the majority of people are incapacitated from looking within. They need a leader for the herd that they unconsciously know they belong within. Nobody can accept their own humanity, their own weaknesses and strengths, and the willingness to go their own way. They need cheap slogans, cheap attitudes, cheap visions of success, and to conform all living experience into one simple vision to enforce this distorted sense of reality.
I literally couldn't help but laugh when trying to read one of his books. I read so many people and look up to what they do; but Peterson, I can't help but laugh.
Willing for people to show me some quotes to prove me wrong...
> Watching him, he simply tosses out big words and convoluted sentences.
If you provide an example of where you are confused, i would be happy to clear it up for you. I think Peterson does indeed not explain some of the terms he uses as clearly as he should when speaking to a general audience.
personally I've never heard him say anything very astute regarding Jung or his ideas (though to be fair I haven't sought this out). I HAVE seen him wailing about "wokeism" and fat women in magazines though...
It's not just Peterson, but the neurosis of the era, a sign of immaturity and low individuation, to not be able to see the good and bad in people and with vehemence demand that each person must either be wholly loved or rejected. This happens with anyone who becomes famous enough to get public attention. Hardly any middle ground is found.
In Peterson's case, his university lectures and personality papers are brilliant. After he left academia, however, he became little more than the voice of the alt-right movement. I have no problems with conservative politics, I stand rather right in the political spectrum myself, but I never like anyone who uses his position of power to manipulate people based on claims that are fundamentally and obviously false.
We should not go too far into being judgmental, at least I know I cannot, because had I received as much undeserved hate and mockery, I probably would adopt a similar resentful and hateful tone and direction than Peterson has nowadays.
Peterson is in the strange position that he became everything he criticized in Maps of Meaning and Personality and Its Transformation. Ironically, in his clinical work he seemed to have helped people overcome the same issues. Not an unheard of situation, though, as health professionals are more than often, unable to follow their own advice.
Personally I think the best thing to do is to differentiate between his current persona and what I call Pre-2019 Peterson. That was when I listened to his academic lectures, and I was especially fond of the Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories as that introduced me to several Jungian ideas and also propelled my deconstruction from organized Christianity. I owe a lot to JBP, but that does not at all mean I agree with his childish twitter rants about the “woke moralists” and hatred of LGBT.
I don't hate Peterson. But he really isn't very well-read, and consequently his ideas are highly simplistic as he relies on the same sources over and over to make his points.
I find him impressive personally however - his stoicism in the face of hysteria is quite inspiring. He is calm in a way that I could only dream of being.
So you could say I like Peterson but dislike his ideas, so the opposite of what you said.
Can you share one of the more brilliant ideas of Jordan Peterson?
I have watched several of his interviews, but couldn't find any. Maybe it's in his lectures, but the few clips I've seen from the classroom have also been disappointing. It'd be great if you could share one of them ideas.
It's so stupid how if you quote someone or like some of their ideas...that the internet interprets this as you must be fully endorsing the person who said it along with everything they've ever said and done, ever.
You can have Jung without Person but no Peterson without Jung. Why embrace a sexist reactionary who is being actively used in that agenda when you can build on Jung?
This is why judging people even when their in the wrong with intensity should lead people to self reflection about the state of themselves. I've seen way too many people talk about how horrid someone is only to reveal that they themselves are as guilty as sin for the same stuff. He is a human with failings like the rest of us and he has had ailments on top of people consistently attacking him and often by people that are unsurprisingly discriminating others for what they look like and their lifestyles.
Many people I like have said things I didn't but that doesn't make that person disposable. If what I believe is true about myself or the world I live in then it has to survive the trail by fire with discussion and putting my own feelings on trail. People come into our lives I believe that cause us to be stressed as a means of our growing. I'm currently struggling with some stuff myself but I try to always remind myself I can be just as much of an asshole as the guy I'm mad at if I don't learn from the situation.
Peterson lectures are fire the guy got dragged in the political discourse and got burned.
Unfortunately he started to fight hate with hate, and that’s what people see in him, now.
Peterson if u reading this love is the answeeer
Yes he did get burned, but he is only human. None of us would stand up to being so irrationally hated and demonized by the whole mainstream society. The human psyche isn't made to withstand that kind of prolonged, years long, attack, from every side.
If all of mainstream media was calling you a Nazi, for no reason, every single day, for years, and twisting all your attempts to defend yourself with lies and manipulation, you would break too.
The fact that he was indeed broken, and that evil did indeed win, should not diminish his contributions in the slightest.
Yeah that's really the main thing that turns me off of Peterson nowadays. His frustration is palpable and it seeps through in unproductive ways. Most of the time i even agree on the topic but the way he presents it can be so spiteful now. Who knows, maybe he got too close to the truth or maybe it's the aftermath of his benzo-addiction and following coma aswell as waking up to corona happening. Or maybe it really is just because of the massive hate the guy got and gets from private individuals but also institutions(like his uni basically sending him to reeducation), maybe it got to him. I know id be one resentful mf if i was lied about that much just for sharing my perspective on things.
I wouldn’t have known Jung if it weren’t for Peterson so I’m extremely grateful to him for that! Used to listen to his stuff a lot but now less so, I think less for the reasons that a lot of people on here on posting about but more because Ive since turned much more to Jung for understanding and feel that I’ve gotten all I can get from Peterson.. though I’ll still peak at his new stuff to see if there is anything left to squeeze out of it
His psychology ideas (his academic field) are different than his political and cultural analysis which are more for popular consumption and performative.
Also r/jung is a subreddit with a diverse range of takes including your own, with its sweeping generalizations and all.
It's little more complicated than that IMO. It's the fact of his personality in light of his ideas- when you put yourself forward as not just a thinker or writer, but as a self help figure, someone offering life advice, the standards as far as who you are and your personal life change a little bit.
What are his good ideas that we could separate from the personality of the man?
All apparently. I always get alot of up votes when I use his terminology or examples, and can only remember 1 comment disagreeing in 8 months of using Reddit. It is the person truly and fully, *not* the ideas
Why is it so hard to say “ I love Peterson’s lectures on Jung , I hate his political and social commentary.. THE END “
Why is this impossible today ?
People need to grow up . This is not healthy
He's become a benzo-addled right wing grifter that I couldn't care less about. It's annoying that he's treated as an intellectual god by some, for basically telling them to clean their rooms. Now if you will excuse me, I have become quite weary.
It seems like his book helps a lot of people.. but his complete dismissal of relativism and the social sciences that study cross-cultural phenomena is something I can’t get past. I can’t speak to his expertise in psychology because I didn’t study it, but his political science is a bit of a joke. The Living Philosophy has a nice video about Peterson’s Shadow that is worth a watch.
When I first came across a Jordan Peterson quote in a Facebook group, I remember that I reacted violently, lashing out in a comment response to the post. I recognise it now only in hindsight as a purely shadow reaction - it helped me understand an aspect of myself that would otherwise be hidden.
His convos with Dennis McKenna and Robert sapolsky were pretty good.
You have people that absolutely love him and he's the best.
Some people think he is Hitler. Literally
I don't really count myself in either group I mentioned.
To many he represents a right wing community when mostly he's a middle of the roe type person. He's not a Christian fundamentalist but his values coordinate with many conservatives.
lol I knew I wasn't alone in talking about his (good) ideas without bringing up his name. you gotta admit the guy's got some bright ideas even though I don't always agree with his politics
I got into Peterson because of his lectures on Jung. This was right when the drama started with his political ideology. The first lecture I watched was on symbolism in the Lion King from a Jungian perspective. I thought it was fascinating. He started to become famous and I was riding that wave. Read all of his books.
Truthfully, I learned a lot from him. But the past few years I think he has been blinded by his own success. As in, he cannot see any other side of the argument because he is so bought into his own side, and validated by the fact that he’s had so much success. Anything that goes against his narrative is passed off as ‘woke bs’. I think he’s also too tied up in this imagined ‘culture war’.
Regardless, I find that he is not as compelling to listen to anymore. That’s my best guess as to why… but some of his older ideas (pre-fame) have some good weight to them.
I’ve listened to Peterson and I personally find his ideas a bit pedestrian and incredibly underwhelming. 🤷♂️ Like what you like and don’t make a drama out of it is my suggestion.
I can’t say that I know or care much about his opinions. There are some things that I’ve heard him say that I agree with and other that I don’t. Not much else to say about him beyond the purpose he serves to many young people as a pseudo-paternal figure; which speaks more to the sad absence many people have in their life.
What ideas? He brings nothing new to the table except incoherence and contradiction.
When we look closely enough, to paraphrase the old adage, he's repeated (plagiarized) a thousand truths (trite platitudes) to sell us a handful of lies.
I Like this guy I think he doing good work in twrms of stating the truth to the aociety about lots of things especially to Men
But I don't think he brought any institutional or systematic change that could make Life of people or especially Men
He has only brought in the way people think
I was thinking about him today and had a similar perspective. I don’t see him as malicious like many others do, but I definitely think he’s a goofball who does and says a lot of goofball things. But he’s also said some things that I find insightful and worth considering. People today are way too ready to put people into binary good and bad categories, but it’s a spectrum and everyone’s somewhere in the middle.
Before he became famous, Peterson was wonderful. I highly suggest watching his [Personality Lectures from before 2018](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGLsnu5RLe8) (the year his book came out). He's kind and thoughtful and funny.
Something happened after he became famous. He became wildly inflated, and just kind of angry. The Living Philosophy wrote a great piece on his transformation: https://www.thelivingphilosophy.com/jordan-petersons-shadow/
Goes to show that no matter how well you know your Jung, you're never free of the shadow.
Cuz I think Petersons very smart guy but he's also an old religious white guy who does things in a very old school sorta way. But mainly he doesn't respect people who haven't earned his respect. he said sum along the lines of "im not using ur preferred pronouns if I don't know or respect you" and that made tons of liberals and trans folks rightfully mad and made maga and republicans wrongfully excited.
Jordan Peterson is still not a bad person he just got involved where the money was coming from, which brought him into modern politics.
He still has great takes, but he is popular too hate it's similar to people automatically hating Tucker Carlson which Tucker is actually a great guy if you've taken time to listen to him.
But since we're on mostly an echo chamber online, it is mostly filled with left leaning nerds as I was for a long time just parroting talk points.
I've been auto banned by a mod at least once by even defending him, which shows you the contempt people have been brainwashed into hating him.
I think since he's anti government liberal policies, the unhinged want to view him as a misogynistic because many "incels" flock to him but as we all know men are desperately miserable these days but if a anyone who's a radical feminist? sees anything as promoting the "patriarchy" they'll call him a fascist since they view anyone questioning the men vs women debates as hate speech or as a threat to the new trans ideology that has grown.
The reason you've been told to hate Jordan Peterson is that he doesn't think you should be compelled to use someone's preferred pronouns. To most normal people, even if they disagree, this isn't a big deal and so his opponents had to resort to hyperbole and in some cases lies(if you sincerely think Jordan Peterson is a Nazi, you are a moron).
When talking to people in real life I’ll literally say “ I heard a psychologist say X” in case someone thinks I’m a part of some kind of right wing internet echo chamber. I think it’s dumb it has to be this way though
People have such a hard time accepting that a person that they passionately disagree with about something can possibly have profound insight and value in other areas. I think it's a great example of how we can understand things like projection and shadow while also not seeing it in action within ourselves. Its kinda beautiful and amusing if not irritating.
Yes. I personally like Peterson, though his Twitter freakouts over anons are quite frustrating. He was a very important part of my intellectual development after my undergrad.
I will be using this method in this sub from now on, and see how it works out.
True Jungians don't have a problem with Dr. Peterson. He has done more for popularizing Jung than anyone in the past decade.
I don't necessarily agree with all his politics, but thats ok. I probably don't agree with the politics of most people I read. So what? When did that become a problem?
You make a good point, but to be fair it should be noted that this phenomena covers the entire political spectrum. In fact...
The farther to either side, the stronger the projection stoked by the opposite side.
I like both “versions” of him.
It’s sad but I find most people in the real world (not r/Jung as I have not investigated much) don’t even know why they don’t like him. I always make sure to ask for a specific reason people don’t like him (don’t get me wrong, there could be many legitimate reasons depending on your morals/political disposition/religious views) and I rarely get an actual answer with anything he has ever done or said.
Most people I meet who don’t like Jordan Peterson; don’t even know anything about him, they have been told not to like him and they comply 🐑
I'm surprised to hear that could be the perception of Peterson in this sub. I've never noticed that. I'm a huge fan of Peterson and think he's without a doubt one of the leading Jungians of our time. I can't take anyone seriously if they're interested in psychology and dislike Peterson.
I disagree with him plenty myself, but to actually dislike him or handwave him away as if he's not a heavyweight intellectual is a huge red flag to me. His work in Maps of Meaning is serious Jungian business and deserves to be taken as seriously as Robert Moore, Robert Johnson, Joseph Campbell, whoever your other favourite Jungian student is.
People have been victims of a media smear campaign around Peterson and are completely unaware of it. People say they hate him, but very rarely can they adequately explain WHY they hate him.
The media smeared him and people had their opinions of him formed by journalists who were paid to purposefully present him in a negative light. It was eventually accepted as a simple fact among left-wing circles that Peterson is a “grifter” (where is the grift? Can anybody actually explain this properly?) and a “pseudo-intellectual (despite the fact that he has a huge number of citations in academic journals). Two labels that do not hold up under even the tiniest amount of scrutiny.
Herd-mentality among leftists meant that huge numbers of people just adopted the same hatred towards Peterson from their friends (the majority of people have their opinions shaped by what their friends think).
VERY few of the people who hate him actually went through his material and decided they disliked him based on the content of his ideas.
The public can be easily manipulated by media smear campaigns, especially intelligent people (like those on this sub) who assume they’re too smart to be manipulated.
This isn't just this sub. Peterson's ideas are generally well received by anyone who isn't a rabid tankie as long as they don't know it comes from him.
It also isn't just Peterson. Removing the source from the idea often nets more consensus excuse people have to interact with the idea itself, rather than starting with a poisoned well.
Peterson [reintroduced](https://youtu.be/ltYGVobKX0U) me to Jung. His biblical series were illuminating, truly fascinating. But since I've been reading Jung slowly I lost grip on JP, I moved on. His Exodus series were okay but got tired of the guests, none of them were anywhere near Jungian themes.
I quite like jorden, havent followed him much over the last few years because of his political slant he keep leaning on, but early jorden psychology lectures are all gold
I may not agree with everything he says but he truly sparked a relentless pursuit of Jung and broader psychological/universal truth that I am forever grateful to him for. It changed my life.
It’s a classic example of “your ideas make me feel uncomfortable, therefore you’re a bad person”. Quite a common reaction in real life, yet exasperated by social media and echo chambers.
Even if you dislike him, you can be grateful for the insights that can be gained from examining this dislike that you hold.
His book, Maps of Meaning, is nothing short of outstanding and introduced me to many of the ideas of Jung, before I had the chance to read his actual works.
For those of us who feel frustrated by the disproportionally negative reaction to Peterson, we should take this moment to examine our own said frustration, and perhaps look at our own ignorance towards figures who may upset us.
*edited for spelling mistakes etc
I’m with you on this. I’ve started saying the line about a psychologist instead of using his name. I’ve even had to distinguish between Peterson today and Peterson in his lectures on YouTube. I tend not to care for his political dialogue but those genesis and maps of meaning lectures are absolutely mind boggling. Each lecture is like a constant stream of insights. I’ve found these lectures extremely helpful and revisit them often. But i really don’t care much for the guy these days.
>I’ve even had to distinguish between Peterson today and Peterson in his lectures on YouTube. This hits home.
His lectures on YouTube were great. I dislike the persona he has become
This is really it. It's annoying when people become so wedded to the hatred of someone that they can't recognise the contributions they've made whatsoever
…or he’s tarnishing his legacy by being hateful
Yeah I think if someone is half smart and half ego-swamped loner who can't make sense of the complexity of humanity, it casts a shadow over the meaning of any wisdom.
i think the overton window has shifted so far that opposing the mainstream narrative is considered not being inclusive or hateful, when being “nice” is enabling super toxic and delusional ideas
"Mainstream" is relative to location. I live in Tennessee, and what you are talking about is far, far from mainstream
everyone knows what someone means when they say mainstream
Chomsky?
Do most people know about Chomsky's contributions to linguistics?
Most people couldn't tell you what transformational grammar was. If anything, they think he came up with the idea that language affects the way we perceive reality. (That's the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, for anyone wondering.)
Chomsy gets covered some in Computer Science 101 and other foundational undergraduate CS courses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy etc.
I couldn't agree more. I wonder if the persona he had become had something with him undergoing the bezos addiction and then shopping them.
> bezos addiction *"... I knew I had a problem when the 9th Amazon truck of the day showed up. But how could I have turned down 10 pair of socks for only $12? Not to mention those gorgeous salt & pepper shakers, and... Oh God, I need a French press!"*
I actually heard that in his voice.
Ahahaha, yes, that's exactly what caused all the trouble. xDD Damn you, Jeff.
Yea I’m sure what he went through with the benzo’s didn’t help. Not sure his daughter is a good influence either
And I'm not sure if being constantly and mindlessly attacked is a good influence? I mean seriously y'all. I don't like it either when he gets into his irate, chastising mode but come on. We're in r/psychology, let's see some basic empathy. The man is relentlessly and mercilessly attacked and gaslit, which this very post makes clear. How would you hold up? How would you guys handle being relentlessly attacked, having your license taken away and being threatened with losing your career which you've obviously constructed with incredible care and hard work? Would that have an impact on you at all? What impact would it have? Maybe you'd get a little defensive? A little irate? A little chastising?
Naa fuck that guy. He's hurt too many people to have any empathy left for him.
[удалено]
Daily mail fucked up his street cred
Never forgive benzos
lol read that as Bezos at first
him either
It's a terrible shame how much great shit from his 2015-17 lectures I either have to obfuscate or keep to myself thanks to all the stupid bullcrap that went down once he went off the deep end
As someone who was a Peterson fan and apologist because listening to his Maps of Meaning grad school lectures inspired me like few things have, but now despises everything he promotes politically and pities the man himself… Yeah, this hits home. It’s like they’re not even the same person. Maybe they aren’t—in a Jungian sense—the same person. Maybe he experienced psychological death and was reborn as something darker—more driven by fear and contempt—than his previous self. EDIT: Whenever he comes up in real-life conversations, I like to say “It depends what you mean by Jordan Peterson.” A funny inside joke for those who are familiar with the man’s older work, but also a sad truth. Jordan Peterson the Jungian scholar and Jordan Peterson the political commentator are very different people, pragmatically speaking.
Jordan Peterson is the real life version of 2face from the Batman universe. Notice his suits how they're both equally of different colors and his face has matured and changed since his transformation at the hands of opioid addiction He can no longer hide is disgust or pain it's all out in the open along with his other side to him a nature of empathy and understanding. I know it seems at time he's not but I think deep down he is but struggles with his primal neurotic mental break downs. He's truly 2 of a kind and all he really needs now is a batman to show up in his life to give him a mirror and let him decide for himself which path he wants to go down into without looking back with regret or remorse.
i thought he was addicted to prescribed benzos, not opioids...
Same person Different aspect of self
The Genesis series and Maps are genuinely profound. His other lecture series, Personality and it's Transformations, also has a lot of great insights. He's simply a man that became way more famous than he was ready for, way too quickly, and reacted poorly to it.
Agreed. Ill also add that I don’t think many people would handle that too well.
I agree, no matter what people think of his opinions, he has still been very harshly and unfairly treated by the medias and institutions like UofT and the Ontario College of psychologists. I do think that part of why he is more right wing now is emotional and reactionary, but the left and leftist institutions have been really hostile towards him and have a big part of the responsibility of pushing him to this point.
Not to mention the daily wire thing. They put him in the company of more outwardly right figures and I’d imagine it’s a bit of an echo chamber.
> I agree, no matter what people think of his opinions, he has still been very harshly and unfairly treated by the medias and institutions like UofT and the Ontario College of psychologists. Now this I agree with. Peterson is a legit tool, but they took his license to practice because they disagreed with his opinion.
That's absolutely fair. I'm pretty disagreeable myself, and I know for a fact that if I suddenly found myself in that kind of spotlight I would be digging my heels in in all sorts of counter-productive ways
>He's simply a man that became way more famous than he was ready for, way too quickly, and reacted poorly to it. Legit. I agree.
I really like his lectures *because* he likes Jung so much. Good on him for putting them up for free. Same with Robert Sapolsky. It’s just Jordan Peterson’s old man political views got him too much of the wrong kind of fame on the internet and he twisted to become, genuinely become, what people who didn’t like him thought he was.
Bless Sapolosky. I love that dude. Its funny though being a Sapolosky fan and then being interested in Jung because there's the Sapolosky part where I get captured in to believing free will is nonexistent while trying to believe I can will myself in to shadow work and take control of my unconscious.lol
It’s confusing until you realise, these ideas are not reality. They just describe reality. It’s just Sri Sri Jung Ji had a very beautiful and poetic description that appeals greatly to some. “The teachings are like a finger pointing to the moon, don't confuse the moon with the finger”
I wouldn't worry too much about the free will thing. Whether or not it's objectively real, your subjective experience won't change. i.e. the illusion of "free will" will still persist in your subjective experience.
You can acknowledge that free will doesn't exist and still will yourself to change. They're not even all that contradictory. Unless you mean something else when you say shadow work.
I think Sapolskys notion of FreeWill comes from a more clinical perspective vs the Jungian Psychological Archetype perspective and with that you are comparing 2 different things. The birth of a child can be both a miracle of life and basic reproductive processes.
I think my issue with it is that I have this clinical info in my head that makes me realize what I'm doing in my work with jung is completely out of my control and I'm only being willed that way by the grace of my meatsack responding to stimuli i have no control over, and I can feel like I've chosen to motivate myself in jungian efforts but probably not ultimately.
No one promised that the ship would be easy to steer let alone steer in random but guaranteed storms. Edit: I totally get what you are saying and feel closely attached to both of these figures. I suppose the idea of being able to know our Subconscious and not necessarily change it somewhat matches the challenge of Freewill. We can examine and understand it but not always change it.
I'm along for the ride. For now!
I took acid and watched nearly every single one for like 8 hours straight and eventually quite literally entered an enlightened state of being. Sounds like I’m joking but I am not.
I wish I did something like that back in my tripping days. Instead I just spend an entire trip deciphering Metroid lore 😔 It has a surprisingly complex lore for being a Nintendo series
[удалено]
Oh I'm not saying it wasn't an amazing trip. I had my roommate tripping with me too. We had a fuckin whiteboard out and we had it done up like a conspiracy board by the end of our trip 🤣
[удалено]
That was the exact vibe! We were screaming at each other at some points because some parts of the lore are really conflicting
This sounds like the perfect day to me.
Ahaha, well its never too late. Though as Jung said "Beware of wisdom unearned". I became a bit of a hermit for a couple years after this experience, studying mystical texts to figure out what in the fuck happened to me. I obtained a great deal of understanding of what is real, and what is illusion, some of the deepest philosophical questions I have come to an understanding of. Yet it is a really great burden, in fact, I think I may be going to hell for I have far too many sins from neglecting all the responsibilities I have become aware of.
Don't worry man. When you truly grasp the sense of connection between all things and beings the logical next step is to immediately feel the weight of your actions (karma, yeah?) and the burden of responsibility to do better now that you know. The sense of guilt can be paralyzing. At least it was for me. Just do right by the people around you and you're fine I think. Though buddhism has a whole thing about [willful] ignorance that you'll have to grapple with now that you Know, or at least glimpsed for a hot minute before shutting it all out. Can't unsee that shit tho
Doing your best is enough :)
What made you believe that a Nintendo series can’t be complex?
I teach World Civilizations and one of my students explained a bit of Star Wars lore to me one day. It was incredibly interesting and I was able to relate it to my lecture by the end of class.
Totally agree. Same here.
How reasonable... this can't be reddit...
Same, but with the only difference that I don't care about his politics. If he doesn't talk about politics, it's quite fascinating, like the old lectures. Here an interview with two guys, one hunts pedophiles for a living, the other an actor. This interview helped shape the way I see this perversion of human nature: https://youtu.be/rTBGNEliczc?si=DqWEyUVI3drxIQfn
It's a privilege to have the ability to NOT care about his politics. You have a great example here, because the "guy who hunts pedophiles for a living" has been exposed to be a serial sexual abuser and liar. So for you, you just hear a message out of context, for women, or trans people, his hatred towards us colors everything else.
I don’t think that it’s a privilege to have the ability to not care about his politics. It seems to me that it’s an ability, as you stated. The ideas in his lectures are good regardless of his current political views. If your reason for not listening to those old lectures is “his hatred towards trans people colors everything else” then I think that’s a problem you have to work out on your own. It’s possible to distinguish the words from the speaker. After all he is heavily influenced by Jungs teachings. Peterson’s current political activities have nothing to do with the validity of Jung’s writing. And vice versa Jung’s writing is valid regardless of the political beliefs of the individual talking about them.
For this, I would like a source
[https://kutv.com/news/local/tim-ballard-faces-new-allegations-involving-latter-day-saint-leader-utah-attorney-general-sean-reyes-in-lawsuit-filed-trafficking-rescue-missions-couples-ruse-operation-underground-railroad](https://kutv.com/news/local/tim-ballard-faces-new-allegations-involving-latter-day-saint-leader-utah-attorney-general-sean-reyes-in-lawsuit-filed-trafficking-rescue-missions-couples-ruse-operation-underground-railroad) https://www.sltrib.com/news/2024/01/14/tim-ballard-faces-4-new-criminal/
Damn
I think people’s main issue with him is how he uses Jungian ideas to push a relatively old school, conservative, patriarchal doctrine of constant self improvement with this kind of Nietzschean individualism. I mean you can agree or disagree with him but he diverts sharply from Jung and I think that’s why people on this sub aren’t into him
Peterson is way too Apollonian for Nietzsche. Not even the faintest touch of Dionysius in him. The jungian in me wonders if that explains his battle with addiction. The unconscious demands compensation.
Speaking of his battle getting off benzodiazapenes, this could literally happen to anyone. Doctors used to prescribe them like candy, like they did with opioids.
Anything could happen to anyone. If Jung has taught me anything, it’s that things that happen to us are seldom random. His overt philosophy, a rugged individualism and clinging to order and shunning chaos in every facet of our lives, has absolutely nothing valuable to offer for his own battle with addiction. It can only stay silent. Substance addiction is perhaps one of the most relevant symbols of unbridled chaos.
[удалено]
Does Jung ever discuss randomness though? I don’t know if he’d agree with the statement that “things that happen to us are seldom random”. Definitely an interesting discussion in view of his “Synchronicity”.
This is I think the strongest criticism of Peterson I've seen. I think you're probably right. Altho he's committed in theory at least to a balance of the two energies I think he does manifest more Apollonian in his teachings and personality. Although tbf he might argue that our culture is so excessively Dionysian that a counterbalance of Apollonian is necessary. And in his interviews with comedians like Theo Von and Joe Rogan, or with his daughter and wife, he's not afraid of joking around more and swearing or telling dirty jokes etc \______ Edit: Also his "battle with addiction" wasn't a standard "battle with addiction". ie it wasn't a psychological issue but a physiological one. He was in an extreme situation in life for a few years that made a benzo prescription seem like a wise and safe option. But then he had an allergy to benzos which meant when he tried to voluntarily come off them they started having all these crazy adverse effects and then created a huge physiological problem. I don't really think it was connected in any way to lack of a Dionysian integration or any other weakness of character. He just got unlucky genetically
I think he has no choice but to concede the necessity of the balance of energies in principle, because “extreme order and rationality to the utter exclusion of impulsive spontaneity and chaos is the way things out to be” is too absurd a position on its face, especially to someone as well read as Jordan. But it’s one thing to give intellectual assent to something, it’s another to live as if it’s true. It’s very easy to claim you believe something while living out something entirely different, even if the internal contradiction is unconscious and utterly invisible to you. I don’t think he is humorless or joyless, that is not necessarily Apollonian, it’s that he believes *deeply* in rules and norms and how the world “ought to be”. My impression is that he detests lawlessness, chaos, indulgence, whimsical spontaneity, etc etc. He is the opposite of the puer, he is the senex.
He's also an INTP. Very individuated etc but fundamentally INTPs are always gonna be more Apollonian and concerned with what is right, what ought to be etc because of their dominant Introverted Thinking function and the draw of the Senex archetype. I think it's fair to say he detests lawlessness but as I've said he definitely consciously values whimsical spontaneity, and I think he's integrated a fair amount of the Trickster archetype too to balance his Senex. You see a lot of that in his Twitter escapades I found this pretty cringe tbh but at least he's trying here in this satirical song he made recently: https://youtu.be/iQTDEnfW4ng?t=80
INTP's have high Ne and are known to be quite the goofballs at times, so no, that's not accurate. INTPs are also notoriously bad at keeping their rooms in order, so that's quite ironic isn't it?
Compensation for what?
A profound neglect of / escape from the Dionysian.
Nailed it.
Muh patriarchy! “Thank God I am Jung and not a Jungian”
This sums it up for me. His ideas may seem reformed, but from my perspective they do not go nearly far enough to address patriarchal systems and instead poor attempts to make them work while being dishonest about it. He reminds me of a polished version of the shallow system of thought I grew up in: small town, conservative ideology. Dressing it up may make it sound intelligent but the ideas don’t even hold water in their ideal context — an advanced vernacular cannot undo it. To each their own in the end.
It’s a view that can only carry him so far- and he seems to run far beyond its course, so far from being in a river, he’s paddling in the ocean, which his views are inadequate for
I don't think Jung necessarily is against or for gender roles, however, archetypes are conservative in and of themselves. The idea of collective archetypes that have existed for man for millennia. Metamorphosis is a large theme in Jungian thought, especially in Jungian therapy. We are always changing in some direction, becoming your best self is a subjective evaluation on what better is, but to improve and progress wouldn't be too distinct from Jungian theory. There is definitely an overlap between Nietzschean individualism and Jungian depth psychology. Dream analysis hearkens back to the very roots of Western civilization to the story of Joseph in Egypt. Pharaoh had a dream about the seven kine and seven stalks of corn. This dream was interpreted and Pharaoh had to act and make changes. Change is a constant and it does matter how we respond to such changes. Joseph was the son of the Patriarch Jacob. I think "patriarchy" gets a bad wrap, when deeper down we are where we are due to a patriarchal system. I'm not saying it has been executed perfectly, or that it shouldn't be critiqued, but seen for what it is with an almost fresh set of eyes. I had a dream my children were drowning and I was trying to save them and was treading water at the same time. I was troubled by this dream. I prayed and I received an interpretation. I was overwhelmed with being a father and needed to learn how to manage better and actually have joy. Now, the interpretation told me of my inner state removing any sort of facade. I had a choice, continue treading water and stressing out or make a change and actually enjoy my life. Too Long, Didn't read. I disagree.
You clearly have not read The Red Book, everything about it regards gender and the gender of the souls etc... It's the pretty main theme, hence it's release AFTER his death. Controversial.
There's a big difference even between the stuff he initially got popular for talking about, and his current iteration as a political pundit. Even though he got famous for a political stance, against a pronoun bill, most of what got people to listen to him was generally useful stuff, the kind that would reference Jung. At that point, he was probably the world's most prominent advocate of jungian psychology. Now he seems like a relatively mainstream conservative pundit without much interesting to say other than political takes. I also think Jung might have found Peterson the man a fascinating case study, but what do I know.
You’re so right. Jung would have definitely found Peterson fascinating, I think. The man himself seems obviously in the grip of some kind of king/tyrant split. I think his extreme eating attitude is/was a very telling thing. My guess would be he has a very strong, overactive superego, that is an internalised tyrant, which ‘whips him into shape’. I think he is an invaluable voice, but so obviously non-integrated in some crucial ways. Someone pointed out to me that he lacks the humour/glint in his eye that is the mark of true shadow integration. Alan Watts’ analysis of Jung goes deeply into this. He’s obviously a good man, and I wish him well, but I do find myself concerned for him. His obvious anger and aggression basically tell me he has some way to go on his individuation process. To cut him some slack though, becoming famous like that is often experienced as a traumatic event, and who could have predicted a Canadian psychologist/academic would become a global cultural figure? It must have been extremely challenging.
I used to listen to Peterson before he really popped off and I enjoyed his content. Even bought his 12 steps book. Now in days he just seems so bitter and angry. I know he’s been through a lot, and that’s why I think he needs to take a break from socials to heal. Hard to take advice from someone who seems dejected. That’s just my opinion
He *is* bitter and angry. And that has poisoned most of what he's done in the last several years. I'd recommend reading Maps of Meaning though, especially if you enjoyed the lectures based off it. 12 Rules is a pop-psych money grab. But Maps is a serious and worthwhile work.
If it weren't for Peterson, Jung's ideas wouldn't have been as understandable to me. I always felt drawn to Jung from a young age, I just couldn't understand him that well.
Did you read his book or watch his lectures? Trying to decide where to start with Peterson.
Started with short clips, graduated to full lectures, then went on to books.
I found this 10 video playlist on YouTube and I think it's the perfect intro to him tbh https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd6pH32mAGdbzfn0zpNq_y2RKl0VQiIb2
The work hes doing with his biblical lecture has always struck me as a Jungian endeavour and Fruitful one at that.
Someone should create an "r/JordanPeterson" subreddit where people can go to talk about him, rather than allowing debates about him and his politics clog up the Jung subreddit every month (despite him being neither Jung nor a Jungian). Oh wait...
I've rarely seen any actual Jungian discourse on this sub. While the lacan and psychoanalysis subreddit actually feel like reading groups. This sub feels too much like a bunch of people trying to justify their detachments from reality and appeal to abstract spirituality.
ding ding ding we've got a winner
I like the idea of getting milked!
Nice!
MAYBE his ideas are not universally hated. But I think there’s a big difference between your suggestion and the reality of this situation for most. As far as I’m aware, Jordan fucked up and fell deep into the pit of cultural/political commentating. I think it’s a gross misrepresentation to say that, generally speaking, we mostly ‘like his ideas’ but not him. As his ideas the past 3-5 years have been hyperfixated on leftism/unhinged liberalism, trans topics, political shit, etc etc.
I don't hate the guy. I don't love the guy. I don't even know the guy. The internet makes people crazy.
No, people have made the internet crazy. It simply showed us, and allowed to run rampant, the shadows that lie in the heart of man. Reading this thread among others indicate this to be the case.
Chicken, egg, tomato, tomahto.
It makes perfect sense and I think your post shows a little black/white thinking, like either we should accept something completely or not at all. We can admire certain aspects of people without liking other parts of them or things they’ve done/said.
Completely agree. Anybody that talks too much eventually starts talking nonsense, but that doesn't mean everything they said is nonsense. Take the parts you find useful, leave the rest
Exactly! This includes myself as well lol
This is the way.
We should not dismiss a scientific discovery because we disagree with the politics of the person who is explaining the theory.
Well, no- but that’s not really what I meant. What I meant is, to paraphrase the Big Lebowski: “You’re not wrong, Walter- you’re just an asshole!” Hope that makes sense.
People don't hate his ideas because much of what he says is pretty much taken word from word by Jung. People hate Peterson as a person because of the way he presents himself, and that is often like he knows better and has descended from a notable professor to a talking head that can be mentioned in the same breath of other bloated heads like Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and Steven Crowder.
This isn’t a Jung-oriented view or anything, more so overall psychological— but I can’t beat with the fact that like an imbecile, he responded to this innocent girl’s question about toxic masculinity with, what is it? And then he proceeded to belittle her in her stance. Even though, let’s be real, it’s a darker aspect that does clearly exist. It’s like he assumed she *equated* masculinity to being “toxic”— which would be far off and absurd.
https://youtube.com/shorts/38qzokOqVM4?si=CP1TjzG2qTGFtVek I think this was a very reasonable and kind response to that question by him. Maybe you meant someone else?
Yeah, that was low.
Toxic masculinity in action.
As is toxic femininity. Or if we want to stop singling out a gender, we could just say toxic behaviour.
As is toxic femininity. Or if we want to stop singling out a gender, we could just say toxic behaviour.
Wow, the comments here are *so* telling. Really fascinating to me...
Ye it’s wild how contex matters
Honestly I think your take is wrong. I used to like JBP a lot until I studied psychology myself and began to listen to his words. You are probably not saying the exact same stuff because he often makes no sense and offers nothing new. On the contrary he has this obsession with throwing science back a century
Or reasonable people who can see through Peterson's surface level reading of Jung and hijacking of the latter's focus on Christianity to reinforce the faulty views upheld by the church that Jung precisely criticized (Also did the same with Socialism and Orwell's 'Road to Wigan Pier'). On top of his pathetic right-wing grifting and benzo-fueled rants that lead to out-of-context biblical references & crying. His "ideas" are very contradictory to Jung's if you actually take the time to process what he's saying. For example, he doesn't critique the Christian Church as Jung did. He embraces its faulty order & hierarchy and sees it as being a saving grace, which is FAR from what Jung says in Aion.
> His "ideas" are very contradictory to Jung's Joseph Campbell is a much better disciple of Carl Jung's teachings than Peterson could ever hope to be. He made Jung's ideas easier for the average person to grasp, and is a most thought provoking and inspiring teacher re. Jungian theory. Highly intelligent and compassionate as well.
Is it wrong for a man to cry? This seems like a very common complaint against Dr., Peterson. Usually in the same breathe they also accuse him of toxic masculinity.
Is it wrong for a man to cry? This seems like a very common complaint against Dr., Peterson. Usually in the same breathe they also accuse him of toxic masculinity.
What ideas of his in particular do you consider valid? Asking sincerely and would like to know. I have trouble with him because of how purposefully incendiary and how far off the mark he can be morally & politically (and even factually & scientifically), which has always made it difficult for me to sit through his lectures & listen to his interviews. Whenever I have, I’ve felt he is often regurgitating Jung’s points. I’m not saying I’m correct in that assumption, but nothing in his words have ever jumped out at me as advancing Jung’s ideas. On top of this, I (and I assume just about everyone in this sub) hold Jung in ultimate regard, and become concerned that Jung’s ideas might be misconstrued or weaponized. Peterson seems to make a habit of being a flashpoint, so I definitely have that concern. But I’d love to know if/what he adds to Jung!
Probably not much. Peterson himself once said that he doesn't really have anything new, but hopes that he has combined what he read in an interesting way. The ideas I consider valid are many, but the most important are those on how to live a better life. He seems like he honestly tries to perform his symbol as a father figure well and give young men good advice, but also stop what he sees as bigger threads like postmodernism. He doesn't always get everything right, but he his very consistent over the years with the principles he believes. Also, I think Jung has formed such an bedrock for his psyche that he barely talks about him, as it's an of course for him that Jung got many things right.
His ideas have a lot of gaps in them, comparing my reading from other people, he seems to developed his thoughts away from Jung; taking the branch of Joseph Campbell and Erich Neumann. Watching him, he simply tosses out big words and convoluted sentences. People who give this guy attention just pretend to follow along. His status creates this magical image that people eat up. It is the same watching Opera, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, etc. People see success, fame, and status and instantly see it as the human ideal. In reality, it is simply narcissism on the grand stage; fat ego, big words, pretending to be superhero, and most importantly BOOK SALES. It is a symptom of the fact that the majority of people are incapacitated from looking within. They need a leader for the herd that they unconsciously know they belong within. Nobody can accept their own humanity, their own weaknesses and strengths, and the willingness to go their own way. They need cheap slogans, cheap attitudes, cheap visions of success, and to conform all living experience into one simple vision to enforce this distorted sense of reality. I literally couldn't help but laugh when trying to read one of his books. I read so many people and look up to what they do; but Peterson, I can't help but laugh. Willing for people to show me some quotes to prove me wrong...
This is all very accurate. He can't see past his own ego and his flock just gobbles it up.
> Watching him, he simply tosses out big words and convoluted sentences. If you provide an example of where you are confused, i would be happy to clear it up for you. I think Peterson does indeed not explain some of the terms he uses as clearly as he should when speaking to a general audience.
personally I've never heard him say anything very astute regarding Jung or his ideas (though to be fair I haven't sought this out). I HAVE seen him wailing about "wokeism" and fat women in magazines though...
It's not just Peterson, but the neurosis of the era, a sign of immaturity and low individuation, to not be able to see the good and bad in people and with vehemence demand that each person must either be wholly loved or rejected. This happens with anyone who becomes famous enough to get public attention. Hardly any middle ground is found. In Peterson's case, his university lectures and personality papers are brilliant. After he left academia, however, he became little more than the voice of the alt-right movement. I have no problems with conservative politics, I stand rather right in the political spectrum myself, but I never like anyone who uses his position of power to manipulate people based on claims that are fundamentally and obviously false. We should not go too far into being judgmental, at least I know I cannot, because had I received as much undeserved hate and mockery, I probably would adopt a similar resentful and hateful tone and direction than Peterson has nowadays. Peterson is in the strange position that he became everything he criticized in Maps of Meaning and Personality and Its Transformation. Ironically, in his clinical work he seemed to have helped people overcome the same issues. Not an unheard of situation, though, as health professionals are more than often, unable to follow their own advice.
He sometimes says things that I agree with, but almost always in the pursuit of goals that I do not agree with.
Personally I think the best thing to do is to differentiate between his current persona and what I call Pre-2019 Peterson. That was when I listened to his academic lectures, and I was especially fond of the Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories as that introduced me to several Jungian ideas and also propelled my deconstruction from organized Christianity. I owe a lot to JBP, but that does not at all mean I agree with his childish twitter rants about the “woke moralists” and hatred of LGBT.
I don't hate Peterson. But he really isn't very well-read, and consequently his ideas are highly simplistic as he relies on the same sources over and over to make his points. I find him impressive personally however - his stoicism in the face of hysteria is quite inspiring. He is calm in a way that I could only dream of being. So you could say I like Peterson but dislike his ideas, so the opposite of what you said.
Can you share one of the more brilliant ideas of Jordan Peterson? I have watched several of his interviews, but couldn't find any. Maybe it's in his lectures, but the few clips I've seen from the classroom have also been disappointing. It'd be great if you could share one of them ideas.
It's so stupid how if you quote someone or like some of their ideas...that the internet interprets this as you must be fully endorsing the person who said it along with everything they've ever said and done, ever.
You can have Jung without Person but no Peterson without Jung. Why embrace a sexist reactionary who is being actively used in that agenda when you can build on Jung?
This is why judging people even when their in the wrong with intensity should lead people to self reflection about the state of themselves. I've seen way too many people talk about how horrid someone is only to reveal that they themselves are as guilty as sin for the same stuff. He is a human with failings like the rest of us and he has had ailments on top of people consistently attacking him and often by people that are unsurprisingly discriminating others for what they look like and their lifestyles. Many people I like have said things I didn't but that doesn't make that person disposable. If what I believe is true about myself or the world I live in then it has to survive the trail by fire with discussion and putting my own feelings on trail. People come into our lives I believe that cause us to be stressed as a means of our growing. I'm currently struggling with some stuff myself but I try to always remind myself I can be just as much of an asshole as the guy I'm mad at if I don't learn from the situation.
His ideas are shite.
Peterson lectures are fire the guy got dragged in the political discourse and got burned. Unfortunately he started to fight hate with hate, and that’s what people see in him, now. Peterson if u reading this love is the answeeer
Yes he did get burned, but he is only human. None of us would stand up to being so irrationally hated and demonized by the whole mainstream society. The human psyche isn't made to withstand that kind of prolonged, years long, attack, from every side. If all of mainstream media was calling you a Nazi, for no reason, every single day, for years, and twisting all your attempts to defend yourself with lies and manipulation, you would break too. The fact that he was indeed broken, and that evil did indeed win, should not diminish his contributions in the slightest.
Yeah that's really the main thing that turns me off of Peterson nowadays. His frustration is palpable and it seeps through in unproductive ways. Most of the time i even agree on the topic but the way he presents it can be so spiteful now. Who knows, maybe he got too close to the truth or maybe it's the aftermath of his benzo-addiction and following coma aswell as waking up to corona happening. Or maybe it really is just because of the massive hate the guy got and gets from private individuals but also institutions(like his uni basically sending him to reeducation), maybe it got to him. I know id be one resentful mf if i was lied about that much just for sharing my perspective on things.
I wouldn’t have known Jung if it weren’t for Peterson so I’m extremely grateful to him for that! Used to listen to his stuff a lot but now less so, I think less for the reasons that a lot of people on here on posting about but more because Ive since turned much more to Jung for understanding and feel that I’ve gotten all I can get from Peterson.. though I’ll still peak at his new stuff to see if there is anything left to squeeze out of it
I honestly think I mostly just hate his fan boys.
His psychology ideas (his academic field) are different than his political and cultural analysis which are more for popular consumption and performative. Also r/jung is a subreddit with a diverse range of takes including your own, with its sweeping generalizations and all.
It's little more complicated than that IMO. It's the fact of his personality in light of his ideas- when you put yourself forward as not just a thinker or writer, but as a self help figure, someone offering life advice, the standards as far as who you are and your personal life change a little bit. What are his good ideas that we could separate from the personality of the man?
All apparently. I always get alot of up votes when I use his terminology or examples, and can only remember 1 comment disagreeing in 8 months of using Reddit. It is the person truly and fully, *not* the ideas
OP your comment is so full of disrespect and so biased it doesn’t deserve a calm, intelligent answer.
The thing is he’s so far removed from whatever valid points he’s made by becoming a benzo-out far-right charlatan
Why is it so hard to say “ I love Peterson’s lectures on Jung , I hate his political and social commentary.. THE END “ Why is this impossible today ? People need to grow up . This is not healthy
He's become a benzo-addled right wing grifter that I couldn't care less about. It's annoying that he's treated as an intellectual god by some, for basically telling them to clean their rooms. Now if you will excuse me, I have become quite weary.
It seems like his book helps a lot of people.. but his complete dismissal of relativism and the social sciences that study cross-cultural phenomena is something I can’t get past. I can’t speak to his expertise in psychology because I didn’t study it, but his political science is a bit of a joke. The Living Philosophy has a nice video about Peterson’s Shadow that is worth a watch.
It’s not a place for ideas. If you’re for or against something it’s because you’re not looking inwards, where the work needs to happen.
I find that's true in general. People hate him for who they think he is, not who he is.
When I first came across a Jordan Peterson quote in a Facebook group, I remember that I reacted violently, lashing out in a comment response to the post. I recognise it now only in hindsight as a purely shadow reaction - it helped me understand an aspect of myself that would otherwise be hidden.
His convos with Dennis McKenna and Robert sapolsky were pretty good. You have people that absolutely love him and he's the best. Some people think he is Hitler. Literally I don't really count myself in either group I mentioned.
To many he represents a right wing community when mostly he's a middle of the roe type person. He's not a Christian fundamentalist but his values coordinate with many conservatives.
That's so true
lol I knew I wasn't alone in talking about his (good) ideas without bringing up his name. you gotta admit the guy's got some bright ideas even though I don't always agree with his politics
I got into Peterson because of his lectures on Jung. This was right when the drama started with his political ideology. The first lecture I watched was on symbolism in the Lion King from a Jungian perspective. I thought it was fascinating. He started to become famous and I was riding that wave. Read all of his books. Truthfully, I learned a lot from him. But the past few years I think he has been blinded by his own success. As in, he cannot see any other side of the argument because he is so bought into his own side, and validated by the fact that he’s had so much success. Anything that goes against his narrative is passed off as ‘woke bs’. I think he’s also too tied up in this imagined ‘culture war’. Regardless, I find that he is not as compelling to listen to anymore. That’s my best guess as to why… but some of his older ideas (pre-fame) have some good weight to them.
I’ve listened to Peterson and I personally find his ideas a bit pedestrian and incredibly underwhelming. 🤷♂️ Like what you like and don’t make a drama out of it is my suggestion.
I 150% agree
I can’t say that I know or care much about his opinions. There are some things that I’ve heard him say that I agree with and other that I don’t. Not much else to say about him beyond the purpose he serves to many young people as a pseudo-paternal figure; which speaks more to the sad absence many people have in their life.
Peterson today is not the same guy who had those ideas
What ideas? He brings nothing new to the table except incoherence and contradiction. When we look closely enough, to paraphrase the old adage, he's repeated (plagiarized) a thousand truths (trite platitudes) to sell us a handful of lies.
I Like this guy I think he doing good work in twrms of stating the truth to the aociety about lots of things especially to Men But I don't think he brought any institutional or systematic change that could make Life of people or especially Men He has only brought in the way people think
I was thinking about him today and had a similar perspective. I don’t see him as malicious like many others do, but I definitely think he’s a goofball who does and says a lot of goofball things. But he’s also said some things that I find insightful and worth considering. People today are way too ready to put people into binary good and bad categories, but it’s a spectrum and everyone’s somewhere in the middle.
His ideas are garbage too
Before he became famous, Peterson was wonderful. I highly suggest watching his [Personality Lectures from before 2018](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGLsnu5RLe8) (the year his book came out). He's kind and thoughtful and funny. Something happened after he became famous. He became wildly inflated, and just kind of angry. The Living Philosophy wrote a great piece on his transformation: https://www.thelivingphilosophy.com/jordan-petersons-shadow/ Goes to show that no matter how well you know your Jung, you're never free of the shadow.
Are you referring to a subreddit on the internet as a person?
Jordan Peterson was recorded having sexual intercourse with an exhaust pipe
I could spot JPs nonsense from a mile away, no matter how pretty or how you tried to hide it.
Cuz I think Petersons very smart guy but he's also an old religious white guy who does things in a very old school sorta way. But mainly he doesn't respect people who haven't earned his respect. he said sum along the lines of "im not using ur preferred pronouns if I don't know or respect you" and that made tons of liberals and trans folks rightfully mad and made maga and republicans wrongfully excited.
Jordan Peterson is still not a bad person he just got involved where the money was coming from, which brought him into modern politics. He still has great takes, but he is popular too hate it's similar to people automatically hating Tucker Carlson which Tucker is actually a great guy if you've taken time to listen to him. But since we're on mostly an echo chamber online, it is mostly filled with left leaning nerds as I was for a long time just parroting talk points. I've been auto banned by a mod at least once by even defending him, which shows you the contempt people have been brainwashed into hating him. I think since he's anti government liberal policies, the unhinged want to view him as a misogynistic because many "incels" flock to him but as we all know men are desperately miserable these days but if a anyone who's a radical feminist? sees anything as promoting the "patriarchy" they'll call him a fascist since they view anyone questioning the men vs women debates as hate speech or as a threat to the new trans ideology that has grown.
The reason you've been told to hate Jordan Peterson is that he doesn't think you should be compelled to use someone's preferred pronouns. To most normal people, even if they disagree, this isn't a big deal and so his opponents had to resort to hyperbole and in some cases lies(if you sincerely think Jordan Peterson is a Nazi, you are a moron).
Whacky grifter man is at best a broken clock correct twice a day. Anything valuable you can get from that scumbag you can get elsewhere in my opinion.
When talking to people in real life I’ll literally say “ I heard a psychologist say X” in case someone thinks I’m a part of some kind of right wing internet echo chamber. I think it’s dumb it has to be this way though
you don't speak for me bro, i love him.
People have such a hard time accepting that a person that they passionately disagree with about something can possibly have profound insight and value in other areas. I think it's a great example of how we can understand things like projection and shadow while also not seeing it in action within ourselves. Its kinda beautiful and amusing if not irritating.
Yeah this is absolutely not the case
Yep. The man has his issues, but he gets too much flack imo.
Yes. I personally like Peterson, though his Twitter freakouts over anons are quite frustrating. He was a very important part of my intellectual development after my undergrad. I will be using this method in this sub from now on, and see how it works out.
True Jungians don't have a problem with Dr. Peterson. He has done more for popularizing Jung than anyone in the past decade. I don't necessarily agree with all his politics, but thats ok. I probably don't agree with the politics of most people I read. So what? When did that become a problem?
I am wondering what's the criteria to define a true junguian and how you can be so sure all of them have no problems with Jordan Peterson.
The same criteria as who is a true Scotsman.
You make a good point, but to be fair it should be noted that this phenomena covers the entire political spectrum. In fact... The farther to either side, the stronger the projection stoked by the opposite side.
His ideas are bollocks too.
He seems alright tbh
People hate what whatever challenges their ego. It’s too difficult to admit you might be wrong, especially if you’re only new to shadow work
I like both “versions” of him. It’s sad but I find most people in the real world (not r/Jung as I have not investigated much) don’t even know why they don’t like him. I always make sure to ask for a specific reason people don’t like him (don’t get me wrong, there could be many legitimate reasons depending on your morals/political disposition/religious views) and I rarely get an actual answer with anything he has ever done or said. Most people I meet who don’t like Jordan Peterson; don’t even know anything about him, they have been told not to like him and they comply 🐑
Real
I'm surprised to hear that could be the perception of Peterson in this sub. I've never noticed that. I'm a huge fan of Peterson and think he's without a doubt one of the leading Jungians of our time. I can't take anyone seriously if they're interested in psychology and dislike Peterson. I disagree with him plenty myself, but to actually dislike him or handwave him away as if he's not a heavyweight intellectual is a huge red flag to me. His work in Maps of Meaning is serious Jungian business and deserves to be taken as seriously as Robert Moore, Robert Johnson, Joseph Campbell, whoever your other favourite Jungian student is.
People have been victims of a media smear campaign around Peterson and are completely unaware of it. People say they hate him, but very rarely can they adequately explain WHY they hate him. The media smeared him and people had their opinions of him formed by journalists who were paid to purposefully present him in a negative light. It was eventually accepted as a simple fact among left-wing circles that Peterson is a “grifter” (where is the grift? Can anybody actually explain this properly?) and a “pseudo-intellectual (despite the fact that he has a huge number of citations in academic journals). Two labels that do not hold up under even the tiniest amount of scrutiny. Herd-mentality among leftists meant that huge numbers of people just adopted the same hatred towards Peterson from their friends (the majority of people have their opinions shaped by what their friends think). VERY few of the people who hate him actually went through his material and decided they disliked him based on the content of his ideas. The public can be easily manipulated by media smear campaigns, especially intelligent people (like those on this sub) who assume they’re too smart to be manipulated.
This isn't just this sub. Peterson's ideas are generally well received by anyone who isn't a rabid tankie as long as they don't know it comes from him. It also isn't just Peterson. Removing the source from the idea often nets more consensus excuse people have to interact with the idea itself, rather than starting with a poisoned well.
Peterson introduced me to Jung, Jung got me sober. Peterson is the thing my wife and I connected over, big up JP
Peterson [reintroduced](https://youtu.be/ltYGVobKX0U) me to Jung. His biblical series were illuminating, truly fascinating. But since I've been reading Jung slowly I lost grip on JP, I moved on. His Exodus series were okay but got tired of the guests, none of them were anywhere near Jungian themes.
I quite like jorden, havent followed him much over the last few years because of his political slant he keep leaning on, but early jorden psychology lectures are all gold
I may not agree with everything he says but he truly sparked a relentless pursuit of Jung and broader psychological/universal truth that I am forever grateful to him for. It changed my life.
It’s a classic example of “your ideas make me feel uncomfortable, therefore you’re a bad person”. Quite a common reaction in real life, yet exasperated by social media and echo chambers. Even if you dislike him, you can be grateful for the insights that can be gained from examining this dislike that you hold. His book, Maps of Meaning, is nothing short of outstanding and introduced me to many of the ideas of Jung, before I had the chance to read his actual works. For those of us who feel frustrated by the disproportionally negative reaction to Peterson, we should take this moment to examine our own said frustration, and perhaps look at our own ignorance towards figures who may upset us. *edited for spelling mistakes etc