Patreon/SubscribeStar Exclusive Podcast: Ep.14 AUDIO VERSION

I enjoyed this podcast, but at the same time I loved the fact that previous podcasts didn't have barrier of entry. I kind of missed 70% of the epsode since I didn't watch Arrival

Toni Gröndahl

Mike and Casen, I thought your assessment of Peterson was nuanced and well articulated. In essence you guys said you find him an interesting and engaging thinker who actually grapples with deep psychological themes and can be credited with restoring them to semi-popular discussion. I would like to see someone deny that. I have read some of his work and watched plenty of his lectures/interviews, and like you guys, I conclude that I'm grateful that he exists and that he is stimulating debates and extending discussion on philosophical and psychological theory into new audiences. I'm doing a PhD on Nietzsche at the moment, do I agree with him? On some things yes, on many, no. But agreeing with someone, as one of my theology professors once said to me, is hardly the most important consideration or response in engaging with a difficult thinker. What matters is broadening your intellectual horizon, observing any insights the other thinker has, and allowing your own position to mature in critical engagement with the alternative position. Academic life is defined by respectful and critical engagement between serious thinkers who articulate positions in disagreement with each other.

Miles Mariae

I feel I should apologize for asking that question. I never meant for this to be so divisive. Sorry if this caused anxiety and annoyances for you gentlemen.

I was unaware that Patreon deletes links. Just Google search David Livingstone Smith, "Thus Spoke Jordan Peterson."

Matthew Jernberg

Hey Mike, I have about as much familiarity with Peterson's views as you describe, though maybe I have watched and listened to a few more of his lectures and podcasts. I'm not a fan though I also don't find him distasteful either. To put my cards on the table, I'm a politically libertarian ABD PhD Candidate in philosophy who's quite free speech friendly, so I don't really regard any ideas as dangerous per se, though their influence can be quite devastating (e.g. Marx & Engels). I find Peterson himself as somewhat sloppy in his thinking at times though is sharpest when interpreting fiction and mythology for its themes. I think what many find objectionable isn't so much his interpretation of the Bible, but rather the role he occupies in public discourse (aka the culture wars). He has attracted somewhat of a cult following and first become famous for his opposition to a gender identity bill (C-16) in Canada that expanded protected classes to transgender and gender-diverse peoples. Unlike the US, Canada has hate speech laws and one of Peterson's many concerns with that was its possible impingement on free speech -- an live issue of political debate concerning the boundaries of whether or how the content of speech can harm independently of its mode of expression. Peterson also confidently expressed many traditionally conservative views, especially on social matters and gender roles, that are quite controversial (see, for instance, his interview with Cathy Newman). He has also criticized postmodernism as well as other elements of continental philosophy. My training is focused more in analytic philosophy, but I wouldn't be surprised if Peterson's intellectually incautious or unsubtle style carries over to other subjects as well, so there may be quite a few scholars who could justifiably criticize his interpretations as misreadings. There are leftist philosophers who not only disagree with Peterson's views, but argue that he's actually quite authoritarian. David Livingstone Smith, for instance, has an essay on this: . My thought is to respond to what one takes to be false speech with more speech, as should be usual. I'm not so much of a fan of non-rational modes of silencing or shunning those one assumes to be associated with those one considers to engage in wrong-think, however reprehensible. I think ceding argumentative space helps foster people like Peterson to flourish, so if he's radically mistaken and immoral, the proper thing to do is to explain why. I, for one, don't find his views to have quite enough content to be worth spending much time thinking about. I made my bed in the morning before I ever heard of this person, and his 12 Rules for Life are about as thoughtful as a listicle on some blog.

Matthew Jernberg

Hello, everyone. Based on a couple of responses we've received in the youtube comments, I felt I'd copy/paste my response from there so that people can see it here too. If you'd like to discuss some of this further with me, feel free to reach out on a personal message here or on discord. I can see that some people might feel alarmed by the response we gave to the Jordan Peterson question, so I'd like to open a dialogue about it with those who feel concerned. I think that's important, especially for those who want to make more informed choices about who they support on patreon. In any case, here is the copy/paste: Hi there, As someone who has maybe seen two dozen-ish clips of Jordan Peterson on youtube, but never read any of his books or anything, I admit that my understanding of the body of his work is nowhere near extensive. Mostly, I've seen clips from his lectures on psychology, and as a layman lying in bed late at night watching youtube videos (and while not pursuing any serious study on what he was lecturing about), I found them mostly interesting. I've also seen a couple of his debates on religion and found most of those to be laughably incoherent, though still valuable in forming my own opinions. It's frustrating to me how he constantly dodges and avoids answering direct questions about his belief in god, for instance. All that said, I haven't really spent the time listening to or reading Peterson to have an informed opinion of the man. I suppose I should have lead with that. However, the fact that his name being brought up at all (without an immediate, scathing dismissal) amounts to being enough to change someone's opinion of me as a person is precisely the kind of thing I was referring to with the state of our public discourse. It's like any association with Peterson (even in thinking a short clip of a lecture on psychology was interesting food for thought) immediately creates assumptions about what Casen or I believe. Casen and I don't agree on many things despite how it might look in podcasts, and he isn't some hardcore right-wing guy either. I suppose I should have anticipated this, so the fault is really with me. So, since it was a clumsy attempt to be candid about something I'm not very informed about and which is high controversial, I'll open up a dialogue here to let people tell me why Peterson's views are dangerous. I know you've already listed a bunch of points, but I'd like maybe some links to watch or read so that I can be more informed on why he's a problematic person.

Resonant Arc