05-25-2019, 10:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2019, 10:24 AM by rva_jeremy.)
Also, want to say that I don't think Peterson's philosophy has zero merit. Far from it. I just think it's not very original or deep compared to the thought he sourced all this from. That wouldn't be a big deal in an of itself -- lots of people tweak existing philosophies and put their brand on it, yours truly included. It is the authority he implicitly claims as a YouTube personality, as a figure with followers, that introduces danger. He could focus on his academic work and deliver value, but instead he's gotten into the professional personality game, and I just don't detect a lot of virtue in that.
In short, I'm not too worried about Anagogy, for example, being blown off his course by Peterson. But I am a little concerned for people who haven't done their own investigation of the underlying source ideas of Peterson's philosophy (to the extent the term fits, because I don't think there's a lot of coherent structure to his thought, even in Maps of Meaning). Right wing politics is always about charismatic leaders who flatter their followers, and tradition is always about retreating to the known and comfortable in contradistinction to the new, the uncertain, the other.
In short, I'm not too worried about Anagogy, for example, being blown off his course by Peterson. But I am a little concerned for people who haven't done their own investigation of the underlying source ideas of Peterson's philosophy (to the extent the term fits, because I don't think there's a lot of coherent structure to his thought, even in Maps of Meaning). Right wing politics is always about charismatic leaders who flatter their followers, and tradition is always about retreating to the known and comfortable in contradistinction to the new, the uncertain, the other.