X Close

The world needs Jordan Peterson more than ever The professor is back after a year of illness, and his timing could not be better

He's back: Jordan Peterson


October 23, 2020   5 mins

The world needs Jordan Peterson. That may sound like the statement of a fan or a friend — and I am both — but it is also a fact illustrated by the sheer numbers who come to him seeking guidance and help. There has been no other public intellectual in recent years who has attracted the kind of following Peterson has. His book, 12 Rules for Life, sold by the millions; his speaking events drew thousands of attendees, night after night, in cities across the world, in what became a gruelling schedule for Peterson. And this was not some top-down publicity-led phenomenon: it was a grass-roots movement in which readers and viewers gravitated towards the Canadian academic.

But then, a year ago, the world lost Peterson. He disappeared from view and it was eventually announced that the professor had been checked into a rehabilitation facility after developing an addiction to benzodiazepines, an anti-anxiety drug which is widely available in the US and other countries. Speculation has been rife ever since about whether he would ever be back and exactly what happened to him during this dark and painful period.

This week we got some answers, with a video in which, speaking directly to camera for the first time in a year, the professor gave some details of what had happened since his last public appearance. As Peterson related, he became hooked on the medication after upping his dosage, apparently in the wake of his wife’s diagnosis and treatment for cancer last year.

He attempted to get off the medication himself, but found that no American facility would allow him to go full cold turkey on the drug, and so he ended up in a facility in Russia where he successfully freed himself from the drug but almost died in the process. Since then he has been in rehabilitation facilities in a number of other countries but — as he announced in his video — he is now finally back home in Toronto.

This and much more will doubtless be pored over by the professor’s friends and fans, and Peterson’s readers and audience members were more than that. They were people who gravitated towards him because they believed — knew — that here was a man who could help them make sense of some of the chaos in their own lives and in the world around them. Many authors have signing-queues in which readers tell them how much their books have meant to them; Peterson’s readers told them how he had changed their lives. I saw this first-hand, with people explaining how, since becoming acquainted with Peterson’s work, their lives had transformed. It would be easy to scoff at this — but it would also be wrong.

One of the strangest and most baffling aspects of the Peterson phenomenon has been the way in which his critics failed to contend with his points and arguments. And not just the specifics, but the fact that anybody with such a following must be onto something. Of course critics primarily on the ideological Left claimed that Peterson was some kind of fringe “alt-right” figure, against the evidence of any and all of his words. It was telling that they remained so incurious about the popularity of his work.

You would have thought that if any Canadian professor who had previously been obscure rose to prominence across the world, with audiences of thousands rising to their feet to welcome him every night, then whatever their ideological stance people — including critics — would try to work out what it was that he was onto. Yet Peterson’s critics, from Cathy Newman to the New York Times and the BBC, consistently failed to see any interest in the bigger story. They tried to bring him down, of course. They tried to portray him as some kind of monster, trip him up, laugh at him or otherwise reveal some underlying horror.

But they never even bothered to contend with the question of what it is that such a person might have been onto. What was the cause of his rise? Why were so many people attracted to his message? When they pretended to answer this question, it was that Peterson was speaking to embittered incels, or some other fringe, unsympathetic group. It is to their long-term detriment that they failed to consider this deeper question: that Peterson spoke to such a wide array of listeners because he was hovering right over the questions of meaning and purpose, which almost everyone else in our society had decided to abandon. Including, but by no means limited to, the Church.

The video that Peterson recorded this week has a number of things which will especially interest fans. The first is that he has been writing, a fact that will give his legions of fans and admirers the opportunity to hope that there will be a follow-up to 12 Rules for Life. That alone is a cause for some optimism, because it holds out the possibility that Peterson has been able to order his thoughts and perhaps continue to think through the challenges which afflict everybody in modern society.

At a time when we have all the confusions of post-modernism raging around us, and now with the overlay of a global pandemic to make some of that movement’s assertions even more unhelpful than they already were, an intervention from Peterson will provide hope to a considerable number of people.

Peterson watchers will also notice that he signed off by saying that “With God’s grace and mercy” he hoped to complete some of the tasks which he lays out in it. In 2017, Peterson released a set of online videos about the first book in the Bible — Genesis — and it had long been his hope that he would be able to find the time to study and prepare for a similar set of lectures on the next book, Exodus.

Indeed this was the primary purpose of the visiting professorship that Peterson had been awarded at the Divinity faculty at Cambridge University — an unpaid position that Peterson was looking forward to taking up until the university authorities discovered that he had once been photographed beside somebody wearing a T-shirt that said “I’m a proud Islamophobe”. I say that this was the ostensible reason, only because it was. As I wrote here at the time, it was clear that Cambridge was simply giving in to a small online mob that remained dedicated to attacking and humiliating Peterson at every turn.

But although the breathing-space that position might have afforded him was taken away, Peterson clearly still intends to go ahead with his chosen task. And it looks like this and other books in the Bible are going to be his main source of study and thought in the period to come.

Fans and readers of Peterson will welcome in any and all of this. His detractors will naturally continue to find reasons to lambast and deride him — but they miss a lot of opportunities in doing so. The world is in an exceptionally confused and bewildering state at the moment; there has rarely been a time when society has had so few thoughtful public figures and so few respected public institutions.

The past as well as the future is being ripped up and ripped apart on a daily basis. If, in the midst of that melee, Peterson finds that purpose and meaning can be found in returning to the books that form the foundation stones of the Western tradition, then that is something that should be cause for reflection. Peterson looks and sounds like he has been though a lot, but perhaps the world that we are entering will need such a guide.


Douglas Murray is an author and journalist.

DouglasKMurray

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

287 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago

Yes – Welcome back, Mr Peterson. If you annoy the despicable, smug, totalitarian left then you’re a friend of mine in any case; but if you so courageously discard their shibboleths and blinkers and vile jargon, then you are to be respected and admired.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Revered, even.

Robert Forde
Robert Forde
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

He’s a friend of mine only if he annoys the despicable, smug totalitarian right as well.

J D
J D
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

I think we would all agree on that but I’m not sure a right wing equivalent exists in any effective or relevant capacity.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  J D

Quite. Is it the right getting people sacked for disagreeing? Is it the right openly discriminating against certain ethnic groups in publishing, arts and media? Is it the right imposing so-called “unconscious bias training” designed to cow and indoctrinate the workforce? Is it the right which supports “feminism” up to and including infanticide style abortion in Europe but shuts its mouth pronto when dealing with Islamic womanhood? Is it the right which dominates the media and slants every last morsel of output, from “comedy” to current affairs with all the shadiest tricks in the book? The left has got so used to telling itself there is no such thing as truth, it doesn’t even know when its lies – stated or just implied – are howlingly obvious.

Jonathan Marshall
Jonathan Marshall
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Excellent comment. There is nothing there with which I could disagree.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago

Thank you for your encouraging words.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Thank you for such an absolutely outstanding and spot on comment!!! You just ripped the guts right out of the left the way I do an Elk after I kill it and I go to skin it for the meat to put in the freezer.

Thank you. Bravo ðƾℱƒ Bravo ðƾ‘ Bravo ðƾℱƒ

gary.mcghee
gary.mcghee
3 years ago

That’s quite the analogy, Sir, although I’d rather eat an elk than a lefty.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago

Many thanks.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

It’s you that’s in denial, ducky – you have no evidence to back your bigoted, neo-Bolshevik spluttering. A strong left influence in academe? You mean anyone not left wing afraid to publish research which the left wishes to shut up and close down. The sheer brass necked revulsion from reality on your part shows you to be either indoctrinated or malicious.

Eliot Jordan
Eliot Jordan
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Back up your theory that the UK MSM, esp TV is right wing please?

Micheal Lucken
Micheal Lucken
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Good example of what I described earlier, confusion as to what constitutes right and left wing in the modern political arena. this sounds like an analysis from the cold war era.

simon taylor
simon taylor
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I`ll bet you`re a bundle of laughs to hang out with.

rigopor
rigopor
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Thank you! Well written!

Paul137
Paul137
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Ooh! Anthony (view from Mt. Olympus) Devonshire has no time for Jordan Peterson! Ooh!

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

“twitter is a right wing conspiracy theory bloodbath”

Have you ever been on Twitter? At all?

Marie Jones
Marie Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

‘…….in the UK the news that most people still consume and still indirectly forms opinions ie. newspapers and the TV is overwhelmingly right wing…..’
It really isn’t. Most of it is overwhelmingly Blairite.

jaharrison1
jaharrison1
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

What is ‘the right’ these days? Anyone who disagrees with you, I expect.

Jay Pierre
Jay Pierre
3 years ago
Reply to  jaharrison1

Anyone to the right of me? Rotten fascists. Anyone to the left of me? Damn commies. I am smack in the reasonable middle. It you others that are akimbo! (Going off now to scrutinize your social media history to see if you deserve doxing.)

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Pierre

weird

Judy Simpson
Judy Simpson
3 years ago
Reply to  jaharrison1

So true. I’ve been a central leaning lefty most of my life and old left-wing friends are starting to view me with suspicion because I question their orthodoxy. A friend’s husband has actually banned me from the house because I said something positive (or simply, not negative) about Trump. It seems trying to have a balanced opinion is the equivalence of heresy.

Campbell P
Campbell P
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Simpson

Good for you! It’s in such exchanges and reactions that one discovers who one’s true friends are.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  jaharrison1

Bingo! You nailed it my friend!!

Polyxena Erato
Polyxena Erato
3 years ago
Reply to  jaharrison1

Agree. But, furthermore, just talking in terms of ‘the right’ and ‘the left’ is intellectually lazy. How would you describe someone who holds right-leaning views on some topics, left-leaning views on other topics, and is completely neutral on the vast majority of other issues that they haven’t yet had time to study and consider properly? It certainly conserves us mental energy to paint someone with a ‘left’ or ‘right’ brush, and then carry on as if you’re interacting with a completely monolithic representative of that political ideology.

lydiamalone00
lydiamalone00
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Can you give us some examples of who these totalitarian right wing people are?

Paul137
Paul137
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

And to be Robert Forde’s friend is to die for!

ruediger.thiede
ruediger.thiede
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Fortunately, he does. Alt-righters are vociferous in their hatred of him, since he criticizes the excesses of fascism and is not a race-nationalist.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

The phrase “totalitarian right” is inherently self-contradictory.

Steve Milton
Steve Milton
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Entrusting one’s allegiances on the the basis that ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ never ends well, and furthermore suggests that you are misreading something fairly profound at the heart of his thinking.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Milton

Those of us opposed to “woke” need all the friends we can get. And nothing ends well in this life. Hadn’t you noticed?

croftyass
croftyass
3 years ago

Exceptional & courageous man-always loved the way he’s almost in anguish as he tries to articulate correctly & precisely what the issue is-so far removed from the glib sound bites that are served up by the intellectually weak minded. Also the way he retorts “these things are complicated” ie please don’t patronise and insult me with your simple binary assertions.
I love the way he conducts himself and get reassurance that its ok to consider issues in depth and to reference the research & data.The added bonus is of course that he represents everything the ideologically obsessed “progressive (sic)” left hate-, fierce intelligence,intellectual rigour,wide learning,analysis,factual referencing,independence of thought,and a love of freedom.
Lets hope he gets back to full health -for his sake and for the his millions of admirers.

croftyass
croftyass
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Not sure I get the correlation between benzodiazepines and his intellectual capability-the world is and always has been full of exceptional people who have abused drugs or drink or have other character defects-are we only to listen to the pure and unviolated?Are you concerned about what fuelled George Bests God given football genius given his chronic alcoholism?
As for “being right” thats a judgement for the listener to make -not the speaker-at best Peterson stimulates discussion and rigorous thinking -and unlike the self righteous progressive illiberal left who adopt a position of moral superiority as an a priori assumption.

Wulvis Perveravsson
Wulvis Perveravsson
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

True, but not so many of them have preached a life of traditional virtue; emphasising self-control, planning and discipline; as Peterson has.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago

And this is an example of what I wrote just above. Peterson has not “preached” to anyone. ‘Preached’ is an equivocal misrepresentation.
He has engaged in ‘lectures’ as he himself describes them. And that is not an excuse to go again and equivocate on the term ‘lecture’. He meant it the sense of an educational talk, not a reproachful talk to an involuntary audience.
Further, as he himself has said, he is no different than his audience and as such shares their human frailties.

Tom D
Tom D
3 years ago

In addition, it would seem that seeking professional clinical help for treating an addiction would be a clear example of “emphasising self-control, planning and discipline”.

Wulvis Perveravsson
Wulvis Perveravsson
3 years ago

Well, the fan boys and girls are definitely in the building tonight. I respect Peterson’s intelligence and the broad scope of his knowledge, but in his commercial enterprises, he’s really no different from any other self-help guru peddling models by which to live.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago

And who do YOU look up to pray tell?

croftyass
croftyass
3 years ago

self-help guru peddling models by which to live.Peddling being a carefully chosen verb presumably to imply some form of cheap,insubstantial product?Personally I’ve read and learnt a huge amount from a fair number of “self help gurus” if thats your chosen description.Each to their own-

Brenda Texter
Brenda Texter
3 years ago

I’ve listened to Mr Peterson and come away with a high regard for his position, to the point, I would love to hear more. I do not believe he was trying to “elevate people to His level”, but rather share with them the ideals of a life well-lived through religion and the struggles all people, including himself, must deal. To view his internal struggle in demonstrating his very deeply held beliefs is in itself inspirational, If the common man of religion does not ask and try to explain to himself through research and conversation the depth of all religious teachings, then is he truly embedded in his beliefs or is he passively accepting anyone’s pap?

juliabaytree
juliabaytree
3 years ago

Suggested, never preached

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

George Best never told, to my knowledge, anyone else how to live their lives.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago

And Jordan Peterson has never “told”, to my knowledge, anyone else how to live their lives.
He has laid out his views, based on an academic synthesis in his textbook Maps of Meaning.
The use of the term “told” as in “preach” is a good motte-and-bailey tactic evolving equivocation.

juliabaytree
juliabaytree
3 years ago

The alcohol depleted his talent and breathtaking skill though. You certainly cannot say that benzos slowed down JP’s thinking processes. I admire him more now! Think what he would be like without the anxiety!

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago

Haven’t heard Jordan Peterson telling anyone either…suggesting is not telling.

Simon Adams
Simon Adams
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

He was medically prescribed them for a serious condition he was in after food poisoning, and was then medically advised to continue them when his wife was diagnosed.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your judgements…

Jonathan Marshall
Jonathan Marshall
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Adams

They never do, Simon. They never do.

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Adams

Yes. So is Oxycontin. Prescribed. Perdue just paid $8 billion, however.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago

Not yet they haven’t. As of yesterday afternoon they are appealing that here in the States.

Chris Mochan
Chris Mochan
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

“Frankly, if his anxiety levels are sdo high that he has to take tranquilisers (and, clearly, overdo them) I’d be concerned about what’s fuelling his ideas.”

I’m not sure what this means, it reads like a complete non-sequitur.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Mochan

Yes, it struck me as a baffling non-sequitur as well.

Jonathan Marshall
Jonathan Marshall
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

And you’re surprised?

Bilbo Cactus
Bilbo Cactus
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Badly put, but I think I see what you are suggesting. I don’t think we have perfect access to the impressions and ideas that shape our immediate self. Much as I admire a lot of the writings of Peterson, like you I’m always wary of the power and influence that self confident rhetoric can inspire. Most people are far too keen to find and follow gurus. Better to read widely and critically, listen sceptically and think independently.
Have to say, I’m worried about his apparent ‘leap of faith’. As Voltaire said, “As long as people continue to believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” Far better to gain creative power and courage by continuing to look into the abyss and hope, that when the abyss stares back at you, your GP doesn’t hand out benzodiazepines.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Bilbo Cactus

Ah, but we still don’t know what he means by ‘god’ nor ‘grace’ nor ‘mercy’. He is very unclear as to what he means by these terms and when he seems to be clear their use defies gauging a precise meaning.
‘Absurdities’ depends again on what the term applies to. And the idea ‘absurdities’ have an inherent property that is an ipso facto condition for atrocities is a non sequitur IMO.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago

Can you write that again please ..in english?

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  Bilbo Cactus

Peterson does not engage in ‘rhetoric’, except as needed to structure his thinking. Which is what he does engage in. He has clearly ‘read widely and critically, listened skeptically, and thought independently.’ Sounds like a good role model to me.

jaharrison1
jaharrison1
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Unfortunately, there are few perfect angels in the world. Including you. Presumably his wife is past the worst. I’m unsurprised that he has suffered from anxiety because the hate gang are relentless and unforgiving – unless one ot their own and then they are more than forgiving, of course.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  jaharrison1

He has suffered from an (undisclosed) auto immune disease as well as anxiety and depression.
His wife Tammy had a terminal cancer diagnosis after being initially told the condition was benign.
Fortunately she received surgery that removed the source of the terminal diagnosis but it left serious problems with a lymph duct (as I recall) that continued to leak into her abdomen.
After much consultation they found a surgeon that managed to ‘creatively’ repair the problem.

Karl Schuldes
Karl Schuldes
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Thank you for a perfect demonstration of what Douglas said about Petersen’s critics.

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

His ‘air of confidence’ comes from his ability to think, ie. he is totally comfortable openly displaying his thought processes in public. It’s not about being ‘right’. It’s about being adept at using the tools of productive reflection. Listening to him, I am generally hearing a person thinking out loud within a loose structure, which naturally implies a respect for others’ freedom to process their ideas. It seems defensive to equate that confidence with arrogance, if that’s what you are implying.

juliabaytree
juliabaytree
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Well said indeed. I saw him in London with the wonderful Sam Harris and Douglas Murray. A treat indeed. He is to me an absolute hero and not looking for glory. His passion incites you to really think about the issues. I am no ‘incel’ either, but a 66 yr old lady (or is that “person who used to menstruate”? I’m not sure these days).

Betty
Betty
3 years ago
Reply to  juliabaytree

You can always try “Womb-retainer” and then you don’t have to mention the “M” word, (because ladies never do, you know…. )

Gary Miles
Gary Miles
3 years ago
Reply to  Betty

How about saying womb-man quickly?

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Your comment says more about you than it does about him. I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

You are a perfect example of the people that Douglas Murray so perfectly described that came out to attack Mr Peterson. The “snide sneering
“intellectual elite.”

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Getting an addiction through no fault of his own but now taking responsibility for his recovery.
Overcoming it takes a LOT of energy..psychic and otherwise.
He’ll now be even more ‘dangerous’ to the looney left..
God bless Mr Peterson.

markmusoke
markmusoke
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Well said Robert. You are absolutely spot on there and people who deny this are shameless cowards. I love Peterson’s intellect but if he was so “weak” to become dependent on benzodiazepines when he knew full well the risks associated with these drugs, we have to seriously question his judgement and reasoning. Ă°ĆžÂ€â€ That certainly does not disqualify him from writing or broadcasting but it enables us and instructs us to take a step back. It is important to note that many geniuses and strong leaders have ‘dark’ issues and skeletons in their closets.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago
Reply to  markmusoke

He says he was not aware of the risks associated with these drugs. However, as a great admirer of JP I do believe you are right to point out the danger of over-adulation. As you say, even great people are human and have their weaknesses and blind spots.

Chris Mochan
Chris Mochan
3 years ago
Reply to  markmusoke

A central plank of his thinking is that life is hellish and will make you suffer. The lesson of his book is that you will make mistakes and you will face chaos, but its important to develop the psychological tools to face up to life. At no time does he profess to be anything other than another flawed mortal trying to cope with the horrors of the world, so it is very very weird to see his own flaws as evidence that his lesson is discredited.

Gary Richmond
Gary Richmond
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Spot on. I love the way he calmly rips apart these faux leftist intellectuals especially, the TV interviewers who are so used to dominating the discussion. Welcome back Sir.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Millions of people rightly or wrongly take benzos…. including very intelligent ones who are under huge pressure and struggle with the pressure. Know the ones who NEVER take them? People with a high threshold for arousal…. psychopaths and sociopaths who thrive on the cut and thrust.

Paul137
Paul137
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Robert Forde is being frank with us! Also, he’s concerned!!

Jill Mans
Jill Mans
3 years ago

Thank you Douglas Murray – and the world needs you too!

Hugh Jarse
Hugh Jarse
3 years ago
Reply to  Jill Mans

Amen to that. Two good men with the courage to do what is necessary to stop evil triumphing.

Bilbo Cactus
Bilbo Cactus
3 years ago
Reply to  Hugh Jarse

Oh stop it! Both good thinkers and articulate proponents of a particular world view. But please, stop the hero worship!

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Bilbo Cactus

And what’s wrong with having real heroes?

Jonathan Marshall
Jonathan Marshall
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Dunn

Nothing. Indeed. it is to be commended.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago

In his pre-illness life Dr Peterson recommended living ‘as if God exists’. I wonder whether, having gone through the belly of the whale, his beautiful words ‘with God’s grace and mercy’ mean that he has taken the next step. This often happens in extreme crisis.

Anyway, welcome back Dr Peterson. The world needs you.

Stu White
Stu White
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Hope not. I struggle with trusting the thinking of anyone who believes without evidence.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Stu White

I struggle with trusting the thinking of anyone who believes without evidence.
we have an entire political movement that calls for summary execution at the mention of “only women get pregnant,” which has more than its share of evidence. There is no shortage of people who believe for whatever reason. As to religion, it’s called faith for a reason.

Bilbo Cactus
Bilbo Cactus
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Yes, but the problem with faith is that it’s wanting to believe that which isn’t true And that which poisons everything. It’s effect on humanity is worse than putting benzodiazepine into all of our water supplies.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Bilbo Cactus

how do you know it isn’t true? The true believer and the militant atheist are twin sides of the same coin, each steadfast in his viewpoint, each convinced that the other is wrong, neither able to convince the other or to empirically ‘prove’ his case.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

But what do you mean by atheist when you use it?
Atheism is precisely the lack of a viewpoint. It is the lack of a position.

Anna Clare Bryson
Anna Clare Bryson
3 years ago

So an atheist is someone who has no position or view on the question of the existence of God? Odd usage.

Tom D
Tom D
3 years ago

No, agnosticism is the lack of a viewpoint. These definitions have been around for decades and even centuries, we ought to stick with them.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago

No it isn’t. Atheism is the belief – or viewpoint if you will – that there is no god. What you’re thinking of is agnosticism. An agnostic doubts the existence of God, hence agnosticism can be defined as the lack of a belief both in God’s existence and in his non-existence.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Exactly.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Bilbo Cactus

Ah youre the repository of truth..! Errrm okayyy.

Josh Mills
Josh Mills
3 years ago
Reply to  Stu White

Hi Stu, I’m wondering what sort of people you mind in your statement.
I’m a Christian because I believe in the good evidence for the historical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Campbell P
Campbell P
3 years ago
Reply to  Stu White

The evidence for the resurrection of Christ would be considered very compelling indeed were it to be produced in a court of law. Also, alternative theories are substantially less compelling and require a huge leap of faith to sustain them. The biggest reason why people do not believe is because they have either not bothered to research properly the evidence themselves – which is just intellectual laziness, or because their blind FAITH in their own presuppositions and prejudices does not allow them to approach the subject objectively. Christian faith is founded on historical fact. Get over it; or better still do some proper research.

Sam Mac Gill-Eain
Sam Mac Gill-Eain
3 years ago
Reply to  Campbell P

The evidence for the resurrection of Christ would be considered very compelling indeed were it to be produced in a court of law.

The bible would get thrown out as inadmissable. What other ‘evidence’ would be presented?

Believe what you want, but you are kidding yourself if you think the bible stories of the resurrection constitute ‘evidence’.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago

The “intellectual elite”??? always show me just how narrowminded they truly are.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago

And yet an oath is usually taken on a bible in a court of law..

jcurwin
jcurwin
3 years ago
Reply to  Stu White

The “evidence” for God isn’t of the scientific or rational kind. It requires a certain kind of openness at a deeper level. What I like about JBP is that he clearly values science and rationality–but recognizes their inadequacies at the same time.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  jcurwin

Bingo you nailed it. Isn’t it funny, the so-called intellectual elite which are always on the left portray themselves to be so open minded. Until the Bible is brought up. Then their minds slam shut! Up tight as an oyster. They always reveal themselves by showing just how narrow minded/ closed minded they really are.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Stu White

Next time you switch on your light,try and work out how it happens..

Rocky Rhodes
Rocky Rhodes
3 years ago
Reply to  Stu White

Do you live as if there is only material reality? I’m guessing that you don’t.

John Cotton
John Cotton
3 years ago

Best bit of news I have seen all week. Both Peterson and Murray use language beautifully in an age when many obfuscate, lie or hold words to ransom so that we may no longer use them with their original meaning or intent

ky.cao
ky.cao
3 years ago

Peterson is always at pain to explain his reasoning, not his beliefs. Nothing “guru” or “preachy” or “self confident” about him. No false modesty. It’s the opposite to woke. He’s a messenger. Those millions who have found solace and guidance in his messages and changed their ways for the better speak volume to his value to humanity.
Quite simple the message: Life can be very tough (observation), don’t blame anyone for your personal misery (outside your control, not productive), focus on forming habits that will take you out of the hole you are in (within your control), once you have sorted your life you could then help others (extending your sphere of influence, contributing to society).
The Left forms beliefs first, then blames everyone and everything that exists for its misery in why those beliefs aren’t universally applied, goes all out to destroy civil society to remake it, finds itself self-destructing and bringing the world around it down with it.
Peterson: Learn & think before claiming & acting.
Left: Claim & act before thinking & learning.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  ky.cao

Folks here is another absolutely outstanding comment!!!! ‘

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  ky.cao

VERY well put.

Geoff Cox
Geoff Cox
3 years ago

I’m not religious – in fact I was/am very anti-religion because it is a controlling and often authoritarian institution. But I recognised that one saving grace (if the religious here will allow me to use the expression) was that they were an organisation that could stand up to secular power. Now without religions commanding an alternative viewpoint, politicians have taken control and all power rests in their hands. We are galloping towards a global tyranny driven by the revolutionary piety of the left. These are worrying times.

Robert Forde
Robert Forde
3 years ago
Reply to  Geoff Cox

Hardly. There are very few leftwing governments in power in 2020. And the opposing parties (Poland, Hungary) are neither very democratic nor very secular in their approach.

Geoff Cox
Geoff Cox
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Hi Robert – You will have to define leftwing. I see no Conservative governments in power.

croftyass
croftyass
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Its hardly an issue of Government or political leaning -its a cultural war that has infected our institutions per se.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

The conservatives/right are in power in most of the world but somehow the left is running the world through some sort of insidious cultural infiltration. If this is true why are the left so anxious to change the formal power arrangements and actually win elections and overturn non elected right wing governments? Why should the right care about losing the ‘cultural war’ when they are already in power? Or is the argument that the left aren’t quite in power yet but will be because they will use their dastardly culture war victories to brainwash people into voting for them via the mainstream media that, again, is largely controlled and owned by the right?

Basil Chamberlain
Basil Chamberlain
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

What I think is getting lost in all these debates is that “right” and “left” in politics are a metaphor. What “right” meant in the post-French Revolution era when the term actually had literal meaning was the supporters of throne and altar: people whose goal was actively to restore traditional hierarchies and preserve traditional institutions. By comparison, most so-called right-wing governments now are Tory Leninists. We should stop using “left” and “right”, and use more precise terms that actually reflect the politics being advocated.

However, I think the answer to Mr Bridgeford’s question is that the parties we usually refer to as “right-wing” – i.e., the Tory Leninists and their ilk – stand to lose little by allowing the so-called “left” (which has notably abandoned traditional socialist pursuits such as economic redistribution) to pursue its culture war. Indeed, they stand to gain plenty from a situation where the culture war bubbles on: it’s most unlikely, for instance, that the Johnson manifesto would have won working-class votes and northern seats had the election been conducted on economic grounds; however, with the Brexit culture war as the election’s main issue, it was easy to do so. If so-called “conservative” parties weren’t able to frame elections on these grounds, they would have to defend their widely unpopular economic policies.

So I think the “right” will strive to keep the culture war bubbling along, while trying to ensure that the “left” doesn’t actually win it.

Go Away Please
Go Away Please
3 years ago

Very perceptive. It’s something I have wondered about for a little while. It’s rather obvious this is what is sending people to vote for Trump rather than Biden (and as you say Johnson rather than Corbyn). Trump’s tax cuts and so forth all sounded good and yes he created some more low paid jobs, but really the rich have got richer and inequality is becoming a bigger issue. That too is made to feed into the culture wars.
After which all you have to do is find another hate figure that everyone, right, left, woke whatever can buy into. China fits the bill nicely.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  Go Away Please

” Trump’s tax cuts and so forth all sounded good and yes he created some more low paid jobs, but really the rich have got richer and inequality is becoming a bigger issue. That too is made to feed into the culture wars. “
____________________________________________________________

You are dead wrong. You need to stop spouting left wing rhetoric and start doing some actual research. Under the tax cuts people like me that makes $75,000 or more, have seen a tremendous gain. Just under my federal income tax refund, I have had more money come back to me than ever before. BY FAR. Try $3,250. The lowest amount so far.

And The tax cuts that corporations got, they poured back into their companies and into there employees.

In the first year they were pouring the money back into employees by passing out checks to us. But oh no, CNN ABC CBS NBC MSDNC None of them dared talk about any of this on their shows or what his policies created in our country.

Companies went on the biggest hiring binge, never before seen in our Nation.

The strongest economic recovery in the history of our Nation. And created more jobs than ever before. And everything I say if you go to the trouble which you will not do but if you did go to the trouble to research everything I say just on federal websites, you would see this. But I already know you won’t do it.

All you will do is spout left wing rhetoric. I will close with this, because of his tax cuts my company was able to give each employee a minimum of $1,500 dollars. You should see what your large corporations did. Companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, Apple,
Microsoft, Ford, GM, The list of large corporations goes on and on. But Fox News sure told about it.

And that was to the lowest employee. The laborers that we call “Roustabouts” here in the Oil&Gas Industry. And the $$$$$ up accordingly so to your ranking /standing in the company. GM got $4000. My level, VP Which is division managers, each one received $7,500.

And we are a privately held family-owned Oil&Gas “Construction Company,” with 388 full time employees. We don’t hire any, any
part-time employees. Ever.

You should know this, here in the United States we have certain online entities that keep track of all TV ðƾ“Âș News Corporations, and the amount of air-time they put into shows and topics.

The first two years of President Trump’s presidency & his administration all 5 TV news corporations that are labeled the NNC= Network News Cabal, ABC CBS NBC CNN MSDNC All of them put no more than 30 minutes telling the American people how good of an economy we had. But Fox ðƞŠƠ News did and so did OAN=One America News. Per ” Pew Research.”

And concerning ratings in the amount of people that watch shows, CNN Has been averaging daily no more than 700,000 people where Fox ðƞŠƠ News has been averaging over 4 million.

Go Away Please
Go Away Please
3 years ago

I’m very glad you are doing so well.

However I have checked my facts and I quote from Wikipedia. :

“In 2018, and for the first time in U.S. history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the working class. A study found that the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 percent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 percent rate paid by the bottom half of American households.[44][45]

In September 2019, the Census Bureau reported that income inequality in the United States had reached its highest level in 50 years, with the GINI index increasing from 48.2 in 2017 to 48.5 in 2018.[46].”

I’m sure other sources are available.

FWIW I’m not left-wing, but I think inequality in excess matters.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Go Away Please

23%of 100s of billions generated by the 400 richest is not nothing.

David George
David George
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

“Politics is downstream from culture”
The effort for system wide overthrow is directed at culture, the politics follow.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

I think that’s a fair point as a specific rule about parties/governments perhaps, but in terms of wider ‘mainstream’ viewpoints – the left wing views are most certainly dominant.

We have a strange scenario where the most influential corporations are now allied with left wing orthodoxy. The former due to globalisation, the latter reinforcing the former as it seeks to not be racist – i.e. critical of anything outside of the nation in question.

Corporations are falling over themselves to appear anti racist, pro LGBT, pro green, which allies them with the viewpoints of most on the left, who have gradually become ever more intolerant of any deviation from a binary viewpoint. Many on the left are so convinced that they are in the right 100% on any of these issues that any variance from the mainstream projected “truths” from the media, celebrity and many of the professional classes, is met with fury.

The right wing governments, leaders and populists are a direct result of people seeking answers elsewhere. And it’s not a good thing necessarily. For others people like Peterson speak more sense on such topics than decades of soundbites, virtue signals and editorials.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

“Corporations are falling over themselves” in a fit of nothing short of cowardice.

Micheal Lucken
Micheal Lucken
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

That analysis is flawed because left and right politics traditionally described notions of government versus free market approach to economics, authoritarian versus liberalism, progressive versus conservative. What has currently come to the fore is a new progressive liberalism which predominates in Western Europe that supports free market economics,is progressive socially, is both liberal and authoritarian according to which side of the fence you sit socially. That is what many now describe as Left Wing though the parties in power may not be known as such.

There are also other forms of power other than government. Media and corporate for example. Corporations once considered right wing because they are profit driven now see advantage in supporting and flaunting their new socially left wing credentials enabling a free pass from many who were once their fiercest critics. Similar applies to the world of media and entertainment, the morality of their fame and wealth once a target of the left but now fully in step with their social agenda.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Micheal Lucken

Indeed even cowardice pays.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Considering the carnage in their wake,leftwing govts should not even exist..but as their ‘project’ is necessarily interminable it just shapeshifts with the times…hence trans rights amongst the confetti of victimhood…its f…king endless.

Fiona E
Fiona E
3 years ago

The world definitely needs Jordan Peterson, and Douglas Murray and the other sane voices that still have the moral courage to search for and speak the truth and push back against the woke ideologues who seem determined to destroy western civilisation. I would love Douglas Murray to write a book explaining to young people the benefits of western civilisation and it’s ideas like rationalism, liberal democracy, capitalism, property rights, the rule of law and freedom of conscience, thought, expression and religion – how they give people freedom and choice and offer the best way for anyone to reach their full potential and also give dignity and equal worth to every individual. Most older people take this for granted but proponents of postmodern neo-Marxist ideas ““ e.g. divisive, antagonistic identity politics and ‘Social Justice’ theories like Critical Race Theory are indoctrinating our children and young people to believe western civilisation is so horrible we need to burn it all down and start again and are turning them into angry, miserable, resentful activists.(after all happy people don’t want a revolution).

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Fiona E

I think you could make a good job of that book.

pete.j.whitelock
pete.j.whitelock
3 years ago
Reply to  Fiona E

You should probably have a look at Niall Ferguson’s Civilization, although it’s from 2011. I haven’t read it but I saw the TV series and it definitely covers the benefits of western civilisation, although it’s probably too early to have much woke-bashing. The last chapter of Lindsey and Pluckrose’s Cynical Theories might help there

Chuck Burns
Chuck Burns
3 years ago

Douglas Murray starts to give us a spot on explanation but stops short of assigning blame. His statement “The world is in an exceptionally confused and bewildering state at the moment” describes our situation. It is Dr. Peterson who understands why this is so and teaches us that we are OK, and we have within us what we need to be OK. The confusion and bewilderment is a result of decades of the Cultural Marxist assault on what makes Western society strong. The Cultural Marxists attack the family unit, the male as father figure, protector, and provider. They attack the female as mother figure care giver and nurturer, and religion. Professor Peterson recognizes the problem and has identified the enemy of Western civilization. It is the Left. We must reject Cultural Marxism and all its vile accusations. We are not what the Left has been telling us for decades.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  Chuck Burns

You nailed it, PERFECTLY MY FRIEND!!

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Chuck Burns

Thank you!

Chris Mochan
Chris Mochan
3 years ago

I found it fascinating that he was decried for appealing to ’embittered incels’. Surely, someone ought to be trying to give some guidance to those very people? And to caution against self-pity and childishness and promote a worldview which favours responsibility and self-improvement would seem to be a positive thing to do.

The disconnect between what Peterson actually says and what is written about him is bizarre. He was called alt-right, despite being vocally disgusted by their views. It seemed that all you had to do was cast some vague aspersions on his character and some newspaper would publish it as a take-down. As someone who read his book and watched a few of his lectures, I found it very weird to see the interesting, although idiosyncratic, stoicism he was talking about being described in the press as some kind of new Mein Kampf.

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Mochan

Peterson: “If you can’t even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?”

Far Left: “This is a classic ‘blame the victim’ argument used by alt-Right Fascists to deflect from the fact that centuries of systemic racism have denied many the ability to clean their own rooms and not only that, to blindly dismiss that the very idea of cleaning one’s room is an imperialist White construct historically used to suppress the existence of those with an alternate ‘lived experience’.

Yeah, so when you look at it that way ………

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

What’s sad is how believable your caricature of the left’s argument is. It does not require much imagination to hear those words being said.

Most revealing in such comments is the part about “imperialist white construct” to describe what most people see as commonplace behavior, as if the non-white groups are incapable of that. The left ignores its own bigotry in the effort to accuse everyone else of indulging it.

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Peterson’s homespun example serves to drive his message on the damage caused by the abrogation of personal responsibility.
Thomas Sowell offers a similar version when discussing the plight of the failing black inner cities.
The Grievance Industry, that sundry assortment of opportunistic politicians, bureaucrats, educators and mini-Me Marxists hold the mantra of “It’s not your fault” above all else.
It’s the only way to justify and perpetuate their existence.
It’s shameful because so many are watching the SS Opportunity sail out of sight because these self-serving carpetbaggers swore there was no space for them.
Instead they’re left holding worthless tickets on the SS Justice which will arrive “any day now – we promise!”.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

The bigotry of low expectations.

gary.mcghee
gary.mcghee
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

Is that Far Left quote implying that black people don’t have untidy rooms, or that if they do and tidy them then they are acting as supplicants to white supremacist constructs?

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  gary.mcghee

Yes. They have internalized whiteness. They need to rediscover the historical black roots of unkempt rooms.

gary.mcghee
gary.mcghee
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

made me laugh out loud btw, thanks for that.x

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

1000upticks!

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Mochan

He was the heretic amid the true believers when it came to pronouns. Therefore, he had to be metaphorically burned at the stake.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Mochan

I found it fascinating that he was decried for appealing to ’embittered incels’. Surely, someone ought to be trying to give some guidance to those very people?

I know. It’s so obvious that you’d have to be blinded by bitterness to think that he “he appeals to incels” is an impressive argument.

But this kind of double-standard – because his critics would, of course, claim to be concerned about the marginalised ““ is everywhere. People say men should not try to be macho by bottling up their emotions but openly mock any male adversary of theirs who shows vulnerability. They complain about gaslighting while being the most shameless gaslighters out there. Furious about stereotyping and prejudice but so keen to proclaim “white fragility”.

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Mochan

The contempt shown for incels comes from different sources. Feminists see them not as pitiful or amongst the losers in life’s lottery, but as arrogant men who think they are ‘entitled’ to sex with a woman. They demonize them through association with the likes of Eliot Roger and consider them rapists and killers in waiting. That viewpoint, however unfair, is then supported generally by feminist men, but also by insecure but not quite loser men who are only too happy to be rid of other men who might compete for the affections of women.

jcurwin
jcurwin
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Mochan

It was precisely this discrepancy between what JBP was saying and how he was being represented in the media that, for me, was the “red pill” moment: the moment when I realized just how distorted a worldview was being presented to me by the likes of the NY Times and so on.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  jcurwin

Welcome my friend. Welcome.

John Kozakiewicz
John Kozakiewicz
3 years ago

I am a septuagenarian who has been fatherless since age
seven. Even though I am near the end of
my life, and very far from the young boy rendered fatherless at such a tender
age, Jordan Peterson has provided me
with the fathering I never received – and desperately needed – for many dark
decades. Thank you, Dr. Peterson, and Godspeed.

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago

That says a lot about how deeply his message resonates. I am older too and had a good father, but as with anyone, there were gaps in my education, and Peterson often says things I wish I understood from a younger age, and might have had my father possessed a greater capacity to impart what wisdom he had.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago

And god bless you John.

Chis Marley
Chis Marley
3 years ago

I had been contemplating the sheer enforced inanity of the Trans- gender ideology and the viscous Trans activist hit squad that nailed a dead rat to the door of a women’s refuge they were targeting in Canada. The rabid insistence that any who refuse to state `the lie` that a man who says he is a woman is a woman) are enemies to to be attacked. It struck me that to give in to this ridiculous group think bullying and publicly agree would effectively be surrendering ones moral compass and any sense of self respect. To attempt to escape this fate by remaining silent would still engender the sniveling acquiescence of moral cowardice. It put me in mind of the cinema audiences in Germany from 1932 onwards sitting in darkened silence as the anti- Jewish propaganda trailers of the Nazis unrelentingly portrayed the Jews as little more than disgusting insects to be crushed. Was there ever a person who stood up and yelled at the obscener lies of this `politically correct` anti semetic poisen audiences were being exposed to?
Professor Paterson and his refusal to accept the Canadian governments woke trans dikat to enforce what words he must use seemed to me to be that one person finally standing up and calling out this imposed speech crime as WRONG and publicly stated his refusal to comply. We all will face this eventually as silent acquiescence is soon to be deemed a political refusal to submit to to the latest sordid ideological orthodoxy being rammed down our throat . The trans – activists and BLM are one and the same and those who submit become complicit in the moral destruction of both themselves and our free societies just as those silent Germans during the 1930`s became complicit in the Holocaust.
Professor Paterson is to be commended for highlighting the choice we will be forced to make.

John Jones
John Jones
3 years ago

I didn’t realize how low the left had sunk until I read the response of several of the woke to Peterson’s point about hierarchies.

According to the left, hierarchy is a “social construct” as gender is claimed to be. Unfortunately for the left and their naive blank-slate theory of human nature, many other species besides humans create hierarchies, not only our nearest relatives, the primates, but even creatures as far removed from us as lobsters.

Now this point makes it perfectly clear that not everything about society can be the result of “social constructs”, that some aspects of the social organization of many species, including our own, are in fact evolutionary constructs (including gender).

But rather than acknowledging that Peterson had just demolished a fundamental tenet of left wing beliefs, the critics howled with childish glee, claiming that Peterson was advocating the notion that humans should live like lobsters.

His point, of course, was merely to demonstrate that if a creature as far removed from us as lobsters formed hierarchies, then it is obvious that we too might do so for biological, not social reasons.

When I read these absurd arguments against Peterson’s position, I realized that the radical left had lost any pretensions they may have had to intellectual honesty, and were willing to slander Peterson rather than respond rationally to his point. The sad thing is that political correctness and the social justice mob make this discussion now off limits.

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago

I agree with quite a bit that Peterson says but regard myself as quite left wing. The way people talk it’s as if this is not possible. Politically though I’m never quite sure what Peterson thinks. Does he support Trump? Surely not! He has said some slightly dumb things about climate change, but I agree with him on the anti-woke stuff. In some respects people expect a kind of messiah- poor bloke is not going to be able to deliver on that!

Robert Forde
Robert Forde
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

I agree, but if he’s so evidence-based it’s concerning that he has come out with “slightly dumb things” about climate change.

Peter Kriens
Peter Kriens
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

He asked questions and raised doubt instead of walking a party line where the far far majority do not understand any of the details… Being sceptical is always smart and never dumb.

You might want to look at his interview with Lomberg.

croftyass
croftyass
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

I haven’t heard anything “dumb” about his views on Climate Change-anything specific you are referencing?-what he has pointed out is the complete absence of any rigorous scientific method in what has increasingly become a politicised argument rather than a scientific one.The dumbest thing I ever heard about climate change was Obama and”the science is settled”..I mean..wtf!!!!No wonder he was a lawyer!
Spotted any similarities with Sars Covid 2 and “the science” -as referenced by a bunch of public school educated PPE Graduates!!!

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Surely the science is settled on man made climate change. Of course there are always people who will question the details, but if you really want to argue that man-made climate change is still a open question, you really have to move into conspiracy theory territory. But even if there was some doubt, the precautionary principle would suggest we ought not to ignore it.
It seems for some (Very much a US thing) climate change is political – but why can’t you be conservative and accept man-made climate change is happening? In fact environmentalism use to be a conservative issue – really don’t understand why it is seen as ‘leftwing’

Never understand why when I mention Trump everyone starts on Obama. I have no particular opinions on Obama, but Trump supports seem obsessed with the guy. Think it says something about their psychology. What it’s not is rational debate.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

Surely the science is settled on man made climate change.
Said no scientist ever. Especially about a theory and this remains but a theory. Ironically, a theory that does not allow falsification, which actually makes it the opposite of science and more like religion.

why can’t you be conservative and accept man-made climate change is happening?
You can accept that, but the left requires you to also accept the claim that it is an existential threat from which govt must save us. Really? Govt can barely manage potholes, but I’m supposed to believe it has the know-how to manage climate. Based on what?

Why can’t you be progressive and accept that this is a theory, that since 1880, the average surface temp has changed by about one degree. One degree. The level of panic seems grossly disproportionate.

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Ok lots to be said on this. BTW I was always told that a theory, unlike a hypothesis IS backed by good evidence. Anyway, given we can never have complete certainty, do you at least accept that continuing to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are doing is reckless?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

A theory also allows for its hypothesis to be falsified. That’s not so with climate change. The only accepted variable in the equation is that whatever is occurring is man-made. That’s not science, it’s faith.

As to your question, let’s take it at face value. What is govt going to do about it? What consequences might accrue from that action? There is such a thing as the cure being worse than the disease. Abundant, cheap energy has been a godsend to places trying to climb out of grinding poverty.

ky.cao
ky.cao
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

JP is skeptical about the existential threat of climate change to humanity, even more so about “10 years to Armageddon”, as now evidenced in leading climate change man’s book False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet
(by BjÞrn Lomborg).

The Truthseeker
The Truthseeker
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

How would you change the way of the world that 20yrs ago you would have supported whole heartedly .

Sandy Anthony
Sandy Anthony
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

What makes you think the science is settled? Surely not the bogus (and thoroughly debunked) claims that there’s a scientific consensus? This is an emerging science and it’s far too soon to make any such grandiose claims as it being ‘settled’. There’s still much empirical evidence to be gathered before the extremely speculative results of computer modelling can be considered verified. You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the scientific endeavour requires constant questioning, testing and course-correction,
Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have a poor opinion of anyone whose stance diverges from your own; anyone who questions man-made climate change must be a conspiracy theorist and anyone who supports Trump is obsessed. While there may be such people in both camps, there’s a great deal of diversity of opinion within them too. Maybe you should explore their reasoning a little more thoroughly before blithely dismissing them.

baillargeon.jean
baillargeon.jean
3 years ago
Reply to  Sandy Anthony

Let’s have a look at what scientists actually say.

https://science.sciencemag….

https://www.ucsusa.org/clim

https://www.cbsnews.com/new

Sandy Anthony
Sandy Anthony
3 years ago

There are still plenty of reputable scientists in the field who contest the so-called ‘consensus’. As such, it doesn’t matter how many statements are issued by scientific bodies (who, might I add, rarely canvas the views of their members before issuing such declarations), there is not a consensus. (By the way, the Union of Concerned Scientists is not a credible source – it’s a politically biased organisation.)

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

‘what he has pointed out is the complete absence of any rigorous scientific method’
Which in itself shows his ignorance of scientific method. But then again, if he believes in a God, I am not surprised.

Sandy Anthony
Sandy Anthony
3 years ago


Which in itself shows his ignorance of scientific method.”How so?

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Having been trained by physicists I’m confident science is never settled.

Ever heard of caloric? Several hundred years ago the settled science of thermodynamics was that heat was transferred in the form of particles which could cross over between objects placed next to each other. The fact that it was a settled theory made progress impossible, as scientific thinking became imprisoned in the caloric “box”.
It took an engineer in the Austrian? armoury to develop the principle of conservation of energy and the model of energy exchange between heat, kinetic, potential energy etc.

But at heart I’m an engineer – to me it’s irrelevant whether climate change is man-made. If there is climate change and it’s not man-made it still needs to be addressed. And that means changes to human behaviour. There is a success (ish) story we can point to, the detection, stabilization, and now slow correction of the southern hemisphere ozone hole.

However what I find really difficult about the climate debate is the politicization. Instead of humanity analyzing the problem to establish mitigation strategies, hysteria is whipped up and pre-existing ideological wagons are being harnessed to the hysteria.

Alex Mitchell
Alex Mitchell
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark H

Needs to be dealt with if it is happening. That is true. But if it is not clear what is causing it, you have to improve response, not try prevention because you may be looking in the wrong places. All the rhetoric and effort is towards prevention, which will be wasted if we have the cause wrong. Same for a whole pile of complex societal problems currently being foolishly over simplified

Go Away Please
Go Away Please
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Mitchell

Yes, although I do think man is having an impact. What is unclear to me is how much of an impact and whether prevention makes sense given there be may be huge underlying changes that we simply cannot deal with. But I’m with Mark H on mitigation strategies. They need to be based on things we do know about such as pollution, ecology, energy uses, population and so on. Balanced by the need to feed and house people as well as providing people with a modicum of security and healthcare.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Why has he said something dumb about climate change? Because it doesn’t fit into today’s so-called “follow the science” argument. As with COVID there are plenty of opposing scientific arguments. Is it man made or is it a change which is naturally occurring throughout the planet’s history. Look up talks with professors Lindzen and Curry, if google hasn’t wiped them off the internet.

Chris C
Chris C
3 years ago

No-one interested in facts, as distinct from US culture wars, believes that there are “plenty of opposing scientific arguments” on climate change.

It’s revealing that you link Covid to climate change denial.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris C

I am not a climate change denier, but I am doubtful that it is man made. There are many scientists who don’t agree that man made CO2 which is 0.003% of atmospheric gases is responsible for climate warming. The problem is if you only google climate change, you have to sift through pages to find opposite views.
Anyway, that doesn’t have anything to do with Peterson, who just talked about a more realistic approach to climate warming when somebody asked him . He thought that Lomberg’s rational plan made more sense than putting up extremely inefficient and expensive windmills and solar panels.

croftyass
croftyass
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

I think his political stance is quite clear -and like a lot of people doesn’t easily slot into a pre defined definition-another reason I identify with him.I’m “quite right wing” but my interpretation of that is not necessarily that of a momentum member!I’m economically liberal but view the state as having an important role,socially conservative but support equality of opportunity & access-I suppose I’m a Conservative but don’t recognise that in the current Government .I accept that Trump is a deeply flawed human being but also that he has a valid mandate and has achieved more in certain areas than many of his lauded predecessors-the Abraham Accord is a truly significant event in Middle East Politics -Obama received the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people” which is about as weak a resume as you can find for any award.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  croftyass

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for no reason whatsoever, then laid waste to Libya two years later. What a fraud.

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

In one of his many videos (sorry I can’t recall exactly which one) Peterson opined that the Left-Right issue was a hierarchal struggle with the two sides always rubbing against each other.
In his view (at least as I understood it) the struggle for balance between the two is how we advance as a society.
It also keeps the fringes in check.
Both must exist for the system to work but go too far Left or Right and you ruin the balance and cause chaos.
Peterson’s opinion is that the Left has no defined fringe.
If Left is Good, Far Left is Better and right now we’re enduring a certain amount of chaos because of it, ie; Wokeness/Cancel Culture etc etc.

I have no idea if he personally supports Trump and I’m certainly not an authority on Peterson’s work, but I’m guessing that according to his theories presented thus far he would view Trump not as the Left does – as an unwelcome intruder from the Right – but rather a societal need to restore balance disturbed by the Left in the first place.
Trump is a result – not a cause.
Trump’s carefree truth-bending, boorishness and erraticism are taken as read, but “voters must be stupid” isn’t why he’s POTUS certainly not why the Left wants him gone.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

Well said!

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

Yes I kind of agree with this. Although the idea that Trump will help the little guy is deluded. Also there are two quite different ‘lefts’. There is the left of the university campus cancel culture, identity politics, etc, which is just awful. Here I totally agree with GP. But there is the economic left who believes that economic inequality is getting extreme and we need to do something. It is the left that wants to curb the excessive power of global corporations, and believes that tax havens and massive tax avoidance needs tackling. This is the good left!

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

IMO, the real battle is between Globalism and Nationalism.
Of course globalism serves the usual suspects like Big Money but it also serves the ‘bad Left’ such as the Climate Change movement and those that support wealth redistribution and unfettered human migration.
Strange bedfellows.
The ‘good Left’ as you describe it – the Left that pursues things like a ‘living wage’ would best be served by nationalist policies such as stronger union rights or tariffs on cheap imported goods.
The Left – both sides – have been unable to reconcile these inconsistencies within their own sphere.
Burning coal is bad for the planet, ergo coal mining is bad.
So what do unemployed coal miners do?
Other countries are still happily mining coal.
There are lots of unemployed coal miners that we’re trying to find gainful employment for so let’s open the borders because migration is a human right?
That’s a conundrum that has cost the Left dearly at the ballot box.
They can’t satisfy globalists without offending nationalists and vice versa.
In 2016 the Dems decided to ignore the Deplorables and lost simply because Trump recognized these people exist.
The fact that he did little or nothing to help doesn’t matter.
The Dems shunted Sanders aside not once, but twice.
His platform like Corbyn’s Labour, was Marxism-Lite and had the wokesters all excited – finally we’ll make Big Money squeak – but if they had thought about it for a moment they would have realized that the putting the squeeze on Big Money required adoption of protectionist policies. ie; Nationalism.

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

Coal miners… currently 50,000, down from 850,000 in the twenties, and you actually think that tiny number can’t find jobs elsewhere? 20 times that number are filing new unemployment claims weekly due to Covid. In short, great soundbite, but statistically not a rounding error.

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
3 years ago

Sorry – it was just meant as a theoretical example – to make the point that dumping a resource economy in favour of climate change has consequences.
But having said that.
Some of those miners/steel workers/autoworkers may be skilled tradesman but mostly not.
Should they compete for jobs with unskilled immigrants? Globalism
Do we need to curtail immigration until these people are back on their feet? Nationalism
Or is it all OK – there are enough good ‘living wage’ jobs for everyone?
The ‘deplorables’ were asking these questions – and they are legitimate questions- and the Dems labeled them deplorables and xenophobes for their trouble.
FWIW, social activist filmmaker Michael Moore detests Trump – obviously – but he says the Democrats still refuse to admit they blew the election by spitting on the people that have always supported them.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

” FWIW, social activist filmmaker Michael Moore detests Trump – obviously – but he says the Democrats still refuse to admit they blew the election by spitting on the people that have always supported them.”
“”””””””””””””””””””””

And why did Michael Moore do this? Because he’s born and raised in blue collar Michigan. His family members made their living working blue-collar jobs in auto factories. He may live in Southern California and rub shoulders with the Hollywood stars and directors, but as he says often,

“Even though I drink my beer out of Crystal nowadays I’m still at Bubba at heart.” Something else I’ve read that he has said often.

I shall paraphrase him.

“Your garden-variety wealthy white collar Californian wouldn’t know a blue-collar steel worker pipefitter, pipeline welder, oilfield roughneck if one of them walked up and stuck out his hand ðƾ–, and said shake hands with a such and such.

To them blue collar is the illegal Mexicans that cut their grass and rake their yard on a regular basis. And they work for a white man that owns the lawn care company because even though he pays a decent wage of $20 an hour he can’t even hire a born & raised white or black young man.

Because they’re too lazy to leave their parents house to take these jobs. And back when I was coming up young whites and blacks did them.”

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

People from ‘somewhere’ vs. people from ‘anywhere’. The latter are eager to deny and erase the former. That is virtue.The former want the latter reigned in for the sake of their own virtue. IMO, the ‘somewheres’ have a more balanced perspective.

Chris C
Chris C
3 years ago
Reply to  Walter Lantz

Strictly speaking, he is POTUS because the US electoral system allows the candidate who won fewer votes to be anointed as the winner. And that’s despite vote suppression in Republican-controlled states.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris C

What voter suppression? I keep hearing this shop-worn talking point being treated as an article of faith with no evidence to back it up. Voter ID is often used as an example, as if certain populations are incapable of securing IDs. They’re not and it’s a bad red herring of an argument anyway considering the litany of far less important things for which ID is required.

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Considering that the entire adult population of South Africa has IDs, I’m sure the first world societies will catch up one day!

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris C

The electoral system works perfectly. Because it keeps the
“Tyrannical Masses” from running roughshod over the smaller population.

The foundation fathers where brilliant and nearly all of the founding fathers were very familiar with these kind of people because most of them came from England.

They were very familiar with a tyrannical government. And with tyrannical people. If things was reversed to suit you and your ilk, America would be run by the village idiot left out of California and NYC.

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

Re: Climate Change
Again in one of his videos Peterson did knock the Climate Change movement because from the scientific perspective you can’t measure outcomes if you don’t have defined goals.
It’s like a beauty contestant claiming “I want world peace”.
How nice.
What exactly is the definition of “world peace”?
Who exactly has the authority to define the specifics in the first place?
How exactly will we be able to measure and determine when “world peace” has been attained?
If you can’t answer these questions then you can’t form a plan and without a plan you can’t get anything done.
IMO, Peterson’s response explains why the Climate Change movement loudly insists on immediate action, often with real and serious economic side effects but then offers nebulous and varying opinions as to degree of success many decades down the road, when people like Gore and Greta will likely be pub quiz History questions.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

Politically though I’m never quite sure what Peterson thinks.

He has always defined himself as a “classic British-style liberal”. One of his prime motivations is being anti-authoritarian.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

So you KNOW that people expect a Messiah? How about people are being crushed,&villified with their country turning into a cesspit before their very eyes..fearful for their childrens well being..inc the possibility of being blown up at an Ariadne Grande concert..amongst other horrors(Rotherham)…all thanks to leftist ideology.
They’re NOT looking for a messiah but they’d dearly love their country to be safe&to function as it used to in their own lifetime..

The Truthseeker
The Truthseeker
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

You super left wing fell off the edge years ago!! So definitely not working CLASS

Derek Boyes
Derek Boyes
3 years ago

Irrelevant of what people think of his ideas, I respect Jordan Peterson enormously as a human being. Throughout this never-ending controversial media storm that he has found himself in, he has been extremely tolerant, respectful and professional. On top of this, his emotional openness and the devoted bond he shares with his family, is testament of his upstanding character.

I personally find his thoughts and ideas deeply fascinating to listen to and back in 2017, he was the only person I could find online, who could explain to me this rapid and widening division in western society that I now know is the result of an insane postmodern Identity Politics. It took several other authors (Douglas Murray, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Jonathan Haidt and Debra Soh to name a few) to fully comprehend it all, but Dr Peterson was my first teacher and for that I am indebted to him.

That said, I’m ashamed to admit that I am still too scared to praise him openly to my friends on the left, because of the stigma generated by all the false accusations from the radical left. I loathe this self-righteous ignorance that blinds the left into accepting such radical indoctrination that CT has fed mainstream liberalism. The fight is far from over, but there is at least growing evidence this year, that the message is starting to get through. Dr Peterson deserves to be recognised by mainstream society for his courage, reason and intellectual rigor in standing up to such a dangerous ideology.

I’m really pleased to see he’s back home and on the road to recovery and when the time is right, I look forward to hearing his thoughts on this year’s unpredictable developments and what new insights he’s been able to unravel about the human psyche.

Karen Siemens
Karen Siemens
3 years ago
Reply to  Derek Boyes

Your first couple of paragraphs express (better than I could have) my own opinion and experience of Peterson.

He has my well wishes in his current pursuits. I know he was very disappointed that the Cambridge arrangement did not work out but I think what he is doing now is much better. I suspect that seeking to understand Exodus at Cambridge would be as fruitful as looking for the meaning of life in postmodernism.

Diana Durham
Diana Durham
3 years ago

Yes I agree, and thank you for the article and the overview. It was through listening to Peterson that I first became aware of the madness and deceitfulness of the woke culture wars in universities, I was still living in the US at the time, and had no idea this wave of ideology was happening in Canada, and even less of the extent it had impacted Britain. I agree that the majority of his critics have not actually listened to him or taken on board what he says. He is very well informed along certain lines, and very interesting and open-minded. And he has the quality that cynical intellectualism hates which is earnestness and a genuine desire to be honest to the best of his ability. He was not trying to ‘take down’ the Channel 4 interviewer Cathy Newman, he was simply being himself. It’s just that honesty and earnestness, and having something to say that is somewhat original or at least not the same well-worn cliches came as a shock to the media system. I agree also that the appeal he has to many younger men should make the cynical intellectual class take note. Mentorship is important, and if he is drawing that kind of thoughtful and deep response, it is insulting to those thousands of men (and women) to suggest the only reason is because they are duped.

Athena Jones
Athena Jones
3 years ago

This is an excellent article and yes, many of us do believe Peterson has much to offer.

Roland Powell
Roland Powell
3 years ago

Good news. I wish Peterson luck and health.

frances heywood
frances heywood
3 years ago

‘critics primarily on the ideological Left claimed that Peterson was some kind of fringe alt-right figure…..’
Nick Cohen did just that, in a recent article.
Having watched a few of Peterson’s TV appearances and lectures, before he became ill, I think that is a ludicrous assertion.
Pity, because I greatly enjoyed Cohen’s books ‘ What’s Left’ and ‘You can’t read this book’.

Ian SN
Ian SN
3 years ago

His destruction of Cathy Newman was one of the best things Ive seen, get him on with Beff and Andrew Marrxist, what a treat that would be

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian SN

His destruction of Cathy Newman was one of the best things Ive seen

Yeah, I still smile when my memory of it is jogged (usually by people in online discussions replying to someone’s argument with dishonest insinuations: “So what you’re saying is that poor people should be left to die…” I often contribute the “Hi, Cathy Newman, and welcome to the discussion” line. It’s hackneyed, I know, but Newman was such a perfect public example of a complete failure to engage with what someone is actually saying that it’s still apt.)

Martin Adams
Martin Adams
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

Indeed. One of the most striking consequences of that particular spat was the failure on her part and on the part of the Channel 4 authorities to realise that she had made a complete fool of herself. When, several days after the initial broadcast, Channel 4 posted the complete interview online, they did so in the belief that this would vindicate her.
That is what tends to happen on the woke side of culture ” because of the ideological conformity to groupthink, there is a profound lack of self-awareness. I have observed the same thing when, commenting on that interview and on other events of that kind to woke-inclined friends and family, they completely fail to see what a total intellectual and moral disaster that interview was.

Mark Lilly
Mark Lilly
3 years ago

I personally find JP’s arguments and outlook quite persuasive, even if told in a rather unattractive and arrogant way. However, anyone familiar with the hundreds of interviews and lectures available online will be aware of three failings: first, he is frequently wholly incoherent, starting and restarting sentences in a garbled mess of obscurity and never getting to the end. Secondly, when asked about God, his answers are complete gibberish. He defends himself by saying, ‘it all depends on what you mean by god’ This is of course true, but when the questioner goes on to answer this her/himself, JP wanders off into obscurity again. Obscurity is the screen behind which hides intellectual mediocrity. Thirdly, although constantly boasting assertively about his scientific expertise – ‘I DO know’ he frequently snaps at skeptics – he is completely ignorant about academic fields the understanding of which is essential in order to pronouce on the subjects he has chosen to write about: moral philosophy (my own area) and the social sciences. I would hesitate before labelling JP a fraud. A proper estimate is that he is a talented pundit who is often right – and often wrong..

It is a weird but predictable feature of this story that he has found a supporter in Douglas Murray. It fits with the astonishing eulogy offered by DM on the death of his ‘longtime’ mentor and friend Roger Scruton. The gay DM seems perfectly at ease lavishly praising the man who writes (in ‘Sexual Desire’): ” It is perfectly appropriate for children to be encouraged to view homosexuality with revulsion.” [sic] This is ‘tolerance’ with a vengeance.

Richard Slack
Richard Slack
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Lilly

not sure it does at all. While I disagree with most of the late Scruton’s conclusions (but not his taste in classical music) he did know how to articulate a philosphical argument

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Lilly

Scruton wrote Sexual Desire in the mid 1980s. I am not going to claim it was ‘another era’, but we’re talking 35 years ago and a fair criticism would seek to know if his views had since been revised.

Mark Lilly
Mark Lilly
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Girling

No evidence of any change. Still radically ‘eccentric’ – see (on youtube) the fairly recent 90 minute interview Scruton gave to Dutch tv, which includes S talking about the thrill [sic] of hunting foxes to death. He specifically revels in the rituals of death. Nothing mealy-mouthed there.
Also, Murray claims he knew Scruton for a very long time – i.e. including during the period of his book’s publication.
My main point of course was the fact that Murray, who rightly denounces the new ‘madness’ of political correctness, just happens to be particularly allied with extremists of the right, including Heffer, C Moore, Melanie Phillips (twice voted Homophobe of the Year by Stonewall.) et al.

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Lilly

You know why that might be? Because you are mistaken in thinking because he associates with people, he is ‘allied’ with them. Perhaps he is not an ideologue, respects free thought and is able to form friendships without demanding intellectual conformity. He’s a civilized person, in other words. Practicing what he preaches.

Mark Lilly
Mark Lilly
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Girling

I do believe that he has these qualities you enumerate. But there is something extreme in the particular case. Thought experiment: is it not unprecedented for an individual to sit down in jocular bonhomie with someone who has publicly stated that he is ‘disgusting’ (same with his interview with the oafish homophobe Dennis Prager) ? Try this out, mutatis mutandis, with racial examples.

Mark
Mark
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Lilly

Loved you first para. And illustrated imo in his “debate” with Zizek.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago

Thank you for your tribute to Canada’s most famous intellectual, Douglas. I haven’t watched them to the end yet, but Jordan Peterson’s lectures on the Book of Genesis are wonderful. I hope that he is able to produce a similar set of lectures on Exodus as he plans to do. He rambles almost comically off topic in many of his lectures, but that, at least for me, is part of their charm.

garlandremingtoniii
garlandremingtoniii
3 years ago

Jordan Peterson show just how truly stupid and incorrigibly belligerent the left truly is. But more so, he showed us that have common sense and believe in him How dangerous, truly
“Dangerous” the left truly is. Here in the United States it was A-OK for BLM= “Black Looters Matter” to have riots and tear up, tear down over 30 large downtown cities.

Not even our federal CDC, the Center for Disease Control would come out and speak out against thousands of them spreading the Chinese virus while they rioted and physically attacked our local police and innocent citizens.

(elderly men and women just trying to cross the street and some of them in wheelchairs. All because they white!!!!!! You bet this pisses me off. But they only done this in democrat controlled cities. They wouldn’t dare come to places like here in Montana. Our town we had a billboard put up warning them and ANTIFA If they showed up they would be met by ARMED FORCE.)

And yet the same “August Intellectuals” spoke out against people going to church. That’s right because of the virus. Spoke out against opening businesses. That’s right because of the virus. And yet 5000 people could come together and tear down a city under the disguise of “marching peacefully ” which was a flat out lie, pushed by CNN, against there President, Trump.

John Simpson
John Simpson
3 years ago

Indeed welcome back to the professor and I hope his health and his wife’s health continue to improve. He is the only person to really make sense of Genesis for me. Exodus will also be very interesting but I will be delighted if he ever tackles the New Testament in a similar way in particular Revelation. I have no doubt that he is a Christian but I think he has stripped almost all church ritual and tradition from it.

LCarey Rowland
LCarey Rowland
3 years ago

This is good news! Thank you, Douglas, for posting it.

crawford mackenzie
crawford mackenzie
3 years ago

“It is to their long-term detriment that they failed to consider this deeper question: that Peterson spoke to such a wide array of listeners because he was hovering right over the questions of meaning and purpose, which almost everyone else in our society had decided to abandon. Including, but by no means limited to, the Church.” This is damming but true.

borrieboy
borrieboy
3 years ago

The way the smug Left elitists and Post Modern “progressives” go after Peterson tells you that he’s rumbled them and uncovered their hypocritical, narrow-minded and destructive views. I doubt few, if any, of his critics have even bothered to read any of his output or watched his interviews/lectures. The simple question one might ask oneself is: if you found yourself in a post apocalyptic world and there was one person that you could have at your side, would that person be Peterson or Foucault?

Gary Miles
Gary Miles
3 years ago

Being an atheist I am not over fond of Mr Peterson’s thinking on a number of topics but it is always good to welcome back someone who can argue a case with good sense, good manners and good grace.
Reading the comments below, though, makes me think that perhaps the continued expansion of atheism has led to to a kind of quasi political religion where people (often not equipped with Mr Peterson’s sense, manners and grace) feel they can cast judgement with impunity to whomever they disagree with. As some bloke once said – let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Richard Slack
Richard Slack
3 years ago

I think a have just disturbed a gathering of a cult

andy young
andy young
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Slack

It’s the complete opposite of a cult – unless you think rational scientific thought is a cult. I think you need to see some of his videos. Plenty out there on youtube.

Richard Slack
Richard Slack
3 years ago
Reply to  andy young

rational scientific thought is not usually on youtube

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Slack

A closed mind is not a virtue.

Richard Slack
Richard Slack
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

nor is a totally uncritical one

Hammer Klavier
Hammer Klavier
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Slack

Depends where you look – obviously.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Slack

I would recommend broadening your viewing habits. A few suggestions if I may:

Neil deGrasse Tyson:
https://www.youtube.com/cha

Eric Weinstein:
https://www.youtube.com/use

Brian Cox:
https://www.youtube.com/res

All sorts really.

Richard Slack
Richard Slack
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Tried the Weinstein, a man breathlessly talking about “Wokeness” unimpressed

Hugh Jarse
Hugh Jarse
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Slack

Yes it is, you just need to look. And to exercise judgement as to what is credible and what is not.
Accepting that there is a huge amount of rubbish out there there is also an amazing amount of really good stuff.

Lyn Griffiths
Lyn Griffiths
3 years ago

In response to the article and with Mr. Peterson in mind. I believe that we all instinctively know what is right and what is wrong 99.9 of the time. Though we are born with a complex mind that through genetics can turn what is thought and communally accepted as the right path. Into a thought pattern not understood and that can wreak havoc amongst humanity. When to know, the generated ancestry of genetics in its imperceptibility can create unexplained havoc of thought to run riot through centuries of human existence. Where now there is a need to bring about, and to expose one mind set and exemplify it by another to mark good from bad.
Where I from a very young age and without being tutored up to that time, naturally believed in reincarnation and we to be from spirit, and will return to spirit to begin a new existence on another path until we reach perfection, but my problem, I cannot see for what purpose? But with this awareness of others, I should be kind to all mankind and animals and to believe in fairness to all. So to believe in a God does not sit well in my thought patterns. But if god keeps a person on the straight and narrow, so not to do physical or mental harm to one another that is all we as humans communally can ask for in this life of contradiction.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  Lyn Griffiths

You express an interesting viewpoint Lyn. I think that if there is a God, he must matter. The idea of a God who doesn’t matter is not rational. If there is no God, the God cannot matter.

Sarah H
Sarah H
3 years ago
Reply to  Lyn Griffiths

His fresh suggestion to live one’s life ‘as if God existed’, whether he does or doesn’t is an interesting one. Much possible interpretation there as to how that plays out but, as a pure embodiment of our “better angels” without the worshipping carry-on, it’s worth exploring (and I have no belief in gods and never shall have).

Andrew D
Andrew D
3 years ago
Reply to  Sarah H

It’s a good argument, familiar since the C17 as Pascal’s wager. Put another way, if it looks like rain, no harm in taking an umbrella

Colin Haller
Colin Haller
3 years ago

I first encountered Peterson when he was a quasi-regular panelist on a current events show on our provincial educational television broadcaster in Ontario, where he would appear to opine based upon his work in clinical psychology. It prompted me to read his 1999 work (read by hundreds, maybe?) “Maps of Meaning” which while a challenging read was a serious work of scholarship. Then for a while he stopped appearing on the show and I wondered why that might be. When he did return briefly a couple of years later (remotely rather than in studio as he had in the past) there was something different about him and he looked frankly unwell. He hasn’t appeared on the show since, which must be almost 7 years or so ago.

Subsequently I would read about him in the Toronto press — there were public conflicts with students over pronoun usage, and his rise as an internet phenomenon.

I agree that the world needs him, but I think the him it needs is no longer with us.

Stu White
Stu White
3 years ago

I like Peterson, though I thought quite a bit of 12 Rules wasn’t great. However it certainly made me realise things about myself. Particularly the section on truth. Glad he’s back on form!

Stephen Wikner
Stephen Wikner
3 years ago

I – like many others, I suspect – am pleased to read this and, indeed, to see Prof Peterson’s own video. I do wonder, however – based on the way he appeared in the video – whether he is yet fully recovered. It’s an unforgiving world out there as he knows only too well and I’d hate to see him come a cropper again.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago

What a terrible caption photograph!

Am I alone in thinking this makes Dr Peterson look like Dracula?

Andrew D
Andrew D
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Undead

Scott Carson
Scott Carson
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Indeed. My immediate reaction was that it must be a piece about Christopher Lee.

Don Lightband
Don Lightband
3 years ago