I appreciate this cogent and sympathetic overview of JP's rather tragic trajectory. As a former denizen of the publishing industry, your comment, "He’s now reached the stage where no editor can stop him," had me laughing out loud.
I also appreciate your mini-excursus on former archbishop Rowan Williams review of Peterson's book. Regarding your question why the right reverend would not take JP more seriously, his comments about gender suggest that like many religious leaders these days, including not a few evangelicals, he wants to be friends with the world more than with God.
Good luck as you wrestle with the content of JP's latest book. Not all jobs can be a walk in the park and the Lord will help!
Bethel McGrew writes so well. I still have loads of reservations about Jordan Peterson, but she gives me good pause, reminding me of the good truism: "Bill (that's me): Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Here's a wonderful "baby" thanks to Bethel: "Then he [Peterson] tells her story as proof that you can still attempt to make the world a better place, even amidst the most appalling of tragedies. By the end, the whole crowd is cheering for her. 'I never forgot her,' he says, shaking his head. 'I’ll never forget her.'” - Now. . . Sam Harris, supposedly very smart, is indeed unconscionably ignorant of God, faith, and religion, his atheism as shallow and ill-informed as the religious fundamentalism he deplores--so his criticism of Peterson is no better. BUT, *but*, Rowan Williams is a brilliant man, highly esteemed by public intellectuals inside and outside the Church, except those angry about his openness to LGBTQ. Williams should not be cited in the same breath as Sam Harris; his views on Peterson may be arguable, but he is a man of high intellect, incredible forbearance, and a warm heart: he ought not to be treated in the dismissive Sam Harris-type way of Peterson himself in his reduction of liberalism to triviality. - Although I do not share many of Bethel's views, I am and will remain a "paid" subscriber because of the excellence of her writing and the thought she provokes, whether I like it or not. So, thanks again Bethel McGrew. !
Well thank you, I think. :) Though I don't cite Harris in the same context or for the same purpose as Williams. (In fact Harris only gets a passing mention here, grouped with Richard Dawkins. I actually don't disagree with Harris's criticisms of Peterson, but I've written about that extensively before.) As for Williams, I'm not questioning other positive contributions he may have made, but I'm left underwhelmed by his combination of subtle sneer and pandering to his left here, which wasn't necessary to the review he wrote. For him simply to criticize a poorly written book is legitimate, but he couldn't be content with that, and it seems to me a little more humility was in order given the Church of England's catastrophic failures/decline. That was my critique.
I love the article! It gets exactly at the difference, but I feel it misses the big point of Peterson's influence. You noted that:
"At a certain point, moderator Alex O’Connor notes that whereas Peterson sees himself building a stairway to heaven, others may see him as 'dragging the divine down to the mundane.' To this, Peterson replies that 'it doesn’t make any difference to me whether it’s the material reaching upward or the Divine descending downward.'"
That's because from the bottom it leads to the same place. The bottom is where all the people most affected by him are
initially at, whether materially, physically, psychologically, or spiritually. If your are on the bottom, anyone who can help you move up is a Godsend, so to them that's what he is.
I think I definitely do understand that. I don't have trouble seeing the influence, I'm just noting that he's closed a kind of epistemological trap door behind himself.
Do you think the same people can climb up if he stops? I wonder often if that's one of the "blocks" he seems to exhibit in his reasoning. To do so may mean he's then addressing people on the other side.
Having been on the other side, I have a lot of admiration for anyone pulling people up. I wrote recently of my own book, that I hope it helps the people, who have grown up in faith, see just how allergic to faith many people without faith can be. The space to experience practices and think of things in a different way without question (or even much attention) was absolutely necessary in my own conversion.
Wow. I had forgotten how much I enjoy Peterson. I listened to his answer to the person who was thinking about committing suicide.
Sometimes Jordan is too verbose, too intellectual. And in debates about faith he is hugely hampered because he won't just come out and believe. He is a person who holds himself to the highest standard and I think he understands the daunting implications of following Jesus, he could not deceive himself into a compromised walk that most people are content with. So he doesn't want to go there. I don't blame him.
But what he has going for him besides just a powerful intellectual is he is sincere, again, forces himself to be sincere in a way that approaches torturousness. And succeeds.
And he is aiming high. Striving to be the best not just for public acclaim, but because he knows there's a Higher Reality and he wants to a sincere ambassador of that fact.
If Jordan's vocation hadn't demanded he be a clinical psychologist, he'd just be another relatively incoherent pagan intellectual.
But, because he had to listen to people one on one for years, he has become something we believers should aspire to.
We should all make listening a discipline.
Yes, exactly!
I appreciate this cogent and sympathetic overview of JP's rather tragic trajectory. As a former denizen of the publishing industry, your comment, "He’s now reached the stage where no editor can stop him," had me laughing out loud.
I also appreciate your mini-excursus on former archbishop Rowan Williams review of Peterson's book. Regarding your question why the right reverend would not take JP more seriously, his comments about gender suggest that like many religious leaders these days, including not a few evangelicals, he wants to be friends with the world more than with God.
Good luck as you wrestle with the content of JP's latest book. Not all jobs can be a walk in the park and the Lord will help!
Very kind, I shall need it!
Nicely done, Esther—er, Beth-el!
Loved that finish—Yes, being carried!!
Thank you. :) I really should have kept that old pseud! People still remember it!
I can't think of anyone more afraid of Jesus Christ than Jordan Peterson.
Peterson has always been a puzzle to me, somehow both attractive and repellent. Your sympathetic analysis is very helpful, as always.
Lovely, lovely. Thank you.
This 8 minute clip is Jordan at his best, sincere emotions and talking about things that really matter and about a friend's suicide.
Again, amid the plethora of criticism about him I had forgotten what a superb person he is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZU6WRJfoXo
Wow! Somehow I missed that interview. Great find.
Bethel McGrew writes so well. I still have loads of reservations about Jordan Peterson, but she gives me good pause, reminding me of the good truism: "Bill (that's me): Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Here's a wonderful "baby" thanks to Bethel: "Then he [Peterson] tells her story as proof that you can still attempt to make the world a better place, even amidst the most appalling of tragedies. By the end, the whole crowd is cheering for her. 'I never forgot her,' he says, shaking his head. 'I’ll never forget her.'” - Now. . . Sam Harris, supposedly very smart, is indeed unconscionably ignorant of God, faith, and religion, his atheism as shallow and ill-informed as the religious fundamentalism he deplores--so his criticism of Peterson is no better. BUT, *but*, Rowan Williams is a brilliant man, highly esteemed by public intellectuals inside and outside the Church, except those angry about his openness to LGBTQ. Williams should not be cited in the same breath as Sam Harris; his views on Peterson may be arguable, but he is a man of high intellect, incredible forbearance, and a warm heart: he ought not to be treated in the dismissive Sam Harris-type way of Peterson himself in his reduction of liberalism to triviality. - Although I do not share many of Bethel's views, I am and will remain a "paid" subscriber because of the excellence of her writing and the thought she provokes, whether I like it or not. So, thanks again Bethel McGrew. !
Well thank you, I think. :) Though I don't cite Harris in the same context or for the same purpose as Williams. (In fact Harris only gets a passing mention here, grouped with Richard Dawkins. I actually don't disagree with Harris's criticisms of Peterson, but I've written about that extensively before.) As for Williams, I'm not questioning other positive contributions he may have made, but I'm left underwhelmed by his combination of subtle sneer and pandering to his left here, which wasn't necessary to the review he wrote. For him simply to criticize a poorly written book is legitimate, but he couldn't be content with that, and it seems to me a little more humility was in order given the Church of England's catastrophic failures/decline. That was my critique.
Very clear response to this odd comment!
Got it.
I love the article! It gets exactly at the difference, but I feel it misses the big point of Peterson's influence. You noted that:
"At a certain point, moderator Alex O’Connor notes that whereas Peterson sees himself building a stairway to heaven, others may see him as 'dragging the divine down to the mundane.' To this, Peterson replies that 'it doesn’t make any difference to me whether it’s the material reaching upward or the Divine descending downward.'"
That's because from the bottom it leads to the same place. The bottom is where all the people most affected by him are
initially at, whether materially, physically, psychologically, or spiritually. If your are on the bottom, anyone who can help you move up is a Godsend, so to them that's what he is.
I think I definitely do understand that. I don't have trouble seeing the influence, I'm just noting that he's closed a kind of epistemological trap door behind himself.
Do you think the same people can climb up if he stops? I wonder often if that's one of the "blocks" he seems to exhibit in his reasoning. To do so may mean he's then addressing people on the other side.
Having been on the other side, I have a lot of admiration for anyone pulling people up. I wrote recently of my own book, that I hope it helps the people, who have grown up in faith, see just how allergic to faith many people without faith can be. The space to experience practices and think of things in a different way without question (or even much attention) was absolutely necessary in my own conversion.
Wow. I had forgotten how much I enjoy Peterson. I listened to his answer to the person who was thinking about committing suicide.
Sometimes Jordan is too verbose, too intellectual. And in debates about faith he is hugely hampered because he won't just come out and believe. He is a person who holds himself to the highest standard and I think he understands the daunting implications of following Jesus, he could not deceive himself into a compromised walk that most people are content with. So he doesn't want to go there. I don't blame him.
But what he has going for him besides just a powerful intellectual is he is sincere, again, forces himself to be sincere in a way that approaches torturousness. And succeeds.
And he is aiming high. Striving to be the best not just for public acclaim, but because he knows there's a Higher Reality and he wants to a sincere ambassador of that fact.