I don't know why HN is so anti-Peterson. He has been tremendously helpful to me, and 12 Rules for Life helped me a lot when I was going through self-inflicted tough times.
The article derides him for for stating platitudes, truisms, and cliches (I am actually surprised that the article didn't include that word) in new and interesting ways. However, that is exactly what he is popular for in the first place. A more charitable way to put that, might be to say that he restates old-timey wisdom in new and interesting ways. Of course this is going to appeal to conservatives, and bring struggling young people to the conservative side.
Between Jordan Peterson and C.S. Lewis, I rediscovered a lot of wisdom that my parents tried to teach me. I learned to respect old and ancient ideas. Ideas aren't "wrong" because they're old, and also they aren't right or good because they're new. People throughout history was smarter and wiser than we give them credit for.
Maybe if more "serious" intellectuals (whatever that means), moved past the "new=good and old=bad" groove, they might start enjoying some popularity too.
My point is that Jordan Peterson is re-introducing some very true, but old ideas. These old ideas are very helpful to a lot of people, especially disenfranchised young men. These young men then use the old ideas to get their lives together, and that is why Jordan Peterson is popular.
> "He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle."
No, he shows us the gold that our intellectuals threw on the rubbish heap, because they thought it was junk. And just because they still think it is junk, doesn't actually make it junk.
> Jordan Peterson is re-introducing some very true, but old ideas
The problem is that these "very true" ideas have gone out of fashion for a reason: they don't scale. It might all be well and good to say "be civilized or I'll kick the shit out of you" when you're trying to sort out a neighbourhood dispute; but when you scale them up to, say, foreign policy, you're just courting armageddon. Our world is getting bigger and bigger, trying to fit it into old ideological boxes is only going to generate more misplaced (literal) crusades.
The really good and true methodologies actually scale properly in every direction, but they're harder to dumb down.
I don't follow. We absolutely have scaled that simple line of reasoning.
And I strong argument can be made that world is more peaceful in part because of the threat of violence (and the potential for violence to be more expensive than diplomacy).
Ans yes, the threat of nuclear armageddon is real.. but there is also good reason to believe that violence is declining (see Better Angels - Stephen Pinker).
I'm not saying that we don't learn from the mistakes of the past. There were many misplaced wars and crusades in the past, and we should learn from them.
However, the author of the OP article is throwing shade on JBP because he is rehashing old ideas like "tell the truth, be true to yourself, see challenges as opportunities, set a good example." Those won't exactly lead to a crusade, would it? Even if you scale it up, that's some good and true wisdom. The author shows his folly by discarding these "old, stale" ideas for no other reason than them being old, stale ideas.
Also to quote the article:
> He can give people the most elementary fatherly life-advice (clean your room, stand up straight) while making it sound like Wisdom
Yes, because fatherly life-advice is straight-up wisdom. Wisdom is remarkably mundane at times.
Also, if you look at these ideas in their abstract:
clean your room -> take care of what you have, even if it is little
stand up straight -> have some self-respect
These abstract ideas also scale up well. That's also not exactly crusade material.
> The problem is that these "very true" ideas have gone out of fashion for a reason: they don't scale.
Well, it isn't clear whether the new ideas that have replaced them actually will "scale" for the long-run. Look at the demographic collapse of secular progressives, while countercultural religious conservatives breed like rabbits – Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, as Eric Kaufmann's book asks
The article derides him for for stating platitudes, truisms, and cliches (I am actually surprised that the article didn't include that word) in new and interesting ways. However, that is exactly what he is popular for in the first place. A more charitable way to put that, might be to say that he restates old-timey wisdom in new and interesting ways. Of course this is going to appeal to conservatives, and bring struggling young people to the conservative side.
Between Jordan Peterson and C.S. Lewis, I rediscovered a lot of wisdom that my parents tried to teach me. I learned to respect old and ancient ideas. Ideas aren't "wrong" because they're old, and also they aren't right or good because they're new. People throughout history was smarter and wiser than we give them credit for.
Maybe if more "serious" intellectuals (whatever that means), moved past the "new=good and old=bad" groove, they might start enjoying some popularity too.
My point is that Jordan Peterson is re-introducing some very true, but old ideas. These old ideas are very helpful to a lot of people, especially disenfranchised young men. These young men then use the old ideas to get their lives together, and that is why Jordan Peterson is popular.
> "He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle."
No, he shows us the gold that our intellectuals threw on the rubbish heap, because they thought it was junk. And just because they still think it is junk, doesn't actually make it junk.