by Jordan Peterson is the pop philosopher of greatest interest in the US right now. His thought is of interest for that reason, especially for those who like staying au courant. But his is more important in the large picture for why he is regarded as important, especially in a culture in which philosophy is held in low esteem and Ayn Rand is actually considered a notable thinker by serious people in politics.I submit that a major reason for Peterson's popularity is his worldview, rather than any of his particular views. The national dialectic in the US now, and to some degree internationally, is the tension between traditionalism and liberalism that came to the fore in the Renaissance with the rise of science and interest in classical literature. Peterson addresses this tension in a popular
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Jordan Peterson, liberalism, paradoxes of liberalism, traditionalism
This could be interesting, too:
Matias Vernengo writes Was Keynes a Liberal or a Socialist?
Chris Blattman writes Up with international relations theory, down with the -isms, and down with the certainty
Matias Vernengo writes Was Keynes a Liberal or a Socialist?
Mike Norman writes Don’t Buy the “Marketplace of Ideas” — Terry Hathaway
Jordan Peterson is the pop philosopher of greatest interest in the US right now. His thought is of interest for that reason, especially for those who like staying au courant. But his is more important in the large picture for why he is regarded as important, especially in a culture in which philosophy is held in low esteem and Ayn Rand is actually considered a notable thinker by serious people in politics.
I submit that a major reason for Peterson's popularity is his worldview, rather than any of his particular views. The national dialectic in the US now, and to some degree internationally, is the tension between traditionalism and liberalism that came to the fore in the Renaissance with the rise of science and interest in classical literature. Peterson addresses this tension in a popular fashion that a lot of people can relate to.
The liberal wave began its crest in the Enlightenment, when the replacement of dogmatic theology and the alliance between church and state power declined, as theology was being replaced by naturalistic philosophy, and law based on religious dogma was being replaced by positive law based on natural law.
Traditionalism is based on the great chain of being worldview. Liberalism is based on scientific naturalism. The link between them is the understanding of "nature" and "natural" based on the Western intellectual tradition that began with ancient Greek thought.
This rise of liberalism and scientific naturalism resulted not only in an intellectual transformation in cultural worldview, but replacement of the traditional order by the liberal order as feudalism collapsed, sweeping away monarchies and empires, replacing them with democratic republics based on liberalism.
But classical liberalism was bourgeois liberalism based on property ownership. "All men are born equal" — sort of, that is. This "sort of" has lead to many paradoxes of liberalism that add to paradoxes that arise from combining liberalism and traditionalism. These paradoxes appear as contradictions that result in cognitive-affective dissonance.
In dialectical progression in contrast to strictly linear progression, the past is brought along into the present and continues to influence the future in a way that is far more complicated and also complex than physical processes. This is called variously "path dependence," "hysteresis," "historicity" and social and cultural embeddedness." Biological phenomena exhibit this more than purely physical, and social phenomena more than biological, e.g., owing to cultural embeddedness and institutional rigidity.
The result is that many Americans are suffering from a "split personality," torn between traditionalism and liberalism. This is especially the case with people that are religious (traditional) and also committed to individual freedom (liberal). This is not to say that this affects only Americans, only that Americans have their own characteristic "brand" of it owing to their history.
This results in paradoxes as apparent contradictions. An appeal of a thinker like Jordan Peterson is to offer a worldview in which those paradoxes can be resolved, reducing cognitive-affective dissonance. But in doing so by the route he has set on, Peterson has become a controversial figure.
So the question arises, how sound is his position? Paul Thagard, Canadian philosopher and cognitive scientist, responds.
Psychology Today
Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life
Human evolution is still happening – possibly faster than ever