voxday.net
This article criticizes Jordan Peterson for his inconsistencies, particularly his changed stance on personal pronouns and his definition of truth as being evolutionary and beneficial for survival. The piece also highlights a debate between Peterson and Sam Harris where they couldn’t agree on the nature of truth. Furthermore, it delves into the criticism of Peterson’s followers and the philosophical underpinnings of his work, citing Kant and Jung, and questions the rationality of defending Peterson’s viewpoints.
Main Points
Peterson's contradictory statements on pronouns
Jordan Peterson’s philosophy and public statements, including his stance on personal pronouns, have led to significant criticism and reflection.
Insights
Jordan Peterson's change of stance on personal pronouns triggered a reevaluation of his philosophy.
The author describes becoming disillusioned with Jordan Peterson after noticing inconsistencies between his earlier and later statements on the usage of personal pronouns, prompting a deeper reconsideration of Peterson’s overall message.
The debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris highlighted disagreements over the nature of truth.
During a debate with Sam Harris, Peterson’s argument that truth is evolutionary and helps individuals survive clashed with Harris’s perspective of objective truth, causing further doubt about Peterson’s views.
Criticism of Jordan Peterson and his followers
The text criticizes Peterson’s followers for allegedly avoiding the content of the book ‘Jordanetics’ and follows with a critique of philosophical foundations, particularly Kant and Jung, that Peterson’s work is built upon.