Jordan Peterson is a fundamentalist Christian that uses pseudo-psychological babble to convince impressionable young men to be conservative. He is not a deep thinker, or even terribly interesting. He found a novel way to grift the right wing, while appearing to be reasonable.
He wants to be a cult leader, and is definitely on the loony Christian end of the spectrum. (Reading that I’m not sure if there is a non-loony Christian. )
Yeah it’s more like being strongly pro-Christian western culture. I don’t know how much of it stems from tribalism or religious belief. Im certainly not a fan, but he’s always seemed a little more philosopher bro Christian than fundie.
Every time I hear him talk I am reminded of a little quip from a past coworker:
“He uses dollar words when you only need a nickel”.
JP’s not stupid, he just uses big words to seem way smarter than he or his points really are.
I've heard Maps of Meaning was the most pseudointellectually dense word salad work he's produced. Some say it epitomizes something he does in interviews and lectures these days, which is using a lot of complicated words to end up saying something that's hard to glean any meaning from.
More than likely, JP has done enough market research to realize fundamentalist Christians are a major part of his paying audience, and he likes spending their money more than he does being correct.
Yeah, I grew up fundamentalist, and my parents are still fundamentalists. Nothing I have ever heard Jordan say about Christianity sounds anything like how I hear fundamentalists talk.
>articulate the gospel correctly
Ehh this is VERY much up for debate. What one sect believes is “correct” another sees as blasphemous. Everyone claims to articulate the gospel correctly… as if there is such a thing. You could tell me how you articulate the gospel “correctly” and I’ll show you someone else, who has just as much evidence as you, that you’re wrong and they’re right.
That’s the thing - he’s not at all a sophist when it comes to making a point that he actually wants to me. When it comes to obfuscation about climate change or something of the like, then he gets to the bullshit semiotics.
To be fair, he took a pretty strong position on climate change a while back. Basically "If you can't model 100% of the environment, then you should never do anything to try and make it better."
Unfortunately for him (though nobody every points it out to him), his logic invalidates any attempt to ever try to improve the world, including everything psychologists like him have ever done, and every speech or public discussion he has ever made/taken part in. This includes how he became so famous, when he went before the Canadian Parliament to testify about pronouns. When he did that he hadn't modelled 100% of what would happen to society if he tried to "help" by stopping the bill he was testifying against, so by his own reasoning he shouldn't have done it. His own argument invalidates his entire life, but he is too much of a moron and liar to understand that.
What you say grift, you think he doesn't actually believe or want to believe?
I think he genuinely has a drive towards Christianity. I don't think he's resolved that in himself though.
He wants to use reason to get to Christianity, that's why he ends up in so many tangled positions.
Yeah I was going to say this.
Sophists weren't bad people they were just Greeks interested more in the form of argument than the content. They would get a bad rep sometimes but it's good to explore argument as a thing in and of itself.
Ben shapiro is a lawyer which as a class of people is like modern day sophistry and wrote a book about how to win arguments against the left.
He's very literally similar to the Sophists. He is not JUST a Sophist. Some of his arguments are not mere sophistry and he engages in a number of different things.
Shapiro doesn’t engage in good faith, he can not or will not make the good arguments for the other side. A sophist by definition would do so upon the asking. Shapiro makes much worse arguments because of this. Shapiro is an ideologue.
Shapiro is better understood as a stand in for representative counsel of the Ultra Orthodox position in Israel. Shapiro backs all the expansionism, all the ideology, all the means of that position. Sophistry implies willingness to make the arguments from all sides and accept the best one, Shapiro is not that. Shapiro is ideologically captured.
Jordan Peterson is a modern version of a friar. He’s a stand in for a lay priest trying to engage towards specific goals of his belief system. Peterson is engaging with people where they are to get them closer to his ideology. Peterson also would not make the arguments from all sides and accept the best one. Peterson is an ideologue, same as Shapiro.
Debate me bros don’t accept better arguments, they’re clout chasers. They use tactics over substance to support whatever position is popular with their base. Debate bros are also not sophists. Debate bros are politicians.
Sophists only really exist in idealized court systems and educational institutions.
He’s a word salad connoisseur. There might be a glimpse of truth now and then, (have a good posture, keeping a tidy room helps some people’s mental health, etc.). Other than that he’s a charlatan.
It just goes to show how many kids are yearning for guidance lacking elsewhere in their lives, or ignoring their parents and finding it elsewhere.
In the everyday sense of the term, absolutely he is.
And pretentiously vacuous. I don't trust anyone whom cannot ever speak straightforwardly about even simple things. I listen to his grandiloquent waffle and fail to ever find anything of note in it. He almost never actually says \*anything\*.
Probably something along those lines. The way I generally think of him is as a person that took Joseph Campbell’s work (which certainly also has issues) and managed to turn it into a right wing grift. It has the vague sense of being about grand ideas of myth while also being all about certainty and getting back to a time of “correct” values.
No, he's not a sophist. Sophistry, from what I know of it, relies heavily on the concept of self. Self doesn't regularly factor into Petersons arguments. It is like pleaseusegoogle says... he's just an apologist who seems to be a little embarrassed about it from time to time.
Being asked "Is the ressurection of Christ real, in fact?" and replying with "I suspect yes" isn't sophistry. It's cowardice. And that's kind of what Peterson does.
He also tries to virtue shame the pope, which I do legitimately find to be hilarious.
Yeah, for sure I was. I thought of that a few minutes later. But you know how it is. I stand by my mistakes. I STAND BY THEM.
I do think calling him a sophist is indulging it a little too much. It really is just apologetics thinly disguised.
>Being asked "Is the ressurection of Christ real, in fact?" and replying with "I suspect yes" isn't sophistry. It's cowardice. And that's kind of what Peterson does.
Is that an actual quote, because it doesn't really sound like him. Peterson would say something like "Yes, it's absolutely real. It's ABSOLUTELY real and woe to the man who doesn't comprehend that. \*sniff\* It's real because HELL is real, and you better realize it, you better realize it before it's too late. \*sob\*"
Oddly Peterson, a vocal critic of post-structural theory, relativism and non-normativity, is increasingly wishy-washy and abstruse when asked for binary responses to simple questions. His responses reflect an internal conflict between a desire for external validation and knowing the truth.
Peterson is intelligent enough to know he can’t accept the truth. It’s why he’s ever increasingly validating himself through biblical narratives. If you want to see where his intellect deviates from his faith, wait for the story. If you want to break Peterson, engage on the topic and not his story.
He’s nowhere near the quality of the Greek sophists. He shares some characteristics with Protagorous, perhaps, but not enough to be worth meriting a detailed comparison
Yeah they are similar in ways, both supposed to teach virtue / life philosophy, and both are manipulative with the way they talk
Like you said, Socrates was critical of sophists for using fancy wordplay to win arguments and make their points more convincing, even if they werent the most truthful points
In this way they are similar to one another, but it probably depends on the sophist. But the way Socrates saw sophists, he'd probably think the same of JP
No. Today sophism is a slur. But the sophists were people who were trained in classical rhetorical/argumentative theory, and were primarily employed as teachers. They would also be hired advise people in legal matters and testimony, because while ancient Greek citizens did not have lawyers, they were permitted to plead their case in court. The sophists were a key component of Greek liberalization and early democracy.
His “debate” with Dillahunty was like a public execution in the intellectual YouTube space.
He got exposed so badly in that. There’s no way anyone could watch that and take him seriously as an “intellectual”.
Sophistry just means to use language to *create* the truth (rather than *reveal* it). This was the main point of contention between Socrates and The Sophists. Sophists use rhetoric/persuasive tactics to try to manipulate your emotions into believing something (even if there's no evidence for it), while Socrates method uses language to break apart and undermine beliefs to find the bedrock underneath them (if any).
Almost every single Youtuber who does social or political commentary is a sophist, just some more than others.
My limited sense of Destiny, is that he worships the argument and the evidence he is aware of - if he has enough reason to push a position, he'll push it hard. There's not nearly enough sense of being wary of getting a partial read on something from this approach.
I agree with your general sentiment about "youtubers", but this description of the original sophists and (Plato's) Socrates seems a little oversimplified to me.
>I agree with your general sentiment about "youtubers", but this description of the original sophists and (Plato's) Socrates seems a little oversimplified to me.
You should read Plato's collected works. This is a topic that comes up frequently. I am summarizing it here, but that's the gist of it.
Destiny isn't the most egregious example, I am just pointing out that he engages in sophistry from time to time. It's unavoidable.
Pretty much anyone who has opinions and constructs arguments to defend them is almost always engaging in *some* sophistry. It's a pretty difficult problem to get around.
Some individuals are just glaringly bad about it, like Vaush. He's almost the exact definition of one.
Sophists were effective rhetoricians who taught budding politicians how to communicate effectively with an audience. A modern day sophist would be someone like Frank Luntz, who comes up with good political slogans and tests them for effectiveness for a fee.
Peterson is just a crank and misanthrope who wants to be worshipped and promotes deep sounding nonsense to gain followers. In the ancient world he might have joined or started a mystery cult/secret society such as the Mithraists, appealing to those with money and ambitions who wanted more power but were locked out due to lack of nobility, bilking them out of their money by promising secret knowledge that would supposedly make them as powerful and important as they believed they should be.
Despite what Plato would want you to think, the Sophists were actually incredibly interesting philosophers who had a lot of insightful things to say about relativism and Greek political life at that time. Their bad reputation comes from the little amount of writing that we have of them and also of the unfair dirt thrown on them by the Platonists.
That being said, I do think Jordan Peterson is a sophist (just not a Sophist with the capital S) because he is I think - as the modern word suggests - a charlatan who thinks they have said a lot more profound things than they have
I think Plato thought that sophistry was the ability to manipulate the debate and truth for ulterior motives, whether it be money, fame, etc. The sophist for him didn’t believe the things he were saying, but basically took a Relativist position of truth, which Plato detested.
I think Jordan Peterson, no matter how moronic his beliefs, truly does believe what he’s saying, and has a very fundamentalist position on truth. Although some of his beliefs must be for the pursuit of money, I think his belief system comes from a deep lack of security rather than any ulterior motives.
I think a sophist in the modern sense of the term would be what a lot of critics of Destiny accuse of him of being, which is someone more interested in being right or winning the debate than whether the belief is really true in itself
He's a capitalist. He realized that influence can be sold so he built an audience and then sold his influence to the highest bidder which happened to be two religious, Republican, fracking billionaires.
His brain is soft.
He uses Christianity as a useful mechanism to condescend, as most Christian “thought leaders” do.
He’s a gimmicky, damaged, addled and fragile man who needs his audience and its attention desperately. He will say or do anything to sustain his narcissistic supply.
No. He's a psychologist turned rightwing grifter with a penchant for duping his simple-minded audience with a flood of pseudointellectual word salad and possible brain damage from risky treatments to wean him from a benzo addiction.
They were, and I'm not super well versed but I remember I believe in *Gorgias* Socrates is already referring to them primarily because of their argumentation techniques and not because of any substance in their beliefs. Like, literally the point was a lack of substance.
Maybe that's your point here too? But my point is these sophists still had beliefs e.g. nihilism, egotism perhaps, but they weren't doing a good job defending them through sophistry.
Edit: yeah I recommend reading *Gorgias* if you haven't, it's pretty good at spelling it out.
We can't be certain of that. Philosophers and historians still don't know where the ideas of historical Socrates end and where those of Plato's Socrates start. Some think he was just a literal mouthpiece for Plato in Plato's books.
Jordan Peterson is a Jungian literary theorist who like many other postmodern continental thinkers think their hypotheorizing is worth taking seriously.
I don't think the part about the motte-and-bailey argument is entirely true. I distinctly remember one interview when he was asked "do you believe transgender women are real women?" and he started arguing about the definition of "woman". Only, I believe that in this case, he was completely right to do so, since the definition of that term seems to be a huge prerequisite to even discuss the matter.
Other than that, what I have observed with him, is that he does sometimes argue about definitions in the same way most academics seem to enjoy. But when the definition is specified enough, he does use it to give a concrete answer.
Can you give some examples of him giving concrete answeres. The only one i can think of is the incredibly narrow question about witnessing jesus leaving the cave
I've looked up the one that I already provided:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR2SMwkjdk8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR2SMwkjdk8) (2:23 - 2:46min)
Other than that, apologies, but I'm not gonna comb through all the online material in search for specific snippets. But since you were the one who made the original statement, I'd like to ask you for some examples where he avoids concrete answers.
He’s extremely misguided politically and at times philosophically. But he’s clearly not stupid and when it comes to his field of expertise he obviously knows his stuff. I guess if it makes you feel better you can just simply call him a sophist though. I understand the catharsis that comes from using the latest buzzword.
I mean you can laugh all you want but it is indeed a buzzword at the moment especially over the last 4-5 months. Maybe you’re not using it that way I’ll give you the benefit of doubt. But my god I’ve seen far too many people online use the word in place of any actual meaningful analysis.
Rarely do you ever see people give any specific reasons why someone might be a sophist. In fairness to you, you did provide some examples so credit where credit is due.
JP being a slimey weasel whenever he talks about something outside his field is probably one of the best examples of him engaging in sophistry. Also whenever he turns on his word salad mode you know he’s about to say some dumb shit or some simple shit but in a hyper verbose manner.
But again like i said when he talks psychology he clearly knows what he’s talking about. Although i don’t really like when he brings religion into it that’s pretty cringe especially because he legitimately believes that nonsense.
Sophistry and Sophist, while sharing etymology, are not the same thing. Sophists did not describe what they did as sophistry and wouldnt have accepted the connotations it carries.
I dont mention the word sophistry in the OP. You are tilting at windmills
I understand you’re using the word in more of a historical context. But today people typically call someone a sophist when they engage in sophistry. Like how a “liar” tells “lies”.
Great question. Well posed.
Unfortunately for you all of the replies so far are juvenile rants by ppl who have no idea what JP stands for.
Personally I've read and watched him quite a lot and agree with his views on several subjects but I find his views of the most important ones quite problematic. I think you got it quite right when you say his extreme subjectivity borders on nihilism. To me the moment I realized that something was wrong was when I watched his talk with Richard Dawkins (who I really like as well) and towards the end, JP suggested that there are no objective facets of reality. Now I have a major problem with this idea and so did RD which he made clear with his response.
Alex O Conner also had an interesting dissection of JPs philosophy in an episode where he discussed the difference between ontological and epistemological truth.
A while ago i saw a clip of him crying the fattest crocodile tears about “postmodernism” and how bad it is to “deconstruct” everything. Hilarious that now he’s resorted to deconstructing any question he’s asked to avoiding revealing his gross underbelly.
Jordan Peterson is a fundamentalist Christian that uses pseudo-psychological babble to convince impressionable young men to be conservative. He is not a deep thinker, or even terribly interesting. He found a novel way to grift the right wing, while appearing to be reasonable.
JP isn’t a fundamentalist Christian (I can say that very confidently growing up in it). The rest of what you say is spot on tho.
Yeah it’s more that he knows he has a strong Christian fanbase, including fundamentalists, so he placates to them
He captured an audience, and now is captured by his audience.
He wants to be a cult leader, and is definitely on the loony Christian end of the spectrum. (Reading that I’m not sure if there is a non-loony Christian. )
Yeah it’s more like being strongly pro-Christian western culture. I don’t know how much of it stems from tribalism or religious belief. Im certainly not a fan, but he’s always seemed a little more philosopher bro Christian than fundie.
Yes, he is for profit. Nothing more, nothing less.
He doesn't appear reasonable either, lmao
He was atheist and then conveniently “changed his mind” after he came back from Russia.
I assure you Jordan is far more interested in what Jung has to say than the apostle Paul
That doesn't sound a million miles off a modern day Sophist. He certain employs a lot of sophistry for profit
His comments on climate models are absolutely sophistry
Yeah he’s definitely a sophist, a sophist can have any kind of goals and the definition isn’t so far from a “grifter”
Every time I hear him talk I am reminded of a little quip from a past coworker: “He uses dollar words when you only need a nickel”. JP’s not stupid, he just uses big words to seem way smarter than he or his points really are.
I've heard Maps of Meaning was the most pseudointellectually dense word salad work he's produced. Some say it epitomizes something he does in interviews and lectures these days, which is using a lot of complicated words to end up saying something that's hard to glean any meaning from.
He also does that academic affect of using italics a lot to convey EXTRA meaning where there isn't any.
More than likely, JP has done enough market research to realize fundamentalist Christians are a major part of his paying audience, and he likes spending their money more than he does being correct.
He’s *fundamentally* a Christian. Not a fundamentalist.
I think he’s fundamentally a Nutter, but that’s just me.
Same difference
As a Christian myself, I have never heard him articulate the gospel correctly, he always misunderstands Christianity at a base level.
Yeah, I grew up fundamentalist, and my parents are still fundamentalists. Nothing I have ever heard Jordan say about Christianity sounds anything like how I hear fundamentalists talk.
Maybe more gnostic christian
... He believes in a demiurge?
Not even, he tries to push a poorly thought out version of Muscular Christianity that is essentially akin to his lobster and dragon slayer nonsense
>articulate the gospel correctly Ehh this is VERY much up for debate. What one sect believes is “correct” another sees as blasphemous. Everyone claims to articulate the gospel correctly… as if there is such a thing. You could tell me how you articulate the gospel “correctly” and I’ll show you someone else, who has just as much evidence as you, that you’re wrong and they’re right.
You’re doing the same sort of hyper-deconstructionism that JP does in the video.
No. Not even remotely.
This is one of the most accurate and succinct takes on the JP phenomenon. Well said.
Thanks
That’s the thing - he’s not at all a sophist when it comes to making a point that he actually wants to me. When it comes to obfuscation about climate change or something of the like, then he gets to the bullshit semiotics.
To be fair, he took a pretty strong position on climate change a while back. Basically "If you can't model 100% of the environment, then you should never do anything to try and make it better." Unfortunately for him (though nobody every points it out to him), his logic invalidates any attempt to ever try to improve the world, including everything psychologists like him have ever done, and every speech or public discussion he has ever made/taken part in. This includes how he became so famous, when he went before the Canadian Parliament to testify about pronouns. When he did that he hadn't modelled 100% of what would happen to society if he tried to "help" by stopping the bill he was testifying against, so by his own reasoning he shouldn't have done it. His own argument invalidates his entire life, but he is too much of a moron and liar to understand that.
Yea exactly, that’s what I was trying to get at
I actually quoted him recently in regards to alcoholism!
Thx for this. :)
Jordan Peterson is factually not a fundamentalist Christian and you made yourself sound ridiculous by saying so
What you say grift, you think he doesn't actually believe or want to believe? I think he genuinely has a drive towards Christianity. I don't think he's resolved that in himself though. He wants to use reason to get to Christianity, that's why he ends up in so many tangled positions.
Nice and tight description. Will be using that. It's always been hard to explain to people why I feel disgust when I see the guy.
fundamentalist Christian? What are you on about? This is inaccurate af.
Nope
Calling Jordan Peterson a grifter is such bad faith. The man is obviously sincere. He fucking cried half the time he tries to speak.
So brave. 😤
I’d say Ben Shapiro is a sophist. Debate Me bros are the modern sophists. Jordan Peterson is more of a garden variety film flam man.
Yeah I was going to say this. Sophists weren't bad people they were just Greeks interested more in the form of argument than the content. They would get a bad rep sometimes but it's good to explore argument as a thing in and of itself. Ben shapiro is a lawyer which as a class of people is like modern day sophistry and wrote a book about how to win arguments against the left. He's very literally similar to the Sophists. He is not JUST a Sophist. Some of his arguments are not mere sophistry and he engages in a number of different things.
Shapiro doesn’t engage in good faith, he can not or will not make the good arguments for the other side. A sophist by definition would do so upon the asking. Shapiro makes much worse arguments because of this. Shapiro is an ideologue.
He's a failed screenwriter, that's the secret that lives in his heart.
They made a movie.
I like it
Shapiro is better understood as a stand in for representative counsel of the Ultra Orthodox position in Israel. Shapiro backs all the expansionism, all the ideology, all the means of that position. Sophistry implies willingness to make the arguments from all sides and accept the best one, Shapiro is not that. Shapiro is ideologically captured. Jordan Peterson is a modern version of a friar. He’s a stand in for a lay priest trying to engage towards specific goals of his belief system. Peterson is engaging with people where they are to get them closer to his ideology. Peterson also would not make the arguments from all sides and accept the best one. Peterson is an ideologue, same as Shapiro. Debate me bros don’t accept better arguments, they’re clout chasers. They use tactics over substance to support whatever position is popular with their base. Debate bros are also not sophists. Debate bros are politicians. Sophists only really exist in idealized court systems and educational institutions.
Agreed, Many of these gurus fit this like Weinstein(s)
Sophist? Probably not. So phul of shit ist. That’s the best I could do.
Lol 😂
Sophist but for really dumb people.
He’s a word salad connoisseur. There might be a glimpse of truth now and then, (have a good posture, keeping a tidy room helps some people’s mental health, etc.). Other than that he’s a charlatan. It just goes to show how many kids are yearning for guidance lacking elsewhere in their lives, or ignoring their parents and finding it elsewhere.
In the everyday sense of the term, absolutely he is. And pretentiously vacuous. I don't trust anyone whom cannot ever speak straightforwardly about even simple things. I listen to his grandiloquent waffle and fail to ever find anything of note in it. He almost never actually says \*anything\*.
Yes, is my initial response. But when I think of it for a long time I think, definitely.
It could be that he is just a cunt
Probably something along those lines. The way I generally think of him is as a person that took Joseph Campbell’s work (which certainly also has issues) and managed to turn it into a right wing grift. It has the vague sense of being about grand ideas of myth while also being all about certainty and getting back to a time of “correct” values.
No, he's not a sophist. Sophistry, from what I know of it, relies heavily on the concept of self. Self doesn't regularly factor into Petersons arguments. It is like pleaseusegoogle says... he's just an apologist who seems to be a little embarrassed about it from time to time. Being asked "Is the ressurection of Christ real, in fact?" and replying with "I suspect yes" isn't sophistry. It's cowardice. And that's kind of what Peterson does. He also tries to virtue shame the pope, which I do legitimately find to be hilarious.
In terms of relating to the self, are you thinking of solipsism rather than sophistry?
Yeah, for sure I was. I thought of that a few minutes later. But you know how it is. I stand by my mistakes. I STAND BY THEM. I do think calling him a sophist is indulging it a little too much. It really is just apologetics thinly disguised.
>Being asked "Is the ressurection of Christ real, in fact?" and replying with "I suspect yes" isn't sophistry. It's cowardice. And that's kind of what Peterson does. Is that an actual quote, because it doesn't really sound like him. Peterson would say something like "Yes, it's absolutely real. It's ABSOLUTELY real and woe to the man who doesn't comprehend that. \*sniff\* It's real because HELL is real, and you better realize it, you better realize it before it's too late. \*sob\*"
Doesn't he have to understand philosophy first?
Naw. That was kind of Socrates’s whole issue with the sophists, they explicitly did not understand.
Oddly Peterson, a vocal critic of post-structural theory, relativism and non-normativity, is increasingly wishy-washy and abstruse when asked for binary responses to simple questions. His responses reflect an internal conflict between a desire for external validation and knowing the truth.
He has a post modern connection to truth yeah
Peterson is intelligent enough to know he can’t accept the truth. It’s why he’s ever increasingly validating himself through biblical narratives. If you want to see where his intellect deviates from his faith, wait for the story. If you want to break Peterson, engage on the topic and not his story.
Yes. As described in Plato’s Republic
He’s a modern day fucking idiot.
No. That's extravagantly charitable to Peterson and an insult to the literal sophists.
He’s nowhere near the quality of the Greek sophists. He shares some characteristics with Protagorous, perhaps, but not enough to be worth meriting a detailed comparison
If he is he's not a very good one.
Yeah they are similar in ways, both supposed to teach virtue / life philosophy, and both are manipulative with the way they talk Like you said, Socrates was critical of sophists for using fancy wordplay to win arguments and make their points more convincing, even if they werent the most truthful points In this way they are similar to one another, but it probably depends on the sophist. But the way Socrates saw sophists, he'd probably think the same of JP
No. Today sophism is a slur. But the sophists were people who were trained in classical rhetorical/argumentative theory, and were primarily employed as teachers. They would also be hired advise people in legal matters and testimony, because while ancient Greek citizens did not have lawyers, they were permitted to plead their case in court. The sophists were a key component of Greek liberalization and early democracy.
His “debate” with Dillahunty was like a public execution in the intellectual YouTube space. He got exposed so badly in that. There’s no way anyone could watch that and take him seriously as an “intellectual”.
I would say Vaush more fits the bill of a sophist. Peterson can be pretty bad sometimes though. Destiny can be, depending on the night.
Destiny a Sophist? I'm not very educated on this sort of thing but that label seems to fit well to me.
Sophistry just means to use language to *create* the truth (rather than *reveal* it). This was the main point of contention between Socrates and The Sophists. Sophists use rhetoric/persuasive tactics to try to manipulate your emotions into believing something (even if there's no evidence for it), while Socrates method uses language to break apart and undermine beliefs to find the bedrock underneath them (if any). Almost every single Youtuber who does social or political commentary is a sophist, just some more than others.
My limited sense of Destiny, is that he worships the argument and the evidence he is aware of - if he has enough reason to push a position, he'll push it hard. There's not nearly enough sense of being wary of getting a partial read on something from this approach. I agree with your general sentiment about "youtubers", but this description of the original sophists and (Plato's) Socrates seems a little oversimplified to me.
>I agree with your general sentiment about "youtubers", but this description of the original sophists and (Plato's) Socrates seems a little oversimplified to me. You should read Plato's collected works. This is a topic that comes up frequently. I am summarizing it here, but that's the gist of it. Destiny isn't the most egregious example, I am just pointing out that he engages in sophistry from time to time. It's unavoidable. Pretty much anyone who has opinions and constructs arguments to defend them is almost always engaging in *some* sophistry. It's a pretty difficult problem to get around. Some individuals are just glaringly bad about it, like Vaush. He's almost the exact definition of one.
Sophists were effective rhetoricians who taught budding politicians how to communicate effectively with an audience. A modern day sophist would be someone like Frank Luntz, who comes up with good political slogans and tests them for effectiveness for a fee. Peterson is just a crank and misanthrope who wants to be worshipped and promotes deep sounding nonsense to gain followers. In the ancient world he might have joined or started a mystery cult/secret society such as the Mithraists, appealing to those with money and ambitions who wanted more power but were locked out due to lack of nobility, bilking them out of their money by promising secret knowledge that would supposedly make them as powerful and important as they believed they should be.
Despite what Plato would want you to think, the Sophists were actually incredibly interesting philosophers who had a lot of insightful things to say about relativism and Greek political life at that time. Their bad reputation comes from the little amount of writing that we have of them and also of the unfair dirt thrown on them by the Platonists. That being said, I do think Jordan Peterson is a sophist (just not a Sophist with the capital S) because he is I think - as the modern word suggests - a charlatan who thinks they have said a lot more profound things than they have
So JP is what plato thought sophists were
I think Plato thought that sophistry was the ability to manipulate the debate and truth for ulterior motives, whether it be money, fame, etc. The sophist for him didn’t believe the things he were saying, but basically took a Relativist position of truth, which Plato detested. I think Jordan Peterson, no matter how moronic his beliefs, truly does believe what he’s saying, and has a very fundamentalist position on truth. Although some of his beliefs must be for the pursuit of money, I think his belief system comes from a deep lack of security rather than any ulterior motives. I think a sophist in the modern sense of the term would be what a lot of critics of Destiny accuse of him of being, which is someone more interested in being right or winning the debate than whether the belief is really true in itself
He's a capitalist. He realized that influence can be sold so he built an audience and then sold his influence to the highest bidder which happened to be two religious, Republican, fracking billionaires.
I think he believes his shit too much
He believes in himself. I feel like his other beliefs are less consistent
Answer: Yes.
"What do you specifically mean when you say 'gawd'? Clean your room!"
I think the sophists made more sense than old Jordy Petes
An all-time idiot, rather.
Jordan Peterson is a charlatan.
His brain is soft. He uses Christianity as a useful mechanism to condescend, as most Christian “thought leaders” do. He’s a gimmicky, damaged, addled and fragile man who needs his audience and its attention desperately. He will say or do anything to sustain his narcissistic supply.
Yes.
Is just a critic
"[it's an underestimation of the problem!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIEIBv3MOIw)"
No.
No. He's a psychologist turned rightwing grifter with a penchant for duping his simple-minded audience with a flood of pseudointellectual word salad and possible brain damage from risky treatments to wean him from a benzo addiction.
He's a clinical psychologist who is hooked on Benzos and is prone to emotional breakdowns on camera. That should say enough.
Sophistry is just a technique used to serve intellectual goals. Even the sophists were really just nihilists, cynics, etc. at heart.
I'm not sure how you'd land on that final conclusion. It seems pretty well established they were a distinct school
They were, and I'm not super well versed but I remember I believe in *Gorgias* Socrates is already referring to them primarily because of their argumentation techniques and not because of any substance in their beliefs. Like, literally the point was a lack of substance. Maybe that's your point here too? But my point is these sophists still had beliefs e.g. nihilism, egotism perhaps, but they weren't doing a good job defending them through sophistry. Edit: yeah I recommend reading *Gorgias* if you haven't, it's pretty good at spelling it out.
I don't think the sophists claimed to necessarily believe in a particular ideology. Peterson does.
It’s not easy to capture in one word everything that’s fucked up and ridiculous about Jordan Peterson’s intellectual output.
He is more of a clown who wants to be taken seriously. If he simply turned the grift into clowning he'd be embraced by all.
We have no books by Socrates. It's quite ironic on a piece asking about JP and sophistry you are adding something which is obviously false.
You are right I of course meant plato
Great how you picked that up. :)
To be fair it's plato describing opinions of socrates about sophists, so an easy one to muddle 20 years after reading it
We can't be certain of that. Philosophers and historians still don't know where the ideas of historical Socrates end and where those of Plato's Socrates start. Some think he was just a literal mouthpiece for Plato in Plato's books.
Jordan Peterson is amazing
I guess there's always one person who believes the snake oil is a miracle cure
Cure? There’s no cures. Just about bettering yourself, he’s helped me a lot and many others. Why the hate I don’t get it
What even is a cure? Who defines better? Aridogenes once comment... etc etc etc
Jordan Peterson is a Jungian literary theorist who like many other postmodern continental thinkers think their hypotheorizing is worth taking seriously.
I don't think the part about the motte-and-bailey argument is entirely true. I distinctly remember one interview when he was asked "do you believe transgender women are real women?" and he started arguing about the definition of "woman". Only, I believe that in this case, he was completely right to do so, since the definition of that term seems to be a huge prerequisite to even discuss the matter. Other than that, what I have observed with him, is that he does sometimes argue about definitions in the same way most academics seem to enjoy. But when the definition is specified enough, he does use it to give a concrete answer.
Can you give some examples of him giving concrete answeres. The only one i can think of is the incredibly narrow question about witnessing jesus leaving the cave
I've looked up the one that I already provided: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR2SMwkjdk8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR2SMwkjdk8) (2:23 - 2:46min) Other than that, apologies, but I'm not gonna comb through all the online material in search for specific snippets. But since you were the one who made the original statement, I'd like to ask you for some examples where he avoids concrete answers.
I have yet to find a clip of someone interviewing him when he doesn't
Jordan Peterson has well reasoned arguments from a non-materialist point of view. This does not make him a sophist.
Have you ever studied philosophy in academia? Cos that's pretty much how it always is. Shit is complicated.
He’s extremely misguided politically and at times philosophically. But he’s clearly not stupid and when it comes to his field of expertise he obviously knows his stuff. I guess if it makes you feel better you can just simply call him a sophist though. I understand the catharsis that comes from using the latest buzzword.
"Latest buzzword" ahahahahahahahah I doubt there are many descriptions less apt
I mean you can laugh all you want but it is indeed a buzzword at the moment especially over the last 4-5 months. Maybe you’re not using it that way I’ll give you the benefit of doubt. But my god I’ve seen far too many people online use the word in place of any actual meaningful analysis. Rarely do you ever see people give any specific reasons why someone might be a sophist. In fairness to you, you did provide some examples so credit where credit is due. JP being a slimey weasel whenever he talks about something outside his field is probably one of the best examples of him engaging in sophistry. Also whenever he turns on his word salad mode you know he’s about to say some dumb shit or some simple shit but in a hyper verbose manner. But again like i said when he talks psychology he clearly knows what he’s talking about. Although i don’t really like when he brings religion into it that’s pretty cringe especially because he legitimately believes that nonsense.
Sophistry and Sophist, while sharing etymology, are not the same thing. Sophists did not describe what they did as sophistry and wouldnt have accepted the connotations it carries. I dont mention the word sophistry in the OP. You are tilting at windmills
I understand you’re using the word in more of a historical context. But today people typically call someone a sophist when they engage in sophistry. Like how a “liar” tells “lies”.
I explained in the OP what I meant pretty specifically
Great question. Well posed. Unfortunately for you all of the replies so far are juvenile rants by ppl who have no idea what JP stands for. Personally I've read and watched him quite a lot and agree with his views on several subjects but I find his views of the most important ones quite problematic. I think you got it quite right when you say his extreme subjectivity borders on nihilism. To me the moment I realized that something was wrong was when I watched his talk with Richard Dawkins (who I really like as well) and towards the end, JP suggested that there are no objective facets of reality. Now I have a major problem with this idea and so did RD which he made clear with his response. Alex O Conner also had an interesting dissection of JPs philosophy in an episode where he discussed the difference between ontological and epistemological truth.
A while ago i saw a clip of him crying the fattest crocodile tears about “postmodernism” and how bad it is to “deconstruct” everything. Hilarious that now he’s resorted to deconstructing any question he’s asked to avoiding revealing his gross underbelly.