View from
The Left

A Chapter from Our Forthcoming Book Critiquing Jordan Peterson

“Peterson consistently invokes the Schopenhauerian-Nietzschean trope that the most important thing is to strengthen the self against the suffering of the world. The stronger one becomes, the greater and more worthy of respect and emulation by those around him.”

Author’s note: The following is excerpted from an early chapter in our forthcoming book Myth and Mayhem, which analyzes 12 Rules for Life. 


Alongside Chapter One, the most important political ruminations in 12 Rules for Life appear in Chapter Six “Set Your House in Perfect Order Before You Criticize the World.” This is a theme Peterson comes back to quite consistently, particularly with regard to youthful social justice advocates. This is also the Chapter where Peterson’s inclinations towards a Burkean-style ordered liberty approach to politics become most transparent. He continuously insists that the complexity of the world is so vast that individuals who do not fully even have their own lives in order have no right to assume they can improve it. Thus, it is far better to adopt the cautious approach of conforming to the expectations of the external social world, while working to develop one’s self worth and success from within.  

Peterson’s justification for this position is, in fact, highly consonant with the cautious and even pessimistic conservative philosophies articulated by figures like Leo Strauss, Russell Kirk, and others. Though as always, political dimensions of such inclinations are less explicitly brought to the surface than in the work of those seminal thinkers. Chapter Six opens with a chilling analysis of the Columbine killers motivation, echoing the concluding sections of Maps of Meaning on the problem of evil. He points out how the killers appointed themselves judges of existence itself (and the human race in particular) and found them wanting. Their response was to take revenge against existence through a spectacularly impotent act of violence. Peterson points out that these figures (and evil in general) emerge because life in the world is invariably hard. Like the pessimistic conservative Schopenhauer before him, at points, Peterson comes very close to accepting the wisdom of Silenus: that the best thing in life would be to have never been born—and the next best thing would be to die quickly. As Peterson puts it early in the Chapter:

“Life is in truth very hard. Everyone is destined for pain and slated for destruction. Sometimes suffering is clearly the result of a personal fault such as willful blindness, poor decision-making or malevolence. In such cases, when it appears to be self-inflicted, it may even seem just. People get what they deserve, you might contend. That’s cold comfort, however, even when true. Sometimes, if those who are suffering changed their behavior, then their lives would unfold less tragically. But human control is limited. Susceptibility to despair, disease, aging and death is universal.”

Given all this, it is understandable that some people may come away from the evils of life with a desire to do great evil themselves. But Peterson also points out that some may emerge from even tremendous tragedy without being defined by resentment and anger. They may come away with the conviction to do good, though what that means is not necessarily clear.

Instead, we should recognize that life inevitably involves suffering—and do our best to mitigate it for ourselves before we take any significant strides towards eliminating alleged socio-political and economic causes of harm. What does this entail? It means taking care of the “small things” in our life and recognizing the opportunities we have available to us. We should focus on issues such as are you working “hard on you career, or even your job, or are you letting bitterness and resentment drag you down?” Am I treating my loved ones with care? Am I taking care of my responsibilities. Am I trying to “make things around (me) better?” If I am not doing all I can to perfect myself in these local areas, then I have no business attempting to blame anyone or anything else for what I am going through. Am I saying or doing things that make me “weak and ashamed” or am I only saying and doing things that make me “strong”? It also means not just using our judgement—but recognizing the contributions of our “culture” and that the “wisdom of the past” passed on by our “dead ancestors” have useful things to teach us. As Peterson puts it in the conclusion to the short Chapter:

“Don’t blame capitalism, the radical left (thanks), or the iniquity of your enemies. Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility? If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city? Let your own soul guide you.”

If we accomplish this task, our soul will become “less corrupted” and able to bear the inescapable tragedy of life without it degenerating into “outright hellishness.” Our anxiety, hopelessness, and resentment and anger may recede. We will see our existence as “genuine good,” even in the face our own vulnerability and perhaps even become a more prominent example for others. Our ability to set our house in order will inspire others to strive to make the world a better place. This mantra of caring for yourself first and foremost (which results in indirectly caring for others) is not unique to this Chapter. Peterson also brings up this point in another bastardization of Biblical principles, when he claims in the Coda that the proper response to the poor man’s plight is to strive through right example to be an inspiration to him. Or how he insists that Jesus’s efforts to show compassion to the prostitutes and sinners indicates only that he is the perfect man, while our own ambitions to improve their lot are motivated by a desire to “draw attention to…inexhaustible reserves of compassion and good will.” In each circumstance, the proper interpretation of Christian doctrine is apparently: do what one can—but only after looking after yourself first and if it is expedient and undemonstrative. 

The Limitations of Depoliticizing Suffering

When you boil it down, Peterson’s positions on these points often look like a jazzed up variant of WASPY wisdom. Our first obligations are always to ourselves—and to those immediately around us. If something is going wrong, then it is likely either natural, or we, ourselves, are to blame for it. Even if there may be cause to combat injustice at the social level, we should only do so if we have put our own life into order first. The underpinning logic of this Chapter is that there exists a tension between looking after one’s own life and engaging in political efforts to rectify injustices. But this, by no means, seems clear to me. 

First, Peterson largely ignores that—while the existence of suffering generally may indeed transcend politics and be ineradicable—the specific cause of someone’s suffering may well have political and economic roots.

First, Peterson largely ignores that—while the existence of suffering generally may indeed transcend politics and be ineradicable—the specific cause of someone’s suffering may well have political and economic roots. Consider Peterson’s typical denunciation of the resentment people may feel throughout their career or in their job, discussed above. Invoking and criticizing unhappiness in the workplace as “resentment” is a fairly typical approach by conservative authors. What it misses is, as Fredric Jameson points out in his critique of Nietzsche, that people may have justifiable reasons to be angry at the structural conditions of their workplace, which hold them back. This can take a huge number of different forms. A Marxist might point out that one can feel exploited, if the value created by my labor is appropriated by others for little compensation: for instance, how Walmart employees are paid minimum wage, while the Walton family enjoys hundreds of billions of dollars worth of inherited wealth. A Rawlsian might observe someone inhibited from advancing their socio-economic status because they were born into a poor family. And then this Rawlsian might criticize a social system which does not ameliorate these conditions and, rather, offers tremendous advantages to those born into affluent circumstances. Characterizing these concerns about exploitation and unfairness as mere resentment is highly reductive, and demanding that figures in such circumstance just focus on their own life ignores that the basis of their problems may rest in injustices we have moral responsibilities to end. 

Peterson may reply that even if all this were granted, people will still be better off just trying to improve their lot than rectifying such titanic problems. But this brings me to my second point. Many people may resolve their problems through “criticizing” and changing the world, and, as an added point, they would also resolve these problems for others, rather than just themselves. The aforementioned person who feels exploited at work may do a great service to himself and others by starting a union: an act which can take a great deal of courage in today’s corporate climate. Someone concerned with their “health and well-being” may indeed be advised to quit their bad habits. They might also demand things like access to superior taxpayer funded healthcare. They might point out that two huge predictors of engaging in the aforementioned bad habits—everything from smoking to eating bad food to excessive substance abuse—is a lack of education and poverty. So perhaps much can be gained by improving education and taking efforts to end poverty beyond just serving as an example to the poor. An individual who wants to treat their spouse and children with “dignity and respect” might respond that this is exceptionally difficult to do, given the stresses of precarious employment, stagnating or declining real wages, and the blurring of the work/life divide under the conditions of technological change. 

Peterson has little to say on these issues, which may appear more as a mundane oversight than a reflection on his work. But this very lack of engagement is quite telling. It isn’t that Peterson is disinterested in issues of redistribution and political agitation, instead focusing on individual human psychology and efforts. Instead, he wants a focus on individual human psychology and efforts to be the aim of politics: individuals can make efforts and strive to become personally better off, but individuals should not take efforts and strive to make society better off, except in extremely qualified circumstances. This is deeply reflective of the implicit but pervasive conservative ordered liberty approach to politics underpinning much of Peterson’s advice on how to live well.

The Dark Underside of Cleaning One’s Room  

This Chapter is also where some of the major theoretical tensions in Peterson’s work emerge, though these are very rarely explicated clearly. This is perhaps for the best, since when they bubble up they reveal a more disturbing dimension to his work. Peterson consistently situates his work in a mélange of Judeo-Christian traditionalism and liberalism, which despite his protestations in Chapter Eleven about having some left-wing views, is usually very consonant with middle-of-the-road North American conservatism. One is almost tempted to label it a form of neo-Fusionism, after the synthesis of Protestant Christianity and capitalism enacted by William Buckley, Frank Meyer and the early National Review. But there is also a darker dimension to his work that is more interesting—but also highly problematic. In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson shares little of the optimism that occasionally emerges in the work of fusionist thinkers like Frank Meyer or William Buckley, who either emphasized the creative potential of freedom or the joys that flowed from Christian grace. While the emphasis on individual creativity occasionally spruced up Maps of Meaning, the 21st century Peterson often gives into the kind of reactionary pessimism well criticized by Corey Robin in The Reactionary Mind. At these points Peterson comes very close to leaping past the Christian tradition and into what is sometimes referred to as perfectionism. Peterson consistently invokes the Schopenhauerian-Nietzschean trope that the most important thing is to strengthen the self against the suffering of the world. The stronger one becomes, the greater and more worthy of respect and emulation by those around him. This is, of course, dramatically in contrast to the Christian tradition Peterson invokes elsewhere, as both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche well knew. Jesus would not likely insist, as Peterson does in Chapter Eleven, that compassion can be a vice. The Lamb of God we are to imitate would never resent people for “walking all over” him. In fact, one suspects the truth of Christianity lies much closer to Shūsaku Endō’s interpretation in his classic novel Silence. When a believer is faced with having to trample on an icon of Christ to save dozens of believing Christians, Jesus’ voice rings out after years of silence to proclaim:

“Trample, trample. It is to be trampled on by you that I am here”

This tension in Peterson’s thinking points to what is darkest in his work. What Peterson puts forward in these moments isn’t so much a kind of fusionism, as an effort to blend Nietzschian doctrines about superior people and an admiration of strength and power with a form of Christian traditionalism. He is not the first to aspire to draw from both wells; they were quite common in right-leaning circles in early 20th century Europe. Like Peterson, critics such as T.S. Eliot and Carl Schmitt often shared the modernist admiration of the strong and willful individual on the one hand, while drawing on traditionalism to castigate the materialism and nihilism of the modern era. They also shared Peterson’s distaste for social agitation and efforts to achieve greater equality, combining the elitist disdain for the mass with the snob’s appeal to historical authority.  Underpinning each of these theories was, of course, a tremendous fear, often framed in the same apocalyptic language presented in 12 Rules for Life. The world was conceived of as a dark and wicked place, and only superior men with a deep understanding of history could restore value to the world through their efforts to rise above the mass. Politically, this, of course, meant that efforts to extend democracy too far, to tolerate too much, or to redistribute power and wealth were to be looked upon with extreme suspicion as a kind of leveling. The natural hierarchy is not to be upended but restored to its proper parameters. One might claim such an association is unfair, but it is hard to tell how else to interpret passages such as the following in Chapter Eleven, where Peterson explains the attraction of right wing populism:

“The populist groundswell of support for Donald Trump in the US is part of the same process (of growing attraction to hardness and dominance), as is (in far more sinister form) the recent rise of far-right political parties even in such moderate and liberal places as Holland, Sweden, and Norway. Men have to toughen up. Men demand it, and women want it, even though they may not approve of the harsh and contemptuous attitude that is part and parcel of the socially demanding process that fosters and then enforces that toughness. Some women don’t like losing their baby boys, so they keep them forever. Some women don’t like men, and would rather have a submissive mate, even if he is useless. This also provides them with plenty to feel sorry for themselves about, as well. The pleasures of such self-pity should not be underestimated. Men toughen up by pushing themselves, and by pushing each other.”

Passages like these show that even if Peterson doesn’t entirely care for the emergence of these occasionally sinister right-wing movements, he certainly sympathizes with elements of their program. Sometimes the expression of these sympathies comes to the fore through the application of varying standards, as when he is willing to empathize with Heidegger in spite of his Nazism but cannot forgive the bastardization of Marxism decades after Marx’s death. But in Chapter Six, it is considerably more subtle. When he is at his worst in 12 Rules for Life—as across all of Chapter Six—the difference between Peterson and these more dangerous right-wing figures past and present is more a matter of degree than substance. The mass of people must recognize that their life will mostly consist of suffering—and not try to do much to change the social system and its already fragmenting cultural traditions to improve their lot. This will enable the exceptionally few competent people to rise to the top of the natural hierarchy where they belong. The most substantial differences between these past and present right-wing critics and Peterson is that Peterson occasionally flirts with a kind of elitism more akin to Ayn Rand than T.S Eliot, celebrating the creative superiority and contributions of the capitalistic rather than to the political sovereign or the artistic. Peterson also (mostly) decries the use of individual or social violence to maintain the natural hierarchy (though, of course, there is an explicit acceptance of state violence to maintain the status quo if necessary).  But these differences of degree are likely little consolation to people who are told not to change the social system, even if that would substantially mitigate the suffering that is our unequally shared burden.

Matt McManus is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Tec de Monterrey, and the author of Making Human Dignity Central to International Human Rights Law and The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism. His new projects include co-authoring a critical monograph on Jordan Peterson and a book on liberal rights for Palgrave MacMillan. Matt can be reached at or added on twitter vie @mattpolprof

32 thoughts on “A Chapter from Our Forthcoming Book Critiquing Jordan Peterson

  1. Attempting to explain Dr. Peterson’s thinking through the lens of conservative philosophies ignores the most notable feature of his personality, namely his clinical training. He is scientist, not a philosopher. He has used evidence-based treatments to help people improve their lives for decades. That’s why his focus is on helping people clean up their own act before they try to change the world. He recommends this course of action because when people take control of their lives, they feel better about themselves and can accomplish things that previously would have been out of their reach. Fighting to turn the titanic, on the other hand, keeps people in a perpetual state of outrage and concern. Why not work to improve ourselves first, gain more control, and be an example to others?
    Dr. Peterson is also a student of history. As the communist revolutions in Russia and China demonstrate, rushing to dismantle social systems is something that can easily go wrong. Estimates of the number of people slaughtered in the 20th century under communism range from 85 to over 100 million. Considering how much we stand to lose, could it be that a little caution towards social change is in order? I think so. The greater the call for change becomes, the more we should be calling for introspection. Do people come together and change society in beneficial ways? Yes. Can people do so without knowing the consequences of what they are advocating for? Yes. Therefore, it is in our best interest to promote a careful, methodical approach, as Dr. Peterson is doing.
    There is much to criticize about Dr. Peterson’s ideas, from his theological perspectives to his views on politics, but there is also much to be considered. You deserve respect for engaging with his ideas rather than reacting to them. But trying to place his arguments into easily dismissed philosophical positions does his life’s work and passion a disservice. The blood of those that have been slaughtered cry out for us not to approach these discussions merely from a philosophical perspective. In other words, they have real world implications that we should consider deadly critical.

    1. Peterson doesn’t stick purely to clinical psychology and frequently travels into philosophical, religious and political spheres – there is no reason not to address those directly. 12 Rules For Life is hardly a clinical psychology document by any stretch – neither is Maps Of Meaning. As for being a “student of history”, some of his historical perspectives are questionable – his constant evocation of western civilization belies a pop dogmatic view of history which favors his political leanings.

  2. People interpret Jordan Peterson’s work differently. For example, while Matt McManus (the author of this article) has read Peterson’s book and come to the conclusion that…

    “First, Peterson largely ignores that—while the existence of suffering generally may indeed transcend politics and be ineradicable—the specific cause of someone’s suffering may well have political and economic roots.”

    …I read that same book, and instead, interpreted that Peterson is simply advocating for personal responsibility even in spite of the unfairness of our world.

    I don’t see why we can’t hold personal responsibility as a top priority AND recognize that injustices often come from means outside of our control – systemic, political, and beyond. I see Peterson’s work as one possible rationale for moving forward. Will we blame others for our status quo, or will we first do everything we can to become a better person – then criticize what we can’t control?

    Overall, I felt like this chapter excerpt read less like a rebuttal to Peterson’s ideas, and more like a difference in interpretation alongside an exercise in academic philosophical flexing. I also found it unnecessarily flowery (i.e., “Sometimes the expression of these sympathies comes to the fore through the application of varying standards…”). Ironically, in his previous article, McManus links to a critique of Peterson that mocks Peterson’s style of communication as, “…using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly.”

    I don’t think Jordan Peterson is dangerous. I also don’t think he’s a “stupid man’s smart person” – as labeled by another article title to which McManus has previously referenced (ironically, the author of that article forgot to remove gender pronouns from her headline – a far-left faux pas). But I do think mischaracterizations of Peterson’s work only help to further bifurcate an increasingly hostile political (and social) landscape.

    Why can’t we just agree to interpret his work differently, and move on?

  3. Even though one must be welcoming of this kind of well-thought critique, I am sad to see that it relies mostly on the same contemporary tropes that aflict most of our discourse. Basically: “It almost sounds as if… WASP / Nietzsche / Ayn Rand / etc.” It would be great to see actual reflexive conclusions, as complex and deeply thought as Peterson’s, that interpret the same scientific and empiric basis in an alternative framework that made more sense. Instead we get a guide for people on what to say if they don’t want to fully engage in thinking about Peterson’s propositions. Obviously the debate on cleaning your room vs social justice is contextual, I agree that Peterson can sin from pushing too far the betterment of self mantra, but one must understand this contextually and according to his interpretation of contemporary economic and political situation, meaning, he thinks self-reflection lacks in the modern world and it is an important value to put forward, which is quite different to say that your enviroment is never in fault (actually he constantly clarifies that is not his stance).

  4. Peterson says that some anger at the world is based on resentment in which case you should focus on yourself. Author critiques Peterson as if he said ALL anger at Injustice is based on resentment. Most of the argument is attacking the straw man the author created. It also completely ignores a ton of Peterson’s clinical work helping people address injustices they experienced in the workplace and his advice for integrating anger to allow you to confront Injustices. Peterson brings substance that actually helps people. This author tries to answer with political propaganda. If you are tired of politics, read Peterson yourself and form your own opinion.

  5. I am delighted to see that all the comments so far recognise the one thing that anyone who has read the author’s diatribes regularly realises. That is ‘Professor McManus’ has nothing to offer but criticism and negativity. Love him or hate him, Peterson has made a positive impact on tens of thousands of people’s lives. Many thousands. McManus just seems to scrape a living by lambasting and critiquing others. Perhaps he would do well to remember what a real writer and astute observer wrote “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”. The worrying issue is that this Professor is typical of the sort of self-indulgent, negative, sanctimonious, self-titled progressive that increasingly represent Academia today. Fortunately Peterson, a true clinician and scientist, has nothing to fear from these self-proclaimed experts. People who can only wish to have the credibility, let alone the impact, of his work.

    1. I share your view.. The good Doctor is a great man, the author is a little man, feeble and weak. It is sad because instead of learning from his great pool of information he stews and criticizes . He speaks negatively of capitalism and is yet trying shamelessly to make a buck, not by expressing his own contributions to the world, but by hating on others who do that. He slams the brilliant doctor for his , correct views on Christianity, yet is hostile to Chritianity himself, still hoping ignornce will follow ignorance and listen to his interpretations. The author does not even believe in Jesus, so I find it rich for him to challenge others on the teachings of Christ. That is the definition of a fool.. Is it not?

    2. As always Clive I might point you to a very obvious exception to this unusual claim. “Matt McManus is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Tec de Monterrey, and the author of Making Human Dignity Central to International Human Rights Law.” If you were interested in learning about a “positive” program you might take the invitation to read some of my work on human dignity, rights and so on. For instance, you could look at some of the articles I’ve published in this very outlet.

      1. Matt, I’ll stand by the vast majority of comments made against this extract and the other piece posted about your ‘book’. It seems your ‘chickens have come home to roost’, and not before time. I suggest you go back to writing about Human Rights, if that is your area of expertise, and spare us your attempts to campaign for the politics of the clearly illiberal left and its attack on the critics of post-modern dogma. Your students will thank you, as wI’ll the readers of Merion West. If you take my advice and take on board the overwhelming rejection of your polemic against Peterson, remember the words of Ghandi:” Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding”.

        1. Hardly overwhelming I’m afraid. We’ve actually been inundated with requests both to preview the text and to write for the website. There clearly is an interest in the subject matter.

          I should also point out that I am rather underwhelmed by most of the critical observations, only a handful of which actually discuss the substantive content of my critique. There are certainly arguments you could make against my analysis, but chiding an author for negativity or insulating a figure from criticism because of the positive impact he has had are not arguments. They’re affectations at best.

          1. are you perhaps confusing Peterson’s project with your own? Peterson wants to help the individual situate and organize themself within a system, much of what you seem to find flaw stems from a project of critiquing the system. That itself, is a noble goal, but not one I think Peterson is occupied by, therefore have you found a worthy opponent to debate or have you created a straw man to attack? Reading into the lack of Peterson’s structural analysis your own obsession with the overthrow of said structures while Peterson is merely assisting the inidividual in mitigating their existence within?

      2. Lol
        I’ll take a wild stab and assume your opinions on “human dignity, rights and so on” haven’t generated much interest; particularly in contrast to your Jordan Peterson critique. Riding his coattails is most probably the winningest move of your career. Stick with what little works for you and enjoy it while it lasts.

    3. ….having a negative criticism doesn’t mean his critiques of Peterson aren’t invalid or that Peterson is somehow validated by negative criticism. You have defended nothing with this comment.

  6. Wow The author clearly does not understand the lessons, the ageless lessons Dr. Peterson is writing about. It is easy to see that the author is threatened by Dr. Peterson, or more precisely, the author’s dogmatic devotion to a statist philosophy is threatened. “Threaten one’s life he spends an hour and writes a police report….threaten one’s belief system they will spend a lifetime and write books and books (if they can). The autor says Dr. Peterson espouses the Burkean philosophy of learning from one’s ancestors instead of tearing down traditions, especially when our own house is not in order. It’s funny how the author criticizes both Burke and the good doctor, because I wonder if the author himself is unaware of Burke’s context or if he knows, which is why he so dutifully left out the context, keeping his would be comrades inline. The Context the Doctor is referring to is a back and forth heated set of pamphlets between Edmund Burke and Thomas Payne. Payne was well known for his powerful pamphlets in America during it’s Revolutionary War. However,, Payne, much like Thomas Jefferson looked at th American Revolution as a vast movement or wave throughout the world sparking a sudden change and flipping the times on its head.The two pleaded with America to enter the the French Revolution., but the author knows those two revolutions could not have been more different. People like Burke and George Washington, John Adams, among other knew it. The French Revolution was the about destruction of the old, the good and the bad. For few things in things in life are all good or all evil. The author is hostile to America’s Revolution. Without doubt I could search his history and find some criticism of America and how she is a force more bad than good, yet he romanticizes the French Revolution and it’s ideas. His words and critiques of Burke are taken from PAine’s own Pen! Yety he does it because he doesn’t realize that his ideas will end in failure or he doesn’t understand the value of that which came beforer. Their is an intergenerational order of things. One generation doesn’t wake up and say “heh hey ho ho its my body this insignificant mass of cells has got to go” and therefore a new Utopia is born.
    My next point is about Ordered liberty. Ordered liberty means something far different the the authors understanding. His ordered liberty is something he sees as a figure head distributing jobs and wages fairly, an ultruistic overlord reordering society in his image. Those who do not cooperate must be eliminated. for this is Utopia! All would be well if only the actors would behave and do as the Supreme leader sees fut! On the other hand, Ordered Liberty REALLY means that a set of rules shall be in place, like a written constituion. Equal shall it’s laws apply. It will allow man to pursue his own interest, which is in our nature. This was America’s idea. It was imperfectly created with a mechanism to change. However one of the important features the framers put in it was the amendments clause. If an amendment is made like the prohibition of alcohal, then later discovered “ok bad idea!” you don’t just erase it. you amend it leaving the old there to see like a sca. so Men like the author can critique and scoff and wiser men like some of the readers can learn from and improve. Len Guiotine is only useful to one of these types. Later Thon,as Jeffersdon, after narrowly escaping Le Guiotine himself knew he was wrong about the French Revolution and warned of romanticising the hearts of tyrrants. In closing, I will ask. how can anyone truly help someone else unless their own affairs are in order? It does not mean if you see suffering you don’t help. The author debases himself when he spesaks in such abosolutes or sees Dr. Peterson’s words in such a stark black and white. You are ALWAYS kind. But when our own affairs are in order, then & only then can we truly help. Build your house on good foundation.

    1. Peterson only wants to help explain what is and assist you in making peace with such. It’s not revolutionary nor novel however relevant it may be

  7. Not one supportive comment. Wow Are you ok man? Do you need a hug? or a safe space or something? seriously that is rough. Hate begets hate. Maybe try something a bit more insightful or positive. Ok? Give it another shot little buddy. Don’t give up on you . Give up on ypur dogmatic leftist views. Also Jeffrey Epstein Did NOT kill himself.

  8. The author seems to forget that Dr. Peterson is a trained clinical psychologist, as such, he has helped countless people integrate their dark shadow into their personality to adapt to life’s suffering and injustices. He understands that anger, rage , resentment are very dark forces that can do a person in, and to combat social injustices without healing the self is dangerous. Hence, his focus on getting one’s house in order first before trying to change the world. I think the left ” woke” is really pissed off because Dr. Peterson has challenged their narrative of victimhood culture and identity politics as grounds for grievances and unearned privileges. I will agree though the central teachings of Jesus do place a strong emphasis on the collective versus the individual.

  9. Wow. Your critique just made me love his words even more. Every time you talked about how he might be wrong, you said it’s because maybe something else that could never be true was perhaps true. There is no unequal share of the burden. Billionaires have their own share of immense suffering from the very billions that ameliorated other forms of suffering. Even if it were true that Walmart appropriated some of the value created by a Walmart worker, which it’s not because that’s the best the Walmart worker could get, then there are so many layers and Cycles in between the worker and the rich owners that the amount appropriated would be so small that the worker wouldn’t even care to get it nor would it be responsible for any business to take the risk of paying exactly what someone’s worth because the performance is so unpredictable. Starting a union? That would be violating the agreement you made with your employer, because they would never want to make that agreement, in order to threaten the commandeering of resources by force. That’s theft. All politics is are people who are viewing the world from totally different frames fighting to put their frame over the other person’s eyes. I think dr. Peterson’s frame is humbly drawn and the most accurate, useful, and peace-giving frame in existence and should be respected.

  10. Thank you for the article but I’ll probably skip the book, this is not new criticism of Peterson. I’ll only say I read JP’s book and reached a very different conclusion and that I believe he has helped me be a better person. This has benefited me to be sure but also my family and friends and I would say has helped me reduce the suffering around me (not just blindly bear it) which is of course what I interpret as Petersons point. I’m not surprised the author came to his conclusion, Peterson has his flaws and through them he can easily appear to be the progressive persons boogey man, but this hopeless semi anarcho-capitalist interpretation is not what I took away from JP’s work. I’d also note that this is not what any fan of his I have spoken with personally has taken away from his work or what most of his fan base seems to be taking away from it online. I’d further note that many of his fans come from the very bottom or at least were there before beginning to work on themselves if the attestations and comments supporting JP are to be believed. I also have to say that working on yourself before you work on the world is obviously not the same thing as blindly accepting the world as it is. That all being said every public thinker should be criticized and for some maybe this will be a new take, good luck with the book.

  11. You incorrectly characterize the ethos which built western civilization as right wing traits. I wonder where you would be were these “traits” not followed, including the concept that all are equal under law. It took time for people to understand that all means all, but here we are. the Judaeo-Christian ethic has done much, much more good than bad when it was followed. Not so true for other civilizations, like the Socialist states or Islam. We’ll see who’s still standing in decades to come.

  12. I literally just read the first paragraph and already you completely miss the point. It’s like you’re actually trying to be a moron.

  13. It seems obvious that you would start with this chapter – it appears to be one of the left’s favorite arguments to strawman (the ways you guys talk about it you’d think Peterson told people not to vote). You frame his thesis about setting your own house in order before turning to the world as a command for those wishing to make change to “shut up and sit down,” when its more like “have the intellectual humility to realize that you don’t know anything until you have proved otherwise.” This chapter is also coming within the context of the world we live in, which is long on college kids and young millenials who know next to nothing about the world yet who have the temerity to tell us how it should be run. They wish to criticize capitalism before spending hardly a day in its thrall, to criticize the west while spending every day basking in the rights, privileges, and relative wealth it has conferred unto them as their birthright. In such a context, the idea that we should focus on setting our own house in order before we go about trying to set the world straight, and that we should assume that those who came before us knew a thing or two, seems like the simplest and most humble piece of good sense I can imagine.

    But none of this is to say that Peterson denies a roll for collective action. In fact he has said so many times. He has also said it is the proper role of the left to fight back against the inevitable concentration of wealth and resources inherent in meritocracy and capitalism (because of the pareto distribution principles he discusses so frequently).

    I expect the whole book will be a collection of straw men just like this one, and so will not purchase it.

  14. Once in a lifetime someone like Jordan Peterson comes along and “Dares” to question politically correct lazy humans and/or extreme leftists who deny the Ukraine holocaust along with the horrors of the Gulags and re-education camps of the Maoists … unfortunately camp followers espouse the same far left wing rubbish as espoused in the latest anti Peterson diatribe. Undoubtedly it will find it’s followers, just like Trump extremists, at the other end of the spectrum. Hopefully, as someone who has never donated a cent to Dr. Peterson, other than purchase his book, these jackals who wish to feed on the (Not yet cold) corpse of a great modern thinker could do better to follow his advice.

  15. Matt’s book is a complete failure for sure. I will surely forget him after this post, unlike Peterson.

    He should keep to his Human rights writing. Attacking others is very hypocritical and borders the line of envy.

    Sorry Matt, you’re just not as good a human being as Peterson.

  16. While there is certainly a place for critiquing the limits of Peterson’s advice, McManus does not provide anything to replace it with for those depressed, stuck in life, or unable to function. So you’ve critiqued. Now what? Nothing. Well, thanks a lot.

  17. I have now listened to a lot of Jordan Peterson’s lextures on maps of meaning is through the lens of centuries of myth and literature is not some right wing attempt to discount the faults of leaders and politicians. Like we used to say in the 60s, I have found the enemy and he is us. Simply blaming an external actor on all the ills that befall you and simply leads to influence by different forms of tyranny. Unless you become straight with your own drives and faulty thinking you will just become influenced by the next demagogue. I think this is what Peterson is trying to teach the young because our school system has stopped teaching western civ and literary analysis. I simply don’t understand where the crtics get the sinister message. The development of self recognition of your own frailties and restraint in the automatic tendencies to blames someone else for your own misery is a sickness in our world today. Yes, there are always dangerous political actors. But we can become just like them and we need to recognize this fact before we can hope to change the world.

  18. After reading the article above, one can only wonder if the author could get through a paragraph without the use of ‘is’ as his verb choice? Yikes!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.