Share this comment
Well said. Fukuyama had one or two interesting things to say in Identity, but even then the 'real liberalism has never been tried!' shtick was pretty cringe. At least Jordan Peterson made a decent stab at grounding the importance of the individual in metaphysics rather than justifying liberalism by the standards of liberalism - all the …
Well said. Fukuyama had one or two interesting things to say in Identity, but even then the 'real liberalism has never been tried!' shtick was pretty cringe.
At least Jordan Peterson made a decent stab at grounding the importance of the individual in metaphysics rather than justifying liberalism by the standards of liberalism - all the other (to steal Lyons's term) Paleo-Liberals you mention just beg the question whenever they get close to the topic.
Tom, do you have a good way to get someone into Jordan Peterson? I like what I've read and seen, but he writes so much and on such broad topics that I don't really know where to start. Any suggestions?
I do love his concise ways of illustrating the absurdities of postmodernism: "the logical end point of intersectionality is individuality; the social justice warriors will get there, if they don't kill us all first."
He has an excellent turn of phrase, and he's unsparing when it comes to the problems of what he called 'the postmodern left' back in 2016 or so and we now know as 'woke.' If concision's what you're after while still steering clear of 'Jordan Peterson DESTROYS xyz' type videos that I'm sure you'll have seen plenty of, all heat and no light, 12 Rules For Life is probably your best bet. If you have a bit more time to invest, I'd recommend checking out his series of lectures on the psychological significance of Genesis: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w (fair warning they are LONG and really quite engrossing, at least they were for me).
I'll go for the Genesis video. I'm more theology than self-help, and a Bible commentary series by an agnostic shrink strikes me as an interesting premise.
Iain McGilchrist's work in evolutionary psychology is probably far more rewarding than Peterson's, but McGilchrist's audience is more specialized.
McGilchrist uses cognitive science to prove that "religion" is part of cultural evolution (survival adaptations), and that dehumanization becomes pervasive without the kind of meaning (and INHIBITION* of anti-social behavior) that religion provides. (gross oversimplification).
https://rebelwisdom.substack.com/p/can-iain-mcgilchrist-reunite-science
* McGilchrist's research indicates that INHIBITION of anti-social personality was a major feature in the evolution of "modern" humans 100,000s of years ago, along with language and intense social bonding/cooperation for enhanced survival.
After the Bronze Age collapse, mythic-contemplative religion became a "software upgrade" that added even more cultural INHIBITION of anti-social, non-cooperative personalities in agrarian city-states for survival as they were attacked by nomadic marauders (and other city-states/empires).