(Also posted on The Krypt)
More interesting than Dr. Jordan Peterson’s interview with Cathy Newman the other week is the question of why so many people are drawn to him almost twenty years after he authored Maps of Meaning. I’ve taken a liking to the content produced by Dr. Peterson, having read about half the book and assimilated about 70% of his lectures. I certainly didn’t start out with the intention of being heavily critical of Peterson when formulating my opinion. Quite the opposite.
Now, for reasons I’ll get to, it’s important to differentiate between the two main themes of the worldview Dr. Peterson’s expositing. One theme is essentially an explanation of why nihilism, the realisation that ‘God is dead’ and the individual has no divine value, made the 20th century unprecedented in brutality, suffering, authoritarianism and the disregard for human life at the hands of collectivist regimes driven by ideology. This understanding came from reading Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn (hope I spelled that right) and a few other authors I can’t recall, though numerous other authors and studies are cited. Several times in his book and lectures, Peterson reveals an abject fear of this.
This paragraph from an article in The Guardian is a better summary of what he’s now taking a stand against:
‘Peterson has largely been in the news for his blazing, outspoken opposition to much of the far-left political agenda, which he characterises as totalitarian, intolerant and a growing threat to the primacy of the individual – which is his core value and, he asserts, the foundation of western culture.‘
And so, within the last 18 months, he gained something of a cult following of young men who see him as a role model, if not a father figure. That’s quite telling, as he was relatively unknown when publishing the Maps of Meaning book and lectures.
I fully agree with his position on individual rights and the freedom of speech, and largely with his analysis of the state of modern culture, but it’s dangerously simplistic to think the intolerance and authoritarianism is only characteristic of the far-left, and that the political left is incapable of being truly progressive. During the 80s and early 90s, elements of the ‘religious right’ were engaged in witch hunts and censorship, and almost twenty years ago the United States saw the introduction of the Patriot Act, unprecedented mass surveillance, arguably unjustified invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, ‘renditions’ and torture, and the militarisation of the police. Plus, there are strong reasons for arguing that today’s ‘social justice warriors’ are actually a fascist movement bent on causing bitter divisions among the working class and undermining any alternative to the aforementioned state of affairs.
The second theme is Peterson’s Jungian and esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament and ancient mythologies, to which he brings decades of experience as a clinical psychologist. Again, his points, especially when discussing psychology in isolation, are nicely articulated and they can appear exceptionally compelling. Some of them even clarify certain beliefs we have.
The way Peterson gestures during his lectures, and the pain in his voice at certain points (which, interestingly, wasn’t noticeable in his 2002 lecture), reveals a man who desperately wants to believe in God, but is unable to abandon the absurdly rationalistic. This conflict leads to many tenuous assumptions and lack of structure in his reasoning, and that’s what I find troubling. Is there any evidence to suggest the authors of Genesis had anything other than the most rudimentary understanding of nature beyond the fact humans are singular among species? Or is Peterson projecting his wisdom onto the mythologies?
I’ve said that it’s important to be aware of these two distinct threads, and that’s because I can see how Peterson’s followers, not identifying the demarcation between the political and religious ideas, would likely become emotionally invested in a distorted, incomplete and naive understanding of our faith. And it’s very tempting to view Christianity as a traditionalist conservative force in a perceived culture war. According to Austin Frank’s piece in Today in Politics, this is indeed happening.
My Own Maps of Meaning
As far as I can determine, it’s more appropriate to describe Dr. Peterson’s view of the world as ultimately atheistic, maybe Luciferian, as it puts the ideal individual, the physical embodiment of the mythical hero, as the absolute. I’d hesitate to say that’s a bad thing, as the ‘Left Hand Path’ is still preferable to having no direction in life, and it’s definitely preferable to uncritical adherance to any religion or ideology.
Of course, Christians instead look to the external and supernatural God as the absolute, and this leads to inevitable disagreements I have with some of Peterson’s ideas.
The first problem with marrying Peterson’s ideas to Christianity is the latter, Catholicism especially, is actually the exact opposite of a myth-based religion, and the Church Fathers were quite explicit about this – the historical evidence shows that many people risked everything for their belief they witnessed miracles and a physical resurrection. There is very little ambiguity or room for interpretation about their claims, whether one believes or not. Our faith also goes to extraordinary lengths to emphasise the physical, encouraging the veneration of the Blessed Sacrament, historical figures, statues, relics, etc. And many works of art were created with an astounding level of realism – for a while that was the cutting edge of what manking could acheive in the West. In Christ and the saints we find, not abstracts, archetypes and mythical heroes, but humans that anyone could emulate. There must have been a strong reason why this succeeded the older mythical traditions Peterson has interpreted.
There is an even more esoteric element to this, among the attempts to explain various doctrines, examine the meaning behind them and search for what’s absolutely real. If you explore the scholastic works, you’ll find an understanding of the world we typically experience as an abstraction of a deeper layer of reality. I have experienced an intimation of this myself last year at the Grotte de Massabielle in Lourdes, but I’d struggle to describe that experience in any understandable way.
The general point here is that one could believe or disbelieve. What we can’t do is reconcile faith and rationalism by some vague, and frankly useless, interpretation of mythology.
The next thing I disagree with is Dr. Peterson’s assertion to the effect ‘happiness is a pointless goal‘. What are meaning and purpose if not preconditions for happiness? Happiness is actually such a valid goal that we could argue it’s the very point of human existence, and many philosophers have set their minds to this. This is no trivial undertaking, as one must decide precisely what true happiness entails and how to live a good life. As Peterson himself said: ‘the principal discovery of early mankind is that “God” can be bargained with, through sacrifice – which is no more than saying if you sacrifice the pleasures of the present, reality is likely to reward you in the future. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s the best option you’ve got.‘
The clearest example of this is someone earning a satisfying career through having the self-discipline to acheive a 1st class degree in a demanding field of study.
True happiness could very well entail living a monastic life, being occupied with meaningful work, or simply having an ideal circle of friends. Or perhaps it might entail a life of absolute hedonism, if you could live without regrets. Perhaps it would entail leaving your job, starting a business and accumulating the wealth to achieve something more meaningful.
There has long been recognised a relationship between virtue and happiness, and the conflicts betweeen good and evil are really conflicts between our intellects and impulses.
But how could we know what counts as virtues, and what guides conscience? This is where we get to the central point: objective morality and first principles. Without God, or more precisely the conviction that God exists, I can’t see how fundamental rights could be ‘self-evident’ truths, or something more than what we decided for ourselves. And without this, you’re left with a rather transient morality that happens to be the prevalent in society, a matter of consensus that might disregard fundamental rights whenever they’re inconvenient.
A Catholic Commentarium 