Jordan Peterson Resources

Jordan Peterson on Post Modernism:

I have some familiarity with post-modern and Marxist thought from my days studying philosophy, though I would not claim to be expert in either.  I was sufficiently knowledgeable, however, that when I first encountered Peterson's critique of Post Modernism, I recognized it as, at best, inadvertent caricature of a bad faith critique, and at worst as deliberate lies and distortion about the topic.  In short, it was typical of his discussion in any area outside his immediate expertise.  The internet contains much better criticisms than I could provide.  In particular, from the YouTube channel, "Cuck Philosophy" we find both a direct critique of Peterson on Post Modernism, and a critique of Stephen Hick's book, "Explaining Post Modernism".  The later is particularly important because it appears to be the source of Peterson's ideas on Post Modernism, and is one of the most abysmal works of non-scholarship ever published with the pretense of being scholarly.  Hicks is a libertarian, and likely an Objectivist (ie, a follower of Ayn Rand).  His ideological commitment is very clear in his critique of Post Modernism, which he thoroughly misunderstands and misrepresents.

Before proceeding, I should note that from what I understand of Post Modernism, I have major disagreements with it, and its various schools.  But that does not prevent me from recognizing that at its best it is scholarly and interesting.  It certainly has developed useful tools for finding where people bury their shortfalls in reason by rhetorical tricks - an ability that Peterson is right to be afraid of, and which his following would do well to learn.

Jordan Peterson on the Nazis:

Before proceeding on this point, I do want to note that Peterson does say something very sensible about Nazi-ism, ie, that for the vast majority of people, had they been in 1930s Germany, they would have ended up as supporters of the Nazis.  You may think otherwise of yourself, but that is because your current self has grown up in an entirely different situation, and the you that grows up in that situation (hopefully) holds the Nazis in revulsion.  But beyond that point he makes two fundamental errors - his description of the motivations for and historical situation surrounding the holocaust are wrong, as shown by German speaking student of history, Three Arrows; and he insists that the Nazis were atheists, something The Cult of Dusty entertainingly rebuts.

Jordan Peterson on the Limits of Discourse:

In his Big Think talk, Peterson attacks the left for not establishing limits to discourse - ie, a threshold beyond which leftists have gone to far, such that centrist leftists will disassociate themselves from leftists who go beyond that point.  In treating "the left" this way, he treats it as a monolithic entity in order that he may demonize it.  As it happens, I, and nearly all leftists, have a clear demarcation.  We will not let go of the rule of law, nor of democratic government.  Peterson ignores that demarcation point, possibly because it is not the demarcation point of the right, where even centrist rightists happily support the Pinochets and Bolsonaros of the world.  Peterson's demarcation point is "racial superiority".  In point of fact, that is just false.  The Republican party in the US, for example, has an eight term Congressman who is a white supremicist; and had several open Nazis running for office in the most recent Congressional elections.  But the more fundamental criticism is that it is a standard that finds nothing wrong with a Franco, a Putin or a Duterte.  Essence of Thought has an excellent and detailed critique of Peterson's lecture, whose only significant failing is that it does not address my last point - which I feel is fundamental.

Edited to add:
I wrote this comment four years ago, and in provides a short distillation of the problems with Peterson's reasoning:

In some respects it is very easy to call Peterson out. First, he can be called out on his dishonesty. For instance, he rose to fame because his refusal to accept a law (Canadian Bill C-16) that, according to him, potentially made his lectures hate speech, and which would have made misgendering trans people a crime. According to the Canadian Bar Association's submission on that bill, neither is true. Peterson, of course, is not a lawyer. He at no points walks through the bill and shows how his inference would follow. He just makes the assertion. By doing this, he gained a reputation as a defender of free speech, but clearly that was a total con, for he was not defending against an attack on free speech. What is worse, Peterson actively campaigns to have whole disciplines removed from universities because he disagrees with what members of those disciplines say, showing he does not actually defend free speech unless you agree with him, or say something he can countenance. https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f In fact, Peterson frequently makes up false facts to defend his position. One famous case is that of the Lobster brain, and hierarchies, which is taken down in detail by biologist, PZ Myers (the first video is not entirely clear, but the second two clearly show the flaws in Peterson's position): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7W9frEPLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqx57l781WM&t=71s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJn1_VLBHs  

Moving on from his looseness with the truth, the next key point to make about Peterson is his absurd definition of truth, ie, as that which we need to believe for our society to survive. This belief is key, for without it, Peterson could not draw inferences from ancient myths to political theories. If somebody were to say that because the ancient Egyptians had a myth about a son entering the underworld and resurrecting his father, with the two then jointly reigning, therefore we need to follow a conservative politics we would question their sanity. And though I have oversimplified, that is what Peterson essentially does. Such a claim would typically be rejected, quite rightly as not grounded in empirical facts, nor clear reasoning. But Peterson makes the argument that, firstly, the ancient myth and others like it grounded an understanding of how society works, and that those societies were successful and promoted human survival, so that consequently we are justified in believing that the archetypal story encompassed within the myth is more true even, than the findings of physical science, because demonstrated to promote human survival. And because the archetypal story is more true even than science, we are justified in grounding our understanding of society on it. (Again, simplifying, but that is the essence of the argument.) Peterson discusses his idea of truth at length, and is demolished in rebuttal, in a podcast with Sam Harris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY  

Then, you can move on to the actual myths he uses for his alchemy. You should note that myths can be interpreted in various ways, with no particular way being canonical. It follows that Peterson's archetypal stories are actually read into the myths as much as they are found in the myths. You can further note that Peterson primarily uses myths that were developed to justify patriarchal, somewhat tyrannical monarchies; and that their political purpose inevitably shapes them to be favourable to conservative, and patriarchal, and frankly misogynistic world views (all traits evident in Peterson's political philosophy). When you note his selective sources, Peterson is essentially arguing that because tyrannical patriarchies of the past used propaganda to justify their existence, we can conclude from that propaganda that women should by primarily home bodies, and that we should follow a conservative political philosophy.

Finally, if that is not enough, you can go on to note that Peterson's descriptions of Marxism, Postmodernism, and their relationship are all transparently false. So much so that is dubious that he can have read the original works of Marx, or post modernists, and if he did, it was his preconceptions or rhetorical needs totally eliminated his ability to understand what was going on. His misunderstanding, however, serves the useful tactical purpose of being an all purpose slander of his political opponents.

Original context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o847bCPAdys&lc=UgzcOxOKH7qmQkSOP_t4AaABAg.8eZJqDcViRs9cd0zpT5vsP