Judging by the Marx passages in his new book, Peterson not only hasn't read a word of Marx since he read the Manifesto to prepare for his debate with Žižek in 2019 but he's forgotten much of that.
Given that Peterson first made his name in conservative politics by falsely conflating two different Canadian laws (one provincial and civil the other national and criminal) and then drawing the facile conclusion that misgendering people was gonna get you killed, I'm not sure he is concerned with factual accuracy.
I'm also not sure how he or anyone could do better in their critique of Marx than Popper who (to simplify) noted that Marx's motivations and even his diagnosis of society were absolutely moral and correct. But who noted that the wholesale restructuring he proposed omitted the opportunity for testable reforms in favor of overly-centralized control.
I mean, it does look suspiciously as though he was perfectly well aware of what Marx said and meant but is deliberately distorting it to make it look like what he would prefer Marx to have said. I don’t see this as Peterson being stupid, but rather, dishonest.
I agree, it's strange that people still think Peterson is a respectable voice when his arguments couldn't be more disingenuous, riddled with misinformation and generally just weak and hard not to laugh at. But despite the plenty of those who have clearly and effectively refuted the points and rhetoric he spews, many will still carry on repeating with all the nonsense reasoning and, my least favourite, thought stopping clichés in order to fit their own agenda and/or make themselves feel as comfortable as possible.
Thanks for this. Very well said, and clearly important to repeat if people as well known as Peterson are going to repeat foolish misinterpretations like these.
The misinterpretation of the opium/opiate quote (on the right and left) is a particular pet peeve of mine. Marx's real take is so much deeper than the brute anti-religious sentiment it's so often taken to be. Some further thoughts on that quote:
Given that Peterson first made his name in conservative politics by falsely conflating two different Canadian laws (one provincial and civil the other national and criminal) and then drawing the facile conclusion that misgendering people was gonna get you killed, I'm not sure he is concerned with factual accuracy.
I'm also not sure how he or anyone could do better in their critique of Marx than Popper who (to simplify) noted that Marx's motivations and even his diagnosis of society were absolutely moral and correct. But who noted that the wholesale restructuring he proposed omitted the opportunity for testable reforms in favor of overly-centralized control.
Bold to assume he’s ever read it.
Likely he forgot to read it in the first place.
I mean, it does look suspiciously as though he was perfectly well aware of what Marx said and meant but is deliberately distorting it to make it look like what he would prefer Marx to have said. I don’t see this as Peterson being stupid, but rather, dishonest.
On Twitter, I'd sometimes see Peterson fly into a rage against somebody who *agreed* with him because he had misread him.
Thank you for taking up Marx's exhortation to "pluck the imaginary flowers" from the chains that bind us.
Fun fact, the term shadow is a crypto word for fascism or nazism in literature
I agree, it's strange that people still think Peterson is a respectable voice when his arguments couldn't be more disingenuous, riddled with misinformation and generally just weak and hard not to laugh at. But despite the plenty of those who have clearly and effectively refuted the points and rhetoric he spews, many will still carry on repeating with all the nonsense reasoning and, my least favourite, thought stopping clichés in order to fit their own agenda and/or make themselves feel as comfortable as possible.
Thanks for this. Very well said, and clearly important to repeat if people as well known as Peterson are going to repeat foolish misinterpretations like these.
The misinterpretation of the opium/opiate quote (on the right and left) is a particular pet peeve of mine. Marx's real take is so much deeper than the brute anti-religious sentiment it's so often taken to be. Some further thoughts on that quote:
https://loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2010/02/marx-on-religion-and-suffering/
https://loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2021/11/the-people-need-their-opium/
Peterson’s book was… something https://open.substack.com/pub/wollenblog/p/we-who-wrestle-with-reading-500-pages?r=2248ub&utm_medium=ios