On fragmented realities where different groups hold incompatible views of the world.
Collective Truth #
Jordan Peterson says “the Enlightenment view of a man is wrong”. What does he mean? #
Jordan Peterson’s statement that “the Enlightenment view of a man is wrong” can be unpacked by considering the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment and Peterson’s own views.
The Enlightenment, a philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, emphasized reason, individualism, and skepticism of traditional and authoritarian norms. It advocated for scientific inquiry, secular values, and the idea that human beings could be understood and improved through rational thought and political freedoms.
Key Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant, John Locke, and Voltaire posited that humans were rational beings capable of self-improvement and self-governance. They believed in the power of reason to understand the world and in the potential of humans to progress morally and intellectually.
Jordan Peterson, a contemporary psychologist and cultural critic, often critiques what he perceives as oversimplifications and ideological biases in modern thought. When he says that “the Enlightenment view of a man is wrong,” he is likely critiquing several aspects:
Overemphasis on Rationality: Peterson might argue that the Enlightenment’s focus on rationality overlooks the complexity of human nature, which includes irrationality, emotion, and the unconscious mind. He often emphasizes the role of mythology, religion, and tradition in shaping human behavior, areas that Enlightenment thinkers tended to de-emphasize in favor of reason and empiricism.
Underestimation of Human Fallibility: The Enlightenment’s optimism about human reason and moral progress might be seen by Peterson as naive. He often speaks about the capacity for evil in every individual and the dangers of utopian ideologies, suggesting that Enlightenment thought underestimated the potential for human destructiveness and tyranny.
Neglect of Traditional Structures: Peterson frequently defends the value of traditional social structures and norms, which he sees as evolutionary adaptations that have provided stability and meaning. The Enlightenment’s challenge to tradition and its advocacy for radical social change might be viewed by him as destabilizing and dismissive of the wisdom embedded in longstanding cultural practices.
Individualism vs. Collective Identity: While the Enlightenment emphasized the autonomy and rights of the individual, Peterson often speaks about the importance of collective identity and responsibilities. He might argue that Enlightenment thought, with its focus on individualism, fails to adequately address the human need for belonging and the role of communal values.
In summary, Peterson’s critique likely centers on what he sees as the Enlightenment’s overreliance on reason, its underestimation of human complexity and fallibility, its disregard for the value of tradition, and its emphasis on individualism at the expense of collective identity. This critique aligns with his broader philosophical perspective that emphasizes the depth of human psychology, the inevitability of suffering, the importance of personal responsibility, and the need to find meaning in life beyond mere rationality.
Peterson often emphasizes “speaking the truth” as the core empowering value of the individual. How does he reconcile the truth with the need for collective values, mythology, perhaps even religion? #
Jordan Peterson’s emphasis on “speaking the truth” as a core empowering value of the individual, alongside his advocacy for collective values, mythology, and religion, reflects a complex and nuanced worldview. To reconcile these seemingly disparate elements, it’s important to understand his interpretation of truth, and how he integrates it with broader socio-cultural constructs.
Multi-layered Concept of Truth: Peterson often adopts a pragmatic approach to truth. Unlike the purely objective, scientific notion of truth that’s verifiable through empirical evidence, Peterson’s version of truth also encompasses what works to ensure survival and well-being. This broader interpretation allows for the inclusion of subjective and experiential truths, which can be vital in understanding human psychology and social dynamics.
Truth in Mythology and Religion: Peterson argues that myths and religious stories, while not scientifically true in the empirical sense, contain psychological and moral truths. These narratives, evolved over millennia, encapsulate wisdom about human nature, society, and the existential challenges of life. He sees them as essential in providing frameworks for meaning, morality, and order. Thus, speaking the truth includes acknowledging the value and insights these traditional stories offer.
Individual Truth and Collective Values: For Peterson, speaking the truth is not just about factual accuracy but also about authenticity and integrity on an individual level. He posits that aligning one’s speech and actions with personal beliefs and understanding is crucial for psychological health and societal stability. This individual truthfulness is seen as foundational for building and maintaining functional collective values and systems.
Reconciliation of Individual and Collective Needs: Peterson navigates the tension between individuality and collectivism by advocating for a balance. He encourages individuals to speak their truth, but also to do so with an awareness of and respect for the collective cultural and moral frameworks that bind societies. He suggests that these frameworks, often rooted in mythology and religion, are necessary for social cohesion and provide a shared sense of meaning and purpose.
Truth as a Mechanism for Social Navigation: In Peterson’s view, truth is not just a personal virtue but a necessary tool for navigating complex social realities. By advocating for truth, he is not dismissing the collective, mythological, or religious aspects of human existence; rather, he sees truthful discourse as essential for the proper functioning and evolution of these collective structures.
In essence, Peterson’s reconciliation of individual truth with collective values, mythology, and religion is rooted in his broader philosophical and psychological perspectives. He sees these elements as interdependent, with truth acting as a fundamental principle that enables individuals to authentically engage with and contribute to the collective social and moral order. This approach underscores his belief in the importance of both personal responsibility and the inherent value of shared human culture and history.
“Peterson’s version of truth also encompasses what works to ensure survival and well-being” - sounds very Adlerian. Could his reliance on faith be motivated precisely by this schism between reality and “the pain of existence”? #
The connection you draw between Jordan Peterson’s views on truth and Alfred Adler’s psychological theories is intriguing and deserves exploration, especially in relation to faith and the existential challenges of life.
Alfred Adler, an Austrian psychotherapist and founder of individual psychology, emphasized the importance of striving for superiority as a fundamental human drive. This drive is not about superiority over others, but rather a striving for self-improvement and fulfillment in the context of social interest and community feeling. Adler’s perspective on human behavior focused on the importance of feelings of inferiority and the compensatory mechanisms individuals use to overcome them.
Peterson’s views, particularly his broad definition of truth that includes what ensures survival and well-being, align with Adler’s holistic approach to understanding human motivations. Both recognize that human behavior and belief systems are often less about empirical truths and more about navigating and making sense of the human experience.
Regarding the role of faith in Peterson’s worldview, it’s useful to consider a few points:
Faith as a Buffer Against Existential Pain: Peterson often discusses the inevitability of suffering in life. Faith, in this context, can be seen as a means to endure and find meaning amidst this existential pain. This aligns with the idea that belief systems, including religious faith, provide a framework for understanding the world, coping with its challenges, and giving life a sense of purpose and direction.
Faith and Psychological Well-being: Like Adler, Peterson recognizes the psychological need for a sense of belonging and purpose. Faith and religious traditions often fulfill these needs, offering a sense of community and a narrative structure for understanding one’s place in the world.
Myth, Religion, and Symbolism: Peterson’s interest in myth and religion is not necessarily a direct endorsement of any particular faith, but rather an acknowledgment of the role these systems have played in human history and psychology. He often interprets religious stories and symbols as representations of universal human experiences and psychological truths.
Pragmatic Truth: In line with a more Adlerian view, Peterson’s conception of truth includes what helps individuals and communities survive and thrive. This pragmatic approach recognizes that certain beliefs or narratives, even if not empirically verifiable, can have practical and psychological benefits.
In summary, Peterson’s reliance on faith and his broad interpretation of truth can indeed be seen as motivated by a desire to address the schism between the often harsh realities of existence and the human need for meaning and order. His perspectives resonate with Adlerian ideas in recognizing the role of psychological and social factors in shaping human beliefs and behaviors. The concept of faith, in this framework, is less about adherence to specific doctrinal truths and more about its utility in providing existential comfort, communal bonds, and a framework for navigating life’s challenges.
Interesting dilemma - on one side an ideal of the Enlightenment that any person could freely argue about an objective truth, on the other a societal need to rely on the class of the truth interpreters. #
Indeed, the dilemma you’ve outlined encapsulates a fundamental tension in modern intellectual discourse and societal organization. On one hand, there is the Enlightenment ideal, which champions the capacity of each individual to reason and to engage with objective truth directly. On the other, there is the practical reality of societal reliance on a class of ’truth interpreters’—experts, authorities, and institutions that mediate, interpret, and sometimes dictate what is regarded as truth. This dichotomy raises several critical issues:
Enlightenment Ideals of Rationality and Individualism: The Enlightenment posited that through the use of reason, individuals could access and understand objective truths about the world. This idea was revolutionary in its challenge to traditional sources of authority, such as the church and the monarchy, advocating instead for individual autonomy, scientific inquiry, and democratic governance.
Expertise and Specialization: In the contemporary world, the complexity and depth of knowledge in various fields have necessitated a degree of specialization. This has inevitably led to the rise of experts who are relied upon to interpret complex information. While this specialization is essential for advancing knowledge, it also creates a gap between experts and the general public, potentially undermining the Enlightenment ideal of direct engagement with truth.
Authority and Trust in Institutions: Societies require trusted institutions and authorities to function effectively. However, when these institutions become the sole arbiters of truth, there can be a disconnect with the public, leading to issues of trust and legitimacy. This is particularly evident in contexts where there is a perception that these institutions are no longer neutral or are driven by ideological or political agendas.
Democratization of Information: The digital age has brought about an unprecedented democratization of information. While this has empowered individuals to access and share knowledge, it has also led to challenges in discerning credible information, giving rise to misinformation and ‘alternative facts’. This environment complicates the pursuit of objective truth.
Cultural and Moral Relativism: The postmodern critique of Enlightenment ideals includes the argument that objective truth is a myth and that all viewpoints are culturally and contextually relative. This perspective further complicates the public’s engagement with truth and has implications for how societies negotiate shared values and realities.
The balance between individual critical engagement and reliance on authorities for truth interpretation is delicate and constantly evolving. It reflects broader philosophical debates about the nature of truth, the role of expertise, the authority of institutions, and the capacity of individuals to engage with complex ideas. This dilemma is not just theoretical; it has practical implications for education, media, governance, and public discourse, affecting how societies make decisions and how individuals perceive their agency in influencing those decisions.
Modern world will become increasingly unstable as we depart from the objective truth. #
Your statement about the potential instability in the modern world due to a departure from objective truth touches on a significant and complex issue. The concept of objective truth as a stabilizing force in society has been a cornerstone of philosophical, scientific, and democratic traditions. However, the challenges of maintaining this in the current era are multifaceted:
Erosion of Shared Realities: In a world where information is abundant and diverse, the consensus on what constitutes objective truth can erode. This can lead to fragmented realities where different groups hold incompatible views of the world, making dialogue and consensus-building increasingly difficult.
Impact of Technology and Social Media: The digital age, while democratizing information, has also contributed to the proliferation of misinformation and echo chambers. Social media algorithms often amplify sensational or divisive content, which can distort public perceptions and undermine informed decision-making.
Postmodern Influence: Postmodernist thought, which questions the existence of objective truths and emphasizes the relativity of knowledge, can lead to skepticism about facts and scientific understanding. While valuable in challenging dogmatic views, it can also contribute to a climate where all perspectives are seen as equally valid, regardless of their factual basis.
Political Polarization: The politicization of information and the use of “alternative facts” can deepen divisions within societies. When truth becomes a matter of allegiance rather than evidence, it undermines the basis for reasoned debate and cooperative problem-solving.
Challenges in Education and Media: Ensuring that populations are well-informed and capable of critical thinking is becoming increasingly challenging. Educational and media institutions play a crucial role in this, and their ability to effectively impart skills for discerning truth is vital for societal stability.
The departure from a shared understanding of objective truth does indeed present risks of instability, as it affects the ability of societies to cohesively address challenges, resolve conflicts, and build a common future. To counteract these risks, there needs to be a concerted effort across educational, political, and social institutions to promote critical thinking, media literacy, and a culture of open, evidence-based discourse.
Ultimately, while the pursuit of objective truth is complex and evolving, its role as a foundational element for a stable and functional society remains significant. The challenge lies in adapting our approaches to truth-seeking and truth-sharing in a way that respects the complexities of the modern world while maintaining a commitment to factual accuracy and rational discourse.