academic freedom Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design Psychology Science

Canadian psychologist takes on the howling post-modern void, largely alone

Spread the love

From Denyse O’Leary at MercatorNet: Unhinged criticism of the man has obscured the merits of his book:

Professor Jordan Peterson, author of the top-selling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, is beginning to look weary in the face of the waves of hatred he has endured recently. Two years ago, he was almost unknown outside his field. A Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology (University of Toronto), he is author of over 100 papers in his specialities, the psychology of religious and ideological belief and personality theory. His principal work, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999), was a well-received tome. He taught at Harvard before being awarded tenure at the University of Toronto.

So how do we account for the fact that Peterson has also been targeted in Canadian media in a way that seems, quite honestly, unhinged: “the stupid man’s smart person?” (Maclean’s 2017); “The Professor of Piffle” (Walrus 2017); a faintly flickering intellect (Globe and Mail 2018). Some in academia are actively seeking to get him terminated. Few detractors seem to grapple with what he says or care to. As a longtime news writer, I don’t recall seeing anything like it. Some explanation is in order, one that includes a consideration of his recent best-selling book, 12 Rules for Life. More.

Prediction: This high-profile unhingedness about any disagreement (not just ID) will spread into the harder sciences now, as intersectionality takes hold. The science establishment , with no truth it cares to uphold, will be paralyzed by fear, rendering up the demanded victims to satisfy the growing monster.

See also: Journal Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science

and

Can science survive long in a post-modern world? It’s not clear.

5 Replies to “Canadian psychologist takes on the howling post-modern void, largely alone

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Aside from the obvious effects of tenure selecting for rigid conformity, there’s another ill wind in academia that doesn’t get recognized often.

    Debt vs Savings.

    Before 1970, professoring was a low-energy job, and many profs had ‘old money’ which enabled them to treat profing as a paid hobby. When you’ve got enough money to survive without the work, you’re far more likely to speak your mind.

    Since 1970, profing has become an intense 25-hour day, slaving to keep up with debt payments and fend off the competition. When you’re underwater, you don’t have time to break the surface and speak truth. You just tread water desperately and hope the grantors toss you a life preserver.

  2. 2

    Jordan Peterson is a true hero. Love his ideas. Love his courage. Thanks to him (and others like him) people all over the world are now speaking out against lunatic leftist ideology. They are no longer afraid of being judged, ridiculed, and hated by leftists. Many now welcome it!

  3. 3
    john_a_designer says:

    Freedom of thought, conscience and belief and the freedom to express our thoughts and beliefs is fundamental to a free open and democratic society. There is, however, no right to suppress another person’s freedom of expression. Allow that you undermine democracy. That’s the lesson of history.

    Recently in an interview, Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto, was challenged on his politically incorrect use of language when it came to the issue of “transgender rights.”

    British interviewer, Cathy Newman, “questioned Peterson on why he refused to go along with the trendy leftist cause du jour: using pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that describe their biology.”

    “Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked. Peterson, ever the gentleman, answered the question without guffawing: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.”

    Newman misdirected: “Well, I’m very glad I’ve put you on the spot.” But Peterson pursued: “Well, you get my point. You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

    Newman had no answer. Point to Peterson.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ing-people

    The Peterson interview reveals some of the typical ploys that the secular progressive left has been using to shut down the free speech rights of people with which they disagree. They redefine language reflected in traditional moral values as being offensive and then invent a new right, “the right not to be offended.” But if you follow that thinking to its logical conclusion, “the right not to be offended,” shuts down everyone else’s rights and stifles dialogue and debate.

    This is what happens when human beings think they are they are the ultimate source of human rights. That’s what we saw in the Nazi era: If humans are the source of universal human rights then they are the ones who can take them away. That was the thinking that led to genocide.

  4. 4
    News says:

    The traditional Canadian media have mostly been demonstrating why they are obsolescent. They are not interested in controversy only in parading their correctness in front of potential government rescuers.

    Like it or not, new media are the future.

  5. 5
    russ says:

    I assume you’ve looked at what they are doing over at PragerU.com?

Leave a Reply