I used to think Pageau was a genius (his brother seems more worthy of that title to be honest) but after hearing over and over: "How can I say this so that people understand." I started to realize he thinks he cracked the code and has 'secret' knowledge nobody else has.
His entire discourse is framed as him being an enlightened prophet explaining 'too complicated' things to the simple minded.
“The problem with both of these two is a certain kind of language-use only works in a context where no one is objecting or pointing out its flaws.”
Bingo. Wander around on stage spouting this stuff to people who purchased tickets because they believe you are a modern day prophet, and receive a standing ovation. Try it with a spunky college kid who’s used to late night debates in the dorm lounge, and get pwned.
Well, yes, but that's not a high bar! Seriously, how is it that people like Harris and Peterson and Pageau get such a following? There seems to be a big gap that they are inadequateky filling. is there nothing else in schools or colleges that I know about that might replace them?
They're kind of like social media influencers, once they get popular they tend to stay there. It is a bit depressing but what can you do. Less fish and Jordan Peterson it is!
Whether it is Peterson, Pageau (who I genuinely think is a nice and good guy but does deserve to get called out on his gobbledygook), or any other "public intellectual", I think it is worthwhile when a clear and rigorous thinker like you calls them out and, more importantly, explains to the ordinary reader the ways in which their thinking is misleading or confused or otherwise a net detriment to society. And given the nature of the Internet today, sometimes this needs to be done repeatedly: everything disappears quickly from memory and from search engines nowadays.
Anyway, I'm not saying you should beat a dead horse with Peterson, but to the extent he (or others) stay in the public eye and continue to get "mind space" from people, I think you should certainly considering calling them out when you think appropriate.
Jordan Peterson was interesting when he first circled around Christianity. I think he had some secondary insights that were not widely discussed in mainstream Christian circles. With his clear interest and respect for Christianity, many got excited, hoping a popular secular thinker may convert. However, years after his first major book, Peterson inching around the border of Christian and not-Christian becomes tedious. I hate being this cynical, but it feels like he cannot commit to Christianity because of his own intellect and previous status as an intellectual thinker, but he cannot reject it either because of his large Christian following. He would have been better off focusing on self-help advice for young men. That being said, I still have a soft spot for Peterson, because his books and thinking were helpful an influential in my early twenties especially.
One of the best things to arise out of my previous following of Peterson is that he introduced me to Pageau. I find his content quite helpful in unpacking symbolism in Scripture, art, and culture. Some of your critiques are valid, such as the maze of words and evasive stories. Growing up in a tradition that tended to ignore and treat symbolism with suspicion, I missed a lot in the Bible. Pageau's thinking helped me learn to appreciate the various layer, patterns, and connections within Scripture.
Pageau drives me insane and I've had a hard time nailing down why. He's clearly a kind and thoughtful person, and I'd love to have a pint with him. But his intellectual shtick just reeks of a disdain for the common person, for the literal meaning of things, and for what for most of history would have been called simple Christian faith. Ironically, Peterson is less of a hypocrite.
The weird thing about J. Pageau is that he is an Orthodox Christian - but his whole abstract, intellectual, symbolic approach with all its accompanying psychological mumbo jumbo is completely *un*orthodox.
I used to think Pageau was a genius (his brother seems more worthy of that title to be honest) but after hearing over and over: "How can I say this so that people understand." I started to realize he thinks he cracked the code and has 'secret' knowledge nobody else has.
His entire discourse is framed as him being an enlightened prophet explaining 'too complicated' things to the simple minded.
“The problem with both of these two is a certain kind of language-use only works in a context where no one is objecting or pointing out its flaws.”
Bingo. Wander around on stage spouting this stuff to people who purchased tickets because they believe you are a modern day prophet, and receive a standing ovation. Try it with a spunky college kid who’s used to late night debates in the dorm lounge, and get pwned.
Can we move on from Peterson? I feel like you have already nailed him flat a couple of times.
It's better than fish at least...
Well, yes, but that's not a high bar! Seriously, how is it that people like Harris and Peterson and Pageau get such a following? There seems to be a big gap that they are inadequateky filling. is there nothing else in schools or colleges that I know about that might replace them?
They're kind of like social media influencers, once they get popular they tend to stay there. It is a bit depressing but what can you do. Less fish and Jordan Peterson it is!
Whether it is Peterson, Pageau (who I genuinely think is a nice and good guy but does deserve to get called out on his gobbledygook), or any other "public intellectual", I think it is worthwhile when a clear and rigorous thinker like you calls them out and, more importantly, explains to the ordinary reader the ways in which their thinking is misleading or confused or otherwise a net detriment to society. And given the nature of the Internet today, sometimes this needs to be done repeatedly: everything disappears quickly from memory and from search engines nowadays.
Anyway, I'm not saying you should beat a dead horse with Peterson, but to the extent he (or others) stay in the public eye and continue to get "mind space" from people, I think you should certainly considering calling them out when you think appropriate.
My two cents. The fish, I can take or leave. lol!
Jordan Peterson was interesting when he first circled around Christianity. I think he had some secondary insights that were not widely discussed in mainstream Christian circles. With his clear interest and respect for Christianity, many got excited, hoping a popular secular thinker may convert. However, years after his first major book, Peterson inching around the border of Christian and not-Christian becomes tedious. I hate being this cynical, but it feels like he cannot commit to Christianity because of his own intellect and previous status as an intellectual thinker, but he cannot reject it either because of his large Christian following. He would have been better off focusing on self-help advice for young men. That being said, I still have a soft spot for Peterson, because his books and thinking were helpful an influential in my early twenties especially.
One of the best things to arise out of my previous following of Peterson is that he introduced me to Pageau. I find his content quite helpful in unpacking symbolism in Scripture, art, and culture. Some of your critiques are valid, such as the maze of words and evasive stories. Growing up in a tradition that tended to ignore and treat symbolism with suspicion, I missed a lot in the Bible. Pageau's thinking helped me learn to appreciate the various layer, patterns, and connections within Scripture.
Pageau drives me insane and I've had a hard time nailing down why. He's clearly a kind and thoughtful person, and I'd love to have a pint with him. But his intellectual shtick just reeks of a disdain for the common person, for the literal meaning of things, and for what for most of history would have been called simple Christian faith. Ironically, Peterson is less of a hypocrite.
The weird thing about J. Pageau is that he is an Orthodox Christian - but his whole abstract, intellectual, symbolic approach with all its accompanying psychological mumbo jumbo is completely *un*orthodox.