lenzen's review against another edition
4.0
This book does a fairly good job of showing that Jordan Peterson is often talking way outside of his field of expertise and getting many things wrong in his commentaries on Marxism and post-modernism. It also does a good job in showing that his notions of "chaos" versus "order" are lacking in rigor and that he has not provided a convincing case, beyond intuition, when arguing that societies naturally tend toward patriarchy since women are naturally associated with chaos and men with order. The quality of the writing varies from author to author, but, in all cases, they throw in ample amounts of humor; something which is much more lacking in Peterson's work.
The most effective critiques have to do with the lack of rigor in Peterson's main books. Yes, he does not attempt to define his key notions of "chaos" versus "order" beyond giving lengthy examples of both. True, there are no references to many key points that Peterson makes, for instance, regarding Derrida and Marxism. Yes, in general, it seems when Peterson tries to make points of what societies naturally tend toward he tends to provide only supporting and omit contrary evidence: e.g . women being associated with chaos. Possibly most stinging are the critiques of Peterson's "Law of the Jungle” (or lobsters, perhaps?) notion of Christianity backed by biblical quotes which are taken way out of context.
Overall the portrait is of Jordan Peterson appealing mostly on the basis of the confidence he projects along with other qualities that make him a good speaker. Ultimately, the authors present Jordan Peterson as an over glorified, tough love, self-help guru, too often speaking on matters he knows little about, but, even in matter that he does, not presenting his case with requisite rigor.
The book, though overall generally effective in making its case, does have many shortcomings:
The main problem seems to be that it is not really clear who the target audience for the book is. Approximately half the time the discussions do provide enough detail, even of basics, and the writing is clear enough, that the critiques can be seen to be convincing even to readers who are not full time academics. In other cases, the writing is not at all clear. The place where this is the most egregious is when discussing what Derrida really meant. Here many undefined term are used. Even looking things up on Kindle just leads to "not found" entries for many of the terms used. Maybe full time academics can understand the discussion, but I doubt that even motivated folks who are not academics can. Or, perhaps, and this is my strong suspicion, many post-modernists deliberately write a bunch of gobbledygook which is comprehensible to no one but just part of a massive fraud. (Hence the success of the the Sokal and "Grievance Studies" affairs in demonstrating as much). Conrad Hamilton's "explanation" of Derrida will probably just re-enforce many readers notions that the field is filed with fraudulent windbags.
Similarly, only partly effective was Hamilton's detailing what Peterson got wrong in his debate with Zizek on Marxism. Yes, Peterson makes enough admissions and other errors to show that he has done very little actual reading of Marx. Indeed, if he had read even Engels' [b:Socialism: Utopian and Scientific|188897|Socialism Utopian and Scientific|Friedrich Engels|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1172548117l/188897._SY75_.jpg|182607] or, better yet, Sowell's [b:Marxism: Philosophy and Economics|1986565|Marxism Philosophy and Economics|Thomas Sowell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387715195l/1986565._SY75_.jpg|193627] which are very short summaries he would not have made as many errors as he did. At the same time, Hamilton's discussion of all the things Peterson got wrong has its own problems. In some case it is being rather pedantic. Although Marx might not have claimed that nothing capitalists do constitutes valid labor, Marx and Engels do explicitly refer to them as being superfluous. The other problem with Hamilton's explanation of what Peterson got wrong is that it quickly breezes through Marxist counter points to Peterson's claim. There is not sufficient explanation or references for those not already familiar with current classical Marxist critiques of capitalism and, indeed, many of the claims made are dubious. For instance, it is merely stated, without evidence, that capitalism is responsible for rising inequality. A highly plausible alternative explanation is that it is actually central bank intervention doing various forms of money printing that is mostly responsible.
In some cases the authors go a little too far in their speculations regarding Peterson possibly into the territories of projecting their own feelings or problems with the left onto Peterson and his philosophy. An example of this is the idea that Peterson must have left Harvard for the University of Toronto because he realized he could not hack it at Harvard. Is this just the author projecting his own feeling that he cannot see anyone rejecting Harvard (surely the highest credential in leftist circles) for another university for any reason beyond not being able to hack it there? Anyone who has gone to college at all can clearly see that some of the professors seem to be at the right level institution in terms of name recognition, but others seem like they could be at bigger name institution but, for whatever reason, choose somewhere else (prefer a different city? closer to family? Or gasp just do not like Harvard culture, as was the case with Justice Thomas) .
As for projecting problems with the left onto Peterson, a good example is of him mainly using motte and bailey tactics. Anyone who is at all critical of the left surely is intimately familiar with their motte-and-bailey tactics. No they do not want to take your guns away they just want this next "common sense" measure and that will be it. Meanwhile, the ratchet tightens up as we see in Canada where now not even a domestic incident is needed to justify tightening guns laws: something that happened in the United States will do.
The final thing to say about this book is that if its goal was merely to discredit Peterson's guru status it makes a good case. (Of course, practically, it will not make a dent in his status at all since Peterson will likely sell at least hundreds of times as many copies of his books than this book will sell.) Also, in many ways, although the book does discredit the exact thing Peterson says it does not do much regarding the more general themes Peterson is appealing to. Is it strictly true that one cannot be a "post modern neo-Marxist" because of the contradictions between the theories? Yes, if you are talking post-modernism as it was in 1960's until its supposed death in the late 1980's. But how about the evolution of post-modernist ideas after that? Specifically into what James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose called "applied post-modernism" in which some truths can, perhaps, be known, namely the post moderns truths regarding power, and then "reified post-modernism" in which they become beyond question, indeed to the point where anyone who does question them becomes cancellable. It would be a smaller market, but a book critiquing James Lindsay would be a good follow up to this one. By Lindsay and Pluckrose's account in [b:Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|53052177|Cynical Theories How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|Helen Pluckrose|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1582386609l/53052177._SX50_.jpg|73371092] post-modernism and neo-Marxism evolved to meet each other like a hand in glove in woke'ism. Peterson’s response in the Zizek debate also hints at why.
Along the same lines, throughout the book the notion of post modern neo-Marxists is met with scorn, partly because it is said to be mixing oil with water but also because, according to the authors, the theories are highly contested and indeed, non-dominate in academia. If this is indeed the case, one wonders why so many students, nearly all in my experience, come out of college completely "woke" to the extent that they do not even know what the criticisms of woke'ism are. Either the authors are not being honest, are not being adequately introspective regarding themselves and their profession, or they are doing a terrible job of opposing woke'ism which they say they disagree with (this book using the 90's term "PC" instead of the currently used word "woke").
The most effective critiques have to do with the lack of rigor in Peterson's main books. Yes, he does not attempt to define his key notions of "chaos" versus "order" beyond giving lengthy examples of both. True, there are no references to many key points that Peterson makes, for instance, regarding Derrida and Marxism. Yes, in general, it seems when Peterson tries to make points of what societies naturally tend toward he tends to provide only supporting and omit contrary evidence: e.g . women being associated with chaos. Possibly most stinging are the critiques of Peterson's "Law of the Jungle” (or lobsters, perhaps?) notion of Christianity backed by biblical quotes which are taken way out of context.
Overall the portrait is of Jordan Peterson appealing mostly on the basis of the confidence he projects along with other qualities that make him a good speaker. Ultimately, the authors present Jordan Peterson as an over glorified, tough love, self-help guru, too often speaking on matters he knows little about, but, even in matter that he does, not presenting his case with requisite rigor.
The book, though overall generally effective in making its case, does have many shortcomings:
The main problem seems to be that it is not really clear who the target audience for the book is. Approximately half the time the discussions do provide enough detail, even of basics, and the writing is clear enough, that the critiques can be seen to be convincing even to readers who are not full time academics. In other cases, the writing is not at all clear. The place where this is the most egregious is when discussing what Derrida really meant. Here many undefined term are used. Even looking things up on Kindle just leads to "not found" entries for many of the terms used. Maybe full time academics can understand the discussion, but I doubt that even motivated folks who are not academics can. Or, perhaps, and this is my strong suspicion, many post-modernists deliberately write a bunch of gobbledygook which is comprehensible to no one but just part of a massive fraud. (Hence the success of the the Sokal and "Grievance Studies" affairs in demonstrating as much). Conrad Hamilton's "explanation" of Derrida will probably just re-enforce many readers notions that the field is filed with fraudulent windbags.
Similarly, only partly effective was Hamilton's detailing what Peterson got wrong in his debate with Zizek on Marxism. Yes, Peterson makes enough admissions and other errors to show that he has done very little actual reading of Marx. Indeed, if he had read even Engels' [b:Socialism: Utopian and Scientific|188897|Socialism Utopian and Scientific|Friedrich Engels|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1172548117l/188897._SY75_.jpg|182607] or, better yet, Sowell's [b:Marxism: Philosophy and Economics|1986565|Marxism Philosophy and Economics|Thomas Sowell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387715195l/1986565._SY75_.jpg|193627] which are very short summaries he would not have made as many errors as he did. At the same time, Hamilton's discussion of all the things Peterson got wrong has its own problems. In some case it is being rather pedantic. Although Marx might not have claimed that nothing capitalists do constitutes valid labor, Marx and Engels do explicitly refer to them as being superfluous. The other problem with Hamilton's explanation of what Peterson got wrong is that it quickly breezes through Marxist counter points to Peterson's claim. There is not sufficient explanation or references for those not already familiar with current classical Marxist critiques of capitalism and, indeed, many of the claims made are dubious. For instance, it is merely stated, without evidence, that capitalism is responsible for rising inequality. A highly plausible alternative explanation is that it is actually central bank intervention doing various forms of money printing that is mostly responsible.
In some cases the authors go a little too far in their speculations regarding Peterson possibly into the territories of projecting their own feelings or problems with the left onto Peterson and his philosophy. An example of this is the idea that Peterson must have left Harvard for the University of Toronto because he realized he could not hack it at Harvard. Is this just the author projecting his own feeling that he cannot see anyone rejecting Harvard (surely the highest credential in leftist circles) for another university for any reason beyond not being able to hack it there? Anyone who has gone to college at all can clearly see that some of the professors seem to be at the right level institution in terms of name recognition, but others seem like they could be at bigger name institution but, for whatever reason, choose somewhere else (prefer a different city? closer to family? Or gasp just do not like Harvard culture, as was the case with Justice Thomas) .
As for projecting problems with the left onto Peterson, a good example is of him mainly using motte and bailey tactics. Anyone who is at all critical of the left surely is intimately familiar with their motte-and-bailey tactics. No they do not want to take your guns away they just want this next "common sense" measure and that will be it. Meanwhile, the ratchet tightens up as we see in Canada where now not even a domestic incident is needed to justify tightening guns laws: something that happened in the United States will do.
The final thing to say about this book is that if its goal was merely to discredit Peterson's guru status it makes a good case. (Of course, practically, it will not make a dent in his status at all since Peterson will likely sell at least hundreds of times as many copies of his books than this book will sell.) Also, in many ways, although the book does discredit the exact thing Peterson says it does not do much regarding the more general themes Peterson is appealing to. Is it strictly true that one cannot be a "post modern neo-Marxist" because of the contradictions between the theories? Yes, if you are talking post-modernism as it was in 1960's until its supposed death in the late 1980's. But how about the evolution of post-modernist ideas after that? Specifically into what James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose called "applied post-modernism" in which some truths can, perhaps, be known, namely the post moderns truths regarding power, and then "reified post-modernism" in which they become beyond question, indeed to the point where anyone who does question them becomes cancellable. It would be a smaller market, but a book critiquing James Lindsay would be a good follow up to this one. By Lindsay and Pluckrose's account in [b:Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|53052177|Cynical Theories How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|Helen Pluckrose|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1582386609l/53052177._SX50_.jpg|73371092] post-modernism and neo-Marxism evolved to meet each other like a hand in glove in woke'ism. Peterson’s response in the Zizek debate also hints at why.
Along the same lines, throughout the book the notion of post modern neo-Marxists is met with scorn, partly because it is said to be mixing oil with water but also because, according to the authors, the theories are highly contested and indeed, non-dominate in academia. If this is indeed the case, one wonders why so many students, nearly all in my experience, come out of college completely "woke" to the extent that they do not even know what the criticisms of woke'ism are. Either the authors are not being honest, are not being adequately introspective regarding themselves and their profession, or they are doing a terrible job of opposing woke'ism which they say they disagree with (this book using the 90's term "PC" instead of the currently used word "woke").
seventh's review
4.0
Myth and Mayhem is in many ways an excellent book. It's authors go to great lengths to not only refute Peterson but also provide a counter-narrative. Throughout the book, the authors argue against different parts of Peterson's world-view and arguments and show them to be lacking.
Fans of Peterson's work would struggle to convincingly argue that the authors are arguing in bad faith or attacking strawmen. In fact, the book takes great pains to credit Peterson where he is correct and even criticises others who have unfairly criticised Peterson or focused on irrelevant aspects. Often when criticism is levelled at Peterson his supporters will counter by saying his detractors clearly haven't read enough of his work - this criticism certainly does not apply to Myth and Mayhem which begins (after a lengthy foreword by Slavoj Žižek) by going through Peterson's background and previous work in almost forensic detail.
With the books singular focus on refuting Jordan Peterson, it certainly does not set out to be a best-seller, however, if I were to mention only one criticism it would be that some of the arguments and language flew a little over my head - which left some sections hard to fully comprehend. If the goal of the book was to reach a similar audience as Peterson I'd say this issue is a hindrance. That said if the book is aimed at a more academic audience - or at least one better read in leftist theory than I - then I'd say it's perfectly pitched and provides a powerful and detailed critique of both Peterson's more academic and popular book.
Fans of Peterson's work would struggle to convincingly argue that the authors are arguing in bad faith or attacking strawmen. In fact, the book takes great pains to credit Peterson where he is correct and even criticises others who have unfairly criticised Peterson or focused on irrelevant aspects. Often when criticism is levelled at Peterson his supporters will counter by saying his detractors clearly haven't read enough of his work - this criticism certainly does not apply to Myth and Mayhem which begins (after a lengthy foreword by Slavoj Žižek) by going through Peterson's background and previous work in almost forensic detail.
With the books singular focus on refuting Jordan Peterson, it certainly does not set out to be a best-seller, however, if I were to mention only one criticism it would be that some of the arguments and language flew a little over my head - which left some sections hard to fully comprehend. If the goal of the book was to reach a similar audience as Peterson I'd say this issue is a hindrance. That said if the book is aimed at a more academic audience - or at least one better read in leftist theory than I - then I'd say it's perfectly pitched and provides a powerful and detailed critique of both Peterson's more academic and popular book.
More...