According to the New York Times, Jordan Peterson is the most influential intellectual in the Western world right now. Your book “12 rules for life” it is an international best seller. However, if you sympathize with a fundamentalist type of Christianity, you may not like it. Peterson is agnostic when it comes to the question of God’s existence.
Likewise, I suppose that what the author finds to be a lasting revelation in the book of Genesis, will irritate non-religious readers who see the Bible as neither eternal nor true.
I suspect Peterson’s popularity stems from his attempts to address the concerns and thinking of another type of reader. I think of those who seek a deep understanding of life and who, coming from a Christian family culture, nevertheless question the religious beliefs of an earlier generation.
Rules of life
I would say that it would be difficult to make an exception to any of the prescribed rules of life. For example, “Stand up straight with your shoulders back.” “Treat yourself as someone you are responsible for helping.” ‘Pursue what is meaningful (not what is convenient)’. Unfortunately, it is not obvious that everything that is written about each specific rule is really relevant.
He gives examples of where we should take responsibility and honor moral obligations. And by talking about human difficulties, it brings sharp thinking to find a better way to move forward in our lives. How your life improves by making sacrifices, by giving, by listening and, in general, by being part of something bigger than yourself. However, in my opinion, he does not really explain how his helpful observations relate to the theology he espouses.
There are many ideas that seem to stray in their own directions. This is probably one of the reasons why the book does not flow and is difficult for the reader. Despite a “rule” per chapter, the book lacks structure.
To be
Peterson seems more comfortable with the notion of Being than with that of God. This idea of the Self is said to be different from objective physical reality. However, he uses the term Being quite vaguely. In general, it refers to the totality of human experience as emotions, dreams, revelations, perceptions. Some of them are negative, chaotic, and even harsh. Sometimes, however, it speaks of the Self as essential goodness also characterized as irreducible truth that is relevant to everyone now and in the future.
I would suggest that the theologian Emanuel Swedenborg’s idea of the spirit world adds clarity here. According to this, there is a universal reality of love and wisdom that is the source of all good things. It flows into all life. This is an essence of the divinity that Swedenborg calls God. This spiritual energy is channeled into our world and inspires health, beauty, and compassion. However, human beings can turn it upside down, so to speak, so that its opposites also appear, namely sickness, ugliness and contempt.
Holy scripture
Peterson argues that the first chapters of Genesis are written as a metaphor that describes human psychology rather than actual events in history. In other words, they describe why our fate is so tragic and ethically devious. He sees these chapters as an almost unbearable narrative sequence in their depth.
The spiritual message and the psychological relevance of the image of God in your thinking is totally true. However, he points out that this is the case, whether or not there is a God. The message is that we are no longer one with what he calls God and nature, and there is no simple turning back. He thinks that the original people represented by Adam and Eve were in a state of perfection, their goodness being something bestowed rather than earned.
He says that history reveals, in Adam’s shameful hiding place, our unwillingness to walk with God. (Despite what he says, it is our frailty and evil propensity).
This seems to be in accordance with the idea that our human soul turns away from the reality of the divine source towards the illusion of self-centeredness.
Peterson also believes that the entire Bible is structured so that everything after the Fall, the history of Israel, the prophets, the coming of Christ, is presented as a remedy for that Fall.
Likewise, I would say that the Bible provides a prophecy of the awakening of the soul and the return to reality.
Evil
The book implies that the human capacity for depravity and despicable behavior legitimizes the notion of “original sin.” He acknowledges that this is very unpopular in modern intellectual circles. In my opinion, the notion of original sin is wrong, although I would say that sin is quite real. But only if we consider it as our blockage of the divine life that flows towards us by voluntarily going against it. We do this when we go against our inner awareness of what is deeply meaningful.
The use of the word intentionally is in keeping with the idea of human free will. Inwardly free to choose between good and bad influences, we are responsible for our own behavior. Therefore, as Peterson points out, although many, perhaps even most, adults who abuse children were themselves abused as children, nonetheless, most people who were abused as children do not abuse of their own children.
Conclution
People either like this author or hate him. Those who prefer nature over nurturing, individual free will and self-responsibility, as well as a tough attitude towards fuzzy thinking are more likely to accept it. But I think there is also a lot of value here for people who have a less conservative perspective. Much more than I can mention in this short review.
