Intellectually and Temperamentally, Diametrically Opposed

NOTE: This is a script to a video essay. The visuals of the video are meant to compliment the text. You can watch the video here

Part 1: Introduction

I want to compare two intellectuals that have influenced much of the cultural landscape over the past two decades. Those two being Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson. I believe that a comparison between these two demonstrates how the temperamental differences between intellectuals engaged in discussion not only effect the quality of the dialogue, but also their inclinations towards certain philosophical frameworks.

I would also like to preface this by saying that due to the at times, obscure nature of Jordan Peterson's worldview, especially from the perspective of the New Atheists, I have a bit more to say about Peterson's philosophical ideas in order to attempt to make them more clear. Before we begin, I will give a bit of a background on both Peterson and Dawkins.

Part 2: Introduction to Dawkins and Peterson

Introduction to Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist most famous for his book titled "The Selfish Gene," published in 1976. This is an important book within evolutionary biology, because it debunked the popular notion that animals "act for the good of the species." Dawkins instead substantiates the claim that individuals within a species act with the intention of passing on their own genes, hence the title "The Selfish Gene."

NOTE: Since I released this video, I have gotten numerous comments that my wording here is poor and does not accurately summarize Dawkins' book. It isn't all that important for the main points in this essay, but do note that my summary here may not be fully accurate.

Perhaps more importantly for this conversation however, Dawkins book is known for coining the term "Meme," and therefore also spawning an entire subject within the social sciences known as Memetics.

Another important detail about Dawkins is that he is an outspoken atheist. Using his own concept of a meme, Dawkins wrote "Viruses of the Mind," published in 1993 where he is known to have compared religion to a virus. Dawkins is commonly referred to as one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism," along with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennet.

New Atheism is an antitheist movement that began in the early 2000s, and has since had a massive influence on the virtual discourse. The movement advocates for rational and scientific perspectives. New atheism often takes a very offensive and moral stance towards all kinds of religions, as part of its emergence can be credited the September 11 attacks on the world trade center, which were motivated by in part by religious intentions.

In short, what is important to know about Dawkins is that he is a biologist who coined the term "meme," and is a massive influence within the kinds of thought associated with the antitheist movement known as "New Atheism."

Introduction to Peterson

Jordan Peterson is a psychologist who rise to fame is most credited to his criticisms on Bill C-16 in 2016. However, prior to his work as an online political commentator and influencer, Peterson has a broad history of academic and clinical work.

Peterson began his academic career with an interest in social conflict and got his undergraduate degree in Political Science. However, Peterson believed political science did not provide a satisfactory explanation for social conflict, as it was mostly portrayed it through an economic perspective.

This was during the "second peak of the cold war," of the early 1980s where Peterson has described himself as enduring "apocalyptic nightmares," of nuclear destruction. Peterson believed that social conflict was rooted in something much deeper and pathological. He turned his interest towards consuming the works of Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn, and most importantly, Carl Jung. Peterson went on to earn his PhD in clinical psychology, researching and teaching at Harvard University, until publishing his first book titled, "Maps of Meaning: The architecture of Belief" in 1999.

Alongside his clinical practice, Jordan Peterson had been teaching at the University of Toronto until his rise of popularity in 2017, where he would firmly take his stance as a conservative political commentator within the culture war and within internet discourse.

Part 3: Characteristics of Worldview

The most obvious difference between Dawkins and Peterson is their area of study. Dawkins operates within the realm of the natural sciences, whereas Peterson operates within the realm of the humanities. That is not to say, that they do not ever cross over into their opposite fields, however. Dawkins very obviously concerns himself with the humanities, both within his contributions to the subject of religion and theology, and with his contribution to the social sciences with his idea of memes.

Peterson very obviously concerns himself with the natural sciences, for he is a psychologist and must understand the fundamentals of neuroscience, which is rooted in biology and chemistry. Peterson, being a psychologist, is also required to understand the theories of evolutionary psychology.

Despite this, both Peterson and Dawkins substantiate their own positions through the use of their respective fields. For instance, Dawkins' view of religion and the humanities is informed by the philosophy of the natural sciences. His idea of memes are analogous to genes, a biological concept. His critique of religion is informed by his insistence on rationality and appeal to empiricism, hallmarks of the natural sciences. The overarching belief in the New Atheist movement is that God's existence has not been verified by the scientific method, therefore, it is not rational to believe in his existence.

On the other hand, Peterson uses universal literary themes to interpret evolutionary biology. To Peterson, religion and the sciences have the same goal: to obtain truth. He posits that the structure of our cognition is based in evolution and that selection is an iterative process towards truth.

Dawkins and Peterson both claim to be Darwinists, however they do so by entirely separate means. Dawkins positions Darwin as something to akin to the true anti-christ, a kind of empirical figure that put the idea of God to rest, and did so on the basis of scientific rationality. Conversely, Peterson views Darwin's theories entirely opposite to Dawkins. To Peterson, Darwinian thought is not rational, as evolution is far more universal than rationality. In fact Peterson believes that religion emerges from the evolutionary process.

If you're introduced to Peterson from an atheistic perspective, on the surface it can certainly appear that he is a Christian sycophant, and that this undermines his entire intellectual framework. However, I think that this is actually a false interpretation of his ideas, at least as it pertains to his work prior to his status as a Christian public speaker. Peterson is not advocating religious virtues on the predication of their tradition. Rather, he advocates for religious thought because to him, their narratives are contribute to something deeper than rationality. Whereas Dawkins places religion below rationality and looks down on it, Peterson places religion beyond rationality.

This especially makes sense when you trace Peterson's thought back to the thinkers that have influenced his own thought. He approaches religion through a psychological perspective via Jung, and places value upon it based on his analysis of the social conflicts caused in part by the decline of religious faith during the 20th century. So when asked "is the story of Cain and Abel real?" the issue is not that Peterson cannot describe basic reality, rather it is that his notion of basic reality includes something beyond pure materialism and naturalism.

This is where we approach the core contention between Dawkins and Peterson. For Dawkins, all that exists is that which has been materialized, and exhausted through the scientific method. For Peterson, materiality is merely emergent from something more fundamental and meta-physical, to which he uses evolutionary biology as a means of inferring from the bottom-up. This is especially apparent if you listen to enough of Jordan Peterson's thought. He is obsessed with hierarchy and this is more than likely due to his extreme fixation on the Jungian framework.

In essence, Peterson is not a Christian in the traditional sense, and I would even say that it is hard to categorize him as one by the American idea of Christianity, which often relies on literal interpretations. Peterson knows that Christianity is a narrative, he knows that it is fiction, but for him that does not discredit it, rather it elevates it to a higher status because it goes beyond thought and orients action, because narrative provides relief from complexity. Fiction is not for simple pleasure, or does not serve the sole purpose of consolidating power over majorities of people, rather for Peterson fiction provides a schematic for individuals to inherit implicit wisdom that allows them to function in the world despite its consuming complexity.

The fact that religion has existed for so long, has been replicated among so many different societies, and passed down for so many generations, is precisely why Peterson believes that religion and Darwinian thought are compatible, despite the atheistic notion that they are not. To Peterson, the fact that religion has survived for as long as it has, implies that there is a memetic quality to it that is beneficial to the survival of the human species. On top of this, to Peterson, what allows for survival is necessarily what is true by both a pragmatic perspective and a Darwinian perspective. If narrative and fiction serve a purpose toward orienting human action, then to Peterson, religion is the Ultimate narrative, the pinnacle of fiction, based on these premises.

Peterson substantiates this claim through the fall of grand narratives and his critique of postmodernism via Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn, and Dostoevsky. Without fiction as an orienting schematic for human action, he sees only two alternative pathways in response to the burden of complexity: nihilism or totalitarianism.

Part 4: Deriving Temperaments

Now that we have determined what Dawkins and Peterson think, I would like to explore how they think. That is to ask, "What kinds of qualities exist within their temperaments or personalities that draws them toward these kinds of philosophical positions?"

Dawkins' Temperament

To Dawkins, rational thinking is the supreme state of being. He is not concerned with hypotheticals or symbolic representations. He wants to talk about what is, primarily as it manifests within euclidean space. If something has a form along three dimensions, can be touched, smelled, heard, tasted, or viewed, then that thing is within the realm to which Dawkins concerns himself with.

Dawkins is drawn towards the concrete as opposed to the abstract. Given these described qualities, it entirely makes sense why his academic contributions mostly lie within biology. Biology is, for the most part, an science that strives towards concreteness, and exists on the outer most layer of other sciences that are more abstract. This is not to say that Dawkins in incapable of articulating or understanding abstract subjects. In fact, in order for him to be an effective intellectual he must competently contend with abstract ideas. This is not necessarily a description of his intellectual capacities, more so his preferences.

Furthermore, Dawkins seems more motivated by the virtue of objects in and of themselves, as opposed to people. His ideas are much more centered around objects, and prefers to describe objective reality.

Dawkins' intellectual strength lies within his ability to rigorously examine the most granular phenomena of reality. He is capable of very clearly and logically breaking things down to very fine details and facts, examining them in high resolution. These granular qualities then become integrated within webs of information. In short, Dawkins way of metabolizing complexity is to take granular points and make outward associations between them, but is otherwise uni-focused in his realm of subject.

Peterson's Temperament

In contrast, Peterson's temperament is opposite to Dawkins in many ways. Although Peterson is concerned with objectivity, it's almost always is in relation to a subject. He is only concerned with that which has form and can be sensed insofar as it contributes to an overarching conception that has grasped him.

He is drawn to what is abstract, and what is concrete is derived from what is abstract. As such, it would make sense why he is obsessed with psychological themes and narratives, for they represent things that are more fundamental to existence. He is far more concerned with the metaphysical existence of reality as a whole entire reality, instead of granular units of reality.

Furthermore, Peterson is more interested in social connections, their functions, and people as individuals, then he in discrete objects. All of his ideas, even ideas about objects, serve the function of describing people.

Peterson's intellectual strength lies within his ability to generalize and abstract pieces of information into a gestalt worldview that dominates his understanding. His framework as a whole is worth more than the sum of its parts. He then projects this whole onto units of external information to see how it fits or contradicts the whole of his framework. In short, Peterson's way of metabolizing complexity is to integrate units of information into a big picture, that often loses detail when being represented through language. This is why he often gets criticized for using "word salads." He is only capable of providing low resolution, yet big-picture representations of his worldview, because the amount of interconnected pieces of information that converge on the main points he tries to make, is fairly vast. This is also why he relies so heavily on symbols, for symbols in relation to narrative can often represent things that logic cannot put so clearly.

Part 5: View of Each Other (Conclusion)

Dawkins' focus on reality is a granular one, intended to obtain clarity and objectivity. Peterson's focus on reality is a meta-physical one, that at times disregards clarity for the sake of range in thought. What this effectively produces when the two come together in conversation, is a dialogue pattern that can make for frustrating engagements.

For Peterson, Dawkins is too dependent on a rationalistic worldview that is too narrow in its focus. This frustration makes itself apparent when Peterson is making a point to Dawkins, hoping he will pick up on what Peterson is trying to gesture at, but Dawkins misses the forest for the trees due to his inability to suspend his reliance on material rationality.

For Dawkins, Peterson is a religious charlatan, because he sees Peterson as lacking credibility as an intellectual for not valuing rational and empirical judgement to the same extend that he himself does. Peterson's use of symbolic language is an area of frustration for Dawkins, not because he is incapable of understanding it, but because he embodies the scientific value of detaching the subjective component of reality for the sake of accurately measuring objective reality.

At the core of the problem however, is not necessarily their philosophical differences. It's their diametrically opposed temperaments. They level at which they process their models of reality, both operate within each other's blind spots. Peterson's language can never be clear enough for Dawkins, as Peterson is describing something too abstract for Dawkins' desire for clarity of specifics. Likewise, Dawkins' value of the material world can never be deep enough for Peterson's obsessions about meta-physical reality.