Peterson's 1999 first book, Maps of Meaning, is an academic Jungian romp through cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology. Reflections on the symbolic and evolutionary significance of mythic archetypes for human psychology and health are the heart of Peterson's project …
To explain myth in terms of biological evolution strikes me as a stretch, to put it mildly.
… in a sense the book is Peterson's response to Nietzsche's On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, attempting through existential choice to make the symbolism of our cultural heritage still spiritually significant, narratively true even as it is essentially false, to provide the tools to ward off encroaching nihilism in a world where the state of nature is always crouching at the door. It is a lonely vision for life, making meaning through making yourself, becoming the fittest you can be.
How can something essentially false be narratively true, except in the sense that, if it were true, this is how the narrative would go? But it isn’t true, as far as you're concerned. The basis of your narrative is, in your opinion, counterfactual. How is this supposed to ward off nihilism? Nothing plus nothing remains nothing. But let’s pretend otherwise?
Faith leaves room for doubt. What you assert may be untrue. But you do not know that and assert it anyway.
NOTE: I had left out the word don’t in that last comment. Sorry about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment