Thanks to Mojahid Gauraki for the question.
This is an interesting question, because while on the surface it seems to be about a single individual and whether they are ‘smart’, it is in fact about what it means for someone to be smart or stupid, and the different ways either might be recognised, or even misrecognised. Just to clarify one thing in advance: I am taking the question to indicate that Peterson is himself not a smart man, and that only a stupid person could mistake him for being so. While this may seem like an insulting remark about Peterson himself, it may also be a not-so-thinly-veiled insult against his readers.
I am not going to offer an exhaustive definition of ‘stupid’ or ‘smart’, partly because they are difficult to pin down, but mainly because there is something naïve about thinking of people in such terms. However, in keeping with the thrust of the original question, I would like to distinguish between three different kinds of people: firstly, those who don’t care about the world around them or anything that doesn’t concern them; secondly, those who are looking for someone else to give them an explanation of the world; thirdly, those who are curious about the world and are just beginning to indulge their curiosity. None of these groups constitute what might be called ‘stupid’, but there is an important difference between the second and third groups that will help answer the question about Jordan Peterson. (I won’t bother with the first group as they are unlikely to have heard of Peterson’s work, nor care much about it.)
Some people aren’t curious, but nevertheless want to have a picture of a world in which things, perhaps everything, ‘makes sense’. They may seek this for various reasons, including a desire to feel more meaningful in themselves, or to overcome personal tragedy. Many individuals, groups, and books claim to offer such a picture of the world; and Jordan Peterson’s most recent work, 12 Rules For Life, is itself a kind of self-help book for anyone looking for some meaning, sense or structure in their life. Peterson’s critics claim that there is nothing original in it, but this alone tells us nothing about whether he is smart or stupid; merely that those who read his work could read other books and get similar results. Someone who seeks out his book might alternatively seek out far more unusual ways of explaining the world, such as conspiracy theories. Peterson appears to provide not so much a complete picture of the world as a set of guidelines to help those struggling to find their way.
Meanwhile, there are always people who are becoming curious about the world for the first time. Even some of the more accessible academic texts can be a struggle for someone who’s a beginner (I speak from my own experience!); someone like Peterson – himself a professional teacher for quite a few decades – is as good a place to start as any. Peterson’s experience will likely help him present texts that are accessible to newcomers, minimising the risk that they become dissuaded from indulging their curiosity. In this case, it doesn’t really matter whether Peterson is or isn’t ‘smart’. He is trying to offer guidance; and so long as he knows how to do that, his level of intelligence probably doesn’t need to be investigated.
All that being said, there is still the more general question of whether Peterson himself is ‘smart’. If we want an answer, it is unlikely to be found in an article written by someone who finds Peterson’s views to be unpleasant and far more likely to be found in the various books and online lectures that he has produced.
My most simple answer to your question is: don’t let someone else tell you whether Jordan Peterson, or anyone else, is or is not ‘smart’. Familiarise yourself with their work and make up your own mind.
What do you think? Is Jordan Peterson ‘smart’? If so, why? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: (credit)
I did my BA in Philosophy & Creative Writing at London Metropolitan University, then completed MAs in Continental Philosophy at Warwick University and Social & Political Thought at Sussex University. I started (but didn’t complete) a DPhil at Sussex University, and have taught at Sussex, King’s College London and Birkbeck. I am particularly interested in political philosophy (both analytic and continental) and have studied modern philosophy (especially Descartes and Hume), Existentialism, Phenomenology, Critical Theory, and post-structuralist thought. I am most interested in the ancient Greek practice of parrhesia (the art of speaking frankly), as I think it is something we need very much right now.
“Smart” is subjective. I personally believe that being smart requires a tremendous amount of common sense. I’ve met “intelligent” within the confines of their education levels and professions like IT that couldn’t find their way out of a dark room with the door cracked open. The. I’ve met brilliant people who more often than not weren’t PhDs in physics, but their cognitive and critical thinking abilities were off the charts. The later were high in the common sense category, and based on my subjective opinion of “smart” I’d say “Yes, Jordan P is smart, or more accurately brilliant.” It appears I have linguistic skills well above 50% of the nation, as I can actually understand the context of his speech and walk away a better informed person in the end. Too many people “listen” to JP and focus on each individual word until they hear their first micro aggression trigger generated as a result from not processing the actual context of the words together in a full paragraph instead of a one-liner sound byte. If I’m playing a trivia game I don’t know if JP would be my first pick over say a Mensa candidate. Once again “smart” is subjective, and depending on an individual’s listening style their opinions will vary towards JP.