I agree that Peterson probably doesn’t mean to say that people should only be valued based on what they know but that is what he says.

I take this less charitable reading because it seems like he is on a personal crusade to lead us in some fashion. So I choose to take him seriously.

For that reason I read his book more critically than I would just any self help book. His Rules for Life may have been written nonchalantly but what he’s giving us isn’t something that is nonchalant. He means what says. These are Rules for Life, and even though this seems to be a blindspot, these end up being Rules for Society if we all follow them. So that’s how I read them and that’s how I find it problematic, as I have said over and over.

I don’t read his book as something intended for one individual here or there. I read it with the seriousness of his providing answers for all us. Social answers. There aren’t rules #13 or #14 which also tell us how to value other people. There’s only this one rule which values people in one way. My honest reaction is horror. We can say well, maybe he didn’t intend this, or maybe he did. Or maybe it’s a sign that we don’t value people enough, and that Peterson is reminding us of something deeper. And that’s fine. None of us know what’s in is head. But unlike me, Peterson isn’t that reachable. So if what I am saying resonants with enough people, then maybe a reporter one day will ask him and he will explain.

But until then, I’m still going to take him seriously, and that to me, means critically. He writes in his expansive way because he wants to play the philosophy game… perhaps that is why postmodernists are so offensive to him; they have some of the social clout/authority he would want for himself. So I read him as deserving that authority. If what he says is an honest oversight, then he can clear it up, someday. If it isn’t then that’s something we should all consider when considering is work.

As the writer of the book it’s up to him to address these things. With social media he gets the rest of us life to do that, if he wants. I read as deeply as I could into what he wrote, which I think is pretty charitable. But even still, maybe I my understanding is wrong. I don’t think so. I think it’s an honest to God oversight on his part. If he is a leader, then he should at some point address the actual value of others. But he never really states the actual value of other people. — This is what I really find problematic. He only gives an ethics of the self. There’s no room for others. He leaves it up to God to sort out how other people fit in.

And that to me means there is no ethics of an other. That’s the real horror.

If his philosophy is only a philosophy of the self then maybe he’s not worth listening to because his solutions don’t really speak appropriately to the rest of us since the rest of us value others in more ways than just “1/12th of the time” in one particular way, so to speak.

I don’t think I mentioned this, but I did listen to some of his talks on social media and he doesn’t really seem to respect other people; that is people who are truly “other”. He is all about what the self can get out of external situations, which is reflected here in this inflated “self-help” book. I completely disagree with this as a viable way to live. We don’t need to read him like dead laws. He can always write another book and maybe I’ll change my mind then.

But until then, I’m going to read his words as carrying weight. Which means taking him seriously, including taking his omissions seriously and what he chooses to emphasize seriously. If he means to say something else, then he should say it, or at least get a better editor.