Jordan Peterson absurdly claims that to commit to study or apprenticeship represents a sacrifice on the part of the student as they have to forgo the immediate pleasure of the moment,carousing every night and generally living it up in order to get their life changing degree that will set them on the path to wide expansions of experience, a livelehood and the broadening of their horizons in being able to start a family and to have a good life. So where is the sacrifice in that? Blank out.
A sacrifice as Peterson must surely know is the forgoing of a greater value for a lesser one. As the student knows that a degree or apprenticeship will lead to a much better life and job experience to study is no sacrifice at all but a mere deferment of pleasure in order the reap the great rewards of so doing. If the student thought for one minute that giving up all the pleasures of the moment for study would reap him no rewards at all or rewards so meagre that they were not worth putting pleasure on hold they would not enter into any such study in the first place.
So why would Peterson introduce the completely fallacious concept of sacrifice into a dynamic where clearly no sacrifice is taking place? Surely it is all part of his concealed religious agenda where at the root of all religions,at their very heart lies the notion of sacrifice -show me the religion and I will show you human sacrifices aplenty.
Next we have the problem of psychology,a pseudo science which no amount of pedigreed professors can dignify with their academic jargon.To be generous it could be argued that psychology is a nascent science but that would be stretching it and the father of psychology Freud himself has long been exposed as an academic fraud with flawed and corrupt methodology who was quite prepared to falsify the facts to further his agendas.The other psychologist Peterson is forever invoking is the even more dubious character of Jung an and out and out mystic and surely deserving of the mantle of the father and prime progenitor of New Age religion.
Thirdly we have the problem of what I call Peterson's inverted anthromorphism. The proper study of man is man -not animals yet the professor is forever claiming that to understand human beings we need to study babboons or other such animals and he indeed refers to human beings as animals. He is obsessed with domination hierachies extrapolating from chimpanzees to humans somehow forgetting that mankind went through a revolutionary process known as the enlightenment where barbarism was replaced with the rule of law and reason governing man's affairs rather than brute force and tyranny. Trade replaced the blade as man's means of survival.
It is absurd to claim that a man who has studied and is industrious and so becomes a ceo of a large organization is dominating others like a babboon in a monkey colony and to seek to conflate those two things is anything but an innocent error on the part of the professor but rather a willful intent to reduce the sophisticated exchanges of human beings to the level of the primeval jungle.
Where is free will in Peterson's dystopic universe where humans are reduced to bundles and collections of genetically biologically determined reflexes and the world is populated by mythic demons and dark malevolent forces? And what student would run up stratospherically high debts to imbibe his toxic confection of discursive fictional ramblings masquerading as science?