Peterson Academy Versus the Universities
For those who aren’t yet aware, Jordan Peterson has recently started his own online university. The premise: to rescue advanced education from woke-infected institutions and to charge a fair price this education - actual education, not propaganda masquerading as such. In doing so, Peterson hopes to end the capture of young, ambitious and intelligent individuals into, as he puts it, ‘indentured servitude.’ A laudable aim if there ever was one, one fortified by the equally laudable accomplices giving the lecture courses, among whom are notable names from the so-called ‘intellectual dark web,’ like Bret Weinstein, bestselling authors such as Gregg Hurwitz, and professors from the likes of Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge. The university will also double as an ‘intellectually oriented social media network’ for people to build communities and make useful professional contacts. But while the intent is impressive, does the platform truly have the potential to live up to such high ambitions?
An Introduction to Nietzsche
No better place to start in Peterson Academy, I figured, than with Peterson’s very own course, Introduction to Nietzsche. In it, Peterson explores Nietzschean philosophy through an analysis of the philosopher’s book, Beyond Good and Evil. In the exploration of various passages, it becomes evident to anyone familiar with Peterson’s own lectures and writings how much of his own philosophy is either derived directly from or inspired by Nietzsche’s writings. Numbering 8 lectures in total, each is accompanied by a multiple choice examination where students can consolidate their knowledge and learn their markings relative to the average results of their peers. A final examination is also soon to come. The lectures, especially when compared to traditional university lectures, are of unquestionably higher quality, not only due to Peterson’s oratory and intellectual prowess, but thanks to the incorporation of imagery and written quotes throughout, which make the entire course not only far more engaging than the regular narrated powerpoint slideshow, but also far more professional, showcasing the quality of production possible with current technology, even when lacking the resources available to mainstream universities.
As for the content, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find anything remotely similar on any university campus today (and not just because such blatant anti-Marxist sentiment would cause a major stir among students and faculty). Nietzsche’s view of Christianity as the crystallisation of a kind of vengeful slave morality, and as a societally infantilising force, appear prophetic now in the wake of the atrocities carried out in the twentieth century in the name of communism, and the mollycoddling societies those in the West currently inhabit. Although it was hardly unexpected to see Peterson express his views so forthrightly, it was incredibly refreshing to hear detailed and, frankly, absolutely fascinating viewpoints on a great writer and his works, rather than to simply have the deeds and creations of his life viciously problematised through a modernised, moralising lens, delivered by the present day pharisees of the woke religion. It was often hard to remember it was meant to be a university lecture at all, given the lack of time spent questioning how racist, sexist and/or homophobic Nietzsche must have been. While I can hardly go over eight hours worth of content in a single article, the parallels Peterson drew between Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky’s works I found especially intriguing, particularly in relation to Nietzsche’s inspection into the nature of opposites, and whether what we take for granted to be opposites are so at all. For example, Peterson makes the case that two usually presumed opposites, subconscious and conscious, could be better construed as somehow part of one another, that perhaps the subconscious is a precondition for the emergence of the conscious, rather than simply its antithesis. The same holds true for Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche’s writings on suffering. Despite the claims of Ivan - a character in Dostoyevsky’s, The Brothers Karamazov - that the immense evil in the world is irrefutable evidence of the lack of God’s existence, the two great writers call into question whether anything beyond suffering, anything that transcends suffering, could exist at all without it. By definition, the transcendent seemingly could not. Peterson seems to imply the same in his final lecture, referencing Erich Neumann’s, The Origins and History of Consciousness, when he describes consciousness as the ‘organ of heroism.’ Maybe, he posits, suffering and consciousness are integral to one another. After all, how much need for consciousness would there be without any form of challenge to activate it? How much need for awareness if one was to spend the entirety of their days in constant bliss, frolicking about endlessly in the Garden of Eden without any threat of danger - or, for that matter, excitement? Maybe the opposite of suffering is not happiness. Maybe it is sleep.
Lingering Questions
I would hardly have been able to write such a thing off the information given in a normal university lecture. Quality content, given Peterson’s own calibre and the calibre of the lecturers he has brought on board, does not seem to be an issue facing the Academy. Examination and accreditation are. Multiple choice quizzes hardly seem enough to verify someone’s learnings. It will be interesting to see how the Academy goes about developing harder tests and how they will be marked. AI has the potential to be an extremely useful tool and a powerful equaliser in the literary domain. Marking an essay is not nearly as black and white as grading mathematics or the sciences. Biases regarding subject matter certainly affect the grade a student receives. Two essays just as good as one another might receive very different marks for reasons even the marker couldn’t articulate all that well, even if pressed. AI might not only be free of such biases, but could also be a catalyst for faster improvement from the student, who will be given more accurate feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of his work, and who can have confidence that a better essay will be marked higher, rather than being confused by at times seemingly somewhat random grades.
As for accreditation, the promise of Peterson Academy as a university, rather than merely a learning platform, hinges on it. When will someone be able to attain a Bachelor of Arts, for instance, through it? And, excitingly, at their own pace. What students currently have no choice but to do in three years (for three years worth of payment) before they can get anything useful out of their studies, could perceivably be accomplished in one. As of right now, however, the real world usefulness of completing the Academy’s courses is still an open question. How will they guarantee employers that their graduates will be competent and capable employees? The prospect of breaking the traditional university paradigm is a thrilling one, and also, in light of their current state, necessary. Competition is needed to better the products on offer. If Peterson’s endeavour is successful, it could revolutionise tertiary education permanently for the better. Despite the Academy’s current shortcomings regarding accreditation, I can’t help but be an advocate for more people to join. The sooner a critical mass is reached, the sooner current universities will have to adapt and improve as well, or perish and be replaced by a new and better generation of higher education institutions.