Why Jordan Peterson Is Wrong About Nietzsche
A perspective on why Jordan Peterson is not a good source of Nietzschean philosophy.
Jordan Peterson in his popularity has an ever-greater influence on modern culture. This in and of itself is not a problem, but it becomes one when he, perhaps knowingly, distorts one of the most important thinkers relevant to our era - Nietzsche. For years, Jordan has been seemingly inspired by the thinker, despite rejecting his ultimate conclusions. He even has courses in his university on Nietzsche. Based on his public interpretations of him, it can only be assumed to be designed to fit his traditional agenda. Peterson is an incredibly respected and admired character, and naturally, people trust that he has a certain level of intellectual rigor in his presentation of different thinkers. Although I would love to say that this is the case, it certainly is not when it comes to Nietzsche.
Peterson was recently on a Lex Fridman podcast episode, where the central topics hovered around Nietzsche, nihilism and Christianity. Jordan is great at articulating his own opinions, but not Nietzsche's. The problem is not that he disagrees, or that he's a Christian, it's more so that he doesn't delve into Nietzsche's reasoning so that people can decide for themselves. Considering how intelligent he is, it's likely coming from a desire to not alienate his audience, rather than genuinely investigating Nietzsche's propositions and letting people decide on their own.
Before going any further, we need to establish some Nietzschean terms.
Slave Morality - Refers to a moral system that arises from the resentment (or ressentiment) of the weak or oppressed toward the strong or powerful. It is a morality characterized by values like humility, pity, kindness, and obedience, and it seeks to undermine or demonize the characteristics of strength, power, and assertiveness—traits Nietzsche associates with master morality.
Master Morality - Arises from the values and worldview of those who see themselves as strong, noble, and autonomous individuals. It is a system of morality defined by the self-affirmation and will to power of these individuals. In contrast to slave morality, which Nietzsche argues is reactive and rooted in the values of the oppressed (resentment, meekness, and denial of power), master morality is proactive, creative, and life-affirming.
Herd Morality - Refers to the value system of the masses, characterized by a focus on equality, conformity, and safety. It emerges from the collective mindset of individuals who prioritize the group's well-being over personal excellence and self-assertion. Nietzsche contrasts it with master morality, which values strength, power, and individualism.
Lex asked about Nietzsche's idea that Christianity is a form of slave morality, and Peterson provided his opinion, but he doesn't define what slave morality is, or why Nietzsche thought that Christianity was a manifestation of it. Peterson immediately simplifies the idea down to the "woke phenomenon", or the obsession with victimhood. This phenomenon is more closely aligned with herd morality, and he doesn't delve into what slave morality actually is, or what aspects of Nietzsche's reasoning he disagrees with. He does not engage with Nietzsche's critique that Christianity originated from slave morality, so let’s investigate his perspective.
Nietzsche's specialty was in philology, which was the study of language and its history. He used this specialization for looking at the first origins of cultures, values, and ideas throughout history. He applied this method to morality itself in Genealogy of Morality, where he broke morality down into two basic antagonisms: master morality and slave morality. Master morality originated in nobility and the ruling class, while slave morality is a reaction against those in power. The implication here is that the master class exerts power and influence over the world, and slaves react to this power and define their values as the opposite of their rulers. From Nietzsche’s perspective, masters are naturally prideful, healthy and powerful, and slaves are powerless, sick and resentful. He is primarily concerned with the psychology of these opposite types, and the internal drives governing each. It's a way to analyze the moral systems of different types of cultures and people. I would like to emphasize that morality itself is not this black and white, and it's better to think of master and slave morality as a spectrum. While Nietzsche did come up with this way of viewing different moral classes of people, he doesn't think that any single person is a fixed type. Rather, each individual is in a constant state of flux and becoming.
Now that the Nietzschean interpretation of moral systems has been defined, let’s examine the origins of Christianity. As most know, Christianity originated from Jewish tradition. Historically, Jews have been oppressed by stronger empires, like the Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans. Nietzsche thought that it was not a coincidence that Jewish culture came to prop up values that were an inversion of the aristocratic morals they were governed by. Considering they lacked physical and political power to overthrow these empires, they redefined what it meant to be moral. Instead of praising strength, power and nobility, they created their own form of morality as a reaction to those more powerful than them, known as slave morality. Slave morality in general praises weakness, humility and obedience. A key point here is the psychological state which produced this sort of morality. Nietzsche thinks it was a reactionary form of morality that was born not from strength, but from oppression and resentment. He did admire the creativity and cunning of the Judaic tradition, but it was still a form of slave morality.
Considering Judaism was the precursor to Christianity, this means that this subversion of traditional Roman values is the basis of Christianity. Even though Nietzsche acknowledged the resentful foundations of Judaism, he thought that Christianity embodied an even more extreme form of this resentment. One of the major differences between Christianity and Judaism was that Judaism sought to preserve the Jewish people in a hostile world, whereas Christianity aimed to impose a universal form of morality on everyone. Put simply, it sought to conquer, while masked behind the ideals of equality, justice and compassion.
Early Christians, similar to the Jews under Roman rule, were also weak and oppressed. Although Christianity spread to a variety of social classes, many early Christians were slaves. It’s not that being a slave was bad, but imagine the psychology of a slave.. What sort of ideology would help a slave cope with their undignified situation..? Obedience? Humility? Compassion from his masters? The feeling of moral superiority? Thinking that his slavery was worth enduring because he was going to heaven, while his master would burn in hell? This sounds quite vindictive, indicating the internal tension between the values shown, and the internal resentful motivations behind them. From this perspective, the religion seems less like an innocent project of worship, and more so a vengeful power fantasy.
After dismissing slave morality as merely being “wokeism”, Peterson claims that Nietzsche was wrong in his presumption that some humans could take it upon themselves to create their own values. Here, he is criticizing the concept of the Übermensch.
Ubermensch - Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch (often translated as "Overman" or "Superman") represents an ideal of human excellence, one who transcends the limitations of conventional morality and human weakness. The Übermensch embodies the highest potential of humanity, someone who creates their own values and lives beyond the constraints of the herd mentality (slave morality) that Nietzsche critiques.
In order to justify this claim, he draws on the Bible, saying, "I think the reason that he was wrong about that is that, so when God gives instructions to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he basically tells them that they can do anything they want in the walled garden. So that’s the kind of balance between order and nature that makes up the human environment. Human beings have the freedom vouchsafe to them by God to do anything they want in the garden except to mess with the most fundamental rule. So God says to people, “You’re not to eat of the fruit of the tree, of the knowledge of good and evil,” which fundamentally means there is an implicit moral order and you’re to abide by it."
Jordan is making a traditional moral argument, which implies that you have a moral responsibility to follow the past over your own deepest intuitions and desires. Implicit in accepting this worldview, is that you are guilty and should be ashamed for doing otherwise. This is a petty form of psychological manipulation that originates from slave morality. The reason slave morality is a problem is because once it gains cultural and political power in society, it becomes cruel and vindictive. This is why institutionalized religion has such a strong focus on guilt, sin and punishment. A person who views themself as fundamentally sinful and indebted to others is one who embodies the psychology of a slave. It is a sickness that Nietzsche thought was a side effect of the domestication of man in civilization. Once civilized, man still has his more primitive impulses and drives, but they are labeled as immoral and evil. Thus, the modern dominion of the cunning and petty over the strong becomes apparent.
This is the fundamental contention between Peterson and Nietzsche. Peterson thinks that humans should be enslaved to a static moral order that has been handed to us by tradition, and Nietzsche thinks that Christian morality is life-denying and should be transcended. Peterson prioritizes stability, order and comfort. Nietzsche calls for surpassing simple, narrow-minded dogmas and pursuing the more uncomfortable, complex, but vitalizing path of living according to values that align with your own individual ambitions, desires, and pursuit of personal excellence.
It seems that Jordan is unwilling to delve into the idea that an individual has the capacity to create their own values. This stems from his views around nihilism, which he views as universally bad. He never acknowledges that there are different kinds of nihilism posed by Nietzsche. There’s active nihilism and passive nihilism, which are entirely different. The difference lies in one’s relationship to nihilism itself. If an individual is passively nihilistic, then this results in a passive acceptance of a meaningless world, where a person does not value anything, or values things equally, which is absurd. Active nihilism on the other hand, is a state of actively pursuing or upholding meaningful values after confronting the collapse of one’s own worldview or belief system. One who is actively nihilistic stares into the inherent indifference of the universe with a strong instinctual desire to hold a life-affirming goal, principle or aim with ultimate regard. This winds up resembling a sort of personally ordained God of one’s own making. Active nihilism highlights the creative potential of nihilism, rather than just the chaotic, disordered version which Peterson focuses on.
We can speculate on his personal incentives to not delve into Nietzsche's arguments in too much detail. His core audience has become accustomed to a certain style of content. He likely feels obligated to confirm the beliefs his audience already holds. If he were to suddenly change his tune on the fact that some people are capable of creating their own values, he would contradict the traditional beliefs that are core to his following. This would be a bad business decision for him, considering the unique space he has carved out as a voice of unwavering support of tradition. He likely views the Bible as more grounded and safe than Nietzsche's philosophy, which is empirical, but it highlights his avoidance of uncertainty and danger. This is somewhat ironic, considering the hero's journey he often emphasizes which involves confronting fear and uncertainty.
I don't think that Peterson as a man embodies Christian values in how he lives his own life. He seems to embody the very opposite morality that he publicly supports, which is the master morality. He’s prideful, rich, noble and strong, and he has created a fulfilling life around his own idea of personal excellence, but other people are not capable of this? This should be remarkably suspicious to any independent thinking man. In his own life, he has a relentless ambition and a pursuit of creativity, status, power, and excellence, which is far from the humble, meek values of Christianity. It seems that he views himself as a sort of shepherd for the commoners in the world, while being far above them. He recognizes that not everyone is capable of this, but then invokes tradition as if it’s a moral obligation, when it is a game that he himself is not actually playing. He may not be aware of this contradiction in himself, but it's there.
The most troubling thing about his stance on slave morality, is that he doesn’t view anyone as capable of transcending it. He has obviously transcended it in his own life, but seems to have pulled up the ladder behind him. Ironically, this seems to be where his master morality creeps in. He doesn’t have any faith in the slaves and sees not a single one who is capable of transforming themselves. Instead, he would rather see them toil away with guilt, shame and their own tragic self-deception, in their life-denying view of reality.
Unfortunately, Peterson does not offer a comprehensive view on Nietzche, which contributes to the continued self-deception of the masses. Considering he is also offering courses on Nietzsche, I would not recommend them considering his two-dimensional interpretations of him. Many of Peterson's fans are quite intelligent, and these are the fans which I hope to save from his oversimplification of Nietzsche. Although not everyone has the ability to rise above mediocrity, the few who have clear eyes and strong instincts may come to hold immense skepticism at Jordan's worldview, while acknowledging his own strong drive toward excellence and cultural power. While the drum he beats will likely continue to be heard for another millennium, let’s not mince words. Peterson doesn’t live by slave or herd values, but by master values. If one admires his expression of life, he may be better off to pursue the master morality that he embodies, rather than the slave morality that he pays lip service to.
If you want to learn about Nietzsche, I’d recommend just reading his books and forming your own conclusions. Beyond Good and Evil is a good place to start. Geneology of Morality is another very important one, which lays out the topics expressed here much more eloquently. Something I would like to emphasize, is that Nietzsche’s philosophy isn’t about any universal truth or dogmatic way of life. The true value in reading and engaging with his work is in examining the cultural influences of tradition and modernity, and separating the ideas and motivations that have been programmed into you by culture, rather than what is actually aligned with your own authentic expression of yourself.
Remember that any powerful or politicized institution will likely have its own agenda in educating you about him, so be mindful of that. If you'd like to hear a strong, non-biased perspective of his work, essentialsalts on YouTube is a fantastic source.