This is interesting. Thank you for sharing it! You seem to be using Peterson as an example of a influencer who is using the divided line as a tactic that might be construed as manipulative.
I don't see it that way. I think he's a fundamentally good man. He recognizes that life can be tragic but urges people to "pick up the heaviest load you can and bear it" or "be the person who others turn to after the death of a loved one." He's done a lot of good. I think (rather than being self-serving) he's actually someone who wants the best for humanity--for instance, he started the pro-human group ARC as an answer to the WEF.
My only real "complaint"(?) about him is that he doesn't seem to be able to humble himself enough to go all the way accept the literal as well as the philosophical truth of God. At least that's my hypothesis. Do you truly think he hasn't been an overwhelmingly positive influence on young men?
He has been an overwhelmingly positive influence, it's starkly obvious. So many improved lives are testament, serving as living examples.
Regarding him (in your eyes) not accepting the literal and philosophical truth about God - I am certain this is a bit of deliberate ambiguity on his part, magnanimous guile intent on drawing more people towards God. The phrase “tacking into the wind” serves as an apt analogy for the strategy. If he were to faithfully launch straight into “this is the Truth about God” speeches he would reach exactly zero atheists. By playing a few cards close to the vest he can intrigue people enough, show them the value of God and the Bible enough in psychological terms that they find take the last few steps towards God for themselves - no prodding or pulling required. Voluntary exploration after all is a Pertersonian hallmark of true personal growth and a powerful defeat of fear.
Great discussion here, and I appreciate the depth you’re both bringing to the Divided Line. But I’d be remiss not to point something out that bears directly on this conversation.
We’ve been talking about how figures at the dianoia level present themselves as guides to noesis — offering hypothetical symbolic frameworks as if they were the Forms themselves. This is not merely an abstract philosophical problem. It is operationally active right now.
Jordan Peterson is perhaps the most visible contemporary example. I want to be fair: he has genuinely helped many young men find a sense of order, responsibility, and meaning. That is real, and I won’t dismiss it. But that is also precisely what makes the deeper issue so dangerous. A shepherd who leads the flock part of the way up the mountain — and then into a different cave — does more damage than a shepherd who never got anyone moving at all.
His entire framework is Jungian archetypal psychology dressed in Platonic clothing. The archetypes function as his Forms. He is asking you to ascend through his symbolic interpretive system. That is not noesis. That is a closed dialectical circle — what I’d call the Wizard’s Circle — where all reasoning is permitted only within the pre-established frame. Question the frame and you’re accused of retreating to the shadows.
This conversation is getting to something really important, and I want to push it one level further, because I think it’s the crux of everything.
We tend to treat noesis as the unambiguous goal — the summit of the Divided Line, direct apprehension of the Forms, the philosopher finally free of the cave. And within Plato’s framework, yes, that’s the highest epistemic state. But here’s what I’d ask you to sit with: noesis, as a structural concept, does something very dangerous. It creates a permanently two-tiered epistemic class. There are those who have achieved direct apprehension of ultimate truth — and there are those who haven’t. And crucially, the ones who haven’t cannot evaluate the claim of those who have. You cannot verify noesis from outside noesis.
That’s not a bug in Gnosticism. That is Gnosticism. The pneumatics, the psychics, the hylics — it’s the same ladder. The initiated and the uninitiated. And the initiated get to speak for reality in a way the uninitiated are structurally prohibited from challenging. Plato arguably planted that seed, and the Neoplatonists — Plotinus, Ficino, Pico — watered it into full esoteric bloom.
Now bring it forward to today. What is “the science” as wielded by the expert class? It is a secular noesis claim. “We have accessed a level of understanding you cannot follow without our credentials, our models, our methodologies. Trust the experts.” The epistemological structure is identical. It doesn’t matter whether you dress it in Jungian archetypes, Integral Theory, climate modeling, or public health consensus — the move is always the same: I have seen the Forms. You have not. Defer to me.
Peterson does this with Jungian depth psychology. He implies he has intuited the deep archetypal structures of the psyche — the things beneath the things — in a way that grants him interpretive authority. And I’ve done a deep dive on how this connects directly to ARC, because ARC is selling the same epistemological product with a traditionalist label on it. The “better story” they’re offering is still a story that requires their initiated narrators to tell it.
The Christian answer to this (and you don’t have to be Christian to recognize it metaphysically) — and I think this is decisive — is the Incarnation. Logos made flesh. Truth that became publicly visible, touchable, falsifiable by anyone present, not accessible only through an esoteric method mastered by a natural elite. That’s not just a theological claim. It’s an epistemological revolution. It’s the direct counter-structure to both Platonic philosopher-kings and Gnostic pneumatics.
So yes — be suspicious not just of those who misuse the Divided Line, but of any framework that requires you to concede that someone else has reached the top of it, and that your job is to follow their ascent.
I did a deep dive on the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship and I’d encourage you to watch it. ARC is being marketed as the antithesis to the WEF, a grassroots counter-narrative built on faith, family, and freedom. But follow the funding, follow the founders, follow the structure of the argument being made. What you find is that ARC is the dialectical right hand of the very system it claims to oppose. Thesis: WEF globalism. Antithesis: ARC traditionalism. Synthesis: the same managed future, packaged in a story you actually want to believe.
This is why Plato matters so urgently right now. The divided line isn’t just a metaphor for intellectual development — it’s a diagnostic tool. If we can’t distinguish between a symbolic framework that points toward truth and one that substitutes itself for truth, we will keep ascending ladders bolted to the cave wall, convinced we’re getting out.
IMO, Be especially cautious of the guides who make you feel like you’re finally seeing clearly — while insisting you look only where they point.
I guess I haven't thought of him that way because I grew up in the church and I've always believed in the literal Incarnation. I don't view him as a guru. I take his practical advice and appreciate the value be seems to place on the Bible as the pivotal influence on Western civilization. I can see, however, how his apparent lack of personal faith in the literal truth of the Bible in favor of the mythological/archetypal “truth” could lead some people to get caught in a metaphorical (metaphysical?) culdesac and stop them from reaching the ultimate truth of God. Is that the main issue you see with him then? It seems a valid concern. On the other hand, I've heard anecdotes of people getting interested in the Bible from Peterson's lectures and coming to a genuine faith in God--surpassing Jordan basically. I guess I'd have to see data (assuming such a thing were even available) to see how many he's (inadvertently?) led to Christ vs how many he's gotten stuck in that culdesac. Thank you very much for your detailed response. This is very interesting! I'm going to watch the ARC deep dive you did next. Thanks for sharing it!
This is interesting. Thank you for sharing it! You seem to be using Peterson as an example of a influencer who is using the divided line as a tactic that might be construed as manipulative.
I don't see it that way. I think he's a fundamentally good man. He recognizes that life can be tragic but urges people to "pick up the heaviest load you can and bear it" or "be the person who others turn to after the death of a loved one." He's done a lot of good. I think (rather than being self-serving) he's actually someone who wants the best for humanity--for instance, he started the pro-human group ARC as an answer to the WEF.
My only real "complaint"(?) about him is that he doesn't seem to be able to humble himself enough to go all the way accept the literal as well as the philosophical truth of God. At least that's my hypothesis. Do you truly think he hasn't been an overwhelmingly positive influence on young men?
He has been an overwhelmingly positive influence, it's starkly obvious. So many improved lives are testament, serving as living examples.
Regarding him (in your eyes) not accepting the literal and philosophical truth about God - I am certain this is a bit of deliberate ambiguity on his part, magnanimous guile intent on drawing more people towards God. The phrase “tacking into the wind” serves as an apt analogy for the strategy. If he were to faithfully launch straight into “this is the Truth about God” speeches he would reach exactly zero atheists. By playing a few cards close to the vest he can intrigue people enough, show them the value of God and the Bible enough in psychological terms that they find take the last few steps towards God for themselves - no prodding or pulling required. Voluntary exploration after all is a Pertersonian hallmark of true personal growth and a powerful defeat of fear.
You could well be right. I believe he's definitely led a lot of young to God even if he doesn't profess to be a believer himself.
Great discussion here, and I appreciate the depth you’re both bringing to the Divided Line. But I’d be remiss not to point something out that bears directly on this conversation.
We’ve been talking about how figures at the dianoia level present themselves as guides to noesis — offering hypothetical symbolic frameworks as if they were the Forms themselves. This is not merely an abstract philosophical problem. It is operationally active right now.
Jordan Peterson is perhaps the most visible contemporary example. I want to be fair: he has genuinely helped many young men find a sense of order, responsibility, and meaning. That is real, and I won’t dismiss it. But that is also precisely what makes the deeper issue so dangerous. A shepherd who leads the flock part of the way up the mountain — and then into a different cave — does more damage than a shepherd who never got anyone moving at all.
His entire framework is Jungian archetypal psychology dressed in Platonic clothing. The archetypes function as his Forms. He is asking you to ascend through his symbolic interpretive system. That is not noesis. That is a closed dialectical circle — what I’d call the Wizard’s Circle — where all reasoning is permitted only within the pre-established frame. Question the frame and you’re accused of retreating to the shadows.
This conversation is getting to something really important, and I want to push it one level further, because I think it’s the crux of everything.
We tend to treat noesis as the unambiguous goal — the summit of the Divided Line, direct apprehension of the Forms, the philosopher finally free of the cave. And within Plato’s framework, yes, that’s the highest epistemic state. But here’s what I’d ask you to sit with: noesis, as a structural concept, does something very dangerous. It creates a permanently two-tiered epistemic class. There are those who have achieved direct apprehension of ultimate truth — and there are those who haven’t. And crucially, the ones who haven’t cannot evaluate the claim of those who have. You cannot verify noesis from outside noesis.
That’s not a bug in Gnosticism. That is Gnosticism. The pneumatics, the psychics, the hylics — it’s the same ladder. The initiated and the uninitiated. And the initiated get to speak for reality in a way the uninitiated are structurally prohibited from challenging. Plato arguably planted that seed, and the Neoplatonists — Plotinus, Ficino, Pico — watered it into full esoteric bloom.
Now bring it forward to today. What is “the science” as wielded by the expert class? It is a secular noesis claim. “We have accessed a level of understanding you cannot follow without our credentials, our models, our methodologies. Trust the experts.” The epistemological structure is identical. It doesn’t matter whether you dress it in Jungian archetypes, Integral Theory, climate modeling, or public health consensus — the move is always the same: I have seen the Forms. You have not. Defer to me.
Peterson does this with Jungian depth psychology. He implies he has intuited the deep archetypal structures of the psyche — the things beneath the things — in a way that grants him interpretive authority. And I’ve done a deep dive on how this connects directly to ARC, because ARC is selling the same epistemological product with a traditionalist label on it. The “better story” they’re offering is still a story that requires their initiated narrators to tell it.
The Christian answer to this (and you don’t have to be Christian to recognize it metaphysically) — and I think this is decisive — is the Incarnation. Logos made flesh. Truth that became publicly visible, touchable, falsifiable by anyone present, not accessible only through an esoteric method mastered by a natural elite. That’s not just a theological claim. It’s an epistemological revolution. It’s the direct counter-structure to both Platonic philosopher-kings and Gnostic pneumatics.
So yes — be suspicious not just of those who misuse the Divided Line, but of any framework that requires you to concede that someone else has reached the top of it, and that your job is to follow their ascent.
I did a deep dive on the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship and I’d encourage you to watch it. ARC is being marketed as the antithesis to the WEF, a grassroots counter-narrative built on faith, family, and freedom. But follow the funding, follow the founders, follow the structure of the argument being made. What you find is that ARC is the dialectical right hand of the very system it claims to oppose. Thesis: WEF globalism. Antithesis: ARC traditionalism. Synthesis: the same managed future, packaged in a story you actually want to believe.
This is why Plato matters so urgently right now. The divided line isn’t just a metaphor for intellectual development — it’s a diagnostic tool. If we can’t distinguish between a symbolic framework that points toward truth and one that substitutes itself for truth, we will keep ascending ladders bolted to the cave wall, convinced we’re getting out.
IMO, Be especially cautious of the guides who make you feel like you’re finally seeing clearly — while insisting you look only where they point.
I guess I haven't thought of him that way because I grew up in the church and I've always believed in the literal Incarnation. I don't view him as a guru. I take his practical advice and appreciate the value be seems to place on the Bible as the pivotal influence on Western civilization. I can see, however, how his apparent lack of personal faith in the literal truth of the Bible in favor of the mythological/archetypal “truth” could lead some people to get caught in a metaphorical (metaphysical?) culdesac and stop them from reaching the ultimate truth of God. Is that the main issue you see with him then? It seems a valid concern. On the other hand, I've heard anecdotes of people getting interested in the Bible from Peterson's lectures and coming to a genuine faith in God--surpassing Jordan basically. I guess I'd have to see data (assuming such a thing were even available) to see how many he's (inadvertently?) led to Christ vs how many he's gotten stuck in that culdesac. Thank you very much for your detailed response. This is very interesting! I'm going to watch the ARC deep dive you did next. Thanks for sharing it!
Thank you Courtenay.
YW! 🫡
Y’all might want to watch this if you haven’t—https://rumble.com/v45uroi-is-jordan-petersons-arc-the-dialectical-right-hand-to-build-wef-dreams.html