Logos Review · Issue 1 (Spring 2026) · Book Review
Zhang Jun
Abstract ：This article offers an extended review of Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning and advances an integrated “meaning–character–education” framework. It develops three core axes: (1) the distinction between a “forum for action” and a “place of things,” reframing the science/myth divide through Hume–Nietzsche–Habermas and Polanyi to argue that science cannot ground values while narrative/myth sustains moral meaning; (2) the dynamics of the known/unknown/exploration and the personality spectrum of heroic/totalitarian/decadent types, highlighting the “divinity of interest” as an inner call toward truth and responsibility; and (3) a neuropsychological account—amygdala, hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, reward circuitry, and hemispheric specialization—explaining how interest–attention–memory–habit are formed. From these, the essay derives educational implications: cultivate a “heroic personality” (honesty, responsibility, courage) within the key windows of primary/secondary socialization; use narrative and practice to resist instrumentalism and totalitarian imaginaries; and design learning environments that balance safety with novelty so students can chart their own “maps of meaning,” converting the “call of the divine” into a kairotic moment for character formation. The contribution lies in a practicable, cross-disciplinary pathway toward de-instrumentalized value and faith education.
Keywords: Jordan Peterson; meaning; science vs. myth; known vs. unknown; heroic personality; divinity of interest; neuropsychology; moral/value education; kairos
https://doi.org/10.64053/PLOQ3622
Introduction
The goal of education is not merely to transmit knowledge, but to cultivate the ability to think for oneself. Its highest goal, however, lies in the shaping of character and the soul. This article aims to reflect on how these deeper educational goals may be realized, through an in-depth book review. The text in question is an older and rather unconventional one: Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, published by Routledge in 1999.[1] In addition to outlining Peterson’s core arguments, this article will explore the resonance or tension between his ideas and certain core concepts in the Christian tradition, and further reflect on the implications of these discussions for understanding individual choices of faith paradigms and contemporary spiritual life. We will examine Peterson’s thoughts on meaning, faith, and the human condition within a broad academic perspective.
This is a book that defies categories. It is a serious academic work by a serious scholar, with nearly 600 notes and 300 references, and the writing style is quite abstruse (Peterson is known for his pursuit of precision and rigor). The book primarily took shape during the author’s time teaching in the psychology department at Harvard University, and parts of it were used as course material. It is also a work of painstaking effort. The author states that he spent three hours a day for fifteen years meticulously choosing his words and making repeated revisions. However, this book is by no means a conventional or standard pursuit of academic achievement. To many in the academic world, the book is neither standard nor rigorous, or perhaps it breaks taboos. The analysis of religion and myth is actually the focus of the book—”God” (capitalized) and “god” (lowercase) each appear about 250 times, and the name of Jesus appears as many as 60 times. The book is also highly “cross-disciplinary,” spanning psychology, neurobiology, neuroscience, social anthropology, Western philosophy, literature, biblical theology, and Eastern religions, among others. In fact, after its publication, the book received a lukewarm response, if any at all. It is said that the hardcover edition sold fewer than 500 copies. Peterson himself once lamented that for many years, people simply did not know how to interpret this book, and few attempted to review it seriously. In fact, it was only after Peterson became a public figure nearly a decade ago that the book began to receive significant attention. However, the author of this article sees the unique value of this book and will attempt to do it justice with a thorough review.
It is worth noting that the book did receive high praise from a few prominent figures. For example, Sheldon White, then the chair of the psychology department at Harvard, called it a work that “greatly broadens our understanding of human motivation.”[2] Maxine Sheets-Johnstone published a rare long review in Psycoloquy (2000), calling it “a novel, thought-provoking, complex, and fascinating book, though at times conceptually confusing, repetitive, and irritating in format.” However, “the book’s merits far outweigh its flaws.”[3] For the general reader, the book may be a difficult, even frustrating read. But ultimately, as Sheets-Johnstone says, its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses, making it a rare gem.
Today, Jordan Peterson is a world-renowned intellectual and influencer, with nearly 9 million subscribers on YouTube alone. As a controversial figure and a sharp-tongued right-wing thought leader, he is both adulated and reviled. Peterson was born in Alberta, Canada, in 1962. He attended the University of Alberta, earning bachelor’s degrees in psychology and political science in 1984. In 1991, he received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University. From 1993 to 1998, he was an assistant professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1998, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor, where he remained until he retired in 2021 after a conflict with the university over free speech issues. Today, in addition to writing and speaking, he has also founded his own online university: the Peterson Academy.
This work can also be seen as Peterson’s personal soul-searching over a large part of his life: it is a search within his own inner world, as well as a reflection on major social and historical issues. Influenced by Jung, he believes that the answers to the world’s problems are hidden in the secret inner world of every individual. He states in the book that although he grew up in a devout Christian family and community and had a happy childhood, he was highly rebellious as a young man, eager to cast off the spiritual wellspring that had nurtured him, and urgently sought an “antidote” to “the general social and political madness and the world’s evil” (p. xv). But the thinking and writing of this book largely foreshadowed his growing interest in and positive evaluation of the biblical faith in his later years.[4]
“Action” and “Meaning”
As the title suggests, the author’s main purpose is to question and explain the relationship between the meaning of life and belief. The first cornerstone of Peterson’s theoretical edifice is the proposition that the world is a “forum for action.” This is despite the fact that the world can also be interpreted as a “place of things” (p. 1). The place of things corresponds to the objective world and the scientific narrative. The forum for action corresponds to the world of values and the non-scientific narrative. The author argues that since the Enlightenment, these two models have entered into a state of confrontation that is both unnecessary and unavoidable.
If one is to live, one must act. Life is about acting according to what one values, desires, and believes ought to be. Therefore, where there is action, there must be evaluation. Values are the precondition of action, or their implicit, unconscious counterpart. Action demonstrates one’s values because there are differences between the available paths of action. Action is, in fact, the expression of a preference for one set of options over others. We always evaluate the present with a preconceived “ideal future” as our goal. We always act to transform the “place where we are” into the “place where we want to be.” Therefore, action follows a goal, and the goal determines meaning and changes with it.
Peterson argues that values are about right and wrong, good and evil. The distance between good and evil gives meaning to action and life. For the actor, the more valuable the path of an action, the better, the more good it is. Without evil, good cannot be defined. If one does not believe in good and evil, action becomes meaningless because there is essentially no difference in the array of paths one may choose. The loss of meaning signifies the collapse of the value hierarchy or moral code that guides action—and more dangerously, the collapse of the underlying belief in the existence of such a value hierarchy. This can lead to depression, chaos, anxiety, and social conflict, even mass slaughter. Having lost a sense of meaning, one inevitably falls into a fatal weakness and turns from good to evil—succumbing to pain and suffering, hating life, and even attempting to annihilate it. This hatred leads people to identify with, and even desire, the forces of destruction—this becomes the root of human self-slaughter and war. Therefore, the persistence of meaning is crucial for both individual life and society.
Peterson offers a unique perspective and a general interpretation of the meaning of life, also providing a possibility for dialogue between different standpoints. In summary, he argues that the complete meaning of life is inseparable from life as a continuous process of “exploration,” which includes three indispensable parts: 1) accepting and practicing the meaning endowed by the “known” that has already been explored, 2) believing that there is a transcendent or divine meaning in the “unknown” that has not yet been explored, and 3) affirming and enjoying the meaning of the process of exploration itself. Similar to Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am,” Peterson’s emphasis on exploration almost reaches the level of “I explore, therefore I am,” although exploration and thinking are inherently inseparable. Continuous exploration means that meaning is never certain, but the affirmation of exploration itself implies one is convicted of the existence of meaning. A meaningful thing is desirable and pleasant. The affirmation of the meaning of exploration already implies that life is worth living—even through suffering, there is light and hope at the end of the darkness. But who defines good and evil? And where does meaning come from?
“Science” and “Myth”
Michael Polanyi once said, “Modern thought in the broad sense emerged as the human mind was liberated from a mythological and magical interpretation of the universe.”[5] Peterson believes that one of the contributions of modern science is to separate emotion from sensory perception, allowing people to describe the empirical world purely based on a consensus of what they perceive, thus accelerating the process of scientific exploration. In contrast, cultural traditions and humanistic thinking are depictions of the world represented by action. In this domain, we do not have a verification process as powerful and universally accepted as the empirical methods of science. Before the advent of Descartes, Bacon, and Newton, despite material scarcity, the human spiritual world was vibrant. Sensory experience, moral beliefs, and transcendent faith were integrated. The meaning of life was revealed and passed down through “stories” or “myths” in oral tradition—mysterious tales about the structure of the universe and the origin of humanity. In the eyes of medieval Westerners, the Bible revealed the meta-story of humanity: all people are children of God, all under the grace of the Most High. By accepting God’s revelation, people knew clearly what they ought to do and how they ought to do it. But after the Enlightenment, with the rise of modern science and anti-traditionalists, more and more people no longer believed in traditional faiths and narratives. Ethics and morality were denied by positivism, humanistic thinking was challenged by empiricism, and the mythical perspective was replaced by the scientific perspective. In the modern era, more and more people no longer believe in the mystery behind the universe, but at the same time are confused by excessive rational skepticism and moral uncertainty. All modern people who have lost their traditional faith must live in an awkward predicament: in order to have passion for life, they must believe that everything they experience has meaning and value, but their own reason tells them that everything is ultimately meaningless and valueless.[6]
According to the well-known “Hume’s Law,” what “is” and what “ought to be” are two completely different types of propositions. No amount of “is” (descriptive truth) can put forth any “ought” (normative truth). No matter how advanced our scientific knowledge of the objective world may become, it cannot provide any answers about the goals, meaning, and value of life. However, an individual cannot live without faith, because action cannot be separated from values. And science cannot provide these values. So-called naturalistic ethical values are nothing more than self-deception. As Nietzsche perceived more than 100 years ago, the ethical and moral views of Westerners coexisted with their belief in God: when they no longer believed in God, the values that came from that belief were also shattered—they could not reject God while retaining His values (p. 6).[7]
What Peterson wants to emphasize is that, in fact, all modern people still live by “myth”—whether traditional or newly invented (such as the New Age movement in the West). Those who verbally claim to believe only in science and not in myth, in fact, still derive meaning and value from some possibly unstated myth (not science) in their lives. Therefore, no one can proudly declare that they live solely by the “laws of science” and can thus draw a clear line between themselves and all those who live by “religious superstition,” because such “laws of science” simply do not exist. Peterson argues that the function of history lies in its connection to myth. History is usually constructed as a kind of myth rather than an empirical fact or a description of “objective events”—what is usually emphasized is the psychological meaning of history rather than the facts themselves. Transmitted beliefs, as “maps for action,” are used to explain history and give it meaning, and also to provide value guidance for people’s actions. It was so in the past, and it is still so today. Peterson asks: since the rise of science, are the myths we rely on any less mythical than the ones we have rejected? If the old belief systems are considered absurd, are the ideological structures that replace them not even more so?
Of course, science and myth are not diametrically opposed. Science does not necessarily negate all myths. Moreover, a Christian would believe that among the various “myths,” there may be one that is truly “the Word of God.” Science cannot explain creation ex nihilo, nor can it put history in a laboratory. Although a scientist as an individual can confidently profess theism, “atheism” and “theism” cannot both be true at the same time. The conflict between “science” and “myth” becomes inevitable only when scientific reason is bound to atheism. Peterson’s simple dichotomy of science and myth oversimplifies the complex relationship between reason and faith, ignoring how science both provides many pieces of evidence in support of faith and challenges it at the same time, as well as the intersection and complementarity between science and faith as revealed by the research of contemporary Christian scholars like Stephen Meyer.[8]
Michael Polanyi, on the other hand, explicitly argues that science, art, and religion are all legitimate human explorations of meaning.[9] Polanyi’s analysis of the history of science shows that science, like myth, also needs to integrate fragments of experience into meaningful patterns through imagination. Similar to artistic or religious activities, scientific exploration also relies on personal subjective judgment, inarticulable and unverifiable tacit knowledge, and social recognition. Polanyi therefore completely rejects the idea that science produces value-neutral objective truth. What Polanyi saw was that after the Enlightenment, the anti-religious, anti-authoritarian, and skeptical currents of thought that arose with scientism and positivism cut people free from their obligations to truth and justice, which was fatally destructive to Western civilization. Individualism and nihilism, which scorn all religious authority and treat all traditional morality with doubt, also paved the way for totalitarianism. The ignorance of scientism relegates man to nothing more than a machine, a beast, or a collection of desires, thus depriving us of the possibility of taking personal responsibility seriously, and even leading human moral passions to a baser state.[10]
Peterson and Polanyi’s concerns about the lack of meaning and moral resources within the crisis of modernity coincide with the late intellectual turn of another contemporary thinker, Jürgen Habermas. Habermas, a former Marxist and a representative of secular rationalism, also began to profoundly reflect on the foundational role of the Judeo-Christian tradition for (Western) modern civilization after the 9/11 attacks. Like Peterson and Polanyi, he came to the clear conclusion that science cannot bear the weight of meaning and morality. In particular, he affirmed that the moral framework of Western modernity—freedom, equality, democracy, human rights (so-called “universal values”)—is undeniably derived from the ethics of justice in Judaism (the Old Testament) and the ethics of love in Christianity (the New Testament). Christianity is not merely a precursor or catalyst for modernity, but a continuous force that shapes the norms of modernity. He therefore argues that the process of secularization in the Western world is not, as many believe, a process of de-religionization, but a “translation process” of transferring moral norms derived from religious faith to the secular world: for example, translating the biblical concept of “humanity created in the image of God” into the secular concept of “human dignity.” But Habermas and Peterson both agree with Nietzsche’s proposition—that attempting to enjoy the moral norms derived from the belief in God while abandoning the belief itself is nothing but self-deception. So in 2005, he proposed the concept of a “post-secular society,” further emphasizing the contemporary value of Christian faith from a social and utilitarian perspective.[11]
Therefore, the emergence of science indeed poses a great challenge to traditional faith and has led many people in the modern age to lose interest in traditional belief systems, including Christianity. But science has not disproven faith, let alone replaced it in the “forum for action.” The so-called “scientism” that is revered as a “scientific” value system is nothing more than a beautiful lie and an excuse. Many people reject faith out of misunderstanding or ignorance, or out of emotional resistance, rather than a truly rational and scientific spirit of seeking truth. Of course, it is also due to the continuous output of radical liberal scholars who have been anti-tradition and anti-faith for centuries.[12] Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive reflection on the influence of science and myth in the forum for action. The correct approach is to compare the credibility of different non-scientific beliefs or “myths” as guides for action, rather than to assert that only science is credible. In a contemporary society permeated by scientism, this should also be the starting point for promoting education in values and faith.
“The Known” and “The Unknown”
In Peterson’s forum for action, everyone is and should be an explorer. The world presents itself to the explorer as two domains: explored territory and unexplored territory. The former is the known domain—cultural and mythical, protective and authoritarian, the accumulation of the discoveries of our predecessors. The latter is the unknown domain—creative and destructive, the origin and final destination of all certain things. The known domain is also the domain we share in society with those who have the same faith and belief traditions. Peterson strongly emphasizes that the coexistence of the known and the unknown is foundational to human life. It can be said that the basic state of an individual’s life lies in settling the unknown and expanding the known. The map of an individual’s “known world” is also a map of action patterns. Its establishment is the intermediate result of a continuous, social, and creative process of exploration.
The unknown can be a threat or an opportunity for people. People are naturally drawn to the unknown and must face its challenges. When humans suddenly encounter an unexpected shock, they instinctively feel surprised—a mix of fear and curiosity—followed by a shift in attention, emotional fluctuation, and behavioral impulses. Peterson believes that humans have an instinct to control their frequency of contact with the unknown, which is also an instinct to regulate their own interest: too much contact leads to chaos and anxiety, while too little leads to stagnation and regression. Therefore, it is also in line with instinct for a person to lack interest in certain unknown domains (such as unfamiliar cultures and faiths), because human attention and cognitive resources are always scarce. Of course, there is also the possibility of value misjudgment or treating the “unknown” as “known”—it is actually quite difficult “to know what you know and what you do not know.”
No matter how much knowledge humanity accumulates, in essence, we are still ignorant and will continue to be so. “Unexplored territory is eternally around us, like the sea around an island. We can widen the area of the island, but we can never drain the water” (p. 48). This means that humanity must humbly accept coexistence with the unknown, but at the same time, should retain the interest and courage to explore it. The known world with regards to meaning encompasses all cultural cognition and mythical narrative formed within a specific historical and geographical framework. It necessarily contains some mysterious presuppositions—including the biblical faith—therefore, the known must still contain the unknown. So, if we leave the “known,” both the individual and the world will fall into chaos, but the “known” is only a preconception and a shared belief, not god-like omniscience, and may even be the opposite of truth. The known—deep-rooted religious beliefs, cultural traditions, behavioral habits, etc.—can also stifle, mislead, and limit our exploration and creation. Therefore, for humanity, the unknown is eternal, uncertainty is eternal, plans can never be perfect, mistakes are inevitable, and the tragic nature of life is also inescapable, because man is mortal. Accepting the unknown means acknowledging human finitude and vulnerability, but it can also open up a process of creation and renewal. Conversely, exaggerating the known, denying the unknown and mankind’s limitations, can lead to the absolutization of some relative or even erroneous belief, opening the road to hell and destruction.
The process of creative exploration can transform the unknown from something fearful and overpowering into something known and beneficial. The unknown and the act of exploration themselves are important components of happiness—people fear uncertainty, but they are even less able to accept complete certainty. All rationalist and totalitarian systems have failed to fully consider this paradox in human nature. Therefore, Peterson quotes Dostoevsky’s “piano key” metaphor: “Man is man, and not a piano key! And the whole work of man seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano key! … And how can one not be glad that it has not yet come off, and that desire still depends on something we don’t know?” So, “even if you were to shower all the earthly blessings on him, to overwhelm him in happiness, … it would still only make him mad”[13] (p. 12). But radical rationalism and totalitarianism both attempt to impose certainty and “perfect happiness” on people.
A Christian believes that the object of their faith is absolute, the one true God. But this is not to claim the absoluteness of the faith itself; rather, it is to claim that every believer is a sinner saved by grace. The emphasis on faith and original sin are both an emphasis on human finitude. Accepting faith as “known” is a new starting point for life’s exploration, not its end. Christians gain hope and certainty through faith, but this certainty does not eliminate the unknown and uncertainty of this life. It may even mean greater challenges, risks, persecution, and suffering. Therefore, a Christian would argue that taking risks in faith is the safest path, and trying to control everything by oneself is the most unsafe. And so, continuously facing the tension between the known and the unknown is a lesson that no one can avoid, and it is also an eternal theme that education must wrestle with.
“The Hero” and “The Adversary”
A seeker of knowledge is an explorer of the unknown and one who adapts to the world. Given the relationship between the known and the unknown, Peterson argues that there are three basic ways humans adapt to the world: the “heroic archetype” affirms the meaning of life and continues to explore and face challenges; the “totalitarian archetype” denies the unknown with rational arrogance; and the “decadent archetype” refuses to explore and to face the unknown. Moreover, the opposite of identifying with the hero is identifying with the adversary (or the devil), who is proud, lying, destructive, and foolish. Of course, such a classification and definition may not be objective or fair. This author believes it reflects Peterson’s own special concern for individual psychological illness as a clinical psychologist, as well as his lifelong profound reflection on human evil and the disasters of totalitarianism.
In summary, the heroic archetype means facing the unknown with an attitude of honesty, humility, positivity, optimism, and courage, accepting challenges, and serving society. Identifying with the hero helps individuals to bear the unbearable weight of life and also provides them with the possibility of simultaneously transcending group limitations and defending the interests of the group. Peterson presupposes that anyone can and should achieve this “heroic identification” and “heroic character.” And a person who lacks “heroic character” either presents some psychological pathology (such as anxiety or depression), or becomes inferior and cowardly, or engages in wrongdoing. Thus we can infer that in order to become an ideal explorer who truly makes an impact on society, an educated person must embrace both “heroic identification” and “heroic personality.”.
Peterson believes that the essence of doing evil is the denial or abandonment of the meaning of life, the loss of the heroic personality. He believes that Satan, the adversary, is the spirit behind the development of all totalitarianism; its characteristics include a rigid ideology dominated by rationalism and perfectionism, a mode of adaptation based on lies—refusing to admit mistakes, refusing to accept imperfection—and a hatred of the self and the world. The inevitable assumption of omniscience in totalitarianism—replacing “God” with “reason”—stems from “Luciferian pride” and will inevitably give rise to a hellish personal and social state. Fascism, in the name of protecting individuals from harm with the promise of the collective, imposes a certain absolutist collective identity on people, sacrificing the spirit of the individual to face life’s challenges alone. Peterson believes that fascists are dominated by fear and arrogance, trying to deny the unknown, mystery and divinity, and human weakness, while trying to control everything, which can only damage the population’s ability to adapt and thus lead to its ultimate collapse. Fascists first destroy everything they do not agree with, and in the end they destroy everything. Fascists also inevitably lose empathy, becoming both cruel and rigid: because in the “perfect world” they advocate, nothing imperfect is tolerated.
If the fascist is an inflated personality, the decadent is a shrunken one. The fascist deceives himself into believing he can conquer all unknowns and difficulties; the decadent deceives himself into believing that the unknown and difficulties do not exist. The decadent personality also denies the hope, power, and redemption that may exist in the mysterious unknown. The decadent is undisciplined, avoids his own shortcomings, refuses to integrate into society, and clings to his own ideas. The decadent refuses to explore, thus weakening the strength of his own character and his ability to adapt, and may eventually fall into psychological collapse due to his inability to bear the burdens of life.
The heroic archetype corresponds to the “heroic personality.” Peterson is dually influenced by the personality psychology of Jung, and the Christian faith—although he argues that “heroic personality” can be nurtured in any culture, he largely takes Jesus, who suffered for righteousness, as the ideal type of hero—”by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). The hero, even in the face of death, disregards the pressure of group conformity and still holds fast to the “true way.” The most important thing about the heroic personality is to overcome the fear of death and to uphold human dignity. There is an antidote to the suffering of life, but obtaining the antidote requires courage, requires risk, requires hope. Identification with the heroic personality makes the world bearable for the individual, at least minimizing unnecessary suffering. What Peterson is implying is that in an interconnected society, my identification with the hero and my bearing of suffering means the reduction of your suffering and the increase of your happiness.
A Christian would ask: can a person who does not know Jesus Christ, even one who is not interested in the Christian faith, still develop a Christ-like “heroic personality”? Of course, as Peterson explains in his book, every culture upholds its own heroic figures and heroic spirit. But not every culture is equally conducive to the shaping of a heroic personality. This writer believes that Peterson’s proposition of a universal “heroic personality” presupposes that everyone has some kind of divine guidance, a divine hope, and an instinctive sense of sanctity, dignity, and morality. As long as a person can voluntarily and without self-deception continuously explore the unknown and pursue meaning, it is highly likely that the endpoint of the heroic personality is some kind of encounter with God. And the function of an ideal education should be the affirmation, encouragement, cultivation, guidance, and consolidation of this “heroic personality.”
In connection with the heroic personality, Peterson particularly advocates for “the divinity of interest” (p. 346). Within everyone’s interest, there is a divine call from the unknown, a call from outside the protective walls of group identity, a call of some transcendent sense of dignity. For Peterson, maintaining the divinity of interest is synonymous with pursuing truth, following the guidance of the divine call, developing true individuality, and building a heroic personality. Peterson believes that a deep sense of meaning is obtained through the bearing of deep responsibility; if you accept the burden of responsibility and accept the deepest suffering, you can discover inner meaning and transcend suffering. Conversely, the loss of divine interest means the closing of the soul or some kind of psychological collapse, meaning the loss of one’s sense of meaning and pleasure (a key symptom of depression), and a further slide towards “adversarial identification.” From a biblical perspective, we can think of God’s election and blessing through suffering: “I have chosen you in the furnace of affliction” (Isaiah 48:10). Or the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are the poor in spirit! Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness! Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake!
Of course, the premise of a sense of the divine is the existence of the divine. Peterson does not directly express his endorsement of the Christian faith or belief in God in the book. He seems to imply that even in a culture with an atheistic belief system, an honest person should be able to feel the call of the divine. His view of human nature can be seen as consistent with the view of “general grace” (or the traditional idea of natural law) as explained in Romans (1:19): “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” Perhaps divinity exists in everyone’s heart, but is often shirked and suppressed. At the same time, Peterson presupposes that even outside the Christian faith, people can perceive that life is worth living, that there is hope, that there is a way out of suffering, and that it is worth enduring and waiting for. Of course, for a Christian, all of this can only be obtained in Christ. Furthermore,under the prevalent worldviews of materialism, rationalism, utilitarianism, nihilism, or other forms of idolatry today, this presupposition cannot find traction, or rather will be severely weakened and rejected. Therefore, education in values and faith must inevitably incorporate debate and analysis of various worldviews and values.
From a biblical perspective, the establishment of Peterson’s “heroic personality” and the maintenance of “divine interest” require special divine grace. Peterson also realizes that following “divine interest” entails an internal struggle, similar to “spiritual warfare” that is familiar to Christians. This proposition is also consistent with the claims of the 18th-century American theologian Jonathan Edwards on virtue. In The Nature of True Virtue (1765), Edwards argues that human virtue is the sincere assent of the human heart to God as the ultimate being and the ultimate reality of truth, goodness, and beauty. So, if a person can be honestly faithful to their divine interest, to the guidance of their conscience, it is almost inevitable that they will develop an interest in the Christian faith, although Peterson’s book does not explicitly express this meaning. But why, in reality, do most people seem to have no interest at all?
One of Peterson’s answers can be summed up along these lines: because people cannot renounce lies and hold fast to honesty. The root of social and individual psychological illness—”denial” and “repression”—is lies. Peterson believes that the proposition that the tragedy of life is unbearable—that human experience itself is evil—is a lie. Any proposition that denies the sanctity of life, human dignity and responsibility, is also a lie. A person who accepts such a lie becomes a liar himself, voluntarily forfeiting his heroic personality. Lying is a submission to fear, an escape from the unknown, an abandonment of hope and redemption. To refuse honesty is to refuse moral truth, thereby rationalizing cowardice, depravity, indulgence, and destructive evil. Once one compromises with lies, as fear increases, one’s dependence on lies will also increase. And the root of lies is the anxiety surrounding death and the fear of the unknown. The ever-expanding human capacity for abstraction and our imagination of death make us associate human vulnerability with every unexpected encounter, deeply planting the consciousness of death into the course of everyone’s life. Fear also easily makes us cling to our protective social identities. But group identity often leads to pathological ignorance and evil, as in fascism. Abandoning the heroic personality easily leads to “blind obedience to the forces of socialization” (p. 347), where one becomes a slave to custom and habit.
Peterson argues: “the consciousness of death” can also “force us relentlessly upward, to a state of awareness sufficient to bear the thought of death,” “making us realize our ability to face ‘individual vulnerability’ directly” (p. 468), and to discover the “moral truth” of our lives (p. 466), and thereby discover our ability to seek meaning in the face of the unknown—our “infinite capacity for good” (p. 456), “our capacity for voluntary acceptance of the terrible burden of death” (p. 454). In this way, we can bear and overcome the “tragedy of existence” (p. 454), and our potential for evil is defeated. Of course, for a Christian, that moral truth that overcomes the fear of death is a person/God, Jesus Christ. From an educational perspective, what is worth deep thought is, how can we guide the educated to pursue the “heroic personality” and “heroic identification,” and help them avoid “adversarial identification” or the “totalitarian archetype” and “decadent archetype”?
“Interest” and “The Brain”
Everyone’s interest and its evolution are controlled by the brain. The discussion of neuropsychology occupies a large part of the book. A fact that interests Peterson in this regard is that the division of labor between the left and right hemispheres of the brain seems to correspond to the known and unknown worlds respectively: the right brain is mainly used for “cautious response to novelty and the rapid formation of global hypotheses,” while the left brain dominates the detailed processing of known things that have been clearly classified and are proceeding according to plan (p. 32). Although our knowledge of human consciousness is still very limited, and the existence of the soul is not recognized by science, the progress of neuroscience is helpful for all humans to better understand themselves.
We know that the human brain is capable of extremely complex cognitive functions, including emotion, perception, memory, imagination, decision-making, and thinking, with very low energy consumption. Energy efficiency is an important feature of the brain’s design and work. The human response to the unknown, the allocation of attention, and the generation of maps of meaning are first emotional and second habitual, and both are related to memory. Emotion is controllable because the neural networks of the brain have plasticity. The brain is composed of three independent groups of neurons: motor units, perceptual units, and emotional units. The emotional unit, as an emotion amplifier and regulator, belongs to the “limbic system,” hidden under the folds of the neocortex, especially in the structure closely integrated by the amygdala and the hippocampus. It is responsible for processing signals with motivational significance or emotional salience, as well as the infusion and updating of memory. When one suffers an accident or sudden shock, the limbic system will be quickly activated, changing our emotions, interpretations, and behaviors.
When we face the unknown, we will automatically feel anxiety, fear, curiosity, excitement, or hope before we can conduct a routine exploration or try to classify the unknown entity. The amygdala is responsible for confirming the emotional meaning of unexpected signals. It is highly sensitive to and preferentially processes stimuli with negative emotional meaning (especially threat or fear-related), to help the subject identify and stay away from dangers in their environment. The amygdala’s control over one’s attention depends on the tension between the two emotions of anxiety and hope. If the signal does not have emotional appeal (neither threat nor reward), it will be considered “uninteresting” and automatically suppressed or rejected. When the stimulus is repeated without significant consequences, the brain will habituate, reducing the neural response and interest in that stimulus. The amygdala also enhances the memory of emotional events through its connection with the hippocampus, thereby indirectly affecting subsequent attention allocation.
The hippocampus is like the cache of a computer, mainly in charge of the brain’s temporary memory and storage. The output of the hippocampus connects to the cerebral cortex, and it can classify and transfer temporary memories to the cerebral cortex to form long-term memories. The hippocampus is good at comparing the current reality with the ideal future constructed by the motor units based on memory. When one encounters an unexpected event, if the result interpreted by the hippocampus does not match the expected result, a corresponding emotion will be generated, and the hippocampus will switch modes, preparing to update the memory storage in the cerebral cortex. The prefrontal lobe is like the central processing unit (CPU) of a computer, containing a “reward circuit,” and is the engine of rational thinking in the human brain. The dopamine secreted by the prefrontal lobe is called the “interest” or “motivation” neurotransmitter and plays a role in various high-order cognitive functions by regulating neural engagement. The rational thinking of the prefrontal lobe and the emotional response of the amygdala have a mutually inhibitory effect to achieve a balance between reason and emotion.
Memory includes procedural memory, episodic memory, and semantic memory. Peterson emphasizes that philosophy, religion, myth, drama, literature, ritual, games, stories, and various narratives will all enter the brain and become memory with time and experience, providing action patterns for human adaptation to the environment. Moral norms are usually represented, communicated, and elaborated through episodic memory and semantic memory. Imagination, through the interaction of the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, relies on episodic memory to construct simulations of situations to participate in shaping expectations for the future. All myths and narratives, before being explicitly expressed in abstract language as behavioral patterns, are also constructed by imagination. All disciplines within the humanities are closely linked to imagination, but imagination also plays a crucial role in science.
New, unexpected, or significant stimuli will bring about an orienting reflex from the limbic unit, causing an involuntary shift of attention, thus allowing the event to enter one’s consciousness. As the stimulus is repeated, the orienting reflex will weaken or habituate, indicating that the brain has learned to recognize the stimulus as a predictable learned response and no longer needs attention. Emotion can also form memory and be reinforced into habit through repeated input. The neural network treats habit as the default option. The formation and consolidation of new habits require the use of the power of neuroplasticity for constant repetition, and also need to compete with the strong neural circuits corresponding to old habits. So, from the perspective of an educator, a student’s interest in a certain piece of information depends on when it is first recognized by the brain as a novel stimulus and the value assessment it receives. When similar stimuli are repeated, the sensitivity of the brain’s response will decrease. Once the brain has habituated to a stimulus, it is not easy to change how it has been classified as something of interest or disinterest.
The brain filters a massive amount of input information through the attention system, controlling neural engagement. In addition, during cognitive overload, especially in tasks that require sustained attention, the brain will reduce interest or “go on strike” to avoid excessive fatigue. The brain will automatically classify certain signals as “irrelevant” based on past experience and cultural background. Anxiety or depression can change the allocation of attention, causing certain signals to be particularly noticed or ignored. All these features will affect a student’s interest and response to the information transmitted by the teacher. The way the information is expressed—whether it is clear and easy for the recipient to understand, and whether the mode of expression is novel and interesting—will also directly affect the other party’s interest.
Consciousness is the intelligent operator that determines and controls our behavior, and the subconscious is the autopilot.[14] Habit will cause some behaviors to become conditioned reflexes, often unconsciously. Freud described the human mind as an iceberg, with one-seventh of its volume floating above the water. The importance of the unconscious and subconscious often exceeds our imagination. Kandel said: “Our conscious perceptions, thoughts, and actions are all influenced by unconscious mental processes”[15] (2018, p. 16). In addition to affecting habits, the subconscious will automatically screen and process the information that constantly floods into our minds. Unconscious expectations and intentions will affect one’s conscious choices and decisions. One’s sensitivity to and preference for an idea also exist to a large extent in the subconscious. Michael Polanyi emphasizes that any learning exploration involves a “from-to knowing” cognitive process: an subsidiary awareness as the “from” and a focal awareness as the “to” are integrated through the one’s personal memory, intuition, imagination, and participation, which naturally also involves the integration of various conscious and subconscious processes.[16]
So, being familiar with the way the brain works is crucial for an educator. At the very least, we should ensure that the way we transmit information and communicate can arouse sufficient interest in students. It should be understood that the learner’s interest and position are greatly influenced by preconceptions. The exchange of language and logical reasoning have a very limited effect on changing an adult’s deeply held beliefs. A person’s interest in and response to a new cognitive or belief paradigm depends to a large extent on the historical imprints hidden deep in their memory, which are very likely unconscious. Many times, presenting facts and reasoning cannot change people’s hearts. Educators should also think of ways to help the person they are communicating with to dig out the cognitive or emotional obstacles hidden deep in their memory and subconscious.
“Interest” and “Growth”
The shaping of a person’s interest and the drawing of their map of meaning begin in infancy and need to be understood in the context of their life’s journey and social environment. An infant is highly dependent on its parents. A child cannot live independently and must go through a childhood “apprenticeship” (p. 216). A child is usually slowly exposed to the “unknown” and integrated into the “cultural structure” under the protection of its parents. A baby’s learning begins with observing and imitating the mother’s body language. The instinct to imitate is also related to the ability to form admiration and build trust. A child will observe and identify the objects of their admiration and trust (first and foremost, their parents), and actively imitate their behavior, absorbing their values. Peterson argues that “action precedes idea” (p. 415): a child can learn how to act appropriately before being able to provide an abstract explanation or description of their behavior. Therefore, everyone’s interest and map of meaning are established before they begin to learn abstract thinking or even language. A child can gradually establish their own value system by observing the likes and dislikes expressed in their parents’ behavior (for example, whether the parents love reading or playing games). A child can form values of honesty and integrity by observing whether their parents lie and whether their words and actions are consistent. The rewards and punishments that parents give for a child’s behavior will also directly affect the development of the child’s values. More important than lecturing, the behavioral patterns of faith that parents live out in front of their children will directly affect the child’s evaluation of and interest in faith. For example, Christian parents whose words and actions are inconsistent are probably more of a hindrance to a child’s interest in the gospel than non-believing parents whose words and actions are consistent. In addition, the prevalent values in the surrounding culture gradually enter the child’s heart from the parents’ bedtime stories. Growing up listening to Bible stories versus growing up listening to stories of Nezha and Sun Wukong will inevitably shape a child’s values differently. Those who have no opportunity as a child will usually show great interest when they first encounter the Christian faith as an adult. But if multiple encounters only form a negative impression, it will greatly reduce their interest in subsequent encounters.
So, everyone carries the image of their parents in their heart from childhood, and it has a profound impact on their behavior throughout their life. Culture is to an adult what parents are to a child. A child entering adolescence will urgently need new explanations and new ways of behaving. The self-identity of adolescence will gradually replace the dependence on parental authority, as adolescents begin to face the unknown independently. As one’s capacity for abstract reasoning gradually develops over time, it will naturally enhance one’s ability to imitate, and to reflect on and re-examine the “known”—the map of meaning they have already learned. The ultimate shaping of one’s worldview, philosophy of life, and values depends to a large extent on what kind of information adolescents get from their family, school, and society at this time, or what kind of “stories” they are surrounded, attracted, and persuaded by.
Sociology and social psychology often use primary and secondary socialization to describe the process by which an individual learns social norms, values, and behaviors. As mentioned earlier, primary socialization occurs early in life, where children, in the family and at play, internalize observed social norms and values, shaping the basic patterns of their identity and behavior. Secondary socialization occurs later in life, through school, peers, the workplace, and the media, etc., adjusting, refining, and expanding social skills and value systems. Today’s socialization is increasingly influenced by globalization and digitalization (for example, the influence of various social media, including online games), and even directly intervenes in the process of a child’s primary socialization. Primary socialization sets the tone for interests and values, and secondary socialization will refine, reinforce, or challenge and subvert it.[17] In the process of an individual’s growth, there will be some windows of opportunity to experience the deconstruction and reconstruction of cognition and values. This is also a window of opportunity for education in character and faith. But such windows of opportunity will decrease with age. Once a person is set in their ways, the chances for significant change are few. No one will frequently change their worldview.
The many stories in a culture can be encoded and transmitted at different levels of abstraction. Our frame of reference for values also has a “nested” or “hierarchical” structure. At a specific moment, our attention only occupies one level of this structure. The ability to limit attention, with the support of the subconscious, allows people to find direction and meaning for their current actions without needing to focus on the overall picture and ultimate meaning. So, many people do not need to think about the meaning of life, do not need a clear belief system, do not need to understand philosophy and theology, and can feel that they are living a fulfilling life, without any interest in seeking change. However, when necessary, a person can or has to switch levels of abstraction or adjust their scale of spatio-temporal resolution. When an unexpected shock occurs, familiar categories of explanation and patterns of action may fail, and people may be forced to look at the big picture or focus on previously ignored details. People may then be more willing to adjust their cognitive paradigms or switch frames of reference. For example, when encountering a life crisis, or suddenly immigrating overseas and experiencing culture shock, it is possible to experience a sudden turn of interest. These will also be rare windows of opportunity for changes in values and faith.
Conclusion
Peterson’s Maps of Meaning is a challenging and inspiring work. It forces us to confront the fundamental questions of existence and reawakens the contemporary person’s attention to the meaning of life, individual responsibility, and traditional wisdom. He also provides a cross-disciplinary research perspective and methodology that challenges contemporary academic norms, and offers a profound and unique reflection on and critique of totalitarianism, nihilism, and human evil. Peterson’s deep concern for the spiritual predicament of contemporary humanity and its historical evolution, and his call to reclaim meaning and responsibility, are especially valuable in today’s era of lost faith and spiritual confusion. Regardless of cultural background and ideological standpoint, we can all deepen our understanding of meaning, faith, and humanity in a dialogue with Peterson.
Peterson’s thinking aims to build a channel between the micro-individual and macro-history. Each of us is a product of our family, our era, our society, and our circumstances. History and society enter our hearts in some form, shaping our personality, thoughts, and behaviors. History, in the form of a forum for action, experiential transmission, and narrative construction, shapes every person’s personality and values. At the same time, history is also the result of the interaction of each individual’s process of exploring the meaning of life. Each person is unique, finding meaning and a place to stand in their own unique journey of exploration. The map of meaning as history is drawn jointly by all individuals in this process. An individual’s thirst for meaning, their attitude towards the unknown, their unique growth experience, and socio-cultural influences all leave their mark on their own “map of meaning,” affecting their personality and mental habits. It is perhaps the most important function of education to play an active supporting role in each individual’s exploration of the unknown, cultivation of personality, and search for meaning. In other words, the value of an educator lies in helping each individual to better read history and to draw their own unique map of meaning.
________________________________________
Footnotes
[1] The Chinese version is titled 意义地图：如何活出生命的意义 (Maps of Meaning: How to Live a Meaningful Life), published in 2021 by China Youth Press. However, it is heavily censored. It is recommended to read the English original. Peterson has since published three more bestselling books that have been much more influential than his first, including the sister volumes 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Penguin Random House, 2018) and Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (Penguin Random House, 2021), and his latest book, primarily interpreting the Bible, We Who Wrestle with God (Penguin Random House, 2024). The core ideas of these three books are actually laid down in the first book, which is the focus of this article. Also, regarding “belief” in the title, it is translated as “信仰” (faith) in the Chinese version. But “faith” usually corresponds strictly to the English word “faith.” Therefore, this article adopts the traditional translation of “信念” (belief).
[2] White, Sheldon H. 1999. “Developmental Psychology as an Ethical Enterprise.” Human Development. 42 (1): 52.
[3] Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. 2000. “The Psychology of What is and What Should be: an Experiential and Moral Psychology of the Known and Unknown.” Psycoloquy: 11(124).
[4] In early 2021, Peterson posted an 18-minute testimony video on his YouTube channel “Pursuit of Meaning” titled “Jordan Peterson’s INCREDIBLE Journey To GOD,” in which he tearfully recounted his faith journey. It has since garnered over 9 million views.
[5] Polanyi, Michael, and Harry Prosch. 1975. Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 5.
[6] “The hallmark of modernist thought is the conviction that human existence is a matter of arbitrary, contingent fact—that we are groundless, goalless, and directionless, and that we might just as well have never been. This possibility drains our actual existence of substance, casting a perpetual shadow of loss and death over it. Even in our most ecstatic moments, we are dejectedly aware that the ground beneath our feet is a morass—that our identity and actions lack any firm foundation. This may make our good times all the more precious, or it may render them worthless.” (Eagleton, Terry. 2007. The Meaning of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 14.)
[7] Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1981. The Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ (R.J. Hollingdale, Trans.). New York: Penguin Classics, pp. 69-70.
[8] Meyer, Stephen C. 2021. Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. New York: HarperOne.
[9] Polanyi, Michael, and Harry Prosch. 1975. Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[10] Polanyi & Prosch 1975, pp. 14, 23-25.
[11] Habermas, Jürgen. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, translated by Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity.
[12] See: Trueman, Carl R. 2020. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Wheaton: Crossway.
[13] Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground, pp. 75-76, in Kaufmann, W. (Ed. and Trans.) (1975). Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. New York: Meridian.
[14] Agid, Yves. 2021. Subconsciousness: Automatic Behavior and the Brain. New York: Columbia University Press.
[15] Kandel, Eric R. 2018. The Disordered Mind: What Unusual Brains Tell Us About Ourselves. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[16] Polanyi, Michael. 2012. Personal Knowledge. Abingdon: Routledge.
[17] Berger, Peter L., & Luckmann, Thomas. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Parsons, Talcott, and Robert F. Bales. 1955. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Erikson, Erik H. 1950. Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
This is the English version of an article published in Chinese in Logos Review (汉语学志). Read the Chinese original (中文原文) · All English articles
