张军
摘要
本文以扩展书评的方式评析乔丹·彼得森《 意义地图 》，提出一个面向 “意义—— 人格 —— 教育” 的综合框架。文章以三组核心范畴贯穿论证：其一，“行动剧场 / 事物之所”与“科学/神话”的区分，结合休谟 —— 尼采 —— 哈贝马斯与波兰尼的线索，指出科学无法提供价值坐标，叙事/神话维系意义秩序；其二，“已知 / 未知 / 探索” 的动态与 “英雄 / 极权 / 颓废” 的人格谱系，强调 “兴趣的神圣性” 作为通向真理与责任的内在召唤；其三，借助神经心理学（ 杏仁核、海马体、前额叶、奖赏回路与左右半球分工 ）解释 “兴趣 —— 注意 —— 记忆 —— 习惯” 的生成机制。由此提出教育启示：在初级/次级社会化的关键窗口培育 “英雄人格” （ 诚实、责任、勇气 ），以叙事与实践对抗工具理性与极权想象；通过兼顾安全与新奇的课程设计与德性操练，帮助学习者绘制各自的 “意义地图”，把 “神性的召唤” 转化为人格成长的契机（ kairos ）。本文的贡献在于：为去工具化的价值与信仰教育提供跨学科整合路径与可操作的教育指引。
关键词：彼得森；意义；科学与神话；已知与未知；英雄人格；兴趣的神圣性；神经心理学；价值与信仰教育；凯罗斯（契机）
https://doi.org/10.64053/PLOQ3622
引言
教育的目标，不仅在于知识的传递，更在于思维模式和能力的培养。而教育的最高目标，则在于人格和心灵的塑造。本文试图通过一篇扩展的书评来反思深层教育目标的实现问题。本文评论的是一本有年头且相当另类的书，就是乔丹·彼得森（ Jordan Peterson ) 1999 年通过 Routledge 出版的：《 意义地图：信念的架构 》 （ Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief )[i]。除了梳理彼得森的核心论点，本文还将探讨其思想与基督教传统中某些核心观念的共鸣或张力，并进一步反思这些讨论对于理解个体信仰范式选择和当代精神生活带来的启示。文章将尝试在一个广阔的学术视野下，审视彼得森对意义、信仰和人类处境的思考。
这是一本独一无二、难以归类的书。它是一位严肃学者的严肃学术作品，有近 600 条的注释和 300 条的参考文献，写作的风格也相当艰涩（ 彼得森是以追求表达精确严谨而闻名的 ）。本书主要成型于作者在哈佛大学心理学系任教期间，部分内容曾被用作课堂教材。而且也是呕心沥血之作。作者说他每天花 3 小时，持续 15 年，字斟句酌，反复修改。但是本书绝非循规蹈矩或者常规的追求学术成果之作。对于许多学术界人士来说，此书既不规范也不严谨，或者是犯了禁忌。宗教和神话分析其实是本书的重点—大写的 “God” 和小写的 “god” 各出现250次左右，耶稣的名字都出现有 60次 之多。本书也是高度 “跨界” 之作，涵盖心理学、神经生物学、脑科学、人类社会学、西方哲学、文学、圣经神学和东方宗教等等。实际上，该书出版后，反响平平，甚至无人问津。据说精装版销量不足 500 册。彼得森自己都曾感慨：很多年过去，人们根本不知道该如何解读这此书，试图认真评论的也不多。事实上，当彼得森近十年前成为公众人物之后，本书才开始受到较大的关注。但是笔者看到此书的独特价值，所以愿意尝试做一次冒险的写作。
当然，该书也获得少数大家的好评，比如当时哈佛大学心理学系主任谢尔顿·怀特（ Sheldon White ）称其 “极大地拓展了我们对人类动机的理解”[ii]。马克辛·希茨-约翰斯通（ Maxine Sheets-Johnstone ）在《 心理语录 》（ 2000年 ）发表了罕见的长篇评论，称其为 “一本新颖、发人深省、复杂而引人入胜的书，尽管有时在概念上令人困惑、内容重复，并且在格式上令人恼火”，然而，“这本书的优点远超缺点。” [iii] 对普通读者角，本书的阅读或许艰难甚至令人沮丧。但终究仍是瑕不掩瑜，不可多得。
如今乔丹·彼得森已是名满世界的超级学术网红，仅在 Youtube 上就有近 900 万订阅用户。作为争议性人物和言辞犀利的右翼思想领袖，他被人追捧，也被人憎恶。彼得森 1962 年出生于加拿大的阿尔伯塔。本科就读于阿尔伯塔大学， 1984 年获心理学和政治学双学士。1991 年在麦吉尔大学获得临床心理学博士学位。1993-98 年在哈佛大学心理系任助理教授。1998 年转至多伦多大学任正教授， 直至2021年因就言论自由问题与学校冲突之后办理了退休手续。如今除了自由写作和演讲，他也开办了自己的网络大学：Peterson Academy。
这本著作也可以说是彼得森个人大半生的灵魂探索：既是对个人内心世界追索，也是对重大社会和历史议题的省思。 受荣格的影响，他相信整个世界问题的答案就藏在每个人隐秘的内心世界之中。他在书中表示尽管自己成长于一个基督教氛围浓厚的家庭和社区，并且拥有快乐美好的童年，但年轻时高度叛逆，对于抛弃养育自己的精神源泉迫不及待，并急切寻求 “普遍的社会和政治疯狂与世界的邪恶”（ 第xv页 ）之解药。但本书的思考和写作很大程度上预示了他此后对圣经信仰日益增长的兴趣和正面评价[iv]。
“行为” 与 “意义”
由书名可知，作者的主旨在于追问并阐释人生的意义和信念的关系。彼得森理论大厦的第一块基石，就是主张：世界是一个 “行为剧场” （ forum for action )。尽管世界同样可以被解释为一个 “事物存在的场所” ( place of things )（ 第 1 页 ）。事物存在的场所对应的是客观世界和科学叙事。行为剧场对应的则是价值世界和非科学叙事。作者主张，启蒙运动之后，这两种模式就进入了一种虽无必要但又无可避免的对峙状态。
人若要活下去，就必须行动。生活就是根据自己所看重、所期望、所认为应当的方式来行动。所以，有行动，必有评价。价值是行动的前提，或其隐含的、无意识的对应物。行动有价值，因为行动可选路径之间存在差异。行动实际上就是对多组方案中的一组表达偏好。我们总是以预设的 “理想未来” 为目标来评估当下。我们总是为了把“所在的地方”转变为 “想在的地方” 而行动。所以，行动追随目标，目标决定意义且随目标而变。
彼得森主张，价值关乎是非善恶。善恶之间的距离将意义赋予行动和生命。对于行动者，一个行动的路径越有价值，它就越好，越善。若没有恶，就无法定义善。若不相信善恶，行动就因为无差别而无意义。意义的失落，意味着作为行动指引的价值等级或者道德规范的崩塌—更危险的则是对这种价值等级存在与否的底层信仰崩溃—可能导致个人的抑郁、混乱、焦虑，和社会的冲突甚至杀戮。失去意义感，人就难免陷入致命的软弱而弃善从恶—屈服于痛苦和苦难，憎恨生活甚至企图消灭生活。这种仇恨会导致人们去认同甚至渴望毁灭的力量—这就成为人类自相残杀以及战争的根源。所以，意义的存续对人生和社会都至关重要。
彼得森为人生的意义提供了一个特殊的视角和一般性解读，也为不同立场的对话提供了可能性。概括而言，他主张完整的人生意义，是与人生作为一个持续 “探索” （ exploration ）的过程不可分割的，包括不可或缺的三个部分：1）接受并实践已探索到的“已知”所赋予的意义，2）相信未探索的“未知”中存在着超越或者神圣的意义，3）肯定并享受探索过程本身的意义。类似于笛卡尔的 “我思故我在”，彼得森对探索的强调几乎到了 “我探索故我在” 的高度，尽管探索和思考本不可分。持续探索就意味着意义永不确定，但对探索本身的肯定又意味着对意义的确信。有意义的事情是令人向往和愉悦的。对探索的意义的肯定已经意味着人生是值得过的—哪怕历经苦难，黑暗的尽头是有光明、有盼望的。但是，善恶由谁来定义？意义又从何而来？
“科学” 与“神话”
迈克尔·波兰尼（ Michael Polanyi ）评论道，“广义上的现代思想是随着人类心智从对宇宙的神话和魔法解释中解放出来而产生的。”[v] 彼得森认为现代科学的贡献之一就是将情感从感官认知中剥离出来，并允许人们纯粹依据彼此的感知共识来描述经验世界，因此也加速科学探索的进程。作为对照，文化传统和人文思维，是对行动所代表的世界的描绘。在这个领域，我们没有与科学领域的经验方法同样强大且被普遍接受的验证过程。在笛卡儿、培根和牛顿登场之前，尽管物质匮乏，人类的精神世界却生机勃勃， 感官经验、道德信条与超越信仰浑然一体。生命的意义，在人们口耳相传的“故事”或者 “神话” —— 关于宇宙结构和人类起源的神秘故事—中得到了揭示和传承。在中世纪的西方人看来，圣经启示的就是人类的元故事（ meta-story ）：人都是神的儿女， 都在至高者的恩典之下。 人们因接受上帝的启示而清楚自己应该做什么、应该怎样做。但启蒙运动之后，现代科学和反传统主义者的兴起，越来越多的人不再相信传统信仰和叙事。伦理道德被实证主义否定，人文思维被经验主义挑战， 神话视角被科学视角替代。越来越多的现代人不再相信宇宙背后的奥秘，但也因过多的理性怀疑和道德不确定性而困惑。所有失落传统信仰的现代人都不得不生活在尴尬困顿之中：要继续有激情地生活，就需要相信经历的一切都有意义、有价值，但他们又被自己的理智告知一切终究都无意义、无价值[vi]。
根据著名的 “休谟法则” （ Hume’s Law ），是什么（ is ）与应该是什么（ ought ) 是截然不同的两种命题，无论多少 “实然” （ 描述性真理 ）都推不出任何的 “应然” （ 规范性真理 ）。 无论我们对客观世界的科学认知多么发达，都不能为生活的目标、意义和价值提供任何答案。但是，个人离不开信仰，因为行动离不开价值。而科学不能提供这种价值。所谓自然主义的伦理价值观不过是自欺欺人。正如尼采在 100 多年前所洞察的，西方人的伦理道德观是与他们的上帝信仰共存亡的：当他们不再信仰上帝的时候，因上帝信仰而来的价值观也就随之被粉碎—他们并不能拒绝上帝而保留其价值观 (第6页)[vii]。
彼得森要强调的是，事实上，所有的现代人仍然依靠 “神话” 而活 —— 无论是传统的还是新发明的（ 比如西方的新纪元运动 ）—— 那些口头上只信科学不信神话的人，事实上在生活中仍然从某种可能秘而不宣的神话（而不是科学）中获得意义和价值。 所以，没有任何人可以骄傲地宣称自己单单依靠 “科学法则” 生活，因此可以与一切依靠 “宗教迷信” 生活的人划清界限，因为这样的 “科学法则” 根本不存在。彼得森主张，历史的功能正在于它与神话的关联。历史通常都被建构为某种神话而非经验事实或者是作为对 “客观事件” 的描述 —— 被强调的通常是历史在心理上的意义而不是事实本身。传承的信念（ beliefs ) 作为 “行动的地图” 被用来解释历史且赋予其意义，也为人们的行动提供价值指引。从前如此，今天依然如此。彼得森反问：自科学兴起以来，我们所依赖的神话难道比我们所拒绝的神话更少吗？如果旧的信仰体系被认为荒谬，取代它们的意识形态结构岂不更加荒谬。
当然，科学与神话并非截然对立。科学也并不必然否定一切神话。而且，基督徒会相信，各种“神话”当中，也可能有一种真的是 “神的话” （ the Word of God ）。科学不能解释 “无中生有”，也无法把历史放进实验室。尽管科学家个人可以坦然信奉有神论， “无神论” 与 “有神论” 不可同时为真。只有当科学理性与无神论被绑定的时候， “科学” 与 “神话” 的冲突才无可避免。彼得森对科学和神话的简单两分过度简化了理性和信仰之间的复杂关系，忽略了科学在挑战信仰的同时为信仰提供的诸多证据以及科学与信仰之间的交叉与互补，正如当代基督徒学者比如斯蒂芬·迈耶（ Stephen Meyer ）的系列研究所揭示的[viii]。
迈克尔·波兰尼则明确主张科学、艺术、宗教，都是人类对于意义的正当探索。[ix] 波兰尼对科学史的分析表明，科学就像神话一样，同样需要将经验片段借助想象整合成有意义的模式。与艺术或宗教活动类似，科学探索同样依赖于个人主观判断、无法表达无法验证的默会知识和社会认可。波兰尼因此完全拒绝科学产生价值中立的客观真理的观念。波兰尼看到的是，启蒙运动之后，伴随科学主义和实证主义兴起的反宗教、反权威和怀疑论思潮，甚至将人从对真理和正义的义务中解放出来，这对于西方文明的破坏是致命的。蔑视一切宗教权威、怀疑一切传统道德的个人主义和虚无主义，也为极权主义铺平了道路。蒙昧的科学主义将人贬低为机器、禽兽或者欲望的集合，因此剥夺了我们认真对待个人责任的可能性， 甚至将人类的道德激情引向更卑劣的境地[x]。
彼得森和波兰尼对现代性危机中意义和道德资源匮乏的忧思，与另一位当代思想家哈贝马斯的晚期思想转向不谋而合。哈贝马斯，这位曾经的马克思主义者和世俗理性主义的代表人物，在 ‘911 事件’ 后，也开始深刻反思犹太 —— 基督信仰传统对于（ 西方 ）现代文明的奠基性作用。他同样清醒地看到：科学不能承载意义和道德。他特别强调西方现代性的道德框架 —— 自由、平等、民主、人权（ 所谓 “普世价值” ）—— 都是无可置疑地来源于犹太教（ 旧约 ）的正义伦理和基督教（ 新约 ）的爱的伦理。基督教并不仅仅是现代性的一个先驱或催化剂，而且是持续塑造现代性规范的基础力量。所以他主张西方世界的世俗化过程并非许多人相信的去宗教化，而是把源于宗教信仰的道德规范向世俗世界转换的一个 “翻译过程” （ translation process ）：比如把圣经中 “人类按照上帝的形象被造” 的概念，翻译成了 “人类尊严” 的世俗概念。但是哈贝马斯跟彼得森都一致认同尼采的主张—企图在放弃上帝信仰的同时享受源于上帝信仰的道德规范，不过是自欺欺人。所以 2005 年他提出 “后世俗社会” （ post-secular society ）的概念，进一步从社会和功利的角度强调基督信仰的当代价值[xi]。
所以，科学的出现，的确对传统信仰构成很大的挑战，也让许多现代人对包括基督教在内的传统信仰体系失去兴趣。但是科学并未证否信仰，更不能在 “行动剧场” 中取代信仰。被奉为“科学”价值观的所谓 “科学主义” 不过是一个美丽的谎言和借口。许多人排斥信仰，往往是出于误会或无知，或是出于情感上的抵触，而不是出于真正理性和科学的求真精神，当然也是源于数百年来反传统、反信仰的激进自由主义学者的持续输出[xii]。因此，非常有必要对科学和神话在行动剧场中的影响进行全面反思。正确的主张，是比较不同的非科学信念或者 “神话” 之间的作为行动指引的可信度，而不是断言只有科学才为可信。在科学主义弥漫的当代社会里，这也应当是推进价值观与信仰教育的切入点。
“已知” 与 “未知”
在彼得森的行动剧场里，每个人都是且应该是探索者 ( explorator )。世界在探索者面前呈现为两个领域：已探索领域 ( explored territory ) 和未探索领域 ( unexplored territory ) 。前者是已知领域 —是文化的和神话的，具有保护性和专制性，是前人探索发现的累积。后者是未知领域—具有创造性和破坏性，是一切确定事物的源头和最终归宿。已知的领域，也是在社会里我们与那些有着同样的信仰和信念传统的人所共享的领域。彼得森高度强调已知与未知的两极共存对于人类生活的基础性。可以说个体人生的基本状态就在于安顿未知、拓展已知。个体的 “已知世界” 的地图，也是一张行动模式的地图。它的建立，是持续的、社会性的、创造性探索过程的中间结果。
未知对人可能是威胁，也可能是机会。人天生被未知吸引，也不得不面对未知的挑战。人类一旦突然遭遇意外冲击，会本能地感到惊讶 —— 既有恐惧又有好奇，紧随其后是注意力的转移、情绪的波动和行为冲动。彼得森认为人有一种控制与未知接触频率的本能、也是调节自身兴趣的本能：过多的接触会导致混乱和焦虑，过少的接触会导致停滞和退化。所以，一个人对某些未知领域（ 比如陌生的文化和信仰 ）缺乏兴趣，也符合本能，因为人的注意力和认知资源总是稀缺的。当然也存在价值误判或者把 “未知” 当作“已知”的可能性 —— 所谓 “知之为知之、不知为不知” 其实是很难的。
无论人类已经有多少知识，本质而言，仍是无知，而且将继续无知下去。 “未知领域永远围绕着我们，就像海洋围绕着岛屿。我们可以拓宽岛屿的面积，却永远无法将海水抽干” （ 第 48 页 ）。这意味着，人类必须谦卑地接受与未知共存，但同时也该保留探索未知的兴趣和勇气。关乎意义的已知，都是在特定的历史和地理框架内形成的文化性认知和神话性叙事，必然包含了某种奥秘性前设 —— 包括圣经信仰在内 —— 因此，已知中仍然必有未知。所以，若离开 “已知”，个人和世界都必陷入混乱，但 “已知” 只是先入之见和共享信念，而非上帝般的全知真知，甚至可能是真理的对立面。已知—根深蒂固的宗教信仰、文化传统、行为习惯等 —— 也可以扼杀、误导、限制我们的探索和创造。 所以对于人类，未知是永恒的，不确定性是永恒的，计划无法完美，犯错在所难免，人生的悲剧性也无可逃避，因为人终有一死。接受未知意味着承认人的有限和脆弱，但也可以开启创造和更新的过程。相反，夸大已知，否定未知和局限，则可能导致将某种相对甚至错误的认知绝对化，开启通向毁灭的地狱模式。
创造性探索的过程，可以使得未知从令人恐惧和不可抗拒之物转变成已知且有益之物。未知和探索本身就是幸福的重要成分 —— 人会因为不确定性而恐惧，但是更加无法接受完全的确定性。各种理性主义和极权主义系统都未能充分考虑到人性中的这种悖论。所以，彼得森引用陀思妥耶夫斯基 “钢琴键” 的比喻： “人是人，而不是钢琴键！人类的全部工作就是每时每刻都在向自己证明他是人而不是钢琴键！……既然如此，人们怎能不为它尚未实现而感到高兴，而这种愿望仍然取决于我们不知道的东西？” 所以， “哪怕把一切尘世祝福洒满全身，哪怕淹没在幸福的海洋里，都只会让人发疯”[xiii] (第12页)。但是激进理性主义和极权主义都是试图把确定性和“完美的幸福”强加于人。
基督徒相信自己所信的对象是绝对的，是独一真神。但并非主张信仰本身的绝对性，而且主张每个信徒都是蒙恩的罪人。对信心与原罪的强调，都是对人的有限性的强调。接受信仰为 “已知”，也是人生探索的再出发，而不是结束。 基督徒因着信心获得盼望和确定性，但这种确定性并不消除今生的未知与不确定性。甚至可能意味着更大的挑战、风险、逼迫和苦难。所以，基督徒会主张，在信仰里冒险才是最安全的，试图靠自己去掌控一切，才是最不安全的。所以，持续面对已知与未知之间的张力，是任何人都无法绕过的功课，也是教育必须面对的永恒主题。
“英雄”与“魔鬼”
一个求知者，就是一个探索未知者和适应世界者。鉴于已知和未知的关系，彼得森主张，人类适应世界有三种基本模式： “英雄模式” 是肯定生命的意义并持续探索、直面挑战，“极权模式” 是以理性自负否定未知，“颓废模式” 则是拒绝探索且拒绝面对未知。 而且，与英雄认同对立的就是魔鬼认同，而魔鬼是骄傲的、撒谎的、毁坏的，也是愚蠢的。当然这样的分类定义未必客观公允，笔者认为反映了彼得森自己作为一名临床心理学家对于个人心理疾病的特殊关切，也有他自己一生对于人类罪恶和极权主义灾难的深刻反省。
概括而言，英雄模式意味着以诚实、谦卑、积极、乐观、勇敢的态度去面对未知，接受挑战，并且服务社会。英雄认同有助于个体承受生命中的不能承受之重，也为个人提供了一个同时超越群体局限并捍卫群体利益的可能性。彼得森预设任何人都可能且应该达到这种 “英雄认同” 和 “英雄品格”。而 “英雄品格” 缺失的人，或者呈现某种心理病态（ 比如焦虑或抑郁 ），或者变得自卑懦弱，或者为非作歹。而且我们可以推论，只有具备 “英雄认同” 和 “英雄人格” 的受教育者，才是理想的探索者，是真正有益社会的可造之才。
彼得森认为，作恶的本质，就是对生命意义的否定或者放弃，就是英雄人格的丧失。他认为，魔鬼撒旦是一切极权主义发展背后的精神；其特征包括僵化的、以理性主义和完美主义主导的意识形态，以谎言为适应模式 —— 拒绝承认错误，拒绝接受不完美，以及对自我和世界的仇恨。极权主义无可避免的全知假设 —— 以 “理性” 取代 “上帝” —— 是源于 “路西弗式的骄傲” （ Luciferian pride ），必然会催生一种地狱般的个人和社会状态。法西斯主义以保护个体免受伤害的群体承诺为名，将某种绝对化的集体认同强加于人，牺牲了个体独自面对生命挑战的灵魂。彼得森认为，法西斯主义者被恐惧和自负所支配，试图否定未知、否定奥秘和神性、否定人性弱点，试图控制一切，结果只能损害群体的适应能力，导致自己最终的崩溃。法西斯分子先摧毁一切自己不认同的东西，最后则是摧毁一切。法西斯主义者也不可避免地会失去同理心，变得既残忍又僵化：因为在他们主张的 “完美世界” 中，任何不完美的东西都不被容忍。
如果法西斯主义者是膨胀的人格，颓废主义者则是萎缩的人格。法西斯主义者自欺欺人地告诉自己可以征服一切未知和困难，颓废主义者自欺欺人地告诉自己未知和困难不存在。颓废人格同样否定奥秘未知中可能存在的盼望、能力和救赎。颓废者自由散漫，回避自身不足，拒绝融入社会，固守自己的理念。颓废者拒绝探索，因此削弱自己的人格力量和适应能力，终究可能因无力承受生活的重担而陷入心理崩溃。
英雄模式对应 “英雄人格”。彼得森受到他所重视的荣格的人格心理学与基督信仰的双重影响 —— 虽然他主张任何文化中都可能孕育 “英雄人格”， 但很大程度上把为义受苦的耶稣作为英雄的理想型 —— “因他受的刑罚，我们得平安；因他受的鞭伤，我们得医治” （ 以赛亚书 53: 5 ）—— 英雄即便面对死亡，也不顾群体的顺从压力，依然坚守 “真道”。英雄人格最重要的就在于战胜死亡恐惧并且持守人性的尊严。人生苦难是有解药的，但是获得解药需要勇气，需要冒险，需要心怀盼望。对英雄人格的认同使世界对个体变得可以忍受，至少可以将不必要的痛苦降至最低。彼得森想说的是，在相互关联的社会里，我对英雄的认同和对苦难的担当，就是你的苦难的减少和幸福的加增。
基督徒会问：一个不认识耶稣基督的人，甚至一个对基督信仰不感兴趣的人，仍然可以发展出基督般的“英雄人格”吗？当然，正如彼得森书中阐述的，每种文化中都不乏被颂赞的英雄人物和英雄精神。但并不是每种文化都同样有利于英雄人格的塑造。笔者认为彼得森对于普遍 “英雄人格” 的主张，预设了每个人心中都有某种神性的引导、神性的盼望，都会有本能的神圣感、尊严感和道德感。只要人可以自愿地、不自我欺骗地持续探索未知、追求意义， 极有可能英雄人格的终点就是某种与神的相遇。而理想教育的功能，应该就是对这种“英雄人格”的肯定、鼓励、培育、引导和巩固。
与英雄人格相联系，彼得森特别主张 “兴趣的神圣性” （ the divinity of interest ）（ 第 346 页 ）。每个人的兴趣中都有来自未知的神圣召唤，来自群体认同的保护墙之外的召唤，某种超越的尊严感的召唤。对彼得森，保持兴趣的神圣性就是追求真理的同义词，就是追随神圣召唤的指引，发展真正的个性，建立英雄人格。彼得森认为深层意义感的获得需要通过深层责任的承担；如果你接受责任的重担，并接受最深层的痛苦，就可以发现内在的意义，并超越痛苦。反之，神圣兴趣丧失意味着心灵走向封闭或者某种心理崩溃，意味着意义感和愉悦感丧失（ 抑郁症的关键症状 ），以及进一步向着 “魔鬼认同” 的滑坡。从圣经视角，这里我们可以联想到上帝透过苦难的拣选和祝福： “你在苦难的炉中，我拣选你” （ 以赛亚书 48: 10 ）。或者登山宝训的教导：虚心的人有福了！饥渴慕义的人有福了！为义受逼迫的人有福了！
当然，神圣感存在的前提是神的存在。彼得森并未在书中直接表达对基督信仰或者上帝信仰的认同。他似乎暗示，即便在无神信仰的文化中，诚实的人应该也可以感受到神性的召唤。 他的人性观可以认为是与罗马书（ 1: 19 ）阐释的 “普遍恩典” 观（ 或者传统的自然法的思想 ）相一致的：“神的事情，人所能知道的，原显明在人心里，因为神已经给他们显明。” 或许神性存在于每个人的心里，只是常常被人推诿和压制。同时彼得森预设了即便在基督信仰之外，人们也可以感悟到生命是值得过的、是有盼望的，苦难是有出路的，是值得忍耐等候的。 当然，对于基督徒，这一切都是唯独在基督里才能得到的。而这种预设在当今大行其道的唯物主义、理性主义、功利主义、虚无主义或者其它偶像崇拜的世界观之下是无法得到支持的，或者是直接被其削弱否定的。所以，价值和信仰教育必然无法回避各种世界观与价值观的争论和辨析。
从圣经的角度，彼得森的 “英雄人格” 的建立和 “神圣兴趣” 的持守，需要特别的神圣恩典。彼得森也意识到，追随 “神圣的兴趣”，意味着个人内心的挣扎与征战，类似于基督徒熟悉的 “属灵征战”。这个主张，与 18 世纪美国神学家乔纳森·爱德华兹对于美德的主张也是一致的。在《 真美德的本质 》（ The Nature of True Virtue, 1765年 ）中，爱德华兹主张，人的美德就是人的心灵对于作为存在和真善美终极本体的上帝表达真挚的认同。所以，如果一个人可以诚实地忠于自己神性的兴趣，忠于自己良心的指引，就几乎不可避免地会对基督信仰产生兴趣，尽管彼得森的书中并没有明确表达这层意思。但是为什么现实当中，似乎大多数人根本没有兴趣呢？
彼得森的答案之一大概是：因为人不能弃绝谎言，坚守诚实。社会和个人心理疾病的根源 —— “否认” 和 “压抑”—— 就是谎言。彼得森认为，那种认为生命的悲剧是难以承受的—人类经验本身就是邪恶的主张，都是谎言。否认生命神圣性，否认人的尊严和责任的主张也都是谎言。接受这样谎言的人，自己也就变成了说谎者，自愿使自己丧失了英雄人格。说谎是对恐惧的屈服，对未知的逃避，对盼望和救赎的放弃。拒绝诚实，就是拒绝道德真理，就使得懦弱、堕落、放纵和破坏性作恶被合理化。一旦向谎言妥协，随着恐惧的加增，对谎言的依赖也会加增。而谎言的根源是死亡焦虑和未知恐惧。人类不断扩展的抽象能力以及对死亡的想象，使我们将人性的脆弱与每一次意外遭遇联系起来，将死亡的意识深深植入每个人生命的历程之中。恐惧也容易使我们对保护性的社会身份紧抓不放。但是群体认同往往会像法西斯那样走向病态的愚昧和邪恶。放弃英雄人格很容易陷入 “对社会化力量的盲目服从” （ 第 347 页 ），成为习俗和习惯的奴隶。
彼得森主张： “对死亡的意识”，也可以 “迫使我们无情地向上，达到一种足以承受死亡之念的觉悟， “让我们意识到自己有能力直面 “个体的脆弱性” （ 第 468 页 ），并发现我们生命的 “道德真理” （ 第 466 页 ），并由此发现我们面对未知时追寻意义的能力 —— 我们 “无限的善的能力” （ 第 456 页 ）， “我们自愿承担死亡可怕重担的能力” （ 第 454 页 ）。如此一来，我们便能够承受和胜过 “存在的悲剧性” （ 第 454 页 ），我们作恶的潜能便被击败。当然，对于基督徒，那个胜过死亡恐惧的道德真理就是一个人 / 神，就是耶稣基督。从教育的角度，值得深思的是，如何才能引导受教者的 “英雄人格” 和 “英雄认同”，避免陷入 “魔鬼认同” 或者 “极权模式” 和 “颓废模式”？
“兴趣”与“大脑”
每个人的兴趣及其演变都受大脑控制。对大脑神经心理学的讨论在书中占据大量篇幅。让彼得森对此感兴趣的一个事实是大脑左右半球的分工似乎分别对应着已知和未知的世界：右脑主要用于 “谨慎应对新奇事物并快速形成全局假设”，而左脑则主导已经明确分类并按计划展开的已知事物的细致处理（ 第 32 页 ）。虽然我们对于人类意识的认知仍然十分有限，灵魂的存在更是不被科学承认，但脑科学的进展对于所有人类理解自身都是有帮助的。
我们知道人脑以极低的能耗实现极其复杂的认知功能，包括情感、感知、记忆、想象、决策和思维。节能增效是大脑设计与工作的一个重要特点。人类对于未知的反应、注意力的分配和意义地图的生成，首先是情绪性的，其次是习惯性的，二者都与记忆关联。情绪是可控的，因为大脑神经网络具有可塑性。大脑由三个独立的神经元组构成：运动单元、感知单元和情感单元。情感单元作为情绪放大器和调节器属于 “边缘系统”，藏在新大脑皮层的褶皱下，尤其是存在于由杏仁核（ amygdala ）和海马体（ hippocampus ）紧密整合的结构中。它负责处理带有激励意义或者情感显著性的信号，以及记忆的灌输与更新。一旦遭遇意外， 边缘系统就会迅速启动，改变我们的情感、解释和行为。
对于任何未知的事物，在我们进行常规的探索或分类之前，焦虑、恐惧、好奇、兴奋和希望都会被自动唤起。杏仁核负责对意外信号的情感意义进行确认。它对具有负面情绪意义（ 尤其是威胁或恐惧相关 ）的刺激高度敏感并优先处理，以帮助主体识别并远离环境中的危险。杏仁核对注意力的掌控，取决于焦虑和希望两种情感之间的相互角力。如果信号不具备情绪吸引力（ 既无威胁也无奖励 ），就会被认为 “无趣” 而被自动抑制或排斥。当刺激重复出现且无显著后果时，大脑会习惯化，降低对该刺激的神经反应和兴趣。杏仁核还通过与海马体的连接，增强对情绪事件的记忆，从而间接影响后续的注意力分配。
海马体类似电脑的缓存，主要掌管人脑的临时记忆和储存。海马体的输出对接大脑皮层，它可以分门别类地将临时记忆转存至大脑皮层，形成长期记忆。 海马体擅长根据记忆对当下的现实与运动单元构建的理想未来进行比较。当遭遇意外，若海马体解释的结果与事前预期结果不匹配，就会产生相应的情感，海马体就会切换模式，准备更新大脑皮层中的记忆存储。 前额叶（ prefrontal lobe ）则类似电脑的中心处理器（ CPU ），内含 “奖赏回路”，是人脑理性思考的发动机。前额叶分泌的多巴胺（ dopamine ）被称为 “兴趣” 或 “动机” 神经递质 （ neurotransmitter ），通过调节神经参与度在各种高阶认知方面发挥作用。前额叶的理性思考与杏仁核的情绪反应构成互相抑制的作用，以达成理性与情绪的平衡。
记忆包括过程记忆、情景记忆和语义记忆。彼得森强调，哲学、宗教、神话、戏剧、文学、礼仪、游戏、故事以及各种叙事，都会随着时间和经验进入人脑变成记忆，为人类适应环境提供行动模式。道德规范通常是通过情景记忆和语义记忆被表征、交流和阐述。想象力则通过海马体和前额叶皮层的交互，依赖情景记忆来构造情景模拟参与对未来期望的塑造。一切的神话和叙事，在作为行为模式被抽象语言明确地表达之前，也是由想象力所构建的。各种人文学科都与想象力紧密相连；但想象力在科学中也发挥着至关重要的作用。
新的、意外的或显著的刺激会带来边缘单元的朝向反射 ( orienting reflex )，引发的不自主的注意力转移，从而使事件进入意识。随着刺激的重复，朝向反射会减弱或习惯化，表明大脑已经学会将刺激识别为可预测的习得反应，不再需要关注。情绪也可形成记忆并且通过反复的输入被强化为习惯。神经网络把习惯当作默认选项。新习惯的形成和巩固，需要利用神经可塑性的力量不断重复，也需要和旧习惯对应的强大的神经回路相互竞争。所以，从教育者的角度，学生对于某个信息的兴趣，取决于它在什么时候首次被作为新奇刺激被大脑识别及其所得到的价值评估。 当类似的刺激重复出现，大脑反应敏感度就会降低。一旦习惯化之后，无论是感兴趣还是不感兴趣，都不易改变。
大脑通过注意力系统对海量输入信息进行筛选，控制神经的参与度。此外，在认知超负荷的时候，尤其在需要持续注意力的任务中，大脑会降低兴趣或者为避免疲劳过度直接罢工。大脑会基于过往经验和文化背景，将某些信号自动归类为 “无关” 。焦虑或抑郁可能改变注意力分配，使某些信号被特别关注或忽视。所有这些特点，都会影响学生对老师所传递的信息的兴趣和反应。信息的表达，对于接收的对象是否清晰易懂，表达方式是否新鲜有趣，也会直接影响对方的兴趣。
意识是决定和控制我们行为的智能操作员 ( intelligent operator ) ，潜意识则是自动驾驶员（ autopilot )[xiv]。习惯会使得一部分行为成为条件反射, 常常是在无意识中被执行的。弗洛伊德说：人的心智（ mind ）就像一座冰山，其体积的七分之一浮在水面上。无意识和潜意识的重要性常常超出我们的想象。 坎德尔说：“我们有意识的感知、思想和行为都受到无意识的心智过程的影响” [xv]（2018，第 16 页）。潜意识除了影响习惯，也会自动对不断涌入我们头脑的信息进行筛选和处理。无意识的期望和意图也会影响有意识的选择和决策。对一个想法的敏感性与好恶，相当程度也是存在于潜意识中的。迈克尔·波兰尼则强调，任何的学习探索，都涉及一种 “从–到” 的认知过程 ( from-to knowing )：一个作为 “从” 的辅助意识和一个作为 “到” 的焦点意识通过认知者个人的记忆、直觉、想象和参与而整合起来，这自然也涉及各种显意识和潜意识的整合[xvi]。
所以，熟悉大脑的工作方式，对于一个教育工作者是至关重要的。至少我们应当确保传递信息和交流的方式可以引起学生足够的兴趣。 应该明白，学习者的兴趣和立场极大程度受到先入之见的左右。语言的交流、逻辑的思辨，对于改变一个成年人深信不疑的东西，作用是非常有限的。一个人对于新的认知或信仰范式的兴趣和反应，很大程度取决于其潜藏于记忆深处的、很可能是无意识的历史印记。很多时候，摆事实讲道理并不能改变人心。教育者也应该想办法帮助交流对象去挖掘记忆深处的、潜意识当中的认知或情感障碍。
“兴趣”与 “成长”
一个人兴趣的塑造和意义地图的描绘，是从婴儿期就开始的，也需要被放在生命历程和社会环境当中去理解。婴儿对父母是高度依赖的。儿童无法独立生活而必须经历一个童年的 “学徒期” （ apprenticeship ）( 第 216 页 )。儿童通常在父母的庇护下，缓慢地暴露于 “未知” 并且融入 “文化结构”。婴儿的学习是从观察并模仿母亲的肢体语言开始的。模仿的天性也是跟形成钦佩（ admire ）和建立信任的能力相关联。儿童会观察并鉴别自己钦佩且信任的对象（ 首先是父母 ），主动去模仿他们的行为，吸收他们的价值观。彼得森主张 “行动先于理念” （ 第 415 页 ）：儿童在能够为其行为提供抽象的解释或描述之前，就可以学会如何恰当地行动。因此，每个人的兴趣和意义地图，是在开始学习抽象思维甚至学习语言之前就被建立的。 儿童可以通过观察和模仿父母的行为上所表现出来的好恶，就逐步建立自己的价值体系（ 比如父母是爱读书还是爱打游戏 ）。儿童通过观察父母是否撒谎、是否言行一致，就可以形成对诚实和诚信的价值观。父母对孩子行为的奖惩，同样会直接影响孩子价值观的发育。比说教更重要的，父母在孩子面前活出来的有关信仰的行为模式，将直接影响孩子对信仰的评价和兴趣。比如言行不一的基督徒父母恐怕比言行一致的非信徒父母更加妨碍孩子对福音的兴趣。此外，渗透在文化中的价值观则从父母的床头故事逐渐进入儿童的内心。听圣经故事长大还是听哪吒和孙悟空的故事长大，必然会对孩子的价值观形成不同的塑造。从小没机会长大后初次接触基督信仰的时候，通常都会表现出很大的兴趣。但是如果多次接触只是形成了负面印象，就会大大降低再次接触时候的兴趣。
所以，每个人从孩提时代开始在内心携带着父母的形象，并且对一生的行为方式都有深远的影响。文化之于成年人，则如同父母之于孩子。步入青春期的孩子会迫切需要新的解释和新的行为方式。青春期的自我认同会逐渐取代对父母权威的依赖，成为青少年直接面对未知的方式。逐步发展的抽象思辨能力能够提升模仿能力，也会赋予每个人反思和反省 “已知” —— 自己已经习得的意义地图 —— 的能力和机会。世界观、人生观、价值观的终极塑造，很大程度要看这个时候的青少年从家庭、学校和社会获取到什么样的信息，或者被什么样的 “故事” 所包围、吸引和说服。
社会学和社会心理学经常用初级和次级社会化（ Primary & Secondary Socialization ）描述个体习得社会规范、价值观和行为的过程。如前所述，初级社会化发生在生命早期，儿童在家庭和游戏中，将观察到的社会规范和价值观内化于心，塑造了身份认同和行为的基本模式。次级社会化则发生在生命后期，通过学校、同龄人、工作场所和媒体等，调整、完善和扩展社交技能和价值体系。今天的社会化越来越受到全球化和数字化的影响（例如各种社交媒体包括网络游戏的影响），甚至直接介入儿童初级社会化的过程。初级社会化定下了兴趣和价值观的基调，次级的社会化则会对其进行完善、强化或者挑战和颠覆。[xvii] 个人的成长过程中会有一些机会窗口，经历认知和价值的解体和重构。这也是人格和信仰教育的机会窗口。但这样的机会窗口会随着年龄增加而减少。一旦定型之后，再次被改变的机会就很少了。 没有人会频繁更改自己的世界观。
文化中诸多的故事可以在不同的抽象层级上被编码和传递。我们的价值参照系也具有 “嵌套” 或 “层级” 结构。在特定时刻，我们的注意力仅占据该结构的一个层级。对于注意力的限制能力，在潜意识的支持下，使人们不需要关注整体图景和终极意义，就可以为自己当下的行动找到方向和意义。所以，许多人不需要思考人生的意义，不需要一个明确的信仰体系，不需要去了解哲学和神学，就足以感到自己活得清醒满足，而没有兴趣寻求改变。 然而，必要的时候，人也可以或者不得不转换抽象层次或者调节时空分辨率的尺度。当意外冲击发生，熟悉的解释类别和行动模式可能会失效，人们或者被迫着眼于全局，或者聚焦于之前忽略的细节。人们可能就更愿意调整自己的认知范式或者转换参照系。比如在遭遇人生危机的时候，或者突然移民海外经历文化冲击的时候，就有可能突然产生兴趣转向，这些也将是难得的价值观和信仰转变的机会窗口。
结语
彼得森的《 意义地图 》是一部充满挑战和启发性的著作，它迫使我们直面存在的根本问题，重新唤起当代人对生命意义、个体责任、传统智慧的重视。他也提供了跨学科的、挑战当代学术规范的研究视野和研究方法，并且对极权主义、虚无主义和人性之恶提出深刻且独特的反省与批判。彼得森对当代人类精神困境及其历史演化的深切关注，对重拾意义和责任的呼吁，在今天这个信仰失落、精神迷茫的时代弥足珍贵。无论文化背景和思想立场，我们都可以在与彼得森的对话中，深化自己对意义、信仰和人性的理解。
彼得森的思考志在建立微观个体与宏观历史之间的通道。我们每个人都是自己的家庭、时代、社会和际遇的产物。历史和社会以某种形式进入内心，塑造了我们的人格、思想和行为。历史以行动剧场、经验传承和叙事构造的形式建构了我们每个人的人格和价值观，同时历史也是每个个体探索生命意义的过程彼此交互的结果。每个人都是独一无二的，各自在独特的探索中找到意义，找到安身立命之所。历史作为意义的地图正是在这个过程中被所有个体共同绘制的。 个人对意义的渴求、对未知的态度、独特的成长经历、社会文化影响等，都在自己的“意义地图”上留下印记，影响着自己的人格取向和心灵习惯。在每个个体的未知探索、人格养成与意义寻找中扮演积极的辅助角色，恐怕正是教育最重要的功能。 换句话说，教育者的价值正在于帮助每个个体更好地阅读历史，并绘制自己独特的意义地图。
[i] 中文版标题为《 意义地图：如何活出生命的意义 》2021 年由中国青年出版社 出版。但是被高度删节。建议参照英文原著阅读。彼得森后来又出版了三本比第一本影响力大得多的畅销书，包括姊妹篇 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos ( Penguin Random House, 2018 ) Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life ( Penguin Random House, 2021 ) 和最新的一本以阐释圣经为主旨的 We Who Wrestle with God ( Penguin Random House, 2024 )。这三本书的核心思想其实都是在本文聚焦的第一本书里奠定的。 另外关于标题中的 “belief”，在中文版里被译为 “信仰”。但 “信仰” 通常严格对应的英文词是 “faith”。所以，本文采用传统的 “信念” 译法。
[ii] White, Sheldon H. 1999. Developmental Psychology as an Ethical Enterprise. Human Development. 42 (1): 52.
[iii] 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).
[iv] 彼得森于 2021 年初在自己的 Youtube 频道 “Pursuit of Meaning” 发布 18 分钟见证视频 “Jordan Peterson’s INCREDIBLE Journey To GOD”， 流泪讲述自己的信仰历程。迄今已有超过 900 万的浏览量。
[v] Polanyi, Michael and Harry Prosch 1975. Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p.5.
[vi] “现代主义思想的标志性特征是一种信念，认为人的存在是偶然的 —— 没有根基、没有目标、没有方向、没有必然性，人类本来很有可能从未出现在这颗星球上。这种可能性掏空了我们的现实存在，投射出恒常的失落和死亡的阴影。即使是狂喜的时刻，我们也颓丧地知道脚下的根基宛如沼泽 —— 我们的身份与行为缺乏牢固的基础。这可能让我们美好时光变得更加珍贵，也可能让它变得毫无价值。” Eagleton，Terry 2007. The Meaning of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.14.
[vii] Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1981. The Twilight of the Idols and the Anti-Christ (R.J. Hollingdale, Trans.). New York: Penguin Classics, pp. 69-70.
[viii] Meyer, Stephen C. 2021. Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. New York: HarperOne.
[ix] Polanyi, Michael and Harry Prosch 1975. Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[x] Polanyi & Prosch 1975, pp. 14, 23-25.
[xi] Habermas, Jürgen 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, translated by Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity.
[xii] 参见：Trueman, Carl R. 2020. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Wheaton: Crossway.
[xiii] Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground, pp. 75-76, in Kaufmann, W. (Ed. and Trans.) (1975). Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. New York: Meridian.
[xiv] Agid, Yves 2021. Subconsciousness: Automatic Behavior and the Brain. New York: Columbia University Press.
[xv] Kandel, Eric R. 2018. The Disordered Mind: What Unusual Brains Tell Us About Ourselves. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[xvi] Polanyi, Michael. 2012. Personal Knowledge. Abingdon: Routledge.
[xvii] 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 Bales, Robert F. 1955. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Parsons. 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.
<全文完>
Maps of Meaning, the Call of the Divine, and the Kairos of Education
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.
