One member of the audience asked who should be included in this reorientation of the social narrative of environmental debate. Peterson’s lecture clearly wanted to encourage a place at the table for critical philosophy in this new version of talk about environmentalism. His presentation about a priori thought explains a lot about how apathy is cultivated in the minds of many average citizens, and so the inclusion of philosophy would perhaps help to push back against that. Peterson’s answer, however, was that ideally everybody should be included in these kinds of debates. This response makes perfect sense, as anybody who is advocating for the inclusion of more varied types of intellect to join in a conversation would want even more kinds, not just from different departments of academia, but from all spheres of human thought.
Peterson’s lecture reminded me of previous lectures that have been included in this series, in his focus on environmentalism and how to approach it. Wai Chee Dimock, in her lecture on William Blake’s poetry and its possible parallels to modern fears of climate change, approaches a very similar problem. The idea that literature and the humanities in general can bring something extra to discussions about climate change was a main focus in her presentation as well. She suggested that science can display raw facts but might have trouble drawing the focus it really needs for declarative action to be taken. In her presentation Wai Chee Dimock proposes that literature can provide the element that was missing from the scientific conveyance of information, which was emotion. Her lecture suggested that mutual cooperation between science to provide the factual knowledge and literature to convey it in a way that is palatable or relatable for more widespread audiences could help disseminate information about climate change in a way that has not been previously possible.
Peterson took Wai Chee Dimock’s wish to include humanities in scientific conversations about climate change in a somewhat different direction. Instead of using literature as a way to convey information to a larger audience, he wanted to look at Kantian philosophy to try to consider why these apathetic blocks against apparent scientific data are so common in the average citizen. He uses the concept of a priori to explain this in at least a partial way. A priori is the concept of knowledge that one has formed prior to experience, rather than based on experience. Peterson explained that prejudices are formed from a priori knowledge and are not based on any form of objective knowledge or experience that the holder of that opinion has. These opinions lack objective validity but are part of a priori cognition and are hard to overcome. Peterson used Kant’s idea of a finite and subjective human brain to deconstruct the nature versus nurture dualism that is often applied to the widespread ignorance about environmentalism and the debate. This was interesting because it sidestepped the major contention and tried instead to look directly at the cause, which was a refreshing new way to look at this debate by pushing back against its whole structure.