In his lecture, professor Peterson explored Kantian ethics, focusing more specifically on the idea of a priori- things prior to experience that we use to categorize and process information, life, and more broadly the world. He tied a priori to how we reconcile the climate crisis. He asked big questions like, “Is the human brain wired to deal with climate change?”. He ultimately suggested the need to adopt a new paradigm to transition to an ecological culture. I’d like to address two things in my response: the insular nature of academia and how we implement change in the real world.<\/p>\n
During the Q & A session, professor Peterson nodded to the fact that philosophy and academia are very insular. Something I’ve really struggled with in this lecture series and in this lecture, in particular, is the lack of accessibility to the topics discussed. What’s the point of all this research if the lay person can’t understand it or must work very hard to do so? If the ultimate goal of work like professor Peterson’s is to enact change locally, regionally, and globally don’t we have to make it more approachable? I appreciated professor Peterson acknowledgment of the importance of mediums like film and social media to reach people. I think that many of the ideas (e.g. we all have a set of categories that we use to view the world) that professor Peterson presented were interesting and if they were more broadly accepted by the general public could help shift the narrative around things like climate change. I think it would be interesting to see research like this study on a priori be more integrated into popular culture through things like web series, TV shows, and podcasts.<\/p>\n
Similar to my first point, I’d like to address how we implement change in the real world. In his talk, professor Peterson indicated that under this philosophical framework, for people to care about the climate crisis they must have some kind of personal experience with climate change. Whether that be growing up in a smog filled\u00a0city or experiencing what it’s like to live in a food desert there must be some kind of connection. This made me consider how we connect seemingly abstract concepts like a priori to our lived experiences. Perhaps, storytelling is a good way to start these conversations? Through hearing the stories of other people’s climate crisis experiences I think we are able to more easily connect our own experiences to the climate crisis. Groups like Planned Parenthood and political campaigns\/nonprofits often use storytelling to connect with their base. I think that climate\/environmental groups can and should use storytelling more frequently as another way to connect with voters as we try to implement change. Perhaps, that’s an alternative way to begin to shift the paradigm with the philosophical framework that people like professor Peterson study.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, professor’s research about a priori is interesting but, I found it to be somewhat inaccessible to the average listener. I’m intrigued by his mention of things like popular culture and film to connect his philosophical viewpoint with the general public- especially when considering the severity of climate change in the status quo.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In his lecture, professor Peterson explored Kantian ethics, focusing more specifically on the idea of a priori- things prior to experience that we use to categorize and process information, life, and more broadly the world. He tied a priori to how we reconcile the climate crisis. He asked big questions like, “Is the human brain … <\/p>\n