First of all, in a way, this may sound as an odd comparison, but reading through this book, I found that Jordan Peterson’s writing style to bear a significant degree of resemblance to that of the renowned Russian author, Fyodor Dostoevsky. Both tend to employ a self-reflective, introspective dialogue in their works. However, unlike Dostoevsky’s often intricate and complex train of thought, Peterson’s approach is more direct and accessible, yet retains a similar depth of imagination.* A balance that I particularly appreciate. His 12 Rules for Life reads almost like a series of individual, self-contained mini-books, each of which could have been expanded further more in breadth if he had wanted. Peterson maintains a concise, focused narrative, ensuring that every sentence holds significance. In the final chapter, titled Coda, he skillfully ties together the preceding ideas, creating a structure that almost mirrors a well composed musical composition of the classics in my opinion.

It is particularly intriguing that Jordan Peterson simultaneously presents two seemingly contradictory worldviews on the subject of creation. On one hand, he references Darwinian principles, discussing how humans, like chimpanzees, are products of evolutionary processes. His extensive footnotes and bibliography, which include numerous works on research related to chimpanzees and other primates, clearly indicate his intent to draw distinct comparisons and analogies between human behavior and that of primates. This approach is particularly evident in his fifth chapter, where he discusses the importance of discipline and frequently references these studies to support his arguments. On the other hand, he advocates for the value of religious belief, particularly in God and Christianity, as beneficial, regardless of whether one perceives these beliefs as literal truths or metaphorical narratives. This juxtaposition raises compelling questions about the intersection of science and religion in understanding human existence. I appreciate this perspective, as the reality is that we do not yet fully know whether it is possible to dismiss religion as mere fiction or to regard science as a form of black magic. It is essential that we remain open to both possibilities, so as to avoid regretting a potential epiphany that our future selves might one day encounter._† Frankly, I view Peterson’s ability to fully engage with two seemingly contradictory perspectives as a strong indicator of intellectual depth. By embracing both views with conviction and seeking to reconcile them within his own understanding, he demonstrates a commendable capacity for nuanced thought.