Peterson generally doesn't work towards a common definition though, he mostly just deconstructs the definitions other people are using without offering a better alternative. This could be forgivable if his purpose was to highlight the error in another person's thinking, but the sad reality is that his ruminations usually obfuscate far more often than they elucidate. When it comes to the subjects of epistemology and theology in particular, he is incredibly vague about what his position is.Asking for clarification and working towards a common definition isn't obscurantism. What would that goal be of someone trying to obscure the issue, but at the same time delving deeper into it and chasing after it?
In light of this, I think my charge of obscurantism is fair.
Articulating the complexities of something and overwhelming the listener with semantics as a substitute for genuine insights are not mutually exclusive. Language is a complex thing; so complex that if you had to define every word before uttering it, you would never be able to finish your sentence. Still, would this really be a worthwhile use of language?He's up there articulating the complexities of the issue and explaining why he is doing it, which you say great thinkers do, but when he does that... apparently he's dodging?