What do you mean "alternative?" Alternative to what? Someone asks a question, you ask for clarification, you explain why you need it, and you explore the problem... Why would someone need to randomly swap in their own interpretation to further impede the exploration? "I want to know what you mean by X, so how about you explain what you mean by X and while you do I'm going to assume you mean Y." I really don't understand your issue here.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.
Your problem, as it stands right now, is that you think he doesn't answer the question on your terms. That seems to really bother you, and it seems to bother you that he tries to dive deeper into it.
I mean even right here, he goes into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0
So if you want, go and criticize his answer here, but he does provide one. And if you're opposed to his definition based on the setup, in my opinion you have a low-resolution concept of God and most likely everything else since your only interest appears to be playing conversation referee.
It's ironic you are using such pretentious language cause you're doing exactly what you accuse him of doing.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.
I continue to be a loss at what you are actually trying to say here. "Exploring complexity and making something complex in the interest of avoiding it aren't the same thing." Thanks professor, now can you explain why he did the latter instead of the former? We all know what it's like when someone is pretentiously avoiding a thing with flowery language. Deepak Chopra comes to mind, you also come to mind right now, but just go ahead and say where he is fucking up in the problem.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?
See you started by saying he is avoiding the issue completely, then I argued that he is delving deeper into it, now you're saying yeah he does delve deeper but he is using words you don't like. Okay, so where is he going wrong? Cause by the way, it's not his language or terminology. Both are fine, it's pretty plain spoken, it's pretty straight forward.
Your problem seems to be he doesn't answer the question on your terms, but like I said earlier in this thread it would be like me asking you if you believe in "truth." You would be an absolute idiot if you just immediately treated it like a binary true or false question.
You say things like "he generally doesn't work towards a common definition." Generally how? Are you implying on the odd time he DOES answer the question and they find a common definition, but not most of the time? See words matter.