I am talking around it, the nature of rhetorical questions is for you to make the movement of understanding. On a personal level however this defence always annoys me because I have read Maps of Meanings when practically none of his defenders have.

If your main point is that he asks interesting questions, my reproach would be that, the that questions he asks are the same ones asked by the same theorists he condemns.

Why do people feel so alienated today? Marxs himself made this a big question and examined it from how people relate to their work. Ever wonder why video games about pretending to be some sort of worker are so popular?

How can we have knowledge from nothing, or as Peterson puts it in maps of meaning, Order from Chaos. But the description of his process from Chaos to Order has so much similarities to Hegel's dialectics without reference. I'm left wondering why not just read about Hegel which already exists in a philosophical tradition in which further discussion has already been had?

How does one get from this abstract map of meaning to our material reality? Well, that is exactly what Marx attempts to due with his own philosophy and the questions and answers he raises are then questioned and discussed by post-modern philosophers.

What's more Petersons key thesis, that meaning is generated in individuals through a universal process that is expressed to us through a universal myth, is open to critique by the big man himself, Zizek, who says the universal process in creating meaning is ideology and is intrinsic to the process that makes our subjectivity possible in the first place. And he wrote about this in the 80s.

On this note, have you noticed that once he finally did met a philosopher from the continental tradition, Zizek, that he had no interesting questions and no interesting answers. Why do you think that?

It is not that Peterson is devoid of value, it is that his ignorance devalues him.