If he were to admit in his writings that his position is controversial, and he would back up his position with more solid argumentation, then I wouldn't have any problem with his work.
However, he puts forth his ideas as if they are obviously true with not a lot of depth or support. I watched one of his two hour long talks and within the first five minutes I was noticing major mistakes he was making. Even philosophers such as Locke, whom he supports as great Enlightenment figures, he wasn't getting right. He was basically trying to frame every philosopher as either a complete friend or complete enemy of his philosophy.
Hicks appears to be an Objectivist. Objectivism is such a controversial position that most philosophers don't even think it is worthy of the name 'philosophy'. If Stephen Hicks is one of its major proponents, then I think they have a point.
I'm afraid mine is merely practical (I am a retired businessman and private investor).
I look at Hicks and Peterson the same way. I listen to them (and read them) to see if what they say can be corroborated by my real life experience, observations of human behavior, and/or things I have read or heard from others whom I have come to respect.
Much (but not all) of what they say is corroborative, corroborated, and enlightening re: the major shifts I see in the national and international political landscape.
Hicks makes a point which I find quite interesting but not fully understood as yet. He has tried to define the relationship between Marxism, the Radical Left, and postmodernism. The relationship is visible to me but I am not yet fully satisfied as to how it came about or why it exists.
Hicks point is that when faced with the failure of communism and collectivism in the last century (and now in Venezuela), the Radical Left came to a fork in the road. They could reject their long held beliefs in Marxism/communism (which in many cases were so deeply held as to be the bigger part of who they are) OR they could reject the facts and evidence which were the proof of the failure of Marxism/communism.
Hicks (and Peterson's) point is they merged their Marxist/communist beliefs with postmodernism because postmodernism rejected rational thought, objective reality, facts, and truth. (I am sure this description of postmodernism is perhaps way too simplistic for a philosopher to accept, so please forgive me.)
After that merger, the Left is, collectively, happy as clams again because they can ignore the facts and evidence about Marxism/communism...and they now have a genuine, well-though-out philosophy which gives them permission to do so.
There is much more to say on this but that is enough for now.
As an aside, thank you for your previous comments on this thread. I think I am coming to a better understanding of your position.