Peterson might be smart in some ways, but he is horrible at explaining his points. That is why there's a huge divide between his fans and "haters". If you don't approach Peterson in a (dare I say) "religious" mindset he will seem like a lunatic just rambling on about nonsense. This will be hard to explain , I am also not good at it...still

The points he wants to make (whether you agree or not with him) is that humans don't have "access" to truth. He believes this is a law/feature of the universe and no matter what you do it can't be overcome.

When someone asks you: do you love your wife? the obvious answer should be "I love my wife"...and yet, love is only a feeling that "guides" you, so you need to acknowledge that this is a belief not a fact. The answer becomes "I believe that I love my wife". Because this isn't "objective reality" there's always an element of doubt/uncertainty.

As you can guess, this can go on forever, believing beliefs.... That is why "the ancients"(and Peterson) had a different conception about truth. You can't know that you love your wife however instead of going on a semi autistic rant every time someone asks you something, you just say "yes".

In this manner every "truth" humanity can devise is inherently "self serving" because it must have a purpose. We interpreted certain relationships and certain brain patterns as love because it is useful to us. We "name" those things (aka logos) and use them as tools because they are useful.

That is why truth, like so many other stories we tell ourselves (about meaning, about humanity, about ourselves, including the archetypal stories in the bible) become only another tool we possess.

That's what he means with "true enough". Even if something is bullshit (let's say Christianity) you can still act like a believer if by doing so this improves your life. That's why he likes it so much.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, this is his point.