this helps me understand my own thinking as a college student 30yrs ago but couldnt fully articulate. I knew back then fundamentally there was a problem with marxism in that it wouldnt work with human beings because of thenhuman condition. Its in a fallen state.
“The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam.” The only way we get beyond this insanity and chaotic self sabotage is by denying the natural man and sacrifice our selfish desires to become more godly (loving, selfless, and just).
I would start with something more beginner friendly as the book you are looking into is about 800 pages and will require weeks if not months of dedication at a beginners level. I would suggest the prince by machiavelli if youre interested in readings of this quality. Also if trying to create a solid foundation to approach this reading level the prince is a great book. Do more research on it if interested!
Crime and Punishment. Notes from underground. The brothers Karamazov. The idiot. Demons. Notes from a dead house. You'll notice that's 6 but he doesn't list notes from a dead house.
The first 4 are: Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Brothers Karamazov and Demons. I'm not sure if he means The Adolescent or Notes from Underground as the fifth
He didn't mentioned The Meek One (or The Gentle One), also a great novel. It is a study of narcissism from the side of the narcissist. It is a warning tale of how not be.
8:08 Yes, hedonism and comforts for the sake of comforts kill the human spirit. But your alternative is torturing them… which, sorry to say, is a symptom of insanity. Give them what they need- education, appropriate boundaries (iron fist in a more or less transparent velvet glove), opportunities to develop and contribute peppered with appropriate challenges, and allow them to be enjoy their successes. Most of all, respect them. That’s it.
I don't get why he focuses explicitly on socialism in the first lecture. I suppose it's more germane to the time/place that the book was written in, and within the book there's direct reference to chernshevsky's ideas - so fair enough I guess, but to my mind the issues that Notes from Underground gets at are ubiquitous and speaking about them just in terms of russian society is too narrow a focus. The same problems with man's most "advantageous advantage" come about anywhere where people are expected/predicted to behave as rational actors, whether at the voting booth in a democratic society or the worker party's HQ in a communist one. I think it would've been better if JP had focused more on the idea of humans being primed to act against their own best interests (best interests being prescribed by rationality). As he mentioned, the book is super short so I'd suggest people read it, although it's been hard for me to find an english translation that reads well.
He always blames liberals even 😢they are the only ones who will actually DO anything about solving these problems. I don’t understand Chomsky’s constantly ignoring all the horrific things that republicans do when they are the ones with zero compassion.
I agree with you that it's probably unnecessary, but it's because that's the setting in which the critique is weighed and thus probably the easiest way to articulate the points. Because it's specifically the setting in which the author placed the narrator. It makes no difference if the broader questions, critique of rationalism, are ubiquitous. I guess if you're a marxist you'll just have to listen to a different lecture, but the core of socialism is really one of the most apt examples of the way in which this pathetic mouse gets his revenge.
@@ttt69420 thanks for the well reasoned and articulated comment! You're ultimately right I think, as you mention it's very much relevant to the setting/time, and like I mentioned in the original comment the references to the crystal palace / cherneshevsky make socialist ideas fair game. It was a while ago I wrote the comment, looking at it now I'm chalking it up to my general aversion towards politics. Like I said I think there's a lot of stuff in the book that can speak directly to members of any given society. I might've been worried about the broader messages getting lost on those who'd reflexively dismiss these lectures due to being a certain sort of partisan. Then again I don't think a marxist would give JP's thoughts the time of day to begin with lol.
Well, the pricing doesn't happen in vacuum as Jordan describes. Yes, there are complications, but many companies come up with their own top-down pricing instead of bottom-up estimates. Granted, we have many available products to compare with and you can say, you don't need to run social experiments from scratch, but rely on the price of a comparable product whose price is already well established.
I mean we literally have an oil cartel in our world. The largest poultry producer quadrupled its profits in the US by hiking its prices even though there was no reason to. They claimed avian flu but not a single bird of their was affected. Too many times corporate greed rather than necessary need of the consumer that drives a capitalist economy. In fact, capitalism sustains itself by creating demand where none exists
I'd argue companies set top-down prices while considering prices of LOTS of other things, in which case their prices are causally connected to everything else, and so is just as hard to predict
@@jakebrowning2373 Their largest consideration being their shareholder's pocketbooks because greed controls everything in this society. Jordan "Benzodiazepines" Peterson isn't a grifter I'd be putting any stock into.
@@lucasottens8506 ah yes, you're the enlightened selfless person above everyone else. have you build a company? do you paid your employee more than yourself as the owner? interested to know whether you actually do what you preach.
15:00 My memory fails me, so I don’t recall what I saw at Yalta. I think I saw Stalin shaking hands with Roosevelt and Churchill. Same pig with three heads, making social (and not only) experiments on their respective population.
He introduces himself “I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man, I am an unattractive man.” And then he goes on to argue that this is man’s basic state. Don’t be put off by the complicated bits of part 1. Be sure to read part 2. An introvert’s mind laid bare.
5:22 It depends from what level you look at history. From the chickens’ level, it is irrational. From the perspective of the eagles who shit on chickens’ heads it is rational. A rationality that has been perverted to the point of it becoming pure evil.
6:36 There you go. You might argue that the ideologues are victims of their own unconscious forces. I am not so lenient. They knew enough not to do what they have done, therefore they are guilty and deserving of all hells in the universe.
the same thing that peterson said in last part of the video happens in capitalism, but in a very manipulated way: are you sure that what you are thinking and saying now is the fruit of your own will and not the will of the system that controls everything and everyone without beign saw?
This argument always hilarious to me because the socialist intellectual simultaneously pretends that they're beyond this influence, and that they're justified in *actually* physically coercing people if need be, since they're already apparently being controlled.
6:58 You suffer from this compulsive obsession with sanity. Sanity is a myth invented by those who are so weak that they become controlling. Some things should be left mysteries. Human mind is one of them. Matters of the heart, another. Surveillance and AI are things that should not have ever happened. This plays a very big role in me not wanting to be in this world. I used to dream that I would serve in a temple, but the idea of having CCTV in the Holy of Holies and predictive algorithms in my file with AI have killed that dream for forever.
I love his books. He has some unique insight. But at the same time, you need to be cautious about some of his arguments. Because they can be employed to justify a lot of stupid things.
What shines through in this is Peterson's decadence. The point of 'utopianism', as he has it, is NOT that satisfying material needs is SUFFICIENT, but that it is NECESSARY. His critique of the 1917 Revolution is childish. He seems to be unaware that it happened in the context of mass starvation and an unwinnable war with a massive casualty rate. Peace and bread was all Lenin offered. Peace and bread are not the totality of freedom, but freedom is impossible without them. Peterson has never experienced starvation or war on his own territory and seems to lack the imagination to understand what that is like.
Whatever your views on the Bolshevic Revolution and the aftermath, one thing is certain: There are far more interesting and scholarly voices in the world on Russian history and Dostoevsky than Jordan Peterson
And his point is that you can never satisfy material needs. Once you do something always comes up. Man is never satisfied, he is born to strive for one thing on another. There can never be an utopia where man has everything he needs, such a thing would drive him mad so to speak because it is the nature of man. in critiquing the Revolution, he is not attacking their premise of giving the people a better life, but their belief that communism would bring about an utopia. whether or not the revolution achieved communism or utopia is another story.
You people seem to have trouble understanding that he is reiterating the sentiments of the narrator within a novel. His personal thoughts on the revolution, and the propaganda used within it, are irrelevant, as are yours. You seem to also forget that this idea of socialism was contentious enough to erupt in civil war. Not with the Tsarists but with other working class Russians. The fact that you have to regurgitate propaganda slogans and appeal to war and famine as a way of feeling good about being on the side of authoritarian piano playing really is the entire point of this book. Dostoyevsky is a liberal. Just read someone else if that bothers you.
Jordan is a false profit and also will not address his conduct in the case of Case 1 Sordi v. Sordi, 2009 CanLII 80104 (ON SC) he defamed a parent in court. In the case 2 R. v. Pearce, 2012 MBQB 22 (CanLII) he tried to free a murderer. Then in the case Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685, he tried to avoid taking responsibility
If you want to make a point, even if it is an anti-truth, you should at least know how to spell properly. You should also know more about what you are claiming, and be able to present your case with proof. Nice try though ! ^-^
@@murphynick1995 All legal records, that are proven. Yuo can find links to the cases in the article titled "Canada's Courts rule on Jordan Peterson: "As close to 'junk science' as anything that I have ever been asked to consider" Ontario and Manitoba courts were unsparing in their assessment rejecting Peterson's "expert" testimony. And it's a pattern when it comes to Peterson's pronouncements". The College of Psychologiy case can be read in the article titled "Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order Court released decision Wednesday, Peterson says he will take the training and broadcast it" and "Court dismisses Jordan Peterson's request to challenge order he undergo media training Psychologist says Ontario college is trying to 'undermine' his reputation and remove licence" This is undebatable and unchangeable FACT. Time to stop ignoring his actions
