I'm afraid you claim I believe has virtually nothing to do with what I actually think. Furthermore, your critique is chockfull of intellectual tricks. I never said that the rational "ego" of individuals is somehow in charge and can or should direct complex systems. That's partly why I think that the free market is necessary. The complexity of economic systems clearly exceeds the capacity of the rational mind to compute, so to speak. And my notion of "sovereignty of the individual" (and certainly not mine alone) is by no means synonymous with political power either in principle or actuality. You have oversimplified my thought, not least by strawmanning it as self-help (and simultaneously and rather subtly intimating that there is something contemptible unsophisticated or manipulative about that genre), speaking about my "role" as if what I am doing is a Baudrillardesque spectacle designed by myself or others for some reason that lurks behind the scenes, and highlighting my anger as, for example, opposed to jovial (and therefore kind and positive Slavoj Zizek, who I actually like) while ignoring the many discussions I have had with some of the world's finest comedians. The bulk of what are are saying is not criticism, but innuendo. And to imply that I think the rational ego whose reality I apparently so naively support is somehow free of, say, unconscious motivators or social structuring is something that runs so contrary to what I have written and said that it's not even worthwhile debating the issue. Finally, in totality, you do all but state that I somehow have a simpler and more dated and anachronistic view of the mind and the complex world that it inhabits than you and those, say, sociologists who share your presumptions. Good luck with that.
And you do something similar with your closing remarks on Nietzsche, implying that my (dated/naive)interpretations of his thought have somehow been superseded by real and up to date scholars who (surprise surprise) have come to the same conclusions about him as you.
And worst of all you claim as "realistic" (in contradistiction to my naivete) your conclusion that all we offer to the world is something akin to an approval-seeking set of false selves with nothing genuine at the bottom. I ask you in all seriousness: Is that a philosophy or is it a confession?
@@JordanBPeterson Thank you very much for your intriguing comment, Dr. Peterson. I'll take some time to reflect on it, and will then perhaps try to come up with a proper reply/answer to your queries.
If I could ever ask Peterson a question, it would be, “has anyone successfully critiqued your work that you believe did not misunderstand you?” I would love to ask him this because every critique of his work has been deemed by him and his defenders as being a “misunderstanding” of him. It’s become a meme, at this point, because every criticism of him I have ever seen has invariably been deemed a misunderstanding. If he says yes, I would be highly interested in the critique he points to, because presumably he has already taken the criticism in and altered something in his thinking or approach. If he says no, he’s basically admitting he 1) is incapable of communicating his ideas in a way that promotes understanding or 2) he truly believes his arguments are above criticism, which points to his work being moreso dogmatism or sophism than philosophy or science. I would expect Peterson to answer yes, but if he says no, if everyone is misunderstanding him, isn’t the onus on himself to communicate his ideas in a manner that people understand him? He often responds to criticism as “I actually do not believe that”, but he very rarely if ever explicitly states “I believe this…” Even in a debate with an atheist (Dillahunty) on the topic of whether God exists, Peterson refused to state whether or not he believes God exists. How could anyone critique his views if he refuses to state them?
That is a very very good point. Peterson isn't nearly as smart and interesting as his fanboys make him out to be. His rude response to H-GM says a lot about his character. He (Peterson) is more celebrity grifter than serious philosopher, IMO.
@@basstrip73 I don't think its fair to call him a grifter. He did his thing for years before rather suddenly blowing up. I doubt he set out to create a cult, even if it sometimes seems like he enjoys aspects of the support it provides. Would agree he's not primarily a philosopher though. Depends what you mean by serious I guess. He would probably truthfully say he certainly takes it seriously, but I doubt he would ever argue it to be his primary academic discipline or even that he is particularly good at it compared to more 'serious' philospphers. Doesn't mean he can't say anything 'serious' though, or at least try, so it doesn't do to be too snobbish about 'serious' philosophy imo.
There's been very sharp critiques of his understanding of both post-modernism and Marxism by a number of qualified individuals. Funnily enough, he responds not to them, but to this. He may see something here he can actually mount a defense against, but not against someone with expertise in post-modernism or Marxism. He once had a discussion lined up with Zero Squared, a socialist podcast, but backed out only to shortly after claim no Marxist wants to debate him. Odd, considering he just had an interview lined up with one. He ducks and dodges people who actually would show where his glaring knowledge gaps are while debating those who are ill equipped to debate him, or maybe did misunderstand something about him.
I have observed many people in debate with JBP, and have come to the conclusion that he is much more of a propagandist than a disputant. He will play definitional games and change topics until his interlocutors give up from either exhaustion or frustration, rather than be pinned down to any actual belief. This makes his arguments into the most vapid of post-modern whingeing - which is also the very thing he decries. HGM's critique of this through profilicity is spot-on, I just wish that JBP would be as honest as say, Ben Shapiro?
@@basstrip73 It’s a pet peeve of mine when people judge prolific academics as having overrated intelligence (they always have a different worldview). Seriously what’s your standard?
23:56 "Peterson, as he often does, doesn't answer the question directly, but deconstructs the questioner - kind of post-modernist strategy". Lost it :DDDDD Such a great punchline
Cherry picking an example. There are dozens of interviews where he does answer clearly and concisely, and then he gets twisted. Go and revisit the birthplace of the "so what you're saying is" meme, case in point.
@@StephanDallaPria And a counter-example doesn't prove anything here. If Peterson wants to be seen as opposed to "post-modernism" or "moral posturing", he should always be coherent and consistent in how he opposes, finding an example of him doing the thing he says he hates shouldn't be that easy.
@@2377olegus Exactly, so it's pretty rich to get a grand narrative (lol so modern) from one example when I can give you ten examples (all from one video, and there are hundreds) to completely disprove your point. It's disingenuous.
@@2377olegus That's an unrealistic standard that even most scholars can't reach consistently. But yes, he did do moral posturing in his crusading days. He has refrained from that recently. Out of interest, would you call Peterson an activist?
Jordan Peterson: "You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!" Jordan Peterson fans: "Yes, we're all individuals!" Jordan Peterson: "You're all different!" Jordan Peterson fans: "Yes, we're all different!" Jordan Peterson: "You've all got to work it out for yourselves!" Jordan Peterson fans: "Yes, we've all got to work it out for ourselves!" Jordan Peterson: "Yes, exactly!" Jordan Peterson fans: "Tell us more!"
1. I am a huge Peterson fan. 2. I hardly ever watch videos of presenters I haven't known before to the end, but I did with yours. 3. I think you add some very interesting arguments to the larger discussion (specifically referring to Insult 4.) and I find it refreshing that you question Peterson in a very intelligent, calm and factual manner. 4. I will investigate deeper into your line of arguments. Thank you for putting out your knowledge and best of luck with your channel.
That's a monty python joke! Well yes, where is the problem in that? Ofc people will be same in a lot of things. Why not be the same in the most important thing? Trying to see yourself and trying to live as an individual. Its as much a contradiction like "not living by any rules" being the one rule you would live by. Low tier gotcha'
A good joke becaue he hits a very true point of like petersons rhetoric. Not only him by far. Peterson is for sure not inspire the joke. Live as individual, i mean balancing being authentic mostly while also licving in a society and seeing what youcan do to be in company that accepts you are yourself while not being a terrible person that dehumanizes other, cause live and let live. I mean its true that we kinda copy others but what we are and are our best is usually unique to a person, at least te mix of what fits you the best. An nothing is absolute, but the least individual person is one that isnt aware of how much a balance that can be. Or regarding writing(which isnt as complex as humans but still) there is no originality, we all take inspiration from existing things, just do what you want and give it your flavour. Whixh isnt "original" but generally different from one person to most persons. And dont use just tropes as shortcut but flesh them out that its not just tropes.A work merely copying others words withourt understanding not add their flavour and flesh them out, is not a good work because its boring . Dunno what that point is, but to show originality is very hard, autenticity and thinking for yourself isnt, and fleshing yourself out as person that might be similar toothers but own your flavour. I guess. And that peterson fans should try to come on their own , which actually a lot do, and get out of petersons shadow as person. An every great writer ever has flaws, and should be able to be critizized, nozt saying peterson is, just , no on is beyond criticism. It may not be the best example but i watched so much trope talks and about writing that, seem a good comparison about originality. And to grow from an inspiration.And b able to recognize their flaws.
To be fair, Peterson didn't invent this inherent contradiction. You remember all those ads that pushed you to "Be Different!" or the like, along with some stereotypical picture of a generic adrenaline junkie, in order to push their brand? That's the same thing, except with even less basis since it doesn't even come with any kind of argument, just expects you to go along with its message - and buy their products. Marketing has been doing this schtick literally for decades before influencers like Peterson came along.
@French Bryan such a fantastic channel. Two others I've enjoyed that focus on the epistemological are "Ryan Chapman" and "Ideas Sleep Furiously" both underrated for their quality and depth.
I think this is the best video about Jordan B. Peterson out there. Because is not about Peterson, is about the Peterson phenomenon, about how reactionaries operate in our post-modern world, which, as you explained in previous videos, is much the same as what they perceive is their diametrical opponents.
This channel is seriously putting out some of the best philosophy content on RU-vid right now. Every video so far is extremely thought provoking. Keep them coming, please!
So far I have watched and enjoyed basically every video this channel has put out! Keep producing videos and do not get distracted by the fact that other channels might get more attention with much less deserving content. Playing the "long game" and keeping standards high will eventually pay off. You will grow (maybe slowly at first), but consistently over time, while others will come and go.
Whilst I don't disagree, am pretty sure that 'to grow' (and adjusting either the content, the form or adopting a 'hustle' worldview as you imply) is not the principal concern of this channel.
@@lolamby1 This channel has made a number of videos that are clearly meant to 'set the record straight', when it comes to claims made by extremely popular voices with a huge online reach ( Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Philosophytube), it seems clear to me that growth of the channel and 'being heard' by as many people as possible is implied in its mission. I did not talk about money and I don't see why you say that I imply a 'hustle' World view. If you mean the expression 'to pay off', I never meant that in a monetary way. The online public is an attention economy and once you manage to get some attention you can use that in any number of ways, not just as a 'hustle'.
I completely agree, and even if it doesn't get as many views ever, this stuff is the real gold of RU-vid and the internet, having access to this sort of dialogue is absolutely wonderful.
"Clean your room before you criticize the world" is one of the most perverse defenses of the status quo. It allows only for those who thrive in this system to speak against it (which they won't, since they're thriving in it).
The meaning of the message is that if you don't sort out the aspects of your life that you have the ability to (i.e your own psychological state) then you will likely extend those problems and maladaptations out into the external world as you act in it. Humans are mostly driven by unconscious intuitions rather than rational analysis which is why its important to understand whats going on within you before you jump up thinking that you have all the answers.
@@andersondalmeus1406 The metaphor doesn't just apply to psychology (I should have said that). In the broadest sense he means you should try and fix everything that you have access to before you start ascribing grand plans for how the world should be organised. Usually when people spend a lot of time trying to fix problems in there communities or areas they have access to, it tends to give them a better perspective on how larger scale systems work which will inevitably effect the way they see things like politics. *"that's still a shallow worldview because someone is going to be operating at the levers of power and it's not like every part of their metaphorical room is gonna be clean and theyre not always going to have any qualms about how unorganized their room is while making decisions for everyone."* I don't see the different between this sentence and saying something like "well there all exploiting people, so why cant I?". Just because some other people don't do something isn't an excuse for you not to surely? everyone who sets out to "clean there room" is a net positive to society. *"I've never once seen anyone say you have to clean your room before you change the world to anyone actually already in legitimate places of power"* Well... apart from Jordan Peterson and I've heared from anecdotal sources that he is quite popular with surgeons, lawyers and people in managerial roles so maybe his message is getting to the right people. Who knows.
@Devil's LogicIts not really meant as a threshold you have to pass. Its generally meant as a mindset to approach the world with. Jordan Peterson for example worked as a clinical psychologist and professor before he started talking about these things with a larger audience. If you want to, read the first part of my reply to Anderson Dalmeus (above) As this explains my point further.
Some of the comments here are hilarious. Don't ever say you are a "fan" of this or that philosopher, especially if he's still living. Grow up, leave hero-worshiping aside, and just say that you admire (some) of his work. This was a well-reasoned critique of Peterson, and some "fans", instead of reflecting on the critique for a few hours or days, have to instantly defend the honor of milad... I mean, lordship. If you can't focus on the ideas and set a side the personalities, philosophy is not for you.
H-GM introduces Dr. Peterson for the first 7 minutes as a cult of personality, and you chastise the "fans" for not focusing on the ideas nor setting aside the personalities. That's the "defense" you observe in the "fans" comments... but are blocked in processing. We, who admire Dr. Peterson because he helps us put meaning into our lives, ask "can you have a critique of ideas, not personality? Please, tell us concretely why his ideas are misguided?" Stop projecting, take your own advice, and introduce yourself to your shadow. Then come back to the discussion. We are dying for well-adjusted people to help us explore this world we live in.
I enjoyed your video very much. Thanks for taking the time out to do it for us. Yes, there is a delicious irony in the fact that Jordan Peterson is a self proclaimed Nietzschean and simultaneously a staunch critic of post modernism. : D
This is very welcome. It's important to make available sensible critiques of JP which don't reproduce the 'us' vs 'them' culture war. It's important not because Peterson is profound, but because he is influential. Understanding his popularity, and his views and errors, is part of our collective self understanding.
@@rokaspleckaitis8924 Firstly, I very much doubt the professor would find the term progressive insulting. Neither was it meant that way. Secondly, I am clearly distinguishing my use of the term when I describe it as "truly". My meaning was to distance it from the dogmatic use seen in the US political sphere, where the term is not a meaningful word, but rather a signal word like woke or liberal. I would contend that it is not my use that is customized, but theirs. Simply, I say his content is progressive because it is willing to address new technologies by developing upon established ideas rather than demonizing it as a reactionary would nor trying to fit it into existing frameworks as a conservative (which I consider most US "liberals") would.
@@IrokuKoneru I mostly agree, though developing technology has its own downsides. But I don't think I can predict with any accuracy whether or not swift technological advancement will lead societies in a better direction.
i think all the "intellectual darkweb" does the same. From Ben Shapiro to Brett Weinstein we find a lot of moral anger and selfcontradiction in their own perfomance.
@@John_Malka-tits it is, they are all angry because their interpretation of civil religion is no more popular than wokeism. I think prof. Moeller could analyze this “intellectual” movement that is so worried with postmodernism and dont even understand what it is.
@@jorgeyarza6057 yeah that's one of the least informed statements I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Hey I got a question for you; How warm are those hot takes from 2017?
I have to listen to your videos multiple times to fully understand them. I highly appreciate your content because it makes me really question certain opinions I had before.
Peterson is a genius! He managed to make old fashion Christian and conservative values sound cool and new .He convinced a lot of young people that he is an original thinker, instead of yet another apologist promoting the interest of the same old rich guys who preserve the current status quo. The same status quo that limits the future of the young people who adore Peterson in the first place !
I would like to point that Jordan Peterson's opinion about post-modernism is highly influenced by the book "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen R.C. Hicks" the book is at it best ridiculous read. Jonas Ceika - CCK Philosophy has and interesting video about it. Peterson's luck of comprehension of either Marx or post-modernism is quite evident in his debate with Zizek.
You're a better critic than I could ever be. I don't know how anyone can take Peterson seriously when he's so obviously a grifter. His messaging constantly contradicts itself, he misrepresents sources he cites, and he disguises simplistic points by being well spoken. Any "insight" he offers is vague enough that his more extremist followers can assume he advocates for what they already believe, but at the same time he has enough plausible deniability to shut down critics. There's a reason he's famous for the exchange, "So you're saying that..." "I never said that!" It's because his greatest talent is saying nothing but making it sound like he's saying something. But credit to him, he's very, very good at that. With that said, thank you for tackling Peterson's core message (to the extent that it even exists) and showing it for the contradiction that it fundamentally is.
Can you give an example of where Peterson contradicts himself? It's always useful if you give arguments when you state your opinion, if you want to change minds and not just start a circlejerk.
@@jonan2199 This is precisely what Jordan Peterson does, except that he makes his audience feel that they have been enlightened in some way without any deeper understanding of the issues, just a bit more highbrow version of Oprah.
@@pequodexpress I understand him fine. Disagree on some things but he's trying to bridge the gap between Plato's forms/Jung's archetypes and material reality. It inevitably leads to political and social implications so he talks about them, but he's really not focused on it.
Like 80% of what this Nigga says was almost completely irrelevant to actual practical use of what Jordan Peterson talks about. And in fact some of it I found to be outright not really getting the point of what Peterson talks about. And some of points he tried to erect in place of what I think he’s critiquing are actually quite easily weak.
@@DnalorNibul Might want to watch his other video critiquing wokeism... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GnUqrF9mAA8.html PS: if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, try not referring to someone as "this n-word," or maybe try providing some actual critique of his arguments...
I think he is very smart, but watching him debate Zizek was painful! He exposed his total ignorance on Marxism as early as his opening statement! One would hope, that when engaging with a Hegelian Marxist like Zizek, you would at least read more than “The Communist Manifesto”! He looked like a first year, fumbling through an oral presentation!!
Outside of his field of expertise he gets lost pretty quick. He was outgunned by Zizek on every level. His takes on politics are hacky, and his subtle ultra conservative Christian belief is off putting and frankly something I can’t respect about someone. Maybe I’m being harsh, but it’s a view I’ve held long before I was aware of Peterson.
Doesnt take much to dismantle Marxism when realizing his entire theoretical notion is painted with historical materialism, homogenized populations, and the lack of representing the endogenous evolution of technology and of the institutions and the political equilibrium that influence not only technology but also how markets function and how the gains from various different economic arrangements are distributed. He also paints man as perfectly rational without any notion of psychology in his writing. The only positive thing that came out of Marxism today that still stands is: Principal Agent Theory, nothing else. The only reason people find him provoking is because of ignorance on behalf of the reader and Marx's ambition erudition, and creativity in writing a story. Intuition breeds the lens into truth regardless if it is actually true. Marx was incredibly skilled at this. There is also scientific work proving that intuitive narratives 'lever narratives' sell people more than evidence, given it be causal or purely through the channel of descriptive statistics. My main issue with the standard leftist critique of Jordan Peterson or anyone for that matter is that you are silenced from public opinion if you are not omniscient (practically not possible). I have seen incredible academics get canceled for everything over one bad take in something. For someone to destroy all your social value, or at least attempt to, because you are right a majority of the time and wrong in the minority of situations is dangerous. If someone tried to cancel me (an academic studying informational processing and non-bayesian updating behavior) for everything that I have reputablely earned over a take on, lets say, unemployment and domestic violence such as higher relative male unemployment in married household units reduces domestic violence (robust evidence and game theoretic models on this), I would be pissed. That is why generally I think it is almost always foolish to try to go public with anything because any present success you have is purely a contingent reward system. Really smart people never reveal themselves. Not saying I am one of them given I at least gave my first name and last initial as my internet alias. I am rambling at this point. Oh well.
@@nicholasl9148 Much as I disagree with your sentiments on Marx. You have quite literally. In a single RU-vid comment. Displayed a better understanding of Marxism than Peterson has, in his entire speaking/debating career.
@@OzymandiasFGC I dont necessarily disagree with Marx as much as I just think using historical prescriptions of him in 2021 is lazy. The academic world is beyond historic ideals of great political philosophers, at least scientifically and from a policy lens. It is time to get with the times. So maybe what I said has more to do with the misusage or the inconsistent temporal parallelisms used today with Marx are just wrong. If people started replacing Marx with lets say Piketty (very mainstream example) then I would be a little more reasonable, but of course even Piketty comes with flaws, everyone does.
Thank you for a great video! I think you really hit a nail here in saying that Jordan Peterson himself is also guilty of adopting a public persona which is taking a moralistic stance on large scale social issues. I totally agree with you saying that he himself is employing post-modernist tools in order to construct a view of the world. I think he is totally aware and also accepting the idea that society and individuals who make society can be viewed as identity groups. I feel like the core of his critique against wokeness is arguing that identities that people are adopting and displaying, do and (rightfully so) should have different value in society based on what they contribute to society. Identities based on your profession (teacher, plumber, doctor, lawyer, intellectual) or any other active role (father, mother - caretaker) contribute to the well-being of the society and therefore should be accordingly valued and rewarded. However identifying oneself mostly or to a large degree through identities such your gender, sexuality, race and making a claim that the status and power of this identities in the society should be elevated, is toxic and counterproductive - because it's predicated on the notion that world just owns you something because your are special rather than thinking how you can contribute to society and get properly rewarded for the contribution. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I just wanted to say: You're description of Peterson's _critique against wokeness_ has to be the most clear, concise summary of the "liberals-against-wokeness" position, that I've ever read. (And, trust me, I've lost many hours trying to fit piles of words together, as if they were a 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, and haven't been able to explain my thinking on the subject half as well as you just did.) Just wanted to single you out, for praise. All the best, my friend.
I know you made this comment a long time ago, but I think an easy defense of wokeness in response to the critique is that these identities are ones that have been used as boundaries for discrimination in the past and in the present, resulting in a playing field that is currently uneven and will continue to be uneven in the future if (1) current discrimination isn't stopped and (2) the effects of past discrimination are not resolved. So, as opposed to elevating identities not contributing to the well-being of society, remedying the pushing down of identities that were used for discrimination.
Finally something not pro-Peterson. It doesn't take a philosophy degree to see how much of a puffed-up self-important wanker he is, if you get past his decent self-help tips and look at anything else that he inaccurately touches upon.
" I'm afraid your claim of what I believe has nothing to do with what I think" *sigh* Then be precise in your speech Mr. Dr. sir. Because all your criticizers according to you have nothing but misunderstood you.
Holy shit yeah. Having gone into STEM myself, I feel like I lack so many mental tools to describe people and society... I guess I traded those for the tools to describe abstract ideas and material reality.
@@Michelle_Wellbeck I don't agree, as an engineer I found continental philosophy much more rewarding. Also, being STEM helps inoculate one against the subjective idealism pitfall that many in Pomo fall into.
As I'm applying for jobs now, the observations that individualism in in a dialectic with collectivism, really rings true to me of the formal job interview process. In job interview, one is taught to answer a number of ridiculously staged questions in a particular predetermined manner in order to prove that one is a supreme individual worthy of being hired. The irony being of course, one only reaches this impressive degree of individualism, through hours of researching, practicing, and performing the correct answers. While the ability to curate this performance must measure some form of social competency, the whole game is terribly dull. Through the encouragement of true individuals around us in positions of power, we are encourage to believe the performance is real, and start to code over the genuinely interesting and imperceptible aspects of ourselves in service of the universal true face.
I find this to be, perhaps, the most accurate analysis of Jordan Peterson I have seen. He is indeed a manifestation of the very phenomenon that he detests.
I hope you have a chance to have a conversation with him, perhaps on his podcast. I bet that if you reached out he would be willing to have a conversation with you and he can address these criticisms directly and I think that’d be very interesting to see
having watched JBP peddle his brand of definitional argument snake-oil against many objectors, both skillful and cretinous, , I actually think I know what it would look like before it even happens. JBP is a master of saying nothing while pandering to a demographic that wants to hear support for fundamentally laissez-faire conservative economic, social, and religious views. It's nice to see him being so thoroughly skewered, even with the open admission of the fact that this is all being played for views against a background of social media. It is an elephant in the middle of the discussion, that needs to be acknowledged even before the discussion can begin.
@@k.lambda4948 yeah, I wouldn't waste time talking to JP. He loves the attention. He doesn't care whether he makes sense or not. That seems to be his brand. Sound intelligent and you'll get a flock of dumbasses following you. Throw in a God and he's got his cult following. He's making a fortune like all the hypotcritical pseudo intellectual bullshitters out there. Master manipulators. No different from the money greedy preachers of religion.
The notion that authenticity is achieved through imitation being a paradox is easily resolved: the individual parts are unoriginal, but the sequence in fact is original. That is the whole point of fashion, that fashion cycles rise and fall in perpetuity, but style is eternal because style is developed. Focusing only on the individual parts is myopic. No one will ever have an original piece of clothing, but everyone can develop an original style. Fashions are conformist, style is not. Like how 3.14159265358979... is comprised of unoriginal parts but the sequence cannot be anything but original. This is perhaps a difference between the logics of the brain hemispheres, wherein the left brain wants everything categorised and boxed and immobile and so focuses on parts, while the right brain deals in uncertainty, change, and connections, and so focuses on holistics. When one thinks as the left brain desires, then nothing is original because everything can be reduced to manipulatable parts, the dream of science that all may one day be explained algebraically (to paraphrase Jung, who Peterson is in awe of). That is how authenticity can exist: someone may live their entire life without an original thought, but the sequencing by which they travelled through their thinking can be original. Neither cancels out the other. This is why postmodernism falls apart when applied anywhere else but immediately following the enlightenment in France. Everything can be reduced to parts, but the actors and scenes are not the entire story. Postmodernism is blind, only groping surfaces, never perceiving depth. Jordan Peterson at least recognises that politics are not an abstracted and disembodied construct, as he has spoken about the neuroscience of personality, part of which includes a ~30% correlation between an individual brain chemistry and the subsequent political alignment. This is not a contradiction in his philosophy of individualism, but strengthens it. He frames individuality and society as negotiation, and he has said this long before he ever gained public attention. As he says, society crushes us as well as grows us, that it draws out our potential in expense of what we may be untamed... and therein lies the authenticity: our direction of choice, our limited free will.
Agreed. I'd add to this that I don't even think this is a real paradox that requires resolution in the first place. Authenticity just describes a free union of will and behavior. If a person genuinly desires to be exactly like someone else, then their mimicry is authentic. The antonym of authenticity is not conformity nor lack of originality. These things aren't connected at all. A person who is inauthentic, is a person pretending to be what they they are not, by design or accident not withstanding I.E it is a description of individuals who conform or copy others, not because they have a genuine desire to do so, but due to external pressures or insecurities that, if prodded, said individuals would probably be happier not having to deal with. - The celebrity who pretends to care about a third world charity just for the sake of boosting their public image - politicians who lie just to get elected - your classmate who pretends not to read fantasy novels in order to retain their social standing Authenticity as a concept should be fairly easy to grant to anyone with a modicum of worldly experience dealing with phoney people, of which there are many.
It's an interesting takedown on it but just a few things: 1) How can fashions be conformist but styles not? Isn't the whole point of a style that it is somewhat like a doctrine; that one has to follow a particular way of doing things in order to fit that style? Otherwise, why would they be called *style* guides? Unless you're talking about a notion of style as it being akin to *taste*, which yes, can be developed. 2) The notion that there are "right-brained" and "left-brained" individuals is a myth. One cannot think solely "as the left brain desires". 3) You seem to criticise Postmodernism a lot, but when you bring up this point of "the dream of science is that all may one day be explained algebraically". Yet it seems very unlikely to me that science can indeed exist, as it purpots itself, as a "disinterested search for objective knowledge" purely and exclusively. It's been shown time and time again that science, in society as it is today, has been and continues to be wielded in rhetorical and political happenings as a device. Cue Jordan Peterson's vague claim about "continuity" when it comes to biological hierarchies (the whole lobster episode); is there a more cogent example that scientism, the belief that empirical science guided by the scientific method provides a superior account of the world and human affairs to the exclusion of other perspectives, has been used to conflate facts and value judgements? Indeed science may or may not achieve a "theory of everything" as you so elloquently put it. But that this equation may be developed, or that it may or may not exist, putting aside the whole argument of whether or not that equation is onthologically equal to objective truth strictu sensu, does not urge of us, as humans, any action whatsoever. That the scientific method is one capable of self-curation is an uncontestable fact, however, that the progress of science is shaped not by the pursuit of truth in itself but by vested interests is equally undeniable. This is all tangential to your point, of course, but if you consider postmodernism as blind in that sense, it might very well be the case that *positivism*, which you seem to regard in very high esteem, might be much worse. 4) You must not have understood the video's original point very well. This paradox of originality is not only well-studied and an accepted fact in modern society, but it is not in itself regarded as a problem. Postmodernism, in fact, is very well-equipped to deal with it. As the video itself pointed out, we have a notion of value and symbols as simulacra as Baudrillard has exposed, upon which by the organization and selection of these simulacra we, as 21st century individuals, already have been slowly substituting the notion of personal identity to that of profilicity; the curation of personal profiles. The fundamental point that the video is trying to make is that Jordan Peterson *not only* partakes in this same manner of profilicity *in true postmodern fashion* but also tries to argue that it must be reversed. If he indeed embraces this notion of authenticity as profilicity as you have suggested: that we measure what we see in first-order observation by comparing it to how it has been observed in second order observation (that what's on the outside is what is real, and that the inside must be truly invested in it, otherwise it is considered a deceptive fraud) he is the *same thing* as the people he criticizes: an "identity warrior".
@@hian This doesn't make sense. Why on Earth would you 'genuinely desire to be exactly like someone else', or anything else for that matter, if not b/c of either negative or positive stimuli? You seem to think that the negative stimuli (pressures, insecurities) make it fake, but not the positive ones (prestige etc.), but there's no reason for this, and the two can hardly not coexist in any case - appetite and hunger are two sides of the same coin. If you donate to a charity or make a political statement out of a 'genuine desire to be like someone else who does that', then clearly you aren't doing it out of *your own* authentic care for the third world or *your own* authentic political conviction. This should be easy to grasp for people with a modicum of worldly experience dealing with conformity, but I keep encountering these weird defences of it. Or is it that you think conformity means simply *happening* to be similar to others? It doesn't, it means striving to be like others as an end in itself. And in any case, people don't just *happen* to have the exact same desires as other people. No two people have the exact same feelings, attitudes and thoughts, we do have the potential to be unique, and this is what authenticity is about.
@C-2-RESH-18 KEK Individualism is about focusing on and preferring the individual over the collective or group. Wikipedia: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology and social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism The individuals need not be unique or original to be considered separate. Each person, despite sharing some or many traits, can be analyzed and given separate individual consideration. I believe the author of the video has made a very large error in assuming that individualism has anything to do with uniqueness, originality, or conformity.
@C-2-RESH-18 KEK I can provide a definitions of ad hominem and nuance if you desire. I would also be afraid to contend with the positions being made and want to hide from potentially challenging conversation if I were in your position. Good luck in everything you seek to do.
And conversely, collectivism (in the sense of working in a team) isn't incompatible with originality. But the very concepts 'individualism' and 'collectivism' are very unclear. I don't think Peterson is in the business of advocating originality or some kind of unique authenticity, he just advocates acting individually, even if it means doing the exact same thing as everybody else (or as everybody who follows Peterson's advice). If anything, I'd say he is more of a 'sincerity' type, insisting on traditional roles (which are supposedly natural, of course!), etc. But I find the whole application of HGM's favourite sincerity-authenticity-profilicity model in the video rather forced.
His personal philosophy is rooted in free-market libertarianism and he has a habit of labeling views that conflict with his own as Marxist or perhaps Post-modernist. His views are indeed religiously motivated however they are are influenced by the politics that have largely defined neo-liberal conservatism in North America for the past 40 years.
Yes this is important. Peterson politics are central’s to his ideology. It’s already highly visible in his incel (it’s excessive maybe but it’s early incel) video existing prior to his fame. He is an American dream kind of guy who is fundamentally scared of the collective and what’s linked to it
@@jeremybiggs8413 Does Peterson put his trust into tried and tested arrangements. No. Not when it comes to his personnel life. He seeks new age spirituality. He has abandoned enlightenment.
@@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 an increasingly chronic problem for anybody with a big audience. It’s a little more intense with JP because people associate not just their views but personal transformation with him.
@@VladVexler literally the definition of bias, “JP helped me so that most mean he is the smartest man in the west” serious “master” worship here I think they want to be smart/assertive by associating themselves to Peterson, so any critique to Peterson is an attack on them. Ironic
@@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 it’s a very interesting relationship JP has with his followers - a proper account of it hasn’t yet been given. But its needed.
One important thing about it is that jordan has helped many people who may be less educated or intellectual improve their lives in ways other more sophisticated people take for granted..i feel like that is his true role and he plays it well. After all, he is a head shrinker by trade. Plus, the guy has balls. Almost to a default
This is so clearly argued. I really like the reference to other philosophers and that (some of ) their ideas are put in the context of this videos arguments.
Always great content! As someone who works in the second hand industry, I get to hear a specific sentence - which I consider to be an expression of individualism and here its function is to rationalize the control that the advertising industry exerts on our behavior - quite a lot; “This shirt is so me.” We generally don’t like being subjected to “social engineering”, as long as you call it “social engineering”.
On the quote "The medium is the message" How did you find the medium of RU-vid rather different from literary medium? It almost transforms you into a commentator on a monthly basis. How would you compare and relate the responses from these mediums. "The medium is the metaphor" by Neil Postman in his book "Amusing ourselves to death" could be a prescient aphorism to the transition into a profile based second order observation.
I think for me one of the things that proved to me early on that Peterson's view of individualism simply doesn't work was his relationship with his fanbase once he became popular. Back in 2017-2018 when Peterson launched to popularity for his anti-political correctness, I remember his fanbase would perceive any slight critique against him as a deep offense. His fans consistently attacked and ridiculed the professors, students, journalists, and transgender people he debated with, and pretty much accepted anything Peterson said. Which was ironic considering Peterson's individualism is presented as a critique of progressives being quick-to-offence and lapping up postmodern neo-marxism uncritically. I thought, wow, what irony that people have created a dogmatic group-think out of individualism. And then there was Peterson himself, who steered away from questions about the abusive section of his fanbase and their attacks against those who disagreed with him. He would respond to these questions by changing the conversation to the letters of thanks he's received from people for changing their lives and emphasizing the good his lectures have done. I thought, as the man who is always saying we should speak the truth in the face of adversity, the one truth he couldn't speak is that his fanbase frequently went too far. At the same time, I saw Trump on TV unable to denounce white supremecists and couldn't help but think they are both caught in the same trap, just at different levels of political intensity. I'm not saying Peterson is malicious nor was he enabling the bad side of his fanbase, but I became very aware of how an individual promoting individualism very quickly became reliant upon and not willing to upset the 'group' that grew around him. I feel like the environment has changed since - Peterson's fans seem more open to hearing critiques of him on videos such as this, everything feels calmer. But I think that's because the political moment of Trumpism that coincided with the emergence of Peterson as a public intellectual has passed now. Again, context shapes what, when, and how we say things.
He attracted a lot of far right morons initially. The words "anti political correctness" acted like a bug light for a lot of angry spiteful people. But the more he spoke and clarified his views, the more fair minded the base became. His reasonable nature puged the extremists from the fan base. I enjoy petersons work, i also enjoy the work of left wing progressives. I dont agree with any of them fully though, i just combine their philosophy and perspectives and eventually i form my own. People make the mistake of worshiping these people. They become so identified with their work that when someone attacks it, they feel as if they are being attacked, so they respond as if they are. This happens across the political spectrum. Identifying with thought is actually one of the most common and destructive human tendencies.
I really like your content. Its well thought out. Intelligent critiques of Peterson is something I welcome. A point about Nietzche. Peterson is not misreading Nietzche, or making Nietzche's words speak to Peterson's own individualistic Philosophy. He agrees with Carl Jung's critique of Nietzche. Both hold Nietzche in high regard. So his understanding of NIetzche comes from Jung to some extent.
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 I know who buber is, but your comment doesnt really say anything. If I commented that Husserl said buber has misread Nietzsche. Theres nothing to discuss really
I literally applauded the video after I finished watching it, wow this was truly epic...I could never put my finger on what it is that ticks me off about Jordan Peterson's philosophy but you finally described it perfectly. Thank you for this highly informative and respectful critique!
Loving the copy of BLAME! in the background, a human world perpetuating despite the relative absence of humans - the Nth insult, in which humanity is of no consequence to its own lasting impact on the world.
You know what's funny, I've met quite a few Jordan Peterson fans in real life and I can figure out pretty quickly, just by the way they talk and move, that they're Jordan Peterson fans.
@@John_Malka-tits I've scrolled down barely 20 comments and every time there was a thread, you joined in to write a short reply calling the original comment an idiot for one reason or another. Please get yourself a better hobby.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 yeah because none of them have seen or read anything by Jordan Peterson and are eating a bunch of slop his haters wrote about them. Sorry someone gave you and the other "20" top commenters a frontal lobotomy
Tbf with Peterson, most of the stuffs he said is what most people does not have a problem of saying until confronted by new academic ideas that may or may not valid. The problem is if those sayings are valid all the time, nobody would be bother to say or argue against it.
When you said "It's not chaos but it's multiple social orders" it took me back to Chaos Theory I was reading as a kid. It is not about disorder but rather about very complicated systems of order. In this interpretation, you can find order in chaos for, under the right conditions, chaos spontaneously evolves into a lockstep pattern.
As a mathematician, I enjoy the focus on the internal contradictions of JP's words and actions, independent of any moral judgement. I also really do like how neatly that interaction encapsulates the hypocritical nature of what he's doing, even as he dodges and deflects. "So how would you suggest we stop the world going to crap?" "You don't really care about that, you're just performing for everyone." Says the guy with the microphone, telling people that civilisation itself is under threat unless they listen to him.
@@nokeksgiven Of course. I shall utterly abandon any and all non-mathematical pursuits posthaste. It is clear that... wait, what was your point, again?
What you and the guy in this video miss is that Peterson isn’t again activism in general… he’s against the young people who in his words ‘know nothing’ but have been trained by their university professors to criticise and attempt to reorganise social structures that they don’t understand. Moments before his statement quoted in the video about the ‘pseudo moralistic stances of activists’, he makes this clear: ‘I’m not suggesting in the least and have never suggested that there’s no proper domain for social action. I’m suggesting that people who don’t have their houses in order should be very careful before they go about reorganising the world.’ There’s no performative contradiction here since Peterson isn’t a 20 year old gender studies student, he’s a knowledgable, accomplished adult.
@@leoarnstein9444 You presume that the only people who care about the kinds of social issues that JP dismisses are 20-year-old gender studies students, and that such people are inherently misinformed about the world. It's easy to dismiss activists you disagree with if you start from the assumption that they're either naive or duplicitous. And this is my point - I haven't missed the fact that he's not against activism in general. My point is that he doesn't engage with the ideas of activists nearly as often as he just attacks their moral character, suggesting that they're covering, performing, being dishonest, or are unqualified because they haven't got their own lives totally in order. This kind of posturing is not only philosophically and argumentatively empty, it's also unfalsifiable and blatantly hypocritical.
@@leoarnstein9444 there is a point in that people love performative activism, but also Peterson doesn’t believe in climate change, or believes that its reasonable to think climate change isn’t real. Also Peterson definitely created a fake ideology to scapegoat and fear-monger his worldview, who the fuck is a post-modern neomarxist?
@@leoarnstein9444 and thats a dumb proposition, MLK cheated on his wife, his “house” wasn’t in order yet he went out to lead the Civil Rights Movement. He just wants college students to shut up and let him peddle his self-help ideas, thats also why he created a bloated, bogeeyman of an ideology that isn’t even real called “postmodern neo-marxism”
Congratulations CW,! You managed to elicit a response from JD that doesn't reference archetypes and phenomenology, concepts that are easily co-opted for purposes of obfuscation. My impression of Dr. P is of someone who is intolerant of anyone who does not share his rather narrow views. The effect is one of preaching freedom with an authoritarian tone,. That tone can come across as hypocritical. I don't view JP as a defender of freedom but rather as a Christian apologist and capitalist ideologue who seems incapable of understanding why other people don't share his beliefs. This perceived intolerance conflicts with his seemingly libertarian position. His constant moralizing does project a different kind of Wokeism, and his difficulty with other viewpoints projects an image of a different kind of Snowflake.
The biggest problem I have with Jordan Peterson, the fact that he preaches conservation, throug inaction, Ive seen him discredit youg peoples demands becasuse they havent suffer enough or something. Its dont try to change things "outside of your reach", while he himself is trying to change peoples minds. I belive then if others cant talk because they arent enough, or dont have experience, (etc) then he belives that he has the ultimate truth. srry for bad english
its more like: you know nothing of the real world or history, you went to a college and you absorved a bit or a lot of propaganda without really understanding much of it and now you want to go change the world. You are a tool for other people.
@@bennymountain1 well he's lived a lot and he's smart, he has started a bunch of businesses, worked as a government counselor or something of the sort on climate and hes read a lot about history and phylosophy. Which cant be said for college freshmen.
Noble - Your point has validity if you take the view that he himself chose to be a public political fiqure - But i dont believe that to be the case.. He is essentially and primarily a one on one psychiatrist. He speaks to the individual(s) and it is largely them who have then promoted and projected him into his current role. I myself see him as someone helping individuals to resist the mass cult of wokeism (for example) and so willingly takes on the 'duty' of speaking to the masses He himself seems to have done a LOT of work on himself and what he says, does make sense to the individual - clean your own room first - and that it is bad for your own personal health (as well as society) to be formulating social plans for everyone elses collective problems
I've always thought of Peterson as a self help guy like Tony Robbins & have gleamed usefully ideas from them both. I get how Self Help and Philosophy are related in the sense that they both deal with ideas about how to live a good life and achieve personal fulfillment and happiness. Philosophy is a formal field of study with thousands of years of history, with rigorous methods of argument and analysis, and is taught in universities around the world. Self-help, while it can certainly be insightful and valuable, is not typically held to the same academic standards and is not typically a formal field of study. His comment is pretty telling, but he has truly helped countless people live a better life too, so I can never understand the hate strangers online have for him. Or each other in general .. we are all human and imperfect
Great video! Thank you! I watched Peterson for a long time (when it were only his lectures on RU-vid), and I learned a lot from him. But his movement into the political and moralistic realm of the recent years, exactly like you point out, is giving me strongly mixed feelings. On the one hand: (1) he has some very useful psychological and individual wisdom that has helped me and a lot of people in dealing with tragedies and depressive thoughts, and helped people to heal, but on the other hand (2) is very political and moralistic about traditionalism, Western civil society, and the 'dangers' of progressivism and postmodernism. It's quite sad that the combination makes it seem as if the first aspect tied to the second (as if the only way of having good mental state and 'sort yourself out' is by becoming traditionalist). Also it's sad that the two aspects are really conflicting.
I’m glad you’re starting to see. Jordan Peterson uses his psychology background in disgusting ways to justify his political views. One such example is that he says that women shouldn’t wear makeup in the workplace because the reddening of the cheeks and lips is something that is sexual provocative to men, implying that women are somehow responsible for their sexual assault in an office space. The reason why he says this? Because the reddening of the cheeks and lips to provoke sexual arousal is something seen in *nature*. So he’s using his psychology background to compare people to animals in the most disgusting way possible. Just because something is seen in nature doesn’t mean that it’s applicable to human civility. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Dl98Z-RyFU.html He also thinks that the birth control pill is bad because it makes women act more like men. On top of being casually sexist he’s implying that women having more bodily autonomy and sexual liberation is bad. He then tops it off by saying that it’s somehow part of the “neo-Marxist agenda” to destroy western civilization or something. He always says some nonsense like that. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-d3fvs3bRPng.html Also something about how he’s opposed to gay marriage if it pushes forward a neo-Marxist agenda that will destroy western civilization, but if it doesn’t, then he’s for gay marriage (this is fancy speak for being generally anti-gay marriage). His traditionalist side comes out as he says he worries about the implications of legalizing gay marriage and what it means for “traditional marriage”. Like, dude just say you don’t like gay people already. Stop beating around the bush so much. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4jef2C4T1_A.html
I’m an ex-fan myself. If you have mixed feelings, you can read some of the books on his booklist. The authors he recommends are way more thought-provoking and insightful than he is.
@@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 his rules are so dumb. -stand up straight with your shoulders back- just fucking work out, you’ll feel better and your posture will improve without you even thinking about it.
I think this touches on a key contradiction in JBP: his antagonism toward, and his embracing of, postmodernism. Though I think it's mostly a product of his definition and understanding of postmodernism.
I agree, because the postmodernism described in this video seems so uncontroversial that it seems like JBP is mostly opposed to the woke people who justify their beliefs using postmodernism
@Phil Dodd (HistoriaAntiqua.ORG) seems about right cos I've heard that there's a lot of disagreement within postmodernism, and you condemn things that you actually agree with when you condemn all of it. But while I'm not that familiar with Peterson, I can't help but feel like he makes more specific arguments against some particular ideas in postmodernism that this video doesn't address, and that he says he condemns postmodernism to simplify the presentation of his views on postmodernism.
@Phil Dodd (HistoriaAntiqua.ORG) Antonio Gramsi was basically the missing link, who decided to start putting Marxist analysis to Culture to both excuse why the glorious revolutions weren't happening and begin the blue print for leftists subverting culture. AKA he started Cultural Marxism. And you can search the term in google scholar for the years before Peterson popularized the subject and see it was a subject being discussed by academics and not meaningless as leftists currently trying to cover their asses claim it is. So this is the Neo-Marxist and Cultural Marxist element. While the Post-Modernist part comes from1980s and later Leftists using the arguments of the French post-modernists, initially made to be used against modernism to then be used against Western Civilization more generally. the paper that introduced Intersectionality clearly states that it was an attempt to fuse posmodernism with leftist politics. "Mapping the Margins by Kimberle Crosshow" And Judith Butler quotes Foucault in her earliest works. These corpus of works is what Post-Modern Neo-Marxism is.
Thank you. Your analysis gave me for the first time a plausible structure to understand the Pederson phenomena and more importantly the cause of the culture wars.
This is the best breakdown of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon that I've heard. And like to hear a similar breakdown of Joe Rogan. Giving advice is such a shallow proposition, everyone is different, and people don't live generalized lives, we collectively generalize their lives for our own purposes. So many of these middle brow RU-vidrs are just ambitious entertainers working for the man. Great content. I'll watch more.
I’ve noticed that the expression ‘or so’ is almost ubiquitous amongst English speaking Germans, especially the ones I know in academia. Why is that?? Is it a translation of some typical German colloquialism? I simply must know!!
Yeah me too. I always think of right wing peoples obsession of screaming 'free speech' whenever anyone disagrees with them, then laughing when left-wing people get hit with 'facts and logic' Which rarely are facts and logic.
@aadhi gei Yeah, politics is inherently complicated and RU-vid isn't the best when dealing with complicated subjects. Of course books can be just as poor but they can be good too.
I think Jordan Peterson is right about people adopting moralistic stances who and this analysis of him as someone who ALSO adopts moralistic standpoints is an interesting one which I have never thought about.
I think public intellectual is a pretty fair description of Peterson. Although at this point in time 'public intellectual' is borderline pejorative. He's certainly not an academic intellectual.
@@mouwersor It isn't because I don't like him, or that I disagree with him. It's that he does anti-intellectual things. See, as one example, his insistence on using a phrase like "post-modern neo-Marxist." That phrase is incoherent. It's absurd on its face, yet he uses it to label all sorts of people and ideas he disapproves of. And he doesn't seem to understand or be interested in understanding any of the terms that actually constitute that phrase. I would not expect that lack of curiosity, not to mention such a complete disregard for precision or factual accuracy, from someone I would consider an "intellectual."
@@cjwarrington177 So your problem with him is that he uses some combination of words which don't match with self-identification of any group to describe a group or movement perceived by him? Well, if this is your standard you should also call everyone who uses for example the word "neoliberal" anti-intellectual too.
“All I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the world upside down.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche Thanks for this interesting presentation. I'd never heard of the concept called profilicity till today. It was fun watching all the way to the end. The end credit was quite neat. Can't wait to see the next video.
I think this does not quite describe Peterson's "individualism", which does not focus on authenticity at all, but rather on accepting individual responsibility. His focus is on self improvement, not on self expression.
So a false sense of self leads to self improvement? So 'self improvement' or (individual responsibility) doesn't lead to an authentic self expression? I am partially asking this to highlight a possible semantics problem and also to ask; what metric is employed to locate 'individual responsibility'?
@@simonjerrems3738 The point is that "authentic self expression" is not presented as the highest value. Of course, ultimately the individual is the judge of what he considers to be responsible. Still, there is a difference between asking "is this a responsible thing to do" and "do I really want it".
@@simonjerrems3738 the point is focussing in self expression is kinda useless and borders on narcissist. On the other hand, focusing on self responsibility gives you things to do and a path of virtue laid out.
@@elodin857but what precisely is virtue or responsibility? Both words' definition indicating goodness "in relations to others", therefore they can't independently exist when other people are not taken into account. if a person think he has a responsibility to cleanse the society of filth, so he launches masscre. From the point of view of the victims and bystanders, he turns into a narcissistic psycho. Yet in his own mind, he is virtuous.
It's hilarious how JP went psycho on a screed having been completely triggered by facts and logic. No profile curation here, just individualing away like always in my neat and tidy grown-up place.
Another fantastic analysis. Thank you. When I started watching Peterson's lectures back when he was still just a teacher, I felt I expanded my perspective quite a bit. Then the "popular" phase came, and while it didn't make Peterson any less intelligent, his messages started to have an opposite effect - he felt dogmatic, and I felt like the perspective he was presenting started to shrink rather than broaden my own. I stopped following him as much as I used to, and now this video comes out and gives me a perspective in which Peterson is a small piece of a larger puzzle. Fantastic!
The experience of listening to you talk reminds me of those scenes in film wherein the scene starts on a city street, and then the camera pans and pans and pans out into space
@@mschell8022 im sorry but why isnt he a philosopher? Or what is it that makes someone a philosopher or not? Ive always had that question because people will throw "not a philosopher" to just about any """""""""intelectual"""""""""" but i dont know if it actually means anything, arent we all philosophers in some regard or another? Im kind of confused, i would appretiate if you could explain this to me. Thanks.
@@schwipsy Peterson isnt a philosopher because he doesn't engage with philosophical literature in any coherent or critical way. Just like a bartender who listens to someone vent isn't a therapist, or a dude who unclogs a toilet isnt a plumber
Ironically, Professor Peterson will not find any sort of individual peace or relative contentment until he is able to accept his own inherent post-modernist tendancies that he unknowingly - but often - takes. He is too attached to his self-curated profile as the brave individual living a life of struggle and suffering to turn chaos into order. It seems to be slowly killing him and his spirit. He needs to find a loving collective/community that cares about his humanity rather than his profile. JP has to let go of his identity as the warrior and protector of 19th century rationalism from the hedonistic, cultural marxist strawmen that he has convinced himself are dragging "The West" down to Hades.
That's a lot of speculation. I'm not sure that this was even a path that Peterson chose, just the way it turned out. It would be mighty presumptuous to think that anybody else would have done anything different in that situation.
😳 Holy.....wow. I'm reading Ayn Rand right now and........ Goodness, your almost reciting, some of her characters, almost verbatim.🤯 Your words are one if the manipulation tactics used by nihilist in order to destroy the 'human spirit'; to destroy the ability of rational thought; to reduce a human to a mindless automaton and to convince an individual that only those who believe that individual thinking is 'irrational'.....should rule. Mrs. Rand, most definitely, knew her sh>t. You sir/madam, are a coward.😘
@@3576alan I don’t think Ayn Rand would much appreciate your melo-dramatics mate. How can I think individual thinking was irrational when my own thoughts are a product of individual thinking. Try diversifying your reading list so that you can view things reflexively from different angles. Viewing things only through the lens of “mrs Rand” (oh dear) is not a sign of a free, rational thinker, but of a mind that is not prepared to look beyond itself. I suggest James C Scott if you’re looking for a new book.
The problem with Collectivism is that it blames the individual for things outside of the individual's control. The problem with Individualism is that it blames the individual for things outside of the individual's control.
Very best comment here! So I like his overview on the human challenges: not created by god, earth not in center of universe, not in control for his thinking
The discussion of the mirroring between Wokeism and Peterson’s individualism and the paradox was conceptualised in Emile Durkheim’s sociological concept of “The cult of individualism”. By this he positions religion as central to the social - with the sacred and the propane having the power to shape the lives of believers. Where idols and rituals reinforce these believers connection to the scared. Durkheim argues that everything in social life begins with religion. Yet this opens up a paradox that is resolved by the concept of civil religion discussed in the video. As societal change has involved a shift from social organisation subjugating the individual to the group through a collective consciousness of homogeneity and conformity of members reinforced by harsh sanctions (penal laws). Towards social organisation that involves the moral development of individuals being based upon heterogeneity and interdependence , the division of labour and restorative sanctions in law. How is it then that religion will always be a component of social life when traditional religion wanes and is replaced by secularism. Rather than doing away with religion it is transformed by individualism becoming scared iin the form of of a civil religion - with its own idols, rituals and the social reinforcement of the scared and profane as seen le the legal protection of the rights of the individual. This is where both Peterson’s commentary and Wokism become expressions of the “cult of the individual”. Both involve believers engaging in rituals be it virtue signalling or podcasting and RU-vid content making. Social actions that appeal to idols of thought and theory with both placing individual agency as sacred. Woke defends the right of the individual to determine their identity free from compulsion to conform through social sanction in the form of discrimination. Similarly Peterson’s individualism prioritises the individual to be self determining and free from the compulsion to conform through social sanction in the form of legally compelled speech. Thus religion remains a component of social life.
This is the first JP critique that has really made sense to me, good stuff. Though I will say, when he deconstructs that questioner, surely it is implied that tackling big social issues is encouraged as long as you first solve your own more pressing matters. Isn't the claim here that Jordan has his affairs in order, and so is free to go on moralizing?
Peterson is crafty one alright. By arguing that every individual needs to solve one's own problems, before trying to solve the flaws in society, this negates the possibility that flaws in society are the reason an individual has problems in the first place.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 but if you take charge of those social issues, without first tending to yourself, do you not pose a danger to the movement you represent. Peterson himself is a fine example of his own theory in effect. He attempted to hold to social issues while his house fell apart (wife deathly ill). He attempted to cope with Benzo’s until his addiction became critical. It was only by refocusing on his own house, and through his family adhering to their individual responsibility to the collective that he was able to heal, and ultimately return to social matters.
@@MrCurbinator what if you have no way of fizing your personal life in the current system? Systematic problems are not divorced from our problems in private life. For exqmple living a happy life as a trans person is directly impacted by discriminatory laws and medical systems.
@@Halflinging Don’t know what kind of laws and medical restrictions we’re discussing, but my first recommendation would be clean your room and move somewhere more accommodating to get the services you want.
@@MrCurbinator "just move"???? You do realize that could mean having to leave a country. You are kidding, right? You have to be! We are not talking about minor inconviniences. We are talking about discrimination. Systemic problems that prohibit living a happy, healthy and productive life. There are problems that can't be solved by just "working on yourself".
Id just like to chime in on the compliments given in regards to this channel. I like how you guyes add perspective. In my native language we have a term for a "well running engiene". If there are no missfires, no scraping, a effective idle and reasonable response we say its "running clean". Sometimes you need to replace a part, and I try to relate to my thinking that way. The "profilicity" consept is a tool i didnt have b4, hence my compliment.
I actually like Jordan Peterson, among many people, but I also like that this is a fair analysis and not just attacking caricatures. My room's never been cleaner though :)
I think no one can be good in all things. You can become happy and successful by improving things you can do well already, or for things you cannot yet, and by doing nothing
Loved the video btw 😁 I hope you will go on Peterson's Podcast and tell him your critique yourself in a conversation. I think some of your assumptions might be tackled in such a conversation.
@@tmsphere I make it a point to never assume that of others. But maybe that's because I personally am always very open to criticism, and I wouldn't want people assuming wrongly about me. So I give others the benefit of the doubt especially people that are intellectually honest.
